Posts about Redistricting

During Zoning Commission hearings over development at the Florida Avenue Market in 2008, then-Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. opposed granting ANC 6C "party status," a special privilege for organizations in close proximity. The market is in Ward 5, but railroad tracks, New York Avenue, and Gallaudet University separate it from almost all Ward 5 residents, while many people live just across Florida Avenue to the south. It just happens that those people are in Ward 6.

Ward boundaries are artificial legislative districts. An individual congressperson might want to bring projects to his or her district back home, but he or she doesn't get to veto development projects in the district or it set parking policy. When state legislatures gerrymander their districts, people object because it might dilute or strengthen one group's vote, but rarely do protests happen because one block of residents feels passionately about being in the same congressional district as an adjacent block.

Living on the border of a town or even a state carries some challenges. Recently, Veronica Davis wrote about how a liquor license on the Prince George's County side of Eastern Avenue strongly affects residents in DC, but they have no say over regulatory decisions involving it.

There's no reason to go around creating more of these problems. Yet we do, which makes redistricting fights more forceful than they need to be.

Tommy Wells and Jack Evans had an argument over whether the line between Ward 2 or Ward 6 would be east or west of I-395. That's partly because an air rights development project is slated for the road. But it shouldn't matter, because the councilmember whose ward includes the project shouldn't get some special power to control that project.

Since parking zones also correspond to ward boundaries, with only a few small exceptions, residents in the Palisades vehemently objected to being switched from Ward 2 to Ward 3 during the 2001 redistricting. They didn't want to lose the right to park for free in Foggy Bottom, Shaw and other Ward 2 neighborhoods.

Mount Pleasant asked to redistrict a piece of Rock Creek Park, where nobody lives, from Ward 4 to Ward 1. Park Road passes through this area on its way from Mount Pleasant to Cleveland Park. DC would assign Ward 4 constituent service reps to handle complaints about the spot, even though the affected residents with the complaints would live in wards 1 or 3.

Following ward changes, ANC boundaries also change, and usually to line up with wards. People who felt they were part of the same neighborhood one day find they have to act like separate neighborhoods the next.

Luckily, that's not always the case. When part of Chevy Chase joined Ward 4 in 2001, ANC 3/4G bridged the divide and kept the neighborhood together in one ANC. Yet Yvette Alexander (Ward 7) refused to let Kingman Park be part of the same ANC as adjoining parts of H Street in Ward 6.

MPD has avoided the ward-centric trap: police district boundaries do not line up with wards. That's better for public safety, because MPD can make decisions about police resources around where there is crime rather than arbitrary legislative districts.

The worst and most recent "Eight City" thinking came last week at the community meeting on Reservation 13. Yvette Alexander started out the meeting by lecturing Ward 6 residents about how the land moved to Ward 7 in the latest redistricting, and that therefore Ward 7 "owns" the land.

Her leading challenger, Tom Brown, whom we have endorsed, demonstrated the same fallacy in a campaign speech on the Reservation 13 site (from well before this meeting). Brown talks about how Ward 7 is "getting the title" to the land, and that he will then listen to Ward 7 residents about what they want to do with that land.

Actually, Ward 7 doesn't "own" the land. The District of Columbia does. Decisions about the land get made by the Mayor, who represents all voters, and by the council, which has 8 ward members and 5 at-large members including its chairman.

The Ward 7 member should indeed listen "first and foremost" to residents of Ward 7, but shouldn't have the final say, or even primary say, over what happens on a particular parcel of land. The District should, and all nearby residents, and the entire council, voting together. But if the Ward 7 member is only listening to Ward 7 residents, then the Ward 4 member should only listen to Ward 4 residents, and so on.

With the 395 project, for example, in what would is it logical to say that since the project remained in Ward 6, only Councilmember Wells and residents east of 2nd Street, NW should now have any input into the project, but if the line had put it in Ward 2, those residents ought to have no say whatever and only residents west of 3rd Street NW have the right to weigh in?

