(Graphic credit: The Austin Bulldog)

SMDs No Mo'

First, get "single member districts" out of your vocabulary. It's bigger than "districts" with "single members." This is about geographic representation in addition to creating opportunities for increased minority representation. This is about "FAIR" geographic representation, and it can't be fair if the people aren't involved in the process of drawing the maps. Which is the main reason it's failed in the past.

Austin Needs to Grow Up

Our city has gotten too big for representation by 6 at-large members and a mayor to be in any way, shape, or form considered "fair." There are only three other cities in the 500,000+ population range in the United States that have an at-large system like we have.  All three have less people than we do and more at-large members, and one of them, Detroit (really, Detroit can do it!), is already in the process of going to districts - to be completed by 2013.

As it stands, Austin is...repeat after me..."the largest proportional representative municipality in the country." That means each elected official represents more people than anyone in any city. In many cases, they represent more than most U.S. Congresspeople do.  But we'll get further into that in a minute...

Maps Tell the Story

First, you should see this. The Austin Bulldog created some very handy maps which shows the residences of our elected officials for the past 40 years - click on the top map to get into the details. What it shows is, as we all suspect, most parts of town have lacked in representation, while the central city and near-west Austin have had more than its fair share.  How does your elected official know the problems and concerns of where you live if they never go there? If they don't shop at the same grocery store you do where you can exchange quick updates on recent neighborhood burglaries; if they don't experience the traffic or feel the potholes every day you do? 

South Austin...can I get a "whoop, whoop!" from my peeps over in 78704 ("We're all here because we're not all there!)", 78745 and 78741 ("78741--we're all here cuz we can't afford '04!") and my other brethren south of the river? I share your pain.  We had Max (Nofziger, but most know him just as "Max") back in the 80s/90s...Eric Mitchell...Roger Duncan...but Jackie Goodman and Daryl Slusher were the last true Southies to sit on Council. Yes, I skipped Jennifer Kim, but well...she never felt like a Southie to me.  Including her, though, we haven't had a rep since 2008...not one member living south of the river.

Only one representative has lived south of the river and east of I-35 in 40 years - where the highest proportion of low-income minorities live.  Much of our policy making is reflective of this lack of voice of the most vulnerable.

Northwest Austin? I know you guys have been hurting. They say there's lots of Republicans out there, but also a good dose of progressive libertarians (small "l") mixing and matching with the moderate Dems - none of whom say they feel particularly represented.  Only two members in 40 years have lived north of 360.

Southwest Austin? Two for y'all too. Betty Dunkerley - who was never a community activist who got her hands dirty with troubles at the Y; and Eric Mitchell - whose interests were more in line with the Yster's concerns at the time he served.

Central east Austin: no wonder gentrification came so fast and so hard! Jimmy Snell, in 1979, lived on east Manor Rd., Treviño in 1985, then Raul Alvarez and Mike Martinez (who moved from there during his first term) represent the sole members in 40 years to have lived there.  One a decade. Shameful.

North Austin? Wow. No representatives have been elected in that time that live east of Mopac and north of 290/Anderson Lane. Except for one, there's been no members north of Hyde Park in the central corridor, between Mopac & I-35.  It's said the geographic center of our city now is 290/I-35 thereabouts. Picture a clock with the center on that point. Outside of Handcox in 1971, east of Mopac, no representatives have lived from 8:00 to 4:00.

6 Is Not Enough

The US and Texas Constitutions guarantee geographic representation. We are sorely overdue for it. Will it happen? Like The Bulldog says, this time is different. This time the grassroots is really mobilizing and the populace more intrinsically understands how necessary it is. The question is, will the Mayor capitulate to the people's will for more than 6 districts (8 minimum, perhaps 10)? Experts say 8 or 10 is what it will take to satisfy the Dept. of Justice. What good is passing a measure that will just be shot down by the feds?

The Mayor instructed the consultants we're paying good money for to draw maps, but had them stop shy at drawing them for 6 districts, even though on April 28, the resolution they passed at Council said there would be 6 and 8 district maps developed. The consultants had 90 days, which has now passed, but at the July 28th meeting,  Council coughed up some more dough for them which may mean they are doing those 8 district plans afterall.  They're not confirming that for me, however, so I'm guessing.

Below is a separate piece I've developed with input from many local activists studying the issue, as a primer for the uninitiated. It provides our history of the at-large system, more specifics about why 6 districts is simply not enough, how the hybrid systems might work and how to get fair maps drawn:

The Case for Fair Geographic Representation

Austin is the fourth largest city in Texas and the 16^th largest city in the U.S.  Austin is the largest city in the U.S. without geographic (or district) representation; and the largest proportionally-representative municipality (the highest proportional representation of constituents).   

