DOCSLIB.ORG

1966 POLITICS in VIRGINIA: the Elections for U.S. Representatives by RALPH EISENBERG

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1966 POLITICS in VIRGINIA: the Elections for U.S. Representatives by RALPH EISENBERG THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA s~ NE Letter Editor Weldon Cooper Vol. 43, No. 10 Institute of Government, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 June 15, 1967 1966 POLITICS IN VIRGINIA: The Elections for U.S. Representatives By RALPH EISENBERG The increasingly fluid character of Vir­ ingly, Congressional redistricting was not Smith's defeat not only had a profound ginia politics in the mid-1960's was evi­ enacted until after the Virginia Supreme impact in Virginia, which he represented dent in the 1966 Congressional elections. Court in 1965 found that the then exist­ in Congress for 36 years, but also had But the changes in Virginia's voting ing districts violated both the State and national reverberations resulting from habits appeared not only in the State-wide the Federal constitutions. The 1965 Con­ his long service as Chairman of the Rules balloting in both the Democratic Party gressional redistricting affected all the Committee of the House of Representa­ primary and the general election for V.S. State's districts in some way, but the most tives.Congressman Smith lost the primary Senate seats, but also in the elections for profound changes were in the Eighth and by 645 votes to George C. Rawlings, Jr., V nited States Representatives.1 The Con­ Tenth Congressional districts. The vast an incumbent Delegate from Fredericks­ gressional district contests in the primary geographic size of the Eighth District was burg and widely conceded to be among and the general elections produced sur­ reduced and portions of urban Fairfax the ·most liberal,members of the General prising results. The primary election re­ County were added to it. The shift of Assembly. The large turnout of over vealed the growth of the moderate vote over 100,000 Fairfax County residents 53,000 voters in the primary was spurred within the Democratic Party while the from one district to another marked the by .Rawlings' extended organization ef­ general election exposed the gains that first time that it had been necessary to forts throughout the district. the Republican Party had made in the divide a Virginia county into 2 Congres­ Rawlings carried 6 counties as well as State. The 1966 elections witnessed the sional districts. Although the redistrict­ the Fairfax County portion of the district defeat of two Democratic incumbent Con­ ing put proportionately fewer conserva­ and his home City of Fredericksburg~ gressmen, one in the primary and the tive voters into each of these districts, while Smith won majorities in the 13 other in the general election, and their no serious impact upon the politics of other counties of the district. Not unex­ replacement by Republicans. Virginia's other districts was expected. pectedly, the key to Rawlings' victory lay delegation in the V.S. House of Repre­ PRIMARY ELECTIONS in the urban votes cast in Fairfax County, sentatives now consists of six Democrats Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, and Stafford There were contests for the Democratic and four Republicans. counties where he won majorities. In ad­ Party's nomination for V.S. Representa­ The 1966 elections in Virginia for Con­ dition, Rawlings succeeded in keeping the tive in only three districts: the Fourth, gressional seats were significant because Smith majorities small in the urbanizing Eighth, and Tenth. Democratic Congress­ they were the first following the redraw­ counties of Prince William and Loudoun. men represented the first two districts ing of Congressional district boundary while Republican Congressman Joel T. lines in accordance with a decision of TABLE 1 Broyhill represented the Tenth. Only the the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.2 Results of Contested Democratic Party primary contest in the Eighth District Although the 1960 Census did not change Primary Elections in Virginia was spirited and closely contested. In the number of seats in the House of Rep­ Congressional Districts, 1966 the others, Congressman Watkins M. Ab­ resentatives allocated to Virginia, it re­ Candidates Number Percent of Votes of Votes vealed considerable disparities between bitt easily defeated Lewis A. Curling in the Fourth District and Clive L. DuVal, Fourth Congressional District the population sizes of the State's Con­ II, an incumbent Democratic member of Lewis A. Curling 18,568 31.6 gressional districts. However, no recom­ Watkins M. Abbitt· 40,172 68.4 the House of Delegates from Fairfax ---- mendation to alter Congressional district Totals 58,740 100.0 boundaries was made by the Commission County who won the nomination in the Tenth District over Thomas H. Woods. Eighth Congressional District on Redistricting in its 1961 report to the Their respective vote totals are contained Howard W. Smith· 26,470 49.4 Governor and General Assembly. Accord- George C. Rawlings, Jr. 27,115 50.6 in Table 1. Both victors won majorities ---- Totals 53,585 100.0 The author is Associate Professor of Government in all of the localities of their districts. and Foreign Affairs and Assistant Director, Insti­ Tenth Congressional District The primary contest in the Eighth Dis­ tute of Government, University of Virginia. Thomas H. Woods 1l,455 26.0 1. See Ralph Eisenberg, II 1966 Politics in Vir­ trict was of major importance because Clive L. DuVal, II 32,639 74.0 ginia: The Elections for u.s. Senators," 43 The ---- University of Virginia News Letter 33 (May 15, veteran Congressman Howard W. Smith Totals 44,094 1967.) 