Long-time readers will not have been surprised at what they have read in The Tribune on Sunday, but others may have questions. Do not expect a lot of commentary/opinion to appear from this writer about a pending effort to seek a judicial order compelling a reapportionment of New Albany City Council districts.
However, there is factual information that can be shared, and I’ll do so with this posting and, possibly, future postings.
To alleviate any concerns that this action is related to any current electoral contest, we’ll analyze a recent county-wide general election to lay out some revealing numbers that may enlighten.
This writer is but a bit player in this drama, but you should know that planning for this has been going on for over a year. A broad spectrum of individuals across this community share our concerns over the representational imbalance in city council districts. I was almost as surprised as any of you to see my name in the second paragraph below a banner Tribune headline in Sunday’s editions.
When the City Council sits down to level out the districts, as the state statute requires them to do, they will use Census data from the year 2000, even though estimated data from 2005 is available.
We’ll use actual voting data from an off-year county November election that ought to be somewhat useful.
Make no mistake about it, politics will be a component in the redistricting, and partisan advantage will war with personal advantage if the court orders the redistricting. SO…
In 2002, NA’s First District voted 65.7 percent Democratic. District 2 voted 62.3 Democratic. Remember, this was a county election, but one where Baron Hill faced off with Mike Sodrel (Hill won), and roughly one year after Sept. 11, 2001.
So what? Every city district voted Democratic that year. But remember, partisan advantage will surely be part of the redistricting, and the Democrats hold all the cards this year, with 8 of the 9 votes on council.
But why might those numbers be significant?
Taking this one race’s data, you’d expect (in equalized districts) to see 1,802 voters turning out in each city district, for a total of 10,814 city voters
Here are the actual numbers:
1 (now represented by Dan Coffey (D)) – 1130
2 (now represented by Bill Schmidt (D)) – 3086
3 (now represented by Steve Price (D)) – 1156
4 (now represented by Larry Kochert (D)) – 1641
5 (now represented by Bev Crump (D))– 1701
6 (now represented by Jeff Gahan (D))- 2100
Obviously, population and voting turnout aren’t exactly comparable, but who is to say that turnout isn’t suppressed by unequal representation?
How imbalanced is the actual vote from this snapshot election data?
1 is 37.3% voters fewer than the norm of 1,802
2 is 71.2% voters GREATER than the norm of 1,802
3 is 35.9% voters fewer than the norm of 1,802
4 is 9.0% voters fewer than the norm of 1,802
5 is 5.6% voters fewer than the norm of 1,802
6 is 16.5% voters GREATER than the norm of 1,802
Can anyone doubt that CC District 2 is under-represented, and that 1 and 3 are over-represented?
The underlying claim for EQUAL representation is basic and constitutional. Equal protection under the law is, in 2006, considered an automatic right, and regardless of the constitutional interpretation, redistricting is an Indiana statutory requirement.
Soon, this will become a political question. I’ve little doubt that the council will do the right thing. Horse-trading will commence, and drama is certain. And I know that my colleagues at NA Confidential will keep you posted on the news as it develops, and that they will express opinions thereon. But this writer is retiring from the field forthwith until the pending litigation is settled. NA Confidential will keep you up to date, but All4Word is out of the journalism game on this one. MLOS, until the post-mortem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Here's the original Tribune story link:
City residents plan suit against council
It was written by Eric Scott Campbell.
Greg's remarks are perfectly valid and welcome. I did not mean to imply to Mr. Campbell that ESSNA was an actor in this, nor that it had been an agenda item for that group.
In discussing how long we had been talking about this, I said that a wide range of individuals and groups had held conversations for more than a year about the lack of equilibrium among the city council districts. Such discussions did take place at ESSNA gatherings, but I have no memory of it being an official item. As you know, I've been unable to attend meetings for a looong time, so it would have to have been many months ago - perhaps even the evening we hosted author and attorney J. Bruce Miller.
All the individuals involved have various attachments and all are eager for government accountability, civic improvement, and responsive representation. You would expect civicly involved people to be interested in such an action and to discuss it in their various communities of interest. That does not mean the Lions Club or the Kiwanis are involved if a Lion or a Kiwanian is, right?
Although I would consider it a badge of honor for the group to be interested in the subject, I'd hope any thinking person would be able to differentiate between a group and its members. Sorry about any confusion.
Is there any way a council district map could be put up for viewing? The last time I looked the city did not even have this on their site.
Thanks Brandon. Indiana State comes through again.
This is my response to the Sunday headline, while there are those that wish me not to respond, I felt I needed to. I am not asking for any of you to agree with me, as always, each to his own.
Mr Editor,
As you are aware, Sunday mornings headline, Residents plan suit against council, raised the eyebrows of many local citizens, including my own!
While the facts of the article are true, it appears that parts of the article are a bit misleading. The first thing that comes to my mind is the fact that there are nine residents listed as plaintiffs, however, I saw only two names listed mine and Randy Smith of Destinations Booksellers. It’s odd that in association with my name I am identified as one “who lost his bid to join the New Albany Township Board in Tuesday’s primary.” I guess what concerns me while the average reader may respond with “oh, he is just being a sore looser” which in fact is not true. I am very thankful to the 932 voters that saw fit to cast their ballots for me. And with such low voter turn out, did the votes represent the best candidates for the job? Only time will tell.
Redistricting is mandated by law IC 36-4-6-3, Sec 3(g)(1). Stated, during the second year after a year in which a federal decennial census is conducted. That would have been the 2000 census, therefore the second year after would have been 2003. Since the 1990 census New Albany has experience rapid growth in the northeast area of the county. New subdivisions have been created by the dozens, manufacturing facilities have started or grown by leaps and bounds. It would be unfair to give province to the fact the population of New Albany today is the same as it was in 1990. Therefore, several, really more than nine people have voiced an opinion of this misrepresentation, I guess only two of us have the guts to step forward and declare it so!
Councilman Blevins stated in the article that he didn't understand the need for a law suit. I would like to point out to him the answer he seeks is located four paragraphs before his statement. Councilman Kochert said, “The council last redrew district boundaries 10 years ago and last tried to do so three years ago, but it got to be too much politics.” Maybe the politics needs to be taken out, maybe a nonpartisan board should be created to do it strictly mathematically and geographically, it been done elsewhere in the country.
Another reason for a law suit, as Councilman Blevins also stated, “I am sure if someone came to talk to the council, something would get done.” Who are you kidding? The only way anything gets done with the current council is if a law suit is threatened or filed! Just ask any developer or council for any developer. So far in the past 16 months that I have been attending city council meetings the only thing that gets done is tax abatements, every Tom, Dick, and Harry seems to qualify for a tax abatement that reduces the cities coffers by millions for about as many years!
In closing, it is sad that the apathy of the registered voters in this city have chosen to let only a few voters elect officials to hold positions of importance and trust. If nothing else by placing my name on a ballot this past primary, I have earned the right to complain, argue, and just plain (insert five letter word that rhymes with witch here!) about how things are done in this city! If you don't vote, don't complain. If you have never ran for office don't argue, and if your happy with the way New Albany has been for the past twenty years then continue not casting your ballot. But if you are fed up and tired of the way this city is crumbling, and tired of reading news how Clark County just landed another large shopping complex, get off your duff in November and go VOTE!
As far as myself, a sore looser? N0! Just a concerned citizen.
Signed,
Rick Carmickle
Post a Comment