“There They Go Again”

My latest ad outlining the misrepresentations my opponent and Terry McAuliffe are putting out about my legislation! The legislation is HB1, the so-called Personhood Bill that State Sen. Charles Colgan (D., Manassas) and I pre-filed in the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly so parents could recover ?wrongful death? damages if their pre-born child was killed in an accident. The House of Delegates approved the bill, 66-32, but it died in the State Senate. Please share with your friends!

The Truth About Birth Control

In both the statewide campaign for Governor and more recently in an ad my opponent put out there have been accusations that a bill I sponsored in 2012, HB 1, would have restricted birth control access. THIS IS NOT TRUE!

HB 1 was based on a Missouri statute which has been on the books for more than 20 years and which was reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to overturn this portion of the law specifically because it did not challenge Roe v. Wade or affect contraception in any way. Again this law has been on the books for 20+ years and it has not affected access to contraception, abortion or assisted conception in Missouri at all.

The language of the bill was designed to recognize the personhood of an unborn child to create a cause of action for a wrongful death suit for a pregnant mother in a case where someone deliberately or accidentally took the life of her unborn child in a situation other than an abortion. At the time Virginia was one of a handful of states that did not have a law on the books to do this.

My opponent and other statewide candidates have been less than truthful about my legislation. I have never made a pretense about my positions on the issues, so if you want a candidate who will be honest and straight forward vote for me, November 5th!


Del. Marshall files suit against Northern Va. Transportation Authority

State Del. Bob Marshall (R-13th) filed a complaint in Fairfax County Circuit Court Thursday charging that the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) failed to adhere to state law when it approved for funding a list of more than 30 transit projects last month.

At the crux of the case, Marshall said, is a Virginia statute that requires the authority to demonstrate how the projects will relieve congestion. With many of the recently-greenlit initiatives, the delegate said, that hasn’t been shown.

According to the section of Virginia Code noted in Marshall’s suit, the authority “shall give priority to selecting projects that are expected to provide the greatest congestion reduction relative to the cost of the project and shall document this information for each project selected.”

The question, it seems, is whether “shall give priority to” is a mandate.

In a prepared statement, Marshall said the NVTA “has failed to provide adequate and convincing documentation.”

“Their bond quality I am reliably advised will be low-grade, high-interest,” Marshall said. “Furthermore, projects that are seriously needed have been ignored while projects that will do little to help relieve major traffic congestion will be funded.”

Read the full article at the Loudoun Times Mirror

House of Delegates Page Program Application Period Now Open!


If you know a 13 or 14 year old who might be interested in becoming a House of Delegates page now is the time to apply!  Applications for the 2014 House of Delegates Page Program are now being taken by the Speaker’s office and must be received by no later than October 28, 2013.  If you or someone you know is interested in this program, please have them check out the website here for more information!  For the first time this year applications can be accepted online .  You must receive a letter of endorsement from your delegate to apply so if you reside in the 13th district please contact me at delbmarshall@house.virginia.gov.

Letter to the ABC

Delegate Marshall today sent the letter below to the Chairman of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the Chief Operating Officer.  At issue is the case of Ms. Elizabeth Daly which has made headlines recently.

Ms. Daly was approached in a dark parking lot by plain clothes ABC officers in Charlottesville after coming out of a grocery store with food for a charity benefit including some sparkling water.  The ABC officers did not initially identify themselves and Ms. Daly was concerned for her safety so she got in her car.  Her vehicle was then surrounded by 5 other plain clothes officers who shouted at her to roll down her window or get out of the vehicle.  In order to roll down her windows she had to start her vehicle which caused one officer to jump on her hood and others to shout other directions.  Ms. Daly decided to leave the area to go to a police station and dialed 911 as she left the parking lot.  In the process of leaving she grazed two officers with her vehicle.  As a result of her actions she was charged with eluding police and assaulting two officers.

