While the city council mainly just listened to both public comment and the presentation by Demographer Paul Mitchell on Tuesday, they did make some tentative decisions.
Basically, there seemed strong opposition to going to an at-large mayor, but there was some support for going above five members on the council – though it was mixed on that point.
Councilmember Will Arnold said, “I am not personally in favor of an at-large mayor.” Some of the problems here had to do with legalities that council did not elaborate on. “But more to the point, no matter where you get elected and what your district is, you will be representing the entire city. You will be making decisions for the entire city. And you will need to take input from the neighbors of a given project – whether they live in your district or not.
“What we’re creating today exists, in reality, every couple of years,” he added. “In functional governance reality, these districts only exist for that one day. Then you make decisions for the entire city.
“I’m not in favor of an at-large mayor, I think it potentially dilutes our districts. I think it potentially puts us in some thorny legal waters,” he added.
On the number of districts, he said, “I understand that many of the benefits of going to districts are augmented by more districts.” He noted the barrier to entry is lower the more districts there are. “There is some interest on my part in that.”
However, he noted even with seven districts there might be a majority-minority only if you combined Asians and Hispanics, “but that’s not necessarily how we would define a Community of Interest.”
Gloria Partida noted that she did not want to see an at-large mayor.
She did say, “As long as we are drawing maps – I would like to see both five-district and seven-district maps. It makes sense to draw up both.”
Lucas Frerichs said, “Rotating the mayorship or election of the mayor by majority of the council are two possible ways to proceed.” He noted that the latter was how the city used to choose the mayor.
“I am interested in the possibility of seven (districts),” he said. “It lowers the barriers to entry. There’s ideally greater representation when you have more representatives – smaller numbers of residents (per district).”
Dan Carson said he wanted to be deferential on these issues.
He noted the legal issues when creating a citywide elected mayor. “I would say as we go forward that those guiding principles give us the opportunity to balance out the parochialism that can come from moving towards districts, by keeping a focus on doing what’s good on the whole from the city.”
He noted the language from Sandra Day O’Connor on the outlawing of racial gerrymandering, about which he said, “I find very stirring.”
Quoting her, he said that “reapportionment legislation that cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to classify and separate voters by race, injures voters in other ways. It reinforces racial stereotypes and threatens to undermine our system of representative democracy by signaling to elected officials that they represent a particular racial group rather than a constituency as a whole.”
He said, “There is a balancing act,” noting that they should take into account Communities of Interest which can include “racial and ethnic groups.” He said, “let’s look at a whole wide range of things that can constitute a Community of Interest.”
Councilmember Carson said, “Councilmember Rexroad wants to divide us” and “we should not let him divide us as a community.”
He added, “I’m open to my colleagues getting whatever maps they want. I do think that five makes more sense from a governance standpoint.”
Brett Lee noted that the at-large mayor does not seem favored by the council and thus “it is likely we aren’t going to move in that direction.” He noted, “There is some interest in at-large districts.”
Council will wait on sequencing until they have drawn maps to see how the process maps out in terms of incumbents and terms.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Dan Carson’s citation to Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion from a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court Case (Shaw v. Reno) is not really apt to the situation in Davis. That North Carolina case involved extreme racially based gerrymandering intended to discriminate by isolating black voters in majority-minority districts to ensure that a majority of districts would have significant white majorities. After Shaw, O’Connor’s and the Court’s views evolved to clarify the applicable legal standard. I do agree, however, with his caveat that the districting process take into consideration a range of things that can constitute communities of interest.
May not be what SDO was referring to directly, but I agree with the quote were one to apply it directly to Davis.
OK. But, given the entirely different factual circumstances, I’m sure Sandra Day O’Connor would disagree with you.
Bring it on, Sandra.
Please remember O’Connor was a Republican nominated by Ronald Reagan.
And Alan, you’re calling out an 89 year old woman? Who retired for health reasons? Decency?
Actually, a deceased woman. And I’d still bet on her in that matchup.
As far as I can tell she’s still alive.
Oops. My bad. I remember she was in the news recently, but it was to make public that she has Alzheimer’s. I’d still take her in a matchup against Alan.
Carson’s shown his colors on this issue anyway – no wonder he performed so poorly in more minority districts.
I disagree with the whole focus here that Davis can’t generate majority minority districts. If you have a district that is 55 percent Asian-Hispanic, it is far more likely to provide minority representation than a district 90 percent white.
