by Paul Goldman

Tellingly, the Virginia Democratic Party establishment is trying to force the Central Committee to elect State Senator Lamont Bagby, D-Richmond, as the new Party Chair. Tim Kaine, Louise Lucas, Don Scott, Abigail Spanberger, Mark Warner, the who’s who of the Party have endorsed him. His supporters on the Steering Committee (key party leadership group) rejected hosting forums where potential candidates for the position can debate their ideas before an audience of Central Committee members. Bagby has been anointed: everyone else needs to fall in line.

But I ask: Why Bagby? And why does his choice this year tell me the party establishment is apparently out of touch with its grass roots?

We need to go back to 1991, when Mark Warner and I were helping Governor L. Douglas Wilder. Then state Senator Bobby Scott will remember. Senator Lucas may too, since she also benefited.

Today’s Democrats don’t realize the current role of Party Chair traces back to a decision I had to make as Democratic Party Chair in 1991. The Old Boys Club running the Party Establishment were infuriated by my decision. But it had to be finally done in a state whose General Assembly politics remained mired in its segregationist roots. Key White party establishment figures called me a traitor to the party. Bobby Scott initially opposed me too. But I sided with Wilder. We had a legal and philosophical basis for our principled position.

Senator Bagby is a direct beneficiary. The truth, as discussed below, also explains why Mr. Bagby is the wrong choice in 2025.

Indeed, I am shocked Mr. Bagby wants such a high-profile position bound to attract the kind intense scrutiny from Republicans and the press a state senator from a safe Democratic seat rarely gets. 

Back in 1991, Wilder of course had made history. He asked me to be party chair. The new governor wanted someone he could trust to help reform the racist General Assembly politics rooted in the old segregationist Byrd Democrat party. Back then, I was the only White guy he could likely trust. I had also been campaign manager for Henry Howell, a famed leader of the anti-segregationist movement that drove the Byrd forces out of the Democratic Party. Howell won the 1977 Democratic gubernatorial primary to become the first Dem gubernatorial nominee not backed by the Byrd Machine since its inception in the 1920’s. After winning the primary, Henry fired me due to pressure from the party establishment. That Howell campaign is when I first met Wilder. So like I say, Wilder knew I would back him against the Democratic white Old Boys Club running the General Assembly.

1991 turned out to be a redistricting year. This had not been an issue in the 1989 gubernatorial campaign. I can tell you we didn’t give it any discussion whatsoever. But at some point after being elected, Wilder realized he now had a unique position to erase a lingering legislative legacy of the Byrd Machine.

The General Assembly had a tradition when it came to redistricting. The House of Delegates and the state Senate each crafted its own new legislative district lines. Whatever one body wanted the other accepted. They tried as best as possible to draw new districts favorable to all the Democratic incumbents. Why? Because Democrats had long run the G.A. — this meant districts favorable to white Democratic incumbents as a practical matter.

Accordingly, the House of Delegates and state Senate came up with plans. But Wilder soon told House and Senate leaders there was a new sheriff in town: He demanded the new legislative lines create as many Black-majority districts as feasible based on federal law and the need to overcome centuries of discrimination. Needless to say, this created quite the uproar at the state Capitol.

The Democratic leadership reasoning is self-evident. Many top White Democrats had long been elected due to votes of their small but key Black constituencies. Based on the racial politics of the time, creating more Black majority districts would endanger White Democratic incumbents now forced to run in a (guaranteed) primary in a Black-majority district or run in the general election as the Dem incumbent in new far Whiter district. 

The House of Delegates leadership soon agreed with Wilder. Not for philosophical reasons, of course. But due to political practicality. They could create new Black-majority districts and still draw the other new lines to basically protect their sizable Democratic majority.

But this was not possible in the state Senate. Those districts are far bigger. Thus, creating a Black majority district required taking away most of their Black Democratic constituents. In effect, putting many of the old guard in Republican-leaning new districts.

