Second, financial reports covering 7/1 – 8/31/23 were due last Friday, 9/15. Looking at the reports, it seems that some candidates who had to run in a primary delayed payment of some bills until after the 6/30 previous filing deadline. For them, there were significant expenditures early in July, which made their 6/30 cash on hand higher.

After reviewing the 9/15 financial reports for the eleven contests I previously identified as competitive or potentially competitive, here’s where I think we are (rating changes in bold):

The big 3

HD 97 continues to be the most competitive contest in Hampton Roads. Although Feggans raised less money ($381,813 to Greenhalgh’s $546,954), he got contributions from more donors – 243 donors each contributing over $100 and a whopping 2,026 donors each contributing less than $100 – compared to Greenhalgh’s 91 over $100 and just 37 under $100. This is indicative of his broad support. Feggans also has less cash on hand – $381,501 to $521,824 – but this is because of the ad production expenses he paid before the end of the reporting period.

I’ve moved the rematch in SD22 to Lean D. Rouse isn’t way ahead in the funds raised this period ($188,192 to $155,222 for Adams) but has more than double Adams’ cash on hand ($306,839 to $151,044). Combined with the fact that Rouse had more donors, I think – at least at this point – it may be difficult for Adams to catch up. Will Youngkin come to the rescue?

I may have to move SD24 to the most competitive race soon. In this reporting period, Mason lagged behind Diggs in fundraising ($461,690 to $542,195) but due to the size of his war chest coming in, was able to spend $338,000 more than Diggs and only be $68,000 behind in cash on hand. Both candidates spent money on ads, with most of Mason’s additional spending going to this. Diggs got more donors over $100 (404 to 309) but Mason nearly tripled Diggs’ number of donors under $100 (721 to 255). At this point, I’m thinking this race is going to come down to the wire.

The other 8

Let’s tackle the rating change ones first.

In the open seat in HD84, Clark more than doubled Dillender in money raised – $262,492 to $126,050 – and had far more donors. Even though Clark outspent Dillender by more than 2:1 ($123,370 to $57,023), Clark had more than twice as much cash on hand ($237,955 to $116,257). I will continue to monitor this race but for now, it is Lean D.

I thought the open seat in HD89 would be competitive but the 9/15 reports don’t indicate that’s going to happen. Ennis raised $201,950 while Jenkins only raised $45,203. Ennis had $198,946 cash on hand while Jenkins only had $22,568 – less than what she had at the beginning of the reporting period. I’m rating this Lean R but this one could be a blowout.

I rated HD93, which is my district, as potentially competitive mainly based on cash on hand at 6/30. The situation hasn’t really changed from that perspective: Glass has $15,238 on hand compared to Sitka’s $12,640, after he loaned his campaign another $5,000 (bringing his total loans to $20,600). Neither candidate is raising any money; Glass had 10 donors over $100 and five under $100 for a total of $7,990 raised while Sitka had just one donor over $10 and just two under $100 for a total of $3,625 raised. How I hate living in a district that, demographically, means we may never have a real contest, not to mention a competitive one. (I’ve lived in the same place for almost 24 years. My home used to be in a competitive district.) Only because it’s my district will I continue to monitor this race. It’s probably a strong D but I’m only going to Lean D.

The open seat in SD17 is living up to its VPAP competitive rating. Brewer is outraising – and out-spending – Jenkins in cash in this race. Noncash contributions and spending for Jenkins are keeping this one competitive. Brewer only has $30,000 more cash on hand than Jenkins ($124,982 to $94,693), neither number being anything to write home about. I’ve no doubt the parties are going to kick in some money. Definitely one to watch.

My senate district is the open seat SD21. Somehow I missed that Dolmo ran as a Republican against Jackie Glass in the old HD89 special election in 2022. In that contest, he raised almost as much as Glass did, but lost by more than 50 points (that’s demographics, folks). To date, he has had only 1 contribution for $50. Graves didn’t start the reporting period with a ton of cash. After spending $385,000 in the primary, she had just $17,130 on hand at 6/30. She has since raised $78,915 while spending only $25,488, leaving her with $70,557 on hand. I’m not sure why Dolmo is even in the race, other than to not have Graves’ name the only one on the ballot. At this point, a rating of Strong D is applicable. (Like my house district, this one used to be competitive, too.)

I’ve kept HD71, HD94, and HD96 as potentially competitive contests.

