HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Email from Jim Hutter with comments Jim Hutter To: dvoss@city.ames.ia.us
+ <j h utter@ i astate.ed u> cc:
08/03/2001 10:34 PM Subject: Redistricting
Dear Ms. Voss,
I stopped by on Friday (Aug. 3) to talk to you briefly about the
new
precinct maps being proposed to the city and am sending you this now
because we could not talk then.
Encouraging and helping voters to vote and political volunteers
to be
active are two things to be kept in mind when drawing precinct
boundaries. So also is the absence of any requirement that precincts have
nearly equal populations.
I believe the proposed map is quite well done but let me make two
suggestions for changes.
First, as I suggested to the Democratic central committee meeting
on
Tuesday night, several precincts have new numbers for no apparent
reason. It would help voters if they could have the same precinct number
as in the past when possible. May I suggest that we give the same precinct
number to the same "old" precinct as much as possible (and of course, it
is not a perfect match-up) .
In looking at the proposed map, I believe that this would mean
changing:
3-1 (proposed) back to 3-2, and 3-2 to 3-1
4-1 (proposed) back to 4-5
4-4 (proposed) back to 4-1
4-5 (proposed) back to 4-2
4-2 (proposed) back to 4-4
Second, sometimes people drawing the district lines have sought
to make
precinct populations mathematically nearly equal at the expense of what I
would call common sense--for want of a better term. In the case of
precinct 1-1, of which I currently am precinct chair, I would draw your
attention to the Wessex apartments area just west of Beach. Beach is the
dividing line between 1-2 and 3-1 and 3-2. Putting the Wessex area into
1-1 is not particularly logical or wise, in my opinion. Any voting
location in 3-2 is almost certainly going to be closer and more convenient
to those people than will be the State Forest Nursery building that is east
of Duff at the end of Airport Rd. Describing precinct boundaries to voters
and party volunteers would be easier and more sensible if Beach were the
dividing line for all of these precincts. Therefore, I request that the
areas west of Beach now assigned to 1-1 be given instead to 3-2.
I would encourage your looking at other "natural" boundaries to
see if it
is really important to breach them. Consider first, for example, the area
now in proposed precinct 1-3 that is south of Lincoln Way. Why not keep it
with 1-2? Second, the area north of Ontario and west of North Dakota that
was given to (proposed) 4-5 instead of 4-4, a precinct that will grow in
population quickly in the future; shouldn't it be in (proposed)
4-4? Third, I would give the block bounded by Franklin (another "natural"
boundary) on the west, Lincoln Way on the south, Colorado on the east, and
West St. on the north to (proposed) 4-3. what reason was there for not
going straight down Franklin instead of dog-legging east one block? It was
the unnecessary goal of strict mathematical equality.
Not only is this not required by law, but the fact that there
will be
uneven population changes in the future means that such equality will be
very fleeting anyway. Therefore, other considerations should be given
i greater weight.
(and ask I commend these suggestions to you, the city council and mayor
you to share this with them) , and those who put together the plan (for
their further consideration of my suggestions) .
I hope you will contact me if you have questions or wish to
discuss this
further. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Hutter
832 Crystal St.
Ames, IA 50010-8406
515-232-7212
I
i
i
Ii
I
I
1