The Empire Strikes Back
In the final week before Election Day, an entity calling itself "Friends of the Fifth Ward" has launched a campaign against Proposition 1, the Fair & Equal initiative. Proposition 1 would do away with the weighted vote in the Common Council and establish in Hudson the constitutional principle of one person, one vote by redrawing ward boundaries to create voting districts of equal population. In recent days, these flyers have been distributed, apparently selectively, to residents of the Fifth Ward.
The flyers arrived in an envelope with this return address:
The tax rolls reveal that 13 Michael Court is the home of longtime mayor and current Fifth Ward supervisor Richard Scalera, who has claimed in the past that the 2003 referendum to eliminate the weighted voted by changing ward boundaries was "soundly defeated" when in fact it failed by only 68 votes.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
"Let's Keep Our 'Ward.' Let's Keep Our 'Voice.'"
ReplyDeleteTranslation: "Let's Keep Our Power Over Everyone Else."
And in this manner, our gentle brethren from the 5th Ward recall us to 1965 Selma, Alabama, where the marching slogan was "One [Person] One Vote."
(Editorial aside: why the quotes around 'voice' and 'ward' on the leaflets? Odd.)
The only resistance to Proposition #1 that I've noticed has come from entrenched politicos who just want to keep things the same. They have yet to offer a solid argument for their position.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that Proposition 1 is a gerrymandering law not a weighted voting one. It is all about redrawing Ward boundaries -- without democratic discussion or a full-throated citizen conversation about the lines. That's the problem. Prop 1 is anything but a democratic proposition.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering is defined as voting district line drawing by those in power to benefit a particular political party or group. The etymology is somewhat well known: it has to do with drawing ward boundaries so obtuse in order to achieve the desired political outcome that the resulting district resembled a salamander.
DeleteNothing about Prop. 1 meets these definitions. Indeed, the F&E committee, that drew the lines, did so precisely according to the Constitutional principles for doing so set down by the Supreme Court.
So, Peter, while you are entitled to your opinion about how we did the work, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Prop. 1, if adopted by the voters, will create 5 equipopulous voting districts (wards) in the city of Hudson along lines drawn to Constitutional principles, ignoring party enrollments (we never looked at them, never asked any member of the committee what their enrollment was) and following the streets of the city without any concern or regard for incumbents or wannabes viz. any elected office. We attempted to adhere as closely as possible to the existing geographic ward boundaries. Those are the facts.
You, me, any individual, might disagree with a particular line or decision -- that's natural and normal. Our polity has never required unanimity in belief, only unanimity in willingness to compromise.
But your grammar is fundamentally incorrect. As an academic, Peter, I'm sure you can understand the importance of using language properly; gerrymandering is a well-understood term and your use of it in this manner is incorrect and, I fear, disingenuous in an attempt to score some political points or otherwise discredit your neighbors' work.
And, as Sam correctly points out, below, the democratic part is at the polls -- you don't like it? Vote "no." You do? Vote "yes." But don't resort to what is essentially name calling in an attempt to discredit the outcome of the committee's 6-month labor. We've been straight with everyone; you should be too.
I believe the democratic part comes in when everyone gets to cast a Yes or No vote.
ReplyDeleteWell said.
DeleteNot to put too fine a point on it, but it is possible to vote (for or against) an undemocratic proposition. I recall the Valentine's day blizzard vote when 300 people (out of 10,000 registered voters) turned out to approve a $35 million school building project..... The mere act of voting on a proposition does not make the proposition itself a democratic law. By that reasoning, if proposition 1 fails, then proponents of weighted voting will admit that weighted voting is democratic. And just for the record, as I've said from the beginning, I personally don't like weighted voting and would have voted for prop 1 in a heartbeat if it hadn't redrawn the ward boundaries. That gave the 5th Ward the opening it needed: 9 people from the first and third wards did the redrawing. Sure it's possible that a majority of Hudson voters will agree with those 9. I just happen to believe that the redrawing should have been done differently. It will be interesting to see what the turnout is. If we get between 50 and 60 percent (the national turnout during recent presidential years), I will stand down (and eat crow) on my undemocratic complaint! Anyone want to offer a number for what would be considered a healthy democratic turnout for Prop 1?
