By Taylor Boyd
No criminal charges will be filed against former Patrick County Administrator Beth Simms regarding allegations that she violated state law.
In a June 9 opinion letter to Patrick County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dayna Bobbitt, Special Prosecutor and Floyd County Commonwealth’s Attorney Eric Branscom said there is insufficient evidence to support criminal charges against Simms.
In his opinion letter, Branscom wrote that “there is insufficient evidence to support criminal charges against Ms. Sims (sic) relating to the allegations contained in the complaint. The investigation did not produce evidence establishing probable cause that Ms. Sims (sic) violated Virginia Code … relating to illegal voting or committed any related criminal offense.”
Branscom wrote that allegations were made by then-Electoral Board member Ed Pool that Simms illegally voted in Patrick County during the June and November 2025 elections while allegedly residing in Franklin County.
“It was further alleged that she falsified information on voter registration documents by representing herself as a resident of Patrick County and therefore eligible to vote there, when it was claimed that she was actually residing in Franklin County. Additional related misdemeanor allegations were also referenced,” the letter states.
The allegations were presented in a multipage document prepared by Pool. Branscom wrote that Pool’s document claims to apply various provisions of Virginia election law to the evidence presented.
“While the document repeatedly referenced multiple alleged violations, a careful review demonstrates that the underlying evidence relied upon was largely the same throughout and was simply characterized in different ways as applied to different alleged offenses,” the letter states.
Branscom wrote that the primary evidence supporting the allegations consisted of documentation showing that Simms and her husband, David Kyle Smith, were parties to a mortgage transaction involving Franklin County property in December 2024.
Both Simms and Smith were identified jointly as borrowers and purchasers on the mortgage documents.
“Importantly, the terminology utilized within mortgage agreements — including references to ‘primary residence,’ ‘principal residence,’ or ‘owner-occupied property’ — exists within the context of a private contractual lending relationship and does not govern or determine voter eligibility under Virginia law. Such terminology is generally utilized to distinguish owner-occupied property from second homes, investment property, or rental property for purposes of lending risk and loan qualification,” the letter states.
Branscom wrote that in contrast, the Virginia statutory and administrative framework governing voter registration and domicile employs a broader and different analysis.
“Under the Virginia Administrative Code, a ‘domicile’ is defined as a person’s primary home and the place considered to be the center of that person’s domestic, social, and civil life, with domicile being primarily a matter of intent. The regulations further recognize that a person may maintain multiple places of abode,” the letter states.
Branscom wrote that Virginia law relating to voter residency has consistently been interpreted broadly to facilitate, rather than unnecessarily restrict, voter eligibility.
“The legal framework recognizes that residency determinations are often fact-specific and dependent upon the totality of a person’s circumstances and intent,” the letter states.
Additionally, Branscom wrote that the mortgage documents do not separately distinguish between Simms and Smith regarding occupancy obligations but instead treat them collectively as borrowers throughout the agreement.
During the investigation, Branscom wrote that the commonwealth’s review extended beyond the mortgage documentation to include discussions with the registrant and a review of all additional information and witnesses made available to the commonwealth.
“Importantly, no witness or evidence established that Ms. Sims (sic) was not residing at or utilizing property in Patrick County as her place of abode or domicile as contemplated under Virginia law. Likewise, no evidence was presented demonstrating that any representations made by Ms. Sims (sic) regarding her residency were knowingly false or criminal in nature. While the materials submitted raised suspicions and inferences regarding residency, suspicions alone do not rise beyond speculation and are insufficient to establish criminal liability,” the letter states.
