ZONE REPRESENTATION IS WRONG FOR CITY OF CAPE

Cape Girardeau voters decide Tuesday whether they want city council members to continue to be elected at-large, or if the municipal charter should be amended to require zone representation. This is one of the most discussed and least understood local election issues in some time. Supporters say it is democratic. Opponents say it is of dubious legality. We contend it is unnecessary. We urge Cape Girardeans to vote down the attempt to change the charter and adopt zone representation.

The slogan of this zone representation movement is "Elect A Neighbor," and that has a genial air about it. In fact, the zone representation movement has at its core an idea that is understandable: a segment of the community feels its interests aren't being watched after in municipal government. However, the frustration inherent in this contention is not consistent with the situation in Cape Girardeau, nor is it supported by facts.

Under the charter, six council members are elected at large: a person in the southernmost tip of the city can vote for a person who resides in the northernmost region, and vice versa. With zone representation, citizens would be limited to voting for council candidates from the geographical area of the city where they reside. An affirmative vote Tuesday is a vote to limit your choice for representation. And instead of promoting unity and cooperation, this measure has the potential to spawn divisiveness and provincial attitudes.

In addition, questions have been raised about the legal validity of Tuesday's ballot issue. The wording of the measure and the division of wards as outlined by the measure do not take into account the "one man, one vote" principle, the cornerstone of American law that provides equal representation. If the measure is legally flawed, its enforcement, if approved, could be delayed or nullified by lawsuits, which will cost taxpayer dollars to defend.

As much as we celebrate progress and growth in this community, Cape Girardeau is not St. Louis. (Our take on that is thankfulness.) This city does not have far-flung neighborhoods with broadly divergent concerns. Why split a governing body in an artificial and arbitrary way to pretend this is the case?

Much has been made of the fact most current city council members live in the same general area of the community. It is undeniable ... a map and telephone directory are all you need as proof. However, no observer of the city governing body in recent years can properly claim that issues have been decided without all sides being heard and without sufficient (sometimes exhaustive) discourse. Most people who seek a council seat do so out of general concern for the community, not just to ensure that their own street is maintained. Indeed, with the adoption of zone representation, that is exactly the type of municipal government that would emerge, one that places greater emphasis on parochial projects than on the general welfare of the city.

An argument goes that persons from some areas of the community have trouble being elected to council seats, and that economics make such an effort prohibitive. We concede that running for a council seat has gotten far too expensive, yet we believe a role in government remains accessible to all citizens in the current system.

Consider this: Proponents of zone representation want the city split six ways. Assuming all six zones contained the same number of voters (that assumption is not contained in the issue voters face Tuesday), there would be 2,751 registered voter within each of these divisions. In the most recent council election in April, one person was elected with just more than 2,200 votes. Thus, here is a campaign strategy for those who feel closed out of government: Run for council in the at-large system yet don't extend your campaign beyond the part of the city where you live. If you do enough low-cost door-to-door campaigning in this concentrated area and use this same "Elect-Me-I'm-Your-Neighbor" theme, it is possible to garner enough votes for a council seat. If candidates are inclined to do so, they can be "zone representatives" under the current charter.

Here's the point: The system isn't at fault. Of more than 16,500 registered voters in the city, far fewer than 4,000 participated in April's council election. Citizens of voting age have easy access to the current system if they would only take advantage of it. Likewise, candidates with a strong and worthwhile message should not have trouble gathering enough votes to earn a seat at the council table ... if only their support can be mobilized.

Don't splinter the city when unity is called for. Leave the current at-large voting system for council members intact. Vote "No" on the Zone Representation question.