RVA Mag

Richmond, VA Culture & Politics Since 2005

Menu

Data Shows That Virginia Denies Vast Majority of Parole Requests

|

Topics: , , , , , , ,

In November 2019, Jen Soering and Elizabeth Haysom received parole after serving 30 years in state prison for the sensational murder of Haysom’s parents in 1985.

Soering, a German national who had been given two life sentences, and Haysom, a Canadian who had been sentenced to 90 years, were turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation.

“The Parole Board has determined that releasing Jens Soering and Elizabeth Haysom to their ICE deportation detainers is appropriate because of their youth at the time of the offenses, their institutional adjustment, and the length of their incarceration,” Adrianne Bennett, who chairs the board, said in a statement at the time.

Haysom and Soering at the time of their trial. Image via WSLS/YouTube

Soering and Haysom each had been denied parole several times before being granted parole in late November. Their release from the prison system may have given the impression that Virginia has become more lenient in granting parole.

And that’s true: The percentage of parole requests approved jumped from around 3 percent in 2014-16 to 13.5 percent in 2017, according to a Capital News Service analysis of Parole Board decisions.

But parole is still pretty rare in Virginia. Between January and October of this year, the Parole Board granted parole 5 percent of the time. Of more than 17,000 cases considered over the past six years, about 6 percent received parole.

The system’s critics say Virginia should grant parole more often.

“Considering that parole is a conditional release of an individual, this rate should be much higher,” said Jwa’n Moore, director of Taking Back Our Youth. “I believe that parole was created to prove that incarcerated people can learn from the mistakes that they have committed.”

Taking Back Our Youth is a nonprofit organization dedicated to “breaking the cycle” of juvenile incarceration.

Almost 30,000 people are serving time in prison in the commonwealth. In addition, 1,922 people were on parole as of October, according to the Virginia Department of Corrections.

The newest member of the Parole Board, Kemba Smith Pradia, was appointed in September. At age 24, Pradia was sentenced to 24 years in prison for her participation in her boyfriend’s illegal drug activities. After serving a quarter of her sentence, she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton in 2000.

Following her incarceration, Pradia earned college degrees in social work and law and started a foundation that raises awareness about drug abuse, violence, rehabilitation of ex-offenders and other social issues.

“She would probably bring compassion and empathy to the board,” Moore said. “People who have a personal history with the system have a unique vantage point that those who have historically served on the parole board haven’t had.”

Virginia abolished parole in 1995, but inmates still can get parole if they were sentenced before the law went into effect; were sentenced under the Youthful Offenders Act; or are eligible for geriatric parole.

Inmates can apply for geriatric parole if they are older than 60 and have served at least 10 years, or are older than 65 and have served at least five years.

Since 2014, of the approximately 2,900 applications for geriatric parole, 147 — about 5 percent — have been granted, the data indicated.

Of the 151 inmates older than 80 who have applied for parole, six have been granted. The offenders were denied for various reasons, including the seriousness of the offense and risk to the community. The Parole Board’s decisions generally do not list the crimes that the applicant was convicted of.

The oldest inmate to apply for parole was 92 years old; he was denied.

Of the 182 inmates under 21 who have applied for parole, four have been granted.

According to the data, the youngest inmates to apply for parole were 16 years old: One applied in 2014 and the other in 2018. Both were rejected.

“Minors are still learning and making mistakes that they have to learn from,” Moore said. “They should be held accountable for their actions, but parole gives our youth another chance at a positive lifestyle.”

In 1995, the Virginia General Assembly abolished parole on grounds that doing so would lower the frequency of reincarceration after release. State and federal officials say Virginia has the lowest rate of reincarceration nationwide: 23 percent of Virginia inmates are reincarcerated within three years of their release from prison.

“Virginia’s latest recidivism numbers are the result of a lot of hard work on the part of both the Department of Corrections and the incarcerated offenders,” Gov. Ralph Northam stated in a press release.

In 2000, in Fishback v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that juries must be told that parole has been abolished. Between 1995 and that court decision, 471 prisoners were sentenced without their juries knowing that they would not be eligible for parole, according to the Governor’s Commission on Parole Review.

In 2015, the commission recommended that those inmates receive an opportunity for sentence modification. The panel said juries might have had a misconception that offenders could receive a shorter sentence through parole.

“This misconception likely had real consequences, since juries typically hand down harsher sentences than judges,” the commission stated.

During the General Assembly’s 2019 session, legislators filed two bills to allow parole for those convicted before the Fishback ruling. One bill died in a House committee, and the other was defeated by one vote in a Senate committee.

A similar bill has been submitted for the legislative session that begins Jan. 8. In addition, Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, has proposed reinstating parole, and Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Fairfax, has filed legislation to study that idea. Other legislators have suggested expanding the possibility of parole for inmates who committed crimes as juveniles and have served at least 25 years in prison.

The parole process begins with an interview in which an examiner compiles a summary and recommendation for the Parole Board. The board then evaluates the case based on a number of factors, including compatibility with public safety and the offender’s criminal history and conduct in prison.

