THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, March 8, 1996 TAG: 9603080553
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY KAREN WEINTRAUB, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH LENGTH: Medium: 73 lines
The state and city are still at odds over the wording of a ballot question that could determine whether the city swaps its at-large system of government for a modified ward system.
And the Virginia Beach Circuit Court, which has already ruled in favor of the city twice, decided Thursday that it can no longer deal with the matter.
The court canceled a hearing scheduled for today and asked the state Supreme Court to assign another judge to hear the latest motion, assistant city attorney Richard J. Beaver said Thursday.
Both in a Dec. 7 decision and after completing a reconsideration on Dec. 27, the Circuit Court rejected the state's argument that the ballot question was illegally worded.
But the State Board of Elections requested an injunction from the Circuit Court this week asking that the question be changed or kept off the May 7 ballots. The state agency is also appealing the Circuit Court's decision to the Virginia Supreme Court.
A motion signed by M. Bruce Meadows, secretary of the State Board of Elections, argued that the question ``is not in proper form and constitutes an impermissible instruction to the voters that is neither contemplated nor authorized by the General Assembly.''
The question that is planned for the May 7 ballot reads:
``Should the City Council member 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 Council seats, vote YES! If you prefer to vote for only 5 of the 11 seats, vote NO!''
Now, city residents can vote for all 11 council and School Board members, even though seven members are borough representatives and must live in their respective boroughs.
Under the proposed change, the seven district representatives would be elected only by the residents of their district, so voters would vote only for the four at-large representatives and their ward representative, instead of all 11 council members.
The City Council has said its wording is clear and within the parameters of the law the General Assembly passed to require the advisory referendum.
The state legislature, voting last year, left the ballot wording to the council.
On Thursday, the city filed two motions calling for the court to dismiss the state's case, and saying that the state sued the wrong party by filing against the local electoral board instead of the council.
The three-member electoral board calls elections, counts votes and certifies the results, but had nothing to do with the language of the question.
In its legal reply, the local electoral board said it would use whatever question the court decided it should use.
The board needs to know what wording to use by April 9, according to the filing, signed by board chairman J.A.G. Parrish. ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
WHAT IT SAYS
The question that is planned for the May 7 ballot reads:
``Should the City Council member 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 Council seats, vote YES! If you
prefer to vote for only 5 of the 11 seats, vote NO!''
by CNB