Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 03.05.2001Council meeting date: March 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT_ Redistricting and Charter Review Timelines ITEM SUMMARY: Based upon direction from the City Council at the January 9, 2001 meeting, the attached are drafts of proposed timelines for the Redistricting and Charter review processes. ATTACHMENTS: Drafts of proposed timeliness be prrvv;je-62 at fie. rnee-tin5- Submitted By: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2001 REDISTRICTING TIMELINE Action Date/Deadline Council discussion/consideration of 3/5/01 timeline; membership composition and charge of Redistricting Committee ("Committee"); impact of redistricting on community Adopt charge of Committee; appoint 3/27/01 Committee; schedule initial meeting w/ Committee Initial meeting w/ Committee to meet 4/ /01 members, review charge, timeline, basics of Voting Rights laws, redistricting principles Committee evaluation of voting methods Aril — August 2001 Census data available June — September 2001 Committee evaluation of redistricting plan: June — August 2001 • Collect and organize Census maps & (dependent on date Census data data becomes available) • 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: August 2001 • Create and publish redistricting manual • Create, evaluate, revise plan • Hold public hearings to discuss plan development Committee recommends 3 plans to Council 9/4/01 Council choose election method for ballot, if 9/11/01 necessary Charter Election, if necessary (see Charter 11 /6/01 Amendment Timeline 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 3/1 /02-4/29/02 election General election 5/4/02 Jr Proportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner - take -all principle awards 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation. There is a broad range of PR systems. Some are based on voting for political parties; others for candidates. Some allow very small groupings of voters to win seats; others require higher thresholds of support to win representation. All promote more accurate, balanced representation of the spectrum of political opinion in a given electorate How to Vote. All (nine) seats would be elected at the same time. On the ballot, you will indicate your 1 st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc. up to 9 if you choose. If your 1 st choice is not elected, your vote is not wasted. Instead, it is transferred to your 2nd choice. If your second choice is not elected, your vote is transferred o your 3rd c oice, anso on. In order to assure that the majority still retains a majority of seats, the same kind of transfer occurs when you vote for a highly favored candidate. Popular candidates are likely to receive an excess of votes and that excess is used to help your 2nd or further choices. Thus, if your preferred candidate receives twice as many votes as needed to be elected, half of your vote will be transferred to help elect your 2nd or 3rd or further choices. To win, a council candidate would have to receive 11 % (1 /9) of the vote instead of 51 %. This great y e ances your one or -more oT youf pre erred cbio cd§­.Y6Ri are no longer limited to voting for the lesser of two evils. In addition, campaigns could be less expensive and run on real issues instead of vague generalities unlikely to offend. A broader political spectrum could be seated at the decision -making table. Proportional representation or PR is the form of voting used by Cambridge, N A under the Plan E form of government. Under PR a candidate needs to win a certain proportion of the votes to be elected. This winning fraction of the votes is referred to as the "quota". The quota is determined by dividing the total number of valid ballots cast by the number of positions to be elected plus one and fhen adding_one to the resulting dividend. Thus, to elect 9 City Councillors, the total number of valid ballots cast is divided by 10; to elect 6 School Committee members, the total is divided by seven. And in both cases 1 is added to the result of the division. For example, if 25,000 valid ballots are cast for City Councillors, the quota will be 2,501 (25,000 divided by ten, plus 1). How Votes are Counted. The count begins with the sorting of ballots by the first preference shown --the NUMBER 1 vote. This is generally known as the "First Count". Any candidates who reach the necessary quota with Number 1 votes are declared elected. Any extra ballots they receive beyond the quota, referred to as the "surplus," are redistributed to the candidates marked next in preference on those surplus ballots After the surplus is redistributed, the count continues with the elimination of those candidates -0. who received fewer than fifty votes in the first count. Their ballots are redistributed to the remaining unelected candidates according to the next preference marked. After each distribution, the candidate now having the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his/her ballots are redistributed to the next indicated preference among the remaining unelected candidates. As candidates "reach quota" through the addition of redistributed ballots to their totals, they are declared elected and no further ballots are transferred to them. This process continues until all candidates have been eliminated except the nine winners. Benefits. With PR, there is greater voter turn -out (typically 70-90%) because there are more choices for voters -- third, fourth, fifth parties and more from diverse perspectives including more women and minorities elected. With PR, you actually need less votes to gain a seat than in the winner -take -all system, and you can gather these votes from a larger area. This makes it easier for racial or political minority perspectives to win seats, without having to gerrymander districts. Used Today. Various forms of proportional and semi -proportional systems are used today to elect the city councils of Cambridge MA (choice voting), Peoria IL (cumulative voting), various cities and counties in Alabama, South Dakota and Texas (cumulative or limited voting), the community school boards in New York City (choice voting), the Democratic presidential primaries, various corporate boards (cumulative voting), and the finalists for the Academy Awards (choice voting) History of Conflict. The most important diversification through the PR/STV ballot brought significant minorities onto the councils in Ohio cities. African Americans were elected for the first time in Cincinnati, Hamilton and Toledo, while in Cleveland the one black pre -PR council member was joined by others elected in proportion to the growth of the African -American population in the city during the 1920s. In Ashtabula, Irish Catholics, a residentially dispersed minority apparently unable to elect either a ward member or an at -large representative to the city's former mixed council, gained a voice through PR elections. In Toledo, Polish Americans had a similar experience, winning one or two seats in each citywide PR election. These results were not necessarily welcome at the time; critics attacked PR for producing "racial and religious blocs" on the councils of the PR cities. In Cincinnati and Toledo, the prospect of PR -elected councils electing a minority member as mayor loomed large in the final and successful repeal campaigns. In most of these cities, after PR/STV was repealed, minorities lost their foothold in public office in the winner -take -all plurality at -large elections that supplanted PR. Types of PR: List System -- by far the most widely used form of PR. The voter selects one party and its slate of candidates to represent them. Party slates can be either "closed" or "open," with open lists allowing voters to vote for individual candidates rather than political parties. If a party receives 30% of the vote, they receive 30% of the seats in the legislature, 10% of the vote receives 10% of the seats, and so on. A minimum share of the votes can be required to earn representation; typically a 3-5% threshold is used. This type of PR is ideal for large legislatures on state and national levels. Mixed Member System (MM) -- This PR hybrid elects half the legislature from single -seat, "winner -take -all" districts and the other half by the List System. Mixed -member smoothly combines geographic, ideological and proportional representation. Choice Voting -- the voter simply ranks candidates in an order of preference (1,2,3,4, etc...). Once a voter's first choice is elected or eliminated, excess votes are "transferred" to subsequent preferences until all positions are filled. Voters can vote for their favorite candidate(s), knowing that if that candidate doesn't receive enough votes their vote will "transfer" to their next preference. With choice voting, every vote counts and very few votes are wasted. Choice voting is ideal for non -partisan elections like city councils. This method is also called "Single Transferrable Vote" or "STV". Objections. The Dept. Of Justice had an objection to two cumulative voting schemes. In 1994, they objected to a submission of a cumulative voting system by the city of Morton, Texas, because the city had not adequately explained the new system to minority Hispanic voters. They subsequently precleared the cumulative voting system when it was accompanied by an adequate voter education program. In 1995, the department objected to a submission of cumulative voting from the city of Andrews, Texas. In this case, the cumulative voting system being adopted also included numbered posts, which appeared to us to defeat the purpose of using cumulative voting. They ultimately consented on other grounds to the use of the system as proposed by the city. A careful examination must be made of all the circumstances of a proposed election system to determine whether it will afford minority voters an equal opportunity to participate in the election process. A system that fails to include sufficient community outreach to educate voters about the new election method, or, as in New York, makes it more difficult for minority -supported candidates to be elected, is likely to be retrogressive and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Tests of Political Fairness Page 1 of 3 TESTS OF POLITICAL FAIRNESS The Case for Cumulative Voting Lani Guinier Three Tests of Political Fairness Under conditions of sharp racial division, so-called simple "majority rule" can serve as an instrument to suppress a minority and, in some cases, to undercut the will of the majority. Majority rule through winner -take -all elections is not a fair way to resolve disagreements, where it does not promise reciprocity. One way to remedy its unfairness is through the conventional remedy of race -conscious districting in which some single -member districts are drawn so that they are majority black (or Latino or other minority group). However, race -conscious districting, like any system of winner -take -all elections, may not ensure fair political representation according to three reasonable tests of political fairness from the perspective of minority interests: Does the system mobilize or discourage participation? Does the system encourage genuine debate or foster polarization? Does the system promise real inclusion or only token representation? A--p-pin the Tests to Cumulative Voting Race -conscious districting often does not do well on any of these three tests. While it may be true that no election structure alone can do all that I envision, we need to consider alternatives to single - member districts -- in particular, to consider systems of modified at -large representation, which promise politically cohesive minorities both potential electoral success an reasonable influence throughout the extended political process. _-- There are many such alternative systems, but here I will focus on a scheme used in corporate governance called "cumulative voting." Under cumulative voting, voters cast multiple votes up to the number fixed by the number of open seats. If there are five seats on city council, then each voter gets to cast five votes. But they may choose to express the intensity of their preferences by concentrating all of their votes on a single candidate. Let's return now to the three tests sketched earlier, and consider how cumulative voting fares in mobilizing participation, encouraging debate and fostering inclusion. Cumulative Voting and Participation If voting is polarized along racial lines, as voting rights litigation cases hypothesize, then a system of cumulative votingwould_hkely.