HomeMy Public PortalAbout061-1990- ORDINANCE FIXING AND DEFINING THE BOUDARIES OF THE COORDINANCE NO.61-1990
AN ORDINANCE FIXING AND DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COUNCIL
DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND, WAYNE COUNTY, INDIANA, PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF INDIANA LAW, IC 36-4-6-3; REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND CODIFYING A
NEW SECTION 30.01 OF CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA.
WHEREAS, upon the basis of population, the City of Richmond is defined
as a second class city, pursuant to the provisions of Indiana
Law; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Indiana Law, IC 36-4-6-3, the
common council of each second class city shall divide the city
into six (6) council districts that are composed of contiguous
territory; that are reasonably compact; that do not cross
precinct boundary lines; and that contain, as nearly as
possible, equal population; and,
WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose hereof, to effectuate the above
cited Law and to repeal all ordinances or parts thereof in
conflict herewith.
NOW THEREFORE BE ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of
Richmond, Indiana as follows:
SECTION 1. That hereafter the said City of Richmond, County of Wayne,
Indiana, shall be divided into six (6) council districts which
shall be numbered, bounded and defined as follows:
A. First District: All that territory lying within the
boundaries of the precincts, Wayne 4, 5, 6 and 27 and all the
territory that may be subsequently assigned to said district by
reason of an annexation ordinance shall be known as the First
District.
B. Second District: All that territory lying within the
boundaries of the precincts, Wayne 7, 8 and 17 and all the
territory that may be subsequently assigned to said district by
reason of an annexation ordinance shall be known as the
Second District.
C. Third District: All that territory lying within the
boundaries of the precincts, Wayne 10, 11, 15, 25 and 26 and
all the territory that may be subsequently assigned to said
district by reason of an annexation ordinance shall be known
as the Third District.
D. Fourth District: All that territory lying within the
boundaries of the precincts, Wayne 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 30 and
32 and all the territory that may be subsequently assigned to
said district by reason of an annexation ordinance shall be
known as the Fourth District.
Ordinance No. 61-1990
Page 2
E. Fifth District: All that territory lying within the
boundaries of the precincts, Wayne 9, 18, 22, 28 and 29 and all
the territory that may be subsequently assigned to said
district by reason of an annexation ordinance shall be known
as the Fifth District.
G. Sixth District: All that territory lying within the
boundaries of the precincts, Wayne 16, 19, 20, 21, 31 and 33
and all the territory that may be subsequently assigned to said
district by reason of an annexation ordinance shall be known
as the Sixth District.
SECTION 2. That the Council District Map attached hereto shall become
Exhibit A hereof and incorprated herein by reference. Said Map
shall be on file in the Office of the City Engineer and shall be
updated as required upon the adoption of an annexation
ordinance.
SECTION 3. That this Ordinance hereby repeals Section 30.01 of Chapter
30 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Richmond, Indiana
and hereby repeals all ordinances or parts thereof found to be
in conflict with the provisions herein. This Ordinance shall be
codified as the new Section 30.01 of Chapter 30 of the Code of
Ordinances of said City.
SECTION 4. That all questions concerning the exact location of precinct
boundary lines shall be determined by consulting the written
precinct boundary descriptions established and approved by
the Wayne County Commissioners.
SECTION 5. That any subsequent changes made by the Wayne County
Commissioners in establishing precinct boundaries shall be
reviewed by the Common Council to determine the need to
modify the Council Districts defined herein.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
the passage and approval as by law required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7 day of1990, by the Common Council
of the City of Richmond, Indiana.
P sident of/Common Council
ATTEST:1
City CIA
Ordinance No. 61-1990
Page 3
PRESENTED to the Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana, this 5�ay of ,i-/
1990.
a4--y- _s�J
City Cl6rk
APPROVED by me Frank H. Vlaltermann, Mayor of the City of Richmond,
Indiana, this-s day ofd�,1990.
pqalm Ty.
•
ATTEST: 'WZIL�
City Cler
INTER -OFFICE MEMO
DATE: August 31, 1990
To: Mayor, Common Council, City Clerk and City Attorney
FROM: Dan Dooley
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 61-1990
COPY TO:
Legislation passed by the General Assembly in 1989 required counties to
establish new precinct boundaries. The new precinct boundaries
established for Wayne Township and the City of Richmond result in certain
precincts crossing Council District Boundaries. This situation will likely
cause confusion and added expense in holding the municipal election in
1991. Any change in Council District Boundaries must be made by
November 8, 1990.
