Chesapeake Sheriff resigns from Republican party, continues campaign following loss in primary
Over 12,000 votes were casted for the position but due to the fact there were no Democratic or Independent nominees, voters who received a Democratic ballot had no say in Chesapeake's next sheriff.
'I'm not conceding. I'm not stepping aside. And I'm not going to pretend that what justhappened in Chesapeake was fair,' Sheriff Dave Rosado said.
In his statement, Rosado believes that the election was based off who they could control, not the most qualified candidate.
'That is not a fair process. It's a power grab. It's a coronation. And the people ofChesapeake deserve better,' Sheriff Rosado said.
'They didn't want the most qualified candidate. They wanted someone they could control. Iwasn't that – and I never will be.'
Rosado is now launching a write-in campaign, 'Write in 'Dave Rosado' to keep our sheriff,' with the goal to give all Chesapeake voters a voice in November's election.
'This wasn't about the people – it was about the power brokers. I will not stand by while thevoices of Chesapeake are silenced,' he said. 'In the coming days and weeks, I will besharing more about what happened behind the scenes, exposing what others won't say andlaying out our plan to win this campaign – and keep our Sheriff's Office focused on service,not politics.'
A copy of Rosado's resignation letter is provided below:
Letter-of-Resignation-Republican-Party-of-ChesapeakeDownload
In a Facebook post Tuesday evening Wallace Chadwick, who won the June primary, issued a statement in response to Rosado's actions.
Dave Rosado made the informed decision to enter an open Republican primary — a fair process — where he outspent us 5 to 1, yet still lost by 17 points. Now, unhappy with the results, he is violating his oath and launching a write-in campaign.
We won decisively and fairly in June because Chesapeake is ready for change. Voters are tired of an interim Sheriff who has wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars plastering his name and face on everything — and continues to make the office about himself while failing to do the job he is sworn to do. That's why this desperate, last-ditch effort to cling to his title will fail.
The Office of the Sheriff doesn't receive a coronation handed down from the former Sheriff and it doesn't belong to any one person — it belongs to YOU, the people. As Sheriff, I will keep the focus where it belongs: serving the citizens of Chesapeake. In November, just as they did in June, voters will send another clear message — change is coming. The Sheriff's Office will return to its true mission: protecting and serving the people, not being used as a political tool or a vehicle for anyone's personal ego.
I'm proud to have earned this nomination in a hard-fought primary and will work even harder to win by even larger margins in November to begin serving all people of Chesapeake — regardless of party or creed. Together, we'll restore integrity and purpose, building the best Sheriff's Office in the Commonwealth, working 24/7 on your behalf.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
4 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency moves to repeal finding that allows climate regulation
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what Zeldin said was 'the greatest day of deregulation in American history.'' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the Holy Grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.'' Tailpipe emission limits also targeted The EPA also called for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Three former EPA leaders have criticized Zeldin, saying his March proposal would endanger the lives of millions of Americans and abandon the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health. 'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Passing court muster could be an issue David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said it was virtually 'impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding (to the 2009 standard) that would stand up in court.' Doniger and other critics accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. 'The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,'' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and well-being,'' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.' ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Wiley Nickel suspends NC Senate bid, endorses Cooper
Former Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) is ending his campaign for North Carolina's Senate seat and endorsing Roy Cooper, a day after the former governor launched his much-anticipated bid. Nickel said in a statement on X on Tuesday that working alongside Cooper while he served in the state Senate and in Congress was an 'honor,' and Cooper's 'steady, bipartisan leadership' has made a difference. 'And for many of us, including me, he's been an inspiration to step up and serve,' Nickel said. 'I proudly endorse Roy Cooper for US Senate and look forward to doing everything I can to help him flip this Senate seat from red to blue.' Nickel's decision was expected after Democrats notched a major recruitment win in getting their ideal candidate to run for the seat held by retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). Cooper brings a long background in North Carolina politics and a track record as a popular former two-term governor. Nickel entered the race months earlier, before Tillis announced he wouldn't seek another term in office, but Democrats' eyes had been on Cooper, seeing him as their best chance of flipping the seat. Cooper said in his announcement video that he 'never really' wanted to go to Washington, D.C., and only wanted to serve the people of North Carolina in his own state, but the times required him to run. Nickel served one term in the House before he decided against running for reelection after redistricting made his district much more conservative leaning. He said in his statement that he still has 'a lot of work left to do.' 