Attachments

baldwin-commission-districts.pdf

Attorney General Luther Strange’s office has responded to questions from the Baldwin County Commission about how the commission could alter its current districts.

In the letter, Stange’s office told the commission that “the authority to alter the boundaries would require an act of the Legislature.”

In June, the commission voted 3-1 to send the letter to Strange that would ask for clarification about the county’s powers and responsibilities with regulating the size of the commission districts.

Commission Chairman Chris Elliott, who represents the Eastern Shore, said the population growth the county has seen in recent years has caused a large disparity in the number of people living in each commission district.

According to the 2010 Census figures, District 1 (North Baldwin) has 24,948 residents within its borders, while District 2 (Eastern Shore) has 68,390, District 3 (Central Baldwin) has 31,494 and District 4 (South Baldwin) has 57,433.

Back in June, Elliott added that those numbers don’t even reflect the growth the county has seen since 2010.

“We’ve had at least 25,000 people move to Baldwin County since we got those numbers in, and most of those people are moving to the Eastern Shore or to the south part of the county, which only adds to this overpopulated district problem we already have,” Elliott said.

While the county does elect all of its commissioners at large and every citizen gets to vote for each district commissioner, Elliott said he felt it was unfair for candidates in the more populated districts when it came to qualifying.

“When you’ve got one district that has almost three times as many people as another, it means there could be and usually are more challengers up for that more populous district,” Elliott said. “At what point are the numbers so far off that there is a blatant unfairness to it? A 2 or 3 percent variance is one thing, but to have 200 or 300 percent off – that’s absurd.”

Commissioner Frank Burt, who represents the less populated District 1, said he felt that the system they currently use had been in use for years without issue and said he felt no need to change it.

“I do believe what we’re doing is right,” Burt said. “These were the original districts drawn by the legislature and I think they knew what they were doing.”

Burt said by potentially trying to change the districts, the county could open itself up to more problems than solutions.

“Once you start looking at population, you start to run into a lot of federal bureaucracy and oversight that we don’t face right now,” Burt said. “Why go walk into that if you don’t have to?”

Burt said he also found it concerning that the two commissioners who seemed to push the hardest for the change, Elliott and Tucker Dorsey, will more than likely not be running for their seats in the upcoming election.

“Why would two people be pushing so hard for a change in district lines and they aren’t even going to be running for county commission again?” Burt asked. “There’s some reasoning there that we’re not aware of.”

Burt said that reason could be that any change would likely affect the boundaries of his district, which could bring additional challengers to his race.

“I’m not going to let it bother me, and I try not to dwell on it,” Burt said. “The attorney general has said there is no unfairness, so that’s that.”

Elliott denied the claim that the potential changes were to target Burt or his seat, but said it returned to a question of fairness.

“There is without argument inherent inequity in one district having three fold the number of people another district has,” Elliott said. “When there is a residency requirement to run from that commission district, having population gaps that are that dramatically disparate is a clear problem.”

Elliott said he and the other commissioners will likely pursue their options on possibly making a change to the districts by reaching out to the state legislative delegation.