In 1992, we moved to Austin, Texas, population 650,000. The city council was seven members, elected at large. There was no talk of districts. About five years later, the citizens near the capitol and the university started voting in (relatively) high numbers, and electing members representing their particular interests. Then, people started talking about districts.
I don’t see that here, quite the contrary. I attended one of the city “workshops” on the subject. Perhaps I was a bit naive, but I was shocked that everyone else in my breakout group was a failed candidate for the city council. The talk was more about how hard it was to run city wide than it was about the council passing resolutions opposed by the majority. One example of an issue that did not represent all of the city was raised, but the person talking about it successfully lobbied the council to adjust the legislation in question.
The proponents of districting are explicitly attempting to change the rules to benefit themselves personally, by making it easier for them to win elections. The cost is to bifurcate the council into two classes, institute a districting process that will make the city subject to gerrymandering lawsuits, and reduce the number of council members that represent you, me, and every other citizen of this city.
The previous charter review board called this idea premature. The previous city council did special, extended study and found it premature. Just say no.
Nathan Zook
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
