Loading...
Minutes 12-20-01SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP RE: REDISTRICTING HELD AT THE BOYNTON BEACH HIGH SCHOOL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 200'1, AT 6:30 P.M. Present Gerald Broening, Mayor Ron Weiland, Vice Mayor Charlie Fisher, Commissioner Mack McCray, Commissioner Kurt Bressner, City IVlanager Jim Chemf, City Attorney Janet Prainito, City Clerk Opening Mayor Broening called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m and stated that this was the second of two workshops on redistricting. Mayor Broening introduced Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith, consultant, who has been working on the redistricting issue for several months. Mayor Broening next introduced Attorney David Buffington, the advisor to the City on the legal aspects of redistricting. This is a workshop and no decisions will be made. Hopefully, at the conclusion of the workshop, the Commission wi] come to a consensus on a draft for an Ordinance that would be presented formally at the Commission for further public hearing. Legal Overview of Redistricting by David Buffington, Chief Counsel, Reapportionment Group 2000, LLC Mr. Buffington stated that his firm provides reapportionment services throughout the South. Redistricting is a political process. In the past it was entirely political until the Courts intervened. Several legal requirements and criteria must be met to redistrict and these have been incorporated into the redistricting of Boynton Beach, as follows: The principle of one-man, one-vote shall be adhered to strictly. Districts must be drawn with substantially equal population, with no more than a 10% deviation range. 2. Districts must be composed of contiguous territories. Redistricting requires compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This means that if there is a cohesive minority population around which a district can be drawn, the City must try to draw that district to create a majodty minority district. This is possible with the African/American popu!ation, but the Hispanic population is too dispersed to create a district that would be majority Hispanic. Meeting Minutes City Commission Workshop Boynton Beach, FL December 20, 2001 4. Districts must follow natural, man-made boundaries. Districts must respect communities of interest, including neighborhoods. There has been litigation over the past ten years regarding communities of interest and what they mean. They can be defined in terms of race, age, income and neighborhoods. 6. A district should be as compact as possible. 7. The final criteria is to preserve the core of the existing districts. It is very difficult to meet all these criteria and conflicts can arise. Therefore, the order of the priorities must be followed to determine which criteria comes first. The current City districts must be redrawn because they do not have substantial, equal populations. Mr. Bufflngton distributed and reviewed a handout on the redistricting criteria, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes and filed in the City Clerk's Office. A Presentation was made by Lance deHaven.Smith, Ph,D., a copy of which is attached to the original minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office. Tonight's presentation has been slightly changed from the presentation shown at Tuesday's workshop. Dr. deHaven-Smith covered the significant points of the presentation as follows: Overview The population of the City is approximately 60,000, which must be divided equally into four districts. The range would be between 14,342 and 15,852. A map of the current district was shown, which illustrated the disparity of the current districts. Currently only one of the City's districts meets the 10% requirement (District 3); one is too large (District 4); and the other two are too small (Districts 2 and 3). Therefore, redistricting is necessary. The City has over 14,000 African/Americans. There is a sufficient number of Blacks in the City to have a majority minority district. There are 9,337 African/Americans who are of voting age to create a majority minority district. The City has a high concentration of African/Americans in the northeast quadrant: Village Royale, which is predominately White, is located in the middle of the northeast quadrant. 2 Meeting Minutes City Commission Workshop Boynton Beach, FL December 20, 2001 · / Voters 65 and older are disbursed throughout the City, but there are some areas of concentration. · " The Hispanic population is widely disbursed. · / Precincts that are largely African/American vote Democrat. v' There is no clear voting pattern for Hispanics or seniors. · / The population of the City ~s evenly distributed east and west of 1-95 and reughly even between north and south of Boynton Beach Boulevard. Basic Options · The least change in the Districts would be to move the existing District lines to the north. · The second option, which would De a quadrant model that would divide the City east/west along 1-95 and north/south along Boynton Beach Boulevard. · The third option would be a vertical set of bands, but is not practical because it creates isolated parcels. The first two options should be considered. The least change model was first presented: District 3 has been