Since 2014, the parole board has provided more than 2,000 unique reasons to explain its decisions not to grant parole. The most common reasons include:

  • “Serious nature and circumstances” of the offender’s crime.
  • “Release at this time would diminish seriousness of crime.”
  • “The Board considers you to be a risk to the community.”
  • Extensive criminal record
  • History of violence

About the data in this report

The Virginia Parole Board posts PDFs listing the decisions it makes each month. When the board denies parole, the PDF also lists one or more reasons.

To begin this investigation, we converted 70 PDFs — all of the Parole Board’s decisions from January 2014 through October 2019 — into an Excel file. The exported data, which included both decisions and reasons, totaled almost 76,000 rows.

From the Excel file, we extracted the Parole Board’s decisions in parole cases only (regular parole, geriatric and board review cases). There was a total of 17,240 cases.

We then used Excel’s pivot table feature and Microsoft Access to calculate the percentage of parole requests had been granted or denied each year.

Written By Emma Gauthier and Anna Madigan, Capital News Service. Top Photo by Emiliano Bar on Unsplash.

Virginia Delegate Resumes Fight for Student Journalist Protections

|

Topics: , , , , , , ,

In 2019 Del. Chris Hurst introduced legislation to protect student journalists and their school advisers. That bill died in subcommittee, but Hurst hasn’t given up; he introduced a new bill for the upcoming 2020 session.

A former journalist turned delegate filed a bill for the upcoming General Assembly session that aims to ensure First Amendment protections for student journalists.

Del. Chris Hurst, D-Blacksburg, introduced HB36 to protect the rights of student journalists from censorship and student media advisers from punishment. The 12th District delegate first introduced the bill in the 2019 session with co-patron Del. Danica Roem, D-Prince William, but the bill died in a subcommittee vote, 5-3. 

The bill ensures the right of student journalists to exercise freedom of speech in school-sponsored media even if the publication receives financial support or is provided facilities from the school. 

Del. Chris Hurst speaks in support of his 2019 house bill. Photo by Saffeya Ahmed, Capital News Service.

Roem filed HB113 on Friday, a bill to shield reporters from having to disclose confidential sources. Introduced for the third year in a row, the bill would protect members of the press from being forced by state courts to reveal the identity of anonymous sources.

Both Hurst and Roem are seasoned journalists who said they understand the importance of prioritizing the protection of reporters, both students and professionals. Hurst was formerly an anchor for Roanoke television station WDBJ and Roem reported in Prince William County. 

“This legislation is important because it restores basic protections for student journalists throughout Virginia from unnecessary censorship by administrators,” Hurst said of his bill. “For too long, articles concerning subjects that are worthwhile and newsworthy have been blocked by those in power for less than legitimate reasons.”

The bill is similar to others around the country referred to as “New Voices” bills, efforted by a student-led movement of advocates who seek to counteract the 1988 Supreme Court decision which ruled schools may censor student-publications to an extent. Such legislation has passed in 14 states, half within the past four years, according to the Student Press Law Center. 

With Hurst’s bill, schools could still intervene if the content is deemed libelous or slanderous, creates clear danger, is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, or if it violates federal or state law. The bill creates protections for public middle schools and high schools and public institutions of higher education, but excludes private schools.

“While I am certainly dismayed by recent examples of censorship at private schools, our intention is not to regulate those institutions,” Hurst said. “And as a matter of political philosophy, I prefer not to regulate institutions that are not in the public domain as a member of the House Education Committee.”

Kate Carson, a former writer and editor for her high school paper, said her paper was censored multiple times in the four years she attended the school. Photo by Saffeya Ahmed, Capital News Service.

Student journalists in Virginia have faced school censorship. When the bill was introduced last year, 10 students and advisers who experienced censorship or job retaliation submitted written testimony, and three addressed the subcommittee.  

In May, students in a broadcast news class at Maury High School in Norfolk had one of their videos removed from their YouTube channel by the administration. The video, posted to the Commodore News’ channel, highlighted the disrepair of school facilities — conditions not unknown to state leaders, who had seen some of the worst parts during a previous tour. A spokeswoman for the district cited a “personnel matter” as part of the reason the video was deleted. The video included an interview with a teacher that the school said was “not in line with school policy.”

In November, Radford University’s school newspaper, The Tartan, had over 1,000 newspapers stolen by a university employee. The university refused to release the employee’s name or comment on the disciplinary action taken, citing that a personnel issue prohibited the information from being released.

The Virginia Press Association has voiced support for Hurst’s bill. VPA Executive Director Betsy Edwards believes student journalists are under threat and the bill is designed to afford students the same protections as professionals. Edwards used the Commonwealth Times, the student-led school newspaper of Virginia Commonwealth University, as an example — saying student journalists should be treated, particularly at the college level, like professional journalists.

“They are, and so you wouldn’t want somebody to do that at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, you shouldn’t do it at the Commonwealth Times,” she said.

Hurst advises student journalists to preserve and know their rights. He also says to reach out to advocates such as the VPA who are ready and willing to help. Roem recommends students use extensive documentation, not just in their reporting, but in situations that involve censorship; from keeping a paper trail to a log of digital communication. 

“Take as many notes as absolutely possible and make sure that you’re talking with as many people as you need,” Roem said.

Del. Danica Roem, D-Prince William, spoke about the need for Virginia to become the 41st state to implement shield laws for journalists. Photo by Saffeya Ahmed, Capital News Service.

Roem also advises students not to take censorship as a personal attack, but rather an attack on the Fourth Estate, a term which historically has been used to reference journalists and journalism. 