Ms. Daly should never have been stopped because the ABC officers had no probable cause and she certainly shouldn’t have been stopped in a dark parking lot by plain clothes officers.  The ABC needs to review its procedures and do further training of its officers. Read more

Marshall Drafts Tougher Gift Disclosure Legislation

Delegate Bob Marshall has requested legislation be drawn up to significantly strengthen the reporting requirement for gifts to Virginia public officials and state employees.

The changes to state law which he has proposed include:

Reporting any gift of $100 or more from a company or individual with business before the state of Virginia to any adult family member of an elected official or covered state employee, their spouse or legal dependent as well as a person cohabiting with a family member of an elected official or covered employee;

A gift not required to be initially reported because it was not made by someone with business before the state, would be required to be reported later if the donor subsequently had business before the state of Virginia where the gift was received within twelve months of such individual or company having business before the state;

Any gift received by a member during the regular session of the General Assembly exceeding $100 would have to be reported within five working days of receipt the gift.

“Virginia’s present law covering such gifts is vague and does not currently require that gifts to family members be reported by elected officials. The recent media disclosures regarding the extent, the number and the size of such gifts made available to family members of elected officials now requires a thorough revaluation of the present law,” Marshall said.

Marshall added, “We need a starting point for serious and prudent discussion that allows the legislature and other state officials to discharge their duties without causing any public concern that decisions or policies adopted by the legislature or actions taken by the Executive are made for any reason other than securing the common good.”

Delegate Marshall previously authored HJR 31 (2002) a Conflicts of Interest Study for state & local government which produced recommendations for legislation later adopted providing for stricter conflict of interest standards for officials & zoning boards (HB 1546, 2003). Del. Marshall has authored other laws tightening disclosure requirements and prohibitions of participation in land use decisions which did not pass.

Marshall Response to Supreme Court’s DOMA Decision


Manassas, VA – Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13), the Virginia House of Delegates author of the 2006 voter-approved Marriage Amendment to Virginia’s Constitution, called the Supreme Court’s decision today striking down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) benefiting persons in a traditional marriage an exercise in moral arrogance and a stepping stone to striking down all laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Marshall also called on Congress to withhold funding from federal courts and the Obama Administration not to hear any court challenges to state laws upholding one man one woman marriage.

Marshall said, “Justice Kennedy and his majority assume powers of clairvoyance when they claim DOMA supporters acted with malice “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples;  that they wanted to “demean,”  homosexual couples, and “impose inequality,” on them and to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny  “equal dignity,” and to render homosexuals as “unworthy,” and to “humiliate” their children.”

But these DOMA tax and other federal benefits which applied only to persons  in a traditional marriage did not apply to single persons.  Did DOMA therefore demean, humiliate, and deny dignity to those single people?  No, of course not!

Justice Kennedy and his majority rely on the Fifth Amendment to reach their twisted conclusion. “… the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold … that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”

Marshall noted that at the time of the adoption of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 all thirteen states made sodomy illegal.  There is no constitutional history from the Convention of 1789 nor in the official records of any Amendment adopted since then which required the Court to reach their conclusion, which fails to even define marriage.

Marshall pointed to Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker who struck down California Proposition 8 limiting marriage to one man and one woman who acknowledged after his decision that he was in a same sex relationship which should have caused Walker to recuse himself from the case, but he did not.  “I have to question whether one or more of the majority justices are pushing a personal agenda with this decision because there in nothing in the Constitution that substantiates it,” said Marshall.

Delegate Marshall stated that “The alleged DOMA created liabilities experienced by same sex “married” couples will be the very reasons same sex marriage proponents will use to bring other cases before the Supreme Court to declare traditional one man, one woman marriage laws in the 38 states that define marriage as between one man and one woman unconstitutional.”

Marshall noted, “This decision will have far-reaching adverse and coercive consequences for children, church adoption agencies, the tax status of churches which decline marriage ceremonies to same sex couples, employers, school classroom courses and other areas of American life.”

