Decision Time

It's a tough one. We are certainly missing an opportunity to do the best job that we can to ensure fair representation. After so much time and energy has been expended on this issue over the last couple of decades, this seems like a tepid solution, especially in light of the alternative solutions which would be a lot better.

Ironically, Moses Carey strongly opposed any attempt to change the system ever since he's been in office. Now he helps facilitate a less-than-optimum change.

It is clear that Democratic Party concerns have been paramount throughout the decades long debate. The fact that all the county voters would vote on the district's primary choices ensures that future candidates will be closer to the status quo than not and most certainly Democrats.

However, the fact is that it will be another couple of blue moons before this is revisited (the last time the sytem was changed was in 1953) and maybe we should we settle for this mediocre solution because it is at least better than what we've got.

Let's not settle for a system that's not only mediocre but, based on recent and anticipated demographic shifts in both the municipalities and the county, will rather quickly disenfranchise voters (or a least, for some, weaken their vote).

This change started on a bad foot, it ended on a bad foot .

A better solution is to trounce the current proposal - restart from a different perspective (making it truly inclusive - for instance) - and submit a much more enfranchising proposal ASAP.

BTW, it's disappointing that our local "Big Tent" Dems let this current proposal progress so far... it's antithetical to their professed inclusionary principles...

It's easy to imagine the powers-that-be reacting to a rejection of this plan by saying - "See, we thought all along that this was not such a big concern." And then it doesn't get re-addressed.

I think the elephant (or donkey as the case may be) in the room is the determination of the Democratic Party insiders to make sure that all future commissioners are Democrats.

Then why not real reform?

I'm all for real reform. Having waged a high-visibilty campaign on this in 1992-93 which resulted in the county forming a committee on fair representation and seeing that effort smothered, I'm not sure how we'd get it now.

At least back then we had a poor system on one hand and better ideas on the other.This mediocre plan put forth now muddies the waters considerably. You've got Mr. Strayhorn, a respected rural leader, in favor of it. Patrick Mulkey is in favor of it I believe.

I just have a hard time seeing that any reform campaign at this point would get any traction in the fouled nest that we have now.

As Mark C. suggested, Faison could likely get involved in some way after the election. But frankly, I don't really trust him. I don't believe he has a healthy overall view of this issue.

I guess between now and the election we could get our thoughts out there and see what the reaction is. Maybe people would get it and my misgivings may not be founded.

Let me add a voice from the northern end of the county: at least this would expand the board, which is good and ensure that at least 2 live outside Chapel Hill/Carrboro.

It is true that this system, whereby only voters in each district get to vote in the primary in their districts, but each gets to vote on the theirs and the other districts nominees in the general, is a strange one, I don't know of any other county that does it that way. And it was indeed a compromise that fully satisfied no one.

But consider that even though all the likely winners in 2008 under this system would be Democrats, the nominee from the rural district could very well be a conservative Democrat who would probably be running against an even more conservative Republican.

This whole elected-by-the-whole-county nonsense is just to keep Barry Jacobs and like-minded folks around. Which is OK -- he lives in my precinct -- but I'd rather it be *real* district representation.

I don't agree with Bill Faison on many things -- heck, I was asked to run against the guy -- but the fact of the matter is that the current system stinks and the future system, if that is what's on the table, will also stink.

I really don't understand why feet are being dragged here except by individual commissioners that want to keep their jobs. The towns would still have the majority even under any real conceivable district representation plan.

Chris,

It's a Democratic Party thing. The stats look good & without partisan county races there would be even less of a reason to be a "grassroots" Democrat.

More like "given" less of a reason unless the Dems work harder to meet the needs and standards of the local electorate on their own terms.

So, not only a rotten plan but one that can't even be justified by a good old preservation instinct? Mark, maybe you should be one of the volunteers explaining "the plan" - it would sure save me a bit of effort....

This plan was a compromise that fully pleased no one. It does, however, expand the board and there will be two new people on the board for sure after the 2008 elections, since only two incumbents will be running then. Assuming Carey runs county-wide, that means 1 new member from each district.

Who those people will be is anyone's guess. Speaking as an active member of the Democratic Party in northern Orange, no one comes to mind immediatly as a potential candidate.

This district could nominate a Democrat who is more conservative than those now on the board. And if someone perceived as "too liberal" is nominated the Democrats, the GOP could make a run of it.

In 2010 it will be more complicated, since three incumbents will be running for three seats and all may want to run at-large, or more likely, Nelson and Gordon would both prefer to run from their district, I would think. But only one can if they don't want to face each so the other would have to run at-large.

