From the City of Champaign:
Because of recent growth, the City’s population is not evenly distributed over the five council districts. In order to evenly distribute the population, the district boundaries must be redrawn. Your input is essential to this process.
Visit the 2008 Council Redistricting page for more information and to draw new districts as you see fit.
The deadline for submittal is January 31, 2008.
For more information, please contact:
Lacey Rains, Planner II
(217) 403-8800
lacey.rains@ci.champaign.il.us
Very cool.
That's great that the city is seeking input on this critical issue. Its too bad that at most other levels of government that the redistricting issue is decided by computers in Republican and Democratic party headquarters with both sides in many cases hoping for a coin toss in their favor.
After seeing the ballot making process and knowing how hard it is to generate the hundreds of ballot styles (in Champaign County alone), I'm very glad to see that the Champaign planners are trying not to split precincts. That will make Election day much easier for everyone from the Clerk's office to the Election Judges to neighbors who won't be confused as to who represents them.
I hope Urbana offers something similar someday.
"I hope Urbana offers something similar someday."
Don't hold your breath. :-)
Yeah I know, I am in one county board district and my son who is in a room down the hall is in another district.
"Yeah I know, I am in one county board district and my son who is in a room down the hall is in another district."
Geez. You should invite us all over to the mansion sometime. :-)
I applauded this non-partisan approach Champaign is taking. Maybe it will catch on at the local level and we will all save time and money.
Wait until you see what comes out of this process. Why is it assumed that no two incumbent district council members be redistricted into the same district? This is found in the proposal to adopt these redistricting goals. This is purely protectionism for the incumbents. 4 of the 5 geographic districts in Champaign are represented by Democrats, yet all three at-large council members and the Mayor are Republicans.
Why not draw new boundries without respect for where the current incumbents live? Will the 5 Republicans stand for this incumbent protectionism for their 4 Democratic colleagues?
We need to include some residential areas where normal folks live into District Two. An all campus district perpetuates the same problems that hurt Urbana. Districts ought to not only contain equal numbers of citizens, but also contain equal numbers of persons likely to vote.
Right now Champaign has districts of roughly equal numbers of citizens, but 10 times as many people vote in District 4 as did in Districts 1 or 2. Blend in some involved neighborhoods in those districts (1 and 2) and maybe they will produce council members better than Jackson and LaDue.
"Districts ought to not only contain equal numbers of citizens, but also contain equal numbers of persons likely to vote."
I disagree, and so does the law. I do think that the districts could be blended a little more, but there's also an argument to be made to keep communities of interest contained within one district.
IP: You are correct that the law does not impose a requirement that districts contain similar numbers of persons likely to vote. Its my thought that the city council can accomplish this anyway and improve our community by doing so. And as to keeping communities of interest together, the problem has been that the University District [2] has no particular interest, and precious little common interest. District 2 could be come a community which shares older homes, older infrastructure, multiple family housing, etc. But its boundaries need to move west. The African American population is no longer concentrated in District 1. Their common interest could be represented by including more of Garden Hills into District 1. The Downtown residents have a common interest, but they are split into several districts now. [1,2,3 & 4]
"District 2 could be come a community which shares older homes, older infrastructure, multiple family housing, etc. But its boundaries need to move west. The African American population is no longer concentrated in District 1. Their common interest could be represented by including more of Garden Hills into District 1. The Downtown residents have a common interest, but they are split into several districts now. [1,2,3 & 4]"
Draw a map with these characteristics, and see if you can make the numbers work. If they do, submit it, and see if the Council will consider it.
While I would agree that the African-American population is no longer concentrated in District 1, I would argue that, percentage-wise, more African-americans live in the area bounded by Mattis, Kirby, John, Duncan, and Windsor than now live in Garden Hills. Will we gerrymander this area into District 1, will we draw a district in this area that reflects its African-American population (possibly leading to 2 districts with substantial African-American populations), or will we see a map that breaks up this population into a few different districts?
I don't think that we should redistrict to produce a specific result such as a number of voters likely to vote. First of all, as a practical matter, I'm not sure that can be done. Secondly, the freedom to vote also includes the freedom not to exercise that right. We should simply redistrct to include similar population numbers, and other than that, let the voters choose to vote or not.
The problem with that approach is that you get districts without involved citizens, so you have uncontested races, term after term. That is not good. For an example, see how Urbana Schools put all the concerned parents from Leal into one district and no one wants to run from th e remaining districts.
raise the pay :-)