|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Elections & Legislation |
|
Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
Current rating: 0 |
by Vote No At-Large
Email: noatlarge (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!) |
25 Sep 2004
|
|
Residents from all over the city of Urbana have launched a campaign to oppose at-large seats on the Urbana City Council. |
|
On Wednesday, September 22nd at 2PM, over 15 supporters and several members of the TV and radio media turned out in the middle of the afternoon to support the official launch of the Vote No At-Large Campaign. Held in a home in southeast Urbana, the prepared statements emphasized the important issues behind this campaign--that at-large is undemocratic, historically regressive, bad for students and minorities, and bad for Urbana.
Laura Haber addresses the media at the press conference
"The addition of at-large seats to local government would push Urbana in the wrong direction. Across the U.S., cities have been removing at-large seats from their city councils, not adding them," said Ben Grosser in his statement, one of the lead organizers of the group. "In recent years, over 250 cities eliminated at-large seats from their councils, making this one of the most commonly proposed and approved changes to local government nationwide."
Vote No At-Large plans to campaign heavily between now and the November election. Forums, door-to-door campaigning, and voter education are all planned to ask residents to vote "no" this November on the ballot question.
The citizens of Urbana voted to change the Urbana School Board from at-large to districts in 1998. Laura Haber, a former School Board member spoke at the press conference: "Anyone who is elected under an at-large system will be impelled to run larger, less responsive campaigns than their ward counterparts. If we want to maintain a system in which people have to talk to their neighbors in order to win, in which everyone—no matter how wealthy or well-connected—has an equal chance at representation, and in which an election cannot be bought by high gloss, content-free advertising, we must think small."
Phyllis Clark, City Clerk for Urbana, spoke about the ways in which at-large dilutes the minority vote: "A common method used to negate the minority vote, both before and after the Voting Rights Act, was to use at-large representation for local government. At-large seats have been extremely effective in diluting the minority vote because they require citywide campaigning as opposed to district-wide. Minority neighborhood districts are more likely to elect minority candidates. But at-large seats, with voters taken from anywhere in the city, typically elect majority candidates."
Mort Brussel, a southeast Urbana resident spoke about the concept of 'one person, one vote': "Do I, as a resident of southeast Urbana, deserve a greater voice in government than a person who lives on Bradley Avenue? Of course not. But the central argument in support of at-large elections is that people who live in wards with higher voter turnout deserve a greater voice in government. ... Not according to the U.S. Constitution. The constitutional principle of one person, one vote is that representation in government must be based on population, not on voter turnout.
Each speaker concluded their remarks by urging their fellow neighbors to vote "no" on the ballot question.
Further information about the Vote No At-Large campaign, including the full prepared statements from the press conference, a discussion of the issues, information on how to get involved, and a detailed review of the scientific literature on this topic is available on the organizations webiste, at www.noatlarge.org.
Related Stories:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/19683
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/19829/index.php
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/19244/index.php
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/19148/index.php |
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license. |
Comments
|
Just Vote NO No Matter What: Rumors of Deceptive Wording of Ballot |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Sep 2004
|
A comment was posted yesterday to an earlier story about the at-large council member proposition on UC IMC:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/20528/index.php
I can only assume it is accurate at this point, but I would like more information to confirm that. I tried going to both the city of Urbana's website and to County Clerk Mark Sheldon's much touted website for more information. Neither one was much help in searching several permutations of "at-large" and a search for "November 2004 ballot also yielded zero results. Thus I cannot confirm the wording of the ballot, because those who are pushing the idea, Tod Satterthwaite and the Champaign County Republican leadership via Mark Sheldon, apparently think the people should be kept in the dark about the wording of the November ballot.
The comment referenced above indicated that the language about ADDING two MORE at-large council members is decpetively worded like this:
"Shall the City of Urbana _restrict_ the number of aldermen to a total of nine..."
Of course, those who oppose adding at large council seats will have a natural inclination to RESTRICT the number of council seats. But given the way the ballot question is worded it is counter-intuitive to have to vote "NO!" to adding at-large council members by voting against a "restriction"...
Of course, if you want to restrict the number of seats on the Urbana City Council to the present seven seats, elected by ward, you might think the correct answer is to vote to "restrict" the number of council seats, but in fact this question appears to be intentionally and deceptively worded, because you will actually be voting to ADD two council seats if you vote to "restrict" the number of seats...
