on 10/21/03 5:51 PM, B. Shoe at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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?
I hope it's not TOO confusing. The complaints that each suit cites (ward population differences, concentrating or splitting minority groups) are valid...but not serious enough, in my view, to merit tossing out a map that was legally drawn (and I believe, will stand up under the Voting Rights Act.) For me, there has to be a very high hurdle for the courts to throw out something that was democratically decided. The Kahn suit insists on snap elections - as soon as 60 days, perhaps longer - that I believe undoes the will of 2001 voters. (And I don't think a 25 percent population difference between the biggest and smallest ward is enough to do it.) The Johnson Lee/Zimmermann suit would toss out a map designed by a commission that was legally chosen under the city charter. I believe the map and the Redistricting Commission concept were flawed - and said so at the time - but those flaws were the result of bad laws, not illegal ones (in my humble opinion.) I don't like the result, but I need some basis to throw it out � and I don't see it here. (Side point on the map: the Zimmermann map is more logical, but it doesn't drastically empower minority voters. There are five districts with more than 48 percent minority in both map; practically speaking, I don't see a much greater change of electing minorities under the Zimmermann map.) Since you can't change the result if it was based on a valid law, the next logical step is to write better laws for the future. To me, this takes two forms: 1. Change the make-up of the Redistricting Commission, and perhaps who appoints it. Instead of using state major-party status, use a more city-based standard. The Greens were screwed because they were, well, screwed. They only had one seat, while the GOP and Independence Parties, unable to elect a councilperson, had 4. That kind of imbalance should be fixed. (I'm not a fan of the Charter Commission appointing the Redistricting Commission either; Charter chair Kari Dziedzic was OK with dropping out of the 3rd Ward endorsement fight this year awaiting the better 3rd Ward her appointees drew.) 2. Change election timing so the first post-census election falls in a "3" year every decade. (You can't reapportion for a "1" year for various reasons.) My preferred scheme is back-to-back two-year terms when needed, thus 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021*, 2023*, 2025, 2029, 2033 and I should live so long. That assures the council and mayor always run at the same time. However, I could stand one fewer two year term, thus 2013, 2017, 2021*, 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035 and I'm drooling in the nursing home. > 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). For the record, I never said it was. > 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? Again, my "dismissal" is not based on what I wished the city had. It's based on my interpretation of the law. You need a legal underpinning. I think the suit's legal basis will be found lacking. > 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. Me, too. It's an incumbent protection plan, which the current map is not. I think that's a fascinating subplot here. Finally, just to be clear: I'd actually be happy if the current map was tossed. I just don't think its upholding the law to do it, and that's a more fundamental democratic principle. David Brauer Kingfield Editor, Southwest Journal and Skyway News 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
