How many ways can you carve up one city?
My column today:
Just in time for Greensboro's tricentennial celebration in 2108: yet another City Council election plan.
This will be a 25-3-1 system, recognizing the need to set aside districts for additional previously underrepresented minority groups.
It follows the 22-3-1 plan in effect since 2095, which succeeded the 18-3-1 configuration, which replaced 14-3-1, which supplanted 9-3-1, which overtook 7-3-1, which came after the original 5-3-1 design implemented way back in 1983 (as Jim Schlosser described in Monday's News & Record). ...
Five-three-one stood for five City Council members elected from districts and three at-large members and one mayor chosen by all Greensboro voters. The scheme was meant to provide geographic and racially diverse membership on the city's governing board. Prior to this innovation, the powerful white establishment dominated the council.
The new format accomplished its goal for many years by assuring the election of African American council members from the two districts where African American residents made up the largest share of the electorate. The system was thought to be indispensable, even though African American candidates sometimes ran for and won at-large seats. The prevailing view enshrined in this system was that voters were expected to support candidates of their own race.
Unintended consequences did come into play. Some district representatives catered only to the interests of their own constituents, showing little concern for the welfare of the city as a whole. Some representatives, though popular in their home districts, were disliked and resented by other residents, who had no power to vote them out of office. This sometimes created bitter divisions on the council, with members insulting each other and calling for rivals to resign.
The problem only grew worse as the city became more diverse with growing immigrant populations from all corners of the globe. Each new group, feeling excluded from the political mainstream, demanded representation for its own racial and ethnic interests. The answer was to draw more districts, first for Hispanics, then for Asians, then for Middle Easterners, then for Africans. After that, because there were so many differences between people from Mexico and Guatemala and Costa Rica, and Vietnam and Korea and Pakistan and India, and Iraq and Iran and Turkey, and Sudan and Nigeria and South Africa, and on and on, the division of districts continued.
Now City Council meetings are conducted simultaneously in 13 languages.
The process is cumbersome but the principle established in 1983 is still in force: Citizens are entitled to representation by people who share their racial and ethnic characteristics. The system may fragment the community into ethnic enclaves and create a sort of political apartheid, as a 20th century Supreme Court justice once put it, but it's the only way to guarantee diversity.
* * *
Or is another future possible for Greensboro? At some point in this century, can the population of this already diverse and often-contentious city agree that really getting along requires stepping over boundaries, not drawing them?
Imagine that all city leaders have to be accountable to all Greensboro voters. When they decide how to spend public funds, they all have to consider the needs of every neighborhood, not only the neighborhoods in a single district. When a voter calls with a question or request, he or she is regarded as equal to every other voter regardless of race, ethnicity or address. And when a voter goes to the polls, he or she feels free to choose the candidates whose records look best and whose ideas seem most promising, not just those whose skin is the right color or whose accents sound the most familiar.
There may have been good reasons to adopt the 5-3-1 system in 1983. There may be better reasons to change it before five districts become 25 and Greensboro can never pull itself together again.
Doug Clark can be contacted at dgclark@news-record.com and 373-7039.
Comments (11)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The solution seems pretty simple to me: Keep our current district system and increase the number of at-large seats to equal the current number of district seats. Adjust as necessary. Such a solution would continue to give each district representation while providing a large block of council that has to answer to all the voters.
Posted on February 28, 2007 8:38 AM
That's an excellent suggestion. Each voter should have the opportunity to vote on a majority of council members.
Worse than Greensboro's 5-3-1 system are High Point's 6-2-1 and the county commissioners/school board's 9-2.
Posted on February 28, 2007 9:07 AM
The 5-5-1 system as Billy proposes makes too much sense. Hence, it's doomed.
Posted on February 28, 2007 5:39 PM
Actually, under the current system, each Greensboro voter can vote for a majority (5 of 9) council members. 3 at large + 1 district + 1 mayor = 5.
The problem you could (not for certain but likely) run into that Guilford County falls under the Voting Rights act and reducing the number of district could be seen as reducing the opportunity for minority representation.
Posted on February 28, 2007 5:41 PM
What we have here is history in the making: Bubba and I actually agree on something. ;-)
Mark, We can still hope, right?
Posted on February 28, 2007 9:52 PM
Thanks for fixing the math, Mark.
I don't know why a 5-5-1 wouldn't pass Justice Dept. scrutiny given Greensboro's history of electing black council members at-large.
Posted on March 1, 2007 8:16 AM
Hey guys,
Maybe I'm wrong, but in my humble opinion, the real issue is the QUALITY, not the QUANTITY, of our elected officials, whether it be the city council, county commission, General Assembly, or Congress. Voters need to be selecting the best qualified candidates to represent them, period.
Posted on March 1, 2007 8:42 AM
That's exactly the issue. Which is why voters may get frustrated if they perceive a lack of quality in the council members, commissioners or school board members they can't vote for or against but who make decisions that affect them.
Posted on March 1, 2007 9:19 AM
Doug,
I can certainly appreciate that frustration. After all, we have members of Congress from the other 49 states that vote and make decisions and laws that affect me, yet I have no say in their selection/election either.
This issue highlights the good and the bad about our electoral system. In an orientation to city government class I sometimes conduct, I tell my students there is good news and bad news about who can run for the city council --
The GOOD news is that anyone who is registered to vote and lives within the Greensboro city limits is eligible to run for city council, making it accessible to a wide pool of people.
The BAD news is that anyone who is registered to vote and lives within the Greensboro city limits is eligible to run for city council, meaning there are no qualifications or quality standards one must meet in order to run.
That's why it is so important for voters to pay attention and be fully educated about the candidates when they cast their ballots.
Posted on March 1, 2007 3:55 PM
Sandy,
Great comment about the good and bad news.
The analogy to congressional elections (state legislative elections, too) is apt, although of course Greensboro voters would be a lot less qualified to vote for a candidate from across the state or country than for someone from across town.
I appreciate your blog post on the police work schedules. We'll have an edit on that Sunday. It appears to me that the change will produce benefits that justify the costs, but it will be important to measure outcomes such as response times, maybe even traffic and crime stats, to see what kind of impact it has on public safety.
Posted on March 1, 2007 4:05 PM
Thanks for the feedback on my police schedule post. While there are indeed costs associated with the schedule change, the significant increase in manpower and coverage is achieved without the hiring of additional officers which would have been even more costly -- the "rule of thumb" is $50,000 per officer to pay, train, and equip him/her.
Posted on March 1, 2007 9:18 PM