squared off; the northern boundary line of District 1 has been squared off; the boundary of District 3 has been raised to the north; and the border of District 2 has also been raised to the north. The Districts would have a population of appreximately 15,000 each. The least change model would be (a) 56% African/American (b) have a 50% population of voting age African/Americans (c) create a district that would be a majority senior, and (d) create a heavily Democrat district. A variation of the least change model was presented, which placed Village Royale into District 4. In order to compensate for this move, some areas in District 2 were moved north and some areas were moved south into District 3. This variation would not create a majority African/American District. This leaves the voting age of African/Americans at 42%. This would provide a majority senior District, as well as a Democrat majority. Some adjustment was made to the quadrant model to comply with the population requirements. Districts 3 and 1 were adjusted and District 2 would create a majority minority district (59% African/American), as well as a majority minority voting age. There would still be a majority senior district, as well as a majority Democrat district. A third variation, which is a blend of the horizontal bands and quadrants, was also looked at. Village Royale was moved into District 4 and the boundary for District 2 was moved west. This meets the population criteria; the majority 3 Meeting Minutes City commissiOn Workshop BOynton Beach; FL December 20, 2001 minority District by population and voting age; a senior District; and a District that is large y Democratic. Comparison of the Options Dr. deHaven-Smith revieWed the results of the four alternatives outlined on the comparison chart by categories. This was provided for the benefit of the City Commission and indicates that the four alternatives are not weighted the same. (a) The Least Change Model (variation #1) meets all of the criteria except for the voting age majority Black criteria. (b) The Quadrant Model meets all the criteria except that it does not prOvide "like current districts,'. (c) The Least Change MOdel 2 and the Blend meets even less of the criteria. A discussion session then followed. Commissioner McCray inquired if the majority minority District figures were based on registered voters. Dr. deHaven-Smith responded they were not. The registered voter breakdown was provided to the Commission and the figures are for people of "voting age". Commissioner McCray had concerns that the residents of District 2 need to be educated about registering to vote. Ms. Patti Hammer raised concerns about a newspaper article stating that the redistricting was political. She was against Hunter's Run and Leisureville being grouped in the same district. Vice Mayor Weiland responded that he wanted the City Commission to take the political aspect out of the redistricting and felt the newspaper article was not accurate. Mr. Brian Edwards felt that the redistricting should only require some minor changes. He would like the changes being proposed scaled back and did not support the changes being proposed; Mr. Edwards suggested that the redistricting be done in accordance with registered voters. Attorney Buffington responded that this was not allowed by the Supreme Court. Districts must be based on total population: Mr. Edwards inquired why the districts had to be redrawn. Attorney Buffington informed him that they are out of proportion and violate the one person/one vote requirement. Further, the SUpreme CoUrt has ruled that any deviation over the 10% reqUirement is invalid. 4 Meeting Minutes City Commission Workshop Boynton Beach, FL December 20, 2001 Commissioner McCray inquired if the Least Change version included Village Royale in District 4. Dr. deHaven-Smith responded that in this version Village Royale has been moved to District 2. Commissioner McCray felt that the blend of bands and quadrants was the best version. Mr. Bressner noted that during the next few years, District 3 would experience the greatest growth. Commissioner Fisher also pointed out that a lot of the new developments were not included in the 2000 census. Mr. Dan DeCado pointed out that District 4 will be experiencing growth because of the new housing that will be going up in Quantum Park. It was pointed out that the redistricting process is an ongoing process that will be updated every four years. Mayor Broening inquired of the versions presented, which one would probably not be legally challenged. Attorney Buffington responded that it would be Least Change Version 1 or Quadrants. It was noted that even though there are four versions are being presented tonight, there are more options available. Participants discussed their preferences. Mr. Ron Washam suggested that the City select the Blended Option and keep Village Royale in District 4. Mr. Edwards felt the least Change Version 1 would be best. Vice Mayor Weiland pointed out that in the Blended Version the only change in District 2 is to remove Village Royale, Boynton Lakes and the Meadows, which defeats the purpose of redistricting. Vice Mayor Weiland felt that the quadrant version was the best method to achieve a minority district. Various scenarios were discussed on howto come up with the best selection. Mayor Broening suggested that Districts 2 and 4 be kept as presented and that Dr. deHaven-Smith come back with an equitable way of splitting Districts 1 and 3. It was noted that this would be coming before the Commission at their January 2, 2002 meeting for a vote. Vice Mayor Weiland was not ready to come to a decision tonight. Commissioner Fisher pointed out that changes could always be made to the Ordinance between first and second reading. Attorney Cherof stated that the redistrictin~g would be done through Resolution, and not an Ordinance, which must be adoCted on January 2nd. Dr. deHaven-Smith will forward to the Commission prior to the January 2n° meeting additional versions of the redistricting for consideration. 