Opinion ID: 4542320
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Political Party Affiliation of Witnesses

Text: Appellants contend that the political party affiliation of witnesses was relevant due to the “strong undercurrent of politics throughout the events leading up to” their removal. They argue that they should have been permitted to use political party affiliation to cross-examine witnesses to “show signs of prejudice and/or bias.” But, Townes and Silvestro failed to proffer bias. 20 Appellants argued against the exclusion of this evidence because they were members of one political party while the third board member was from the opposite political party. This was insufficient to display bias because local electoral boards are comprised in the following way: “[t]wo electoral board members shall be of the political party that cast the highest number of votes for Governor at that election” and one member from the “next highest number of votes in the Commonwealth for Governor.” Code § 24.2-106. Therefore, all local electoral boards are comprised of two members of one political party and one member from the opposite political party. Furthermore, evidence of political party affiliation was highly prejudicial and was not probative of any claim or defense. Political party affiliation had no bearing on whether Appellants violated their oaths of office. Consequently, Townes and Silvestro failed to demonstrate that the circuit court abused its discretion in holding that this evidence was inadmissible.