By Glenn Rolfe

GEORGETOWN — Sussex County’s redistricting is in the homestretch, with noticeable geographic alterations due to population shifts from 2020 census data.

But the League of Women Voters is pushing for change it says would bring voting equality to County Council elections.

The league is proposing that County Council election cycles be revamped — mirroring timing used for General Assembly voting — so that voters in all five councilmanic districts would have the opportunity to go to the polls, and so no voters are shortchanged.

“For the league, it is a ‘one person, one vote’ issue, which we will first address with the county and then, if necessary — and, hopefully, with the support of the county — seek legislative change to the local-government provision,” said Jack Young, LWV’s Fair Maps Coalition co-chair.

“The optimum for ‘one person, one vote’ would be this November, when we will be having several statewide races, and all 62 members of the General Assembly will be on the ballot,” he added. “So 2022 will be a major election cycle. That only happens after redistricting every 10 years.”

The group’s concern stems from the county’s continued use of local provisions of the Delaware Code for council elections. Mr. Young said this would create two years of no representation for some residents and bonus representation for others.

Sussex County Council’s four-year election cycles were established by the General Assembly in the 1970s under Title 9, Section 7002, of state code. The legislation called for council elections in districts 1, 2 and 3 starting in 1972 and in districts 4 and 5 beginning in 1974.

Therefore, in the November 2020 election, districts 1, 2 and 3 were voted on. In November 2022, districts 4 and 5 are on the ballot. However, residents redrawn out of districts 4 or 5 into one of the other three districts, due to redistricting, will not vote this year.

On the flip side, voters redrawn from districts 1, 2 or 3 into districts 4 or 5 would be eligible to vote in November, just two years after they were able to cast council ballots in 2020.

“There would be some people (who) get to vote, in essence, twice, and some people don’t get to vote at all,” said Mr. Young. “So … the league believes that the fairest process is to do what the General Assembly has done in its redistricting. And that is that all five members of the council should stand for election in November, with the councilmanic seats (currently) being staggered for some of the seats. We would have an election of all five members.

“The league believes that is the fairest method, given that the population has increased substantially since the last redistricting in 2011.”

County attorney J. Everett Moore, at a County Council meeting in early December, addressed LWV’s concern, emphasizing that elections held for districts 1, 2 and 3, in November 2020, were for four-year terms.

“They can’t just be now, after the fact, cut in half,” Mr. Moore said. “What it would have to be is possibly the legislature in the future could say: Next 10 years from now, we could go ahead and do four-four-two (year terms), … like the Senate. But it can’t happen this time.”

Mr. Moore is scheduled to release a draft ordinance for his redistricting maps at Tuesday’s council meeting, which will be followed by public hearings next month.

“This will be an issue that the league will address with the council at the public hearings in February and, if necessary, may seek a remedy (to) in the General Assembly,” Mr. Young said. “The league feels that it is appropriate and proper that we first go to the County Council.”

House Minority Leader Danny Short, R-Seaford, has noted that fallout from redistricting is nothing new.

“What has happened over the last 10 years is not any secret. We knew about it,” he said. “It happens every 10 years. All of a sudden, somebody is upset.”

The representative believes that the only way the General Assembly would consider a change is if Sussex County government made that request.

A legal issue, Mr. Young said, is whether state code violates the principle of “one person, one vote,” which dates to the mid-1960s case Reynolds v. Sims.

In that instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must create legislative districts that each have a substantially equal number of voters, to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It is known as the “one person, one vote” case and resulted in justices striking down three apportionment plans for Alabama that would have given more weight to rural voters than to voters in cities.

“Reynolds v. Sims is the beginning of the establishment of the now-constitutional requirement of ‘one person, one vote,’” said Mr. Young. “So the question, under the Delaware statute, is: How long can you be out of compliance with ‘one person, one vote’ when you are doing this redistricting?”

Several county and state elected officials also offered their takes.

“I haven’t really given it a whole lot of thought. They talk about what has always been done,” said District 4 County Councilman Doug Hudson. “We’re going to talk about that on Jan. 11. I am hoping that it will come up. I’m certainly fine with doing whatever the law says to do.”

Fifth District Councilman John Rieley added, “The question was raised. I think there is somewhat of a point there. I’m just not sure what the right answer is. It seems to me that would be a legislative call. Originally, it was set up by the legislature. There is certainly something worth talking about there.”

Councilwoman Cindy Green of the 2nd District agreed.

“I believe their concerns are legitimate because there will be a whole district or an area of voters that didn’t get to vote last time,” she said. “I understand the concerns for the people that didn’t get to vote. I am open to see what we can do to remedy that. I’ll definitely listen to a remedy.

“Normally, I guess County Council doesn’t have this much of a move, like the districts probably stayed a little more intact (in the past),” the councilwoman added. “This is an example where there was a bigger move for a larger amount of people. I think it does elevate it to a concern.”

Rep. Ruth Briggs King, R-Georgetown, brought up the timing of a possible new voting law.

“Sometimes, they won’t do an election law that is in the same year as that election,” she said. “But it’s a good question. What I’ll do is, I will ask legislative counsel. Usually, it comes from the county, asking first.”

Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 data, Sussex County’s population increased more than 20% between 2010-20, from 197,145 residents to 237,378. Given those figures, each council district must be within plus or minus 5% of an ideal population of 47,475 residents, containing no fewer than 45,101 and no more than 49,849.

LWV, which submitted redrawn maps to the county that were considered, has applauded Mr. Moore’s proposal, noting his efforts to keep communities of interest together, as well as district compactness.

“I think we’ve achieved that. Both the league and the county attorney’s map tried to do that,” said Mr. Young. “The election schedule is of concern, obviously, to the league, given the significant population growth in Sussex County.”