Redistricting Redistricting After the 2010 After the 2010 Census Census Jill Wilson and Clint Pinyan Jill Wilson and Clint Pinyan July 18, 2011 July 18, 2011 Board of Education Board of Education Redistricting Committee Redistricting Committee
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Redistricting After the Redistricting After the 2010 Census2010 Census
Jill Wilson and Clint PinyanJill Wilson and Clint PinyanJuly 18, 2011July 18, 2011
Board of EducationBoard of EducationRedistricting CommitteeRedistricting Committee
How Board of Education How Board of Education Districts Can Be RedrawnDistricts Can Be Redrawn
Resolution of Board of Education (N. Resolution of Board of Education (N. C. Gen. Stat. 115C-37(i))C. Gen. Stat. 115C-37(i))
Local LegislationLocal Legislation Court OrderCourt Order
Statute Governing RedistrictingStatute Governing Redistricting
N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-37(i): The local board of N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-37(i): The local board of education shall revise electoral district boundaries from education shall revise electoral district boundaries from time to time as provided by this subsection. If district time to time as provided by this subsection. If district boundaries are set by local act or court order and the act or boundaries are set by local act or court order and the act or order does not provide a method for revising them, the order does not provide a method for revising them, the local board of education shall revise them only for the local board of education shall revise them only for the purpose of (i) accounting for territory annexed to or purpose of (i) accounting for territory annexed to or excluded from the school administrative unit, and (ii) excluded from the school administrative unit, and (ii) correcting population imbalances among the districts correcting population imbalances among the districts shown by a new federal census or caused by exclusions or shown by a new federal census or caused by exclusions or annexations. . . .annexations. . . .
Statute Statute GoverningGoverning Redistricting Redistricting
After the local board of education has revised district After the local board of education has revised district boundaries in conformity with this act, the local board of boundaries in conformity with this act, the local board of education shall not revise them again until a new federal education shall not revise them again until a new federal census of population is taken or territory is annexed to or census of population is taken or territory is annexed to or excluded from the school administrative unit, whichever excluded from the school administrative unit, whichever event occurs first . . . In establishing district boundaries, the event occurs first . . . In establishing district boundaries, the local board of education shall use data derived from the local board of education shall use data derived from the most recent federal census.most recent federal census.
Impact of the StatuteImpact of the Statute
The Board must redistrict, if redistricting is The Board must redistrict, if redistricting is necessary in order to “correct[] population necessary in order to “correct[] population imbalances among the districts shown by a new imbalances among the districts shown by a new federal census.” N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-federal census.” N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-37(i). 37(i).
This statute incorporates the “one person, one This statute incorporates the “one person, one vote” principle.vote” principle.
An extreme example to illustrate the “one An extreme example to illustrate the “one person, one vote” principle: A voter in a one-person, one vote” principle: A voter in a one-voter district would have more power to impact voter district would have more power to impact the Board than a voter in a one hundred the Board than a voter in a one hundred thousand-voter district.thousand-voter district.
The County’s UnevenPopulation Growth
District Number 2000 Total Population 2010 Total Population Percentage Growth
1 47,249 48,430 2.5%
2 47,541 62,294 31.0%
3 47,743 63,230 32.4%
4 45,856 60,211 31.3%
5 46,729 54,728 17.1%
6 46,772 48,146 2.9%
7 45,718 49,652 8.6%
8 47,803 50,172 5.0%
9 45,625 51,543 13.0%
421,036 488,406 16.0%
Analysis of the Impact of Uneven Analysis of the Impact of Uneven Population GrowthPopulation Growth
Courts have routinely applied a “10 percent rule” when Courts have routinely applied a “10 percent rule” when determining whether there is substantial equality among determining whether there is substantial equality among districts, so that the “one person, one vote” requirement districts, so that the “one person, one vote” requirement has been met.has been met.
We first calculate the “ideal district” population. To We first calculate the “ideal district” population. To determine the “ideal district” population, we divide the new determine the “ideal district” population, we divide the new 2010 Census total county population numbers by the 2010 Census total county population numbers by the number of Member districts. This yields the population of number of Member districts. This yields the population of each district, if they were perfectly equal.each district, if they were perfectly equal.
2010 Total County Population 488,406Number of Districts 9Ideal Population Per District 54,267
Analysis of the Impact of Uneven Analysis of the Impact of Uneven Population Growth (continued)Population Growth (continued)
We then calculate how much each of We then calculate how much each of the current districts deviates from the current districts deviates from the “ideal district.” the “ideal district.”
