January 17, 2002
I have introduced a bill HF 2593 (linked below, I hope) that would require the city council members and park board members elected by district to run in their new districts (after redistricting) in 2003 rather than 2005 as scheduled. To do otherwise makes a mockery out of the timely use of census data to implement  a one person- one vote philosophy. I do not sense a lot of enthusiasm from council members I have spoken with. Can we have some discussion on this list particularly from elected officials? I also need a Senate author.
 
January 29, 2002
My bill HF2593 to require city ward (and park district) elections in 2003 rather than 2005 will be heard in the Governmental Operations Committee on Friday, 2/1, between 8:15 and 10:00...probably after 9:00. Julie Sabo will be carrying the Senate companion.
Phyllis Kahn, State Rep 59B
 
January 31, 2002
My apologies to members for some wrong info. HF2593 does not effect park district elections...only city council. Also we will amend the bill to set a threshold for differences to trigger the earlier elections and exempt any city that will have  half their members elected in 03 because of staggered terms.
Phyllis Kahn 59B
 
Monday April 8, 2002
 
The bill requiring 2003 elections  after redistricting is now in two places. One, by itself on the House floor and also attached to another bill and passed by the House and in conference committee. There has been some discussion from the Governor’s office, that he might veto it. The legislature should pass this bill and the Governor should sign it for the following reasons.
Not having council members elected from new wards until 2006, more than half way through the decade is a clear violation of the constitutional requirement of equitable representation, one person, one vote. This basic constitutional premise trumps all arguments such as its not fair to voters or candidates who thought they were getting 4 year terms.
It will very likely happen anyway through a citizens law suit. Bloomington has the ideal ordinance with a 2 year term after the census and then 2 four year terms. It was brought to the by a citizen law suit after the last census.
The likelihood of the lawsuit for 2003 elections being successful is helped by the fact that the under-represented wards are also the high minority population wards. Its a voting rights act that could have been brought in one of those Southern areas whose attitude towards civil or voting rights we tend to denigrate.
This is hardly an attack on the Greens, despite their paranoia. They are as likely to win another seat as to lose one. If they represent a coming wave in Mpls. politics, a new election should solidify their gains.
Yes, Mpls should change this on its own by charter amendment. I don’t see a lot of willingness on the part of the city council to do this.
If it isn’t changed now, Duluth and St. Paul have the same problem after the next census. Mpls’ won’t occur for twenty years.
The argument about the cost of a new election is negated, by the likelihood of getting a new election anyway but after the additional expense of a lawsuit.
Yes it should have been done two years ago, but it’s better to do the right thing late than not to do it at all.
Phyllis Kahn, State Rep. 59B