Illegal fliers’ effect on VB mayoral election

Hampton Roads, Local, Politics 3 Minutes

sessomsflyer_0001sessomsflyer_0002Except for this story, which I wrote about here, little has been said about the effect of the fliers distributed on Election Day on behalf of now mayor-elect Will Sessoms. As you can see, the fliers showed Sessoms, a Republican, with an image of Obama.  And, in violation of the law, the fliers did not contain any paid for/authorized by disclosures. Of course, who’s going to complain about this? If Meyera Oberndorf did, folks would say it was sour grapes. And who expects Sessoms, the beneficiary, to complain? On top of it all, even if someone complained, guess what the penalty is? $100. We put so little value on campaign shenanigans that this kind of thing goes on every election. So I decided to take a look.

Using the official results from the City of Virginia Beach (pdf), I analyzed the data. I specifically looked at three races – McCain/Obama, Sessoms/Oberndorf Rosemary Wilson/Georgia Allen, candidates for Council – at large. I chose the third race because it was one of the more competitve down-ticket races and because the challenger Allen is black. In all cases, I ignored the other candidates in the races. Here are the summarized results:

Obama 98,885 49.14%
McCain 100,319 49.85%
Other 2,045 1.03%
Oberndorf 67,534 35.38%
Sessoms 74,386 38.97%
Other 48,947 25.65%
Allen 55,491 34.43%
Wilson 70,812 43.93%
Other 34,872 21.63%

I then classified each of the precincts based on the outcomes, ignoring the absentee and the small number of provisional ballots. In doing so, I came up with the following:

  • In 42 of the city’s 94 precincts, the voters chose McCain, Sessoms and Wilson, i.e., the Republican ticket.
  • In 17 precincts, the voters chose Obama, Oberndorf and Allen, i.e., the Democratic ticket.
  • In 12 precincts, the voters chose McCain, Oberndorf and Wilson, i.e., the Status Quo ticket
  • In 10 precincts, the voters chose Obama, Sessoms and Wilson, i.e., the WTH ticket.
  • In 9 precincts, the voters chose Obama, Sessoms and Allen, i.e., the Flier ticket.
  • The remaining four precincts were a mismash of the other possible combinations. And in those four precincts, the vote between the candidates was very close.

One would expect that there would be a drop off in votes cast as you move down ticket. And there was a drop off from the presidential race. But between the mayoral race and the council race, the numbers were very similar (with one exception). For example, the drop off between McCain and Sessoms in 42 precincts where the Republican ticket prevailed was 13,728 votes, while the drop off between McCain and Wilson was 13,136 votes.  (This grouping also provided the exception: the drop off between Obama and Oberndorf was 6,984 votes, while the drop off between Obama and Allen was 12,903.)

In the Flier ticket precincts, as expected, the dropoff between Obama and Oberndorf was greater than that between Obama and Allen to the tune of about 400 votes. And Wilson ran about 1,500 votes behind Sessoms in these precincts.

The real effect of the flier, though, wasn’t in the Flier precincts. Rather, it was in the precincts where the Democratic ticket – including Oberndorf – won. This was the second grouping of precincts that saw mayoral candidate Oberndorf’s vote total dropping off from that of Obama by a larger margin than council candidate Allen’s. Again, the difference was about 400 votes. But while Wilson ran about 3,500 votes behind McCain in these precincts, Sessoms was only 839 votes behind, for a difference of about 2,700 votes.

So my rough calculation is that the illegal fliers were worth at least 5,000 votes to Sessoms. Could there have been another 2,000 votes in there, enough for Oberndorf to have retained her seat? Given that Wilson ran ahead of Sessoms in the precincts where the Republican ticket prevailed, I’d say that is certainly possible. (She also ran ahead of him in the WTH precincts.)

So what’s the bottom line here? First, the penalties for such behavior should be increased. A fine of $100 is a slap on the wrist. As long as the penalty remains so low, there is no incentive to behave, there is no incentive to investigate.

Second, someone should have the guts to stand up to this kind of behavior. Stealing an election through fraud and misrepresentation should not be tolerated.

Finally, the voters have got to be more informed. If our local MSM had spent half as much time on covering the local races as they did on covering the national race, the voters would not have been as susceptible to such shenanigans. But the voters have a responsibility to seek out as much information as the possible. And the candidates have a responsibility to tell the truth.

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that I wasn’t completely clear on where the fliers were distributed. (I guess that’s what happens when you type stuff at 4am 😦 ) It is my understanding that the fliers were distributed in the precincts where the black vote was concentrated. That would mean the ones I refer to above as the Democratic precincts as well as the ones I refer to as the Flier precincts.

