HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 05.21.2001f
' item No.:
Council meeting date: May 21, 2001
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Direction to staff concerning desired revisions to City Charter, timing, and discussion of
process for appointing a Charter Review Committee
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item was carried forward from the May 14, 2001 meeting.
The City is limited to revising its Charter to no more than once ,every two year's. Some
of the items stated below would not require a Charter election. Section ' 9.15 of ,the City
Charter allows for "rearrangement and renumbering", which may, be. able .to address
some of the Council's concerns. In addition, State law controls if there is a conflict,- and
appropriate changes and footnoting the, superceding law could also be accomplished.,.
Specific direction is needed for any substantive changes that are desired to be- drafted
by. outside counsel and/or a list of issues to be considered by a Charter Review
Committee as a part of its charge, in order that the preparatory'work for legal support to
the Charter Review Committee can be initiated.
On March 5, 2001, the City Council discussed making the. following revisions to the City,
Charter, in coordination with any -changes to the City's election method (provided in
§2.o1- of the City Charter) as a result of the 2000 Census. -
Order the Charter provisions in a "standard" form, for a Charter that was being -
written today and for a City our size,
Organize the Charter in a way that is reader -friendly and word .the Charter in a- .
manner that is more readable
o Revise any provisions that are not in compliance with State law to meet State
requirements
• Provide a recommendation from him on other Charter,. provisions that in his
experience he recognized should be revised
When the City Council initially considered this item, they ; requested that. a specific .
attorney be hired for this work, but it was later determined that he had no experience in
drafting City Charters. I have requested a firm that has done significant work with City
Charters to conduct an initial review of the City Charter,- considering the items stated".
above, and this work is being performed on an hourly rate, and is estimated to take 5
.10 hours. This initial review should be completed In the next couple of weeks. At that
point they could provide an accurate estimate of the time required to perform the work,
requested above,- as well as for any additional work-des!red by the, City Council, 'as
requested above,
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Submitted By:
Marian a Landers Banks, City Attorney
May 15 U 1 1 i 2 1 UP 4-4401 Oa., a s �..
Charter Issues from MwyEllen Kersch:
Iti m L
,r-21-2o0j
Here's a quick pass at some things that stand out:
1. Charter is badly organized —looks like a patchwork quilt.
2. What is missing from comprehensive plan, i.e., what has not been done that is required?
(Public transit, for instance)
3. Section 2.03 is out of compliance
4. Requirements for initiative, referendum, recall are not properly defined under district
system.
5. Sec. 9.02, open records, is not being practiced. Is this related to superior statute?
I would like the Charter revision commission to consider the following issues:
1. City Attorney should be "at will" along with all Council appointed officials.
2. Require that all assistants to Council appointed officials be approved by Council.
3. Requirement that all budget hearings be held in the City (Hall, if possible).
4. Under Soo. 9.03; Restriction on use of official position/ city property to act in
contravention of official policy. Perhaps statement that employees shall attempt to
influence policy by utilizing official channels. Any other involvement must be on own
time, using own resources, and as private citizen.
5. Restrictions on use of C.O. funding, perhaps formal process, percentage limitation, etc.
11-1*M "' 6. Requirement that a current inventory of (real) property owned by the City be
maintained.
7. Requirement that on a regular basis, and after any revision, the Charter have legal
review for consistency, compliance.
8. Requirement that Council, on annual basis following elections, review Charter, just as it
Anee ^016;nc rrarnnirgkmAnte
n policy (perhaps in
FILE
Council meeting date: May 21, 2001 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning redistricting and/or alternative
election methods, timeline, charge to citizens' committee, and process for appointment
of citizens' committee
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item was carried forward from the May 14, 2001 meeting.