The  Supreme Court ruling did not determine whether states may continue to limit marriage to one man and one woman.  Its DOMA decision has left considerable uncertainty with respect to state tax and welfare laws.

For example, will Medicaid benefits which are joint Federally/state funded be required to be offered to same-sex “married” couples and their families in Virginia even though our Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage?  What happens now when a same-sex couple “married” in another state applies for Medicaid in Virginia as a married couple?

Additionally, what happens when a same sex couple “married” in another state moves to Virginia and files their taxes as “married filing jointly”. Traditionally, there’s has been reciprocity between the Federal and state tax codes.  This sets up a prescident for a suit against Virginia.

Marshall added, “Federal Judges are supposed to expound the Constitution, not rationalize preferred personal sexual behavior and under the shadow of sleight of hand legalize it as the ‘law of the land.’  It is vanity to think that the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God may be overturned by the constitutional pretense of the majority Justices.”

Delegate Marshall Addresses Commonwealth Transportation Board


Delegate Robert G. “Bob” Marshall addressed the Commonwealth Transportation Board today in opposition to the proposed final route for the North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance.  This route follows the previously proposed Bi-County Parkway, sometimes called the Battlefield Bypass, Tri-County Parkway or Western Transportation Corridor.  Delegate Marshall’s testimony is below.

The CTB had an “action” item on its agenda for the May 15, 2013 meeting to adopt the final route for this project.  Delegate Marshall spoke with Secretary Sean Connaughton and requested that the vote be delayed until further public hearings could be held.  The next public hearing on this proposed roadway will be June 3, 2013 at the Hylton Performing Arts Center on the George Mason Campus in Manassas from 6-9 PM.


Testimony to CTB 5-15-13_Page_1Testimony to CTB 5-15-13_Page_2Testimony to CTB 5-15-13_Page_3

Commonwealth Transportation Board to Vote Despite Opposition?

Below is the resolution I received from the Commonwealth Transportation Board in response to a request for more information about an “action” item on the agenda for their May 15, 2013, meeting.  This appears to be a resolution to adopt the route for the new North-South Corridor which will follow the proposed Tri-County Parkway route despite strong opposition to this route and the plan as a whole.

I have long opposed this plan sometimes called the Battlefield Bypass or Western Transportation Corridor.  I  have raised concerns about the cost effectiveness the proposed project and its ability to relieve traffic congestion  in addition to the effects on citizens living in and around the proposed route area. I believe that citizens would be better served by enhancements to existing roads including:

1) Doubling the exiting capacity at the Rt. 28 exits off of I-66

2) Building a grade separated interchange to relieve the backup caused by congestion at Walney Rd/Braddock Rd and Rt. 28 which spills back onto I-66.

3) Spending $5 million to create reversible lanes on Rt. 28 between the Fairfax County line and Manassas Park to relieve the congestion there.

Implementing these changes would create a much less congested North/South route without the exorbitant costs associated with buying right-of-way and building a brand new road.

There has been a lack of candor about this roadway that needs to be remedied.  For example, at a town hall meeting on March 4th at Bull Run High School on this issue one of the primary speakers, I believe Gary Garczynski,  [for VDOT/Commonwealth Transportation Board] stated that both UPS and FedEx endorsed this road.  I spoke with a representative from UPS who is in charge of transportation for UPS for Northern Virginia.  He knew nothing about this and resented the fact that it had been implied that UPS endorsed this road.

Additionally, at a recent Prince William Committee of 100 meeting, Mr. Garczynski stated that the Commonwealth Transportation Board had not endorsed a plan to close Rt. 234 and Rt. 29 through the Manassas Battlefield Park prior to the Bi-County Parkway/Battlfield Bypass being completed.  This is patently false since there are documents available which show the CTB voted for exactly that in February of this year.  This lack of candor has to stop.

