| In statements released to BOR, both Chris Riley and Perla Cavazos emphasized their support for single-member districts and their desire to bring the issue before Austin voters within the next two years. Here are the candidates' unedited thoughts on single-member districts in Austin. Perla Cavazos: "I think we've learned this past election cycle the power of grassroots politics and how it helps rebuild communities. That's what single — member districts are all about — bringing government closer to the people and getting the people more involved in creating change. More than contribution limits, single member districts take the money and special interest influence out of city council politics. They encourage increased access and accountability. Right now, because Austin is the 14th largest city in the nation, each one of us is forced to go on TV to communicate to the city at-large. Those will be 30 second commercials, not engaged, back and forth conversations about the direction of our city. If a hybrid system is what it takes to make the transition, I support it. But it's time we realize that forgotten neighborhoods, where voter turnout may be low and easy to ignore, has an economic and opportunity cost for the entire city. This is about making government work, and that's why I'd like to invite my fellow candidates to join me in a pledge that whoever is elected, that we work together to educate the community, and bring this issue back before the voters within two years."
Chris Riley: I support a move towards a hybrid system of single-member districts and at-large council members. The 2010 census will be a good reason to move forward on the issue, with newer, more precise data about where people live in our city. Above all, I support putting this issue before the voters, because no major change to our democratic system of government should be made without the consent of the people whom it will impact.
Given the size of our city in terms of both geography and population, some combination of at-large and single-member districts would provide a way of ensuring more accountability at city hall and more responsiveness to people across the whole city. Right now, many Austin residents don't know who to contact on the council about an issue in their neighborhood. If each area had its own direct representative, there would be no doubt about who to call.
One way I will address this in the short-term is by holding weekly open office hours at City Hall, when any Austin resident can come speak to me in person and share their concerns. It's important that our city government be engaged with and responsive to the real, daily concerns of the people who live here.
In drawing these districts, the City of Austin would need to be very careful to craft proportional and representational districts. We would need to factor in both geography and precinct layout, as well as voter history and turnout. Single-member districts could potentially increase turnout in under-represented areas, which would also be a great benefit to our city.
There are many other issues to consider as part of this process. Single-member districts would vastly decrease the cost necessary to mount a city council campaign. Currently, candidates who can't manage to raise sufficient funds have difficulty competing city-wide, and that isn't necessarily fair to our democratic processes. However, I do not favor an all-single-member-district council. We should have some at-large members to ensure that we keep a city-wide perspective on the council as well.
It is clear from reading their statements that both candidates have given a lot of thought to issue. For those interested, former place 1 candidate Rick Cofer also favored a hyrbid SMD system. What are your thoughts on single-member districts in Austin? Note: I have made small contributions to the campaigns of Perla Cavazos and former candidate Rick Cofer. Update 6:45pm by David: Former (and perhaps future?) council candidate Kedron Touvell has an insightful breakdown of SMD support among council members in the comments that is definitely worth reading. Brewster and Sheryl Cole have always been the strongest opponents of moving to a SMD or even a hybrid system. Brewster talks about "wardism" and Sheryl rightly or wrongly is worried about dilution of the AA vote. Here's where we stand now: Supporters of SMD
Mayor: Wynn (although, supposedly he was the one who killed last year's effort to put up a charter item)
Place 1: Leffingwell
Place 2: Mike Martinez (strong, driving most of the effort)
Place 4: Laura Morrison Strong Opponent of SMD
Place 5: Brewster
Place 6: Sheryl Swing Vote
Place 3: Randi Shade Of course, that's enough votes to get something passed, but the issue is that there has to be a charter referendum in order for the change to be made. And given the lukewarm reception by the public to the Charter Revision process that studied the issue the last two years, not enough members were willing to risk another failed vote (there have been 6 failed SMD amendment votes in the last 30+ years). If Lee wins the Mayoral race, Spelman wins place 5, and one of Chris/Perla wins place 1, then there will be only one strong opponent of SMD left, Sheryl. Then, the issue will almost certainly go before the voters, but not until Nov. 2010 at the earliest.
|