-operate_to provide at_least a minimal level of minority representation. Unlike race -conscious districting, however, cumulative voting allows minority group m-emb -to��identif�� emir �,--� own aT lances and- their�preferences based on their strategic use of mu tip e vo ing posse i hies. �'`risea ofhavmg the government authoritatively assign people to groups and districts, cumulative voting allows_v-oluntary-mterestT-Qnstitu.encies-to form and regroup at each election; voters __ in effect "redistrict" themselves at every election. By abandoning geographic districting, it also Ar permits a fair represen a ion o minority voters who do not enjoy the numerical strength to become a http://www.igc.apc.org/cvd/reports/1993/guinier.html 3/5/2001 f Tests of Political Fairness Page 2 of 3 district electoral majority or who -- as is true of Latinos living in dispersed barrios -- are so gistri : p ca�1y separated that the ..�rQngth cannot be maximized within one or more single -member districts. In these ways, cumulative voting would likely encourage greater electoral participation. Cumulative Voting and Political Debate Cumulative voting also looks good as a way to encourage genuine debate rather than foster polari-zation. Cumulative voting lowers the barriers to entry for local third parties since supporters of such parties can concentrate all their votes on the candidates from their party. With barriers reduced, minority political partes might reclaim, at a newly invigorated grassroots level, the traditional party role of mobilizing voter participation, expanding the space of organized alterna-tives and so stretching the limits of political debate. Additionally, locally -based political parties might then organize around issues or issue -based coalitions. Since the potential support for the minority political party is not confined by a geographic or necessarily racial base, cross -racial coalitions are possible Cumulative Voting and Inclusion Cumulative voting is more inclusive than winner -take -all, race -conscious districting. Cumulative voting begins with the proposition that a consensus model of power sharing is preferable to a majoritarian model of centralized, winner -take -all accountability and popular sovereignty. Cumulative voting takes the idea of democracy by consensus and compromise and structures it in a deliberative, collective decision -making body in which the prejudiced white majority is "disaggregated." The majority is disaggregated both because the threshold for participation and representation is lowered to something less than 51 percent and because minorities are not simply shunted in "their own districts." These changes would encourage and reward efforts to build cross - racial electoral alliances. A Vision for the Future The principle of proportionality, or "political fairness," is molded by the hope that a more cooperative political style of deliberation and ultimately a more equal basis for preference satisfaction is possible when community -based minority representatives are reinforced by structures to empower them at every stage of the political process. Ultimately, however, representation and participation based on principles of political fairness are also an attempt to reconceptualize the ideal of political equality, and so the ideal of democracy itself. The aim of that reconstruction should be to re -orient our political imagination away from the chimera of achieving a physically integrated legislature in a color-blind society and toward a clearer vision of a fair and just society. In the debate over competing claims to democratic legitimacy based on the value of minority group representation, I side with the advocates of an integrated, diverse legislature. A homogeneous legislature in a heterogeneous society is simply not legitimate. But while black legislative visibility is an important measure of electoral fairness, taken by itself it represents an anemic approach to political fairness and justice. A vision of fairness and justice must begin to imagine a full and effective voice for disadvantaged minorities, a voice that is accountable to self -identified community interest, a voice that persuades and a voice that is included in and resonates throughout the political process. That voice will not be achieved by majoritarian means or by enforced separation into winner -take -all racial districts. For in the end democracy is not about rule by the powerful -- even a powerful majority -- nor is it about arbitrarily separating groups to create separate majorities in order to increase their share. Instead, the ideal of democracy promises a fair discussion among self -defined equals about how to achieve our common aspirations. To redeem that promise, we need to put the idea of proportionality -- http://www.ic,c.apc.org/cvd/reports/1993/guinier.html 3/5/2001 I Tests of Political Fairness Page 3 of 3 meaning political fairness and the notion of taking turns -- at the center of our conception of representation. Lani Guinier is a professor law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a former attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. This article is adapted from an essay that originally appeared in The Boston Review. For more on Professor Guinier's ideas, see her book The Tyranny of the Majority (Martin Kessler of the Free Press). "With cumulative voting, any substantial minority, by casting all its votes for a single candidate, might win a representative. But a smaller ethnic, religious, political or geographic minority would have an incentive to find allies and build coalitions..... Cumulative voting may not be a panacea for the knotty problem of giving minorities -- any minorities -- representation. But it's worth exploring." Don Noel (Hartford Courant political columnist), Hartford Courant, June 30, 1993 "Disagreements over the Voting Rights Act are more than arguments over principle. They are also intensely political. Republicans are coming to believe the act enhances their prospects by safely concentrating minority voters in a few districts, thereby minimizing their influence elsewhere. Meanwhile, Democrats are discovering that well -regarded white liberals are redistricted out of office to make way for minority politicians. "There is, however, a new approach that could defuse much of this conflict. The Voting Rights Act might be amended to encourage use of a practice known as cumulative voting. This practice would achieve the goals of the act just as effectively, while addressing the concerns of its detractors." Richard Pildes (University of Michigan Law School professor), New Republic: "Gimme Five: Non- Gerrvmandering Racial Justice, "March 1, 1993. Table o f _Contents. A TOR This page was last updated on 08/23/2000 13:35:09 Copyright © 2000 The._ Center_ for Votaing. and Democracy_ 693m 0 Carroll Ave. Suite 901 TakoPark, MD 20912 (301) 270-4616 __ c_vdusa dqsa@4ol.com http://www.ic,c.apc.org/cvd/reports/ 1993/guinier.html 3/5/2001 CITY OF GEORGETOVVN City Redistricting Manual 1991 GEORGETOWN. TEXAS SUBMISSION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OCTOBER, 1991 CrrY OF GEORGETOWN Founded in 1848 April 17, 1991 Citizens of Georgetown Dear Citizen, The right to vote is precious. Our society and system of government is based upon fair and equal 4.7 representation of every citizen. Based upon this premise, the purpose of the enclosed manual is to assist the citizens of Georgetown and the City Council in revising the present single -member district plan for electing council members. By Federal law, the City is required to adjust the boundaries of its seven existing council districts so that each district contains approximately one -seventh of the City's total population based on 1990 U.S. Census figures. In starting the City's redistricting process at this time, as required by law, we are using the 1990 Census Data which is what is set out in the enclosed manual. As in the past, the City encourages strong citizen participation in the re -apportionment process. Citizens can participate by proposing their own redistricting plans. They can also provide suggestions and feedback to members of the Single -Member District Redistricting Committee during neighborhood meetings and formal public hearings. To assist citizens in the preparation of reapportionment plans for submission to the Redistricting Committee and the City Council, this manual provides the necessary population data, maps, criteria and instructions. On behalf of the City Council, I appreciate your interest and involvement in the City of Georgetown Municipal Government. Sincerely, GEORGETOWN CITY COUNCIL W. H. Connor Mayor P.O 8r._. ±na as -,�; �� �one:51?