The criteria used for redistricting are very simple. The wards must have as nearly the same number of people in each, should be as compact and block shaped as near as possible, should respect natural geographic boundaries as much as possible, should respect natural communities and neighborhoods as much as possible, and should be drawn so as not to disenfranchise minority populations.
There is no requirement that wards be drawn to be politically competitive or to protect incumbents. In fact, when a redistricting authority draws up new lines with a primary goal of protecting incumbent's turf it substantially increases the likelihood that the new plan will not survive a court challenge! Personally, I think that requiring new ward or district lines that mandate no incumbents wind up in the same ward/district is a bad idea whose time should never come! What is so special about incumbency that the redistricting authority must have to work within that constraint? I would argue that the best outcome for a redistricting authority is to ignore incumbent addresses and just draw the fairest lines that one can do. Two incumbents in a new district means that another district will have an open seat and that creates new opportunities for someone else. Two incumbents who decide to run against each other often insures a competitive election - a good thing in my mind. In most redistricting plans, incumbents wind up with a healthy percentage (usually 60% or more)of their old district anyway and that nationally, after redistricting is completed, about two-thirds of all incumbents were left in districts (albeit changed) without another incumbent. Having worked with lots of elected people over the years, I can say that most of them are very decent, caring, responsive, and serve their constituencies well and honorably. That said however, they should earn their re-elections from their new and old constituents without a boost from the redistricting authority! Jim Bernstein Fulton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stack Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] City Council districts Could someone possibly post a very brief listing of the primary reasons why a ward's boundary should be redrawn? And/or briefly list the primary factors to be considered when drawing ward shapes? I would think it reasonalble that one criterion should be that a ward's boundary should not be drawn so as to place the current council member outside the district. This criterion seems to me to probably be just as important as the other factors to keep in mind when redrawing. But, obviously, this is not part of the current law. Maybe we should add this wording to the law, and save us all a lot of bother. Dave Stack, Harrison (where we had a very nice walking tour along Bassett Creek yesterday) 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. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ 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. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ 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
