Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRedistricting Report for City of Ithaca - 2002I r x CITY REDISTRICTING 2002 REPORT TO THE ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL From the City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force August 20, 2002 Redistricting Task Force Members: John Marcham, Chair Lucy Brown Laura Lewis Paul Steiger Stuart Stein a T CITY REDISTRICTING 2002 REPORT TO THE ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL From the City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force TABLE OF CONTENTS RECOMMENDATION—SUMMARY 1 BACKGROUND 1 The 1990 Census 1 The 2000 Census 3 2002 CITY WARD REDISTRICTING 3 The City's Choices 3 Why worry about variance in size? Why worry about different boundaries for city wards, used to elect members 4 of Common Council, and county districts, used to elect county legislators? Weighing the Choices 4 Alternative ward boundaries 4 What would be the downside of Examples 1 -5? 5 Looking for Further Alternatives 5 The Cost of Having Different Boundaries for Wards and County Districts 6 Confusion of voters 6 Expense 6 Recruiting election inspectors 6 The possibility of a legal challenge if ward populations vary by more 6 than 10% IMPLEMENTING A 2002 REDISTRICTING 6 THANKS 6 APPENDICES 5 CITY REDISTRICTING 2002 REPORT TO THE ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL From the City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force APPENDICES Map J City of Ithaca Wards 1992 and Tompkins County Legislative Districts within the City of Ithaca 2001 Map A— 1 County Legislative Districts within the City of Ithaca 2001 Memorandum C July 10, 2002 Memorandum from Khandikile M. Sokoni to Norma W. Schwab; Re: Legal Research—Redistricting/Re-Apportionment Map D Population 2000 by Census Block- Tompkins County Legislative District 004 and Vicinity- Working Map Table E-1 City of Ithaca Redistricting 2002 Map F City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 1, July 2002 Map G City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 2, July 2002 Map H City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 3, July 2002 Map I City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 4, July 2002 Map O City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 5, July 2002 Table N City of Ithaca Population, Voter Registration, and Votes, 2000-02 Memorandum P July 29, 2002 Memorandum from Khandikile M. Sokoni to Re- Apportionment/Redistricting File; Re: Is Reapportionment Plan Subject to Referendum? j l CITY REDISTRICTING 2002 REPORT TO THE ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL From the City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force RECOMMENDATION- SUMMARY The task force strongly recommends that the Common Council adopt the same district lines for the city that were established in 2001 by the county for the election of the county Board of Representatives. The task force recognized that, should this recommendation be adopted,the population variance will be greater than the normally acceptable 10 %. However,the task force strongly believes that it is extremely important to avoid voter confusion that would result in those years when both city Council and county board candidates are running for election additional expense incurred with two sets of election boundaries the difficulty of staffing extra election districts The task force also found that the special nature of the population of the city, greatly influenced by transient and student populations, made the larger than usual population variance defensible, should the redistricting proposal be challenged in court. While various alternatives to this recommendation were analyzed, the task force did not see a significant benefit in selecting any of them for consideration. Therefore, only one recommendation is being put forth to the Common Council (Map A-1*). BACKGROUND The 1990 Census Redistricting of city wards and county legislative districts is required after each decennial census. In 1992, using 1990 census figures,the city's five wards underwent the first significant boundary changes in two decades. Before proposing new boundaries ten years ago, a city redistricting committee sought public comment to assure existing neighborhoods were not divided between wards. The greatest change was the formation of a so-called "working class" ward on the city's flats, aimed at representing minorities and low- income renters who had previously been dispersed among three wards. This change was made in response to directives from the Mayor and Council who were in office at that time. Also in 1992, a county redistricting continued a practice of having city wards also serve as districts for electing members of the county Board of Representatives. 