In HD71, I’m surprised that Batten hasn’t raised more money. Anderson is still behind in cash on hand, but not as far back as she was before.

In the open seat HD94, Hernandez is crushing it in fundraising – both in dollars and number of contributors -and in cash on hand. However, I think this is somewhat temporary as Pittman had to run in a primary. I am aware of fundraisers planned for both candidates, plus Pittman has previously loaned his campaign money.

I’m keeping my powder dry on HD96. The primary left Fowler with no cash at all but she outraised Karslake by 3:1, albeit with fewer donors, and has more cash on hand – $41,569 to $28,742. Neither of these sums seems sufficient to run a real race but who knows? I do not consider Olenik to be a factor.

The next financial reports, covering the month of September, are due 10/16.

Here’s why:

HD71. The demographics of this district, which includes parts of James City and New Kent counties plus the city of Williamsburg, favor incumbent Amanda Batten(R), who was first elected in old HD96 in 2019. Voters in old HD96 make up roughly 62% of the new HD71. Redistricting, however, brought in some Democratic voters from old HD93 and a smaller share of Republicans from old HD97. If Democratic challenger Jessica Anderson can get the resources, this contest could be competitive. As of June 30, Anderson had $129,764 cash on hand, compared to Batten’s $206,603.

HD84. There is no incumbent in this Suffolk-based district. Democratic former Delegate Nadarius Clark resigned his seat in the old HD79 and moved into the district to run after being paired with Minority Leader Don Scott in the new HD88. Clark has significantly outraised his Republican opponent, Michael Dillender, but used a large chunk of it to win the primary (perhaps way more than he needed to spend as he won with 82% of the vote). Going into the general election, Clark had $98,833 to Dillender’s $47,230 cash on hand. Although McAuliffe eked out a win here (50.9% – 48.6%), this minority-majority district could get competitive quickly if Dillender raises some money.

HD89. This is another open seat, the bulk of which lies in Chesapeake with the remainder in Suffolk. Republican candidate Baxter Ennis, a former candidate for Chesapeake City Council, spent heavily to win the firehouse primary for the nomination. Democratic candidate Karen Jenkins had no opposition for the nomination after an additional candidate failed to qualify for the ballot, which should have given her time to raise money. That didn’t happen. Although VPAP lists this district as competitive, at this point, I’d rate it Leans R (Youngkin +7.5%). Jenkins needs to raise some money.

HD93. This is my new house district, which originally paired incumbent delegates Jackie Glass and Angelia Williams Graves in the same district. Graves ran instead for SD21 (discussed below). While this Norfolk-based minority-majority district should be a slam dunk for Democrats (CD3 Bobby Scott +50.4%, McAuliffe +44.6%), I am concerned about the money. Glass had only $9,181 cash on hand of the $120,387 raised. Her Republican opponent, John Sitka, only raised $16,335 but had $8,142 on hand. (All amounts as of 6/30.) I’ve already seen a few Sitka signs (yes, I know signs don’t vote). I’m hoping to be able to drop this one into the noncompetitive category once the 9/15 finance reports come out.

HD94. This open seat district is adjacent to where I live so I saw the Republican primary play out. Andy Pittman was not afraid to spend money to win and he earned over 72% of the primary vote. Meanwhile, Democratic candidate Phil Hernandez was raising money. This is a district in which both Scott (+13.6%) and McAuliffe (+3.9) won and it looks like Hernandez is headed for a win. As of 6/30, he had raised $272,533 and had $159,450 on hand while Pittman raised $89,858 and had just $17,326 on hand after spending the difference in the primary. My only concern about it possibly being competitive is the money. Pittman already increased his profile by his primary spending and if he manages to raise more, it could be a competitive race.

HD96. After announcing that she wouldn’t run for re-election and endorsing Susan Hippen, Democrat Kelly Fowler, first elected to old HD21 in 2017’s wave election, changed her mind and ran in the primary. She pulled off a win with just 28.49% of the vote in a four-way race. She also spent every penny of what she had raised, leaving her with no cash on hand entering the general election. Fortunately for Fowler, neither her Republican opponent, Mike Karslake, nor her independent opponent, Nicholas Olenik, raised any money. Karslake raised just $100 (in addition to loans of $26,050) while Olenik raised nothing at all. This minority-majority Virginia Beach district should be a Democratic hold (CD02 Elaine Luria +15.8%, McAuliffe +7.8%) but hard feelings over the primary as well as all the candidates basically starting with no cash (Karslake had $26,121 on hand at 6/30) puts it in my “may be competitive” category.

