I would like to thank Bruce Shoemaker for his good description of what's happening in the redistricting lawsuit. (I have left Bruce's original post attached to the end of mine.) Let me update you just a little.
We, the plaintiffs, submitted this settlement offer to the City in July with the hope of avoiding a costly legal process that would result if both sides had to prepare for and go to trial. Unfortunately, the City Attorney has sat on this proposal and had not submitted it or the proposed settlement map to the City Council until this last week. On Friday, September 26th, 2003 the City Attorney, and his hired outside lawyers, met with the City Council to discuss this issue. Normally when the Council discusses a lawsuit with the attorneys a motion is made and passed to close the meeting to the public. (quite legal and specifically provided for in the open meeting law) The City Attorney showed up without copies of the formal settlement proposal or copies of the Settlement map. The attorneys went on at some length about details of who has been called for depositions and other irrelevant details and never gave the Council a clear synopsis of the settlement offer. The two plaintiffs who are on the Council, Dean Zimmermann and Natalie Johnson Lee, were not allowed to give an explanation or synopsis of the settlement offer. The first attempt to close the meeting failed on a 6 to 5 vote. Then there was then a lot of unproductive discussion about what we couldn't talk about and about how this should be handled. Finally a motion to close the meeting passed and reporters and Zimmermann and Johnson Lee were asked to leave. I have no idea about what they then talked about in the closed session and of course they are not allowed to talk about it. I have no idea if the rest of the Council has any understanding of what our offer is or not. I certainly doubt it. I have since heard rumors that the rest of the council has asked the City Attorney to withdraw the City's offer to settle. The net effect of this is that the City is wasting money preparing to do battle in court to defend a map that any fifth grader can see does not adhere to the standards laid out in the City Charter. To defend what? A map that almost nobody likes in the first place? One might add, that because the City's case is being handled by an outside law firm, that they stand to make a lot more money if the case goes to court. We now feel that because the City Attorney has not done a good job of presenting this case to the Council in a timely matter, it is now time for us to go directly to the other Council members and the public. As such I will be providing each council member a copy of the settlement map that we are offering as a basis of discussion along with a rationale of how the map was constructed. This will then be released to the public. The Settlement Map was made with these basic underlying premises: 1) The purpose of redistricting is to adjust the boundaries of the wards to make sure that each ward has the same population. The purpose is not to draw new wards. 2) Each ward should be changed as little as possible. 3) Wards should tend to be blockish, not of convoluted shapes. 4) It can be argued equally that major streets, the river or other geographic features make good ward boundaries or that they are the unifying object of an area or ward. 5) Citizens of a ward have the right to get rid of their incumbent if they don't like him/her and citizens of a ward have the right keep their incumbent if they think he/she is doing a good job. This decision should not be made by a redistricting body. 6) Attention should be paid to communities of interest. 7) Wards should never be created for partisan reasons, but it is ok to create opportunity wards for traditionally under represented and historically discriminated against racial groups. Care must be taken to make sure that this does not turn into packing. 8) Where feasible boundaries should try to follow neighborhood boundaries. Both the disputed map and the settlement map do a fair job of this. Creating an actual map is a little like juggling. There are 8 criteria listed above, they all must be paid attention to at the same time. These above criteria can conflict with one another. For example, if an existing ward is of a convoluted shape, how can one turn it into a blockish shape without changing it more that slightly? I should say however, that the above criteria represent a philosophical basis for how to go about creating a map. Others may have different philosophical criteria. This is all in addition to the legal requirements set forth in the constitutions of the US and Minnesota, state law, the City Charter and reams of case law. Our basis for filing the lawsuit is on legal grounds--our case puts forth several specific ways that the map is illegal. Our motivation is based on our conviction that the disputed map, in both the way it was constructed and its result, blatantly discriminates against the African American community, the Native American community and the Green Party and creates unnecessary disruption to the political life of our city. So how does one, as a practical matter, go about adjusting the boundaries of the Minneapolis City Council Wards? That we will share as soon as we have, out of courtesy, shared it with the other Council members -- who are, after all, the defendants in this case. Dean Zimmermann 673-2206 **************************************************************************** --- Original Message ----- From: "B. Shoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "mpls forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:32 AM Subject: [Mpls] Redistricting: The Settlement Offer > 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 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