1 City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002 ti A-1 County LegislativeiIsativ Districtsstricts Within the City cofIthaca 2001 a::u Lake v 9: Proposed as City Ward Boundaries CO by the City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force Z August 2002 5443: yM 005 CO W CO 555 i I- - 00.3 001 004 NN( : 002 CO Totals are for City portion only of County legislative district. Percent in parentheses is percent deviation from one fifth of total City population. LEGEND O Census Block ti NY State Route LE Waterway D Legislative District Prepared By: Dept of Planning&Development, City of Ithaca, NY,July 2002 County dists.apr The 2000 Census The county board used 2000 census figures in 2001 to draw new county legislative districts that, for the first time, crossed the border between the City and Town of Ithaca. Within the city, 2001 county redistricters followed the city's 1992 ward lines as closely as possible, thus continuing the practice of not dividing neighborhoods wholly among its legislative districts. The county then added town residents to the three wards that have common boundaries with the town, as a way to equalize the population of its newly created county legislative districts 1-5. Town residents were added to the old city Wards 1, III, and V to create similarly numbered county districts. Population was shifted among these and the two original wards -II and IV -that do not share borders with the town to form county districts of nearly equal size. For local elections in 2001, the new districts were used to elect county legislators, and the old 1992 city wards were used to elect city legislators. Where 2001 county and 1992 ward lines did not coincide, new election districts (EDs)were created for the 2001 local elections. These were created within city wards so that residents could vote for both city Council and county representative candidates in an appropriate ED. As an example, some Ward I residents in two of the new EDs were voting for their city Council member in Ward I and their county representative in District 2. Six such EDs were created and supplied with their own election inspectors, registration lists, ballots, and voting machines. This becomes important to understand when we consider one of the alternatives that faced our 2002 city redistricting task force. (These six 2001 EDs are circled on Map J.) 2002 CITY WARD REDISTRICTING Our 2002 city task force started its work with a different job from its 1992 counterpart. In 1992 the city could create wards on its own, guided by its ultimate decision to continue five wards and make their population as equal as possible (+/- 30 residents). This year's city task force looked at the five county district boundaries within the city already set until the next census. The two landlocked city districts, 2 and 4, have the same population as they do when used for county voting but the outer three have fewer, after removing their Town of Ithaca residents,who do not vote in city elections. Consequently,the difference of in-city population between the largest, 4, and the smallest, 1, is 819 persons, or 14.23% of the average city district population of 5,755. (These populations are shown on Map Al). The City's Choices The 2002 city task force briefly considered a number of proposals also presented to the 1992 committee and rejected: At-large elections for Common Council rather than by ward, 10 or 15 smaller wards, and unequal-population wards with weighted voting on Council in proportion to population. All presented more problems than two other more obvious solutions. Therefore,they were not pursued. 3 City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002 J E From its first meeting,the 2002 task force appeared to have two main choices: Accept the five county legislative districts within the city as wards (Map A 1), with populations varying by 14.23%, or Form new city districts, probably by reducing the largest county districts and adding to the smallest, so as to reduce the variance in total size to 10%. Why worry about variance in size? Court cases have held that variances of 10% or less are considered legally reasonable and equitable, and thus not likely to be challenged successfully. However,the courts have also held that if districts vary by more than 10% for a