Ordinance No. 61-1990 corrects the problem of precincts crossing Council
District Boundaries without making any significant change or alteration to
the present Council Districts. You will notice that Ordinance No. 61-1990
defines Council Districts by reference to precinct numbers and by
reference to any area that would be subsequently added to the Council
District by reason of annexation of new territory into the City. The
Ordinance also incorporates into it by reference a Council District Map.
This method of defining Council Districts has been discussed with the City
Attorney and County Clerk. Neither party has raised any concern about
this approach. Presently Council Districts are defined by a written
boundary description.
Enclosed for your information is a Guide to Redistricting prepared by the
Indiana Association of Cities and Towns. It should be noted that the
State Law requires the Council to again adopt an Ordinance in 1992
establishing new Council District Boundaries. At that time the final 1990
Census information will be available. Under the law Council Districts are
required to contain as nearly as possible equal population. In order to
fullfil this requirement, the boundaries of the present Council Districts
may require more significant modification than proposed in Ordinance No.
61-1990.
REDISTRICTING INDIANA CITIES AND TOWNS: June 1990
A GUIDE FOR WHETHER TO AND HOW
A Publication of
Indiana Association of Cities and Towns
150 W. Market Street, Suite 728
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(3I7) 237-6200
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE
Indiana statutes require the legislative body of each city and each town that has council districts to
adopt an ordinance dividing the municipality into council districts at least once every 10 years. This
process called "redistricting" was required in 1982 and must be done in 1992. Changes made by the
Indiana General Assembly over the. past 3 years in the election laws have created a situation where
many municipalities will find it necessary to redistrict this year in order to avoid serious problems in
holding their 1991. elections. _ This information' is intended to help municipal officials determine
whether to undertake the redistricting process in 1990. Recommendations on steps to follow in the
redistricting process and criteria to consider in deciding on new council boundaries are also included.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION/THE PROBLEM
In 1988 the General Assembly replaced the long-standing requirement that precinct boundaries not be
drawn to cross city legislative district lines with a general prohibition against precinct lines crossing
census block boundaries. The decision to strive for adherence to census block boundaries was based on
the desire of the legislature to make census data more useful to the state and local governments,
particularly for doing state and local legislative and Congressional reapportionment. The legislature
apparently believed that this change would work only if they reversed the relationship between
precincts and municipal legislative districts. So, instead of prohibiting counties from establishing
precinct lines that cross city council district boundaries, the law was changed to prevent cities from
drawing council district lines which cross precinct boundaries.
Legislation passed by the General Assembly in 1989 required counties to establish new precinct
boundaries that year. As a result of the 1988 legislation, the new precinct boundaries in many cases
cross existing municipal council district lines. In those cases, if the municipal council district lines are
not re -drawn in 1990, situations will arise in the 1991 elections where individual precincts will need to
have several different ballots available for use by precinct residents voting for candidates in different
districts within the precinct. These situations will create significant confusion for the voters, delays in
the voting process, additional personnel needs at the polls and greater election costs to be paid by the
municipalities.
The prohibition against crossing precinct Iines placed severe restrictions upon municipalities attempting
to redistrict in 1990, as well as in future years. Legislation enacted in 1990 was intended to restore
some measure of flexibility to municipalities in the redistricting process.
THE 1990 LEGISLATION/TOOLS FOR ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM
Having fundamentally changed the relationship between precincts and municipal legislative districts and
not showing a willingness to reconsider that change, the General Assembly left municipal Iobbyists with
relatively little room to propose solutions to address these new problems. There was success in getting
legislation passed this session (HEA 1135, P.L. 7-1990) that includes some provisions which may to
reduce the number of situations where new precinct boundaries cross council district lines. It also takes
care of the conflicting boundaries problem for most towns by providing that towns which conduct
voting in their council elections on a completely at -large basis (which most already do) will not need to
have their districts conform to the precinct boundaries. Additionally, the legislation permits towns of
a
under 3,500 to abolish their council districts by ordinance at any time except during a town blection
year; thus eliminating district representation entirely.
