Controversial Reapportionment Vote

An ordinance that would prove to be controversial was discussed by members of the Monroe City Council Tuesday, December 13, 2022, but would later be moved to a discussion for a "community" setting Wednesday, December 14, 2022, as more input from community leaders and concerns could be addressed. The introduction of the ordinance was met with fierce opposition at the Tuesday night by questions before council members and the maps' Demographer, but the answers weren't satisfactory. The ordinance called for the "adopting a Reapportionment Plan for Monroe City Council Districts in accordance with the 2020 Census of Population and Appropriate Federal and State laws and Section 2-02 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Monroe". According to the 2020 census results, it is time to draw some new district lines. The ordinance was a controversial one even before council members met in full session, as passions resonated throughout the December 13th and 14th meetings, but the votes weren't a nail-biter or a cliffhanger on December 14. Even before there was the call for a vote, there was an uneasy feeling among those in the audience that the outcome was already determined. The arguments, opinions, and questions from concerned citizens had been raised before to their respective city representatives in community meetings on how boundary lines in the city's districts were drawn. Though the city would, as a whole, be affected by new district lines, the impact of those district lines would be felt most in Districts 3, 4, and 5. Those three districts comprise the voting strength of the Afro-American community in the city of Monroe, giving them a majority-majority of the city council. Now, many in the Black community believe that the proposed map changes before the city council will take that advantage away from the city's majority population if one of the districts changes and the city's minority group were to gain control of the city council. Many are convinced that the maps presented to the city were already seen by council members, as they had some knowledge of the intentions of making changes in the districts. There was widespread opposition from the voters in Districts 3, 4, and 5. Still, it appears that the maps made available to the community were a "take it" offer because nothing else was coming. One of the voters' concerns was who came up with the district designs before the state presented them to the city. Then there are concerns that the so-called reapportionment of the districts "came at the last minute," but there was considerable debate on those merits by several council members whose districts would not be affected. There were also talks that District 1 would be secure with its council member, as the maps "were drawn at the council's discretion for all districts". A controversy developed when it was revealed that District 2 would allegedly be purged of a large Black population, making it a minority-majority, as District 2 is the largest district in the city. If that changes, District 3 would absorb those voters and change the voting dynamic of both districts. As predicted, the subject of race came up, perhaps because Black voters would be removed, so many questioned why those in favor wanted the change, especially if it were not fair. There will be repercussions felt, though not immediately, but somewhere in the future to those citizens affected by the proposed changes. Though an invisible line separates one district from another by certain streets, that's all it can take for a person's quality of life to change. Many citizens of Districts 3, 4, and 5 have always felt like an outsider looking in, so new redistricting could do more harm than good in achieving the "One Roe" leaders claim to work to achieve. Those who may find themselves in a new district will no doubt make their voices heard in future council meetings. The proposed maps that the council voted to accept through the introduction of the ordinance were said to be "out of compliance"; in other words, there should have been maps that all council members could feel comfortable voting on, and that didn't happen. District 3 Councilwoman Juanita Woods and District 4 Councilman Carday Marshall voiced their concerns and voted "no".

In contrast, District 1 Councilman Doug Harvey, District 2 Councilwoman Gretchen Ezernack, and District 5 Council Chairwoman Kema Dawson voted "yes" to introducing the ordinance. Will things be different when the ordinance comes up for final approval? One vote can make a difference. Will it happen? The voters of Districts 3, 4, and 5, especially 5, should be very concerned.