good reason, they may be OK. (See Memorandum C from the city attorney.) Why worry about different boundaries for cily wards, used to elect members of Common Council, and county districts, used to elect county legislators? Extra voting districts, machines, materials,polling places, and personnel would be needed. In addition, voters would have to understand in which legislative unit they vote for city and for county officials. In a community as transient as Ithaca, with a vast majority of renters and undergraduate college students, potential confusion weighs more heavily than in a more stable one. Weighing the Choices Choosing the county districts as wards involves determining: whether the county districts in fact represent whole neighborhoods as the 1992 wards did, by publicizing the possibility of this choice, whether individuals or groups might mount a court challenge to a spread of 14+% in the size of wards, and whether a reasonable adjustment of the county district lines might be found that would create alternative ward boundaries that meet the 10% deviation standard, maintain neighborhood representation, and provide a supply of voters and of registered voters from which candidates and political workers might be found to recruit and support candidates for the city and county legislatures. Alternative ward boundaries: To test how one might alter district lines so as to reduce the 14+% deviation, staff and the task force chair drew a series of new ward boundaries that would maintain neighborhoods. The obvious districts to be reduced were the largest, 2 and 4, and the ones to be expanded were 1, 3, and 5. In any plan, ward and district lines must follow streets, waterways, or other unmistakable landmarks (railroad tracks, etc.) Thus one must move whole city blocks in redistricting. Map D shows such blocks with the population contained in each, for District 4. Tables E-1 show the resulting populations for Maps F-I& O, examples 1-5. Five alternatives were produced. (Tables E-1 show the resulting populations for each proposed new ward arrangement.) 4 City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002 C i T Example 1, map F, shifts two blocks along E. State and Mitchell Sts. out of 4, one each into I and I1I, resulting in a new total deviation of 11.49% Example 2, map G, shifts three blocks along E. State St. out of 4 and into I, also resulting in a deviation of 11.49% Example 3, map H, shifts 3 populated blocks on Cascadilla Park Rd. and Stewart Ave. from 4 to V, resulting in a deviation of 11.94%. Example 4, map 1, similar to 2-G, shifts 4 blocks along E. State St. from 4 to I and results in a deviation of 10.78% Example 5, map O, shifts one block of College Ave.-Linden Ave. from 4 to III, and one containing Titus Towers from 2 to I, resulting in a deviation of-1.27% in I, 1.67% in II, +2.83% in III, +2.09% in IV, and-5.32% in 5, a total deviation of 8.15%. What would be the downside of Examples 1 -5? Table N shows District 4 already to be tied for the lowest(17%)percentage of population voting in the '01 local election. The blocks being removed in these examples all have more homes and fewer student dormitories than the average of the district as a whole, and would thus further lower the already smallest voter registration-to-population ratio of any city district. Examples 1-5 would further lower the number of voters sending an official to represent them(331 in the 2001 election, compared with 786, 898, and 1,061 in the three districts electing officials with the most votes). The difficulties, expense and confusion likely to result from having different city and county districts are discussed later in this report. Looking for Further Alternatives The task force wrote to 28 neighborhood officials,the heads of the six political parties in the city, and the League of Women Voters, and invited the public in programs on cable Channel 7 and WHCU and the front page of the Ithaca Journal--to give the task force their ideas, including any alternative ward plans. Three reporters and five other members of the public attended one or more of the task force's four meetings. Three members of the public made proposals and a fourth raised questions. The president of the south Hill Civic Association suggested one block at the foot of South Hill be moved from district 2 to district 1, which contains all the other South Hill blocks. The task force learned that county rules will not allow changes in the county district lines until the next census. The city may consider changes for its wards. An exchange of letters between the task force chair and the president of the South Hill Neighborhood Association deals further with this. The association requests further consideration by the county and city redistricting task force after the 2010 census. The task force chair will send a copy of this exchange and the task force's report to the city and county clerks to call to the attention of 2010 census redistricters. 