School board adopts redistricting plan without revisions. Refused to consider other alternatives | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

Board splits 5-4 with all minority members voting "no"

    The Beaufort County Board of Education, meeting in its regular monthly meeting Tuesday (10-18-11) night vote 5-4 to adopt Alternate #1 as its redistricting plan for the next decade's electoral system. The action is subject to approval by the U. S. Justice Department.

    The plan was accepted after a public hearing in which only three people spoke and not many more even attended the hearing. You can review that event by clicking here. Also, in that story are links to earlier stories on the issue which contain links to the materials showing information supplied to the board for its consideration.

    Tuesday's vote could portend trouble ahead. All three minority members (Boyd-Williams, Booth and Peed) voted against Alternative 1. But as you will hear in the video below, it appeared that some of the opposition to the motion was not so much against Alternative 1 but rather that the board should further refine the map(s). Former chairman Robert Belcher says in the discussion that if he had to "vote right now" that he would vote for Alternative 1 rather than Alternative 2. Thus, as he voted "no" on the motion, presumably that meant he wanted further revisions. Boyd-Williams specifically suggested that the board send it back to the consultant/attorney for further work.

    As you hear in the video, Chairman Mac Hodges cast the deciding vote. But he did so by characterizing it as a move to "just see what happens." He characterized it as "running the flag up the poll and we'll just see what happens."

    The irony of Hodges position is that he seems to be pushing the board to act, rather than continuing to refine the plan, but then in his comments he seems to be saying that he is voting for the motion just to see what the Justice Department will do. The problem with that is that such a move, if the Justice Department refuses to pre-clear the plan, it will then substantially delay the final decision, making it uncertain whether a plan can be approved before the November 2012 elections.

    The board's action also ignores suggestions from all three speakers at the public hearing. All had suggested the plans need further work. Two of them (Hickman and Sprenkle) suggested specific refinements in the plan. Those were ignored.

    But the major issue here is the opposition to the adopted plan by the three minorities on the board. That could spell real trouble getting DOJ preclearance. br>
    Typically, when DOJ reviews a proposed electoral change under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act it looks to see if the change (redistricting) will decrease the ability of minorities to elect candidates of their choice. Alternative 1 does that. Here's why.

    Under Alternative 1 the three existing "minority districts" (1, 2, and 3) go from three to two minority districts. District 1 remains a solid minority district with 60.10% minority population compared to 59.15%. District 2 also increases slightly going from the current 46.31% to 47.12 in the proposed plan. But District 3 falls from 40.48% to 33.16%. District 3 is the district in the Belhaven/Pantego area.

    The answer to what is considered a "minority district" is ambiguous. That is an issue that is currently in flux as a result of recent court interpretations. And ultimately the answer to what is a minority district is determined by a rather complex analysis of the voting patterns, a part of which is what the turnout record is for minorities and non-minorities. The extent to which historical polarized voting is a pattern is also a factor. But yet another factor considered by DOJ is what the possibilities were that would impact the percentage of minorities in a particular district. "Could you draw it differently?" and avoid retrogression is a pivotal question the DOJ will look at.

    And that is where we will predict the board's actions Tuesday night were regrettable.

    Here's what we would expect. DOJ will scrutinize the retrogression from 3 to 2 relatively safe minority districts. To get them to accept a 35% minority in District 3 will likely require being able to show that you can't reasonably draw a district with more than 35%. And that is not true in Alternative 1.

    But no one, including Ms. Boyd-Williams can accurately offer an alternative (that might improve that minority percentage) without having access to other alternatives that tested the idea of whether refinements would increase District 3 to at least where it is now. How do you know until you try?

    And the same thing might be said about District 2 (which runs from the eastern end of the county through Chocowinity and to within a short distance of the Pitt County line. While that district goes from 46.31% minority under the existing plan to 47.12% the question might still be asked: "could it have been drawn so as to better insure the ability of minorities in that district being able to elect candidates of their choice? Again, we don't know because the board's action precludes even trying to find out the answer to that question.

    For example, minority voting strength in District 3 is diluted by the inclusion of a substantial part of Cypress Landing (south of Old Blounts Creek Rd). Moreover, adding the area north of N. C. 33 along Mill Rd. might could have added more minorities by simply changing the line a half mile or so. There are other areas that "refining" the boundaries of District 3 might have come closer to making that district 51% or so minority.

    But again, no one knows. They have not tested any alternatives or refinements to either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. But this much we do know: If Alternative 2 were adopted there would be three relatively "safer" minority districts than is projected in Alternative 1. District 6 in Alternative 2 would be 45.18% compared to 29.8% in Alternative 1 without appreciable regression in districts 1, 2 and 3. So we know that the criterion of "safe minority districts" could be better achieved than Alternative 1 proposes. Whether doing that should take preference over the disadvantages of doing so is not our point. The point is the board did not openly debate and consider such alternatives.

    Barbara Boyd-Williams suggested that they work on the maps some more. She was pushed to say what those refinements should be. She explained that she could not say, and for sure she probably could not. No one, including us, can really say unless we have access to the computer to see what the impact of specific boundary changes might produce. And then if the board is going to hold a public hearing and not even address any specific suggestions offered what does that say? It raises the obvious question of whether they board could have done better.

    We suspect the fact that the majority voted to adopt Alternative 1 without even testing any refinements will not bode well in getting DOJ approval, and if there is substantial minority opposition when DOJ studies the plan then we would predict it will be sent back without preclearance.

    But if that happens it will take much longer than would have been the case had the board refined Alternative 1 before adopting it. When time runs out, in terms of having an approved plan before the 2012 elections, the five who voted "yes" Tuesday night should be prepared to account for why they dropped the ball on this job.

    Finally, a picky point raised by Mr. Belcher in the discussion. He vehemently objected to Mrs. Hickman's contention that both proposed plans appeared to use as a dominant criterion "protecting incumbents." He contends no board member told the lawyer to draw districts so two incumbents would be in the same district. That is laughable.

    We find it unlikely that both plans would have avoided pitting incumbents against each other by accident. Things like that don't just happen in a task as complex as this one is. Paradoxically, after claiming protecting incumbents was not at play here, Mr. Belcher then goes on to talk about keeping the new districts as close to the existing districts as possible. If that is not protecting incumbents we don't know what is. Otherwise why would the maps even show where each incumbent lives?

    And if Mr. Belcher is taken at face value, the reason for opposing Alternative 2 (which could conceivably produce four minority board members) was not so much racial as it was apparently to protect an incumbent, or to give Smallwood and Macwoods preferential treatment. One taking his comments at face value would likely conclude that Smallwood and Macwoods "belong" to a particular board member. But then it could be argued that protecting the incumbent in District 7 could be more effectively achieved also.

    Moreover, after the public hearing that was one of the questions we asked the lawyer. She admitted that it was one of the considerations in drafting both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.

    Here's our point: The board has done a very sloppy job on this project. It should have tested alternatives to both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 to determine whether each could have been approved. It simply has not done its homework on this task.

    Here's the first video:



    Here is the second clip which includes the vote:



    Click here to review the board meeting packet. The decision on the electoral districts was not on the advertised agenda but was added as an agenda item at the beginning of the meeting.