How does a Virginia county switch from staggered Supervisor elections to a single quadrennial election year?

Plain-English summary

Orange County Attorney Pandak asked the AG to confirm the transition mechanics when a Virginia county switches its Board of Supervisors elections from a staggered four-year cycle (with elections every two years for different seats) to a quadrennial cycle (all seats elected together every four years).

The AG laid out the framework. Section 24.2-219 governs the staggered-term system. Section 24.2-220 governs the switch back to a single quadrennial election. The transition statute is keyed to two anchor years, 1993 and 1995, that capture which districts originally elected in each two-year cycle:

• Successors to supervisors whose terms expired in 1995 (or any fourth year thereafter): four-year term.
• Successors to supervisors whose terms expired in 1993 (or any fourth year thereafter): two-year term (this is the one-time alignment term).
• All subsequent successors: four-year terms.

For Orange County (five supervisors, three from districts that historically elected in 1995-cycle years, two from districts that elected in 1993-cycle years), the math works out:

• 2011 election: Supervisors in Districts 2, 3, and 5 (successors of 1995-cycle terms) elected to four-year terms.
• 2013 election: Supervisors in Districts 1 and 4 (successors of 1993-cycle terms) elected to two-year terms.
• 2015 election: All five supervisors elected together to four-year terms, beginning the new quadrennial cycle.

The procedural prerequisite is repeal of the existing staggered-term ordinance. The repeal can happen either through Board action or through a petition-and-referendum by qualified voters of the county. Once that is done, § 24.2-220's transition kicks in automatically.

The two-year transitional term for half the Board is built into § 24.2-220 ("so as to even out the previously staggered terms"); it sacrifices one term cycle of normal continuity in exchange for a one-time alignment of all seats. Pandak's request had laid out her own reading, which matched the AG's.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The transitional rules in § 24.2-220 are anchored to 1993 and 1995 by statute and have been substantively stable since the staggered-to-quadrennial framework was put in place. But any locality currently considering a similar switch should confirm the current statutory text, since the General Assembly periodically refreshes election-administration statutes.

Common questions

Why give two supervisors a two-year term instead of three years or letting them serve out their existing terms?

Because the goal is to put all five supervisors on the same four-year cycle. If Districts 1 and 4 were given full four-year terms in 2013, the next alignment opportunity would be 2017, and the next staggered cycle problem would just shift. The two-year term in 2013 is the shortest path back to a single concurrent cycle in 2015.

Could Orange County just wait until 2013 to switch?

The AG opinion is keyed to the assumption that the Board acted in 2011 to repeal the staggered-term ordinance. If the Board waited and repealed in 2013, the math would shift. The 1993 and 1995 anchor years would still apply, but which districts get the two-year alignment term would track the timing of repeal and the next regular election.

Does this apply to school board or town council elections?

The statute applies to county boards of supervisors. Similar transition mechanics exist for school boards and other locally elected bodies under their own statutes, but each is governed by its own code section. Don't transplant the § 24.2-220 framework without checking.

What if voters petition for the change?

Section 24.2-220 allows repeal either by the governing body or by petition and referendum. Either path triggers the same transition rules. The petition route just shifts the political decision from the Board to the voters.

What about Boards with more than five members?

The principle scales: districts whose terms align with the 1995 cycle get full four-year terms; districts whose terms align with the 1993 cycle get the one-time two-year transitional term. The math gets more complex with seven- or nine-member boards but follows the same logic.

Background and statutory framework

The election-cycle statutes:

• Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-219. Staggered four-year terms for county boards of supervisors.
• Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-220. Reversion from staggered to quadrennial elections. Transition rules anchored to 1993 and 1995.

The transition mechanics, verbatim from the statute (as quoted by the AG):

the successors to those Supervisors whose terms expire in 1995 or any fourth year thereafter shall be elected for a four-year term and immediate successors to those Supervisors whose terms expire in 1993 or any fourth year thereafter shall be elected for a two-year term and all subsequent successors for a four-year term.

The procedural prerequisite: repeal the existing staggered-term ordinance, either by the governing body or by qualified-voter petition and referendum.

The factual setup:

• Orange County Board of Supervisors: five members.
• Districts 2, 3, and 5: successors of supervisors elected in 1995-cycle years.
• Districts 1 and 4: successors of supervisors elected in 1993-cycle years.