We then add the deviation of the We then add the deviation of the most populous and least populous most populous and least populous districts from the “ideal district” districts from the “ideal district” population.population.
If the total is more than 10%, we If the total is more than 10%, we need to redistrict.need to redistrict.
2010 Population Deviation of 2010 Population Deviation of Current DistrictsCurrent Districts
District Number
2010 Total Population
Deviation from Ideal District
Percentage Deviation
Highest and Lowest
1 48,430 (5,837) -10.8%
2 62,294 8,027 14.8%
3 63,230 8,963 16.5% 16.5%
4 60,211 5,944 11.0%
5 54,728 461 0.8%
6 48,146 (6,121) -11.3% -11.3%
7 49,652 (4,615) -8.5%
8 50,172 (4,095) -7.5%
9 51,543 (2,724) -5.0%
County Total: 488,406
Population Variance: 27.8%
Ideal District: 54,267
Why It Is Necessary for Us to Redraw Why It Is Necessary for Us to Redraw Member District Boundaries?Member District Boundaries?
In Guilford County, the “ideal district” In Guilford County, the “ideal district” population based on 2010 Census population based on 2010 Census numbers is 54,267.numbers is 54,267.
The most populous district is District 3, The most populous district is District 3, with a variance of 16.5% above the ideal.with a variance of 16.5% above the ideal.
The least populous district is District 6, The least populous district is District 6, with a variance of 11.3% below the ideal.with a variance of 11.3% below the ideal.
Adding the two percentages, we get 27.8% Adding the two percentages, we get 27.8% which violates the “10 percent rule” and which violates the “10 percent rule” and triggers the need to redistrict.triggers the need to redistrict.
The Need to Reallocate Population
Districts That Must Achieve Smaller Populations: Districts 2, 3 and 4.
Districts That Must Achieve Larger Populations: Districts 1, 6, 7 and 8 (and probably 9).
DOJ Preclearance RequirementsDOJ Preclearance Requirements
The Board of Education is one of the entities subject to “preclearance” requirements under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This means that any proposed redistricting plan adopted by the Board must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice for approval prior to implementation.
The DOJ will review to determine if the plan has the purpose or effect of diluting the voting influence of minority voters.
DOJ Preclearance ProcessDOJ Preclearance Process The Board must submit a wide variety of information about
the redistricting decision (population information, maps considered, description of the redistricting process, etc.).
The DOJ has 60 days to review redistricting plans submitted under Section 5.
The DOJ may request additional information, as it did after the 2001 redistricting.
The DOJ will then either grant “preclearance,” giving the jurisdiction the go-ahead to implement the change, OR
The DOJ will object to the plan if it has the purpose or effect of diluting the voting influence of minority voters.
Substance of the DOJ’s Substance of the DOJ’s Preclearance DecisionPreclearance Decision
The DOJ determines if it believes that the The DOJ determines if it believes that the plan has either the purpose or the effect of plan has either the purpose or the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.account of race or color.
A plan may not lead to “retrogression” in A plan may not lead to “retrogression” in the position of minority voters with respect the position of minority voters with respect to their effective exercise of the right to to their effective exercise of the right to vote. In other words, it cannot make it vote. In other words, it cannot make it harder for minority voters to elect a harder for minority voters to elect a representative of their choice.representative of their choice.
Retrogression AnalysisRetrogression Analysis
The DOJ determines if a plan is retrogressive by comparing The DOJ determines if a plan is retrogressive by comparing it to the “benchmark” or currently implemented district it to the “benchmark” or currently implemented district boundary plan.boundary plan.
The Section 5 guidelines identify a number of factors that The Section 5 guidelines identify a number of factors that the DOJ considers in determining whether a new the DOJ considers in determining whether a new redistricting plan is retrogressive, including whether the redistricting plan is retrogressive, including whether the new plan:new plan:
Reduces minority voting strength in any district;Reduces minority voting strength in any district; Has fewer districts in which minority voters can elect candidates of Has fewer districts in which minority voters can elect candidates of
choice;choice; Splits minority communities among several districts;Splits minority communities among several districts; Over-concentrates minority voters in one or more districts;Over-concentrates minority voters in one or more districts; Ignores available natural or artificial boundaries without Ignores available natural or artificial boundaries without
explanation.explanation.
Burden is on the Board to show that the change had no Burden is on the Board to show that the change had no discriminatory purpose and will have no retrogressive discriminatory purpose and will have no retrogressive effect.effect.
The First Step in the Retrogression Analysis
This begins with a mathematical comparison of the racial breakdown of the voting age populations between the current district and any proposed new districts. The 2010 Census figures are used for these comparisons, and, because of the nature of the Guilford County population, the African-American population is the most pertinent comparison.
