Agenda - 06-07-2011 - 5l - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 could deliberate and determine as appropriate any further steps in evaluating the issue and responding to the request and petition submitted. The Board then pursued a series of meetings over the next thirteen months including public hearings, Board discussions on possible draft district maps/plans for either a five or seven- member Board, and decisions on specific map/plan issues. The public hearings and discussions led to the development of a map/plan (identified in 2006 as "Proposal D") for aseven-member board that met all statutory requirements. The County Attorney prepared a draft resolution calling for a November 2006 referendum in concert with "Proposal D", and the Board approved that resolution and the election plan/map at the June 27, 2006 regular meeting. The approved resolution and election map/plan are provided at Attachment A. The population deviations for the approved 2006 map/plan are provided at Attachment B. In the November 2006 referendum, the voters subsequently approved the election plan/map with more than two-thirds supporting the initiative. The election plan/map was implemented with the May 2008 primary election and all seven members of the current Board have qualified and been elected under the plan. REVIEW OF DISTRICT ELECTIONS MAP BASED ON 2010 CENSUS The final numbers for the 2010 Census were published earlier this year providing new population numbers for Orange County as a whole as well as for the two current electoral districts. North Carolina General Statute 153A-22 states, "If a county is divided into electoral districts for the purpose of nominating or electing persons to the board of commissioners, the board of commissioners may find as a fact whether there is substantial inequality of population among the districts." Population growth or decline in districts can lead to significant deviations in the numbers of residents between districts, thereby compromising the integrity of the districts and the election plan as a whole. Therefore the Board may, but is not required to, review the impact of the new Census numbers to determine if there is substantial inequality. Attachment C is a map showing the current electoral districts along with the new population numbers based on the 2010 census. In the 2006 adopted plan (Attachments A and B), Orange County met its goal of keeping the population deviations within five percent of the exact population totals for each district, less than a total of ten percent deviation (referred to nationally as the Ten Percent Rule). Attachment C shows that Districts 1 and 2 are still within the Ten Percent Rule deviation criteria based on the 2010 Census data. Since the Districts are, combined, within the ten percent deviation allowed by law there can be no finding of substantial inequality. Without a violation of the Ten Percent Rule, it is highly unlikely that any group or individual could make any rational argument that there is substantial inequality between the districts. It is even more unlikely that any judicial challenge to a decision not to redistrict could survive a summary judgment in the County's favor. Attachment D is a list of issues of potential interest. Among the issues discussed: whether there will be any voting precinct adjustments by the Board of Elections, whether adjustments to the Orange/Alamance boundary line will impact population numbers, whether District 1 should be redrawn to extend northward, and whether the Patterson Voting Precinct should be placed entirely in one district or the other. Even though there can be no finding of substantial inequality the Board may, in considering these issues, wish to redraw the district lines.