 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Time is short for plan on vote map
By ROBERT KING An effort to create an election map that ends Hernando County's split personality on voting lines has succeeded in part, but a search for the perfect map is going down to the wire. For decades, County Commission candidates have lived by one map and School Board candidates by another. Proponents say having one map would simplify things for voters and lower the costs of updating the voting maps after each census. But others say the maps are largely irrelevant. Despite the fact candidates must live within the district they want to represent, they are elected by voters countywide. Opponents of the consolidated map plan say many voters don't know or don't care which district they're in. Both boards are required to make sure that map lines are drawn so districts are as equal in population as practical. But any changes to voting lines can only be done in odd-numbered years, when no elections are held. That leaves Dec. 31 as a fast-approaching deadline. State law says the County Commission must review its lines following the census. The law is a little more vague about the School Board. After the 1990 Census, the School Board didn't redraw its lines until 1993. While there's no requirement for one map for both boards, the idea has been around for years. And it has gained steam this year. Supervisor of Elections Annie Williams began pushing the one map idea earlier this year. She says having one map would save staff time and money when it comes to programming the new election lines into their computers after each census. She couldn't put a dollar value on the savings. County Commission Chairman Chris Kingsley, who likes the one-map idea for simplicity's sake, estimates the savings at $10,000 or more. The idea has also gotten a push from the editorial page of the St. Petersburg Times, which has touted the idea as a way to simplify things for voters in a state that's now infamous for voter confusion. In fact, some School Board members say the only voice crying out for the one-map idea is that of the Times editorial page. Some School Board members, such as Jim Malcolm, see it as a nonissue. As a group, the School Board took 10 minutes last month to decide to forget about redistricting until 2003. But, after a Times editorial chided them and the commissioners approved a new voting map seemingly fitted to both boards, the School Board agreed to re-examine the issue. At present, the map of the hour is the one commissioners tentatively approved on Nov. 27. Its districts are nearly equal in population and drawn with future growth in mind so that perhaps a new map won't be needed a decade from now. It also put one commissioner and one board member in each of the five districts. But a major flaw in the proposal became clear Tuesday when School Board members got their first look at the new map. Terms for both boards are staggered so that five of the 10 seats are up for grabs at each election. Next year, Districts 1, 3 and 5 are up for the School Board. Districts 2 and 4 are up for the County Commission. In the 2004 election, the other seats will be on the ballot. But School Board members realized that the district numbers in the new map would disrupt their election cycle. School Board member Robert Wiggins, elected from District 1, had been moved to District 2 on the new map. Like others in odd-numbered School Board districts, his term expires next year. But his new even-numbered designation would give him an extra two years. Conversely, School Board member Gail Coleman, elected last year from District 2, would have to run again next fall if, as the new map proposes, she was moved to District 5. There are a couple of reasons why Wiggins and Coleman won't have to adjust their campaign schedules. The School Board would never approve such a term-altering map. And -- according to Suzie Still, an administrative assistant with the state Department of Elections -- such a number swap would be illegal. To clean up the issue, School Board Chairman John Druzbick and Kingsley, his counterpart on the commission, have agreed to meet next week. But with just 23 days left in 2001 -- and much of that holiday time -- the hour is growing late. Right now, it isn't clear if the numbers on the county's proposed map can be reshuffled in some way that doesn't disrupt the election cycles. If it can't, both sides would be left with two options: They could ask planners to go back and draw another map -- this time factoring the requirements for odd- and even-numbered districts into the calculus. Or, they could stick with the new common map but allow each of the five zones to carry two numbers -- one for its School Board member and another for its county commissioner. Kingsley says it would be best to come up with one map with one set of numbers, because a big part of the reason for a common map is to make things simpler for voters. But if that won't work, Kingsley said, there would still be cost-savings and at least some degree of greater simplicity in having one map but two numbers for each district. Druzbick, however, says it makes no sense to go to the trouble of aligning the maps without also fixing the number confusion. Since the districts that Wiggins and Coleman reside in coincide, he thinks the problem with the district numbering can be fixed with some simple adjustments to the map. "Those lines are so close," Druzbick said. "It would not be difficult to make something work." Druzbick said he expects to meet with Kingsley on Monday. If they can work out a compromise, both boards could consider it on Tuesday. Kingsley said working out an arrangement is a worthwhile goal. "It's economical and it's a reasonable thing to do," he said. "It will be best for voters, too." - Times staff writer Robert King covers education in Hernando County and can be reached at 754-6127. Send e-mail to rking@sptimes.com.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
|
