Government
Georgetown ANC redistricting plan marginalizes students
A redistricting plan proposed for Georgetown's ANC 2E would dramatically under-represent students attending Georgetown University. The proposal is a direct attempt to limit student involvement in neighborhood affairs.
Photo by Serge Melki on Flickr.
Yesterday, the Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E redistricting task force adopted a redistricting plan proposed by the group's co-chairs, on a vote of 9 to 6. The proposal will be subject to community comment at ANC 2E's next public meeting before it can become a final recommendation.
The proposal represents an affront to DC's redistricting code, will minimize the political participation of Georgetown students in local government, and demonstrates major problems with the ANC redistricting process.
The plan as proposed by ANC 2E chair Ron Lewis, Citizens Association of Georgetown President Jennifer Altemus, and Burleith Citizens Association President Lenore Rubino, would split ANC 2E into eight single-member districts (SMDs), and would pack all Georgetown University students living in university-owned properties (both those within the University's gates and those off-campus) into two huge SMDs.
Lewis, Altemus, and Rubino plan, adopted by the ANC 2E redistricting task force.
This addition of an 8th SMD to an ANC which has historically had only 7 comes in response to a boom in Georgetown's population and the addition of 800 undergraduates to GU's campus. Most of the new GU residents live within the Southwest Quadrangle, a building that opened in 2003 and caused SMD 2E04, which I currently represent, to swell in size to become the city's third largest.
While an improvement over the current ANC 2E map, which blatantly gerrymanders the university campus into four separate SMDs, the co-chair's plan is still problematic.
Under §1-1332 of the DC Code,
(e) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall result in 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 limitations of census geography or from the promotion of a rational public policy, including, but not limited to, respect for the political geography of the District, the natural geography of the District, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contiguous districts.A memo released by DC Council members Michael Brown and Jack Evans on the 2010 redistricting process goes further, telling task force participants that "each single-member district shall have a population of approximately 2,000 people, and shall be as nearly equal as possible."
The co-chair's plan clearly does not adhere to this guidance. It packs unacceptably large numbers of students into a small number of SMDs, while spreading the non-student population around into several unacceptably small SMDs.
The two packed campus districts would each have exactly 2,581 individuals in them, while SMD 2E01 would have a population of 2,409. Meanwhile, SMD 2E02 (Commissioner Lewis') would have a population of only 1,660, SMD 2E03 a population of only 1,705, SMD 2E05 a population of 1,710 and SMD 2E06 a population of 1,836. Only SMD 2E07, at 1,983 individuals, would be within the size variance advised under code.
The SMD divisions proposed appear to be a blatant attempt to restrict the political power of students, and enhance the power of non-students.
The co-chairs and their supporters have argued that the "neighborhood cohesiveness" exception within the code makes their plan admissible. Such an interruption is without precedent. According to information provided by the Office of Planning, following the 2001 redistricting process only eight SMDs were outside the 1,800-2,200 population range at that time, with the largest being SMD 6B11 at 2,362 people. For ANC 2E to have six such "exceptional districts," and two districts far larger than the largest from 2001 is extraordinary.
More to the point, the purpose of this size variance seems clear: to ensure that students continue to be under-represented on ANC 2E. This is troublesome considering that section §1-1332 on the DC Code continues:
(f) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall be considered if the plan or amendment has the purpose and effect of diluting the voting strength of minority citizens.What exactly constitutes "minority citizens" is not made clear, but students certainly are a statistical minority in the District of Columbia, and the DC Human Rights Act includes students as a protected class. Regardless of legal status, though, it is unfortunate that the redistricting task force would move to pack students.
Students live in DC for a majority of the year, pay sales and income tax here, and are greatly affected by the actions of DC government. The fact that some students, for fairly obvious reasons, choose not to register to vote in DC is ignoratio elenchi. Voting status simply has no relevance to ANC districting. For example, DC's Central Detention Facility famously has its own SMD.
A far better option for ANC 2E redistricting was put forward by student John Flanagan. The Flanagan proposal would, like the co-chair's proposal, create two on-campus districts. Unlike the co-chair's proposal, it would create a third, mixed district that would be potentially winnable for both students and non-students. Flanagan's plan drew support from both students and non-students on the task force.
Flanagan proposal. Image from Google Maps.
The existence of a mixed district such as that proposed by Flanagan would add motivation for students to be actively involved in local politics. It would also create incentive for whoever held the seat to balance the concerns of students and non-students alike. This would promote cooperation and encourage students to take increased responsibility for their actions in the community.
