Author: Catie Ratliff

More than three months after Virginia State Police forcefully dispersed a pro-Palestine encampment on Grounds, the University of Virginia has dropped all disciplinary action against student protesters arrested on May 4. The dismissal of University Judiciary Committee charges is a victory for student and faculty organizers, but UVA continues to stonewall demonstrator demands for disclosure and divestment.

An alternative resolution for the students facing UJC cases was reached at a meeting on September 11 after UVA Student Affairs amended its conditions for convening with organizers. Previously, Student Affairs required students to meet one-on-one with administrators, with only those not affiliated with the encampment allowed to attend as support persons.

“The students really felt like they were trying to be divided. They wanted to meet as a group,” says Laura Goldblatt, an assistant professor and faculty liaison for pro-Palestine student protesters.

Under the amended conditions, administration and protesters were able to move forward with alternative resolutions for the disciplinary charges. All degrees withheld in connection with the UJC cases are set to be conferred and backdated to May 2024.

During the meeting, student protesters read a statement expressing unequivocal support for Palestinian human rights and their frustrations with UVA.

“At minimum, 41,000 Palestinians, including over 16,500 children, have been murdered by the Israeli military since the start of its genocidal assault on Gaza and the West Bank,” reads a portion of the statement. “We must recognize that these are not mere numbers but represent real lives lost and suffering endured. As we confront these harrowing realities, we must also challenge our institutions to sever their complicity in this violence.”

At the conclusion of the statement, student organizers reaffirmed their calls for UVA to disclose all direct and indirect investments; divest from “institutions materially supporting or profiting from Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and occupation of Palestine;” withdraw from academic relations with Israeli institutions; and ensure the security of faculty, staff, and students supporting Palestine.

“The faculty present all expressed incredible pride in the students for their courage, for the powerful nature of this statement, and for their leadership in this really dark time. Also their conviction in fighting for Palestinian human rights as a matter of liberation for colonized and oppressed peoples here and elsewhere,” says Goldblatt, who was present at the meeting with Student Affairs.

While UVA has repeatedly stated that alternative resolutions were offered to students facing disciplinary action, Goldblatt says Student Affairs shared that the dismissal of UJC cases was delayed in part due to resistance among members of university leadership.

“As we noted over the summer, every student who was facing charges stemming from policy violations committed on May 4 was offered the opportunity to pursue informal resolution in lieu of a UJC trial,” said University Spokesperson Brian Coy in a comment via email. “As of today, all of the students involved have accepted that option and brought these matters to a close. Despite the high profile of this case, the University followed the same disciplinary practices and processes we always do. These students were not treated differently.”

University Communications declined to respond to other C-VILLE requests for comment regarding the dismissal of charges and organizer demands.

While Coy did not comment on organizer demands, a September 13 meeting of the University of Virginia Investment Management Company and Board of Visitors highlighted leadership reluctance toward divestment. UVIMCO Chief Executive Officer Robert Durden emphasized the logistical challenges of divestment and the ideally apolitical nature of UVIMCO.

“We do not like using our investment strategy as a means of expressing a moral or political opinion,” said Durden.

In an interview with C-VILLE, Goldblatt rebuts the idea that failure to divest is not itself a political action.

“[UVIMCO] adopted an Investor Responsibility Framework that they say guides what they decide to invest in,” she says. “Choosing to fund a state that is committing a genocide, and to invest in weapons manufacturers that are creating weapons that are being used in a genocide, is a political decision. … Choosing to fund certain paths is a political one, and so divesting is a political decision, but it’s not like not divesting is somehow not a political decision.”

Despite stricter rules around demonstrations on Grounds, Goldblatt says student and faculty organizers are energized and committed to action.

“UVA, like all other institutions, [is] susceptible to pressure,” she says. “Just because right now UVA says ‘No way’ to divestment does not mean that there’s no path forward. It is our job as those who feel called in this moment to have moral courage to keep putting the pressure on them, to make them do the right thing and to make them live up to their mission of being both good and great.”

After moving the ordinance from the consent agenda, Charlottesville City Council voted on September 3 to adopt ranked-choice voting for its June 2025 primary elections.

Ahead of the vote, former delegate and founder of Ranked Choice Virginia Sally Hudson spoke in favor of the new polling method. During her time in the General Assembly, Hudson was instrumental in introducing and passing the state law allowing city councils to choose ranked-choice voting.

“To use the popular parlance of our time, ‘This ordinance did not just fall out of a coconut tree; we exist in the context of all that came before us,’” she said. “In Charlottesville, that context goes back centuries. I hope that you will join the three founding fathers emblazoned on this building in doing your part to build a more perfect union today.”

Every other public commenter, several of whom were there with Ranked Choice Virginia, spoke in favor of adopting ranked-choice voting for next year’s city council primaries.

Council members registered some reservations about the ordinance but ultimately approved the measure by a 4-1 vote.

“I think people who have concerns about it, I think it’s still in good faith, because any time you’re making a change to the way an election works, it’s a big deal,” said Councilor Michael Payne. “I think Arlington shows that it can be done as long as we’re really committed to doing the education and outreach.”

Councilor Natalie Oschrin, Vice Mayor Brian Pinkston, and Mayor Juandiego Wade also spoke in support of the measure, noting that while it is experimental, adoption has the potential for significant positive impacts and could set a meaningful precedent for other localities.

“This has been framed as an experiment,” said Pinkston, who noted ranked-choice voting has been a topic of discussion for the entirety of his time on city council. “I do feel that there is a strong coalition of folks who are aware enough about this, and this is a high information electorate here.”

Despite overwhelming public support for the ordinance at council meetings, Councilor Lloyd Snook ultimately opposed the measure—casting the sole dissenting vote.

