Marksville City Council still deadlocked on reapportionment plan
Time is running short for the Marksville City Council to adopt a new reapportionment plan that reflects the city’s population changes as determined by the 2020 Census.
The council deadlocked four times on 3-3 votes at a special meeting on Nov. 30 on four different plans. The item is back on the agenda of the regular monthly meeting to be held Wednesday (Dec. 8). If the stalemate remains in place, the council could hold a special meeting next week.
Demographer Mike Hefner of Lafayette said the approved plan must be submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office by Dec. 23 at the latest. The Secretary fo State’s Office must have the plan in hand at least 30 days before qualifying for the upcoming municipal elections begins Jan. 26.
If a plan has not been approved by then, the March 26 council elections would have to be postponed to Nov. 8. The mayoral election would not be affected because that office runs citywide and not in a single-member district.
There is a reason why almost all local governing boards have an odd number of members. To avoid tie votes.
In Marksville, the mayor serves as chairman of the meeting and usually doesn’t vote, although the City Charter makes him a voting member of the City Council.
A chairman can choose not to vote unless it is to break a tie. There is no law against voting, but it is a parliamentary tradition. The Police Jury and School Board presidents often follow that procedure.
Without the mayor’s vote, and assuming there are no absences or abstentions, there would be no threat of a tie among the five aldermen. There have been several occasions over the past few years where Lemoine has chosen to exercise his vote under the City Charter, not to break a tie but to make a tie, thus killing a motion he opposes.
HEFNER’S COMMENTS
“It is frustrating that the City Council cannot make a decision on a plan,” Hefner said. “The fact is that you have one councilman who is trying to manipulate the plan and he has convinced two others to go along with him.”
Hefner said what has been called Plan 2 is the best plan because it follows major physical boundaries and does the best job of keeping “communities of interest” together. This plan and the similar Plan 1 are favored by Lemoine and Aldermen Frank Havard and Mike Gremillion.
Plan 3 and the similar Plan 4 are favored by Clyde Benson, Mary Sampson and Joseph Smith II. The main difference is that Benson wants an area south of Lemoine Street to remain in District 5. That area is removed in Plans 1 and 2. To balance the population when that area is left in District 5, an area of North Washington has to be moved to District 4.
Hefner said the objection to Plan 2 is purely political because Benson said he wants to keep family members in that district.
“That is not a legal reason to reject a reapportionment plan,” he added.
“The council members will have to work it out,” Hefner continued. “If I am asked to draw another plan, and the council wants to give me directions that they believe will resolve the standoff, I will try again and present it to them.”
Hefner said the City Council is required by law to reapportion itself to reflect the population as determined by the 2020 Census. If city officials do not do that, a suit can be filed asking a judge to order them to fulfill their statutory obligations. If they are unable to reach an agreement, the judge would have the authority to choose one of the proposed plans or draw a new plan to be implemented.
Getting the courts involved would also incur additional expense of court costs and attorney’s fees.
Hefner said one positive that has come out of the recent stalemate is that “more people are attending the council meeting. I always like to see people at these public meetings because they get to see and understand the plans and they also get to see how the council members handle the process.
“What everyone needs to understand is that the next election district plan isn’t the City Council’s plan, it’s the people’s plan,” he noted.