5 City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002 r A Council member from ward IV urged the task force not to remove blocks with mostly permanent residents from Ward IV. The Ward IV request is a reason for not accepting Examples 1-5 discussed above. A Council member from Ward III urged the city adopt the county districts. He did not see any significant gain in tinkering with the districts established by the county, but he did see substantial voter confusion if we did make changes. The Cost of Having Different Boundaries for Wards and County Districts Confusion of voters: The county Board of Elections and others reported voters confused in 2001 when faced with voting for their Council member in one ward and their County legislator in another, as happened where the county districts had to be different. Expense: The existence of two sets of boundaries in 2001 required the county Board of Elections to create six small election districts where properties fell in a city ward different from the similar county district. The added expense for 2001 primary and general elections was $3,700. The cost of renting six additional voting machines, $500 apiece, was credited against the purchase of new machines that were necessary in any event in 2001 because of new machine requirements. But in the future each additional district would required an extra election machine, a cost of$3,000 per district. Extra districts would be needed in other years of local elections, at least five in a decade, and when Common Council vacancies exist. Recruiting election inspectors: Election officials report increasing difficulty recruiting the four inspectors needed to staff each district The possibility of a legal challenge if ward populations vary by more than 10%: The city attorney addresses this question in Memo C: "We shall restate the fact that safest plan is one that has a deviation of 10% or less. However, in the event that the city decides to adopt the county plan that would result in a 14%deviation, we are of the opinion that this plan would be legally defensible provided the justifications relied on are not arbitrary or discriminatory, which in this case they would not be." IMPLEMENTING A 2002 REDISTRICTING Memo P from the office of the City attorney holds that the city can adopt a 2002 redistricting plan by local law rather than a referendum as originally thought. THANKS The task force's job was made easier by the work of the Office of the City Attorney and Tompkins County and City of Ithaca Planning staffs, most particularly Ruth Aslanis of the city. She developed maps, statistics, reports and notes on meetings that provided a solid base for our decisions. 6 City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002 APPENDICES 7 City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002 e V s I rv eaU Jim 11 11 HIM Lit If fir A-1 Count Legislative Districts a:.0 Lake: Y 9 t Within the City of IthacaY Y) I W 0 v! Z ft yyyy/ 005 . :. . . j z Q 5423 U 0 002 a F S, q a "Y f CO Totals are for City portion only of County legislative district. Percent in parentheses is percent deviation from one fifth of total City population. LEGEND Census Block NY State Route Waterway Legislative District PreP ared By: De t of Planning&Development, City of Ithaca, NY,July 2002 County dists.apr IT CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, Ne-%,,- York 1-4850-5690 0 F 1:1 C F. ()I-- II I E CIF) .VI TO WN 1:Y Norni:i W Scimah. Cir-,-Aitorricv I'cicphonc: 00 PAY Patricia DLInn, A-,sismnt Cite Attorncv I:u: 00- -1--f-o;o- Khandikilc NI. ',-,()k0ni. A:,socuttu Attorncv MEMORANDUM To:Norma W. Schwab, City Attorney CC: John Marcham, Chair of the Re-Apportionment Committee; Ruth Aslanis, Planning Systems Manager From: Khandikile M. Sokoni, Associate Attorney Date: July 10, 2002 Subject:Legal Research— Re-districting/Re-Apportionment6 This memo addresses the various issues presented by John Marcham regarding the City's o district lines. Constitutional Standards In determining whether a particular apportionment plan meets the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, the critical question is whether the plan adequately apportions representatives on a population basis. Abate, et al. v. Alundt, et. al., 25 NTY2d 309, (1969), aff d 403 US 182 (1971). The ideal situation is one that would precisely reflect the principle of one-person one-vote. However, the issue is not to be resolved merely in terms of a sterile mathematical exercise. As the Court pointed out in Reynolds v. Shnins, 377 US at p.577, "The Equal Protection Clause requires that a state make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts as nearly of equal population as is practicable.