The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA012 - Letter from General Assembly of Iowa to Secretary of State dated November 26, 1991 f GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF IOWA LEGAL AND COMMITTEE Rl �� ` ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DIVISION SERVICES DIVISION LUCAS BUILDING(515)281-5285 JOHN C.POLLAK,ADMINISTRATOR PHYLLIS V.BARRY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE EDITOR LEGAL COUNSELS DOUGL4S L.ADKISSON LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION AIDA AUDEH OFFICE MARY M.CARR CAPITOL BUILDING(515)-281-5129 JULIE A.SMITH CRAGGS LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU SUSAN E.CROWLEY STATE CAPITOL BUILDING JULIE E. I LIVERS DIRECTOR MICHAEL J.GOEDERT DES MOINES, IOWA 50319 MARK W.JOHNSON (515)281-3566 IOWA CODE DIVISION GARY L.KAUFMAN FAX(515)281-8027 LUCAS BUILDING(515)281-5285 MICHAEL A.KUEHN DIANE E.BOLENDER,DIRECTOR JoANN G.BROWN LESLIE E.WORKMAN RICHARD L.JOHNSON,DEPUTY DIRECTOR IOWA CODE EDITOR RESEARCH ANALYSTS JANET L.WILSON PATRICIA A.FUNARO November 26, 1991 DEPUTY IOWA CODE EDITOR KATHLEEN B.HANLON THANE R.JOHNSON GARY D.RUDICIL Ms. Sandra Steinbach Director of Elections Office of the Secretary of State 2nd Floor Hoover Building L O C A L RE: DRAWING OF PRECINCT & WARD BOUNDARIES -- AMES Dear Ms. Steinbach: Pursuant to section 49 .7 , 1991 Iowa Code, you have asked for my assistance in scrutinizing the drawing of precinct and ward boundaries for the city of Ames under sections 49 . 1 through 49 . 7 . Under section 49 .3, no election precinct may have a population which exceeds 3500 people as shown by the most recent federal decennial census and each precinct must be contained wholly within the legislative districts except when adherence to this latter requirement would force the creation of a precinct which includes the places of residences of fewer than 50 qualified electors. One of the new developments for the 1991 round of drawing precincts is that all cities are required to follow census block boundaries since for the first time the Census Bureau has provided block-by-block data for the entire nation. City election precincts are to be drawn with their total populations being reasonably equal on the basis of the most recent federal decennial census, but the equality of population among precincts does not take precedence over consideration of the convenience of the voters . Convenience of the voters requires the use of precinct boundaries which can be readily described to and identified by voters and precincts which provide ease of access by voters to their respective precinct polling places by reasonably direct routes of travel . i -2- Now although population equality among precincts does not take precedence over the consideration of the convenience of the voters, this is not true for ward boundaries. Section 49 . 5, subsection 3, requires wards to be apportioned on the basis of population. Since elected officials are elected from and by the wards, the population equality standards adopted under the concept of one-person one-vote must apply. The Iowa Supreme Court in In Re Districting of the General Assembly, 175 N.W. 2d 20, 24 ( Iowa 1970) states: "Whatever the means of accomplishment, the overriding objective must be substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen of the state. " The United States Supreme Court, in its most recent ruling involving population equality of legislative districts, states: " [W]e have held that 'minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to require justification by the State. ' . Our decisions have established, as a general matter, that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10% falls within this category of minor deviations . . . . A plan with larger disparities of population, however, creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State. " Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842 - 843 ( 1983) Similarly, any population deviations between wards providing maximum population deviations greater than 10% would have to be justified by the city. In the instant case, using the population figures supplied by the city, the most populous ward exceeds the ideal ward population by 2. 1%, the least populous ward deviates from the ideal ward population by 1. 9%, the average ward population deviates from the ideal ward population by 1 . 54% , and the most populous ward exceeds the population of the least populous ward by 4 .085% . However, there is one problem using the population figures supplied by the city in that the total population for the wards under the plan exceeds the city ' s total population by 152 persons . Ordinarily, with an error this large I would ask the city to check their figures, but I am reasonably certain I found the discrepancy. I believe the city incorrectly included the r -3- population of block 467B in with the city' s Ward 1 Precinct 3 population. The population of this block is 152 people, and since the block is totally surrounded by the city of Ames, the population was included in the Census Bureau ' s tabulation of the old Ward 1 Precinct 3 . I presume this area was not recently annexed as it is still shown as not being part of the city of Ames on the map submitted. But even with this error , the proposed plan ' s least populous ward deviates from the ideal ward population by 3 . 2%, the average ward population deviates from the ideal ward population by 1 . 9%, and the most populous ward exceeds the population of the least populous ward by 5. 47% . Thus under either set of population figures the plan meets the applicable population equality standard. All precinct lines appear to follow census block boundaries and their total populations are less than 3500. Thus all applicable statutory standards seem to have been met . Respectfully submitted, X � G L. Kau m Gar Senior Legal Counsel