So it seems the Democratic Party of Virginia has returned to its old ways of denying challengers to incumbents access to the party’s voter file. This issue was supposedly resolved a few years ago, but has been resurrected for the current election cycle.
I understand it was a vote at a recent Steering Committee meeting that restricted access to the voter file. See update below.
This is just plain wrong.
There is one – count ’em – one – Democratic nomination contest this year in which a candidate is challenging an incumbent. And that one race is here in Hampton Roads, in the 90th House district. Rich James is challenging incumbent Algie Howell and is, therefore, the only House candidate without access to the Democratic Party’s voting file.
Incumbents start on third base and think they have hit a triple. When the system – already heavily biased in their favor – is made even more so by things like this, it almost guarantees that the voters will not be given a real opportunity to make an informed choice. Already hamstrung in fundraising by donors who only give to incumbents, challengers are further hamstrung by getting the enhanced voter information to even be able to make their case to the electorate as to why to fire the other guy and why to hire him/her.
This is just plain wrong.
I don’t have anything against Del. Howell and I don’t live in the 90th. But if I did, I’d be on the phone with and sending emails to every member of the DPVA Steering Committee.
I am deeply disappointed that the Party has done this.
There’s right and there’s wrong.
This is just plain wrong.
UPDATE (5:30pm)
As you might expect, I’ve had a number of conversations today regarding this. As it turns out, there is no new policy on denying access; rather, this is an extension of the previous policy adopted in 2006.
Here’s the deal: the party provides voter lists to challengers to incumbents, much like that available from the State Board of Elections, although I’m told that the cost is a little cheaper. But what is not provided is access to the VAN.
The VAN is much more than a voter list. As a database, it includes a number of tools to help campaigns reach out to voters, including the ability to create walk lists and so forth. It is also interactive, because it allows campaigns to improve the database by entering their own information, including correcting bad addresses and phone numbers, and so much more.
The inability of a challenger to an incumbent to use VAN puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. But the party loses out, too, since information on voters obtained by such a challenger is likely to never make it into the database, even if that challenger wins.
In the comments below, DPVA Vice chair for Technology, Craig Fifer discusses some of the reasoning behind the original decision form February 2006.
I’m no programmer but I understand permissions-based databases. It seems to me it should be fairly easy to restrict access to certain information in the voter’s file while still allowing the candidate to use the other tools VAN offers. This, to me, would alleviate all of the issues surrounding this while providing both the candidate and the party the information necessary.
It is time for the Steering Committee to take this up. It’s been five years, the platform has changed (from Prevail to VAN) and the policy should be revisited and revised.
The current policy is just plain wrong.
Follow @vpaige
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I agree, and I have had similar experience with the voter file, just not in this exact circumstance.
In 2007, local elections were to be held, just like this year. One candidate, a Democrat, wanted to get voter information from the DPVA for one voting district in Cumberland County. The number of voters we are talking about is around 1,000 or less.
The DPVA had, and may still have, a system that charges as much for records in small counties as it does in larger counties, thereby preventing the candidate from obtaining a cost-effective list with which to campaign.
The system was: 0-39,000 records were a certain rate, which meant to get that 1,000 records, a price of 25 cents, while those who want 38,000 records pay less than a penny for them. (If I remember the math correctly)
I complained, but soon realized that there wasn’t going to be a resolution. Brenner Tobe had nothing for me, neither did Levar Stoney.
I will be writing and/or calling the Steering committee members, a few of which I talk with on a regular basis anyway. This situation is ridiculous and I plan on getting that across in no uncertain terms.
You were essentially denied in that case because of cost, although I’m sure they would argue that wasn’t a denial.
Thanks for contacting Steering on this.
One other item: Charniele Herring was practically handed a voter file for her present district in 2008, before it was even known that Brian Moran would be resigning. In fact, she ran her campaign starting the day after the DNC Convention in Denver. She was not a publicly known candidate at the time, but someone fell all over themselves to provide her what she needed for a race that nobody else knew about.
Abuse, plain and simple. Double standards. If we like you or we like you running, even if you are not, we will bend over backwards to get you what you want.