The District has a small voice in a big region and no voting representation in Congress. We don't need government processes and legislators who try to deepen divisions and boundaries between neighborhoods. We need people who will work together, prioritizing the needs of their own local residents but trying to unite rather than divide, to better create One City.

At the end of a public hearing on November 29, 2011, at the end of that hearing, Councilmember Jack Evans, co-chair of the council's subcommittee on redistricting, stated that he and his co-chairs, Michael Brown and Phil Mendelson, "will now sit down, take stock of where we are, and then move forward in anticipation of finishing this all up in a timely fashion by the end of the year."

Michael Brown added that the record would remain open until December 9, 2011, to allow for further comments from the public. They would mark up a bill (PDF) codifying the boundaries during the week of December 12, take a first vote on December 20, and the second and final vote "sometime in January."

Brown noted that ward boundaries had to be set by the end of the year, but the ANC and SMD boundaries did not have to be finalized until "the first part of the year."

But January has come and gone with no action. Months have passed, and these boundaries continue to change.

Ward 5 boundaries keep shifting

For Ward 5, we proposed a rational map in lieu of the flawed map from the office of former councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. Shortly after the November hearing, our map was, for the most part, adopted.

In early February, the Office of Planning posted updated maps on a Google page which lists version numbers for each posted document. Strangely, instead of listing a new version number for the maps of wards 3, 5, and 6, the page still labels each one v.1, even though the time stamp is February 9 for these 3 wards, and December 16 for the others.

The earlier versions of these maps are no longer available to the public, though a copy of the Ward 5 map from December 16 is still available via this Greater Greater Washington post.

The maps above shows the changes to Ward 5 boundaries in red. 3 blocks in the Carver-Langston and Trinidad neighborhoods, as well as one in Brentwood, have been shifted into different SMDs. One of these shifts appears to have been made to ensure that a local political family remains in one SMD.

Kathy Henderson, currently a candidate for the Ward 5 council seat and a former ANC commissioner, lives on the south side of L Street NE, while her daughter, India Henderson, lives across the street and is the current commissioner. The SMD boundary proposed on December 16 would have put them in separate SMDs, but the line has been shifted one block north to Lang Place NE. This necessitated shifting 2 other nearby blocks to keep the size of any Carver-Langston SMDs from falling below 1900 residents.

What is curious is that India Henderson lists her residence with the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions at 1807 L Street NE, Kathy Henderson's house, while she is registered to vote at 1812 L Street NE, a house India Henderson herself owns.

Which SMDs the Hendersons are or are not located in is of little concern to me personally, but this move also took a block of Trinidad out of one of the 3 SMDs for the neighborhood. The homes on the east side of the 1200 block of 16th Street NE are now separated from the rest of a compact, cohesive neighborhood, instead to be represented along with a different neighborhood on the other side of a major arterial road, Bladensburg Road.

It would be interesting to hear from the councilmembers on the redistricting subcommittee both why they haven't moved the bill for so long and why they deemed these changes necessary. Is it over something as silly as placating a local politico, or is there a solid, defensible reason for undoing prior work to make logical sense of the boundaries at the neighborhood level? Why has this process festered for so long without reaching its ultimate conclusion, and how much longer will we wait?

Thomas' office released this map, prepared by the Office of Planning, yesterday in an email. The council will vote on ANC and SMD redistricting December 20.

There are only minor changes from the map we proposed. The ANC and SMD designations come from the Office of Planning map.

• Catholic University has moved from ANC 5B to ANC 5A.
  
• A census block with a population of 19 has been shifted from 5C04 (which includes the Arboretum) to 5D03 (the northwestern part of Carver Langston).
  
• Two SMDs in Bloomingdale have a population shift of 53. The houses on the eastern edge of Crispus Attucks Park, which is north of the unit block of U Street NW had been included with the census block south of the unit block of U Street NW. Those houses have now been added to the rest of the block bounded by U, V, First, and North Capitol Streets NW.
  
