[Mpls] HF 67

[Bensonale]

Terrell Brown writes:
The segregationists back in the 60's liked such an arrangement.  Under
represent a district with lots of minorities (6th Ward) and over
represent a district that is mostly White (12th Ward).  So our most
over represented wards are the 1st, 11th, 12th, and 13th.  Anyone want
to guess which wards have the fewest minority residents?  Anyone think
the current arrangement would withstand a Voting Rights Act challenge?

SAB:  I think Rep. Ellison did the most effective job of dispelling this canard when he pointed out that another "over represented" ward is the 5th Ward which is 1% under  the ideal ward population and is by far the most diverse ward in the City.

What I find interesting in all of this is that those arguing that there is a valid Voting Rights Act challenge or that a constitutional infirmity exists never cite one case establishing precedent supporting their view.  Indeed, the only case Rep. Kahn and the Elections professor, who also testified on behalf of the bill, cited is a case upholding the "one person, one vote" standard.  That case held that a jurisdiction must have a decennial reapportionment based on the most recent census.  Minneapolis complied with this requirement when it reapportioned its wards last year.  (The City could not reapportion prior to April, 2002 because state law prohibits local jurisdictions from reapportioning wards before Congressional and Legislative boundaries are drawn and it took until April, 2002 for the court to establish those lines.)  The case law is also clear that the new reapportionment plan must be effective at the next regularly scheduled election.  The City's next election is scheduled for 2005.  I know of no case that has held that a jurisdiction must hold elections earlier than scheduled to effect the reapportionment plan. 

During the first hearing on this bill, Rep. Lipman asked me if a jurisdiction could have 8 or 10 or 15 year terms and comply with the Constitutional requirement.  It's an interesting hypothetical, but not really pertinent as Minneapolis has 4 year terms, which are quite common.  The better question is how soon after reapportionment should one force a jurisdiction to hold an election, contrary to a charter provision of that jurisdiction adopted by the voters?  24 hours after reapportionment?  6 months?  1 year?  2 years?  The case law seems to lay this question to rest by indicating that the valid reapportionment plan should be used during the next regularly scheduled election.  If there is a case to the contrary that forces early elections in a similarly situated jurisdiction, I would love to review it.

At least 30 Minnesota cities other than Minneapolis will elect all or part of their city councils in 2004 or 2005.  If it really exists, why are these cities exempt from the alleged constitutional imperative and why doesn't the Legislature over rule their charter provisions or elections ordinances?  Instead, the House Government Operations committee amended the legislation to exempt those other cities unwittingly caught in HF 67's net, cast only with an eye to force early elections of the Minneapolis City Council. 

Scott Benson
Council Member
Ward 11