Gerrymandering municipal boundaries (and more broadly, reform of municipal/county mapping and expansion)

Gerrymander is not limited to Congressional and legislative districts.


Clicking on the link will produce the Google Map of Orlando, Florida. A gerrymandered mess that continues to evolve as Orlando selectively annexes areas.

Orange County has 13 municipalities of which 10 are cities and 3 are towns, with the rest being unincorporated. In many cases, unincorporated areas are enclaves of municipalities. The result a jurisdictional mess and often a headache for service providers.

In 1968, the Florida Legislature did a large scale consolidation of Duval County, Florida, with Jacksonville expanded to include almost all the county, with the exception of three municipalities along the coast and one municipality in the far western portion of the county. It was a successful and instructive endeavor and it is long since time to apply that lesson to Orange County (and numerous other counties across the country).

My proposal would create the County and City of Orlando. The other 12 municipalities would be abolished and the governments of Orlando and Orange County would be consolidated into a single unit. The City of Orlando would be expanded to include the entire county. I would retain the strong mayor form of government, but significantly increase the size of the county commission, perhaps to 21 to 25 members. (Note that a whole bunch of municipal council positions would be abolished, far more than the extra consolidated council positions to be created.)

Hillsborough County (Tampa) and Pinellas County (St. Petersburg) are also prime candidates for total consolidation.

In many cases, complete consolidation is not warranted, but we can still reorganize municipalities into a more organized and efficient structure. Volusia County, Florida would be a good example of this. I would take its 16 current municipalities and consolidate them down to four municipalities, with the rest of the county unincorporated.

As for annexation and municipal expansion, I would require that municipalities annex smoothly and evenly "ballooning" outward, rather than the unfortunate expansion that looks like tendrils reaching out and leaving enclaves of unannexed areas within annexed areas.

An example of a city that has expanded in a half assed way is DeLand, a link to its Google map below.


And I have not even mentioned Pennsylvania, which needs total municipal reorganization in the worst way.

We need a national constitutional amendment banning partisan gerrymandering. There is no conceivable democratic argument in support of gerrymandering.

I’m in favor of a federal law (amendment?) for getting rid of (obviously) gerrymandered congressional districts, such that a congressional district can’t contain part(s) of more than one county. Of course, a congressional district could contain multiple entire counties to reach the minimum population requirement.

My very gerrymandered congressional district currently contains parts of 4 counties, yet no entire county, and parts of two (large) cities about 80 miles apart.

Why do you want to move local government further away from localities?

Municipalities all have their own flavor, their own schools (in many areas), their own local municipal government and rules, etc.

Why do you want to change that?


Being from a small municipality in NEPA - I know for certain they wouldn’t want to be “consolidated” into anything else. Currently living in a smaller township here in NJ - I know we wouldn’t want to be consolidated into anything else.

What’s wrong with the current system that needs changing and why?

ttwtt78640 said:

I’m in favor of a federal law (amendment?) for getting rid of (obviously) gerrymandered congressional districts, such that a congressional district can’t contain part(s) of more than one county. Of course, a congressional district could contain multiple entire counties to reach the minimum population requirement.

My very gerrymandered congressional district currently contains parts of 4 counties, yet no entire county, and parts of two (large) cities about 80 miles apart.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Municipalities and/or counties really have very little to do with Congressional districts

The next township over from me here in NJ - is divided into 2 different Congressional districts, for example.

I agree we need to be careful about gerrymandering. But, I don’t see how abolishing local governments in close proximity to people based on municipalities has anything to do with gerrymandering.

Nor do I see a compelling reason to move local government further away from people - especially when the people aren’t the ones asking for it.

It towns wanted to combine, they would.

BirdinHand said:

Municipalities and/or counties really have very little to do with Congressional districts

The next township over from me here in NJ - is divided into 2 different Congressional districts, for example.

I agree we need to be careful about gerrymandering. But, I don’t see how abolishing local governments in close proximity to people based on municipalities has anything to do with gerrymandering.

Nor do I see a compelling reason to move local government further away from people - especially when the people aren’t the ones asking for it.

It towns wanted to combine, they would.

Click to expand...

I’m not suggesting changing any city, town or county boundaries or their (local) governments. The problem with federal congressional districts is that they have (are based on?) population limits. That allows state legislatures to get ‘creative’ when designing federal congressional districts and can largely ignore these existing local government boundaries.

My city (Uhland, TX) is partly in Hays and Caldwell counties. It has an extremely odd shape.

ttwtt78640 said:

I’m not suggesting changing any city, town or county boundaries or their (local) governments. The problem with federal congressional districts is that they have (are based on?) population limits. That allows state legislatures to get ‘creative’ when designing federal congressional districts and can largely ignore these existing local government boundaries.

My city (Uhland, TX) is partly in Hays and Caldwell counties. It has an extremely odd shape.