This proposed road is a developers road and I would like to know who currently owns the property that would be purchased for right-of-way and who has taken options to purchase property along the right-of-way.  I believe that it is primarily developers and that rather than helping create a road to move traffic in a timely manner this would be an opening for extensive development which would only create more traffic problems.  There are other better options out there and I hope that VDOT and the CTB will consider them.

If you have concerns about this road please plan to attend the CTB meeting May 15, 2013 at 10 AM at the VDOT Central Auditorium located at 1221 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA.



Medicaid Expansion & Transportation Taxes Ruled Unconstitutional!

Dear Friends,

We’ve had a great victory for taxpayers! I have two press releases below. Please spread the word to your fellow citizens, friends and co-workers.


Press Releases #1


Contact: Delegate Bob Marshall, 703-853-4213

*Attorney General Rules Use of “Medicaid Innovation & Reform Commission” to Expand Medicaid Unconstitutional!*

Manassas, VA – Delegate Robert G. “Bob” Marshall (R-13) received the
attached opinion in response to his request for an opinion with regard
to the constitutionality of the General Assembly’s designation of a
“Medicaid Innovation & Reform Commission” to allow for the expansion
of Medicaid when the Commission determined that a number of proposed
Medicaid reforms had been satisfactorily fulfilled. Delegate Marshall
questioned whether the General Assembly could delegate this authority
to a smaller group of mainly legislators.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli determined in his opinion today that
the General Assembly does not have the authority to delegate its
legislative authority to a smaller committee.

“I am pleased with this opinion and hope that the Governor will act
appropriately to remove this unconstitutional piece of maneuvering
from the budget before it comes back to the General Assembly,” said
Marshall. “Medicaid needs serious reform before we can even begin to
consider expansion and the decision about when those reforms are
sufficient can and should only be determined by the General Assembly
as a whole.”

“I congratulate the Attorney General for his correct reading of the
Virginia Constitution and appropriate case law at a time when many
were urging him to dodge this question or issue a politically
expedient opinion so as to avoid controversy in his gubernatorial
campaign. I congratulate him for standing up for the Constitution and
the people of Virginia.”

Read the Official Opinion Here.


Press Release # 2


Contact: Delegate Bob Marshall 703-853-4213

*Attorney General Rules Additional/Higher Transportation Taxes

Manassas, VA – Delegate Robert G. “Bob” Marshall (R-13) received an
opinion from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in response

to his request for an opinion with regard to the constitutionality of
the additional and higher taxes imposed on Northern Virginia and
Tidewater as part of HB 2313 which is awaiting Governor Bob
McDonnell’s signature. Delegate Marshall questioned whether the
“special” taxes were in violation of the uniformity laws in Title X of
the Constitution, whether they violated the prohibition to enact local
law in Title IV and if not would the requirements of Title VII apply
that require local legislation to receive a 2/3 vote of the General

It is the Attorney General’s opinion that Title X does not apply
because none of the taxes are directly taxes on property but that
Title IV *DOES* apply because the laws single out portions of the
Commonwealth without regard to similarities and differences between
these areas and others around the state but base the implementation of
these additional taxes purely on geography. This means that the
portions of HB 2313 adding additional and higher taxes are

“I am thrilled with the Attorney General’s opinion with regard to the
unconstitutional taxes in HB 2313,” said Marshall. “Isolating Northern
Virginia and Tidewater residents to place an additional tax burden on
those citizens who already pay more to Richmond in taxes than they get
back is unconscionable. Without the higher and additional regional
taxes HB 2313 cannot be a functional solution to Virginia’s
transportation problems. I hope that the Governor will seriously
consider vetoing this legislation or finding a way to start from
scratch to find an equitable way to pay for transportation without
raising taxes.”

“I congratulate the Attorney General for his correct reading of the
Virginia Constitution and appropriate case law at a time when many
were urging him to dodge this question or issue a politically
expedient opinion so as to avoid controversy in his gubernatorial
campaign. I congratulate him for standing up for the Constitution and
the people of Virginia.”