Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-05-20; 6-b - Discussion Regarding Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 5, 2020 Action Agenda Item No. 6-b SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners DEPARTMENT: County Attorney & County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: John Roberts, County Attorney, 245- 1) Current Electoral Districts along with 2318 Population Numbers Based on the Greg Wilder, County Manager's Office, 2010 Census 245-2300 2) Information from Commissioner Mark Dorosin PURPOSE: To discuss the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. BACKGROUND: At the Board's April 7, 2020 Business meeting, a petition was voiced that the Board discuss and potentially change a portion of the process under which some or all Board members are elected. A summary of historical information, along with some current applicable information, is provided below as a basis for Board discussion on this topic. HISTORY 2005-2008 At the Board of Commissioners' January 24, 2005 regular (now Business) 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 then current method of election for the members of the Board, which entailed all five members of the Board being nominated and elected to staggered four-year terms on an at-large basis. At the Board's direction, the County Manager and County staff reviewed the issue and the petition submitted and provided a report to the Board at the May 5, 2005 work session. The report provided an initial framework of information upon which the Board of Commissioners could deliberate and determine as appropriate any further steps in evaluating the issue and responding to the request and petition submitted. 2 The Board then pursued a series of meetings over the next thirteen months, including: • public hearings; • Board discussions on possible draft district maps/plans for either a five or seven-member Board; and • decisions on specific map/plan issues. The public hearings and discussions led to the development of a map/plan (for a seven-member board that met all statutory requirements. The County Attorney prepared a draft resolution calling for a November 2006 referendum 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. In the November 2006 referendum, the voters subsequently approved the election plan/map with more than two-thirds of voters supporting the initiative. The election plan/map was implemented with the May 2008 primary election and all Board members since that time have 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. 2011 - 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. Staff's review of the 2010 Census population totals in relation to the election plan/map and district boundaries showed very minimal changes in the population ratios for the districts. Staff prepared an agenda item for the Board, and, at its June 7, 2011 meeting, the Board adopted a "Resolution Acknowledging the Results from the 2010 Census Indicating 3 Orange County Remains in Lawful Compliance With Applicable Requirements for Board of County Commissioners' Nominating Districts," thereby making no changes to the map/plan/method by which Board members were elected. 2016-2018 In late 2016 and early 2017, members of the Board expressed an interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. The Board discussed the topic at its March 28, 2017 Board work session. However, no additional action occurred at that time. In mid-2018, members of the Board expressed additional interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. The Board discussed the topic at its September 6, 2018 Board work session. However, no additional action occurred at that time. CURRENT CONSIDERATION As noted above, a recent Board petition 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 issues below. If the Board chose to move forward with proposing an amendment to the current election method, when could a 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. That limits this issue to the general election in 2020 and the primaries and general elections in 2022 and 2024. Further, if the Board determines to change the current election method and place that change on the November 2020 ballot everything necessary to complete the change should be ready by July 24, 2020 in order to allow elections staff adequate time to prepare ballots. What is the timeframe to place a proposed election method/plan on the ballot for voter referendum? • As noted above if the general election in November 2020 is the desired election on which to have a ballot question on the Board's election method the Elections Director has requested that all decisions be complete and the ballot language submitted by July 24, 2020. This is due to an anticipated substantial increase in absentee voting and will allow the Board of Elections' staff ample time to prepare the ballot. • If the Board desires a similar level of public input as was obtained prior to the 2005/2006 change to the current method it is unlikely that can be achieved given the current situation due to the stay-at-home orders and technological challenges. Depending on the Board's potential interest related to the election method, will population changes related to the 2020 Census need to be considered? • The 2010 Census is currently the basis for all population calculations. There may have been changes related to Orange County's population since 2010; however, any changes as reflected in the 2020 Census are not yet available and likely will not be available until 4 2021. If the Board acts now to alter districts, the 2020 Census data could require the Board to revisit election districts in the near future. 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. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impact associated with discussing this topic. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board discuss the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and provide direction to staff. Attachment C 5 11 49 157 District 7o 70 86 —' I District 1: 3 Commissioners District 2: 2 Commissioners m At-Large: 2 Commissioners 54 _ 'District 1 15 501 e,,a N o 1 z Voting District 1 Miles Voting District 2 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Current BOCK Voting Districts GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.5/26/2011 Actual Population Ideal Population 5% Deviation Actual Difference Actual % Deviation Census 2010 County Population 133,801 District 1 Population (3 Members) 82,412 80,280 +/-4,014 + 2,132 + 2.66 % District 2 Population (2 Members) 51,389 53,520 +/-2,676 -2,131 - 3.98 % People per Commissioner: 133,801/5=26,760 One person, one vote applies to people being elected from a district not to a person who is elected at-large. This is why the total population is divided by 5 and not 7. Attachment 2 6 Information from Commissioner Mark Dorosin The recent election has highlighted some important electoral issues with continuing to have a multi-member district election. Under our current system, the District i race held during presidential election years is the only seat among the seven on the board that is subject to a multi-member election (i.e. voters have two votes to cast in that race), including the off-year election for the other, single- member District 1 seat. In addition, this is also the only race anywhere on the ballot during these elections that allows voters to cast two votes for one office. As a result, it can be confusing for voters unfamiliar with this unique characteristic of this race. We should act to make the electoral process uniform and have all single-member elections, which is necessary to ensure fundamental fairness and equal processes for voters. It's worth noting that since the BoCC added district seats in 2oo8, with the exception of 2oo8, when the BoCC increased in size, there has been a contested primary in every District 1 multi-member election (2012, 2oi6, 2020). However, there has never been a contested primary election for the single-member District i seat (2010, 2014, 2o18). The underlying problem with a multi-member district is that it encourages voters to "single shot" (vote for only one candidate) to ensure the election of their candidate of choice. While voters and candidates have the right to utilize this strategy, we should not continue to use an electoral model that compels voters to throw away one of their votes— and thereby get less representation than other voters or in single-member elections— to ensure that their candidate of choice is elected. The 202o District i primary illustrates this, as the electoral returns show that there were significant numbers of undervotes (voters selecting only one candidate) in the District i race, and a substantial increase in undervotes compared to 2oi6. The BoCC has talked several times about changing the method of election, but have failed to take any votes on the issue. While some different options have been presented (changing the district primary/at-large general election; eliminating the at-large seats), there has not been an assessment or consideration of options that could eliminate the multi-member election. These alternatives could include redrawing District i and 2 to be five single-member districts (and keep the two at-large seats) or create 7 single-member districts (which would be most democratic). While some commissioners have asserted this would lead to a board dominated by the southern portion of the county, it should be noted that currently only 2 commissioners live in unincorporated areas of the county (Commissioner Price, who represents District 2, lives in Hillsborough). Additionally, in March voters elected a resident of Chapel Hill Township to the at-large seat, so that in December 202o both the at-large seats will be held by residents of Chapel Hill. This is the most opportune time to act, because any changes to the electoral process are subject to a referendum which can only be held in an even number year, and also because we will already be required to redraw the districts before the 2022 election (to reflect new census data). If we wait until 2022 to hold the referendum, we will have to redraw the districts a second time, imposing additional costs for the county, and create unnecessary confusion for voters. If we act now, and voters approve the changes in November, all those changes will be reflected in the BoCC membership by 2024. If we delay a referendum to 2022, any changes won't be fully effective until 2026.