Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-28-2017 - 3 - Discussion Regarding the Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 28, 2017 Action Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners DEPARTMENT: County Attorney, Planning, & County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: John Roberts, County Attorney, 245- A) June 27, 2006 Approved Resolution 2318 and Election Map/Plan Brian Carson, GIS Project Coordinator, B) Population Deviations for the 245-2595 Approved 2006 Map/Plan Greg Wilder, County Manager's Office, C) Current Electoral Districts along with 245-2300 New Population Numbers Based on the 2010 Census D) Resolution Acknowledging the Results from the 2010 Census Indicating Orange County Remains in Lawful Compliance With Applicable Requirements for Board of County Commissioners' Nominating Districts E) Current Board of Commissioners Election Methods for 100 North Carolina Counties PURPOSE: To discuss the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. BACKGROUND: At the Board of Commissioners' January 24, 2005 regular meeting, representatives of a group of Orange County residents addressed the Board and submitted a 1200-signature petition to the Board regarding the method by which the members of the Board of Commissioners were elected in Orange County. The representatives requested that the Board review the current method of election for the members of the Board, which entailed all five members of the Board being nominated and elected to staggered four-year terms on an at- large basis. At the Board's direction, the County Manager and County staff reviewed the issue and the petition submitted and provided a report to the Board at the May 5, 2005 work session. The report provided an initial framework of information upon which the Board of Commissioners could deliberate and determine as appropriate any further steps in evaluating the issue and responding to the request and petition submitted. 2 The Board then pursued a series of meetings over the next thirteen months, including public hearings, Board discussions on possible draft district maps/plans for either a five or seven- member Board, and decisions on specific map/plan issues. The public hearings and discussions led to the development of a map/plan (identified in 2006 as "Proposal D") for a seven-member board that met all statutory requirements. The County Attorney prepared a draft resolution calling for a November 2006 referendum in concert with "Proposal D", and the Board approved that resolution and the election plan/map at its June 27, 2006 regular meeting in preparation for a voter referendum as required by the North Carolina General Statutes. The approved resolution and election map/plan are provided at Attachment A. The population deviations for the approved 2006 map/plan, based on the 2000 Census, are provided at Attachment B. In the November 2006 referendum, the voters subsequently approved the election plan/map with more than two-thirds supporting the initiative. The election plan/map was implemented with the May 2008 primary election and all seven members of the current Board have since qualified and been elected under the plan. The election plan/map approved in 2006 established a district/at large system for electing seven members of the Board of Commissioners, and includes two nominating districts. • Three seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by individuals residing in District 1 and nominated by the voters in District 1 during the primary election. These district-nominated candidates are then elected by all the voters in the entire County during the general election. • Two seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by individuals residing in District 2 and nominated by the voters in District 2 during the primary election. These district-nominated candidates are then elected by all the voters in the entire County during the general election. • The other two other seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by individuals residing anywhere in the County and nominated by all voters in the County during the primary election. These "at large" candidates are then elected by all the voters in the entire County during the general election. In summary, five district seats on the Board are filled based on district residency and district nomination during the primary election, followed by countywide election in the general election. The two at large seats are filled based on countywide nomination and countywide election. REVIEW OF DISTRICT ELECTIONS MAP BASED ON 2010 CENSUS Final numbers for the 2010 Census were published in 2011 providing new population numbers for Orange County as a whole as well as for the two current electoral districts. North Carolina General Statute 153A-22 states, "If a county is divided into electoral districts for the purpose of nominating or electing persons to the board of commissioners, the board of commissioners may find as a fact whether there is substantial inequality of population among the districts." Population growth or decline in districts can lead to significant deviations in the numbers of residents between districts, thereby compromising the integrity of the districts and the election plan as a whole. Therefore the Board may, but is not required to, review the impact of the new Census numbers to determine if there is substantial inequality. 