Our country’s founding fundamental principle is that of a representative democracy. It was designed such that the common people would have a voice, not just the elite. In our at-large system, with so many constituents to represent – and with so few of them on the dais, council members easily succumb to favoring the few who contribute money to their campaigns, or to the political party insider politics, despite our elections being non-partisan.

The considerably smaller nearby cities of Kyle, Georgetown and Taylor are redistricting their city councils due to growing populations.  Even Detroit, one of the last major cities to remain at-large, as economically challenged as it is, is in the process of going to a 7-2-1 system – and they have 200,000 less people than we do. Austin has grown dramatically, ranking this year as being part of the 8th fastest-growing metropolis in the nation, but with no change to its city governing structure.  Austin’s at-large system asks each council member to represent more people than members of the U. S. Congress (812,025 compared to 710,767 on average for members of Congress).  School boards, the state legislature, Austin Community College Board of Trustees and the Travis County Commission all have single-member or mixed (single member and at-large) districts.  It is time for Austin to adopt a more representational form of government, by devising a community-supported plan that is sensitive to long-standing geographic and neighborhood boundaries.

 Voter Apathy

Austin city elections have had abysmal voter participation in city elections for the last decade or more. Participation is low in all sectors of the city. Political activists argue that lack of voter participation is in part due to not having a Council member to represent their geographic concerns.  East Austin voters, in particular, perceive themselves to have less representation. In 2006’s Mayoral race, 7.6% of registered voters turned out in east Austin, where 13.5% of west Austinites voted.  In the recent May, 2011 council race, 32,869 out of 444,139 registered voters, or only 7%, cast ballots (data not available yet for east/west breakdowns). Implementing geographic representation is one way to shift this dynamic.

A History of Exclusion

Our current ‘at large’ system was devised in 1953. In 1951, Arthur DeWitty (the first African-American in Austin history to be selected for a Travis County Grand Jury in 1940) came in 8^th place, a few votes shy of winning one of the five seats on the Austin City Council.  The Austin City Council, in response to the white outcry, reactively rushed to place a charter amendment on the next city ballot to change Austin from a one-ballot plurality system to an at-large system.

This exclusion worked until 1971, when the first African-American was finally elected to the Austin City council, Berl Handcox. This is when the so-called “gentlemen’s agreement” came into existence. The agreement was completely informal and, according to court testimony and opinion pieces in the Statesman, it was designed to help Austin circumvent the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the potential for lawsuits for the last 40 years. It is a relic of our Jim Crow past and it must be placed in the dust bin of history. 

It is apparent to all that have dealt with our council members that they have increasingly become disconnected from the community in practically every quadrant of the city. The City Council’s policies towards many neighborhoods have demonstrated their lack of concern and even arrogance; neighborhood plans are no longer agreements between the city and the neighborhoods; neighborhood initiatives and ideas are ignored or quashed with little consideration. Representation based upon who has the most campaign funding is not working for those of us on limited budgets.  Our homes (through rising property taxes, soaring utility rates, and too-low impact fees to developers) should not be considered the foundation of our local government’s unlimited spending. 

The need for geographic representation doesn’t end at neighborhoods. All those working for city-wide justice, or on behalf of specific populations regardless of geography, run into the same brick walls. We all need a more responsive and responsible Council.  Austinites of all hues, geographical locations, constituency and political bents have good cause to come together. 

A Future With Geographic Representation

Implementing a district system can have more far-reaching effects than simply encouraging racial or ethnic mix on Council. First, candidates in a district election will get acquainted with their constituents and try to ensure that the district voter’s interests are represented. Second, single member districts is not a panacea for all that ails our city, however, if truly representative and participatory, it will produce greater voter turnout and make the electoral process more competitive. Third, the cost savings of running election campaigns alone would foster more grass roots candidates as well as participants.

One must ask, after so many defeats (six ballot measures), if it is possible to win this time at the polls. 

Big turn-out areas in northwest and southwest Austin are ready for SMDs.  East Side groups, the Austin Neighborhood Council and the Austin Chronicle, representing the central city vote, have expressed support for the 8-4-1 plan (with 2 “super district members” on each side of I-35 representing east or west Austin), while another broad coalition of interests have recently suggested a 10-2-1 plan⁵.  The City has put forth a 6-2-1 plan (the 2 being fully at-large in the last two scenarios), in a resolution that includes several more electoral reforms of consequence (some of contention), aiming for a November 2012 election. The 6-2-1 plan is too few districts for the population at 1 representative for 135,000 people (which will be 160,000 by 2020), and the Department of Justice may well reject it even if the populace votes for it, according to expert input. 

