"If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would strolling the grounds of his University, wondering why the Dean of the Law School had hired George Orwell to teach Constitutional Law. Until now, Mr. Orwell had been best known as an author of several important books, including "1984." But suddenly, the Orwellian philosophy has become the guiding light for what passes as constitutional theory in the General Assembly of Virginia.

You know the General Assembly: It's the crowd that met in Richmond for months earlier this year and couldn't pass a state budget. It's the same crowd that gets millions in "alleged" expense money every year but refuses to document even a penny of it.

This past year, while collecting their expense checks and shortchanging the school teachers, police officers and firefighters of Virginia - not to mention breaking promises to hundreds of thousands of other citizens -- those in charge of the General Assembly also decided to do away with the concept of One-Person, One-Vote.

Admittedly, the concept that all voters are created equally is somewhat alien to the political elite now running the oldest legislative body in the New World. Republicans have generally been more comfortable with the Orwellian point of view expressed in his book "Animal Farm": to wit, that all people are created equal but that some are created more equal than others.

Until now, many thousands of people of Green, Madison and Orange counties always figured that they were equal to other Virginians. But now, sadly, they have learned the hard truth.

It took the tragic death of the late Senator Emily Couric to give them, and now all of us, this lesson.

These hardworking and loyal sons and daughters of Virginia had helped elect Mrs. Couric to the state senator in 1999 from the so-called "old" 25th senatorial district. This was to be a four year term.

But cruel fate has intervened and forced a special election to pick a Senator to complete the more than 2 years remaining on Mrs. Couric's term.

As David Hallock Jr, a lawyer in Richmond has pointed out, "it is hard to believe the government would purposefully disenfranchise thousands of voters by not allowing them to vote for the replacement of the senator they elected in 1999."

Welcome to the new Animal Farm, Davey: This is precisely what the Republicans running the General Assembly want to do this year, even though it wasn't the law in prior years.

In the latest General Assembly Session, the powers that be created 40 new Senate districts to reflect the latest population statistics. The "new" 25th district was to be contested in 2003, the date of the next general election for the state senate. The above-referenced voters in Green, Madison and Orange have been put in other districts and thus no longer vote in the "new" 25th.

According to the General Assembly leadership, the election to chose a successor to Mrs. Couric will take place in the "new" 25th, not the "old" 25th. Thus, the Greene, Madison and Orange voters will not vote. In effect, they will go for more than 2 years without having voted for any sitting State Senator. On the other hand, the "new" 25th will have voters who voted for sitting Senators from one of the "old" districts. Thus, they will get a chance to chose a second Senator.

SO: Meet George Orwell, the new legal guru for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Logic, fairness, and something called the Constitution of the United States, not to mention the Constitution of Virginia, seemingly requires that the voters who elected Senator Couric are the only ones who can choose someone to complete her term.

But the General Assembly of Virginia says no.

Since this crowd couldn't pass a budget this year and still cannot agree on how much money the state is spending and how much money the state has to spend, their attraction to Orwellian math is not surprising.

But the silence of the constitutional scholars at the University of Virginia, and the reluctance of those who believe in the one-person, one-vote idea to fight back, is somewhat shocking.

In my view, we Democrats should be leading the charge to correct this constitutional injustice. Admittedly, the "new" 25th appears to be better for a Democratic candidate than the "old" 25th. Moreover, since Republicans are in charge of the General Assembly, it is a legal mess of their creation and it should be there obligation to clean it up.

Nonetheless, we Democrats should stand for principle here. In 1991, when I was state chairman, it was clear to me that the Democratic Party, as a purely a matter of political math, had a better chance of winning Senate seats if the General Assembly adopted the redistricting plan championed by it's leadership.

But at the same time, I believed that the equal rights of African-Americans was of far more importance, a position not surprising no doubt given the fact that I was the chief cook and bottle washer in the historic campaign of Doug Wilder. But Governor Wilder, who led the fight to adhere to the Voting Rights Act and forced the General Assembly to pass a constitutional redistricting plan, was absolutely right in his position both on the law, and the historic commitment of Democrats to making sure that all voters were given an equal franchise.

Again: I knew, from a purely political point of view, it would be harder to elect Democrats to the Senate under the Wilder plan as compared to the one championed by the Democratic leadership in the State Senate.

Professor Sabato knew that also as did everyone teaching at the University of Virginia.

But principles must triumph over pure politics on such matters. I fought for the Governor's plan and we won.

What was true in 1991 must also be true in 2001.

The thousands of good, hardworking residents of Greene, Madison and Orange counties must not be disenfranchised.

If this means holding an election in a Senate district more favorable, statistically, to Republicans, then so be it.

We cannot promote the principle of one-person, one-vote by only supporting it when such support is politically advantageous.

Emily Couric was elected by the voters of the "old" 25th district. Her shoes can never be filled. But the person selected to complete her term must be chosen by the same Virginians who elected her.

No doubt this will necessitate some additional expense since the state's voting records has been reconfigured to reflect the new district and precinct lines created by the 200 redistricting plan effective July 1 of this year.

But whatever the time and additional resources, the cost of violating one-person, one-vote will be greater.

George Orwell shouldn't be allowed to teach Constitutional law in Virginia.

If Virginia will not come to it's legal senses, then someone in the Democratic Party should bring suit, either in state or federal court, to challenge this Orwellian view of Madison's handiwork. Surely we should not give the Republicans, who created this mess, a chance to seize the high ground.

Democrats can win in either the "old" or "new" 25th district. But that isn't true for the now disenfranchised voters of Greene, Madison and Orange, and they deserve our full support on this important constitutional principle.

(c) Copyright. All Rights Reserved. Paul Goldman. 2001" (Paul Goldman, electronic mail, October 26, 2001).

Editor's Note: Paul Goldman is former Chair of the Virginia Democratic Party.