The resulting election schedule under the AG's reading:

• 2011: Districts 2, 3, 5 elected to four-year terms.
• 2013: Districts 1, 4 elected to two-year transitional terms.
• 2015: All five supervisors elected together to four-year terms (start of quadrennial cycle).

Citations

• Va. Code § 2.2-505
• Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-219
• Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-220

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2011/11-024-Pandak.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General

May 27, 2011

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1

Sharon E. Pandak, Esquire
County Attorney, Orange County
4004 Genesee Place, Suite 201
Woodbridge, Virginia 22192

Dear Ms. Pandak:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You inquire as to the proper process Orange County should follow under § 24.2-220 of the Code of Virginia, in the event the County changes its method of electing the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, should the County choose to elect all of its Supervisors at the same time for four-year terms, instead of holding the current staggered elections every two years, you ask in what year would all of the Supervisors be elected to four-year terms in a single election if the Board acts now to change the method of election.

Response

It is my opinion that once the applicable county ordinance is changed properly to eliminate the method of electing Supervisors to staggered four-year terms and to replace that method with an election for all of the Supervisors every four years, the provisions of § 24.2-220 would require that the Supervisors in Districts 2, 3 and 5 be elected to four-year terms in 2011, while the Supervisors in Districts 1 and 4 be elected to a two-year term in 2013, so that the entire Board of Supervisors would be elected to a four-year term beginning in 2015.

Background

You relate that Orange County is currently governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors are elected to four-year terms based on a staggered, two-year, or "biennial" electoral cycle. Under the existing ordinance, three Supervisors' seats, those in Districts 2, 3, and 5, are to be elected to four-year terms in 2011, and the remaining two seats, in Districts 1 and 4, are to be elected to four-year terms in 2013. You indicate that the current Board of Supervisors is considering a proposal to change to non-staggered terms this electoral cycle. In order to implement this change, the Board would amend the applicable Orange County ordinance to repeal the provision for staggered terms and, instead, all Supervisors would be elected to serve four-year terms at the same time every four years, or "quadrennially." You conclude that, pursuant to § 24.2-220, the implementation schedule for changing to a concurrent quadrennial election cycle would provide for three Supervisors elected in 2011 to serve a four year term, for two Supervisors in 2013 to serve a two-year term, and the entire Board of Supervisors serve concurrent four-year terms following the election in 2015.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 24.2-220 allows for a county board of Supervisors, which by a previously adopted ordinance is elected biennially to staggered four-year terms pursuant to § 24.2-219, to revert to the quadrennial election of all members. The previously adopted ordinance calling for staggered terms for the Supervisors must first be repealed, either by the county's governing body or by a proper petition and referendum by the qualified voters of the county.

Once the existing County ordinance properly is repealed, § 24.2-220 provides that "the successors to those Supervisors whose terms expire in 1995 or any fourth year thereafter shall be elected for a four-year term and immediate successors to those Supervisors whose terms expire in 1993 or any fourth year thereafter shall be elected for a two-year term and all subsequent successors for a four-year term."

Applying this statute, one must first determine which Supervisors are the "successors to those Supervisors whose terms expire[d] in 1995 or any fourth year thereafter." You relate that the Supervisors in Districts 2, 3, and 5 are the successors of the Supervisors whose term expired in 1995. Under § 24.2-220, these Supervisors would be elected in 2011 to "a four-year term." Next, the statute calls for the "immediate successors to Supervisors whose terms expire[d] in 1993 and each fourth year thereafter" to serve a two-year term, so as to even out the previously staggered terms. You relate that the Supervisors in Districts 1 and 4 are the successors of Supervisors whose terms expired in 1993. Therefore, these Supervisors would be elected to a two year term in 2013. In sum, the Supervisors in Districts 2, 3 and 5 would be elected to four-year terms in 2011, the Supervisors in Districts 1 and 4 would be elected to a two-year term in 2013, and the entire board of Supervisors would be elected to four-year terms beginning in 2015.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that once the applicable county ordinance properly is changed to eliminate the method of electing Supervisors to staggered four-year terms and to replace that method with an election for all of the Supervisors every four years, the provisions of § 24.2-220 would require that the Supervisors in Districts 2, 3 and 5 be elected to four-year terms in 2011, while the Supervisors in Districts 1 and 4 be elected to a two-year term in 2013, so that the entire Board of Supervisors would be elected to a four-year term beginning in 2015.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Kenneth R. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General