The Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

King George III: I'm not even going to go down that road, on the record.

The Declaration of Independence: That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

King George III: I…I…I can give you to the press guy and let him talk to you about it…

The Declaration of Independence: That among these are life…

King George III: No, I'm not going to…comment on that.

The Declaration of Independence: …Liberty…

King George III: Why am I not going to comment? I don't even know how to answer that question…

The Declaration of Independence: …And the pursuit of happiness…

King George III: I can give you the number of the Royal Press Secretary, if you like…

The Declaration of Independence: That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

King George III: Not my area of expertise.

One easily imagines King George III responding to The Declaration of Independence with just such responses. Indeed, the Revolutionary War proves it.

What is far more difficult to imagine is any member of the General Assembly refusing to explain why they voted for or against a piece of legislation, any piece of legislation, when asked by the press or one of their own constituents.

State Senator Tom Garrett's refusal to explain to this newspaper on January 24 why he voted for the surprise Senate redistricting plan that splits his 22nd district, and our community, into three different districts is unacceptable. We deserve far better.

An elected representative of the people should always be willing to explain the vote they cast as an elected representative of the people. The senator's refusal was enough to send us dumping teabags into the Appomattox River and wonder how Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers would feel.

No acceptable excuse for refusing to explain his vote comes to my mind.

Vote your conscience.

Or vote the way your party leaders tell you to.

Vote because you believe in something.

Or vote because you don't believe in something.

Vote in complete opposition to my point of view or anyone else's point of view.

Vote standing on your head while juggling apples and oranges.

But be ready and willing to explain that vote you cast as our elected representative.

When we persisted in our search for an explanation during that January 24 phone call, the senator replied: “Well, all I know is I don't know what's going to happen with the plan. And so there's a whole lot-I mean anything else going forward is speculative.”

The future of every single bill is unknown and speculative until it goes through the entire legislative process and does or doesn't become law. Every bill in the Senate needs action by the House of Delegates and the signature of the governor. Anytime a politician votes for or against something in the General Assembly they have no certain idea what the ultimate fate of the legislation is going to be. But they do have a certain idea about why they voted for or against that piece of legislation.

Senator Garrett has been on the radio and in newsprint explaining why he supported other legislation without having any idea whether his position was going to prevail or not.

The Republican's January 24 refusal to explain to a journalist/constituent a vote that would put part of Prince Edward County in the 10th Senate District, along with portions of Henrico, Chesterfield and the City of Richmond, and part of it in the 15th Senate District with the City of Martinsville and part of the City of Danville, is incomprehensible.

When asked if his vote for the redistricting plan would hurt his relationship with his constituents, were the plan not to become law and he remains our incumbent state senator, Sen. Garrett expressed no qualms.

“I think my service to the district and the constituents who've given me the opportunity to serve will be what we're ultimately judged on in conjunction with our record and I feel pretty good about that,” he answered.

The vote for the redistricting plan and the senator's post-vote responses are now part of that record.

Seven days later, the fate of the plan just as uncertain and speculative as it had been on January 24, the senator did offer an explanation when asked by Buckingham County officials visiting him in Richmond, and a Herald reporter, fortunately, was in their company (see page one story).

So excuse me while I take my teabags and head to the river, considering his response and praying the redistricting plan never becomes law.

-JKW-