/869-3636 FaY:51/869-3659 Texas 9 Telephone: City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee List of Committee Members Vicente Villa (Chair) 507 Meadowbrook Georgetown,TX 78628 8634619 Winfred Bonner (Co -Chair) 808 A West St. Georgetown,TX 78626 SOL1262 George Arroyos 1203 B Hutto Rd. Georgetown,TX 78626 Doris Baber 907 Thousand Oaks Blvd. Georgetown,TX 78628 863-23@ Patricia Bailey 903 W. 9th Georgetown,TX 78626 8634778 Pat Cooper 50200 Eagle Trace Georgetown,TX 78628 8634259 Shelly Davis 612 West St. Georgetown,TX 78626 Doak Fling 1108 Williams Dr. Georgetown,TX 78628 863-M George Hintgen 1602 E. 18th Georgetown,TX 78626 863-2905 Jack Hovden 3019 Gabirel View Dr. Georgetown,TX 78628 8634043 Joan Ding 401 E. 8th Georgetown,TX 78626 863-7108 Alice Osborn 1406 Laurel Georgetown,TX 78626 863-3528 Dan Shanahan 205 E. 2nd Georgetown,TX 78626 80-42Y 6 Bill Shelby 2006 Terry Ln. Georgetown,TX 78628 80-2295 Farley Snell 1310 S. College Georgetown,TX 78626 863-3 7 Emma Thornton 1905 Terry Lane Georgetown,TX 78628 863-M43 Wade Todd 209 Innwood Dr. Georgetown,TX 78628 869-0188 Shorty Valdez 2008 San Jose Georgetown,TX 78626 8634396 Dick Vincent 3207 Rocky Hollow Georgetown,TX 78628 8615196 L.A. Youngman 400 Ridgecrest Rd. Georgetown,TX 78628 863.2343 City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee 17 I I 7 City of Georgetown: Citizen's Redistricting Manual Redistricting Background Requirements for Redistricting All local jurisdictions governed by an elected board or council need to carefully consider how they will handle redistricting in 1991. There have been many changes in this process since 1980. The Census Bureau is making available data and maps in unprecedented detail. Court cases in the 1980's established standards for the evaluation of the discriminatory effect of plans on ethnic and language minorities. Computer hardware and software technology has improved significantly and preparation should dramatically improve the capabilities of local governments in creating, editing, and analyzing plans. Although there are no specific Texas statutes requiring local governmental entities to comply with the redistricting process, the U.S. Constitution's one —person, one —vote principle mandates approximate population equality between districts. The detailed census demographic data to accomplish this will be released in April 1991. Pragmatic government officials will want to review their election laws, any multi —member or at —large election districts, recent court decisions about the Voting Rights Act, and the population statistics available from the 1990 census and develop redistricting plans that meet the standards established by law and avoid costly litigation. Redistricting appears to be a simple process but everyone needs to be well prepared. With the re,,.,nt improvements in data and technology, there will be more observers of the process than ever before. With all the many possible ways to define district boundaries, the many interested parties, and the supernsion of redistricting in Texas by the Justice Department, carefully thought out and defensible plans are a must. Redistricting Rules The first rule governing redistricting is one —person, one —vote. As near'-, as possible districts should be of equal size. For local governments, the traditional range oI population deviation established by the U.S. Supreme Court is 9.9%. Depending on the particular facts of the situation, a plan with an overall deviation of less than 10O10 may not be safe from criticism. For the first time, population statistics for every block in the state will be reported by the Census Bureau. With this added detail, interested observers, the Justice Department, and the courts may increase the pressure for districts of equal size. The second rule of redistricting is the discriminatory effect of the results of redistricting. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act establishes this rule. The court cases in the 1980's clearly established the rights of ethnic and language minorities to a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to governing councils and boards. If a challenger of a redistricting plan can prove that it will have a discriminatory effect on a minority, then the plan will have to be redrawn. In some cases, the courts will redraw the plan and mandate its use by the political subdivision. What comprises discriminatory effect will vary from location to location, but the major attributes of an electoral system that come under attack are multi —member districts, at —large elections, and the historical lack of elected minority representatives. -3- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee The third rule of redistricting is preclearance. Texas is covered by the Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and any changes in election laws must be precleared with the Justice Department or the Federal District Court in Washington, D:C. Redistricting is considered an important election law change and the results of the redistricting process must be submitted to the Justice Department. The Justice Department will review not only the plans but also the process used to develop the plans. Public hearings and community input should be pan of this process. Some observers feel that the Justice Department as part of the preclearance test will apply the discriminatory measurements of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. If the Justice Department finds that the plan will have a discriminatory effect, they will return it to the jurisdiction. If no other alternative works, the courts may draw the districts lines. Voting Rights Act and 1980's Court Cases The Voting Rights Act was originally passed in 1965 and has been amended several times since then, most recently in 1982. Its major objective is to insure that election laws do not discriminate against ethnic or language minorities. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act defines discriminatory effect. One of the major issues of the 1980's, was the difference between discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect. T'nis was largely resolved by the 1982 amendments. Section 5 defines preclearance and lists which states and counties are covered by the preclearance requirements. All of Texas is covered by the preclearance requirement. The Voting Rights Act is a major basis for redistricting ctlnOa Iivaaaon, usually discriminatory effect :Many court cases in the 1980's helped to define and interpret the 1982 amendments. The most important may have been Thornburgh vs. Gingles. This case involved an at -large election system in North Carolina. The ruling defined the three criteria used to measure the discriminate impact of a Dian. discriminatory -� I. The minority is of sufficient size to elect a representative and resides in a geographically ccrnpact area. 2. The minority is politically cohesive. 3. There is evidence of raciallymotivated bloc voting that denies g es the minority the ability to elect their chosen representatives. If all of these conditions are met, then the political subdivision is required to draw a safe district for the minority. The definition of safe varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but roughly a district with 65% minorities is considered safe. -i_ City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee The Redistricting Process Introduction Phase The following are the objectives for this phase: Single Member District Committee will be organized Introduction to the legal and demographic aspects of redistricting Establishment of guidelines for developing plans Evaluation Phase During the evaluation phase the Single Member District Committee will do the following: Collect and organize Census Bureau maps and data Equal apportionment analysis of the current single member district configuration Minority vote dilution analysis of the current single member district configuration Detailed demographic analysis of the entire City of Georgetown: grail y ty g Total Population Distribution of the population Identification of major ethnic groups Location and size of major ethnic groups Redistricting Decision Recommendation Adjustment Phase During the adjustment phase, the Single Member District Committee will accomplish: Creation and publication of a citizen's redistricting manual Create, evaluate, and revise single member redistricting plans Hold public hearings Hold public hearings to discuss plan development Recommend three plans to the City Council Adoption Phase During the adoption phase, the City Council will: Hold public meetings to discuss plans Select one plan Adopt the chosen plan Preclearance Phase During the preclearance phase, the City Attorney and outside counsel will prepare and submit the U.S. Department of Justice Preclearance Documents. Litigation Phase If there is litigation, the action and people involved can only be determined by the type of suit. -5- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee Guidelines for Developing Plans The following guidelines should be considered when developing a plan for consideration by the City of Georgetown. 1. The plan should cover the entire city. Maps and data are available in this manual to assist in the preparation of plans. 2. The plan should be for seven single member districts. This is the current city council configuration. 3. The plan submitted should use the total population figures as reported on the Census Bureau's PL94-171 tape. The details of the population as reported on that tape are in this manual. 4. The seven districts should be substantially equal in size. 5. The redistricting plan should not dilute minority voting interests. 6. In an effort to draw a safe minority district, the following guidelines should be kept in mind. The aae distribution, registration, and voter turnout for minority groups are different than they are for the white majority. Minorities tend to be younger, register in smaller numbers, and turnout in smaller numbers. A rule of thumb to follow in creating a safe minority district is that it should have a minority population of approximately 65%. The justification for this number is 50% of the total population for a majority in the district, +5% for fewer voters due to a younger population, +5% for fewer voters because of lower registration, +5% for fewer voters due to lower turnouts. i nis number is merely a guideline. Special conditions in the City of Georgetown may require safe districts with more or less than 65% minorities. 7. The deadline for submission of plans for consideration by the Single Member Redistricting Committee is June 11, 1991. 02 City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee Census The Census Bureau is required by the Constitution of the U.S. to enumerate the population every ten years. The challenges of getting an accurate count in a mobile, open, sometimes uncooperative country of 250 million people are enormous. Background The 1990 census started with return mail forms being sent to homes. Residents were supposed to return the forms by April 1, 1990. The Census Bureau also trained enumerators to participate in 'S' and 'T' nights. 'S' night was shelter night when the Census Bureau attempted to count the homeless. 