“This is about the institution of journalism,” Roem said. “The entire reason we have that is to hold the government accountable first and foremost, and second to tell the story of people … based on reality, not what people want it to be but based on how it actually is.”

Written by Libby Dozier, Capital News Service. Top Photo: Nearly 20 people wanted to testify in support of House Bill 2382 in the 2019 session, which would protect student journalists from disciplinary action and administrative censorship. Photo by Saffeya Ahmed, Capital News Service.

Democrat Majority Could Bring Monumental Change to Confederate Symbols

|

Topics: , , , , , , , , ,

Under the Dillon Rule, all decisions made by Virginia localities must be authorized by the General Assembly. Thus far, the GA has not allowed Richmond and other VA cities to remove Confederate monuments. But a new Democratic majority may change all that in 2020.

Virginia has 110 Confederate monuments, many of which are housed in Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy. Among the most notable are the five towering monuments of Confederate leaders lining Monument Avenue. Others live in neighborhoods across the city from Church Hill to Bellevue.

The city is home to significant Civil War buildings, including the American Civil War Museum and White House of the Confederacy. Street names such as Confederate Avenue inhabit the Northside, while Jefferson Davis Highway, named for the president of the Confederacy, runs along the city and throughout the state. Schools such as John B. Cary Elementary — named after a Confederate soldier who later served as his district’s superintendent — and George Mason Elementary — named after a slave-owning Founding Father — still exist, even though concern for renaming the schools has been articulated. 

In recent years, residents have been pushing for the Monument Avenue monuments to come down. But the statues, which represent the dark and violent history of slavery for some Virginians and their families, stand tall, staring down the median of a prominent and busy avenue. This is in part because the power to remove the monuments has been denied to localities under the Dillon Rule, which allows the state to limit the powers of local governments. However, a new Democratic majority in Virginia’s state legislature may open the door to more local government control — and perhaps the removal of the monuments.

The Dillon Rule is derived from the 1868 written decision by Judge John Dillon of Iowa. Dillon identified local governments as political subdivisions of the state government. According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, 39 states apply the Dillon Rule to some capacity. Thirty-one apply it to all localities, while eight use the rule for only certain municipalities. The Virginia Supreme Court adopted the Dillon Rule in 1896.

James Ewell Brown (J. E. B.) Stuart was commander of the Cavalry Corps of Lee’s army during the Civil War. Photo by Susan Shibut, Capital News Service

Because Virginia law states that localities cannot remove war monuments after they have been established, the Dillon Rule has prevented localities such as Richmond and Charlottesville from passing measures to remove their Confederate monuments.

When the General Assembly resumes session in January, a Democratic majority would make it easier for legislators to make a new law stating that local governments have the power to remove Confederate monuments, or a law that bans them outright. John Aughenbaugh, assistant professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University, said a new law is a way he could see localities gain the power to make their own decisions about the monuments.

“I don’t think many members of the General Assembly want to get blamed for upsetting those who still like the monuments,” Aughenbaugh said. “But they’ll be willing to go ahead and give the local governments the authority to make that decision on their own.”

Jim Nolan, press secretary for Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney, said that increasing local authority has been a legislative priority for the mayor and will remain one heading into the 2020 General Assembly session. He said the mayor believes the General Assembly should grant authority to allow localities to determine the future of Confederate monuments. 

“Cities should have the right to choose if they want to contextualize or permanently remove monuments,” Nolan said.

In recent years, the Richmond City Council voted against two resolutions brought by Councilman Michael Jones requesting that state lawmakers give the city authority on what to do with the monuments. The resolutions would have put pressure on lawmakers to give the city authority. However, the General Assembly is not the only avenue for localities to gain the power to remove their monuments. Aughenbaugh said he predicts a locality will sue for the right to remove their monuments and the Virginia Supreme Court will be the deciding body. 

Jefferson Davis’ is the only monument that the Monument Avenue Commission recommended be torn down completely. Davis was the president of the Confederacy, and his monument is the most explicit in its veneration of the “Lost Cause,” the idea that the Confederate cause was just, heroic and ethical. Photo by Susan Shibut, Capital News Service.

One city has already brought such a suit. Earlier this year, Norfolk filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Virginia, arguing that requiring the city to keep a Confederate monument was contrary to their freedom of speech. The suit has not been decided yet.

More than 1,800 Confederate symbols stand in 22 states as of February, according to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Virginia, with 262 Confederate symbols, has more than any other state and has removed 17 of its symbols since the racially-charged Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting in which nine African-Americans were murdered, the organization said.

For decades, Richmond has sought to offset Confederate symbols. In 1996, a sixth statue was added to Monument Avenue depicting Arthur Ashe, an African American tennis champion from Richmond. Earlier this year the Richmond City Council voted to rename the Boulevard to Arthur Ashe Boulevard. J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School was renamed Barack Obama Elementary after a 6-1 vote by the Richmond Public School Board in 2018. In December, Richmond’s Virginia Museum of Fine Arts unveiled, in front of a welcoming crowd, Kehinde Wiley’s statue “Rumors of War,” which depicts a black man in classic equestrian portraiture — a response to the monuments on Monument Avenue.