Would Jacobs prefer to run from his district only? He would likely face a conservative Democrat challenger, and while I think he would win (he easily won northern Orange in the past primary, winning 11 of the 12 precincts), it could be a tough race, while running at large would be much easier. Either way, if he were nominated, he'd win in the fall, since he could then get the other district's many Democratic votes.

The system of district-only nominations but county-wide general elections will throw a new monkey wrench in the political dynamic.

Of course, the plan has to pass first, and I'm not sure it will.

Mark Chilton wrote:

I don't buy that for a minute, Chris. The BOCC members can create dozens of systems that would protect their seats, but this is not glaringly an example of such a system.

Had the BOCC had their way, they would have changed nothing. Bill Faison forced their hand on the issue. Either the BOCC could institute District Representation or Bill Faison would institute it. Since I believe Bill Faison's plan for District Representation is better, I would have preferred the later.

I agree with Mark M. It's a Democratic Party thing. The current plan that will be on the ballot in November was the very least the BOCC could do to satisfy the mandate to institute District Representation while preserving the Democratic Party hold on Orange County.

Faison's plan would have allowed for the realistic possibility of a Republican becoming elected to the BOCC. Look at the Town of Hillsborough. Two registered Republicans hold seats on its five-member Town Board (and even hold Sierra Club endorsements no less).

Chris Cameron wrote:

I don't agree with Bill Faison on many things — heck, I was asked to run against the guy —

Chris, it is a job requirement and standard operating procedure for the OCGOP Chairman to attempt to have Republican challengers in all partisan races in Orange County. This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't advertise the fact I was asked to be a token Republican sacrificial lamb candidate in a predominately Democratic district. You were smart, however, to decline the invitation.

Paul Newton--Faison tried to get the lege to change the system here, but the other members of the Orange delegation blocked it, which in my opinion was wise, and let the commissioners come up with a plan.

Which they did and which predictably satisfied no one. But at least it expands the board and guarantees that at least 2 commissioners live outside Chapel Hill/Carrboro.

And while a Republican is still a long shot under this plan, a conservative Democrat could be very competative in the primary in the rural district.

I would think the GOP could be competative at least in Faison's district. Not against Faison, who is not vulnerable in either the primary or general (proven by that no one ran against him in either) but who knows how long he will want to keep that seat? It may be open in 2008 since he has talked of running for Governor, but who knows, that is a long way off.

As long as Faison wants that seat, he will keep it.

As Mark points out, the plan supposedly fixes a problem that doesn't exist - representation of the rural OC by folks living in rural, northern OC.

I was at the BOCC meeting where Halkiotis and Jacobs pointed this out. Maybe they're not "conservative" enough for some Northern OC'rs (the Northern OC is a mixed-bag politically - with the changing demographics in the Southern part of the OC, I'd argue we're becoming more of a mixed-bag).

This is about maintaining the Dems control. If Faison was interested in addressing under-representation he should've fought for non-partisan elections.

Of the 88,944 registered voters, 47,152 Dems and 19,629 Reps. can hold primaries to put forward candidates to fill these seats. The other 22,163 independents are left out of the process.

Non-partisan elections would've solved at least three problems with the current process: make it possible for independents to run, reduce the unhealthy influence the Dems (or maybe one day the Reps) have on the system because they can "game " it early in the cycle (primaries), the candidates would have to reach out to a broader spectrum of general election voters (and maybe work a bit harder).

I like the idea of expanding the BOCC to seven members but until folks like myself, an independent, can participate filling those extra-seats with party favorites doesn't strengthen our local democracy.

I don't know what influence I'll have (probably very little) but I will continue to call for real election reform in the OC and stand firm against this mediocre mess.

Mark, what you say is true: there is 40% northern Orange representation on the board now. But it could be 0%. Of course, it could also be 100%, but that would be very unlikely given the population distribution in the county. After this election, only Barry Jacobs will live outside Chapel Hill/Carborro, which is 20% representation. If the referendum passes, it will be at least about 30% (2 of 7). The most it could be is about 60% (4 of 7), though.

Of course, in the opinion of some who live up here, Jacobs and Halkiotas, while they live in northern Orange, are not representative of views of citizens here because they are "too liberal," which I think is buncombe, both are excellent commissioners, in my opinion. But since Barry won 11 of the 12 northern Orange precincts in the primary, it appears that view is a minority one.

But if this referendum wins, there will be no incumbent who lives in the rural district in 2008, so that seat is wide open. It is very possible that a conservative Demcrat could narrowly win the primary and become a shoo-in for the general, since voters in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro district will support a conservative Democrat over a Republican, not happily perhaps, but what else could they do?

