So says Ohio Legal Aid attorney Alexandria Ruden:
Unlike Ohio, Virginia voters have been alerted to the very serious adverse potential consequences of this proposed amendment well before the election. Our voters didn’t have adequate time to get fully informed before they voted. The consequence has been that police, prosecutors and victims have been in a state of perpetual confusion since the amendment passed. The litigation has snowballed from one case to 45-60 cases and, until the Supreme Court of Ohio resolves the issue, victims in 10 to 12 counties are without coverage because of court decisions holding the law unconstitutional. The situation has been complicated by the fact that those who dismissed concerns about the impact of the Ohio amendment on unmarried couples as “absurd” have now joined unmarried defendants appealing their convictions in arguing before the Ohio Supreme Court that the plain language of the amendment prohibits its application to unmarried couples.
Can it get any clearer?
How about this?
John B. Russell, a former Assistant US Attorney and Senior Assistant Attorney General of Virginia who currently serves as the chair of the criminal law section of the Virginia Bar Association, said that defense attorneys in Virginia will have an “ethical obligation” to raise a constitutional challenge in cases involving unmarried perpetrators.
Still not convinced?
James Nachman, a criminal defense attorney practicing daily in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, echoed Mr. Russell’s view that defense attorneys would be ethically obligated to raise a constitutional claim and said that the amendment would have “a significant negative effect on people cohabiting.” “It is unnecessary to wreak such havoc with this broad and far-reaching amendment, ” Nachman added, saying he would be voting no and urging voters to reject the amendment.
To put ummarried domestic violence victims at risk is unconscionable.
Vote NO on Ballot issue #1.
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
To rephrase, this amendment will have “a significant negative effect on people who are violating Virginia Code 18.2-345.”
Cohabitation is illegal in VA. Why should the law protect people from the impact of their violating the law?
Jack:
Although it has not been repealed Virginia Code Section has not been enforced for many years if it ever was at all. Moreover, it is pretty clear from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that this statute would be held unconstitutional if anyone decided to enforce it.
Meanwhile, your comment ignores what the Ohio attorney and others are trying to tell you in this post. The economic impact on the state and on litigants of the amendment will be catastrophic. A real drain on the public treasury. The state would have to defend against hundreds of attorneys such as myself who would indeed be duty-bound to seek to set aside the statutes under which our clients are being prosecuted. We would be duty bound to file motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for any case in which there may be potential coverage by the amendment.
Domestic abuse cases in Virginia are under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations courts. The statutes are based on the parties having a relationship with each other, such as lovers or former lovers. I have already been considering attacks on the jurisdiction of the court in cases where I am representing the accused abuser, on grounds that by recognizing the parties’ relationship the statute is extending a benefit of marriage to it, which is a no-no under the amendment. It matters not whether I prevail in the end. The point is to put the argument out there and seek to avoid enforcement of the statute against my clients. It may sound bad, but this is what lawyers are supposed to do.
EXCELLENT WORK VIVIAN….Thank You…
Definitely a four buzzes!
🙂 Mosquito
Just one other thing. To quote from above:
“those who dismissed concerns about the impact of the Ohio amendment on unmarried couples as “absurd” have now joined unmarried defendants appealing their convictions in arguing before the Ohio Supreme Court that the plain language of the amendment prohibits its application to unmarried couples.”
The Virginia amendment’s plain language makes it apply specifically to unmarried couples. There is no question that the amendment’s proponents will not be able to succeed in Virginia on this defense. The plain language of this amendment will strengthen those who would set aside the law’s protections for unmarried but cohabiting couples.
Carla – that last post confuses me. Are you saying that if this amendment passes, the defense will or will not work? (Plain English, please, for those of us who aren’t lawyers.)
Fact is, no matter how it’s worded, litigation will follow. That’s how lawyers make money. Look at the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, protecting freedom of speech. Then along comes Campaign Finance Reform. The 2nd Amendment has been abused even more, never mind the 10th. No matter how well something is worded, the lawyers will twist those words beyond all recognition.
vjp
I’m saying that in the end the defense will not work, because the plain language of the statute will prevent it from working. In the meantime there will be an enormous amount of litigation, probably conflicting lower court rulings, and then a series of increasingly convoluted appellate court rulings. Once the Virginia Supreme Court rules I anticipate attorneys will launch new lines of attack with increasingly convoluted and nuanced arguments seeking to get around it. Lots of work for everyone! Look forward to an eventual battle of the constitutions during which attorneys attacking the Virginia Constitution will assert that the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution.
I think the state’s budget analysts should be very afraid, because it’s going to cost an arm and a leg.