Transcript City of Pasadena Introduction to 2011 Redistricting Page 1 10/5/2011 Current Demographics Based on 2010 Census data and the American Community Survey:  Population  ◦ From Census ACS.

City of Pasadena
Introduction to 2011 Redistricting
Page 1
10/5/2011
Current Demographics
Based on 2010 Census data and
the American Community
Survey:
 Population

◦ From Census ACS and Dept. of
Justice Special Tabulation data:




◦ 2010 Census total: 137,122





3,186 (2.4 %) growth since 2000
33.7 % Hispanic
38.8 % Non-Hispanic white
10.6 % African American
15.4 % Asian American

Page 2
10/5/2011
29.8 % Hispanic
41.9 % Non-Hispanic White
10.5 % African American
16.2 % Asian American
24 % Hispanic
13 % African American
11 % Asian American
49 % Non-Hispanic White
Voter Registration by Surname
◦ 19 % Hispanic
◦ 8 % Asian-American/Filipino
◦ 2010 Census Voting Age
Population




Citizen Voting Age Population

Voter Turnout by Surname
◦ 16 % Hispanic
◦ 7 % Asian-American/Filipino
HISPANIC/LATINO POPULATION
Voting Age Population
Voting Age Population
3
10/5/2011
HISPANIC/LATINO POPULATION
Citizen Voting Age Population
4
10/5/2011
AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION
Voting Age Population
5
10/5/2011
ASIAN-AMERICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION
Voting Age Population
6
10/5/2011
POPULATION DENSITY
Population per square mile
7
10/5/2011
CURRENT DISTRICT DEVIATIONS
8
10/5/2011
Existing District #
Deviation
Percent Deviation
Current District Demographics
Total
Population
Voting Age
Population
Citizen
Voting Age
Population
9
10/5/2011
Registration
by Surname
Turnout by
Surname
District
Total
Latino
NH White
NH Black
NH AmInd
NH Asian
NH HPI
NH Other
Multi
Total
Latino
NH White
NH Black
NH AmInd
NH Asian
NH HPI
NH Other
Multi
Total
Latino
NH White
NH Black
NH Asian
NH AmInd
NH HPI
Multi
Total
Spanish Surname
Asian Surname
Total
Spanish Surname
Asian Surname
1
19,339
49.7%
18.6%
23.9%
0.3%
6.1%
0.1%
0.4%
1.0%
14,838
44.9%
21.6%
25.1%
0.3%
6.8%
0.1%
0.4%
0.9%
12,276
37.8%
22.5%
32.1%
6.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.9%
9,655
27.0%
4.4%
5,169
22.8%
4.5%
2
18,554
27.8%
47.7%
7.4%
0.4%
15.2%
0.3%
0.5%
0.7%
14,994
25.0%
49.9%
7.4%
0.5%
15.9%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
12,932
23.5%
55.1%
6.2%
11.8%
0.0%
0.6%
2.9%
10,363
18.7%
6.7%
6,036
16.7%
5.6%
3
20,388
48.8%
19.3%
17.4%
0.3%
13.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
15,617
43.2%
23.0%
17.6%
0.4%
14.7%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
12,088
31.0%
27.8%
28.5%
9.6%
0.0%
0.0%
3.1%
8,121
28.3%
8.0%
3,723
25.6%
7.4%
4
19,230
21.8%
52.4%
5.6%
0.4%
18.6%
0.1%
0.4%
0.7%
15,323
20.0%
54.6%
5.3%
0.4%
18.6%
0.1%
0.3%
0.6%
13,861
18.8%
63.2%
5.5%
11.1%
0.3%
0.1%
1.0%
12,160
16.0%
9.8%
7,629
14.6%
8.9%
5
18,094
60.0%
20.2%
10.5%
0.3%
7.9%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
13,779
55.6%
23.6%
10.5%
0.4%
9.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.6%
11,109
42.5%
33.4%
15.8%
6.4%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
6,959
34.9%
5.2%
3,446
31.6%
5.5%
6
21,779
14.0%
60.4%
5.1%
0.4%
19.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.6%
18,965
13.1%
61.8%
4.9%
0.4%
18.9%
0.0%
0.3%
0.5%
16,804
11.0%
69.3%
4.7%
13.4%
0.6%
0.0%
0.9%
14,116
9.5%
8.8%
9,458
8.5%
7.1%
7
19,738
17.0%
50.0%
4.8%
0.3%
26.6%
0.1%
0.5%
0.7%
17,099
15.5%
51.3%
4.7%
0.4%
26.9%
0.1%
0.4%
0.7%
14,809
13.5%
60.2%
5.2%
18.6%
0.7%
0.9%
0.8%
11,090
12.8%
10.9%
6,739
11.2%
8.6%
Rules: Federal Laws