The governor had assigned me to help draw the new state Senate districts. As party chair, I had purchased the most sophisticated redistricting software available at the time, so I could do that in my office. Senate leaders insisted on creating a redistricting plan having only two majority-Black districts. Not surprisingly, there were already two Black state Senators! Bobby Scott and the late Benny Lambert, who had been elected to Wilder’s Senate seat in Richmond.

Wilder asked me how many Black-majority seats he should demand. I told him five. As memory serves, I think the ACLU might’ve said federal law required six. But they were wrong. Wilder went with five. That is to say: he demanded the Senate create three additional new Black-majority districts, or he would veto any redistricting plan.

As an aside, Wilder and I had differing views on the importance of these five districts as a philosophical matter. Wilder was the ultimate power politician. He had served in the General Assembly as the first Black state senator. He knew committee chair and leadership positions then were based on seniority. He believed substantially increasing (150%!) the number of Black state senators would ultimately greatly help the Black school children and others who had to rely on state funding to get their equality. Thus, increasing the number of Black state senators would increase the power to get this done.

Wilder and I were united in this view. But I also had a more idealistic part of my philosophy. As a practical political matter, I believed those elected to safe Democratic Black-majority districts would be free to speak their minds. The politics in Virginia had long been run by special interests. These interests were against the things I was for: racial equality, gender equality, working families, and a more open society where everybody could get equal opportunities. Given the racial politics of the day, I felt the only way to get people elected who could be counted on to lead the fight fearlessly for these ideals required more Black-majority districts. In all candor, Wilder thought I was being too naïve on this matter. 

Since I was Democratic Party Chair, the White Old Boys Club down at the G.A. felt I had an obligation to oppose the governor’s plan for five Black-majority districts. Their reasoning is easy to understand. I had run winning statewide and state senate campaigns. Thus, I would know a five-Black-majority-district plan would create new whiter districts that could cost many incumbent white Senate Democrats their seats in the November elections. They believed it my duty — as Party Chair — to put the interest of the Party first. This meant backing the plan likely to elect the most Democratic Senators and protecting the incumbents. I refused. They never forgave me. They then insisted on a future Chair who they believed would do what they wanted. 

I understood their position. Every other Democratic Party chair had backed them over the years. But I thought the Party Chair should put the ideals of the Democrats ahead of a redistricting plan that violated our ideals. They falsely claimed I was backing a plan that helped Republicans not Democrats. I was backing a plan consistent with Democratic values. My decision has stood the test of time. 

Long story short: Democrats in the House held onto their existing majority. They hired smart professionals. But in part due to Old Boys Club incumbents running in competitive Whiter districts for the first time in years — and refusing to take professional campaign help — Senate Democrats were reduced to a 22 to 18 majority. They blamed me, not the governor, of course. Not their own lousy campaigns. Not their refusal to accept the fact the old lines from 1981 were discriminatory. 

Fast forward to 2025: Wilder has been proven right. Senator Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, won her seat in 1991. Now she is head of the most powerful committee in the Senate. Speaker Don Scott has a seat originally created by Wilder. Civil rights icon Senator Henry Marsh got a seat created by Wilder. Indeed, the Governor instructed me to create a seat for Henry to win without being challenged.

In that regard, Senator Bagby benefits from this legislative history. This isn’t to say he doesn’t have talent. But it is to recognize the truth: in Virginia, Wilder forced the General Assembly and the Democratic Party to face up to its history. Given that we are now in the age of Trump, we can no longer claim this had been inevitable.

Bagby isn’t alone in having the good luck to run in a safe Democratic Senate or House district. But in my experience, as Wilder warned me, politicians are rarely idealistic, especially those with safe seats. They start to think the rules don’t apply to them. They do things — dumb things — those in competitive legislative districts would never do. Why? Because they believe themselves invulnerable in their district almost irrespective of anything a newspaper story or opponent could pin on them.

Bottom line: I think Mr. Bagby has made a serious error in seeking a position where he doesn’t have those protections from his GOP detractors or investigative reporters. Mr. Bagby is my senator. So naturally, I know more than the average member of the Central Committee yet knows.

My point being: I think Mr. Bagby has not realized that running for Party Chair puts him in a whole new media environment. The same goes for those backing him.

