THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 12, 1995 TAG: 9511110142
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 07 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 142 lines
Ward system works best
The column ``Warding off wards'' by editorial-page editor Beth Barber (Beacon, Oct. 29) leads me to believe that she does not look at or fully understand the ward system.
If you are an individual or small group and have, say, a local environmental problem such as a sewer back-up, etc., where would you go to get the most prompt solution if this problem has been persisting?
Is it one of many City Council members who may not live in your area and may not be concerned with your problem or would it be a council member whom you and your area residents elected to represent your area?
Most cities have the ward system for one reason: It works best for the average tax-pay-er!
Richard C. Schuler
Virginia Beach
Not `wards' of the Tammany type
The Oct. 29 Beacon editorial page carried a compilation of the way various people had suggested that City Council word the referendum on relectoral reform on next May's ballot. Each stressed the word ``ward'' repeatedly. Each of the three sample questions asks the voters whether they want a ``ward'' system. While technically not incorrect (the dictionary defines ``ward'' as ``a district of a town or city, especially the latter, for representative, executive or magisterial purposes''), the word ``ward'' conjures up negative reactions in the minds of many people. They associate this term with corrupt political machines of the past, such as Tammany Hall and the Pendergast machine, and big-city politics where the incumbent maintained power through an organization of ``ward heelers'' to dole out patronage and food baskets and thereby control the vote.
The balanced-district plan which is under consideration for Virginia Beach is not at all conducive, or even amenable, to such abuse. Instead it will provide a system much more responsive to the ``little guys'' - the voters - rather than the high rollers or special interests who, with large campaign contributions, can thwart the will of the voters.
The balanced-district plan may not be a perfect solution for electing City Council and School Board members, but it will be a great improvement over the present complicated and poorly understood system, and will give us better, more responsive city government.
Sheldon L. Corner
Virginia Beach
A way to disenfranchise voters
At a recent dinner attended by a number of municipal leaders - both Republican and Democrat - drawn from the military, business, law, government, and education, the then-pending November state election was a hot topic. The conversation quickly shifted from the merits of the respective candidates to the lament that few of those in attendance really had a vote to cast - because they live in single-member districts where the incumbents are unopposed! These folk were disenfranchised from this election by the single-member district.
This led to the topic of the proposal to elect Virginia Beach's City Council by single-member districts, how much these folk - persons of considerable stature and wisdom - like voting for all members of City Council and how much they dislike voting for only two members of the state delegation.
One person indicated that any adoption of single-member districts for Virginia Beach council elections would violate the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of Dusch vs. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court decision sustaining the Beach's ``at-large/borough'' system for city elections. Another opined that in the current Voting Rights Act environment, both Dusch vs. Davis and Baker vs. Carr (the ``one man, one vote'' case) seem to be models of lucid thinking.
Pungo, Blackwater and Kempsville are just as important to a North End resident as is the voting record of Councilmen Bill Harrison of the Lynnhaven Borough or Linwood Branch of the Virginia Beach Borough. Whether the issue is hurricane protection, sewers at Sandbridge or urbanization south of the courthouse, the vote of each council member is important to all citizens.
Some within our city have advocated the abolition of the ``at-large/borough'' system, arguing that ``their candidates'' have been unsuccessful in city elections because it costs too much to run citywide. Recent city elections do not bear out their argument. The balance of power between business interests and civic-league interests is in constant flux, with the balance of power shifting with virtually every election. In addition, candidates whose support comes largely from civic leagues - and who have had budgets under $10,000 - have been elected to council.
A number of reasons to defeat any effort to move to single-member districts were suggested.
First, all voters will be disenfranchised from voting for all seats.
Second, the current system rewards the candidate who has made it his or her business to become well known throughout the city, and well respected.
Third, the current system puts a premium on citywide support and citywide perspective.
Fourth, this citywide perspective reduces the likelihood of success of single-issue candidates and candidates representing only one point of view, whether that single issue or point of view be a social issue, an age group, an advocacy group, an ethnic group, an employment group, a business group or a neighborhood group.
The type of candidates and council members we need, it was concluded, can represent the interests of all groups, all the time, for all the citizens.
One person observed that it indeed seems curious that in our state elections our voting rights are not limited by the ``single-member district'' device. This is particularly curious in Virginia, a state which once disenfranchised thousands of its citizens by the poll tax. How strange it is that the ``single-member district'' device, so loved by some, has become the poll tax of the '90s, significantly limiting voting opportunities!
E. T. ``Joe'' Buchanan
Virginia Beach
Sample questions biased
It is almost unbelievable the lengths to which certain interests will go to defeat the balanced/district electoral system, already approved by the voters on May 3, 1994. The opponents, of course, are aiming at defeating the will of the people in the second referendum in May 1996.
The Beacon editorial page on Oct. 29 listed three proposals for the wording of the question to be submitted to the voters in May 1996. In addition, two others had been submitted for the City Council meeting of Nov. 7. Nearly all are long and complicated and start with the same biased theme: ``Should council be elected as it is by the same at-large system or should it be elected by residence districts (derogatorily always termed ``wards'').
One of the great complaints by opponents of the May 3, 1994, question was that it was not worded so the Virginia Beach voter (implied as stupid by the balanced/district system opponents) could understand it. These very complaints are a part of the presently proposed questions coached toward saying ``yes'' to ``at-large'' rather than to election by residence districts and are invariably long and complicated.
Consequently, we citizens who initiated and successfully concluded the petition requesting that the issue of Virginia Beach City Council reapportionment and election of councilpersons by residence districts be placed in referendum; we who witnessed the majority of voters vote for the issue in the councilmanic election of May 3, 1994, and believe that the second referendum, after the first was concluded fair and legal, should have the question worded as follows:
``Should City Council request the General Assembly to amend the City Charter to provide for the election of councilpersons representing residence districts by the voters of their respective districts?''
This question is uncomplicated and direct. It does not attempt to subvertly praise one premise or another. It asks a simple direct question which can be answered ``yes'' or ``no.'' The issue is only the election of seven councilpersons by residence districts. It is believed that the issue should not be subverted by the wording of the question.
Maurice B. Jackson
Chairman, Virginia Beach Citizens for Electoral Reform by CNB