The mathematical comparison is where the DOJ will start, but the DOJ says that it “does not rely on any predetermined or fixed demographic percentages at any point in the assessment.” And the comparison is ultimately only one factor in determining whether there has been retrogression.
Current District Voting Age Populations
District
Total Voting Age Population
White Voting Age Population
White Voting Age Percentage
Black Voting Age Population
Black Voting Age Percentage
Other Race Voting Age Population
Other Race Voting Age Percentage
D1 35,611 13,789 38.72% 17,074 47.95% 4,748 13.33%
D2 47,937 35,071 73.16% 8,493 17.72% 4,373 9.12%
D3 47,698 39,974 83.81% 4,901 10.28% 2,823 5.92%
D4 43,964 24,382 55.46% 16,424 37.36% 3,158 7.18%
D5 42,783 34,214 79.97% 6,031 14.10% 2,538 5.93%
D6 39,904 25,046 62.77% 10,393 26.05% 4,465 11.19%
D7 39,279 32,790 83.48% 4,794 12.20% 1,695 4.32%
D8 38,711 9,484 24.50% 24,243 62.63% 4,984 12.87%
D9 38,074 10,108 26.55% 24,525 64.41% 3,441 9.04%
Totals 373,961 224,858 116,878 32,225
Considerations in Retrogression Whether a less retrogressive plan can reasonably
be drawn. Whether drawing a less retrogressive plan would
unreasonably split minority communities among several districts, or would ignore other community boundaries or considerations.
Historic voting patterns, such as the participation rate of minority voters and the historical election of the candidates of the choice of minority voters.
Whether there has been an over-concentration of minority voters in any district, or other over-reaction to retrogression analysis.
The Intersection of One Person, One Vote and Section 5
Preclearance Districts 1, 8 and 9 deviate below the “ideal Districts 1, 8 and 9 deviate below the “ideal
district” total population and must add district” total population and must add population.population.
Must do so without causing retrogressive Must do so without causing retrogressive effects.effects.
May not disregard traditional districting May not disregard traditional districting principles, such as compactness, contiguity principles, such as compactness, contiguity and maintaining communities of interest.and maintaining communities of interest.
Shaw vs. Reno Considerations
The Constitution requires districts that are not “extremely irregular” and that meet reasonable concerns about compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries or political subdivisions.
In Shaw vs. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down North Carolina’s new congressional redistricting plan following the 1990 census for being too irregular.
Other Considerations in Redistricting
Maintaining incumbent Members in their districts.
Maintaining at least one high school in each district and considering attendance zone lines.
Keeping voters in their current districts, to the extent possible.
Not splitting voting precincts between districts, in order to avoid costs, difficulty in administration and voter confusion.
Map 1
Map 1
D5
D4D3
D2
D9
D1
D7
D6D8
GR
RC2
PG2
JEF1
MON3 NMAD
STOK
SDRI
SF1
RC1
OR1
SCLAY
NWASH
NDRI
JAM5
SF2
JEF4
SUM4
JEF2
SWASHSMAD
NCGR2
OR2
SF4
G64
PG1
NCLAY2
SF3
JAM4
NCGR1
GIB
FEN1
FR4
JEF3
FR5
MON2A
SUM3
H04
SUM1
MON1
SUM2
FEN2
H01
CG2
H25
G06
CG1
H29B
NCLAY1
FR1G50
H03
H06
G75
JAM1
H05
H29A
JAM3
H27
H10
G53
FR2
G41
G21
H28
G42
G10
CG3B
G26
G43
H26
H23
H24
G08
G72
G52