“If this vote were only about ranked-choice voting I would have no qualms about voting yes. But it’s not. It’s about ranked-choice voting and single-transferable voting,” said Snook before the vote. “When I’ve tried to explain all of this to people over the past few weeks, I don’t know that I’ve found a single person who understands the practical effect of this—that you vote for the first person to get elected and [with] your second transferable vote, you only get one and a fraction vote. So you have relatively little influence on who the second choice is.”

While Snook’s understanding of single-transferable votes—the mechanism of ranked-choice voting for multiseat elections in Virginia—is mostly accurate, it slightly mischaracterizes the mechanics.

“Everybody has one whole vote. Nobody gets more power than anybody else,” says Hudson. “The suggestion that somebody gets more votes than anybody else is just flat false.”

To understand single transferable ranked-choice voting, Hudson provides the analogy that “your vote is $1 and you’re going to spend that dollar on your first choice. If your favorite winds up with more votes than they need, then you get change back, and that change goes to your second choice.

If your favorite only needs a third of the votes, but they get 40 percent, then they’ve got more than they need, and your support can go to your second choice as well,” she elaborates. “If everybody’s got $1 to spend, then everybody’s got equal power. If your [preferred candidate receives] exactly a third [of the votes], then your favorite is going to need all of your vote just to win.”

Councilor Snook joined the rest of Charlottesville City Council in appropriating $26,460 for voter education and any hardware or software purchases needed for ranked-choice tabulation.

City council will consider whether to more permanently proceed with ranked-choice voting after the 2025 primaries.

HOW IT WORKS

Proportional ranked-choice voting is fairly straightforward on the voter end, but understanding how votes are tallied can be a bit more complicated.

On the ballot, voters rank the candidates based on preference. Voters do not have to rank all candidates if they don’t want to; their ballot will still be counted. Each voter has one first-choice vote regardless of the number of open seats.

Candidates must reach a “threshold” or “quota” to be elected. For example, in an election with three open seats, a candidate needs to get 25 percent of the electorate plus one vote to be elected. (It is impossible for more than three candidates to meet the 25 percent plus one vote threshold.)

In the first round of tallying, only voters’ first-choice candidates are considered. Once a candidate reaches the threshold, they are elected. If all seats are filled in the first round, the process stops here.

If a candidate exceeds the threshold and there are remaining seats, surplus votes past the threshold are redistributed to voters’ next preference candidate. If there are still remaining seats after redistributing surplus votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for the eliminated candidate has their vote redistributed to their second choice. The process then continues until all seats are filled.

Starting August 26, motorists can no longer turn left onto Route 29 from Hydraulic Road. The recent closure of the left-turn lanes is the Virginia Department of Transportation’s latest effort to improve traffic flow at the intersection.

The change in traffic pattern was completed overnight, from August 25 to 26, with the left-turn lanes from Hydraulic Road onto Route 29 closed by rush hour on Monday, August 26. Left-turn lanes from Route 29 onto Hydraulic Road remain open.

In addition to closing the left-turn lanes, VDOT will also modify the lane patterns on Hydraulic Road.

“Headed eastbound [on Hydraulic], we’re going to have two through lanes there and a right-turn lane,” says VDOT Project Manager Will Stowe. “Headed westbound towards Albemarle High School, we’re going to keep two through lanes and we’re going to have two dedicated right-turn lanes.”

According to Stowe, the vertical posts (also known as bollards) around the protected right-turn lane from Hydraulic onto 29 North will also be removed to create a safer pedestrian crossing.

A VDOT traffic study of the intersection indicates that closing the left-turn lanes on Hydraulic will improve traffic flow at the crossing significantly. Time previously allotted to the left-turn signals will be redistributed to other movements.

“We’re estimating and expecting about a 20 percent better travel time along Hydraulic and about a 30 percent better travel time along Route 29,” says Stowe.

For drivers looking to turn left onto Route 29, the change may be jarring, but there are several alternate paths available.

“There’s multiple ways,” says Stowe. “It really depends on where you’re going.” 

Heading eastbound on Hydraulic, drivers can access 29 North by crossing the intersection, making a U-turn at the newly constructed roundabout, and turning right on 29 North.

Motorists traveling westbound on Hydraulic can access 29 South in two ways, depending on their route and destination. Both of Stowe’s recommended routes utilize Seminole Court. “You can either take a right at the new roundabout that we’ve built and go to Hillsdale, then Seminole Court, and then take a left onto 29 South,” he says. “You can [also] go up to the intersection [of Hydraulic Road and Route 29], take a right on 29 [North], and make a U-turn at Seminole Court.”

Rather than using the roundabout and backroads, drivers traveling westbound on the 250 bypass can more easily access 29 South utilizing the left exit after Hydraulic Road. The “Chicken Strip” can be accessed using the exit onto 29 North immediately after the turn onto Hydraulic from the bypass.

While Stowe and VDOT are optimistic the permanent lane closure will improve travel time through the intersection, other residents are split. Online chatter about the new traffic pattern has spanned multiple platforms, with at least two Reddit threads and several Nextdoor posters discussing the VDOT announcement.

“I don’t use that for a commute or regularly for anything BUT it’s obvious that no one at VDOT truly drives in the area of Charlottesville! This is going to create so many u-turns on 29. Insane,” said Reddit user Adventurous-Emu-755. Others in the thread were more supportive, with user WHSRWizard commenting, “I actually think this could be OK. You’ll have to make a left somewhere else on to 29 or make a U-turn at the Post Office, but it should help move traffic through that intersection quicker.”

For supporters and skeptics alike, more information about the ongoing Route 29 improvements can be found at vdot.virginia.gov.