Loading...
04-05-2011 Special MeetingSPECIAL MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE FIFTH DAY QF APRIL IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: Thomas J. Wright, III, Chairman Stan D. Clark, Vice- Chairman Al Casteen JoAnn W. Hall Kenneth M. Bunch Also Attending: A. Paul Burton, Interim County Attorney W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator Carey Mills Storm, Clerk Chairman Wright called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. for the purpose of the Board discussing a five (5) and seven (7) member Redistricting Plan for the County. Letters from the Chairman calling the special meeting were hand delivered to the respective Board members. /1 // // Supervisor Casteen delivered the invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. Interim County Attorney Burton distributed a letter from the Chairman of the Redistricting Committee forwarding to the Board a five (5) and seven (7) member district plan as adopted by the Redistricting Committee. Interim County Attorney Burton advised the Board that the State Board of Elections has notified staff by correspondence dated March 25, 2011 that the County's submission needs to be done by April 29, 2011. Christopher R. Nolen, Attorney, McGuireWoods LLP, provided an overview of the requirements under the Voting Rights Act, which include that districts must be contiguous, compact and proportionate to the population of the district as nearly as practical, while having equal representation among such districts. He advised statutory provisions require that the official census data be used, that a redistricting can not occur within sixty (60) days of a general election, that boundaries be defined in the Code, that precincts can not be split and that Department of Justice approval must be received at least thirty (30) prior to a general election. He advised predominant factors include population equality, compactness and contiguity, 1 preservation of communities of interest, incumbency protection, political fairness or competitiveness and voter convenience. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the Redistricting Committee has adopted a set of guidelines and that he recommends the Board also adopt them because they give a basis upon which the Board operated in its deliberations in developing a plan. Attorney Nolen advised the Board regarding the requirements under Sections II and IV of the Voting Rights Act. He explained the process by which the Department of Justice will make its assessment of the impact of the proposed redistricting plan for the County by looking to see if the Redistricting Committee and the Board of Supervisors followed the redistricting principals which were adopted. He advised that the Redistricting Committee was tasked with drawing a five (5) and seven (7) member plan, but should the Board choose to approve the seven (7) member plan, the record submitted to the Department of Justice must include the County's purpose for doing that so that the Department of Justice can ensure that it was not done for a discriminatory purpose leading to a discriminatory effect. He advised that the more the district lines change, the more scrutiny the plan will receive from the Department of Justice. He advised that the five (5) member plan drawn by the Redistricting Committee will most Iikely be approved by the Department of Justice; however, the County moving from a five (5) to seven (7) member district plan poses a significant change and the burden will be on the County to prove that it is not retrogressive. He advised that the Department of Justice will contact the minority community regarding their opinion as to what the impact will be. He advised that if there is not agreement among the black community as to what the effect is and the Attorney General can not otherwise determine whether it is retrogressive, the Department of Justice will not approve the plan. He stated that there is a significant precedent for the Department of Justice to reject or amend plans causing delay of preclearance. Supervisor Hall inquired examples of localities that have increased their numbers. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that fifty (50) counties in Virginia have five (5) member district plans; twenty -three (23) have seven (7) member district plans and the remaining counties have three (3), four (4), six (6), eight (8) and nine (9) member district plan. He advised that one (1) county has an eleven (11) member district plan. Supervisor Hall asked Attorney Nolen if he believed that he could defend a seven (7) member plan for the County. Attorney Nolen advised that he does have a significant concern that the County moving to a seven (7) member district plan could be viewed as retrogressive by the Department of Justice. He stated that the question to the 2 Board is what amount of risk it is willing to take given the timeframe on the election cycle. have. Supervisor Hall inquired how much influence citizens will have. Attorney Nolen replied while it is important, it is more important how the minority community feels about the plan that is submitted. Supervisor Hall inquired how much influence communities of interest Attorney Nolen advised that communities of interest are considered in justifying why lines were drawn where they were drawn. Supervisor Clark commented that under the seven (7) district plan, there can be four (4) candidates within a mile and a half radius where Jones Creek, Newport, Smithfield and the Hardy Districts come together. Supervisor Hall commented that residents of Carrsville have a certain community of interest, as do the other districts. Attorney Nolen advised that while communities of interest may be the predominant consideration in drawing one (1) district, it must give way to something else in another district. He advised Federal law requires that certain requirements be met with regard to race, but that race can not be a predominant factor. Interim County Attorney Burton stated that the County's challenge is that it has parts which are densely populated versus Carrsville and Windsor, which are spread out. He advised that the one (1) man one (1) vote requirement must first be met, which both plans meet, and then he will look at the Voting Rights Act regarding a majority minority district(s) requirement. He stated that the five (5) district plan currently has one (1) majority minority district which represented a 54% district in 2001. He stated that the seven (7) member district only has one (1) district which represents 14 %. He advised that there is a high probability that the five (5) member district plan will be approved by the Department of Justice, but his personal opinion is that there is a significant problem in getting the seven (7) member district plan approved. He stated that he would like to see the County get out of the Voting Rights Act. Chairman Wright inquired if the timetable for the general election would be met if the Department of Justice rejects the County's submission. Attorney Nolen stated if the Department of Justice interposes an objection, the County can not proceed implementing the election districts until that objection is rescinded. He stated if the County is not precleared 60 days prior to an election, it can not implement a general election. He advised 3 that if the County wishes to bail out of Section 5, preclearance of the Voting Rights Act, it must remain out for at least ten (10) years. He advised that eleven (11) counties have bailed out, but they are still subject to Section II of the Voting Rights Act. He stated bailing out gives the County the ability to move on without sending a submission to the Department of Justice, changing precinct lines, changing the hours of the Registrar's office, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and special elections. 1/ // /1 // Chairman Wright declared a recess. At 6:35 p.m., Supervisor Bunch arrived at the meeting. Chairman Wright called the meeting back to order. Herbert J. Finch, GIS Coordinator, displayed the proposed five (5) and seven (7) member redistricting plans adopted by the Redistricting Committee. Supervisor Clark moved that the guidelines be adopted as proposed by the Interim County Attorney. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Clark, Casteen, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Hall moved that the Board adjourn its meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Clark, Casteen, Hall and Wright voting in fa • . 111 the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. homas J. W fight, I Chairman it 'Ai Carey ' lls Storm, Clerk 4