Editorial: Discussion On Voter Representation Must Include The Voters
The City of Irvine should agendize a public discussion to consider district elections for future city council seats as soon as possible. The residents deserve a public hearing on this critical issue.
The District Election demand initiated by (voting rights attorney) Kevin Shenkman has thrust the issue of voter representation to the forefront here in Irvine. While our city may be sufficiently integrated in a way that does not violate the California Voting Rights Act — the argument behind the lawsuit — this situation nevertheless provides Irvine with a pivotal opportunity to examine the pros and cons on improving representation by creating districts, or districts in combination with others means (ie: expanding the council, adding at-large seats, ranked choice voting).
In the six months this current City Council has been in office, the following district-specific matters have arisen and have been denied a public hearing:
- North Irvine: Public health concerns due to emissions from All American Asphalt.
- Great Park Neighborhoods: The formation of a Great Park Residents Advisory Committee so their “special” taxation comes with representation.
- Great Park Neighborhoods: The long-debated veterans cemetery location.
If Irvine were to have district representation, each City Councilmember would have the responsibility to advocate for the interests of their district and residents would better be able to assess how well their concerns are being represented.
Adopting measures to improve voter representation would help resolve Shenkman’s demand amicably. The alternative is to spend millions of city funds in a fight to keep our outdated election structure with no guarantee of victory or recouping of legal fees — money that could be used to serve our community on any number of needs (ie: childcare services, senior services, affordable housing for residents and the homeless, public works projects in non-HOA villages).
District representation is a complex topic. Residents may have a variety of viewpoints, all of which deserve to be heard. It would be undemocratic not to include voters in a discussion on voter representation.
3 Comments
sheacl
May 16, 2021 at 1:02 pmI whole heartily agree. The City of Irvine has grown so large, making districts good common sense for better neighborhood participation.
Gail Lewis
May 16, 2021 at 10:05 pmI agree wholeheartedly. Many voters worked hard to get Farah and Tammy elected. Now we find out they are only listening to 5PT and NOT the voters who put them in office. I believe if we had more council members, we would have a better chance of being heard. So far Mr. Agran is the only council member who has asked repeated to put American Asphalt and the Vet Cemetery on the agenda and NO OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER will 2nd Mr Agran’s motion. What happened to Democracy when a council member cannot be heard.
Lu
June 1, 2021 at 9:38 amI did a quick spreadsheet (below) of California cities by 2020 population that were from this website between 400,000 and 200,000 people:
https://www.california-demographics.com/cities_by_population
I looked up the respective City Council’s and all cities EXCEPT Irvine had district elections until you got to 200, 259.
So the facts speak for themselves here that district elections are the norm for our large cities.
Certainly this mayor that was “so fiscally conservative” when it comes to not having citizens elect a new councilmember is quite liberal on spending for attorneys and her own councils enrichment.
City Council Members 2020 Population
Oakland 8 (one at large) wards 425,097
Bakersfield 7 wards 377,917
Anaheim 6 wards 349,964
Santa Ana 6 wards 332,794
Riverside 7 (no mayor) wards 326,414
Stockton 6 wards 309,228
Irvine 6 at large 273,157
Chula Vista 4 wards 268,920
Fremont 6 wards 235,740
San Bernadino 7 wards 216,089
Modesto 6 wards 212,616
Fontana 4 wards 210,759
Oxnard 6 wards 208,154
Moreno Valley 4 wards 207,289
Glendale 5 at large 200,232
Huntington Beach 7 at large 200,259
Comments are closed.