The Hollister council’s necessity to put off considering an
at-large mayor role until more evenly balanced ethnic boundaries
can be drawn will stall the city’s progress in a sense. Officials
made the decision in light of a demographer’s assertion she
couldn’t redraw the district lines and maintain a Hispanic voting
majority in half of them.
Council puts off at-large mayor decision
The Hollister council’s necessity to put off considering an at-large mayor role until more evenly balanced ethnic boundaries can be drawn will stall the city’s progress in a sense. Officials made the decision in light of a demographer’s assertion she couldn’t redraw the district lines and maintain a Hispanic voting majority in half of them.
Council members had considered reducing the number of council districts from five to four, but the consultant told officials it would be “impossible” to do that while maintaining two districts comprised mostly of Hispanic voters. Ideally, city officials could have solved this problem through simple math by establishing six districts – it must be an even number under the proposed structure – with the at-large mayor as the seventh voting member.
Adding districts would be ideal; however …
The demographer explained to the Free Lance that she likely wouldn’t have the same problem with six districts, so doing so not only would have solved the ethnic fairness issue, but it also would award citizens with better representation by allowing elected officers a smaller pool of constituents to represent. Assuming a true population of around 40,000 people, each district would represent about 6,700 citizens, as opposed to 10,000 with four districts. Council members would hear and address more concerns – in theory. Citizens potentially would feel more involved, better about their community and, in the end, perhaps more willing to run for elected leadership positions themselves.
More involvement needed before additions
That’s an ideal world. Because realistically, there doesn’t appear to be the level of activism here – or most anywhere these days – to garner the overall number and aptitude of candidates to make it work. It’s already difficult to attract a plethora of competent leaders with five districts. The system is restrained, the pool of candidates limited, because citizens’ schedules are more fast-paced and complicated, more confined, than ever. Adding another council district – along with the new mayoral position – would compound the problem.
Additionally, many citizens undoubtedly are turned off by the public nature of the job. It’s guaranteed that a certain level of controversy – depending on the candidate or officer – comes with the commitment. And there can be, to many, an imposing barrage of paperwork and unsettling disclosures that follow political candidacy.
While the council’s decision to delay such a major change is unfortunate, it was the right move considering the current political climate here and the risk involved by shrinking the districts and, thus, the candidate pools.
