Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
York County public comment centers on mid‑decade redistricting referendum; speakers sharply divided
Summary
Dozens of residents used the board’s citizen comment period to urge contrasting views about a statewide mid‑decade redistricting referendum: some urged the board to oppose the amendment as harmful to York County representation, while others said the board should not politicize an active statewide ballot.
The York County Board of Supervisors’ citizen comment period on March 17 drew an extended, often emotional stream of testimony about a statewide mid‑decade congressional redistricting referendum and the board’s proposed resolution (R26‑43) opposing it.
Payton Powell, a Yorktown resident who identified a family history in the county, asked the board to "keep this special election ongoing so that York County residents have a voice," framing the referendum as a matter of voter rights. Pam Pusho criticized what she called national partisan influence and urged a “yes” vote to prevent alleged partisan gerrymandering she associated with national actors; she specifically named public figures and argued that the referendum is a defensive measure to protect fairness.
Other residents took the opposite view. Several speakers including Denil Francis, Alan Kennedy and Andrew Brock said the board should not use limited meeting time to adopt or circulate resolutions about state matters while voting on the referendum is already underway. Kennedy said he was “deeply distressing” that county staff were asked to prepare what residents described as lobbying materials while ballots were being cast.
Voices from both sides pressed the board with concrete claims about how the proposed map would affect York County. Supporters of a county resolution opposing the referendum argued that the new congressional map would shift 60% of a successor district’s population to Northern Virginia and thereby dilute local representation; opponents countered that the referendum gives voters a chance to decide and that a county resolution would be an inappropriate use of county resources in a state election.
Other public commenters raised separate local concerns, including operations and layout at the county land‑fill/transfer station, calls to protect immigrant families from aggressive enforcement, and praise for local youth programs and businesses. The board did not take action on the referendum resolution during this meeting; public testimony was entered into the record.
