Transcript Revising the Wards of the High Point City Council

Revising the Wards of the
High Point City Council
Sabra Faires and Bill Gilkeson
9/19/2011
1
City Council’s Role
• Authority
– G.S. 160A-23 gives the City Council the authority
to revise districts from time to time
– Council has defined wards by resolution
• Duty
– Must redistrict after decennial census to comply
with Federal doctrine of one-person/one-vote
9/19/2011
2
Redistricting Requirements
•
•
•
•
Compliance with one-person/one-vote
Compliance with 1965 Voting Rights Act
Council approval
Preclearance by U.S. Dept. of Justice or federal
district court for D.C.
9/19/2011
3
One-person/one-vote
• Ideal population of each ward
– Total population divided by number of wards
– 2000 ideal population = 14,307 (85,839 total pop/ 6)
– 2010 ideal population = 17,395 (104,371 total pop/ 6)
• 10% overall deviation allowed
– Percentage deviation of largest ward and smallest
ward can’t add up to more than 10%
• 5% per ward deviation applied
– Percentage deviation of each ward within 5%
9/19/2011
4
Ward Population Compared to Ideal
Min Max
(-5%) (+5%)
Dev
from
Ideal
% from
Ideal
Ward
Tot Pop
Ideal
1
14208
17395 16525 18265
-3187
-18.32%
2
14645
17395 16525 18265
-2750
-15.81%
3
15642
17395 16525 18265
-1753
-10.08%
4
12751
17395 16525 18265
-4644
-26.70%
5
22687
17395 16525 18265
5292
30.42%
6
Total
24438
104371
17395 16525 18265
7043
40.49%
9/19/2011
5
Population Changes Required
New Min
#
or Max Needed
Ward
Tot Pop
Ideal
Action
1
14208
17395
Grow To
16525
2317
2
14645
17395
Grow To
16525
1880
3
15642
17395
Grow To
16525
883
4
12751
17395
Grow To
16525
3774
5
22687
17395
Shrink To
18265
-4422
6
24438
17395
Shrink To
18265
-6173
Total
104371
9/19/2011
6
Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Section 2
– Covers entire nation
– Prohibits voting procedure that results in
discrimination on basis of race, color, or language
minority
• Section 5
– Covers selected parts of nation, including 40 NC
counties
– Coverage based on whether jurisdiction had test to
register or vote in 1964
– Requires “preclearance” of any change in law that
affects voting in those places
9/19/2011
7
40 NC Counties Covered by Section 5
9/19/2011
8
Section 5 of Voting Rights Act
Preclearance Requirements
• No intent to discriminate against minority
voters
• No retrogressive effect – the proposed plan
does not diminish the ability of minority
citizens to elect their preferred candidate of
choice
9/19/2011
9
Measures of Population
• Total population
– Applies in determining one-person/one-vote
• Voting age population (VAP)
– Applicable in determining compliance with Voting
Rights Act
9/19/2011
10
Relevant Census Questions
• Answers based on self-identification
• Race
– Single-race choices and multi-race choices
– Multi-race black choices include black+white and
black+other minority
• Ethnicity
– Are you Hispanic? Yes or no.
9/19/2011
11
USDOJ Black VAP Formula
Single-race black
plus
Multi-race if black + white
(but not black + some other minority)
minus
Any of the above who are also Hispanic
9/19/2011
12
City VAP Data
% Black VAP
% White VAP
% Other VAP
9/19/2011
30.94
55.13
13.93
13
Other Data Used by USDOJ
• Voter registration
–2010 black VR for city was 31.89%,
about 1% higher than black VAP
(30.94%)
• Turnout
–2008 and 2010 citywide black voter
turnout about equal to black VR
• Election results
9/19/2011
14
Avoiding Retrogression
Does not override one person/one vote
Factors considered by USDOJ include:
• Totality of circumstances
– For city, includes elections in even-numbered year and
nonpartisan plurality method with no runoff under
which the candidate with the most votes wins
• Whether percentages of Black VAP are reduced to
point where black voters would lose ability to
elect candidates of choice
• Whether black voters are “overconcentrated,”
thereby losing influence elsewhere
9/19/2011
15
Current
Wards
9/19/2011
16
Current Wards Data
%
Black
Ward VAP
1 57.72
2
60.3
3 30.25
4 21.76
5 15.61
6 18.34
9/19/2011
%
White
VAP
33.85
24.84
43.29
67.43
74.24
67.34
%
Other
VAP
8.42
14.86
26.46
10.81
10.15
14.31
%
Black
VR
72.35
63.32
37.01
19.29
13.18
17.70
%
White
VR
23.69
29.76
54.1
76.77
81.07
75.74
%
Other
VR
3.96
6.92
8.89
3.94
5.75
6.56
17
Goals in Drawing Alternative Plans
• Comply with one-person/one-vote, using 5%
standard
• Avoid retrogression in Districts 1 and 2, as well
as overall
• Minimize splitting of precincts
• Respect communities of interest
• Build in room for growth where needed
9/19/2011
18
City Growth Expectations
• Northern High Point – Wards 5 and 6 –
expected to grow the most
• Ward 4 has least potential for growth
• Other 3 wards have moderate potential for
growth
9/19/2011
19
Current Wards 1 and 2
9/19/2011
20
Wards 1 and 2
• Together contain 51.9% of all the black VAP of
High Point
• Together contain 54.8% of all the black
registered voters of High Point
• Are 18.32% and 15.81% underpopulated
• Must change to comply with requirements
• Even if precincts are split, changes cannot
keep black percentages at current levels
9/19/2011
21
Majority-black districts
• Drawn first in preparing a plan to comply with
Voting Rights Act
• Two alternatives
– Wards 1 and 2 run vertically
– Wards 1 and 2 run horizontally
9/19/2011
22
Vertical
Plan
9/19/2011
23
Vertical Plan -- One-person/one vote
Ward
1
2
3
4
5
6
9/19/2011
% Dev from
Ideal
+3.49
-2.61
+3.97
+3.27
-4.10
-4.01
24
Vertical Plan -- VAP
Ward
1
2
3
4
5
6
% Black
VAP
52.39
56.34
26.32
17.72
12.8
20.48
% White
VAP
36.78
30.74
50.51
71.41
75.16
65.71
% Other
VAP
10.84
12.92
23.17
10.87
12.03
13.82
Wards 1 & 2 contain 58.11% of the city’s total black VAP.