If Mr. Bagby was some super campaign operative or was known for all the good principled work he did in the General Assembly, he might be treated differently. But just this year, Mr. Bagby was the chief co-sponsor for the legislation trying to force a casino on the people in Fairfax County. This, despite his representing Richmond, where his constituents voted down a casino. 

I led the anti-casino fight here in Richmond. I was called a racist and a “Jew who couldn’t be trusted” by certain pro-casino forces. The pro-side included key unions, special interests, a good number of Democratic Party staff or ex-staff, and former Democratic Party chair, Dwight Jones. How dare I oppose that gravy train.

Mr. Bagby didn’t care that the most Democratic city in the state is against a casino. “Fairfax County is the most important locality for any Democratic candidate running statewide in 2025. To win a statewide race, a Democrat has to carry Fairfax County with an overwhelming vote.

I ask you: what signal does it send to the most important Democratic county and most important city in the state If we elect Mr. Bagby? Moreover, based on the casino issue, Mr. Bagby has already showed he will do what his campaign donors want, not what the Democrats in key statewide localities want. This is one of the problems you come across when you put an elected official as state party chair. 

Delegate Alan Diamonstein was Party Chair in 1985. He tried to use his position to block Wilder’s nomination because his pals in the General Assembly feared running with a Black man on the state ticket — even though Wilder was the popular choice not only of Democrats statewide but also in Alan’s legislative district. Alan was a decent guy. But he proves the old adage: An elected official cannot serve two masters. Dwight Jones was party chair while also being Mayor of Richmond. He lasted only a short time because the two roles conflicted. Moreover, Dwight had no experience in state party politics, and he, too, got elected in overwhelmingly Democratic safe districts.

Based on the evidence, any reasonable person who knows all the facts will conclude Senator Bagby will ultimately have the same problem. The conflicts are self-evident to anyone who wants to be honest about it.

It’s not like I’m trying to deny Mr. Bagby something because he’s been historically denied. He’s been a delegate, now senator. Very few people do that. He’s head of the Legislative Black Caucus and now the Senate Transportation Committee. I think Wilder is the last person to have those two jobs simultaneously nearly 50 years ago. Senator Bagby therefore has been given more opportunities than over 99.9% of all Virginians in the state’s history. Some humility seems warranted. 

Bagby has never had to run or run a campaign in a competitive district. He doesn’t claim to be some super technician or brilliant political strategist. He hasn’t been working for years inside the Democratic Party operations.

Rather, he’s been someone who’s successfully run in a safe Democratic district with only minimal primary opposition. That’s a feather in his cap. Now his friends in the Party establishment want to give him another position. Again, that’s good luck for him.

But this doesn’t qualify him in any way to be party chair. Moreover, as I’ve shown, people holding elected office set themselves up for failure because they are naturally going to listen to their colleagues in the legislative body. Moreover, given all of Senator Bagby’s political and business interests, he is not going to be a hands-on full-time chair.

From what I gather, a full-time party chair is what most members of the Central Committee want. Indeed, I understand Susan Swecker, the current Party chair, has compensation close to six figures. When I was Party chair, it was considered to be a sufficient honor so that you wouldn’t want to get paid. But clearly, if the Central Committee wants a full-time chair, then this person has to be adequately compensated. Whether Democrats actually need a full-time chair in that regard is another question.

In conclusion: I understand the Democratic Party leadership has anointed Mr. Bagby. This makes it hard for any member of the Central Committee to be seen as opposing him. This again is apparently the reason there is no forum where the potential candidates have to explain their positions and qualifications before the public and the Committee members. 

Some readers of this article will surely say: “Paul, you got appointed by Wilder. The Central Committee would not otherwise have chosen you.” That’s true. But a Democratic governor had always been given the right to choose the party chair. 

I would urge Senator Bagby and his backers to remember the old Chinese proverb: Don’t wish for something because you just might get it.

Paul Goldman is former Chair of the VA Democratic Party, a former candidate for mayor of the City of Richmond, and author of “Remaking Virginia Politics.”