Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br /> <br />was removed from consideration due to the “pie-shaped” districts that would emanate from the <br />Chapel Hill Carrboro area due to the population concentration in that area. <br /> <br />The Board also discussed establishing two Commissioner districts with multiple Commissioners <br />representing each district. The possibility of a district consisting of five seats and a district of two <br />seats was discussed. Staff understood however following Board discussion that this concept <br />was also set aside and that the Board requested that staff develop information and mapping for <br />two districts - one consisting of four seats and the other district consisting of three seats. <br /> <br />Staff has provided two possible “4-3” scenarios for the Board’s initial review – Possibility 1 and <br />Possibility 2 (See Attachments E and F). There are other possible variations that could be <br />developed and considered based on Board input. These two scenarios were chosen by staff as <br />starting points as both entail limited variance from the current Commissioner district lines, and <br />also limited variance from the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools <br />district boundaries which were used to guide delineation of the original Commissioner district <br />lines established in 2006. <br /> <br />Possibility 1 re-assigns a total of 6,143 voters from the current District 1 to District 2. Possibility <br />2 relocates 3,684 voters from the current District 1 to District 2. Attachment G provides inset <br />maps for the areas included in the population shifts from District 1 to District 2. <br /> <br />Implementation of Possibility 1, Possibility 2 or any other similar election method that a) <br />decreases or increases the number of at large seats, and/or b) changes the number of seats <br />from a district, and/or c) changes the boundaries for the Commissioner electoral districts would <br />require Board action and a countywide voter referendum. Potential changes such as these <br />would necessitate Board approval of a resolution detailing the changes and authorizing a <br />countywide voter referendum on the proposed changes. If the voters subsequently approved the <br />proposed changes, the Board of Commissioners could then consider a resolution implementing <br />the changes. If voters did not approve the change, no further action on the matter would occur. <br />Potential changes of this nature would not require review or approval by the North Carolina <br />General Assembly. <br /> <br />5) Can staff provide additional information on cumulative voting and non-partisan <br />voting and the potential to consider them as options for Board of Commissioners <br />seats? Attachment H <br /> <br />At the March 28th work session, Board members discussed cumulative voting and non-partisan <br />voting. County Attorney John Roberts noted that an electoral plan that relied upon cumulative <br />voting would require approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. Several Board <br />members expressed concern about pursuing an option that would require General Assembly <br />action, while other members suggested that the Board further discuss the topic. <br /> <br />County Attorney Roberts also noted that while he was aware that some jurisdictions in other <br />states employed non-partisan elections to elect county commissioners, and that school boards <br />in North Carolina utilized non-partisan elections, he was unaware that any NC county had <br />implemented a non-partisan election method for county commissioners. Mr. Roberts further <br />noted that pursuit of a non-partisan system Carolina General Assembly. County Attorney <br />Roberts has provided additional information on cumulative voting, non-partisan voting, and other <br />related topics in Attachment H. <br /> <br />6) Does Robeson County utilize a board of commissioners election method similar to