Ed. – This is adapted from a statement City Councilmember Joash Schulman of District 9 released on Sunday, Jan. 29. It has been edited for length and clarity. Schulman on Tuesday, Jan. 17, was the only newly elected member of the council to support continuing a process that may result in replacing the new 10-district voting system used last year. News coverage is available online at princessanneindy.com. This originally ran in print in the Sunday, Feb. 5, edition.
VIRGINIA BEACH — I’d like to explain my rationale for supporting a public input and engagement process about local voting in Virginia Beach and my vote on Tuesday, Jan. 17.
For nearly 30 years, Virginia Beach used a local voting system that provided for seven districts, three at-large — or citywide — seats and a mayor elected citywide.
District seats were subject to residency requirements, meaning a district representative had to reside in the district, but every city voter could vote for them. The city was sued in U.S. District Court on the basis that our system presented a barrier to minority representation on the council in violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act.
A judge ordered us into a 10-district system, resulting in new district maps. Any new council member representing a district was required to be selected only by residents within that district. The only seat on council subject to citywide voting is the mayor. The Court also required that three of the 10 Districts be minority opportunity districts, meaning they are drawn so minority residents have a better opportunity to elect a viable minority candidate to serve.
Before the ruling was issued in 2021, the General Assembly passed a bill [HB2198], which eliminated at-large voting for council or School Board seats with residency-based requirements. If a seat required that you live in a district, you had to be voted-in by district residents only. That meant no more at-large voting for district seats.
The city appealed the decision on several grounds, including the fact that HB2198 “mooted” the plaintiff’s claim and provided a remedy by statute. Essentially, the city argued that the statute eliminated at-large voting for district seats and addressed the plaintiffs’ claims. The city won this argument on appeal, but, by the time the ruling was entered, we had the 10-1 system in place. Candidates had filed to run under that system. It was not viable to change course.
The appellate court also ordered that the lower court retained jurisdiction over the matter, which means, depending upon what happens next, the case remains open and the plaintiffs can amend their claims.
A few facts to consider:
- Our City Charter still provides for a 7-3-1 hybrid system.
- That system was changed when HB2198 passed to convert our seven district seats into “true” district seats voted upon only by district residents.
- Technically speaking, we are currently without a voting system. There is a court ruling for a 10-1 system that was vacated on appeal. And there is our City Charter, which sets up a 7-3-1 system, as modified by statute to require district voting.
No matter what, we need to submit a Charter amendment to the General Assembly prior to the 2024 election, even if we stick with a 10-1 system. The deadline for us to do so, realistically, is January 2024.
The District lines that were drawn under the 10-1 system meant a number of things during the 2022 election. About 20,000 people had a new voting location. The majority of those affected by that change were members of our minority population. And, in District 9 alone, we had three neighborhoods split into separate districts right down the middle of a street.
In December, the prior Council adopted a resolution to commence a public input and education process so that we could engage and inform the public about all of this. There was opposition to this measure because the new council was not yet seated and some felt we should weigh in. The issue was brought before the new Council in January in the form of a motion to rescind the public input and education process.
I voted “no.” Here’s why:
- I understand and fully appreciate that reasonable minds can disagree about – or even not fully understand – how we arrived where we’re at.
- I fully support district voting. I think that district members should be elected only by the residents they serve.
- We have a big city, and big issues know no district boundaries. In a 10-1 system we have the potential to become more parochial. Neighborhood and district-level issues are indeed important, and I will advocate for these concerns. At the same time, our decisions impact the entire city.
- In a 10-1 system, there is a danger that district issues could be overridden by members of council who are not accountable to our voters, no matter how firmly we protest.
- I believe a system with minority opportunity districts is a great thing. We have the most diverse council in our city’s history and that should indeed be celebrated.
- During the campaign, early voting, and on Election Day, I encountered people supportive of the 10-1 system, people who were not, and, most importantly, people who had no idea the system changed.
- I am comfortable sticking with the 10-1 system we have, if that is the will of the voters. It is the voters’ decision, not the council’s, as to how we are elected.
I did not feel that I could make a decision about our voting system in my second week in office without any public input whatsoever. I want to hear what the voters of District 9 have to say. The public engagement process will afford us that opportunity.
Because the lower court retains jurisdiction over the case, and because of the narrow constraints afforded to us by federal and state law, I feel that more people need to have an appreciation for the fact that there is absolutely no way that we can go back to all at-large voting.
Even some at-large seats could potentially present an issue. My hope is that the public engagement process will help people understand how constrained our choices actually are.
Even true at-large seats (of any number) will be subject to the scrutiny of the Virginia Voting Rights Act, which disfavors them, and would be subject to an amended claim by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit which remains under the judge’s jurisdiction. Even if we have multi-district seats, those seats may need to be superwards, such as in Norfolk’s local voting system.
In any case, maps would need to be drawn that include minority opportunity districts to ensure our Council is reflective of the communities we serve.
The public input and education process is being led by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, a reputable third party public policy research group under the auspices of the University of Virginia. The process includes statistically valid mail surveys, television and newspaper advertisements, a website and 12 town halls, including one in each district and two at centrally located sites with virtual attendance opportunities.
It’s a complicated set of issues.
The bottom line for me is that I am not comfortable making a decision for our district without giving you an opportunity to weigh in – especially because it relates to how you elect your representative on the council. I strongly felt that was your job, and not mine.
© 2023 Pungo Publishing Co., LLC