Just a quick reminder that the League of Women Voters, in conjunction with WHRO, are hosting a 3rd Congressional District candidates’ debate this evening. All four candidates – Democratic incumbent Bobby Scott, Republican Chuck Smith, Libertarian James Quigley and Independent John Kelly – are expected to attend. Details:
- Location: Hampton City Council Chambers, 22 Lincoln Street, 8th floor, Hampton VA 23669
- Time: Please arrive before 6:45 p.m. The filming will begin at 7 p.m.
- Moderator: Olga Hernandez – President of the League of Women Voters of the State of Virginia
- Panelists: Dr. Quentin Kidd – political science professor, Christopher Newport University; Christina Nuckols – editorial writer, The Virginian-Pilot
Please note:
- No campaign shirts, banners, signs, buttons or other campaign paraphernalia will be allowed inside the chambers
- No flash cameras, no video phones and no motor driven cameras will be used during the forum except for the League of Women Voters video company producing the debate
If you are unable to make it, WHRO will be rebroadcasting it several times leading up to the election.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“… (No) campaign shirts, buttons or other campaign paraphernalia will be allowed inside the auditorium…”
Would someone please explain the legal basis for trying to make such a demand, especially given that the Council Chamber is a property of the People, and NOT the League of Women Voters?
I encourage citizens to attend the debate, and wear anything that they want.
I can support a voluntary restriction on signs, since they might block the view of other people, but the League has no business telling citizens what can be worn in a public location, least of all, OUR City Council Chamber.
I think Norfolk, maybe the state board, tried this and were told that it was a freedom of speech issue.
Surprised Vivian didn’t weigh in on that.
Just to follow-up: I talked with the LWV and they said that they could set any rules that they wanted.
I told the rep that I was quite sure that the Hampton City Attorney’s office had some, “new information” on that subject for them.
For the record, I still intend to wear my, Bobby Scott for Congress, boxers tonight, and a few campaign lapel pins as well!
When I was discussing this LWV attempt to abridge our freedom of expression with the Hampton Clerk of Council, this morning, She said, “They (LWV) are probably just trying to keep the event, non-partisan.”
What?
A POLITICAL debate, but they want it to be “non-partisan?” By the very definition, the debate IS a partisan event (the debate is between candidates from different parties), and in this case held in a PUBLIC venue, where the LWV has no right to abridge anyone’s freedom of expression.
“Bobby Scott for Congress boxers?”
There are no (appropriate) words for that…
Good debate. Definitely a home-field advantage, but that’s to be expected…
I very much enjoyed it.
Sorry I haven’t been near my computer most of the day, with two debates today.
Anyway – I was unaware of the rule regarding no campaign paraphernalia in advance of the notice to the candidates, who all agreed to them. Had I been aware, I would have raised the issue, because I don’t think it was completely appropriate. That being said, the rule was NOT enforced tonight. (And Tyler, I didn’t see you there.)
(Interestingly enough, I attended the CDBA debate in the 2nd today and I believe they had a similar rule. One thing for sure: there wasn’t a single sticker in the place.)
I’ll have more on the 3rd CD debate but I think it was well done.
Viv: You nearly stepped on my shoe as you passed quickly by. You may have been heading over to talk with Congressman Scott, as everyone was filing out.
We have never met, so the next time we are at an event, I will attempt to slow you down long enough to properly make an introduction.
I got a call from the Hampton City Attorney just before I left for the event and she told me that she had contacted the League and that there would be no restrictions on campaign related clothing, buttons, etc. She also told me that for future events held at Hampton city facilities, an explicit statement of some sort will be included, so that nobody else will try to stomp on the citizens’ freedom of expression.
There was a group of five Democrats who brought along some Obama signs, but they were well mannered enough to hold them up only prior to and after the event. I asked one of the women in the group why they were showing those signs, instead of Scott, and she told me that they wanted to remind people of the progress that has been made. I told her that I worked on that campaign and that I haven’t noticed much progress so far, but I want to see more happening with regard to jobs and domestic manufacturing.
As for debate rules, I still support the idea of asking for voluntary omission of signs, turning off cell phones, and measures that will help ensure attendees will be able to see and hear the event, but when some group using a public venue starts telling us what we can wear, or that we must pretend that we have no political allegiance to a candidate, that is an intolerable infringement on our, God given, rights.
Sorry I missed you.
The state LWV has been hosting debates for years but this is new for the local groups. Sometimes, things get missed and I’m convinced, as a local league member, that was the case here. (I became aware of the rule at the 2nd CD debate. I’m surprised the candidates, who all saw the rules in advance, didn’t raise the issue.)
As for the signs, we asked those people not to wave them during the debate.
Let me just say, that even with the campaign gear restriction, I thought the debate was superbly run. Perhaps they wanted to tone down crowd size bias and prevent it from being a pep rally for the candidate filling most of the room. That said, you weren’t paying attention if you didn’t notice that Rep. Scott had by far the most supporters. We had a nice showing for Libertarian James Quigley considering we have limited party infrastructure as a 3rd party. We had a minimum of 13 people there and an iffy 14th. Would have been nice to have had badges on them. One of our guys was wearing a badge. Evidently nothing was said to him.
The whole affair was well structured and didn’t de-volve into a circus of shout downs and interrupting. A lot of questions were asked & answered. You got a good chance to see what each candidate was about. Being informative is what a debate is for, so on that note, it was a darn good event.