HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-27-0100PM-WorkshopFILED FOR RECORD o
DATE -k!3 -A,3
AT _ O'CLOCK M
KAREN MCQUEEN
G~r 6 S CO CLERK
y i
BR.AZOS COUNTY
BRYAN. TEXAS
•
NOTICE OF WORKSHOP SESSION
AND AGENDA
BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION ON
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2001 AT 1:00 P.M. IN ASSEMBLY ROOM 102 OF THE BRAZOS
CENTER, 3232 BRIARCREST DRIVE, BRYAN, TEXAS.
THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING IS FOR A PRESENTATION BY THE BICKERSTAFF
LAW FIRM RELATIVE TO THE "INITIAL ASSESSMENT" FOR REDISTRICTING.
•
The Brazos Center is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request
for sign interpretive services must be made two business days before the meeting. To make
arrangements, call (979) 3614102.
•
l~3 9'
u,
tl
~ r
~T
t COMMISSIONERS' COURT
r : a WORKSHOP SESSION
MARCH 27, 2001
The Commissioners' Court of Brazos County, Texas met in a Workshop Session in assembly room
102 of the Brazos Center, 3232 Briarcrest Drive, Bryan, Texas, begimting at 1:00 P.M. on Tuesday, March
27, 2001 with the following members of the Court present:
Alvin W. Jones, County Judge, Presiding
Tony Jones, Commissioner of Precinct 1;
William S. Thornton, Commissioner of Precinct 2;
Randy Sims, Commissioner of Precinct 3;
Carey Cauley, Jr., Commissioner of Precinct 4;
Karen McQueen, County Clerk.
Attached is a list of citizens and officials in attendance.
The County Judge called the meeting to order and announced the purpose of the Workshop was to
view the County's Redistricting 2001 Initial Assessment. The Assessment had been prepared by the law
firm of Bickerstaff, Heath, Smiley, Polan, Kever and McDaniel who had been hired by the County to to
assist with the County's redistricting process. He introduced Sydney W. Falk, Jr. and Alan J. Bojorquez,
attorneys with the Bickerstaff firm who would be making the presentation.
The electronic presentation covered the following topics:
CENSUS AND THE LAW
- What is Redistricting?
One Person - One Vote: The U. S Constitution requires that election districts for governmental
officials who act in a representative capacity (legislators, city council members, county commissioners, and
school trustees) have approximately equal population. If new federal census indicates population changes,
governmental entities - state and local governments - must determine whether existing districts shall satisfy
this requirement. If not, they must rebalance the population by redrawing district boundaries.
Who Has To Redistrict?
Sate Legislature, County Commissioners, Single-member school districts, cities , colleges, water
t
districts and other governing bodies. The census reveals population imbalance and triggers the requirement
to redistrict.
' Deviation: For a legislative plan drawn by the governmental entity deviation of less than 10°/a ~s a
de minimums and fails to make a prima facie claim of unconstitutionality. Deviation exceeding 10% is
prima facie invalid and must bejustified. Deviation is measured between the single member district with
k
the greatest population and the district with the least population. After redistricting each of the districts will
have roughly equal population and the districts with the greatest population will not be more than 10% larger
than the district with the least population. The kinds of census data available are; PL94-171 File: (1) Block
Level; (2) Total Population; (3) VAP (voting age population); (4) Race; (5) Hispanic origin. The population
to be used is total population to determine one person one vote and VAP (voting age population) to measure
r
voting rights issues.
What Race Do You Use?: Individuals were able to identify themselves in the census as belonging
`
to more than one race (e.g. Black-White or Asian-White). This is complicated further because all
f
respondents were asked to identify themselves as either being Hispanic or Non-Hispanic. Therefore the race
Ik
data will fall into the following categories; Ion-Hispanic: ( White, African American/Black, Asian,
American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, Other Multiple
.F
i
„
-To
I;
Race) Hispanic: Total population.
The Department of Justice indicates that it will follow these procedures in identifying race for
redistricting purposes:
(1) Persons designation of themselves as Hispanic will be categorized as such no matter what race
the designate (e.g. Hispanic-White)
{ (2) Persons designating themselves with a single race designation will be determined such as (e.g.
• Black/African American.)
y
Other entities actions affecting the redistricting are Legislative redistricting and City ward lines in
cities over 10,000 in population.