Additionally, the Flanagan proposal has the advantage of adhering to the DC Code. No district in his plan falls outside the 1,800-2,200 range, and the difference between the largest and smallest district is only 214 people. Compared to the 921 person difference in the co-chair's plan, Flanagan's is much more even.
The co-chairs, in their official report (PDF), dismissed the Flanagan proposal, writing that it is "a mechanical approach driven by a faulty premise It is disappointing that the co-chairs would imply that a third student commissioner would be objectionable. ANC 2E passed a Student Bill of Rights in 2002 affirming the the right of students to "full participation in community and civic affairs." The ANC is bound by its own rules to give student votes as much weight as non-student ones.
Disappointment in this process extends beyond the co-chairs to include Jack Evans, for the manner in which he chose to conduct ANC 2E's redistricting. The selection process for task force co-chairs was done without public input. That led to the task force having no student co-chair, despite the fact that Georgetown students represent nearly 45% of ANC 2E's population.
Moreover, Mr. Evans decided to separate the Ward 2 redistricting task force into ANC sub-groups, while other wards have met as a whole. That has allowed the Ward 2 process to be bogged down in hyper-local concerns, absent the moderating voice of more faraway median voters.
Residents of ANC 2E should consider speaking out against the co-chairs' proposal, and in favor of Flanagan's. ANC 2E will present the co-chair's plan at its next meeting, on August 29th at 6:30 pm in Georgetown Visitation's Heritage Room. Ron Lewis can be contacted at Ron.Lewis@anc.dc.gov.
Jake Sticka is a member of Georgetown University's class of 2013, majoring in Government. Originally from San Diego, California, Jake was elected to ANC2E in November 2010. He also serves as President of the DC College Democrats. 
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
by drissel on Aug 18, 2011 12:28 pm • link • report
I totally disagree on this point. Having the neighborhood based committees allows for more input at the local level. The fact that this input is screwing with what Jake wants for the Georgetown ANC is an unfair criticism.
by Gtowner on Aug 18, 2011 12:34 pm • link • report
by Jake Sticka on Aug 18, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report
Your constant Evans bashing or your weak tenuous ANC argument?
by drissel on Aug 18, 2011 12:50 pm • link • report
Also, seeing as you seem to purport to know me, I would welcome you to use your real name, as opposed to an anonymous handle, but I understand if that is too much to ask.
by Jake Sticka on Aug 18, 2011 12:54 pm • link • report
The only reasonable explanation (given how the lines were drawn) is that it is to minimize to almost zero the chance of a third student being elected.
by Jacques on Aug 18, 2011 12:54 pm • link • report
by aaa on Aug 18, 2011 1:01 pm • link • report
Don't forget the Foggy Bottom folks demanding retail on virtually every new GW building.
It is clear. DC hates education. DCPS is the second worst in the nation, and the private higher education entities are stymied on every possible level.
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report
Not if those committees systematically exclude large chunks of their local population.
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report
Other than that, is this more Jackmandering? With what went on the the wards... redistricting is the right idea, but people will always play politics with the process. Sadly, I abhor the cheating, but agree with the end results.
by greent on Aug 18, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report
The fact that you assert away the problem makes me think that Jake's argument does, in fact, hold some water.
by Devoe on Aug 18, 2011 1:13 pm • link • report
More to the point, should they instead have full-time rights at home, where they spend far less of the year? Or should we just agree for four years in their life, college students should just accept fewer rights?
by Jake Sticka on Aug 18, 2011 1:14 pm • link • report
by The Heights on Aug 18, 2011 1:36 pm • link • report
Because with full rights come full responsibility: voting, jury duty and the lovely taxes and fees.
When I came to DC for college, I changed my permanent residence to DC. I was not giving up any of my adult rights, but I was going to fulfill my adult responsibilities (and jury duty was kinda fun way to learn all about DC bureacracy).
And just so's you don't think I am picking on students, I tell the same thing to nonstudent adults who live here but do not become full residents. It's a DC pride thing.
by greent on Aug 18, 2011 1:38 pm • link • report
The thing is, according to the US Census Bureau, residency is where an individual lives for the majority of the year. Although participation in local politics can be considered a way by which residents take part in the community, representation is based on a body count, not participation.
by Babs on Aug 18, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report
"Sorry, Jake - this argument hold no water. You guys are lucky to get 1 seat."
