Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-05-2005-1a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2005
>
Agenda - 05-05-2005
>
Agenda - 05-05-2005-1a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2008 11:31:46 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:21:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/5/2005
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1a
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~-„ ~ r_ -1 '-'1 <br />R~C~,, ~_._ ... __ <br />IHARRI:~GTC~'~' SIrSIIH <br />n HEGISTYRED L,I4ITED LIAHI Lf T1'FwRT]£ASHtP <br />AT'TOASEYS .4T LAN' <br />RALEIGH. NORTH CAROL.I *A <br />CnR LI51E u' Y.~GGt\S <br />.~HH: IDHJi <br />G£OftGE T ftOGiST£R .:R <br />:IJ3G-'~9DS. <br />S P.AROLD THARRI]GTO\' DEHRA R FICEEL.E <br />tC+DE N HMS':H -wR1 Et. ti CLAAH <br />ROGER x'SMITH JOtiATHh? A HLUHHERG <br />CARL]> G 20OL£ ROD HALOSE <br />DOUG Ln.S E IiiRGEH ERY E HARDI' L£x IS <br />RwXD.+LL Y RODES JAIE HE]ER <br />?I ICIi nEL CROx'ELL DEHRn SH:]'}t Rk55£A <br />AKF L HAJLS'IC I':E\\ET}i A. SOO <br />nLLI50] HAOxy SCH WEER RETH T DOti 13TG <br />.. ELIESA H EI:LL }: /.TH' EX C 90SD <br />8 October 1996 <br />Geoffrey E. Gledhill <br />Orange County Attorney <br />Post Office Drawer 1529 <br />Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278-129 <br />Dear Geoff: <br />15 <br />30D FAYETTE]'ILLE STREET Hn11, <br />P O I30X IIGI <br />Rn LEt Gli. t: C 2`GO. ~H51 <br />TELEPHOP'E <br />(91D? H21-6Tp <br />TELECOPIER <br />~41Di 029-1iR3 <br />Thank you for your letter about districting. Actually, I agree ~i ith what }you say. <br />.Although there is no constimtional requirement that residenc,}~ districts be equal in <br />population, G.S. 1SA-58(3) imposes such a requirement when the commissioners follow that <br />statutory process for switching to residency districts. I suppose the statutor}~ requirement might <br />be construed in light of the constitutional law that developed later, so that the balance of <br />population among districts need not be quite as precise as with true election districts, but still <br />there is some requirement of population equality.. On the other hand, it also might be argued <br />that the statutory requirement of "as nearly equal as practicable" necessitates a more exact <br />balancing than would be necessary to meet the constitutional test of one-person one-rote. <br />As you point ont, G S I53A,22(g) does specifically exempt residency districts from <br />reapportionment by the county commissioners. As far as I can see, that means that once <br />residency districts have been established there is no authority in the General Statutes for <br />conunissioners to redraw the lines on their o~; n to tal:.e into account population shifts over time. <br />Most of the boards of county commissioners that hate opted for an election method other <br />than the stzndard five rnembers elected at large have done so through local leuislation rather than <br />through the referendum procedure in G.S. I53.A-S8. «'hen a local act is used to establish <br />residency districts, the statuton prop ision on population equalit}~ daes not apply. and the districts <br />can be drawn based on townships or precincts or other bases that will not result in equal <br />population. ?~?j' impression is thzt the residency districts established b}' local act are almost <br />always based on township lines and are not close to equal in population. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.