RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) – A Richmond electoral board member apologized and made a motion to change the ballot order for a City Council race after a candidate shared paperwork issues she had with the city’s elections office.
But it didn’t get a vote at the board’s July 23 meeting as no other member seconded the motion, a decision that came after General Registrar Keith Balmer told them to expect a lawsuit from the other candidate in the race if they did.
A review of emails from 9th District City Council candidate Stephanie Starling by 8News found Balmer’s office shared the wrong form with her, which she said held her up and kept her from being first on the ballot.
The city’s elections office’s online “Candidate Filing” training also includes the same incorrect form.
A paperwork dispute becomes a public
Balmer shared the ballot order of candidates for the city’s elections in November at the July 23 electoral board meeting.
The two candidates running for the 9th District City Council seat – Nicole Jones and Starling – filed all their paperwork on the same day, Balmer said, so Jones, who filed earlier in the day, would be first on the ballot.
At this point in the meeting, Starling shared her issues with Balmer’s office’s guidance on the paperwork she had to file. Starling said a compliance officer in the city’s elections office, Kara Wilson, initially told her in late May that she qualified and was going to be first on the ballot, but learned this month that was not true.
The day after learning she would be second on the ballot, Starling emailed Balmer urging him “to immediately correct this error and ensure the accurate ballot order is communicated to all relevant parties,” or she would “take this matter to the press.”
“This misinformation has confused and raised questions about the integrity of the process for some candidates,” Starling wrote to Balmer on July 17. “As a new candidate who diligently followed all steps advised by your office to fulfill the ballot requirements, it is crucial that accurate information is not only provided to candidates but also to voters to maintain transparency and fairness. An individual hired to perform a job cannot use being new or untrained as an excuse for such a lapse.”
In her remarks, Starling made pointed comments about the investigations into Balmer’s office, which includes an ongoing inspector general probe, saying that she knows things are “going on in his office.” She also called Balmer’s emails to her about the situation “unprofessional in tone.”
Balmer acknowledged that Wilson was wrong to tell Starling she would be first on the ballot but said Wilson “immediately” shared new guidance with her on May 29 to file a statement of organization and a statement of economic interest to qualify.
“I wanted to reach out to say that I received your candidate filing paperwork and processed your petition pages. You are at 108 accepted signatures,” Wilson wrote in an email to Starling. “Please see attached documents. Instructions for electronic filing of the Statement of Organization are available within the form itself. This form is mandatory for all campaigns involving expenditure. If filed electronically, a copy will be forwarded directly to our office.”
Balmer read this email and his July 18 email responding to Starling during the electoral board meeting, saying Wilson’s email invalidated Starling’s misinformation claim.
“While it is true that you were initially told that you qualified for the ballot, Ms. Wilson realized that her guidance was incorrect and took corrective action by immediately emailing you and providing new guidance,” Balmer wrote to Starling on July 18.
“As she clearly states in the email below, she advised you to complete the Statement of Organization document, and she advised you to complete this form online. Had you chosen to complete this form online, you likely would have been the first name on the ballot for this race,” Balmer continued.
“However, you chose to complete a paper application and mail it to the Department of Elections. By the time this form was accepted by the Department of Elections, your opponent had qualified for the ballot. I fail to see how your placement on the ballot reflects negligence on our part.”
Balmer added that a statement of organization is required within 10 days of filing a certificate of candidate qualification and that his office offered packets and a free online training course to each candidate that provided clarity on the documents needed to run.
In his July 18 email, Balmer asked: “Did you not read this packet?” and “Did you not take this training?”
“There is no ‘error’ to correct,” he added. “Talk to whoever you want. I will tell them the same thing.”
Mistakes over committees and forms
As Balmer read the emails, Starling asked if he had the attachments of the documents Wilson emailed her and he said he didn’t.
Starling later told the electoral board that one attachment was a statement of organization for a political action committee instead of one for a candidate campaign committee and that Balmer’s office had a video online showing the PAC form as a needed form to run in the city.
This error, Starling said, delayed the process for her as she waited for the correct information from another campaign and led her to mail the form instead of doing it online.
“I’m not a PAC,” Starling said at the July 23 meeting, adding that she believed that the tutorial video has been up since December.
Balmer responded that a statement of organization is a mandatory form that a candidate must file with the state to qualify for the ballot, saying that Starling decided to file her document through the mail instead of online and that’s why it came in after Jones’ paperwork.
