HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-05-2005-1aORANGE COUNTY STAFF REPORT ON THE
STRUCTURE OF BOARDS OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
May 2005
ORANGE COUNTY STAFF REPORT ON THE STRUCTURE OF
BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PAGES
i-iii
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR STRUCTURE 1-22
OF BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ELECTION METHODS FOR BOARDS OF 23-26
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
HISTORY OF DISCUSSIONS BY THE ORANGE 27-41
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON
BOARD REPRESENTATION AND ELECTION
BOUNDARIES AND STATISTICS
42-49
APPENDICES A through T 50-150
INTRODUCTION
In January 2005, representatives of a group of Orange County residents
addressed the Orange County Board of Commissioners and submitted a
1200-signature petition (the cover sheet for which is provided at Appendix
A) to the Board regarding the method by which the five members of the
Board of Cormissioners are elected in Orange County. The representatives
requested that the Board review the current method of election for the
members of the Board of Commissioners, which entails all five members of
the Board being nominated and elected to staggered four-year terms on a
countywide/at-large basis. The representatives specifically requested, as
stated in the petition, that the Board "alter the method and manner by which
Orange County Commissioners are elected to afford equal and fair
representation to the residents of the county by adopting NCGS 153-58(3)b,
permitting the voters of Orange County to choose commissioners by
electoral districts with each district being as nearly equal in population as
practicable." The petition contimied, "Further, that the qualified voters of
each dish°ict nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the
district for seats apportioned to that district and that some of the
commissioners, but not more than half of the board, be allocated to the
county as a whole, to be nominated and voted upon by the qualified voters of
the entire county." Neither those making the request nor the petition
submitted included any explanatory information or detailed any specific
proposal regarding the format or implementation of the requested district
representation for the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
Upon hearing the request, the Board of Commissioners asked that Orange
County Manager .John Link and County staff review the issue and the
petition submitted and provide a report to the Board.. This document serves
as that report to the Board.
This report includes information on the following:
1) the legal framework for structure of boards of county comnrissioners;
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
Conunissioners in regard Board representation and election;
4) some limited boundaries and statistics information showing the
population distribution as it may relate to the consideration/
formulation of district representation for Orange County;
This report is not intended to be an investigation of the benefits, costs,
opportuniries, hurdles, or timelines that may be associated with the
consideration and possible implementation of district representation for the
Orange County Board of Commissioners. It is intended to provide an initial
framework of information upon which the Board of Commissioners can
deliberate and determine as appropriate any further steps in evaluating this
issue and responding to the request and petition submitted.
iii
LA\\~ OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHIL.L, HARGRAVE & PEEK
A 1'ROPESSIONAI. COIiI'OIiATION
i2~E iliION STii[f:T
P O DIiAWLR I>39
i-IILLSUORi?UOhL !dORTH CAROLINA ?T.7tl
)19-712.31)!
1'AS 919.7337997
~,««<;vn,dh«,~» Ma,/ 2, 2005
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Valerie P. Foushee
Alice M, Gordon
Stephen Halkiotis
Barry Jacobs
Orange County Board
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North
of Commissioners
Carolina 27278
i
PIiJ.U'LHC L,6)I: OP
GEOITRGI' E. GLEUIIILL
E~Ai:AIL: A=~ivalul~'.ildll~n ruundh c.nn
RE: Modification in the Structure of Boards of County
Commissioners
Dear Board Members:
At the request of the Board of Commissioners, the County
Manager, County staff and I have put together a report to you
concerning modification to the structure of Boards of County
Commissioners, The report includes this legal analysis,
historical and other relevant information. This report was
requested by the Board of Commissioners in response to a
petition made to you by a number of Orange County citizens
seeking a change from the present at-large system of nominating
and electing Commissioners to a system combining district
nomination and election with at large nomination and election.
P_fter that petition was presented to you, Representative
Faison introduced House Bill 913 which, if approved by the
General Assembly, would require a referendum in Orange County on
whether to expand the Board of County Commissioners to seven
members,' The structure proposed by House Bill 913 would nominate
and elect one Commissioner at large, four from one district, the
boundaries of which include all of Chapel Hill Township, and two
from each of two districts, one consisting of Eno Township,
'House Hill 913 and correspondence between Commissioner Carey and
P.epresentative Faison regarding House Hill 913 is together Appendix T to the
staff report.
2
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 2
May 2, 2005
Hillsborough Township and the Efland precinct and the other
consisting of Bingham Township, Cedar Grove Township, Little
River Township and Cheeks precinct. House Bill 913 presents a
structural change available to Orange County under the general
law, However, the general law provides that any structural
change in the board of commissioners be initiated by resolution
of the Board of County Commissioners not by Act of the General
Assembly.
There have been, in recent years, other instances of the
Legislature restructuring boards of commissioners. However,
according to the General Counsel of the North Carolina
Association of County Commissioners, these other instances
facilitated board of commissioner restructuring at the request
of the board of county commissioners to be restructured. The
legislation requested, in a number of instances, avoided the
referendum required by general law.
I have enclosed copies of several recent Acts of the
General Assembly which redistrict and restructure county boards
of commissioners, They include Chapter 80 of the 1995 Session
Laws relating to redefining district boundaries in Chatham
County, Chapter 136 of the 1991 Session Laws expanding and
redistricting the Guilford County Board of Commissioners and
Chapter 43 of the 1981 Session Laws creating a district system
in Randolph County whereby the members of the board of
commissioners reside in the districts but are nominated and
elected countywide.
North Carolina law has made available to boards of
commissioners alternate structure options, with significant
flexibility, for many years. North Carolina General Statute §
153A-58 provides:
1, A board of commissioners may consist of any odd number
of members, not less than three,
2. The terms of office of board members may be two years
or four years,
3, The terms of office can be staggered or not, If the
board consists of two year terms and four year terms, all of the
members of the board must be nominated and elected by the voters
3
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 3
May 2, 2pp5
of the entire county with the board chair elected by and from
the members of the board.
4, There are four modes of election authorized. Where an
electoral district mode is used, the board members must be
apportioned by the districts so that the number of commissioners
apportioned to each district divided by the population in the
district is as nearly equal as practicable for all districts.
The four modes are:
(a) The qualified voters of the entire county
nominate all candidates for and elect all members of the
board.. This is the method now used to elect the members of
the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County.
(b) The qualified voters of each district nominate
candidates and elect members who reside in the district for
seats apportioned to that district; and the qualified
voters of the entire county nominate candidates and elect
members apportioned to the county at large. The citizen
petition presented to the Board of Commissioners this year
requests that the Board pursue this mode. House Bill 913
also would, if approved by the voters of the County, create
this type of election system. Chapter 136 of the 1991
Session Laws, which expanded and redistricted the Guilford
County Board of Commissioners, is an example of the
creation of a board structure using this mode.
(c) The qualified voters of each district nominate
candidates who reside in the district and the qualified
voters of the entire county nominate candidates for seats
apportioned to the county at large, if any; and the
qualified voters of the entire county elect all the members
of the board.
(d) The qualified voters of the entire county
nominate candidates and elect members; candidates and
members reside in apportioned districts, Chapter 43 of the
1981 Session Laws, involving Randolph County, is an example
of this board of commissioner structure.
5. If a district mode is chosen, the board of
commissioners divides the county into districts according to the
4
orange County Board of Commissioners
Page a
May 2, .2005
apportionment plan adopted and delineates the districts, If a
district mode is chosen, no more than half the board may be
apportioned to the county at-large.
North Carolina General Statute § 153A-60 provides that the
board of commissioners initiates any alteration of board
structure by resolution. The alteration of board structure is
then accomplished or not following a referendum conducted by the
county board of elections.
North Carolina General Statute § 153A-61 directs the ballot
question which, in effect is, yes for the altered structure
described in the ballot or no for the altered structure. If the
referendum passes, the new structure is put into effect. If the
referendum fails, the resolution adopted by the board of
commissioners calling for the restructuring and the plan for the
altered structure are both void,
P.ny new structure for election of members of the board of
commissioners must meet constitutional requirements including
the "one person, one vote," requirement. There is nothing that
has happened in the courts that changes the analysis of these
principles that is contained in the 1996 letters from me to the
Board which accompany this letter. I have not previously and
don't here consider that either the present structure of the
Board of Commissioners or any proposed structure does or would
discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a
language minority group protected by the Voting Rights Act.
Therefore, in my opinion, there is no constitutional issue
involved in this matter other than adherence to the "one person,
one vote" principle. With respect to the "one person, one vote"
principle, the federal courts have shown considerable deference
to local decisions in determining how to satisfy that principle.
The letters that accompany this letter give the rationale for
approved variations.
A case decided since my 1996 letter to you, Cannon v.
Durham County Board of Elections, 959 F.Supp. 289 (E.D.N.C.