'T' night was for transients in hotels, motels, and other housing units around the country. These efforts were followed in the spring and summer of 1990 by attempts to collect information about people that did not return forms. In August, preliminary population counts were released and sent back to local jurisdictions for evaluation. These counts included housing counts and total population counts. Local governments challenged many of these results. The Census Bureau reviewed the challenges and modified their counts as necessary. The final state totals were sent to the President of the U.S. on 12/31/1990 and the size of congressional districts were determined from these numbers. In February 1991, the PL94-171 tape was made available to the public. This tape contains the detailed population statistics at the block level that appear in the this booklet. Changes: 1980 to 1990 There are two significant changes in the PL94-171 tape for 1990. First, all states will be divided and 'have population reported to tre blocs level. Second, the voting age populations in each block will also be reported. For Voting Rights Act compliance and litigation, this information is very valuable. Recounts The Census Bureau is required to count every resident of the U.S. This includes aliens with permanent visas, undocumented workers, and the homeless. Many of these people are difficult to count accurately. As a result some areas of the country have sued the Census Bureau and have demanded a statistical adjustment based on sampling techniques. In the summer of 1990, about 150,000 housing units were surveyed and compared with the results of the census. The conclusions of this survey and the decision on a recount will be reported by the Secretary of Commerce by July 15, 1991. It is possible that all the data in the PL94-171 tape will be adjusted and all the work done on redistricting will have to be repeated. M City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee Malapportionment by Michael D. Morrison and David Guinn Baylor University Law School Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter warned that reapportionment was a "political thicket" which the courts should avoid at all costs. In spite of this, the United States Supreme Court in the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, initiated what has become a pervasive oversight by the courts of the system of drawing and redrawing legislative districts. In Reynolds, the court held that [A]s a basic constitutional standard, the equal protection clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a 'population basis'. This principle was extended to counties and other local governmental entities beginning .with the case of Avery v. Midland County in 1968. As a result of these court cases, today every governmental entity in Texas must be concerned with the results of the 1990 census and its impact on any existing single or multi -member governmental districts. The complex legal issues associated with the effect of the 1990 census on congressional, legislative, state board of education, county, city, school board, hospital, or junior college districts can be reduced to a simple question. Do we have to redistrict? Again? In other words, if the populations within the various districts are not equal, hcw far must they be "off' before the duty to redistrict to avoid malapportionment is triggered? This issue does not directly involve issues of racial or ethnic minorities and their access to the political process. These concerns are addressed by qualitative dilution and come under the control of the United States Department of Justice through sections two and five of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as amended in 1975 and 1982. Malappertionment in- olves a colorblind examination of the number of persons in each of the legislative governmental districts and whue often referred to as "one -man -one -vote", it is neither limited to men nor to voters, but instead, deals with all persons. The question of how close is close enough must be answered in the context of the governmental entity involved and against the backdrop of the factors which have led to the deviation. The courts have traditionally given significant weight to governmental discretion concerning the need g for the population of districts to vary from an ideal size. But, the courts have also maintained that the variance must accomplish some legitimate governmental goal. The more important the governmental goal served by the variance, the greater the allowable differential in population. The acceptable cceptable variation begins with the very severe test applied to congressional redistricting since Kirkpatrick v. Preisler where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, The nearly as practicable standard requires that the state make a gcod faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality ... article two therefore permits only the limited population variances that are unavoidable despite the good faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is in fact shown. Or as stated in Karcher v. Daggett, where the variance was limited to less than .7 of one percent, the only variations that will be permitted in congressional redistricting are those minute variations that come about in a quest for absolute voter equality. At 'he state level the court has required that the [S]tate make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts in both houses of its legislature as nearly of equal population as is practicable. -s- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee In cases where the Supreme Court has construed this standard, it has held that total maximum deviations of 10% are acceptable without significant justification and that deviations from 1091b to 16.47c are acceptable where the state is able to justify them on the basis of a consistently applied, rational state policy. (Definition: The maximum deviation is computed as the difference in population between the largest district and the smallest district divided by the ideal district size.) Acceptable state interests have included such considerations as: minority access to the political process, compactness, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the essence of a prior district and avoiding contests between incumbents. It appears unlikely that any higher deviation would meet constitutional muster. Further, the state must show that the policy being advanced to defend large deviations actually justifies the given plan of redistricting. If another plan could serve that policy substantially as well, while providing smaller deviations from equality, it can hardly be said that the larger deviations are necessary to advance that policy. The high maximum deviations which have been accepted by the court should be viewed cautiously. In almost every case, they were accompanied by unusually low average deviations. Typically, all but one district had a population very close to the ideal size. Local governmental entities are controlled by the relatively more relaxed standards applicable to the state and not those which have been applied to congressional redistricting. In summary, redistricting need not achieve absolute numerical equality among districts. However, the acceptable deviation from the ideal district is a function of the governmental district involved and the justification presented for the deviation. Finally, there is a point at which no state policy, however rational, is sufficient to defend large population variances. The courts have made it clear that the state and local governments can never be permitted to simply emasculate the Constitutional requirement of substantial population equality. -9- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee Redistricting Mathematics Ideal District Size For single member districts, the ideal size is the total population divided by the total number of representatives or council members. For example, the Census Bureau reported on December 26, 1990 that the population of Texas is 17,059,805, and there are 31 members in the Texas Senate. Therefore, the ideal district size of the Texas Senate is, to the nearest whole person, 17,059,805 = 550,316 31 Note that the terms "ideal district" and "ideal population" are used interchangeably. Variance from an Ideal District Vari=Cls are almost always expressed as percentages. When one district is being examined, its "variance from an ideal district" is determined by subtracting the ideal district size from the district's population, and dividing this difference by the ideal district size. Then result is multiplied by 100 to get a percent. For example, suppose a Senate district had a population of 565,JC0. Its "variance from an ideal district" would be 565,000 - 550,316 X 100 = 2.67%. 550,3) 16 In cases where the district is smaller than the ideal size the percent is negative. In this case, the minus sign is ignored and only the percent is kept. Technically, this is the "absolute value" of the pe c--ntage computed above. The term "variance of a district" is used to mean the "variance from an ideal district". Maximum Variance The "maximum variance" is usually expressed as a percentage. It is the largest district population minus the smallest district district population, divided by the ideal district population multiplied by 100 . To continue the example for the Texas Senate, suppose the largest Senate district was 565,000 and the smallest was 500,000. Then the maximum variance would be 111 11 111 . 1►1 X100=11.81%. 550,316 5501316 Most court cases deal with "maximum variance" and what amount of "maximum variance" is permissible. "Maximum variation", "deviation in a plan", and "variance in a plan" are all used synonymously with "maximum variance". Average Variance The average variance is the simple average of the variances for each individual district. Again, the negative variances are converted to positive numbers. If the maximum variances is large, and t. .a, .^.�,''.'..�... '. `.�.. .... n^i*.'fV� -.n. ..ri v.a:u�i, ..�v cit v t.`.e �,�.�»+T-.:::: v.'.� ... ..A-- -r�...L . �.�i �..�.c lrf y�C. !7? --- f e np—lr ZeiM This describes a situation where almost all the districts are close to the ideal size with only a few exceptions. am Council meeting date: March 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Redistricting and Charter Review Timelines ITEM SUMMARY: No: Based upon direction from the City Council at the January 9, 2001 meeting, the attached are drafts of proposed timelines for the Redistricting and Charter review processes. ATTACHMENTS: Drafts of proposed timelines Submitted By: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney 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 Voting 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 • Multimember: 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 (Gingles 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 Cj i �- ��ezt�-r,.�. i S� t'ivv-5�►� 1^� t�.�' s �, 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 contiguous36 g. recognition of incumbent -constituency relations by keeping existing members ofthe council in their districts h. narrowly tailoring the plan to avoid retrogression in the position of racial minorities and language minorities as defined in the Voting Rights Act with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.37 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. Pav 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. 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 of 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. CaI. 1994), aff'd, 115 S.Ct. 2637 (1995) and Wilson v. Eu, 823 P.2d 545 (Cal. 1992). 