Shawn Lewis writes about the redistricting lawsuit:
<DOES ANY ONE HAVE ANY UPDATE ON THIS ISSUES?
<IS THERE A NEW MAP OUT, YET? If not, why?
<If so, why has the general public not seen it?
Several people have asked me off-list to provide more details following
my post last Friday regarding the status of the redistricting lawsuit.
Early this summer the City's lawyers approached the Plaintiff's lawyers
and asked for a settlement proposal. The Plaintiff's responded in late
July, or maybe early August. After one strips all of the legal talk off,
the proposal is quite simple and easy to understand.
But first, a little bit about redistricting lawsuits in general. They go
like this. First a judge (or judges) find a map to be invalid, for
whatever reason. Then the judge has three choices: 1) the court
can send the map back to whomever drew it in the first place and tell
them to draw a legal map; 2) the court can send the map to some other
entity and ask them to draw a legal map; or, 3) the court can present
its own map. This is a great simplification of course, the path each
state takes may be governed by a particular state statute. For example,
the state or a city charter may include statutes governing errors in the
redistricting process.
When the court is satisfied that it has a legal map, it will order this
map be used. All three of these routes have been used to resolve many
redistricting lawsuits. Also, if the statute sets forth a process for
reaching a new map, the state may not necessarily order that a map be
used. The Court may simply find the original map invalid and then follow
whatever process the statute (or charter) dictates.
Second, I need to clarify terms regarding the maps. There are three
maps. We can call them the "Current" map, the "Disputed" map and the
"Settlement" map. I offer these terms as a way to make sure we know
which map is being talked about in what will surely become a confusing
discussion.
1) The "Current map" was adopted on April 1, 1992. This is the map that
is currently in use and will be until the next City Council elections,
which are scheduled for the fall of 2005.
2) The "Disputed map" was adopted by the Redistricting Commission on
April 18, 2002. This Disputed map is to be used for the next City
Council elections scheduled for the fall of 2005. This is the map being
challenged by the lawsuit that is currently in federal court.
3) The "Settlement map" is a map that the Plaintiffs have offered to the
City, at the city's request, as an example of a redistricting map that
satisfies our concerns and as a way to settle the lawsuit before it has
to go to a costly trial.
The Settlement map shows that it is possible to produce a map that
follows the City Charter and federal law, that makes only the minimum
necessary adjustments to existing ward boundaries, that avoids racial
packing, that respects public input into the process, and that respects
the integrity of neighborhoods.
The Settlement map provides a basis for a fairer and legal redistricting
process. The Plaintiffs recognize that public input is a part of proper
redistricting and are not proposing that the Settlement map just be
adopted without further public input. The Settlement map was intended to
serve as an example of an appropriate map. The goal is not to have the
City simply agree upon the map submitted by the Plaintiffs.
The Settlement map has not been made public because, as soon as it was
completed, it was submitted, by the Plaintiffs, to the City. We thought
that the City Council would see it right away and that it could be
presented jointly by the City and the Plaintiffs as a beginning of a
way to find a settlement short of going to trial. The Plaintiffs felt
that the City should be presented with the settlement plan before the
details, including the sample map, were made public.
The City attorney said to one of the Plaintiffs that he thought that it
would be better if it all came from the Plaintiff's attorney to the City
Attorney. As a courtesy, we felt the City Attorney and the Council
members should see it first before it became public. Some individual
Council Members have seen it. This whole thing is taking longer than we
thought it would.
The settlement proposal that the Plaintiffs submitted to the City is
essentially this:
1) The City stipulates that the Third Ward of the "Disputed map," which
was adopted by the Redistricting Commission on April 18, 2002, is more
that twice as long as it is wide--thus making the map illegal.
Plaintiffs argue that the definition of length and width used by the
City is ridiculous and a different interpretation of length and width
should be used for measuring wards. While the Plaintiffs have technical
survey evidence to back this up, it is actually very obvious to anyone
taking a casual glance at the Disputed Map that the Third Ward is way
more than twice as long as it is wide. That condition violates a
specific requirement of the City Charter.
2) The City and Plaintiffs jointly ask the court to order the
Redistricting Commission be reconstituted, this time including
representatives from the Green Party -- as well as the other major
parties. We ask the court to find the map in violation of the city
charter and request that the creation of a map should be done by a newly
reconstituted Redistricting Commission that satisfies the charter
requirements.
3) The City and Plaintiffs jointly ask the court to submit our
"Settlement map" to the newly reconstituted Redistricting Commission to
either approve the map, tweak the map and then approve it, or return
their own new and legal map to the court. One might expect the
Redistricting Commission to hold public hearings as a part of this
process. Of course, during this process, anyone can present a map
proposal to the Redistricting Commission.
4) The court then submits the map to both parties for approval. (If the
Court's decision is that the only issues are city charter issues and
simply orders that the redistricting process start again, this won't
happen at all.)
5) If both parties approve the map, and the court itself has no
objection to the map, then the City and the Plaintiffs would ask the
court to order the map to be adopted. (Again, the Court might simply
accept the map that comes out of the newly constituted Redistricting
Commission).
We think that this process is fair, legal and transparent and can
produce a fair map. It is a process that includes public input.
In another post we will describe the rationale for the Settlement map
and further discuss why it better meets the public interest than does
the Disputed map.
Bruce Shoemaker
Holland Neighborhood
Ward 3 (Current Map) Ward 1 (Disputed Map)
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