G09FR3
G17
G60
H02
H15
JAM2
G49
G54
G20
H13
G51
G07
G39 G03
G27
G32
G61
G74G73
G02
G57
MON2B
G47
G19
G36
H07
G55
H18
G38
H16
G59
G48
G62
G04
H11
G56
H14H09
G31
G71G37
G11
G34
G22
H12
G69
H21
G25
G16 G68
G44
H17
G24
G29
H20A
H22
G46
G65
G30
H20B
G58
G40A1
G33
G13
H08
G18
H19B
CG3A
G35
G66
G63G15
G40B
G70
G23
G40A2
G28
G05
G45
G12G01
G67
H19A
Map 1: Total Population Deviation
District Number2010 Total Population
Deviation from Ideal District
Percentage Deviation
Highest and Lowest
1 51,863 -2,404 -4.43% -4.43%
2 56,268 2,001 3.69% 3.69%
3 53,745 -522 -0.96%
4 54,808 541 1.00%
5 54,954 687 1.27%
6 53,391 -876 -1.61%
7 54,200 -67 -0.12%
8 54,315 48 0.09%
9 54,862 595 1.10%
County Total: 488,406 Population Variance: 8.12%
Ideal District: 54,267
Map 1: Voting Age Population
District
Total Voting Age Population
White Voting Age Population
White Voting Age Percentage
Black Voting Age Population
Black Voting Age Percentage
Other Race Voting Age Population
Other Race Voting Age Percentage
D1 39,481 16,463 41.70% 18,732 47.45% 4,286 10.86%
D2 42,452 30,750 72.43% 7,142 16.82% 4,560 10.74%
D3 40,136 34,834 86.79% 3,117 7.77% 2,185 5.44%
D4 40,732 26,019 63.88% 11,884 29.18% 2,829 6.95%
D5 42,238 32,261 76.38% 6,525 15.45% 3,452 8.17%
D6 43,602 27,336 62.69% 11,212 25.71% 5,054 11.59%
D7 42,855 35,873 83.71% 5,106 11.91% 1,876 4.38%
D8 42,565 10,723 25.19% 27,266 64.06% 4,576 10.75%
D9 39,900 10,599 26.56% 25,894 64.90% 3,407 8.54%
Totals 373,961 224,858 116,878 32,225
Map 2
Map 2
D5
D4
D3
D2
D9
D7
D1
D6D8
GR
RC2
PG2
JEF1
MON3 NMAD
STOK
SDRI
SF1
RC1
OR1
SCLAY
NWASH
NDRI
JAM5
SF2
JEF4
SUM4
JEF2
SWASHSMAD
NCGR2
OR2
SF4
G64
PG1
NCLAY2
SF3
JAM4
NCGR1
GIB
FEN1
FR4
JEF3
FR5
MON2A
SUM3
H04
SUM1
MON1
SUM2
FEN2
H01
CG2
H25
G06
CG1
H29B
NCLAY1
FR1G50
H03
H06
G75
JAM1
H05
H29A
JAM3
H27
H10
G53
FR2
G41
G21
H28
G42
G10
CG3B
G26
G43
H26
H23
H24
G08
G72
G52
G29G09FR3
G17
G60
H02
H15
JAM2
G49
G54
G20
H13
G51
G07
G39 G03
G27
G32
G61
G74G73
G02
G57
MON2B
G47
G19
G36
H07
G55
H18
G38
H16
G59
G48
G62
G04
H11
G56
H14H09
G31
G71G37
G11
G34
G22
H12
G69
H21
G25
G16 G68
G44
H17
G24
H20A
H22
G46
G65
G30
H20B
G58
G40A1
G33
G13
H08
G18
H19B
CG3A
G35
G66
G63G15
G40B
G70
G23
G40A2G28
G05
G45
G12G01
G67
H19A
Map 2: Total Population Deviation
District Number2010 Total Population
Deviation from Ideal District
Percentage Deviation
Highest and Lowest
1 51,863 -2,404 -4.43% -4.43%
2 56,268 2,001 3.69% 3.69%
3 54,781 514 0.95%
4 52,858 -1409 -2.60%
5 54,954 687 1.27%
6 53,391 -876 -1.61%
7 55,114 847 1.56%
8 54,315 48 0.09%
9 54,862 595 1.10%
County Total: 488,406 Population Variance: 8.12%
Ideal District: 54,267
Map 2: Voting Age Population
District
Total Voting Age
Population
White Voting Age
Population
White Voting Age
Percentage
Black Voting Age
Population
Black Voting Age
Percentage
Other Race Voting Age Population
Other Race Voting Age Percentage
D1 39,481 16,463 41.70% 18,732 47.45% 4,286 10.86%
D2 42,452 30,750 72.43% 7,142 16.82% 4,560 10.74%
D3 41,156 35,389 85.99% 3,470 8.43% 2,297 5.58%
D4 39,455 25,106 63.63% 11,654 29.54% 2,695 6.83%
D5 42,238 32,261 76.38% 6,525 15.45% 3,452 8.17%
D6 43,602 27,336 62.69% 11,212 25.71% 5,054 11.59%
D7 43,112 36,231 84.04% 4,983 11.56% 1,898 4.40%
D8 42,565 10,723 25.19% 27,266 64.06% 4,576 10.75%
D9 39,900 10,599 26.56% 25,894 64.90% 3,407 8.54%
Totals 373,961 224,858 116878 32225
Related Documents
