Tag Archives: Voting Rights Lawsuit

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Rewind: History of City Council election process

4 Comments

Back in November 1987, the last time the City Council’s election process was changed, then-Journal Star reporter Paul Gordon wrote a very interesting story on the history of the process.

I’ve reprinted the complete article below, but here’s the summary, with some additional information to bring us up to 2011:

Years Election Process
Before 1845 Governed under township system, with a board of trustees and a board president
1845-1953 Mayor and, initially, eight aldermen elected from four wards, with elections held annually. The council grew with the city, and by 1951, there were 11 wards and 22 aldermen.
1953-1960 Council-manager form of government adopted; one mayor and all council members elected at-large.
1960-1972 In a special election, voters decide to reestablish the ward system. Ten wards are established with one councilman elected from each; terms are not staggered. There are no at-large seats.
1972-1991 Under new state legislation, a binding referendum was held that established five districts and three at-large seats (total of 8 council members, plus the mayor), with staggered terms.
1991-present As a result of the 1987 Voting Rights lawsuit settlement, our current system was established with five district councilmen and five at-large councilmen elected via cumulative voting. The first at-large election under the new system was held in 1991.

Now in 2011, there is talk of doing away with the current system and returning to possibly ten districts and no at-large councilmen, which would be essentially what we had in the 1960s. It’s also the resolution originally sought in the voting rights case of 1987.

In 1987, a lawsuit (Joyce Banks, et al. v City of Peoria, case number 87-2371) was filed against the City of Peoria, District 150 Board of Education, and the Peoria Park District, alleging that the method of electing at-large members “prevented minorities from getting elected to the boards because the number of white voters outnumbered minorities.” The suit originally sought to abolish at-large voting completely from all three boards. But in a settlement before the case went to trial, plaintiffs agreed to eliminate at-large voting from the school district and park boards, and develop a different solution for the City Council: a total of five at-large members (an increase from three) plus the implementation of a cumulative voting system.

Why? According to a Nov. 1, 1987, Journal Star article, one of the plaintiffs, Joyce Banks, stated “their original demand for across-the-board district voting was dropped because blacks reasonably could be assured of one seat on a district-only council…. With the agreed-upon changeover to cumulative voting for at-large seats on the City Council, Banks said a well-organized black community could capture two or three seats on what would become a 10-member council.”

That’s more or less how it has worked out. Today, there are two black members on the council: first-district councilman Clyde Gulley and at-large councilman Eric Turner. If the council were to change back to a ten-district system, it’s hard to say how minority representation would change. Minority population has increased over the past 24 years, so presumably more than one district could be made up of a majority of minority voters. Plus, it’s not as if white people only vote for white people or black people only vote for black people. For instance, Turner lives in the fifth district of the City, which is predominantly white, and he received a large number of votes from that area in the last at-large election. There’s no reason he couldn’t continue to win a seat in that area of town even under a district-only process.

It is interesting that changing to a ten-district council would be a trip back to the future, so to speak. One wonders if, in another ten or twenty years, there will be yet another group vying for a return to the good old days of cumulative voting, or perhaps a strong-mayor form of government. It seems we’re never satisfied with whatever process is currently in place.

Continue reading Rewind: History of City Council election process →

Peoria Mayor, Peoria Public Schools

Mayoral appointment of school board members has big hurdle

35 Comments

Never waste a good scandal. On the heels of today’s District 150 embarrassment — Mary Davis’s indictment — the Journal Star is reporting that Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis is thinking about exploring how he could have more influence over the district by appointing school board members:

He says he’s looking at larger cities such as Chicago, New York and Boston for inspiration to initiate change here that would intertwine his job as mayor with the decision-making of the school district. […] “It’s an interesting concept that I believe is worthy for some consideration,” Ardis continued. “From what I’ve read, the mayors who have been in the position to do that have seen success. It’s something I’m interested in. And I think the community is interested in learning more about it, too.”

Whether or not you think this is a good idea, it may be a moot point. Despite the relatively simple process the paper describes for changing the way school board members are chosen — “To enact such a change would require a public referendum or legislation approved by the General Assembly” — in reality it will be much more difficult.

The reason is because school board elections in Peoria are not governed by state law, but rather by a 1987 Class Action Voting Rights lawsuit settlement. That settlement did away with at-large elections of school board members, replacing it with a three-ward system and giving specific instructions on how board members would be chosen from each of those wards.

The Final Consent Decree clearly states in paragraph 4, “The Election Commission of the City of Peoria and the Peoria County Clerk are authorized and ordered to comply with the terms of this Consent Decree and to conduct elections in accordance with the terms of this Consent Decree.” It further states in paragraph 6, “This Court retains jurisdiction of this case for purposes of supervising the implementation of this Consent Decree.”

In other words, if you want to change how school board members are chosen, you’re going to have to get the new system approved by the court, and that could mean getting surviving litigants — including the school district itself — to agree to the changes. You can bet that mayoral appointment of school board members would be hotly contested.

Surely Mayor Ardis knows this challenge is out there. This same Voting Rights lawsuit settlement changed the City Council’s makeup as well. It established both the number of at-large councilmen (five instead of three) and the bullet voting system for at-large elections. At least one group has met in recent years to explore doing away with the bullet voting system in the City, but so far there has been no public action toward that goal.