City of Redlands Introduction to 2016 Districting

Transcription

1 City of Redlands Introduction to 2016 Districting Douglas Johnson, President Justin Levitt, Vice President

2 Election Systems 2 1. At Large Candidates can reside anywhere in the jurisdiction All voters vote for all elected officials 2. From District or Residence Districts A candidate must reside in the district he/she wishes to represent All voters vote for all elected officials 3. By District A candidate must reside in the district he/she wishes to represent Only voters in the given district vote on the person to represent them Voters only vote for a single elected official

3 3 Why Districts? At-Large Election By-District Election 30 majority voters 30 majority voters 100 majority voters 20 opposition voters 10 majority voters 20 opposition voters 30 majority voters When one voting bloc significantly outnumbers another, the majority wins every at-large seat. But if the smaller group is geographically concentrated, it can elect someone who shares their views to the Council or Board.

4 The California Voting Rights Act 4 Largely written by attorney Joaquin Avila Signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis in 2002 Suspended until 2006 by initial ruling in the Modesto case Written to make it easier to force jurisdictions into by-district elections than it was under the Federal Voting Rights Act

5 Federal Voting Rights Act 5 Adopted in 1965 Gingles v Thornburg s Four tests for a violation: 1. Can the protected class constitute the majority of a district? 2. Does the protected class vote as a bloc? 3. Do the voters who are not in the protected class vote in a bloc to defeat the preferred candidates of the protected class? 4. Do the totality of circumstances indicate race is a factor in elections?

6 The California Voting Rights Act 6 Eliminates two of the US Supreme Court Gingles tests 1. Can the protected class constitute the majority of a district? 2. Does the protected class vote as a bloc? 3. Do the voters who are not in the protected class vote in a bloc to defeat the preferred candidates of the protected class? 4. Do the totality of circumstances indicate race is a factor in elections? Liability determined only by the presence of racially polarized voting While other systems may be defensible, only by-district elections provide a safe harbor from litigation

7 CVRA Statewide Impact 7 Signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis in 2002 Suspended by Superior Court ruling in the Modesto case, but reinstated by appeals court in Key decisions & settlements Only Palmdale has gone to trial on the merits (the city lost) Key settlements: Palmdale: $4.5 million Modesto: $3 million Makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs to win legal challenges to at-large election systems Anaheim: $1.1 million Whittier: $1 million Santa Barbara: $600,000 Tulare Hospital: plaintiff attorneys paid $500,000 Switched (or in the process of switching) as a result of CVRA: At least 137 school districts Madera Unified: plaintiff attorneys asked for $1.8 million, but received about $170,000 Hanford Joint Union Schools: $118,000 Merced City: $42, Community College Districts Placentia: $20, cities (8 cities voted to change on Tuesday) 1 County Board of Supervisors 8 water and other special districts.

8 Timeline 8 Date Event Stage 1 (Completed) Stage 2 (Completed) Stage 3 (Completed) Stage 4 (Ongoing) Stage 5 ( ) Council set criteria to guide the drawing of draft maps. Public Participation Kit tools posted & distributed. Consultant s Draft Maps and public maps published on project website. Workshops/informal public meetings throughout the city November 10, December 1 and December 13 Formal Public Hearings at regular City Council meetings. January 3, February 7, and February 21 New City Council Districts take effect Check for updates.

9 Districting Criteria 9 Federal Laws Traditional Redistricting Principles Equal Population Communities of interest No Racial Gerrymandering Compact and Contiguous Federal Voting Rights Act Visible (Natural & man-made) boundaries Use whole Census Blocks Respect Voters Wishes / Avoid Pairing

10 10 Demographic Summary City of Redlands Race/Ethnic Profile Count Percent ACS Profile Count Percent Total Population 68,747 ACS Total Population 69,961 2% Latino 20,810 30% Age ,228 29% NH White 37,103 54% Age ,604 52% NH Black/African-American 3,680 5% Age ,129 19% NH Native American 482 1% Age 65+ 9,180 13% NH Asian-American 5,804 8% Immigrant 10,021 14% NH Pacific Islander 270 0% Naturalized 5,740 57% NH Other 184 0% Age 5+ 65,074 NH Multi-Race 414 1% Speaks English at home 48,425 74% Voting Age Population total 52,474 Speaks Spanish at home 10,531 16% VAP Latino 13,708 26% Speaks an Asian language at home 3,229 5% VAP NH White 30,881 59% Speaks other language at home 2,889 4% VAP NH Black/African-American 2,570 5% Speaks English only "well" or less 4,678 7% VAP NH Native American 389 1% Age ,433 VAP NH Asian-American 4,358 8% Age 25+, no HS degree 4,313 10% VAP NH Pacific Islander 180 0% Age 25+, HS degree (only) 22,989 52% VAP NH Other 119 0% Age 25+, bachelor degree (only) 9,305 21% VAP NH Multi-Race 269 1% Age 25+, graduate degree (only) 7,826 18% Citizen VAP total 48,871 Households 24,000 CVAP Latino 11,941 24% Child under 18 in Household 7,331 31% CVAP NH White 30,014 61% Income $0-25k 4,446 19% CVAP NH African-American 2,698 6% Income $25-50k 4,258 18% CVAP NH Asian & Pacific Islander 3,638 7% Income $50-75k 4,405 18% CVAP Other (incl. Nat. Amer. & Pac. Isl.) 581 1% Income $75-200k 9,023 38% Voter Registration (Nov. 2014) 37,537 Income $200k+ 1,868 8% Latino Reg 8,212 22% Housing units 26,244 Asian-Surnamed Reg. 1,094 3% Single-Family 18,739 71% Filipino-Surnamed Reg % Multi-Family 7,506 29% Voters Casting Ballots (Nov. 2014) 17,490 47% Vacant 2,245 9% Latino voters 2,620 15% Occupied 24,000 91% Asian-Surnamed voters 435 2% Rented 9,887 41% Filipino-Surnamed voters 149 1% Owned 14,113 59% Voters Casting Ballots (Nov. 2012) 28,114 73% Latino voters 5,113 18% Asian-Surnamed voters 714 3% Filipino-Surnamed voters 275 1%

11 Latino CVAP 11

12 12 Draft Plans See for all maps & demographics

13 Interactive Map 13 Check the Draft Maps page of for link to this map.

14 NDC Draft 1 14

15 NDC Draft 2 15

16 NDC Draft 2b 16

17 NDC Draft 3 17

18 Layne Draft 2b 18

19 Reiter Draft 2 19

20 Redlands for Civic Engagement A 20

21 Redlands for Civic Engagement B 21

22 Redlands for Civic Engagement C 22

23 Draft Map Comparison 23 NDC 1 NDC 2 NDC 2b NDC 3 Layne 2B Reiter 2 RFCE A RFCE B RFCE C Pop. Balance Most- Latino (CVAP) Compact Pairs Communities 2.23% 3.37% 3.33% 6.71% 9.86% 4.20% 7.57% 3.08% 3.08% 52% 53% 53% 53% 51% 51% 40% 43% 43% Good Good Good OK OK Good Very Good Very 2 each in two districts 2 in one district 2 in one district 2 in one district 4 in one district See maps 4 in one district 4 in one district 4 in one district 3 in one district

24 24 Q & A / Discussion