Election Shows Need For Single-Member Districts

The election in Amarillo to fill all four spots on the City Commission shows clearly the need for single-member districts in the city. As usual, four middle-class white guys from the same part of the city were elected.

Of course, they all claim they will represent all of the city. But a drive around the various sections of Amarillo shows that would be something new, if it happens at all. It is only natural for someone to represent the part of the city he lives in better than other parts of the city.

I'm not saying these candidates are evil or intentionally neglect other parts of the city. They just naturally want to take care of their own first. It is the system that is evil, because it denies representation to all but one section of the city - the section where the money lives.

These folks in the southwestern section like the system as it is, because it allows them to control the entire city. Instituting a single-member district plan would take that control away from them and spread the power throughout the city. That is why they oppose single-member districts.

But they can't say they don't want to share the power, so they come up with other excuses. One of these excuses is that there's not enough minorities to create districts for them. This argument ignores the fact that many poor and working class Whites in other parts of the city are also denied representation. Their needs may not coincide at all with those of the controlling monied interests.

It also ignores the basic make-up of the city's population. According the the U.S. Census Bureau's breakdown of Amarillo's population, the following was true in the 2000 census:

African-American............6.0%

Native American..............0.7%

Asian................................1.6%

Pacific Islanders..............0.2%

Hispanics........................26.3%

Simple math tells me this is 34.8% percent of the population. This is a pretty large portion of the population to be without representation.

Another reason those in power use to avoid single-member districts is the "unity" argument. They say they want a unified city, and to go to single-member districts would divide the city. What a silly argument! We're not talking about dividing the city, but sharing the power.

If the unity argument held water, then it would be best to have all our senators and representatives to run state-wide. But if this happened, all senators and reps would come from Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston and San Antonio, and the Panhandle would be left without representation (or the power that comes with it).

The fact is that single-member districts are a way to share power among all the citizens. I can understand that those in power don't want to share it, but it still should be done.

Recently the Texas NAACP said it would help in the push for single-member districts in Amarillo, but said a lawsuit was not an option. I believe this is a mistake. ALL options should remain on the table. The stakes are too high to eliminate any option.