Now a legitimate candidate who happens to be running against a Democrat in a primary? Not so much.
I didn’t realize Charniele was that primed. I did know she was to be the candidate once Brian decided to resign.
Frankly, this sucks. I thought the DPVA finally had things straight on this.
I won’t pass judgment on this particular race, but we all know incumbents who are worth replacing, and who can be replaced by someone who is both a) better and b) electable. We simply shouldn’t be stacking the deck against such people. Basic fairness is supposed to be one of our principles as a party, after all.
We need to leave ourselves room to clean up our own act because, if we don’t, the Republicans will be happy to do it for us. Personally, I don’t like their choice of cleaning solutions.
Agreed.
100% accurate excellent point on your part. Thank you Vivian Paige
I am not going to say what VaDems should or should not do with their voter files, but
You essentially have two options: 1. Make the voter files available to all candidates, even at the nomination stage and run the risk of putting extremely important sensitive data in the hands of fair weather partisans, and potentially outright non-ideological political opportunists; OR 2. Restrict access on a person by person basis and run the risk that political newcomers or those with disfavor amongst party insiders might be denied access.
Quite frankly option two is less embarrassing for the party than a potential release of the info from a disgruntled loser in a primary. Nonetheless, I severely doubt this is the reason to withhold the voter files.
It’s not like there’s any super secret information in the damn voter file. It’s got the party’s best guess as to who’s a Democrat and who’s not. Not really of any general interest.
I’m with you on this, Vivian. Competition is good. Those who fear challengers generally have a reason to do so.
And you wonder why we on the right call it the DEMOCRAT Party?!?! There’s very little that’s democratic about it.
No, James. We just think you don’t know a noun from an adjective. 🙂
Thank you Vivian!
There seems to be some confusion about the DPVA’s policy on access to voter lists. In 2006, the Party adopted a policy to ensure that all Democratic candidates would have access to voter information to further their campaigns, regardless of whether or not they’re running against incumbents. As it relates to General Assembly nominating contests, the policy provides that challengers to incumbents are entitled to lists of voters’ names, addresses, phone numbers, and vote history.
Challengers to incumbents are not entitled to access the Voter Activation Network (VAN), which is the Party’s full voter database. In addition to voters’ contact information and voting history, the VAN includes information about donors, volunteers, and survey responses that are added by previous users. Since much of the information is added by incumbents, these users have expressed a reluctance to contribute information that will be immediately used to campaign against them. The Party’s policy is intended to balance the goal of providing voter information to all candidates with the goal of encouraging contributions to the VAN by existing officeholders. The policy is not intended to discourage any Democrat from running against an incumbent.
The policy has not changed since 2006, nor to my recollection has it even come up for discussion at a Steering or Central Committee meeting since then. Anyone who has questions is welcome to contact me at craig@fifer.net .
-Craig Fifer
Vice Chair for Technology and Communications
Democratic Party of Virginia
Craig
I certainly hope you will bring this up at the next Steering committee meeting in September. It can and should be addressed differently than it is now.
Well since i assume i am on the steering committee I might as well chime in. Vivian how dare you tell the whole state to call me. lmao. i am knee deep in campaigns over here to save some of our best from the republicans. My position on this situaion is that every candidate on the democratic side once they have been approved by their local city/county/ central district committees should have access to the voter file and use of van if one or either of the other candidates is granted access- I would also like to add that the various city and county committees have to pay for this access , so since we are granting access to certain politicians it would seem these same individuals would want to help put money into our coffers also for that access. That Vivian as you know is not done often- getting money from those we allow to run for elected office on our side. So my opinion is equal access to whatever information comes through VAN, voter file lists, etc… for both incumbent and challenger. Not for free however. That will be the candidates choice if they want to pay up.
Good answer, Gene 😉
Howell has to go! The way he stuck a knife in the back of Gary West(D) (Peninsula 94th House District) and supported Glenn Oder (R) two years ago, was unbelievable. As long as the Democrats have Howell steering the ship, it will not only go around, it will sink the party. As far a Magruder, he didn’t help that situation much either….. Thanks for the forum.