1997); affirmed, 129 F.3d 116 (4`h Cir. 1997; opinion
unpublished), approves "voting age population" districting. When
Durham County merged its school districts, the plan of merger
approved by the Durham County Board of Commissioners and the
North Carolina State Board of Education included a district
5
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 5
NIay 2, 2005
election system for board of education members which apportioned
based on "voting age population."' Previously the federal courts
had approved North Carolina's "total population" districting
system for members of the General Assembly and the same system
for boards of commissioners, Voting age population was
determined by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina in Cannon to contain no
"constitutional transgression" and to satisfy the "one person,
one vote" requirement, That decision was affirmed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, The District
Court in the Cannon case cited the Daily v, Hunt case (discussed
in my 1996 letter to you), noting that federal courts should
generally defer to the State's choice (and to the local
government's choice) of apportionment base whether it is total
population or, as in the case of the Durham School Board merger
plan, voting age population. The statute authorizing
restructuring of boards of commissioners, N. C.. Gen. Stat. §
153A-58, with respect to its wholly or partially "nominate and
elect" by districts modes, uses total population as the basis
for districts, I am told that the districts proposed in. House
Bill 913 also are based on total population.
The staff report will be presented to you at your work
session on May 5, 2005.. Following that work session Z will work
together with the Manager and his staff as you direct to provide
any additional information.
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL, HAR.GRAVE & PEEK, P.C.
C,EG/lsg
Enclosures
lsg: letters\bdofcom district ren ltr,doc
11
'This plan was designed, at the request of the Durham County Board of
Commissioners, by Gerry Cohen, Director of Legislative Drafting, North
Carolina General Assembly. Gerry Cohen, at the request of Representative
Faison, also designed the plan in House Bill 913.
L?.W OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL &. HARGRAVE
A PRCF.SSIONAL CORPCP.A:ICN
t'_9 E Ti3.YON STRE_R
P O DRA~Y'ER. IS}9
HRLSBOROUGH. NORiH C4ROLINA ]i:78
olq.7}>_-.196
FAK 9f 9 i3}~i99i
Sdptember 24, 1996
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair'
Bill Crowther
Alice Gordon
Stephen Halkiotis
Don Willhoit
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box B1B1
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
FROM THE DESK OF
GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL
RE: Modification in the Structure of the Board of
Commissioners
Dear Board Members:
This letter is intended .to provide guidance to the Board as
it considers whether to restructure the mode of election of the
Board of Commissioners. North Carolina General Statute Section
153A-58 provides four options foz the mode of electing boards of
commissioners. The first option is that the qualified voters of
the entire county nominate all candidates for and elect all
members of the board. This is the present system for nominating
and electing members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
The other three options call for the county to be divided
into electoral districts with board members 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."
Population derived electoral districts which are nearly equal in
numbers create "representational equality." Reliance on total
population is said to ensure that all constituents, whether or
not they are eligible to vote, have roughly equal access to their
elected representatives. This contrasts with apportionment based
on the segment of the population which is voter-eligible. A
nearly even division of the voter-eligible population creates
what is known as "electoral equality." In a very recent case,
Daly v. N_unt, F.2d (CA 4, No. 95-1,933, 8/27/96), the
United States Court of P_ppeals for the rr^ourth Circuit affirmed
7
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 2
September 24, 1996
the constitutionality of North Carolina's representational
equality-based system far electing boards of commissioners. This
very recent decision reversed a federal district court decision
which determined that electoral equality was constitutionally
required. The United States Court cf Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit concluded that when all aspects of equal representation
are considered as a whole, it becomes clear that representati,oral
equality is at least as important as electoral equality in a
representative democracy. And, the decision as to what system to
use is a decision that should be made by the State of North
Carolina and not the federal courts in the inherently political
and legislative process of apportionment.
The electoral district choices available to the Board
follow. No more than ha.1f of the board may be apportioned to the
county at large in each case.l
'A "proportional" or "cumulative" election system has been
proposed to you by some members of the Orange County community.
Each is a system whereby each voter gets to vote the number of
"seats" up for election and may cast all of their seat votes for
one candidate or some number of candidates less than the total.
Put another way, if there are three seats on the Board of County
Commissioners up for election, a voter has a choice of casting as
many as three votes for one candidate or casting a vote for each
candidate or any combination in between. Orange County has no
statutory authority to use this method of electing boards of
county commissioners. Further, it is a method of electing county
commissioners generally."foreign" nationwide. I am told it has
been tried in a few communities, typically to cure past Voting
Rights Act violations. Cumulative voting is a common method of
voting for members of the board of directors of for-profit
corporations and is intended to provide minority stockholders
with electoral access to the board of directors. There is no
"suspect class" (racial, ethnic, etc. minority) of Orange County
voters presently lacking electoral access to the Orange County
Board of Commissioners so far as I know. Since there is no
interest among the Board in this method of electing commissioners
and since i.t is net authorized by North Carolina law, I ha:re done
no research into whether a system of cumulative voting in Orange
County would conflict with the "one person, one vote" and other
important principles of the Voting Rights Act. This
research would have to be done before Orange County could
undertake s*uch a system of electing its Board of Commissioners.
As a final note on this, the practice of "sing.le-shot" voting is
a modified method of proportional voting which is authorized
under North G.rolina law. If exercised skillfully by a voting
i,lnck; ; t can be ve.^~ effective.
8
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page :3
September 24, 1996
1. 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.
2. 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 of the members of the board.
3. 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.
The Board has directed that consideration be given to the
third electoral district option described above. This option is
authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly provided an
electoral district apportioruaent plan can be adopted creating
districts "as nearly equal as practicable" and provided there is
no violation of the Voting Rights Act, guidelines of
which have been or will be presented to you along with
apportionment plans developed by the Planning staff for your
consideration. There is no legal impediment to creating the
electoral district plan favored by the Board of Commissioners.
If a decision is made to create electoral districts, a map of
those districts must be drawn along with a written description of
those districts and both must be made available for public
inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Board.
Very truly yours,
GEG/lsg
xc: John M. Link, Jr
David Stancil
C.OLL'MAN,.iGLEDHZLL ~ HARGRAVE, P.C.
Geol' rey E.j Gledhill
I
j ~
i
~ ~,.
lsg-6
boardele.ltr
. §153'A"5`5 CH.753A COL'~TIfiS c
s 153:}-:;
Part 4. A~Iodification in the Structure of the Board of
Commissioners.
§ la3A-58. Optional structures.
- A county map after the structure of its board of commissioners by adoptin~-
one or any combinat' f 1
rvn v tie options prescribed by this section. °
il) Number of members of the board of conunissioners: The board m:a~.-
consist of any number of members not less than three, except a
limited by subdivision (3~d of this section.
i2) Terms of ot3'ice of members of the board of commissioners:
a. Members shall be elected for t«o-year terms of office.
b. Members shall be elected for four-year terms ofof73ce.
c ?Members shall be elected for overlapping four-year terms of ofice
d The board shall consist of an odd mm~ber of members, H'ho are
elected for a combination of four- and ttco-}-ear terms of office, so
that a majority of members is elected each two tear,. This optior,
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) 114ode 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 die-ided 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 ns
nearly- equal as practicable.
b The qualified voters of each district shall nominate candidates and
elect members n ho reside in the district for seals 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 voter's of each district shall nominate candidates k by
reside in the district for seta apportioned to that district. and the
qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate candidates for
seats apportivned to the county ai large, if ant: and the qualified
voters of the entire county slrail elect all the members of the
board
d 1\Yembc-rs 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 sli
members of the board.
If any ofoptions b, c, or d is adopted- the board shall divide the counts
into the requisite number of electoral disLicts according to the
apportionment plan adopted, and shall caul; a delineation of the
districts so Laid out to be dra~sr, up and bled as required b~ G.~.
153.E-''~ No more than half the boa..-d n;ap ~be apportioned to tha
courty at lane.
( 41 Selection of eha.irman of the board of commissioners:
a. The board shall elect a chairman from among its rrren;ber;hip to
serge aone-year term, as provided by G 5 153.E-39
b The chairmanship ;hall he a separate office. The quaLSed c viers of
the entire county nominate candidates for and et;~c t thr- chairman
for a ku o- or lour-;ear term i°27, c y 1, s 3; 1 X69, c i l i, s 1;
19.3, c 523. s. L7
964
§153A-61 CH 1:,3~ COC:V1tE5 y153:~-G?
Legal Periodicals. -Fur survey of 19'
administrative law at7tcting state gasernment.
see 56 V C L Rey S6. t19'"S)
CASE NOTES
Cited in Pittman v. R'ilson Countv. SL9 F2d
2^_5 ~~Ith Cir 1965).
§ 153A-61. Submission of proposition to ~-oters; form of
ballot.
A proposition to approve an alteration shall be printed on the ballot in
substantiallc the following form:
"Shall the structure of the board of commissioners be altered' (Describe the
effect of the alteration )
^ YES
^ r;o°
The ballot shall be separate from other ballots used at the election..
If a majority of the cotes cast vn the proposition are in the af&nnative, the
plan contained in the resolution shall be put into effect as provided in this Part.