• The Washington Gateway project, at the corner of Florida and New York Avenues, has been moved from Eckington's 5E03 to 5D01, which includes the Florida Avenue Market, Gallaudet University, and Ivy City.

Thanks are due to Councilmembers Harry Thomas, Jr., Michael A. Brown, Jack Evans, Phil Mendelson, and their staffs for working diligently on the redistricting process in our ward and others around the city.

The Office of Planning's Associate Director and Chief Information Officer, Charlie Richman, and his staff deserve credit for producing easy-to-read maps that allow DC residents to make sense out of the legalese that the Council will be voting on.

If you support these changes, I'd encourage you to send a note to the councilmembers letting them know you approve of this map. Their emails are available on the DC Council website.

We are proposing this plan so it can be vetted by a wider audience, which wasn't possible with the other 2 plans, and because we believe this plan adheres to the expectations set down regarding redistricting, unlike those from the task force's executive committee or Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr.

This proposal consists of 5 ANCs, 2 more than the ward has currently, and one fewer than in the previous two plans. Here are this neighborhood-centered proposal's strengths:

It connects neighborhoods with strong common interests. The revised plan creates ANCs by grouping SMDs that share common characteristics and issues. Instead of the "long" ANC stretching from central DC to Maryland, one of the revised ANCs encompasses the southwest corner of Ward 5 and combines Truxton Circle, Stronghold, Hanover, Edgewood, Eckington, and Bloomingdale. These neighborhoods are physically close to one another, have similar populations, have similar housing stock, share similar issues and concerns, and often collaborate on projects and activities.

It equalizes voter strength. In this proposal, the disparity between the largest SMD (2,214) and the smallest (1,850) is about 360 people, not the 850-person disparity in the executive committee's plan.

These figures are reasonable when compared to the goal of "approximately 2,000" people per SMD. They are justifiable because they allow the neighborhoods that they are in to remain intact. For example, the large Trinidad district could be made smaller, but would slice off an edge of Trinidad and connect it to a district made up of the Langston and Carver Terrace neighborhoods.

It promotes cohesiveness. The revised map brings much of Woodridge back together into a single ANC. All Bloomingdale districts are in the same ANC (including McMillan). The revised ANCs maintain the social and historical integrity of the Trinidad and Carver-Langston neighborhoods.

It respects boundaries and barriers. The revised ANC in the southwest of the ward uses the Ward 1 line and the CSX railroad right of way as natural north-south boundaries. The ANC in the southeast corner of the Ward uses the huge Arboretum for a natural boundary.

It doesn't connect dissimilar neighborhoods. Instead of combining widely dissimilar communities, all of the Truxton Circle, Stronghold, Hanover-Bates, Edgewood, Eckington, and Bloomingdale neighborhoods are in the same ANC. The integrity of Trinidad and Carver-Langston is maintained. These neighborhoods have real overlapping interests and populations.

The residents of Ward 5 have a choice for our political, economic, and communal/societal futures. We can allow ourselves to be redistricted in a way that disrespects and divides us, or we can choose an approach that chooses people and neighborhoods as well as respecting the integrity of the numbers.

If you believe in the latter, then let Task Force Chair Ayawna Webster and Councilmember Harry Thomas know that you want them to support the neighborhood-centered proposal we describe here. We're not proposing this plan to be divisive or confrontational. Rather, we believe that the members of the community that were part of the task force didn't have all the tools (especially maps) available to them throughout the entire process that they should have, and we hope this helps rectify that problem.

If you're a Ward 5 resident, let the chair and councilmember hear your voice. Contact Mrs. Webster at 202-724-8028 or awebster@dccouncil.us, and Councilmember Thomas at 202-439-5103 or hthomas@dccouncil.us.

