Opponents still critical of redistricting plan
By Eric Scott Campbell and David Mann
Date: 09/15/2007
The New Albany City Council is moving ahead with a plan to redefine the city's political districts, following a public hearing Friday afternoon.
However, after prodding the council to redistrict for more than a year, critics are still unhappy with the way the council is moving forward with the plan.
Posted on the wall during the hearing at the City-County Building was a proposed district map, which shows shifted boundaries of the council district lines. The new map was created in an attempt to make the population of each district more evenly dispersed.
The map now in use has large discrepancies in the how many voters are in each district for example, District 2 contains thousands more residents and registered voters than any other district.
A lawsuit was filed by a group of residents last year to attempt to force the council to correct the discrepancies. The lawsuit is still in its pretrial phase and parties have an agreement in principle in which the council will vote on new districts by Nov. 22.
However, plaintiffs say that if they don't like what the council approves, they would still like to see a Dec. 3 trial commence.
Those feelings were conveyed by resident Randy Smith during the hearing Friday. Smith is a plaintiff in the lawsuit that moved the council to redistrict and he was one of the only people speaking during the hearing.
I think it is a great thing that you are offering the people this scant chance to participate in their government as you discuss perhaps the most important element of our democratic system the right to be fairly represented, Smith said in prepared remarks to the council. I'm not sure, however, that this body understands the seriousness of what it proposes to undertake.
He complained that the districts proposed were not drawn by a residents' advisory group, but rather by council and behind closed doors. Additionally, he said that there are still discrepancies in the voting districts under the council's proposal.
Despite what you may have been told, a population variance between districts of 8, 9 or 10 percent is not permissible under Indiana statutes.
He quoted the statute in saying that districts are supposed to contain, as nearly as is possible, equal population.
He further quoted the state and U.S. Constitutions regarding the rights of equal representation for citizens, and questioned the numbers the council had used in drawing the new map.
Floyd County Clerk Linda Moeller also spoke, urging the council not to approve a map in which political districts split precincts. Doing so would force the clerk's office to have separate poll books, ballots and voting machines, she said, something that would cause unnecessary expense.
It would lead to confusion not only for voters, but for poll workers and the clerk's office employees who would have to manually change residents' voting information.
It's confusion and it's more work, she said.
Smith said that the law doesn't address trouble, confusion or expense, it just says equally as possible.'
There was also some confusion among parties about what is required of the council by Nov. 22. Councilman Larry Kochert believes U.S. Magistrate Judge William Hussman told the council to have something voted on by Nov. 22 or the matter will be sent to trial, already scheduled for Dec. 3.
Smith, on the other hand, said: There's no sense in rushing into this, and we are going to trial. You're going to submit a plan that's better, but it still doesn't follow the statute.
I think every bit of the evidence is saying that you're moving too fast, you don't know what you're doing.
Precinct lines also could be changing by the end of the year, a matter which is handled by the county commissioners.
In an interview after the meeting, Kochert said the proposed district map is based on current precinct lines.
The proposal will move ahead, Kochert said. Now that a hearing has taken place, the council will publicly discuss the map in upcoming council meetings before any vote is taken.
Kochert said it was the charge of the City Council to draw the map, not a panel of residents.
They're wannabes, Kochert said. They want to be leaders of the community. The law says the council does the redistricting.
Kochert argued that handling redistricting the way Smith and his fellow plaintiffs are proposing using an advisory board would cost the city upwards of $100,000 in legal and consulting fees.
Redistricting is mandated every 10 years, two years after each federal census. Though the council redistricted in 1992, it failed to do so in 2002, when two such proposals lacked support.
WHAT WOULD CHANGE?
New Albany 's six voting districts would swap six of their 34 precinct subdivisions 10, 11, 19A, 19B, 26 and 28 under a proposed realignment of district boundaries.
PRECINCT 10 Boundaries: Ekin Avenue to the north, Spring Street to the south, Vincennes Street to the west and Silver Street to the east.
Currently in: District 5, represented by Democrat Beverly Crump. Republican Dick Bliss and Democrat Diane McCartin-Benedetti are running for election there.
Would move to: District 3, represented by Democrat Steve Price. Price, Republican Brenda Scharlow and Libertarian Thomas Keister are running for election there.
PRECINCT 11
Boundaries: Grant Line Road to the west, Vincennes Street to the east and Ekin Avenue to the south.
Currently in: District 3.
Would move to: District 4, represented by Democrat Larry Kochert. Republican David Aebersold and Democrat Pat McLaughlin are running for election there.
PRECINCT 19A
Boundaries: Green Valley Road to the west, Grant Line Road to the east and a section of Interstate 265 to the southwest.
Currently in: District 2, represented by Democrat Bill Schmidt. Republican Harry Harbison and Democrat Bob Caesar are running for election there.
Would move to: District 6, represented by Democrat Jeff Gahan. Gahan and Republican Dick Stewart are running for election there.
PRECINCT 19B
Boundaries: Green Valley Road to the east and Glenview Heights to the south.
Cu Would move to: District 6.
PRECINCT 26
Boundaries: Railroad tracks to the west, Charlestown Road to the east, Sheller Lane to the north and Ormond Drive to the south.
Currently in: District 6.
Would move to: District 5.
PRECINCT 28
Boundaries: Charlestown Road to the east, Hazelwood Drive to the south and Rainbow Drive to the north.
Currently in: District 6.
Would move to: District 5.
EQUAL
REPRESENTATION?
The following figures use population data from the 2000 census, collected from the county's voter-registration office in May 2006.
DISTRICT 1
Changes under proposal: None
Proposed population: 6,267
DISTRICT 2
Changes under proposal: Would lose precincts 19A and 19B
Current population: 8,876
Proposed population: 6,359
DISTRICT 3
Changes under proposal: Would gain Precinct 10, lose Precinct 11
Current population: 5,897
Proposed population: 6,155
DISTRICT 4
Changes under proposal: Would gain Precinct 11
Current population: 5,672
Proposed population: 6,672
DISTRICT 5
Changes under proposal: Would gain precincts 26 and 28, lose precinct 10
Current population: 5,040
Proposed population: 6,348
DISTRICT 6
Changes under proposal: Would gain precincts 19A and 19B, lose precincts 26 and 28
Current population: 6,196
Proposed population: 6,127
© 2007, The Evening News & The Tribun