Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Multi-member v single-member districts:
Thom Cmar writes:
I read the Charles article with interest. I found it to make a compelling
argument for why, as a policy matter, a switch to multi-member districting might
better vindicate constitutional values.
But the arguments made by Charles seem to go more to the question of what the
law should be, rather than what a court could say the law is without exceeding
its institutional role. Particularly given the current state of the law -- in particular, the discussion in Voting Rights Act cases such as _Holder v. Hall_
-- which suggests that the current Court sees no principled basis for going any
deeper into the "political thicket" than it already has.
Does anyone on the list disagree with me? If one were to take this argument
into a courtroom, is there precedential ground for it to stand on?
Thom Cmar
3L, Harvard Law School
This situation comes up, frequently, when courts are asked to replace multi-member, multi-vote elections with single-member districts.
The charles article helps show that the correct solution is to move to multi-member, single vote, and therefore when the relief sought is a move to single-member districts, relief should be denied.
The move to single-member districts can be an improvement if one assumes the only problem is race, that there is racial housing segregation, and that voters vote in racial blocks.
Multi-member, single-vote, arrangments accomodate diversity of all sorts, whether race, gender, party, creed, or locality.
Minor parties, including the Libertarians and Greens, have done better in multi-member single-vote arrangements.
Examples: Jonesburg is 51% GOP, 49% DEM. The council is elected at large, 7 seats, 7 votes per voter, result 100% GOP.
Plaintiff D's go to court seeking 7 single-member districts, of which they hope to win 2 or 3.
Defendants/intervenors/expert witnesses can suggest a better alternative: 7 seats, one vote. This creates a strong likelihood of
4 GOP 3 DEM council, assuming each party seeks an optimum strategy using game theory concepts. Independents would only need 1/7 +1, rather than 1/3 +1. The result would be a council that looks more like Jonesburg; is more representative, diverse and pluralistic.
My experience: Indianapolis is divided into 9 townships.
These used to have 3 member boards elected at large (3 votes per voter.) The D's sued. I forget whether the solution was court imposed or legislative response to the suit, but the outcome was 7 members by district per township. Center township had always been 100% D, and the other 8 100% R. Looking at the 1994 election results, which had a strong GOP swing, I saw a shot at breaking the monopoly. I won the GOP primary and was cross-nominated by the Libertarians, but lost the suit to run as a fusion candidate and was removed from the GOP ballot line, and so lost the general election. (The court did, though, uphold my sign,
Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday, under McIntyre, a controversy that continues in Majors v Abell.
Most recent action in Majors: the 7th circuit, as expected, denied my motion to strike part of the state's brief on McConnell so now we are just waiting for an opinion.
Thom Cmar writes:
I read the Charles article with interest. I found it to make a compelling
argument for why, as a policy matter, a switch to multi-member districting might
better vindicate constitutional values.
But the arguments made by Charles seem to go more to the question of what the
law should be, rather than what a court could say the law is without exceeding
its institutional role. Particularly given the current state of the law -- in particular, the discussion in Voting Rights Act cases such as _Holder v. Hall_
-- which suggests that the current Court sees no principled basis for going any
deeper into the "political thicket" than it already has.
Does anyone on the list disagree with me? If one were to take this argument
into a courtroom, is there precedential ground for it to stand on?
Thom Cmar
3L, Harvard Law School
This situation comes up, frequently, when courts are asked to replace multi-member, multi-vote elections with single-member districts.
The charles article helps show that the correct solution is to move to multi-member, single vote, and therefore when the relief sought is a move to single-member districts, relief should be denied.
The move to single-member districts can be an improvement if one assumes the only problem is race, that there is racial housing segregation, and that voters vote in racial blocks.
Multi-member, single-vote, arrangments accomodate diversity of all sorts, whether race, gender, party, creed, or locality.
Minor parties, including the Libertarians and Greens, have done better in multi-member single-vote arrangements.
Examples: Jonesburg is 51% GOP, 49% DEM. The council is elected at large, 7 seats, 7 votes per voter, result 100% GOP.
Plaintiff D's go to court seeking 7 single-member districts, of which they hope to win 2 or 3.
Defendants/intervenors/expert witnesses can suggest a better alternative: 7 seats, one vote. This creates a strong likelihood of
4 GOP 3 DEM council, assuming each party seeks an optimum strategy using game theory concepts. Independents would only need 1/7 +1, rather than 1/3 +1. The result would be a council that looks more like Jonesburg; is more representative, diverse and pluralistic.
My experience: Indianapolis is divided into 9 townships.
These used to have 3 member boards elected at large (3 votes per voter.) The D's sued. I forget whether the solution was court imposed or legislative response to the suit, but the outcome was 7 members by district per township. Center township had always been 100% D, and the other 8 100% R. Looking at the 1994 election results, which had a strong GOP swing, I saw a shot at breaking the monopoly. I won the GOP primary and was cross-nominated by the Libertarians, but lost the suit to run as a fusion candidate and was removed from the GOP ballot line, and so lost the general election. (The court did, though, uphold my sign,
Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday, under McIntyre, a controversy that continues in Majors v Abell.
Most recent action in Majors: the 7th circuit, as expected, denied my motion to strike part of the state's brief on McConnell so now we are just waiting for an opinion.
Comments:
Post a Comment