SD17. Nearly half of this open Senate seat is in Suffolk, but it also includes parts of Portsmouth and Chesapeake, the cities of Emporia and Franklin, the counties of Isle of Wight, Southampton, Brunswick, Greensville, and part of Dinwiddie County. Republican candidate Emily Brewer, who represented old HD64 since 2017, won a bruising primary over Hermie Sadler, despite being outspent nearly 2:1. The primary left her with just $62,258 cash on hand, which was less than the $65,932 Democrat Clint Jenkins had on hand. In the 2022 Congressional race(s), Democrats barely won this district (50.4% – 49.4%) while Youngkin margin of victory in 2021 was 5.2%. While VPAP rates this contest as competitive, I’m not so sure, mainly because of Brewer’s name recognition, which was no doubt bolstered by the $502K she spent in the primary. We shall see what the 9/15 reports tell us.

SD21. This is another minority-majority open seat, wholly within the City of Norfolk, the winner of which will be my rep. I completely agree with VPAP’s rating of Strong D: Scott won by 48.1% in 2022 and McAuliffe by 42.2% in 2021. Democratic candidate Angelia Williams Graves, who was elected to old HD90 in a special election in 2021, defeated Norfolk City Council member Andria McClellan in the June primary, despite being outspent. Republicans have conceded this race – they did not put up a candidate – and the only other candidate is Independent Giovanni Dolmo. Coming out the primary, Graves had just $17,129 on hand. Dolmo has raised nothing. The 9/15 finance reports may very well settle this contest.

House District 97

This Virginia Beach contest pits Republican incumbent Karen Greenhalgh against Democrat Michael Feggans. This is a district is rated by VPAP as Competitive. Glenn Younkin (R) won in 2021 (50.6% – 48.4%) but Elaine Luria (D) won in 2022 (52.5% – 47.3%). Nearly half of the 63,376 registered voters in HD97 came from the old HD85, with the remainder coming from old house districts 21, 82, 84, and 83. Greenhalgh represented HD85 after defeating Alex Askew in 2021 by 127 votes. Feggans, who retired from the Air Force, is seeking office for the first time.

As of June 30, Feggans outraised Greenhalgh $257,268 to $255,243 but had less cash on hand, $122,308 to $134,579. It will be interesting to see what these numbers are on September 15, as they currently pale in comparison to the $3.3 million spent in the 2021 Greenhalgh/Askew contest.

At this time, I consider this the most competitive race in Hampton Roads.

Senate District 22

Also in Virginia Beach, this contest is a rematch of the special election held earlier this year in Senate District 7 in which Aaron Rouse defeated Kevin Adams by 696 votes. More than two-thirds of the 149,981 registered voters in the new SD 22 come from the old SD7, with the remainder coming from old senate districts 8 and 14. This combination made the minority-majority district more Democratic. Consequently, VPAP rates it as Leans Democratic. Both McAuliffe (52.3% – 46.8%) and Luria (56.5% – 43.3%) and won it in 2021 and 2022, respectively.

While the candidates spent $2.7 million in the special election, the fundraising through June 30 has been lackluster. Rouse has raised $161,051 and has $138,330 cash on hand while Adams has raised $94,958 and has $45,861 cash on hand.

Because this is a rematch – and because of the paltry fundraising – I currently consider this a competitive race. However, I won’t be surprised at all if this drops off of the competitive list when the fundraising numbers are released.

Senate District 24

This contest pits Democratic incumbent Monty Mason against Republican Danny Diggs. Mason, a former member of the House of Delegates, has served in the Senate representing SD 1 since winning a special election in 2016, held after the death of John Miller. He ran unopposed in the general election in 2019. Diggs is the former sheriff of York County and the City of Poquoson. Newport News accounts for 50.4% of the registered voters in the new SD24 while York County and Poquoson are 41.04%. Williamsburg (7.09% and James City County (1.47%) make up the remainder.

About two-thirds of the registered voters in the new SD24 come from old SD1, with the remainder coming from old districts 3 and 2. These two (old SD3 and SD2) added more Republican voters to the district. In addition, Younkin won the new SD24 (51.3% – 47.9%) in 2021 while the Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives won (50.2% – 49.0%) in 2022. (Consider me map-challenged. It appears that part of the new SD24 is in House District 1 (Rob Wittman- R) and part is in House District 3 (Bobby Scott -D). I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.)

