city of orlando 20110627 redistricting

8/6/2019 City of Orlando 20110627 Redistricting

1/81

Orlando City Council Workshop

Monday, June 27, 2011


2/81

Workshop agenda

Background and purpose of redistricting

Legal background

Overview of Census 2010 Redistricting advisory board

Council agenda items


3/81

One person, one vote

Jefferson County, AL - 1960

> 600,000 people

1 state senator

Lowndes County, AL - 1960

15,417 people

1 state senator


4/81


Jefferson County, AL - 1960

> 600,000 people

1 state senator

Lowndes County, AL - 1960

15,417 people

1 state senator

40:1 ratio


5/81


6/81


District A

53,107 people 1 representative

District B


1.78:1 ratio


7/81


District 1 (2010)


District 2 (2010)


1.78:1 ratio


8/81


Malapportionment

results in vote

dilution

Solution is

redistricting

Typically occurs every

10 years, after the

census


9/81

Gerrymandering

Term first used in 1812 to

describe Mass. legislative

districts drawn to favor

political party of Gov.Elbridge Gerry

Gerrymandering can be

benign or insidious


10/81

Redistricting


11/81

Redistricting


12/81

United States Census

Representativesshall be

apportioned among the

several Statesaccording to

their respective NumbersArt. I, sec. 2, U.S. Constitution

[an] Enumeration shall be

madewithin everyTermof ten Years

Art. I, sec. 2, U.S. Constitution


13/81

United States Census

435 seats in the House of

Representatives

Florida 2002-2011 = 25

Florida 2012-2021 = 27

United State Public Law 94-171 (Dec. 23, 1975)


14/81

Redistricting Law

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)

United State Supreme Court

Challenge to 1901 Tenn. apportionment statute

Based on Equal Protection Clause of the 14th A.

Court recedes from political questions doctrine

Opens the door for malapportionment litigation


15/81

Redistricting Law

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)

Challenge to Alabama malapportionment

Court orders lower court to reapportion

Vote dilution is discrimination

The right of suffrage can be denied by a dilution

of the weight of a citizens vote just as effectivelyas by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the

franchise.


16/81

Redistricting Law

14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution (1868)

No State shall make or enforce anylaw which shall abridge the privileges

or immunities of citizens of the United

Statesnor deny to any person withinits jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws.


17/81

Redistricting Law

14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution (1868)

No State shall make or enforce anylaw which shall abridge the privileges

or immunities of citizens of the United

Statesnor deny to any person withinits jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws.


18/81

Redistricting Law

Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)

The conception of political equality from

the Declaration of Independence, to

Lincolns Gettysburg Address, to the

Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth

Amendments can mean only one thingone person, one vote.


19/81

Redistricting Law

Voting

Rights Act

of 1965Outlawed

discriminatory

voting practices

responsible for

widespread

disenfranchisement


20/81

Redistricting Law

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Prohibits political subdivisions from imposing

Voter qualifications

Prerequisites to voting

Standards, practices, or procedures to deny or abridge

the right to vote

Section 2 is employed by plaintiffs in challenges to

redistricting plans that dilute the strength of

minority communities


21/81

Redistricting Law

Section 2, Voting Rights Act of 1965

Requires political subdivisions to draw districts

where minorities have the opportunity to elect a

candidate of their choice if there is

1. Large, compact minority population

2. Politically cohesive minority voting patterns

3. Politically cohesive majority voting patterns witha history of defeating minority candidates

See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).


22/81

Redistricting Law

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)

Challenge to N.C. congressional redistricting

Jurisdictions covered by Voting Rights Act are not

given carte blanche to engage in racial

gerrymandering

Redistricting plan that is so bizarre that it is

unexplainable on grounds other than race is subjectto strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause


23/81

Redistricting Law

Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999)

Challenges to N.C. congressional redistricting

Race may not be the primary motivation in

redistricting

Assessing a jurisdictions motivation in drawing

district lines is a complex endeavor requiring acourt to inquire into all available circumstantial

and direct evidence.


24/81

Redistricting Law

Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231 (2009)

Challenges to N.C. legislative redistricting

Crossover districts do not meet Gingles

requirement that minority is sufficiently large and

geographically compact enough to constitute

majority in a single-member district, for purposes

of Voting Rights Acts vote dilution provision


25/81

Redistricting Law

How much population deviation is allowed?

10% deviation (5% +/- ideal district)

See gen. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973).

[A]ppellant invites us to weaken the one-person,

one-vote standard by creating a safe harbor for

population deviations of less than 10%, withinwhich districting decisions could be made for any

reason whatsoever. The Court properly rejects

that invitation. Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 (2004).