DC's Home Rule Charter states that each SMD should contain approximately 2,000 people, recognizing that it's impossible to reach that number exactly. This plan has so many SMDs that aren't even close. Thomas' plan appears to reduce the SMD containing McMillan to about 30% below standard.

It's impossible to precisely quantify that population would be, because its lines split up a block, and the Census doesn't report population in more detail than an individual block. Therefore, potentially as few as 1,399 (and as many as over 2,200) live in the critical SMD where this development is proposed.

It also carves McMillan away from the rest of Bloomingdale (its home neighborhood), Eckington, Truxton Circle, and Hanover-Bates. This will dilute the ability of these residents to make their voices heard regarding the largest development project in their immediate area.

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but the clearest and most defined opposition to the proposed McMillan development has coalesced in these neighborhoods, which the latest Thomas plan now puts in a separate ANC.

The latest Thomas plan moves the McMillan Sand Filtration Site into an ANC consisting in large part of the Armed Forces Retirement Home and the Catholic University of America. That is, McMillan will be in an ANC that is less-densely populated, with much of its population in essentially gated, private communities that lie relatively far geographically from the McMillan site and that will likely have less concern for the direct effects of what happens at McMillan.

Single member district size is another critical shortcoming in this plan. There are 38 SMDs in the plan, and more than half of them (20) have populations more than 10% above or below the ideal size of 2,000 people. The largest, in Carver Langston, is nearly 40% larger, with a population of 2,796. Meanwhile, the smallest, containing the Armed Forces Retirement Home, has a population nearly 55% smaller (917 people). These numbers make it impossible for an individual's vote to carry equal weight in the political process as every other vote in the ward.

Both Thomas' and the task force's plans fail to link communities with common goals and interests and distort voter power. Tomorrow, we'll present a neighborhood-centered alternative.

Meanwhile, if you want to weigh in on redistricting, the Bloomingdale Civic Association is holding a meeting on the issue tonight, November 1, 7:00 pm at St. George's Episcopal Church, 2nd & U Streets NW.

Charlie Richman of the Office of Planning sent us a clarification:

We think it's important for your readers to understand that redistricting plans aren't considered by the DC Office of Planning at all. That is for Council to do. Our role in this is purely technical. We review proposed legislative language provided by the Task Forces (or Council) and verify that the lines on the maps we use reflect that language accurately. Often we discover that this can't be done because the language isn't clear or consistent, and we work with the authors of that language to help make it clear and consistent. Once the lines are drawn, we report to Council on how many residents would be included in each proposed SMD and ANC. Ultimately final SMD and ANC boundaries are the Council's decision. OP's role is to provide technical support to Council in arriving at whatever decisions they deem best.

Since then, and without the approval of the Task Force, Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr.'s office released another plan in an email response to a constituent's questions.

The DC Council should reject both plans. Instead, they should adopt a more neighborhood-centered plan, such as one we will propose in part 3 of this series.

Any redistricting effort should build from two bedrock principles:

1. Equalize voter strength. Ensure that an individual's vote carries as much weight in the political process as every other vote. The District Home Rule Charter states that each SMD should contain "approximately 2,000" people.

"Approximately" recognizes that 2,000 people is an ideal that may be difficult to reach exactly, and that numbers are not the only criteria that a redistricting plan should consider.

2. Bring related neighborhoods together. Create political subdivisions (ANCs and SMDs) that strengthen neighborhoods and bring together neighbors with related issues. Do this by promoting neighborhood cohesiveness, respecting natural boundaries and barriers, grouping neighborhoods that have common concerns and would be able to communicate easily with one another, etc.

The task force empowered its executive committee to "create ANCs that maintain neighborhood cohesiveness, respect natural boundaries and barriers, and combine neighborhoods that have common characteristics and interests." Yet the plan presented on October 6th (and the subsequent revision) violates the basic goals of redistricting and the task force's criteria.

It connects disconnected neighborhoods. The plan from the executive committee ignored the principle that ANCs should span areas which share common characteristics and issues. One proposed ANC is over 3.3 miles long, stretching from New Jersey Avenue, NW to the Maryland border.