I too would like to see the reasons behind this statement. If you're relying on the "You guys are lucky to get 1 seat" comment, though, that's not how it works. The threshold question is whether students get votes. That's apparently already been decided, and is no longer at issue (although some of greent's points makse sense, at least to me). However, if they get to vote, they have the same rights as all other residents. The notion that, "well, they get a vote, but it should count less, so it's OK to dilute their vote, or try to disenfranchise them" is nonsense. It's akin to the 3/5 compromise for determining population in the original Constitution, or the notion that DC residents should get to vote, but only one in the House - no Senators for them. (And what do you want to be that some of the same Georgetown folks who came up with and support this plan are apoplectic about their lack of voting representation at the national level?)
by dcd on Aug 18, 2011 2:09 pm • link • report
Please remember that civility is as important in these comment threads as it is in face-to-face conversation. Please do not attempt to berate or belittle commenters or contributors simply because you disagree with them.
Thank you for understanding.
by Matt Johnson on Aug 18, 2011 2:09 pm • link • report
Students who are not permanent residents should not have the rights of permanent residence. Politicians aren't, though many live here 9 months outta the year.
by greent on Aug 18, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report
That's all fine, but not the way it is right now. Since you're apparently a DC resident, you can vote to change that. Until you've changed the law, you need to actually live with the existing law.
I don't think you can change that rule easily though because the US uses body counts for district sizes, not legal, adult, donating, voting residents. Unlike many other countries, the US census counts *everyone*.
Oh, and also, permanent residents (aka green card holders) do not have the rights to assign them in your statement.
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2011 3:31 pm • link • report
And Georgetown Uni does not own a massive chunk of Georgetown? AU does not own a massive chunk of their neighborhood? The argument you are citing here is exactly the same argument that all anti-univeristy forces use: "Boohoo, they were here before I was and bought a lot of ground before I could, and now I am sooo jealous I am gonna frustrate them in every possible way".
Foggy Bottom would still be a dismal swamp if it were not for GW moving its Colonial College there and showing that that area of town was inhabitable at all.
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2011 3:35 pm • link • report
And I used an incorrect word, I was not discussing greecard holders.
by greent on Aug 18, 2011 3:36 pm • link • report
Actually, that's not my argument at all and your statement shows a lack of knowledge of the situation and did not go to my point at all. 1st - I never compared GW to the other universities. 2nd - You mistake the relative strength of town and gown in Foggy Bottom. GW is the Goliath, not the full-time residents, who you eroneously assert have the power to bully GW into putting retail into their buildings (an assertion that you do nothing to prove). 3rd - The idea that GW came first in Foggy Bottom is not true. They have grown at the expense of older residents and show little regard for the community in that neighborhood. Your silly "boo-hoo" rant doesn't raise any substantive issues. If you have an answer to any of these points that rises above the sophomoric, I'd love to hear them.
by The Heights on Aug 18, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report
by The Heights on Aug 18, 2011 3:47 pm • link • report
by Anon2 on Aug 18, 2011 4:09 pm • link • report
I did. And you denied that. I maintain there is no difference. If you have an argument that rises above the sophomoric, I'd love to hear it.
GW is the Goliath, not the full-time residents, who you eroneously assert have the power to bully GW into putting retail into their buildings
They have done so, are doing it and will continue to do it, because GW depends on the ANC approval for everything, just like all the other universities. I don't understand what you mean with proving my point. The records are public. That's why the block across from the hospital stood barren for years. The negotiations were painfully slow with the ANC dragging its feet as much as it could. Whatever you think of it, that was a massive waste of time and money.
The idea that GW came first in Foggy Bottom is not true.
Except that it is. Go look up the maps from 1912, which is when GW moved the Columbian College from the Mt Vernon down to the Foggy Bottom, specifically because they could expand there. Foggy Bottom was exactly that at the time. A nasty humid swampy area with very little activity on the edge of town. They had just finished building the Lincoln Memorial.
They have grown at the expense of older residents and show little regard for the community in that neighborhood.
Those residents better have lived there about 99 years by now, otherwise they could have known they bought near a university that wanted to expand there.
Your silly "boo-hoo" rant doesn't raise any substantive issues.
I agree. It was a rant from the perspective of Foggy Bottom residents though.
@ greent: And I used an incorrect word, I was not discussing greecard holders.
Ah, what were you discussing then? Should only tax-paying residents count? And what kind of tax should that be? Students pay plenty of sales tax. What about children? They don't vote. And the very young ones don't pay taxes either by lack of income. Do they count?
The problem is that your argument is full of thruthiness. It feels good, but it has little basis in reality. Jake used some Latin for it, I prefer modern culture.
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report
Unfortunately democracy does not work by excluding people you disagree with.
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2011 4:43 pm • link • report
You should also review exactly what ANC approvals GW needs b/c simply b/c the ANC votes against a GW development project doesn't mean it has binding power on the BZA or Zoning Commission.
