THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, December 10, 1995 TAG: 9512080342
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 07 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 72 lines
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is a letter sent Dec. 5 by Virginia Beach Citizens for Electoral Reform to Judge Jerome B. Friedman, chief of the Virginia Beach Circuit Court.
Dear Judge Friedman,
In what they thought was compliance with House Bill 1593, as amended by the conferees, which was passed by the General Assembly in its 1995 session and which was signed by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia on March 27, 1995, the City Council of Virginia Beach on Nov. 28, 1995, passed an ordinance giving the wording of the question for the second referendum which is to be on the ballot for the Virginia Beach councilmanic election on May 7, 1996. The alleged question reads thus:
``Should the city councilmember elected to represent a particular borough be elected by all qualified voters throughout the city (an at-large system) rather than only by the qualified voters residing in that particular borough (a ward system)? If you wish to vote for all 11 seats, vote yes! If you prefer to vote for only five of the 11 council seats, vote no!''
We, the Virginia Beach Citizens for Electoral Reform who initiated a petition on Sept. 20, 1993, acquired the necessary 22,759 signatures to have the question placed on the May 3, 1994, ballot and saw a majority of 22,103 to 18,922 approve the question, believe the City Council's alleged question is blatantly biased, skewed, does not live up to the intent of the law and should be returned to City Council for adherence to the law. The General Assembly by House Bill 1593, as amended by the conferences, (a copy of which is attached) ordered:
Paragraph 1. C. ``. . . an advisory referendum to be held on the question of whether the council member elected from each district shall be elected by the qualified voters of that district rather than at large. . . ''
The alleged City Council question:
1. Is blatantly biased to elicit a ``yes'' vote for the status-quo. The purpose of a referendum is to see if the people want change. There is no reason for a referendum if the status-quo is to be maintained. The Council ``question'' does not live up to the intent of the law which is to see if the people want a change.
2. Does not call for any action. What is the Council to do if a majority of the voters vote ``no''? What is it to do if the voters vote ``yes''?
3. The City Council alleged question uses the word ``boroughs'' whereas the law terms the divisions ``residence districts.''
4. Has two sentences in their alleged ``question'' which are not questions but statements. These two statements are: ``If you wish to vote for all 11 seats, vote yes! If you prefer to vote for only five of the 11 council seats, vote no!'' These statements are superfluous, blatantly biased, and over simplistic. The issue is district representation not five votes versus 11 votes or merely a case of addition and subtraction.
5. It skews the ``yes'' that the fair and legal majority voters cast in 1994 to where they must vote ``no'' for the same result in 1996 if they want a change. What kind of referendum is this? It is treating the legal majority voters very shabbily.
We urge you to return the ``alleged'' question which was passed by the City Council on Nov. 28, 1995, and direct the Council to ask the question as it appears in the law and has already been approved by the Circuit Court in 1994.
Maurice B. Jackson
Chairman,
Virginia Beach Citizens
for Electoral Reform
Sheldon L. Corner
Vice-Chairman by CNB