Equal Population among districts
◦ Total population: not voting age population,
citizens, or voters
◦ Different for 2011: all deviations must be explained.
Being within +/- 5 % is no longer enough. This
is why NDC recommends all 2011 clients formally adopt criteria.

Federal Voting Rights Act
◦ Section 2 – Ensure equal power to elect candidates of choice
◦ Section 5 – Avoid retrogression (does not apply to Pasadena)
◦ No racial gerrymandering

10
10/5/2011
For a more in-depth analysis, see the City Attorney’s earlier
presentation.
Sec. 2 Federal Voting Rights Act

Requires “Protected Class” populations have an
“equal opportunity to elect the candidates of
their choice”


No “packing”
No “cracking”

No racial gerrymandering allowed
◦ Focus on communities and neighborhoods, not race/ethnicity
11
10/5/2011
Rules: Traditional Criteria
Reasons identified and approved by the US Supreme
Court as justifiable reasons for small population
deviations:
12
10/5/2011


Communities of interest
Visible (Natural & man-made) boundaries

Compactness & contiguity

Continuity in office

Population growth

Preserve Core of existing districts
◦ Make it easy for residents of a district to understand its borders (and to engage their
neighbors in precinct walking or other election activities)
◦ Also makes it easier for voters to understand their district’s borders.
◦ Redistricting, an administrative process, should not tell the voters they can no longer elect a
candidate they have previously elected (which is what happens when two or more incumbents
are “paired.”
◦ Growth is much less certain in 2011 than it was in 2011, so this is harder to justify than it was
in 2001.
◦ Don’t move voters around unless needed to achieve one of the other goals.
Process (1 of 3)
Prepare
1.
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
13
10/5/2011
Conduct initial demographic analysis
Adopt schedule
Launch project website
Launch public participation online redistricting system
Adopt criteria
Develop initial draft plans to jump-start discussion
Process (2 of 3)
Outreach
2.
◦
Educate, engage and empower the public, including:



◦
What are your community’s “communities of interest”?

◦
◦
14
10/5/2011
Individuals
Community Groups, including “protected class”-focused organizations
The media
Which want to be united? Which want to be divided?
How well do the current and draft plans meet those goals?
Participation kits take the public input beyond just “yes” and
“no”
Process (3 of 3)
3.
Decide
◦ Plan debate and adoption
4.
Implement
◦ Plan implementation
 Coordinated with the County Registrar
15
10/5/2011
Tools (1 of 2)
Traditional Redistricting Tools
1. 2010 Census data
2. Project website
3. Media & community education
4. GIS software
5. Information on redistricting, the Voting Rights Act, and
how the public can participate
6. Provide paper & Excel public participation kits
7. Email address for public questions and public
comment
16
10/5/2011
Tools (2 of 2)
New Tools for 2011
17
10/5/2011
1.
American Community
Survey data
3.
Live, interactive maps
of plans
4.
Google Maps and
Google Earth plan files
5.
Online redistricting
Local GIS data
6.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Zoning,
homeowner associations,
housing developments,
neighborhood associations,
key facilities,
school attendance areas,
aerial imagery, etc.