University of Virginia Library

Monday's editorial about
"Disenfranchising the University"
demonstrates commendable
concern for democracy in action;
but at one point it is erroneous and
elsewhere it overlooks some
important considerations.

Your assertion that Gov. Holton
consulted with Republican
candidate Joe Wright before setting
an election date is pure speculation;
in fact, the Governor did not talk
with Mr. Wright or communicate
with him in any way before
announcing the date of the
election.

Your claim that the Governor
purposely set the election to
exclude the 18-21 year olds is
unfair. Gov. Holton has an
obligation to the people of
Charlottesville to give them the
opportunity to choose a
representative for the legislative
session which begins Jan. 6.

But the law granting suffrage to
18-year-olds is being challenged in
the courts, and most states are in a
quandary about elections held
before the court case is settled. If
the law is declared
unconstitutional, any election in
which they voted will be
invalidated. Hopefully, the courts
will resolve this problem before the
next general election.

In your haste to accuse the
Republicans of collusion setting the
date, you overlook the fact that the
Democrats have followed this
pattern for years. Del. Paxson
pulled a familiar trick. In a
traditionally Democratic state,
where voting Democratic is more
habit than reason, a brief campaign
allowing little time for development
of the issues will certainly benefit
the Democrats. So the Democrat
incumbent announces his
retirement and the Democrat
governor sets the elections for
shortly thereafter. By then the
Democrat machine, informed in
advance, is rolling along.

Now we have a Republican
governor. Del. Paxson's
announcement left little time,
however, before the next General
Assembly session. Gov. Holton had
no choice but to set an early
election date.

You state your belief that "Mr.
Paxson would have willingly served
a few more weeks in office to allow
his successor the chance to be
elected by a representative number
of his constituents." Well, why
didn't he? There has been
speculation about his retirement for
more than a year. It is unlikely his
"business and personal reasons" for
retiring emerged so suddenly as to
preclude him from retiring, say last
October or next March.

Finally, I question your
arithmetic when you suggest that
"several thousand voters" will be
away from home and, in effect,
disenfranchised. Most likely, no
more Charlottesville residents will
be away from home on Dec. 29
than are on vacation during the
summertime primaries and
councilman elections.

As for the students, it is unlikely
that "several thousand" of them are
legitimate residents of
Charlottesville, even if they have
registered to vote. Being a student
does not in itself legally qualify one
as a permanent resident in this
state, and unless things have
changed radically in the last two
years, I doubt that such a large
the University's students
have decided to establish full time
residence in Charlottesville. The
reason that many members of the
University community will be away
for the holiday period is that they
are going home.