Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda item 2 - Additional Discussion Regarding the Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of CommissionersORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 6, 2018 Action Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Additional Discussion Regarding the Election Method for Members of the Oranae Countv Board of Commissioners DEPARTMENT: County Attorney, Planning, & County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): A) March 28, 2017 Work Session Agenda Abstract B) Political Party Affiliation by BOCC Districts C) 2010 Census Block Map D) American Community Survey (ACS) Block Group Map E) Possibility 1 — "4 -3" District Plan F) Possibility 2 — "4 -3" District Plan G) Inset Areas 1 and 2 Maps for Possibility 1 and Possibility 2 H) Additional Information from the County Attorney 1) Current Electoral Districts along with Population Numbers Based on the 2010 Census J) Excerpt from March 28, 2017 Board Work Session Minutes 1 INFORMATION CONTACT: John Roberts, County Attorney, 245- 2318 Brian Carson, GIS Project Coordinator, 245 -2595 Greg Wilder, County Manager's Office, 245 -2300 PURPOSE: To follow -up on initial discussion from the March 28, 2017 Board work session with further review and discussion of the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. BACKGROUND: In late 2016 and early 2017, some members of the Board of Commissioners expressed an interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. Several related topics were voiced regarding potentially amending the method. At the Board's March 28, 2017 work session, staff addressed those topics and others in the agenda abstract for the meeting (See Attachment A — March 28, 2017 Work Session Agenda Abstract). P� During the March 28th discussion, the Board asked for additional information on several items. Those items are addressed below and /or in concert with Attachments B through I. 1) Keeping all other aspects of the current Commissioner election method intact, what is the approval process for a change from the current district residency /district nomination /countywide election method for Commissioners — to a district residency /district nomination /district election method? A change from the current district residency /district nomination /countywide election method for Commissioners — to a district residency /district nomination /district election method — would require Board approval of a resolution detailing the change and authorizing a countywide voter referendum on the proposed change. If the voters approved the proposed change, the Board of Commissioners could then consider a resolution implementing the change. If voters did not approve the change, no further action on the matter would occur. At no time would this potential change require review or approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. 2) What is the party affiliation for current voter registration countywide and by the two current Commissioner electoral districts? Staff has provided a map as Attachment B summarizing the party affiliation for current voter registration countywide and by the two current Commissioner electoral districts. 3) Can staff review the annual population projections published by the American Community Survey (ACS) and provide information on the population trends for both Commissioner districts - since the 2010 Census - in anticipation of the 2020 Census? Staff reviewed 2010 Census data and the most recent population estimates from the American Community Survey. The 2010 Census detailed population numbers are based on more precise block level delineations (Attachment C). Conversely, the ACS develops its population projections at a larger block group level, with each block group consisting of multiple Census blocks (Attachment D). The block group areas in some cases consist of land areas larger than the towns in the County. Additionally, while block boundaries align more directly with the Commissioner electoral districts, the larger block group level boundaries vary substantially from the current Commissioner electoral district lines. The ACS 5 -Year estimates utilize 5 years of collected data to produce estimates based on the block group level. It should also be noted that the ACS data are only estimates based on sampling and are not as accurate as the decennial Census data. For example the 2010 Census population for Orange County was 133,801. Conversely, the 2010 ACS (5- year), a 5 year period prior to the 2016 ACS, estimated the County's population at 129,562. This equates to 3.22% lower than the actual 2010 Census. The 2016 ACS may similarly underrepresent the 2016 population, but is statistically relevant. Using the 2016 ACS 5 -year data (the most current data available from ACS), staff developed estimates of the population for the two BOCC voting districts. Unfortunately, as noted previously, the block group boundaries do not follow the current BOCC electoral districts (figure 1). There are six block groups that are split by the voting districts. KI Figure 1 For each block group that was entirely within a single BOCC voting district staff assigned the population numbers to that voting district. For three of the block groups that were split, staff utilized the County's current address layer to calculate how many residential addresses were in each block group. Staff subsequently took the percentage of addresses for each block group that were in each voting district and then divided the total population for each block group by the percentages and then assigned the population numbers to each district (figure 2). This allowed staff to estimate the 2016 populations for each BOCC voting district (figure 3). For the other three split block groups that had only a small percent of addresses in a district, staff applied the entire population to the district that had the majority of addresses. V Figure 2 Figure 3 Residential Addresses 2017 District 1 85,990 District 2 ACS Total 139,807 % in % in Block Group Map 2016 District District District District District 1 District 2 ID ID Est. Pop Total 1 2 1 2 Population Population 37135011203 3 26 1,716 983 230 753 23 77 395 1,321 37135011202 3 27 1 2,416 1,096 241 1 855 22 1 78 532 1,884 37135010701 1 35 2,249 927 926 1 Placed entire 2,249 0 37135010704 population in 3 70 2,261 749 744 5 District 1 2,261 0 37135011205 1 32 21729 1,138 1,110 28 2,729 0 37135011202 2 28 1,675 682 233 449 34 66 570 1,105 13,046 5,575 3,484 2,091 8,736 4,310 Figure 3 To summarize, the 2010 Census population for District 1 was 82,412. The County staff generated 2016 ACS 5 -Year estimate for District 1 is 85,990. The 2010 Census population for District 2 was 51,389. The County staff - generated 2016 ACS 5 -Year estimate for District 2 is 53,817. The 2010 Census total County population was 133,801. The 2016 ACS 5 -Year estimate for the entire County is 139,807. 4) Can staff investigate and provide potential scenario maps eliminating at large Commissioner seats and detailing two Commissioner districts with multiple Commissioners representing each district? At the March 28, 2017 work session, the Board discussed, in theory, the elimination of at large seats. A scenario of seven districts with one Commissioner representing each district was discussed. However, based on Board discussion, staff understood that seven - district framework was removed from consideration due to the "pie- shaped" districts that would emanate from the Chapel Hill Carrboro area due to the population concentration in that area. ACS 2016 (5 Year) Estimated Population District 1 85,990 District 2 53,817 Total 139,807 To summarize, the 2010 Census population for District 1 was 82,412. The County staff generated 2016 ACS 5 -Year estimate for District 1 is 85,990. The 2010 Census population for District 2 was 51,389. The County staff - generated 2016 ACS 5 -Year estimate for District 2 is 53,817. The 2010 Census total County population was 133,801. The 2016 ACS 5 -Year estimate for the entire County is 139,807. 4) Can staff investigate and provide potential scenario maps eliminating at large Commissioner seats and detailing two Commissioner districts with multiple Commissioners representing each district? At the March 28, 2017 work session, the Board discussed, in theory, the elimination of at large seats. A scenario of seven districts with one Commissioner representing each district was discussed. However, based on Board discussion, staff understood that seven - district framework was removed from consideration due to the "pie- shaped" districts that would emanate from the Chapel Hill Carrboro area due to the population concentration in that area. 5 The Board also discussed establishing two Commissioner districts with multiple Commissioners representing each district. The possibility of a district consisting of five seats and a district of two seats was discussed. Staff understood however following Board discussion that this concept was also set aside and that the Board requested that staff develop information and mapping for two districts - one consisting of four seats and the other district consisting of three seats. Staff has provided two possible "44' scenarios for the Board's initial review — Possibility 1 and Possibility 2 (See Attachments E and F). There are other possible variations that could be developed and considered based on Board input. These two scenarios were chosen by staff as starting points as both entail limited variance from the current Commissioner district lines, and also limited variance from the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools district boundaries which were used to guide delineation of the original Commissioner district lines established in 2006. Possibility 1 re- assigns a total of 6,143 voters from the current District 1 to District 2. Possibility 2 relocates 3,684 voters from the current District 1 to District 2. Attachment G provides inset maps for the areas included in the population shifts from District 1 to District 2. Implementation of Possibility 1, Possibility 2 or any other similar election method that a) decreases or increases the number of at large seats, and /or b) changes the number of seats from a district, and /or c) changes the boundaries for the Commissioner electoral districts would require Board action and a countywide voter referendum. Potential changes such as these would necessitate Board approval of a resolution detailing the changes and authorizing a countywide voter referendum on the proposed changes. If the voters subsequently approved the proposed changes, the Board of Commissioners could then consider a resolution implementing the changes. If voters did not approve the change, no further action on the matter would occur. Potential changes of this nature would not require review or approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. 