CHARTER STUDT #2 WARDS AND COUNCIL

I believe that it was Alan Goldstein who at the public participation period at the Charge Study Commission’s Jan 8 meeting## who suggested revamping the ward structure to be 9 in number; creating a Council of 9 with no members at large.

Months ago when the question of revising the Charter first was broached I had reviewed the Faulkner Act, which in its Strong Mayor/Council template permitted the option of a 5, 7, or 9 member Council. Therefore the concept is not abnormal.

The solution however is not a simple one but has two facets; the first being the number of representative wards in the city and the second is the composition of the Council membership. Both are intertwined but the ward issue must be resolved first.

The “One citizen one vote” **principle   is the basis for our democracy; although in practice it often has not been respected. No where could that distortion be more evident in our own 4 ward division as demonstrated by the registration and voting records from the 2012 general election.

First Ward: - -   7972 eligible—5285    registered  -3507 voted (66%)

Second Ward-  11583 eligible—6616 - registered-  4649 voted (70%)

Third Ward—- 10394 eligible—6260 - registered   4335 voted (69%)

Fourth Ward—   7824 eligible—4394 - registered - 2827 voted (64%-)

Our overall voting record among registered voters is good, but only 40% of those who could have did so.

There is a great variation in the districts varying from 726 to2414 eligible voters. Obviously a voter in one district could have 3 times the impact as one in the larger district.

Also since at present the 1:4 At Large Councilor represents approximately 16000 eligible voters and the 2:3 Councilor a total of 22000(approx) this is too great a discrepancy (37.5%) to merit equality.  

With that in mind restructuring of the wards would provide are more equable representation. Indeed that must occur.

There could be two new configurations; a 5 ward or a 6 ward plan. The 5 ward setup could work with a 7 member Council of 1 member from each ward and 2 at large. A problem here could result from an asymmetrical reelection plan no matter what the term length would be; a problem that can be easily avoided with 6 wards.

If 6 wards were considered, 3 perhaps north of a population median line and three south; the smaller units might provide a greater demographic identity for each ward. Perhaps minorities such as Hispanics would have representation on the Council which they have lacked.  It should be noted that the wards cannot be just geographically determined but must be within I believe a 5% population equality.

It is the population requirement that will determine ward boundaries.

Following such a reconstruction of the ward pattern; the Council could then effectively consist of 9 members; 1 from each ward and 3 at large (city wide). The 6 specific ward Councilors could better represent their smaller number of constituents; whereas the 3 at large would provide for a better city wide representation then at present. With a 9 member Council; logical 1/3 could be elected each year including 1 of the “at-large”. That would mean 3 year terms.

Although for a better politically representative Council I suggest the 3 year term; I believe that the Mayor’s term should still be 4 years, but also with a term limitation clause.

I am an advocate of term limits; preferably 3 consecutive terms. Prolong power tends to corrupt, and no politician is indispensable.
## It was Alan ; See minutes on Charter Study Commission site. (http://plainfieldcsc.blogspot.com/)
**The "one man, one vote" rule (also called "one person, one vote") derives from the US Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) that held state political districts of unequal size resulted in under-representation of some citizens' interests and over-representation of others'. This was considered "unrepublican," per Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, and also unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. In order to meet constitutional standards, districts had to be reapportioned so each had approximately equal population.