Despite increase, Lynchburg's Ward II lagged in voter turnout

Lynchburg’s historically black neighborhoods turned out in stronger than usual force on Election Day, but still failed to keep pace with other parts of the city when it came to voter turnout, according to preliminary data from the registrar’s office.

Galvanized by the historic presidential election and a concentrated get-out-the-vote campaign, the city’s second voting ward achieved a turnout of 57 percent.

A total of 4,867 voters were reported, uncommonly strong for Ward II, a district that encompasses the inner city and routinely sees a sluggish pace at the polls.

The accelerated activity, however, still flagged when compared to the city’s three remaining voting wards.

Ward III, which absorbed the bulk of the Liberty University surge, had the highest turnout of the day at 70 percent.

Ward I — traditionally one of the city’s busiest areas — took the top prize when it came to sheer numbers, with 8,925 voters reported.

Ward IV ranked second in raw numbers and tied Ward I for the silver medal in turnout. Both achieved 65 percent participation.

The city’s second ward was the target of an aggressive Democratic mobilization campaign in the run-up to Election Day, and its precincts were patrolled by monitors from the Obama campaign, who kept a watchful eye out for any irregularities.

Local Democratic Party Chairman John Lawrence noted supporters did succeed in boosting participation past the 2004 figures. Ward II saw a 23 percent jump in voter activity between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

The area still came in last, however, in both percentage of turnout and total number of voters. Local stakeholders attributed the trend to the district’s socioeconomic conditions.

“There are those of us who don’t want to say that, but it must be said,” said Walter Fore, past president of the Lynchburg Voters League, which operates primarily in Ward II.

Fore noted the inner city continues to struggle with violent crime, unemployment, teen pregnancy and poverty.

“That’s not by accident,” he added. “Socially and economically, that’s how we’ve been placed.”

Lawrence agreed, pointing to the high poverty rate as a barricade to political participation. Ward II City Councilman Ceasor Johnson also noted many lower-income residents are left feeling disenfranchised.

“They don’t feel like they’re part of the process. They don’t see voting as a necessity,” Johnson said. “We’ve got a combination of issues here, and I think education, education, education is going to be key. … We’ve got to let them know voting is not just for certain groups. It’s for all Americans, for all of the city of Lynchburg.”

Several said more needed to be to done to address the struggles taking place in the area, and called for cooperation among a wide range of community sources.

At the same time, officials also highlighted the jump in the ward’s voter activity, and praised the dedicated volunteers who went door-to-door to encourage voters to get out.

“Their commitment to Ward II was unbelievable,” Fore said. “They did everything they could to make sure no house was missed.”

The single busiest precinct of the day was Heritage Elementary School, which takes in the Liberty University campus. The Ward III polling station saw its numbers more than double when LU made its unprecedented push to register all students locally.

The elementary school saw 3,685 voters file through its doors on Election Day — a turnout of 78 percent.

“That’s why the city didn’t go for Obama,” said Lawrence, noting the Democratic Party saw gains in every precinct Tuesday except for Heritage Elementary.

“There’s really no way around it. The college flipped it for McCain,” he said. “… Gilmore won there. That ought to tell you something.”

Sen. John McCain won 51 percent of the vote in Lynchburg, beating out Barack Obama.

Across the city, Lynchburg saw record turnout, with 8,000 more votes cast than ever before. Total turnout hit 73 percent.

............2008.....2004.....Increase


Ward I......8,925....8,265....8%
Ward II.....4,867....3,954....23%
Ward III....8,261....5,088....62%
Ward IV.....8,417....7,419....13%

Source: State Board of Elections