Agenda item 2 - Additional Discussion Regarding the Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners

Browse Search

5 The Board also discussed establishing two Commissioner districts with multiple Commissioners representing each district. The possibility of a district consisting of five seats and a district of two seats was discussed. Staff understood however following Board discussion that this concept was also set aside and that the Board requested that staff develop information and mapping for two districts - one consisting of four seats and the other district consisting of three seats. Staff has provided two possible "44' scenarios for the Board's initial review — Possibility 1 and Possibility 2 (See Attachments E and F). There are other possible variations that could be developed and considered based on Board input. These two scenarios were chosen by staff as starting points as both entail limited variance from the current Commissioner district lines, and also limited variance from the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools district boundaries which were used to guide delineation of the original Commissioner district lines established in 2006. Possibility 1 re- assigns a total of 6,143 voters from the current District 1 to District 2. Possibility 2 relocates 3,684 voters from the current District 1 to District 2. Attachment G provides inset maps for the areas included in the population shifts from District 1 to District 2. Implementation of Possibility 1, Possibility 2 or any other similar election method that a) decreases or increases the number of at large seats, and /or b) changes the number of seats from a district, and /or c) changes the boundaries for the Commissioner electoral districts would require Board action and a countywide voter referendum. Potential changes such as these would necessitate Board approval of a resolution detailing the changes and authorizing a countywide voter referendum on the proposed changes. If the voters subsequently approved the proposed changes, the Board of Commissioners could then consider a resolution implementing the changes. If voters did not approve the change, no further action on the matter would occur. Potential changes of this nature would not require review or approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. 5) Can staff provide additional information on cumulative voting and non - partisan voting and the potential to consider them as options for Board of Commissioners seats? At the March 28th work session, Board members discussed cumulative voting and non - partisan voting. County Attorney John Roberts noted that an electoral plan that relied upon cumulative voting would require approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. Several Board members expressed concern about pursuing an option that would require General Assembly action, while other members suggested that the Board further discuss the topic. County Attorney Roberts also noted that while he was aware that some jurisdictions in other states employed non - partisan elections to elect county commissioners, and that school boards in North Carolina utilized non - partisan elections, he was unaware that any NC county had implemented a non - partisan election method for county commissioners. Mr. Roberts further noted that pursuit of a non - partisan system would require review and action by the North Carolina General Assembly. County Attorney Roberts has provided additional information on cumulative voting, non - partisan voting, and other related topics in Attachment H.