The neighborhoods at either end of this proposed commission—Woodridge and Hanover-Bates—are as different a pair of neighborhoods as you could put together in Ward 5. Woodridge consists of detached, single family homes with more in common with their Mt. Rainier, Maryland, neighbors than with the dense, row house, central-city neighborhood of Hanover-Bates.

It disconnects connected neighborhoods. The plan separates communities with clear commonalities and concerns. If passed, Truxton Circle, Edgewood, Stronghold, Bloomingdale, Eckington, and Hanover-Bates, neighborhoods that frequently collaborate, would be forced into separate ANCs.

It undermines neighborhood integrity. The plan does not respect neighborhood cohesiveness. It splits Bloomingdale, Carver-Langston, and Woodridge between two ANCs. Such splitting undermines neighborhood unity and efficient governance.

The revision of the plan maintains some of these splits. Bloomingdale is still divided between two ANCs, and Bloomingdale's McMillan Sand Filtration Site is shifted to an ANC that does not include the rest of Bloomingdale and other neighborhoods that the proposed development will most significantly affect.

It distorts voter power. The executive committee's plan dilutes voting strength by increasing the difference from the smallest to the largest Ward 5 SMD to about 850 people.

One of the more egregious changes was in Bloomingdale. 2 districts with nearly equal populations became 3 with populations of 2,061, 2,039, and 1,399. A change was necessary because the population grew, but while the first two districts are roughly proportional, the third is significantly smaller and about 33% short of the 2,000 resident target.

As indefensible as these numbers are, what is even more stunning is that the latest Thomas plan expands those disparities further. Its SMD populations range from approximately 900 to nearly 2,800. Because this plan can neither be reconciled with the law nor justified by any circumstances on the ground, the Office of Planning will have to reject it as not worthy of serious consideration.

It ignores natural boundaries and barriers. In the long, thin ANC (colored green on the map), a huge no-man's land separates the 4 districts in the western end from the 4 in the east: the CSX/Metro train tracks, the Brentwood rail yard, and the commercial area near the Rhode Island Avenue Metro station. Residents on one side of these barriers live very far from those on the other.

A similar problem exists in the proposed ANC is southeast Ward 5 (colored red on the map). There, the eastern half of the Carver-Langston neighborhood would share an ANC with neighborhoods like Fort Lincoln and Arboretum, ½ to 2 miles away and separated from by railroad tracks, a freeway, and the grounds of the National Arboretum.

For all these reasons, the executive committee's plan is fatally flawed. But the plan from Councilmember Thomas is even worse. Tomorrow, we'll look at that.

These proto-SMDs (of which there were 40) were then turned in to the chair of the task force, who, with members of the executive committee, put the six teams' findings together into one large map. We analyzed this at a meeting last month, and the task force voted to give the executive committee the responsibility to come back to the task force with three options: maps with three, four, and five ANCs.

These options were presented to the task force last night. Significant changes had been made since the 40 proto-SMDs had been turned in to the commission chair. We were notified that there were errors in the data and that lines had to be redrawn for accuracy's sake. This meant that there would be 38, not 40, SMDs in Ward 5. Many of these new lines were drawn to closely follow the current SMD boundaries.

The three options are below. Click on each to see a larger and interactive version including the populations of each individual proposed SMD.

Option 1 had 5 ANCs. 3 task force members voted for this option.

Option 2 had 6 ANCs. 10 task force members voted for this option.

Option 3 had 3 ANCs. 3 task force members voted for this option.

As you can see, there are errors in the way the SMDs were described verbally, which led to areas of both overlap and gaps that were not included in any SMD. These include the area along the railroad tracks between the neighborhoods of Gateway and Langdon, the Park Place and Cloisters apartments and condominiums at the northeast corner of Michigan Avenue and North Capitol Street, the Washington Hospital Center campus, two blocks just south of Catholic University's campus, a couple blocks on the eastern edge of Trinidad, a block on the western edge of Carver-Langston, the Brentwood Rail Yard, and the entire eastern edge of the ward from the proposed Dakota Crossing development in Fort Lincoln to the Langston Golf Course along the Anacostia River.

