Stephanie Phonvongsa explains the redistricting proposal to a gathering audience. Photos: Robert Mills

By Robert Mills

Nine students met on the steps of Old City Hall Tuesday to submit their redistricting proposal to Berkeley City Council. Their pitch came early in the game – with the deadline for initial submissions agreed at last night’s council meeting as September 30.

The students are summer interns at City Council and will return to different schools in the fall. Audrey Gutierrez and César Perez attend Berkeley Community College. Ché Sanders and Jacquell Simpson hail from Berkeley High School. John Nguyen and Gianna Albaum attend UC Berkeley. Beatriz Andrade comes form Sequoia High School in Redwood City, and Saori Matsuoka and Stephanie Phonvongsa attend UC San Diego.

City managers announced a call for redistricting on July 11, and the group arrived with their plan eight days later. They are the first to submit a proposal this year.

“We want to show that there’s no need for a delay,” Phonvongsa said.

According to the group, the proposal is one of “maximum participation and minimum deviation,” meaning that they adhered to a policy of equal population, simple-line separations, and a model that more closely resembles the boundaries established in Berkeley’s 1986 city charter. The group decided not to enter the current debate about a student supermajority district.

Students convene outside Old City Hall before presenting to City Council

Ché Sanders from BHS said the plan is an attempt to balance out Berkeley’s eight council districts, adding that it achieves approximately 0.25% or less deviation from the goal population in all districts.

“We possibly have the lowest deviation ever for a redistricting,” Sanders said. “We’re very confident.”

Audrey Gutierrez said the group hopes their proposal will encourage more Berkeley residents to submit their own redistricting proposals.

“It’s really about civic engagement,” Gutierrez said. “It’s thrilling to be a part of such a landmark Berkeley decision. I’m a lifelong Berkeley resident, and being a part of a group that seeks to empower all voices of Berkeley in redistricting reaffirms my Berkeley roots.”

Following a press conference on the Old City Hall steps, Sanders and Phonvongsa presented the plan to the council. They will see the results of their efforts in December, after City Council members review all other submissions.

Every 10 years, the City of Berkeley reviews its council district boundaries to account for shifts and changes in the population. The redistricting process is based on the population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Berkeley residents interested in drafting their own redistricting proposals can acquire a redistricting packet from the City Clerk Department.

Guest contributor

Freelance writers with story pitches can email editors@berkeleyside.com.

Join the Conversation

42 Comments

  1. The redistricting packet includes a spreadsheet that shows the 2010 population per census block (which is obviously needed to draw the new district lines).  Does anyone (Berkeleyside?) have access to the year 2000 block level census data.  I think it would be very interesting to compare block by block to see exactly where the gains were made.  It may also allow you to correlate population gains to new construction (or possibly see where undercounting may have occured in 2000). 

  2. I’m glad you’ve moved on.   I’ll catch up with you the next time you slander some folks who made an amazingly good contribution to our city governance.

  3. The real story here is that the high school, community college, and UC interns demonstrated how there is no good reason to delay redistricting.   They deserve a frikken city commendation.I think that this bit is particularly unfair to these interns:

    My point is that the students there in the photo standing next to the
    sign are distorting the issue similar to the way that FOX News distorts
    the truth.

    The interns didn’t distort a thing.  Sorry, but I do maintain that the confusion and distortion is with you.
    You wrote:

    That said, these students can vote and their sign explicitly implies
    that they cannot.

    The
    sign is about how if redistricting is needlessly delayed past Nov. 2012 then some people’s
    votes count less than others — and some people won’t get to vote at
    all in council / district elections that will directly effect them.Let me say that again:  Redistricting will assign new people to, for
    example, district 5.  District 5 is up in 2012.   In 2008 it was a somewhat close race.   We know for sure that redistricting is going to change the make-up of district 5.  In fact, it’ll add enough people to district 5 to, potentially, swing the next election if history is any indication.    If redistricting is strangely delayed past 2012
    elections, those people who are going to wind up in 5 will be denied a chance to vote for the council
    member they’ll have to live with for 4 years.  Meanwhile, those who
    do get to vote in (for example) district 5 in 2012 will have a vote that counts
    more than those who live downtown or near Telegraph, etc.What’s funny is that the first question they get from council is Capitelli squirming about who he’s going to lose from his district and avoiding talking about who will come in.   Spells it right out right there how virtuous these young people are while standing before a corrupt dais.
    In spite of that inequity if redistricting is needlessly delayed,
    Wozniak proposed delaying it!   It is to that outrage that the sign
    speaks.”And we proved it.  We did it!,” said one of the students.  And she’s right.