YOU SHOULD VOTE NO!
No matter what, you should vote NO! to the at-large question, if you oppose the addition of at-large council seats in Urbana.
Whatever impression the wording of the ballot makes on you, if you oppose illegally diluting voting rights in Urbana by ADDING two at-large council-members, vote NO!
If this wording of the ballot is confirmed, it certainly suggests why Council Member Otto did not wish to submit a written copy of what he was proposing the council vote on when he asked the rest of the city council to vote on it sight unseen. Instead, they did the right thing and voted against his unwritten and apparently deceptively constructed at-large ballot measure.
Ask a lawyer. You get things in writing, if you don't want to be screwed. Any lawyer knows this. The question is why Otto, who happens to be an attorney, would want his fellow council members to vote on something that was NOT in writing? Apparently, because someone was going to get screwed.
I hope we can get to the bottom of this and, if confirmed, a part of the vote NO! on at-large campaign needs to be dedicated to overcoming the deceptively worded ballot question by a campaign of voter education specifically addressing the intentionally misleading wording of the ballot.
And I wonder if this opens yet another way to legally challenge to this unconstitutional power grab by the mayor. The fact that at-large council member proponents would use such misleading language, instead of giving people a straightforward up or down vote on the issue, speaks volumes about the integrity of those who support adding at-large seats to the council. It is non-existent. |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by Wendy Edwards
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Sep 2004
|
|
I grew up in the Springfield area, and for years, they had an at-large city council system. The problem was that it favored candidates with large campaign funds and didn't represent people from the poorer sections of town very well. In the 1980s, it was finally reformed, and there's now a system of aldermen representing wards. Urbana's seemed a lot more progressive than Springfield. The proposal for at-large aldermen in Urbana has really surprised me. |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by jb
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Sep 2004
|
In answer to Dose of Reality's question: The County Clerk website has a link from its main page to "Election Services," where the second item is "2004 General Election Referenda," a PDF document (http://www.champaigncountyclerk.com/2004referenda.pdf). It contains the text that will appear on the ballot:
"AT LARGE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATION FOR THE CITY OF URBANA: "Shall the City of Urbana restrict the number of aldermen to a total of nine, with one alderman representing each of the seven wards, plus an additional two aldermen to be elected at large?" YES NO" |
|
That Confirms It: Deceptive Language Again Being Used to Sell At-Large |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Sep 2004
|
Thanks, jb. I should stay off the internet late at night when I'm most likely to get lost.
It certainly settles the question of whether deceptive language was used. Those who have supported adding the at-large seats have used deceptive languiage sinceit was first pitched by the News-Gazette, in the presenattions of the at-large supporters who spoke in favor of it when the city council considered the question, and in Milton Otto's warmed-over rhetoric when he facetiously offered it up for passage, but was unwilling or unable to supply a written copy of what he was asking to be voted on. I'm sure glad a majority of the Urbana city council were unwilling to vote for something Otto and the Mayor were too embarrassed to put in writing.
Unless there exists some formal legal requirement for the referendem to be worded in such a misleading way, then the reason it is worded that way is because of a political decision by at-large suppporters that they might very well lose this election if they didn't resort to every smoky backroom, Chicago-style crooked trick they can come up with in an effort to impose regressive at-large council seats on Urbana.
Vote NO! on At-Large! |
|
Mannequins for Satterthwaite mp3 |
by Mannequin
mannequin (nospam) satterthwaite.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Sep 2004
|
The song "Mannequins for Satterthwaite," by local activist/songwriter Paul Kotheimer, addresses issues pertaining to the At-Large Seat issue.
An mp3 is available on this website at:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/20467/index.php |
|
"Plus 2" Proposition Wording |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Sep 2004
|
Disclaimer: I am actively involved in Plus 2 For Urbana, which supports the addition of two at-large seats to the Urbana City Council. I recognize that comments in support of the proposition are probably unwanted and unproductive in this forum, so I am confining my participation to addressing issues of objective fact.
The text of the proposition (reported correctly elsewhere in this forum) is "Shall the City of Urbana restrict the number of aldermen to a total of nine, with one alderman representing each of the seven wards, plus an additional two aldermen to be elected at large?"
Allegations of "deceptive" wording are misguided.
The tortured language of the proposition is prescribed by state law, which calls any change that does not result in two members from each of seven wards a "restriction". An excerpt follows.