5) Can staff provide additional information on cumulative voting and non - partisan voting and the potential to consider them as options for Board of Commissioners seats? At the March 28th work session, Board members discussed cumulative voting and non - partisan voting. County Attorney John Roberts noted that an electoral plan that relied upon cumulative voting would require approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. Several Board members expressed concern about pursuing an option that would require General Assembly action, while other members suggested that the Board further discuss the topic. County Attorney Roberts also noted that while he was aware that some jurisdictions in other states employed non - partisan elections to elect county commissioners, and that school boards in North Carolina utilized non - partisan elections, he was unaware that any NC county had implemented a non - partisan election method for county commissioners. Mr. Roberts further noted that pursuit of a non - partisan system would require review and action by the North Carolina General Assembly. County Attorney Roberts has provided additional information on cumulative voting, non - partisan voting, and other related topics in Attachment H. L 6) Does Robeson County utilize a board of commissioners election method similar to the current mixed at -large /district method used by Orange County? Attachment I depicts the current structure of Orange County's election method for the Board of Commissioners. Robeson County does not utilize a similar election method. Robeson County Board of Elections Director G.L. Pridgen has confirmed that the eight members of the Robeson County Board of Commissioners are all elected from eight different electoral districts utilizing a district residency /district nomination /district election method. Each of the eight commissioners must reside in their respective districts, must be nominated by only the voters in their respective districts, and must be elected by only the voters in their respective districts. There are no at large commissioners seats, and no commissioners are nominated or elected at any time on a countywide basis. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with additional discussion of the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to this item: • GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends, and the County Attorney concurs, that the Board further discuss the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and provide direction to staff. 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): A) June 27, 2006 Approved Resolution and Election Map /Plan B) Population Deviations for the Approved 2006 Map /Plan C) Current Electoral Districts along with 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 INA INFORMATION CONTACT: John Roberts, County Attorney, 245- 2318 Brian Carson, GIS Project Coordinator, 245 -2595 Greg Wilder, County Manager's Office, 245 -2300 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. 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. 9 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 Me 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. 11 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. Political Party Affiliation by BOCC Districts District 2 District 1 A BOCC Voting Districts City Limits Data Source: Orange County Board of Elections (August 2017) Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (8/22/2017) 0 12 Both Districts 42,258 51,689 (111,182 Voters) (38%) (46/) ■DEMOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN 16,546 ■ REPUBLICAN ■ UNAFFILIATED 689 (1%) 29,308 (41 %) District 1 (70,771 Voters) 33,73 (48) ® DEMOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN ■ REPUBLICAN ■ UNAFFILIATED (10 %) 35,000 zz �zs 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 (1%) District 2 12,950 17,951 (40,411 Voters) (32%) (44 %) ■DEMOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN 9,301 ■ REPUBLICAN ■ UNAFFILIATED 209 (1%) DEMOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN UNAFFILIATED . District 1 District 2 Census Blocks E41 Census Blocks ® Current BOCC Voting Districts IR, A 1 in = 3 miles 0 1 Miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (8/24/2017) 14 Census Block Groups 1 3 ON 5 4 7 8 10 16 14 9 13 18 11 12 15 17 19 21 Alamarl 20 22 23 24 25 Census Block Groups Current BOCC Voting Districts 30 28 31 32 33 27 29 40 43 34 41 36 38 42 44 45 35 37 39 61 46 47 49 50 58\ 62 57 53 54;51 60a 48 71 555652 596365 �s4 66 26 74 73 72 75 67 70 69 68 1 in = 3 miles 0 1 1 Miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (8/24/2017) District 1 (4 Commissioners) and District 2 (3 Commissioners) Possllbility 1 DRAFT District 1: 4 Commissioners District 2: 3 Commissioners N 0 2 MEMNO== Miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (8/24/2017) People per Commissioner: 133,801/7= 19,114 * Numbers may not add up due to rounding. Actual Population Ideal Population 5% Deviation Actual Difference Actual % Deviation Census 2010 County Population 133,801 District 1 Population (4 Members) 76,269 76,458 +/-3,823 -189 -0.25% District 2 Population (3 Members) 57,532 57,343 +/-2,867 + 189 + 0.33% People per Commissioner: 133,801/7= 19,114 * Numbers may not add up due to rounding. IN Population I Number Elected by District Votes /BOCC Member 133,801 1 71 19,114 Number Elected by District I Total Votes /District District 11 41 76,458 District 21 31 57,343 133,8011 People per Commissioner: 133,801/7= 19,114 Ideal Population Actual Population Ideal Population 5% Deviation Actual Difference Actual % Deviation Census 2010 County Population 133,801 57,343 2,867 60,210 54,476 District 1 Population (4 Members) 76,269 76,458 +/-3,823 -189 -0.25% District 2 Population (3 Members) 