    The sign clearly shows that the students are
    practicing sensationalism because if they are citizens 18 years of age
    or older, they can vote if they choose to.

    To
    make it abundantly clear:  “Let My People Vote” does not refer to
    students.   It refers to all voters whose districts are likely to
    change as a result of the census, and by extension to all voters who
    live in the districts that are likely to shrink.   The interns were
    explicitly and abundantly clear in this in their presentation to
    council.  What does it mean?  Well:If the 2012 election occurs
    before redistricting, a person who lives near North Berkeley BART
    will have vote that counts more than a person living near the downtown
    BART station.   Some voters will be assigned to districts in which they
    should have been but were not allowed to vote. That’s a simple
    mathematical fact of the way council and other district elections
    work.   There’s nothing to distort:  Delaying redistricting past 2012
    means that some voters are more equal than others.   That is the point
    of the interns and their sign.   Their point is nearly unassailable.   The interns didn’t distort a darn thing.I strongly recommend seeing both their rude dismissal early in the council meeting and their presentation (starts near 2:50 hours into the meeting).   I’m a bit vicariously embarassed for some of our council members, watching them condescend to people who are clearer thinking and speakign than are they themselves.

  4. West Bezerkeley writes:

    That sign was FOX News sensationalism pure and simple. Implying students that are citizens 18 years of age or older can’t vote is a willful and blatant distortion of the facts.

    It is also not what the sign is about as has been explained in the comments here repeatedly.   But by all means, continue attacking your strawman.

  5. If you scan previous comments, you’ll see the sign refers to the chance that
    some voters will be disenfranchised depending on when the redistricting
    occurs. It may be that a voter can’t vote in the 2012 council elections
    because they aren’t resident in one of the voting districts. Then they will
    be redistricted into one of those districts and, hence, without a vote when
    their previous district comes to vote.

    It’s not about the possible student supermajority district.

  6. 2 things.
    1. Did any of you notice that Becky O’Malley/Berkeley Daily Planet linked to this article from her “Editor’s Back Fence.” I hope there’s more cross-media cooperation in the future. (She was talking about the events at the City Council meeting surrounding this proposal http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2011-07-20/article/38163?headline=Students-Present-Re-Districting-Proposal-Despite-Mayoral-Harassment )

    2. I’m a little puzzled by the repeated claim that “students don’t benefit from rent control.” While students don’t benefit from historically low rents like someone who has lived in their unit since before 1998, I can tell you from direct experience that they *do* benefit from the protections against unscrupulous landlords, like any other tenant (and like every good landlord, who from my experience are the vast majority).

    I’ve seen instances in which a student is the one who does research and realizes that the Rent Board has a dispute service to address a bad tenant/landlord situation. The service applies the regulations and finds for either tenant or property owner, depending on the details of the case. (See recent Rent Stabilization Board meeting minutes for examples of the variety of appeals we see).

    There’s also just cause eviction, and the annual limit to rent increases allowed by RSB regulations. We’re also working with City Council on enforcing the Soft Story Ordinance, which has a direct benefit to students: Not being crushed to death in the next big earthquake.

    Property owners and tenants are urged to call the RSB 510-981-RENT or surf to http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/DepartmentHome.aspx?id=9546 with any questions or concerns.

    Jesse Townley
    Commissioner, Rent Stabilization Board
    Chair, RSB Safe & Sustainable Committee

  7. (Background: I am a grad student, meaning that I’m a slightly longer-term resident than most undergrads, and I do vote in local elections because I consider myself a resident.) 

    I’ve talked to some of my undergraduate students about this issue of “why do students dislike Berkeley.” A lot of it comes down to the same problems again and again – they don’t feel safe walking home in Southside, they find Telegraph and Downtown dirty and frustrating to visit when they are constantly hassled by homeless individuals. And they can easily pick up on the disdain with which the local community views their population. It’s true that some of my students are going to school on their parents’ dime, but many of them are working (and paying taxes!) to put themselves through school (and remember, since students don’t benefit from rent control, they are paying often extremely exorbitant rental rates, which rise whenever property taxes do – not to mention the simultaneous raising of tuition and cuts in federal financial aid). The image of the trust-fund hippie protesting everything in sight is a largely outdated stereotype of the Berkeley undergraduate, but it seems to linger in the public mind as “selfish, lazy, and not contributing to the community.” The vast majority of them are far more concerned about their schoolwork, their finances, and their safety. They want to like Berkeley – but it’s hard to when the town is so determined to marginalize them, despite the fact that they are a full quarter of the population and their institution is by far and away the biggest employer here. The fact that they live in an area specifically gerrymandered to ensure that they cannot vote as a bloc probably isn’t helping their attitudes toward participation in local politics, either.