Sec. 3.1-20-20. Aldermen; restrict or reinstate number.
[portions deleted]
(b) In a city of less than 100,000 inhabitants, a proposition to restrict the number of aldermen to one alderman per ward, with one alderman representing each ward, plus an additional number of aldermen not to exceed the number of wards in the city to be elected at large, shall be certified by the city clerk to the proper election authorities, who shall submit the proposition at an election in accordance with the general election law, if a petition requesting that action is signed by electors of the city numbering not less than 10% of the total vote cast at the last election for mayor of the city and the petition is filed with the city clerk. The proposition shall be substantially in the following form:
"Shall (name of city) restrict the number of aldermen to (number), with one alderman representing each ward, plus an additional (number) alderman (aldermen) to be elected at large?"
(Source: P.A. 87-1119; revised 12-04-01.)
(65 ILCS 5/3.1-20-20) |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Sep 2004
|
Chris -- thanks for pointing the source of the language.
@%< |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Sep 2004
|
|
Chris, although many people at IMC do oppose the proposed at-large seats, we welcome opposing points of view, especially when they're expressed civilly (as yours were). Thanks for your post! |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Sep 2004
|
I support the addition of 2 at-large seats to the Urbana Sity Council. Opponents of this proposal point to Urbana School Board subdistricts as a success story. This is not a success story. Laura Haber gave the school board subdistricts as an example of where "people have to talk to their neighbors in order to win". The reality in Urbana is that school board candidates now don't have to talk to anyone in order to "win". Since subdistricts were established, the vast majority of school board candidates have run uncontested, unchallenged, and unquestioned. Because there are so few candidates, if you file petitions, you're on the board. Last year, like previous years, just 2 of the 7 subdistricts had contested races. In one of the uncontested districts, the sole candidate who ran and was "elected" didn't even live in the city of Urbana. This is the African-American candidate referred to in the noatlarge brochure. She lived in Rantoul, she lied about her residency, yet she was supported by local progressives. I'd like to know why. After the election, the school board could not legally seat her and she stepped down. The Board then appointed her replacement. Subdistricts in Urbana school board races since 1998 have resulted in no choices for most voters, no contests for most races, no checks and balances, and no discussion of issues among candidates. There are now people serving on the school board who have never campaigned door-to-door and never discussed issues with their neighbors because they don't have to. How is this progressive?
I believe a combination of at-large seats and ward/district seats best serves a small city like Urbana for the city council and the school board.
Plus 2 is not proposing to eliminate ward seats; it is simple proposing to add a couple of at-large seats to the seven ward-based seats. The ward system IN URBANA, hasn't resulted in an overwhelming number of minority candidates for Urbana City Council. No Asians have ever been elected to the council and African-Americans have been elected from only one ward in the past 25 years. On rare occasion, students have been elected. Students and minorities live in many different neighborhoods in Urbana. They have as good a chance of being elected city wide, as Ms Clark was, as being elected from a ward. I have great respect for Ms. Haber and Ms. Clark and sincerely appreciate their service to the school board and the city but I disagree with their positions on this issue. Ms Haber was in the unique position of actually having a challenger in her school board race. If I recall rightly, she defeated a minority candidate in her district. Unfortunately, under the subdistrict system, most school board members have not had challengers, and most likely will not, in the future.
If you want to talk about discrimination, "equal chance at representation" and the consitututional right to representation based upon population, it is being violated by the ward map recently passed by the progressive majority on the Urbana City Council. This new ward map undercounts residents in Ward 6, underrepresents citizens in Ward 6, it is most likely out of compliance before it even takes effect and it makes the City of Urbana vulnerable to legal action.
And before the "2000 census" is brought up as a rationale for drawing the map, let's set the record straight: the 2000 census is a STARTING point for drawing the map. The Council could have taken recent growth into account, as Urbana councils have in the past, when drawing ward boundaries. I have read council records from the past 25 years and this is not a new problem: Growth on the south and east side of the city results in ward populations becoming out of balance. The council, or city attorney, in past cases, has drawn new ward maps and allowed for future growth. The current council majority chose not to do this and settled for a ward map that is particularly regressive. It discriminates against residents in SE Urbana, it gerrymanders Ward 6 to include most of the dreaded conservative voters, it ignores hundreds of residential units that have been built in that ward since 2000, and it doesn't adhere to standards of creating wards that are compact and contiguous. One ward is 9 blocks from top to bottom and another ward is over 3 miles. Of course, there will be differences in ward size based on population density, but the differences didn't have to be this great.
