`YES' VOTE SUPPORTED FOR WARD BOUNDARIES

On local election issues, the Editorial Board of this newspaper tries to weigh relevant facts and arrive at an endorsement that speaks to an outcome that is good for the community. The board last week, for instance, argued in support of an annexation measure on Tuesday's ballot, believing it is a logical step for the growth of Cape Girardeau. On Tuesday's other question, we see no good choice; approving boundaries for city wards when ward representation is not the best form on government for Cape Girardeau seems a wasted exercise. Reluctantly, however, we feel a "yes" vote will at least straighten out some legal questions in this clumsy endeavor and put municipal energies to some better use.

On a crowded ballot last November, Cape Girardeau voters approved a petition initiative aimed at switching city council elections from the at-large variety to ward representation. This result came about despite warnings before the election that the boundaries, as described to persons who signed the petitions and voted, would not stand a legal challenge; constitutional law mandates "one-man, one vote" representation, and the ballot boundaries, by most accounts, would not comply.

In the interim, the city appointed a Zone Election Committee to redraw the boundaries, using as nearly as possible November's approved design. The boundaries up for election Tuesday are the result of this committee's work.

If the election issue passes Tuesday, there will be council elections in three of the new wards next April, with the remaining three wards having their elections in April 1996. If the issue fails Tuesday, there is some dispute about what would happen, though it seems clear that the ward boundaries approved by voters in November unconstitutional as they might be would remain in force.

This newspaper was opposed to passage of ward representation in November and still opposes the concept today. The city charter, with at-large elections for all council members, had worked in the appropriate, democratic manner. And where you had six council members in that system elected at large, with a mandate of protecting the interests of the entire city, the ward system cues council members to look after their particular part of the city first. Instead of one body looking to resolve matters for the common welfare of Cape Girardeau, you could have a half-dozen individuals cherry-picking for their own neighborhoods and trying to satisfy a limited constituency. Ward healers, your day may at last come in this city.

Our displeasure with this concept was not eased when the mayor, the remaining council member to be chosen at large, attempted vainly after November's vote to get his colleagues to step down immediately and "fast-play" the ward elections. What was promoted last fall as a means of reclaiming City Hall for the people of Cape Girardeau was actually a calculated, divisive initiative disguised as populism.

With all that said, however, we invest in this issue no doomsaying. This community will not crumble under ward representation, though it will promote factionalism at times and make it harder to get things done. The key ultimately will be electing good people to office, and we believe there are good people in every cor~ner of this community who will serve in proud fashion.

Is trying to made a bad situation better reason for endorsement? It must suffice in this case. While not buying into the idea that ward representation is best for Cape Girardeau, we support a "yes" vote on the new boundaries offered in Tuesday's election.