Bill to break Asheville into council districts advances

RALEIGH – A bill to elect six of Asheville City Council's seven members from districts passed the Senate 34-15 Wednesday after a debate over how far legislators should go to impose their will on city government.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Edwards, R-Henderson, now goes to the House, where its chances of passage may be better than in 2016, when that chamber voted down a similar measure. It provides that six members of council would be elected from single-member districts and the mayor's chair would be filled in a citywide vote.

All seven council members are now chosen citywide.

The bill gives City Council until Nov. 1 to draw district boundaries and says the General Assembly would take on the job if council does not meet the deadline.

Council, however, has been moving toward holding a Nov. 7 referendum on the question of district elections, and senators on Wednesday debated the validity of that effort.

Edwards said most of North Carolina's largest cities already have district elections and the lack of them in Asheville "is a significant weakness."

Asheville's system of filling council seats by citywide election has changed little since 1935, he said, while the city's population has nearly doubled and its land area grew even more.

Apparently referring to north Asheville, Edwards said councilmen have most frequently been residents of one part of the city while "the south piece, the west piece, the east piece have rarely had a council member who lived in their area."

Edwards said shortly after he was elected in November, city residents "started coming to me, at first from South Asheville, and said, 'This system is not working for us.'"

Edwards' legislative district includes much of South Asheville. A Republican candidate from there, or at least a more conservative one, would likely have a better chance of getting elected to council if running in a district than if councilmen are chosen citywide.

In related news

Asheville prepares for voter referendum on districts

Senator files bill to force Asheville into political districts

Democrats have dominated City Council for years.

Sen. Terry Van Duyn, D-Buncombe, said Edwards' bill "is totally unnecessary. The city of Asheville has taken Sen. Edwards' threat (to impose districts) and they are moving forward with putting a plan together."

She said 10 of the state's 16 largest cities have a hybrid plan whereby some council members are elected by district and some by the entire city. Asheville should be allowed to decide if it wants a similar plan instead of being limited to a six-district plan only, she said.

"Yes, everyone deserves to be represented, but it's also good to have someone looking out for the interest of the entire city," she said.

Not letting the city continue its work suggests "there is another agenda here and that agenda is not so much the way we elect the City Council but the individuals we elect to City Council," Van Duyn told the Republican-dominated Senate. Moving ahead with Edwards' bill suggests, some feel, "We are not electing the right kind of people. This feels punitive to me."

The Senate vote went strictly along party lines, with Republicans voting in favor and Democrats against.

Edwards and Van Duyn disagreed over whether a referendum can decide the question.

Edwards said there are too many issues to present to voters: Should there be districts, how many should there be, and where should the lines be?

Plus, if districts were voted down, some city residents would still feel unrepresented.

"Is it right that 51 percent of the citizens of Asheville should be able to tell 49 percent of the citizens of Asheville that they do not have a right to have a voice?" he said.

However, Van Duyn said, "It would be a very simple matter to give" city voters choices in a referendum.

"I urge you to give Asheville (time) to determine their own form of government and let them finish what they've started," she said.

Edwards' bill had originally set out boundaries for the six districts that would be created if City Council fails to draw up its own plan. He removed that language in committee this week, saying before Wednesday's vote that it had caused confusion and it is not his intent to tell the city those lines would be the best.

Meanwhile, council members decided Tuesday that a planned referendum should ask voters one key question: If they want to change to six districts as prescribed in the bill –- or if they want to keep the at-large system. 

That follows a poll the city conducted that showed residents want to vote on whether to change the council’s electoral system.

The either-or question would “let voters choose between the bill and the current system,” said City Attorney Robin Currin who advised that approach.

"Put six districts on the ballot and let voters vote it up or down,” Currin said.

State law limits how cities can amend their electoral systems and how ballot measures on that subject can be worded. That means it wouldn’t be possible to give voters several choices, said Mayor Esther Manheimer.

“We can’t put a menu on the ballot and say, ‘Select which one you prefer,’” she said.

Wednesday, Manheimer said the most recent changes to the bill will not affect the council’s plans.

Edwards said in an interview before Wednesday's Senate vote that council members are "wasting the taxpayers' dollars, because a referendum would not allow them to follow the law."

Councilman Gordon Smith said the approach would give voters a chance to rule on whether they supported Edwards’ idea.

“I think letting him and his bill stand before the voters makes the most sense,” Smith said.

Councilwoman Julie Mayfield said called the legislative actions “very frustrating.” Council members had begun looking into districts after the failure of Apodaca’s bill in the summer and wanted to come up with a districts option they thought might be best for the city, she said, but now they have no time.

“We were going to give them an option to vote on something we thought was a good idea,” Mayfield said. “We don’t seem to have a choice at this point.”

Council candidate Rich Lee, speaking during a public comment session of Tuesday’s council meeting, agreed, saying the city should try to put a districts option forward that it liked better than Edwards' proposal.

“I don’t think we should be putting the idea that we all acknowledged to be a bad idea up against the status quo,” Lee said.

If voters decide not to switch to districts but the bill becomes law, the council would need to consider its options, Currin said. That could include suing to try to stop the city from being spit into districts, the city attorney said.

Also at the meeting, the elected city officials agreed to a proposed timeline for the referendum, including a July 25 final council vote to put it on the ballot.