Legal Issues Facing Counties In the 2001 Round Of Redistricting
i
Main Issues:
a
1. Department Of Justice's Role In Preclearance.
2. Changes Legal Standaid For Liability.
Issue I: Preclearance under the Voting Rights Act and the role the Department of Justice will
play.
Section 5 - Voting Rights Act: To obtain preclearance, the government entity must show that the
proposed election change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging
the right to vote".
Department Of Justice's Guidelines: (as of January 18.2001) 1. Department of Justice will review
all plans using the P.L. 94-171 data unless the governmental body submitting the plan can show that other
data is more accurate and reliable.
2. Failure of governmental body to use the P.L. 94-171 data will not qualify a plan; however it will
be reviewed against the P.L.94-171 data even if it was drawn with other numbers.
i
The benchmark to be used for redistricting is 2000 census data superimposed on the last prelceared
district lines (usually 1991 lines)
a Justice Precincts are not "representative" districts and the one person-one vote standard doe not
apply to Justice Precincts. Any modification requires Department Of Justice preclearance.
U S Supreme Court Decisions On Justice Department Role in Section 5 Review: The Department
of Justice cannot use Section 5 to review or maximize the number of minority districts. Instead the standard
is retrogression - i.e. has the change caused the jurisdiction to go backwards in terms of minority voting
rights?
v
The Department of Justice cannot condition Section 5 approval on compliance with Section 2
discriminatory "effect" or "purpose" standards.
Effect for 2001 Preclearance Process: A plan may not be retrogressive. It may not reduce minority
1 voting strength nor may it have the purpose of retrogressing.
Retrogression is measured against the benchmark, which is the last legally enforceable plan -
generally the last prelceared plan.
Department Of Justice may object if a proposed plan reduces minority voting strength and fairly
# drawn alternative plan could alleviate or prevent that retrogression.
( Burden is on the governmental body to show a less retrogressive plan could not be drawn.
1 '
t There may be more Section 2 suites, including suits brought by the Department of Justice.
t
Precleariance under Section 5 does not insulate a plan from Section 2 liability.
Issue 1h How have standards for legal liability changed?
1991: Section 5 - Does the plan have a retrogressive purpose or effect?
#0 641
t v:, Y\
Section 2 - Does the plan discriminate against groups protected by the Voting Rights Act?
2001: Section 5- Does the plan have a retrogressive purpose or effect?
Section 2 - Does the plan discriminate against groups protected by the Voting Rights Act?
14" Amendment (Shaw v. Reno) - Was race the predominant consideration in drawing the plan?
If so, is the plan a narrowly tailored means of addressing a compelling governmental interest?
Redistricting Standards under Shaw-Reno Line of Cases: It is OK to be aware of race and to
consider race.
But race may not be the predominant factor in the redistricting process to the subordination of
traditional districting principles.
Bizarrely shaped districts are not unconstitutional per se but the bizarre shape may be evidence that
race was predominant consideration in the districting process.
Redistricting Standards under Shaw-Reno Line of Cases: If race is the predominant consideration,
the plan may still be permissible if the plan is narrowly tailored to address a compelling governmental
_ interest such as compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
If a plan is narrowly tailored, it will use race no more than is necessary.
t
• f
r
G
i
t
~d f
•y
G` I
1-
r
~I
Adopt Redistricting Criteria: (1) Identifiable boundaries. (2) Maintaining communities of interest
and neighborhoods. (3) Using whole voting precincts. (4) Basing plan on existing precincts. (5) Adopting
precincts of relatively equal size. (6) Drawing precincts that are compact and contiguous. (7) Keeping
existing commissioners in their precincts. (8) Narrowly tailoring plan to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Identifiable Boundaries: Where possible, easily identifiable geographic boundaries should be
followed such as highways, major roads, rivers, creeks, bridges, golf courses, stadiums, parks, cemeteries,
college campuses, hospitals, race tracks, other public building and landmarks.
Maintaining Communities of Interest And Neighborhoods: Avoid splitting neighborhoods and
residential subdivisions.
Using Whole Voting Precincts: Prevent and eliminate voter confusion by taking into consideration
the boundaries created for other public purposes.
Draw based on existing voting precincts as established by the county commissioners court.
County must adopt new election precincts no later than October 1, 2001.
Keeping Existing Representatives In Their Districts: Preserve the will of the voters.
Provide consistency in the incumbent-constituent relationship.
Adopting Districts Of Relatively Eoual Size: Takes into account local government's constitutional
obligation to ensure "one person, one-vote"
The Total deviation between the largest and smallest precinct should not exceed ten percent.