I think it’s easy to see why VPAP rates this district as competitive. Without even looking at the money, I agree.

Through 6/30, Mason outraised Diggs ($1,013,727 to $679,602) and also had more cash on hand ($774,180 to $423,658). As both candidates are well known, I expect the money to tighten up (although you can’t see that from the ad spending to date (per VPAP, Mason has spent $528,000 while Diggs has spent $210,000)).

*A contest is generally considered competitive if the margin of victory (that is, the difference between the percentage of the vote received by the winner and the second place finisher) is less than 10%.

All 140 seats in the Virginia General Assembly – 100 in the House of Delegates and 40 in the Senate – are up for election this year. This is the first General Assembly election since redistricting. One result of that process was a significant number of retirements across the state, some of which were due to two or more incumbents being placed in the same district due to the redrawing of the lines. (The home addresses of incumbents was not a consideration in the redistricting process, which I think was a good thing, even though we lost some really good people and a tremendous amount of institutional memory.) We also saw a fair number of primary contests, some between incumbents like that between Senators Louise Lucas and Lionell Spruill. Another result was a number of open seats – that is, districts in which no incumbent ran. Finally, there was the complete renumbering of all districts.

So if you have been confused with the what you’ve seen so far this year, you’re not alone. Use this tool to look up your new districts.

Using data from VPAP, I have determined that Hampton Roads has 28 contests on the ballot: 20 in the House and eight in the Senate. (Let me know in the comments if I missed any.) Of those, four House district and one Senate district have candidates running unopposed. Interestingly enough, two of the unopposed House districts were open seats: HD69 and HD95. Chad Green (R) will represent HD69 while former delegate Alex Askew (D), who defeated Rick James in the June primary, will represent HD95.

Also unopposed are Cia Price (D) in HD85, House Appropriations Chair Barry Knight (R) in HD98, and Senate Democratic Caucus Chair Mamie Locke in SD 23.

Below is a list of the contested races, including VPAP’s rating of the district.

Although there are 23 contested races, I don’t see them all as competitive. District demographics and past voting behavior are not the only factors in electoral success. Candidate quality matters – a lot. And money matters – perhaps way more than it should. At this point, I think three contests are competitive: HD97, SD 22, and SD24 and another eight (HD71, HD84, HD89, HD93, HD96, SD17, and SD21) may turn out to be. We will know more once the next campaign finance reports drop 9/15. My intention between now and then is to write up a little about all of the contested races.

Control of the General Assembly is at stake. Keep in mind that voters may register through Election Day (and vote using a provisional ballot). You can check your registration through the Virginia Department of Elections Citizen Portal here.

The top of the ticket is the U.S. Senate contest. Incumbent Democratic senator Tim Kaine will face Republican Corey Stewart. According to Ballotpedia, this contest is rated Solid Democratic.

I agree with those who expect this to be a blowout.  That doesn’t mean, though, that there’s not important work to be done to ensure Kaine – former Richmond city council member, former Richmond mayor, former Lt. Governor of Virginia, and former Governor of Virginia – is returned to Washington to continue his good work on behalf of us.

Pickup opportunities for Democrats in Virginia’s 11 Congressional districts abound in this Year of the Woman. Currently, Republicans hold eight seats while Democrats hold three. Already, pundits are predicting anywhere from two to five seats to flip.

Here’s where we are (Cook PVI¹ in parenthesis):

• CD1: Vangie Williams versus incumbent Republican Rob Wittman (R+8)
• CD2: Elaine Luria versus incumbent Republican Scott Taylor (R+3)
• CD3: Incumbent Democrat Bobby Scott is unopposed (D+16)
• CD4: Incumbent Democrat Donald McEachin versus Republican Ryan McAdams (D+10)
• CD5: Leslie Cockburn versus Republican² Denver Riggleman (R+6)
• CD6: Jennifer Lewis versus Republican³ Ben Cline (R+13)
• CD7: Abigail Spanberger versus incumbent Republican Dave Brat (R+6)
• CD8: Incumbent Democrat Don Beyer versus Republican Thomas Oh and independent Mike Webb (D+21)
• CD9: Anthony Flaccavento versus incumbent Republican Morgan Griffith (R+19)
• CD10: Jennifer Wexton versus incumbent Republican Barbara Comstock and independent Nathan Larson (D+1)
• CD11: Incumbent Democrat Gerry Connolly versus Republican Jeff Dove, Libertarian Stevan Porter, and Whig Peter Carey (D+15)

¹PVI = Partisan Voting Index. Means that in the previous two presidential elections, this district’s results as compared to the national average. For example, R+8 means this district’s results were 8 percentage points more Republican than the national average.
²Open seat. Incumbent Republican Tom Garrett is not seeking reelection.
³Open seat. Incumbent Republican Bob Goodlatte is not seeking reelection.

