Can we get a single Republican candidate in the 99th district that knows anything about the law?

Evidently not. Last year, we had Lee Anne Washington talking about how she was going to end in-state college tuition for illegal aliens, when illegals don’t receive in-state tuition to begin with.

This year, we have Catherine Crabill, who’s running for the Republican nomination for the 99th district versus Lee Anne Washington, talking about nonexistent “hate crime” laws. A couple quotes from her website [emphasis mine]:

Homosexual Hate Crimes Legislation:

First of all, some of the dearest people I know are homosexual. I treasure these friendships and I am grieved that my position on this matters may fracture these relationships. My grievance is not against those whose personal life is kept private, as is mine. My grievance is against the insidious legal maneuvers that have had the desired chilling effect on those who would dare to oppose their public, societal-redefinement agenda. To elevate a class of citizens defined by their particular sexual “expression” is clearly unconstitutional through the provisions of equal protection under the law. Peaceful protestors at such events as “Gay Pride” parades are threatened with fines and imprisonment. Those of us who take a stand against this aggressive agenda risk the loss of our freedom of thought, speech, and religion. The danger of these laws cannot be exaggerated. Further, the indoctrination of our children and many corporate employees through mandatory “sensitivity training” is clearly an assualt [sic] on personal moral convictions. ((Catherine Crabill. “Current Concerns.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <>.))

And [again, emphasis mine]:

I will stand against the Homosexual Agenda that threatens our very freedoms of thought, speech, and religion as embodied in the “Hate Crimes” Legislation. ((Catherine Crabill. “Welcome.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 < >.))

First, there are no “hate crime” laws in the Code of Virginia which afford additional protections to people that victimized due to their sexual orientation:

Va. Code § 18.2-57(A) states:

Any person who commits a simple assault or assault and battery shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, and if the person intentionally selects the person against whom a simple assault is committed because of his [the victim’s] race, religious conviction, color or national origin, the penalty upon conviction shall include a term of confinement of at least six months, 30 days of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement.

Va. Code § 18.2-57(B) provides that:

[I]f a person intentionally selects the person against whom an assault and battery resulting in bodily injury is committed because of his [the victim’s] race, religious conviction, color or national origin, the person shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, and the penalty upon conviction shall include a term of confinement of at least six months, 30 days of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement.

Va. Code § 18.2-121 makes it a crime to enter someone else’s property for the purpose of damaging it and:

[I]f a person intentionally selects the property entered because of the race, religious conviction, color or national origin of the owner, user or occupant of the property, the person shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, and the penalty upon conviction shall include a term of confinement of at least six months, 30 days of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement.

Va. Code § 18.2-423 makes it a Class 6 felony to place a swastika on a religious structure “with the intent of intimidating another person or group of persons”. Va. Code § 18.2-423.1 makes it a Class 6 felony “for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place.”

Note that in both § 18.2-423 and 18.2-423.1, the victims do not have to be a particular race, ethnic group, or religion; the state simply has to prove that the intent of the perpetrator was to intimidate the victim.

Va. Code § 18.2-423 also makes it Class 4 felony to conspire with someone else to incite one race in violence or war against another race.

As a side note, there’s Va. Code § 8.01-42.1 which allows a person who’s “subjected to acts of (i) intimidation or harassment or (ii) violence directed against his person; or (iii) vandalism directed against his real or personal property, where such acts are motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity” to seek injunctive relief and/or civil damages.

As you can note in all those code sections, there is no mention of additional penalties due to the victim’s sexual orientation or “gender identity”. In addition, I can’t find a bill in the General Assembly that made it pass a committee that would have expanded the definition of a “hate crime” under those statutes.

Second, Ms. Crabill claims that such legislation is “clearly” unconstitutional. ((Catherine Crabill. “Current Concerns.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <>.)) As the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) noted unanimously in 1993 (as a reminder, the court included, at the time, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas) in Wisconsin v. Mitchell:

[T]he Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. [citations omitted] The State’s desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders’ beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, “it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.”

Third, Ms. Crabill claims that such legislation would infringe on her freedoms of speech and religion. ((Catherine Crabill. “Current Concerns.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <>.)) ((Catherine Crabill. “Welcome.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 < >.)) Such hate crime legislation as enacted by the General Assembly does not criminalize speech, it just proscribes additional penalties when the intent of the perpetrator is to cause harm to someone or his property due to the victim’s race, nationality, ethnic group, or religion. Does Ms. Crabill believe that assault and battery and vandalism are protected forms of speech? Further, how would such legislation infringe on her freedom of religion? Does her religion mandate that she assault and batter homosexuals and vandalize their property?