37The criteria in Houston were directed toward complying with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, i.e., in avoiding retrogression. In other cases, it likely would be appropriate to include reference to complying with section 2 of the Act as well. -13- S�-�,��� 1 • 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 �- ct61—rye-,gcrease the likelihood of legal liability. V\�o �Z� In 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 land, neither option was physically adjacent to the core of the city. The city analyzed Kingwood and d, P P Y Y J tY• tY Y r, c,v119►-�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 very �S 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 of 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 addition, the city had an outside parry, ifi is case a professor at Rice University, review the plan and report how it conformed to traditional 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 to 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 terms of how they conformed to traditional districting principles. Those reports used in the cases relied on by the plaintiffs 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 significant. • Avoid truly bizarre districts If criteria of the sort listed above and traditional districting principles are followed, it is unlikely that extremely convoluted districts similar to those that came before the Supreme Court in the Shaw v. Reno line of cases will be produced. A basic problem with those districts was that they were drawn by going block -by -block to find the blocks with the highest concentration of minority residents and then stringing those blocks together without regard to the shape of the district. While a district's shape will not necessarily govern whether it is unconstitutional, it will be something the court lots at. CD �^Z - CYY �4 -it , I a • 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. The most important difference facing governments will be the dramatic change in the legal environment. In 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, the more it increases the possibility that its plan will not be precleared under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act or will be the subject 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 satisffy. -15- CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2001 CHARTER REVIEW/AMENDMENT TIMELINE Action Date/Deadline Council discussion/consideration of timeline; composition of membership and charge of Charter Review Committee 3/5/01 ("Committee"); impact of issues on community Adopt charge of Committee; appoint Committee; schedule initial meeting w/ 3/27/01 Committee Initial meeting w/ Committee to meet members, review charge, timeline 4/ /01 Committee evaluation process 4/ /01 — 8/13/01 Deadline to place Committee's recommendations on agenda for 8/21/01 8/14/01 Council meeting Committee recommendations to Council 8/21/01 Council consideration of committee's recommendations on propositions for 8/21/01 — 9/3/01 election, if necessary Deadline to place resolution calling election/ballot proposition language on agenda, if necessary, for 9/11 /01 Council 9/4/01 meeting Council pass resolution calling Charter election and indicating ballot language, if 9/11/01 necessary Charter Election, if necessary 11 /6/01 CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2001 REDISTRICTING TIMELINE 1 D��, u /) !, y Action Date/Deadline Council discussion/consideration of 3/5/01 timeline; membership composition and charge of Redistricting Committee ("Committee"); impact of redistricting on community Adopt charge of Committee; appoint 3/27/01 Committee; schedule initial meeting w/ Committee Initial meeting w/ Committee to meet 4/ /01 members, review charge, timeline, basics of Voting Rights laws, redistricting principles Committee evaluation of voting methods Aril — August 2001 Census data available June — September 2001 Committee evaluation of redistricting plan: June — August 2001 • Collect and organize Census maps & (dependent on date Census data data becomes available) • 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: August 2001 • Create and publish redistricting manual • Create, evaluate, revise plan • Hold public hearings to discuss plan development Committee recommends 3 plans to Council 9/4/01 Council choose election method for ballot, if 9/11/01 necessary Charter Election, if necessary (see Charter 11 /6/01 Amendment Timeline 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 3/1 /02-4/29/02 election General election 5/4/02 EXHIBIT CITY OF GEORGETOWN City Redistricting Manual 1991 GEORGETOTn,'N, TEXAS SUBMISSION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OCTOBER, 1991 CrrY OF GEORGETOWN Founded in 1848 April 17, 1991 Citizens of Georgetown Dear Citizen, The right to vote is precious. Our society and system of government is based upon fair and equal representation of every citizen. Based upon this premise, the purpose of the enclosed manual is to assist the citizens of Georgetown and the City Council in revising the present single -member district plan for electing council members. By Federal law, the City is required to adjust the boundaries of its seven existing council districts so that each district contains approximately one -seventh of the City's total population based on 1990 U.S. Census figures. In starting the City's redistricting process at this time, as required by law, we are using the 1990 Census Data which is what is set out in the enclosed manual. As in the past, the City encourages strong citizen participation in the re -apportionment process. Citizens can participate by proposing their own redistricting plans. They can also provide suggestions and feedback to members of the Single -Member District Redistricting Committee during neighborhood meetings and formal public hearings. To assist citizens in the preparation of reapportionment plans for submission to the Redistricting Committee and the City Council, this manual provides the necessary population data, maps, criteria and instructions. On behalf of the City Council, I appreciate your interest and involvement in the City of Georgetown Municipal Government. Sincerely, GEORGETOWN CITY COUNCIL 40 W. H. Connor Mayor P.O. Box 409, Georzeti-)w-t , Texas 78627-0409 Telephone: 512/869-3636 Fax: 512/869-3659 W City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee List of Committee Members Vicente Villa (Chair) 507 Meadowbrook Georgetown,TX 78628 863.4619 Winfred Bonner (Co -Chair) 808 A West St. Georgetown,TX 78626 869-1262 George Arroyos 1203 B Hutto Rd. Georgetown,TX 78626 Doris Baber 907 Thousand Oaks Blvd. Georgetown,TX 78628 8b3-230 Patricia Bailey 903 W. 9th Georgetown,TX 78626 8634778 Pat Cooper 50200 Eagle Trace Georgetown,TX 78628 8634259 Shelly Davis 612 West St. Georgetown,TX 78626 Doak Fling 1108 Williams Dr. Georgetown,TX 78628 8634561 George Hintgen 1602 E. 18th Georgetown,TX 78626 863-2905 Jack Hovden 3019 Gabirel View Dr. Georgetown,TX 78628 8634043 Joan King 401 E. 8th Georgetown,TX 78626 863-7108 Alice Osborn 1406 Laurel Georgetown,TX 78626 863.3528 Dan Shanahan 205 E. 2nd Georgetown,TX 78626 80-2U Bill Shelby 2006 Terry Ln. Georgetown,TX 78628 863-2295 Farley Snell 1310 S. College Georgetown,TX 78626 863-3327 Emma Thornton 1905 Terry Lane Georgetown,TX 78628 863.3243 Wade Todd 209 Innwood Dr. Georgetown,TX 78628 86M88 Shorty Valdez 2008 San Jose Georgetown,TX 78626 863.4396 Dick Vincent 3207 Rocky Hollow Georgetown,TX 78628 863-51% L.A. Youngman 400 Ridgecrest Rd. Georgetown,TX 78628 8632343 -2- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee City of Georgetown: Citizen's Redistricting Manual Redistricting Background Requirements for Redistricting All local jurisdictions governed by an elected board or council need to carefully consider how they will handle redistricting in 1991. There have been many changes in this process since 1980. The Census Bureau is making available data and maps in unprecedented detail. Court cases in the 1980's established standards for the evaluation of the discriminatory effect of plans on ethnic and language minorities. Computer hardware and software technology has improved significantly and preparation should dramatically improve the capabilities of local governments in creating, editing, and analyzing plans. Although there are no speck Texas statutes requiring local governmental entities to comply with the redistricting process, the U.S. Constitution's one -person, one -vote principle mandates approximate population equality between districts. The detailed census demographic data to accomplish this will be released in April 1991. Pragmatic government officials will want to review their election laws, any multi -member or at -large election districts, recent court decisions about the Voting Rights Act, and the population statistics available from the 1990 census and develop redistricting plans that meet the standards established by law and avoid costly litigation. ` Redistricting appears to be a simple process but everyone needs to be well prepared. With the recent improvements in data and technology, there will be more observers of the process than ever before. With all the many possible ways to define district boundaries, the many interested parties, and the supervision of redistricting in Texas by the Justice Department, carefully thought out and defensible plans are a must. Redistricting Rules The first rule governing redistricting is one -person, one -vote. As near:: , as possible distracts should be of equal size. For local governments, the traditional range of population deviation established by the U.S. Supreme Court is 9.9%. Depending on the particular facts of the situation, z a plan with an overall deviation of less than 10% may not be safe from criticism. For the first time, population statistics for every block in the state will be reported by the Census Bureau. With this added detail, interested observers, the Justice Department, and the courts may increase the pressure for districts of equal size. The second rule of redistricting is the discriminatory effect of the results of redistricting. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act establishes this rule. The court cases in the 1980's clearly established the rights of ethnic and language minorities to a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to governing councils and boards. If a challenger of a redistricting plan can prove that it -� will have a discriminatory effect on a minority, then the plan will have to be redrawn. In some cases, the courts will redraw the plan and mandate its use by the political subdivision. What comprises discriminatory effect will vary from location to location, but the major attributes of an - electoral system that come under attack are multi -member districts, at -large elections, and the historical lack of elected minority representatives. - 17 -3- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee The third rule of redistricting is preclearance. Texas is covered by the Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and any changes in election laws must be precleared with the Justice Department or the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. Redistricting is considered an important election law change and the results of the redistricting process must be submitted to the Justice Department. The Justice Department will review not only the plans but also the process used to develop the plans. Public hearings and community input should be part of this process. Some observers feel that the Justice Department as part of the preclearance test will apply the discriminatory measurements of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. If the Justice Department finds that the plan will have a discriminatory effect, they will return it to the jurisdiction. If no other alternative works, the courts may draw the districts lines. Voting Rights Act and 1980's Court Cases The Voting Rights Act was originally passed in 1965 and has been amended several times since then, most recently in 1982. Its major objective is to insure that election laws do not discriminate against ethnic or language minorities. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act defines discriminatory effect. One of the major issues of the 1980's, was the difference between discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect. This was largely resolved by the 1982 amendments. Section 5 defines preclearance and lists which states and counties are covered by the preclearance requirements. All of Texas is covered by the preclearance requirement. The Voting Rights Act is a major basis for redistricting litigation, usually discriminatory effect. Many court cases in the 1980's helped to define and interpret the 1982 amendments. The most important may have been Thornburgh vs. Gingles. This case involved an at —large election system in North Carolina. The ruling defined the three criteria used to measure the discriminatory impact of a plan. 1. The minority is of sufficient size to elect a representative and resides in a geographically compact area. 2. The minority is politically cohesive. 3. There is evidence of racially motivated bloc voting that denies the minority the ability to elect their chosen representatives. If all of these conditions are met, then the political subdivision is required to draw a safe district for the minority. The definition of safe varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but roughly a district with 65% minorities is considered safe. -A_ City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee The Redistricting Process Introduction Phase The following are the objectives for this phase: Single Member District Committee will be organized Introduction to the legal and demographic aspects of redistricting Establishment of guidelines for developing plans Evaluation Phase During the evaluation phase the Single Member District Committee will do the following: Collect and organize Census Bureau maps and data Equal apportionment analysis of the current single member district configuration Minority vote dilution analysis of the current single member district configuration Detailed demographic analysis of the entire City of Georgetown: Total Population Distribution of the population Identification of major ethnic groups Location and size of major ethnic groups Redistricting Decision Recommendation Adjustment Phase During the adjustment phase, the Single Member District Committee will accomplish: Creation and publication of a citizen's redistricting manual Create, evaluate, and revise single member redistricting plans Hold public hearings Hold public hearings to discuss plan development Recommend three plans to the City Council Adoption Phase During the adoption phase, the City Council will: Hold public meetings to discuss plans Select one plan Adopt the chosen plan Preclearance Phase During the preclearance phase, the City Attorney and outside counsel will prepare and submit the U.S. Department of Justice Preclearance Documents. Litigation Phase If there is litigation, the action and people involved can only be determined by the type of suit. -5- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee Guidelines for Developing Plans The following guidelines should be considered when developing a plan for consideration by the City of Georgetown. 1. The plan should cover the entire city. Maps and data are available in this manual to assist in the preparation of plans. 2. The plan should be for seven single member districts. This is the current city council configuration. 3. The plan submitted should use the total population figures as reported on the Census Bureau's PL94-171 tape. The details of the population as reported on that tape are in this manual. 4. The seven districts should be substantially equal in size. 5. The redistricting plan should not dilute minority voting interests. 6. In an effort to draw a safe minority district, the following guidelines should be kept in mind. The age distribution, registration, and voter turnout for minority groups are different than they are for the white majority. Minorities tend to be younger, register in smaller numbers, and turnout in smaller numbers. A rule of thumb to follow in creating a safe minority district is that it should have a minority population of approximately 65%. The justification for this number is 50% of the total population for a majority in the district, +5% for fewer voters due to a younger population, +5% for fewer voters because of lower registration, +5% for fewer voters due to lower turnouts. This number is merely a guideline. Special conditions in the City of Georgetown may require safe districts with more or less than 65% minorities. 7. The deadline for submission of plans for consideration by the Single ?Member Redistricting Committee is June 11, 1991. � -6- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee Census The Census Bureau is required by the Constitution of the U.S. to enumerate the population every ten years. The challenges of getting an accurate count in a mobile, open, sometimes uncooperative country of 250 million people are enormous. Background The 1990 census started with return mail forms being sent to homes. Residents were supposed to return the forms by April 1, 1990. The Census Bureau also trained enumerators to participate in 'S' and 'T' nights. 'S' night was shelter night when the Census Bureau attempted to count the homeless. 'T' night was for transients in hotels, motels, and other housing units around the country. These efforts were followed in the spring and summer of 1990 by attempts to collect information about people that did not return forms. In August, preliminary population counts were released and sent back to local jurisdictions for evaluation. These counts included housing counts and total population counts. Local governments challenged many of these results. The Census Bureau reviewed the challenges and modified their counts as necessary. The final state totals were sent to the President of the U.S. on 12/31/1990 and the size of congressional districts were determined from these numbers. In February 1991, the PL94-171 tape was made available to the public. This tape contains the detailed population statistics at the block level that appear in the this booklet. Changes: 1980 to 1990 There are two significant changes in the PL94-171 tape for 1990. First, all states will be divided and have population reported to the block level. Second, the voting age populations in each block will also be reported. For Voting Rights Act compliance and litigation, this information is very valuable. Recounts The Census Bureau is required to count every resident of the U.S. This includes aliens with permanent visas, undocumented workers, and the homeless. Many of these people are difficult to count accurately. As a result some areas of the country have sued the Census Bureau and have demanded a statistical adjustment based on sampling techniques. In the summer of 1990, about 150,000 housing units were surveyed and compared with the results of the census. The conclusions of this survey and the decision on a recount will be reported by the Secretary of Commerce by July 15, 1991. It is possible that all the data in the PL94-171 tape will be adjusted and all the work done on redistricting will have to be repeated. City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee Malapportionment by Michael D. Morrison and David Guinn Baylor University Law School Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter warned that reapportionment was a "political thicket" which the courts should avoid at all costs. In spite of this, the United States Supreme Court in the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, initiated what has become a pervasive oversight by the courts of the system of drawing and redrawing legislative districts. In Reynolds, the court held that [A]s a basic constitutional standard, the equal protection clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a 'population basis'. This principle was extended to counties and other local governmental entities beginning with the case of Avery v. Midland County in 1968. As a result of these court cases, today every governmental entity in Texas must be concerned with the results of the 1990 census and its impact on any existing single or multi —member governmental districts. The complex legal issues associated with the effect of the 1990 census on congressional, legislative, state board of education, county, city, school board, hospital, or junior college districts can be reduced to a simple question. Do we have to redistrict? Again? In other words, if the populations within the various districts are not equal, how far must they be "off" before the duty to redistrict to avoid malapportionment is triggered? This issue does not directly involve issues of racial or ethnic minorities and their access to the political process. These concerns are addressed by qualitative dilution and come under the control of the United States Department of Justice through sections two and five of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as amended in 1975 and 1982. Malapportionment involves a colorblind examination of the number of persons in each of the legislative governmental districts and while often referred to as "one —man —one —vote", it is neither limited to men nor to voters, but instead, deals with all persons. The question of how close is close enough must be answered in the context of the governmental entity involved and against the backdrop of the factors which have led to the deviation. The courts have traditionally given significant weight to governmental discretion concerning the need for the population of districts to vary from an ideal size. But, the courts have also maintained that the variance must accomplish some legitimate governmental goal. The more important the governmental goal served by the variance, the greater the allowable differential in population. The acceptable variation begins with the very severe test applied to congressional redistricting since Kirkpatrick v. Preisler where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, The nearly as practicable standard requires that the state make a good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality ... article two therefore permits only the limited population variances that are unavoidable despite the good faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is in fact shown. Or as stated in Karcher v. Daggett, where the variance was limited to less than .7 of one percent, the only variations that will be permitted in congressional redistricting are those minute variations that come about in a quest for absolute voter equality. At the state level the court has required that the [S]tate make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts in both houses of its legislature as nearly of equal population as is practicable. -8- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee In cases where the Supreme Court has construed this standard, it