People are still debating over whether the city should challenge district elections.
Writes Al Sokolow: “To argue the hardly surprising generation that voters tend to favor candidates from their own racial/ethnic groups, as attorney Matt Rexroad does in his letter to the council, does not support the discrimination charge — especially since It lacks statistical significance and seems based primarily on national and state elections.”
The problem with this argument is that they don’t have to prove discrimination, only RPV (racially polarized voting). And it is an extremely low level claim – intentionally created as such by the state legislature.
Basically, the city attorney – versed on the law and case law – believes that the city will not win a challenge and that they will then have to expend millions. As we know from the city’s assessment of the “fiscal emergency,” the city lacks those kinds of resources.
Having made that decision unhappily but unanimously two weeks ago, we are now up to the details – which to many people is far more interesting anyway.
After exposing problems with the previous demographer in the North Carolina voting boundary debate, the city has quietly turned to Paul Mitchell and his Sacramento-based company Redistricting Partners to perform an analysis of the city’s population and demographics.
They will prepare draft districts based on CVRA (California Voting Rights Act) requirements as well as community input and ultimately council direction.
Mr. Mitchell will have a presentation this week.
We have already heard talk that current councilmembers could look to draw boundaries in such a way to avoid direct competition between incumbents – that would probably be both impractical and a 
mistake.
The staff report notes the following guiding principles for governance:
Make decisions in the best interests of the entire city.
Follow good governance principles.
Expect all councilmembers to be involved with all city issues, regardless of district.
Allocate resources based on the overall needs of the city.
Staff notes that a primary purpose of the first two public hearings is to provide feedback on “Communities of Interest” or COI. “A COI is any cohesive group of people that live in a geographically definable area and should be considered as a potential voting bloc in current or future elections,” staff writes.
Some of these are considered “protected classes” in that they have rights through state and federal civil rights laws.
Writes staff: “Some examples of protected classes in districting would be ethnic and racial minorities such as a concentration of Latino, Asian, or African American people. Protected classes can be described through public input, and there are federal databases that must be used wherever applicable to define these areas and make sure that they are not being harmed by the district boundaries.”
Three other key issues need to be addressed.
First is the selection of the mayor. The present system is that the individual with the highest number of votes in the previous election is mayor pro tem, and then in two years that individual becomes mayor.
Clearly, that must change. With district elections, the mayor can either be chosen at the will of the council or by rotating districts.
Staff notes: “Some cities have opted to divide into four districts and elect a mayor at-large. In the past, other plaintiffs’ attorneys have made the argument that an at-large mayor still constitutes an at-large system, however. The Council will need to provide direction on this early in the process, as it may affect the number of districts drawn.”
Contrary to the views expressed elsewhere, you can retain a weak mayoral system even with a directly elected mayor. For instance, in a system I am well familiar with, San Luis Obispo elected four councilmembers to four-year terms and a mayor to a two-year term. Each election year then, two councilmembers and the mayor are subject to the vote.
I am going to guess that the council will opt for a rotating system as they do with the board of supervisors and school board. In reality, the mayor really doesn’t have any real additional power other than running the meetings and working with the city manager on agendas.
The city can also decide how many districts it wants.
Staff writes: “There are currently five Council seats, the minimum required for a general law city. Absent any other changes, the City Council would need to vote on a map with five districts, however, there is no requirement to have five districts.”
Personally, I am torn a bit on this issue. I have seen a seven-member school district at work. It makes for a bit longer discussions. Also, three members can converse prior to meetings under the Brown Act.
The upside – easier to protect the existing incumbents (if that’s a consideration), easier to get a minority-majority district, and easier to get a student district (if we so want one).
My guess is we’ll keep it to five districts as that’s the standard and this remains a small community – but bear in mind, the time to change is really now. It will be much harder to shift once this is set up.
Finally, there is the sequence of elections.
Writes staff: “The Council will need to determine which districts will vote in which years, prior to the third public hearing, as this will be critical information for the public. Currently, three councilmembers are elected at one election and two councilmembers are elected at the next election, allowing for staggering of seats.”
My prediction is that we keep the same sequence, go to five members on the council and rotate the mayor.
I think if I had my preference we would go to a directly-elected mayor with six districts and try to create at least one student district and one district likely to have a person of low socioeconomic status/person of color.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am curious why are no outreach events on campus. It would seem to be a great way to get input from our busy, busy student population — I’ve seen a lot of students at City Council in relation to housing or the Picnic Day incident, but anyway this seems like a missed opportunity.
If it’s a formal problem — well, that says a lot about dis-enfranchisement, does it not?
Think it has more to do with the fact that campus is not in the city limits.
A huge percentage of city residents visit the same place every single day and thus are relatively easily targeted BUT “sorry, formal problems”. It’s so obviously anti-democratic.
2-1 says you’d favor on-campus UCD folk voting in City elections… preferably with a student designated district…or two.
I oppose on-campus residents voting on City matters… I also oppose any attempt to gerrymander a district, be it 5-7 districts, to guarantee a student CC member… a CC term is 4 years. Think of how likely a full term would be for a student… unless elected as a freshman/sophomore, and/or/if they pursued an advanced degree.
Do you really espouse having what can be viewed as ‘transient’ folk participating/deciding as to long-term policies? Advisory, sure, but legislative, NOT. The advisory function already has the potential, if not actuality, or existing.