Virginia has been center stage in the national debate regarding the potential removal of Confederate monuments. In August 2017, the nation was rocked with news of violent clashes in Charlottesville. A “Unite the Right” rally and counter-demonstration were the climax of a months-long battle over the fate of a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee statue that the Charlottesville City Council voted to remove. At the protest, James Alex Fields Jr., a white supremacist who traveled from Ohio to the event, drove his car into a crowd, killing counter-protester Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others. The night before the protest, participants gathered in the park with tiki torches and chanted slogans including the Nazi-associated phrase “blood and soil.”

After the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting, Stoney created the Monument Avenue Commission in 2017 in hopes of creating new ways to remember Richmond’s history while addressing the past memorialized on Monument Avenue. Its first meeting took place days before Heyer died counter-protesting in Charlottesville.

“Richmond has a long, complex and conflicted history, and the Confederate statues on Monument Avenue represents a shameful part of our past,” Stoney said in the commission’s 117-page report. “The majority of the public acknowledges Monument Avenue cannot and should not remain exactly as it is. Change is needed and desired.” 

J. Hunter Dabney walks past the Robert E. Lee Monument. Robert E. Lee was a Confederate general. His monument was unveiled in 1890 and was the the first of the monuments to go up. Photo by Susan Shibut, Capital News Service.

After 11 months of public deliberation, the commission suggested solutions, which included:

  •  Moving the monuments to a museum and creating a permanent exhibit, including a deeper historical look into the history of the monuments by creating a mobile app and a film that ensures historical accuracy.
  • Adding permanent signage that reflects the historic, biographical, artistic, and changing meaning over time for each monument.
  • Erecting a monument that pays homage to the resilience of the formerly enslaved.
  • Having local artists create contemporary pieces that bring new meaning to Monument Avenue.
  • Removing the Jefferson Davis statue.

The city cannot implement these suggestions, however, if state law overrides local laws. 

House Bill 2377 was introduced by former Del. David Toscano, D-Charlottesville, in the 2019 General Assembly session. It would have given localities the power to remove or add context to their monuments, but it did not pass the then-Republican majority House.

For those who oppose the monuments, hope is on the rise. Democrats hold both chambers of the General Assembly as well as the governorship after the Nov. 5 elections — a power that has not been seen in over 20 years. Several of the newly elected legislators have spoken out against the monuments, including Democratic Sen.-elect Ghazala Hashmi, Democratic Del.-elect Sally Husdon, and Del. Jay Jones, D-Norfolk. Hudson plans to introduce legislation very similar to Toscano’s bill — Jones said he will co-sponsor the legislation.

In November, Jones tweeted: “The ‘monuments’ are nothing more than vestigial symbols of oppression and hate that need to come down – ESPECIALLY if it is the locality’s choice. We’re moving VA into the 21st century rather than ‘honoring’ the failures of the 19th.”

In 1895 the city purchased a lot at the intersection of Broad Street, Adams Street, and Brook Road for the J.E.B. Stuart monument. The location, at the terminus of Brook Turnpike, was where Stuart was shot and killed. That site became home to a statue of African-American businesswoman Maggie L. Walker in 2017. Photo by Susan Shibut, Capital News Service

This was not the first time Jones touched on this subject. During Black History month in February, following Gov. Ralph Northam’s blackface scandal, Jones stood in front of the House of Delegates and made a personal speech. 

Jones talked about “two Virginias,” a white one and a black one, and how they have existed “in parallel along the same arc of history, frequently intersecting, but never running together as one. Two different experiences, born from the same beginning four hundred years ago and still never merged into one shared story.” 

According to Jones, “glorification of the Confederacy via monuments and flags in public spaces,” are examples of how white Virginians “consciously or unconsciously attempted to demonstrate its power over black Virginians.”

In describing the racially-charged differences between Virginians, Jones said, “It seems that we have not come far enough to understand the hurt and pain and the effect on those who grew up in the shadow of separate but not equal. Thirty years on, throughout the duration of my life, we are still struggling mightily with race in our state.”

If localities are given the authority to legislate the fate of their monuments, Nolan said Stoney and his administration will ask the city’s History and Culture Commission to make recommendations and commit to following a process in accordance to solutions provided by the Monument Avenue Commission.

Written by McKenzie Lambert and Susan Shibut, Capital News Service. Top Photo: Monument Avenue has five Confederate monuments and one statue of Richmond-native tennis champion Arthur Ashe on its median. Photo by Susan Shibut, Capital News Service.

Coastal Virginia Rises to the Challenge of Climate Change

|

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With sea level rise becoming a growing threat to Virginia’s coastal communities, activists want to see greater action — and more funding — for programs intended to mitigate the effects of climate change.

“Animals have three choices when habitat changes: they can move, adapt or die,” said Yorktown Watermen’s Museum Director of Education Mike Steen. Steen said humans can adapt much easier than animals; they don’t have to wait for evolution. Humans have the option to change their homes and fortify their environments in response to the effects of climate change. 

The Watermen’s Museum brings history to life; Steen dresses as a pirate for camps and events, there is a boat’s deck and windmill to explore, and plenty of artifacts rest inside the historic building. However, many of Steen’s educational programs bring the focus out of the waterfront’s past and into its future. The museum’s section of beach along the York River boasts a natural shoreline, abundant with grasses to protect the museum from flooding. Depending on the time of year, field trippers and summer camp kids can be found gathered around the back of the museum learning about sea level rise, measuring tides, and projecting how floods will affect the waterfront. 