* It is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement." Instead what is required is a case by case examination of the particular circumstances at hand in order to determine whether the State or municipality has made a good faith effort to achieveID equality of representation and whether there is sufficient justification for any variance from absolute equality. Abate v. ffundt, id at p.31 5. Accommodation of this reality is achieved through a presumption that is sometimes referred to as the "ten-percent rule". Where a state or municipal apportionment plan deviates from equality by less than ten (10) percent, it is presumed constitutional, and a challenger has the burden of proving that even such "minor deviation" is the Equal Opportunity Employer with a coninittment to Nvorkforce diversification.- J f result of discriminatory state action. Abate v. Rockland County Legislatures, 964 F.Supp.817 1997). Conversely, a plan with a deviation of more than 100% creates a prima facie case of discrimination and consequently must be justified by the State. Id. The Courts have evolved three levels of scrnttiny when considering permissible variations from strict equality: When reviewing apportionment of congressional districts, the permissible variation from strict equality is almost micrometric and the justification required for such deviation is correspondingly stringent. Abate v. Mundt, 25 NY2d 309 at 315 citing Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 US 1, 84, 84 S. Ct. 526. Decisions involving apportionment of State Legislatures tend to reflect a broader scope for permissible deviations and a more tolerant attitude toward the practical justification for deviations. Abate, (ld.) citing Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 US 433, at 437, 85 S. Ct. 498. Lastly, courts have indicated a willingness to allow a still broader scope for permissible deviations from strict population equality and the justification for such deviations when dealing with local legislative bodies. Abate, (fd..) citing Sailors v. Board of Education., 387 US 105, 87 S. Ct. 1549. In Schneider v. Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420, at 428 (1972), the New York Court of Appeals stated in Footnote 3: There may be good reason for treating local government apportionment as a distinct problem. As the Court noted in Abate, local legislative bodies have fewer members and local legislative districts have fewer voters than their State and national counterparts. Thus, it may be more difficult to devise apportionment plans that comply with numerical equality at the local level. Furthermore, there are over 80,000 units of local government serving various functions. A certain flexibility may, therefore, be desirable to facilitate intergovernmental co-operation at this level. [see e.g. Avery v. Midland County, 390 US 474, 485, 88 S. Ct. 1114 (1968)]." Cases Involving, Re-Apportionment Plans In Abate, et al. v. Mundt, et. al., 25 NY2d 309, Rockland County was governed by a Board of Supervisors, consisting of the Supervisors of each of the County's five constituent towns. In 1966, a Federal District Court, upon a finding that the board was malapportioned, ordered that a plan be devised which would satisfv the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause and that such plan be submitted to the voters of the county for their approval. The Board devised a plan in which each district was assigned its legislators according to the district's population in relation to the population of the smallest district. Consequently the total deviation between the most under-represented and the most over-represented district was 12%. 