COMMUNICATION 010592
Controlled by CITY COUNCIL


Description

October 3, 2001


TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADLEPHIA:

I am returning herewith as disapproved Bill No. 010523. Council passed this bill at its session on September 20, 2001.

Bill 010523 would redraw the boundaries of the City's ten councilmanic districts pursuant to Council's obligation under section 2-102 of the Home Rule Charter to do so after the federal government's completion of the census. As you know, redistricting is intended to adjust for geographic shifts in the City's population, in order to maintain roughly equal numbers of people in each of the ten districts. Equalization of population - in order to maintain the Constitutional principle of "one person-one vote" -- is a requirement of federal and state law as well as a requirement of our Charter. In addition, the law, as well as fundamental fairness, requires that particular consideration be given to the extent to which the plan provides cohesive racial and ethnic minority groups with opportunities to elect representatives of their choice equal to those of the majority.

I recognize that redistricting is difficult as a political and legal matter. For a variety of reasons, however, I cannot approve the bill that Council has passed.

First, the bill does not equalize the populations of the districts or promote the principle of "one person-one vote" as closely as it should and can. According to the 2000 Census, the City contains roughly 1,517,550 people; each Council district should therefore contain approximately 151,755 people. Under the bill, however, the 6th District would include almost 7,700 more people, or 5% more, than this number. The 9th District would contain approximately 3,700 less than 151,755 people, which is 2.44% smaller than the ideal number. The population spread between the largest and smallest districts would therefore be more than 11,400. This deviation is significantly higher than the population spreads after any of the final redistricting ordinances of the last 30 years. In 1992, the spread was only 1.4%. In 1981 the spread was only .5%.
The deviation in Bill 010523 is more than two and a half times as large as the largest spread in the last thirty years, the 2.8% spread of 1971.

The districts in the ordinance are created not merely by dividing the City at the ward level, but divides down to the division level, which allows for the transfer between districts of geographic areas containing as few as several hundred people. Many of the districts do not follow any natural or traditional geographic boundaries that might justify significant population spreads. Moreover, the ordinance must create only ten districts, requiring much less juggling than in most state and federal redistricting efforts.

The record presented at the hearing does not support the disparity in district population. The Law Department has expressed significant concerns about this unprecedented population difference between districts and the likelihood it can withstand court challenge. This is a troubling aspect of this bill.

Second, as you know, the Latino community is one of the fasting growing segments of our City population: its growth is particularly dramatic when compared to the overall City population, which has declined. Over the last decade alone, the population in the Latino community has increased more than 44%, yet, the bill only marginally addresses Latino population growth. Although this fact alone may not render the proposed redistricting plan fatally flawed, it represents a major area of concern.

Third, the proposed boundaries for the 2nd District reduces the African-American population from 53% to 48.4% and increases the White population from 37.8% to 42.1%. This is the largest shift in racial composition among the changes between the current districts and the newly proposed districts. Although the 2nd District must add population, in order to achieve population balance, there appear to be redistricting alternatives that would not result in a shift in the racial balance of that district. In the event of a legal challenge, this change might be very troubling to a court.

Fourth, the redistricting plan makes no effort to distribute fairly the political burden of redistricting. Although the 5th District suffered a population loss of more than 16,000 people, the plan approved by Council begins by shifting 14,000 current residents from the 5th District. The newly constituted 5th District is comprised of 30,000 new residents, spread across 15 wards stretching from 25th and Spruce Streets in Center City to "I" and Wyoming in the Lower Northeast.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the process by which this bill was passed foreclosed genuine public consideration and debate on the bill. This bill was introduced on September 6 at a specially scheduled session of Council, the first time any proposed redistricting plan was made public. September 11, 2001, the day of the attack on the World Trade Center City Hall was closed at noon, because of fundamental safety concerns and the fear of additional terrorist activity. Schools were closed, and disruptions to every day life were pervasive the following day, as the entire nation attempted to grasp and understand what had happened. Against this backdrop the sole public hearing on this bill was held on Wednesday, September 12th, the day after perhaps the worst catastrophe in the modern history of our nation.

The Charter-mandated public notice of the hearing listed a starting time of 10 a.m. The hearing started at 6:50 p.m. and ended before 8:30 p.m. The record provides no indication that any attempt was made to advise members of the public who may have arrived at 10 a.m. for the hearing that its start would be delayed for 9 hours.

Notwithstanding this delay and the extraordinary circumstances counseling for a complete postponement of public consideration of the bill, the record reflects that four representatives of the Latino community waited until the early evening to express their concerns about the manner in which Latinos were treated under the bill. Their hearing colloquy is instructive:

Mr. Vazquez

Actions

  • Oct. 4, 2001:  READ by CITY COUNCIL

Bills mentioned in this legislation

Locations mentioned in this bill


What's your opinion?

Log in to comment on the legislation.

Introduced: Oct. 4, 2001
Last action: Oct. 4, 2001
Status: PLACED ON FILE

Source

View COMMUNICATION 010592 on the City Clerk's website.