Updates: DOJ Sues VA Over Voter Data, Richmond Secret Opinions, A Special Prosecutor & More

Updates on topics previously discussed in Virginia Politics Revealed.

U.S. Department of Justice Sues Virginia Over Voter Data

Article: "U.S. DOJ & AG Pamela Bondi Seek Virginia Voter List, Other Voter Information” (August 14, 2025)

Update: Last August I reported on the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempts to get voter data from the Virginia Department of Elections under the leadership of then Governor Glenn Youngkin’s (R) Department of Elections Commissioner Susan Beals. From that article:

According to a July 15, 2025 letter from representatives of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice to Virginia Department of Elections Commissioner Susan Beals, U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi has requested Virginia’s “statewide voter registration list” for inspection.

The U.S. DOJ, according to records released today under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, first reached out to the Virginia Secretary of the Commonwealth Kelly Gee in June as part of “the implementation of Presidential Executive Order (EO) 14248, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” That communication was ultimately forwarded to Beals at the Virginia Department of Elections for further coordination and action.

Now, according to Ryan Mancini’s January 16, 2026 article in The Hill:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday sued Virginia for not handing over state voter data, the latest among several states the department has targeted in an effort to retrieve registration information from individuals across the country since last year.

It further appears that the DOJ is basing their litigation on the same legal authorities they cited in records I acquired last year via Virginia FOIA:

Bondi argued that the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act authorizes her to have access to state voter data. Her office added that she can use the Civil Rights Act at her “disposal to demand the production, inspection, and analysis of the statewide voter registration lists.”

Richmond Legal Opinions Remain Secret

Articles: "Reporting Update: Fairfax Casino, Bagby, Richmond Opinions, Petersburg Council & More” (April 13, 2025)

"Richmond’s Secret Legal Opinions” (March 27, 2025)

Update: Back in 2024, the Richmond City Attorney’s Office refused to provide me with any formal legal opinions concerning a law related to the meals tax, opinions which according to Sec. 2-110 of the Code of Richmond, "shall be made available for inspection of any person affected by the opinion or having an interest in the opinion.”

As I revealed in March of last year, the City Attorney’s Office ultimately didn’t find any opinions about anything, as they couldn’t figure out what qualifies as an "opinion” versus, say, "advice.”

Samuel Parker of the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported on January 14, 2026 that this practice of nondisclosure has continued, though the City Attorney’s Office does seem to now recognize the existence of opinions. From Parker’s article:

Despite that decision by City Council — which directly oversees the city attorney — Drewry’s office this week refused to turn over copies of written opinions issued to city officials in the past year.

On Dec. 29, The Times-Dispatch submitted a public records request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act seeking city attorneys’ legal opinions written in 2025.

In a Tuesday response, Assistant City Attorney John Dickinson said all such documents are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine and thus exempt from disclosure. He did not address questions about city code’s instruction that the opinions be released.

Drewry similarly did not answer questions about the city ordinance. In an emailed statement, she said, “The city attorney’s office believes its response is fully consistent with applicable law.”

Parker expands the scope of the piece and reminds us "[it’s] not the first time officials have appeared to flout city code.” Again from his reporting:

The Times-Dispatch previously reported that officials had stopped maintaining the city’s online spending database in 2019, despite the city code requiring that government purchases be updated on a monthly basis. The newspaper also reported that officials had simply stopped collecting delinquent real estate tax balances as expected under city code during the COVID-19 pandemic, costing the city at least $31 million in outstanding tax bills.

And The Richmonder in July reported that City Hall’s departments had failed to file more than a third of code-required operational reports for City Council’s review.

Asked whether it was concerning that city offices and officials seemingly can disregard ordinances, Addison said, "Yes, it is.”

But the deeper problem in the case of the city attorney, according to Addison, is the conflict inherent in her role.

As I said last year: "And this rather idiosyncratic example, from Virginia’s “cesspool of corruption,” should remind us all that simply codifying transparency into the law by no means guarantees transparency at all.”