All that said, it's blatantly obvious this ANC's goal is to limit as much as possible student involvement and prevent against the possibility of a third student ANC representative. I eagerly await comments by a particular Georgetown neighbors apologist about how this gerrymandering simply shows how open-minded and civil the residents are and how bad the University is.
by Fritz on Aug 18, 2011 5:16 pm • link • report
Also, GWU acquired the Mt. Vernon Campus in 1999. It had been an independent school with no connection to GWU before that. GWU didn't move to Foggy Bottom from there. Unless you mean Mt. Vernon Square, which wouldn't be accurate either. They moved from a location at 15th and H NW.
It's also important to note that GWU in 1912, when it moved to Foggy Bottom, was obviously not as large today. Nor would I say that Foggy Bottom was as desolate as you indicate. Working class, of course, and even fairly industrial, but hardly "very little activity".
by Tim Krepp on Aug 18, 2011 5:22 pm • link • report
I presume you can read, and my points are above. Feel free to re-read them. I am often wrong, but learnign is a continuation. You are just a touch cranky today.
And GW had 1 building in 1912. One. It now owns the entire area. SJT expanded the school exponentially.
To close: What's thruthiness?
by greent on Aug 18, 2011 5:50 pm • link • report
Even ignoring the students living off-campus, which several members of task force noted would probably feel best represented by a student, 5000 was the number that even those opposed to the Flanagan proposal commonly cited as students living on-campus. This would seem to suggest two solidly student districts, and a third district that was competitive for both students and non-students, precisely the outcome of the Flannagan proposal.
by Rob on Aug 18, 2011 11:13 pm • link • report
"Matriculation" is a category in the D.C. Human Rights Act. Sec. 2-1402(18)"'Matriculation' means the condition of being enrolled in a college, or university; or in a business, nursing, professional, secretarial, technical or vocational school; or in an adult education program."
So, yes, students are a protected class in the District.
As pointed out in other comments, redistricting is not based on citizenship or permanent residency. Under rule of law, where our laws apply to all, you have rights because you are here.
Fortunately, this is not a final plan, just a proposal. There is little chance it will pass since it is so far out of the requirements of the law.
by Bob Summersgill on Aug 19, 2011 10:23 am • link • report
The state of Illinois has very clear and constitutionally sound restrictions on residency when it comes to students. I suggest DC adopt them.
by eb on Aug 19, 2011 10:26 am • link • report
Children have no rights? Inmates have no rights? And what about those with fiscal responsibility and no rights, like
legalimmigrants?Your statement sounds good, but it does not hold up to logic. It is truthiness. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=thruthiness
It's an economic push so that it can continue to compete with more prestigious institutions.
And economic development is somehow bad?
The state of Illinois has very clear and constitutionally sound restrictions on residency when it comes to students. I suggest DC adopt them.
Nobody is stopping you from advocating that. Good luck. Meanwhile, stick to the existing rules.
by Jasper on Aug 19, 2011 10:42 am • link • report
People who move around in the course of their profession, whether that's student, trial lawyer, soldier, or small business owner, still have rights as citizens and voters that have nothing to do with their taxes, their fees, or their income.
In fact, I think we've spent at least three wars (Revolutionary, 1812, Civil) moving away from the idea that only rich landowners get to determine the direction of society.
High-income, long-time residents of neighborhoods enjoy plenty of advantages over students (a relatively resource-poor group, since all of their assets get tied up paying for tuition) in trying to advance their own vision for the community, so I'm not sure what the fixation is on trying to get rid of student representation and rights on top of all the other structural advantages our neighbors have.
by ADW on Aug 19, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report
I'm a bit confused. Don't students assume fiscal responsibility by paying sales taxes and pumping money into neighborhood businesses? (Not to mention those who find jobs and pay all the taxes associated with being employed.)
Georgetown U is a 501(c)3, as is every other non-profit college. The school not paying taxes -- again, because of it's non-profit status -- shouldn't have any relation to any argument that students don't deserve representation.
by CH on Aug 19, 2011 5:31 pm • link • report
- The legal argument: which rights DO students have?
- The moral/ethical argument: which rights SHOULD students have?
Given that by law, students have the same rights as residents, it would appear that legally, Jake's case is logical.
Now, perhaps we don't want our society to be run this way. Perhaps you should only have certain rights if you have some particular status, like having lived here for a certain number of years, or paying income taxes at a rate greater than that paid by students (because numerous students work part-time), or being a certain age. Or merely not being a student. But what would be the criteria for which rights someone gets? If students aren't here for part of the year, but are in their hometowns for but a brief part of the year, where should they get rights of a resident? Nowhere?
by EJ on Aug 19, 2011 6:52 pm • link • report
This may be payback.... (or preemption).
by David on Aug 20, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report
Add a Comment