Fourth, if Ms. Crabill thought it was wrong for such legislation to be enacted because it was criminalizing a “thought crime”, then she would condemn all hate crime legislation, not just (nonexistent) legislation designed to protect people due to their sexual orientation.

Fifth and finally, Ms. Crabill complains about “sensitivity training” classes required by certain businesses and corporations. ((Catherine Crabill. “Current Concerns.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <>.)) Is Ms. Crabill saying that she would support legislation that would outlaw such classes? Should it be her job as an elected representative of the people to determine what’s proper training for employees of businesses and corporations, as opposed to the actual business or corporation determining for itself what is appropriate? If an employee doesn’t want to take such “sensitivity training” classes, then the employee can simply choose to not continue working at the business.

Now, I’m not agreeing with this type of legislation on moral grounds, I’m simply pointing out that the SCOTUS has ruled that such legislation is constitutional. There’s a difference between what has been determined to be a constitutional and what you could argue is moral or not. If a candidate wants to make an argument that it isn’t morally right to provide a certain group of people with more protections than someone else, then they can knock themselves out.

I’m also pointing out that, once again, we have a Republican candidate in the 99th district that doesn’t know jack about laws that she will be responsible for drafting, passing, and amending.

Pointing out lies and inaccuracies from everyone, including the 99th Legislative District Republican Committee’s dishonest attacks on Albert Pollard.

I should probably preface this post by stating that I will point out inaccuracies by anyone, be them Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. I did support and vote for Albert Pollard in the special election that returned him to the House of Delegates in February 2008. One reason that I voted for him was the Republican candidate that ran against him, Lee Anne Washington, claimed that, amongst other things, that illegal aliens received in-state tuition: they don’t and they never have!

On the 99th Legislative District Republican Committee’s website there’s a web page that attempts to document Albert Pollard’s voting record. I say “attempts” because the majority of the links don’t even go to the correct bill on the General Assembly’s website. And if it isn’t the terrible web-masterly, it’s the factually incorrect statements and just asinine opinions and statements expressed on the web page. I don’t mind disagreeing with someone on policy grounds — I disagree with Pollard on certain subjects — but most of this stuff is just absurd.

To start us off, consider this claim [I’ve fixed any messed up links and formatting in the quoted material]:

Albert wanted to de-regulate farming in the Westmoreland debate but his own bill in 2005, HB 2903 regulates the sales of agricultural products by a farmer on his own farm, with a number of restrictions including prior notification to the Department of Agriculture.

The bill that Pollard submitted was done in an attempt to override over 106 pages of regulations that had been placed on farmers, as detailed in a news story from the Capital News Service at VCU (Google Cache link):

The Virginia House of Delegates had something to say about new state regulations on the production of raw milk and unpasteurized cheese from sheep, goats and other family-farm animals:

“Bah, humbug!” Or rather, “Baaaa, humbug!”

On a 57-39 vote, the House approved a bill to effectively override the regulations, which small farmers said would make it prohibitively expensive for them to make milk and cheese.

House Bill 2903, proposed by Delegate Albert C. Pollard, D-White Stone, is now before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources.

HB 2903 would allow farmers to avoid regulations implemented in January by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.


Under the rules, farmers can make milk and cheese only if they get a permit. The 106 pages of regulations spell out what they must do to qualify for a permit – including installing pasteurizers and other equipment and keeping meticulous records on each batch of cheese.

Small farmers like Carol Baker of Louisa County say the regulations benefit big farms that can afford the required equipment and meet other stipulations. They estimate that it would cost $50,000 to comply with the rules.

If the authors of the committee’s website had bothered to check out the vote tallies they would have seen that Delegate and current Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jeff Frederick, Delegate Bob Marshall, then-Delegate and now-Senator Ryan McDougle all voted in favor of the bill on the House side. And current Republican Attorney General candidate Ken Cuccinelli and then-Senator for the Northern Neck John Chichester also voted in favor of the bill in committee on the Senate side. The bill did, however, fail to pass the Senate committee 6–9.

