Agenda - 05-05-20; 6-b - Discussion Regarding Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners

Browse Search

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.