“No splitting of hairs”
At a May 10 work session, the Board of County Commissioners expressed an interest in keeping the redrawing of district lines—as required by statutory law after every federal census—as simple as possible. The county elections office, members of the political parties and the public were in attendance to begin the process.
The intended goal of the law, as interpreted by county attorney David Baumgarten, is to maintain compact districts—meaning that district boundaries are as equidistant as possible from their geographic center to avoid gerrymandering—and districts as equal in population as possible, minus people serving in county correctional facilities.
“Can you interpret at all what ‘nearly equal as possible’ means? Do we have to get down to splitting hairs?” commissioner Hap Channell asked. “If there’s a variation of three people, four people, five people, where do we draw the line?”
“I think they’re leaving it to your common sense,” said Baumgarten.
According to information provided by Gunnison Information Services manager Mike Pelletier, equal distribution of the 2010 census population in Gunnison County would be 5,108 people in each district. There are currently 5,118 people in District 1 to the west, 4,640 in District 2 to the south and 5,556 in District 3 to the north, which includes Crested Butte South, Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte.
“What that tells us is that we need to bring some population from the north in number three down to two,” said Pelletier.
Pelletier used mapping software to model the movement of district boundaries, suggesting that changes could be as simple as moving the northern boundary of district two from County Road 10 to the WAPA power line that runs between Ohio Creek Road and Jack’s Cabin. Numbers could be fine-tuned, he said, by making adjustments to the boundaries between Districts 1 and 2 near Railroad and W. Rio Grande Avenues, just north of the Gunnison Crested-Butte Airport. The scenario would make the district populations fairly equal: 5,111 in District 1, 5108 in District 2 and 5105 in District 3. Commissioner Paula Swenson suggested an alternative scenario by adjusting the northern boundary between Districts 1 and 2 instead. While Pelletier explored options with the mapping software, Channell explained the intention behind the commissioner’s districts. Unlike state districts, county districts do not affect voters.
“All this does is determine where commissioner candidates have to live in order to represent their district. The only thing that would change is if we move a census block from one district to another, people from that block would be running from that district if they chose to run,” Channell said.
“It gives the populous some sort of assurance that there is some kind of geographic distribution among the commissioners,” he continued. “As it is right now, the three of us can’t all live in the city of Gunnison. Two of us can but three of us can’t, and this would not change that.”
Comments from the audience supported the commissioners’ goal to make the process as simple as possible.
“I’ve always thought that as the population up north grows, it makes more sense to move that line north to ensure even more that the candidate [for District 3] comes from up north,” said former county commissioner Jim Starr.
No formal decision was made at Tuesday’s meeting, but commissioners remained determined to keep the process ahead of schedule.
“By process then, the board has to accomplish this task by September 30, have to do so by resolution and have to precede resolution by 30 days with a public hearing,” said Baumgarten.
“I believe it’s on the next agenda,” commissioner Paula Swenson said.
After the new county commissioner’s districts are determined, the Elections Office will consider that information as it revisits voter precincts. The two processes are distinct, however, as voter precincts are not based on population size but rather ease of running elections according to Channell. The public hearing has been scheduled for June 21 at 1 p.m.