And in the process, the ward map undercounts and under-represents all residents of east Urbana, including the many, many minority and lower income residents living there. So, tell me, how is this progressive?
No one is asking for MORE representation. People in Ward 6 simply expected EQUAL representation and they didn't get it from the ward map passed by the Urbana City Council.
Yes, they could demand a special census but it's prohibitively expensive. Yes, they could sue the City of Urbana..... but it's also very expensive.
Who knows, that may very well happen and we'll all pay for it.
In the meantime, I support the "restriction" of the number of seats to nine....7 ward-based and 2 at-large. |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Sep 2004
|
|
I agree with Julia that equal representation is important. However, I'm not convinced that at-large city council seats would actually help to achieve this. Theoretically, at-large seats would give people in Ward 6 another opportunity to vote for a candidate that will represent them well. In practice, it would probably reward candidates with large campaign funds, which probably would not be low-income minorities. Also, at-large seats would be even less conducive to door-to-door campaigning than races for individual wards. Julia may be right about the map; if so, the solution is probably going to be fixing that rather than creating new at-large seats. |
|
It's Been Noted Before |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Sep 2004
|
If there was anything really LEGALLY wrong with the new ward map, wouldn't a lawsuit be easy enough to file? The supporters of adding (or "restricting" because, naturally enough, politics in Illinois is legally deceptive -- it's the law, ;>) two at-large seats have repeatedly implied that there is something illegal about the ward map. There is NOT a LEGAL problem with the ward map. Otherwise, they wouldn't be seeking a POLITICAL solution to their problem.
And please, there is little legal dispute about at-large voting, especially a REVERSION to at-large voting, being very questionable under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In fact, there is nearly a presumption that such practices, de facto, constitute illegal behavior under the law.
It's far more likely that the City of Urbana will be sued and/or otherwise hauled into federal court if the at-large proposal, through some fluke, becomes law, than it is of ever being seen in court over the ward map. At-large proponents haven't a legal leg to stand on in challenging the ward map.
The ward map is no more unbalanced than many other such redistrictings, such as the one that gave Tim Johnson a relatively safe seat in Congress. Yes, this kind of cozy, often bi-partisan, consensus on screwing the citizens out of really making decisions in a democracy is a problem, but it is hardly confined to Urbana and the at-large proposal is no solution to this general issue anyway.
BTW, speaking of legality, no, the latest census figures are NOT "a STARTING point for drawing the map..." Not unless you pay to have an official, updated census done to support any other result. Whining about how "it's prohibitively expensive" to conduct a special census is NOT a legal justification for overturning the ward map -- in fact, it is the law that any changes in a map supported by the latest (2000) census figures have to be justified by more than the tortured and apparently unsupportable suppositions of at-large supporters. Again, there is nothing legally wrong with the ward map that is actionable in court. On the other hand, there certainly could be a court case if at-large passes.
Taking a special census would require that the growth in ALL parts of the city be taken into account in any revised ward map. It's nothing but special pleading for residents of south and east Urbana to claim that it only THEIR growth that should get this special treatment. and then only on the basis of their guesswork that it is they who should get extra representation. The fact of the matter is that they have all the representation they are legally entitled to already.
It's time to end the Chicago-style politricks brought to us by the unholy alliance of Tod Satterthwaite and his Republican buddies. It kind of makes you wonder what Tim Johnson has on Tod to get him twisted so tightly around his finger in support of the idea that ward maps should (somehow illegaly) be shaped by voter turnout, rather than by actual population as it has always been required under the Constitution.
Read the facts at http://www.noatlarge.org
Then...
Vote NO! At-large. |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Sep 2004
|
If the problem is with the ward map, and if people in Ward 6 are seriously concerned that the current ward map is illegal, then they should take legal action directed against _the ward map itself_. Anything else is just bait-and-switch.
