In a strange turn Monday, Councilman Gary Hammon temporarily surrendered the council presidency in a failed attempt to resubmit a redistricting plan that would install a city manager.

Despite the parliamentary maneuver, the measure asking the U.S. Justice Department to review the three-district plan and give the city a definitive answer was voted down 3-2. Hammon and District 5 Councilman Chuck Ard voted in favor of resubmission, while District 1 Councilman Billy Jackson, District 2 Councilman Roger Anders and District 4 Councilman Charles Kirby voted against it. Monday’s vote could end a three-year effort to change Decatur’s form of government from mayor/council to professional city manager/council.

Mayor Don Kyle asked the council to have DOJ revisit the plan so the city could “put the issue to bed and move on.” The council initially submitted the plan, which reduces District 1’s black majority from 60 percent to 37.5 percent, for DOJ pre-clearance to comply with a 2010 voter referendum. Under the three-district plan, the mayor’s role would become ceremonial, although the mayor would gain a vote on the council. The mayor’s assistant also would get a vote and function like a council president pro tempore.

However, the council withdrew the plan last year, interpreting the Justice Department’s letter requesting more information as a denial. In its place, the city submitted a five-district plan that retained the mayor/council governing structure, and Justice pre-cleared that plan.

“We had no other information to submit,” Hammon said of the three-district plan. “But I told (City Attorney) Herman (Marks), we do have another election and then a runoff. We can send Justice that voter information.”

Monday, Kyle read from a memo he sent Hammon asking the council to resubmit the plan.

“As we go forward, we do not need a continued question hanging over our heads about the outcome,” Kyle said. “We need an end to the discussion.”

Two District 1 residents, Doris Baker and Al Robinson, spoke against resubmitting the plan, agreeing with Jackson, who stated it “would be an attempt to bring back to life a dead issue.” Then Kyle’s mayoral challenger, attorney Carl Cole, said Kyle has the authority to resubmit the plan without council approval and should do so to comply with voters’ wishes.

“The decision was made in 2010 when the voters voted,” Cole said. “It’s an executive action that needs to be made, not a council decision.”

Hammon called for a motion, which Ard made, but no one seconded it to bring the measure to a vote. Hammon, as council president, can not make or second a motion.

In response to Cole, Kyle said that since the council withdrew the plan, he believed it would take council action to resubmit it. Marks said Kyle had the authority to submit the plan but the council had to tell him which plan to resubmit.

Kirby then pointed to the city of Auburn’s 2013 administrative budget of $851,911 to pay “three people.”

“It’s not $100,000 a person as this referendum was billed,” Kirby said. “If we approve this and it is pre-cleared, we will be mired down in desegregation lawsuits.”

Meanwhile, Hammon talked to Anders, council president pro tem, about relinquishing his presidency so that he could second Ard’s motion. Anders agreed, and Ard motioned again. Hammon seconded it, and it was voted down.

Afterward, Kyle said although he didn’t support the referendum, he was disappointed the city “couldn’t put a period at the end of the sentence and move on.”

“The irony here is all this delay in implementing the referendum may guarantee that it happens,” Cole said after the meeting. “If the Supreme Court of the United States does what most court observers think they will do and strikes down the Voting Rights Act, the pre-clearance issue that has been the point of contention goes away and the referendum stands on its own.”

In Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, Shelby County is challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires nine states — and municipalities in seven others — with histories of racial discrimination to have any voting changes pre-cleared by the Justice Department.

Justices heard oral arguments for the case last month and will render a decision in June. During oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the “swing vote” on many cases, joined the four conservative justices in questioning the section’s usefulness, while the four liberal justices defended the legislation.

In the run-up to Decatur’s referendum vote, it was pointed out that voting for a new form of city government may be an exercise in futility.

That’s because apparently no formula exists that allows the concept of “one man, one vote” and a minority-majority district to coexist in Decatur.

Since at-large council districts were eliminated in 1988, District 1 has maintained a roughly 60-percent black majority. However, U.S. Census data shows that during the past 20 years, black residents, historically concentrated in the Northwest quadrant, have migrated to the Southwest and Southeast parts of town.

Drawing district lines to create a black majority is difficult. The only way to maintain a black majority district is to make it significantly smaller than the other districts. Currently, District 1 has about 9,700 residents. The other four districts range from 11,000 to 11,800.

When evaluating redistricting plans, the Justice Department doesn’t use predetermined or fixed demographics as guidance. However, election history, voting patterns within the jurisdiction, voter registration and turnout are considered in the assessment process. It will consider how the redistricting plan would affect minorities’ ability to elect the candidate of their choice and the ability of that official to affect policy.

Tiffeny Owens can be reached at 256-340-2440 or towens@decaturdaily.com.

Proposed three-district, council/manager

City of Decatur