What happened to Kentucky county magistrates' seats when redistricting reduced their districts?

Plain-English summary

Crittenden County's judge-executive asked what happened to magistrates already in office when county reapportionment reduced the number of districts. The AG said the new lines took effect upon passage of the ordinance, but the plan could not cut short an incumbent's elected term. That remained true even if the new lines put a magistrate's residence outside the district served.

The opinion used a six-to-four-district example. Magistrates in continuing districts would represent the corresponding new districts. The two incumbents from eliminated districts would finish their terms without a particular district constituency. If one of those offices became vacant, it would stay unfilled; a vacancy in a continuing district would be filled by a successor meeting the new district's residency requirement.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Sitting magistrates

The AG said incumbents kept serving through their elected terms. The boundaries changed immediately, so incumbents in districts that continued represented the new versions of those districts. Incumbents whose numbered districts disappeared remained in office without a particular constituency for the rest of their terms.

County officials handling vacancies

For a vacancy in a continuing district, the opinion said a successor had to satisfy residency requirements for that district's new boundaries. For a vacancy in an eliminated district, no successor would be appointed because the incumbent's temporary continuation rested on having been elected before the change.

Common questions

Did redistricting end a sitting magistrate's term?

No. The opinion said reapportionment could not shorten the term of an elected magistrate, even if the new map changed the magistrate's residency relationship to the district.

When did the new district lines take effect?

The AG said they took effect when the county passed the reapportionment ordinance.

Would an eliminated district's magistrate be replaced after resigning?

No. The opinion said the incumbent's right to finish the term arose solely from having been elected before reapportionment; a successor could not inherit that right for the unexpired term.

Background and statutory framework

The AG cited KRS 61.015 and Anggelis v. Land for the protection of an incumbent's elected term following reapportionment. It drew on OAG 83-170 for the effect of new boundaries and on OAG 81-424 for a vacancy in an eliminated district. Its practical example distinguished continuing districts from eliminated ones; the distinction determined which vacancies could be filled under the 1992 analysis.

Citations and references

• KRS 61.015: elected-term protection cited by the AG.
• Anggelis v. Land, Ky., 371 S.W.2d 857 (1963): reapportionment and incumbents.
• OAG 83-170: new district lines and successor residency.
• OAG 81-424: vacancy after an incumbent in an eliminated district leaves office.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG92-114.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 92-114

July 7, 1992

John C. May

Crittenden County Judge-Executive

County Courthouse

Marion, Kentucky 42064

Dear Mr. May:

You have asked when magistrates assume their new districts after a county reapportionment plan has been approved that reduces the number of magistrates.

Although the new district lines are effective upon passage of the ordinance adopting the reapportionment plan, the reapportionment does not affect the magistrates who are currently in office. OAG 83-170. Reapportionment cannot reduce the term of an elected official, even if the reapportionment places the official's residence outside the district that he represents. KRS 61.015; Anggelis v. Land, Ky., 371 S.W.2d 857 (1963).

When a reapportionment plan reduces the number of magisterial districts, two issues arise. The first is whether the sitting magistrates continue to represent the constituents in their old districts. Since the new district lines are effective immediately after passage of the ordinance, the magistrates' districts would change accordingly. For example, if the old plan created six districts numbered 1 through 6, and the new plan created four districts numbered 1 through 4, then the magistrate elected from the old district 1 would serve the residents in the new district 1, and so forth. Anggelis v. Land, above. The two magistrates serving old districts 5 and 6 would not represent any particular constituency at all, but would continue to serve throughout their elected terms.

The second issue concerns vacancies that may arise from the death or resignation of one of the sitting magistrates. If a magistrate from districts 1 through 4 leaves office, a successor will have to meet the residency requirements based on the boundaries of the new district. OAG 83-170. If a magistrate from district 5 or 6 leaves office, the vacancy would not be filled at all, since “the officeholder's right to continue in office from the old district is based solely upon the fact that he was elected prior to the effective date of the legislative change and, therefore, cannot be legislated out of office. However, when he vacates the office after the legislative change, his successor would not be entitled to continue his right of office for the unexpired term . . . .” OAG 81-424, p. 3.

Sincerely,

Chris Gorman

Attorney General

Ross T. Carter

Assistant Attorney General