3 Attachment C is a map showing the current electoral districts along with the population numbers based on the 2010 census. In the 2006 adopted plan (Attachments A and B), Orange County met its goal of keeping the population deviations within five percent of the exact population totals for each district, less than a total of ten percent deviation (referred to nationally as the Ten Percent Rule). Attachment C shows that Districts 1 and 2 were still within the Ten Percent Rule deviation criteria based on the 2010 Census data. Since the Districts were, combined, within the ten percent deviation allowed by law, there can be no finding of substantial inequality. Attachment D is the resolution adopted by the Board on June 2011 acknowledging there is no substantial inequality revealed by the 2010 census results. In recent months members of the Board of Commissioners have expressed an interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. Several related issues have been voiced regarding potentially amending the method. Staff has addressed some of those topics below. If the Board chose to move forward with proposing an amendment to the current election method, when could voter referendum occur? • The North Carolina General Statutes require that counties schedule special voter referenda only in even years when all the voting precincts in the County will be open. Therefore, a special voter referendum on the election method cannot occur in 2017 with the possible exception of a legislative act authorizing the referendum in 2017. Without legislative intervention the next potential dates for a special referendum are May 2018 or November 2018 when a countywide election with all precincts open is already scheduled. Do other North Carolina counties use an election method similar to Orange County's current method? • Attachment E is a chart from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) which details the current election method for all 100 North Carolina counties. The chart initially indicates that Currituck, Pamlico, and Pasquotank counties share the same election method as Orange County. However, further investigation by County staff confirms that while all four counties have seven (7) Commissioner seats and all four counties have Commissioner seats representing districts, there are variations in the election methods for the district seats that differentiate the counties. Orange County's current election method entails five district seats on the Board that are filled based on district residency and district nomination during the primary election, followed by countywide election in the general election. Conversely, Currituck County's five Commissioner seats representing five districts are for residency purposes only. Candidates for district seats in Currituck must reside in their respective districts, but they are nominated/voted on in the primary and elected during the general election by all voters in all precincts in Currituck County. Currituck County's two at large seats are filled based on countywide nomination and countywide election. An additional variation applies in Pamlico County. The five district Commissioner seats representing five districts for the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners are for residency, nomination, and election. Candidates for district seats must reside in their respective districts, are voted on/nominated during the primary by only the voters in their 4 respective districts, and elected during the general election by only the voters in their respective districts. Pamlico County's two at large seats are filled based on countywide nomination and countywide election. And like Pamlico, the four district Commissioner seats for the Pasquotank County Board of Commissioners are also for residency, nomination, and election. Candidates for district seats must reside in their respective districts, are voted on/nominated during the primary by only the voters in their respective districts, and elected during the general election by only the voters in their respective districts. Pasquotank County's three at large seats are filled based on countywide nomination and countywide election. What is the timeframe to place a proposed election method/plan on the ballot for voter referendum? • If the Board determined to pursue a voter referendum on an election method/plan in May 2018, Board action on a resolution and election plan/map would be necessary before February 28, 2018. The Board may want to consider whether action earlier than this timeframe would be advisable for the benefit of voters. • If the Board determined to pursue a voter referendum on an election method/plan in November 2018, Board action on a resolution and election plan/map would be necessary by August 17, 2018. It should be noted, however, that the Board's contemplated 2018 summer break would in reality necessitate Board action before or during June 2018. Alternatively, the Board could amend the summer break portion of its contemplated 2018 meeting schedule to extend the timeframe for Board action up to the August 17, 2018 deadline. The Board may want to consider whether action earlier than these timeframes may be advisable for the benefit of voters. Depending on the Board's potential interest related to the election method, will population changes since the 2010 Census need to be considered? • Although there have been changes related to Orange County's population since 2010, those changes would not be considered as part of any potential election method or district delineation. The 2010 Census remains the basis for all population calculations. What is cumulative voting? Is cumulative voting permissible in North Carolina for boards of commissioners' elections? Would Orange County need special legislation from the North Carolina General Assembly to consider/implement a cumulative voting method for seats on the Board of Commissioners? • Cumulative voting is method of election that is utilized in the United States primarily by corporations and to a lesser extent local governmental entities across the country. This method allows minority shareholders to have a greater chance of electing corporate officers and has been adopted in some local jurisdictions specifically to rectify voting rights violations. Cumulative voting is specifically recognized in North Carolina law for corporate voting. Cumulative voting works by allocating a specific number of votes to all voters, five for example. In an election with three candidates an individual voter may choose to place all five votes on a single candidate or allocate the five votes among the three candidates. By pooling votes to a single candidate minority groups have a greater chance of electing a candidate of their choice. 