8News was provided the emails and attachments by Starling after the July 23 electoral board meeting and found that the attachment was a PAC statement of organization. 8News also reviewed Richmond’s elections office’s “Candidate Filing” online tutorial and it shows the same PAC form as a required document for a candidate to file.
When asked about the video showing the PAC form, Balmer told 8News in a July 25 email that “A political action committee and a candidate campaign committee is the same thing.”
“That’s not correct,” Starling said in a July 25 interview when asked about Balmer’s assertion.
A PAC and a candidate campaign committee are different. A candidate is required to file a statement of organization for a candidate campaign committee but not one for a PAC.
“A few of the differences include filing schedules, contribution thresholds, and expenditure rules,” Andrea Gaines, a Virginia Department of Elections spokesperson, wrote in an email.
Asked whether Balmer’s statement was incorrect, Gaines responded “Yes.”
When informed of the differences, including what was shared by the elections department, Balmer wrote in a July 26 email “Thanks for the tip” and laid out the differences between his office and department and the forms candidates are supposed to submit to qualify for the ballot.
“The Statement of Organization, which is a campaign finance document, must be submitted directly to ELECT. Our office only receives a copy of this document after it has been processed and accepted by them,” Balmer wrote to 8News. “The staff over at ELECT are the subject matter experts on campaign finance.”
Balmer added he was unsure if Starling took advantage of his office’s online training or picked up an informational packet for candidates. He said candidates had from January to June 18 to submit paperwork and that if she felt uncomfortable filing it online, she could have hand-delivered it to the Department of Elections’ office downtown.
“Lastly, it’s important to note that thirty-nine local candidates successfully made it onto the ballot for this November’s election, with Ms. Starling being the only candidate who encountered an issue with the Statement of Organization,” he wrote.
Balmer did not respond to a question on whether he believes the PAC statement of organization document that Wilson initially shared with Starling and also included in the online training for candidates is the correct form.
A failed effort to switch the ballot order
Balmer warned the board at the July 23 meeting that changing the ballot order would lead to a lawsuit from Jones.
“I can tell you if the electoral board was to tell me to switch the order of the ballot. Well, I can tell you what’s going to happen,” Balmer said. “Ms. Jones is going to file a lawsuit and we’re going to end up in court and the judge is going to side with Ms. Jones because the paperwork that has been submitted has been by Ms. Jones put her first on the ballot.”
“So, there is no corrective action to take because we have actually done what we’re supposed to do on our behalf,” he added.
Starling responded that she was given the wrong information by Wilson to submit a PAC statement of organization, which she said held up the process for her.
As Starling waited for the correct information, which she said she ultimately got from another campaign, she said she decided to mail the candidate campaign committee document to the Virginia Department of Elections instead of online.
In a June 6 email to Wilson, Starling said the State Board of Elections referred her back to Wilson but that another candidate’s campaign manager advised her “that the form I already submitted (SBE-947.1) is the correct one for our local elections.”
Balmer noted that while Starling had said his office had a signed copy of the document, it was supposed to go straight to the state’s Department of Elections instead. Starling countered that his office gave her the “wrong” form, leading Electoral Board Chairman John Ambrose to tell both “no more back and forth.”
Electoral Board Member Starlet Stevens was the first board member to address the issue, apologizing to Starling and calling the situation “disturbing” and “distasteful.”
“Well, it’s concerning. As Ms. Starling has said we have some issues in this office right now,” Stevens said. “There’s a lot of miscommunication and a lot of people here are new, never worked an election in their life.”
Ambrose then asked whether the electoral board had the power to change the ballot order.
“The board can,” Balmer answered. “But the board should be prepared for the consequences of that.”
“Well, I’d like to entertain a motion that we change the order,” Stevens immediately said. “And here so do.”
Joyce Smith, the only Democrat on the three-person electoral board, said she was not going to second the motion and no vote was taken.
After the meeting, Balmer told 8News he was “stunned” that Stevens proposed a motion to change the ballot order.
In the interview with 8News, Starling disputed Balmer’s claims about a potential lawsuit. “He’s not a jury. He’s not the judge,” Starling said of Balmer when asked about his assertion a judge would rule in Jones’ favor if she filed a lawsuit.
“I bust my butt to get my signatures, my documents, and I was told I was first on the ballot,” Starling told 8News, pointing to findings that being first on the ballot comes with advantages.
“I’ve never been in this type of situation, and the dysfunction of the [city’s elections] office is discouraging,” Starling added.