57,532 57,343 +/-2,867 + 189 +0.33% People per Commissioner: 133,801/7= 19,114 Ideal Population 5% Deviation Upper Limit Lower Limit 76,458 3,823 80,281 72,635 57,343 2,867 60,210 54,476 * Numbers may not add up due to rounding. District 1 (4 Commissioners) and District 2 (3 Commissioners) Possibility 2 FS 152 C6 .. DRAFT District 2 1 070 07' 70 70 86 �1 District 1: 4 Commissioners District 2: 3 Commissioners 5� District 1 15 501 District Voting District 1 N I Voting District 2 2 Miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Current BOCC Voting Districts Brian Carson (8/24/2017) People per Commissioner: 133,801/7= 19,114 * Numbers may not add up due to rounding. Actual Population Ideal Population 5% Deviation Actual Difference Actual % Deviation Census 2010 County Population 133,801 District 1 Population (4 Members) 78,748 76,458 +/-3,823 2,290 + 3 District 2 Population (3 Members) 55,053 57,343 +/-2,867 -2,290 -3.99 People per Commissioner: 133,801/7= 19,114 * Numbers may not add up due to rounding. IN Population I Number Elected by District Votes /BOCC Member 133,801 1 71 19,114 Number Elected by District I Total Votes /District District 11 41 76,458 District 21 31 57,343 133,8011 People per Commissioner: 133,801/7= 19,114 Ideal Population Actual Population Ideal Population 5% Deviation Actual Difference Actual % Deviation Census 2010 County Population 133,801 57,343 2,867 60,210 54,476 District 1 Population (4 Members) 78,748 76,458 +/-3,823 2,290 +3 District 2 Population (3 Members) 55,053 57,343 +/-2,867 -2,290 -3.99 People per Commissioner: 133,801/7= 19,114 Ideal Population 5% Deviation Upper Limit Lower Limit 76,458 3,823 80,281 72,635 57,343 2,867 60,210 54,476 * Numbers may not add up due to rounding. Area 1 19 MEN 4 ILI WE _4 W4 /1� ,� • Parcels Voting Precincts 1 in 1,300 feet ri Voting District 0 500 0000=Feet Voting District 2 Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (8/22/2017) Z% r► hb� 21 Attachment H Redefining electoral districts North Carolina General Statutes authorize Boards of Commissioners to redefine electoral districts if the Board finds there is "substantial inequality" of population among the districts. This action is generally appropriate to be considered after a census, however, if something else occurs that substantially impacts population it would be appropriate to consider this action then as well. There doesn't appear to be any statutory justification for redefining electoral district boundaries for any reason other than population inequality, although an argument could be made that inequality among protected populations may qualify as well. § 153A -22. Redefining electoral district boundaries. (a) 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. (b) If the board finds that there is substantial inequality of population among the districts, it may by resolution redefine the electoral districts. (c) Redefined electoral districts shall be so drawn that the quotients obtained by dividing the population of each district by the number of commissioners apportioned to the district are as nearly equal as practicable, and each district shall be composed of territory within a continuous boundary. (d) No change in the boundaries of an electoral district may affect the unexpired term of office of a commissioner residing in the district and serving on the board on the effective date of the resolution. If the terms of office of members of the board do not all expire at the same time, the resolution shall state which seats are to be filled at the initial election held under the resolution. (e) A resolution adopted pursuant to this section shall be the basis of electing persons to the board of commissioners at the first general election for members of the board of commissioners occurring after the resolution's effective date, and thereafter. A resolution becomes effective upon its adoption, unless it is adopted during the period beginning 150 days before the day of a primary and ending on the day of the next succeeding general election for membership on the board of commissioners, in which case it becomes effective on the first day after the end of the period. (f) Not later than 10 days after the day on which a resolution becomes effective, the clerk shall file in the Secretary of State's office, in the office of the register of deeds of the county, and with the chairman of the county board of elections, a certified copy of the resolution. (g) This section shall not apply to counties where under G.S. 153A- 58(3)d. or under public or local act, districts are for residence purposes only, and the qualified voters of the entire county nominate all candidates for and elect all members of the board. (1981, c. 795.) Nonpartisan elections State law authorizes nonpartisan elections for municipal governing boards, but there is no corresponding authority for county governing boards. All 100 county boards are elected on a partisan basis. The legislature would have to authorize an alteration of the election method to have county commissioners elected on a nonpartisan basis. Altering Board Structure and Timing § 153A -58. Optional structures. A county may alter the structure of its board of commissioners by adopting one or any WA combination of the options prescribed by this section. (1) Number of members of the board of commissioners: The board may consist of any number of members not less than three, except as limited by subdivision (2)d of this section. (2) Terms of office of members of the board of commissioners: a. Members shall be elected for two -year terms of office. b. Members shall be elected for four -year terms of office. c. Members shall be elected for overlapping four -year terms of office. d. The board shall consist of an odd number of members, who are elected for a combination of four -and two -year terms of office, so that a majority of members is elected each two years. This option may be used only if all members of the board are nominated and elected by the voters of the entire county, and only if the chairman of the board is elected by and from the members of the board. (3) Mode of election of the board of commissioners: a. The qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate all candidates for and elect all members of the board. For options b, c, and d, the county shall be divided into electoral districts, and board members shall be apportioned to the districts so that the quotients obtained by dividing the population of each district by the number of commissioners apportioned to the district are as nearly equal as practicable. b. The qualified voters of each district shall nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district; and the qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate candidates and elect members apportioned to the county at large, if any. c. 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, if any; and the qualified voters of the entire county shall elect all the members of the board. d. Members shall reside in and represent the districts according to the apportionment plan adopted, but the qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate all candidates for and elect all members of the board. If any of options b, c, or d is adopted, the board shall divide the county into the requisite number of electoral districts according to the apportionment plan adopted, and shall cause a delineation of the districts so laid out to be drawn up and filed as required by G.S. 153A -20. No more than half the board may be apportioned to the county at large. (4) Selection of chairman of the board of commissioners: a. The board shall elect a chairman from among its membership to serve a one -year term, as provided by G.S. 153A -39. b. The chairmanship shall be a separate office. The qualified voters of the entire county nominate candidates for and elect the chairman for a two -or four -year term. (1927, c. 91, s. 3; 1969, c. 717, s. 1; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.) If the Board chose to move forward with proposing an amendment to the current election Method and /or board structure, 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 altering the Board's structure cannot occur in 2017. 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. 23 Cumulative Voting 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. 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. Voting Voting Curren Mz! Attachment C 11 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. 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. 25 APPROVED 4/18/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION March 28, 2017 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Chair Dorosin said there is an item that needs to be added to the agenda: Board of Equalization and Review - Appointments The Board will consider the appointment of two (2) regular members from the list of appointed alternates and one (1) additional alternate to the Board of Equalization and Review. Board of the County Commissioners (BOCC) will designate a Chair from the list of appointed regular members. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to appoint Barbara Levine and Karen Morrisette as regular members. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Reginald Morgan as Chair. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to appoint Pam Davis to an alternate position. VOTE: UNANIMOUS POSITION NAME SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF APPOINTMENT At -Large Reginald Morgan -Chair Regular Member 03/21/2019 At -Large Barbara Levine Regular Member 03/28/2019 At -Large Karen Morrisette Regular Member 03/28/2019 At -Large Pam Davis Alternate Member 03/28/2019 14 • Working with other groups such as the Sportsplex • Following Master Plan 2030, which drives PRC monthly meeting agendas • Extended maintenance of parks, which is a funding issue • Regular need for expanding services to compete with municipalities • Discussion on how to improve communications with park facilities • Looking at the soccer fields- natural vs turf? • Inclusive /accessible parks Commissioner Marcoplos said he heard there is a rumor about a disc golf course near the Speedway. No one had heard about this. Commissioner Price referred to the issue of accessibility, and suggested that the PRC may want to work with the Planning Department and Asset Management Services on this issue. Commissioner Jacobs said there is park land that is not being utilized, the Kirby tract, and this may be an area to discuss with David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Director, about a disc golf space. Planning Board: Craig Benedict, Director Craig Benedict reviewed the following highlights: • new public hearing process, which allows for some expediting • amendments made regarding temporary health care structures, and those who are unrelated to allow for more flexibility • collaborating on affordable housing issues, work with Information Technology on broadband, and working with Economic Development on new SWOT Analysis Craig Benedict said some goals for 2017 are: • Housing — clustering of homes; public water and sewer; off site septic • considering rural clustering • streamlining regulations 3. Discussion Regarding Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners Greg Wilder, County Manager's office, reviewed the following background information: 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 1,200- 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. MA 15 The Board then pursued a series of meetings over the next 13 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. 