Decision on Virginia Beach 10-1 voting system may go to the voters
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) — Voters may get to decide if Virginia Beach should change the way it elects city leaders. In November, neighbors could be asked if they should keep the new voting system or go back to the old one. But many argue the old system gives fewer opportunities to minorities.
Some argue the old voting system helped the city is rural communities have a say in who runs Virginia Beach. Though years of court action allege it hurts Black, Asian and Hispanic voters. The history of this issue goes back by more than half a century.
For decades, Virginia Beach city leaders were elected on what is called a 7-3-1 voting system. This was established in the 1960's allowing the mayor and three city council seats to be voted on at-large. Candidates for the other seven seats had to live in the district they ran to serve though anyone could still vote for them.
In recent years, this was criticized for undermining the voting power of racial minorities. After a lawsuit accused this system of violating the Federal Voting Rights act, a federal court ordered the city to use a 10-1 voting system. This requires a candidate to live in the ward they're running for. Only people who live there can vote for them. The mayor still runs at-large.
In the following election, three Black council members were voted in said to be half as many Black council members as there were elected in the previous 60 years. Now some council members are proposing an idea to let the voters decide if they should keep the 10-1 system.
This brought a heated discussion from neighbors on Tuesday night's city council meeting.
'I found a few things interesting,' said John Zirkle of Virginia Beach, in reference to a survey taken about the voting system issue. 'The survey had 2,100 participants. Of those 450,000 some residents… But when you look at the breakdown to how they got those results, it raises some questions.'
'I've seen this system grow from what it was in 1975 to what it is now,' said Andrew Jackson of Virginia Beach. 'The diversity is overwhelming, beautiful. A lot of cities never get to where you are.'
Council members voted 7-4 to move forward with putting this issue on the ballot in November. This would ask voters if they want to keep the new system. If it passes, it would later need to be approved by Commonwealth lawmakers and the governor.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WAVY.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court rules discrimination laws protect all equally, including ‘majority group' members
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation's anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight. In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that 'members of a majority group' must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win. Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against 'any individual' who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation. The law 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience. Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to 'background circumstances' or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the 'unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims. This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals. But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide. Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump's drive to rid the government of DEI policies. Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people. In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, 'we said that '[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.'' A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, 'holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.' Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the 'majority' in the workplace differs by workplace. 'Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.' 'Defining the 'majority' is even more difficult in the context of race,' he wrote. 'American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time.' The court's ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames' claim of discrimination. Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others. 'As a practical matter, more 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss,' said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York. Although the decision doesn't significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington. The 'background circumstances' rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that 'it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.' Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the 'opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' approach was not typical, so I don't expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground.' Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and 'pretty straightforward' perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups. And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said. There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn't expect any issues. 'There is some potential for mischief, but I don't think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts,' McGinnis said. 'The short answer is, it should not change much.' Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tarrant County sued over new commissioners court map; lawsuit claims racial discrimination