“But more to the point, no matter where you get elected and what your district is, you will be representing the entire city. You will be making decisions for the entire city. And you will need to take input from the neighbors of a given project – whether they live in your district or not.”
Speaking of quotes from Supreme Court Justices, this time Justice Roberts with his reassuring but perhaps not realistic comments that he could put away his political tendencies and just call “balls” and strikes, I found this statement from Will Arnold either naive, overly optimistic or both. Are we really to suppose that a district representative will entirely put away the special concerns of their own district ( where they may wish to be re-elected in the future) and act totally impartially in the interests of the entire city? Would this not fly in the face of the purpose which is to supposedly ensure representation of protected classes? If it does not, in fact, achieve this end, what is the point other than the lawsuit?
I agree on the naivety of Will Arnold’s the statement. It assumes that there is one objectively correct outcome that is in the best interest of the entire city. The value of diversifying the communities of interest represented on the Council is that it gives voice to the various perspectives on what is in the best interest of the entire city.
I love the high level of contempt many of you Davisites have for anyone who decides to waste their time trying to represent you. I wonder how the doctor would respond to someone who publicly doubted her professional or personal propriety. In the real world we all know that district elections aren’t going to change anything substantial. your CC will still kick the debt forward to the next council, certain special citizens will still file Brown act complaints if three or four council members are stuck next to each other on I80 in traffic and you’ll all fight to the death any new development. It is THE Davis Way.
I love the high level of contempt JH has for Davisites, as evidenced in this post.
Given no one wanted this and the City is doing this begrudgingly, everyone present was extremely thoughtful about the matter. The presentation by the demographer was very clear and level headed. He isn’t the issue of course, just doing his job. Good considerations by the Council and staff.
I agree that an at-large mayor isn’t good. And given districts as given, going to seven does make some sense. GP’s idea of drawing maps for both made sense.
I mean this in all seriousness: I believe the City should have a backup plan should the legal challenge at the state level succeed (assuming there really is one — I’ve only heard this second hand and seen no reporting on it here). Is the City against districts, or only against being forced by Rexroad & his ghostly minions? If the City wishes to return to at-large elections after a successful challenge, OR NOT, the City leaders should solidify that intention. If the state-level challenge thing is real.
Comedic moment of the night: Colin Walsh noting that terms will be extended if elections are moved to November, and there is growing incumbent dislike, and so telling the Council, “just let it go”.
A question: I assume that if you like a candidate from ‘another district’, you can still give your $100 to that candidates campaign? Or $500 or $700 to a candidate from each district?
Another question: If establishing residency and keeping that residency in a district is the basis for running in that district, and lying about it is election fraud, then what happens if someone moves? And isn’t this discriminatory against a renter candidate, who is much more likely to change residences during a four-year term, maybe not of their own choosing? Are they then forced to choose between a good place to rent in another district (what a joke in Davis, districts, ha!) and staying in office? If they are forced out due to moving to a new district, who takes their place on the council?
When Woodland went to district elections, councilman Jim Denny moved his official address to a commercial building owned by a friend in order to run in a different district than two of the other incumbents. Evidently it didn’t work, but I gather it wasn’t illegal.
Or, he wasn’t ‘caught’… still, is unethical and likely immoral…
If any
davis CC member tries something like that… well, do you understand how pit bulls protect their family? I’m a bit ‘pitty’.
There is a lot of “back-pedalling” on this district thing… some say it is ‘forward-thinking’ and will ensure greater representation… that remains to be seen… some say, it won’t influence things, as once elected, CC members are charged with representing the entire community, of whatever ‘stripe’ (including any ‘minorities’ of any stripe)… that remains to be seen, as well…
I have seen posts by several folk, who are focused on (interpolation) making sure that there are always 2-3 folk of color/protected classes, 2-3 women, 1-2 LGBT++ on the CC , “to be fairly represented”. OK… own that view, and don’t dance around it. Some would have no problem with zero WMH on the CC… would be a sign of fairness/justice, or ‘reparations’.
It is likely, with district elections, absent serious gerrymandering, that the diversity on the dais will decrease (simple math). Over 50% chance. It remains to be seen.
Same applies to DJUSD districts… why David doesn’t advocate for 7 districts there, eludes me… more folk in DJUSD than COD… arguments are stronger there… whatever…
What do you mean by there’s a lot of backpedaling?
I mean that many who questioned district elections, and the number of districts, have “changed their tune”… and now promote districts, and more of them. Aka “apologists”…