But, just a view I’ve held since I was 18. Silly me.
Bill,
If they are registered to vote then they should have a say. When did we start having a “residency” requirement? Do you believe that those who move to town in October and register to vote should not have a say?
Robert…
I worded my post awkwardly. Was thinking in terms of what many espouse, having a student, on campus, voting in City elections.
Am not opposed to anyone living (domicile) in the City, registered to vote there, voting.
I’d not go out of my way to encourage folk who intend to go to school here then leave to vote for a CC member who will serve long after the student is gone, or vote for a 20 year bond measure that they will never have to pay for… a tactic that was actually used, in the past.
When I was @ UCD, 3/4 of the year, for my years @ school, I maintained my registration in the Bay Area, and voted absentee. I always voted. I just never thought I should vote on ‘binding’ things in Davis, when I had not intention of living here.
I have no problem with a student coming to town in October, living in the City, registering to vote and voting.
David, so what? That’s where a lot of people who live in the city congregate (besides the fact that most students are in town right now)? Did Diane Parro send the announcement for publication in the Aggie? If she didn’t, she should have. (Is the Aggie publishing right now?)
Why design districts to create a class representative for students? They live all over town in great numbers and in the current system could have elected a student representative easily enough, if they voted. Now you want to carve out a “student district” in one small area of town to essentially gift a Council position to that population that the majority will not be able to vote for? Is that really the purpose of moving to district elections? I can’t see how this improves fairness in our elections.
“I think if I had my preference we would go to a directly-elected mayor with six districts and try to create at least one student district and one district likely to have a person of low socioeconomic status/person of color.”
Wow, there’s a lot of prejudice/racism/white privilege behind that one.
Not really. I don’t see a way to get to more than one such district. It’s a math issue.
“It’s a math issue.”
If equating “low socioeconomic status” with “person of color” is not the height of bigotry, I don’t know what is. BTW, where would you draw that district? I am unaware of “the ‘hood” in Davis.
I laid it out a few weeks ago
The Hood runs from the tents under the bridge by the Little League Park south through the apartment complex formerly known as Americana Arms, then south through the abandoned laundromat near the Davis Food COOP, then south through Old East Davis, across to Slater’s Court and the trailer parks, over the Freeway to Pacifico, bouncing off the fence and tents on Putah Creek, and up the bike trails to Montgomery Elementary School.
Wait . . . what? I’m agreeing with JH on this.
Somehow reminds me of Biden’s recent political gaffe. Which, when compared to the current office-holder, pales in comparison.
If students are a ‘community of interest’, we should perhaps create a district that favors Republicans, or NPP, or current and/or former government employees, be they UCD, DJUSD, City, County, State, Federal, special districts, etc.
If the student preference gains traction, I’ll promote the public employee/retiree option as well…
And of course, we need a Latinx district, a Black district, an Asian district, an atheist/agnostic district, a Jewish district, a Christian district, a white supremicist (sp?) district, an “antifa” district, a women’s district, a LGBT+++ district… etc., etc., etc.
All are arguably, “communities of interest”, who may vote in a ‘block’. Their voices/influence is not happening with the “at large” system, which is all but gone…
If assuming commnunites of interest vote in a ‘block’ is not the height of bigotry, I don’t know what is. (Not getting on WM’s case, but on those who believe such)
This is no assumption about how anyone will vote. The only question is the makeup of the district.
Maybe no assumption, but a presumption…you’ve said it yourself, and have quoted others, David… the whole point about disparity in votes for POC’s in more-white than less white districts, and your floating the thought of having a gerrymandered district that goes from the neighborhoods around Eighth and Pole Line to the neighborhoods around Margarite Montgomery School.
Why would that be desirable unless one was presuming how it would affect voting results?
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. Own it.
Bill, why would a Central district running like a spine down from the north end of Pole Line to Montgomery Elementary be “gerrymandering”? By its description it seems quite contiguous.
The graphic below shows five possible districts with an arbitrary example for illustration East-West orientation. Imagine those districts with a North-South orientation. West, shown in teal, would stay pretty much the same. North (west side of Pole Line), shown in red, and the western side of Central, shown in yellow, would be a district. The eastern side of Central, western side of East, shown in blue, and western side of South, shown in green, would be a district. Wildhorse (the eastern side of North), the middle portion of East and the middle portion of South would be a district. The last district would be Alhambra, Mace Ranch (the eastern part of East), the eastern part of South (Oak Shade, Willowbank, Willow Creek, and El Macero Estates).
When you look at the third of those five districts it is very close to the description of the district you have labeled as “gerrymandering.”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
They used to joke about the district in SF that was only contiguous at sunset. Here you have one that is not contiguous at all.
As interesting as taking on this stupid law? Not by a long shot. Cheaper, maybe. Not as interesting.
Yep. See my 11:57 post… am thinking we need 15 -20 (min) districts to comply with the ‘stupid law’, as written and codified.
Wasn’t it earlier stated here that Asians weren’t a protected class? I can’t keep this all straight.
And Jews are NOT a protected class because there are more anti-Jewish hate crimes than any other single class . . . or SOMETHING!
I think if I had my preference we would stop f*cking around TRY-ing to make certain ‘classes’ of people special, and draw geo-centric equa-population boundaries similar to what MW drew. Anything else, and the GUV-ment is going to f*ck it up.
Thread cleanup: 7 comments removed