Back to the committee’s terrible website:

2004 HB1015 YES vote to allow Family Life Education curriculums to teach certain information to avoid sexual assault and the need to seek medical attention in the event of an assault . This from the man who doesn’t want the ten commandments displayed because he doesn’t want his daughter to ask him what adultery is!!

I seriously can’t believe that a political organization is condemning someone for voting to educate students on how to avoid sexual assault, and if they have been sexually assaulted, to seek medical attention. This is a bill that unanimously passed in the Senate! Can someone explain to me what the heck is wrong with these people? Not to mention that parents can opt their children out of the Family Life Education program in schools, if they choose.

And here’s something stated under the header “Illegal Immigration”:

During the 28th Senate Race Albert proposed a database for employers to take the thumbprint of all prospective employees yet he voted NO to SB62, requiring thumbprints on licenses. (not arguing for thumbprints, just pointing out his flip flop)

Do I really have to explain the difference between requiring prospective employees to submit a thumbprint for employment, versus the government placing biometric information on all government identification cards? Heck, one of the leading opponents of illegal immigration in the House, Bob Marshall, is also one of the leading opponents of government biometric identification cards (see, for example, HB 1587 of this session). There’s also the fact that for this bill (SB 62), the programming costs for implementation alone were estimated to be $2,200,000 and the Department of Planning and Budget couldn’t estimate what the final costs for the whole bill would be (Fiscal Impact Statement [PDF]).

2000 HB 425 NO vote to showing voter identification at the polls (Before he voted yes)

The version of the bill that Pollard voted against did not consider a Virginia driver’s license to be a valid form of identification for a voter who was challenged at the polls under § 24.2-651.1, the version that Pollard did vote for had been amended by the Senate and included a provision allowing the use of a driver’s license.

And finally:

2005 HB 2056 NO vote to only allowing medical benefits to illegals and denying other benefits under Workman’s Compensation.

Can someone explain to me how not requiring a business to pay workers’ comp to illegal aliens is going to stop businesses from employing illegals? If anything, businesses would employ more illegals than ever since they wouldn’t have to shell out as much money if an employee gets injured on the job.

99th HoD (House of Delegates) Watch: Lee Anne Washington still has an open candidate committee.

At the end of the February 20th – June 30th reporting period, Lee Anne Washington — who lost 42.39% to 57.58% against Albert Pollard in the February 19th special election to fill now-Congressman Rob Wittman’s former seat — still had an open campaign committee with a $292.68 balance.

Of course, she also has $761.38 in debt for advertising from the Lakeway Publishers of Virginia (publisher of The Caroline Progress amongst others), Northern Neck Buyers Guide (one of those real estate listing publications, I believe), and The Journal Press Inc. (owner of the King George-based The Journal).

Since when did newspapers set up payment plans for advertising, out of curiosity?

It should be noted that just because someone still has an open campaign committee isn’t necessary an indicator that they plan on running for a seat. Right now, Rob Wittman’s House of Delegates campaign committee is still open and has a $19,876.94 balance as of June 30th.

It’s also interesting that Wittman didn’t bother donating any money to Lee Anne Washington’s campaign as well when he has a $19,876.94 balance on a committee he has no need for; especially when the money can’t legally be used on his Congressional race…

Election Results for the 99th HOD — Pollard wins!

7:32 p.m.: Pollard is up 65.81% to 34.19% with Richmond and Westmoreland Counties reporting!

So far, he’s gotten a majority in every precinct!

7:48 p.m.: 64.06% to 35.94% with Richmond, Westmoreland, and parts of King George and Northumberland reporting. Still has a majority in every precinct.

8:08 p.m.: 63.20% to 36.78% (1,495 vote spread) with more of King George and Northumberland reporting in. Has a majority in every precinct except Shiloh (King George County).

8:32 p.m.: 59.45% to 40.50% (1,777 vote spread) with all but one a couple precincts (Monroe in King George County, and 3A, 4A, 5A in Northumberland County) reporting.

8:48 p.m.: Either way, I’m calling this (which I could have done at 7:00 p.m. — or a month ago); meet the new Delegate for the 99th District, Albert Pollard:

[Photo Credit: Fred2Blue]

Thanks to the voters of the 99th District for not electing that fear-mongering demagogue George Lee Anne Washington!

Looks like Robby Wittman found a great replacement for himself!

9:02 p.m.: 3A and 5A precincts in Northumberland County have reported (leaving only Monroe in King George County and 4A in Northumberland County to report): 59.55% Pollard, 40.40% Washington.

02/19/2008, 9:33 p.m.: ALL PRECINCTS ARE IN (I think): 57.57% Pollard, 42.39% Washington, 0.04% Write in.

02/20/2008, 5:41 p.m.: FINAL NUMBERS: Albert Pollard (D), 6,908 votes, 57.58%; Lee Anne Washington (R), 5,086 votes, 42.39%, Write in, 3 votes, 0.03%.

Link for election numbers.

Is The Caroline Progress outsourcing letter writing?

In the January 30th edition of The Caroline Progress, there were two letters in support of Lee Anne Washington (R). The first was from a Howard Yarus of King George. King George is in (obviously) King George County, and is 20.95 miles away from Bowling Green (both the town seat of Caroline County and the location of The Caroline Progress‘s office).

The second letter in support of Lee Anne Washington (R), that was in the January 30th edition, was from Robert Fountain of Montross, Virginia. Robert Fountain is the Chairman of the Westmoreland County Republican Committee and is on First Congressional District Republican Committee. Montross is in Westmoreland County, and is 40.99 miles away from Bowling Green. This same letter also appeared in the February 6th edition of the Northern Neck News, which is owned by Lakeway Publishers, Inc., the same company that owns The Caroline Progress.

Another letter in support of Lee Anne Washington (R), appearing in the February 6th edition, was written by Terry Beatley from Lancaster, Virginia. Lancaster is in (again, obviously) Lancaster County, and is 68.31 miles away from Bowling Green.

The sole letter in support of Albert Pollard (D) appearing in any edition was in the February 6th edition. It was written by Rose West (who, admittedly, is the Secretary of the Caroline County Democratic Committee) who lives in Milford. Milford is 3.75 miles away from Bowling Green.

Yet another letter supporting Lee Anne Washington (R) written by Ron Herring of Heathsville, Virginia appeared in the February 13th edition. Heathsville is in Northumberland County and is 63.85 miles away from Bowling Green.

This is the same paper that in its December 5, 2007, edition printed a letter from the sheriff of Poquoson and York County in support of Rob Wittman (R). Yorktown is 100.57 miles away from Bowling Green!

Does anyone else see a problem with a 4–1 ratio of letters in support of one candidate (and if you include the letter in support of Wittman, a 5–1 ratio for one party)? Especially when the four letters (five, including Wittman’s) are from people not even in Caroline County? Especially times two, when the letters are being published in other newspapers owned by the same company?

It wouldn’t be a problem with using letters from their sister publications if they were done in a fair and balance manner!

Wait a second…I’m expecting them to do their jobs — how foolish of me…

Fear-monger, demagogue Lee Anne Washington responds:

On my “Lee Anne Washington (R) is either completely ignorant, or an outright liar; take your pick.” post:

  1. Lee Anne Washington said,

    I am neither completely ignorant, nor a liar. I simply stated my position on issues that have arisen either via recently proposed legislation or via recent public debate. I am sorry that you expended so much effort to misconstrue and take issue with what is clearly a policy statement. Next time, if you need a clarification, why don’t you just call me?

Yes, the infamous, “that’s not what I said” defense. Sorry to rehash, but here is what she said in a letter to The Free Lane–Star:

I know Virginians cannot tolerate illegal aliens receiving in-state college tuition, driver’s licenses, welfare, and state benefits. I pledge cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Remove these incentives for illegal aliens, and they’ll stop coming.

Anyone with a 12th grade education (even from Caroline County) knows that she is saying that illegal aliens currently receive in-state college tuition and driver’s licenses when they don’t! (For more details on that, see the original post). Otherwise, she wouldn’t be using the present tense of “receive” and the future tense of “remove”, as well as saying “they [wi]ll stop coming”.

Am I the only one that had to take English in high school (or college)?

Further, no legislation has come forward (as she claims) that would affect either in-state college tuition or driver’s licenses. There has been no public debate regarding in-state tuition or driver’s licenses as she claims either. Why should there be? It’s been settled!

Instead of saying, “sorry, I messed up”, instead she has to use the usual “that’s not what I said” defense.

Vote Albert Pollard tomorrow folks.

Lee Anne Washington (R) is either completely ignorant, or an outright liar; take your pick.