100.0 2. Wilkens v. Davis, 205 Va. 803 (1965). was defeated by a narrow margin. ·Incumbent 38 THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA districts in which there was no challenge The success of t'he RepUblicans in the to the Democratic incumbents were the contests they entered indicates that their EWS Letter First, Second, and Third. All three are State-wide vote in House races ,vould urban districts embracing respectively the Assistant Editor have been considerably greater if they cities of Newport News and Hampton, had fielded more candidates. RALPH EISENBERG Norfolk and Portsmouth, and Richmond. Published on the 15th of each month from The Republicans ran no candidates in INDIVIDUAL ELECTIONS September through August by the Institute Of the seven contested elections for of Government, University of Virginia, Char­ these districts, all of which produced lottesville, Virginia 22903. The views and Democratic majorities in the Senatorial Congressional seats, only one was resolved opinions expressed herein are those of the voting. by a relatively small margin. Most of the author, and are not to be interpreted as The voting across the State in the elec­ contests were not to be as close as antici­ representing the official position of the In­ pated. In the Fourth District, incumbent stitute or the University. tions for House seats amounted to Entered as second-class matter January 2, 682,737 or 93.0 percent of the total votes Democratic Watkins M. Abbitt was chal­ 1925, at the post office at Charlottesville, cast for U.S. Senator. Democratic House lenged by Edward J. Silverman who was Virginia, under the act of August 24, 1912. candidates polled over 57 percent of the the candidate of the Conservative Party. total while Republicans polled 39.3 per­ Although t'he Fourth District was part of Printed by the cent. It is interesting to note how close the core area of support for the Conserva­ UNIVERSITY PRINTING OFFICE these totals are to the proportions cast tive Party, Silverman posed no real threat for the major party candidates in the to Congressman it itt's reelection. -Sil­ Rawlings' performance in rural areas was Senate races. Spong was elected with 58.6 verman polled less than 22 percent of the surprising. His success was anticipated in percent of the popular vote while Repub­ vote while Abbitt received over 66 per­ Charles City County with its large Negro lican Traylor polled 37.4 percent of the cent. Slightly under 12 percent of the popUlation but his victories in New Kent, vote against the Democratic incumbent votes cast were write-in votes, largely in I ing and Queen, and Caroline counties Byrd. This result appears coincidental in behalf of S. W. Tucker, a Negro NAACP were not. Even where Smith won majori­ view of the lack of competition in three official from Emporia. The write-in votes ties, Rawlings reduced the sizable Smith districts and varying patterns of split­ for Tucker are a barometer of Negro majorities of the past. RaWlings' rural ticket voting in other districts. The coin­ voting in the District, although "paste-on success can be attributed to his vigorous cidence, however, does suggest that Re­ write-ins" were disallowed by election of­ campaigning in these areas and to organ­ publican strength in Virginia has firm ficials which diluted the total impact of ized efforts to turn out a large vote and roots which regularly can produce almost his vote. Abbitt's easy victory was attri­ to bring new voters to the polls, which 40 percent of the State vote total. butable to the confluence of his conser­ in turn produced Negro support of his vative political posture and the conserva­ l\fore meaningful data from the 1966 candidacy in heavy numbers and propor­ tism of that constituency, which embraces House elections are those for the six dis­ tions. In addition, RaWlings' hard cam- most of Southside Virginia. He carried tricts in which Democratic and RepUb­ aign subjected Smith to more personal every locality in the district, with rnajori­ lican candidates confronted each other. and substantive attack than was charac­ ties in all but two counties. In those districts, 478,115 votes were cast, teristic of Virginia political campaigns. The Fifth District contest between in­ or 70 percent of the total State vote for Smith's age also was a factor of consider­ cumbent Democratic Congressman Wil­ House seats.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recent Developments in Virginia Election Law of Interest to Local Government Practitioners Stephen C
