Appomattox County holds public hearing on proposed consolidation of two voting precincts

The Appomattox County Board of Supervisors heard public comment Wednesday on a proposed ordinance to consolidate two small voting precincts into single polling places and to amend Chapter 3, Article 2 (Elections) of the county code.

The ordinance the electoral board recommended would: consolidate the Volley River District precinct into a single polling place at the Spout Spring Burriston Building, 172 Birthin Lane, Spout Spring; and consolidate the Piney Mountain District precinct into a single polling place at the Oakville Ruritan Building, 181 Piney Mount Road, Oakville, eliminating the existing Jack and AG precinct polling locations. The board opened a public hearing and accepted public comment but took no final action; the public comment period will remain open through the March meeting.

Why it matters: officials and voters said the changes would reduce the county’s recurring election equipment costs but could add travel for some longtime voters and pose parking and safety issues at the proposed polling locations. Electoral-board members noted state law requires a public-comment period before any change is adopted; supervisors said they will not vote on the ordinance until the March meeting after the 45-day comment period closes.

Residents who spoke at the hearing said consolidation could make in-person voting harder for older residents and raise safety concerns at parking-limited sites. Helen Adams, who identified herself as a resident of Athens, said she visited the precinct in question after dark during a recent election and that some voters “had to park on the side of the road.” Shirley Will (who also spoke as “Miss Wheeler” during the hearing) said many older voters “do not wanna have to drive from this side of town all the way to the other side of town on 460 to be able to vote.”

Elections officials and an electoral-board representative acknowledged parking at Oakville can be tight and said gravel had been placed at some sites. An electoral-board member who spoke during the hearing said she had not examined the Oakville site closely but that “we may want to consider whether we’ve got to put some lighting out there in addition to expanding the parking area a bit.”

Officials also described alternatives for voters if consolidation proceeds. The electoral-board representative said any voter may join the permanent absentee list and that county election offices offer in-person voting during a 45-day early-voting window for most elections. The board’s representative said, by the numbers, consolidation of the two smallest precincts under discussion would save “a little over $5,000 a year” in current costs and that the county expects a future equipment purchase of about $27,000 that would have a service life of roughly 10 years.

Board and staff members repeated that no final decision would be made at the hearing. Staff recommended soliciting public comment for the required period; the board accepted public testimony and will consider the ordinance change at its March meeting.

Ending: The board left the record open for public comment through the March meeting; county staff and electoral-board members encouraged residents with site-specific concerns to speak directly with the registrar or electoral-board members before the March vote.