By the way, I haven't investigated it, but "old timers" tell me that northern Orange controlled the board until the early 1970s. But they were conservative Democrats, I think the last conservative Democrat to serve on the board was Ben Lloyd and that was over 20 years ago, I believe.

WillR, how are Independents "left out"? They can vote in either primary, so they actually have MORE options than members of either party.

It's quite difficult to run, for one thing Paul.

By this time last year, I'd attended numerous forums, neighborhood events, etc. discussing and explaining my policy goals for Town. The BOCC is facing a number of key issues (including next year's State-level game of "where's the beef") but discussion via media and other avenues is light to missing.

Don't you think part of that is because of structural issues in the way the BOCC is elected - that the primaries present us with a fait accompli in May that doesn't really require a followup?

Paul, make that "discussion by the candidates"....

BTW, what's stopping "conservative" Dems in Northern OC from reaching out to their Southern neighbors?

I'm sure that there's common ground they could approach Southern voters on (I can think of a few things) - maybe even tap into the growing mass of independents, like myself, that are maybe more issue oriented than the party loyalists.

Instead of designing a system requiring more outreach, more discussion, more issues focus - we're rigging the game creating a structural divide - that'll diminish county-wide integration in favor of a mediocre balkanization.

answering a bunch of questions

Mark Chilton asks:
"I am not sure, but I think Chris may be under the minimum age requirement for the NC House. [Maybe not; I don't feel like digging out my copy of the NC Constitution - Gerry Cohen are you out there?]"

minimum age is 21 for State House, 25 for State Senate, bot as of election day. -Gerry
------------------
Paul asks:
"It is true that this system, whereby only voters in each district get to vote in the primary in their districts, but each gets to vote on the theirs and the other districts nominees in the general, is a strange one, I don't know of any other county that does it that way."

Carteret County has that system. Robeson County had it until 1992. Stokes County commissioners were considering putting a change to that kind of system on the ballot this fall, but I'm not sure if they did so or not -Gerry
--------------------

Dan says:
Halkiotis and John Hartwell defeated Ben Lloyd and (to the best of my recollection) Norman Walker in 1986. Paul is correct that they were the last conservative Democrats to serve.
A couple of years ago when I was doing research on Howard Lee's early career (for a Herald column), I read some of the late Robert Brown's Anvil articles on an effort ca. 1970 by liberals to take control of Democratic precincts and thereby the BOCC. This was spearheaded by Anne Barnes among others.
Gerry Cohen probably has the tale to tell."

Of course I have the tale to tell.
In 1970, the County Board of Commissioners was viewed by Chapel Hill liberals as entirely conservative. The Democratic primary in 1970 was an attempt to wrest control away. Three liberal candidates ran, Jimmy Wallace (later mayor), George Harris (then a pharmacist at Glen Lennox) and Eddie Caldwell. All three lost in the primary. In 1972, liberal candidates Flo Garrett and Richard Whitted won (both were in their late 20s at the time). In 1973, ira Ward resigned, and there was an attempt to get a third "liberal member". the Orange County Democratic Execitive Committee nominated me to fill the vacancy (the law at the time required the nomination to come from that source,) but the commissioners deadlocked 2-2 on whether to appoint me. The deadlock continued for 60 days, at which point the law provided that the Clerk of Court fill the vacancy. Frank Frederick appointed someone other than me (It might have been Jan Pinney) In 1974, then Campus Y Executive Director Norm Gustaveson was elected, giving a 3-2 liberal tilt to the board.

Actually, the 1970 attempt to take control of the precincts was actually an attempt to take control of the county Democratic Party and thus the Board of Elections which was nominated to the Governor by the Executive Committee because at that time each precinct had one vote on the county executive commitee. The 1970 precincts were about evenly divided between rural and urban, as the Chapel Hill Township precincts were Patterson, Coles Store, Estes Hills, Glenwood, Kings Mill, Ridgefield, Country Club, Westwood, Northside, North Carrboro, and South Carrboro. Liberals I believe took control of every one of those precincts at the 1970 Democratic precint meetings and then had a one vote margin on the county executive committee. Roger Foushee, then 28 years old, was elected Democratic county chair. (It is possible that all that happened in 1968 rather than 1970) The county precincts are exactly the same as they are now, with the addition of Grady Brown in 1976 or so. Chapel Hill Township precincts multiplied like rabbits in 1973.

Weighted voting (which shifted the balance to Chapel Hill and Carrboro) was instituted in 1972.

Up until 1965 or so Chapel Hill had 4 precincts, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4, all quadrants from Franklin and Columbia, I'm told.