To give you some sense of how others are seeing these contests, here are the race ratings for each district from three different ratings sources as of this writing (information from Ballotpedia):

To be honest, none of this – PVI, ratings – really means much. Winning elections boils down to who gets more of their voters to the polls. Successful campaigns require time, money, and people.

Click on the candidate’s name above, contact the campaign, and help any way you can.

Updated: I took the question mark off. It is clear that the PAC is trying to influence this election. See updates at the bottom.

It sure looks like it. Over the past week, I’ve received three robocalls from a PAC supporting the Republican incumbent, Scott Taylor.

Next Tuesday, June 12, voters in the 2nd Congressional District will cast their ballots in either the Democratic or Republican primary. The candidates in the Democratic primary are Elaine Luria and Karen Mallard.

The first call came Wednesday evening. The female recorded voice bashed Luria for her two votes for Taylor – one in the primary and another in the general.

I received an earlier call about the same thing, at some point after the candidate forum hosted by the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee, which I moderated. At the time of the first call, I remember thinking that was a pretty divisive thing to do, as I thought that call came from Mallard.

As I listened Wednesday, one thing struck me as odd: the caller used referred to Shaun Brown not by name but as Taylor’s 2016 “Democrat” opponent. Again, I wasn’t listening closely and thought I had mis-heard it. I noted, though, that the call was from a third party, not the Mallard campaign.

When the call came Thursday night, it was identical to the Wednesday one. Nope, I had not mis-heard the “Democrat” opponent characterization. That was a tell: Republicans have intentionally misused “Democrat” for years.  I tweeted about it, which prompted the question of the name of the PAC. I hadn’t caught it.

Friday night’s call was a little different. The PAC identified itself as S-C-R-A-P PAC, both at the beginning and the end of the call. (They spelled out the letters – rather than pronouncing it as a word.) The content was the same – but this time, the caller was careful to say “Democratic opponent” (because of my tweet?). I looked up the PAC and didn’t find anything. However, after tweeting the name of the PAC, somebody else did:

Bingo! Take a look at the Twitter page for @ScrapPac. No postings since February but its last one is telling:

When I was first informed that Luria had voted in the 2016 primary for Taylor, I completely dismissed it as disqualifying – because I had done the same thing. A whole lot of Dems I know did it and with good reason: to keep Randy Forbes out.

Luria’s general election vote was reported in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and, to be honest, was pretty upsetting to me that it was made public. I think the privacy of the voting booth is important. The vote, by itself, was no more disqualifying for me than Ralph Northam’s two votes for Bush. Disconcerting, yes, but that’s because in neither case was that my choice. I feel strongly that we have to give people the room to grow and evolve. (Unlike some, I’m giving Richard Painter the benefit of the doubt on this.)

I have not endorsed in this race and remain undecided on who I will vote for Tuesday. The fact that the Republicans are trying to influence the outcome, though, has me leaning towards Luria. As always, my ultimate decision will be based on who I think is the best candidate. Weighing on me even more than usual is who I think has the best chance to win in the fall.

I believe our democracy is in peril. Things are actually worse than I ever imagined. We have to try to stop the dismantling of our institutions. We cannot afford to return to Washington anyone who supports Don the Con. Although I like him and he has done some good things, Taylor cannot be re-elected in November. There is too much at stake.

Whomever is the Democratic candidate after Tuesday has my wholehearted support. I will find the time and the money to help her win.

Update 2:18pm: I found a recording and transcript of the 6/6/18 call here. In case it gets taken down, here is a screenshot.

