A recent resolution from the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors declaring that the county will not allow its facilities or resources to be used for voting on a state referendum on a polarizing redistricting effort drew the ire of residents who spoke out at a meeting earlier this week.
The board’s resolution questions the timing of the referendum, particularly the 90-day period that the Virginia Constitution requires before an amendment is put before voters.
The resolution states that the county will only comply if a “court of competent jurisdiction” authorizes the referendum. The supervisors’ stance is that since the referendum is scheduled for April 21, the start of early voting on March 6 is unlawful, as it’s before the 90-day mark.
The board voted 6-0 to adopt the resolution with the lone Democrat, Deborah Frazier of the Salem District, abstaining.
This week, several speakers expressed that the board of supervisors should not interject itself into partisan politics. However, Supervisor Drew Mullins of the Courtland District said it’s the board’s job to ensure the constitution is being upheld.
“There were some comments by the public that I think I would like to address in a fashion without being disrespectful to anybody’s comments at all,” Mullins said … “Just for the record, to reinforce this, our resolution was adopted solely to preserve compliance with Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia.”
County Attorney Karl Holsten supported Mullins’ comments, noting that, although the board stated its position and made suggestions to the county board of elections and the local registrar, it did not instruct them to do anything.
“[The board] suggested that they consider the matter, especially being a constitutional question, and suggested they obtain an adequate answer and guidance from counsel, or the courts most appropriately, before moving forward,” Holsten said. “So, it was not anything beyond the board’s purview.”
Still, residents wanted to voice their displeasure.
Berkeley District resident Janet Coleman said that her representative, Supervisor David Goosman, told her in an email exchange that he would serve everybody regardless of party affiliation, and “I felt reassured by that.”
“Unfortunately, you and your fellow board members unnecessarily interjected yourselves into a partisan issue,” Coleman said. “You have nothing to do with this effort except your personal positions on the matter. As far as your personal moral concerns about the timing of the redistricting effort, I would say I’m sure you have many opinions about a plethora of issues that face the state and the country.
“But as my representative, I don’t expect you to have a consensus opinion on most of these matters, not in my name.”
Coleman said the board’s resolution alienated many constituents. She suggested the board shouldn’t have made any sort of statement on the issue because it’s not “part of your mandate.”
“It’s a disgrace,” Coleman said.
Berkeley District resident Nilofer Garza, who Goosman defeated in a three-candidate race in November, said while she’s observed the once-controversial county school board starting to regain a sense of normalcy, it’s disappointing that the board of supervisors, in her opinion, is sowing division.
Another county resident, Susan Benedetto Goetz, said the board took it upon itself to cause confusion with the resolution, calling it a voter suppression tactic. She and speaker Dawn Shelley noted that the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the referendum can go forward while the case is pending in court.
“It is fully expected that the appeals court will also let voting take place as the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled redistricting for political purposes has been affirmed in Texas and California,” Goetz said.
Goetz noted that Spotsylvania County voted for Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Del. Josh Cole (D-Fredericksburg) and Del. Nicole Cole (D-Spotsylvania), all Democrats.
She went on to criticize the board for other recent votes reaffirming Spotsylvania as a Second Amendment Sanctuary, meaning the sheriff’s office won’t enforce new state gun laws, and a resolution supporting qualified immunity for public employees, including police officers, protecting them from civil lawsuits if they’re acting lawfully within the scope of their duties.
“The performative nonsense emanating from this body must stop,” Goetz said. “Whether it is posturing on a pretend 2A sanctuary, qualified immunity bill or redistricting. We expect you to do the jobs you were [elected] to do … Stop pretending to be kings of Spotsylvania County. We aren’t having it.”
Garza also called out Goosman for a “divisive” Facebook post incorrectly stating that students in his district, at Spotsylvania High School, did not participate in the walkout protest of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Feb. 6, like other schools in the county. He later corrected himself and said Spotsylvania High participated “minimally” in the protest.
“In the more rural parts of the county — especially the Berkeley and Livingston districts — families tend to be more conservative and intentionally teach their children to respect the rule of law and law enforcement officers doing their jobs, including agencies like [ICE],” Goosman wrote on Facebook.
The supervisor went on to say that other parts of the county are more “liberal and the schools reflect what is being taught at home and reinforced culturally.” He said the county’s future depends on those who respect law enforcement and “traditional values” speaking out on issues. He later said he didn’t mean to offend anyone but wanted to show the “range of perspectives across our schools and neighborhoods.”
Garza did not see it that way.
“Publicly characterizing students, children in this case, who participated in a coordinated walkout as liberals who do not understand the rule of law is not leadership,” Garza said. “It’s reckless. It’s divisive. But more importantly it’s conduct beneath the standard and unbecoming of the public office you hold. Whether one agrees with the protest or not is irrelevant. These are students, children in our community, and rhetoric that disparages these children only deepens division.”
Goosman’s post was on his “David Goosman for Berkeley BOS” Facebook page. Garza added that when statements are made on such accounts, it can be confusing to determine whether Goosman was speaking as a private citizen or a public official.
“The law may permit it, but ethical leadership in times of turbulence demands a higher standard than mere legality,” Garza said. “Technically permissible conduct can still be reckless, irresponsible and damaging to public trust … I believe in accountability in civil discourse, and I believe this board is capable of meeting a higher standard. I urge each and every one of you to take seriously the obligation to elevate public discourse, not diminish it.”