  8. (Background: I am a grad student, meaning that I’m a slightly longer-term resident than most undergrads, and I do vote in local elections because I consider myself a resident.) 

    I’ve talked to some of my undergraduate students about this issue of “why do students dislike Berkeley.” A lot of it comes down to the same problems again and again – they don’t feel safe walking home in Southside, they find Telegraph and Downtown dirty and frustrating to visit when they are constantly hassled by homeless individuals. And they can easily pick up on the disdain with which the local community views their population. It’s true that some of my students are going to school on their parents’ dime, but many of them are working (and paying taxes!) to put themselves through school (and remember, since students don’t benefit from rent control, they are paying often extremely exorbitant rental rates, which rise whenever property taxes do – not to mention the simultaneous raising of tuition and cuts in federal financial aid). The image of the trust-fund hippie protesting everything in sight is a largely outdated stereotype of the Berkeley undergraduate, but it seems to linger in the public mind as “selfish, lazy, and not contributing to the community.” The vast majority of them are far more concerned about their schoolwork, their finances, and their safety. They want to like Berkeley – but it’s hard to when the town is so determined to marginalize them, despite the fact that they are a full quarter of the population and their institution is by far and away the biggest employer here. The fact that they live in an area specifically gerrymandered to ensure that they cannot vote as a bloc probably isn’t helping their attitudes toward participation in local politics, either.

  9. (Background: I am a grad student, meaning that I’m a slightly longer-term resident than most undergrads, and I do vote in local elections because I consider myself a resident.) 

    I’ve talked to some of my undergraduate students about this issue of “why do students dislike Berkeley.” A lot of it comes down to the same problems again and again – they don’t feel safe walking home in Southside, they find Telegraph and Downtown dirty and frustrating to visit when they are constantly hassled by homeless individuals. And they can easily pick up on the disdain with which the local community views their population. It’s true that some of my students are going to school on their parents’ dime, but many of them are working (and paying taxes!) to put themselves through school (and remember, since students don’t benefit from rent control, they are paying often extremely exorbitant rental rates, which rise whenever property taxes do – not to mention the simultaneous raising of tuition and cuts in federal financial aid). The image of the trust-fund hippie protesting everything in sight is a largely outdated stereotype of the Berkeley undergraduate, but it seems to linger in the public mind as “selfish, lazy, and not contributing to the community.” The vast majority of them are far more concerned about their schoolwork, their finances, and their safety. They want to like Berkeley – but it’s hard to when the town is so determined to marginalize them, despite the fact that they are a full quarter of the population and their institution is by far and away the biggest employer here. The fact that they live in an area specifically gerrymandered to ensure that they cannot vote as a bloc probably isn’t helping their attitudes toward participation in local politics, either.

  10. There is some earlier history, but I don’t recall the exact dates.

    When council elections were in April, there was a lower turnout than in November elections, which made for a more conservative vote.  For many years, the more progressive Berkeley Citizens Action (BCA) was not able to get a council majority.  Many people speculated that moving the elections to November would make for a more progressive council.  

    Marty Schiffenbauer pretty much single-handedly got an an initiative on the ballot to move the elections to November. He wrote the initiative and spent several months on the streets gathering signatures.  The first November council election produced a BCA majority of 8 to 1.

    Then, a few years later, there was a shift to district elections.  As a result, the BCA (which was an organization for city-wide electoral campaigning) lost virtually all its influence.

    Anyone know the year when council elections shifted to November?

  11.  Well, when you look at the decisions that are often made by people who profess to “love” Berkeley – decisions that often hurt the economic vitality of the city – maybe it’s time we started paying attention to the ideas of people who think Berkeley can do better.

  12. The council seats in Districts 2, 3, 5, and 6 are up for election in November 2012. If redistricting was delayed to the November proposed deadline, there would not be sufficient time to meet the deadline for the county to have new districts by the 2012 City Council election. Residents who are planned to move into Districts 2, 3, 5, 6 may be disenfranchised from the City Council election in 2012.

