Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 04.09.2001Council meeting date: April 9, 2001 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item No. SUBJECT: Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning redistricting and/or alternative election methods and timeline ITEM SUMMARY: On March 5, 2001, the City Council discussed generally the City's current voting method, of electing Council representatives from seven single -member districts. During this discussion, the City Council determined that more information was needed on alternative voting systems before the Council could determine what direction to give to a citizen's committee for consideration. On March 26, 2001, Dr. Robert R. Brischetto, a sociologist, made a lengthy presentation to the Council on election systems, various voting methods, and legal issues to consider by the City Council in reviewing our election system in light of the 2000 Census Data released a few weeks ago. This item is now back for the Council's 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. ATTACHMENTS: • Summary of 2000 Census Data for Georgetown • Current Population distribution among seven districts using 1990 census data • Memo on Voting Rights Issues from March 5, 2001 and attachments • Summary sheets on three alternative voting methods • Draft timeline for committee Submitted By: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney American FactFinder Paize 1 of 1 Basic Facts ► Quick Tables QT-PL. _Race-J1ispanic_or Latino, and Age: 2000 Geographic Area: Georgetown city, Texas )TE: Data not adjusted based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. For information on confidentiality protection, ..ampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions see hftr):/Ifactfinder.censLis.0ov/home/ell/datanotes/expplu.htmi. Subject All ages 18 years and over Numbe Percent Number Percent RACE Total population 28,339 100.0 21,695 100. One race 27,820 98.2 21,415 98. White 24,200 85.4 18,963 87.4 Black or African American 960 3.4 686 3. American Indian and Alaska Native 100 0.4 75 0.3 Asian 190 0.7 152 0. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 15 0.1 13 0.1 Some other race 2,355 8.3 1,526 7. Two or more races 519 1.8 280 1.3 HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population 28,339 100.0 21,695 100. Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 5,121 18.1 3,291 15. Not Hispanic or Latino 23,218 81.9 18,404 84.8 One race 22,960 81.0 18,249 84.1 White 21,763 76.8 17,366 80. Black or African American 932 3.3 676 3.1 American Indian and Alaska Native 53 0.2 38 0. Asian 188 0.7 150 0. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 10 0.01 10 0.0 Some other race 14 0.01 9 0.0 Two or more races 258 0.91 1551 0. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Matrices PIA, PL2, PL3, and PL4. EXISTING DISTRICT POPULATION DIVISIONS BASED ON 1990 DATA (excerpt fi-om 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% 1 3.1% 1 15.6% 1.7% _ The One Vats: Systeln With the one vote system, voters cast one vote in an election for more than one seat. The more seats to be elected, the greater the opportunity for fair representation. For example, in a 3-seat school board race, voters would cast one vote. Winning candidates are determined by a simple plurality (whichever three candidates get the most votes.) j r SLATE OF CANDIDATES [vote for only one] 54. I'n this example, the candidate pictured ill the magnifying glass fr►ill ruin if more than 25% of voters give limn their one vote. lit a traditional at - large election, he would need more than 50%_of votes to win a seat. 11 th the one vote system, a majority of voters mould elect a majority (2) of the seats, but not all the seats. With traditional at -large, they could sweep all three seats and shut out all voters in the nunorit}� One Vote System: 51% —► 2 seats " At -Large Voting: 51% —► 3 seats 25% 1 seat 25% ..-0, 0 seats So Wliere is this System Used? Versions of the one vote system are used in Washington (DC), Philadelphia (PA), Hardbrd (C"1'), soi»e North Carolina and Alabama municipalities, and some other local jurisdictions. It has been used to resolve at least 25 Voting Rights Act cases. 10 Choice Voting Choice voting is as easy as 1, 2, 3! Choice, voting (also called the "single transferable vote") is a one -person, one -vote system in which voters maximize their one vote's effectiveness dirougli ranking preferences. 3(' How do you vote? To vote, voters simply rank as marry candidates as they wish, knowing that lower choices will not count against higher choices. How do you determine winners? After counting first choices' candidates reaching the threshold are elected. To avoid wasting votes, 'surplus, ballots beyond the threshold are transferred to the remaining candidates according to voters' preferences. What happens if my first choice doesn't win? The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and all his/her ballots are distributed among the remaining candidates according to the voters' preferences listed on ballots. the process continues until all of the seats are filled. Sample Ballot S. Lopez .2 J. Smith 3 L. Franklin T. Johnson. r M. Anderson 4 • minimizes wasted votes • helps promote coalition building • less expensive campaigns [winners need fewer votes) • makes possible a broad political spectrum • no more voting for the lesser of two evils • increases voter turnout by giving voters more choices • provides fair results Where is this system used? Choice voting is used in Cambridge (AM) city