It was difficult, if not impossible, to note these problems during the meeting, due to the fact that there was only one hastily drawn map at the front of the room that was difficult to read. Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr.'s office and the Office of Planning will have to collaborate to make fixes to these problems before the language can be submitted for a vote before the DC Council.

It's worth noting that 3 SMDs, as drawn here, fall significantly below the minimum recommended threshold for population size. The 2 SMDs in Fort Lincoln have populations of 1,265 and 1,467. The SMD that encompasses the neighborhood of Stronghold and the northernmost block of Bloomingdale (as well as the McMillan Sand Filtration site) has a population of 1,399. Perhaps it was the intent of the executive committee to include Park Place and the Cloisters in this SMD, but that wasn't evident from the proposed legal language.

When asked why these three SMDs had such low populations, the chair informed us that the population limits were guidelines, not strict rules, and they had received guidance from the Office of Planning that precedent existed to allow this deviation.

Redistricting in ANC 3D, which covers neighborhoods from the Potomac River to Massachusetts Avenue, has been the subject of fierce debate over the past weeks. ANC 3D chair 3D02 commissioner Tom Smith and Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force Chair Jeffrey Kraskin were the principal architects of this proposal, dubbed Proposal #3. Meanwhile, 3D01 and 3D03 Commissioners Kent Slowinski and Nan Wells created two opposing proposals, Alternatives C and D.

Proposal #3, in its current state, would dramatically alter the current boundaries and violate many provisions in the DC redistricting codes and procedures. By further limiting student voice and participation in local DC politics, this plan continues the ongoing trend of illegally marginalizing and minimizing the representation and presence of college students across the District, especially at Georgetown University and American University.

This proposal lumps the American University campus population into essentially one 2,151 person district, the largest of the 9 SMDs in ANC 3D.

In doing so, students are completely removed from 3D02 (coincidentally represented by Commissioner Tom Smith), whose seat was closely contested by students in 2010. Intentionally redrawing almost the entire AU student body into one district limits student voting power and therefore collective influence to one of nine seats.

It is also specifically drawn to include projected increases in student housing, which means by the fall of 2014, ANC 3D07 would, by the current census and upon adoption of the currently proposed Campus Plan, hold, at minimum, 2,954 students. While we grant that these projected numbers are not based on Census 2010 data, this situation is important to note.

Alternatives C and D also maintain sensible neighborhood boundaries, and avoid the creatively disjointed districts delineated by their counterpart. Unlike Proposal #3, which cuts across major roads, buildings, and within communities to create politically constructed voting blocks, this proposal fairly distributes representation across appropriate areas without violating provisions that prohibit dilution of student and homeowner votes.

Several ANC members and their constituents have supported the Slowinski/Wells plans, and believe the plans are in the best interests of all residents. Alternative C adds a 10th SMD and incorporates some land currently part of ANC 3E, which has been the subject of contention. That being said, Alternative C stands not only as a sensible and pragmatic solution for 3D, but it also allows 3E redistricting numbers to be in compliance.

If the theoretical new district covering the Department of Homeland Security and a number of apartment buildings are not brought into 3D, the 3E maps will have to be re-configured. It further enhances the commonality of the neighborhood along MacArthur Blvd, greater Wesley Heights, and the Spring Valley/AU area.

Regardless, many have noted that the process over the past weeks has been less than transparent, open, and democratic. As the Smith/Kraskin plan (Proposal #3) has drawn opposition from the Slowinski/Wells proposals, many have alleged that the process is rife with conflicts of interest and political motivations. Ward 3D chair Tom Smith refused to allow the consideration of the process and of the various proposals at public ANC meetings. Circulation and discussion of proposed maps was very limited.