Published

32 thoughts on “Illegal fliers’ effect on VB mayoral election”

  1. Just to be clear about the penalty – it is one $100 fine for each type of communication, so since this is a literature violation (as opposed to tv – he could have flyered the entire campaign, put up billboards, door knockers and flyers at the polls and the sum total fine would have been $100. Pathetic.

  2. Thoughtful analysis, but I do think you are woefully discounting the impact of the Virginian-Pilot’s endorsements of Sessoms and Wilson (and Davis, too). There’s you “WTH ticket”.

    Also, of course Wilson ran ahead of Sessoms. Sessoms had Moss and Taylor running to the right of him.

    Whomever did the flyer should’ve used the proper disclaimer, but the issues printed on it are things Sessoms has said in forums and other advertising.

    Which brings up another problem. If no one knows who printed the flyers, whom does anyone accuse?

  3. I think you are giving the Pilot’s endorsements too much credit. And, the Pilot didn’t endorse Obama.

    I’d have to look at the numbers more closely to see if I agree about Wilson running ahead of Sessoms in certain areas. My gut tells me that it shouldn’t have been the case, simply because Wilson had more opponents.

    And Sessoms endorsed McCain, which negates the issues part completely. You think anyone actually read the flier at the polls? I think not. A picture is worth a thousand words.

    As for who to accuse – well, if the SBE and CA did their job and investigated this, we’d know who to accuse. But if the end result is a $100 fine, they aren’t going to waste resources doing so.

  4. Wilson got 44%. Sessoms got 39%. I think you’ll find plenty of examples of Wilson running ahead of Sessoms. You can’t compare Wilson’s opponents to Meyera, Moss and Taylor, who all spent significant money.

    The Pilot didn’t endorse Obama, but they didn’t endorse McCain. Almost everyone they did endorse won (except for one campaign for school board, for which their one-line endorsement didn’t do the trick).

  5. You are looking at percentages, not raw vote totals. In fact, Sessoms got more votes than Wilson did – which also tells you the effect of those fliers in the vote totals.

    And which came first – the candidates running ahead or the Pilot’s endorsements? I still think you are giving the Pilot too much credit.

  6. If you actually read the flyer, there were a number of things in there that never crossed Sessoms lips. Affordable housing throughout VB? Will Sessoms? Please.

    Also, keep in mind that Oberndorf didn’t need to come up with 7000 votes, just half of that plus one. You swing 3501 of Will’s “illegal” votes and Oberndorf wins.

    You might get your wish after all. Harvey Bryant, Commonwealth’s Attorney, has agreed to investigate and is also considering bringing in a special prosecutor. No word on when he is hoping to have it completed. But a number of people have met with him and brought him quite a bit of evidence, so we may see some real fireworks from all of this. Good for Harvey — this is a real stench that needs cleaning up.

  7. Sorry, Gulls. You’re wrong.

    “During the forum, Sessoms offered a surprise with his call for an affordable housing component in every new residential development.”
    http://hamptonroads.com/2008/09/new-set-rules-virginia-beach-elections

    Just because you didn’t hear it doesn’t mean he didn’t say it. Google still works.

    I don’t know who produced the flyer, but for you to say falsehoods about the Mayor-elect’s public statements needs to be corrected.

  8. Sorry BK. At the candidates’ forum at the Sandler Center – AND – in comments to the TBA, Will went on to say he was “somewhat misquoted” in the Pilot on that, and while he “might support” affordable housing, he would not ask that it be a part of EVERY housing development in Virginia Beach.

    He changed his position and just because you didn’t hear him doesn’t mean he didn’t. Of course, his illegal fliers on Election Day showed that he changed his position AGAIN. I can actually understand why you weren’t up on his latest position. And let’s wait and see about the investigation before we lie down at his feet as our “Mayor-Elect.” At least I won’t.

  11. And Brian, I think it’s now time to “declare him guilty,” since paid campaign workers for Sessoms have confirmed that these fliers were provided to them at their training session at the Williams Mullen law firm.

  12. Pingback: Fliergate update « VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local

  13. Declare who guilty? Will, who doesn’t seem to have been at the training session from how I read the story.

    Somebody’s guilty of not putting a disclaimer on a handout. Maybe the campaign is guilty of that.

    I heard a radio ad telling me not to believe a candidate’s newspaper ads, even though every word in the ad was true and every claim was cited.

    Bruce Williams says the point was change. Change in the White House and change in the Mayor’s office. It didn’t say they supported each other. It didn’t say they were running on a ticket. It’s a non-partisan race, for crying out loud.

    I saw organizations run ads supporting all the incumbents, even though they hardly ever vote the same way unless it’s to approve the minutes of the last meeting.

    I think there’s an issue about the disclaimer for someone. But if you want to pursue content, I don’t see how you can advocate stifling political speech without far-reaching repercussions.

Comments are closed.