council elections and they New fork Cily local school board elections. It also has a history in early 201" century America. Cincinnati (OH) used choice voting from 1925 to 1957. It was responsible for increased minority representation on most -of the city councils where it was used during that lime period. CUMULATIVE VOTING In cumulative voting, voters cast as many votes as there are seats. But unlike winner -take -all systems, voters are not litnited to giving only one vote to a candidate. Instead, they can put multiple votes on one or more candidates. Voting rights scnoiar and law processor Lani Guinier, syndicated columnist William Raspberry, political analyst Kevhi Phillips, and Congressman James Clyburn are among those who have promoted cumulative vot;ng"•as a colorblind means to provide fair minority representation. For example, in a 5-seat city council race, voters may choose how they want their five votes distributed among the candidates running. If there are seven candidates running in the race, a voter chooses whether to give all of his/her votes to ONE candidate, or distribute them in any fashion to the other- candidates. SLATE OF CANDIDATES Candidate A Candidate B Candidate C Candidate D Candidate E Candidate F Candidate G AUkA-. l f : I How Might Voters Distribute Their Five Votes? A Voter May Cast: all 5 votes to Candidate E OR give 3 votes to Candidate B and 2 votes to Candidate D ' OR give 2 votes to Candidate A, 2 votes to Candidate C, and I to Candidate F " Ar.. ' I -V ANY METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THE FIVE VOTES IS ALLOWED. if a racial minority group has a sufficient population [often called the threshold[ and "plumps" all of their votes for one candidate ... then that candidate would ' in one of the seats! So in this race, any candidate that gets at least 16.7% of the vote would be elected. When minority, or like-minded voters cumulate or "plutmp" their votes they elect that particular candidate! fVliere is Cumulative Voting Used? Cumulative voting was used to elect the l Ilindis State House of Representatives. from 1870 to 1980. In recent years it has been used to resolve voting rights cases to Peoria, IL, Chilton County, AL. Sisseton, SD, Amarillo, TX and more than fifty other jurisdictions in I'eXas. In. most cases voter turnout has risen and racial minorities have been elected ailer cumulative voting was adopted. Legal Services Department Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney Date: March 5, 2001 Re: Summary of Relevant Voting Rights Issues for Redistricting Discussion Basic principle is "one person, one vote", and voting methods, process and standards cannot discriminate against any constitutionally protected class of citizens. The City Council must give direction to the Citizen's Committee charged with reviewing the City's election method in light of the 2000 Census. The City's current election method is to elect representatives from seven single -member districts. Various election methods are available which assert that they encourage better representation of the whole community, and/or encourage greater voter registration and participation. Although some of these methods have statistical support, it is really an issue of how the community feels it would best be represented. So long as that plan does not run afoul of the limitations of the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, any method can be successful. Types of Election Methods For simplicity's sake, I have listed just a few of the many types of elections methods available for the Council's consideration. I do not know how much desire you have to change the number of districts, the composition of representation (combinations of types of districts/election methods), or the election method itself. • At large • Single -member districts • Cumulative voting • Proportional representation • Combinations of the above Criteria for Charge to the Committee See attached page from Bob Heath's paper concerning criteria considered In the City of Houston case. (TCAA, June 2000) The Law As It Affects Votinq Methods I have also summarized (very briefly) the two voting challenges that would most likely be made to a proposed voting change. I have attempted to give you a quick synopsis of law, and by no means is this a comprehensive overview. Hopefully this will give you a flavor of the legal issues that encompass this area of law. (1) Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act • considered one of the primary enforcement mechanisms to ensure that minority voters would be free of racially discriminatory electoral practices that historically affected them • All or part of 16 states are required to seek pre -clearance (either from DOJ or the USDC for District of Columbia) for elections — required in all of Texas since 1975 and will end in 2007 unless further extended • Change in plan must not lead to retrogression, e.g. make members of a minority group worse off than they had been before the change • In Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board the Supreme court held that no pre- clearance is required for changes that impact only Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (practices and procedures related to voting) • According to Bob Heath, greatest opportunity in 2001 for DOJ challenge is in jurisdictions that drew bizarrely shaped, predominantly minority districts in 1991 in an effort to comply with sections 2 and 5, yet felt in 2001 that they were required to give those districts more regular and compact shapes to