No General Assembly funding for Virginia Shoreline Resiliency Fund, yet

As the sea level rises and land sinks in Virginia, residents along the coast are at risk of flooding. Localities along the coast have created or implemented mitigation strategies to help coastal residents and businesses fortify their properties against high water. The General Assembly passed a bill in 2016 establishing the Virginia Shoreline Resiliency Fund to provide localities with low-interest loans to help residents and businesses with flood mitigation expenses. However, no money has been allocated to the fund since its creation. The legislature has made efforts to change the fund’s function in the past, and in 2020 there will be another attempt at restructuring the bill. 

“Localities and planning districts and residents are certainly interested in resilience to flooding,” said Rear Adm. Ann Phillips, special assistant to the governor for coastal adaptation and protection.

Areas prone to flooding such as the Watermen’s Museum are feeling pressure to mitigate the effects of flooding on their property.

“You have to plan,” Steen said. “We just can’t up and move, and adapting costs large amounts of money.” 

Sections of the Yorktown waterfront owned by the Watermen’s Museum feature natural shorelines to help mitigate sea level rise. (Photo via Capital News Service)

According to A TruBuilders Inc., it takes anywhere from four to eight weeks to raise a home. Since hurricanes and nor’easters don’t schedule their appearances a month ahead of time, homeowners have to make the decision to raise their homes without knowing when the next flood will be and how high the water will rise.

“It’s going to cost you money to get that loan to raise your house. You’re not going to even look at doing that unless you’re forced to,” Steen said. Waiting for a disaster to strike, even with flood insurance, can be an even steeper wager. 

“The National Building Council has shown that $1 invested in pre-disaster mitigation saves $6 post-disaster, depending on the kind of resilience intended,” Phillips said. 

Virginia has a donation-based disaster relief fund that provides grants for organizations that focus on providing aid to victims of natural disasters. The Virginia Shoreline Resiliency Fund is designed to loan money to localities before a flooding disaster. 

“They would have an opportunity to borrow money to help their communities and in particular, the language is written, localities could borrow so that they would be helping residential and business property owners,” Phillips said. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides mitigation ideas for different types of disasters. For flooding, FEMA suggests improving stormwater drainage and moving, elevating, and floodproofing structures in flood prone areas. 

The governor is responsible for proposing money for the Virginia Shoreline Resiliency Fund, and the General Assembly is responsible for the final decision to allocate money in their annual budget, which hasn’t been done since its introduction in 2016, according to Phillips. 

“When a budget gets written, there’s thousands of things that money needs to go to and this is one that just hasn’t been pushed hard enough,” said Virginia Conservation Network Communications Manager David Oglethorpe. 

The VCN is calling for $50 million to be allocated to the fund annually. 

“By putting more money or putting $50 million into the Shoreline Resiliency Fund, Virginia can start to make those moves to adapt to the impending sea level rise,” Oglethorpe said. 

Del. Joseph Lindsey, D-Norfolk, prefiled a bill this month for the 2020 Virginia General Assembly to change the fund from a low-interest loan to a grant system. Similar to the loan system, the money would be distributed to localities to help residents and businesses subject to recurrent flooding. With a grant system in place the money given to property owners would never have to be repaid. Lindsey did not respond to multiple requests to discuss the fund or the new bill. 

During the 2019 General Assembly session there were bills introduced in both the House and Senate to recast the fund as the Virginia Coastal Protection Act. This act would be funded by money from the sale of carbon emissions allowances. The protection act would be used not only for the mitigation of flooding hazards, but also to support energy efficiency programs and revitalize areas of Southwest Virginia impacted by the decline of the fossil fuel industry. The House bill was left in the Commerce and Labor Committee and the Senate bill died after being passed by indefinitely. 

The Newpoint area of Mathews County is bordered by the Mobjack Bay. This area is categorized as a category 1 flood zone by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. (Photo via Capital News Service)

Virginia Localities Work Independently to Combat Sea Level Rise 

Since 1950, coastal Virginia has seen its sea level rise more than 14 inches, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This rate is one of the highest on the U.S. East Coast, according to the World Resources Institute, a global research organization based in Washington D.C. that collects and analyzes data. The Hampton Roads region is among the largest population centers, second to New Orleans, facing sea level rise. The area also has the world’s largest Naval base and the second largest concentration of military activity in the U.S., outside of the Pentagon. Sewell’s Point, a peninsula at the mouth of the port in Norfolk, is expected to see sea levels rise six additional inches by 2030, a rate twice as fast as the most recent measured six-inch increase. 

“Areas that are very flat, very low elevation are going to be the areas that are experiencing the most increase in flooding,” said Molly Mitchell, a Virginia Institute for Marine Science researcher. “They’re going to see the biggest impact in the near future.”

Facing these realities, localities in the coastal Virginia region are already creating action plans to address the issue. 

Hampton has received $11 million from the federal and state government to aid in elevating homes at risk for future flooding. The voluntary program is available to homeowners that meet the cost-to-benefit ratio set by FEMA. However, the cost of raising each home is $250,000, and homeowners could be on the hook for up to 25 percent of the total cost of house raising, plus the cost of temporary relocation, according to the city of Hampton’s website. 

