KIT and myself have both had our share of crossed swords with the Yakima Herald-Republic over the years on a variety of subjects. This weekend the YH-R printed an editorial critical of the Yakima City Council’s decision to appeal the court decision in the ACLU voting rights case.On the one hand I might not be the most objective, but on the other hand I have the inside knowledge and a full understanding of our motivations and details of the case. The paper is quite wrong on a number of points.  I see it as my responsibility to set the record straight line by line toward your better understanding of what the heck is really going on.
As Matthew McConaughey says in his Lincoln car commercial when he opens the sunroof to let in the light “here we go.”

********************

Yakima City Council members still are standing in the door of political opportunity, to the detriment of our community.***Not too surprising that you might see it this way considering 1.) how the current system (using total population to balance districts) was received when it was first implemented …do yourself a favor and refresh yourself on the history of redistricting and watch this excellent video  http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/one-person-one-vote  it will make the rest of this a lot more understandable

2.)    and with all due respect, how uniformed the editorial board seems to be on the details of the case - as I will explain

In voting 5-2 Wednesday to appeal the voting rights case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the council skirted a federal judge’s order, *** “skirt an order” - Is it just me or does that sound like an attempt at something sneaky?  I believe choice of words reflects point of view and “skirting an order” doesn’t reflect that which is part of our constitutionally guaranteed due process.  We have a right to an appeal, the system is designed that way for a purpose. The city isn’t skirting an order, it is embracing a inalienable right, the same right we all share.

fiscal responsibility ***Right now being responsible looks like this -- we owe $2.8 million. Our best bet to get that lowered or eliminated was to file an appeal for $600 so as to stay in the game in order to see what the justices do with the Texas case.  If the Supreme Court tosses that case, we are done and we only spent $600 to find out.  If the high court takes the Texas case, we still have until late summer before we spend another dime – and that sends a signal to all that the Supreme Court is taking the issue as seriously as it did in Shelby v. Holder a year ago when a district judge and a circuit panel were both overturned with the high court striking down a portion of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- and it’s worth the investment of up to $100,000 MAXIMUM to know once and for all.

and the reality of a changing Yakima. ***that’s the point, today’s reality is returning to a 1960s reality. Watch the video. Before the redistricting lawsuits and legislation of the '60s, large-population urban centers had no more representational influence than small sparsely populated rural jurisdictions.  A small number of country voters were able to equalize and control very large numbers of city voters … not population, but voter populations.  That was deemed unfair and the changes were made as a result, amid the howls of protests from legislators and Congress. (Watch the Annenberg video.) There was probably an editorial board or two scolding at the time as well.

Under the new reality for Yakima, as demonstrated by the judge and ACLU, the same thing is happening again. EXAMPLE: As drawn up by the ACLU, in order to keep total populations equal, but Hispanics in the majority, 5,000 voters in District 1 have the same influence as 10,000 voters in District 7. That’s not fair. That’s outside the 14th Amendment and that’s the same picture that triggered the redistricting lawsuits of the 1960s in the first place! 

The answer then was equal population in each voting district (because it was accurately assumed back then that equal populations would result in equal numbers of legal voters — blacks were citizens in the '60s as were whites) -- but with Yakima and the nation’s Hispanic dynamic, the answer now must be to equalize CITIZEN voting age population, not just total populations. Because equal population masses of whites and Hispanics do not result in equal numbers of voters, which is what the 14th Amendment protects. 

 

The five council members, elected under a four-decades-old system that a federal judge has ruled disproportionately disadvantages Latino voters, suddenly developed a last-ditch disquietude about, well, disproportionality. ***Here’s where you lose all traction on credibility.  “Disquietude”… now there’s a great word. Too bad you spent more time reading the thesaurus than you did reading the court documents.  As I understand disquietude, it means uneasiness or anxiety?  And “last ditch” means what -- final desperate attempt? You couldn’t be more wrong on “last ditch.”  CHECK THE DOCUMENTS. The 14th Amendment electoral equality is not a dismissive anxiety as you present, but has been the main focus of our entire argument since day one, two-plus years ago!

Where have you been?  You probably haven’t read about it in the paper because despite me exhorting Mr. Faulk to tell the city’s side of the story, he has failed to do so and so now you are as much in the dark as your readers.

