Mr. Melendez is good to cite some of the legal guidelines likely to apply. If Atherton thinks himself the cynic (and David appropriately labels his post as the half-empty approach) in giving the DFL another crack at the two Green seats, let's reverse that a bit. With Greens in the upswing in Minneapolis, the DFL (as indicated by Mr. Melendez' post) is not anxious to risk the other ten to have at the two in a truncated tenure election. Mr. Melendez has been, of course, the 5th District DFL Chair, has he not?
I've noticed that some Greens are now concerned about this matter. I speak solely as a Green supporter when I say that this would be far less hypocritical of them were they not now holding elective office in the city. The principle remains, and the City Charter's provisions notwithstanding, the Legislature is the ultimate authority on broad policy questions like this. While I see no particular need for uniformity among all charter (home rule) cities on many questions, it is important to see past partisanship to the principle of enfranchisement or one-person-one-vote. When Charter Commissions or local officials fail to look ahead at the ramifications of their amendments to assure they will, if passed, remain in compliance with state and federal law, then the ex post facto remedy becomes the sole remaining one if the representation issue is as important as it surely is In other words, when the 4-year term was instituted, the Charter also should have looked ahead and made certain that those elected in the year prior to a redistricting would have to stand for election soon after. There's no ex post facto issue at all if disenfranchisement has been the result of the status quo (de we love our Latin or what). Thus, state legislation that normalizes the post-census electoral process is a wise thing. All of this said, it may be difficult to require a two-year term this time around for this City Council, but the measure should pass and future elections should reflect its proper premise. Retroactivity for these things is difficult to enforce. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul ------ "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain neutral" --Dante > From: "Melendez, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:22:47 -0600 > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Mpls] City elections > > Scott Persons wrote, "The one thought I do have about Phyllis' bill > is that it may save the city or the state a lawsuit, Lisa McDonald mentioned > to me last year at a Lyndale event that it is possible that one could win a > lawsuit to force new council elections because of the changed boundaries. I > would love to hear some of our attorney's on this list address that issue > (cue Brian Melendez and others)." > > I do not recall the wards' populations well enough to comment > specifically on the merit of a lawsuit seeking new elections, but I can > suggest the general principles that will affect whether such a lawsuit will > succeed. > > The City Charter (ch. 1, sec. 3) provides that "in each year ending > in the number two, or whenever the number of Wards is changed, or when > required by court order, [a] Redistricting Commission shall be established > to draw Ward boundaries." Redistricting therefore occurs two years after > each decennial census and, as the Charter presently applies, will not affect > the City Council until the 2005 election. Standing alone, the five-year > delay between the census and the new elections will not support a lawsuit > seeking a new, earlier election. A plaintiff seeking an earlier election > must show that his or her vote has been diluted, as shown by the latest > census numbers--that is, the plaintiff must show a violation of the "one > person, one vote" principle. For example, if every ward in Minneapolis had > the same (or even relatively the same) population in the 2000 Census as in > the 1990 Census, then each voter still enjoys a share of the franchise equal > to that of each other voter, the population has not changed in a way that > dilutes anyone's vote, and a legal challenge will fail. > > The "one person, one vote" principle in legislative redistricting > tolerates "divergences from a strict population standard." A legislative > redistricting plan must achieve "substantial equality of population among > the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately > equal in weight to that of any other citizen." The requirement of > "substantial" and "approximate" equality generally means a deviation of less > than ten percent. Thus, a lawsuit seeking an earlier election for the City > Council (or for the Park Board, some of whose members are also elected from > districts) needs a plaintiff who can show that he or she lives in a ward > whose population deviates from another ward's population by ten percent or > more (or thereabouts). > > If there is such a plaintiff, then he or she may bring a lawsuit > that can force a new Citywide election, but other outcomes are possible as > well. For example, if each incumbent Council Member elected from an "old" > ward happens to live in a different "new" ward than each other Council > Member, then a court may decide that each Council Member is already in > effect representing the new ward where he or she would stand for > re-election, so there is no legal harm and a new election is unnecessary. > Or if the vote dilution affects only a few wards, then a court may order a > new election only in those wards, and leave intact the wards without a > significant shift in population. (Again, I do not have the census numbers > handy, so maybe someone else on the list can say how many wards have > experienced a significant shift.) > > Terrell Brown wrote, "I have no idea how such a suit would come out > but I do know that lawyers generally don't file suits that they don't think > they have a chance of winning." I do not read too much into the absence of > such a suit at the present moment, since it is still early days in the City > redistricting process, and a prospective plaintiff may want for strategic > reasons to delay a suit about the timing of the elections until after the > new ward lines are drawn. The Redistricting Commission's work will take on > a different character if there is a pending lawsuit that may require a new > election barely a year after the new lines are drawn. > > Finally, Michael Atherton writes, "Ok, so maybe it's just the cynic > in me, but is Ms. Kahn's concern about one-person-one-vote somehow related > to the success of the Greens in the last election? . . . . Does it give the > DFL a second shot at them? If so, this is a pretty shady way to circumvent > the will of the voters." First, I do not see how a new election is > "circumvent[ing] the will of the voters," since the voters will have gotten > their say either way. Second, the Green Party's showing in the last > election was very impressive, so I am not sure as between the DFL Party and > the Green Party who will benefit more from a new election: last time, the > Greens were a new party with limited resources, contesting several seats > none of which they then held; if they can hold the seats that they have > already won, a new election in less than two years may let them concentrate > their energy on winning a new seat or seats that they do not now hold. > Finally, I have heard Phyllis Kahn on this issue, and I am convinced that > she is pursuing it out of her view about what makes the most sense as a > matter of public policy and good government. > > BRM > > Brian Melendez > St. Anthony West (Ward 3) > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