2 Plaintiffs in Abate attacked the plan both on the ground that the board had made no attempt at achieving equality of representation in terms of population and on the ground that the utilization of multimember districts was inherently defective. The plaintiffs also attacked the so-called"two- hats" provision of the plan under which each Town Supervisor, by virtue of his election to that Twenty five years after the initial dispute regarding the Rockland County re-apportionment plan litigated in 1969- 1971, the U.S District Court adjudicated another apportionment plan involving Rockland County. While the U.S Supreme Court upheld the plan in 1971, the plan before the Court in 1997 was held unconstitutional. It was 11.9% to be exact but the New York Court of Appeals rounded that off to 12°6. office, would also automatically become a member of the County Legislature. The Special Term upheld the constitutionality of the Rockland County apportionment plan but modified the -two-hat" provision. The matter went on appeal to the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals, and finally even to the United States Supreme Court, all of which upheld the validity of the plan. In upholding the plan, the Court of Appeals recognized the fact that "variations from a pure Population standard might be justified by such state policy considerations as the integrity of political subdivisions, the maintenance of compactness and contiguity in legislative districts or the recognition of natural or historical boundary lines * * * The recognition of such factors in devising an apportionment scheme is permissible so long as they are free of any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination."Id at 315. These considerations can be applied to the City of Ithaca's proposed plan to adopt a re- apportionment plan that follows the County lines resulting in a 14.2°o deviation. Clearly since this deviation is greater than 10%, the City re-apportionment will not be able to benefit from the presumption of validity. Therefore, what is critical is to ensure that the City has sufficient justification for its deviation, and that the Committee carefully set forth its reasoning. Some of the reasons why the City would want to adopt the Tompkins County plan include the following: 1) The logistical convenience of ensuring that the electorate do not get confused about where to vote for which officers. Ithaca, having a significant transient population is at a risk of voters facing this problem; 2) A plan that follows the County lines will ensure that the City is able to maintain the character of its neighborhoods; 3) The City's decision to adopt the County plan is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The County recently conducted extensive deliberations, seeking input from the public, at which deliberations the City government was represented. Twenty-five years after the 1969 litigation involving the Rockland County re- apportionment plan under review in the Abate case, the courts once again l ad occasion to review another one of the County's re-apportionment plans which now yielded a deviation of 19.8%. This time around(in 1997) it was held to be unconstitutional. The Court found that the inter-governmental co-operation justification was no longer applicable because the County had since gotten rid of the requirement that County Representatives had to be Town Supervisors. The Court also rejected the argument about preserving the nature of the community based on the fact that in the twenty-five year period since the 1969 Abate case, the character of Rockland County had changed significantly and had taken on a more urban character based in part on the construction of the Tappanzee bridge, and the population becoming more diverse. This turn of events serves as a good example of how these determinations are based on a case by case examination of the particular circumstances at hand. A review of additional cases shows that there is no fixed pattern when it comes to what percentages are typically upheld: We have come across cases where a 28% deviation was held to be unconstitutional. Meanwhile, one Court found a re-apportionment plan that had a 4.7% deviation to be unconstitutional because this was a unique case where there were only two 3 voting districts. Therefore, there was insufficient justification for them to not comply with absolute equality. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we shall restate the fact that the safest plan is one that has a deviation of 10°'o or less. However, in the event that the City decides to adopt the County plan that would result in a 14% deviation, we are of the opinion that this plan would be legally defensible provided the justifications relied on are not arbitrary or discriminatory, which in this case they would not be. 4 Population 2000 by Census Block s 113 D Tompkins County Legislative District 004 s, 1428 And Vicinity- Working Map 2p '; w 0 t. a n X 771 f I y 1 AAA t3 a , LU 01 V f K, 0 004 27 r 003 w r ' t $ - .. 