'Public service is part of who I am and you'll hear more from me soon,' he said. Semafor reported that Nickel is considering a bid for district attorney in Wake County. The Republican primary to try to succeed Tillis is still forming, but Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley is expected to enter the race soon with backing from President Trump. This would come after Trump's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, decided against running for the seat despite speculation that she would. With Trump's support and Whatley being one of the top GOP officials in the country, he would be a clear favorite for the Republican nomination. The race for the seat is also expected to be tight in the battleground state. Democrats haven't won a Senate seat in North Carolina since 2008, but they've had more success on the state level and are hoping Cooper is the right candidate to finally get over the hurdle.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Britain's self-inflicted Afghanistan data leak disaster
When a news story bursts into the headlines in the U.K. and consumes all the oxygen for several days, it can be difficult to know whether it is a domestic uproar or something that is reaching an international audience. For all the fevered debate here, it seems that what we are calling 'the Afghan data leak scandal' has not attracted much notice in America. Perhaps we should be grateful. To sum up, in February 2022, a Royal Marine at U.K. Special Forces headquarters emailed a spreadsheet that he thought contained the names of around 150 Afghan nationals who had applied to come to Britain, having assisted U.K. forces in Afghanistan. In fact, it had the details of 18,714 Afghans, as well as some Special Forces personnel, senior defense officials, members of Parliament and intelligence officers. In the wrong hands, it could have been a pre-prepared Taliban kill list. This was a catastrophic breach of data security. The Ministry of Defence was unaware of this loss of data for 18 months, until some of the information appeared in a Facebook group in August 2023. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace applied to the High Court for a temporary injunction on reporting the leak so that the security implications could be assessed and appropriate measures put in place to protect those at risk. Wallace was, however, standing down. His successor, Grant Shapps, who took on responsibility for the issue. Astonishingly, the High Court judge who considered the Ministry of Defence's application, Justice Robin Knowles, went even further: He granted what is referred to as a 'super-injunction,' which not only prevents reporting of the issue covered by the injunction, but disclosure of the existence of the injunction itself. The use of this kind of measure by the government is unprecedented, and it meant that there was no public or parliamentary scrutiny of the data loss, because very few people even knew it had occurred. Those who knew the full extent of the situation were extremely few: Shapps as defence secretary and the armed forces minister, James Heappey; Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his deputy, Oliver Dowden; Labour's defense spokesman, John Healey, who is now defence secretary; the speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle; the media organizations whom it silenced; precious few others. The current prime minister, Keir Starmer, was not informed at that point. Under the cloak of secrecy — the super-injunction's duration was extended twice in 2024 — a new resettlement scheme was hastily introduced which extended to 900 individuals affected, along with 3,600 family members. When Starmer's Labour government took office in July 2024, only Healey, the incoming defence secretary, knew the full situation. Although he told the House of Commons when the super-injunction was lifted that 'it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House,' it was in place for slightly longer under Labour than it had been under the previous Conservative government. A review was conducted by Paul Rimmer, a former deputy chief of defence intelligence, which concluded that 'there is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against' those who assisted U.K. and coalition forces. The various resettlement schemes for Afghan nationals have now been closed down. Inevitably, the current government is seeking to blame its predecessor. But that will not wash. Not only did Starmer and Healey have a year to rescind the injunction, but the prime minister's office will not rule out seeking such an instrument in the future. The government did not inform the Intelligence and Security Committee, the independent oversight body of these kinds of issues, and it has not been frank with the National Audit Office, the U.K.'s public spending watchdog. The Ministry of Defence is a secretive organization by instinct. It parts with even the most harmless information under duress. Many will find it hard to avoid the conclusion that when a judge offered such a wide-ranging court order to prevent scrutiny or comment, it was as if Christmas had come early. Not only could challenging questions be avoided, they would never even be asked, because most legislators were unaware there was anything to ask questions about. The eventual cost of the debacle is not clear, but it will be billions of pounds. That it touches on the ultra-sensitive subject of immigration compounds the damage done. Some have called it the worst data breach in British history; sadly it is part of a pattern at the Ministry of Defence, which reported 569 incidents of data loss in 2023 to 2024. The most damaging aspect, however, is the corrosive effect on public trust, already at a historic low. Those inclined to believe overblown tales of 'the deep state' have been provided with fresh ammunition — the government using the courts to prevent parliamentary scrutiny and media reporting of an issue for two years. It should not have happened. It cannot happen again. But the government will struggle to make voters believe that. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
