I believe that all redistricting plans actually take effect for the next
term of office, which is why the State Senate stands for election after the
two years preceding the redistricting. The same should be true in cities
where a redistricting must take effect in time for the next election, not
for changing the representation boundaries of the last one.
I don't know what the requirement is for finalizing a redistricting plan in
a city where elections will not take place for another three years. It
happens that both redistricting and the move to 4-year terms for the City
Council took place inside independent vacuums, with little or no regard for
their ramifications, thus creating a conundrum. Unless Phyllis' bill passes,
changing the next election to 2003 (which I hope it does not, not this time
around. Such laws should never affect present officeholders and their
constituents, but always the next time - like raising salaries), perhaps
redistricting should be put off until early 2005 or at least late 2004.
As many here know, I favor the plan David mentions below (Senate's 10-year -
4-4-2-year terms to account for redistricting), but for reasons mentioned
above, to be implemented in anticipation of 2010's census. David's thought
this through a bit better than I because, of course, the next election after
2012's redistricting is, in fact, the following year, a 2-year term to
accommodate the next redistricting would be unnecessary.
I also agree that the imbalance in redistricting commission representation
is appalling. In the very year when the Green Party is known to be a major
Minnesota party and following the election of two Green to City Council
seats and the near win by a third, the party's treatment in this case in
unconscionable.
By the way, St. Paul's City Council has no power in the redistricting
effort, either. It's done by the Charter Commission, on which I sat for the
1992 redistricting. Twice (1990 and 1980) the Council tried to have the
courts strike down the Charter provision placing redistricting authority in
the Commission's lap and twice the Courts turned down their power trip. This
year no lawsuit, but what a divisive process it's been.
Andy Driscoll
Saint Paul
------
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of
strength, and bid defiance to the laws of the country."
--- Thomas Jefferson,1816
> From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:33:11 -0600
> To: "Mpls list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [Mpls] 2003 Elections
>
> Mark Knapp writes:
>
>> Does anyone know whether the Minnesota courts will require 2003
>> municipal elections for Minneapolis in the wake of redistricting?
>> What is the history with the courts on this issue?
>
> I don't know if the courts have ever ordered early elections...however,
> it is interesting to note that the new precinct lines legally go into
> effect Sept. 10 - I assume in time for the legislative primary.
>
> I was told today that the city council cannot change the ward map
> approved by the redistricting commission - they vote to establish the
> legal precinct lines that are first used in that Sept. 10 election.
> (Remember, right now the Commission's map is tentative; the final map is
> scheduled to be approved on April 12 at high noon.)
>
> Here's a weird question: what if a council member had to quit - a la
> Brian Herron - after Sept. 10? Would a replacement be selected/elected
> from the old ward - and wouldn't that be weird? Would you have to vote
> in your old precinct?
>
> Again, this doesn't answer Mark's question about the courts, but when
> you consider there are three more years until the elections catch up
> with the map, something seems out of whack.
>
> Personally, I favor a change - not necessarily this cycle - so that the
> city does it "state Senate style"...four-year terms with one extra
> election every 20 years to reflect Census results. We'll let *someone
> else* decided whether 2003 is needed, but then it would go 2005, 2009,
> 2013 (the new Census lines are drawn in 2012), 2017, 2021, 2023 (first
> 2-year term) and 2025 (second 2-year term) then back on track for 2029.
>
> That ought to get me to retirement, but the pattern repeats every 20
> years. The council and mayor would still be elected together - there
> would just be one extra council election every 20 years.
>
> That's just the first of many reforms I would make. While I believe we
> need some Independence and Republican Party representation on the
> Redistricting Commission, giving those parties two guaranteed members
> (via the Charter Commission's "major party" requirement) and the Greens
> none (they got theirs from one of two council appointments) is
> ridiculous. I don't have a mechanism for ensuring this yet, but clearly,
> while no party should have a majority, council non-factors should not
> have 4 of 9 seats and truly independent (non-party-affiliated) people
> need at least one seat at the table.
>
> The next reform, I suppose.
>
> David Brauer
> Kingfield - Ward 10 until...
>
> _______________________________________
> 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