The first subgroup redistricting 3D group vote on Sunday night passed Proposal #3 over Alternative D by a 4-3 margin. The second vote was on Stu Ross' motion to accept the Smith/Kraskin #3 map with an amendment, with a potential for "tweaks." In a measure of protest, Commissioner Slowinski abstained from the vote, the final tally being 4-2-1. The last vote was 5-0 to object to a 10-member ANC, with Bill Slover (Palisades) and Kent Slowinski abstaining.

It is also important to note that only members of the Redistricting Task force are able to vote officially on any of the proposed plans. DC Council appointed members of the Task Force, and representatives such as Commissioner Wells and Jones, were unable to vote on these proposals. No AU students are members of the task force.

We see further problems with the current proposal as it stands. American University has a design capacity for just over 3500 students and is projecting to house approximately 4300 students by fall 2014. However, under 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.

Current Census numbers show that the Proposal #3 population total falls outside the 1900-2100 limits set by the Task Force committee. Alternatives C and D are in compliance.

While the numbers in the Smith/Kraskin plan already exceed the given population boundaries, projected growth under the new campus plan would clearly continue to violate this provision. While other Wards have constructed their SMD's to anticipate projected growth in the area, the new lines under Proposal #3 clearly ignore projected changed for the purpose of consolidating AU voting influence into merely one seat. Such an action further disenfranchises the student vote, as section §1-1332 of the DC Code stipulates that:

(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.

The definition of "minority citizens" is not specifically defined, yet it is fair to say that students constitute a minority in DC, and that the proposed plan deliberately attempts to confine their influence to one vote. It ensures that any student vote in the current 3D02 district will be removed, meaning that Commissioner Smith will be able to continue opposing students on many issues without fear of being voted out of office.

While it is mathematically impossible to cram the entire AU population into one district, Proposal #3 attempts to do so by consolidating every dorm on campus (except for Letts Hall) into one ANC seat.

The map at right shows what is referred to on campus as "Letts-Anderson Quad". Letts, Anderson, and Centennial Halls, while all classified as separate dormitories, are actually one large connected complex (total estimated population: 1802 students).

There are no legal roads cutting through LA Quad and once a person enters the residential complex, he or she can go to any part of the three dorms without ever going outdoors. This arbitrary division disregards the mandate of redistricting task forces to maintain neighborhood continuity.

The disruption of neighborhood continuity does not end with the dissection and reforming of AU's campus. 3D01, 02, 03, and 07 (all the districts comprising or bordering AU) will face significant changes. If Commissioner Smith's plan passes, the Spring Valley and Wesley Heights neighborhoods will be fundamentally divided in a way that disregards natural boundaries and accepted community lines.

Proposal #3 has another major downside: it inevitably will negatively change the landscape of relationships between the AU administration, AU students, and neighboring community members. The existence of a SMD that is equally divided among students and neighboring residents increases the feasibility that students and neighbors can fairly work together.

By limiting student voting influence on the ANC to one seat, this proposal eliminates accountability on the part of other ANC members to student needs and concerns. It is important to remember that students and homeowners are more than capable of working together both inside and outside of the democratic process, should the political shenanigans be put aside.

Districts that include both students and neighbors are integral to maintaining and establishing cohesion between these citizen groups because any ANC commissioner elected in such a district should reasonably consider the needs of all constituents, allowing for a more moderate voice. This article need not be interpreted as another attempt to portray this discussion as a two-sided debate.

We understand the difficulty of this process and the opposing viewpoints in play, yet we stress the need for an equitable solution that fairly considers all residents and allows for the best solution. As students, we value and appreciate the surrounding area as a welcoming and respected community, and we encourage further collaboration and partnership among all.

