Motion To Table District Reapportionment As Magistrates Search For Other Options

Edmonson County Judge/Executive Scott Lindsey speaks with magistrates at the July 24, 2023 fiscal court meeting.

Darren Doyle, story and photo:
No motion was made at last night's Edmonson County Fiscal Court meeting to approve the first reading of ordinance EC 23-21, which was to approve the recommended reapportionment, a step required by law every ten years, after the census.

The purpose is to ensure the districts are spread as equally as possible, according to population.

At the July 10th Edmonson County Fiscal Court meeting, members of the Edmonson County Reapportionment Committee, appointed by Judge/Executive Scott Lindsey and the Edmonson County Fiscal Court, presented their recommended reapportionment option to the court, along with Edmonson County Clerk Kevin Alexander.
 
Reapportionment is required every ten years pursuant to KRS 67.045, when census data is used to reestablish boundary lines of magistrate districts.  In addressing the Court at the previous meeting, Clerk Alexander and Reapportionment Committee Chairman Timmy Davis discussed the difficult nature of performing such a task, while presenting what they felt was the best and most fair option for the redistricting. The Barren River Area Development District (BRADD) also allowed the committee use of their mapping software and additional assistance from their office staff.

Magistrates last night were first silent when the vote to approve the option was called. District 1 Magistrate Mark Meeks then asked if they could speak with those at BRADD further to see if there were any better options. He said while he was only one vote, that was his take. No one addressed why no other options were searched since the presentation at the last fiscal court meeting on the 10th, but County Clerk Kevin Alexander reminded the court that if this ordinance wasn't passed, which was one option out of five that the Reapportionment Committee, the ordinance would be void and magistrates would be responsible for coming up with something new; the 'something new' would have to follow the law and fall within the required population guidelines, which is easier said than done, and the whole reason for the reapportionment.

District 6 Magistrate Gary Bagshaw asked if no better option was found, could the court revert back to the ordinance presented by the committee--to which the answer was yes. Clerk Alexander reminded the court that much research, time, and effort went into the option presented and that while no new option would be perfect, the committee agreed that it was the best option for all districts.

A motion was made by District 4 Magistrate Mickey Johnson to table the motion until the next meeting and seconded by District 3 Magistrate Anthony Hennion, which passed unanimously. The item will return to the fiscal court agenda next meeting.