  13. I think it was here on Berkeleyside a couple of months ago that there was presented a poll of UC students that showed that most of them either dislike Berkeley or worse?  So why the F would anyone who loves Berkeley, such as me, be in support of accommodating that populace with a special district?  Most of them apparently don’t give a rats ass and that attitude leads to stupid policy.

  14. A little background, history of the district elections ushered in in the June 1986 election cycle when most UCB Students were out of town.  I remember voting for it.
     
    Anyone recall the priceless photo which appeared in the Daily Cal shortly after the district elections initiative passed?  Then Mayor Gus Newport and his vice-mayor Veronika Fukson both giving the raised middle finger very demonstrably to the voters of Berkeley for approving this measure.
     
    http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/
     
    2. District Elections (1986).
     
    The new Berkeley City Council majority was not particularly charitable to its opponents.  Neighborhood people who were against the Council’s low-income housing projects felt insulted by some BCA Councilmembers.  Their anger led to an initiative charter amendment under which eight Councilmembers would be elected by district instead of at large.  Their terms were cut from four years to two years.  Only the Mayor would continue to run at large for a four-year term.  The initiative also established run-off elections whenever the leading candidate failed to receive a majority of all votes cast.  (Run-offs had previously been proposed twice before by the conservatives and defeated both times by Berkeley voters.  District elections themselves were traditionally seen as progressive, especially in San Francisco, where conservatives opposed them.)
     
    The 1986 Berkeley District Elections Initiative gerrymandered the campus community into several districts so as to make election of a student highly unlikely.  It became a partisan measure strongly backed by hill conservatives who felt un-represented after two consecutive defeats.  In June 1986, only the Berkeley hills voted for district elections.  But that was enough for the measure to pass, given low turnout in the campus area and west Berkeley.  The era of slate politics was over and neither side could realistically hope for more than five or six seats.

  15. That seems to be the most logical explanation -a combination of greater density from the building in the last decade and the a greater effort this time around to count students.

  16. Wait a minute. Am I actually going to do this? Yes, I think I will.

    I think I will side with Eric Panzer on this one.

  17. The high school student in question is a part of the Coro Exploring Leadership program -it’s a great program that places students in civic-oriented/governmental organizations. Coro happen to place her in a Berkeley Council office.

    But with a City Council like Berkeley, who wouldn’t want to commute across the bay for such fun 🙂

  18. With the current districts, some people are more equal than others.

    For example, with the current districts, the votes of those who live in Worthington’s district count less for determining council membership than votes in, say, Capitelli’s district.   A person in Capitelli’s district has more say in council politics because of how the district lines are drawn.  Similarly, votes in Arreguin’s district count less than votes in Wengraf’s district.   Some of the people who currently vote in Worthington’s and Arreguin’s districts should, in fairness and by law, be voting in a different district for that reason.

    This is because, compared to equal-sized districts, Worthington’s currently has over 2500 extra people, Arreguin’s an extra 1500, roughly.   Meanwhile, Capitelli’s is short by a bit over 1000, and Wengraph’s by almost 1200.

    Council’s majority is apparently leaning towards delaying the needed
    redistricting until after the 2012 elections, against staff
    recommendations. 

  19. I don’t know who you are kid but your people can vote, unless your people are people under 18, in which case I don’t see that changing.

  20. We were referring to residents who may be disenfranchised if redistricting did not occur in a timely manner.

  21. No insult was intended, Eric. I think you’ve a valuable member of the community and I like your posts. I just think that pretending not to understand what people are concerned about is a poor way of making an argument.

  22. First of all, thank you, Sharkey, for the back-handed compliment/insult–it’s not anyone who can do both in the same breath.

    Renters and students most certainly do pay property taxes, only indirectly through their rents. Since students usually occupy an apartment for four years at the very, very most, they do not greatly benefit from rent control. As such, part of their rent goes to paying the property taxes of the building they live in. (Even having lived here for eight years and having more or less become a permanent resident, four years is the most I have spent in an apartment, so far.)

    Sharkey, you seem to suggest that one’s right to vote on parcel taxes should be dictated by one’s longevity or anticipated longevity in the affected community. By that argument, we should bar from voting anyone who thinks they may move out of Berkeley at any point during the life of a property tax-funded measure. Anyone who plans to move to another council district within the city should be barred from voting for a council member whose term will extend beyond their anticipated presence in their current district. This is a ridiculous argument, and only slightly relevant to the issue of a student district. In the end, it is the voters who decide to levy taxes upon themselves–not council. With a 2/3rds threshold, students representing only 25% of the population, and students having low turnout on down-ballot issues, I’m not really sure how you can blame students for the passage of property tax measures.

