Unel0,1997: What If Virginia Heldan Election and Nobody Came?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
]unel0,1997: What if Virginia heldan election and nobody came? .......................... By Larry J. Sabato ••••••••••• •• • • • •• • ••••••• Larry]. Sabato is the Robert Kent Gooch assumption was that Democratic Lt. Gov. Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs Donald Beyer ofNorthern Virginia would face at the University ofVirginia. Republican Attorney General James Gilmore ofHenrico County for governor in 1997, and, once again, neither nominee-presumptive was 1four of he last five gubernatorial elections, opposed in his own party. at least one of the major parties has featured a What was especially unusual, though, was contest in its nomination for governor. But not the lack of interest in the other two statewide in 1997, an election year that-in this respect posts. Democrat L.F. Payne, former Congress at least-most resembled 1981. For the four man from the Southside Fifth District years leading up to 1981, it was obvious that (1988-1997), and Northern Virginian William the Democratic gubernatorial nominee would Dolan, the losing Democratic nominee for at be Lt. Gov. Charles Robb and the Republican torney general in 1993, were unopposed for the nominee was slated to be Attorney General Democratic nominations for lieutenant gover Marshall Coleman, and both were unopposed Larry J. Sabato nor and attorney general, respectively. On the for their respective party berths. Similarly, from GOP side, a contest for lieutenant governor election night in November 1993 onwards, the melted into automatic nomination for retired The Virginia NEWS LETTER tobacco executive John Hager of Richmond when In the fortnight prior to primary day, the race the presumed frontrunner, Northern Virginian busi had intensified, generating some heat in an unusu nessman ColemanAndrews, unexpectedly withdrew ally cool spring. In earlyJune the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. (Andrews attributed his surprising gave an unintentional boost to Gilbert Davis by ruling decision to the consequences of an illness striking unanimously that his client Paula Jones' sexual one ofhis children, although no details were given harassment suit against President Clinton could pro publicly.) Perhaps owing to Attorney General ceed while Clinton was still in office. Davis Gilmore's automatic succession to the gubernato subsequently appeared on almost every major rial nomination, the attorney general's office was national television news show, and he became a hero sufficiently attractive to draw four Republican can to rank-and-file Republicans who wanted to see didates: state Senator Kenneth Stolle of Virginia Clinton pay for his alleged sexual transgressions. Beach, state Senator Mark Earley of Chesapeake, The other Republican candidates watched help former Allen administration Secretary ofPublic Safety lessly as Davis climbed from last place to first place Jerry Kilgore ofGate City in far Southwest Virgini~, in their private polls. Finally, one of those candi and attorney Gilbert Davis of Fairfax (best known dates, Ken Stolle, took a bold gamble by airing • Sor representing Paula Jones, President Clinton's a harsh but effective television adv rtis ment accuser in an infamous sexual harassment case). against Davis. The 30-second spot consisted almost All in all, there were fewer statewide candi entirely ofa black-and-white videotape ofDavis him dates (nine in both parties combined) than in any self, taken by a former female client in a hotel room other state race for over twenty years. And in the in 1994. Davis had obviously had a few alcoholic previous two decades there had never been a guber drinks and was joking with the client about her natorial year when five of the six statewide desire to pose for Playboy magazine. "You want to nominations were uncontested. take offall your clothes and expose your body," slurred Davis, who later approached the camera lens and puckered up. However innocent the encounter may NoMINATION have been, it seemed a stunningly inappropriate pose OFATTORNEYGENERAL and setting for a man running for a top law enforce As befits a party with no discernible fights, the Demo ment position. crats met quietly in Richmond on May 19, 1997, Stolle's gambit worked, insofar as it helped to to anoint the Beyer-Payne-Dolan ticket. There was bring Davis down. But it also appeared to have gen an undercurrent ofconcern as delegates viewed their erated a backlash against Stolle amongvoters unhappy first all-white, all-male statewide office ticket since with his negative tactics. TheJune 10th primary elec 1981. Wary ofan electorally devastating low turn torate put Davis in fourth place (31,695 votes-18.8 out amongMrican-Americans, party leaders had tried percent), and Stolle barely higher (35,066 votes to recruit several high-profile blacks for the attor 20.8 percent). The two candidates on the sidelines ney general's post (such as Norfolk Delegate Jerrauld of this controversy, Mark Earley and Jerry Kilgore, Jones). But no black candidate stepped forward, and, finished first and second, respectively. Earley won for that matter, no white candidates save Dolan. 60,340 votes (35.8 percent) and Kilgore captured Thus, despite the party's lack of enthusiasm for a 41,570 votes (24.6 percent). Additionally, Earley candidate who had previously been badly defeated, and Kilgore were the co-favored candidates of the Dolan became the nominee by default. Christian Coalition, as revealed by the Coalition's Republicans were no more enthused about their widely distributed voter guide. Conservative Chris lieutenant governor nominee. Hager was viewed as tians often dominate low-turnout events such as the an unexciting choice foisted on the party by means June 10th primary, when overall turnout was just ofAndrews' withdrawal. Moreover, his close asso 168,671 out ofalmost 3.5 million registered voters, ciation with the controversial tobacco industrywould a mere 4.8 percent, the lowest percentage of any undoubtedly hurt in more liberal areas of the state primary of either party since the GOP's disastrous such as Northern Virginia. (Hager's Democratic foe, 1949 primary. Even worse, the 1997 primary turn L.F. Payne, was also pro-tobacco, but a bit less con out constituted a minuscule 3.3 percent ofall Virginia spicuously.) adults aged 18 and over (those registered and Both sides paused briefly to watch a small unregistered). The Old Dominion's GOP once again Republican primary electorate choose an attorney gen answered the question: What if they gave an elec eral nominee on Tuesday, June 10. Only the fourth tion and hardly anyone came? statewide GOP primary of the twentieth century, it Earley built his victory on an overwhelming proved to be the least participatory since 1949, when edge in his home city of Chesapeake, strong show only 8,565 Republicans voted in all ofVirginia. ings almost everywhere else in Tidewater and Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service • August 1997 Hampton Roads, and big margins in many small turnouts in their home districts, though voter rural localities in the Shenandoah Valley and participation was miserable everywhere, even in the Southside, and larger suburban counties such as top-performing Second and Fourth Districts. (Stolle's Chesterfield, Loudoun, and Prince William Coun home territory ofthe Second produced an 8.9 per ties. As expected, Jerry Kilgore's strength was cent turnout ofthe registered, and Earley's candidacy primarily rural and western-his plurality in his generated a 6.8 percent turnout in his Fourth.) Per native Southwest Virginia, which he swept, was haps more importantly, Earley was reasonably especially impressive-but Kilgore also ran very competitive in every district, but each ofhis oppo well in metropolitan Richmond, Southside, and nents had virtually no support at all in one or more many small cities throughout the state. Ken Stolle districts. For example, Kilgore secured just 5.4 per and Gil Davis became primarily regional candi cent of the vote in the Second, and Stolle tallied dates, with little strength beyond, respectively, only 3.8 percent in the Ninth. Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia. Over all, Earley and Kilgore together collected 112 URBAN AND RURAL VOTE of the 135 localities, with Kilgore capturing the One ofJerry Kilgore's successes can be seen in the most counties (43 of95) and Earley winning the table below. Rural areas, the anchor ofKilgore's vote most cities (17 of 40). total, generated a bit more than usual of the state The congressional district breakdown reveals wide vote: 18.4 percent in 1997 compared to 16.2 the election to have been, in part, a matter ofhome percent in the 1996 GOP U.S. Senate primary. town regional rivalries. Every candidate carried his Kilgore received the lion's share of that (44 per home district: Earley in the Fourth by 57.3 per cent) to Earley's 27.2 percent and weak mid-teen cent, Kilgore in the Ninth with an astounding 71.5 showings for Davis and Stolle. percent, Stolle in the Second with 45 percent and But, just as in 1996, suburbs provided almost Davis in the Northern Virginia Eighth (38.4 per two-thirds of the statewide vote, and there Earley cent) and Eleventh (34.9 percent). The election was walloped his opponents with 38 percent overall; the won where no candidate held a home court advan other three split the remaining 62 percent about tage. While Kilgore captured the rural Fifth with evenly. Earley ran almost as well in the central cit 35.8 percent, Earley won all the rest ofthe districts ies, with 37 percent to Stolle's 25.9 percent. In this with between 34 percent and 38 percent ofthe vote. demographic sector of Virginia, the rural-based Kilgore and Davis were also hurt by relatively light Kilgore ran last, at 18.2 percent. TABLE 1 The Urban Vote in the 1997 Virginia Republican Primary for Attorney General Percent of Votes Cast Percent of Attorney General (R) Urban Measure Total Vote Stolle Davis Earley Kilgore Urban Corridor a 65.1 23.6 20.5 39.3 16.6 Metropolitan Statistical Areas b 81.6 22.5 19.6 37.7 20.3 Central Cities 17.1 25.9 18.9 37.0 18.2 Suburbs 64.6 21.6 19.6 38.0 20.8 Rural Areas c 18.4 13.4 15.5 27.2 44.0 SOURCE: Compiled from official election results provided by the State Board of Elections.