[Mpls] HF 67 and redistricting

[Bensonale]

First, I should say that I agree with my friend Jenny Heiser about the merits (or lack thereof) of HF 67.  It subverts local control over local elections, it undermines the will of the people who adopted the charter amendment providing for 4 year council terms, and it leads to expensive elections and an unfunded mandate.  At the request of Council Member Zimmerman, the IGR committee considered HF 67 and voted 5 - 0 to oppose it at the Legislature.  CM Johnson Lee and all four DFL members of the committee voted to oppose it.  So much for the DFL conspiracy theory advanced by some.

I wanted to correct some other misperceptions before they fester into fact.  First, with regard to redistricting, the redistricting commission was composed of 3 Republicans (counting the Chair), 2 Independents, 3 DFLers and 1 Green party member.  For the most part, the Republicans and the Independents voted together.  Having lived through the redistricting controversies, I can assure you that the DFL, with only 3 out of 9 votes, did not control the process or the outcome.

Jenny also asserts that the DFL was fine with the system of not holding elections until 05 until two Greens were elected to the Council.  I believe, however, that the four year term for Council Members was adopted in the 1980's.  Prior to that, the two year Council terms did not create this problem.  The four year terms led to an election in 1993, just after the Legislature finished its 1992 redistricting. So, this is the first year this has come up in Minneapolis after the adoption of the four year term by Charter amendment.

Terrell Brown states that the City of Bloomington was ordered by the Hennepin County District Court to hold elections in 1993.  If that is true, I would be very interested in seeing that opinion.  I understood that the City of Bloomington decided to hold elections in 1993 and that they either settled the case or none was ever brought, as a result. 

I would be like to review any of the legal research that leads people to conclude that a legal challenge requiring an election in Minneapolis would be successful.  To date, the only opinion on the matter I have seen is the City Attorney opinion referred to by Lisa McDonald which concludes there is no basis for such a challenge.  So, where is the case law or the statutory authority on which folks rely when they assert so confidently that a legal challenge would succeed?  So far, all I've seen is a lot of conjecture and no legal authority, except from the City Attorney.

Finally, Greg Abbott suggests that the Charter Commission adopt a 2-2-4-4-4-4 system of elections.  It would seem to make more sense to me to adopt the Minnesota Senate model of 2-4-4-2-4-4 etc. elections.  I think that the Charter Commission began discussions about this issue at their last meeting.

Scott Benson
Council Member
Ward 11