The boundaries of the five City Council districts will have to change due to population shifts within the City. It’s a process called redistricting, and Mayor Ardis wants to employ a more “inclusive” method than the one used in 2001. The request from the mayor is on next Tuesday’s council agenda:
I am requesting the Council to concur with my recommendation to appoint a Redistricting Committee comprised of the District Council Members, chaired by Council Member Bill Spears. The Committee will be charged with a public process of drafting changes to the Council Districts and making a recommendation to the City Council regarding those changes.
Note that Redistricting Committees, comprised of District Council Members, were used in 1981 and 1991. I think the public process will be more inclusive than our internal process used in 2001.
The district council members are Clyde Gulley (Dist. 1), Barbara Van Auken (Dist. 2), Tim Riggenbach (Dist. 3), Bill Spears (Dist. 4), and Dan Irving (Dist. 5).
The 2010 Census shows the City’s population grew to 115,007 overall, but that growth was not evenly distributed throughout the City. Thus, the boundaries have to be redrawn such that each district includes approximately 23,001 residents (one-fifth of the total population). Here’s a chart that was provided in the council communication showing how many residents are currently in each council district, and how many need to be added or removed to reach the target number:
| Council District |
2010 District Population |
Target | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20379 | 23001 | 2622 |
| 2 | 20615 | 23001 | 2386 |
| 3 | 21305 | 23001 | 1696 |
| 4 | 21381 | 23001 | 1620 |
| 5 | 30624 | 23001 | -7623 |
The new boundaries also have to meet federal standards for minority representation, and meet the requirements of the State of Illinois’ municipal code, which says that each district shall be “nearly equal in population,” “of as compact and contiguous territory as practicable,” and be created so that “no precinct shall be divided between 2 or more [districts].”
State law also requires that the redistricting process be completed “not less than 30 days before the first day set by the general election law for the filing of candidate petitions for the next succeeding election for city officers.” That means it would have be complete by October of 2012, but it usually gets done sooner so the Election Commission has time to redraw the precinct boundaries.
This will mean that districts will grow larger (except for #5) by expanding to the north in the direction of district 5. If the guidelines are followed.
The system we have in Peoria in which half of the council is elected at large and half from districts. I suggest we switch to 10 districts or elect two from each. After redistricting, of course.
Wow! I absolutely agree with you Billy! Get rid of the at large seats(mini mayors) running around and have 2 reps from each district! This way you get rid of bullet voting, you will probably have more interest in people running, and have equal representation from all the council members.
I bask in the glow of your adoration.
My only objection is having the District Council Members in charge of the process. The Districts are going to end up looking like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, with everyone trying to divvy up the extra bodies to their best advantage. How about we let a special committee made up of citizens from throughout the city get the job done? At least let’s get someone in charge of it who is not directly affected by the process.
I don’t want to get rid of the at larges. If you have a bad council person then you are stuck. You will only get limited voice/representation on the council. Get rid of the bullet voting, but you vote for 5 candidates each getting one vote or vote for three if you choose, but each person only gets one vote.
how about we computer generate a map and take all the time and fuss out of it.
Paul: And remove all the drama? … and parrot talk “we listened to our constituents although we didn’t hear and will not do what they want regardless of promising that we will?????? Glad to see that you still have your sense of humor! 🙂
But the question is: Will making the districts the same size (in population) bring about better government? Not really? Six of the 11 seats are at large and that fact remains the same. You will see a greater percentage of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd districts turn out, probably. But it will be the same people voting who tend to vote now. as population within the districts “move north,” candidates stands on issues will tend to “move north” as well.
I say the solution is to break up the city into 10 districts.
Redistricting is not about better government- it is about equal representation. You can get better government without redistricting.
You need a more informed electorate who will take the time to research candidates views and ask questions of same.
The will of the electorate on election day is represented by the votes cast. After the votes are validated the will of the people/voters is lost except for a few vocal interest groups or individuals. No district ever drawn will change that dynamic.
Precinct, sadly you are right. But even an informed electorate who takes the time to research will not change a thing. What changes things is when the informed electorate gets off their rear ends and show up at the polls.
Questions: a) Does it have to be 5 district & 5 at-large representatives? b) Could the city be divided into 10 districts with each electing a representative? c) What about a mix of 7 districts and 3 at-large?
Ramble On: The current system of five at-large and five district councilman, as well as the cumulative voting system, was the result of a court settlement of a civil rights lawsuit. It is my understanding that, as a result, changes cannot be made to the system legislatively — changes would have to be approved by the court.