From Lee Anne Washington’s letter to The Free Lance-Star:

I know Virginians cannot tolerate illegal aliens receiving in-state college tuition, driver’s licenses, welfare, and state benefits. I pledge cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Remove these incentives for illegal aliens, and they’ll stop coming.


Like Rob Wittman, I’ll base my policy decisions on scientific evidence, not emotion and questionable anecdotes.


My proof?

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch: Bill to bar illegals at colleges advances:

All state public colleges and universities — even those with policies that do not prohibit enrolling undocumented students — charge out-of-state tuition to those students in accordance with state and federal law.

RT-D: Immigration bills advance:

Some schools say they do not admit undocumented students but do not verify legal residency status if the student claims to be a U.S. citizen on the application and pays out-of-state tuition.

RT-D: Education restrictions advance:

The [illegal] students may attend public K-12 schools and currently can attend several state colleges as long as they pay out-of-state tuition, which can be double or nearly triple the cost of in-state tuition.

RT-D: Colleges’ admittance of illegals opposed:

Undocumented students pay out-of-state tuition, which can be double and nearly triple the cost of in-state tuition.


As with other state schools, students would have to supply documentation of legal residence to be considered for in-state tuition or any kind of state or federal aid.

And finally, check out the hoops that you have to jump through to get in-state tuition (p. 3).


From the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles: Acceptable Documents:

To apply for a driver’s license, learner’s permit, commercial driver’s license (CDL), or CDL instruction permit you must bring two identification documents, one proof of legal presence, one proof of Virginia residency, and proof of your complete social security number (if you have been issued one). Anyone applying for a CDL or CDL instruction permit is required to provide a social security number. To apply for a photo identification (ID) card you must bring two identification documents, one proof of legal presence and one proof of Virginia residency.


All documents will be subject to verification, which may delay the issuance of your license, learner’s permit or photo identification card.

As for welfare benefits, from The Washington Post: Illegal Immigrants in Md. and Va. Out-Earn U.S. Peers, Study Says:

Randy Capps, a researcher at the nonpartisan Urban Institute who studies welfare use by immigrants and their children, said illegal immigrant families appear to be largely limiting themselves to programs such as subsidized school lunches and Medicaid. Regarding the program most commonly associated with welfare — cash assistance to needy families — fewer than 1 percent of illegal-immigrant households nationwide and in Maryland and Virginia use the benefit, compared with 3 percent of native households in Virginia, 5 percent of native households in Maryland and 5 percent nationwide.

It is completely reprehensible and unbecoming of anyone running for elected office to be so completely ignorant (or to lie) about the laws that they will be making.

She claims that she will “base [her] policy decisions on scientific evidence, not emotion and questionable anecdotes”, instead she decides to not tell the truth to people in the 99th District.

It’s not often that a candidate makes me vote against them, but Lee Anne Washington has just succeeded in accomplishing that.

Caroline man tries, fails to smear Albert Pollard.

From The Free Lance-Star: Pollard should be more experienced than this!:

Pollard should be more experienced than this!

Many of us have noticed that large “Pollard” signs have suddenly appeared around the district.

On closer inspection, it appears that these signs have been recycled from the previous state Senate campaign, with the lower portion cut off.

There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that in cutting off the bottom, those who posted the signs have also eliminated the mandatory authorization line, which must be part of any political advertising.

In Title 24.2 of the Code of Virginia, Chapter 9.5 includes instructions for including the statement “Paid for by [Name of candidate or campaign committee]” on campaign materials.

Those instructions also state that “any disclosure required by this section shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner.” Under 24.2-955.3 of the code, certain penalties are prescribed for violation of these laws.

These signs have begun to appear throughout the district. Just curious: How can someone with such vast experience in government service have overlooked such a simple requirement?

Jeff Gerau


Amazing job there getting it wrong.

From § 24.2-955:

The disclosure requirements of this chapter apply to any sponsor of an advertisement in the print media or on radio or television the cost or value of which constitutes an expenditure or contribution required to be disclosed under Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.) except that the disclosure requirements of this chapter do not apply to (i) an individual who makes independent expenditures aggregating less than $1,000 in an election cycle for a candidate or (ii) an individual who incurs expenses only with respect to a referendum.

