Guest Opinion: The Charter: On Residency Districts and Other Thoughts

By Bill Appel

I am a member of the CRC, and am well aware of Randy’s advice concerning the the institution of separate voting districts having unequal populations. As Prosecutor, Randy has been invited to respond (I am a volunteer civil deputy but am not writing in that capacity) on this issue.  CRC discussions included this topic in depth.  This included the possibility of a lawsuit because a San Juan County voter who doesn’t fully understand the last US Supreme Court decision on the topic will feel the need to find out for his/herself at considerable expense, and hope to delay the election (which it won’t).  In fairness to such people, the three members from separate residency districts does seem counterintuitive.  But the US Supreme Court held that so long as all qualified voters get to vote on all candidates, and the effect is not motivated by impairing the rights of a constitutionally protected class, such arrangements do not violate the US Constitution.  As a result, similar voting structures have been consistently upheld.

On other matters, we are a small county.  The number of people who actually vote is relatively few.  Considering how hard our forefathers (and mothers) fought for this right, it’s embarrassing.  With so few voting, we are tempted to vote on personalities, stories heard, rumors, and yes, fear and uncertainty.  The early CRC meetings were meetings of relative strangers.  But we knew that the current Charter, though beneficial to some, had real problems.  I never thought I would be working so closely and cooperatively with some with whom I have so little politically in common.  We were charged to work together, and practicalities, not ideologies, had to control.  This caused people all along the political spectrum to work together.  Some early on had strong views, not all of which prevailed.  Faced with an existing Charter that had built-in contradictions of purpose versus effect (such as having six council members), and recognizing the impracticalities of other numbers (such as five which I first supported), we reverted to three because it fit the understood historical pattern, and in light of the US Supreme Courts decisions, represented a workable “safe harbor” from constitutional attack.

The Administrator/Manager issue has less to do with separation of powers than with making the elected council members politically responsible for the acts of the Manager.  We discussed electing the Manager, which would mimic state and federal models of separation of powers, and decided that for a county of our size, enough is enough.  The existing system, with no political accountability on the part of the Administrator who had no policy latitude, clearly wasn’t working, and our current council members already duplicate many functions of the Administrator.  There is theory, and there is reality.  The majority of us chose reality.

But we all had a job to do, rolled up our sleeves and did it.  We are not sages; the voters will decide.  It is our hope that the voters will not be misinformed or treated with statements taken out of context.  That would be a disservice to those  who sought to serve you all.  I am, however, mindful that it is a lot easier to be an anti-aircraft gunner than a pilot.