PUSD Districting 2012 Geographic Sub-districting School Board - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

PUSD Districting 2012 Geographic Sub-districting School Board Election Changes

Reasons For Change (PUSD Resolution - Geographic Sub-District Elections November 23, 2010) • Greater access to public elected Board Members • Smaller constituent base – Easier interaction • Higher level of public interest in education • Lower cost for candidates • Lower cost for District • Avoidance of potential costly litigation

PUSD Districting Task Force “Review the 1999 -2000 Charter Amendment proposal (Measure BB) • for sub-geographic district elections of PUSD Board Members, and determine what changes are necessary in order to forward to the voters.” “Determine, through the use of 2010 Census data and receiving • community input, the geographic regions for the seven seats for PUSD Board of Education, ensuring compliance with the State and Federal Voting Rights Act provisions.”

Charter Language Changes ( Unanimous vote by Task Force – 9/20) The Charter language will be voted on by qualified voters in the June 2012 elections. Voters will be not be voting on the maps in the June 2012 elections. • Section 701 – Establishment of a Board of Education ▫ Adds language that the Board is “elected by geographic sub -district ” • Section 703 - Election ▫ Candidates must live in the appropriate geographic sub-district ▫ Qualified voters in the sub-district may vote in the election • Section 704 – Nominating Petition ▫ Changes the number of petition signatures for office from 100 to 25

Charter Language Changes Section 713 – Geographic Sub-Districts A. Initial Elections  Seats 1,3,5 and 7 - 2013 D. Districting Commission shall hold at least one public hearing  Seats 2,4,6 - 2015 E. Final enactment by one of three B. Redistricting timing ( Districting methods: in PUSD’s case )  Board adopts Commission proposal;  After each decennial census  Board amends Commission plan by  Any other time 2/3 of the Board two-thirds vote and adopts amended decides sufficient population change plan; has occurred to justify updating the lines  If Board does not act, Commission plan automatically takes effect post 60 days C. Requires a districting Commission be named following each Census : F. Districting shall not impact an existing  3 Pasadena residents named by Board member’s current term Pasadena City Council  3 school district residents named by School Board (Not Board Members) G. The Board of Education determines geographic sub-district of any territory  2 residents of Altadena named by annexed County Supervisor  1 resident of City of Sierra Madre named by City Council

Federal Districting Law 1. Equal Population ▫ The goal must be exact equality ▫ Deviations from equality must achieve a clear community goal 2. Federal Voting Rights Act ▫ “ No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or [language minority group]…”

Situations to Avoid o Gerrymandering - Establishing an unfair political advantage for or against one group through the manipulation of geographic boundaries. o Packing - Concentrating as many voters of a particular group into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts. o Cracking - Spreading out voters of particular group among multiple districts in order to deny them a large voting bloc of any one district.

Other Districting Criteria/Guidelines 1. Socio-Economic 2. Race, ethnicity, linguistics 3. “Natural” geographic boundaries 4. School attendance zones, locations, and attendance patterns *Adopted by the PUSD Districting Task Force on November 15, 2011.

