hisd redistricting presentation

Download HISD Redistricting Presentation

Post on 27-Mar-2015

95 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

HISD Redistricting Based on 2010 CensusAndrews & Kurth L.L.P. The Law Offices of Rolondo Rios Dr. Richard Murray

I. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REDISTRICTING II. PROPOSED PRIORITIES AND PRINCIPLES FOR REDISTRICTING III. INITIAL ANALYSIS OF 2010 CENSUS DATA IV. HISD REDISTRICTING TIMELINE

4/22/2011

1

Andrews Kurth

I. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REDISTRICTINGPopulation Equality: One Person One Vote Baker v. Carr Reynold v. Sims

Protections Against Discrimination of Racial, Ethnic and Language Minorities Voting Rights Act

Equal Protection/14th Amendment: Redistricting Based on Race Shaw v. Reno Bush v. Vera

Texas Constitution: Equal Protection Clause and Equal Rights Amendment

4/22/2011

2

Andrews Kurth

POPULATION EQUALITY: ONE PERSON ONE VOTE Local governments are required to draw districts that are substantially equal in population Ten Percent Standard: Maximum deviation in population between the largest and the smallest districts Courts will look at any significant deviation on a case-by-case basis, evaluating all factors used by the governmental body to draw districts Courts recognize the importance of making districts compact, respecting traditional boundaries, preserving the core of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbents

4/22/2011

3

Andrews Kurth

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: PROTECTION AGAINST RACIAL, ETHNIC AND LANGUAGE MINORITY DISCRIMINATION Voting Rights Act was enacted to provide minority voters an opportunity to participate in the electoral process and to elect candidates of their choice. Enacted in 1965 to prohibit a government from imposing a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure . . . 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. Voting Rights Act was amended in 1975 to include protections for members of language minority groups.

4/22/2011

4

Andrews Kurth

SECTION 2: Voting Rights Act Prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing any voting qualification, standard, practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of any U.S. citizens right to vote on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority group. A plaintiff may prove a Section 2 violation by showing a discriminatory result, not intent. Courts look to the totality of circumstances to determine a Section 2 violation, i.e., whether a redistricting plan would have discriminatory results. Gingles Test: Preconditions to prove a Section 2 claim The minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; The minority group is politically cohesive (i.e., usually votes for the same candidates); and The majority group votes as a block to defeat minority-preferred candidates.5 Andrews Kurth

4/22/2011

SECTION 5: Voting Rights Act Applies to all governmental units in Texas. Any electoral change must be precleared (under Section 5) with the Department of Justice. Requires the governmental unit to establish that any proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or membership in a language minority group.

4/22/2011

6

Andrews Kurth

SECTION 5: Preclearance The Department of Justice may refuse to preclear a redistricting plan if it would lead to retrogression of minority voters. Preclearance Question: Whether the new redistricting plan causes minority voting opportunities to diminish from what existed under the immediately preceding plan? In 1990s, the Department of Justice suffered setbacks in trying to require governmental units to maximize minority voting strength through perceived racial gerrymandering.

4/22/2011

7

Andrews Kurth

EQUAL PROTECTION: Shaw v. Reno Shaw v. Reno recognized a 14th Amendment Equal Protection cause of action for white plaintiffs where districts were drawn to deliberately include or exclude persons on the basis of race. Several Supreme Court cases in 1990s expanded the Equal Protection cause of action; all were 54 decisions. Dilemma for local governments: Satisfy the race-conscious mandate of Voting Rights Act vs. 14th Amendments prohibition against race-predominant decision-making. Districts drawn with race in mind must still by reasonably compact and adhere to sound redistricting principles. Race is still factor in redistricting; must be considered in context of other factors. Hunt v. Cromartie (54 decision) reaffirmed that using race, in conjunction with traditional redistricting principles, is not an Equal Protection violation.4/22/2011 8 Andrews Kurth

II. PRIORITIES AND PRINCIPLES FOR REDISTRICTING(1) The nine HISD Trustee Districts will be of substantially equal population and, in no event, exceed a ten percent top to bottom deviation. (2) The new HISD Trustee Districts should be contiguous and reasonably compact. (3) The new HISD Redistricting Plan will be based, to the extent possible, on the existing trustee district composition. (4) Where possible, HISD will use easily identifiable geographic boundaries as district boundaries. (5) The HISD Redistricting Plan will seek to maintain communities of interest in a single district and avoiding splitting neighborhoods when drawing district lines.

