What is the Remedy for the Guilford County Commissioners' Election?

Joe Killian has an article on the front page of the News and Record this morning beating the drum that a lawsuit will be necessary to resolve the issue over the elections for the Guilford Board of County Commissioners.  An abbreviated version is found here.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Who will feel sufficiently embittered or violated by the situation to bring a lawsuit?

2. If a lawsuit is filed, will they seek a limited remedy to fix the problem that exists; or will they seek to delay the election, somehow void the redistricting passed by the legislature, and/or otherwise throw a monkey wrench in the process?

Let's remember all the Democratic judges we have in these parts.  There is no doubt in my mind that some of them would do whatever is best for the party, or whatever the machine directs.

Comments

[David Ribar]

Joe:

A lawsuit is only necessary if the Republican legislature fails to fix what it broke.

The simplest fix would be
a) move the election for the at-large seat to 2012
b) swap the election dates for districts 6 and 7
c) keep the new districts but temporarily (for two years) remove the cap on the number of commissioners

Dave

[Joe Guarino]

I don't see a need to keep 11 commissioners. There should be a way to avoid that being necessary. The expressed will of the legislature is to go down to 9 commissioners; and there should be a remedy available to allow that to happen.

Any attempt to retain 11 commissioners is a partisan attempt to keep the situation tilted toward the Democrats-- and it has already been tilted that way for two decades.

[Tonythewilkins]

Dave, what's wrong with this simpler solution?:

"Carolyn Coleman is appointed to the one At-Large position. Kaye Cashion is appointed to D6. You CAN serve in a different district than which you live you just can not RUN in a different district. Probably gives D’s one vote edge for the next two years".

This would also solve the problem of Coleman and Cashion serving out their four year term versus two years.

[Mick]

Joe,

IF the 43000 are indeed w/o representation what is your solution? Seems to be some debate but in the end it should be a yes or no scenario. Either they do have representation or they do not.

Have there been lawsuits in the past post-redistricting?

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, it appears your comment and Tony's came reasonably concurrently; and Tony has offered a solution. I haven't looked at the nuts and bolts of each seat in a comprehensive way; but it seems a limited remedy should be available to get those folks represented without having to have an 11 member board.

Any attempt to retain an 11 member board would smack of legal jockeying to retain a partisan advantage. Again, this is why we need to be vigilant.

Will Skip use the county attorney's office to achieve a partisan advantage? Will he try to use a taxpayer funded position to extend the degree of partisan advantage the Democrats have on the county board? Or will an attorney on the outside be used for this purpose?

[David Ribar]

Tony:

Residents from District 6 might reasonably object to being represented by someone outside the district, which might make Cashion problematic.

My guess (don't know this for sure) is that Coleman would likely run for the District 7 seat--you can't appoint someone against her will or appoint her to two seats at the same time.

More generally, shouldn't the voters of District 6 and of Guilford County generally have the opportunity to select their commissioners, rather than having the government appoint them.

Joe:

I don't think that 11 seats would be needed, the number would more likely be 10 for two years, while Cashion stays in the holdover position. Extra seats might be needed, unless the legislature boots someone out.

[Mick]

I dont think I would like my representation appointed but various appointments do happen across the spectrum of gubmint. Work it out.

It really is time to stop the various forms of gerrymandering though. Too bad we cant trust ourselves and future generations to get it done.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, the district lines actually are not the issue with this particular matter. Of course, the Democrats are embittered, but they got back what they have dished out for decades.

A very limited technical fix is possible with nine members only. Some of the situations Dave cites might be acceptable under the law. I don't know.

[Joe Guarino]

Of course, if the agenda is to have a larger board to help the Democrats...

[Mick]

District lines (gerrymandering) are, were and will continue to be one of the main problems with the system. I dont feel any differantly now than I did 2 - 5 - 10 years ago. Well, maybe I feel a little better about the whole thing :) But not much.

[Sal Leone]

I LIKE TONY'S IDEA, LETS BE HONEST AND ASK OUT OF THOSE 40,000 PLUS PEOPLE EFFECTED, HOW MANY VOTE WHEN THEY SHOULD, HOW MANY ATTEND MEETINGS.

TONY HAS A GOOD IDEA AND 2014 WILL BE HERE SOON.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Mick, that the political traditions with respect to setting district lines stink. But that is not what the present issue raised by the county attorney and the county board of elections is, at least on the surface, all about. We need to get rid of all forms of gerrymandering-- partisan and racial.

But let's hope, in the meantime, that the parties making noise about this particular issue are not getting ready to sow mischief, using the legal system to achieve their partisan ends.

[Spag]

I agree with Dave on the appointment issue. Under what theory should Coleman and Cashion automatically get those appointments? I'm not sure that's even legal considering under the law there is no vacancy created.

[Axelskater]

Tony is correct - Cashion will continue to represent D6 as she was elected to do, until 2014, regardless of whether the lines has shifted. Every single line on the maps shifts in Dec 2012. Many (1000's) of GC residents will have different representation than they had a few days earlier - but they WILL be represented. The District 6 which Cashion was elected to represent will cease to exist in its current form on Dec (3rd?) 2012, and she will represent D6 in its new incarnation. Many residents will see new reps. Also, this has been shown to be constitutional & there is legal precedent from past redistricting years. This is probably why no one has yet filed this suit (although they may eventually). The maps by the way, were drawn by a respected, long time map drawer, cartologist, whichever - who happens to be a liberal Democrat.

At least, this is what my sources have told me - and Tony. Go to other sources - not just the GC BOE

[David Ribar]

Sal Leone's election slogan last summer, referring to incumbent elected officials: "Win or lose, I want them to know they are accountable."

Sal Leone now: Accountability for District 6 can wait until 2014, and in any case, the slackers in District 6 don't really deserve representation (and won't notice it if it's gone).

Way to hold those incumbents' feet to the fire!

Joe, Tony, and Sal:

I get loud and clear that all three of you are all in the bag for the Republican legislature--so in the bag that you would endorse a proposal that undercuts the interests of your Republican neighbors in District 6 and across Guilford County.

[Joe Guarino]

Not in the bag for the legislature, Dave. Instead, extremely interested in seeing that 20 years of Democratic manipulation and gerrymandering is reversed this year.

[Spag]

What Axelskater wrote makes sense. Maybe the Democrats are distorting reality for partisan purposes. Imagine that. Redrawing the districts isn't the same as eliminating them. You may not get the person you voted for before they were redrawn, but you get someone. In politics, somebody always has to live under the rule of someone they didn't vote for.

[bubba]

"Instead, extremely interested in seeing that 20 years of Democratic manipulation and gerrymandering is reversed this year."

Obviously not a matter of concern for Dave.