Creating Election Districts for the Board of Directors San Benito - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Creating Election Districts for the Board

• f Directors

San Benito Health Care District

Jeanne Gobalet, Ph.D.

Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. www.Demographers.com

 Why move from at‐large to by‐district elections?

• California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
• Federal Voting Rights Act (VRA)

 Various redistricting criteria  Census 2010 data and maps  Three draft plans  Schedule  Discussion

Agenda

2

Why Move from At‐Large to By‐District Elections?

Federal and State laws intended to enhance the electoral

• pportunities of protected groups

(ethnic/racial/language minorities that have been disadvantaged in the past):

Federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA), Section 2:

Requires that single‐member election districts be drawn to afford members of protected groups the ability to elect candidates of their choice where that group is (1) sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single‐ member district; (2) politically cohesive; and if (3) voting has been racially polarized.

California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of 2002:

Forbids election at‐large if it “impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election.” Unlike FVRA, polarized voting alone can trigger the Act. Protected group need not be geographically compact or politically cohesive.

3

Required Districting Criteria

• Census 2010 population data must be used in districting

(until 2020 Census data are available)

• New election districts must be equal in total population:
• No more than 10% total deviation (based on ideal population

size)

• SBHCD’s Census 2010 population was 53,839, and each

election district must contain one‐fifth of this total (about 10,768 residents)

• No more than 1,077 difference between most‐ and least‐

populous districts

4

Required Districting Criteria (continued)

• Section 2 of the Federal Voting Rights Act states:
• Single‐member election districts should be drawn so that

members of protected groups have the ability to elect representatives of their choice if:

• The protected group is sufficiently large & geographically compact to

form a majority in a single‐member district

• Protected group is politically cohesive
• There is a history of racially polarized voting
• Supreme Court decisions (Shaw v. Reno and others) say race

cannot be the “predominant” factor in redistricting, unless there is a “compelling state interest.”

5

• Topography (e.g., rivers, natural barriers)
• Geography (e.g., municipal boundaries)
• Cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, & compactness of

territory

• “Communities of interest” may be:
• Geographic communities (e.g., places/cities, neighborhoods,

areas with similar health care needs, etc.)

• Socioeconomic groups (e.g., retirees, renters, Federal Voting

Rights Act protected groups, etc.)

Traditional Districting Criteria

6

• Respect boundaries of existing political subdivisions, when

possible (e.g., cities, voting precincts, etc.)

• Respect existing census geography (e.g., city blocks)
• Avoid head‐to‐head contests between incumbents
• Other criteria which may address unique local concerns

Further Criteria Emphasized by Courts

7

Further Consideration

The new system is to be phased in: current Directors serve out their terms of office after the change to the new election system.

8

In addition to the required criteria, when drawing scenarios we have tried to:

• Keep communities of interest intact, following city and

unincorporated community limits when possible

• Keep voting precincts intact
• Use major roads and thoroughfares as boundaries
• Follow San Benito County Supervisorial District boundaries

(Plan B)

9

Census 2010 Counts for SBHCD

Source: Census 2010 PL 94‐171 Redistricting data release

San Benito Health Care District 2010 Population Counts

Counts Percentages Total population (all ages) Voting Age Population (VAP, aged 18+) Total population (all ages) Voting Age Population (VAP, aged 18+) Total 53,839 38,094 100.0% 100.0% Hispanic 30,737 19,839 57.1% 52.1% non-Hispanic White 20,257 16,240 37.6% 42.6% Black 435 292 0.8% 0.8% Native American 438 323 0.8% 0.8% Asian 1,611 1,159 3.0% 3.0% Hawaiian 102 80 0.2% 0.2% Other 83 52 0.2% 0.1% Multiple Race 176 109 0.3% 0.3%

10

Measures of Potential and Actual Voting Potential

San Benito Health Care District 2010 Demographic Estimates

Estimates Percentages Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) Registered Voters, Nov. 2010 (Spanish Surname and non-Spanish Surname) Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) Registered Voters, Nov. 2010 (Spanish Surname and non-Spanish Surname) Total 30,841 24,152 100% 100% Hispanic 13,768 9,375 45% 39% non-Hispanic 17,580 14,777 57% 61% Data sources: CVAP estimates: American Community Survey, 2008‐2012, estimates rates + Census 2010 VAP counts Voter estimates: California Statewide Database

11

Population Mix by Race/Ethnicity, Census 2010 Blocks

12

Population Mix by Race/Ethnicity, Census 2010 Blocks (detail)

13

• Plan A
• Hollister in four election districts
• San Juan Bautista combined with Ridgemark, Tres Pinos, and southern areas
• Precincts, city limits, and streets used as boundaries
• Plan B
• Adapted from Supervisorial Districts (except for boundary between Divisions 1 & 2)
• Hollister in five election districts
• San Juan Bautista combined with part of Hollister
• Ridgemark and Tres Pinos with southern areas
• Precincts & Hwy 25 used as boundaries
• Plan C
• Hollister in four election districts
• San Juan Bautista combined with western part of Hollister
• Ridgemark and Tres Pinos with southern areas
• Precincts, city limits, and streets used as boundaries

The Draft Plans

14

Plan A

15

Plan A ‐ detail

16

Plan B – with Supervisorial Districts

17

Plan B

18

Plan B ‐ detail

19

Plan C

20

Plan C ‐ detail

21

Plan Comparison

Plan Comparison:

VAP = Voting Age Population (aged 18+) CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population (U.S. Citizens aged 18+)

Director Division Population Deviation Percent Deviation Census 2010 Total population Census 2010 VAP Estimated CVAP (DOJ special tabulation of ACS 2008-12) Estimated Registered voters 2010 (SWDB)

Draft Plan A

1 11,088 320 3.0% 71% 66% 59% 53% 2 10,853 85 0.8% 66% 61% 54% 46% 3 10,498

• 270
• 2.5%

66% 61% 54% 46% 4 10,826 58 0.5% 48% 44% 36% 34% 5 10,574

• 194
• 1.8%

35% 30% 25% 21% Total 53,839 590 5.5% 57% 52% 45% 39%

Draft Plan B

1 10,390

• 378
• 3.5%

52% 47% 40% 33% 2 10,529

• 239
• 2.2%

48% 43% 36% 31% 3 11,249 481 4.5% 66% 61% 54% 47% 4 10,781 13 0.1% 36% 32% 26% 23% 5 10,890 122 1.1% 82% 79% 74% 71% Total 53,839 859 8.0% 57% 52% 45% 39%

Draft Plan C

1 10,465

• 303
• 2.8%

78% 74% 68% 62% 2 10,369

• 399
• 3.7%

55% 51% 43% 39% 3 11,003 235 2.2% 53% 49% 41% 36% 4 11,031 263 2.4% 65% 59% 52% 46% 5 10,971 203 1.9% 36% 31% 25% 21% Total 53,839 662 6.1% 57% 52% 45% 39% Percent of Division population that was Hispanic/Latino Spanish Surname

22

Schedule

• Directors review draft plans (January 22, 2015)
• Receive public input (February 19, 2015)
• Revise plans (optional)
• Directors vote to adopt a plan
• Implement the plan

23

Comments /Questions?

Jeanne Gobalet, Ph.D.

Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc.

24