NK officials out to avoid past redistricting controversy

New Kent Board of Supervisors members are looking ahead to the task of redrawing boundary lines for the county’s five districts, once population data is received from the 2010 Census. That information is due sometime in February and will serve as basis for a task that must be accomplished every 10 years.

But next year’s process won’t involve a committee made up of county officials and volunteers from the community, as recommended last week by county administrative staff. Supervisors shot down that concept during their Sept. 29 work session.

Instead, board members have opted to follow procedures used in 2001 that created the current district lines. And that process had its contentious moments.

During last week’s work session, assistant county administrator Bill Whitley presented a proposal for creating a “Redistricting Advisory Committee” to assist supervisors with the chore. Members should include representatives from the board as well as the school and electoral boards plus the voter registrar, county attorney, planning director, and information technologies director, he said. Community members could be drawn from the Republican and Democratic parties, the NAACP, and “other interested citizens,” he added.

But supervisors turned thumbs down. The upcoming process, they decided, is to be handled in-house by county staff, as done in 2001, with the final decision resting with the board. But unlike 10 years ago, a general election for county offices, including supervisors and School Board, takes place next year. Thus the county is under time constraints for having a redistricting plan approved before the advent of campaign season.

Usually, election candidates must file for office by an early June deadline, but during past redistricting years, the General Assembly has moved the deadline into August, county registrar Rosanna Bencoach said on Monday. The move, if approved during next year’s legislative session, would apply to supervisor and school board candidates. Constitutional office hopefuls must still abide by the June date.

Whitley said census data should be in county officials’ hands by mid-February. Redistricting, meanwhile, could also entail changes to precincts and polling places. Final plans must be approved by the U.S. Department of Justice and comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. Plans must also show racial demographics for each district and precinct, as defined by the federal legislation.

Back in 2001, those demographics led to heated exchanges during public hearings. Following a series of public input meetings, two plans out of an original 14 went to public hearing in September 2001. At issue then was preserving a “black majority” district created in 1991 when the county went from four to five election districts. District 3 became that district, represented by Supervisor Jimmy Burrell who continues to hold that seat.

But what was a 56 percent minority population in 1991 in District 3 dipped to under 43 percent in 2001. County officials found creation of a black majority district to be impossible. Black population between 1990 and 2000 decreased by 70 percent.

Of the two plans advanced in 2001, “Plan 5” created a District 3 with 45 percent minority population (42 percent black). The other, dubbed “Plan 12,” lowered the District 3 numbers to 39 percent minority (35 percent black).

The Rev. Milton Hathaway, a leader in the black community, threatened supervisors with legal action if the board chose Plan 12. The board approved Plan 5, but by a narrow 3-2 vote. District 5 Supervisor Ray Davis cast one of the dissenting votes, pushing instead to further study and revise the proposed plans. Burrell voted for Plan 5. The other current supervisors were not on the board in 2001.

During last week’s work session, Davis acknowledged he voted against the 2001 plan, saying districts now in existence were “gerrymandered.” He pointed to the current zoning map that depicts a long, narrow District 4 and Districts 3 and 5 each existing in two nearly separate land blocks.

Election districts must be contiguous and compact territories as outlined in federal law, conforming as closely as possible to the “one person/one vote” principle. But under Voting Rights Act regulations, redistricting must not be “retrogressive” or serve to dilute minority voting strength. That was the problem confounding New Kent officials in 2001, and the matter could resurface as redistricting gets under way next year.

Then there are population issues. Localities must strive to balance population numbers among districts with no more than a 5 percent deviation either way. For example, if total population is 20,000 and there are five districts such as in New Kent, ideal population in each would be 4,000. Five percent deviation would then allow a range of 3,800 to 4,200.

Also, New Kent could opt to change its number of districts. The law allows governing bodies of no less than three and no more than 11 members. Precincts, meanwhile, must have at least 200 registered voters and no more than 5,000.

A breakdown of registered voters in New Kent as of August by district (precincts in parenthesis) shows:

District 1- 2,258 (Tunstall 659, Southern Branch 1,599); District 2- 2,377 (Quinton 1,306, Kentwood 1,071); District 3- 2,047 (Watkins 1,161, Cumberland 886); District 4- 1,956 (Chickahominy River 1,068, Airport 888); District 5- 3,490 (Eltham 1,070, Providence Forge 2,240).

Based on voter numbers, population growth in the county over the past 10 years appears to have been centered in District 5 and the Providence Forge area in particular.

Further complicating matters will be redrawing of the General Assembly and Congressional election district lines which could have an impact on precinct boundaries and polling places in New Kent.

“An important part of the redistricting process will be to preserve incumbents and that includes the School Board,” Whitley told supervisors. “It could be a difficult issue when talking about moving precincts.”