| Yesterday, the Charter Revision Committee, appointed by the Austin City Council primarily to consider the representative structure of Austin government (currently all at-large districts) and make a suggestion to the council, finally voted on its suggestions. The following motions were passed on this penultimate meeting by the committee: - A motion "to change the current structure [of City Council] to some form of geographic representation" passed overwhelmingly. There was one "no" vote - from Ken Rigsbee (a Republican).
- A suggestion to Council to then form an independent redistricting commission (that would exist for future census, too) was passed, based on a memorandum by the the committee's working group. More on that below, but this proposal passed with just two dissenters - David Butts and Fred McGhee.
- A proposal for a 10-1 plan (10 single member districts and one at-large mayor with no other at-large seats) barely passed after much discussion. The vote was 8-7. The alternative plan, that failed, was 10-2-1.
This is all just the first step. None of these motions become law until the city of Austin, via ballot measure, says so. And nothing will appear on the ballot until the City Council approves it. You would think that the big story is the almost unanimous support for single-member districts in the first place, but it's not. That was almost an afterthought, and after all, the activist community has supported the idea for decades. (How else would one explain it getting on the ballot six separate times?) The bigger stories were the other two motions. The heavily supported idea for an independent redistricting commission is huge. In the past, a plan for single member districts would come with a map, and voters would reject the map. It's almost impossible to draw a map that satisfies everyone, so a commission finally came up with a separate proposal. Here, the idea is to put a commission on the ballot, instead, that would ensure that every group has an ability to affect the actual maps. This commission would have 14-members semi-randomly selected from a 60-person pool, generally meeting three major requirements. The first goal is for a "fully diverse commission" based on "gender, race, ethnicity, age, student status, sexual orientation, home address [geography]." Second, strong stipultions would be in place to avoid any conflicts of interest. Third, the pool should be "highly qualified," a phrase that refers largely to voting history, but also would take into account other knowledge bases, such as statistics. This step is huge: the independent commission idea, instead of a map on the ballot, probably increases the chances of passage. That even "student status" found a place in the document shows how far this commission was willing to go to ensure that every community have a place at the table. (Special thanks to current UT Student Government Representatives John Lawler and Yaman Desai, as well as a few select Austinites for Geographic Representation, for pushing the student measures.) The City Council should keep with this theme, particularly the diversity section. The other big story, of course, was the final 8-7 vote for a 10-1 system. 10-1 passed the committee (and received heavy audience applause), but the real story is that nothing passed with an overwhelming amount of support. After months of discussions and consistent agreement to adopt Single Member Districts, the committee barely agreed on "how." The 10-1 advocates needed the support Ken Rigsbsee, who was adamantly against any change at all, to win the day. The alternate motion, 10-2-1 (2 would represent a couple at-large seats), failed by the same margin, 7-8. Each side showed passion, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, no one thought, "Your slightly different plan is good enough." Ann Kitchen rhetorically presented 10-2-1 as a compromise idea, but received no votes from 10-1 advocates. Then, upon losing the vote, some in the minority insisted upon its opinion being heavily represented to City Council, anyway The lack of clear, obvious agreement will affect this process all the way until the voters give word in November. After the committee confirms a staff report of their decisions, likely on February 16, the ball goes to City Council's court. Overwhelming support exists for both change and the independent commission, so every member will likely support change in that direction for fear of backlash. But as for the numerical structure of a Single Member District System: I am sure that 10-1's victory will be taken into account, but I expect each Council Member to give even greater weight to their own, personal opinion. Mayor Leffingwell has pushed a 6-2-1 plan, so he'll likelywill he continue pushing a hybrid? And no one really knows what the others will back, either. Keep in mind that every current member was elected in an at-large seat. But once City Council agrees to a plan of any sort, what will those who lost their fight do next? Fighting against 10-1, 10-2-1, or anything else is one thing when doing so in these recomendation and legislative settings, but will the same fight continue to the ballot box? If so, Austin is doomed to stay with its draconian system only of at-large districts. City Council should deliberate carefully and actually take into account the winning 10-1 argument from their appointed committee, and each side should feel free to fight for 10-1 or 10-2-1 until the council gives its ruling. But afterwards...here's to hoping everyone comes together so we can actually pass this thing, whatever that may be. [Below the jump, you will see the vote count for 10-1, and later links will be added to see the documents approved with the second motion for an independent commission.] |
