Legislature sets up districts for Asheville council, eliminates primaries

RALEIGH – A bill that puts in place district elections for five of seven seats on Asheville City Council beginning in 2020 got final approval Thursday and is now law.

The measure also does away with primary elections for council, providing for only one round of balloting on Election Day, and changes the years in which council elections will be held.

The state House approved the measure 64-52 Wednesday, then the Senate late Thursday afternoon unanimously concurred with changes made in the House. The bill is not subject to a gubernatorial veto.

A House amendment ended primaries for City Council seats. Sen. Terry Van Duyn, D-Buncombe, said Thursday it is possible the legislature will revisit that issue next year, depending on the wishes of City Council and the city as a whole.

"I want it the way Asheville wants it," she said.

As things stand now, there will be no elections for City Council next year, unlike past practice. The law switches council elections from odd-numbered years, which is when most North Carolina municipalities choose their leaders, to even-numbered years.

The bill extends the terms of all current council members by one year in order to make the transition from elections in odd-numbered years to even-numbered years.

Van Duyn backed that change as a way to increase turnout. Council members will be on the ballot at the same time voters elect people to state and national offices like governor, senator and president.

The new law could result in some changes in who sits on City Council but figures on voting history compiled by the General Assembly's staff suggest it is unlikely to spark a major shift in council's general liberal orientation, nor does it create a district clearly more likely to elect a Republican than a Democrat.

It does put two councilmen in the same district. Brian Haynes and Keith Young both live in District 2, which will choose its single representative on council in 2020.

For both to continue to serve, one would have to run and win for the council seat elected in a citywide vote the same year.

The mayor's office will continue to be elected in a citywide vote and will next be on the ballot in 2022.

Following is a quick look at the new districts. Note that the legislature's figures from past elections may not be precise because district lines split some precincts and due to technical issues with the bill's description of district boundaries.

District 1. It includes the western two-thirds of West Asheville and will next choose a council member in 2020. Councilwoman Julie Mayfield lives in the district. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the district with 68.7 percent of the vote in 2016, according to statistics generated by the General Assembly.

District 2. It includes the eastern third of West Asheville, Montford, downtown and neighborhoods to the south and immediately to the east. The District 2 seat is next up for election in 2020 and both Haynes and Young live in it. Clinton won the district with 82.4 percent of the vote.

District 3. The district takes in all of North Asheville except Montford, Chunns Cove and the northern part of Kenilworth. Its council member will be chosen in 2022 and Vice Mayor Gwen Wisler lives in the district now. Clinton got 77.6 percent of the vote here.

District 4. It includes Haw Creek, Oteen, most of Kenilworth, other parts of East Asheville, Oakley and neighborhoods to the south and east of Biltmore Village but generally north of Interstate 40. Councilwoman Sheneika Smith lives in it. Clinton got 69.4 percent of the district's vote.

District 5. The district takes in all of the city except for a small area around the I-40/Hendersonville Road interchange, which is in District 4. It is home to Councilman Vijay Kapoor and will next elect a council member in 2022.

District 5 is the most conservative of the five districts created, but that is a relative term. Here are Democrats' share of the 2016 vote in the district in three races: President, 60.7 percent; senator (Deborah Ross), 59.5 percent; governor (Roy Cooper), 63.4 percent.

Republicans' share of vote totals in the district was higher earlier in the decade. U.S. Sen. Richard Burr barely won it with 48.7 percent to Democrat Elaine Marshall's 48.5 percent in 2010. Democratic candidates for president, governor and lieutenant governor won there in 2012 and Kay Hagan, then a Democratic U.S. senator, got 57.5 percent of its votes in 2014.

The House debate

The 64-52 vote to approve the bill in the House Wednesday followed debate over whether it was proper for the General Assembly to impose districts on Asheville contrary to the results of a referendum and the desires of its House members and whether considering the bill violated legislative rules.

"All the large cities except for Wilmington and Asheville elect their city council members by districts," Rep. Chuck McGrady, R-Henderson, said in support of the bill.

