SO WHAT if we don't hold public elections until 2005??? Think for a moment about the amount of manpower (both elected and private) that's currently being dedicated to this issue. Aren't there more pressing issues to dedicate the energy to???
Where does common sense enter into it???
There's a constitutional principle involved, an especially important one, i.e. one person-one vote. Reasonable people may disagree about how much that principle is impacted by the redistricting mess, and whether other factors outweigh it, but it is undeniably at issue.
This whole "what's the problem, let's just ignore it" response lays the groundwork for an apathetic reaction the next time constitutional issues are at stake. And the next time, and the time after that. It won't take too long before some hyped-up partisans in a state legislature somewhere use the Minneapolis precedent as a justification for some seriously bad behavior.
It's not hard to imagine such a scenario: the Alpha party controls the state legislature. The leaders of the Alpha party realize that, after redistricting, the Beta party will take power. So the Alpha-controlled legislature "adopts" a redistricting plan but in the same statute directs that it will not be "implemented" for another 3 years.
The analogy isn't exact, you say, because state elections always occur in the same year as redistricting. But why? Aren't there more important questions to worry about than when and how many elections we have? For example, included in the Alpha party's legislative agenda is a proposal designed to "save taxpayer dollars" by reducing the frequency of state elections from 2 years to 4 years (this may get bundled with other "reform" issues such as a unicameral, just to confuse people). Suddenly, there is no election until '04, or fully two-and-a-half years after redistricting occurs.
If successful, the Alpha party has bought itself an extra 2 years in power which it didn't deserve. And when you complain the Alpha party accuses you of wanting to waste taxpayer dollars on unnecessary elections, especially when "there are more pressing issues to worry about."
If you don't think this scenario is realistic, you haven't been following what the Texas Republicans did this year, redistricting congressional seats in mid-term after taking control of the Texas legislature, redrawing boundaries which had been drawn by judges (and by Republican-appointed judges at that).
It is reasonable to debate the merits of how to address this constitutional problem -- a special election is particularly controversial, I understand that objection. But to argue that discussion of a probable violation of the constitution is a waste of time, because "there are more pressing issues" -- well, to me that sounds a lot like John Ashcroft defending the Patriot Act.
Greg Abbott
------------------------------------
Sent from the computer of:
Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward
------------------------------------
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