“Hampton officials acknowledge that it is a flawed program,” the city’s website says. “However, at the moment, it’s the only federal or state program that offers assistance to homeowners facing frequent flooding damages.”

Norfolk, meanwhile, made a comprehensive plan, Vision 2100, that addresses sea level rise in residential and commercial areas of the city. The city faces an expected sea level rise between 1.6 and 2.6 feet by 2100, meaning about 3-5 percent of the city’s dry land would be underwater daily.

Norfolk’s Vision 2100 plan divides neighborhoods into high risk and low risk areas based on sea level rise projections, and creates plans based on the risk and expected composition of the neighborhood. 

Norfolk plans to become a model for resilience by expanding the flood protection system, improving transportation and building a housing market with buildings expected to last a century. 

Grasses protect the Lynnhaven River from sea level rise. This area of the river is used by local environmental groups, with their “Save The Bay” boat located in the background. Photo by Jason Boleman | Capital News Service

In Virginia Beach, the Department of Public Works is studying sea level rise and flood vulnerability across the city’s major watersheds. They are working to implement plans, including a review of the storm drain system in the city. 

Virginia Beach, the most populous city in the commonwealth, has started blocking development in areas where sea level rise is expected to create more flooding in decades to come. Virginia Beach Mayor Bobby Dyer did not respond to requests to comment on this story. However, Dyer cited a recent New York Times article discussing this initiative.

With Democrats holding a majority in the General Assembly for the first time in a generation, Wallace is optimistic that more will be done to address sea level rise and climate change in the commonwealth.

“I expect to work with the General Assembly to pass bold climate legislation,” Wallace said. “This new majority will really like what we are doing. They recognize the urgency of the issue and know that it requires immediate action.”

Written by Emma North and Jason Boleman, Capital News Service. Top Photo: Flooding in the The Lakes neighborhood of Virginia Beach from the remnants of Hurricane Matthew on Oct. 9, 2016. This was the most significant flood in this neighborhood in decades. Photo by Jason Boleman | Capital News Service

Correction, 1/10/20: Capital News Service has updated the original version of this article that contained quotes from an interview in which the details of Norfolk projects were conflated. That interview has been removed from this article. 

Virginia Prosecuted Over 46,000 Marijuana Cases in 2018

|

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 2018, almost 20,000 people, most of them African American, were found guilty of marijuana possession in Virginia courts. The racial disparities where the state’s marijuana convictions are concerned has led some state officials to consider decriminalizing and perhaps legalizing marijuana.

Now that Democrats have won control of the General Assembly, decriminalization of marijuana could pass in the legislative session that begins in January. This would mean reducing the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana from a criminal offense to a civil violation, like a traffic ticket.

Such a change in the law would have a sweeping effect throughout Virginia: Last year, more than 46,000 marijuana possession cases were prosecuted in the state — and almost 20,000 people, most of them African Americans, were found guilty, leaving them with a criminal record. Although the crime is only a misdemeanor, a conviction still can hurt job prospects and other opportunities.

“If I get this on my record, I have to tell people what happened,” said CJ, a Richmond resident who asked to remain anonymous because he once had been caught smoking marijuana. “Most places aren’t too fond of that, and I might miss out on some opportunities because of a little bit of weed.”

CJ had a run-in with the law over a small amount of marijuana while he was in high school. He had been smoking a joint on the roof of a building in Alexandria with two friends and his cousin. After they climbed down, two police officers confronted the group.

“My biggest fear was going to jail and having to explain what happened to my mom,” CJ said.

After some back and forth, the officers let the young men off with a warning: If they were caught again on the streets, they would be charged.

“For what?” asked CJ.

“Doesn’t matter,” one of the officers replied before demanding that CJ and his companions get out of his sight.

They got off lucky, but that hasn’t been the case for most people caught with marijuana in Virginia.

20,000 convictions for marijuana possession last year

Capital News Service examined a database of more than 2 million cases processed in General District Courts across Virginia in 2018. Marijuana possession cases numbered more than 46,000. The only offenses more common than marijuana possession were traffic-related, such as speeding, reckless driving, and driving without a license.

Of the marijuana cases, more than 31,000 had been filed in 2018; the others had been filed in previous years.

About 35,000 of the cases before the General District Courts last year ended with a final disposition. In approximately 20,000 cases, the defendant was found guilty; in about 14,900 cases, the defendant was found not guilty or prosecutors dropped the charges.

Besides underscoring the prevalence of marijuana prosecutions, the data also sheds light on another factor often cited by critics of marijuana laws: the disproportionate impact on African Americans.

African Americans make up 19 percent of Virginia’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But they represented 49 percent of all marijuana possession prosecutions — and 51 percent of all defendants found guilty. More than 1,400 of every 100,000 black Virginians faced marijuana charges in General District Court last year.

In contrast, non-Hispanics whites make up 61 percent of Virginia’s population. But they represented 48 percent of all marijuana possession prosecutions — and 45 percent of all defendants found guilty. About 425 of every 100,000 white Virginians faced marijuana charges in General District Court last year.

Surveys have shown that similar proportions of whites and blacks use marijuana. The racial disparity is one reason why Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring convened a “Cannabis Summit” on December 11 to discuss decriminalizing possession of marijuana and legalizing it for recreational use.

