A lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court to overturn Norfolk’s elected mayor, according to this article in The Virginian Pilot. The argument? At-large election of the mayor is discriminatory.
[Roy] Perry-Bey said he is basing his claim on a 1990 Supreme Court case that ordered Norfolk to abandon at-large elections for council in favor of a ward system. The court ruled that the at-large system unfairly discriminated against black voters.
While I wholeheartedly supported an elected mayor as did 82% of Norfolkians who voted for it in a non-binding referendum, I was not happy with the plan for instituting it. The addition of the eighth council member was the wrong answer for a lot of reasons, and I preferred the 4-2-1 plan. However, the time for that argument was three years ago, when council requested the charter change and the 5-2-1 plan passed the muster of Bush’s Justice Department.
I expect this case will be thrown out.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Perry-Bey’s case is dependent on the wording of the court order that established Norfolk’s ward system. (I tried to find it online in a Google search, but couldn’t.) In addition, he’ll go nowhere without a lawyer and I doubt anyone will want to fund this one.
He probably will got quashed, but I’d like to read the Order before saying so definitely.
HMR – don’t you think the Justice Department looked at that before they gave Norfolk permission to go forward?
They probably did, but would a Federal judge interpret it the same way?
I think the newspaper’s date was wrong. As I mentioned in my post about the ward system, the Supreme Court ruling was actually in 1989.
The opinion is here.
Ok, now that I’ve read it, I see that it was the 1989 term. The decision was issued in May 1990.
Thanks for the link. There’s nothing in the court ruling that I see that could be applied to the Mayoral race. Therefore, I think Perry-Bey goes down.
Collins 883 F.2d 1232: 1989 U.S. App. LEXS 12398
Note: The judgment of the district court is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opion. [*1244] Upon remand the district court should enjoin at-large elections for city council. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals..
Mr. Roy L. Perry-Bey,
“History is the best teacher it rewards all research”
Inspite of some ambition African Americans among us City officials are bound by the same laws, inspite of operating above it.
Why would you work to re-establish an at large system of government proven by the Courts in America is discriminatory/unconstitutional and against the remendy the “Ward system?
Mr. Roy L. Perry-Bey,
The General Assemby Approved the request for City Charter change March 28, 2005 effective On and after July 1, 2006 and the Justice Department may have pre-cleared the city pursuant the Voting Rights Act, but the City had a legal responsibility to prove to the U.S. District Court it sastified concerns with respect to discrimination. Yet while enjoined from changing it’s election process it deliberately refused to move the Court to dissolve the injunction, lied to the public because it could not prove this fact and the mayor is drunk with power.
Thus city officials decieved the public into beliving and supporting an illegal at-large scheme that the Court must strike down.
The U.S. District Court must obey it’s boss the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, it troubles me to see so many well educated and intelligent citizens hooked winked and taken for a political ride. Additionally, why would any political group agree to 5-3 over 4-3 voting power and then say I did’nt relaize it was stealing i more vote and I did not want that part of it?
Demand from your leaders answers about the Court ordered injunction and stop the quess work and get the legal truth. The movement is underway to impeach all the members of City Council. We have filed official complaints with the State Board of Election and U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, to launch
an official investigation into possible conspiracy, political corruption, obstruction of justice and violation of the Voting Rights Acts.