Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jacksonville council debates response to House Bill 1038, sparring over redistricting and procedure
Summary
At a June special meeting, Jacksonville council members argued over whether to endorse or oppose N.C. House Bill 1038, questioned the notice and process for the meeting, and considered motions to table the matter and to redraw ward lines to comply with recent court guidance. Votes and legal risk were central to the debate.
Jacksonville’s city council convened a special meeting to consider a draft resolution on North Carolina House Bill 1038 and how the city should respond, producing sharp debate over notice, legal risk and whether to redraw ward lines.
The meeting opened with questions about distribution of proposed resolutions and the timing of the notice; multiple council members said the public and some members received the public notice the prior Saturday and had little time to review documents. A council member read an emailed reply from staff stating the city manager’s office, the city attorney and the city clerk were not aware of any written feedback from the University of North Carolina School of Government, the county board of elections or the North Carolina State Board of Elections regarding HB 1038.
Council discussion quickly turned to competing legal strategies and political implications. Supporters of a state-backed path argued HB 1038 would provide a clearer, more uniform legal framework and reduce the city’s exposure to federal litigation under recent Supreme Court guidance. Opponents said the city should retain local control, redraw district lines to meet constitutional criteria, and expressed concern that the special meeting process limited public participation.
Councilman Willingham framed the central tactical choice as speed versus local control and repeatedly pushed for time to vet alternatives. He urged the people present to signal their views during the meeting: "If you oppose HB 1038, so the cameras and everybody watching can get a sense of what we're talking about, would you please stand?" That moment underscored how public sentiment and political optics shaped the discussion.
Dr. Washington highlighted concerns about factual claims made in Raleigh, including a House Rules Committee remark allegedly reporting that "99% of Camp [Lejeune] residents are registered voters outside of Jacksonville," and questioned how that figure was derived. Dr. Washington read staff correspondence into the record saying city offices were not aware of written data from election boards or the UNC School of Government to substantiate the committee statements.
On procedure, the council debated whether the meeting qualified as an emergency and whether public comment rules should apply; the city attorney reminded members that local rules allow the mayor or two council members to call a special meeting and that the notice requirements were met under the city’s rules, while also noting special meetings differ from emergency meetings under the council code.
Several formal motions were introduced. A motion to approve the meeting agenda was put to a voice/hand vote and recorded in the minutes as approved by a 4–2 margin. Councilman Willingham later moved to redraw ward lines to comply with the legal standard he identified from the cited Supreme Court case (referred to in the record as the 'Klay/Clay' decision); that motion was seconded and called for a show of hands. The transcript records the call to vote and visible hand-raising but does not include a complete roll-call tally in the provided segments. A subsequent motion to adjourn was made and approved.
What happened next: the council left competing paths on the table. Some members argued HB 1038 provides the most defensible, state-level path to limit local litigation risk; others said redrawing district lines and revising the city charter locally should be tried first to protect local autonomy and address the concerns alleged by plaintiffs in earlier litigation. The record shows council members asked for more time and clarification on the provenance of several factual claims presented to the House committee.
The council concluded the meeting after routine motions, with no final, unanimous resolution on whether the city will formally support or oppose HB 1038 in Raleigh. The transcript records motions, extended debate and at least one recorded 4–2 procedural vote to approve the meeting agenda; the council also considered motions to table and to redraw lines but the full roll-call outcome for those motions is not recorded in the provided transcript segments.
If the council takes further steps — a formal vote, a revised resolution, or a redistricting plan — they would be reflected in subsequent minutes and public filings.