avoid running afoul of a Shaw v. Reno constitutional challenge." (2) Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act • Prohibits City from imposing any voting qualification, standard, practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgment of an citizen's right to vote on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority group. • A violation of Section 2 is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes were not equally open to certain minority because of the use of multimember districts, packing minorities into a single district, or fracturing minorities into several districts • I'dultimember: majority may elect a number of preferred candidates and minority cannot elect any • Packing: minority group concentrated in one or more districts, minimizing the number of districts in which the minority could elect candidates of its choice • Fracturing: a group of minority voters is broken off from a concentration of minority voters and added to a large majority district (tingles case) New cause of action in 1993: unconstitutional use of race (Shaw v. Reno challenge: cause of action that could be sued by persons of any race to challenge plans as being based on unconstitutional uses of race); a plan pre - cleared under Section 5 could still be subject to a Section 2 constitutional challenge Adopt a plan of action In Houston. the council adopted a resolution setting out the redistricting process. An integral part of the resolution was a list of criteria that the city said it planned to follow in making its redistricting decision. These criteria were designed so that race was a factor of which the city would be aware and would consider but only as one of many other factors. In particular, the formal resolution said that the city would observe the following criteria: a. where possible, using easily identifiable geographic boundaries as district boundaries b. maintaining communities of interest in a single district and avoiding splitting neighborhoods when drawing district boundaries C. using whole county voting precincts when drawing districts d. basing the new plan, to the extent possible, on the existing council districts e. drawing districts that are relatively equal in size and that in no event exceed a ten percent top to bottom deviation f. drawing districts that are compact and contiguous"' g. recognition of incumbent -constituency relations by keeping existing members ofthe council in their districts y h. na..rowly tailoring the plan to avoid retrogression in the position of racial minorities and language minorities as dez"ined in the Voting Rights Act with respect to their etie- lye exercise of the electoral franchise." Only the last of the eight criteria relates to race, and it is phrased carefully to express only what the Supreme Court has said is permissible. Pay attention to the criteria when drawing the plan The criteria cannot be mere window-dressing. The drafter of the plan must pay attention to them and make them the basis of the redistricting decisions. Cr-7 '_af -W- 'I S r-,e . r\.t, -'- /'mac 36An important part of the definition used in the Houston resolution was that compactness and contiguity were.. recognized to have a functional as well as a purely geographic component. The resolution stated that the functional aspect would be most important in those instances in which parts of the city were connected to the rest of the city by long narrow strips of land so that the city itself was not geographically compact at that point. In considering whether a district was "functionally compact" the city would look at issues such as (1) the availability of transportation and communication, (2) the existence of common social and economic interests, (3) the ability of citizens or' a proposed district to relate to each other and to their representative, and (4) the existence of shared interests. The definition basically came from DeWitt v. Wilson, 856 F.Supp. 1409 (E.D. Cal. 1994), gfj'd, 115 S.Ct. 2637 (1995) and Wilson v. Eu, 823 P.2d 545 (Cal. 1992). "The criteria in Houston were directed toward complying with section 5 of the Votin, Rights Act, i.e., in avoiding retrogression. In other cases, it Iikely would be appropriate to include reference to complving with section 2 of the Act as well. • o • Consider questions in terms other than race In the 1990's, when compliance with the Voting Rights Act was the only legal concern, most issues were analyzed in terms of race. Under the Shaw v. Reno line of cases, that sort of analysis will Ct6t riL�i acre e Q as the likelihood of legal liability. Houston, the primary issue was where the Kingwood area should be placed. There were basically '^" two options, yet since Kingwood was connected to the rest of the city only by two narrow strips of t �Y yzr� land, neither option was physically adjacent to the core of the city. The city analyzed Kingwood and n o'�4-4 the two areas to which it could be joined in terms of household income, education levels home values, infra -structure, probable interest in municipal issues and determined that Kingwood was verys� similar to one and very different from the other. On the basis of this analysis, it connected Kingwood, which was in the northeast portion of the city with Clear Lake City which was in the southeast. This had the effect of linking two predominantly white areas with each other rather than combining a predominantly white and a predominantly Black area. While the city was obviously aware of the racial composition or the area, it looked at the issue in