At the same time, amid talk about the disruption that the election of all seven council members this fall would bring, the council embarked on a course that could further disrupt election proceedings.***Judge Rice says this council was elected under an unfair system … which is why he feels justified to violate Washington state law in rushing to remove the three at-large representatives and changing the overall system. If we are right, there is no Gingles factor one violation, and we were elected properly and would deserve to serve our remaining term.  You are suggesting we sacrifice principle for convenience?

The hitherto fiscally tight-fisted City Council now considers an extra $100,000 or so — the estimated cost of the appeal — to be chump change on top of the $946,000 already spent and a $2.8 million ACLU claim for attorneys fees. ***Defend your “tight fisted” characterization — this council, if anything, has been criticized for being too freewheeling — streets, parks, plaza, art, soccer, pool, mill site, mini-marts, etc.  You are trying to demonstrate a contradiction that doesn’t exist with this council -- for what purpose?

And it could be contradictory to state law.***Got any detail? Anything specific to say about this ominous claim?

The city now hangs its legal case on a newly found proportionality argument. ***Again, I’m sorry to say you embarrass yourselves.  “Newly found proportionality argument?"  Our case always was proportionality. READ THE DOCUMENTS.

Judge Rice could have acknowledged the reality of the numbers in our argument and courageously -- like the judges of 60 years ago -- and reached a different conclusion. Or,  he could do what he did and safely passed it on since “total population” has been the accepted standard for 60 years … even though the Supreme Court has never fully settled that argument and despite the fact that today’s realities with Hispanic populations are quite different than black/white populations 60 years ago.

The ACLU plan, ordered by U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice, calls for seven districts of roughly even population that include two Latino-majority districts on the east side of town; since 1976, four seats have been decided by district voters in the primary election, but all seven were voted citywide in the general election.

The city says the ACLU plan is unfair because those two districts have far fewer estimated citizens of voting age population — in some cases less than half — than do districts in the rest of town. The council argues this violates the “one person, one vote” standard established in a landmark 1960s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, though it didn’t express that concern after the 2010 Census when it approved the four districts used in the hybrid system that the judge tossed.***Which means what? There is NO Voting Rights Act violation IF a demographer cannot draw lines around a compact district in which there is a minority majority of more than 50 percent and honors the 14th Amendment.  The ACLU tried to draw such a district in the beginning and couldn’t do it, so they dropped the electoral-equality idea altogether and came back with their current plans ... our “compromise plan” didn’t do it either, for that matter, though it was a little closer than the ACLU plan. 

Why no concern after the  2010 census?  We had no reason to believe there was an alleged  Voting Rights Act Violation, and we still don’t think so. So to my mind the Hispanic population was distributed as part of the overall Yakima voting population of Yakima –- because the specific requirements of Gingles factor one of the VRA did not and do not exist. Hispanics are 41 percent of total population, but only 22 percent of citizen voting-age population … who turn out only 10 percent or less to vote -- and vote Democrat in a conservative town.  Is there any surprise they don’t win elections? That’s the answer to why no Hispanic has been elected to the council, not a VRA violation.

Back in the ’60s, some states had gone decades without redistricting congressional and legislative seats to reflect population changes, a situation that diluted the political clout of growing urban areas. The guiding principle has been “one person, one vote” — not “one estimated citizen of voting age population, ***Correct, one citizen -- one vote. The 14th Amendment protects the voter and his vote, not a bunch of people to be represented by that vote. Look at the numbers, the ACLU did the work for you: 5,000 VOTERS in one district as opposed to approximately 10,000 VOTERS in another. You speak fail to the reality of the circumstance as you look to word games to discredit the constitutional concept … why it’s almost enough to give me a sense of disquietude 

one vote,” as population is more easily quantifiable. Even supporters of the citizens-of-voting-age approach admit it’s an inexact science.***Current conditions are what they are and ease or difficulty of the science shouldn’t determine the value of someone’s vote over another’s. Citizen voting age population can be determined, it was in our case and IN THE Texas case and as Judge Roberts says this is our “current condition.”

Court rulings generally refer to U.S. Census Bureau population figures but appear to leave the question open. In Washington state, the Office of the Secretary of State says state law stipulates districts must be drawn according to population figures from the most recent U.S. Census.  ***  Here is what Chief Justice John Roberts said after last year’s high court decision in Shelby v. Holder: “Our country has changed, while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”  State law can be changed to reflect “current conditions.”

