Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner proposes November referendum to cut board from nine to five; action tabled for legal review
Summary
A commissioner asked the board to place a referendum on the November ballot asking voters whether to reduce the county commission from nine to five; concerns about potential disenfranchisement and legal complexity led the board to vote to table the proposal and request legal and elections research.
Get email alerts on the Board Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A Bladen County commissioner proposed placing a referendum on the November ballot asking voters whether the county should reduce the number of commissioners from nine to five, but the board voted to table the matter for research and legal review.
At the May 20 meeting, the commissioner said he had discussed the idea with state lawmakers and others and asked the board to let voters decide: “I would like to propose that we put on November's ballot a referendum to reduce our board from 9 to 5,” he said. Several commissioners expressed concern that reducing the board could unintentionally disenfranchise some residents and noted uncertainty about the legal process required to make such a change.
Board members discussed options for enactment — legislative action or a local referendum routed through state processes — and the practical details of redistricting versus at‑large seats. One commissioner asked for time to research the history and legal implications; another suggested outreach to the county attorney and to election officials about early‑voting logistics and possible costs.
After discussion, the board voted to table the proposal and directed staff to consult the county attorney and the board of elections and to return with options, timelines and legal analysis. No changes to commissioner representation were enacted at the meeting; board members emphasized they would not proceed if the legal review found a risk of disenfranchisement.
The matter will return to a future agenda once staff and legal counsel provide the requested information.