This item is now back for the Council Is continued discussion and possible direction to
staff on drafting a charge to a citizen's committee to review the City's election system
and make adjustments as needed due to the population increases identified in the 2000
Census. The City Council has discussed generally the City's current voting method, of
electing Council representatives from seven single -member districts, as well as some
modified at -large election methods, such as cumulative voting, preference voting, and
limited voting. A summary of the Council minutes on this item are included as
background for new Councilmembers.
Since the last workshop, I have received the analysis from Dr. Brischetto concerning
whether a major ty Hispanic district could still be drawn with the current population data,
and without the "perry -wandered" lines of the existing plan. Dr. Brischetto reported that
such a plan can be drawn. The decision for the City Council will now be what options to
place before a citizens' committee on revisions to the City's election methods. The
proposed options for proceeding with the redistricting process will be presente�' at the
Council workshop, as well as a summary of the legal issues surrounding the -ecsricting
in general.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The issues to be considered by the citizens' committee in drawing districts, should also
be addressed at this meeting. A draft charge to the citizens' committee will be
presented, with what have been considered legitimate issues that can be considered in
drawing district boundaries, e.g. natural geographic boundaries, cohesive
neighborhoods, etc. It is also recommended that the City Council determine the
process for selection of the citizens' committee at this meeting, in order that
appointment of members can be placed on the May 22, 2001 agenda, if possible.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Summary of 2000 Census Data for Georgetown
• Current Population distribution among seven districts using 1990 census data
• Summary of minutes from prior Council meetings
• Redistricting Memo
• Copy of PowerPoint presentation "Voting Methods and Census 2000"
Sutmitted By:
Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney
nerican FactFinder
Basic Facts )- Quick Tables
IT-PL. Raaca, Hisa Qr-..ai.n2_Pod.AQd:_2-0-Latino,
ieographic Area: Georgetown city, TaAa s
JOTS: Data not adjusted based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. For information on confidentiality protection,
empling error, nonsampang error, and definitions see hyp:ltfactfir)der.cenBM.QoyJhomttlen/dIMnotes/emoluhtmi,
'Subject
All ages
18 ears and over
Number
Percent
Number
Perzen
RACE
Total population
28,339
1100.0
21 69
100.
One race
27,820
98.2
21,415
98.
White
24.200
85,4
18,963
87.
Black or African American
960
3.4
686
3.
American Indian and Alaska Native
100
0.4
75
0.
Asian
190
0.71
15
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
15
0.1
13
----0.71
0.11
Some other race
2.356
6.3
1,526
7.01
Two or more races
519
1.8
260
1.31
HISPANIC OR LAT1NO AND RACE
Total population
100.0
2.1,69i
100.01
Hispanic or '_atiro (of any race)
128,339
S. t 21
18.11
3,291
15.21
Not Hispanic or Latinc
2321
18,404
84.81
One race
22.960
181.91
81.
18,249
84.1
White
21.763
76.81
17,366
80.
Elac}c ;; = `can .americ3n
93
3-
67E
3.1
American Indiar, and Alaska Native
5
0.
38
0.
Asian
18
0.
15
0.71
NaNe'-13waiian and Other Pacific islander
10
0.
10
0.
5cr �e other race
1
0.
0.
T li or more races
251
0..,
15-
0.
icurca: U.a. Census Bureau, Census.2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File,
Matrices PL1, PL2, PL3, and PL4.
EXISTING DISTINCT POPULATION DIVISIONS
BASED ON 1990 DATA
(excerpt from 2001 Dept. of Justice Preclearance Submittal)
District
Total
NHWhite
NHBlack
Hispanic
NHOther
1
2,123
759
124
1,231
9
35.7%
5.9%
58%
.4%
2
2,061
1,064
340
633
23
52%
17%
31 %
1 %
3
2,322
2,024
64
220
14
87.2%
2.7%
9.5%
.6%
4
2,313
2,134
14
140
25
92.3%
.6%
6%
1.1 %
5
2,322
2,120
35
156
11
91 %
1.5%
7%
.5%
6
2,260
1,773
82
382
23
78.5%
3.6%
16.9%
1 %
7
2,383
1,897
75
371
40
79.6%
3.1 %
15.0"/0
1.7%
Synopsis of Minutes of Redistricting Process 2001
Monday, March 9, 2001 City Council Workshop
A Redistricting and Charter Review
Council asked Banks to contact Houston attorney, David Brooks, for a
proposal regarding "cleaning up" the Georgetown Charter. Council would
want him to make sure it complies with State law and asked that he clarify
provisions.