If a majority of the cotes cast are in the negative, the resolution and the plan
contained therein are void, (1927, c 91, s 4; 1969, c 717; s 1; 19;3, c 822, s
1.)
Local Modification,-Craven: 3001-+b7. s
I lapplicable only [o resolutions adopted before
January 1. ^_002); Dare: 1991. Es Sess,c .^.
2 (As to applicabili[v and contingency pr~vi-
sions. see 1991 Session Lags, E~ Sess , c. °, s
k Lev 19S9, c. 19:i, s 2leffective June 1, 1959.
but only applicable to resolutions- appr used on
or beforo Aug. 1. 1990); Wayne: 1957. c 119
ronly applicable to revolutions approsed nn ar
before Nov. 30. 1955).
153A-62. Effective date of any alteration.
Anv approved alteration shall be the basis Cor nominating and electing the
members of the board of commissioners at the first succeeding primary and
general election for counts o~ces held after approval of the alteration: and the
alteration Cakes effect on the first Illvnda,y in December follo~c'ing that general
election. (1927, c 91, s 4; 1969, c 717, s, 1; 1973, c. 822, s 1.)
OPI\7ONS OF AI-TORI`~Y GENER4L
Effect of Count}- Referendum. - A refer-
endum on reorganizing the Board oY Commis-
sioners in -Madison Counts, if aporosed. would
be effective for the nett general eluctinn in
which county ofrices are scheduled to be filled
See opinion of Attorncc C-eneal to illy Lary.
Lesko Chairman Stare Board of Elections
1995 5 C AG 3; ~5i3-/951
§ I53~-63. Filing copy of resolution.
~ copv oC a resolution approved pursuant tv this Part shall be filed and
inde~:ed in the ordinance book required by G S 153,E-~S 11927, c 91. s 4; 1969,
c 71i, __ 1; 1973, c 522. s 1,)
ti 153A-64. Filing results of election.
IC the proposition is approved under tU ti 153 A-51, a certiSed true cvp~~ of the
resolution aad a cop. of the ab_4-act oi'the election shall be Fled frith the
866
C.4U'/ OFi~ICES
COLEDQAN, GLEDHILL & H.~RGRAVE
~ FROF-~ sic~.~L coReGRrrc;~
l79 E. : nYOti STRiET
P O DR.4R cR IS'9
HIL'SHCROL'GH. VOFiTFi C1ROLi.'~A ':iS
9f9 .i3J219ti
FP,X 919-3? 7991
October 4, 1996
Michael Crowell, Esquire
Tharringtan Smith
Post Office Box 1151
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
11
FROM TriE DESK OF
GEOirFEY E. GLEDHILL
RE: Modification in the Structure of Boards of County
Commissioners
Dear Mike:
Thank you very much for taking the time to talk with me
recently about changing the structure of boards of county
commissioners and for sending me the materials you did on the
subject.
There is one point made by you during our telephone
conversation and previously concluded by you in the article you
wrote for Popular Government concerning redistricting for local
governments on which I don't yet agree. You stated during our
telephone conversation and in the article that there is no
constitutional requirement that "residency" districts be equal in
population and that North Carolina law does not require them to
be equal in population. I concur with your conclusion on the
constitutional question because the elections are at large. I
reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to North
Carolina statutory requirements. It seems to me that when a
board of commissioners changes i.ts structure from a totally at
large system to one where the members must reside in a district,
it must initially create the districts by referendum and based on
population. North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-58(3) so
states. Contrarily, since G.S. 153A-~22(g) makes the requirements
for redefining electoral district boundaries, where theta becomes
over time as inequality of population among the districts, not
applicable at all in counties where the districts are for
residence purposes only, a board of county commissioners could
change the district boundaries as it pleased, presumably by
resolution. How the district boundary change is made is not
altogether clear since G.S. .15.3A-22(g) makes that statute not
applicable at all to residency districts.
Michael Crowell, Esquire
Page 2
October 4, 1996
You've obviously given this whole area more thought than I
have and probably have a simple explanation for what .I 'm missing
in your analysis that causes you to conclude that there are no
population limitations on the boundaries for residency districts
at the time they are created. I see the logic in a conclusion
that if electoral districts can be changed without concern for
population equality they ought to be able to be created without
concern for population equality. However, I don't yet see the
statutory authority for this to be done logically. Without
intending to bog you down in dialogue over this point, if you
have any thoughts that might help me reach your conclusion, 1'd
love to hear them.
12
Again, Michael, thank you very much for your help with this
redistricting issue. As a last thought, it is likely that the
County Commissioners' interest in creating residency electoral
districts will not result, in the short term at least, in a
change in the structure of the Orange County Board of
Commissioners. I reached this conclusion after listening to the
Board of Commissioners discuss the issue during a meeting it held
on October 1, 1996. Although there was interest, there was
probably not enougli to go beyond "kic3cing tires" on the subject.
Very truly yours,
GEG/lsg
;DHIIS, & HARGRAVE , P . C .
Gledhill
lsq-6
crowell.ltr
13
§153A-20 crI 153.4. COCNTIES §153A-22
County Bonds Not to Be Issued Fox Road
Purposes of One Township or Taring Dis-
trict. -while the building of public roads has
been held a necessan expense. application of
the principle mac not be extended to instances
cohere a statute require= the counn- to issue it
bonds fur road purposes to obtain aid For a
township or local taring district therein, uoon
the aoprocai of thz toter; of the particular
distric[ alone and Without benefit to the o[hzrs
Commissionzrs of Johnston County v. Lacy, 17.}
N C. 141. 93 S E 4A3 119171
Cited in River Birch ,4ssocs v. City of Ra-
leigh. 3?6 N C 100, 3S3 S E 3d 53A r 19901
§ T53A-20. Map of electoral districts.
If a county is divided into electoral districts for the purpose of nominating or
electing persons to the board of commissioners, the current boundaries of the
electoral districts shall at all times be drawm on a rnap, or set out in a written
description, or shown by a combination of these techniques. This current
delineation shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk.
(19x3, c 322, s. 1 )
~ T53A-21: Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c, SS4
Editor's Note. -Session Laws 19 ~ 5. c 399,
applicable only to Robeson County-, reenacted
this section
§ 153A-22. Redefining electoral district Uoundaries.
--~ (a) If a county is divided into electoral districts for the purpose of nominat-
ing or electing persons to the board of commissioners, the board of commis-
sioners 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 Che quotients
obtained by di~riding the population of each district by the number of commis-
sioners 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 diatrict 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 Co 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 Che 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 oFcommissioners, in which case it becomes effective
on the first day after the end of the pez'iod.
(fl Not later than 10 days after the day on which a resolution becomes
effectice, the clezlc shall file in the Secretary oi'SCate'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
912
14
1539-22 ,
§153 23 ~-Rr .I FoR~I of Goti-ERN'~SENT §153A-27
u on
reins p ~ qualfied voters of the entire county nominate all candidates for and elect all
'particular members of the board. (1981, c.. 795.)
the others. -
.Lac};174 Local Modification, -Dare: 1991. Es. any previous action under G. S. 153.:1.22"Sec-
~.-
bC Ra-
it Sess , c 3, ss # 5 1 (As to applicability and lion 1 provrdes: "Chapter 136, Session Laws of
i
y
;1990).. cont
ngency provrsions, see 1991 Session Laws, 1991. (relating co esnanding and redistricting
~
. Ex. Sess.. c. 2. s 7) the Guilford County Bonrd of Commissioners)
Editor's Note. -Session haws 1993, c 5_"1, is reenacted "
s 2 provides: "Section 1 0( this act supersedes
atingor
s of the §§ 153A-23, 153A•24: Reserved for future codification purposes..
written
current
ARTICLE 4
e clerk. ,
i
Fol•ln of Gouernnzent.
~'
t.
Part 1. General Provisions,
' ;;
§ 153A-25. Qualifications for appointive office.
The board of commissioners may fis qualifications for any appointive office,
' including a requirement that a person serving in such an office reside within
>nunat- the county. The board may not waive qualifications fixed by law for an
ommis-
l appointive office but may fis additional qualifications for that office, (1973, c
u
ation tf 822, s. 1.)
„°;
ulation
ts.'
otients § 153A-26. Oath of office.
?mmis- Each person elected by the people or appointed to a county office shall
before
id each ,
entering upon the duties of the office, take and subscribe the oath of office
cE;th prescribed in Article VI, Sec.. 7 of the Constitution. The oath of office shall be
e administered by some person authorized bylaw to administer oaths and shall
serving
f5ce of ;' be filed with the clerlc-
shall On the first ?Monday in December following each general election at which
~
er
th county of&cers are elected, the persons who have been elected to county office
:
e in that election shall assemble at the regular meeting place of the board of
commissioners. At that time each such officer shal] take and subscribe the oath
asis of
Son f F of office, An officer not present at this time may take and subscribe the oath at
or
ution's a later time. (1868, c. 20, s 8; 1874-5, c 237, s 3; Code, ss 707, 708; 1895, c.