Uhland Texas Street Map 4874216

Street Map of Uhland Texas 4874216

www.landsat.com

Click to expand...

The OP is suggesting doing away with municipalities.

I don’t see how that ties into Congressional gerrymandering at all.

As I demonstrated, municipalities can be literally cut down the middle into different Congressional districts.

I fail to see how the two topics are related nor what the benefit to forcing municipalities to combine and/or be dissolved gains for anyone. If they wanted to, these towns could already do that - or would do that.

A has nothing to do with B.

BirdinHand said:

The OP is suggesting doing away with municipalities.

I don’t see how that ties into Congressional gerrymandering at all.

As I demonstrated, municipalities can be literally cut down the middle into different Congressional districts.

I fail to see how the two topics are related nor what the benefit to forcing municipalities to combine and/or be dissolved gains for anyone. If they wanted to, these towns could already do that - or would do that.

A has nothing to do with B.

Click to expand...

The thread mentioned gerrymandering, as did my post. Changing local government boundaries includes changing their (property, income and/or sales) tax base and often their responsibility for road maintenance.

ttwtt78640 said:

The thread mentioned gerrymandering, as did my post. Changing local government boundaries includes changing their (property, income and/or sales) tax base and often their responsibility for road maintenance.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and I don’t understand how that fits in? Because a Congressional district has very little to do with:

Safiel said:

My proposal would create the County and City of Orlando. The other 12 municipalities would be abolished and the governments of Orlando and Orange County would be consolidated into a single unit. The City of Orlando would be expanded to include the entire county. I would retain the strong mayor form of government, but significantly increase the size of the county commission, perhaps to 21 to 25 members. (Note that a whole bunch of municipal council positions would be abolished, far more than the extra consolidated council positions to be created

Click to expand...

BirdinHand said:

Yeah, and I don’t understand how that fits in? Because a Congressional district has very little to do with:

Click to expand...

I chose to reply to the thread which addressed gerrymandering (as did post #2), thus didn’t elect to quote the OP.

ttwtt78640 said:

I chose to reply to the thread which addressed gerrymandering (as did post #2), thus didn’t elect to quote the OP.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you won’t see an argument from me in preventing gerrymandering.

I just don’t see how that ties into the rest of the OP that goes on about getting rid of local municipalities and forcing them to combine.

I imagine that in any area, that would be unpopular.

BirdinHand said:

Yeah, you won’t see an argument from me in preventing gerrymandering.

I just don’t see how that ties into the rest of the OP that goes on about getting rid of local municipalities and forcing them to combine.

I imagine that in any area, that would be unpopular.

Click to expand...

I agree, yet gerrymandered congressional districts often unnecessarily split those county/city ‘cohesive’ populations.

ttwtt78640 said:

I’m in favor of a federal law (amendment?) for getting rid of (obviously) gerrymandered congressional districts, such that a congressional district can’t contain part(s) of more than one county. Of course, a congressional district could contain multiple entire counties to reach the minimum population requirement.

My very gerrymandered congressional district currently contains parts of 4 counties, yet no entire county, and parts of two (large) cities about 80 miles apart.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

I don't think we need an amendment. A law requiring a scientific nonpartisan drawing of district boundaries in all elections would likely be sufficient. Especially since the R Party steps over the edge in racial gerrymandering and wins in the courts by saying it's just partisan gerrymandering.

I used the term gerrymandering in regards to municipalities, because in effect that is what is going on. Many towns achieved these odd shapes from annexing white areas while bypassing minority areas (and occasionally vice versa when the town is minority ruled). Or it may not be overtly racial, but instead income bases, with towns annexing wealthy areas and bypassing poor areas.

If a town is going to annex and expand, then it needs to do so evenly, picking up rich and poor, black and white.

In this OP, gerrymandering is primarily referring to the shape of municipalities, rather than the shape of congressional and legislative districts.

I will respond later to the issue of hyper-localism.

I too grew up in a small Pennsylvania township in a northeast Pennsylvania County.

Safiel said:

I used the term gerrymandering in regards to municipalities, because in effect that is what is going on. Many towns achieved these odd shapes from annexing white areas while bypassing minority areas (and occasionally vice versa when the town is minority ruled). Or it may not be overtly racial, but instead income bases, with towns annexing wealthy areas and bypassing poor areas.

If a town is going to annex and expand, then it needs to do so evenly, picking up rich and poor, black and white.

In this OP, gerrymandering is primarily referring to the shape of municipalities, rather than the shape of congressional and legislative districts.

I will respond later to the issue of hyper-localism.

I too grew up in a small Pennsylvania township in a northeast Pennsylvania County.

Click to expand...

It’s quite common for local governments to seek to annex (mainly or only) higher tax revenue (commercial or residential) areas.