Scott Persons wrote, "The one thought I do have about Phyllis' bill
is that it may save the city or the state a lawsuit, Lisa McDonald mentioned
to me last year at a Lyndale event that it is possible that one could win a
lawsuit to force new council elections because of the changed boundaries. I
would love to hear some of our attorney's on this list address that issue
(cue Brian Melendez and others)."
I do not recall the wards' populations well enough to comment
specifically on the merit of a lawsuit seeking new elections, but I can
suggest the general principles that will affect whether such a lawsuit will
succeed.
The City Charter (ch. 1, sec. 3) provides that "in each year ending
in the number two, or whenever the number of Wards is changed, or when
required by court order, [a] Redistricting Commission shall be established
to draw Ward boundaries." Redistricting therefore occurs two years after
each decennial census and, as the Charter presently applies, will not affect
the City Council until the 2005 election. Standing alone, the five-year
delay between the census and the new elections will not support a lawsuit
seeking a new, earlier election. A plaintiff seeking an earlier election
must show that his or her vote has been diluted, as shown by the latest
census numbers--that is, the plaintiff must show a violation of the "one
person, one vote" principle. For example, if every ward in Minneapolis had
the same (or even relatively the same) population in the 2000 Census as in
the 1990 Census, then each voter still enjoys a share of the franchise equal
to that of each other voter, the population has not changed in a way that
dilutes anyone's vote, and a legal challenge will fail.
The "one person, one vote" principle in legislative redistricting
tolerates "divergences from a strict population standard." A legislative
redistricting plan must achieve "substantial equality of population among
the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately
equal in weight to that of any other citizen." The requirement of
"substantial" and "approximate" equality generally means a deviation of less
than ten percent. Thus, a lawsuit seeking an earlier election for the City
Council (or for the Park Board, some of whose members are also elected from
districts) needs a plaintiff who can show that he or she lives in a ward
whose population deviates from another ward's population by ten percent or
more (or thereabouts).
If there is such a plaintiff, then he or she may bring a lawsuit
that can force a new Citywide election, but other outcomes are possible as
well. For example, if each incumbent Council Member elected from an "old"
ward happens to live in a different "new" ward than each other Council
Member, then a court may decide that each Council Member is already in
effect representing the new ward where he or she would stand for
re-election, so there is no legal harm and a new election is unnecessary.
Or if the vote dilution affects only a few wards, then a court may order a
new election only in those wards, and leave intact the wards without a
significant shift in population. (Again, I do not have the census numbers
handy, so maybe someone else on the list can say how many wards have
experienced a significant shift.)
Terrell Brown wrote, "I have no idea how such a suit would come out
but I do know that lawyers generally don't file suits that they don't think
they have a chance of winning." I do not read too much into the absence of
such a suit at the present moment, since it is still early days in the City
redistricting process, and a prospective plaintiff may want for strategic
reasons to delay a suit about the timing of the elections until after the
new ward lines are drawn. The Redistricting Commission's work will take on
a different character if there is a pending lawsuit that may require a new
election barely a year after the new lines are drawn.
Finally, Michael Atherton writes, "Ok, so maybe it's just the cynic
in me, but is Ms. Kahn's concern about one-person-one-vote somehow related
to the success of the Greens in the last election? . . . . Does it give the
DFL a second shot at them? If so, this is a pretty shady way to circumvent
the will of the voters." First, I do not see how a new election is
"circumvent[ing] the will of the voters," since the voters will have gotten
their say either way. Second, the Green Party's showing in the last
election was very impressive, so I am not sure as between the DFL Party and
the Green Party who will benefit more from a new election: last time, the
Greens were a new party with limited resources, contesting several seats
none of which they then held; if they can hold the seats that they have
already won, a new election in less than two years may let them concentrate
their energy on winning a new seat or seats that they do not now hold.
Finally, I have heard Phyllis Kahn on this issue, and I am convinced that
she is pursuing it out of her view about what makes the most sense as a
matter of public policy and good government.
BRM
Brian Melendez
St. Anthony West (Ward 3)
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
