Single-Member Districts: Where Now?

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.