5ption 135, sa 3, 4; Rev, ss. 1316, 1318; C.S., ss 1295, 1297; 1965, c. 26; 1973, c. 822,
,
aY of a ;~ s, 1 )
~n
ti or ~~~
„ . CASE NOTES
Applied in Ratcliff v County of Buncombe,
663 F. Supp lOD3 (wD N.C 19871
§ 153A-27. Vacancies on the board of commissioners.
he `` If a vacancy occurs on the board of commissioners, the remaining members
of the board shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy. If the number
'r of vacancies on the board is such that a quorum of the board cannot be
:,>
~~ 913
N,'`
~.
~~
~'
_._ s
~-„ ~ r_ -1 '-'1
R~C~,, ~_._ ... __
IHARRI:~GTC~'~' SIrSIIH
n HEGISTYRED L,I4ITED LIAHI Lf T1'FwRT]£ASHtP
AT'TOASEYS .4T LAN'
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROL.I *A
CnR LI51E u' Y.~GGt\S
.~HH: IDHJi
G£OftGE T ftOGiST£R .:R
:IJ3G-'~9DS.
S P.AROLD THARRI]GTO\' DEHRA R FICEEL.E
tC+DE N HMS':H -wR1 Et. ti CLAAH
ROGER x'SMITH JOtiATHh? A HLUHHERG
CARL]> G 20OL£ ROD HALOSE
DOUG Ln.S E IiiRGEH ERY E HARDI' L£x IS
RwXD.+LL Y RODES JAIE HE]ER
?I ICIi nEL CROx'ELL DEHRn SH:]'}t Rk55£A
AKF L HAJLS'IC I':E\\ET}i A. SOO
nLLI50] HAOxy SCH WEER RETH T DOti 13TG
.. ELIESA H EI:LL }: /.TH' EX C 90SD
8 October 1996
Geoffrey E. Gledhill
Orange County Attorney
Post Office Drawer 1529
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278-129
Dear Geoff:
15
30D FAYETTE]'ILLE STREET Hn11,
P O I30X IIGI
Rn LEt Gli. t: C 2`GO. ~H51
TELEPHOP'E
(91D? H21-6Tp
TELECOPIER
~41Di 029-1iR3
Thank you for your letter about districting. Actually, I agree ~i ith what }you say.
.Although there is no constimtional requirement that residenc,}~ districts be equal in
population, G.S. 1SA-58(3) imposes such a requirement when the commissioners follow that
statutory process for switching to residency districts. I suppose the statutor}~ requirement might
be construed in light of the constitutional law that developed later, so that the balance of
population among districts need not be quite as precise as with true election districts, but still
there is some requirement of population equality.. On the other hand, it also might be argued
that the statutory requirement of "as nearly equal as practicable" necessitates a more exact
balancing than would be necessary to meet the constitutional test of one-person one-rote.
As you point ont, G S I53A,22(g) does specifically exempt residency districts from
reapportionment by the county commissioners. As far as I can see, that means that once
residency districts have been established there is no authority in the General Statutes for
conunissioners to redraw the lines on their o~; n to tal:.e into account population shifts over time.
Most of the boards of county commissioners that hate opted for an election method other
than the stzndard five rnembers elected at large have done so through local leuislation rather than
through the referendum procedure in G.S. I53.A-S8. «'hen a local act is used to establish
residency districts, the statuton prop ision on population equalit}~ daes not apply. and the districts
can be drawn based on townships or precincts or other bases that will not result in equal
population. ?~?j' impression is thzt the residency districts established b}' local act are almost
always based on township lines and are not close to equal in population.
THTRft1KGTpti 5}I I'TH
Geoffrey E. Gledhill
8 October 1996
Page 2.
16
Once residency districts are established, either through a local act of the General
.Assembly or by the referendum process in the statute, I believe there are only two ways to
redraw the districts. One is through the referendum process of G.S. 153A-58 The other is
through a local act which specifies the new lines. Occasionally, the legislature will pass a local
act which lives the county commissioners the authority to redraw residency districts. The most
recent example is Chapter 80 of the 1995 Session Laws, a local act for Chatham County. That
act was intentionally vague in stating how close in population the districts must be, saying only
that the redistricting needed tc make the districts "more nearly equal." The Chatham
commissioners, in fact, chose a plan based on precinct lines and with a greater deviation among
districts than would be permitted by one-person one-vote.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further..
Best regards,
THARAINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
~ lam; ~{,.~,. t
Michael Crowell
MC/vm
. _,.
i~
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
1995 SESSION
RATIFIED BILL
CHAPTER SO
HOUSE BILL 6S7
AN ACT MAKING SUNDRY AMENDMENTS CONCERNING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN CHATHAM COUNTY,
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
FOX TF.APPING SEASON
Section 1. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to
trapping of foxes, there will be open seasort for taking foxes with traps of the leghold
type no larger than one and one-half, with coil spring and with trap chain and at least
three sarivels set on dry land with solid anchor, No trap larger than number one and
one-half coil spring may be used, This season shall be from December 1 to February
1S of each year,
(b) No person shall place traps on the land of another without first
obtaining written permrssion from the landowner or lessee,
(c) There shall be no bag limit for foxes taken during the trapping season
established in this section.
(d) The Wildlife Resources Commission shall provide for the sale of
foxes taken lawfully pursuant to this section.
(e) This section applies only to Chatham County.
f) This section becomes effective October 1, 1995.
ALLOW CENTRAL CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO LEASE
CERTAIN PROPERTY TO THE CHATHAM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING
Sec, 2. (a) Notwithstanding G.S, 11SD-1S, the Board of Trustees of
Central Carolina Community College may lease a portion of its real property in
Center Township of Chatham County, and grant necessary easements for utilities, to
the Chatham County Council on Aging, Inc., upon such terms and conditions as it
shall determine in its discretion,
(b) This section applies only to the proposed lease of property in
Chatham County,
CHATHAM SCHOOL BOARD/COUNTY COMMISSIONER ELECTIONS
Sec, 3, (a) The Baard of Education of Chatham County shall consist of
five members who shall be qualified voters of the County, and who shall be elected
as hereinafter provided for staggered terms of four years,
(b) For the purpose of electing members of the Board of Education, the
County is hereby ditZded into four resident districts as follows:
District Number One shall consist of all the terr'itory' v,~ithin the
boundaries of the precincts of Bynum, West Williams, East Williams, and
New Hope,
District Number Two shall consist of all the territory within the
boundaries of the precincts of East Pittsboro, West Pittsboro, West
Mann's Chapel, and East Mann's Chapel.
is
Sec. 5. This act is effective upon ratification,
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 11th day of
May, '1995.
DENNIS A WICKER
Dennis A. Wicker
President of the Senate
HAROl9 J. BRUBAKER
Harold J. Brubaker
Speaker of the House of Representatives
House Bill 657 Page .3
- -----
Sec. 4. Section 6 of Chapter 501 of the Session Laws of 1975 reads as
rewritten:
"Sec. 6. The provisions of G.S. 3-1-~-~4 115C-3~ shall be applicable to the
members of the Chatham County Board of Education. T` ~ - ~:;.
19
NORTH CAROLINA GL-avER-~L. ASSEiVIBLY
1981 SESSION
CHAPTER. 4~
SENATE. BILL 56
AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT 1vIEJ~~IBERS OF THE RANDOLPH COUNTY'
BOARD OF C0~4~~IISSIONERS SFI:ALL RESIDE IN AND REPRL--SENT
DISTRICTS, BLJT THE QUALIFIL-.D VOTERS OF TFIE-- ENTIRE COU:v'TY
SHALL. NOMINATE AND L-:LECT ALL MEMBERS.
Section 1. Section 1 of Chapter 9>?, Session Laws of 1965 is rewritten to
read:
"Section 1. For the purpose of representation on the Board of Commissioners of
Randolph County, the county is divided into the following five districts, each of which
shall have one member:
(1) District 1 -Asheboro Township;
(2) District 2 -Trinity Township;
(3j District ~ -Columbia To~rnship,
Franl<linville Township,
Liberty Township, and
Providence Township;
(4) District 4 -Back Creek Township.
Level Cross Township,
New NTarket Township,
Randleman Township, and
Tabernacle Tounslip;
(>) District 5 -Brower Township,
Cedar Grog e Township,
Coleridge Tou nship,
Concord Township,
Grant Township,
Neu' Hope Township,
Pleasant Grove Tou nship,
Richland Iou°nship, and
Union 7ou reship "
Sec. ?, Chapter 95:3. Session Lau s of 1965 is amended by adding' the
following new sections:
".Sec, 1.1. A~embers of the Board of Conunissioi:ers of Randolph County shall reside
in and i°epresent the districts according to the appohtiomnent p]an provided in Section I
of this art. but the qualified voters of flee entire aowin~ shall nominate all candidates for
and eicCt ail il7cinbcrS Gi uic boaI'd.