has held that total maximum deviations of 10% are acceptable without significant justification and that deviations from logo to 16.4% are acceptable where the state is able to justify them on the basis of a consistently applied, rational state policy. (Definition: The maximum deviation is computed as the difference in population between the largest district and the smallest district divided by the ideal district size.) Acceptable state interests have included such considerations as: minority access to the political process, compactness, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the essence of a prior district and avoiding contests between incumbents. It appears unlikely that any higher deviation would meet constitutional muster. Further, the state must show that the policy being advanced to defend large deviations actually justifies the given plan of redistricting. If another plan could serve that policy substantially as well, while providing smaller deviations from equality, it can hardly be said that the larger deviations are necessary to advance that policy. The high maximum deviations which have been accepted by the court should be viewed cautiously. In almost every case, they were accompanied by unusually low average deviations. Typically, all but one district had a population very close to the ideal size. Local governmental entities are controlled by the relatively more relaxed standards applicable to the state and not those which have been applied to congressional redistricting. In summary, redistricting need not achieve absolute numerical equality among districts. However, the acceptable deviation from the ideal district is a function of the governmental district involved and the justification presented for the deviation. Finally, there is a point at which no state policy, however rational, is sufficient to defend large population variances. The courts have made it clear that the state and local governments can never be permitted to simply emasculate the Constitutional requirement of substantial population equality. -9- City of Georgetown Single Member District Committee Redistricting Mathematics Ideal District Size For single member districts, the ideal size is the total population divided by the total number of representatives or council members. For example, the Census Bureau reported on December 26, 1990 that the population of Texas is 17,059,805, and there are 31 members in the Texas Senate. Therefore, the ideal district size of the Texas Senate is, to the nearest whole person, 17,059,805 = 550,316 31 Note that the terms "ideal district" and "ideal population" are used interchangeably. Variance from an Ideal District Variances are almost always expressed as percentages. When one district is being examined, its "variance from an ideal district" is determined by subtracting the ideal district size from the district's population, and dividing this difference by the ideal district size. Then result is multiplied by 100 to get a percent. For example, suppose a Senate district had a population cf 565,000. Its "variance from an ideal district" would be 565,000 — 550,316 X 100 = 2.67%. 550,316 In cases where the district is smaller than the ideal size the percent is negative. In this case, the minus sign is ignored and only the percent is kept. Technically, this is the "absolute value" cf the percentage computed above. The term "variance of a district" is used to mean the "variance from an ideal district". Maximum Variance The "maximum variance" is usually expressed as a percentage. It is the largest district popdation minus the smallest district district population, divided by the ideal district population multiplied by 100 . To continue the example for the Texas Senate, suppose the largest Senate district was 565,000 and the smallest was 500,000. Then the maximum variance would be 111 11 111 . 111 X100=11.81%. 550,316 550,316 Most court cases deal with "maximum variance" and what amount of "maximum variance" is permissible. "Maximum variation", "deviation in a plan", and "variance in a plan" are all used synonymously with "maximum variance". Average Variance The average variance is the simple average of the variances for each individual district. Again, the negative variances are converted to positive numbers. If the maximum variances is large, and ri— nw-' :'3r'. :' 1S o::::?!, .^.:OSt .cif 4 ^. .^.C-S F-- ;I�i;y.�i�.�,l �i;crr, m --- benear zem. This describes a situation where almost all the districts are close to the ideal size with only a few exceptions. Proportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of Eke -minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner - take -all principle awards 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation. There is a broad range of PR systems. Some are based on voting for political parties; others -for candidates. Some allow very small groupings of voters to win seats; others require higher thresholds of support to win representation. All promote more accurate, balanced representation of the spectrum of political opinion in a given electorate How to Vote. All (nine) seats would be elected at the same time. On the ballot, you will indicate your 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc. up to 9 if you choose. If your 1st choice is not elected, your vote is not wasted. Instead, it is transferred to your 2nd choice. If your second choice is not elected, your vote is transferred to your 3rd choice, and so on. In order to assure that the majority still retains a majority of seats, the same kind of transfer occurs when you vote for a highly favored candidate. Popular candidates are likely to receive an excess of votes and that excess is used to help your 2nd or further choices. Thus, if your preferred candidate receives twice as many votes as needed to be elected, half of your vote will be transferred to help elect your 2nd or 3rd or further choices. To win, a council candidate would have to receive 11% (1/9) of the vote instead of 51%. This greatly enhances your chance of electing one or more of your preferred choices. You are no longer limited to voting for the lesser of two evils. In addition, campaigns could be less expensive and run on real issues instead of vague generalities unlikely to offend. A broader political spectrum could be seated at the decision -making table. Proportional representation or PR is the form of voting used by Cambridge, MA under the Plan E form of government. Under PR a candidate needs to win a certain proportion of the votes to be elected. This winning fraction of the votes is referred to as the "quota". The quota is determined by dividing the total number of valid ballots cast by the number of positions to be elected plus one and then adding one to the resulting dividend. Thus, to elect 9 City Councillors, the total number of valid ballots cast is divided by 10; to elect 6 School Committee members, the total is divided by seven. And in both cases 1 is added to the result of the division. For example, if 25,000 valid ballots are cast for City Councillors, the quota will be 2,501 (25,000 divided by ten, plus 1). How Votes are Counted. The count begins with the sorting of ballots by the first preference shown --the NUMBER 1 vote. This is generally known as the "First Count". Any candidates who reach the necessary quota with Number 1 votes are declared elected. Any extra ballots they receive beyond the quota, referred to as the "surplus," are redistributed to the candidates marked next in preference on those surplus ballots After the surplus is redistributed, the count continues with the elimination of those. candidates who received fewer than fifty votes in the first count. Their ballots are redistributed to the remaining unelected candidates according to the next preference marked. After each distribution, the candidate now having the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his/her ballots are redistributed to the next indicated preference among the remaining unelected candidates. As candidates "reach quota" through the addition of redistributed ballots to their totals, they are declared elected and no further ballots are transferred to them. This process continues until all candidates have been eliminated except the nine winners. Benefits. With PR, there is greater voter turn -out (typically 70-90%) because there are more choices for voters -- third, fourth, fifth parties .and more from diverse perspectives including more women and minorities elected. With PR, you actually need less votes to gain a seat than in the winner -take -all system, and you can gather these votes from a larger area. This; makes it easier for racial or political minority perspectives to win seats, without having to gerrymander districts. Used Today. Various forms of proportional and semi -proportional systems are used today to elect the city councils of Cambridge VIA (choice voting), Peoria IL (cumulative voting), various cities and counties in Alabama, South Dakota and Texas (cumulative or limited voting), the community school boards in New York City (choice voting), the Democratic presidential primaries, various corporate boards (cumulative voting), and the finalists for the .A►cademy Awards (choice voting) History of Conflict. The most important diversification through the PR/STV ballot brought significant minorities onto the councils in Ohio cities. African Americans were elected for the first time in Cincinnati, Hamilton and Toledo, while in Cleveland the one black pre -PR council member was joined by others elected in proportion to the growth of the African -American population in the city during the 1920s. In Ashtabula, Irish Catholics, a residentially dispersed minority apparently unable to elect either a ward member or an at -large representative to the city's former mixed council, gained a voice through PR elections. In Toledo, Polish Americans had a similar experience, winning one or two seats in each citywide PR election. These results were not necessarily welcome at the time; critics attacked PR for producing "racial and religious blocs on the councils of the PR cities. In Cincinnati and Toledo, the prospect of PR -elected councils electing a minority member as mayor loomed large in the final and successful repeal campaigns. In most of these cities, after PR/STV was repealed, minorities lost their foothold in public office in the winner -take -all plurality at -large elections that; supplanted PR. Types of PR: List System -- by far the most widely used form of PR. The voter selects one party and its slate of candidates to represent them. Party slates can be either "closed" or "open," with open lists allowing voters to vote for individual candidates rather than political parties. If a party receives 30% of the vote, they receive 30% of the seats in the legislature, 10% of the vote receives 10% of the seats, and so on. A minimum share of the votes can be required to earn representation; typically a 3-5% threshold is used. This type of PR is ideal for large legislatures ort state and national levels. Mixed Member System (MM) -- This PR hybrid elects half the legislature from single -seat, winner-take-all"districts and the other half by the List System. Mixed -member smoothly combines geographic, ideological and proportional representation. Choice Voting -- the voter simply ranks candidates in an order of preference (1,2,-!