28 | October 2021
@therant905
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
TENSION LOOMS AS CITY, COUNTY TALK REDISTRICTING Political requests, last-minute proposals toss wrenches in drawing up new electoral boundaries
cantly different, and I was expecting to see something like that,” Carver said. “In the conversation with the chairman that had to do with some different options for, shall we say, District 2, and how you are actually defining the district. It could be that I was just out of the loop or something and missed the fact that we were going to ask for those, but they are not here tonight.”
By Richard Sullins
Smith, Republican, was absent from the meeting.
Sanford and Lee County’s elected leaders both had contentious discussions over the redistricting of their electoral boundaries in September.
Democratic Commissioner Cameron Sharpe asked “Don, can you assure us that these maps were drawn up by using population alone and not on political consideration or affiliation?”
In the county’s case, discussion among commissioners on Sept. 20 became tense when concerns arose that political affiliation and voter participation may have been considered in drawing the maps. After Lee County GIS Strategic Services Director Don Kovasckitz reviewed the process the county will have to follow, County Attorney Whitney Parrish outlined the rules the board will have to follow in drawing maps that will be presented to the public at a hearing on Oct. 4. Five maps were reviewed by commissioners at their meeting on September 20, but Republican Commissioner Bill Carver seemed confused that a sixth map that he had been led to believe would be presented was not among those included in Kovasckitz’s presentation. Commissioners viewed four possible versions of district boundaries on Sept. 8. Some time after that, a fifth map was added that creates district boundaries more closely balanced by the number of residents. The proposed maps, along with the current version, can be found on the county’s website. “I wish that (Board Chairman Kirk Smith) was here tonight. I was under the impression that we had some options that were signifi-
“They were drawn correctly not using any political or voter data,” Kovascitz replied. “But I’ve got to bring it up, that we did have an attorney consult on these plans, and they did ask, ‘did we consider any partisan or election data?’ So, while we were creating these plans, no. But subsequent to creating Plan E, once we had all those plans, we were asked to pull voter registration data. So, subsequent to these plans, I have considered voter data as I considered voter registration data.” Commissioner Robert Reives, a Democrat, asked “first, let me find out, is that OK?” “It wasn’t considered in drawing the districts,” Parrish replied. “It’s public record. There’s nothing wrong with just pulling the data and having that available. But when drawing the maps, it was not a consideration, so I think that is sufficient. If it had been used in drawing the maps, I think that would be a different story. When the maps were drawn, it was only looking at the population numbers and there was no consideration of voter registration information and there was no consideration of partisanship data.” Carver asked, “How about the number of people who voted in the area?” and Parrish replied, “No, sir.” Kovasckitz explained that his office is hesitant to look at anything other
than total population in drawing maps because existing case law says only population may be considered. Reives then stated “I didn’t come to this meeting to figure out how to violate the law. I came here to review the appropriate information as it relates to redistricting. I’m not going to waste my time sitting here arguing
“When the lawyers constantly tell you what you can and cannot do, and should not do, and you keep looking for a way around that, I consider that a waste of my good time.” — Commissioner Robert Reives to Republicans seeking data such as voter registration information for new electoral maps about trying to figure out how we get around the law.” Carver responded “that’s not my goal, trying to figure out how to violate the law. My purpose is trying to use the law to have as much flexibility as I can while we are making recommendations on the apportionment.” “When the lawyers constantly tell you what you can and cannot do, and should not do, and you keep looking for a way around that, I consider that a waste of my good time,” Reives responded. After further discussion that seemed to move the matter no closer to resolution, Commissioner Andre Knecht moved to present Plans A and E at a public hearing on Oct. 4 and the motion passed unanimously. The Rant reported in mid-September, based on emails obtained in a public information request, that Smith had requested the “political breakdown” of each of the district proposals, a move that could have opened the door to a partisan gerrymandering lawsuit.
Smith provided an email several days later that was not included in the batch released last week showing that he’d since decided his request “is certainly a legal conundrum, and as such I will retract the request to redrawing new districts, based on my previous parameters.” Meanwhile, the city’s discussion on the same topic became tense as well a day later, although for a different reason. The primary bone of contention for the city council was the late appearance of a fourth map proposal, labeled Plan D, on the council’s agenda just a few days prior to the meeting. Plan D was reportedly developed at the request of Ward 4 Councilman Byron Buckels. Earlier in September, the council had been given three plans to consider. Ward 1 Councilman Sam Gaskins began the public hearing portion of the meeting by announcing his support for Plan A because of its easily identifiable boundaries along major thoroughfares, its compactness, and clear compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He also took issue with Plan D. “I have a problem with an elected official becoming involved, especially with a lack of transparency, because it was not done in a meeting out publicly, and the opportunity has been there to say, we need an additional plan,” Gaskins said. “So, I have a real serious concern about how it appears that we all of a sudden come up with a new plan. I don’t believe elected officials should be involved in doing these things outside our scope of responsibility and inside a public meeting.” Buckels later told The Rant he met with Kovasckitz after the September 7 meeting to learn how the maps were drawn up and share his concerns about population growth coming to the city and where that growth was projected to be. Buckels told The Rant the “majority of the growth based on approved and housing units in review, according to our planning depart-