20
"Sec- 1.2. In the 1982 election and quadremiially thereafter, membet5 shall be
elected from districts 2, 3; and 4 for four-}°ear terms. In the 1984 election and
quadrem.ially thereafer, members shall be elerted from districts 1 and ~ for four-year
terms. The tt~o persons elected in the 1980 election shall sertie until the first Monday in
December 1984." y
Sec. 3. This act is effective upon ratification.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, this the
24th day of February, 1981.
Pace 2 S.L. 1981-43 Senate Bill .SC
GEI~L-R~ ~L ASSEMBLY OF ,~OP.TH CAROLI`dA
1991 SESSION
RATIFIED BILL
CHAPTER lib
HOUSE BILL. 637
21
A'v ACT TO E1P_4ND AND REDISTRICT THE. GUILFORD COUIv'TY BOARD OF
CO?\~I'vIISSIONER.S.
Section 1. (aj L-ffecti~~e on the first Rlonday of December. 199.'_, the Board of
Commissioners of Guilfi~rd County consists of 11 members. The members shall be
elected on a partisan basis at the time of the regular county primary and general
elections. One shall be elected from each of nine single-member districts established
under subsection (ej of this section, and two shall be elected at large from within the
entirety of Guilford County.
(b) In 1992 and quadretutially thereafter, members for Districts 4, 5, 7, and
S shall he elected for four-year terms. In 1992; members for Districts 3 and 6 shall be
elected for rn o-year terms', and in 199=1 and quadrennially (hereafter, successors shall be
elected for afour'-year teen. In 1994 and quadrennially thereafter, members for
Districts 1, ?, and 9 shall be eluted for afour-year term.. W, Dean DuII ~aho ~~-as
ejected in 1990 for afour-year teen is designated as the member from District 1 until
the first Monday in December of 1991. Ste` e .Arnold ~~°ho ~~-as elected in 1990 for a
four-year term is designated as the member from District 2 until the first Monday in
December of 199=1. Katie Dorsett who ~a as elected in 1990 for afour-year tern? is
designated as the member from District 9 until the first i`londay in December of 1994.
In 1992 and quadretutia]ly thereafter; two at-large candidates shall be elected for four-
year terms.
(c) The districts set out in subsection (e) of this section are devised and
constituted to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights- Act of 196,5. as amended, and
other applicable constitutional provisions.
(d) The qualified ~~oter°s of each district shall elect the member of the
board for that district, Candidates must reside in the district for ~~~hich they seek to be
eler,.ted.
(e) The districts are as follo~~s
(I) District 1 consist ofHi~h Point Precincts 3. ~, 6. 7. 9, 1I, 12; 17, 15..
21. and 22.
(2) Dish°ict? consist of High Point Precincts 1. 2, 4; S, IC, I3, 14, 15; 16,
19, 20, 23 and 24. and Deep R.i~ er.
(3) District 3 consists of Greensboro Precincts 2U, 278, 27C, 34.~a, 34B.
37B, 3S and 39. and Brune, '~`ortli Center Gror-e, Friendship 1. Oak
Ride an~7 ~tOi~eSiidic,
zz
(4) District i consists of Greensboro Precincts 19, 35B, 3:i C, 40B and 45,
and Gibsom ille, GIB-G, North .Jefferson, South Jefferson, North
Madison, South Madison, North 1y~Iom~~oe, South Mourne, North
~VashinQton and South ~4ashinQton.
(.>) District ~ consists of Greensboro Precincts 2~TC and 43, and Clay,
Fenhess 1, Greene, Friendship '. .Jamesto~~n 1, .Iamesto~~n ?
,
Jan~estm~~n ~, South Sumner and ~Vhitsett.
(6) Disri~ict 6 consists of Greensbero Precincts 1'F. 17, 13
?2
23
2-fA
,
,
,
,
'6B and 36, and Fentress ?and North Sunnrer.
(7) District 7 consists of Greensboro Precincts 10, 11, 1?, 13, 16, 31
27::x
,
,
23, 31, 32, 3~A, 37A, 40A, 41A and 41 B. and South Center Grog e.
(i;) District 8 consists of Greensboro Precincts ?, ~. ;, 7, 9, 16
24B
2~
,
,
,
26:~ and 30.
(9) District 9 consists of Greensboro Precincts I, ~, 6. 8, 39, 33, 42 and
~=1,
('f1 Precincts as mentioned in subsection (e) of this section are as reported
by the Bm-eau of the Census under Public La~~ 94-171 for the 1990 Census.
Sec, 2. This act is effective upon ratification,.
In the General ,assembly read three tunes and ratified this the 27th day of
May, 1991.
,Tames C. Gardner
President of the Senate
Daniel Blue. ,Tr,
Speaker of the House of Representati~ es
Paget S..L. 1991-136 House Bi11637
23
ELECTION METHODS FOR BOARDS OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS IN NORTH CAROLINA
As a point of information and frame of reference in consideration of the
request for district representation for the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, a background of knowledge regarding the election methods
for boards of county commissioners in North Carolina's 99 other counties
may prove insightful. The North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners (NCACC) maintains a listing of the methods used in all 100
counties, and this listing is provided at Appendix B.
Based on the information from NCACC, and some follow-up with
individual counties by Orange County, there are currently seven general
methods being utilized for the election of county commissioners across tkre
state. Those methods are:
1) Pure At-Large -All commissioners are nominated and elected
on a countywide basis.
2) Pure District -All commissioners are nominated based on
residency in a district and elected by that respective district,
3) DistricbAt-Large -All commissioners are nominated based on
residency irr a district and then elected on a countywide basis.
24
4) Combination of Pure At-Large and Pure District -Some
commissioners are nominated and elected on a countywide
basis, and some commissioners are nominated based on
residency in a district and elected by that respective district.
5) Combination of Pure At-Large and District/At-Large -Some
conunissioners are nominated and elected on a countywide
basis, and some commissioners are nominated based on
residency in a district and then elected on a countywide basis.
6) Limited Voting Plan -Commissioners are nominated and/or
elected based on candidates filing as a group for single or multi-
member district seats or at-large seats with voters only allowed
to vote for a limited number of candidates and with the primary
and/or general election results determined by plurality,
7) Combination of Pure At-Large, Pure District, and Limited
Voting Plan -Some commissioners are nominated and elected
on a countywide basis and some commissioners are nominated
based on residency in a district and elected by that respective
district, all within the parameters of a limited voting plan with
voters only allowed to vote for a limited number of candidates
and the results determined by plurality.
25
The most prevalent framework utilized for electing members of boards of
county commissioners across the state is the Pure At-Large method, which is
employed in 44 counties, including Orange County. Other counties using
this method include Alamance, Catawba, Durham, Person, and Union.
The DistrictlAt-Large method is the next most utilized forrrrat with 18
counties electing commissioners under this scenario. A sampling of counties
operating under the District/At-Large framework includes Chatham,
Johnston, Moore, Randolph, and Walce.
Caswell, Cumberland, Forsyth, Guilford, and Mecklenburg are among the
sixteen counties that follow the Combination of Pure At-Large and Pure
District method of electing commissioners. It is worth noting that Forsyth
and Chowan counties' methods include multiple member districts and one
at-large seat. Additional information on those counties can be found in
Appendix B.
The Pure District method of electing cornrnissioners is utilized in sixteen
counties. These counties include Craven, Granville, Harnett, Pitt, and
2(
Wilson. Craven and Pitt counties have individual features associated with
their pure district methods that should be acknowledged and are explained in
Appendix B,
Only two counties, Currituck and Jackson, use the Combination of Pure At-
Large and DistrictlAt-Large method of electing commissioners, In both
cases, one commissioner is elected on a countywide, at-large basis while the
four other conurussioners must reside in particular districts, but are elected
on a countywide basis.
The remaining 4 counties in the state, Beaufort, Bladen, Martin, and Surry,
utilize more elaborate election methods. These methods include certain
aspects of some of the other election formats, but feature limited voting
plans where candidates may file as a group for open seats, voters are only
allowed to vote for a limited number of candidates (specifically in multi-
member districts), and the primary and/or general election results can be
determined by a plurality, The details of those counties' election methods
for county commissioners are sununarized in Appendix B.
27
HISTORY OF DISCUSSIONS BY THE ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON
BOARD REPRESENTATION AND ELECTION
As the Board of Commissioners reviews and considers the petition for
district representation, it is worth noting and summarizing discussions and
actions in the recent past by the Board of Commissioners related to Board
membership and district representation, This review will add some context
and may help all interested individuals understand others' ideas, continents
and questions during current discussions of this matter,
For much of Orange County's history, the Board of County Commissioners
was comprised of three members. This changed in 1954 when the Board
was expanded to five members, all to be elected on a countywide basis. Of
some note is the fact that the issue of mandating that commissioners' seats
be spread throughout the County rather than potentially concentrated was a
topic of discussion during the expansion consideration by the Board of
Commissioners in 195.3.
