By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer
Drawing a line.
It’s no simple task when you are talking about redrawing voter district lines.
A Feb. 23 memo to commissioners on “potential” redistricting of current commissioner districts suggests the county hire “an independent demographer” to “meticulously” map potential new districts.
“A demographer could give a higher level of assistance to the commissioners in an equitable fashion.
They would be given certain mapping criteria and instructions from the Board and ideally, decrease speculation and potential puzzlement about new district lines,” County Attorney Steve Fowler wrote.
He pointed out that a Feb. 15 draft proposal shows “dramatic geographical changes” that could happen to each commissioner district.
The draft cuts Commissioner Bill Memory out of his own District 4, and places him in commissioner Ronald Gore’s District 7.
Other noticeable changes appear to affect Commissioner Amon McKenzie’s District 1. McKenzie’s district, one of two minority districts, now includes the northeastern portions of the county, parts of Whiteville, Chadbourn, Cerro Gordo, Boardman and from Boardman down to Fair Bluff.
The district’s voting age population is estimated to be 59.96 percent black.
The draft proposal has a greater estimated percentage of black voting age population at 62.82 percent but places all of Fair Bluff, Cerro Gordo and surrounding areas in Commissioner Ricky Bullard’s District 6.
McKenzie was the only commissioner opposed to redistricting. He said Tuesday he does not agree with the sample plan either.
“I still feel the same way,” McKenzie said. “I don’t think we should take any action until we get a decision from the court.”
McKenzie said he wants to make sure if the board does anything, it is not done in error and follows whatever procedures the federal court requires, as Columbus County is subject to a 1992 federal court ruling that established single member districts and the court retains jurisdiction.
“My decision is two folded,” McKenzie said, insisting the county hold off on any action until the court provides guidelines for redrawing the lines. “I think if we do it on our own we are not going to do it right.
“I believe in the Constitution,” McKenzie said, but reiterated Columbus County is under a court order and needs the court’s approval for any changes.
As for the draft proposal, McKenzie said: “I don’t agree with it.” When asked if a professional redraws the lines and follows guidelines set by the court if he would agree with a plan similar to the “example,” McKenzie simply said: “I want it approved by the court, I want instructions, and once they draw them and they’re (the court) is okay with it, it’s okay with me.”
Fowler made it clear last week the draft is only an example.
Commissioners typically decide where lines are drawn and under state law have that authority.
The General Assembly also has the authority. Pender County is currently in the process of redistricting by and through a state bill that has been introduced in the N.C. House.
The board voted six to one in January to adjust the district lines.
Some of the county’s district populations differ as much as nearly 20 percent. Districts with unequal populations could be in violation of state and federal law that requires approximate equal population in districts.
While the state Supreme Court says there can be no greater than a 5 percent deviation, the U.S. Supreme Court has said for congressional districts the test of equality is much stricter, according to a section on redistricting concepts at the General Assembly website.
Columbus County is not covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and is not one of 40 counties in North Carolina that must get pre-clearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before redistricting.
The county is, however, subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina by virtue of a 1992 court order.
Anita Earls, an attorney and advocacy director for the UNC School of Law Center for Civil Rights, represented the plaintiffs in the December 1991 lawsuit against the county.
Fowler explains that Earls suggests that an independent demographer would be helpful.
The suit challenged the at-large method of electing county commissioners.
In the court’s finding of fact, it maintained that black voters were politically cohesive, the white majority voted consistently to defeat black voters’ preferred candidates, and that there were sufficient numbers of black voters in certain areas who form a majority in single-member voting districts.
The county was given a few months to “remedy” the situation but failed to present a redistricting plan that “completely and adequately” remedied the violation the court ruled in February 1992.
The court ruled that commissioners be elected from single districts by only the voters of those individual districts.
On April 15, 1992, still unable to agree on a proper redistricting plan, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s plan be implemented.