Any discussion of the gentlemen’s agreement invariably includes a discussion
of single-member districts. Austin has the dubious distinction of being one of
the few cities in the country (and the largest in the South) that elects all of
its councilmembers with the at-large system. Only four other cities more
populous than Austin — Detroit, San Francisco, Seattle and Columbus, Ohio —
choose all of their councilmembers in at-large elections. (Last November, San
Francisco voted to switch to single-member districts beginning in 2000).
The arguments for single-member districts are compelling: minority candidates
would get a better crack at winning seats, candidates would be closer to the
people who elected them, and they could run for council for much less money.
But those who support the at-large system point out that candidates who are
elected by all the voters are accountable to the entire city, not just one
neighborhood.
Rodolfo De La Garza, professor of political science at UT and vice president
of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, a Latino thinktank, calls single-member
districts “absolutely essential in communities that are structured so that
significant minority voices are not heard. And they are absolutely irrelevant
in communities where there are no such groups.” He believes Austin doesn’t fit
either description. The city has large minority populations, but because of the
gentlemen’s agree-ment, their voices are heard at the council level.
Austin voters have turned down single-member districts twice in the past 12
years. In 1994, a proposal to get rid of the at-large system failed by 2,976
votes. It has also survived a federal court challenge by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which filed a lawsuit in
1984 to overturn the system. The court found that the gentlemen’s agreement
provides for minority representation and that it does not violate the Voting
Rights Act.
Many current and former councilmembers are strong supporters of single-member
districts. Mayor Bruce Todd, while running for mayor in 1991, said that
single-member districts “are long overdue in Austin.” Berl Handcox, the first
minority member ever elected to the council, has favored the system for many
years.
But Robert Barnstone, who served one term in Place 5 and had an unsuccessful
run for mayor against Todd in 1991, favors the current at-large system.
“There’s something unique about Austin,” says the loquacious attorney. “No
other city council our size runs a public utility or an airport, or has a
budget the size of ours. The council deals with so many important issues that
have no relevance if you are from district A or district B. Given the enormous
concentration of responsibility in the city council, I think we need higher
standards, rather than lower ones. The argument for single-member districts is
that it takes a lower threshold. But a person good on neighborhood issues may
not have the foggiest idea about how to run an electric utility.”
When asked if he supports single-member districts in Austin, UT’s De La Garza
equivocated. “I would be willing to strongly support single-member districts if
that is the only way to get multiple voices,” he said. But he warns that the
system is not a political cure-all. “Single-member districts are an apolitical
solution to a political problem. They don’t, in the long term, do what we want
done, which is faster, cooperative problem solving.” — R.B.
This article appears in March 14 • 1997 and March 14 • 1997 (Cover).