Hours of public comment at Virginia Beach City Council focused on proposed referendum on election method

Dozens of residents spoke at a public hearing before the Virginia Beach City Council on a proposed referendum about the city’s method of election, debating whether to keep the 10‑1 single‑member district system or revert to a modified 7‑3‑1 structure.

The hearing drew long, sometimes emotional testimony from residents across the city and representatives of civic groups. Janet Burns, a District 4 resident, urged the council to “think about the choice” and keep the 10‑1 system, saying a referendum would waste taxpayer dollars and risk disenfranchising residents. Mike Hashimi criticized efforts to revisit the issue as an attempt to roll back civil voting rights and said residents were “breaking the fever” of misinformation about elections. Eric Majette, president of the Virginia Beach NAACP, told the council the 10‑1 system has produced a more diverse and representative council and urged the city not to reopen the issue.

Why it mattered: speakers repeatedly referenced the 2023 Weldon Cooper Center (University of Virginia) study, which they said found roughly 81% of survey respondents preferred the 10‑1 method. Several speakers — including Suzanne Richmond, Trevina Jefferson (District 1), and many longtime residents — said the 10‑1 system corrected historic dilution of minority voting power associated with at‑large systems and pointed to the 2021 federal litigation that challenged past practices. Opponents of the current system and some speakers in favor of a referendum argued the charter and state law questions were unsettled and that a ballot question providing a public decision would be appropriate.

Matters raised by speakers and witnesses included: - Representation and civil‑rights history: Multiple speakers tied the council’s voting method to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and to the 2020 Holloway litigation challenging at‑large methods, saying district elections gave historically underrepresented communities a voice. Eric Majette said the 10‑1 system “empowers communities that were previously underrepresented.” - Cost and litigation risk: Several speakers warned that re‑opening the issue would again expose the city to legal challenges and further costs; one speaker cited litigation and study expenditures they described as “upwards of $1,500,000.” - Survey methodology and public education: Some commenters questioned whether prior surveys represented the full electorate; Dorothy Patterson noted the Weldon Cooper survey mailed 4,500 questionnaires and reported 623 responses, of which 504 (about 81%) favored 10‑1, and argued that a survey of a subset is not the same as a citywide vote. Others said the referendum language being proposed was confusing or misleading and asked the council to clarify wording before any ballot placement. - Calls for a referendum: A subset of speakers, including Kyle Pascarella and others, said the question should be decided by voters in a clear, lawful ballot question. Those speakers framed a referendum as a final, democratic resolution rather than continuing litigation or council debate.

Direct quotes from the hearing (selected): - “Keeping the 10‑1 system protects our voter rights,” said Janet Burns, a District 4 resident. - “We are breaking the fever of being peddled lies and bigotry,” said Mike Hashimi, who urged the council to reject a return to at‑large influence. - “Since adopting the 10‑1 system … we’ve seen a more diverse and representative city council,” said Eric Majette, president, Virginia Beach NAACP. - “This verbiage is purposely misleading voters into thinking that we are currently using a 7‑3‑1 system,” said Tammy Mullins Rice, a District 6 resident, criticizing the proposed ballot language.

What the council record shows: the hearing was a formal public‑comment period; no final council vote to place a referendum on the ballot was recorded in the portion of the meeting covered by the transcript. Council members acknowledged strong public sentiment on both sides and raised process questions about ballot language, statutory steps and possible further legal exposure before any ballot placement.

Looking ahead: speakers called for one of three paths—(1) retain the 10‑1 structure without a referendum, (2) place a clearly worded referendum on the ballot that includes full choices and accurate descriptions of the systems, or (3) ask staff and counsel to prepare clearer legal and explanatory materials before any ballot action. Several speakers requested the council publish neutral explanatory materials and to ensure any ballot question included all relevant options.

The public hearing occupied a major portion of the meeting; council business continued afterward with appointments and other agenda items.