5 Meeting Minutes City Commission Workshop Boynton Beach, FL December 20, 2001 Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ATTEST: Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (two tapes) Commissioner (December 27, 2001) 6 REDISTRICTING CRITERIA I. CITY CHARTER [ARTICLE II, SECTION 17(E)]. EQUAL POPULATION, COMPACT, PROPORTIONAL, LOGICALLY RELATED TO NATURAL INTERNAL BOUNDARIES OF NEIGHBORHOODS .... PRINCIPLES OF NON- DISCRIMINATION AND ONE MAN/ONE VOTE SHALL BE ADHERED TO STRICTLY .... II. SUPPLEMENTAL CRITERIA. 1. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL WITH EXISTING PRECINCT BOUNDARIES, ACHIEVE POPULATION EQUALITY AMONG THE DISTRICTS. 2. ADHERE TO SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. 3. FOLLOW MAJOR NATURAL AND MAN-MADE BOUNDARIES. 4. MAINTAIN INTEGRITY OF COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST. 5. INSURE COMPACTNESS AND CONTIGUOUS DISTRICTS. 6. PRESERVE THE CORE OF THE EXISTING VOTER DISTRICTS. ~I. LEGAL PRIORITY OF CRITERIA (IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE) CRii'ERION ONE PERSON/ONE VOTE CONTIGUITY LIMITATION CONTIGUITY None COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 2 OF THE COMPACTNESS ~ OTHER CRITERIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT FOLLOW MAJOR NATURAL &; MAN- ONE PERSON/ONE VOTE~ VOTING MADE BOUNDARIES RIGHTS ACT RESPECT COMMUNi lIES OF IN I'EREST (INCLUDING NEIGHBORHOODS) COMPACTNESS PRESERVE CORE OF EXISTING DISTRICTS ONE PERSON/ONE VOTE, VOTING RIGHTS ACT ONE PERSON/ONE VOTE, VOTING RIGHTS ACT ONE PERSON/ONE VOTE, VOTING RIGHTS ACT Compliance with the one person/one vote principle (population equality among districts) always comes first. For example, a districting plan cannot exceed allowable population deviation limits in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, to follow "major" or prednct boundaries, or to preserve the cores of existing districts. Nonetheless, contiguity is on a par with one person/one vote as an ironclad requirement, in that districts cannot be created from un-connected territory in order to comply with one person/one vote. Compliance with the Voting Rights Act has, generally, a higher priority than alt the remaining criteria, but the compactness requirement and other "traditional" criteria cannot be completely disregarded in an effort .to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Compactness is, however, the ultimate "grain of salt" criterion: no matter how strongly stated the legal requirement that districts be "compact," compactness is a criterion given more lip service than actually obeyed, as shown by the examples. IV. KEY PHRASES. 1. A district may pass legal scrutiny without having to defeat alternative zstncts m endless beauty contests." [From Bush v. Vera, a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision.] 2. Districts may be drawn on the basis of voter behavior even though that results in districts in which minorities (for example, African-American voters) are in the majority. [From Hunt v. Cromartie, a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision.] 3. It is acceptable that governments engaged in redistricting "wiLl almost always be aware of racial demographics," and that racial "awareness" without more will not trigger court disapproval. [From Hunt v. Cromartie, a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision.] 4. "Gerrymandering" is not drawing irregularly-shaped districts, it is drawing districts so as to reward the party in power. Its objective is to create as many districts as possible in areas of known support and to concentrate the opposition's strength into as few districts as possible. Districts need not be oddly- shaped to be "gerrymandered." 5. Despite the great number of court decisions endlessly defining and re- defining legal principles applicable to districting, courts have always recognized that redistricting remains at heart a political process. EXAMPLES OF DISTRICTS WHICH COURTS HAVE INVALIDATED ("BAD") OR APPROVED ("GooD") IN THE LAST DECADE .... ,e shapes of these districts show that "compactness" is a relative criterion, always applied ~ ?he context o£ other criteria and leading to apparently inconsistent results. Bad: The "Shaw" District 12th Con~' 9nail Good: "Earmuff" District (Illinois 4th Congressionar BAD - GA 11th Cong District (103rd Cong) Good - NC 12th District Now (107th Congl 'i'n~e other similarity of these districts is, good or bad, all resulted in years of protracted, costly litigation.