Some changes will be forthcoming in upcoming elections for residents in some of the magisterial districts in Clinton County, due to the mandated reapportionment of district boundaries to align them as closely as possible with each area’s total population.

The Reapportionment Commissioners–made up of County Clerk Jim Elmore (who is a non-voting member), former Magistrate Norman Dale Asberry, former Judge/Executive Larry Hatfield and retired PVA Billy Joe Coop, as well as representatives of the Lake Cumberland Area Development District, who are working on the reapportionment plan, held its first session last Thursday. Although it was hoped the population change shown in the 2010 Census would not have to necessitate any boundary changes, that will not be the case as some districts will be rearranged to bring each of the six districts within 10 percent of total population.

County Clerk Elmore noted this past weekend that following the meeting, it appeared the districts that would be most effected would be magisterial districts six and four. District 6, consisting of the West Albany precinct, among others, will likely see voters move into the fourth district. He also noted that a lesser number of voters may have to be changed from the South Albany precinct in District 1 to some precincts in the fifth district.

With the guidance of the AD District, a proposed map of the new districts and boundary lines is being put together and the Reapportionment Commissioners will have another meeting prior to making an official proposal to the Clinton Fiscal Court, which ultimately has the final decision.

“By law, the reapportionment has to take place after each Census year,” Elmore said. In this case, following the 2010 U.S. Census which saw the total county population increase.

Each magisterial district cannot be more than 10 percent (total population) in difference from each other when the district boundaries are drawn, and voter registration within an area does not figure into the scenario, Elmore added.

The county clerk did say that he was somewhat concerned about the number of voters who may wind up in some particular precincts, noting the State Board of Elections has to approve precinct boundaries that are drawn by local county boards of election. Elmore noted it wasn’t good to have 750 or more voters in one precinct at a time and this may be a concern when district boundaries are drawn.

It may be several weeks, or possibly even a few months before the exact new boundaries are approved and how many current voters may be affected insofar as having to change voter registration locations.

Elmore noted that before the counties could officially begin the process of voting after local magisterial districts are approved, the state has to do its own redistricting for the purpose of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. It isn’t known when the state will begin that task.

The state’s Department of Local Government recently issued full details to counties about the reapportionment process, and some of that pertinent information is as follows:

The reapportionment commissioners, along with the county clerk as a non-voting member, are responsible for developing a proposal to divide the county into not less than three nor more than eight districts. The number of districts is left to the discretion of the reapportionment commissioners and need not be the same number of existing districts. (In Clinton County, there will be no changes in the number–currently six–magisterial districts.) The reapportionment commissioners may recommend that the number of districts be increased, decreased or remain the same. However, the districts must be “compact, contiguous, and the population of each district shall be as nearly equal as reasonably possible.” KRS 67.045(2).

The 2010 decennial census of the United States must be used in determining the populations of the districts. The Office of the Attorney General has opined that, under the “one man, one vote” principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, there should not be more than a ten percent deviation between the populations of the largest and smallest districts. OAG 81-261.

The reapportionment commissioners must complete the work of drawing the boundary lines of the districts and submit a report to the office of the county clerk and each member of the fiscal court within 60 days of appointment of the commissioners. The report must show the boundaries of each district with sufficient specificity that determinations can be made with respect to candidate and voter eligibility, and should include a map and written description of the new boundaries. The report must also identify the estimated population in each proposed district.

Within 60 days of receipt of the reapportionment commissioners’ report, the fiscal court must consider the report and either adopt or amend it. The ultimate responsibility for reapportionment is vested in the fiscal court. The court may adopt the report in total, or may amend the report and redraw the districts, including altering the number of districts, as the court sees fit. Final action of the fiscal court redrawing the districts must take the form of an ordinance, which must be final within 60 days of receipt of the reapportionment commissioners’ report.

KRS 67.045(8) allows any registered voter of the county to bring an action in circuit court to enforce the provisions of the reapportionment law within 20 days of passage of the ordinance establishing the districts.

The Department of Local Government and State Board of Elections understand that there is some confusion regarding the relationship between reapportionment and the redrawing of election precinct boundaries. Precinct boundaries are drawn by the county board of elections with the approval of the State Board of Elections. KRS 117.055(1) prohibits the drawing of precincts in a manner so that a precinct boundary crosses the boundary of a justice of the peace or county commissioner’s district. In other words, precinct lines may not be drawn in such a manner that portions of a precinct will be in more than one magisterial district.

Although the county clerk is a non-voting member on the reapportionment committee, it is up to the clerk’s office to notifiy voters of magisterial district changes.

The Reapportionment Commissioners are expected to hold at least one more session in July and is expected to be ready to present its proposal, along with district mapping, by the next regular meeting of Clinton Fiscal Court, which is slated for July 21.