The city’s legal argument is moving forward on a couple of fronts. The city is appealing to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, as a way to buy time while a different case works its way through the system. A federal lawsuit in Texas alleges that the state’s legislative districts violate the 14th Amendment, a section of which deals with apportionment, by using total population rather than the eligible voting population as the basis for redistricting. A three-judge panel in Texas dismissed the case in November, but the suit’s plaintiffs — and now five Yakima City Council members and its lawyer — hope to have it go before the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to decide by summer whether to hear the case; if it does, a ruling won’t come until next year. As for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, any hearing on the Yakima case would come after the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the Texas case.  ***If the Supreme court turns it down, we and all future such cases are done. If the court takes the case, we have a chance worth pursuing that could change things on a national scale to reflect today’s realities -- like what happened across the country in the early 1960s.

In the meantime, given that the council did not request a stay to the federal judge’s order, the Yakima County Auditor’s Office is preparing for a seven-district election this year. The filing period begins April 27, and in-person filing is May 11-15 for an Aug. 4 primary.

If Yakima prevails, then city voters could face a 2017 election with the city’s preferred plan, which likely means everyone elected in 2015 serves a two-year term — after complaints that Judge Rice’s ruling led to two-year terms for some council members. ***I’m not so sure, the ALCU plan was 61 percent out of compliance, the city plan was around 48 percent (unacceptable to some of us and perhaps the high court) and may not be acceptable or necessary if citizen voting age population becomes the standard.  This is an area that to me is still unclear.

But events could head in the opposite direction; a new council could vote to drop the appeal, the Supreme Court could decline to hear the Texas case, or the 9th Circuit could reject the appeal.

The legal maneuvering may save face among some Yakima city officials and their legal representatives. ***Your point of view is showing … you assume this is about saving face? For what? There is either a violation or there isn’t … and just because one judge says so, it doesn’t make it so. Does the YH-R run for cover so easily in all its lawsuits? We have a constitutional question worth an answer, we have a different demographic mix than 1960, we have the courage of our convictions despite the paper of record failing to fully explain the city position through the long process that led to the current fatigue and sense of racial righteousness that leads to an editorial like this. Your news coverage helped to create the climate for your editorial position. Interesting.

It’s not saving any money, ***At present it's not costing any money, it has the potential to save us $2.8 million while NOTHING else does. And what’s the going rate -- put a price on rolling over on the Constitution?

and it’s certainly not doing anything for the reputation of Yakima, ***Hmmm … is there anything you are doing to help in that regard?  Any articles clearly explaining the city’s case? What about every article droning on with the same facts that sound bad but don’t speak to the actual problem “ 41 percent Hispanic, none ever voted to council, suffocating vote in the districts (did you ever say in 40 years there have been only seven races with Hispanic candidates with five of them facing strong incumbents) You ever report that? Did you ever report how many Hispanic surname ballots went out to Rogelio’ Montes’ district and how few were returned? He could easily have made it to the general election, but he got less than half of the otherwise poor turnout his opponents got.  

This editorial -- the think piece -- shows you think electoral equality is just something the city stumbled upon and last-ditch-gasped just yesterday. You have been out of touch for two years and you helped to promulgate (I got a thesaurus for Christmas) a misimpression that contributes to a reputation that you now decry. 

which increasingly is viewed as a place that is resistant to political participation by a growing element of its population. ***Look in the mirror, then look at the history and look at the documents then throw that first stone ...

Our hope is that action by either the courts or a new City Council will make the appeal go away, along with the city’s archaic voting system. It’s time for the doors of representative government to open wider for all of Yakima’s residents.***Sounds great, like promulgate and disquietude. I don’t think there is anyone on the council who cares what the system is or becomes as long as it is truly fair to all, that it represent the truth about the potential and participation of Hispanic voters and the reality of districting for electoral equality.  It worked 60 years ago. Times and populations have changed. Systems need to change to reflect that reality. Put in a system like that and Yakima will be able to say it truly stands for fairness for all at the polls.

If what i say makes sense to you, feel free to share with the YH-R editorial board. Thanks.

loading...

• Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Sharon J. Prill, Bob Crider, Frank Purdy and Karen Troianello.

 

More From News Talk KIT