    Published by the Local Government Section of the Virginia State Bar Vol. XXVI, No. 4, Spring 2016 Recent Developments in Virginia Election Law of Interest to Local Government Practitioners Stephen C. Piepgrass L.A. Kuykendall ver the past four years, Virginia residents have seen many changes affecting how they vote, including (i) the creation and implementation of a mandatory photo identi- Ofication requirement, (ii) a shift away from direct recording electronic machines to printed ballots in Virginia’s most populous areas, and (iii) increased scrutiny by federal offi- cials of local polling stations. This article details these changes and their ramifications, par- ticularly for election law practitioners and local government attorneys. Changes to Virginia’s Voter Identification Laws and Pending Litigation Changes to voter identification requirements represent one area of Virginia election law experiencing modifications in recent years. Beginning in 2012 and continuing this past ses- sion, the General Assembly has created and implemented a mandatory photo identification requirement for voting and has eliminated previously acceptable forms of identification to comply with this require- ment. These changes are part of a broader national TABLE OF CONTENTS trend in laws requiring Recent Developments in Virginia Election Law Mr. Piepgrass is a partner at Troutman of Interest to Local Government Practitioners ............... 1 Sanders LLP who specializes in govern- mental enforcement actions and investi- Chairman’s Message.................................................. 2 gations as well as election law. He served as counsel to the Obenshain for Accusations of Unauthorized Practice of Law Against Virginia Attorney General Campaign Social Workers for Departments of Social Services ...... 10 during the 2013 statewide recount.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION THOMAS CURTIN, Et Al., Plaintiffs
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION THOMAS CURTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. v. 1:20-cv-00546 (RDA/IDD) VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF EDGARDO CORTÉS 1. I am an adult U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age, am otherwise competent to testify, and have personal knowledge of the facts set out in this Declaration. My Professional Experience with Elections in Virginia 2. I was Virginia’s first Commissioner of Elections. I was appointed by Governor Terry McAuliffe on July 1, 2014 and I served in that position until 2018. During that time, I also served as the chairman of the Board for the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) and as chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards Board. Additionally, I was a charter member of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council established by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 3. Prior to my role as the Commissioner of Elections, from 2005 to 2009, I served as Deputy Director of Policy and Grants at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. From 2009 to 2011, I served as General Registrar in Fairfax County. From 2011 to 2014, I was employed at the national office of the Advancement Project, a non-partisan non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. 1 4. As Commissioner of Elections, I led the Virginia Department of Elections in working with local election officials to ensure Virginia’s election laws and regulations were implemented properly to serve the voters of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark's Letter on the 2020 Legislative Session
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA House of Delegates RICHMOND MARK H. LEVINE COMMIT TEE ASSIGNMENTS: 301 KING STREET PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314 COURTS OF JUSTICE HEALTH, WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS PUBLIC SAFETY FORTY-FIFTH DISTRICT April 24, 2020 Dear Neighbor, Thank you once again for the privilege of serving as your State Delegate. I know times are tough right now. For some of us, we are busier than ever just trying to stay healthy and make ends meet. But for those of you that do have some free time, I am honored to present to you my annual letter that I send every year after the legislative session has concluded. As usual, I have a lot to say, but whether you read every word here, or just skim the letter, please know that I’m always available to answer your questions and address your concerns, whether you need help with a state agency, have an idea for legislation, or just want to understand a new law or state policy. See “Constituent Services” at the end of the letter for my office’s contact information. As usual, if you want to hear from me more frequently than once a year by postal mail, I highly recommend you sign up for my emailed newsletters on my website at MarkforDelegate.com. You’ll find them chock-full of timely information (even more than you’ll find here) about my work on your behalf in Richmond and at home. Please know, if you sign up, that I have never and will never give your email address to anyone else.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Day Guide for Officers of Election
