The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCA 2021-2022 City Council Redistricting Process PPT2020 Census Preparing for Redistricting Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council 1 A Presentation to the San Rafael City Council September 13, 2021 9/13/2021 Recap of Process & Timeline 2Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Key Dates –Beginning and End •August 12, 2021: Census Bureau released PL94-171 redistricting data •Usually released in Feb/March of year following Census •Late -September:anticipated release of adjusted data by Statewide Database •Have to wait 1-3 weeks after data are released before maps can be drawn •March 21, 2022: anticipated completion date (to allow ample time for implementation by the Marin County Elections Office) •If necessary, additional action can be taken at Board Meeting on Feb. 2, 2022 •April 17, 2022: Legal deadline for completion of redistricting process. 3Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Redistricting Process: Anticipated Council Meetings/Hearings September 13, 2021 Council Meeting Presentations at Council meeting re (1) legal and policy criteria governing redistricting, and (2) preliminary demographics of existing council districts based on Census legacy data or appropriate estimates. November 8, 2021 Council Meeting Demographer provides updated demographic analysis of existing districts with final adjusted Census numbers; Council conducts first public hearing to solicit testimony regarding criteria to be used for redistricting, especially communities of interest. January 18, 2022 Council Meeting Council conducts second public hearing to solicit testimony regarding criteria to be used for redistricting, especially communities of interest; Council adopts criteria for redistricting, identifies communities of interest, instructs demographic consultant to prepare draft district plans. February 21, 2022 Council Meeting Demographic consultant to present initial draft district plan(s). Council holds public hearing on draft plan(s). Council may order modifications to any of the plan(s). March 21, 2022 Council Meeting Demographer presents one or more additional draft plans and modified plans, incorporating public testimony as appropriate; Council holds public hearing on draft plans, votes to choose one plan, adopts resolution setting actual boundaries. If the Council instead orders modifications to any of the plans, another public hearing will be required. * Dates are subject to change 4Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Process: Effect on Current Councilmembers •No councilmember’s term cut short (see Elec. Code §21626(a)), but •When his or her term ends, an incumbent can only run from the new district in which he or she resides. 5Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Legal & Policy Criteria 6Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Traditional Criteria: •Keep incumbents in their current districts/respect voters’ choices/avoid head-to -head elections •Minimize election year changes •Future population growth Federal Criteria: •Equal Population •Voting Right Act •No Racial Gerrymandering Statutory Criteria: 1.Geographically contiguous 2.Minimize division of neighborhoods and “communities of interest” to the extent practicable 3.Easily identifiable boundaries (major streets, etc.) 4.Compactness of population 7Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Federal Criteria: Equal Population •Overriding criterion is total population equality, see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). •Unlike congressional districts, local electoral districts do not require perfect equality—some deviation acceptable to serve valid governmental interests. •Total deviation less than 10% presumptively constitutional. (Caution: the presumption can be overcome!) 8Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Federal Criteria: Equal Population (cont.) 9 1.Divide the total population by the number of seats to get the ideal population 2.Subtract the smallest district’s population from the largest 3.Divide #2 by #1 to get the total plan deviation Total Population:414,076 1 2 3 4 5 Ideal:82,815 Pop.84,683 82,167 83,661 80,568 82,997 Deviation Range:4,115 Dev.1,868 -648 846 -2,247 182 Total Deviation %:4.97%Dev. %2.26%-0.78%1.02%-2.71%0.22% Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Population Equality: State Law •Elec. Code §21621(a)(2): “[A]n incarcerated person … shall not be counted towards a city’s population, except for an incarcerated person whose last known place of residence may be assigned to a census block in the city …” 10Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Preliminary Demographics Dist.Est. Pop.Dev.*% Dev. 1 15,074 -244 -1.59% 2 15,544 226 1.48% 3 14,563 -755 -4.93% 4 16,090 772 5.04% Total 61,271 1,527 9.97% 11 * Ideal District Population: 15,318 total persons Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Federal Criteria: Voting Rights Act •Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits electoral systems (including district plans), which dilute racial and language minority voting rights by denying them an equal opportunity to nominate and elect candidates of their choice. •“Language minorities” are specifically defined in federal law to mean persons of American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or Spanish heritage. •Creation of minority districts required only if the minority group can form the majority in a single member district that otherwise complies with the law. Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009). 12Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Federal Criteria: No Racial Gerrymandering 13 •The Fourteenth Amendment restricts the use of race as the “predominant” criterion in drawing districts and the subordination of other considerations. Shaw v. Reno,509 U.S. 630 (1993); Miller v. Johnson,515 U.S. 900 (1995). •Such predominant use must be justified as narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling state interest –i.e., strict scrutiny •Bizarrely shaped electoral districts can be evidence that racial considerations predominate, but bizarre shape is not required for racial considerations to “predominate.” •Fourteenth Amendment does not, however, prohibit all consideration of race in redistricting. Easley v. Cromartie,532 U.S. 234 (2001). •Focus on communities of interest. Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Preliminary Demographics Dist. % Latino CVAP % NH Black CVAP % NH Asian CVAP % NH White CVAP 1 38.64%2.55%11.95%46.26% 2 7.19%3.41%4.78%84.10% 3 8.74%2.79%8.00%78.07% 4 7.70%1.11%8.13%81.46% Total 11.33%2.46%7.50%77.33% 14 “CVAP” = citizen voting age population Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 State Law Criteria (FAIR MAPS Act): Used to be discretionary (even in 2018); now mandatory & ranked: 1.Contiguity 2.Geographic integrity of Neighborhoods/Communities of Interest (COIs) 3.Easily identifiable natural and artificial boundaries 4.Compactness of population 15 Elections Code §21621(c): (c)The council shall adopt district boundaries using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority: (1)To the extent practicable,council districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous.Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge,tunnel,or regular ferry service are not contiguous. (2)To the extent practicable,the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest”is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties,incumbents,or political candidates. (3)Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents.To the extent practicable,council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers,by streets,or by the boundaries of the city. (4)To the extent practicable,and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision,council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations. (d)The council shall not adopt council district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party. Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 COIs: What Are They? •State Law Definition: “a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation” •Application: •Must have a common social or economic interest •That has a connection to City policy •Can be geographically described •And benefits from being in a single district •NOT a community of interest: “Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.” 16Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 COIs: What Could They Include? 17 •Lifestyle: e.g., community character, recreation, shared social gatherings •Economy: e.g., major employer/industry, commercial areas •Demography: e.g., race*, income, education, language, immigration status, housing, etc. •Geography: e.g., urban/suburban/rural, mountainous, coastal •Political subdivisions: CSDs, planning areas, etc. •Place-based issues/needs: e.g., public safety (wildfire concerns), environmental (air pollution) Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 COIs: 2011 State Commission Examples 18 •“Its primary shared economic interest is agriculture, both valley agricultural bases, such as wheat, corn, tomatoes, alfalfa and various tree crops, and the wine-growing regions of Napa, Lake, and Sonoma counties.” •The district “includes communities of Crestline to Big Bear that share the common lifestyle of the mountain forest area of the county and similar interests in wildlife and emergency services concerns regarding wildfire danger.” •“This district also joins a community of interest made up of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders with shared economic and social ties based on income status, housing, language, and immigration status, including a large Hmong immigrant community.” •“It includes the communities that surround Folsom Lake with its shared recreational interests.” •“This district includes the core neighborhoods containing the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (“LGBT”) community, as well as several lower- income, immigrant and working-class neighborhoods.” •“This district is characterized by the interests of the western Coachella Valley, and includes tourism, a retirement community with needs for health care access, and bedroom communities.” •“The district reflects shared concerns about education, safety, and economic interests, along with transportation interests among cities that share the 605 Freeway as a major corridor” •“This district is characterized by common interests of the communities of western Riverside County, animal-keeping interests of Jurupa Valley and Norco; and shared interests between Eastvale, Norco, and Corona. Corona and Norco share a common school district.” •“Cities and communities surrounding LAX work together in addressing jet noise mitigation issues and managing airport traffic.” Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Communities of Interest: Identifying Them •Demographic data: e.g., American Community Survey data, etc. •Official county and city neighborhood maps/business districts •Neighborhood groups/neighborhood watch groups/NextDoor groups/HOA Associations •Welcome signs/gateway monument signs •Online mapping tools •Community testimony 19 “[T]he identification of a ‘community of interest,’ a necessary first step to ‘preservation,’ requires insights that cannot be obtained from maps or even census figures. Such insights require an understanding of the community at issue, which can often be acquired only through direct and extensive experience with the day-to-day lives of an area’s residents.” Favors v. Cuomo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36910, *27 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012) (footnote omitted). Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Possible Role of Other Traditional Criteria 20 •Minimize shifting voters from one election year to another/retaining core of existing districts •Voters currently in districts scheduled to vote in 2022 could be redistricted into a 2024 district, meaning there would be a six-year gap between their voting in Board elections •Avoid head-to-head contests •Anticipating future growth? •Other political subdivisions’ boundaries (e.g., community service districts, school districts) Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021 Questions? 21Intro to 2021 Redistricting –San Rafael City Council9/13/2021