16 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 I0 17 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. 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. We By pooling votes to a single candidate minority groups have a greater chance of electing a candidate of their choice. 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. Chair Dorosin said the census data is from 2010, and asked if staff has looked at anything more recent. Greg Wilder said more recent data can be looked at, but decisions cannot be based on it. He said staff will research this. Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if any changes endorsed by the BOCC would have to go to the legislature. John Roberts said no, the Board can choose to change the electoral structure and take it to a referendum. He said any changes to the voting method must go to the legislature. Commissioner McKee asked if changing to district nominate /district elect would be a change in the structure or the method. John Roberts said that would be a change in the structure, and is one of four statutorily authorized methods. He said if the BOCC wanted to divide the County into seven districts, where the voters in those districts both nominate and elect officials, then the County can accomplish that through referendum. Commissioner McKee asked what would happen if the same district set up remained, but changed the voting from district nominate /county elect to district nominate /district elect. John Roberts said such a change would go to referendum. Commissioner Marcoplos said back in 1992 he ran for County Commissioner as an Independent, and then the landfill debacle came up. He said so much attention was paid to representation that the County formed a committee. He said a lot of effort was put into trying to understand what may be done, and districts came to residents' minds. He said he was introduced to cumulative voting at that time, which was 1993. Commissioner Marcoplos said he always thought that cumulative voting was the more simple way to vote, and he said this empowers minorities in the political system. He said in cumulative voting, if there are three candidates each voter gets three votes, and can use them as he /she so chooses. He said what can happen, when one represents a district, is that one can become bound to what is popular in your district. He said the way commissioners are elected now means that many people's vote does not count, and in Orange County, this is mostly republicans. He said it is incumbent upon the BOCC to provide the fairest access to the democratic process, and he believes that cumulative voting is the best way to achieve this. He said this is the choice to settle legal issues over perceived unfair voting, and is the most fair. Chair Dorosin said cumulative voting would require legislative approval, and asked Commissioner Marcoplos if he thinks this could be pursued. Commissioner Marcoplos said someone has to raise the idea so that people can become educated. He said he is unsure if Commissioner McKee's idea of district nominate /district elect would change anything. Commissioner McKee said it would not change anything as far as the power structure as it exists now, but it would change the perception that in District 2, for example, that the district nominates, but the countywide election is what elects. He agreed that a republican 31 19 candidate cannot win a countywide election in Orange County. He said his proposed change is simple, and does not require legislative involvement. Commissioner Burroughs said she is interested in learning more about Commissioner McKee's suggestion. She said it would clean up what currently exists, as people are familiar with it. She is not confident that the legislature would support cumulative voting, but is open to others' thoughts. Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to read more of the cumulative voting information forwarded by Commissioner Marcoplos. He disagreed that a republican cannot be elected in Orange County, but said a radical republican could not. He said there are republicans on the school boards and the town councils. He said Greg Wilder's point about how the BOCC sits in meetings indicates the fact that they represent the whole County, not just a district or at large position. He said the current system mitigates towards that, and so far the BOCC personifies that. He said he would be very careful about Balkanizing Orange County in a way that may pit district against district. He said there is already a subtle divide in the County, and he said the district nominate /district elect would only exacerbate that. Commissioner Rich asked if Commissioner Jacobs recalls which options were discussed in 2006. Commissioner Jacobs said all of the permutations were considered, and there was a report on this. He said the legislature tried to enforce a particular system on the County at that time, which the County fought. He said non - partisan commissioner elections were discussed, but not cumulative voting. Commissioner Marcoplos said Commissioner