Letter: Districts decision points to rule-breakers
Published 9:50 am, Friday, August 23, 2013
The 1962 court case Baker v. Carr determined that all voting districts were to be realigned based on the latest population data so that no district would exceed the others by more than 10 percent.
Over the years the "one man, one vote" rule and others became incorporated in the town charter, and in 2006 included language that directed the RTM to create a bipartisan committee of an equal number from each party.
This past year, however, politics reared its ugly head. That was never the intent of the charter revision provision.
In June, two former RTM moderators teamed up to seek a temporary injunction to prevent the redistricting ordinance passed by a party line vote of the RTM majority on May 20 from being enforced or implemeted.
They successfully argued that the process which produced the plan was so badly compromised that the plaintiff's right to vote was diluted and diminished. The court agreed.
In addition, there was no possibility of challenging the ordinance by referendum because the ordinance was never publically noticed as required. If held, however, the court said that the outcome would not have provided a "judicial solution."
Why not follow the prescribed process from the beginning to avoid the shame and embarrassment from a court ruling that points directly to those who refuse to abide by the rules?
I urge you to vote on Nov. 5 for the party with principle. Please support all of the Democratic candidates. You'll be glad you did!