City Council looks at district voting lines, no action taken

Manning City Council began Monday night what could be a long process of updating voting district lines. City Administrator Scott Tanner explained that the still-unresolved District 5 election from 2014 led him to contact both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Mapping Division of the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office seeking the city’s original map outlining the districts. “District 5 is still under protest and going through the courts,” Tanner said. “There’s no representation in that district, nor has there been for some time. I was tasked by council to be sure by our next election that we have accurate lines and accurate addresses within those lines to prevent any further issues.” Scott said when he called Will Roberts, the program director for the Mapping Division of the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, Roberts realized the city had not undergone a redistricting phase since 1992. “That is when single-member districts were adopted,” said Tanner. “The Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office has the census numbers, and the racial makeup of the community, and I haven’t received the actual 1992 map from the Department of Justice. They’ve recommended taking up redistricting.” Manning Mayor Julia Nelson said any plan adopted by the city would not affect the ongoing litigation in District 5 between Councilman-elect Julius Dukes and challenger Gloria Frierson. The pair met in a special runoff held July 22, 2014, in which Dukes won by just one vote over Frierson. The runoff was held after no one received a majority of the vote in a special election held two weeks earlier. The District 5 seat has been vacant since the March 20, 2014, death of Gregory Witherspoon. Third Circuit Judge W. Jeffrey Young signed an order in October 2014 upholding the results of the special runoff in which Dukes was named the winner. The pair met before Young Sept. 10 in Clarendon County Common Pleas Court. Dukes was represented by attorney Shaun Kent, Frierson by Rep. David Weeks. The hearing was called after Frierson appealed the city’s Election Commission’s decision in August to uphold Dukes’ win in the runoff. Both candidates said during the commotion that they believed voters who should have voted were unable to due to confusing district lines. Roberts said when he got Tanner’s call and realized redistricting had not been undertaken since 1992, he figured, “Why not?” “Really, I just started looking at what the lines might look like now, with everything taken into account,” Roberts said. “Cities are different from County Council and Congressional districts, which are required by state law to go through redistricting after each census. Cities and school districts do not. It is left up to them to review their numbers and go through the process.” Roberts said looking at Manning that, in a “perfect world,” each of the city’s six districts would have about 685 people. He said District 6 – represented by Councilwoman Sherry Welle – had the most residents in the current layout. “It has 914 people, which is 229 over the 685 population ideal,” Roberts said. He said District 1 – represented by Councilman Clayton Pack – has 588 people in the current layout. “That’s 14.16 percent below the target level,” Roberts said. He said the Voting Rights Act will govern how lines would be redrawn such that “we would not discriminate in either way.” “Typically in South Carolina, your African-American population will be the minority, but Manning has diverse demographics,” Roberts said. “The City of Manning is 62.8 percent African-American and 32.5 percent non-African-American.” Thus, Roberts said the city has two majority-white districts under the current plan. “Those are districts 6 and 3 (represented by Councilman Ervin Davis),” he said. “So, we try to make sure when going forward that we don’t drop the majority-white in those districts. We would not draw lines that would diminish whites’ ability to elect candidates of their choice in those districts.” In Roberts’ proposed plan – which he said is always changeable before council members begin meeting, voting and holding a public hearing – moves about 220 voters out of District 6 and into districts 4 and 2, the latter of which is represented by Councilwoman Diane Georgia. Districts 3 and 4, the latter of which is represented by Councilman Johnny Gordon, see the least change in the plan, area-wise. District 5 shifts slightly westward into former homes under District 3, and an enclave of District 5 within District 6 is removed entirely to District 6 in the new plan. Both Welle and Pack asked Roberts about new developments within city limits that will add population to District 3. “We have a new apartment complex, and that’s going to be a big complex there behind the old Walmart,” Welle said. Roberts said the new plan utilizes numbers from the 2010 census. “Hopefully, those new numbers would get picked up in the next census,” he said. “So, we can’t put those numbers in this new plan, even if we know them now?” Nelson asked. “If you did redistricting in 2019, it would still go off the 2010 census,” he said. “In order to include those numbers, you’d have to get the Census Bureau to come in and do a special census. It’s very expensive to do that. I couldn’t even tell you what Lexington spent in doing that.” Nelson said the city should at least contact the Census Bureau to inquire about costs. “If you’re going to get something straight, I say get it straight the first time,” she said. “If it’s beyond what we can afford, we can still bow out. Obviously, we can’t keep track of everyone moving in every day, but these are going to be two large developments. It’s better to take care of it now if we can.” Council members concurred, instructing Tanner to look into the matter. Roberts reiterated that his proposed plan presented Monday night was for advisement, and that council can change the plan before it starts voting. He said council will have to hold two readings on an ordinance adopting the plan and will also have to hold a public hearing. “We typically ask cities and counties to do two to three public hearings on the maps, but you’re not required by law to do that,” he said. “We always suggest getting significant feedback from the community.” Nelson asked Clarendon County Elections and Voting Registration Director Shirley Black-Oliver how much time council has to resolve the issue. Black-Oliver asked council to try to resolve the issue no later than October.