The legislation authorizes all municipalities (except some towns with staggered terms) to redistrict this
year (prior to this change, third class cities had specific authority to redistrict in this decade only in
1992) and provides some flexibility for municipalities in drawing these district lines. Two exceptions
have been created to the requirement that district lines not be drawn to cross precinct boundaries.
Even these exceptions are subject to a requirement that district boundary lines not cross census block
boundary lines.
A general exception to the prohibition against crossing precinct lines has been created for situations
where "districts would not otherwise contain, as nearly as is possible, equal population." This exception
recognizes that state and federal law require the population of legislative districts to be nearly equal
and that it may not be possible to achieve this without crossing precinct boundary lines.
The second exception is a limited one intended to allow city councils to redistrict without being forced
to create a situation whereby one incumbent district representative would have to run against another
incumbent district representative in order to hold a council district seat. It provides that if more than
one member of the city council resides in one precinct established after the last municipal election, new
districts may be drawn crossing that precinct's boundary in order to place those councilmembers in
separate districts.
Also, to aid in the establishment of districts of nearly equal size in smaller cities where the ratio of
precincts to council districts is often less than 2 to 1, the legislation authorizes third class cities to
replace an existing district seat with another at -large seat on the council. A reduction in the number
of districts may make it. possible to establish an equal number of precincts in each of the districts
where not currently possible.
HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER REDISTRICTING IS NEEDED IN 1990
Every city and all towns which do not have total at -large council voting (or do not plan to abolish their
districts this year) need to get maps of the precinct boundaries as established in 1989 and early 1990
(also, maps showing census blocks). These maps, which should be obtainable from the county clerk,
auditor or State Election Board, need to be compared with the present council districts to determine if
the precinct, boundary lines cross existing council district lines. If any precinct lines cross council
district lines, municipal officials should give serious consideration to redistricting in 1990. Obviously,
there will be numerous practical and political considerations to the redistricting decision that are
particular to each municipality. Redistricting is not required in 1990, thus local considerations may
create obstacles significant enough to prevent redistricting from being done in some places this year.
STEPS TO FOLLOW IN THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
The redistricting processculminating with the passage of an ordinance setting forth the new districts
must be completed by November 8, 1990 (or it cannot be done until after the 1991 election). This
means that the process which could take several months to complete should be commenced as soon as
possible. If the council determines that redistricting should be done, it may want to consider following
items as steps in the process.
1. Appoint a person or group of persons to pull together the necessary information to use in
making redistricting decisions and to, coordinate the redistricting process. The council may choose to
direct that person or committee to prepare specific recommendations.
2. Records should be kept of the entire redistricting process. These records, like most other
municipal records, must be accessible to the public. Also, any committee created to work on
redistricting will almost certainly have to give notice of its meetings and hold them open to the public
as required by the Open Door Law.
r
' 3. In addition to maps of the new precincts and census blocks, it will be important to have up-to-
date detailed maps of the municipality. Municipalities without such maps should contact their county
plan commission or auditor to check on obtaining plat maps to use for this purpose. On the municipal
maps the current legislative districts should be drawn. Census population tabulations with minority
Populations indicated should be reflected on a district -by -district basis (preferably on a smaller basis
within the districts).
Unfortunately, redistricting in 1990 will have to be done without the use of the 1990 census data. That
information will not be available until long after the November 8, 1990 deadline for establishing
district lines. 1980 census tabulations will have to be used where more recent official population counts
have not been made.
4. Once all useful and available maps and statistical information have been obtained, proposals for
new districts can be prepared. Since redistricting done this year will only remain in place until 1992
when redistricting using _I990 census data will be required, it may be prudent to keep changes few in
number and scope. The criteria reviewed in the following section should be considered.
5. If substantial changes in present district boundaries are included in the proposed redistricting
plan, consideration might be given to having a special public hearing on the subject prior to any formal
.action by the council Efforts ought to be made to encourage protected minority groups to voice their
reasonable ,concerns and these concerns should be responded to prior to the plan's adoption.
6.. In order for the council to take formal action on the redistricting plan it must be put in
ordinance form. This should be done by the municipal attorney. The ordinance is not subject to legal
advertisement requirements either before or after its passage, but should be made a part of the
municipal code.
