<big snip> > We all know what gerrymandering is, and political parties > have been about the business of gerrymandering districts to > bolster their chances at power acquisition since the > beginning of the republic. > > But - and here's where suspicion of political maneuvering > negates principled claims - the DFL first > <anip> > > 2) worked to pack the 2002 redistricting commission with > DFLers to assure the redrawing of districts would toughen or > eliminate reelection chances for Green councilmembers who > embarrassed them in 2001 by breaking the Council's > longstanding DFL cabal (Greens and citizens have been > challenging that redistricting result in court as well), then,
[TB] If they worked to pack the redistricting commission, they didn't do a very good job of it. By my count 3 of the 9 members were DFLers, 1 selected by the Council's DFL caucus and 2 selected by the Charter Commission. The remaining 9 members were 1 Green selected by the Council minority caucus, 2 Independence Party members selected by the Charter Commission, 2 Republicans selected by the Charter Commission and a Chair selected by the first 8 members of the redistricting commission. As I recall the Chair was identified as Republican. Personally I think they did a rather good job of drawing ward lines given the constraints. Populations are nearly equal, neighborhoods are generally kept together, the wards are generally compact (given the shape of the city which isn't very compact). Most of the incumbents were happy as with only one exception they stayed in their existing ward (we've since elected another member who got redistricted into a different ward) > 3) when all was said and done, tried, first and > unsuccessfully, to pass a state bill to retroactively require > elections in 2003 based on the "lack of ward representation" > their own party operatives created with their redistricting > plan shifting Green Party incumbents outside their 2001 ward > boundaries. Let's remember that the same legislation was introduced in previous legislative sessions. The legislative history was discussed previously on this list, if anyone cares they can go look for it. Its certainly common for legislation that doesn't get through one legislative session to get introduced again the next time around. I don't see any great conspiracy here. <snip> > This is not a legal or moral issue. Pure politics. And the > courts should not accede. I think it is a legal issue. We have a census so that we can redraw boundaries to ensure equal representation. The census numbers were available in time to draw the new ward lines in time for the 2001 elections, but we have this silly rule that says we can't draw our city lines until the state draws its legislative lines. Politics kept the Legislature from getting its job done. I don't think we should need to wait until 2006 to have representation based on the 2000 census, however, at this point I think its getting a little late to call a new election. If we were to have the election this year, the short time period works to the advantage of incumbents. I can think of at least a couple of incumbents that I'd rather not give an advantage to. If we were to hold an election sometime next year it would result in a term of less than 2 years (assuming the term would still end following the 2005 elections). While I don't want to reward the Council for not fixing this problem prior to the last election (they can amend the charter by unanimous action), I'm not sure what we gain by having an 18 month council term > Here's what should have happened: the structure of city > council elections should have, like the State Senate, taken > the inevitable decennial redistricting into account by > constructing council terms on a 4-4-2 configuration. That's the easy fix. Our council in 2001 (many of whom are no longer in office) refused to do it. We could adopt the California model and have an occaisional recall election. Get elected after redistricting and serve until the next redistricting unless you get recalled (or relocated to a federal pen). Terrell Brown Loring Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
