Council Shrink status

We are 2+ weeks into the forced Council shrinking and redistricting. Where are we and what’s next?

I have updated my March 11 explainer to reflect developments over the last few weeks.

Here’s a short video about some of the different possible litigation results and what they would mean.

One lesson from the last few weeks is that we have to keep our eyes on three different places to follow what’s going on — the Planning Department, the court system, and the Council.

The Planning Department is moving rapidly toward complying with its obligations under the new state law. Absent court intervention, the department is required to recommend some map or maps to the Metro Council no later than April 8, which is a Saturday. I’m not clear whether they’ll do that on the Friday before (4/7), over the weekend, or the Monday after (4/10).

The Planning Department released two early versions of possible maps yesterday on their redistricting web page. Both were based on having 20 councilmembers. One version had 17 district and 3 at large members. The other version had a 15-5 split. Within a few hours, I started hearing from different neighborhoods about problems. This should not be a surprise. In the 60 years Nashville has had 35 districts, much of the fabric of how our local government functions and delivers services is built around the idea of 35 districts. There is going to be tension in trying radically reduce the number of districts.

The court system is moving rapidly too. There is a hearing set on April 4 to decide whether Nsahville has to move forward with the forced redistricting. Here’s the key language from a March 20 court order setting the hearing:

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction is set for Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. central/10:00 a.m. eastern. The hearing shall be conducted on affidavits or declarations pursuant to Davidson County Local Rules of Practice § 19.04. One hour of oral argument will be reserved for each side.

* * *

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 54, the hearing will be conducted by ZoomGov videoconference, with the link to be provided prior to the hearing.

I expect the court to issue a formal decision within a few days after the April 4 hearing. Remember that this case is being heard by a three-judge panel — one each from East, Middle, and West Tennessee. They have to talk after the hearing, reach a decision, then they to write it up, and circulate it among themselves. We will all want an immediate decision like we see on tv. But even moving very quickly may take them one to several days after the hearing to issue a written decision.

From there, whoever loses the hearing will appeal — probably directly to the Tennessee Supreme Court. I am cautiously optimistic that we will have much better information by the end of April about whether we are having our normal 40 councilmember election in August 2023, or not.

The Metro Council is moving quickly also. The Council held meetings about this on March 16, 21, and 22. I’ve lost track of the total time — but these meetings have probably had about 6-8 hours of formal discussion and deliberation over 7 days.

By the March 22 meeting, there were 8 ideas on the table. They included district versus at large splits of 20-0, 17-3, 16-4, and 15-5. Another suggestion was a 16-4 split with regional superdistricts instead of at large members. Two other ideas would ask the Planning Department to draw maps for 2 configurations and 4 configurations, respectively. With all these suggested paths, the idea that carried the day was to get more and better information, and public input, before deciding on the district versus at large breakdown.

This also should not be a surprise. When people predicted “chaos” from trying to do a forced once-every-60-year process in a matter of days, this is what it looks like in real life. The only consensus we could find was to gather more and better information. The decision was to defer all of the specific configuration ideas until our regularly scheduled April 4 meeting, and also to set a public hearing on April 4 so we can hear from all of you about this important process.

What to expect from the April 4 Council public hearing

I am hearing four general schools of thought so far. I’m interested to see how they pan out at the public hearing on April 4, 2023, at 6:30 PM in the Metro Council Chamber. The positions I’ve heard are:

The state law is unconstitutional — don’t do anything at least until the courts rule.

There are some serious and trusted voices in the community who believe the state legislation to shrink the Metro Council is an intentional effort to reduce black and brown representation in Nashville, and that the law should be viewed as a civil rights struggle. I have heard people say that, since the Metro government’s formal position is that the new state law is unconstitutional, there is a moral obligation to not comply and to not engage in the redistricting process at all.

Metro Legal and the Planning Department have been very clear that the Planning Department will do everything required of it under the new state law. Metro Legal has been clear that, absent court intervention, the city has to and will do everything required by the law.

When we get to the April 4 public hearing though, I expect that one set of comments we’ll hear is that the city should simply not comply, or at least not take any further steps until the initial round of litigation has been decided.

Do not cut corners on a once-every-60-year process.

While Planning is required by state law to propose some map or maps by April 8, the Metro Council has the discretion under the state law to adopt a new map by May 1, or not. If not, then the August 2023 council election will be cancelled and Nashville will have the smaller council election in August 2024. Many, including me, have argued that the number one priority for the Council is to achieve the best possible community representation with public approval after adequate information has been provided to make an informed decision.

I am in favor of moving as quickly as possible. I am opposed to skipping steps. Without legitimate public approval after providing adequate information about all the options, Nashville will suffer.

I understand why Planning feels obligated absent court intervention to move quickly, but having a literal handful of days for public feedback is grossly inadequate. If a map like that were to get approved, it would have to be decided by only several dozen government insiders with no meaningful public dialogue.

OMG, what are you doing to my neighborhood on these maps?!?

Any version of a new map is going to be jarring compared to what Nashville has had for the last 60 years. Based on what I’m hearing, I expect multiple communities to express their dissatisfaction with how their neighborhoods are being placed on the proposed new maps.

Just draw something and let’s move on.

There are at least some current Councilmembers who feel it’s important to do this quickly and move on. I’ve also heard some talk from at least one Metro department that Council uncertainty is bad for getting current projects done and therefore the emphasis should be to draw a map in the time demanded by the State and move on with the business of the city. I disagree with this approach, but I’m interested to see if the public (outside of moneyed interests with projects pending) feel this way.

Wrap-up

It will continue to be difficult to follow the Planning Department, the lawsuits, and the Council. I’d urge everyone to consider coming to the Council public hearing on April 4 at 6:30 PM in the Metro Council Chamber. If you like one particular idea, let us know. If you need more information before you can decide, let us know.

I’ll keep trying to provide updates as I can.

________________________________________

Only semi-related…a lot of the redistricting talk ends up focusing on racial and ethnic categories of our Council. That has pushed me to spend time thinking about this post from January 2019 — “Mendes - What is that?” It’s a long story, but it talks about solving a long-standing family genealogy mystery about the origin of my last name. It’s about me figuring out that my grandfather was named Pedro Mendez and was Mexican, and me finding out that my DNA reflects this. Many of my Council and community friends know about this story. Since I learned it, I have not wanted to deny my Mexican heritage and I have not wanted to appropriate a heritage that I was not raised with. Honestly, most of the time now, I just sidestep race and ethnicity questions on forms because it’s confusing. Part of my confusion is that I spent most of my life believing that I was regularly being mistaken by others as having Latino heritage…only to find out recently my family has been the ones who were mistaken.

As I see myself lumped in on Council race/ethnicity categories and statistics, I am wrestling with how this very American mix of 3 grandparents with exclusively European heritage and 1 from Mexico fits into the big picture.