26/81

Redistricting Law

Amendments 5 and 6

Amendments to Floridas Constitution

Adopted Nov. 2, 2010

Prohibits drawing districts to favor or disfavor

incumbents and political parties

Applies only to districts for Florida House, Florida

Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives Does not apply to local governments


27/81

Redistricting Law

Orlando City Charter

The City Council shall, by Ordinance,adopted by a majority vote of all members of

the City Council, redesignate the boundaries

of each district after each decennial census

conducted by the United States Government.

Sec. 4-1(b), Ch. 2, Orlando City Charter


28/81

Redistricting Law


All such redesignation of district boundariesshall be in accordance with the Constitutions

of the State of Florida and of the United

States of America.

Sec. 4-1(d), Ch. 2, Orlando City Charter


29/81

Redistricting Law


[D]istrict boundaries shall not be changedless than four (4) months prior to a regular

municipal election, except to include territory

annexed to or consolidated with the City.

Sec. 4-1(d), Ch. 2, Orlando City Charter


30/81

Redistricting Law

Sunshine Law and Ethics Code

Floridas Sunshine Law applies to the RAB

Open meetings law

Public records law

City policies and procedures

Floridas Ethics Code (Part III, Ch. 112, Fla. Stat.)

City of Orlandos Ethics Policy (P&P 800.5)