002 Of c o ff 4 SIC fnOna O * \y i o J v Y .. v 103 r r3 c'} 18 T9 ra l W. 001 218 C'', J - fib. r 7 i v x Y_ working maps.apr Prepared By: Dept of Planning&Development, City of Ithaca, NY,June 2002 City of Ithaca Redistricting 2002 - Examples No Change example w/ 2000 NUMBERS and 2001 County Boundaries City average is 5755 Ward 1992 District/War County District Whole Pop in City portion City Dev_from_Avg Perc_ Dev Perc_Total_Pop 1990_POP 001 6486 5423 332 -5.77% 18.85% 5897 002 6110 6110 355 6.17% 21.23% 5880 003 6173 5551 204 -3.54% 19.29% 5938 004 6242 6242 487 8.46% 21.69% 5928 005 6145 5449 306 -5.32% 18.94% 5898 Totals 31156 28775 0.00% 100.00%29541 Population outside City in Districts 1, 3 and 5 is 2381 Total deviation spread as City wards = 14.23 Example 1 City average is 5755 Ward 1992 Ward Pop w/County Dists Pop w/example 1 City Dev-from-Avg Perc_Dev Perc_Total_Pop 1990_POP 001 5423 5483 272 -4.73% 19.05% 5897 002 6110 6110 355 6.17% 21.23% 5880 003 5551 5700 55 -0.96% 19.81% 5938 004 1 6242 6033 278 4.83% 20.97% 5928 005 54491 5449 306 -5.32%1 18.94% 5898 Totals 28775 28775 0.00% 29541 100.00% Total deviation spread = 11.49 Example 2 City average is 5755 Ward 1992 Ward Pop w/County Dist Pop w/example 2 City Dev-from-Avg Perc_Dev Perc_Total_Pop 1990_POP 001 5423 5596 159 -2.76% 19.45% 5897 002 6110 6110 355 6.17% 21.23% 5880 003 5551 5551 204 -3.54% 19.29% 5938 004 6242 6069 314 5.46% 21.09% 5928 005 54491 5449 306 -5.32%1 18.94% 5898 Totals 28775 28775 0.00% 29541 100.00% Total deviation spread = 11.49 Example 3 City average is 5755 Ward 1992 Ward Pop w/County Dists Pop w/example 3 City Dev_from_Avg Perc_Dev Perc_Total_Pop 1990_POP 001 5423 5423 332 -5.77% 18.85% 5897 002 6110 6110 355 6.17% 21.23% 5880 003 5551 5551 204 -3.54% 19.29% 5938 004 6242 6080 325 5.65% 21.13% 5928 005 54491 5611 144 -2.50% 19.50% 5898 Totals 28775 28775 0.00% 29541 100.00 Total deviation spread = 11.94 i 4 Example 4 City average is 5755 Ward 1992 Ward Pop w/County Dists I Pop w/example 4 City Dev_from_Avg Perc_Devi Perc_Total_Pop 1990_POP 001 5423 5661 94 -1.63% 19.67% 5897 002 6110 6045 290 5.04% 21.01% 5880 003 5551 5551 204 -3.54% 19.29% 5938 004 6242 6069 314 5.46% 21.09% 5928 005 5449 5449 306 -5.32% 18.94% 5898 Totals 28775 28775 0.00% 29541 100.00% Total deviation spread = 10.78 Example 5 City average is 5755 Ward 1992 Ward Pop w/County Dists Pop w/example 5 City Dev_from_Avg Perc_Dev Perc Total_Pop 1990—POP 001 5423 5682 73 -1.27% 19.75% 5897 002 6110 5851 96 1.67% 20.33% 5880 003 1 5551 5918 163 2.83% 20.57% 5938 004 6242 5875 120 2.09% 20.42% 5928 005 5449 5449 306 -5.32%1 18.94% 5898 Totals 28775 28775 0.00% 100.00%29541 Total deviation spread = 8. 15 Data&Map Sources: 2000 Census w/CQR Corrections, Tompkins County ITS, City of Ithaca Digital Planimetric Map Set j d It 1. 1pi r E a ,1 i I. e r i r jam` • a v! x. Mme ,® • a` welme Bill II a r o rAV- IR z of of r 11 11 ibN ai i is ' 3 xg ram 11 r Mm II IIi9W 1111 3 ' 11111 IInIr71 11111. i 11n NMI n IIIII©C' 1n IIII IWIIn111 IIIIIIIUnnI IIn1 1 W IIIl lIIIEIOF IIIIIR'. : 111 milli:IIn1'1C'1111 F 11111001111111l 0 111 IIIId 'i1111© 11111 IIIIa11 11®IIIIIIIi1111100 IIIIIIO I 1110 IIIIIIP II01n 1 DEi 111M1 IIII FRI111111111C 11141 IIIIII 111110 in111.In11 1 111111t r7W 11 1111111 111111..i11111 iIWl.•n IIIII i 1111 1111111 1111111 1111111 I WI 1111111 0!III!IIISaJ.DF IIISII©F In:II Etf 11 IIIiI IIIIIr 11111 111115 111111 7 i 111 IIIIV01''u 11116a 1111©!ilnl©II IIIOr i IInt1!111111 i11111r33 111111 111111,.IIIII ii IIO.GIIIi I OIII I I II 1 IIIc1W IIIIeCII 110©DI Ins© 11!340[IISIIIG 11111-11111110'x 1111131 1111100 IIIIl F 1111101 IIIIr III©C01 1111©©C 1111 33 f IIII 1'111 =6c 1i nlld?IIIIIODi111110!11111®lillll®Da IIII®O i 11 101 Illlln6 IIIIII IIIIIIIil11110L I 10 u1Milli 111 IIIIIII IIIIIIInu1W 11111 SEE-1 IIInIZE 1111®nlllln,. •IIDIF JZ 11111 IIIII lO 1111111 111110 IIIIIIl l1111111i 1111011111111011 III III!IIIIOZL-IIII CE 11106u0! 111110 Illlill 1111111 11111110E IIIIii IIIIISF 111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 Inln1 1111111 1111 11111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 11111 a I'•xQ CITY OF ITHACAc. 