Council asked Banks to explain the options regarding protecting minority
representation. Banks explained that the laws have changed significantly
since 1990, and there are alternative ways to construct the voting districts.
There was discussion regarding structuring of committees and when to
schedule the issues for election. It was suggested that there would need
to be representation from each district.
Monday, March 26, 2001 City Council Workshop
B Discussion of election methods and census data for the City of
Georgetown -- Marianne Banks
Deputy City Attorney Gary Martin introduced Dr. Robert Brischetto of
Social Research Services, inc. Brischetto explained Limited Voting, Cumulative
Voting, and Preference Voting
Monday, April 9, 2001 City Council Workshop
C Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning redistricting and/or
alternative election methods and timeline -- Marianne Banks and George Russell
Banks asked Council for direction. At Kersch's request, Banks explained
the Court's response in 1990 to our Single -Member District Plan compared with
today since the law has changed and now that race can no longer be considered
the issue for creating single -member districts, saying that the City will need to do
something different than what we have now. It was generally agreed that the
maps showing the distribution of the ethnic percentages would need to be
reviewed before deciding which method to choose. Banks was told to bring this
item back for a future workshop.
Monday, April 23, 2001 City Council Workshop (draft minutes)
C Update on Redistricting/Charter Issues -- Marianne Banks
Banks reviewed options on redistricting, saying the consultant is
determining if new lines can be drawn to create a minority/Hispanic district
without diluting the minority voting in the City. there was discussion as to the
various methods and differing opinions from Counciimembers as to how to
proceed.
VOTING RIGHTS
AND
CENSUS 2000
■Understanding the law
■What the Census said
■Election options for the City
VOTING RIGHTS:
RULE # 1
■ U.S. Constitution: one person, one vote
— If have districts, should be of " equal size"
— Deviation less than 10%
• Difference in size from largest to smallest
district is less than 10%
VOTING RIGHTS:
RULE #2
m Voting Rights Act - Section 2:
—Voting procedures can't:
• discriminate against minority groups
• dilute voting strength of minority groups
— Bottom line: can't draw district lines that
have a discriminatory effect or purpose
VOTING RIGHTS ACT:
CHANGES IN
ELECTION SYSTEMS
m Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
—Governing body must establish that a
voting change "does not have the purpose
and will not have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote"
■ Applies to any changes in election
system from ballots to boundaries
VOTING RIGHTS ACT:
ELECTION PRECLEARANCE:
■ Election Systems in Texas are required
to be pre -cleared (Section 5 Submittal)
— US Dept. of Justice (DOJ)
— US District Court in Washington,D.C.
EVOLUTION OF SECTION 2:
THAT WAS THEN .. .
m 1980's: Court decisions stated:
— ethnic and language minorities have fair
opportunity to elect representatives of their choice
— if voting change could have discriminatory effect
on electing minority representative, courts and
DOJ required district to be redrawn
■ Early 1990's: governments drew grotesque
boundaries with race as the overriding factor,
in order to receive election preclearance from
the Dept. of Justice under Section 5
EVOLUTION OF SECTION 2:
... THIS IS NOW
m "Voting change [cannot be] more dilutive
than what it replaces" (Reno v. Bossier
Parish (//) School Board)
■ Redistricting plan can be subject to
Section 2 challenge even if pre -cleared
under Section 5, if there is a pattern or
history of discrimination in voting
procedures that prohibits minority
candidates from having a fair chance of
being elected
WHAT ABOUT SECTION 5(,?o
m Section 5 review is whether new voting
procedures cause "retrogression" (going
backward)
m "Retrogression" :
—Georgetown's current district lines are
racially gerrymandered
— reducing minority voting rights from what
would exist today with valid district lines
■ Section 5pre-clearance is no protection
from Section 2 challenge
PRECLEARANCE (§5)
OR LAWSUIT(§2)?
