Representation Without Taxation - A Local Government Example
<b>Update:</b> February 5, 2010 (see below)<br>
<br>
Alaska and a small utility district in Texas. Who would have thought they could have anything in
common. But they do: representation without taxation.<br>
<br>
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal by NAMUDNO (Northwest
Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1), in a case that I discussed in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/449" target="”_blank”">a blog entry</a> a year ago.
The utility district is trying to have Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act declared unconstitutional, not the sort of thing most utility district citizens want to spend their hard-earned money on.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123820648702763441.html?mod=googlenews_…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's <span>Wall Street
Journal</span></a>, it turns out that the reason the citizens of the
utility district (there is no utility, by the way, just a park) were
willing to bring this suit is that they didn't have to put up one dime
for it. Conservative organizations were happy to foot the bill, and the
lawyer who convinced the district to bring the suit, a former Texas
Solicitor General and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas, was willing to work pro bono.<br>
<br>
A white utility district filing a suit to undermine the Voting Rights
Act is a big deal. But that isn't the way it was treated in this Austin
suburb.<br>
<br>
<p>The utility board treated [the lawyer]'s
proposal as a typical agenda
item, providing no special notice or opportunities for residents to
discuss the issue.</p>
<p>[The utility district member who worked
closely with the lawyer] says the legal issues were too complex for lay
persons
to contribute to the debate. Besides, "apathy is the rule of the day in
my neighborhood," he says. "If we called a forum, there'd be a handful
of radicals pouring in" to oppose the suit, but "there's no handful of
people on my side" certain to attend.</p>
<p>Some residents, though, were disturbed to
discover that their
utility board had filed suit to invalidate part of the Voting Rights
Act. "No one knew about it. It was a stealth action," says Chris
Bowers, 40, a computer-engineering manager who has lived in Canyon
Creek for eight years. He began attending board meetings to question
members about the decision.</p>
<p>"The response was very much, 'We were
elected and this is what we're
doing, so too bad,' " Mr. Bowers says. Concerned that publicity
about
the case could damage property values, Mr. Bowers, a Democrat, decided
to run for the utility board on an anti-lawsuit platform. In the May
2008 election, he got 179 votes -- first place among the three
candidates vying for two seats.<br>
</p>
<p>But Bowers had only one of five votes (all of seven citizens showed
up at the meeting), and the utility district filed its appeal with the
Supreme Court, making the suburb famous throughout Texas and the nation
for its racism. Many local governments in eight states affected by
Section 5, including the county in which the utility district lies,
joined in a brief against NAMUDNO.<br>
</p>
<p>Why did this suburb do what it did? Its citizens didn't know and
didn't care. Why not? Because they didn't have to pay a penny out of
their own pockets. It had nothing to do with them. The perils of representation without taxation.<br>
<br>
<b>Update:</b> February 5, 2010<br>
Yesterday, the Austin city council abolished NAMUDNO, a few months after the Supreme Court decision (see point 16 of <a href="http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council_meetings/public_meeting_agenda.cfm?m…; target="”_blank”">the minutes</a>). End of story.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>