ReplyDelete" . . . and would have voted for prop 1 in a heartbeat if it hadn't redrawn the ward boundaries." How, pray tell, can you construct equipopulous districts out of wildly differing population districts without redrawing the lines? You can't. These are your options: keep the weighted voting system which disenfranchises vast swaths of the city (including where you live, Peter) or redraw the lines.
DeleteFrankly, Peter, the fact that you'd even commit such a logical fallacy to writing is remarkable to me -- it's on par with the level of discourse among most of my Council colleagues (that is, grade-school level). If you're going to object to something important, do us all a favor and think it through first.
"9 people from the first and third wards did the redrawing."
DeleteAh Peter, I live in the 2nd Ward. I generated the map which was carefully reviewed and discussed by the Fair and Equal team, and ultimately approved. Moreover our canvassers are from all over the City, including many from the 5th ward. The suggestion that Prop 1 is some sort of exclusive enterprise of the south of Warren Street folks is just false.
It is interesting the the focus of this particular hyperbolic and overwrought communication is about preserving the patently unconstitutional weighted vote system (which also violates NY statutory law), and the 5th ward's 40% share of Hudson's population, rather than complaining about the lines on the map.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the map, nobody bothered to draw an alternative map. That is not surprising, since the suggestions of alternative lines from a couple of Hudson politicians, would not cause the wards to have substantially equal population, and to make the further adjustments needed to effect substantially equal populations, would have caused any such alternative map to look like a gerrymandered mess with erose (jagged) lines. Moreover, I have yet to hear any substantive objections to the map Prop 1 proposes that had any merit (suggestions that the map was unfair to minorities and so forth were all refuted by actual demographic data that the Fair and Equal Campaign has disclosed on its website and elsewhere). Rather it is all about process. Isn't it the quality of the end product that really matters?
Would not it be better to get this all resolved and fixed on November 8 by passing Prop 1, rather than having to move on to the courts at considerable legal expense to the City to end its illegal voting system?
Ah, the famous Friedman"logical fallacy" charge. Oh, how could I be so dumb? In fact, John, logic has nothing to do with it except in the sense that you have committed one huge one in asserting those two options. The third option, which would have been both more democratic and more likely to pass was this: weighted vote or no weighted vote. To redraw the lines was pure hubris--and unnecessary. It plays neatly into the hands of those who think the Fair & Equal folks are elitist. And sorry to say, but perfectly fits the definition of gerrymandering in that it benefits you and your friends who think you're so smart that you don't have to have a messy (democratic) discussion about the lines. I guess we'll find out on Tuesday. So what's your number on a turnout that will make the referendum results "fair and equal"?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs always Peter, you'd be right if you weren't wrong.
DeleteThe third option you posit -- a democratic discussion of the potential for lines and how to draw them -- was done in the Council, twice and in its Legal Committee 3 times. So 5 times the discussion was done in public and all 5 times it was eventually voted down by the Council -- which only underscores that the weighted vote perpetuates itself, which is to say that power tends to perpetuate itself.
And your bootstrapping bloviation regarding how what the F&E committee did "perfectly fits the definition of gerrymandering" aside (do you even read what the rest of us write or do you simply lead with your chin?) -- I note that each of the 5 times this issue was raised in public I WAS THE ONE WHO RAISED IT. So, Peter, explain to me logically how I have sought to thwart any democratic process, and how a group of neighbors who have no political power, meeting on their own time, under their own steam and providing for their neighbors a proposal to vote on is gerrymandering. Again, do you even read what other's here write?
Alternatively, of course, you can simply continue making statements that are logically false -- that's your right. You can also seek to imply or even baldly state that I (either with my F&E colleagues or alone in the manner of an evil genius or otherwise) have sought to run around or rough-shod over the democratic process. After all, you seem to enjoy it, continue to do it and (at least as far as I'm concerned) make it easy for me to shoot down arguments against Prop. 1.