The Brief Tarrant County and Judge Tim O'Hare face a federal lawsuit alleging their new commissioners court map is racially discriminatory. The suit claims the map violates voting rights by concentrating most minority voters into one precinct, diluting their influence elsewhere. The map was approved by a 3-2 vote on Tuesday. TARRANT COUNTY, Texas - A federal lawsuit has been filed against Tarrant County and Judge Tim O'Hare claiming the county's new commissioners court map intentionally discriminates based on race. The lawsuit comes just one day after the Republican-led Commissioners Court approved the new map in a 3-2 vote. The suit claims the new map violates the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. The backstory Currently, Tarrant County Commissioners Court consists of Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare, two Republican Commissioners and two Democratic commissioners. Critics of redistricting say the new map increases the chances that at least one of the two Democratic-leaning precincts will flip during the next election. O'Hare told FOX 4 the redistricting effort fulfills a campaign promise to increase the court's Republican majority. "For us not to do that, when we are the controlling party, the majority party, would be foolish on our part, because we know if we lost, they would do the exact same thing," said O'Hare. "Tarrant County is alive and well in terms of being a red county and we intend to keep it that way." Dig deeper The lawsuit says that on April 2, 2025, Tarrant County entered into a contract with the Virginia-based Public Interest Legal Foundation to redraw the districts. According to the suit, the new map packs the bulk of the county's minority voters into one precinct while splitting the others among the three other precincts. "While Map 7 disenfranchises just 5% of Tarrant County's Anglo adults, it disenfranchises 19% of the County's Black adults and 12% of its Latino adults. Black adults are thus four times more likely than Anglo adults to be disenfranchised under Map 7 and Latino adults are over twice as likely to be disenfranchised than Anglo adults," reads the suit. Five Tarrant County voters who are now in new districts were named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The suit claims the Black and Latino voters are disenfranchised because they are now unable to vote for County Commissioner in the Nov. 2026 election. Under the previous map, they would have been able to cast their ballot. Typically, redistricting is done every 10 years after the census. The Tarrant County Commissioners Court voted not to change it after the 2020 census. The suit argues that there was no population imbalance or other reason to require the map change. "Specifically, the plan was drafted and passed in a process designed to be discriminatory, at least in part, to minimize the political power of Black voters and Latino voters by limiting their ability to influence commissioner court elections to a single district out of four when minorities are the majority of residents in the County and just shy of half of eligible voters in Tarrant County," reads the suit. The suit calls to permanently stop Tarrant County from adopting Map 7 and asks for any future maps to go under review in federal court. What they're saying FOX 4 reached out to Chad Ruback, an attorney who is not involved in the case, to get some outside perspective on the situation. While Ruback confirmed that it's legal to redraw district lines for partisan purposes, he also says it will be an uphill battle for the county officials. "On the other hand, it is not appropriate, it is not legal to redistrict for the purpose of diminishing the rights of certain classes of people like minorities," Ruback said. According to the attorney, the county will have to prove that increasing Republican representation is not the sole purpose behind redistricting. "I believe they could prevail if they showed that Judge O'Hare and his Republican colleagues on the commissioners court were motivated to specifically hurt minority votes," he said. The lawsuit attempts to do just that, citing examples of previous statements made by O'Hare, and his actions in previous government positions. However, Ruback says this may not be enough evidence. "If they have some statement made to a news reporter several years ago that sort of kind of might have suggested there might be redistricting, and it might hurt minority votes, that's probably not going to be enough to carry their burden," said Ruback. The other side O'Hare's office sent a statement to FOX 4 in response to the suit. It says, in part: "The refusal of Democrats to accept settled law will waste Tarrant County taxpayer dollars. The commissioners court voted by a 3-2 majority for more Republican representation, which is perfectly legal under all applicable laws of the United States and the state of Texas." What's next According to Ruback, if more lawsuits are filed on the same issue, they'll likely be consolidated to a single case. More evidence may be presented in the current suit, but Ruback says it remains unclear. He said it could be months before a resolution is made in the case. The Source Information in this article comes from a lawsuit filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division and past FOX 4 coverage.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Valley congressman demands congressional investigation
EAST PALESTINE, Ohio (WKBN) — Valley Congressman Michael Rulli is hoping his colleagues in Washington will do more to look into the federal response to the East Palestine train derailment two-and-a-half years ago. Recently, a federal watchdog group discovered what it claims are emails and other messages among leaders within the Biden Administration to withhold information about the potential for cancer clusters developing in the East Palestine area because of chemical contamination from the train wreck. Rulli says he wants to know what administrators know and when they knew it. 'I think an investigation needs to be opened today,' Rulli said. 'What we discovered with the Biden administration and the way the FEMA Program handled this is unacceptable in any civilized society.' The congressman is calling the federal response a cover-up. Rulli says he wants to see long-term monitoring of residents to check for signs of cancer — perhaps for the next 20 years. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
