The Southwest Journal article on the Redistricting Lawsuit provides some good information on the status of the lawsuit. The journal's editorial, however, (written by David Brauer) is confusing. He seems to agree that many of the points raised are valid and that the proposed Settlement Map is far superior to what the Redistricting Commission produced. But then the editorial stops short of endorsing the lawsuit while making the puzzling claim that voters can solve the issues raised in the next election through changing the redistricting process for the future. But if we have a problem now, why not fix it now?
The editorial argues that keeping existing office holders in their wards shouldn't be a priority. I don't disagree with this if other criteria argue in favor of such a change. However, it is one thing for a rational redistricting process to conclude that, based on other more important criteria, this should occur. It is another thing altogether for a vindictive and partisan commission member to engineer the arbitrary drawing of an officeholder (against whom he had a grudge) out of his ward using a sneaky last-minute maneuver after the public hearing process has already concluded. In the case of Don Samuels and Natalie Johnson Lee, the issue is not that anyone tried to draw them into the same ward (Samuels, of course, had not yet gained office). The issue is the racial packing of the 5th Ward, the potential dilution of the minority vote in the 3rd Ward and the fact that this is accomplished using an illegally shaped map. The Third Ward in the Disputed Map is 2.9 times longer than it is wide, violating the city charter. The Settlement Map demonstrates that a much better result is possible than what the last Redistricting Commission produced. All wards easily meet the shape requirement and other important criteria are also respected. If the SW Journal editorial is going to dismiss the lawsuit's legal points (ward shape, public hearing process, etc.) in favor of what it thinks is the overall public interest, let's examine this. Does anyone except diehard partisans really think that this city is not benefiting from the leadership being provided by both Don Samuels and Natalie Johnson Lee? Is it really in the public interest to force them to face off against each other? Or for Samuels to have to out of the Jordan neighborhood, where he has become such an influential figure, to be re-elected in the Third Ward? In lawsuits it is usually assumed that the two contesting parties have diametrically opposing interests. I would argue, however, that in this case this is not the situation at all. I can easily see how a large majority of the current city council might well prefer to reject the flawed and illegal Disputed Map in favor of a new process. The City Council doesn't have to wait for a trial next year, wasting city and plaintiff resources on continuing to fight this lawsuit. Instead they could conclude now that the best interests of the plaintiffs, the city, and the public all would be served by the city council accepting a court approved settlement. All this would take would be for the council to pass a resolution acknowledging that the Disputed Map is illegal due to the shape of the 3rd Ward and directing their attorneys to pursue a settlement. In addition to the Southwest Journal website, the Settlement offer and Settlement Map (available as a .pdf download) are also now posted on the F.R.E.E. website: www.freempls.org. Also, fighting a lawsuit is expensive and we're not rich: donations are needed and welcome!! Info is on the F.R.E.E. site. Bruce Shoemaker Holland Neighborhood Ward 3 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
