How might by-district City Council elections change politics in Lancaster?

The three-member City Council subcommittee of the Home Rule Study Commission is determined to incorporate districts into City Council elections, but the details remain very much up for discussion.

The latest draft (PDF) of the subcommittee’s proposals, provided to One United Lancaster Monday by subcommittee Chair Tony Dastra, reflects changes discussed at a meeting Friday, the subcommittee’s fourth to date.

It calls for dividing Lancaster into four electoral districts, based on the “quadrant-esque” map (hereafter, “quadrant map”) discussed at the subcommittee’s June 30 meeting at Bethel AME Church.

Two options are offered for electing a nine-member City Council: Either eight council members elected two per district, plus a council president elected at large; or four members elected one per district and five elected at large.

A provision in the latter arrangement would limit parties to running one fewer at-large candidate than there are open seats. That’s intended to broaden representation and ensure that not everyone on City Council is from the same party, Dastra said. The idea hasn’t yet undergone legal review, but Philadelphia’s charter has a similar provision.

All council members would stand for election every two years. Council members would not be allowed to serve more than three terms in a row (six years) but would become eligible to run again after a one-term break. A five-member citizen commission would be convened every 10 years to handle redistricting — redrawing district boundaries after the U.S. Census to account for population changes.

A new system

The chapter on City Council (PDF) in the home rule charter draft currently under consideration by the full commission largely preserves the existing arrangement: It provides for seven council members with four-year terms, elected at large.

Dastra and his fellow subcommittee members, Darlene Byrd and Maxine Cook, say shifting to district elections would make City Council more accountable to ordinary residents and make it easier for grassroots candidates to compete against establishment interests.

Critics of the idea, like commission members Carl Feldman and Peter Barber, say Lancaster city is too small for districts. It would be harder to find good candidates in four smaller districts instead of one large citywide pool, and candidates would be disqualified if they moved across town. Representatives would be motivated to concentrate on their own district rather than the interests of the city as a whole.

Dastra said he’s hoping to bring the subcommittee’s ideas before the commission as soon as possible, perhaps at its upcoming meeting this Thursday. A majority at one of the commission’s meetings would have to vote in favor of any changes for them to be adopted.

The commission is aiming to wrap up the work of drafting the charter later this month, allowing it to go before voters in a referendum in November. If approved, it would take effect in 2025.

Political science professor Scott Hofer is the lead author of “The Trade-Offs Between At-Large and Single-Member Districts” (PDF), a white paper that reviews and summarizes existing research. He previously taught at St. Francis College and is moving to Monmouth University. One United Lancaster asked him to weigh in on Lancaster’s options.

On balance, Hofer said, candidates in at-large districts tend to be more polished and professional; those in by-district elections are more likely to be nontraditional and less familiar with the ins and outs of politics and policy. Those are tradeoffs that have to be assessed and evaluated, he said.

As the white paper puts it, district elections “provide the benefits of localized democracy.” They are often implemented to increase minority representation. Generally, that is indeed the result, the paper says, but there’s a key caveat: The effect is minimal if an underrepresented group isn’t concentrated geographically. Research also indicates that more women tend to be elected in at-large systems.

In Lancaster’s case, Hofer noted that the quadrant district proposal would yield two majority White districts: The Northeast and Northwest. Hispanics would be a majority in the Southeast and a plurality in the Southwest.

To be sure, people don’t always vote by race, Hofer said; still, electorates frequently prefer candidates who “look like them.” All else being equal, then, if eight City Council members are elected by district, the quadrant system would tend to favor four being White and four Hispanic.

They would almost certainly all be Democrats. Lancaster is a Democratic stronghold, with the party enjoying a 70% or better share of registered voters in all four districts, versus 19% to 24% registration for Republicans.

When Democrats enjoy that degree of advantage, Hofer said, the research shows, perhaps counterintuitively, that at-large elections tend to produce more minority representation than districts.

Why? Minority voting blocs are important Democratic constituencies, so the party has an interest in nominating candidates who represent them. In a district, a local racial or ethnic majority may prevail; in an at-large race with multiple seats at stake, a diverse slate can appeal to a diverse citywide electorate and be elected en masse.

Turnout in Lancaster’s recent municipal elections has been low: 18% or so. While it could certainly rise, if it didn’t, that suggests that around 1,600 to 1,700 voters would elect candidates in each district. Republican primaries would be especially small, with only around 2,000 or so registered voters per quadrant.

Hofer wasn’t taken with the idea of electing two council members per district, calling it “unusual” and even “strange.” With a single-member district, there’s one representative who is accessible and accountable to a set of constituents; adding a second representative undermines that advantage, as well as doubling the number of candidates a party must recruit.

Hybrid systems — that is, mixing at-large and by-district elections — can potentially offer the advantages of both systems, Hofer said. For a hybrid system to offer balance, he said, it’s probably preferable to elect roughly the same number of council members via each method, rather than skewing heavily one way or the other.

Lastly, he cautioned against the risk of gerrymandering that comes with districts. There’s always a chance that the people in charge of a given redistricting might want to dilute minority representation or tilt the playing field in one way or another. Nonpartisan, bipartisan or court-led processes can mitigate the risk, but it can’t be eliminated altogether.

Party leaders’ reactions

Marshall Miller is the chair of the Lancaster City Democratic Committee. He opposes shifting to by-district elections, calling it “a solution in search of a problem.”

Lancaster is heading toward a fiscal cliff that could necessitate major property tax increases and cuts to city services. The rationale behind home rule, Miller said, is to give the city tools to help avoid that outcome, and that should be the focus. The commission needs to complete its work as soon as possible and the resulting charter needs to be straightforward to explain to city voters, he said.

“Why are we talking about districts,” he asked, “when we need to move a charter forward as efficiently and cleanly as possible?”

He acknowledged the Southeast’s complaints that it doesn’t have a representation on City Council. While that’s the case now, Southeast residents have served on council before, he said — most notably Nelson Polite Sr. — and candidates from the Southeast could certainly win election again. He noted that present-day Councilman Jaime Arroyo grew up in the Southeast, though he lives in the Northeast now.

“Lancaster is a very small city,” Miller said. “To arbitrarily divide us up by quadrants or neighborhoods (would be) detrimental to the health of the city and the democratic process within it.”

Last year, two City Council candidates from the Southeast, Andre Gilbert and Tene Darby, lost in the Democratic primary, leading to complaints that the local party hadn’t given them a fair shake. Miller disputed that at the time, saying the election reflected the voters’ will.

In an emailed statement (PDF), Lancaster City Republican Committee Chair Lisa Colon said city Democrats hold too much power, accusing the party of a “power grab” and of ignoring grassroots neighborhood candidates. Districts could give the latter a better chance, she said, but could also lead to unqualified candidates being elected.

She said she favors a majority / minority split system, like that at the county level, which reserves one of the three commissioner seats for the minority party.

“Having a majority / minority split is healthy for all governments,” she wrote, “allowing for the representation of more voters.” It “creates discussion, acknowledges others’ views and creates the possibility of correcting the perception that every vote is decided on before and rids itself of the unfortunate “rubber stamp’ mentality.”

Dastra said he is “disappointed” by Miller’s stance. As things stand, he said, “the City Democratic Committee has too much power … and it makes sense he (Miller) would defend the current system.”

There’s a genuine hunger for more representation out there, especially in Lancaster’s historically marginalized communities, and it demands and deserves recognition, he said. It’s not just about race and ethnicity, he said, but about class and economic and political clout.

As for Colon, if city Republicans like the minority party set-aside idea, he encouraged them to “become vocal” about it.