    The question of creating a district to represent one particular group is a thorny one. My understanding is that, on the one hand, the law discourages using race to define districts, and on the other hand you are also not allowed to purposefully dilute a racially homogenous community across multiple districts so as to preclude that community electing someone of the same race. Granted, this is based on race and not student status, but the question of whether it is right to create a district representing one group is far from cut-and-dry. Moreover, while it is not required, it is often encouraged for redistricting to preserve, to the extent possible, “communities of interest.” Whether people love the students or hate them, it is hard to argue that they are not a community of interest. In fact, they are a community of interest tied together, in part, by their usually short stays in the City of Berkeley. Perhaps this lack of time would prompt a student representative to bring a new sense of urgency to the council. This is speculation, but it illustrates my point that longevity is not the end-all be-all of city politics.

  23. First of all, thank you, Sharkey, for the back-handed compliment/insult–it’s not anyone who can do both in the same breath.

    Renters and students most certainly do pay property taxes, only indirectly through their rents. Since students usually occupy an apartment for four years at the very, very most, they do not greatly benefit from rent control. As such, part of their rent goes to paying the property taxes of the building they live in. (Even having lived here for eight years and having more or less become a permanent resident, four years is the most I have spent in an apartment, so far.)

    Sharkey, you seem to suggest that one’s right to vote on parcel taxes should be dictated by one’s longevity or anticipated longevity in the affected community. By that argument, we should bar from voting anyone who thinks they may move out of Berkeley at any point during the life of a property tax-funded measure. Anyone who plans to move to another council district within the city should be barred from voting for a council member whose term will extend beyond their anticipated presence in their current district. This is a ridiculous argument, and only slightly relevant to the issue of a student district. In the end, it is the voters who decide to levy taxes upon themselves–not council. With a 2/3rds threshold, students representing only 25% of the population, and students having low turnout on down-ballot issues, I’m not really sure how you can blame students for the passage of property tax measures.

    The question of creating a district to represent one particular group is a thorny one. My understanding is that, on the one hand, the law discourages using race to define districts, and on the other hand you are also not allowed to purposefully dilute a racially homogenous community across multiple districts so as to preclude that community electing someone of the same race. Granted, this is based on race and not student status, but the question of whether it is right to create a district representing one group is far from cut-and-dry. Moreover, while it is not required, it is often encouraged for redistricting to preserve, to the extent possible, “communities of interest.” Whether people love the students or hate them, it is hard to argue that they are not a community of interest. In fact, they are a community of interest tied together, in part, by their usually short stays in the City of Berkeley. Perhaps this lack of time would prompt a student representative to bring a new sense of urgency to the council. This is speculation, but it illustrates my point that longevity is not the end-all be-all of city politics.

  24. It’s a project done by student interns at City Council. Any resident of Berkeley can submit what they feel is a better redistricting. That’s part of their reason to get it in early: to show Berkeleyans that it’s easy to participate in city government.

    Redistricting is part of the city charter. Every ten years, the city is redistricted to compensate for population changes in districts. People move in and out. The City of Berkeley redistricts to keep things relatively balanced.

  25. “I find it very dubious that we assign the privilege of home ownership
    some special status in regard to having a council member who reflects
    one’s interests.”

    Why play dumb on the issue, Eric? I think by this point we’re all aware that you’re intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know exactly the issue here.

    Homeowners pay the parcel taxes that fund the bond measures that appear on ballots.
    Renters, and students, do not.

    Historically speaking, young people don’t vote. It doesn’t matter what the economic climate is like, it doesn’t matter what the community is like. They just don’t do it. My objection to a “student district” has nothing to do with how I think students will vote, and everything to do with my opinion that creating a district specifically to represent any one group is wrong.

    Why do you think it is fair and equitable for someone who will be in the city for three or four years to vote on a decade’s worth of parcel taxes that they will never pay?

  26. I’m not certain why redistricting is necessary, If this were concerning a military base & its personnel instead of university students I would be against making a change.  Military people, like the students are short timers in a community.  The students aren’t currently precluded from participating in elections or running for office.  Why the special treatment?

