Lynchburg, VA — A federal jury recently decided in favor of two Republican members of Lynchburg’s Electoral Board, concluding that political bias did not play a significant role in the non-reappointment of former General Registrar Christine Gibbons. The lawsuit stemmed from claims that Gibbons was ousted from her position due to her nonpartisanship, violating her First Amendment rights.
The decision followed over two hours of deliberation, dismissing allegations against Electoral Board Vice Chair Steven Troxel and Secretary Betty Gibbs. This verdict, delivered late Friday evening, caps a contentious legal battle that has once again highlighted the intense scrutiny on electoral board appointments across the country.
The lawsuit, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, sparked a significant local and national conversation about the influence of partisanship in election-related positions. It was in a 2-1 vote earlier this year that Troxel and Gibbs favored Daniel Pense, a new appointee with declared Republican affiliations, over Gibbons, whose term concluded on June 30, 2023.
Gibbons, who had served diligently while maintaining a stance of political neutrality, accused the Repulican board members of favoring Pense due to explicit partisan preferences. She argued that her objective conduct and her conscious avoidance of political endorsement or participation were the underlying reasons for her removal.
Although the verdict was in favor of Troxel and Gibbs, Gibbons’ attorney, Steve Pershing, expressed disappointment, hinting at potential grounds for appeal. Pershing pointed to controversial decisions made during the trial, including the exclusion of evidence he deemed critical – notably, claims about Gibbs’ alleged denial of election legitimacy and her actions surrounding the events of January 6 in Washington, D.C., as well as both defendants’ previous activities that purportedly promoted partisan practices.
The defense’s counterarguments were bolstered by evidence suggesting procedural propriety in seeking a replacement for Gibbons. Troxel reportedly sought legal advice from Virginia’s Attorney General, confirming the legality of opening the registrar’s position to new applicants under nonpartisan pretenses.
While this case has reached its conclusion at the trial level, it reignites discussions from past legal disputes where outcomes occasionally favored former general registrars claiming unfair dismissal over partisan conflicts. Notably, nearly three decades prior, another Lynchburg registrar, Linda Arnold, was awarded damages when it was determined she was not reappointed due to her Democratic affiliations.
The trial featured a series of witnesses, including election officials, lawmakers, and the current general registrar, underscoring the complexity and emotive nature of public election roles. While each testimony painted differing views of the motivations behind Gibbons’ non-reappointment, the jury ultimately sided with Troxel and Gibbs.
The proceedings and their outcomes serve as a vivid reminder of the delicate interplay between local governance and partisan influences in ensuring the integrity of electoral processes. As Gibbons and her legal team consider an appeal, Lynchburg residents and observers nationwide remain engaged in a broader debate about fairness, transparency, and the nonpartisan administration of elections.