@%< |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by Just the Facts
mysnicklet (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Oct 2004
|
|
As I recall, the new map drew ward 6 with LESS population than the other wards to allow (within the legal imits) for some future growth. The city could order a special census to get new figures on which to base the map, but those numbers would also be outdated within a couple of years. Should a new census be commissioned every four years? And who's going to pay for that?Basing representation on the most recent census may not be a perfect system, but it's certainly preferable to guessing where the population is. |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Oct 2004
|
Disclaimer: I am actively involved in Plus 2 For Urbana, which supports the addition of two at-large seats to the Urbana City Council.
The ward populations of the new 2004 map, based on the 2000 census, are as follows: Ward 1, 5,370; Ward 2, 5,287; Ward 3, 5,234; Ward 4, 4,909; Ward 5, 5,377; Ward 6, 5,165; Ward 7, 5,207. The average is 5,221, so Ward 4 was 312 below average and Ward 6 was 56 below average. If an election had been held in 2000 using the ward map approved in 2004, each ward would have received substantially equal representation.
The new Ward 6 encloses 640 of 1,090 housing starts in Urbana since 4/1/2000. Assuming 2.25 persons per household yields a population increase of 1,440 in new 6 and 1,012 in the rest of the City, giving new 6 an estimated population 22% higher than the average of the other 6 wards. Fiddling with household sizes will yield different results, and breaking down the 450 housing starts outside of new 6 would show uneven growth in other Wards as well, but no matter how you look at the numbers, new 6 has significantly more than a seventh of the City's population.
Whether and to what degree the City Council was obligated to consider post-census growth when it adopted the 2004 ward map is a legal question that I'm not qualified to answer, and it's largely irrelevant--finding someone to blame might make underrepresented residents feel better, but it won't address their problem. By definition, adding two at-large seats will reduce growth-induced inequity because votes for at-large candidates count equally regardless of the wards in which they are cast. There may be valid reasons for not supporting the referendum, but this isn't one of them! |
|
Population, Maps and the Census |
by Ben Grosser
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Oct 2004
|
The law requires that census data be used for drawing a ward map. The city council was prohibited by law from guessing growth numbers. Either the city had to pay more than $100,000 for a new census, or use the 2000 census data.
Ward 4 does not have a population 4909, although that is what is stated on the data for the map. The ordinance enacting the map explains that the U.S. Census Bureau gave back to the city population that the Bureau incorrectly placed in a cornfield in Foosland. There were 550 people in Florida Avenue Residence Halls (Ward 4) incorrectly placed in that cornfield. When the Census Bureau gave these people back to Urbana, that made the population of Ward 4 5,459. Ward 4 actually has the largest population of all 7 wards on the new ward map.
Like most communities, single-family homes are continually being built on the edges of town (3 of Urbana's wards have new subdivisions in progress). Meanwhile, more central areas of the city are redeveloped for multi-family housing.
Just last August, Urbana's Council approved a new condo development on North Lincoln that will add 300 residents to Ward 3. A new building at Oregon and Gregory just added 150 people to Ward 1. The Stratford Apartments and new buildings on Park and Griggs Streets will add many more to the center of the city. And these are examples from only the last few months.
The point is that population growth happens everywhere in every ward. Small numbers added with each new house are balanced by large numbers added with each new multi-family development. Since population is impossible to accurately predict, the law stipulates that the ward map be based on an *objective* measure of population--the U.S. Census. That's why we have a census every 10 years. |
|
My Expectations Were A Little Higher |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2004
|
Christopher Alix wrote:
"Whether and to what degree the City Council was obligated to consider post-census growth when it adopted the 2004 ward map is a legal question that I'm not qualified to answer, and it's largely irrelevant..."
I'm sorry but the law and the Constitution are both highly relevant to a question such as changing the form of government, when it is being proposed with no substantive legal basis. This sort of off-handed dismissal of the facts of law indicates once again that the effort to enlarge the city council is entirely a political power grab on the part of a minority of citizens.
If there was a real majority that was genuinely aggrieved, with a legal basis to their complaint, then they should be eager to delineate the exact ways for the court in which they see evidence of injustice. They should be clamoring for an updated census, the only legal basis for changing the ward map, instead of trying to claim it is irrelevant.
Instead, we see supporters of the at-large measure waving their hands around in the air, insisting that someone has done them wrong. They have presented absolutely nothing but unsupported (and likely unsupportable, given their studied ignorance about even finding out where actual growth in the city really is) sophistry as evidence in their case. They would be laughed out of any courtroom in the country if they tried to make such a case.