  27. I watched the council meeting last night and I daresay that the students who spoke on this issue have a better sense of reality than many of the speakers we most frequently see before council. A few more doses of reality: Because students, by and large, do not experience the benefits of rent control, they arguably shoulder a greater amount of indirect property tax than any other renter sub-population. Additionally, many students do work during all or a portion of their tenure at Cal–I did. Moreover, students contribute very significantly to the sales tax base of the city.

    Most importantly, where on earth do we get this notion that in our democracy, representation should be based on how much a person or a group of people pay in taxes? African Americans, through a sinister confluence of history and ongoing policy, have a disproportionately small share of the nation’s wealth and therefore pay a commensurately small share of the nation’s taxes. Does this mean that in areas where you have large African American populations, there shouldn’t be legislative districts that reflect that? If these same anti-student arguments were being made about any ethnic group, they’d be instantly recognized as bigoted and anti-democratic. I find it very dubious that we assign the privilege of home ownership some special status in regard to having a council member who reflects one’s interests.

    It is true, students are usually here for only about four years and it is also true that students are less likely than permanent residents to vote on down-ballot issues like city council races. Nevertheless, students have recently shown a willingness to look to the future that arguably exceeds that of Berkeley at large. The student’s self-imposition of a fee to renovate Lower Sproul is just one example of this. On the other side, the city’s failure to change outdated quotas, reluctance allow R&D in West Berkeley, and general inertia on building/doing anything new, all demonstrate how even Berkeley’s permanent residents are failing to implement any long-term vision. Perhaps if students had more post-college economic opportunities, better representation, or at least felt less maligned, they would participate in greater numbers—a catch-22, if you will.

    I think that there is a substantive discussion to be had about creating a student district. Unfortunately, the rhetoric so far has been poorly-informed, elitist, and at times offensive. When arguing that a certain group is undeserving of representation, we should at least try not to make ourselves look equally undeserving in the process.

  28. Hey Bruce,

    That was one of my (and the council’s) questions as well.

    The group has not completed a .pdf, but they promised to send me and the council a copy as soon as possible. I was told tonight or tomorrow. I can update the story with that file as soon as I get it.

    You are correct. That IS the existing map. They drew new lines over it in dark pen. The group strove for simple-line separations for both balance and adherence to the 1986 boundaries in the city charter.

  29. Is there map available on-line somewhere?   The map in the photo looks, as near as I can tell, like a map of the current districts.

  30. Is it just me, or does it seem a little strange that a high school student from Redwood City is interning at the City Council in Berkeley?

     Not bad or anything, just weird that they have to commute across the bay to find an internship like this instead of being able to find one at one of the many west bay cities near their home.

  31. Some of us speculated about the building boom the last decade on a older census thread.  Its effects seem pretty clear as the green (central Berkeley: Patrick Kennedy, Tice, etc building apartments ) and blue (southside: UC dorms and some private developments along Telegraph) districts shrunk do in part to greater density (and, possibly, some undercounting of UC students in the 2000 census).

  32. This is awesome. I didn’t know the council had an internship program.

    I think this is independent of the student supermajority district that Joey Freeman and others are advocating. The charter calls for review of the council districts, the council gave its 2011 interns a project to come up with a redistricting proposal, and the kids did a remarkably rigorous job.

    We here in Berkeley are always on the lookout for something sinister, but it appears that this is simply an exciting summer internship program. Wish I could have done something like that when I was an undergrad.

  33. My mistake.  I was misled by the student holding a poster saying “Let my people vote.”

  34. Read the article more carefully.   You have misunderstood it.   (For example, this group of students has explicitly not taken up the question of a “Cal supermajority” district.)

  35. Are you guys reading the same article I am? I thought that in this proposal these interns decided not to weigh in on the student supermajority district, and are trying to create districts to distribute population as equitably as possible. It is, perhaps, the most boring and least interest-group driven proposal possible, by my reading.

    What am I missing that Charles and Aenar are seeing?

  36. It seems odd that this plan is supposed to give UC students a larger voice in city decisions, but only  2 of the 9 students presenting this plan are UC students. 

    All of them are summer interns at the city council, which says to me that maybe some city concilmembers are doing more to push this plan than the UC students who are supposedly behind the plan. 

    Time for some investigative reporting.  Who hired these interns?

  37. waitaminut-Students who do not pay taxes,work,vote their self-interest or have any sense of reality want to redistrict the area? Really? That gets the gong for sure…