4/22/2011

9

Andrews Kurth

(6) The HISD Redistricting Plan will use whole county voting precincts, whenever possible, to draw trustee districts. (7) The new HISD Redistricting Plan will adhere to the Voting Rights Act and avoid retrogression in the position of racial, ethnic and language minorities with respect to the effective exercise of their right to vote. (8) The HISD Redistricting Plan will adhere to the Equal Protection Clause and will not use race as the predominate factor in developing the plan. (9) Recognizing the value of incumbent-constituency relations, the new HISD Redistricting Plan will seek to keep existing trustees in their existing districts.

4/22/2011

10

Andrews Kurth

III. INITIAL ANALYSIS OF 2010 CENSUS DATA

2010 Census Data Confirms Expected Changes in HISD Districts Expected Growth in Population in Existing HISD Districts Was Confirmed Uneven Changes Will Require Some Adjustments in Most Districts

4/22/2011

11

Andrews Kurth

Current HISD Districts

4/22/2011

12

Andrews Kurth

Population Change in the Houston Independent School District: 2000 to 20102000 Total Population Non-Hispanic Whites Non-Hispanic Blacks Hispanics Asians Others 1,259,617 371,784 316,624 510,588 51,332 9,289 % 100.0 29.5 25.1 40.5 4.1 0.7 2010 1,312,684 342,140 309,685 580,994 72,621 7,244 % 100.00 26.1 23.6 44.3 5.5 0.6 Change + 53,067 - 29,644 6,939 + 4.2% 8.0% 2.2%

+ 70,406 + 21,289 2,045

+ 13.8% + 41.5% 22.0

The Houston Independent School District encompasses a mature, inner-urban area that now includes less than 25 percent of the metropolitan area population. With little open land available for development except in the south-central part of the district, growth in HISD was just 4.2 percent over the last 10 years. Both the Anglo (Non-Hispanic White) and Black populations declined, with Hispanics accounting for the most of the growth in the district, even though their rate of increase (13.8%) was far below their percentages outside HISD. The greatest percentage increase (41.5%) in the district occurred among Asian Americans.

4/22/2011

13

Andrews Kurth

Population Change in HISD Trustee Districts: 2000 2010District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2000 134,864 142,676 145,819 136,414 147,053 141,332 135,847 134,067 141,545 2010 134,145 138,299 141,324 147,127 151,053 145,202 151,278 137,437 166,891 Change 719 4,377 4,495 + + + 0.5% 3.1% 3.1% 7.9% 2.7% 2.7% Deviation from Mean - 11,709 - 7,555 - 4,530 + 1,273 + 5,199 652 + + + 8.03% 5.18% 3.11% 0.87% 3.56% 0.45% 3.72% 5,77%

+ 10,713 + + 4,000 3,870

+ 15,431 + 3,370

+ 11.4% + 2.5%

+ 5,424 - 8,417 +20,965

+ 25,346

+ 17.9%

+ 14.37%

The two trustee districts on the north side (1 and 2) lost population, as did Trustee District 3 in the southeast. Three districts (5, 6, and 8) experienced moderate growth over the decade. The fastest growth occurred in District 4 (10,713), District 7 (15,431), and District 9 (25,346). Because District 9 is more than 14 percent over the mean population for all districts in HISD, and District 1 is more than 8 percent below the mean, the range of 22.40% requires redrawing the present trustee boundaries.

4/22/2011

14

Andrews Kurth

Racial/Ethnic Population Change within HISD Trustee Districts 2000 2010 for Total Population and Voting Age Population (VAP)District 1 2000Total Pop. Anglos Blacks Hispanics Asians Others 134,864 35,548 7,972 89,504 938 902 100.0% 26.4% 5.9% 66.4% 0.7% 0.7%

2010134,145 33,987 8,161 89,741 1,625 631 100.0% 25.3% 6.1% 66.9% 1.2% 0.5% Change - 1,561 + + + 189 237 687 271 - 1.1% + 0.2% + 0.5% + 0.5% - 0.2%

VAP Pop. Anglos Blacks Hispanics Asians Others

96,194 30,620 5,551 58,547 755 721

100.0% 31.8% 5.8% 60.9% 0.8% 0.8%

98,519 29,862 5,940 60,902 1,317 438

100.0% 30.3% 6.0% 61.8% 1.3% 0.5% +

Change 758 389 - 1.5% + 0.2% + 0.9% + 0.5% - 0.3%

+ 1,355 + 562 283

4/22/2011

15

Andrews Kurth

Population Change in HISD Trustee Districts: 2000 2010District 2 2000 Total Pop. Anglos Blacks Hispanics Asians Others 142,676 19,162 70,072 52,183 718 541 100.0% 13.4% 49.1% 36.6% 0.5% 0.4%