From § 24.2-955.1:

As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning:

“Advertisement” means any message appearing in the print media, on television, or on radio that constitutes a contribution or expenditure under Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.). “Advertisement” shall not include novelty items authorized by a candidate including, but not limited to, pens, pencils, magnets, and buttons to be attached to wearing apparel.


“Print media” means billboards, cards, newspapers, newspaper inserts, magazines, printed material disseminated through the mail, pamphlets, fliers, bumper stickers, periodicals, website, electronic mail, and outdoor advertising facilities. If a single print media advertisement consists of multiple pages, folds, or faces, the disclosure requirement of this section applies only to one page, fold, or face.

“Radio” means any radio broadcast station that is subject to the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §§ 315 and 317.


“Television” means any television broadcast station, cable television system, wireless-cable multipoint distribution system, satellite company, or telephone company transmitting video programming that is subject to the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §§ 315 and 317.

Nowhere does it say that campaign signs (with the exception of billboards) have to have disclaimers on them. You can, of course, put disclaimers on them if you want but you don’t have to.

No local candidate had disclaimer information on their campaign signs on the side of the road in the last general election.

When Robert Wittman was running for reelection for his 99th House of Delegates seat his signs did not have disclaimers either.

After the general election, when Wittman was running for the Republican nomination for the special election for Virginia’s 1st Congressional District and after he won the nomination: he reused the same signs — ones that didn’t have disclaimers on them.

If this is the best that Lee Anne Washington supporters can come up with, she’s really in trouble…

I’m a descendant of President George Washington — wait, never mind…

The Journal Press: Republican Lee Anne Washington is facing Democrat Albert Pollard for 99th District seat:

Republicans have now assured Democrat Albert Pollard the he will not get a free ride on February 19.

White Stone attorney and Town Council member Lee Anne Washington is now the Republican candidate for the 99th District House of Delegates position that was vacated one month ago, when Delegate Rob Wittman resigned from the elected position in order to begin his duties as a U.S. Congressman. A special election will be held on Tuesday, February 19.


Questions emerged about the single mother’s family and Washington corrected the record, explaining that she is not a President George Washington descendant but a cousin or niece, many times removed.

I may not have the best of them “book smarts”; but how could anyone be a descendant of President George Washington when he had no biological children?!

What next? Is she going to say she’s a descendant of Robert E. Lee or Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson?

New prediction: Albert Pollard win with 75% of the vote (up from my prediction of 70%).

(H/t: Fred2Blue)

More 99th HOD coverage…

I do this for you, my loyal readers!

Please, no gifts!

From The Free Lance-Star: GOP set for race in House district:

Only one Republican filed to run for the 99th House of Delegates district by the GOP’s Jan. 1 deadline.

That means White Stone attorney Lee Anne Washington is the Republican nominee to run for the 99th House seat.

Washington has not held public office before. She graduated from the College of William & Mary and got her law degree from the University of Virginia in 1988. She is a member of the Northern Neck Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority and serves on the boards of several nonprofit organizations, according to a news release.

CORRECTION from The Free Lance-Star: Lee Anne Washington, the Republican nominee for the 99th House District seat, serves on the White Stone Town Council in Lancaster County. A story yesterday incorrectly described her political experience.

On the Democratic side, former Del. Albert Pollard Jr. is running, and while he isn’t the official nominee yet–district Democrats have set a Saturday deadline for candidates to file with them–no other names have surfaced.

The 99th District is open because former Del. Rob Wittman won a special election for the congressional 1st District last month. He quickly resigned his House seat.

The election to fill the seat will be held Feb. 19. By that time, most of the General Assembly session will be over, but state law prohibits holding an election in the 60 days before a primary, and both parties are holding presidential primaries on Feb. 12. That makes the 19th the earliest viable date for the 99th District special election.

Pollard served three terms as the 99th District delegate before retiring in 2005 to attend to his business. He returned to politics last year with a campaign for the 28th District state Senate seat, which he lost to Republican Richard Stuart.

In formally announcing his candidacy, Pollard said it’s “unfortunate that the Northern Neck will be without an advocate” in the House for most of the session, but that his past experience would allow him to begin working immediately if elected.

“If elected, I pledge from day one to continue the style of representation which I proudly proffered before,” Pollard said in a statement. “This brand is independent minded, puts policy before partisanship, and focuses on making the Northern Neck, and Virginia as a whole, a better place to live.”

Prediction: An Albert Pollard win with 70% (if not more) of the vote.