Opinionator

Have a say in how the city’s district lines are drawn

By Michael Manset

Michael Manset is a BA in History and Political Science from Cal, Class of 2013. He is a board member of the Cal Berkeley Democrats, the Editor in Chief of their magazine, and the Measure R Online Director.

Electoral districts, either within a city, a county, or a state, are drawn to best represent the people and communities within them. That is, unless you live in Berkeley.

In 1986, Berkeley adopted districts for its City Council. Yet rather than permit districts that represent our communities as they grow and change, as is done everywhere else in the country, Berkeley has made the 1986 lines permanent, allowing for only minor deviations for population adjustment.

Big deal, you might say. After all, didn’t Berkeley voters approve this in 1986?

That may be true. But the fact that the 1986 voters decided perpetual district boundaries makes the current lines inherently undemocratic.

But even more importantly: did you know that two-thirds of people who currently live in Berkeley were not around to vote on those original lines? It’s time for a change!

Look at the 2010 US Census. The proof is in the numbers.

Age breakdown of Berkeley residents (2010 Census)

In 2010, 66% of Berkeley residents were not yet 42 (and thus not old enough to vote in 1986).

To have voted in the 1986 elections when the districts were implemented, one must have been born in 1968 or before. Today, these voters would be at least 44 (in 2010, they would have been at least 42). Considering the median age in Berkeley is 31, one already gets a feeling that there are a lot of Berkeley residents around who didn’t get a vote in 1986. In fact, two-thirds of current Berkeley residents are too young to have voted that year.

It gets worse. The number of Berkeley residents today who could not vote in 1986 is probably much higher. In addition to those younger than 44, anyone who moved to Berkeley or was not an American citizen that year never had a say in that election.

Clearly, Berkeley residents live in unrepresentative city council districts that were established nearly three decades ago, in an election in which most never could have participated. There are many words to describe this situation, but “democratic” is definitely not one of them.

Fortunately enough, there is a solution. Berkeley Measure R would do away with the antiquated lines of 1986. Rather than establish a new set of permanent districts, Measure R will allow for the city to redraw lines every decade that properly serve residents of the city at that time.

If you are one of the two-thirds of Berkeley residents who did not have a say in 1986, you should have your voice heard this November by voting Yes on Measure R!

You can learn more about Measure R by the Vote Yes on Measure R website.

Berkeleyside welcomes submissions of op-ed articles of 500 to 800 words. We ask that we are given first refusal to publish. Topics should be Berkeley-related and local authors are preferred. Please email submissions to us. Berkeleyside will publish op-ed pieces at its discretion.

Visit Voters Edge Berkeley, Berkeleyside’s non-partisan voting guide to the ten measures on the Berkeley ballot.

Visit Berkeleyside’s Election 2012 section to see all our coverage in the run-up to November 6.

Print Friendly
Tagged ,
  • Rob Wrenn

    Measure R would make gerrymandering much easier by giving the City Council more leeway in setting council district boundaries. Whoever has the majority on the Council would be able to draw boundaries to make the re-election of councilmembers in the minority harder. 

    That’s why I’m going to vote against it. I don’t think it would be healthy to have one political faction, in this case Mayor Bates’ faction, control everything. District elections were adopted in 1986 in large part in response to BCA’s sweep of the the 1984 election which gave them a 8-1 majority on the Council. By fcilitating gerrymandering, Measure R will facilitate the creation of political machines, reducing the range of opinions on the Council.Many students support Measure R because they would like to see a student super-majority district that would guarantee the election of a student candidate. But District 7, which includes the student-rich lower Northside along with much of the Southside of campus, including dorms and coops, is already a student majority district. Two students have run for Council in District 7 since District elections were established in 1986. Both won dormitory precincts, but failed to win majority support from older students living in the many apartment buildings of District 7, as well as from precincts with a majority of non-student homeowners. Some students don’t register to vote in Berkeley. Of those who do, many don’t vote, especially in non-presidential elections, and, of those who do vote, many don’t vote the whole ballot. If students have failed to elect one of their own to the Council since 1986, it’s because they have failed to register and vote in sufficient numbers, as well as failing to come up with a candidate who could even win the support of a majority of student voters. The fact that most people voting in Berkeley today weren’t around in 1986 is neither here not there. Students are still living in the same neighborhoods that they were living in 1986, most living close to campus. South and West Berkeley are still the most ethnically diverse areas of the city, if anything more diverse than they were in 1986; the hills are still the whitest and most affluent part of the city. The distribution of tenants and homeowners hasn’t changed a great deal There haven’t been dramatic shifts that would warrant a wholesale redrawing of Council district boundaries. Current law calls for adjusting boundaries to account for population shifts. There has been population growth in some areas, notably Downtown and the Southside. The Council, under existing rules, could add even more students to District 7.  If the city were to do a major redrawing of boundaries, it would be best to put the proposed new boundaries before the voters as was done in 1986, rather than facilitating gerrymandering as Measure R would do.