Sunday, September 23, 2007

Vicki Ann Denschak fails spelling, math … but since it isn’t about truth, that’s okay, right?

Today the trognonymous Denschak Duo asks:


First, it’s spelled wrong: P-R-O-P-O-S-A-L, girls.

As for the numbers, which have been generated by unelected “wannabes” outside the council chamber, seemingly contradicting President Kochert’s flatulent insistence that the council itself is capable of resolving the issue without anyone’s help (except Anna’s, we presume), here is what is wrong with the numbers.

The difference between the most and least numerous is almost 600, while a truly fair redistricting would constitute a swing of no more than 100 residents between districts. With 6404 as the normative district population (2000 census figures), that would mean that a "fair" redistricting would mean the largest district would be no larger than 6454 people and the smallest would be no more than 6354 people.

There is no question that this can be accomplished. The "will" to accomplish it is another matter.

The legal principle involved is not dependent on the number of neighborhood associations represented in the mawsuit, or on the total number of plaintiffs, or won which of them serves on a board, or is running for office, or, for that matter, anything else. The lawsuit has to do with a legal principle, and this legal principle -- one man, one vote --evidently has proven inconvenient to some in New Albany who are unaccustomed to life in a democracy. That's too bad, but it doesn't change the legal principle.

The fact remains: The council serially botched its statutory duty to redistrict, and prior to last Thursday, seemed intent on botching its belated effort to make amends. In short, the council must do it, and do it correctly; so says the law, and so say the Feds. It is hoped the latter process of correction will soon begin in earnest, not in craven deference to the wishes of the radical obstructionist cabal whose sole interest is political self-perpetuation.

It’s as simple as that.

Now, back to the morning coffee.

(thanks RS)

No comments: