BALTIMORE'S CITY Council has apparently learned nothing from the Nov. 5 election. Instead of trying to figure out how to best carry out the voters' resounding mandate to downsize the bloated body, incumbents are talking about self-preservation through settling petty scores.
This is shameful -- but fully in keeping with the shortsighted way in which the council has conducted its business.
"It may be even bloodier than last time," Council President Sheila Dixon says of the redistricting process.
With the council about to shift from six three-member districts -- plus an at-large president -- to 14 single-member districts, the incumbents face uncertain prospects.
As a result, the situation is unpredictable. The council's racial balance may be altered. It's even possible that a Republican might be elected for the first time since 1939.
The mayor, who will draw the new maps, and the council, which will review them, are under the gun to complete the redistricting by June. That's because the council moved the city's next general election to 2004 without realizing they did not have the power to also change the primary date. As a result, municipal primaries are set for Sept. 2003 -- fully 14 months before the general election.
Frantic, belated efforts are going on to correct this mistake. But any change can be made only in the Maryland General Assembly, which is not overly sympathetic about the City Council's self-imposed dilemma.
The City Council's incumbents -- and much of the city's overall political leadership -- campaigned against the 14 single-member districts. Nevertheless, 65 percent of voters opted for a more representative, responsive and responsible council.
Perhaps the tin-eared City Council did not get the message. But Mayor Martin O'Malley should have heard it loud and clear. He should heed it.
In supporting a smaller council, Baltimore voters showed they want a serious and thoughtful redistricting, not a sham rearrangement that protects the incumbents. Politicians will ignore that message at their own peril.