Commissioners propose, approve last minute redistricting proposal

By Richard Sullins | richard@rantnc.com

The Lee County Board of Commissioners gave preliminary approval Monday night to a surprise redistricting proposal that had not been previously viewed or commented on by the public.

The 4-3 vote to move forward with a Plan F – presented publicly for the first time on Monday, after commissioners had already held a public hearing for two other plans which had been visible for weeks on the county’s website – followed party lines, with the Board’s Republican majority in support, and Democrats opposed. The move redefines the county’s electoral map for the next ten years, although a final vote is set for later in the month.

Commissioners found Plan F on their seats and flashed onto a screen for presentation as Monday’s meeting began. It later was published on the county’s website.

City and County GIS Strategic Services Director Don Kovasckitz said Plan F was produced during the final days of September with the approval of County Manager John Crumpton and at the request of Republican Commissioner Dr. Andre Knecht. It was said to be like Plan A, with some shifting of voters from District 4 into District 2 and another 647 voters from District 2 into District 1.

Democratic Commissioner Cameron Sharpe asked Kovasckitz about the difference between Plan E, which had been produced just before the September 20 meeting, and the new Plan F. Kovasckitz responded, “the direction that we were given was to bring the population as close to a zero deviation. Plan F was at the direction of Dr. Knecht.”

“It just kind of feels like to me that there is a man behind the curtain somewhere,” Sharpe said of the majority’s frequent changes to the maps.

Democratic Commissioner Robert Reives Sr. offered a motion to adopt Plan A, the version that is closest in appearance to the current district map. Without any discussion, the motion moved quickly to a vote, which failed along partisan lines.

As the discussion returned to Plan F, Kovasckitz reminded commissioners of the criteria used to draw the maps.

“First was population. Second was keeping our incumbents in their districts. The third was keeping the districts as compact as we could. And fourth was following Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, that we would do nothing to impede or hinder the rights of those minorities,” he said.

Kovasckitz went on to say that “we were advised by our consulting attorneys not to look at voter or partisan data. And we did not.”

Republican Commissioner Bill Carver asked several questions in September about the legality of drawing maps using voter registration or turnout data, but County Attorney Whitney Parrish said that there is a body of case law prohibiting the drawing of districts using anything except population.

Reives objected to moving the 647 voters from District 2 into his district, saying that they were likely Republican voters and that pulling population from such an area would impact his district in a negative way. But he did offer a compromise to Knecht, saying that he would accept half of that amount and vote for Plan F if Knecht would agree. Knecht didn’t directly address Reives’ offer in his response.

Ultimately, Republican Commissioner and Vice Chair Arianna Lavallee offered a motion to move forward with Plan F and have the legal staff draft a resolution providing a street-by-street description of the boundaries in a manner similar to the way a property deed defines lines on a parcel of land. The Democrats on the Board tried a final time to bring a vote on Reives’ proposal for moving roughly 325 voters from District 2 into District 1, but Republican Chairman Kirk Smith called for a vote on the motion made by Lavallee, which passed 4-3.

But the final vote didn’t bring an end to the discussion. During the member comment period at the conclusion of the meeting, Sharpe came back to the subject to express his disappointment in the way the process ended.

“The people were allowed to look at maps A through E online, but not allowing them to see F shows a lack of transparency in the process,” he said.

Reives’ feelings of resignation could be heard in his voice in the meeting’s final moments as he said, “I continue to be humbled by the amount of attention that District 1 seems to draw every 10 years.”

Redistricting is necessary every 10 years because of population shifts that are detected when the U.S. Census is taken. The principle of equal representation in each county district means that the districts must be as balanced as possible in terms of the number of persons living within it in order to maintain the principle of one person, one vote.

The county has had a majority-minority district since passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, meaning that the district has a majority of citizens who are members of minority groups. In 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that provision of the Act unconstitutional but affirmed that states are still bound by its remaining requirements that prohibit voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or a minority group language.

The commissioners take up the issue a final time on October 18 when it will adopt the final resolution to establish the written boundaries of the four voting districts.

20 responses to “Commissioners propose, approve last minute redistricting proposal”

  1. cathkilgour Avatar
    cathkilgour

    Skulduggery afoot here.

  2. Kgb Avatar
    Kgb

    These Republicans never cease to amaze me.

  3. D. Roberts Avatar
    D. Roberts

    I find it interesting that it is illegal to consider voting information when drawing the districts, yet Commissioner Reives is concerned that there will be an influx of Republican voters into his district with the Plan “F”… Now I will agree that dropping last minute plans without having full disclosure prior to the meeting and having public comment prior to voting on it is not proper. However, this isn’t a final decision at this point and there will be time for people to view it and comment before the final vote. On it’s face it looks like a good idea if there is a zero deviation between population numbers in each district. Isn’t that what is supposed to be considered and not political affiliations or voter data? Why is it wrong to have equal numbers in every district?
    “ Reives objected to moving the 647 voters from District 2 into his district, saying that they were likely Republican voters and that pulling population from such an area would impact his district in a negative way.” This is exactly what is not supposed to be considered in the redistrict process. Yet, Reives is worried about it, saying it would negatively impact his district, would it? Or would it negatively impact his ability to keep his seat and has nothing to do with his district. His comment is very revealing into where his desires are. It has nothing to do with having equal numbers in each district which is supposed to be the goal but in fact for him to keep his seat of power. He immediately assumes the political affiliation of the people that will be moved into his district with Plan “F” and is worried about losing the next election. Which is the very reason why voting data is not used in the districting plans.