Update 2:43pm: Looking at my wife’s cell phone and see four text messages (she never looks at her phone unless I’m calling), from different numbers and all sent this week. No idea how they got the number. The messages as follows:

• 6/5/18 4:36 PM from (757) 267-6538: “Karen Mallard is a lifelong Democrat: gun control, pro-choice, universal healthcare, increase min wage. Elaine Luria voted for Scott Taylor TWICE! Knew Taylor was endorsed by NRA, pro-Trump, anti-ACA & voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Taylor will beat Luria. Vote Mallard for Congress June 12!”
• 6/7/18 7:39 PM from (804) 352-2711: “DEMOCRAT VOTER ALERT: Elaine Luria says she is a Democrat, but voted for Scott Taylor – TWICE- in 2016. She even voted for him over a fellow Democrat in the General Election. Read more here: https://luriavotesrepublican.com”
• 6/7/18 3:22 PM from (757) 300-0237: “DEMOCRAT VOTER ALERT: The Richmond Times Dispatch reports that Elaine Luria (D?) voted for Scott Taylor TWICE. Read the story here: luriavotesrepublican.com”
• 6/8/18 6:22 PM from (804) 375-5317: “The Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia publicly thanked Elaine Luria for supporting Scott Taylor. Luria voted for Scott Taylor in 2016 over his Democratic opponent. Why are Republicans thanking Elaine Luria? Click here to read more luriavotesrepublican.com”

I spent my Saturday morning with a sizable group of women that meets during the legislative session to discuss and share information on legislation under consideration. A number of new faces – but few of them young women. I saw the pictures from the marches held Saturday and Sunday. Lots of women. Loved the ones of the mothers and their daughters. But again, it looked like the younger women were missing.

Sunday I went to Richmond for the ceremonial swearing in Kelly Fowler, one of the new members of the legislature, representing the 21st District. Again, I looked around and wondered about the younger women.

A conversation that I had during the trip up and back prompted me to do a bit of research this morning. Specifically, I wanted to ascertain how many of the newly elected members, most of whom are relatively young, had hired female legislative aides. Anyone who follows Virginia politics is well aware that legislative aides – typically young white males – often run for office themselves. So what better place to grow the next generation of women legislators than in the legislature itself?

By my count, 12 of the new 19 House members are female. Just five of them – not even half – have female legislative assistants, based on the information listed on the General Assembly website.  Overall, there are 28 women in the House, the largest number ever. Fifteen of them have female LAs.

Is grooming the next generation of women for service more of a priority among those with more seniority than the newer members? I think not. But the optics of having so many new women elected – and, of course, elected by women – with male LAs is just bad.

It’s hard to think of this as the year of the woman when so many are being left behind.

To the women of the legislature: you can do better.

To summarize, we have the following candidates running statewide:

• For Governor: Ralph Northam (D) vs Ed Gillespie (R)
• For Lieutenant Governor: Justin Fairfax (D) vs Jill Vogel (R)
• For Attorney General: Mark Herring* (D) vs John Adams (R)

The contest for AG has received scant attention: Herring did not face an intra-party challenger and Adams was the last man standing after Rob Bell withdrew and Chuck Smith failed to qualify for the primary ballot.

Note also that Herring is the incumbent, running for re-election. Virginia allows both the LG and AG to run for a second term but is the only state that denies the same for its governor. (Yeah, that’s dumb.)

Hampton Roads has 21 members in the House of Delegates. This year, two-thirds – 14 seats – are contested, including two open seats. Two years ago, only eight seats were contested, also including two open seats. Obviously, there’s some enthusiasm out there.

While I’m working on my initial ratings for each contest, here is the candidates list:

All of Norfolk’s voters in the Democratic primary will have the opportunity to choose the party’s nominee for Commonwealth’s Attorney. Given that there is no Republican candidate for this office, Tuesday’s primary election winner will – barring any last minute independent candidate – be the city’s CA. It was with that in mind that I attended Thursday night’s forum, sponsored by the Norfolk Federation of Civic Leagues.

The three candidates – incumbent Greg Underwood and challengers Ron Batliner and S.W. Dawson – appeared tired. My guess is that they have appeared together so many times, they can just about finish each other’s sentences – not an unusual situation for campaigns. This year, I’ve not followed this contest as closely as similar contests in the past; as the result, I attended with an eye towards learning more about the challengers’ qualifications for office and their backgrounds. (Obviously, I’m better acquainted with Underwood.)

Overall, I was disappointed.

None of the candidates explained what the office of Commonwealth’s Attorney actually does. Given that a) many voters will have no contact with the office, and b) we have a lot of people who have moved here from other states who may not be familiar with the term, I thought this was an real oversight.

Given 3 1/2 minutes for opening and closing statements, I was surprised that only one candidate really used the time to make a case for himself, explaining his fitness for the position.

