RUSHED ZONE ELECTIONS IGNORES LEGAL CONCERNS

Citizens of Cape Girardeau earlier this month spoke clearly on the issue of zone representation: they want it. In passing petitions and collecting signatures to advance this matter to a public vote, advocates for zone representation used the legal remedies available to them. However, attempts being made now to "fast-forward" implementation of this vote, without regard for legal standing or even the literal aspects of the ballot issue, are misdirected and they should stop.

At last Monday's city council meeting, the first held since the Nov. 3 voting supporting zone representation, Mayor Gene Rhodes tried to set zone elections for early next year. From the minutes of the council meeting comes this motion by Mayor Rhodes: "That we proceed with this (zone elections) to get it in the normal ballot of February for the primary and April for the general election." Councilman Melvin Gateley seconded the motion. There is no equivocation of intent here: these council members want the zone elections held as soon as possible. The rest of the council rightfully resisted.

What was it that people actually voted on? Here is wording from the ballot question: "All six councilmen shall reside in and be elected by the voters residing in their respective zone. ... Said members shall be nominated and elected as provided by Article VII of this (city) charter." And here is what Article VII of the city charter says: "The city general election shall be held on the municipal general election day which shall be the first Tuesday in April in each even numbered year."

Quite obviously, 1993 is not an even numbered year. This is not a legal technicality, as some have suggested, meant to slow the process ... this is what people voted on. The campaign for zone representation was not run to change other aspects of the charter; what voters approved was a change in the charter from at-large elections to zone elections. The council has no authority, and only some contrived guidance, to take this measure beyond what voters wished.

Beyond this, there is the matter of seating a council in accordance with citizens' votes. The citizens of Cape Girardeau have voted into office a seven-member council. The electorate understood the length of the terms when voting. No terms expire in April; three council terms expire in April 1994. If a general council election is held this April, is the city supposed to make room for more seats at the council table? Or, are some council members supposed to give up part of their duly elected terms, short-changing not only these members but the people who voted for them?

Along with this there is a statutory matter. Section 82.170 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri says:

Nothing in this chapter contained shall be construed to limit or abridge the term of office which any representative in the municipal legislature of such city shall be elected to fill, but every such representative shall be deemed and taken, for the residue of the term for which he may have been elected, a representative of that ward in which his actual residence and place of abode may be at the time of any division of such city into wards, creation of any new ward or wards, or change in the boundaries of any ward or wards.

Missouri statutes also point out, in Section 82.160, that whenever there is a change in the number of wards or an alteration of boundaries, no election can be held until the designated general election. The designated general election is in April 1994.

Clearly, those who would rush the zone vote are not only disregarding the content of the ballot measure itself, but they are flaunting state and local law.

None of the above points even addresses a fundamental problem that has now come home to roost on the zone representation issue: equal representation. Simply, the critical doctrine of "one man, one vote" may not be present in the measure's boundary division.

The ballot question read: "The zones shall be comprised of the original boundaries of the following wards as their boundaries exist on Jan. 1, 1989." However, a question remains on whether these six zones have an equal distribution in voting population. We ascertain that the numbers of registered voters in the zones, as called for by the measure, are disparate. Using 1989 voter registration numbers divided by precincts, the zones would break down this way.

Zone 1 2,780 voters.

Zone 2 2,784 voters.

Zone 3 2,208 voters.

Zone 4 3,189 voters.

Zone 5 3,406 voters.

Zone 6 3,091 voters.

Assuming that percentages of registered voters to eligible voters holds true, some council members would represent far more constituents than their colleagues (54 percent more in Zone 5 than in Zone 3). Only a detailed census analysis and a redefinition of ward boundaries would resolve this, and that doesn't lend itself to a "hurry-up" scenario.

In short, too many questions remain for this issue to be rushed through. The will of the people is that zone representation be enacted, and it will be enacted. However, it does the citizens of this community no good if their will is distorted to meet some false timetable or if elected officials expedite their constituents into a legally dubious position. The attempt to hasten zone elections in the face of legitimate questions about the propriety of this action is simply wrong, and the council majority should continue its resistance to this ~effort.