►,4, etc...). Once a voter's first choice is elected or eliminated, excess votes are "transferred" to subsequent preferences until all positions are filled. Voters can vote for their favorite candidate(s), knowing that if that candidate doesn't receive enough votes their vote will "transfer" to their next preference. With choice voting, every vote counts and very few votes are wasted. Choice voting is ideal for non -partisan elections like city councils. This method is also called "SirLgle Transferrable Vote or "STV" . Objections. The Dept. Of Justice had an objection to two cumulative voting schemes. In 1994, they objected to a submission of a cumulative voting system by the city of Morton, Texas, because the city had not adequately explained the new system to minority Hispanic voters. They subsequently precleared the cumulative voting system when it was accompanied by an adequate voter education program. In 1995, the department objected to a submission of cumulative voting from the city of Andrews, Texas. In this case, the cumulative voting system being adopted also included numbered posts, which appeared to us to defeat the purpose of using cumulative voting. They ultimately consented on other grounds to the use of the system as proposed by the city. A careful examination must be made of all the circumstances of a proposed election system to determine whether it will afford minority voters an equal opportunity to participate :in the election process. A system that fails to include sufficient community outreach to educate voters about the new election method, or, as in New York, makes it more difficult for minority -supported candidates to be elected, is likely to be retrogressive and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Tests of Political Fairness Page 1 of 3 TESTS OF POLITICAL FAIRNESS The Case for Cumulative Voting Lani Guinier Three Tests of Political Fairness Under conditions of sharp racial division, so-called simple "majority rule" can serve as an instrument to suppress a minority and, in some cases, to undercut the will of the majority. Majority rule through winner -take -all elections is not a fair way to resolve disagreements, where it does not promise reciprocity. One way to remedy its unfairness is through the conventional remedy of race -conscious districting in which some single -member districts are drawn so that they are majorihi black (or Latino or other minority group). However, race -conscious districting, like any system of whiner -take -all elections, may not ensure fair political representation according to three reasonable tests of political fairness from the perspective of minority interests: Does the system mobilize or discourage participation? Does the system encourage genuine debate or foster polarization? Does the system promise real inclusion or only token representation? Applying the Tests to Cumulative Voting Race -conscious districting often does not do well on any of these three tests. While it may be true that no election structure alone can do all that I envision, we need to consider alternatives to single - member districts -- in particular, to consider systems of modified at -large representation, which promise politically cohesive minorities both potential electoral success and reasonable influence throughout the extended political process. There are many such alternative systems, but here I will focus on a scheme used in corporate governance called "cumulative voting." Under cumulative voting, voters cast multiple votes up to the number fixed by the number of open seats. If there are five seats on city council, then each voter gets to cast five votes. But they may choose to express the intensity of their preferences by concentrating all of their votes on a single candidate. Let's return now to the three tests sketched earlier, and consider how cumulative voting fares in mobilizing participation, encouraging debate and fostering inclusion. Cumulative Voting and Participation If voting is polarized along racial lines, as voting rights litigation cases hypothesize, then a system of cumulative voting would likely operate to provide at least a minimal level of minority representation. Unlike race -conscious districting, however, cumulative voting allows minority group members to identify their own allegiances and their preferences based on their strategic use of multiple voting possibilities. Instead of having the government authoritatively assign people to groups and districts, cumulative voting allows voluntary interest constituencies to form and regroup at each election; voters in effect "redistrict" themselves at every election. By abandoning geographic districting, it also permits a fair representation of minority voters who do not enjoy the numerical strength to become a http://www.igc.apc.org/cvd/reports/1993/guinier.html 3/5/2001 Tests of Political Fairness Page 2 of 3 district electoral majority or who -- as is true of Latinos living in dispersed barrios -- are so geographically separated that their strength cannot be maximized within one or more single -member districts. In these ways, cumulative voting would likely encourage greater electoral participation. Cumulative Voting and Political Debate Cumulative voting also looks good as a way to encourage genuine debate rather than foster polari-zation. Cumulative voting lowers the barriers to entry for local third parties since supporters of such parties can concentrate all their votes on the candidates from their party. With barriers reduced, minority political partes might reclaim, at a newly invigorated grassroots level, the traditional party role of mobilizing voter participation, expanding the space of organized alterna-tives and so stretching the limits of political debate. Additionally, locally -based political parties might then organize around issues or issue -based coalitions. Since the potential support for the minority political party is not confined by a geographic or necessarily racial base, cross -racial coalitions are possible Cumulative Voting and Inclusion Cumulative voting is more inclusive than winner -take -all, race -conscious districting. Cumulative voting begins with the proposition that a consensus model of power sharing is preferable to a majoritarian model of centralized, winner -take -all accountability and popular sovereignty. Cumulative voting takes the idea of democracy by consensus and compromise and structures it in a deliberative, collective decision -making body in which the prejudiced white majority is "disaggregated." The majority is disaggregated both because the threshold for participation and representation is lowered to something less than 51 percent and because minorities are not simply shunted in "their own districts." These changes would encourage and reward efforts to build cross - racial electoral alliances. A Vision for the Future The principle of proportionality, or "political fairness," is molded by the hope that a more cooperative political style of deliberation and ultimately a more equal basis for preference satisfaction is possible when community -based minority representatives are reinforced by structures to empower them at every stage of the political process. Ultimately, however, representation and participation based on principles of political fairness are also an attempt to reconceptualize the ideal of political equality, and so the ideal of democracy itself. The aim of that reconstruction should be to re -orient our political imagination away from the chimera of achieving a physically integrated legislature in a color-blind society and toward a clearer vision of a fair and just society. In the debate over competing claims to democratic legitimacy based on the value of minority group representation, I side with the advocates of an integrated, diverse legislature. A homogeneous legislature in a heterogeneous society is simply not legitimate. But while black legislative visibility is an important measure of electoral fairness, taken by itself it represents an anemic approach to political fairness and justice. A vision of fairness and justice must begin to imagine a full and effective voice for disadvantaged minorities, a voice that is accountable to self -identified community interest, a voice that persuades and a voice that is included in and resonates throughout the political process. That voice will not be achieved by majoritarian means or by enforced separation into winner -take -all racial districts. For in the end democracy is not about rule by the powerful -- even a powerful majority -- nor is it about arbitrarily separating groups to create separate majorities in order to increase their share. Instead, the ideal of democracy promises a fair discussion among self -defined equals about how to achieve our common aspirations. To redeem that promise, we need to put the idea of proportionality -- http://www.igc.apc.org/cvd/reports/1993/guinier.html 3/5/2001 Tests of Political Fairness Page 3 of 3 meaning political fairness and the notion of taking turns -- at the center of our conception of representation. Lani Guinier is a professor law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a former attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. This article is adapted from an essay that originally appeared in The Boston Review. For more on Professor Guinier's ideas, see her book The Tyranny of the Majority (Martin Kessler of the Free Press). "With cumulative voting, any substantial minority, by casting all its votes for a single candidate, might win a representative. But a smaller ethnic, religious, political or geographic minority would have an incentive to find allies and build coalitions..... Cumulative voting may not be a panacea for the knotty problem of giving minorities -- any minorities -- representation. But it's worth exploring." Don Noel (Hartford Courant political columnist), Hartford Courant, June 30, 1993 "Disagreements over the Voting Rights Act are more than arguments over principle. They are also intensely political. Republicans are coming to believe the act enhances their prospects by safely concentrating minority voters in a few districts, thereby minimizing their influence elsewhere. Meanwhile, Democrats are discovering that well -regarded white liberals are redistricted out of office to make way for minority politicians. "There is, however, a new approach that could defuse much of this conflict. The Voting Rights Act might be amended to encourage use of a practice known as cumulative voting. This practice would achieve the goals of the act just as effectively, while addressing the; concerns of its detractors." Richard Pildes (University of Michigan Law School rofessor), New Republic: "Gimme Five: Non- Terrymandering Racial Justice, "March 1, 1993. Table of Contents A TOP This page was last updated on 08/23/2000 13:35:09 Copyright © 2000 The Center for Voting__ and Democracy 6930 Carroll Ave. Suite 901 Takoma Park, MD 20912 (301) 270-4616 _ cvdusaaaol.com http://www.igc.apc.org/cvd/reports/1993/guinier.html 3/5/2001