PD Editorial: It's time to write rules for drawing Santa Rosa council districts - Santa Rosa Press Democrat

Santa Rosa needs to start thinking about new City Council districts.

No, this isn’t a critique of the current boundaries. And, yes, voters have picked representatives in only three of the seven districts. Four council seats will be on the ballot in 2020. So what’s the rush?

Well, there’s a big event on the calendar in 2020. Not that; the presidential election is a subject for another day. We’re talking about the U.S. census.

New council districts must be drawn based on the census results, just as new boundary lines will be drawn for the House of Representatives, the state Senate and Assembly, the Board of Supervisors and numerous other elective offices.

By then, it will be too late to ask some of the questions that Santa Rosa City Council members were unable to consider last year when, facing the prospect of costly litigation, they switched from at-large to district elections.

Who should draw the maps?

What factors should — and should not — be considered in drawing council districts?

What weight — if any — should be given to incumbency?

Should final approval rest with the council?

Would the city benefit from a hybrid system, with a mix of district-based and at-large representatives or, as some California cities has chosen, requiring candidates to qualify by district but run citywide?

Should Santa Rosa, like Petaluma, have a directly elected mayor?

These questions ultimately should be answered by Santa Rosa voters. Some of them would involve changes to the city charter, which can only be approved by the voters.

The time to do that is the 2020 election, so voters’ preferences can inform the reapportionment process that follows the census.

The proper venue is a charter review commission. And the timing is right for that, too. Past practice has been to appoint a charter panel about every 10 years. The last commission, comprised of 21 people active in civic affairs, was appointed in 2011, and its proposals appeared on the 2012 ballot.

One proposal was switching to district elections. Voters said no.

But population growth, the annexation of Roseland and, most pointedly, the imminent threat of a California Voting Rights Act lawsuit justify the council’s decision six years later to move ahead with district elections.

Still, the timing was problematic, with the changeover coming eight years after the 2010 census, forcing the city to rely on out-of-date demographic information for its first districts.

Moreover, the council was just beginning to discuss district elections when the city was devastated by wildfires in October 2017. The issue was tabled for several months, and boundary lines weren’t approved until April — less than three months before filing began for the November election.

More than two dozen proposed maps were submitted by individuals and organizations, with the City Council choosing the final boundaries.

The process was open and spirited, but some have called for an independent commission, modeled on the panel that draws congressional and legislative districts, to avoid the conflicts inherent in allowing incumbents to draw their own districts.

Others have suggested a directly elected mayor.

These issues didn’t get even a perfunctory examination last year. If they aren’t sorted out now, the window will effectively close until the 2030 census. Let’s not wait 10 more years.

Let's block ads! (Why?)