The City had the opportunity to do precisely what you suggest Peter (an opportunity created in fact by your interlocutor Mr. Friedman when he proposed last year an initiative to have Hudson have equal population wards, and then have a political body draw the lines this year), but that proposal was vetoed by Mayor Hallenbeck (the guy whom I might add also vetoed suing the CBOE after it refused to correct the voter rolls where some voters were voting in the wrong wards to secure a court order forcing the CBOE to follow the law and cause voters to vote in the ward in which they lived rather than some other ward). His veto was then upheld by the Common Council by precisely the same politicians who oppose Prop 1. So look to the opponents of Prop 1 as the source of your frustration as to how the process evolved, not the Fair and Equal team, and in particular, certainly not Mr. Friedman who in fact did his best but was shot down.
DeleteThe problem with having a redux of what Mr. Friedman proposed this year, is that there would simply not be the time to then enact a new map in 2017 by mid February, which is the deadline for adopting a new map, and for the Columbia Board of Elections to get the voters into the right wards, and for candidates to gather signatures and so forth. So Hudson would end up having to go one more election cycle with the existing illegal wards, and weighted voting system.
That dog won't hunt. I made a promise to myself that the 2015 election cycle in Hudson would be the last one that was illegal (including ending the legal and moral disgrace of voters voting in the wrong wards). That is one promise to myself that I will keep.
Steve, I don't know how many times I can say it, but I'll try it one more time: what I proposed is not at all what Friedman tried last year. For one, John introduced it in the City Council not as a referundum to the voters at large. Secondly, he introduced both elements of the proposition -- weighted voting and redrawing -- at the same time; the same thing he's trying with Prop 1. My proposal would have included just one idea: yes or no on weighted voting. My guess is that the chances of that passing a citywide vote would be much greater than what is currently proposed; in part because it doesn't carry the combustible baggage -- as we now see -- that comes with redistricting.
ReplyDeletePeter, Mr. Friedman can address this better than I, but what he proposed was a council law that would go to referendum simply requiring equal population wards. That would have gone to the voters for approval.
DeleteIf approved, then the council I believe would have drawn the ward lines. That is precisely what you are suggesting should have been done again this year, and I explained why it is too late to do that.
The council failed to adopt Mr. Friedman's proposal. No map was ever attached to Mr. Friedman's proposals (he had another one involving a commission which also got nowhere).
Sure, when it comes to maps, politicians like to jockey for position, to get a map that is most favorable to what their perceive as their political interests. So what else is knew? That comes with the territory. Some of them don't like that the Prop 1 map is not a gerrymander in anyone's favor.
Anyway, what you want is simply not an option now. There are only two options left. I have described what they are. It is either one or the other. That is the choice for you to ponder.
Actually, Steve, it wasn't the Council that would draw the new ward boundaries. Rather it was a thirteen member (how auspicious is that?) "Redistricting Committee," some members appointed by the mayor, some by the Common Council president, some by the Common Council. I don't remember all the details, but I explained it all at the time here: http://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2015/05/change-may-be-coming-but-glacially.html. The Redistricting Committee was to take a year to come up with a plan, which, if memory serves, the Council could accept or reject. Given the interest shown by some members of the Council in protecting their turf, this could very well have ended up being a year's work for naught.
DeleteThe approval that would have been required by that proposal was a referendum (per state law, not my proposal, by the way) so I didn't require any Council approval once the body was created -- that was the whole point: create a methodology that insulated the process from political pressure as much as reasonably possible. That was the goal in any event.
DeleteThanks Carole for your comment. I was not intimately involved in the process. I think there were two versions of Mr. Friedman's plan, but he knows far better than I the details.
ReplyDeleteTo the assertion that the City should do one thing at a time, implying we did not attempt to do exactly that, as Peter argues, please read the language of the resolution that the Council adopted (when Bart Delaney still represented the 5th Ward) and that was then vetoed by Bill Hallenbeck. It was the intent of those who supported doing away with the weighted vote that we start with precisely the approach Peter suggests.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Peter asserts the resolution was flawed because it would not put the question to the voters. That also is completely incorrect. The action section of the Resolution, adopted by the Council in October 2015,proposes this:
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that at the next general election held in the City of Hudson the following question shall be put to the voters by inclusion on the ballot used in such election by way of referendum:
"Shall the Common Council of the City of Hudson amend the City Charter to replace the current ward method of weighted voting utilized by the City with voting districts of equal population such that every resident of the City of Hudson is equally represented on the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors?"
