Limited voting brings limited choices

Published 2:56 pm Sunday, December 26, 2010

By By JONATHAN CLAYBORNE
jonathan@wdnweb.com
Staff Writer

If there were a movement to kill the limited-voting method of electing Beaufort County commissioners, it might find an unlikely leader in the Rev. David Moore.
Moore, pastor of Washington’s Metropolitan AME Zion Church, is a Democrat and a former county commissioner. He has issued repeated calls to end limited voting countywide.
More than 20 years ago, Moore was the lead plaintiff in a voting-rights lawsuit that resulted in the imposition of limited voting.
This election method, employed here to give minorities a fair shot at electing candidates of their choice, limits each voter to one vote in a county commissioner race, though three or more seats may be on the ballot in a given election year.
“I’m ready to change it, yeah,” Moore said recently. “We should go to seven, single-member districts.”
Moore said he’s discussed launching an effort to make this change with Washington attorney Herman Gaskins. Reversing limited voting would require the help of an attorney, Moore pointed out.
Though he cautioned he isn’t an expert on election law, Gaskins confirmed he and Moore had discussed the limited-voting conundrum.
“This is a result of a consent order in the federal court,” Gaskins said. “I would have my doubts as to whether there can be a change without an amended order from a federal court.”
Gaskins agreed the method should be altered “because it produces a board which doesn’t necessarily consist of the most qualified commissioners.”
Asked what he sees as onerous about the current election method, Moore replied, “I don’t think it’s left us with less-than-ideal leadership. I think it’s left us in a vacuum where most commissioners are elected from Washington, and to me, that’s a danger.”
At present, five of the seven commissioners have Washington addresses, though not all live in the city proper. Commissioner Robert Cayton resides in Aurora, and Commissioner Jay McRoy lives in Chocowinity.
Limited voting has become a hot topic again, apparently because of voters’ fears about the future of the county-owned Beaufort County Medical Center. The commissioners will handle the final steps that could lead to some type of sale, lease or management agreement for the hospital.
“When you’ve got a real hot issue like the hospital, you can’t hide behind that because (voters) start demanding that their commissioners step forward,” Moore observed.
Moore predicted a majority of the current commissioners wouldn’t favor changing the election method. He referred specifically the board’s four Republican-majority members, Al Klemm, Jay McRoy, Stan Deatherage and Hood Richardson.
McRoy and Klemm have spoken in support of districts.
“You understand why limited voting is so popular with the county commissioners,” Moore remarked. “The Republicans are in their heyday, and all they’ve got to do is keep the same method. You’ve got enough conservative Republicans that will keep electing Stan and Hood, and you’ve got enough moderate Republicans that will keep re-electing Jay and Al. You’ve got enough minorities that will keep electing two minorities.”
Presently, the two minority seats are held by Democratic Commissioners Ed Booth and Jerry Langley.
Gaskins echoed Moore on these points.
“I think it can be changed, but I don’t think there’s any incentive for a majority of the county commissioners to seek a change,” Gaskins said of limited voting. “The Republicans are benefiting, the minorities are benefiting from the present arrangement. And while (the commissioners) may say they want a change, I’m not sure they really do.”
Implementing seven, single-member districts would give each township in the county its own representative on the board, Moore said.
A Limiting Proposition
Limited voting became Beaufort County’s commissioner-election reality following a 1991 court order from U.S. District Court Judge Malcolm Howard.
Under the old election system, the county board comprised five commissioners. Each of these commissioners was elected from a district, but all were elected on an at-large basis. This meant a voter could vote for a commissioner candidate from outside his or her district.
Basically, the court found this system had denied blacks representation on the board of commissioners because the county’s elections were racially polarized, in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
To represent it in the voting-rights lawsuit, the county selected Michael Crowell, an attorney with the Raleigh law firm of Tharrington, Smith &Hargrove.
In a May 9, 1996 letter to County Attorney Billy Mayo, Crowell wrote that, “The current plan (limited voting) was ordered as a remedy” for the county’s violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Any change in the election method would first have to be approved by Howard, the presiding judge, according to Crowell.
“To attempt to implement a new plan without the court’s approval would create the risk of being held in contempt,” he wrote Mayo.
Crowell noted the county is subject to “preclearance” of any new election style by the U.S. Department of Justice.
“Under Section 5 (of the Voting Rights Act), the Justice Department will not preclear a change if it makes it more difficult for black voters to elect candidates,” Crowell wrote. “Thus, even if the court order were not in effect, the county could not expect to make any change that did not provide the same likelihood of black voters electing candidates as they now have with the at-large limited voting plan. … Even a court-approved plan must be precleared if the plan was developed by the county.”
Any referendum on the question of scrapping limited voting would have to be approved by the commissioners, and a proposal for a referendum would have to be precleared by the Justice Department, he made clear.
Crowell laid out five steps the commissioners would need to take to supplant limited voting. Those steps were:
• Agree on a new plan and adopt a resolution calling for a referendum;
• Obtain preclearance of a referendum;
• Get voter approval of a plan through a referendum;
• Submit the plan for court approval;
• Given court approval, preclear the new plan with the Justice Department.
“The most likely alternative for the board is single-member districts, or some combination of single-member and multi-member districts or at-large seats,” Crowell continued, “but any choice involving districts has its own set of problems.”
Among those problems could be complaints about racial gerrymandering, he wrote.
“In other words, the commissioners could be put in a position of having to choose between nicely-shaped districts that did not have black majorities, and thus probably would not be approved by the court, or be precleared, and oddly-shaped districts that might prompt litigation from white voters.”
He concluded the black community would have to be consulted before any change.
“If, despite the difficulties, the commissioners decide to move ahead with changing the election method, the key to success will be the communication with and the cooperation of the black political leadership in the community,” Crowell contended. “The court will not consider any change without hearing from the black community, and the Justice Department will seek their views before preclearing a new plan.”
No citizen’s remedy?
Johnnie McLean, deputy director of the State Board of Elections, said it doesn’t appear voters could tackle their concerns about limited voting by petitioning to change the election method through a ballot initiative.
Crowell’s letter indicated the commissioners could approve putting a referendum on the ballot, but, apparently, average citizens would have no such direct recourse on their own.
“Generally speaking, I would say no, unless there is some sort of provision that provides for that,” related McLean, who added she isn’t aware of such a provision.
The N.C. Constitution doesn’t permit residents to place these measures on the ballot, she said.
“They need to come from the General Assembly,” McLean stated. “I don’t know that even that would do it.”
One local source said Beaufort County’s legislative leadership could be consulted on this.
Whatever the case, Klemm is one commissioner who is convinced limited voting should be scrapped.
“A lot of people think the system needs to be changed, and I’m one of them,” he said. “I hear comments like, ‘Well if we change it, I couldn’t be elected.’ Well, it’s not about me or anybody else being elected, it’s about what’s best for the people.”
Despite the fact much of the local public seems to favor converting to districts, some county officials doubt this aim could be achieved easily.
In the minutes of the commissioners’ March 26, 2007 meeting, Kellie Harris Hopkins, county elections director, was quoted as saying even nine districts, as opposed to seven, would be hard to draw given the distribution of the minority population.
“It was almost impossible when the School Board tried it,” the minutes read.