    Election Day Guide For Officers of Election 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 320 Arlington, Virginia 22201 703-228-3456 [email protected] vote.arlingtonva.us www.twitter.com/ArlingtonVotes www.facebook.com/ArlingtonVotes General Information Our Staff The following are the key staff members you are most likely to need to speak to prior to Election Day: Name and Title Gretchen Reinemeyer, Director of Elections Eric Olsen, Deputy Director of Elections Bill Sands, Outreach Coordinator Jackie Letizia, Election Specialist On Election Day, you might also speak to the following if you need to call in to our office: Charlene Bickford, Electoral Board Chairman David Bell, Electoral Board Vice Chairman Scott McGeary, Electoral Board Secretary Cheryl Scannell, Absentee Voting Manager Nerys Lopez, Senior Assistant Registrar Don Hodgen, Senior Assistant Registrar Judy Sever, Assistant Registrar Wes MacAdam, Assistant Registrar/Technician Jack Nickerson, Assistant Technician Richard Muffley, Assistant Technician David Roth, Assistant Technician How to Reach Us Prior to Election Day, if you need to call our office, call 703-228-3456. On Election Day, call the main office number at 703-228-3456. Please do not call our direct lines, because you may get our voice mail and we may not be able to answer your call in a timely manner. Do not leave voice mail messages on Election Day! Please do not call any of the cell phone numbers listed unless you are instructed to do so by office staff, or if for some reason you cannot get through to our office. If you are calling on Election Day on the County phone system (228 extension), you only need to dial the last four digits of any other 228 number: 3456 Call in election night results to the same number: 703-228-3456 Time of Day: 202-762-1401 (USNO) Synchronize your watches with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1992 Elections in Virginia: a Status Quo State in the Year of Change
    Journal of Political Science Volume 21 Number 1 Article 3 November 1993 The 1992 Elections in Virginia: A Status Quo State in the Year of Change Larry J. Sabato Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Sabato, Larry J. (1993) "The 1992 Elections in Virginia: A Status Quo State in the Year of Change," Journal of Political Science: Vol. 21 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops/vol21/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Politics at CCU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Political Science by an authorized editor of CCU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE 1992 ELECTIONS IN VIRGINIA: A STATUS QUO STATE IN THE YEAR OF CHANGE Larry J. Sabato University of Virginia THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION The 1992 election, full of upheaval and transformation around the country, was more traditional in the Old Dominion. While the nation was ousting White House incumbent George Bush, Virginia voted to reelect him by a percentage that was Bush's sixth-best of the 50 states. 1 And in a year when many scandal­ tainted congressional incumbents stepped aside, voluntarily or through defeat, the only changes in Virginia's U. S. House line-up were forced by redistricting and one age-related retire­ ment. Much as in 1976, when southern Democrat Jimmy Carter won the presidency, Virginia resisted both regionalism and the call for change-and this time the Commonwealth was joined by most other states of the South.
    [Show full text]
  • Women's Representation in Virginia
    Women’s Representation in Virginia th Parity Ranking: 50 of 50 Levels of Government Score of 4: Four points for the percentage of state Statewide Executive legislative seats held by women. Female governors: None Quick Fact Current female statewide elected executives: 0 of Virginia has only ever elected one woman to a 3 positions. statewide executive office. Mary Sue Terry was elected attorney general of Virginia in 1985 and Number of women to have held statewide elected 1989. She resigned her post in 1993 to run for executive office: Two, one of whom was governor, but lost her bid. appointed to fill a vacancy. Congress Trending U.S. Senate: 0 of 2 seats are held by women The percentage of Virginia state legislative seats held by a woman has consistently trailed the U.S. House: 0 of 11 seats are held by a woman national average, although it has been trending In its history, Virginia has elected 3 women to upward over the past two decades. the U.S. House. State Legislature % Virginia Legislature Women Percentage women: 16.4% 30% Rankings: 44th of 50 25% 20% Senate: 6 of 40 (15%) are women 15% House: 17 of 100 (17%) are women 10% VA Method of election: Single-member districts 5% USA 0% Local None of Virginia’s five largest cities with elected mayors has a woman mayor. Source: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University. Words of Wisdom “The barriers are not so much you have to overcome people not wanting you there, but now women have so many more options of what they can do.
