CLICK TO HEAR MAX STEVENS’ INTERVIEW WITH DAVID ALLEN, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
Every 10 years, the Census count triggers the drawing of county board district lines. Under Michigan law, County Apportionment Commissions have the authority to draw the lines following criteria such as roughly equal population in each district, contiguous boundaries, relative compactness, and respect for local governmental boundaries like townships.
The current Marquette County Apportionment Commission comprises County Clerk (and chair) Linda Talsma (ltalsma@mqtco.org), County Treasurer Jacqueline Solomon, County Prosecutor Matthew Wiese, County Democratic Chair Brian Kerrigan, and County Republican Chair David Guizzetti. The Commission has been meeting approximately every week during September and October 2021 to discuss mapping and share draft maps. The League of Women Voters (LWV) of Marquette County has been attending these public meetings.
For several weeks, the Marquette County website has included links to five draft maps, along with how they score under various state metrics. The Commission scheduled a meeting for October 8, 2021 with the stated hope that they could receive public comment on the maps linked on the county website and then vote on a final map at the October 8 meeting. Three of the draft maps on the website had five districts (5a, 5b, and 5c), and two had six districts (6a and 6b). The county board currently has six members.
On October 8, the Commission met as planned. However, the newly appointed County Treasurer (sworn in on October 1) brought an additional six-district map labeled 6c. She said that this new map was designed to change as little as practical from the current districts in place for the last 10 years. Two current county board members (Stephen Adamini and Karen Alholm) commented at the meeting that they prefer the status quo, namely Map 6c.
The Commission initially eliminated 5a and 5b, then rejected an option to consider the remaining four maps until a vote next week, then voted 3-2 (yeas: Kerrigan, Solomon, Wiese) for Map 6c. Map 6c was not available online, and none of its scoring under the criteria were presented at the meeting. Several clerks at the meeting noted that 6c split more jurisdictions than the other maps, which would create many difficulties. Marquette Township representatives noted that 6c splits their township, much to their displeasure.
After the meeting was adjourned, news media reported that the Commission scheduled a new meeting and vote on October 12 at 4:00 pm because the October 8 vote did not follow a proper motion. Clerk Talsma confirmed this via email.
The LWV of Marquette County takes no position on which of the six maps presented so far is preferred. However, we believe that a last-minute addition by a new member, who did not participate in any previous meeting, is problematic. Worse, no attempt was made to present or compare the new map under the objective criteria the county had so diligently provided for every other map. The Commission also made no attempt to explain why the other maps were rejected, despite strong public comment in favor of 5c, 6a, and 6b. Finally, the decision to hold a new meeting and vote seems to have occurred immediately after adjournment. None of this builds public confidence.
We recommend that the new map be placed on the website, along with a direct comparison of the criteria. We further recommend that the Commission better explain its rationale for choosing a final map, regardless of which is chosen. For reference, we have included a table comparing all 6 plans using the criteria published by Marquette County (five on their website, as of Noon, October 9, 2021; Plan 6c via an email from Clerk Talsma). Green highlights the better scores; red the worse scores.
Comments