It's time for the court of public opinion to send them packing, too, in the vote on November 2. Otherwise, the taxpayers of Urbana will find themsleves saddled with significant court costs as the city tries to sort out the mess of what would likely be judged to be an unconstitutional dilution of minority voting rights.
Let's save our money for building the future of Urbana... Or at least pay for an updated census so that we can plan the future based on facts, instead of a Republican-tinted crystal ball.
Vote NO! At-Large! |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Oct 2004
|
Ben Grosser writes"Just last August, Urbana's Council approved a new condo development on North Lincoln that will add 300 residents to Ward 3. A new building at Oregon and Gregory just added 150 people to Ward 1. The Stratford Apartments and new buildings on Park and Griggs Streets will add many more to the center of the city. And these are examples from only the last few months."
Actually, the Oregon and Gregory development will add fewer than 150 people to Ward 1. This particular new development may not even make up for loss of housing in the area between Lincoln and Goodwin over the past 10 years. If you recall, there were a number of apartment buildings, rooming houses, and sfh that were torn down to make way for university construction.
The condos on north Lincoln and the Stratford in downtown Urbana are not yet built. In contrast, there are hundreds of homes and apartments built in Ward 6 since the last census, occupied by Urbana citizens who deserved to be considered when the ward map was drawn. In Savannah Green alone, there are 252 homesites built or under construction, with over 200 occupied right now. At 2.25 persons per household, that's between 400 and 500 people. Not FUTURE inhabitants, but CURRENT, taxpaying residents. With the majority of new housing starts concentrated in Ward 6 since the census, the ward populations are way out of balance again.
What's the point of "Build Urbana" if you're not going to recognize the people who live here?
That's what is so upsetting to people in East Urbana...the fact that this council chose to overlook their existence in order to gerrymander the ward boundaries to include as many Republican votes as possible in one ward. And for what? There's a safe Democratic majority on the council. No matter how much the members dislike one another and the mayor, their responsibility is to the citizens of Urbana. And when people protest, what happens? Council members call them "reactionaries" and insult the business community in the process.
That ward map is a disgrace and a symbol of the historic under-representation of east Urbana. I suggest you drive Ward 6 from top to bottom and take a good look at the people who are not being fairly represented by the new map. |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2004
|
Mr. Grosser: Thank you for the information regarding the Ward 4 numbers. I obtained them from the public record (as apparently did the City Clerk in her statement on behalf of No At Large). We'll try to verify and use the corrected numbers in future materials.
I fully respect anyone's right to support or oppose the proposition and encourage public debate, although I have to question the productivity of ad hominem accusations of ignorance, partisanship and "dirty tricks." I am more than willing to engage in constructive discussion but less interested in responding to mudslinging and libel. That being said, I'd like to respond to some comments here.
It is a certainty that at the time of the 2005 election, Ward 6 will have substantially more than 1/7 of Urbana's population. This violates the intent of equal representation. Mitigating this problem is one of several benefits that I believe would be offered by adding two at-large seats. Opponents of "Plus 2" have advanced various arguments against adding two at-large seats but shown no interest in mitigating the problems which gave rise to the proposal in the first place, or providing comparable benefits through other means.
I used the term "irrelevant" to underscore the fact that the ward map can be simultaneously legal, in the sense that it could survive a court challenge, and unjust, in that it systematically underrepresents a portion of the community. Claims that either the ward map or the proposed hybrid system are "illegal" are more rhetorical than practical, since comparable systems of both kinds have been used for decades throughout Illinois, and challenges generally prevail only in cases of egregious and notoroius discriminatory effect.
An earlier post was entitled "My Expectations Were A Little Higher." I can't think of a better phrase to describe the feelings of many in Urbana in response to past and present Councils' lack of willingness to acknowledge the shortcomings of the ward map or attempt to address them in an equitable manner. That is what Plus 2 is attempting to do, by giving the voters the right to effect a legal change in how the Council is elected, in full accordance with state law. Such a change would not be a change in the "form of government" (which would remain Mayor-Council) nor an abandonment of the ward system, which is not permitted by the statute being employed in this case. |
|
Lots of Hype; Little Evidence of Facts in Pro-At-Large Case |
by East Urbana Resident
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2004
|
Golly, Julia, please don't act like you speak for everyone in East Urbana. I see lots of Vote No At-Large signs springing up in my neighborhood. And I can tell you that there is little support among my friends and neighbors for the idea of handing the Republicans a political powerbase that is the product of manipulation, rather than votes.
