The Macon County Board of Commissioners held its fourth consecutive month of conversations about redistricting Tuesday, March 10, voting 4-1 to shut down a motion to change the board’s structure.
The conversation started in December 2025 after commissioners approved 4-1 a request sent to the General Assembly to draft a local bill that would allow the county to begin the process of changing the structure of the Board of Commissioners. In January 2026 commissioners continued the discussion after state lawmakers asked for a specific plan to vote on, causing commissioners to vote to hold a public hearing in February on whether to redraw the county’s population into three equally sized districts. The proposal echoed a proposal that passed 3-2 in 2023 that was not carried through at the state level.
During the February meeting, all 13 of the people who spoke at the hearing opposed the redistricting measure, primarily requesting either the county do nothing or take more time in deciding how to proceed. Some speakers advocated for a ballot measure to establish five equal-sized districts instead of establishing at-large districts. Commissioners Danny Antoine, Barry Breeden and Josh Young said following the public comment period they still believed the system should be fixed but would like to take more time and carefully work out a solution with public input.
Currently the county has District 1 (Highlands, Ellijay, Flats and Sugarfork), District 2 (Iotla, Millshoal, Union, Smithbridge and three Franklin districts) and District 3 (Cowee, Burningtown, Cartoogechaye and Nantahala). The Board of Commissioners has five members, three from District 2 and one each from Districts 3 and 1. Each commissioner seat represents approximately 6,000 voters.
At present, because of how elections are staggered, District 2 has at least one candidate running for office every two years, while candidates from Districts 1 and 3 run every four years. This has been a point of contention for some commissioners, especially John Shearl, who has repeatedly stated he would like candidates from all districts to be able to run every two years.
The proposal discussed in February for three districts with two at-large seats would require Districts 1 and 3 to expand and District 2 to decrease in population. Additional options introduced in the March 10 meeting include turning one Franklin seat into an at-large seat with four district seats or establishing five county districts with one seat apiece.
Commissioner John Shearl, who requested the discussion continue at the March meeting, restated his goal was to make elections fairer and that Districts 1 and 3 are marginalized by their candidates being unable to run as often as those in District 2.
Shearl, who recently won his primary election on March 3, said, “I had two people run against me in District 1 in the primary … these two guys will not be allowed to seek office until 2030, four years from now, because we have four-year seats. There were several people ran for District 2 … the people that lost in District 2 will be able to seek office in 2028, two years from now. This is where it’s unfair. The people who ran against me should be allowed to run in two years just like the folks in District 2.”
In spite of the opposition raised in February, Shearl moved to pass the same resolution requesting the General Assembly’s permission to establish three equal districts with two at-large seats.
“I have spoken to a lot of people in Highlands that didn’t understand this move here and once I had spoken to them they said, ‘We have nothing to lose. Our district’s going to grow some,’ Shearl said. “The way things are now they could never have but one person on the Board of Commissioners. However, if there are seats at large and they have the right candidate that can get the people in the county to vote for them they can potentially have two people or three people on the board … it’s a given for District 2. Every election cycle, there’s going to be three people on the Board of Commissioners from District 2.”
Shearl said he believed three districts with two at-large seats was the best option overall, adding, “You put this stuff on a referendum and the way that things went crazy over the last few months and all the things and the paper and all the things on social media and all the misinformation, I can’t imagine trying to get 28,000 voters to understand what this is. And if you just do five seats at large you’re going to have five people elected from District 2 residents.”
To the concern Highlands’ votes could be watered down because of the shift, he said he is the only person so far elected to represent District 1 who does not live in Highlands.
County attorney Eric Ridenour said if the county passes the resolution, it goes to the General Assembly to be voted on as a local bill. If it is approved there, it becomes law and the county will then have to redraw the district lines.
“We’ve been doing this for 50 years,” Breeden said, talking about using the current election system. “We don’t want to change this and say ‘Oh, we don’t like this’ and keep changing it back and forth, I think that’s a disservice to everyone. I think if we’re going to do it, we do it right. I think we get some voter input, some people involved.”
“I’m just saying, we have time,” he said.
Shearl said, “Call the question, chairman, I’ve spent way too much time trying to make it fair for One and Three.”
“We can get the community involved and we can make a good decision from here on out,” Breeden said.
“Barry, you’re the one that asked me to bring this up in December because you wanted it done,” Shearl said.
“You’re right,” Breeden said. “I did ask you to bring it up and I do want it done and I’m not saying I don’t. I’m just saying I want the opportunity for the community to be involved in the decision we’re about to make. That’s going to be a decision that affects everyone for a long period of time.”
“My hope is that someone from the State of North Carolina is watching this meeting and that they recognize that this is against the law in North Carolina,” Shearl said. He has previously argued multi-representative districts are illegal for state representatives but this has not been litigated for county-level positions.
Commissioners voted 4-1 against the motion with Shearl voting in favor.