9/19/2011
25
Vertical Plan -- Voter Registration
Ward
1
2
3
4
5
6
% Black VR
63.07
59.14
30.19
14.13
12.50
19.34
% White
VR
32.05
35.22
62.33
81.04
80.84
74.14
% Other
VR
4.88
5.64
7.48
4.83
6.65
6.52
Wards 1 & 2 have 60.90% of city’s total black registered voters.
9/19/2011
26
Vertical Plan and Goals
• One-person/one-vote
– All wards within 5% deviation
• Voting Rights Act
– Ward 1: 52.39% black VAP and 63.07% black VR
– Ward 2: 56.34% black VAP and 59.14% black VR
• Minimize precinct splits
– Two splits: Precinct 02 (Davidson County) and Precinct SDRI
• Respect communities of interest
– Oakview unsplit
– Laurel Oaks unsplit
– Allen Jay in Ward 3
• Room for growth
– Wards 5 and 6 at low end of range
– Ward 4 has some room for growth in Davidson County
9/19/2011
27
Horizontal
Plan
9/19/2011
28
Horizontal Plan -- One-person/one vote
Ward
1
2
3
4
5
6
9/19/2011
% Dev from
Ideal
-4.01
+4.89
+2.43
+4.81
-4.10
-4.01
29
Horizontal Plan -- VAP
Ward
1
2
3
4
5
6
% Black
VAP
53.99
52.13
23.76
22.85
12.80
20.48
% White
VAP
36.93
30.26
56.48
65.65
75.16
65.71
% Other
VAP
9.08
17.61
19.76
11.50
12.03
13.82
Wards 1 & 2 contain 56.4% of the city’s total black VAP.
9/19/2011
30
Horizontal Plan -- Voter Registration
Ward
1
2
3
4
5
6
% Black VR
67.46
55.89
24.11
20.45
12.50
19.34
% White
VR
28.79
35.90
69.43
75.13
80.84
74.14
% Other
VR
3.75
8.21
6.47
4.41
6.65
6.52
Wards 1 & 2 have 58.8% of city’s total black registered voters.
9/19/2011
31
Horizontal Plan and Goals
• One-person/one-vote - All wards within 5% deviation
• Voting Rights Act
– Ward 1: 53.99% black VAP and 67.46% black VR
– Ward 2: 52.13% black VAP and 55.89% black VR
• Minimize precinct splits – three splits
– Precinct H09 along Kivett Drive
– Precinct H05 along Kivett Drive
– Precinct SDRI
• Respect communities of interest
– Oakview unsplit
– Laurel Oaks unsplit and all of Davidson territory in Ward 3
– Allen Jay not in Ward 3
• Room for growth
– Wards 5 and 6 at low end of range
– Ward 4 has little room for growth
9/19/2011
32
Plans Compared with Current Wards
• One-person/one-vote
– All current wards outside 5% deviation
• Voting Rights Act
– Current Ward 1: 57.73% black VAP and 72.35% black VR
– Current Ward 2: 60.30% black VAP and 63.32% black VR
– Two proposed plans drop those percentages but maintain
black ability to elect in both wards
• Minimize precinct splits
– Current plan has three splits -- H09 along Kivett Drive,
JAM5, and SDRI
– Vertical Plan has two splits
– Horizontal Plan has three splits
9/19/2011
33
Plans Compared with Current Wards
• Respect communities of interest
– Current plan does not split Oakview; neither do plans
– Current plan puts all of Davidson Co. in same ward.
Horizontal Plan leaves Davidson territory unsplit. Vertical
Plan splits it, but keeps Laurel Oak together
– Current plan has Allen Jay in Ward 3. Vertical Plan puts it in
Ward 3; Horizontal does not.
• Room for growth
– Current Wards 5 and 6 extremely overpopulated; both
plans build in growth
– Current Ward 4 extremely underpopulated; both plans are
within 5% deviation; Vertical Plan has more room to grow
9/19/2011
34
Summary
• Both plans meet legal requirements
• Other plans could also meet legal
requirements
• Higher black concentrations in Wards 1 and 2
would require more split more precincts
9/19/2011
35