Proposal #3 clearly gerrymanders and marginalizes a significant and vulnerable group in ANC 3D. The best solution is to adhere as closely as possible to the current boundaries of the ANCs in 3D. Therefore, we endorse Alternatives C and D authored by Commissioners Slowinski and Wells. This reasonable alternative begins with the only generally accepted standard, the existing boundaries from 2001-2011, and makes minor and reasonable adjustments to most fairly represent every citizen of ANC 3D.

A public hearing of the Ward 3 redistricting task force will take place tonight at 7 pm, at the Horace Mann Elementary School.

The plan won't move on to Councilmember Evans without Commissioner Birch's consent. I urge Commissioner Birch ask the ANC 2E working group to produce a new plan, which conforms to DC's redistricting code and which better addresses the needs of every resident of ANC 2E.

Since my previous article, ANC 2E held its August 29th meeting. As DC Students Speak and a number of others covered, students came out in large numbers to this meeting to voice their opposition to the current proposal.

After that, Councilmember Phil Mendelson told the Georgetown Current that the current plan is "grossly discriminatory." He said the co-chairs "can't just turn a blind eye to the principle of one man, one vote. If there's a proposal to create single-member districts of vastly different sizes, lumping students into one or two and then having non-students ... in the remaining undersized SMDs, that would be a violation of the law."

Considering these comments and those of students at ANC 2E's public meeting, I made a motion for reconsideration within our working group. All I called for was further dialogue. We had only had two meetings and considered two plans total, far fewer than the 13 plans that ANC 2A, a comparably-sized ANC, considered. The six who had originally voted against the co-chairs' plan, including ANC 2E Commissioner Charlie Eason, supported the motion.

On September 6th, one day before the reconsideration vote was set to end, ANC 2E Chair and redistricting task force co-chair Ron Lewis approached me about what specific elements about the co-chairs' plan I would like to see changed. I responded with the following map, which I believe represents a fair compromise between the co-chairs' plan and the Flanagan plan described in my earlier piece.

SMDs 02, 06 and 07 remain exactly the same in this plan as they are in the co-chairs' plan. SMD 05's outline remains very similar to its shape in the co-chairs' plan, with several blocks west of Wisconsin added to bring its population from a too-low 1,710 to a more acceptable 2,107. These blocks also fit with the commercial character of SMD 05.

The primary changes from the co-chairs' plan to this plan resolve around how it deals with Georgetown University's campus and the blocks immediately nearby. Instead of the nearly 2,600-person SMD monstrosities found in the co-chairs' plan, this compromise plan instead brings them within code, with total populations of 1,889 and 2,013.

Here are the populations in this plan and the co-chairs' plan:

The recommended SMD size, according to the DC Code, is 1,900 to 2,100.

In the co-chairs' plan, the relative deviance in SMD size is nearly 40%. In the compromise plan I am proposing, it is approximately 24%. I feel as though this is still on the high side, but it is a number I would be far more comfortable with.

I also did not present this compromise plan as a finalized plan. I do not believe it is perfect and am open to making revisions to it. For instance, I think that if the Burlieth residents were amendable to it, moving the block bounded by 34th, 35th, R, and Wisconsin from SMD01 to SMD02 would be sensible, for several reasons.

Unfortunately, discussing such ideas has been impossible. After sending Chairman Lewis my idea of a compromise, I did not hear back about it until September 9th. At this time, Commissioner Lewis sent the working group's finalized recommendations to Commissioner Birch, including this line: "To complete your file, you have previously received a proposal from working-group member John Flanagan, and an email earlier this week contained a proposal from working-group member Jake Sticka. Neither of these proposals has the support of a majority of the working group."

I was particularly disappointed by this line because at this time only Commissioner Lewis had been sent the compromise plan. A working group cannot reject a plan it has never seen.

Regardless, the co-chairs' plan is now in Commissioner Birch's hands. If you have thoughts on ways to improve my compromise plan, please leave a comment here. If you are concerned about the process and the plan that may come out of it, please contact Commissioner Tom Birch at bircht@earthlink.net.

Cross-posted at DC Students Speak.