Chris, you say that it is a "certainty" that you are in an under-represented ward, but I see no proposals from you or even support for the idea to establish this as fact, which an updated census would do. Why are calls for an updated census consistently ignored by supporters of adding at-larg seats? Most likely because their case is wholly reliant on rhetoric likes yours and Julia's.
Furthermore, you say that "Opponents of 'Plus 2' have advanced various arguments against adding two at-large seats but shown no interest in mitigating the problems which gave rise to the proposal in the first place, or providing comparable benefits through other means." If you can actually show a problem, then your arguments might get some traction. Your faliure to call for an updated census is indicative of the problem I just noted, that you need to construct a problem out of thin air, rather than facts. Thus I conclude that this is really nothing but a power grab by Republicans, who are hoping to gain at a rigger ballot box what they cannot get under any version of the current balance of political power in Urbana.
As for "benefits" you must be talking about safe seats for Republicans. Why can't you earn them the old-fashioned way, at the ballot box?
It is hardly "unjust" that the map is legal if you show no inclination to establish the facts in this case. The ward map was adopted based on the best legal factual information available to the council. Your consistent arguments that only growth in certain parts of Urbana counts is simply one more indication that this is a trumped-up piece of work.
Your allegation that "the proposed hybrid system [is] "illegal" [is] more rhetorical than practical" is NOT supported by an extensive judicial record overturning such at-large systems. Although I'm not a lawyer, the legal record indicates that if at-large does win, it is certain to be a case of "I'll see you in court." along with massive legal expenses, probably an injunction to prevent at-large from going into effect anyway, and an eventual decision putting Republican political aspirations back to square One in Urbana.
The fact that you are forced to admit that the present ward map is legal and, in your own words, "could survive a court challenge" demonstrates that you are ignoring reality in pursuit of political expediency. It might be useful for readers to review this link and research the references to the legal cases on it: http://www.noatlarge.org/issues/regressive.shtml
You may find the results of the legal process distasteful, but simply dismissing them as inappliacable when they clearly are significant and highly relevant is an intentional distarction that you show an alarming propensity to resort to when the question comes up. It is a violation of the Voting Rights Act to have a system that has a _result_ that discriminates against minorities. Repeatedly claiming that it is not your intention to discriminate simply doesn't legally cut it and will make no difference at all in a court challenge, despite at-large supporters' repeated denials that it is their intention to discriminate.
In fact, it seems the case for adding at-large council members closely resembles the Bush Adminstration's concocted case for war against Iraq. You Republicans really must think Urbana's citizens are suckers for unsupported accusations, secret evidence, and plain old lies when the facts don't go your way. |
|
Re: Press Conference Launches Campaign Against At-Large Seats in Urbana |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2004
|
Thank you for your comments. I stand by my previous comments but respect that you disagree with them.
In the interests of accuracy, I am in fact a Democrat and live in Ward 7, nor Ward 6. I am supporting "Plus 2" because I believe it is in the best interests of all Citizens that the Council represent the diversity of Urbana to the greatest extent possible. There are certainly Republicans who support the measure, presumably in large part because the ward which is being most underrepresented by the ward map is also the ward into which many Republican voters are concentrated. I am puzzled, however, by the notion that at-large seats would be "safe seats for Republicans" given the political composition of the City at large and the outcome of recent at-large elections in the City of Urbana. |
|
OK |
by East Urbana Resident
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2004
|
Now I get it, Chris. You're a member of a party that looks positively puny next to the Socialist Equality Party cahpter -- you're a Todocrat!
Let's see there's Tod, Milton Otto, and... you!
Seriously, are the Republicans so far down in Urbana they have to count on Democrats to pull their fat out of the fire? Apparently, the Democratic Party isn't too thrilled about this initiative that Tod and you support. They voted to endorse Vote No At-Large. Tod's only response was to blame this on Ruth Wyman packing the meeting, demonstrating once again that this is all about Tod and his lust for power on his own terms.
If Tod does run again, it should be as a Republican. Who wants to support a back-stabbing, story-inventing, tantrum-prone piece of work like Tod? It sure ain't me and I'll bet there are few others Dems at this point willing to dance to his tune anymore.
BTW, what did he promise you?
Or is your support one of his blackmail cases? |
|
