[Mpls] HF 67

[Bensonale]

Reynolds v. Sims is indeed the case Rep. Kahn cited previously and the case to which I referred in my earlier post.  If you take the time to read even the small portion of the case provided by Rep. Kahn you will see that the requirement is for decennial reapportionment which has been accomplished in Minneapolis by the reapportionment done last year.  Where is the requirement to force early elections to effectuate the reapportionment plan?  Surely the constitutional "sin" in Reynolds was not that they failed to hold elections from 1901 until 1963, but that they held regular elections without reapportioning districts. Given how common it is just in Minnesota cities to hold elections pursuant to a regular schedule some two to three years after adoption of a reapportionment plan, one would think that in 40 years of jurisprudence since Reynolds v. Sims this would have come up.  So, if there are other cases on point, I would hope Rep. Kahn would share them with us now so we can read them prior to Wednesday's hearing.

Also note that Rep. Khan, for whatever effect, is trying to compare segregationist Alabama, where they had not reapportioned from 1901 to 1963, to Minneapolis where the reapportionment  was done in 1992 and then again after April, 2002, the time that is prescribed by state statute.  Rep. Kahn need not be "personally embarrassed" by Minneapolis elected officials whom she asserts have aligned themselves with southern segregationists.  They have not done so.  From what I can tell, Minneapolis elected officials are complying with the letter and the spirit of the law.  Those who seek, for whatever reasons, to force early elections in Minneapolis without the benefit of compelling legal authority should be embarrassed.  I suspect that in reality, this is not a legal, but a political argument and it should be framed that way for the next committee to hear this in the House.

Scott Benson
Council Member
Ward 11