Garrett-Helgeson race to be decided in Republican primary in June
Jeff Helgeson, left, and Dr. Scott Garrett, right, will both seek the 23rd district House of Delegates seat this fall.
Lynchburg-area Republicans will choose their candidate for the House of Delegates in a primary election June 9, party chairman Mark Peake said Wednesday.
Scott Garrett and Jeff Helgeson, both members of Lynchburg City Council, have said they would seek the party’s nomination to run for the 23rd House District seat in the November general election.
Incumbent Del. Shannon Valentine, D-Lynchburg, will be on the Democratic ticket in her party’s primary on the same day, according to the state Board of Elections.
Peake said he and other party leaders decided Tuesday night to use the primary election instead of other methods of choosing a candidate, which can include a mass meeting, canvass or “firehouse primary.”
Peake said the primary election gives college students who may have returned home by June an opportunity to vote by absentee ballot, and potentially include more students than a mass meeting.
Student votes could involve more than 3,000 on-campus students, mostly at Liberty University, who registered to vote in last fall’s presidential election.
However, Liberty’s academic year ends May 8, which is also the earliest date the party could have held a mass meeting under rules set by the state Board of Elections.
“I think a primary will be more helpful about involving Liberty students than a mass meeting,” Peake said.
“If there were a mass meeting on May 8, which is a Friday, most Liberty students will have gone home for the summer at that point,” Peake said.
LU’s graduation is scheduled for the next day, and although seniors would be around, “they aren’t likely to attend a mass meeting” on Friday night, Peake said.
Garrett said mass meetings offer candidates an advantage in that “you have a gathering of ideologically like-minded individuals and they get to speak frankly and freely about how they perceive issues and candidates.”
A potential disadvantage of mass meetings, Garrett said, is that the discussion never moves beyond ideological issues.
“The advantage of a primary is that you will get the pulse of the community and have a citywide perspective and more than likely get a broader insight and input.”
Helgeson released a statement through his campaign spokesman, Joe Glover.
“We’ve been looking forward to taking our campaign for limiting government and fighting taxes throughout the 23rd District — regardless of the process for winning the Republican nomination for House of Delegates,” the statement said.
“The benefit of having a primary will be having our campaign organization in place for a trial run five months ahead of the general election contest in November.”
Garrett said that regardless of which candidate might benefit from the decision, “I think a primary should help the district, and help people to hear both Jeff and I, and get a better sense of where we are” on issues.
Peake said a mass meeting was the only other option he considered.
“A primary gets the most people involved, opens it up to the largest amount of people and is the fairest way to determine our candidate,” Peake said.
In addition, Peake said, Democrats will hold their own primary election June 9 to choose candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, and possibly attorney general.
“They have got important decisions to make on the Democratic side, so there should not be any crossover” by Democrats voting in the other party’s primary to skew its results, Peake said.
Republicans also will gather data on voters who show up on June 9 and add it to the turnout for the presidential primary in 2008. That should produce a solid list of Republican voters to use in encouraging voter turnout in November, Peake said.
Party rules gave Peake, as city Republican chairman, the strongest voice in choosing a primary, although the district’s three precincts in Madison Heights required participation by Amherst County Republicans.
“There were no disagreements within the district” about having a primary, Peake said.
“I had consulted with numerous people,” Peake said — local officials, party members, local party leaders and the 6th District Republican chairman.
There was little disagreement about a primary among most of those contacts, Peake said.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Seems that the Republican Party in Va still doesn’t have a clue about how to return to winning elections. Did we not learn anything from the nomination of John McCain, the worst candidate since Bob Dole? Having an uncontested primary next to an unchallenged Democrat candidate will imo give the Democrat-lite candidate (Garrett)an advantage. Democrats don’t want to run against a solid conservative. What I find almost as disturbing about this decision is the fact that none of the Party’s leadership in the area resigned after losing the Goode seat last election. Not only must Republicans fix their leadership problems in DC and Richmond, it seems that they have some challenges here at home too.
Jouxster: You are interpreting me without asking me if I meant what you are thinking and you are doing so wrongly. Not one time have I advocated that college students not vote, period. I encourage you to go back and read what I wrote. I have simply said that I believe it is unethical for a student whose home is another locality and whose temporary home base is in a college community, not a local community, to vote in the locality of the college. I believe they should vote in their home of origin community. I have a number of reasons for that as I’ve stated before.
You are absolutely right. Technically, the students do not have homes. Why would they vote in local elections in the locality of their college if they do not have a home there.
There is a difference between renters, etc., depending on intention to live in a locality. Renters are part of the local community from the gitgo. College students, in my mind, are part of the college community which I submit is a different. Having attended college myself, I can say that I was largely unaware of the locality, of the politics, needs, interface with the region, state, etc. Maybe I was different and maybe not.
“Simply because you do not like LU…“ That’s a story you are making up via interpretation and assumption. Ask me rather than assume. I do not think this kind of voting is ethical regardless of the college. I also think it is disrespectful to locals unless those students voting are careful to involve themselves in the locality.
Remember, this is my opinion.
Ethics is largely a personal issue. That’s the point here. Legality is a different matter as I said. Remember, this is my opinion and it is not a cut and dried issue.
No, you are not far from it. You are right there promoting the idea of keeping young college kids from voting. The fact that they are concerned with LU or Lynchburg College or CVCC (which is part of our community) makes them part of our community. LU can not be separated from Lynchburg nor should be.
Technically these kids do not have homes as they are at a point in life where they are ‘leaving the nest’ and deciding where to settle down.
There is no argument that substantiates stopping legal voters from voting. The same argument you use could be used towards military bases as these officers do not stay there so do not let them vote where they are based. Why not make a test for renters: Have you lived here more than 2 years, 3 years? How long before you can vote?
Simply because you do not like LU or it’s people be very careful making the argument against voting. It happened in the past and it need not be our future.
Jouxster: not trying to keep people from voting. Not at all, far from it. I continue to question the ethics of a college student voting in a local election when their primary concern is with their campus community, not the local community and their home remains in the locality of origin. For students with no intention of remaining in the Lynchburg locality beyond their four years of college to vote in elections that greatly impact the locality is ethically problematic.
My point here is that LU students are not so little concerned with local politics that they do what most always do in the summer: go home or elsewhere. So much for concern with the locality.
This just isn’t LU, this is all colleges. Only Libertylawstudent made a decent argument for voting for those students who truly make Lynchburg their home like he or she.
Sure, its legal…is it ethical? The two are not the same.
yes indeed. lets do the best we can to keep college kids from voting. then comes renters who do not pay real estate taxes and can move the next day. then comes old people cause we all know how they are going to vote. then.. anyone else we can exclude from voting?
Think before you try to keep people from voting. Too many people in our country’s past have been excluded for “good” reason (in their time).
Hmmm. LU students won’t hang around to participate in the primary in June? Where do they go and for how long? Where exactly is their home residence when it comes to voting in the fall?
Murky indeed.
Gee, I didn’t realize Garrett was a Republican, when did he join?
How much will this primary cost the taxpayers?
Just wondering.
Advertisement