108 East Green Street Ithaca. NeiA- fork 14850-5690 s OFFICE OF THE CIT, A17ORNEY Norma\X' 5cliv-b. Cin-Attornev Telephone: oo- 2 +-(.)i0-t ROTEO Patricia Dunn. A--:-sismm City Attornev Fxx: i,U- 2--4-050- Khandikile M. okoni. Associate Attornev MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE To: Re-apportionmenvRedistricting File From: Khandikile M. Sokoni, Associate Attorney Date: July 29, 2002 Subject:Is Reapportionment Plan Subject to Referendum? The Chair of the Reapportionment Committee, Mr. John Marcham, recently contacted this office to seek an opinion as to whether or not the City's Reapportionment plan was subject to a referendum. I explained to him that ordinarily such a plan is only subject to a referendum upon a petition of a percentage of the electorate, or upon Common Council's own motion. The Law provides that a local law establishing an apportionment plan is subject to a referendum only in the manner provided by §24(2)(j) of the Municipal Home Rule Law [see id. I0(1)(ii)(a)(13)(e)]. Under that provision, a local law relating to apportionment is subject to a referendum upon petition or upon the submission of the local law to a referendum by the legislative body on its own motion. Despite the above provisions,we had concluded that the City's present re-apportionment plan would need to go to referendum because the prior one did. This position was taken based on the doctrine of legislative equivalency that requires that a law only be amended or repealed by, at least, the same level of scrutiny used to enact it. Therefore, a local law cannot later be amended by resolution because the latter offers a lesser level of scrutiny than the means initially used to enact the law. The New York State Attorney General stressed this doctrine in a 1974 opinion in which the City of Ithaca was advised that the 1965 referendum that banned fluoride in the City's water supply could only be repealed by referendum. Quoting 6 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [3d ed.] (1969, revd.) §21.03, the Attorney General stated: To render the power of initiative and referendum effective and prevent its circumvention by a change of law by the municipal council or other legislative assembly, the legislative power of the council is commonly restricted by a provision that an ordinance or amendment to an ordinance adopted by the electors shall not be repealed or amended by the Council. In K:\KHANDI\RESEARCHIapportionment referendum.doc 1 An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." t a such case, the ordinance or amendment to an ordinance can be repealed or amended only by a vote of the electorate in the same manner in which it was adopted * * *". Since our records revealed that the City of Ithaca's 1992 apportionment plan was subsequently subjected to a referendum in 1996, we felt that it was prudent to amend it by nothing less than a referendum. However, it was not clear to us why this plan would have been sent to referendum four years after it was passed. In searching for an answer to this question we discovered that the City Attorney's Office. around that time had done a "Mandatory Referendum Review" exercise which resulted in a compilation of numerous local laws which over the years had been enacted or amended, and were erroneously not subjected to mandatory referendum. It then came to our attention that the City's 1992 apportionment plan was one of them. The reason for subjecting the 1992 apportionment plan to a referendum in 1996 was to correct a past error: Apparently, in 1973 §C-3 of the City Charter was amended to reduce the number of wards from seven (7) to five 5). This change, despite abolishing four elective offices (by cutting out four Council seats), was never subjected to mandatory referendum as required by law. This error was carried on into the next two decades. The reason for the 1996 referendum was to regularize the abolition of Common Council seats which was done in 1973. Therefore,what was being subjected to referendum in 1996 was not the 1992 apportionment plan per se,but rather the 1973 cut from 7 to 5 wards which resulted in the abolishment of four elective offices. Based on the foregoing, we are of the view that there is, after all, no reason to subject the present reapportionment plan to a referendum. This plan would only be subject to referendum upon petition, or on Common Council's own motion. cc: John Marcham, Chair of the Reapportionment Committee Julie C. Holcomb, City Clerk Norm W. Schwab, City Attorney Attachments For the Records: 1. Copy of 1996 referendum; 2. Copy of 1974 opinion of the Attorney General on Fluoride Local Law. 3. Copy of Excerpt from"Mandatory Referendum Review". K:\KHANDI\RESEARCH\apportionment referendum.doc 2