Jacobs made a good point about the school board non - partisan elections, but the major parties are not going to release their grip on the partisan elections. Commissioner Marcoplos said if changes are going to be made, the change should be one that really makes a difference. He said he does not find Commissioner McKee's suggestion to be worth the effort. He said in cumulative voting, one can use the power of one's vote. He said it is a community building solution as well. Chair Dorosin said the reality of getting something positive from the legislature is daunting. He said there needs to be a fairer election system. He said there is the perception that the current system is unfair, and this needs to be moved away from. He said at -large elections are the least fair, and having residents run in districts, and to be elected from those same districts, is fairer. Chair Dorosin said he does not believe Commissioner McKee's suggestion would lead to the Balkanization of the County, and it is interesting that the current at -large Commissioners come from outside District 1. Chair Dorosin said residents feel disenfranchised with the current system, and it would be interesting to look at voter registration in each of the districts. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the proposal would be to leave the at -large Commissioners as they are, but make the districts vote primary and general election within the districts. Chair Dorosin said he would be amenable to get rid of the at -large positions and have four Commissioners from District 1, and three from District 2; or however the numbers broke down fairly. He asked if such a change could be done by a referendum. John Roberts said yes, this could be done by referendum. Commissioner Price said a Republican or an Independent can win in District 2, and it would be more possible with the change proposed by Commissioner McKee. She said when Chapel Hill votes in general elections the balance is shifted. She said this concern is often raised to her, as it leads to Chapel Hill and Carrboro determining elections. 32 Chair Dorosin said a fair voting system does not mean that everyone gets to elect whomever they want. He said if the minority is small enough, it will not be able to overcome the majority. He said the question is whether or not the system is created fairly. Commissioner Marcoplos agreed, and said the point of cumulative voting is that everyone has a chance. He said in general elections the Commissioners are usually an afterthought, since people vote their party. Commissioner Marcoplos said for a Republican to win, he /she must appeal on the issues across the County. He said if the County moved to having just two districts, and no at- large positions, break down might be five commissioners in district 1, and 2 in district 2; based on population. He said this would make residents in the rural part of the County very upset. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the legislature was asked to consider cumulative voting for Orange County, would it give a yes or no answer. Commissioner Jacobs said, if invited in, the legislature could change it to whatever it pleased, as seen in Greensboro and Wake County. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the issue of independent voters, and said this is an increasingly larger group. He said the BOCC should gather more information on this group. He said he is more interested in finding out how to get these people to run, than he is in messing with the districts. He said candidates should run on issues. Chair Dorosin asked John Roberts if having non - partisan elections would require legislative approval. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner Price referred to Commissioner Jacobs' comments, and said in other states one has to be registered with a party to vote in a primary. Commissioner McKee said he just wanted to tweak the system, not to change it. He said he believes it is a perception problem, rather than a real problem. He said it has been over a hundred years since a republican was elected in Orange County. He said anyone who is elected to the BOCC, and tries to be a disruptive force, will find themselves up against other Commissioners who will not put up with it. He said any changes that are made should be those that can be made in house, and not involve the legislature. Commissioner McKee said his intent is to alleviate the perception of inequity. He said he does not believe there really is much inequity, but there is the perception of such. Chair Dorosin summarized the discussion: • Two ideas that require legislative approval, and BOCC would like more information: cumulative and non - partisan voting • District nominate /district election- • Get rid of at large positions- and have two districts • More information on voter registrations in district • Updated census data Greg Wilder said to have all seven seats elected by district, the district lines would need to be redrawn, moving 4,000 people from district 1 to district 2, which would result in four commissioner seats in District 1, and three seats in District 2. Chair Dorosin said his intent was to have two multi- member districts. He said to have seven individual districts would result in pizza slices coming out of Chapel Hill, and some districts would violate other principles of drawing districts, such as having communities of shared interest, etc. He said there could not be district blocks throughout the County, due to the density of the population in certain areas. 4. Closed Session - Canceled