7. Notice must be given to the county clerk at least 10 days prior to the enactment of a city
redistricting ordinance which uses either of the two exceptions to the prohibition against districts
crossing precinct boundaries. This requirement included in the 1990 legislation recognizes the effe
that crossing precinct boundary lines has on the administration of city elections which is thect
responsibility of county election boards. Communications with county officials involved in conducting
the municipal elections earlier in the process may further reduce potential election problems.
CRITERIA TO USE IN DECIDING ON NEW DISTRICT 13OUN➢ARY LINES
State Law
State law establishes 4 basic criteria that must be followed by councils in dividing their municipalities
into legislative districts. The districts must: 1) be composed of contiguous territory; 2) be
reasonably compact; 3) not cross precinct boundary lines (unless pursuant to one of the two exceptions
for cities authorized by P.L. 7-1990); and 4) contain, as nearly as is possible, equal population. The
location of this criteria, along with the new tools of P.L. 7-1990 are found in the Indiana Code as
follows: second class cities - IC 36-4-6-3; third class cities - IC 36-4-6-4 & 5; towns - IC 36-5-I-
1.0.1, IC 36-5-2-4.1, 5 & 10.
The first two criteria above are `relatively straightforward and have not been subject to significant
judicial interpretation. The third is the new one subject to a general exception (where necessary to
adhere to the fourth criteria). Some municipal officials might be inclined to make extensive use of the
exception here. Considering the problems each situation of multiple districts within a precinct will
create, holding the number of proposed new district boundaries crossingprecinct lines to a minimum is
strongly recommended.
The fourth criteria, the need for nearly equal population, largely duplicates the requirements of federal
law. Thereis a potentially significant distinction between this criteria for establishing districts and the
population criteria for establishing precincts. The statutes provide that a precinct's size is based on the
number of registered voters within its boundaries, while districts are keyed to all residents:' This
difference may in some cases permit different numbers of precincts to be included in districts while
still maintaining nearly equal population among the precincts.
Federal Law
Municipalities, as with the state and federal governments, must meet the requirements of the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of local elections. The U.S. Supreme Court
has recognized two equal protection principals that must be satisfied in establishing election districts:
"one -person, one -vote;" and "nondilution of minority votes."
To meet the "one -person, one -vote requirement" election districts have to be drawn without substantial
variations in population among districts (the "as nearly as possible, equal population" criteria of the
Indiana statutes is the state's requirement intended to accomplish this). In reviewing the
constitutionality of local government single member legislative districts, the federal courts have
generally found deviations in population greater than 10 percent in overall range to be impermissibie.
The existence of a "rational state policy" that prevents the I0 percent standard from being met, has
resulted in legislative district arrangements not meeting this standard to be upheld by the federal courts
when there .is no dilutionof the voting strength of any particular group of citizens. Some
municipalities might have to argue that the statutory limitations on their ability to draw district lines
represent a "rational state policy" justifying some deviation beyond 10 percent.
In order to avoid possible violations of the "nondilution of minority votes" principal of the Equal
Protection Clause (also, a requirement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: P.L. 89-110, Title I), districts
should be drawn so as not.to dilute minority voting strength. The federal courts have found this prin-
cipal to prohibit the practices of "packing" and "fracturing" minority voters. "Packing" occurs when a
minority. group is concentrated into one or more districts so that the group constitutes an overwhelming
majority in those districts, thereby wasting a percentage of their vote. "Fracturing" occurs when small
percentages of a block of minority voters are "fractured" off the minority block and added to a large
majority district. This submerges the vote of the minority in the majority district.
The use of at -large legislative seats in governmental jurisdiction with large minority populations can
potentially, have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. If a federal court determines this to
have occurred in a municipality, the fact that state law authorized the creation of the at -large seats will
not prevent a judgement against the municipality. Thus, careful consideration should be given to the
minority vote dissolution issue prior to using the authority provided by P.L. 7-1990 to convert an
existing council district seat into an at -large seat.
Note: The caselaw establishing the standards for determining if minority vote dilution has occurred is
very extensive, and it is beyond the scope of this document to review in any depth the numerous and
complex considerations that are used in deciding lawsuits alleging a violation of this principal
RESOURCES
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE CENSUS INDIANA STATE ELECTION BOARD
Customer Service Branch 850 North Meridian Street
Data User Services Division Indianapolis, IN 46204
Washington, D.C. 20233 (317) 232-3939
(301) 763-4100 (800) 622-4941
INDIANA STATE DATA CENTER
Indiana State Library
140 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-3733