City’s Private Legal Fees Skyrocket in Richmond FOIA Whistleblower Case

Articles: "Subpoena Issued, Invoices Missing in Richmond FOIA Whistleblower Lawsuit” (September 15, 2025)

"Richmond Billed Over $100,000 MORE in April & May by Private Law Firm in FOIA Whistleblower Case” (June 26, 2025)

"Richmond Billed Over $130,000 by Private Law Firm in FOIA Whistleblower Case” (May 8, 2025)

Update: There’ve been several updates in the ongoing Richmond FOIA whistleblower lawsuit saga lately, but our focus here is the skyrocketing private legal costs incurred by the City in fighting its former FOIA officer Connie Clay in Richmond Circuit Court.

After about half a year of missing Ogletree Deakins invoices from the private law firm, as Graham Moomaw reported in The Richmonder on January 16, 2026, “[t]he legal bills for Richmond’s efforts to fight a lawsuit filed by former city FOIA officer Connie Clay have risen to more than $633,000 after the private law firm handling the case filed seven months’ worth of invoices at the end of 2025.”

Moomaw continued:

The missing bills came pouring in at the end of the year. The city received seven invoices from Ogletree, all dated Dec. 30 and adding up to $398,359 in costs. On top of the $234,711 the city had already spent before the invoices stopped, the new invoices pushed the total costs to $633,070.

The Richmonder and others had been filing periodic FOIA requests for invoices, prompting the city to release the new records on Thursday. The invoices contain several redactions covering up information the city deemed confidential under attorney-client privilege, but all total dollar amounts were made public.

The newest addition to Clay’s legal team, Tom Wolf, about sums it up:

“I’m just glad that the city’s international law firm with more than 1,000 lawyers was able to finally fix its billing apparatus,” said Tom Wolf, a local attorney who recently joined Clay’s legal team. “And it only took them seven months.”

A Special Prosecutor in Patrick County

Article: "Former Patrick County Administrator Under Investigation for ‘Alleged Criminal Wrongdoing’” (January 15, 2026)

Update: Last month I revealed, based on responses to FOIA requests to Patrick County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dayna Bobbitt, that former Patrick County Administrator Beth Simms was under investigation for "alleged criminal wrongdoing.” Now we’ve learned that the process has begun to appoint a special prosecutor.

Reporter Bill Wyatt provided more details in his January 24, 2026 article in the Martinsville Bulletin. From the piece:

“I can confirm that my office is currently in the process of seeking the appointment of a special prosecutor regarding the allegations involving Ms. Beth Simms,” Patrick County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dayna Kendrick Bobbitt told the Bulletin Wednesday evening. “Because this matter remains under active investigation, I am unable to provide further comment at this time.”

Wyatt continued, incredibly:

Efforts to reach Simms for comment initially were unsuccessful. However, on Friday night, after being contacted again by the Bulletin, Simms responded by email, asking, “What investigation are you referring to?”

In response, the Bulletin provided Simms with Bobbitt’s comments confirming that her office is seeking the appointment of a special prosecutor and that the matter remains under active investigation. Simms replied by asking again, “What investigation?”

The Bulletin reiterated that the inquiry referenced was the investigation described by Bobbitt. Simms repeated the same question a third time, asking, “What investigation?”

After the Bulletin again referenced Bobbitt’s statement and asked whether Simms wished to provide any details or comment, Simms responded a fourth time with the same question. The Bulletin informed Simms that her repeated question would be presumed to be her response unless she wished to add anything further. Simms replied once more, for a fifth time, writing only, “What investigation?” No additional comment was provided.

The Enterprise provided more details in their January 20, 2026 coverage, noting that in the end the appointment will be up to a judge:

Bobbitt said the allegations claim Simms violated state law, but emphasized that any determination would be made by the special prosecutor.

Bobbitt said she is prohibited by law from providing specific or additional information about the case because it is considered an ongoing investigation.

The allegations, she said, "were brought to me on Dec. 30 or Dec. 31.” While she has contacted some potential prosecutors, there has not been a response yet.

“The way the process works, the circuit court judge ultimately is the one who appoints” special prosecutors, she added.