That resolution, if adopted, would have had the City voting to decide whether it wanted a weighted voting system or would replace it with equal population districts (Wards). To be clear, the weighted voting system could not be voted down without an alternative, and the only Constitutionally acceptable alternative is equal population districts.
Peter’s accusation that the F&E committee is recalcitrant in its efforts, while not finding fault with the years of opposition and delay from the elected leaders who represent the Wards with the heavier voting power, badly misrepresents both the work done by the Council and then the F&E group.
Secondly, once the principle is established in the City Code of equal population districts, that decision is subject, by law, to revision every ten years, like in 2020. With the weighted voting system, the Ward boundaries are writ in stone. They would be open to public and Common Council debate and vote if our referendum is approved.
Thirdly, the complaint is made that two Supervisors of color will be forced to run against each other in the new 4th Ward. For the record, I loose my seat as 3rd Ward Supervisor.
Question for Peter.
ReplyDeleteDo you accept that weighted voting is very likely unconstitutional?
If so, would democracy be served if Hudson residents simply voted to keep the weigted vote?
And if they voted to end it without a replacement system, how long would it take for the council to approve one? Six months, a year, two election cycles? Never?
If Brexit teaches us anything its that democratic voting can lead to a democratic crisis if its poorly considered in advance.
Dear Signifier, I'm no constitutional lawyer, but the last time I checked, a law is not unconstitutional until declared so by the Supreme Court; and I don't find that argument very persuasive. Nor do I find the messiness argument very compelling--democracies tend to be messy and I prefer public participation--whether it takes six months or a year--to the kind of autocratic method by which the Prop 1 boundaries were drawn. And it's funny you mention Brexit. I'd say that if Prop 1 passess it will prove that a vote does not necessarily produce an ideal result :) And no has yet to answer my question: what would you consider a "healthy" turnout percentage? cheers, --pm
ReplyDeleteA group of neighbors volunteering to figure something out, and offering it to their neighbors for the latter's approval is your definition of "autocratic?" It's like you don't know what the words mean, Peter. Failing to find a factual basis on which to hang your disdain for others, you retreat into wanting more "messiness" after 5 years of messiness. I get it now, you're an old world Utopian. Not a lot of them around anymore.
DeletePeter, I asked you if if it was "likely" that the weighted vote is unconstitutional.
DeleteRefusing to make an enlightened guess regarding this important question leaves only one option...
Forcing the city to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending a system that will probably be struck down by the courts. If that were to happen, would that be more democratic, sufficiently messy, a waste of resources, a victory or a failure? Would it be better if an administrative judge drew our ward boundaries? Because that is exactly where we're heading if Prop 1 fails.
Dear Sig, I don't know that it is unconstitutional -- I think Prop 1 proponents cite one case as precedent for making the claim, which is a rather flimsy volume of case law on the subject -- but I do know how difficult it is to get the high court to rule on the constitutionality of any issue and so consider the chances of a ruling on that matter very unlikely. (Plus, there's very significant precedent for weighted voting: it's the U.S. Congress.) But it's always better if localities can sort out their problems without outside interference. I would think a more pressing legal question is whether you can redistrict by referendum. I think you're more apt to see a judge throw out the results of a successful Prop 1 than find anyone who will mount more than a token challenge to the constitutionality of the current system. Just my 2 cents. cheers, --p
ReplyDelete"Failing to find a factual basis on which to hang your disdain for others..." This is what you get for voicing an opinion--great way to run a democracy. I take the autocratic charge back; more like desperate despots.... I still wonder what folks would consider a fair and equal vote: 10% turnout? 30%? Good luck to us all tomorrow. --pm
ReplyDelete