Loading...
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