    [Show full text]
  • ELECTION LAWS UPDATE: Part 2
    January 2011 League of Women Voters of Virginia Education Fund Page 1 ELECTION LAWS UPDATE: Part 2 Introduction: The 2009 League of Women Voters of Virginia Convention voted for an election laws update study to be conducted during the 2009-2011 biennium. During the first year, members reviewed Virginia’s laws and practices regarding voter registration and the Commonwealth’s management and funding of the election process. This year, we will look at the election process itself, both prior to and at the polls on Election Day. After gathering members’ conclusions about the election process in Virginia and any changes that they believe would improve and facilitate the process and increase voter turnout, the Board of Directors will approve a revised statement of positions. [Note: This paper was written at the start of the 2011 session of the General Assembly. We will post material on the LWV-VA website, www.lwv-va.org, about any significant legislative changes that are brought to our attention.] Election Laws Committee members who contributed to this report: Pat Bower (LWVL), Chris Faia (LWVWA), Judy Leader (LWVFA), Maggi Luca (LWVFA), Gail Schweickert (LWV-RMA), Elizabeth Smith (LWV-RMA), Shelly Tamres (LWVLC), Therese Martin, Co-chair (LWVFA), Betsy Mayr, Co-chair (LWVLC), Liz Brooke, Editor (LWVFA) ELECTION DAY – AT THE POLLS1 Where and When: Dates and Hours of Elections The Code of Virginia establishes the dates and other provisions for general, special and primary elections. Section 24-2-101 sets the date for the November elections, which generally includes federal, state, and county general elections, as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
    [Show full text]
  • December 14, 2017 in the Supreme Court Of
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA ________________________________________ RECORD NO. 170697 ________________________________________ RIMA FORD VESILIND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendant-Appellees, v. VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, et al., Defendants-Intervenors. ________________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS RUTH GREENWOOD RYAN C. MORRIS (Pro Hac Vice Pending) Bar No.: 74291 Campaign Legal Center Sidley Austin LLP 73 W Monroe St, Suite 322 1501 K St. NW Chicago, IL 60603 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (312) 561-5508 Tel: (202) 736-8940 Fax: (202) 736-2222 Fax: (202) 736-8711 [email protected] [email protected] TACY F. FLINT (Pro Hac Vice) Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 853-7875 Fax: (312) 853-7036 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae The League of Women Voters of Virginia DECEMBER 14, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................... 1 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ....................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions Of
    Case 2:18-cv-00069-RAJ-DEM Document 194 Filed 09/29/20 Page 1 of 112 PageID# 6110 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION Latasha Holloway, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:18-cv-0069 v. City of Virginia Beach, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order of May 15, 2020, Defendants submit the following proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in advance of the trial in the above- captioned case set to begin October 6, 2020. SUMMARY OF THE CASE 1. This case comes before the Court after trial on a single cause of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act brought by Plaintiffs Latasha Holloway and Georgia Allen (“Plaintiffs”) against the City of Virginia Beach (sometimes, the “City”), its City Council, the members of the City Council in their official capacities, the City Manager in his official capacity, and the City’s Registrar of Elections in her official capacity (collectively, “Defendants”). Both Plaintiffs identify as African American or Black and contend that the City’s method of electing members to its City Council through at-large elections dilutes the votes of a coalition identified by Plaintiffs as consisting of Black, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian voters in Virginia Beach. Despite the coalitional nature of this claim, no Hispanic or Asian voters have joined this case as plaintiffs. Case 2:18-cv-00069-RAJ-DEM Document 194 Filed 09/29/20 Page 2 of 112 PageID# 6111 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdfleague of Women Voters V. Virginia State Board of Elections.Pdf