non-racial terms and made a record of that analysis. • Analyze the plan in terms of how well you conformed to the criteria In Houston, the staff member who actually drew the plan prepared a report to the council setting out each criterion and then showing how the plan addressed that standard. For example, the report noted every time a neighborhood that was split by the old plan was reunited in the new one. Where it was impossible to reunite a neighborhood or where it was necessary to split a neighborhood, the report noted that and explained why. In addit':on, the city had an outside parry, i zhis case a professor at Rice University, review the plan and report how it cenfo -. ed to 2aditional districting principles. • Provide the analysis to the decision -making body before it has to vote The reports analyzing the plan in terms of the criteria were formally presented to the council before it was required to vote on the plan. In the subsequent litigation the plaintiffs attempted m dismiss the relevance of the reports by citing to cases in which courts had given no weight to reports commissioned by governmental bodies to analyze their redistricting plans in terns of how they conformed to traditional districting principles. Those reports used in the cases relied on by the plaintiff's had been unpersuasive because they were prepared after the fact and were not available to influence the decision of the governmental body. In Houston, however, the reports were prepared and distributed before the final vote --a fact that the court found to be sipificant. • Avoid truly bizarre districts Ifcriteria of the sort listed above and traditional districting principles are followed, it is unlikely that e :u timely convoluted districts similar to those that came before the Supreme Court in the Shaw V. Rzro line of cases willbe produced_ A basic problem with those districs was that hey were drawn by goingblock-by-block to find the blocks with the highest concentration of minorityrresidents and then stringing those biecks togedlier without regard to the shape of the district. While a district's shape will not necessariy govern whether it is unconstitutional. it will be somethinz the court locks �{/ . m n" 2. C _ IIJr l.r/d= ` Y Remember that the governmental entity still has obligations under the Voting Rights Act While the procedure is designed to avoid using race as the predominant factor in redistricting as required by Shaw v. Reno, the redistricting authority must remain aware that it still must comply with sections 5 and 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It does little good to successfully navigate the Shaw v. Reno minefield if by doing so the governmental body trips over its Voting Rights Act obligations. CONCLUSION There will be major differences between redistricting in 1991 and redistricting in 2001. Changes in the data available will provide more complex issues, and complexity brings more opportunities for dissatisfied persons to litigate. governments will be the dramatic change in the legal environment. In The most important difference facing 1991, all the legal pressure came from the Voting Rights Act. To the extent that the governmental body addressed the issues raised by that Act, it could effectively immunize itself from legal attack. Now there is a countervailing legal consideration. The cause of action defined in Shaw v. Reno provides pressure from precisely the opposite direction. The more the city, county, or school district does to respond to Voting Rights Act concerns, the more it opens itself up to attacks under Shaw v. Reno. And, of course, the more the governmental body does to avoid Shaw v. Reno liability, th-- :-iere it increases the possibility that its plan will not be precleared under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act or wil be the subjet ` of a lawsuit brought under section 2 of that statute. The government's task in 2001 will truly be to walk a tightrope and to plan its actions carefully to avoid incurring liability under either of the two competing legal standards that it must satis;y. CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2001 REDISTRICTING TIMELINE Action Date/Deadline Council discussion/consideration of 3/5/01 — 4/9/01 timeline; membership composition and charge of Redistricting Committee ("Committee"); impact of redistricting on community Adopt charge of Committee; appoint 4/24/01 Committee; schedule initial meeting w/ Committee Initial meeting w/ Committee to meet May 2001 members, review charge, timeline, basics of -Voting Rights laws, redistricting principles Committee evaluation of voting methods June 2001 Census data available March 2001 Committee evaluation of redistricting plan: June — August 2001 • Collect and organize Census maps & data • Equal apportionment analysis of current voter districts • Minority vote dilution analysis of current voter districts • Detailed demographic analysis of entire City • Recommend redistricting decision Committee adjustment process: • Create and publish redistricting manual • Create, evaluate, revise plan • Hold public hearings to discuss plan development August 2001 Committee recommends 3 plans to Council 9/4/01 Council choose election method for ballot, if necessary 9/11/01 Charter Election, if necessary (see Charter Amendment Timeline 11 /6/01 First Reading of Redistricting Ordinance 1/22/02 Second Reading of Redistricting Ordinance 2/12/02 DOJ re -clearance submission 2/28/02 DOJ sixty-day review for May 2002 general election 3/1 /02-4/29/02 General election 5/4/02