    1. B Mac Avatar
      B Mac

      A couple of things to consider… this kinda is the final vote because staff needs two weeks to finalize the resolution and it has to be done and voted on by the 18th for filing to the next election to take place on time… at least that was what was said in the meeting. Now, they could postpone that I guess but if I am a betting person they will not and use that as an excuse to go with plan F. Secondly, as you pointed out zero deviation is best. That means plan E is the one they should have chosen. There is a reason they did not. Plan F and it pulls a big margin of Republicans into Reives district. If you do not think the Republicans on the commission did not figure this out and that is why they asked for plan F at the last minute then I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. They figured the boundaries to make that happen and asked staff to make it happen based on those boundaries. I am not saying the map was not made to the rules, it was, but they figured out how to gerrymander it within the rules which is still not right. They are trying to take away a minority district. Of course Reives is worried about losing the next election. They just dumped over 600 Republicans is his district. Again, they could have kept plan A which is close to what it is now and is a pretty fair representation of the county given is it s 4-3 board or they could have chosen plan E which is closest to zero deviation. They snuck in a gerrymandered, although still legal map in, to take away the only minority district. They put the max number of white voters they could in that district without it losing status as a minority district. All of that aside, the way it happened it wrong. The public did not get to see the map nor is there a public hearing on it. Emailing comments is a joke since unless they delay the filing period there most likely will not be time to consider the comments much less make changed due to them. Even if map F was the most fair map, the way it was done is shady. In my opinion no commissioner should have had any say in the manner. They should have just used the guidelines Don K laid out. They should have let Don K, or some type of independent commission/ person do the maps without their input. That is how maps A thru D were done. This is all very shady, lacks transparency, and totally disregarded the people who live in Lee County.

    2. jcalendine Avatar

      Then, you are missing the point. Map F was likely the result of backchannel (read: illegal private meetings) negotiation among the Republicans. To me, what Reives said was not a complaint, but an accusation. From the beginning, Republicans wanted to use race and political data to draw maps in their favor, and that most likely is what they now have.

    3. Jeffrey L Cashion Avatar
      Jeffrey L Cashion

      We should look at the way Chatham County does its districts. I think each district has a commissioner but they have to win a countywide race. As it stands now I only get to vote for 4 of the 7 commissioners that vote on issues that effect me.

  4. Kimberly Stone Avatar
    Kimberly Stone

    It’s the Hattfields and Macoys people…
    Same crap different issue..
    It will never be solved for the GOOD of the county…
    Just absurd…..
    A no win situation!!

  5. James Brookefield. Avatar
    James Brookefield.

    The whole way it has been done just seems crooked. But, what do you expect from Trumpers?

  6. […] on October 4, Lee County’s four Republican commissioners voted as a block to move ahead with a last-minute sixth version of a plan which had been unseen by the public prior to that time and that had not available on the commission’s website when the meeting began. […]

  7. […] ended Monday night after a tense meeting in which a Republican plan to adopt a proposal which had not been presented to the public before two weeks ago passed along party […]

  8. […] that added nearly 700 voters from overwhelmingly Republican and rural parts of the county, leading white voters to outnumber Black ones in Reives' district for the first time since it was […]

  9. […] that added nearly 700 voters from overwhelmingly Republican and rural parts of the county, leading white voters to outnumber Black ones in Reives’ district for the first time since it was […]

  10. […] virtually 700 citizens from extremely Republican and also country components of the region, leading white voters to outnumber Black ones in Reives’ area for the very first time given that it was […]

  11. […] that added nearly 700 voters from overwhelmingly Republican and rural parts of the county, leading white voters to outnumber Black ones in Reives’ district for the first time since it was […]

  12. […] that added nearly 700 voters from overwhelmingly Republican and rural parts of the county, leading white voters to outnumber Black ones in Reives’ district for the first time since it was […]

  13. […] that added nearly 700 voters from overwhelmingly Republican and rural parts of the county, leading white voters to outnumber Black ones in Reives’ district for the first time since it was […]

  14. […] that added nearly 700 voters from overwhelmingly Republican and rural parts of the county, leading white voters to outnumber Black ones in Reives’ district for the first time since it was […]

  15. […] The editorial concerns actions taken by the Republican majority during the fall to revise the county’s maps for choosing its members, a task that was required by shifts in the population that were identified through the 2020 Census. Commissioners were originally presented with four maps as possible means of redrawing the district lines, but a new map was produced at each of the next three board meetings with little opportunity for public review or comment. […]

  16. […] Saturday in its Politics section, The New York Times (subscription required) reports on the redrawing of the county’s electoral maps this fall and the controversy that continues to surround […]

  17. […] Smith said the idea wasn’t intended to be a partisan one, adding that there’s a “disconnect between our generations.” But few issues coming before the board that relate to the makeup of its membership can be viewed strictly through a nonpartisan lens. It was just one year ago when Republicans and Democrats on the board clashed over the drawing of the county’s electoral districts. […]

Leave a Reply


TOP STORIES

THE RANT MONTHLY

May 2024

Click above for the digital edition of The Rant Monthly, our award-winning monthly news publication.

Support our Advertisers

Friends of The Rant Podcast

Friends of the Rant | Indie Fest performers Jive Talk & Tuatha Dea The Rant

More Episodes


Designed with WordPress

Discover more from THE RANT

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading