You already know about the collapse of the idea to change
Hollister’s political organization by adding an at-large mayor and
reducing the number of districts from five to four. The short
version is
”
We simply could not get there from here
”
using the 2000 census. We could not simultaneously meet the
three mandatory requirements; the Voting Rights Act, near
equal-sized districts and no gerrymandering. The city council
exercised good judgment and pragmatism in delaying this decision
until after the 2010 census.
You already know about the collapse of the idea to change Hollister’s political organization by adding an at-large mayor and reducing the number of districts from five to four. The short version is “We simply could not get there from here” using the 2000 census. We could not simultaneously meet the three mandatory requirements; the Voting Rights Act, near equal-sized districts and no gerrymandering. The city council exercised good judgment and pragmatism in delaying this decision until after the 2010 census.
When that time comes, the council and the voters need to take a good hard look at the opportunity to afford the citizens better representation by having an at-large mayor and six city council districts, not four; seven is the winning number.
Both Washington and Sacramento are moving further away from Hollister; not geographically, but in representation. I’m not going to launch into the classic demonstration of the expanding universe using an inflated balloon – I’m just going to lay out the facts.
The U.S. House of Representatives was designed to be the national legislative body most responsive to the people. That is why it has the most members and the shortest term of office, two years. However, the nation’s population has been growing and the number of representatives has not kept up. The House had 386 members in 1903; based on the 1890 census, each represented 173,900 constituents.
In 1913, there were 435 representatives and, except for small variations, it has stayed that way. That ratio was one representative per 212,400. Now, 95 years later, the 2000 census ratio is one per 647,000 constituents. The census is 8 years old; a good guess for the current number is 700,000. If we went back to one for each 250,000, we would have 1,220 members of the U.S. House, talk about gridlock! Relax; it’s not going to happen.
If you’re looking for representation, there’s always the California State Assembly. Like their national counterparts, the 80 Assembly members are elected for two years. Each represents approximately 420,000 constituents, again, based on the 2000 census. The California Assembly has the largest population per representative ratio of any lower house in the United States except for the federal government.
A while back, I attended a meeting with Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, and the San Benito County Board of Supervisors. There were a few public speakers contributing three minutes apiece and short comments from the board and from the assemblywoman, and whoosh, she was gone. Once can understand why if they do the kind of analysis only retired people without hobbies have the time for.
The assemblywoman represents 420,000 people. Some are children, but suppose – I’m dreaming now – some constituents, 25 percent, actually want to talk to their elected representative; that would be 105,000 people. Each wants a one-on-one for only five minutes once every two years; not unreasonable. In 8 hours with no breaks, she can talk to 96 people for 5 minutes each. It would take 1,094 consecutive days, 3 full years, to talk to 25 percent of her constituents. That’s a year longer than her term in office!
Additionally, with two-year terms, all members of the House and Assembly are running for re-election all the time. A contested State Assembly election can easily cost $100,000, the average to win a U.S. House seat was $1 million in 2006; is it any wonder that they have more time for the money-machines than they do for you?
Using Hollister’s last census count of 34.413, the five council members represent about 6,882 people each; changing to four districts would have boosted that to 8,603, a 25 percent increase before the required 10-year adjustment in 2010. It could easily bring the number to 10,000. Many council members work full time. How are they going to do the routine requirements of the office, constituency service and study thorny issues in depth while representing that many?
With six districts and an at-large mayor, perhaps one or two members can find the time to study each issue thoroughly before acting. A few probing questions and informed commentary is all it takes to enlighten the entire council and the public. Besides, the council chambers has seven very nice chairs for members – let’s get our money’s worth and fill them all.