Rep. Susan Fisher, D-Buncombe, said the bill "is ill-conceived and presents yet another example of the bullying and bending of the rules that we have seen with many of the bills that have come before us this session."

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Chuck Edwards, R-Henderson. He won passage of a bill last year that directed City Council to draw up districts for six of council's members, leaving only the mayor to be elected citywide.

Council instead set a referendum on the issue for November and 75 percent of voters rejected districts. Edwards filed a bill earlier this month to create five council districts, with the mayor and one other council member to be elected at-large.

Wednesday's vote went mostly along party lines, with all but eight Republicans who voted supporting the bill and all Democrats voting against.

Opponents on Wednesday argued that the legislature should not take Asheville voters' ability to decide how to elect council away from them and that a possible violation of legislative rules made that choice worse.

"This Raleigh bill will be long remembered in Asheville," said Rep. John Ager, D-Buncombe. "To be honest, Asheville is tired of being treated as the red-headed stepchild of the North Carolina General Assembly."

Rep. Michael Speciale, R-Craven, said any legislator would oppose such a bill affecting their district under the same circumstances.

"We would all be saying, 'No. No way, this isn't right.' Well, why is it right that we do this to Asheville, or any other city or any other town?" he said.

Rep. Brian Turner, D-Buncombe, said the bill will mean Buncombe County's small towns will have to pay a larger share of putting on the cost of holding their elections in odd-numbered years. He said the question of changing Asheville districts should be put off until next year to give towns time to decide what to do.

McGrady said the legislature could still take that issue up next year.

Rep. Jeff Collins, R-Nash, said approval of Edwards' bill last year made it clear what the consequences of Asheville's failure to adopt districts would be: "We did pass a bill last year that says if you don't do something, we're going to do it."

Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford, said he is "concerned about a city that thinks they can thumb their nose at an act of the General Assembly. ... The cost of not doing this is saying, 'Cities, go ahead and disregard what we say, what's in the law, whenever you want.' "

The House first adopted an amendment that eliminates primaries for seats on City Council. Instead, whoever gets the most votes on Election Day in November of even-numbered years would be elected, no matter the number of candidates on the ballot or their margin of victory.

Rep. William Brawley, R-Mecklenburg, offered the amendment after noticing in a House committee meeting Tuesday night that the bill had been amended in the Senate to hold Asheville council general elections on the same day as primaries for other state and federal offices.

That, he said, would blunt the purpose of moving elections to even-numbered years: Increasing turnout.

His amendment moves the date of council elections back to November and eliminates City Council primaries.

Local legislators supported the Brawley amendment, Ager told the House.

Van Duyn had won approval of an amendment in the Senate Monday that shifts council elections from odd-numbered to even-numbered years. But the amendment also changed the date of elections from November to the spring.

She said that as the result of a miscommunication between her and legislative staffers who drew up an amendment she offered in the Senate Monday.

She said in an interview that her intention was to have a primary for City Council at the same time as primaries for other offices, then set the general election for November. She said she hadn't noticed that the language would have moved council general elections to March or May, depending on the year.

"I never, ever, ever meant to do that. This is my mistake," she said.

The Brawley amendment was the result of discussions between Brawley and local House members, Van Duyn said.

Previous coverage::Senate approves Asheville council districts, shifting election years; House vote next

Van Duyn to back Asheville council districts bill if Senate shifts election dates

Edwards' bill this year was filed after the deadline for bills affecting no more than a few localities to be considered during this year's session. Legislative rules also provide that such "local" bills can't be considered this year unless there is unanimous support among legislators representing the area affecting.

But, they also say election bills can be voted on this year. Such a bill would ordinarily be subject to a gubernatorial veto, but the Asheville bill apparently will not because it only affects one city. The governor cannot veto a local bill.

Ager asked House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, during Wednesday's debate how the bill could be eligible for consideration by the legislature and he initially responded simply, "It is."

Some legislators agreed, some didn't and some said the General Assembly should simply take up the matter during next year's legislative session, when there is no requirement that all local legislators agree.