31/81

Orlandos population

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population99,006

128,291

164,693

188,478

238,916

88,135

52,367


32/81


33/81


34/81

Citywide

Demographics

Citywide

Population 2000 2010 % Change

Total 188,478 238,916 26.76%

White 114,629 137,606 20.04%

Black 50,954 66,953 31.40%

Hispanic 33,150 60,651 82.96%


35/81


2000

188,202 people Ideal district =

31,367

2010


39,819


36/81


2000


31,367

Gaffney deviation =

29,78932,935

2010


39,819

Gaffney deviation =

37,82841,810


37/81

District 1

19912001


38/81

District 1

20012011


39/81

District 1

20012011

Annexation


40/81

District 1

Demographics

District 1


Total 31,854 53,107 66.72%

White 24,627 37,224 51.15%

Black 2,756 5,707 107.08%

Hispanic 8,182 20,232 147.27%


41/81

District 1

Demographics

Ideal = 39,819

D1 = + 13,288

+ 33%

District 1


Total 31,854 53,107 66.72%

White 24,627 37,224 51.15%

Black 2,756 5,707 107.08%

Hispanic 8,182 20,232 147.27%


42/81

District 2

19912001


43/81

District 2

20012011


44/81

District 2

20012011

Annexation


45/81

District 2

Demographics

District 2


Total 31,256 29,919 -4.28%

White 22,164 20,188 -8.92%

Black 2,918 3,357 15.04%

Hispanic 12,190 15,942 30.78%


46/81

District 2

Demographics

Ideal = 39,819

D2 = - 9,900

- 25%

District 2


Total 31,256 29,919 -4.28%

White 22,164 20,188 -8.92%

Black 2,918 3,357 15.04%

Hispanic 12,190 15,942 30.78%


47/81

District 3

19912001


48/81

District 3

20012011


49/81

District 3

20012011

Annexation


50/81

District 3

Demographics

District 3


Total 31,045 39,028 25.71%

White 23,199 25,836 11.37%

Black 5,473 9,325 70.38%

Hispanic 2,315 3,744 61.73%


51/81


52/81


53/81

District 4

20012011


54/81

District 4

20012011

Annexation


55/81

District 4

Demographics

District 4


Total 31,672 44,576 40.74%

White 25,763 28,474 10.52%

Black 2,188 6,314 188.57%

Hispanic 4,833 8,859 83.30%


56/81

District 4

Demographics

Ideal = 39,819

D4 = + 4,757

+ 12%

District 4


Total 31,672 44,576 40.74%

White 25,763 28,474 10.52%

Black 2,188 6,314 188.57%

Hispanic 4,833 8,859 83.30%


57/81

District 5

19912001


58/81

District 5

20012011


59/81

District 5

20012011

Annexation


60/81

District 5

Demographics

District 5


Total 32,005 32,645 2.00%

White 8,554 7,192 -15.92%

Black 20,225 21,181 4.73%

Hispanic 3,079 4,019 30.53%


61/81

District 5

Demographics

Ideal = 39,819

D5 = - 7,174

- 18%

District 5


Total 32,005 32,645 2.00%

White 8,554 7,192 -15.92%

Black 20,225 21,181 4.73%

Hispanic 3,079 4,019 30.53%


62/81

District 6

19912001


63/81

District 6

20012011


64/81

District 6

20012011

Annexation


65/81

District 6

Demographics

District 6


Total 30,646 39,641 29.35%

White 10,322 13,986 35.50%

Black 17,394 18,067 3.87%

Hispanic 2,551 5,826 128.38%


66/81

District 6

Demographics

Ideal = 39,819

D2 = - 178

- 0.5%

District 6


Total 30,646 39,641 29.35%

White 10,322 13,986 35.50%

Black 17,394 18,067 3.87%

Hispanic 2,551 5,826 128.38%


67/81

Council agenda items

1. Ordinance 2011-27

First reading today

Second reading and hearing on July 11, 2011

2. Redistricting advisory board resolution

Adoption today

3. Election dates resolution

Adoption on July 11, 2011


68/81

Ordinance 2011-27

1. Fixes City election dates

Currently on second Tuesday in March, or

Possibly on presidential preference primary

Permanently sets consistent date of first Tuesday afterthe first Monday in April

2. Fixes terms of elected office

Inconsistent provisions in City Charter and City Code

Removes outlying reference to May 1

Clarifies June 1, as provided in Charter


69/81

Ordinance 2011-27

Advantages to setting standalone fixed

election date

1. Elections are predictable and regular

2. Same date in mayoral and non-mayoral years3. More predictable turnout

4. Avoid the moving presidential primary

5. 2012 presidential primary is currently unknown

Might not be set until October

Too late to set date in redistricting year

Too late for alternative method of qualifying

6. City and County precincts are different


70/81

Ordinance 2011-27

Advantages to setting standalone fixed

election date

7. Ballot confusion due to mismatched precincts

8. Avoid lengthy lame-duck sessions of Council9. Permanently fixes the temporary for 2008 date

10. Allows SOE ample time to prepare for City

election

11. Avoids lopsided partisan turnout for non-partisanCity elections in years with presidential primary

12. Avoid being first election under dramatically new

election laws (See Ch. 2011-40, Laws of Florida)


71/81

RAB resolution

Establishes the City of Orlando 2011

Redistricting Advisory Board (the RAB)

Appoints members of the RAB

Provides the general duties of the RAB RAB must encourage public input

RAB to make recommendation to Council


72/81

RAB nominees

MayorMr. Wayne Rich, Chair

MayorMs. Stephanie Howell

MayorMs. Tanja Juarez Wilder

District 1Mr. Angel Colon

District 2Mr. John Cabrera

District 3Mr. Cleave Frink

District 4Ms. Sarah Kelly District 5Ms. Jacqueline Barr, Vice Chair

District 6Bishop Allen T.D. Wiggins


73/81


74/81

Standards of redistricting

Create compact districts

Avoid favoring or disfavoring any political party

Draw boundaries along streets and natural boundaries

Keep neighborhoods together within a district

Keep communities of interest together within a district

Maintain the core areas of prior districts


75/81


76/81

RAB timeline

July 2011

RAB meetingsbegin

August2011

Districthearings

September2011

RAB meetingsconclude

October2011

RAB submitsrecommendedplan ofredistricting toCouncil

November2011

City Counciladopts newdistricts


77/81

RAB timeline

July 2011

RAB meetingsbegin

August2011

Districthearings

September2011

RAB meetingsconclude

October2011

RAB submitsrecommendedplan ofredistricting toCouncil

November2011

City Counciladopts newdistricts

2001 RACDeadline

2001 PlanAdoption Deadline


78/81

2012 election timeline

Mid-October

2011

Alternativemethod oathdue

BeginningDec. 2011

Redistrictingmust becomplete

BeginningFeb. 2012

Qualifyingperiod

April 3,2012

Election day

May 1,2012

Runoffelection, ifnecessary

June 1,2012

Terms ofofficecommence


79/81

Election dates resolution

Section 21.08, Orlando City Code

Authorizes the Mayor to issue proclamation

calling the 2012 municipal elections

Also sets runoff date

Resolution to be considered at the July 11,

2011 City Council meeting


80/81

City redistricting staff

Linda RhinesmithEconomic Development

Trinity TeslerNeighborhood Services

Cindy Sanford

City Attorneys Office

Walter HawkinsEconomic Development

Mike MillsTechnology Management

Kyle Shephard

City Attorneys Office


81/81

Orlando City Council Workshop

Monday, June 27, 2011

Questions and comments

[email protected]

city of orlando 20110627 redistricting

Documents