Sunday readers, I need a little help.
I'm working on a Tribune column about the city council's ongoing failure to redistrict (see Bluegill's thoughts below), and it would be helpful to have a definitive rendering of exactly how long it has been since any New Albany city council has complied with its own rulebook and carried out lawful redistricting hereabouts.
The number of days will become part of the column's title, and can be converted into a running daily digital count on the blog's front page. Think of it as the sum numerical total of accumulated unconstitutionality.
Bluegill brought all this back to my attention with this comment earlier today hre: Tribune's "2009 agenda for Floyd County."
Kudos to the Tribune for publishing a very sensible agenda.
All the more baffling, then, that the City Council seems unable to produce an agenda of its own.
I would note also that waiting for the 2010 census would delay fair voting even more than what might be apparent. Results of that census won't be available until 2011, within a year of a municipal election, barring the Council from acting until after yet another unconstitutional vote was complete in 2012.
And that's exactly what Gahan, Coffey, Price, Benedetti, and McLaughlin, based on their voting records, want.
12 comments:
According to American Legal online 30.65, it was 1992.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Indiana/newalb/titleiiiadministration/chapter30commoncouncil?f=templates$fn=altmain-nf.htm$3.0#JD_30.65
The citation ends with:
(Ord. G-66-242, passed 2-2-66; Am. Ord. G-74-19, passed 12-16-74; Am. Ord.
G-82-961, passed 12-15-82; Am. Ord. G-90-239, passed 10-18-90; Am. Ord. G-92-139, passed 12-17-92)
which seems to indicate redistricting in '66,'74,'82 and '90 with the last district ordinance being passed on December 17, 1992.
In other fun news, with the exception of a cleanliness provision, our vague and ignored housing code hasn't been updated since 1969.
Perhaps a new definition of "priority" is in order.
I've been reading Ledger articles from the late 1800s lately, for fun believe it or not. One issue struck my attention which was the failure of the housing and street depts to satisfy the demands of the citizens, an on-going lament in the news of the day. It may be there has never been a "hey-day" for infrastructure in NA ever. There were slums down the street from the Culbertson when it was built, and there still are. Maybe, we'd bree better off accepting what NA is and always was - a vicious little transportation nexus of constant social change and upheaval, always one step from oblivion, even in the beginnings. Also interesting to note in the records are accusations against the sewer board for incompetent and corruption. Do some things never change, as they say?
I've found a gadget for listing the days and will seek to make it work tomorrow morning.
Gahan is history in the next election and it won matter what district he winds up in. FYI, he is also pushing for a retirement package for all councilmen with 8 or more years service.
I think the taxpayers should ask for a refund on his past 5 years pay because he certaintly hasnt served us, his reign of error has been a disservice.
Follows are the reasons that I(we)are wrong about redistricting. As told to me, face to face, more than once.
1. The citizens don't care. "Do you hear any outcry, except from 4 or 5 who want to run everything? I won't let 4 or 5 people tell me what my duty is."
2. This Council is not legally bound to redistrict. When the Council of(02/03?)did not--that ended any legal obligation.
3. Aren't you happy with your representative?
4. If we redistricted now, you want to use census figures from 2000. How much sense does that make?
5. It's not important. It would way down the list of a top 10.
There are more but mostly variations of the above. Of course, there are logical answers to each of those points. If anyone does not know the answers, I would be more than happy to supply them.
IAH, it is my understanding that a US District Court Judge has ruled that redistricting IS required by law. Can you explain the legal argument of why you believe the Judge is wrong?
Dan,
There goes my poor writing skills leading to an incorrect conclusion again.
I was attempting to be somewhat tongue in cheek. I strongly believe that that redistricting needs to be done. The reasons that I listed above were some given me to me by the past Council President.
I hope that I am a bit clearer this time. Thanks for asking.
Since you mention the Federal judge, let me tell you this story.
I mentioned to Mr. Gahan that a federal court had already found the city wrong. He said, "No they had not. We have done what the judge wanted us to do when we set up the redistricting committee."
While it is true that the Council did meet the terms of the consent decree(the plaintiffs got extremely poor advice from their attorney, IMHO)by setting up the committee(of course they voted down it's recommendation), to say that the court had not found the council in error is disingenuous, at best. That would be about like a murderer saying that he had not done anything wrong just because he had served his sentence.
Dealing with logic like this, is it any wonder that our city is in such bad shape?
Thank you for the clarification IAH. What is next step on redistricting?
Just to be even clearer, here are my responses to the above statements.
1. It's a statutory and Constitutional duty to do so. Does not stopping at a red light, just because no one is there, make it ok?
2. I am not an attorney and guess this could argued but I find it difficult to believe that any judge worth his salt would buy this argument. Besides the legality, what about doing the INTENT of the law and the Constitution? You know, doing the right thing.
3. Probably the most stupid reason put forth. What has that got to do with anything? My personal feeling has nothing to do with carrying out the law or DOING THE RIGHT THING. It shouldn't to the council either.
4. A close runner up to #3 on the stupid level. If it had been done back in 02 or 03, it would be based on the 2000 census. So we would just be making what it should be. Besides, it is the only "legal" census until the next one for redistricting purposes.
5. Doing your duty is down the list? I really have no answer for that.
Dan,
My next step is to formally ask the Council to redistrict.
One of their arguments prior the consent decree, was that no one had asked them to do it. Well, that's one argument they won't be able to make this time.
After that, I hope the Council does the right thing. If not, let's just say that I live in the second district(the grossly under represented one)and that gives me, what do you attorneys call it.....standing?
PS The under represented is not because of the current member, Bob Ceasar, who I like very much. It's just way out of balance compared to the other districts.
Post a Comment