“The burden of this system is falling disproportionately on African Americans and people of color,” Herring said. “There is a better and smarter approach to cannabis, and I think the time has come that we can embrace that.”

In recent months, Herring has stepped up his arguments calling for the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana, action to address past convictions for simple possession, and legalization and regulation of adult use of marijuana in Virginia.

The attorney general noted that in 2018, marijuana arrests in Virginia totaled almost 29,000 — their highest level in at least 20 years. That was triple the number of marijuana arrests in 1999. More than half of those arrested last year were under age 24.

Virginia spends more than $81 million annually enforcing marijuana laws, Herring said.

“Virginia’s policy of criminalizing minor marijuana possession is not working,” Herring said in an op-ed.

“It is needlessly creating criminals and burdening Virginians with convictions. The human and social costs are enormous, in addition to the millions of dollars it costs Virginia taxpayers. And the negative consequences of the current approach fall disproportionately on African Americans and people of color.”

Under current Virginia law, any person knowingly or intentionally possessing marijuana — unless the substance was obtained with a doctor’s recommendation — is guilty of a misdemeanor and can be fined up to $500 and confined in jail for up to 30 days.

In addition to the fines and jail time, people found guilty of possession of marijuana may face challenges such as finding employment, being approved for rental applications, and being accepted to college, even years after a conviction.

Democrats and many Republicans believe the law should be reformed. In preparation for the 2020 legislative session, two lawmakers, both Democrats, have filed bills regarding the issue:

  • Sen. Adam Ebbin of Alexandria is sponsoring legislation to decriminalize simple marijuana possession and provide a process for expunging convictions. Under his bill, people caught with less than an ounce of marijuana would face a civil penalty of no more than $50.
  • Del. Lee Carter of Prince William County has proposed legalizing marijuana, allowing people 21 and older in Virginia to buy the substance in state-regulated stores. His bill would decriminalize marijuana possession for those under 21.

Gov. Ralph Northam, a fellow Democrat, supports marijuana decriminalization and access to medical marijuana, but he hasn’t called for legalization.

Even some law enforcement officers believe the marijuana laws should be reformed. Capt. Emmett Williams of the Richmond Police Department called the current penalties “a little harsh.”

“I think the legislature is trying to make it so they can get those charges dropped easier. Virginia itself is harsher than most states when it comes to that. I don’t think something like a simple possession charge should affect someone for so long,” Williams said.

Del. Lee Carter. Photo via VCU-CNS

However, many people oppose legalizing marijuana because they fear it will encourage more Virginians, especially young adults, to use the drug.

In addition, “it’s a substance that is associated with a lot of violence,” Williams said. Gangs are often involved in the trafficking of marijuana and other drugs, selling the substances on the street and fighting over territory and money.

Williams also said officials should not get their hopes up that marijuana legalization would boost Virginia’s economy and provide a tax windfall for the state.

“Even if marijuana became legalized in Virginia, the distributors wouldn’t be able to get tax breaks for owning a business because they can’t use banking institutions since it’s still illegal on a federal level,” Williams said.

Written by Eric Everington and Adam Hamza, Capital News Service. Graphics by Adam Hamza of VCU Capital News Service, based on analysis of General District Court data. Top Photo by Dylan Fout on Unsplash.

100 Years After Women Earned the Right to Vote, Will VA Legislators Pass Equal Rights Amendment?

|

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With a new Democratic majority in the General Assembly, Virginia could become the 38th state to ratify the ERA. Generation Z, people of color, and the LGBTQ community are leading a new generation in the decades-long fight to add the amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

University of Virginia student Emilia Couture had no idea what the Equal Rights Amendment was before her sister told her about the amendment a few years back.

Now as the outreach director of Generation Ratify, a youth-led movement created to ratify the ERA, Couture and many others are leading a new generation in the decades-long fight to add the amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“It’s time to change the face of the movement by including the next generation — the youth,” Generation Ratify said on its website. 

The ERA seeks to guarantee equal rights in the U.S. Constitution regardless of sex. The amendment was introduced in Congress in 1923, roughly three years after the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. It took Congress nearly five decades to pass the amendment, which still needed to be approved by 38 states. Two deadlines passed without the required approval. By the 1980s, 35 states had ratified the amendment, but it wasn’t until recent years that the movement gained more momentum. Nevada and Illinois ratified the ERA in 2017 and 2018, respectively. With a new Democratic majority in the General Assembly, Virginia could become the 38th state to ratify the ERA. 

Despite being born nearly two decades after the ERA’s last ratification deadline in 1982, Couture believes young people are aware of intersectionality, and want to implement inclusivity in the ERA.

Members of Generation Ratify at a VA Ratify ERA rally (via Generation Ratify/Instagram)

According to Generation Ratify, gender equality is an intersectionality issue, which means that when social categorizations like race and gender combine, members of more than one minority group experience other disadvantages than just gender inequality. 

“I think for a long time, the ERA movement has largely been a white women’s movement, and it’s really problematic that it has been,” Couture said. 

The amendment has diverse support in the state legislature, including men. According to a 2016 poll conducted by the ERA Coalition, the ERA is supported by a majority of men and women. Sen. Glen Sturtevant, R-Richmond, sponsored ERA legislation in 2019, and Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, introduced bills in the past two years to ratify the amendment.