Pasadena Unified School District Population: 202,378 Ideal district: 28,911

Consensus Map Demographics Consensus Plan District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Total 28853 28867 29041 29132 28825 28685 28975 173,403 Deviation -0.20% -0.15% 0.45% 0.76% -0.30% -0.78% 0.22% 1.55% Latino 56.80% 33.28% 16.22% 49.95% 23.53% 24.06% 14.03% 31.2% NH White 63.42% 26.50% 13.24% 26.69% 44.09% 51.73% 60.43% 40.8% Total Population NH Black 32.05% 6.92% 22.82% 10.99% 6.27% 3.48% 5.08% 12.5% (2010 Census) NH AmInd 0.52% 0.34% 0.28% 0.37% 0.43% 0.46% 0.39% 0.4% NH Asian 24.20% 5.37% 11.46% 5.61% 10.98% 19.22% 19.12% 13.7% NH HPI 0.08% 0.39% 0.08% 0.10% 0.13% 0.12% 0.06% 0.1% NH Other 0.57% 0.46% 0.31% 0.35% 0.43% 0.37% 0.33% 0.4% Multi 1.64% 0.81% 0.86% 0.56% 0.92% 0.55% 0.56% 0.8% Total 22081 23016 21541 22562 24438 23192 25040 136,830 Latino 29.33% 14.34% 52.02% 45.37% 21.33% 21.46% 13.02% 27.6% NH White 28.95% 65.96% 15.71% 30.17% 45.83% 54.17% 61.91% 43.9% NH Black 33.55% 6.91% 24.24% 10.96% 6.07% 3.29% 5.01% 12.5% Voting Age Population (2010 NH AmInd 0.53% 0.35% 0.32% 0.40% 0.46% 0.48% 0.41% 0.4% Census) NH Asian 5.47% 11.06% 6.49% 12.13% 24.97% 19.72% 18.78% 14.4% NH HPI 0.10% 0.36% 0.07% 0.13% 0.13% 0.12% 0.07% 0.1% NH Other 0.53% 0.35% 0.32% 0.31% 0.38% 0.31% 0.30% 0.4% Multi 1.54% 0.68% 0.84% 0.53% 0.83% 0.46% 0.51% 0.8% Total 20603 21124 16899 18159 20661 20026 22684 117,472 Latino 40.49% 27.34% 13.24% 36.69% 19.42% 19.48% 10.61% 23.0% NH White 70.08% Citizen Voting Age 29.31% 17.08% 38.89% 54.53% 61.83% 68.74% 50.0% Population (Special NH Black 37.86% 7.43% 35.51% 14.91% 6.85% 3.29% 5.28% 15.2% Tabulation) NH Asian 16.94% 4.21% 8.26% 5.91% 8.22% 14.76% 14.62% 10.6% NH AmInd 0.22% 0.32% 0.48% 1.03% 0.77% 0.44% 0.51% 0.5% NH HPI 0.17% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 1.06% 0.12% 0.00% 0.2% Multi 0.87% 0.52% 0.59% 0.27% 0.47% 0.11% 0.26% 0.4% Total 17980 18764 12689 12210 15086 17318 19373 94,047 Registration by Spanish Surname 15.72% 10.97% 32.79% 27.85% 18.33% 14.42% 9.57% 17.2% Surname (CA State Filipino Surname 0.60% 1.07% 1.69% 1.51% 1.82% 1.17% 0.94% 5.9% Database) Asian Surname 2.36% 4.88% 2.39% 5.13% 8.46% 8.99% 7.96% 1.2% Total 10712 12232 6163 6321 8452 11044 13081 54,924 Turnout by Spanish Surname 12.85% 9.88% 29.37% 24.19% 16.94% 11.99% 8.53% 14.4% Surname (CA State Filipino Surname 0.49% 0.97% 1.56% 1.38% 1.69% 0.87% 0.89% 5.1% Database) Asian Surname 2.43% 4.63% 2.60% 4.92% 6.71% 7.02% 6.31% 1.0%

Total Population and Registration by Place Consensus Population Registered Voters (Nov. 2010) Plan Altadena Pasadena Sierra Other Total Altadena Pasadena Sierra Other Total Madre Madre 1 27,895 878 80 28,853 17,340 587 53 17,980 2 14,882 12,684 1,301 28,867 9,933 7,944 887 18,764 3 29,041 29,041 12,689 12,689 4 29,132 29,132 12,210 12,210 5 28,825 28,825 15,086 15,086 6 7,597 10,717 10,371 28,685 4,584 7,628 5,106 17,318 7 28,950 25 28,975 19,355 18 19,373 Total 42,777 137,107 10,717 11,777 202,378 27,273 72,455 7,628 6,064 113,420 1 97% 96% 3% 100% 3% 100% 2 52% 44% 95% 53% 42% 95% 3 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 4 100% 100% 100% 100% 5 100% 100% 100% 100% 6 26% 37% 36% 100% 26% 44% 29% 100% 7 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%

District Transition • Reflect community input • Honor voters’ will for seats elected in 2011 • Allow incumbents a chance for re-election • No adjustments made to accommodate incumbency

District Numbering Summary District Resident Year Assigned Final Result Trustees 1 2013 & 2015 2013 2013 ( Assigned 2013 ) Miramontes can run in 2013 Kenne can continue with current term or run in 2013 2 Vacant 2015 New trustee in 2015 3 Vacant 2013 New trustee in 2013 4 2015 & 2015 2015 (Assigned to 2015) 2015 Cooper & Selinske can run in 2015 5 2013 & 2013 2013 2013 (Assigned to 2013) Honowitz & Pomeroy can run in 2013 Vacant 2015 6 New trustee in 2015 2013 2013 2013 7 (Assigned to 2013) Phelps can run in 2013

FURTHER INFORMATION • To view maps and other materials, visit: • www.measurea.pasadenausd.org