Virginia Beach council votes to place charter election-method referendum on Nov. 4 ballot

The Virginia Beach City Council voted to request that the circuit court order a referendum for Nov. 4, 2025, on whether the city—s charter should be changed from the current modified 7-3-1 method to another election format, a move that supporters said would let residents decide and opponents warned could trigger more litigation and roll back minority representation.

The vote followed more than an hour of public comment in which scores of residents urged opposite outcomes. Supporters of the referendum argued that voters should have the final say; opponents said the 10-1 single-member district system fixed long-standing Voting Rights Act violations and that a referendum would risk disenfranchising minority voters.

Council members and speakers framed the question around legal history, community voice and fiscal impact. Several speakers referenced a federal court remedy and past studies; opponents repeatedly cited the 10-1 system—s adoption after litigation under the Voting Rights Act. Those opposing the referendum said the council—s action would reopen settled issues and waste city money on litigation and outreach. Supporters said the city should allow the public to make the ultimate choice.

Public testimony was sharply divided. John Zirkel, a District 3 resident, said, "We need to let the citizens decide on this." Dr. Kate Loring, who said she volunteers at polling places, urged council members to "not unsettle voters now" and argued the electorate was becoming familiar with the 10-1 system. Bernita Richardson said of the 10-1 model, "It's like trying to get across the road, but the bridge is out," urging the council to preserve it for future generations. Jafari Jones, president of Black Lives Matter 757, told councilors a federal judge had already found longstanding voting-rights violations and said, "The remedy from Judge Jackson...was split to split Virginia Beach into 10 single member districts."

Speakers who opposed the referendum also raised costs and legal risk. Councilman Frank Cummings (speaking during debate) summarized litigation spending to date and urged caution: "To date, we have spent $2,833,000 on this," and later said, "So I'm voting no for the sake of the taxpayer, and I'm voting no for the sake of progress." Several residents and speakers also cited the Weldon Cooper and University of Virginia studies referenced during public engagement, saying those efforts found broad support for keeping the 10-1 system.

Council debate reflected the divide. Councilman Cash Green described his path to office and said he ran "because of the people," arguing his trust is in constituents rather than party labels. Other council members said they supported placing the question before voters; some said they feared the referendum would reopen litigation and spend taxpayer dollars. The council ultimately approved the resolution requesting the court-ordered referendum.

The council—s action requests that the circuit court schedule the referendum for the Nov. 4, 2025, general election. The formal motion to approve was made and seconded on the record and the council announced the measure had been approved. The transcript records the outcome as approved by the council; the roll-call vote was read aloud by the clerk at the close of the meeting and recorded in the official minutes.

What happens next: The council—s resolution asks the circuit court to order the referendum; the court will review the request and set the official ballot language and timeline if it grants the request. Multiple speakers and council members warned that either outcome could invite additional litigation or require extensive voter education. Council members who spoke against the referendum said they would oppose it to avoid further legal costs; supporters said a referendum would settle the matter democratically.

The vote and the preceding public comment underscore how deeply the election-method question remains tied to race, legal history and the allocation of political power in Virginia Beach. The council did not take other immediate action on charter language or implementation details; if the court orders a referendum, the city will need to finalize ballot language and an education plan prior to the November election.