In between those statements was the Q & A part. What stood out for me during this time was the amount of inside baseball that was reflected in the questions and the candidates’ answers to them. Initially, some of the questions were just bizarre to me, but by the end I realized that these questions were designed to make one of the three look bad, such as:

• How many jury trials have you handled? How many murder jury trials have you handled?
• What is your relationship with the police?
• What will be your drunk driving prosecution policy?

These were three of the six questions answered by all of the candidates. The last three questions of the forum were directed at the candidates individually, and were, in my view, a continuation of the attacks on each.

Note that all of the questions asked of the candidates came from the audience. In addition, the audience was rather small. Based on my conversations afterwards, it appeared that few were in attendance that were not already committed to one of the candidates.

My takeaways:

The CA’s office requires experience as a prosecutor. I am reminded of an old Law & Order episode in which DA Arthur Branch (Fred Thompson) fires ADA Serena Southerlyn (Elisabeth Röhm) because of emotions over facts. Her emotions, Branch says, makes her “an advocate.”

You ought to be involved in cases that feed your passion. … But Serena you must know that will not happen in this office. It can’t. Now, a prosecutor can be zealous but not passionate. Advocacy is warm-blooded. Enforcement’s gotta be cold-blooded. And blind. And even-handed.

That Dawson has experience only as a defense attorney – an advocate – steers me away from him as the leader of a group of prosecutors. While I appreciate his desire to stop the over-criminalization of our youth, that process seems outside of the scope of the CA’s office. (The legislature passes the laws that lead to the police arresting people for crimes.) Combined with his overall inexperience* – as best as I can tell, he’s been practicing for less than 7 years, mostly (completely?) in a small firm – eliminates him from my consideration.

Both Batliner and Underwood have extensive experience as prosecutors.

The CA’s office requires a working relationship with the police. Again, I am reminded of an L&O episode, the one in which newly appointed DA Jack McCoy fires an ADA who was too close to the police and never saw any wrongdoing by them. (No, I can’t find the clip.) Is this the charge against Batliner that was hinted at throughout the forum? Or was this directed at Underwood, who has been slow to opine on investigations of officer-involved shootings? In any event, it will be up to the citizens to pay close attention to this regardless who is elected.

Management experience and style matter. With 35 or so attorneys to supervise as well as a budget to manage, management skills are critical. Despite Underwood’s claims, the turnover in the CA’s office can’t be blamed completely on the pay. After all, it’s not as if the pay scale was unknown to new hires. The explanation for a reduction in the number of positions in the office – blame the Compensation Board – also doesn’t cut it for me. This is the one part of the CA’s job that is advocacy – on behalf of the office’s employees to both the Comp Board and the city.

I have to say, though, that Batliner’s confidence in his ability to do the job – as evidenced by his answers and demeanor during the forum – sometimes crosses over into arrogance. That may be an obstacle when dealing with a group of folks who likely posses similar know-it-all attitudes.

~

More information on the candidates (listed in the order in which they appear on the ballot:

Ron Batliner, Jr. Financial report | Website | Facebook

Greg D. Underwood Financial report | Website | Facebook

S. W. Dawson Financial report | Website | Facebook

~

* – My only prior experience with Dawson was at a Norfolk Federation of Civic Leagues meeting in which I was presenting information on federation members becoming nonprofit organizations. His comments revealed a lack of expertise in the very complicated area of nonprofit incorporation and organization. As a CPA for more than 30 years, I’ve done my share of cleaning up behind over-confident but inexperienced attorneys.

• • June 3 – panel discussion after the screening of “Political Animals,”which is being shown as a part of the 4th Annual LGBT Film Festival. Virginia Wesleyan University, 7:30pm – 10:30pm, $15. Details.
  • June 17 – presentation on the Dillon Rule, a topic I’ve written about a lot over the years. LWVSHR Saturday unit, Pretlow Library, 11:00am to noon, free.
  • June 21 – presentation “Redistricting: the Virginia Way.” Another topic near and dear to my heart. These are exciting times in this area, with SCOTUS on the brink of taking on partisan redistricting. LWVSHR Redistricting Unit, Braise Restaurant, noon to 1pm, free.
  • July 19 – presentation on the Electoral College, of which I was a member last year. (Yes, I’ve written about that, too – also a couple of pieces here.) ODU Institute for Learning in Retirement, 10am – noon, membership required.

Hope to see you around!