5 There appears to be no violation of the "one person, one vote" principle in a cumulative voting setup due both to the fact that often it is implemented as a means of rectifying voting rights violations and because each voter has the same number of votes. If the Board were to select cumulative voting for Orange County Commissioner elections the Board must seek special legislative authority from the General Assembly. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with discussing the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact applicable to discussing this topic. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends, and the County Attorney concurs, that the Board discuss the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and provide direction to staff. 6 ATTACHMENT A NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL REFERENDUM ON THE QUESTION OF AN ALTERATION IN THE STRUCTURE OF AND MODE OF ELECTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has, from time to time, considered changing the structure and mode of electing the members of the Board; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2005 the Board received a petition from citizens of the County,requesting the Board to alter the method and manner by which Orange County Commissioners are elected to include electoral districts; and WHEREAS, in response to the January 24, 2005 petition, Orange County staff presented a report to the Board on May 5, 2005, which report addressed: 1. the legal framework for structure of boards of county commissioners; 2. the various methods of at-large election, district election, and combination of at- large/district election utilized for boards of commissioners in the 99 other North Carolina counties; 3. a history of past discussions by the Orange County Board of Commissioners in regard to Board representation and election; and 4. some limited boundaries and statistical information showing the population distribution as it may relate to the consideration/formulation of district representation for Orange County. WHEREAS, the Board considered the staff report, conducted public hearings and has continued to work on the concept of altering the structure of the Board and on specific alteration H:\Resolutions\2006\Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 7 proposals since May 5, 2005, culminating in this Resolution calling for a special referendum on the structure of and the mode of electing members of the Board of Commissioners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 153A-58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 I. there is hereby called a special referendum conducted in Orange County on November 7, 2006 on the question of whether there will be an alteration in the structure of and mode of electing the Orange County Board of Commissioners. II. The proposition that will be printed on the ballot is as follows: "Shall the structure of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County be altered as follows: 1. change the board from five members to seven members; 2. change from the qualified voters of the entire County nominating all candidates for and electing all members of the board to a structure in which there is one three member district(District 1), one two member district(District 2) and two members at large; members shall reside in and represent the districts according to the apportionment plan adopted; the qualified voters of each district shall nominate candidates who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district, and the qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate candidates for seats apportioned to the county at large; and the qualified voters of the entire county shall elect all the members of the board. District 1 consists of that portion of Chapel Hill Township that is south of a line that begins at the boundary between Bingham Township and Chapel Hill Township, then goes east along the boundary of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County school administrative units to Eubanks Road; east along Eubanks Road to MLK, Jr. Boulevard(State Highway 86); H:\Resolutions\2006\Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 8 north along MLK, Jr. Boulevard to Interstate 40; east along Interstate 40 and ending at the boundary between Orange County and Durham County. District 2 consists of the rest of Orange County. 3. The transition process is: 1) The first election for which this election system will apply will be in unexpired commissioners elected in 2006 will serve the remainder of their unex 2008. The three p terms. Two of the three seats in District 1, one of the two seats in District 2 and one of the two At Large seats will become available in 2008. 