The most important issue facing Salisbury politics is one that most voters never think about and might not care about.

That issue is whether and how City Council district lines might be withdrawn to make for more fairness in how Salisbury residents are represented on their city's legislative body.

To the public, this is about as interesting as learning how the catalytic converter works under your car's hood. Yet just as car engine and exhaust parts determine how well a car runs and how much or little it pollutes the atmosphere, voting districts can be a sign of strength or weakness in our democracy.

As currently constituted, those lines define only two districts in Salisbury, with one district having four council members and the other only one. That lone council member from District 1 is a person of color; the four council members from District 2 tend to be white.

That's not a fair representation of the citizenry of the city. Salisbury is only a few years away from becoming a minority-majority city. Having only 1-of-5 council members be black or Hispanic or Asian fails to reflect the racial and cultural diversity of a changing community.

Why does race matter? Can't white leaders represent everyone fairly?

This is not an issue of how white leaders think and vote. It is one of equal opportunity and fair representation. Our nation has an uneasy history with racial matters. African-Americans, in particular, have struggled for their rights and respect since the aftermath of the Civil War. Their voting rights were often disregarded until the civil rights movement a half-century ago. And people of color remain underrepresented in positions of power in government and business.

It is important also to remember that Salisbury is still operating its voting system under the terms of a 1987 federal consent order. At that point in time, a quarter-century ago, Salisbury elected council members based on an at-large voting system. There was not one person of color on the council then.

The problem with at-large voting for a legislative body is that the same voters, with the same dynamic, choose each and every council member. A majority bloc of voters, therefore, can essentially trump a minority bloc for every seat on that body.

The federal government has intervened in countless communities, often but not exclusively in the South, because at-large voting tended to result in all-white city councils.

At the time of the order, Salisbury changed to a two-district system. The order requires that substantial changes to the voting system be approved by a judge.

The American Civil Liberties Union is pressing for more equity in 2014.

The current system has resulted in some of the District 2 council members being from the same neighborhood. Ideally, neighborhood representation should be diverse in an urban community.

Also, the system has created one surefire minority council position, but there is the risk of the appearance of tokenism at a time when so much of Salisbury's growth stems from people of color. And, again, the percentage of minorities on the council is far lower than the percentage of minorities who live in the city.

Reasonable minds can disagree on what's the most equitable approach to redrawing council district lines. In principle, a new district system should afford the greatest possible opportunity for residents and neighborhoods to feel adequately represented on the council. Even as council members debate and sometimes disagree, keeping this bedrock principle in mind should serve as a guiding force.

The previous council suggested moving one council seat from District 2 to District 1, which presumably would lead to a second minority representative. But Mayor Jim Ireton has gone further and proposed a five-district system that appears to have some merit.

Opponents question if the new districts would be too small and if they would benefit "special interests" such as landlords. These are good questions. It is also important that supporters of the five-district plan ask other good questions, including whether opposition might be based mainly on fear of change. Countless small U.S. cities have five or six or seven or more council members and manage that well.

Finally, it is vital that members of the public engage. A citizenry not interested in its own democracy gets only what it deserves.


Do you agree with this editorial? Should council districts be drawn to represent minority groups and neighborhoods more equitably? Or should that not be a concern for Salisbury's leaders? Tell us in a Letter to the Editor. Email it to

Read or Share this story: