Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs referendum materials after legal briefing on 10‑1 versus modified 7‑3‑1 election systems
Summary
After a legal briefing on competing court rulings, statutory changes and pending litigation, council asked staff to draft a charter-change referendum question, hold public comment April 15 and consider a vote on a referendum resolution May 6; staff outlined a neutral education plan and budget estimates for outreach.
City attorneys and the communications director briefed Virginia Beach City Council on the legal history and practical issues surrounding the city’s election method, and council directed staff to prepare a referendum resolution that would ask voters whether the charter election method should change to the 10‑1 system used in recent elections or remain a modified 7‑3‑1 format.
The briefing summarized decades of litigation and statutory changes that affect how Virginia Beach elects council members, beginning with the Holloway litigation and the federal court’s remedial order, the 2021 General Assembly action (House Bill 21‑98) and subsequent adoption of the Virginia Voting Rights Act. The city attorney described ongoing litigation — referenced in the meeting as the Branch case and the Quail Witch case — that continues to make the legal landscape dynamic.
City counsel summarized the proposed referendum wording before council: “Should the method of city council elections set forth in the Virginia Beach city charter be changed from a modified 7 3 1 system to a 10 1 system,” explaining that a yes vote would ask the General Assembly to amend the charter to adopt the 10‑1 system used in 2022 and 2024, while a no vote would ask the General Assembly to retain the modified 7‑3‑1 system described in the current charter.
Staff outlined timing and a neutral public-education plan. The proposed schedule would bring the referendum resolution back for public comment April 15 and for council action as early as May 6 to place the question on the November ballot. Tiffany Russell, the city communications director, emphasized the scale of an education effort: “we have approximately 350,000 voters in the city,” and she presented sample costs for outreach tools used in past campaigns. Russell said direct mail to registered voters would run in the $181,000–$218,000 range; prior engagements such as the Weldon Cooper survey cost about $385,000, and a redistricting outreach program ran roughly $250,000.
The city attorney explained constraints on staff: city employees must provide neutral education only and cannot advocate for or against ballot questions; staff may supply a court‑approved, 500‑word neutral explanation of the measure for public distribution. He also warned that even a voter-approved referendum would only send a charter amendment request to the General Assembly — it would not guarantee state action — and that pending litigation could affect whether any variant of the election method can legally be implemented.
Council discussion reflected conflicting views. Some members said the public should decide the method directly, citing repeated public interest and a Cooper Center survey showing support for a referendum; others said additional litigation and cost considerations counsel caution. Several members asked staff to provide a project website and a SpeakUpVB engagement page. The council voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution for public comment and a potential May 6 vote; staff said they would follow the proposed timeline and provide the neutral explainer and public education plan if the council adopts the resolution.