The Board's action in 19.53 seeking to expand the Board from three to five
members followed the submission of two petitions to the Board from County
28
residents. The first petition addressed membership for both the Board of
Commissioners and the Orange County Board of Education and was signed
by "approximately 930 people", as noted in the minutes of the January 21,
1953 Board meeting (Appendix C). This petition requested that the County
seek legislation through the North Carolina General Assembly for the
expansion of the boards from three to five members, with all members to be
elected on a countywide basis, and further directed that "no two members of
either board shall come from the same township".
The Board of Conunissioners subsequently scheduled a separate public
meeting for February 2, 1953 to discuss the petition and to hear from the
public, It was at that public meeting that a second petition was submitted,
with the minutes of the February 2, 1953 Board meeting (Appendix D)
noting it as "a petition containing 330 signatures". This second petition did
not address the expansion of membership on the Board of Commissioners,
but rather urged "that the members of the County Board of Commissioners
be elected from the county at large, rather than from any particular district or
township, with no linutation on the number of commissioners to be elected
from any township",
29
Immediately following the public meeting, the Board reconvened in a
regular meeting and, according to the February 2, 1953 minutes,
Commissioner R. J. M. Hobbs "moved, that the Orange County Board Hof
Comnussioners be increased from three members to five members, and that
such members be elected at large by the voters of the county without regard
to township, and that our representative in the legislature be asked to
introduce legislation to accomplish this purpose". The motion passed on a 2
to 1 vote.
The reduested bill was introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly
and, the North Carolina General Assembly, during the 19S31egislative
session, approved legislation (see Appendix E) to expand the Board of
Commissioners from three to five members, and the "official" expansion
occurred during the November 1954 election with five members of the
Board of Commissioners meeting for the first time on December 6, 1954,
For the next 38 years, no record could be found of discussions or written
materials relative to the composition of the membership for the Board of
Commissioners, district representation or any related matter, At the June 29,
1992 Board of Commissioners regular meeting (minutes provided at
30
Appendix F, Commissioner Alice Gordon provided a memorandum and
attachment (Appendix G) to other Board members regarding the township
residence of Board of Commissioners members since 1954 "because of
recent questions concerning the number of commissioners who have resided
in Chapel Hill Township". As noted in the June 24, 1992 memorandum,
1954 was largely chosen as the beginning point for review since that was the
year, as noted above, when the Board expanded from three to five members.
Commissioner Gordon's memorandum noted that during the 38-year period
covering 1954 to 1992, there were 18 years during which 3 of the 5
commissioners were residents of Chapel Hill Township and 10 years when 2
of the 5 commissioners were Chapel Hill Township residents.
As follow-up to Commissioner Gordon's memorandum, the Board of
Conunissioners held a public hearing on September 28, 1992 for the
"purpose of receiving information on district representation and citizen
comments on this topic". Information from this meeting is provided at
Appendix H and includes asign-up list of citizens attending the meeting
along with aone-page summary of information on the structure of boards of
commissioners which was apparently presented at the meeting by Joseph S.
Ferrell of the LTNC Institute of Government (now the School of
31
Government). Minutes for the meeting were not found during the
preparation of this report.
The next time the Board of Commissioners addressed the topic of Board
representation was seven months later at the Board's Apri120, 1993 regular
meeting when the Board discussed a "Task Force on the Process for Electing
Orange County Conunissioners". The Board considered the need to create a
task force to examine the representation issue as well as the possible task
force composition and a possible charge. After hearing from seven citizens
on the matter, the Board approved the creation of the task force, its
composition, and a charge. (The minutes and agenda materials for this item
are provided at Appendix I.) At the May 18 and June 7, 1993 regular
meetings, the Board of Commissioners appointed the members of this new
task force (Appendix J).
This task force presented its Final Report as well as a minority report at the
Board of Commissioners' August 4, 199.3 regular meeting. The minutes of
that meeting as well as copies of both reports are provided at Appendix K.
The principal conclusion of the task force Final Report was that "the current
election system does not provide for fair and equitable representation for all
32
citizens in the county" and noted the lack (perceived or real) of rural
representation on the Board of Commissioners as expressed to the task force
as part of task force meetings and citizen surveys. The task force reached
this conclusion on a S to 3 vote. This lack of unanimity contributed to the
submission of a minority report.
The Final Report concluded that the current at large method of electing
Commissioners needed to be replaced with either 1) a District/At-Large
forrrrat in which the Board was expanded to seven members, five members
being elected by districts and two being elected on a county-wide basis (this
would be a Combination of Pure At-Large and Pure District election method
as described elsewhere in this report); or 2) a Proportional
Method/Cumulative Voting format which would maintain Board
membership at five and allow each voter to cast up to five votes for
comnrissioner, splitting those votes between candidates as desired or perhaps
casting all five votes for one candidate. It is important to note that this
second alternative would have and would still require specific legislation
since this method is not provided for in the general law with respect to the
modes of structuring boards of county commissioners.
33
The nunority report from the task force, in duestioning the primary
conclusion of the principal report, cited limited responses (161) from the
public that the task force had received as insufficient to conclude that the
public believed the current Commissioner election method was unfair. The
minority report further stated "because the 161 responses did not represent a
controlled random sampling of the Orange County voting population, no
accurate or supportive conclusions can be drawn".
As noted in the minutes of the August 4, 1993 meeting, the Board of
Commissioners received the report from the task force. No information on
additional discussions regarding the task force report or on district
representation was found during the preparation of this 2005 report.
The next occasion for BOCC discussion of Board membership occurred at
the August 20, 1996 regular meeting when the issue was addressed. The
minutes and agenda materials for the discussion are provided at Appendix L
and Appendix M. As noted in the minutes (Appendix L), Commissioner
Moses Carey, Jr., as Chair, proposed that "tlie Board consider electing the
County Commissioners using a Residential District Election Plan as
described in the agenda", Chair Carey's proposal, as explained in the
34
agenda materials, would have divided the County into five residential
districts, with one commissioner being elected from each district and all
voters countywide voting for each dishict's candidates. (This concept
equates to the District/At-Large election method discussed in another section
of this document which addresses current election methods for boards of
county comnrissioners in North Carolina's counties,) Chair Carey did state,
according to the minutes, that his plan would "address some of the concerns
and perceptions people have about whether there is representation on this
board from rural areas. It will insure rural representation."
After three county residents addressed the Board on Chair Carey's proposal
and made reference to the 1992. task force report (discussed above) as well
as the need for increased public involvement on this issue, members of the
Board briefly discussed the proposal (see Appendix L for specific
Commissioner comments). Following the brief discussion, the Board
unanimously approved a motion to "look first at all the options using a
residential election district plan and then, if none of these are workable, to
look at other forms of election". The Board further asked that "the County
Attorney and the County Manager gather information and produce a report
which details a plan to implement a residential district election plan as soon
35
as possible. The report should include, but not be limited to, the legal
authority of the County to take this action, any state or electorate approval
needed, costs associated with implementation, and a proposed process for
establishing district lines." A report was made back to the Board at the
October 1, 1996 regular meeting, which is discussed below.
Also at the August 20, 1996 meeting, Conm>issioner Alice Gordon, during
the Board Comments section of the agenda, noted the report in the agenda
package regarding membership statistics for the Board of Commissioners
dating back to 1954 (see Appendix M). Commissioner Gordon noted
several facts related to the materials, including that membership on the
Board of Commissioners had been spread, to varying degrees, across the
County during the 42-year period, except for during a two and a half year
period starting in 1990 when all five Commissioners were from Chapel Hill
Township. The minutes of the August 20, 1996 meeting contain no
additional discussion concerning this report.
At the Board of Commissioners' October 1, 1996 regular meeting, in follow-
up to the Board's request on August 20, 1996 that "the County Attorney and
the County Manager gather information and produce a report which details a
36
plan to implement a residential district election plan", the Board discussed a
report on Potential Residential Districts for Commissioner Elections. It
included statistical information relevant at that tune and a possible district
plan, and the County Attorney's legal analysis (included in the legal
framework portion of this 2005 report) was provided at the meeting, The
minutes for that meeting as well as the agenda materials are provided at
Appendix N. Commissioner Alice Gordon stated that she felt the districts on
the proposed plan had "no political coherence." Chair Carey noted that the
plan "would increase the probability that citizens who live in rural areas will
have a reasonable chance of being elected." Three citizens then provided
comments to the Board. The Board discussion ended with Commissioners
William Crowther and Stephen Halkiotis stating that they may work on a
plan that has seven districts acrd the Board deciding that the issue of districts
for commissioner elections would "not appear again on an agenda unless it
is requested by a County Commissioner."
The Board of Commissioners discussed the issue of Board membership
again two years later at the Board's .Tune 22, 1998 regular meeting. As in
1996, it was addressed as two separate agenda items, one a decision item and
the other a report. During the discussion on election of Board members at
37
the meeting (see the minutes and agenda materials at Appendix O),
Commissioner Moses Carey, .Tr. referred to the agenda materials in which his
Residential District Election plan proposal to expand the Board from five to
seven members was described. Five of the seven Board members would be
elected from residential districts and two commissioners would be elected on
an at-large basis, (This election method equates to the Combination of Pure
At-Large and Pure District election method discussed in another section of
this document which addresses current election methods for boards of
county commissioners in North Carolina's counties.)