 Sen. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, said African American women and women of color were overlooked in the building of the ERA and women’s rights, but now these women are leading the push for the ERA. 

Sen. Pat Spearman, D-North Las Vegas, an openly lesbian, African American woman, led the fight in Nevada to ratify the ERA. Spearman served as the chief sponsor of the 2017 resolution to ratify the ERA in the Nevada Legislature, approved that year.

“It is a symbol of the fact that we are becoming a more perfected union and we understand that equality matters,” Spearman said.

Long-time ERA advocates and new advocates for the amendment join together to discuss the history of the fight for equality. (Photo by Christopher Brown)

Virginia legislators have made multiple attempts to ratify the ERA. This year, Senate Joint Resolution 284 to ratify the ERA passed the Senate, but never made it out of a House subcommittee. Four Republicans voted against the resolution in a subcommittee, while two Democrats voted for it. During the vote, Del. Margaret Ransone, R-Westmoreland, said she voted against the resolution because she doesn’t need words on a piece of paper representing women’s equality because “God made us all equal.”

Del. Hala Ayala, D-Prince William, one of two Latinas elected to the General Assembly in 2017, said in a recent interview with Capital News Service that she doesn’t understand why some members of the Republican party would “argue the moral obligation that we have to not only look towards our constituents, who overwhelmingly supported this, but also women, who wanted their voices to be heard.”

Democrats then filed motions for rule changes that would have the amendment heard on the House floor and give delegates a chance to vote on it, but the motions failed.

Several members of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus are leading the push to ratify the ERA in the upcoming General Assembly session. Ayala is chief co-patron on House Joint Resolution 1, sponsored by Del. Jennifer Carroll Foy, D- Prince William. McClellan and Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, are chief patrons of Senate Joint Resolution 1, which seeks to ratify the amendment in the Senate.

Carroll Foy said that she believes that the ERA has a far-reaching impact on women of color than other marginalized groups due to inequality in pay.

“As an African American woman, I am paid approximately 60 cents to a man’s dollar,” Carroll Foy said. 

While the ERA does not explicitly talk about equal pay for women, Carroll Foy said she believes that adding the amendment to the Constitution would be the anchor when it comes to passing equal pay legislation. 

R to L: Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, former Illinois Republican House Rep. Steven Andersson and Nevada Democratic Sen. Pat Spearman. (Photo by Christopher Brown)

However, not all women advocate for the amendment’s passage. Anne Schlafly Cori, chairman of the Eagle Forum, an advocacy organization for conservative values, said the ERA would harm women.

“ERA does not put women in the Constitution, ERA puts sex in the Constitution,” Schlafly Cori said. “Sex has a lot of other meanings besides men and women.”

Schlafly Cori’s mother, Phyllis Schlafly, founded the Eagle Forum. During the 1970s, Schlafly was a strong opponent of the ERA. For the new generation, Schlafly Cori said she believes that the ERA, if ratified, would give constitutional rights to what she called “a group of people who didn’t exist in the 1970s,” transgender people. 

The amendment bans sex-based discrimination; however, it does not specify what sex is. According to the National Institutes of Health, sex refers to the biological differences between females and males, while gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of gender. Del. Danica Roem, D-Prince William, a co-patron of HJ1, said people think LGBTQ people are “subverting social norms” when it comes to gender and sex. 

“Discrimination in regards to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression are all inherently discrimination on accounts of sex,” said Roem.

Roem said that discrimination against LGBTQ people justifies ratifying the ERA.

Del. Mark Cole, R-Fredericksburg, believes the ERA will be ratified in 2020. However, Cole said that ratifying the amendment will lead to a series of “costly and divisive lawsuits.” Since the ERA’s last ratification deadline passed in 1982, the amendment is considered expired, according to Cole. He also notes that five states rescinded their ratifications. 

“Regardless of who wins these lawsuits, a large portion of the country will consider the Constitution to be tainted,” Cole said in a statement on his website posted in January. “Either with an amendment that is not valid or because an amendment that should be included was not.”

During the 2019 General Assembly session, Cole  proposed HJ 692, which would have Congress  re-submit the amendment with “language that addresses the concerns that caused the old ERA to fail,” but it died in committee. ERA Advocates, however, said they believe that the original amendment can still be ratified. Supporters have cited U.S. Supreme Court cases like Coleman v. Miller, where the Supreme Court decided that it’s up to Congress to decide an amendment’s ratification period.

Photo via VA Ratify ERA/Facebook

Generation Ratify wants to remove the ERA’s ratification deadline. In November, the organization wrote to members of Congress to support resolutions which would remove the amendment’s deadline from the ratification process. 

“People of all genders deserve constitutional equality,” said Rosie Couture, Generation Ratify’s executive director. “It is that simple. Period.”

It’s unclear what Congress will do if the ERA is ratified by 38 states or what impact the amendment will have if it makes it into the Constitution, but many state Democrats are determined to approve the amendment. McClellan and other Virginia Democrats said they feel confident that the ERA will pass in the upcoming General Assembly session.

“To do it in the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, I think it is very appropriate,” McClellan said. “While it’s long overdue, I think getting it done in 2020 is a little bit of poetic justice.”

Written by Christopher Brown, Capital News Service.