Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

It's not illegal, but it seems hardly reasonable that a redistricting proposal can have single-member districts varying so widely in size.

Here is the language of the guidelines:
1. "Each single-member district shall have a population of approximately 2,000 people, and shall be as nearly equal as possible."

2. "No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a plan shall result in ANC district populations with a deviation range greater than 10% or a relative deviation greater than plus or minus 5%, unless the deviation results from the limiations of census geography or from the promotion of a rational public policy, including but not limited to, respect for the natural geography of the District of Columbia, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contriguous districts."

3. Additionally, under Vote Dilution Prohibited it says, "no redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall be considered if the plan or amendment has the purpose and effect of dilutiong the voting strength of minority citizens." (And the DC Human Rights Act counts matriculation status as a protected characteristic).

It's hard to look at the districts created in the co-chairs' plan, which vary by nearly 1,000 people in size, and say that this plan meets the spirit--nevermind the letter--of those guidelines.

And I'm not talking about just the campus-related SMD's.
In fact, while the proposed SMD01 includes the traditional neighborhoods of Burleith and Hillandale, it extends beyond the eastern edge of Burleith, incorporating two blocks between 35th and Wisconsin. (Ref: the boundaries noted on Burleith.org, the BCA's website, of which Lenore Rubino is chair, and one of the co-chairs of the redistricting plan).

"Respect for the natural geography of the District of Columbia, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contriguous districts," don't really account for a plan that is far more unequal in its apportionment than the existing SMDs are.

by Jacques on Sep 13, 2011 2:41 pm • linkreport

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator pagespam