Precinct: It’s about fair representation. I liken the current system to “rotten boroughs” in Britain at the time we told them to go to Hell and started our own country. If I were to sit down and create a system that deliberately disenfranchised older neighborhood residents, I would create what we have now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs
District 5 is obviously over-represented. Of the 11 people around the horseshoe as of May 2011 (including the Mayor):
1 resides in Dist. 1: Clyde Gulley
2 reside in Dist. 2: Gary Sandberg and Barbara Van Auken
2 reside in Dist. 3: Beth Akeson and Tim Riggenbach
1 resides in Dist. 4: Bill Spears
5 reside in Dist. 5: Jim Ardis, Chuck Weaver, Ryan Spain, Eric Turner, and Dan Irving
Before the election, there were still five in the fifth district (just replace Weaver with George Jacob), only one in the third (Riggenbach), and two in the fourth (Spears, Montelongo).
Speaking of redistricting. CJ, you might want to post the upcoming information in a separate article. The state senate will be here in Peoria on April 16th to take testimony from concerned citizens on the redistricting of Ill. both state and federal house offices. The paper didn’t list the time and place. It is at the Red Cross at 10am is what I was told. Anyway. This is during the great american clean up and a significant number of citizens will be working on projects in the neighborhood. I sent out a text/email to every rep I know asking this be changed. Dave Leitch’s office suggested contacting Koehler’s office as this is a Sen (dem) driven event. Koehler’s office said the meeting time was set by the chair of this committee. We are allowed to submit written testimony. I would suggest that anyone interested in keeping our congressional district and to have the maps drawn out, changing some of the odd boundaries already in place write a letter to Koehler and send it to his office 13 S. Capital St. Pekin, Il. 61554
“District 5 is obviously over-represented”
Those are the people who vote and see some hope for a payback from their participation in the election process.
Billy,
I said equal representation( one person one vote) not fair representation (bullet voting). Fair is a loaded term. What is fair to me is not fair to you since we do not have a common understanding of fair.
Turnout by District
1st 6.08%
2nd 14.39%
3rd 16.79%
4th 18.10%
5th 25.52%
Total 17.48%
District 5 has only one elected member to the seat. It happens to be the place where other council members mower their lawns.
Because you have an address that coincides with District 5 boundaries does not mean you represent them in fact or in deed. At large by definition means all of the city residents( along with the subset of voters registered) with in the boundaries of the city.
Please remember Don Saltsman who represented Dist 92 in State Legislature – he did not mow a yard in the district, he used a telephone forwarding service to send his calls to a remote location outside the district.
wondering what the actual voter numbers were per candidate. cumulative voting aside.
Thanks for the info, Tom. Here’s how many representatives there are from each district as a percentage for comparison:
1st 9.09%
2nd 18.18%
3rd 18.18%
4th 9.09%
5th 45.45%
Precinct Committeeman: If everything worked in reality the way it’s supposed to work in theory, Peoria would have no structural deficit.
Chris,
Then the theory is correct but our human execution leaves something to be desired.
One other consideration- population equality between districts does not equal a corresponding number of registered or likely voters in a given contest.
Example: County Board districts 17 and 18 were drawn in 2001 with a small variance in actual persons between the districts.
When you examine the number of registered voters at the county clerk office you will see a disparity in numbers of voters that can be expected to vote. District size was 10100 +/- per board district. Registered voters was off by about 1800-1900. District 18 was smaller than 17 in voter potential.
I think the court would come to the conclusion that 2 district reps/district and 3 at-large reps would solve any civil rights issues, it’d actually make the situation better by offering an equal advantage to the districts that have a larger percentage of minorities. I say 3 at-large, because I think there should be 13 people voting and no vote for the mayor. The mayor should be a figurehead and be involved in discussion and influence, but not have a vote in city hall. Just my thouhgts, I don’t know what the legalities are of that idea.
Billy, I disagree with you a good part of the time, but you’re dead right on this one.
I’m thinking it would be nice to have 10 districts. Perhaps the 1st district could be split above at Kumpf since as far as I can tell Gulley doesn’t realize that the North Valley is part of his territory. Never saw the man once down here campaigning.
Don Jackson was on the news recently saying that the cumulative voting is not meeting its goal, but we have to give it more time. Really, how long has this been going on? He further stated that they cannot get qualified candidates to run and of course blamed the political climate. Wow Don, you just achieved equal opportunity because it is the same across the board. I would submit, if you were you truly worried about minority representation then the minority leadership would get to recruiting. Just like anyone else, pick up a petition, get the signatures and run a campaign. I would submit that voting for someone because of their race is just as discriminatory as voting against someone because of their race. So back to qualified candidates. You have two years to get someone’s act together for the districts, if you’re going run get started now.