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Lynchburg Division LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA; KATHERINE D. CROWLEY; ERIKKA GOFF; and SEIJRA TOOGOOD, Case No.: 6:20at99999 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND v. DECLARATORY RELIEF VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; ROBERT H. BRINK, JOHN O’BANNON, and JAMILAH D. LECRUISE, in their official capacities as Chairman, Vice-Chair, and Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, respectively; and CHRISTOPHER E. PIPER, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections, Defendants. 1. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring recently said that “[f]ree and fair elections are at the core of our democracy and no Virginian should have to choose between their health and exercising their right to vote.”1 Plaintiffs League of Women Voters of Virginia, Katherine Crowley, Seijra Toogood, and Erikka Goff agree. Yet Virginia’s requirement that each voter submitting a mail absentee ballot have another individual witness and sign their ballot 1 Press Release, Ralph Northam, Governor of Virginia, Governor Northam Announces Plans to Postpone Upcoming Virginia Elections in Response to COVID-19 (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all- releases/2020/april/headline-855995-en.html. envelope does exactly that: presents tens of thousands of Virginia voters like Plaintiffs with the Hobson’s choice of either risking their health to vote or not voting at all. 2. Plaintiffs therefore bring this action challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s witness requirement on absentee ballots to preserve their and many other Virginians’ fundamental right to vote in the midst of the pandemic of a respiratory disease known as the coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”), caused by the spread of a novel coronavirus, SARS- CoV-2.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division
    Case 2:18-cv-00069-AWA-DEM Document 118 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 44 PageID# 2270 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION Latasha Holloway, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-0069 v. City of Virginia Beach, et al., Defendants PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUM- MARY JUDGMENT Case 2:18-cv-00069-AWA-DEM Document 118 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 44 PageID# 2271 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DISPUTED FACTS ................................................................... 1 LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................................. 6 I. Summary Judgment ................................................................................................ 6 II. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ......................................................................... 6 ARGUMENT I. Virginia Beach’s At-Large City Council System Dilutes the Combined Voting Strength of Hispanic, Black, and Asian Voters ...................................................... 7 A. A Coalition of Minority Groups Can Bring a Claim Together Under Section 2 ... 7 B. Hispanic, Black, and Asian Voters in Virginia Beach Are Politically Cohesive . 11 1. Elections in Virginia Beach Demonstrate Significant Levels of Racially Polarized Voting and Cohesion Between Hispanic, Black, and
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the WESTERN DISTRICT of VIRGINIA Lynchburg Division
    Case 6:20-cv-00024-NKM Document 16 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 4 Pageid#: 82 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Lynchburg Division LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA; KATHERINE D. CROWLEY; ERIKKA GOFF; and SEIJRA TOOGOOD, Case No. 6:20-cv-00024-NKM Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; ROBERT H. BRINK, JOHN O’BANNON, and JAMILAH D. LECRUISE, in their official capacities as Chairman, Vice-Chair, and Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, respectively; and CHRISTOPHER E. PIPER, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs League of Women Voters of Virginia (the “League”), Katherine D. Crowley, Erikka Goff, and Seijra Toogood, respectfully move for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a). They do so to prevent thousands of Virginia voters, including Plaintiffs and League members, from facing disenfranchisement in Virginia’s June 23 primary and any other elections affected by the spread of COVID-19 due to Virginia’s absentee ballot witness requirement. This rule mandates that absentee mail ballot voters have another individual witness the voter opening their ballot envelope and have that witness sign the ballot envelope, as stated in Va. Code § 24.2-706 and § 24.2-707 and as interpreted by 1 Va. Admin. Code 20-70- Case 6:20-cv-00024-NKM Document 16 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 4 Pageid#: 83 20(B). In support of their motion, Plaintiffs rely upon the accompanying Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and the attached declarations and exhibits.
    [Show full text]