2) Four commissioners will be elected in the 2008 election. The two commissioners whose terms expire in 2008, along with other qualified candidates, may choose to run for two of the three District 1 seats, for one of the two District 2 seats or for one of the two At Large seats. The qualified voters of District 1 will nominate candidates for the District 1 seats. The qualified voters of District 2 will nominate a candidate for the District 2 seat. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate a candidate for the At Large seat. The qualified voters of the entire County will elect the members of the District 1 seats, the member of the District 2 seat, and the member of the At Large seat, all for four year terms. 3) Three commissioners will be elected in the 2010 election. The three commissioners whose terms expire in 2010, along with other qualified candidates, may choose to run for one of the three District 1 seats, for one of the two District 2 seats or for one of the two At Large seats. The qualified voters of District 1 will nominate a candidate for the District 1 seat. The qualified voters of District 2 will nominate a candidate for the District 2 seat. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate a candidate for the At Large seat. The H:\Resolutions\2006\Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 9 qualified voters of the entire County will elect the member of the District 1 seat, the member of the District 2 seat, and the member of the At Large seat, all for four year terms. ❑ YES. ❑ NO." III. This Resolution shall be p ublished shall be filed and indexed in the ordinance book of the County and shall be available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, all as provided by law. IV. A map showing electoral District 1 and electoral District 2 is attached hereto and thereby made a part of this Resolution. V. As provided by law, if a majority of the votes cast in the November 7, 2006 special referendum are in favor of the plan submitted to the voters, the plan shall be put in effect. If a majority of the votes cast in the November 7, 2006 special referendum are against the plan submitted to the voters,this Resolution and the plan submitted to the voters are void. This the6q 7 day of , 2006. 4 Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner v c. i the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 1 day of tbill.z, , 2006. Ayes Gool_ 1 ua i / "�' _ I ' i f. ,:,.�-t� 4 l -� d Noes I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange,North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on fit, / d 9, 2006 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. H:\Resolutions\2006\Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 10 WITNESS my hand as• •e seal of said County, this day of L I _ , 2006. est,„ 14"2.0 ee p -' � '' 'e to the Board of Commissioners i r.9 g 'r6 eat ' H:\Resolutions\2006\Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 11 i i I j ® I!' � j I I j j I l I ® I j j I j j I I I 0 j I j I r I j I I i 2 i I ;(4District 4,142 ) i I j I I Mebane i I i I i I j i j I . —85 ! Hillsborough , I 1 j I I m 11\_ • i Durham j 1 i j 1 40 1 I I 7 Member Plan j ! f District 1 = 3 Members j District 2 = 2 Members i i i 2 At Large i j ! Chapel Hill I j • 1 Carrboro Ii District 1 i i District 2 I f ('71;389 ) I 38% i i OPI I ,,____ i District 1 62% ------------------- "'r r Orange County Planning and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson July 07,2006 v'" ys Orange County Electoral Districts Map 12 Attachment B 2006 Orange County Electoral Districts Map Population Deviation Statistics The population numbers are from the 2000 Census. 115,531 =County Population 7 members 2 Districts 115,531 /5 =23,106 District 1 (3 members in district) =69,318 ("ideal population") 5% deviation+/-3,466 Range=65,852 to 72,784 District 2 (2 members in district) =46,213 ("ideal population") 5%deviation+/-2,311 Range=43,902 to 48,524 Deviation Dl =2.99 % (71,389) D2 =4.48 %(44,142) Attachment C 13 - District 2 70 70 District 1: 3 Commissioners District 2: 2 Commissioners At-Large: 2 Commissioners fi ,District 1 Iry ip✓ - N Sri f 0 1 2 -•Miles Voting District 1 74011 Voting District 2 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department -j Current BOCC Voting Districts GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.5/26/2011 Actual Population Ideal Population 5% Deviation Actual Difference Actual % Deviation Census 2010 County Population 133,801 District 1 Population (3 Members) 82,412 80,280 +/-4,014 + 2,132 + 2.66 % District 2 Population (2 Members) 51,389 53,520 +/-2,676 -2,131 - 3.98 % People per Commissioner: 133,801/5=26,760 One person, one vote applies to people being elected from a district not to a person who is elected at-large. This is why the total population is divided by 5 and not 7. ATTACHMENT D - J/ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE RESULTS FROM THE 2010 CENSUS INDICATING ORANGE COUNTY REMAINS IN LAWFUL COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' NOMINATING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, in 2005 and 2006 following a petition by Orange County residents to change the manner of nominating Orange County Commissioners, Orange County began the process of creating nominating districts for Orange County Commissioner elections; and WHEREAS, in 2008 the first election was held in which the nominating districts were utilized; and WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-22 states in pertinent part that in a county where commissioners are nominated or elected by district, the Board of Commissioners "may find as a fact whether there is substantial inequality"; and WHEREAS, State and Federal law require redistricting after each census when there is a finding of such substantial inequality; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the 2010 census Orange County staff examined the results of the census for Orange County in its entirety and also for both nominating districts; and WHEREAS, case law has established that where there is a ten percent (10%) discrepancy between the smallest (by population) and largest districts that there then as a matter of law exists substantial inequality and there must be a redistricting; and WHEREAS, Orange County staff has determined the discrepancy between and among the is commissioner nominating districts of Orange County is within the ten percent (10%) legal threshold and that as a matter of law there is no substantial inequality; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A-22, finds as a fact that there is no substantial inequality between or among the commissioner nominating districts of Orange County. This the 7th day of June, 2011. Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Attest: ab_ Donna Baker Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 15 ATTACHMENT E County Election Methods Source: North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (Updated December 12, 2014) County Election Methods County No. of Election Combined Terms of Mgr. Title Footnotes Comms. Method Description Office Alamance 5 al 4S Manager Alexander 5 al 4S Manager Alleghany 5 al 4S Manager Anson 7 d 4S Manager Ashe 5 al 2/4S Manager Avery 5 al 2/4S Manager Beaufort 7 I 4S Manager 1 Bertie 5 dal 4S Manager Bladen 9 m 6d; 3a1; I 4S Manager 2 Brunswick 5 dal 4S Manager Buncombe 7 cda 6d; 1a1 4 Manager 3 Burke 5 al 4S Manager Cabarrus 5 al 4S Manager Caldwell 5 al 4S Manager Camden 5 dal 3d; 2a1 4S Manager Carteret 7 dal 4S Manager Caswell 7 cda 5d, 2a1 4S Manager Catawba 5 al 4S Manager Chatham 5 dal 4S Manager Cherokee 5 cda 4 Manager Chowan 7 cda 6d; 1a1 4S Manager 4 16 Clay 5 al 4 Manager Cleveland 5 al 4S Manager Columbus 7 d 4S Manager Craven 7 d 4 Manager 5 Cumberland 7 cda 5d; 2a1 4S Manager Currituck 7 cdal 2a1; 5dal 4S Manager Dare 7 cda 6d; lal 4S Manager Davidson 7 al 4S Manager Davie 5 al 4S Manager Dublin 5 d 4S Manager Durham 5 al 4 Manager Edgecombe 7 d 4S Manager Forsyth 7 cda lal; 6d 4S Manager 6 Franklin 7 cda 2a1; 5d 4S Manager Gaston 7 dal 4S Manager Gates 5 dal 4S Manager Graham 5 al 4 Manager 7 Granville 7 d 4S Manager Greene 5 al 4S Manager Guilford 9 cda 8d; lal 4S Manager Halifax 6 cda 3d; 3a1 4S Manager Harnett 5 d 4S Manager Haywood 5 al 4S Manager Henderson 5 dal 4S Manager Hertford 5 dal 4S Manager Hoke 5 al 4S Manager 17 Hyde 5 dal 4S Manager Iredell 5 al 2/4S Manager Jackson 5 cda 4dal; 1 al 4S Manager 3 Johnston 7 dal 4S Manager Jones 5 al 4 Manager Lee 7 cda 3a1; 4d 4S Manager Lenoir 7 cda 2a1; 5d 4S Manager Lincoln 5 al 4S Manager Macon 5 dal 4S Manager Madison 5 al 4S Manager Martin 5 1 4S Manager 8 McDowell 5 al 4S Manager Mecklenburg 9 cda 3a1; 6d 2 Manager Mitchell 5 al 2/4S Manager Montgomery 5 cda 2a1; 3d 4S Manager Moore 5 dal 4S Manager Nash 7 d 4S Manager New 5 al 4S Manager Hanover Northampton 5 al 4S Manager Onslow 5 al 4 Manager Orange 7 cdal 2a1; 5d 4S Manager Pamlico 7 cdal 2a1; 5d 4S Manager Pasquotank 7 cdal 3a1; 4d 4S Manager Pender 5 dal 4S Manager Perquimans 6 1 4S Manager 1 18 Person 5 al 4S Manager Pitt 9 d 4S Manager 9 Polk 5 al 2/4S Manager Randolph 5 dal 4S Manager Richmond 7 al 4S Manager Robeson 8 d 4S Manager Rockingham 5 al 4S Manager Rowan 5 al 4S Manager Rutherford 5 dal 4S Manager Sampson 5 d 4S Manager Scotland 7 dal 4S Manager Stanly 7 al 4S Manager Stokes 5 al 4S Manager Surry 5 dal I 4S Manager Swain 5 al 4 Administrator3 Transylvania 5 al 4S Manager Tyrrell 5 I/al 4S Manager 10 Union 5 al 4S Manager Vance 7 d 4S Manager Wake 7 dal 4S Manager Warren 5 dal 4S Manager Washington 5 cda 4d; 1a1 4S Manager Watauga 5 dal 2/4S Manager Wayne 7 cda 1a1; 6d 4 Manager Wilkes 5 al 4S Manager Wilson 7 d 4 Manager 19 Yadkin 5 al 2/4S Manager Yancey 5 al 2/4S Manager TABLE ABBREVIATIONS Election method and descriptions: al = All commissioners nominated and elected at large (pure at large). d = All commissioners nominated and elected by district (pure district). dal = Residence in district required, but nominated and elected at-large. I = Limited voting plan. cda = Combination of pure district and pure at large seats. cdal = Combination of pure at large seats with some seats requiring residency in districts, but still nominated/elected at large. S = If S appears beside length of term, means not all seats are up for election in the same year. TABLE FOOTNOTES 1. Limited voting system. Candidates file as a group for open seats and voters may vote for only one candidate. Both primary and general election results are determined by plurality. 2. Six members elected to numbered seats from 3 2-member districts; 3 at-large members elected concurrently. Primary result is determined by plurality, with each voter limited to 1 vote. 3. Chair elected separately. 4. Six members elected to numbered seats from 3 2-member districts for staggered 4-year terms; at-large member elected for 4-year term. 5. Two members nominated and elected by district; 5 nominated by district and elected at large across the 5 remaining districts. 6. One 2-member district; 1 4-member district; 1 at-large member. 7. Member elected with highest number of votes serves as chair. 8. Limited voting plan. One 2-member district; 1 3-member district. Voters in 2 member district may vote for only 1 candidate. Voters in 3-member district may vote for 2 candidates. 9. Six single-member districts; 3 consolidated districts formed by combining single-member districts. 10. Commissioners are elected at-large with a limited voting plan. Primaries are conducted on a partisan basis, with the top vote-getters in each party moving to the general election.