The “super districts” and at-large districts proposed in two of these three scenarios act as something of a “senate” to the “house of representatives.” This has positive and negative connotations for some, but two at-large districts with only 6 single member districts poses a problem since the carry-over baggage of the gentleman’s agreement will seep in, meaning only one seat will be “reserved” for a black OR Hispanic candidate, pitting them against each other.  The super district spots, with two on each side of I-35 (each representing the whole of east or whole of west Austin, respectively), allows for more diversity in the “senate seats” in terms of potential ethnic and geographic representatives, and with two on each side, it offers additional checks and balances between those interests as they then work in concert with their respective district reps. 

In all three plans, voters would vote for four people: the mayor, their district representative and either the 2 at-large members or 2 of the 4 super district members, depending on which side of the freeway they lived. This map of the districts would be drawn to follow natural boundaries (including the unnatural but permanent IH35) and neighborhood configurations.

The 2010 U.S. Census shows our City has grown to 812,000 people...which is 150,000 additional people than the last time we voted on district representation in 2002 (an 8-2-1 plan/ignoring the Commission that recommended 12 districts).  Another concerted push can finally succeed if a broad coalition is ready to work towards that goal.  If the Council will not commit to placing the measure, that We, the People, agree to on the ballot, citizens can initiate our own petition drive.  We have 180 days to collect approximately 20,000 valid signatures of Austin registered voters to place it on the ballot. 

There’s talk currently in the community about trying to get this on the May, 2012 ballot – a non-partisan ballot v. the November 2012 ballot the City has suggested. We hope the City will work with us to get all the charter amendments proposed on this ballot as we can only have charter changes once every two years.  We also hope that the Commission they suggested will be set up not only to study geographic districting, but all the other proposed changes in total.

How To Draw A Fair Map

One of the biggest obstacles to passing single-member districts in Austin has been the ill-ease that voters (particularly activists who do influence elections) have with who gets to draw the district lines - as the previous ballot measures didn’t include a fair system.  A proposal has been presented to the City Council just last month, as drafted by expert Steve Bickerstaff⁶, that establishes an audit-based process to handle this with clear straight-jacket rules like they have been doing successfully and inexpensively in the state of Iowa since 1980, and more recently in California, where they just passed a measure that had failed five times prior!

The City’s current proposal, with each council member selecting one commission member, is akin to the council members drawing the maps themselves. We can’t get fair geographic representation if the geographic proportionment process isn’t fair.  Mr. Bickerstaff’s proposal ensures a fair, workable and winnable district system. 

After a successful vote, the City of Austin Auditor would initiate an application process, open to all registered Austin voters in “a manner that promotes a diverse and qualified applicant pool,” removing anyone with particular conflicts of interest like those who’ve served in office (or a relative thereof), worked for a political party or campaign, been a registered lobbyist in the preceding 10 years or contributed more than a high-dollar (to be determined) amount to any recent candidates.  

Then the Auditor would establish an Applicant Review Panel, consisting of “three qualified independent auditors” to screen the applicants. These panelists would be randomly drawn from a pool of qualified auditors for the City of Austin. The State Auditor would assist in disqualifying any with conflicts of interest. The Panel then selects a pool of 50 applicants based on their “relevant analytical skills, ability to be impartial, residency in various parts of the city and appreciation of Austin’s diverse demographics and geography.” The Panel shall not communicate with any elected officials during this process, but after the pool is selected, council members have the option of removing two names each from the list.  The remaining applicant names then go to the Auditor who randomly draws 8 names to serve on the “Citizens Redistricting Commission,” and from the remaining names in that pool, those 8 Commissioners chose 6 more to ensure true diversity for a total of 14 members.

The commission then conducts hearings and adopts a plan for drawing the boundaries of the districts. This would all be done in time for the next council election, May (or November if moved as per Council proposal) of 2014.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 ¹ Osborn, Claire, “City Councils of Georgetown, Kyle and Taylor face Redistricting,” Austin American Statesman, January 2, 2011.

²http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/demographics/  & http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data/2010_apportionment_results.html     2010 census data

³ Interestingly, the fist woman to be elected to the Austin City Council was Emma Long, who was reelected in this election. 

⁴ Business interests, brought to the table by local Democratic leader Ed Wendler and others, agreed not to fund white candidates in two council seats that would be informally “reserved” for a black and Hispanic council member.

⁵http://eastaustinvoice.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/  suggested at a meeting by political consultant Peck Young

⁶Mr. Bickerstaff is a UT law professor, author of Lines in the Sand about the 2003 Texas congressional redistricting and coauthor of International Election Principles.  In the 70s, Bickerstaff served as Parliamentarian of the Texas Senate; as a counsel for the Texas Constitutional Convention; the Texas Constitutional Revision Commission and as an assistant attorney general of Texas. Ironically, though Bickerstaff defended the City of Austin in 1984 against the gentleman’s agreement, he is a supporter of geographic representation. He volunteered his services to help draft this part of a citizen’s proposal.