■ Section 5 Submittal
— review limited to plans
that have the purpose
or effect of
retrogressing
— burden of proof on
government to show
no retrogression
m Section 2 lawsuit
— citizen alleges
discrimination in
voting change
— burden of proof on
citizen to show
discrimination against
a particular ethnic or
language minority
— requires history of
discriminatory effect
of voting change
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
TO US?
■ Elements of our district plan:
—District 1: " majority -minority" district, with
>50% Hispanic population (district lines are
racially gerrymandered to maximize
concentrated Hispanic population)
—District 2: drawn in 1990 to include as
much concentrated Black population as
possible, but not large enough to be
considered a minority influence district
(with >35% population) (racially
gerrymandered lines)
WHAT THE CENSUS SAID:
■ Census Data in agenda packet
■ Review by consultant indicates CAN
draw an Hispanic " majority -minority
district" , with 55% Hispanic population,
and 50.2% voting age population
■ Require a voter education program as
only 39% of voters registered in this
compact area are Hispanic
WHAT THE CENSUS SAID:
■ Consultant review confirms that still not
viable to draw a " minority influence
district" of Black voters (requires a
district with 35-40% and not that much
concentration or total population)
DIFFICULTY DRAWING
DISTRICTS TODAY:
■ Shaw v. Reno (1993): persons of any race
can legally challenge plans as being based
on unconstitutional uses of race to draw
district lines
■ Government's deliberate inclusion or
exclusion of persons on basis of race from
districts raises constitutional concerns
■ Legal standard is " strict scrutiny" which is
very high legal standard to meet if plan
challenged
WHY DISTRICTS?
m Allows the creation of " majority- minority"
districts, placing >50% voters of an
ethnic or language minority in one
voting district to maximize the minority's
voting strength
m Until recently, districts were the only
accepted election method for areas that
had (1) racial ly-poiarized voting history,
and (2) cohesive racial block voting
MODIFIED AT -LARGE
ELECTION METHODS:
m Cumulative voting
—everyone running at large; public can
concentrate votes on any candidate
m Limited voting
— everyone running at large, but can only
cast one vote
m Preference voting
— rank candidates, and votes transfer to next
candidate if top candidate already received
sufficient votes
HOW IS A "FAIR CHANCE OF
BEING ELECTED" DEFINED?e
■ In a totally racially-polarized voting area
with no " cross -over" voting by any other
race, a minority needs to meet the
threshold of exclusion:
1
# districts that election +1
WHAT TO DO NOW:
m Establish criteria for districts
m Determine voting methods to be
considered (Districts only?)
m Determine process/timeline for making,
a decision
CRITERIA:
—Seven districts only.?
• Geographic boundaries?
• Maintain communities of interest
• Avoid splitting neighborhoods
• Not more than 10% deviation
• Compact and continguous
• Incumbents to remain in their districts?
— Legally required standards:
• Aware of race but may not be the predominant
factor (limited gerrymandering of district lines)
• Intent that voting change does not discriminate
in violation of Section 2
OPTIONS FOR G ORG TOV N:
■ Stay with Seven Districts (no Charter
election required)
■ Consider Seven District Plan and one or
more "modified at -large" election
methods
■ Consider more districts, to include some
at -large, staying within the "threshold of
exclusion" to allow "fair chance of being
elected"
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
m How to accomplish:
—Citizens' Committee considering voting
methods?
—Citizens' Committee drawing lines?
— Prepare some sample plans with
consultant, and conduct public
hearings/Town Hall Meetings on proposals
with public comment taken by City
Council?