After discussion by the BOCC, Commissioner Carey made a motion, as
noted in the minutes, seconded by Commissioner William Crowther, "to
adopt a Residential District Election plan for the election of Commissioners
and instruct the County Attorney and County Manager to develop a plan for
implementation of this plan as soon as possible. The implementation plan
must be consistent with all state and federal laws governing the electoral
process and include a public hearing in Northern and Southern Orange
County at the draft stage of the plan," The motion failed on a 2-3 vote.
38
Also at the Soard's June 22, 1998 regular meeting, Commissioner Alice
Gordon provided an updated report on the township residency of
comnssioners that had been elected since 1954 (see Appendix P). The
minutes of the meeting regarding this item do not detail any specific
discussion other than Commissioner Cordon's presentation of the
information. A summary in the agenda abstract notes that three of the five
county conunissioners were from Chapel Hill Township during 22 years of
the 44-year period since 1954. For ten years of that period, two of the
resided in Chapel Hill Township, and, for six years, there
had been four commissioners who were Chapel Hill Township residents,
There had also been four years when only one commissioner was from
Chapel Hill Township.
The last and most recent Board discussions regarding the election of
commissioners found by staff in preparing this 200.5 report occurred in early
1999. This discussion began at the Board's January 16, 1999 retreat, when it
appears that the Board briefly discussed "District (geographical residential)
Elections for County Commissioners" (the minutes for the reheat meeting
do not detail any discussion on the topic, but a separate follow-up summary
document found by staff includes information indicating that it was
39
mentioned -see Appendix Q). The demographics and the need for more
diversity on boards and commissions, a primer for citizens, and district
elections and one person/one vote are noted on this follow-up document as
being commented on (to some unknown degree) at the meeting, It appears
that there were no materials in the retreat agenda package which addressed
this topic,
One month later, at the Board's February 15, 1999 work session, the Board
addressed "District Elections for County Comrtussioners". The minutes
from the meeting (see Appendix R) note that Commissioner Moses Carey,
Jr. asked that the Board consider a public hearing on the issue. The minutes
detail the responses of the comnrissioners.
Following this discussion, it appears that the issues of district election and
structure for the Board of Commissioners were not discussed again by the
Board until the submission of the petition on January 24, 2005, which led to
the development of this report.
No record was found of a discussion by the Board of County Commissioners
of district election and structure of the Board of County Conunissioners in
40
the context of the Shaping Orange County's Future (SOCF) Task Force
Report. The "Goals and Recommendations: Sustainability and Cornmunity-
Building" section of the 2000-2001 SOCF Report included "Goal #2:
Address Citizen Concerns about Representation in Government" (see
Appendix S). This Goal noted the issue of "rural citizen representation on
the Board of County Comrissioners" and that the issue of County
Commission representation was "unanimously considered by the Task Force
as one of the most critical issues for the SOCF initiative to address, For
many rural residents who have spoken with the Task Force, it is the np .rnary
issue that they feel needs to be addressed." The Goal also included language
as follows: "Many residents feel their viewpoints are not represented
adequately through the current process for electing County Commissioners.
This has led to divisions within the county, Changing the system by which
County Comrissioners are elected so that all residents feel they have
representation in the government could go a long way toward building
community within the county,"
Under the "Addressing Concerns" portion of this Goal, Recommendation #1
read "Address issue of representation on the Board of County
Commissioners" followed by two "Action Strategies". The first "Action
41
Strategy" stated "Convene ashort-term study committee with geographical
representation and racial/gender/ethic diversity with the specific task of
analyzing options for making the Board of County Conunissioners more
representative of the county's rural citizens." The Action Strategy continued
by noting a timefrarne and other parameters under which the group should
work (see Appendix S for these parameters).
The second "Action Strategy" stated "Make sure that arry development of
new electoral system options addresses diversity and looks at previous work
and other types of reform voting methods."
u~
BOUNDARIES AND STATISTICS
Orange County currently has multiple geo-political bom~daries in place.
Using pre-existing boundaries simplifies the process for evaluating
distribution and density of population in Orange County, Existing
boundary methods include; county lines, city linuts, townships, school
districts, North Carolina House of Representatives districts (all of Orange
County is in one North Carolina Senate district), and voting precincts.
Two methods of estimating population are used. The first method uses
population statistics provided by the Orange County Plamiing
Department based on the last national census in 2000 and growth
estimates from the State of North Carolina. The second method uses
registered voter information provided by the Orange County Board of
Elections. The registered voter information tracks closely with the
population distribution,
G~
Townships
d
lwnships
unicipal Jurisdictions
v o
ling antl Inspocllons Ceparlmanl
Miriam Colaman. March 10.2005
r Carolina Slele Plane (feet)
donh American 1983
Orange County, North Carolina
Voting Precincts
~d
noting Precincts
Aunicipal Jurisdictions
ool Districts:
)range County
;hapel HiII/Carrboro
`^Y~s
o
~g and Inapediona Oepatlmenl
lidam Coleman. Marrh 10.2005
Carolina $lale Planv (feel)
.arch Amarlcan 1903
Orange County, North Carolina
i^i
i
O
~`
O
q~
ii
a
0
C3
as
as
ca
O
Y
N~
N~
L
U
~ o
~ M
J
N
O
~ \°
0
c0 ~
a
d
U
~~
U
E
r W ~ ~°
_ _ ~n
~( 6
a
N
C
_a. a
L
.~
~'
'S
~
=
C N
C
'7
N
t o
~~ o
O~ O
~ o
~ ~
°-' o °c ~
O
a N ~
~ y W m
c
°-'
c 3 -
° o =
~ m
~ -~ 3
~ ~
Y
~ 3 ~ o
~ ~
to Fes- `- °
? N ~
v
L o
O o ~
~
O J ~
~
~
~_ 2
U
L
Q~
~ n
O L
V ~
~ 0
~~
~ =o
tCf °-
L ~
O
7
age County
~pulation
)QQ Census)
2
Miles
11 0 w
~~N 4N~sJ
m (mm mvlllplp comrn¢. Sourcv Nlo:mallon
noon meanm of nmomnl .mme. umn¢ or
_... _..__....~._.___inislon[in. pmoc0laulu:a¢roP:vsanlW WVOlnnr
w nL ~mn. momrpm, a ¢Iwum ha u¢an ns nn nnnmdmaio uweemion nm
Iu .uqumtlP atlu¢I tlnla. Ralur lP loo nPPmOntllo nvllwr4ioa. olftl)I maps
noel pN~nmePS lortomplolo o¢umry
OrdngC COUnIy PWnning dnd Inspedians Department tun G6 Owubn PIInn Omnpn counly Plannlnp Oo Wnmonl Pvsumv¢
nn liapa.y foe nama0on mu.atl Cy Inacwmtllu T NI¢ m¢P oreuPWnlnp tlala.
GIS Map Pmpamd by Brian Carson March 23, 2g05 vm ommy: counly Pmnnmv ovnnnmam maim ra wartanly, mpm¢¢oel a
PIOjL'CLIOn: SfatC PdtR nnplwn, a: In IM1n n¢uraryol Iha Inlormallon prononlotl, no: tlav¢ 0o Incl PI
DaWm: North Pmenca 19&3 a~el m,uon mnslenio.ucnawsmnry
N
N
a
m
i
L v ~ ~ o o o rl o Do rn o N W o o l^ mo o T mom o om m W m moln D in o o o m o m o .- oN
Ip ~
y~ = m
N N
~` O
N N Ip
N m
N .- m ~
N ~- N
N N *y-
N I+
N tg
N M
N m O
~ M N
N n O
M T b m
L N o O O O O O o O O O O o N a O O O o O O O o O O O O O o p O O O O r• o O O O O o O d
T~
W= m n O
N T
N n m
m
L W 0 0 ~ dd f~ O O N ,N p mm O O O o O O W m
o o O O o O O O O O m O O O H o O O m O o y-
N N m N r N m O) O N ry N
h= N N N
!J ~
M
O O O O p O 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 d
N O 0000 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~U N
wl o 0 0 o o o o om o o o o o 0 0 00 0 0 0000 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o om
~U M m
Ny o o o m
M o o o 0o a o o o o o 0 oo o o oTO Oo o o o o00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 U '_~ o_ m m
t a o 0 0 0 o mo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o m o m O o ~ o o m o o m O o 0 0 0-
.
UV
m
m N
N F.
