Portsmouth mayor files challenge to recall
In an interesting twist, Portsmouth Mayor James Holley III has filed a challenge to the recall attempts of the voters. The mayor continues to say he will not resign.
The brief, one-page complaint challenges the sufficiency of the petition against him, the genuineness of the nearly 8,800 signatures, and the qualifications of the people who signed them.
I guess challenging the sufficiency of the petition, which I assume means determining whether the petition contains all of the appropriate language and elements, makes sense. But the qualifications of the signatures? Isn’t that what the registrar is going to do when checking the signatures against the voter registration records? As for the genuineness, does Holley intend to contact all 8,775 petition signers to ask if they signed the petition?
I expect a few signatures will be tossed because some of the people won’t be registered voters. No doubt that’s why the petition organizers got so many signatures above the approximately 6,700 required. I would be surprised to learn that the petition itself had issues.
Norfolk council opening – no special election?
It seems that every day brings a new revelation about what’s going to happen with the seat being vacated by Superward Councilwoman Daun Hester. As I outlined last week, it appeared that the change in the law called for a special election. There is a problem, though: while the new bill was careful to eliminate the language included in § 24.2-226 that referenced May elections, the definitions included in § 24.2-101 were not changed. The language:
“General election” means an election held in the Commonwealth on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November or on the first Tuesday in May for the purpose of filling offices regularly scheduled by law to be filled at those times.
I am told that the definitions override the later language. What this would mean, then, is that council could appoint a replacement to serve until the next May election, which would be May 2012 – and which would be the time the seat would come up for election, anyway.
If there is no special election, I’d like to urge council to appoint Daun Hester to the seat to complete the term. The list of reasons is long, but at the top is that it would send a strong message of inclusiveness to the citizens of Norfolk.
UPDATE: As I’ve been reminded via email today, I forgot to mention that the appointment should come from the new council, who take their seats July 1. It seems only fair, since the vacancy doesn’t occur until that date.
I would be surprised if Daun Hester is NOT appointed. I think she may have more carefully weighed the risks before deciding to run for Mayor, and stacked the cards just in case. This is just a guess on my part, based on political games I see happening everywhere else. All you need is a few disgruntled council members interested in seeing Fraim challenged.
Posted by tomconline | Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 8:45 amDaun Hester needs to go home! How can the new City Council and Mayor function with Daun Hester still a part of City Council? She lost to Mayor Fraim. She can use this time to get her personal affairs in order. Like the house in Huntersville that should have been demolished. Appoint her position to someone who actually cares about Norfolk and can get along with the core Council members.
Posted by Charles Edwards III | Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 11:12 pmCharles
Please review my comment policy. What you have written is simply an attack on Hester. Personal attacks are not allowed.
Posted by vjp | Thursday, May 13, 2010, 8:22 amMs. Paige,
Please remove my comment from your site. As a long time citizen of Norfolk and tax payer, I thought politicians were subject to observation from the tax payers. If it were Riddick or Burfoot I guess it would be all right.
Respectfully/Charles III
Posted by Charles Edwards III | Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:57 amCharles
I generally do not delete comments here. And yes, politicians (and anyone else) are subject to observation – I engage in plenty of it here myself
. But there is a real difference between observation and personal attacks. You offered none of the first and only the second.
If you want to tell us why you think she needs to not be reappointed, have at it. If your reason is that she lost, I have just one question: do you also think that Creigh Deeds should not be in the state Senate? After all, he, too, lost a bid for higher office.
Posted by vjp | Friday, May 14, 2010, 8:51 amThe word is DISTRACTION. Which is what she’ll be to the rest of the City Council and the Mayor.
Creigh Deeds ran a “half hearted” campaign for Governor. As a State Senator he’s not a distraction to the Governor.
Respectfully/Charles III
Posted by Charles III | Friday, May 14, 2010, 9:02 pm