N N
~ T
m
m X 0 0 4 0 OO m O n ^ O TT r 00 0 T mOmO rm
M O m O MOO m m O 0 0 0 ~ m O ~ Or
U U N m N N N ry
N N m N N N m
N m m N
N O
M d Ipp m
pI
M
0
L~ ~ O o ^ [t' 1~ O O ry d m
N O r O O O O O O m m O O O O m O O O O O O m O
m N
Q O O ~ ry O o O m O d
O V nl
N O
N m N T N
~- m
N m O
N
ry
d ry
IV ry ry
(V N~
n ~'
N
N~ ~ ' O O O O O OO m ~ N ' rv Td n gO O- T} rmO
~O O~ N 00 O O m N N O O
UL
m
N
~
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W y ry
ry
N m
N O
N m
~I ~ O rymry m
N
r
0
4 O
Ip N
L N N N N N N
N
U ~
m o I'^n I°p w a s I'na °n u°~' m m n Nry m v m n ~ m m
~ v°I vMm CIO m vmi ~ m nl1O O1 m ~ m o n e o nl n nm
9 N N N T N N N ~ N N N ~ N N M ~ N e- N (7 .- N N ~ ~- N
C
1
y
Z 0
m
m d
N
m m
T O
Vl
m h
m
m f O
N
7 T
N
m m W
T m
~ W M
h
~
m
m
N m
N m d
m P
N
m N O
r O
m T N
N I
d m
p
N m M1 O N
r O
m O m N
N N
m m
y
d m
m m
n O^ m
r T
N r ^
N d
n
O 10
M
M t^
~ T
~
~ N
M
m m
m
r O
O N m
N m O
n. O
=
N
~
- N ~
-
N
N
N
~
~
N
N
~ ry N
~-
N
~
N
~ N N
M
N
N
N
~
~-
N d P
N T
~- m m
N I n N
(V in N r ~ W m W W m m ~ N l'l ~ dd m W OIfINM r N N r ~- O ~~ N C O d m r O In ~ mr
2 ~
p~ N N ID ~- ~ r h ~ N Y r NN N NI p d N m N1pON NN
(V N W f Nd m M N Ih N n d W O N O W
N
~
9 I
v V
m a l d
m m
o ~-
m Mm
d m Nm
m m ~-m
d m Nm
~ .
- mm
a o t~ r P m N~ OmiNO< OWi O ~ m O~ m~ ~O ~' O N OM ~ m n ~ N
a
_v m
Ip N o
N m
N ~
N o o
m
m N m
d
O p o
O m o m
O T N
N ~
O W n
m m M m
N m m m r
m d N M
r r m o
n m N ry
r N a m
N .
m m - W
N m m rv
N N m
- o
~ O m
E N
~
r
~-
r
m
m
~-
r m
~-
0 y
N~
r N
~- r
In
r
(nO
~- ~
n
-
TN
e- r
~IpNm
~- ~- ~-
OO
~- ~-
InT
~- r
NO
~- r
N W
- ~- ~-
mN
~- r
-
M
~-
N
r-
m
W m
'
- ~
m
N
~-
m M m
m
-
LL ~
OI m N
(V W d m m
A N T N
N r' m
" O N
T d O O
W T m
M m T
d ~ OI N O
N m N n W N I
M N M" fl M
N Y p m
d m m N
N m N
N 4l ~D 1(
d N S m
N Oi W O
Cl d O
N N
N m
~- ~
v
9 N
C
m
W
~
N
~ O
m T
N V
0 0
~ m
m
ImO 0
~
N 0
r
O m~
m m
~
W V ryry
n QQ ryry
~
N m
M
N
O
m
I
p 0 m d N m d N ~
O ry
1 v O ~- T 1(1 '-m NO dN N d tlM N O NN N mN fN r•~- VIN ^M d N dN Q O c7 M~- N~ -O (Dr T
~ m
26 m
a
r
N In
M O m '- n W ~
m N O
~ N m
- M M m m
^ N m
d N
V M o W n
M N N O e- r N m N
M ~- m M N n m
N N m o m
T A M '- N O T d
~ m N N (~
N r OI
m
a
. ~ ~
N M m A]d ~N mO mN NY IM r M N d V l NMrrv~ mTm mr- Mm'- [~ m0 "r O mM ~m
E
¢
pl r
m N
r N O1~
n ~m
m N lr'Im
m O mm
I N O mO
N mT
~ h OT 0 00 ~Nmr O TNm ~O OdM C tmO Nm mlmp T OINp Nb
N
[[
VV N N N m ~ rN- N N m N ~ r m m N~ N~ N N IO] m O
I N
m W N T O M Q~
V d W pm
~- (N~
N pl ~
N ~- ~ rT-
f- N O
O
m ~ IW'] m
M ~- ~ I~
- 0 N m O m m ITp N 4m m~ 1p C y C O N N ~ m yy {N
j m
ry
m ~
V' T N I~ N N O ~ N d
m
d r m N T M m m T m W m n O N In N r M Ip N m N VI N n N m
N
- Y' N T m r r m lp m m 0 0 0
0 0 n
J ` ~ N _ _ ~ T
Y
In
N Vf
C N O
N
m nl
m
M p
M mm
mm
.- mm
mO
mN O T
mm
V1N T d
mN
mr ~ m
Ol P
W 11~~ ^
t~
1111~~~~ ~m
mm
md m
N m T
NN
d N ~-minO W N m
m r rNmm
Ifl lpm"d Iprr n d
V y m m m
V dlp lfl
m N N
'-n mm
mIp If1
m m O
00 A y
0N
_ NN m mmN V' d ~- Th MT MM
N
N
m
Q r O
r M
N m T
m r m m
O r M
m r• m
m
M1 OI
W ^ m
O N r
m m d
m m m W m m O m m m iD T ~ N m 0 Ip m N N M
~
m
m
N ~
In M m
r
m d
W N
r
N M
d
m m ry W N r n N Ip N
Vl m T ~ m d 4 m T OI
d N N N QQ
b T m C m
o N m
m N h.
r' Ip m O m
T N t n N
7 m
O
O
E d
VI N
OI
~ N
p
O
O
~ Nm
M N
N m mm
m m
m m ^ d
r
lp r NCI
Q
d m t~
M W
N ON
Tm
m m m
~
m m ~-
Mm
N V m C' nmmON
m r PUJ m m
O Om
N mrmm
m N min r ~
d -r
T' m~-
mm m
r mm
NN T m
mm
p N d (7 N m N OI N O
- M O m m W N m O n O m M m m O
~ m
N QI m
~ .-
~ TT r m
r O n d
O N In m
In
N mm N M m
N
^ T
d ~ n m
- m W T
m T o m m o m m m
h d' r
N m m
O O m N M m
m d m
m m
m N mo
m m
N W d o
Q m
F j
N
N
O
N
OIN
~
ON
N ~-
M ~
r m
M N
m m
N N
n
N
m
N"
N
~
m d
N N ^
m NOO r('I
N N N ~ N N N N
Mm
N ~
ONryry
N M M N
N
NN
r O
d O
Nm
N mm N m
n
" 17
m
- _
N m O ¢ ~
Y Y ~ W ll Z S
Z O W
} m
} ~
Y
p.' W
2' ¢
W N>
-JO W
J W W
R'2 J
V U
¢ J
Y
N C7
.~4 p0 ~
O m
W >
O
W
W
W O
m
N
¢ U J O J J O U~ p Z J
J OO
pJ mW
OWO SW ZO
(~ OJ J¢
J ¢t n0
O
~' S W O O WO 2 N¢ }
U O ¢¢W
a S SJ ~LL
O m ?
O g Z ¢p In W
W N
} p
¢ p JO
p W
W
~ W
Y ?,
p S
W m
K W W W
¢¢ Y S
W W N Z
W O j
~ y
Z ¢ O
'~S ' LL
rF p
gZ Ill
O ~
U
Zp W N W ONO S S
I-F- 7 ¢
(
Z UI W W =
O ¢ W W
Z> W
>1 ~+
=
-F m ur
¢ O ¢ ¢ ¢¢ W W 2 0 0 0 O¢ O Q m NQ t~ Z In J~ W=? Z O¢ O O ~ ?i 6~ 1-I - O O ~ ~ W W= p
61 W U U UU UU UU V U Up O W W W W W U` U V SYJJ`2 2 Z OORR" VI m1-1 -'i j y~^"j ' }' ~-
~~
~-1(
Statistical Summary
Orange County population 120,881 (NC Demographics, July 200.3 est.)
Chapel Hill population 49,438
Carrboro population 17,585
Hillsborough population 5,541
Orange County has 9.3,367 registered voters as of 02/10/05 (This number includes active
and inactive voters. A registered voter could be classified as inactive for several reasons,
including relocation outside of Orange County, without notifying the Board of Elections.)
One third of the registered voters live in the Orange County School District
Two thirds of the registered voters live in the Chapel HilUCarrboro City School District
NC House District 50 covers approximately 75% of the area of Orange County
NC House District 50 contains approximately .36% of registered Orange County Voters
Of the counties in North Carolina, 60% have a board of 5 Commissioners and 25% have
aboard of 7 Commissioners.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners increased from 3 to 5 members in 1954.