This criteria should take precedence over all other consideration so that the potential for
F constitutional liability is eliminated.
f - ,
Drawing Districts That Are ComRact And Contiguous: Compactness has geographic and functional
dimension. A district, even when not geographically compact, can be functionally compact depending on
such matters as voting patterns, income, education, home ownership, the advisability of transportation and
communication, the existence of common social and economic interest, the ability of the constituents to
relocate each other.
Narrowly Tailoring A Plan To Comply With The Voting Rights Act: Plan designed to avoid
retrogression under Section 5.
Plan designed to avoid discrimination under Section 2:
I . Minority community should not be fragmented into two or more districts when, if the area had
been put into a single district, it would have produced greater voting strength.
2. Minority community should not be packed into a single district when, if the voters were split into
two or more districts, the votes might have had an opportunity to elect candidates in two districts.
•
Steps To Balancing Conflicting Legal Obligations In Redistricting: Plan ahead - build a record; Be
aware of legal obligations and responsibilities; Adopt criteria that reflect traditional redistricting principles,
including consideration of race to the extent required to meet obligations under the Voting Rights Act; Pay
attention to the criteria when drawing the plan. Consider and evaluate each plan presented (whether by
district's hired consultant or by general public) in light of the adopted criteria.
Stew To Balancing Conflicting Legal Obligations In Redistricting: Analyze the final plan in terms
of how well it conforms to the criteria.
Make sure the analysis is furnished to the governmental body before it votes on the plan.
Avoid truly bizarre districts.
Steps In The Redistricting Process At The Local Level
Perform Initial Assessment: Examine the new population data and compare the existing District
boundaries. Calculate deviation. Determine whether current election districts have become sufficiently
unbalanced in population to require the District to engage in redistricting. Review historical issues.
Plan Schedule: Set target dates for presentation ofproposed plans for Court consideration and/or for
public discussion. Set the target date for adoption of redistricting plan. Set target date for submission of a
preclearance request to the Department of Justice.
Adoot Criteria: Identifiable boundaries; Maintaining g communities of interest and neighborhoods;
Using whole voting precincts; Basing plan on existing districts; Adopting district of relatively equal size;
Drawing districts that are compact and contiguous; Keeping existing representatives in their districts;
Narrowly tailoring plan to comply with the voting rights act.
l~
u
Provide For Publicity And Encourage Participation: For submissions involving controversial or
potentially controversial changes, evidence of public notice, of the opportunity for the public to be heard,
and of the opportunity for interested parties to participate in the decision to adopt the proposed change and
an account of the extent to which such participation, especially by minority group members, in fact took
place.
Develop Redistricting Plans: Develop plans suitable for preclearance submission which takes into
account the applicable legal requirements and the various paractical and political considerations the Court
determines are relevant.
Review and analyze plans based on Criteria.
Review the relative legal and practical merits of particular plans under consideration.
•
Conduct Public Hearings: Public hearings should be held regarding redistricting and/or the
recommendations of an interested persons.
If alternative plans were submitted by individuals or groups representing minority interests or
political parties it may be important to provide these plans to those attending public hearings or making
inquiries so that they can be understood and discussed thoroughly if they are not adopted.
Conduct public prese-ritarion of proposed plans and summarize public comments for the benefit of
the Department of Justice.
Assessment Of Proposed Haris: Once plans are drawn and before they are considered, all such plans.
should be tssted against applicable state and federal requirements, including the Voting Rights Act, to
determine if questionable population deviations or redistricting characteristics are present.
Community Leader Input: Meet with community leaders identified by Court to solicit input on
boundary adjustments.
Adopt New Plan: Reflect public input; Reflect criteria identified by the Court.
&~q , ;
srnrq
.1 aa.,.
f
e
t
t
t
r,
:i
i ~
r
li
. j
i ,
i t
y
r
I
Ereparation Of Preclearance Submission: Prepare the required Voting Rights Act Section 5
preclearance submission for the Department of Justice, including assembling all documentation required.
Respond To Department Of Justice Inquiries: Prepare responses to those requests and deal directly
with the Department of Justice to answer any questions.
The following copies are attached:
1. The proposed 2001 timetable for County Redistricting is attached.
2. County election precinct changes during the redistricting cycle.
3. Chart showing Commissioner precinct preliminary demographic report.
4. Chart showing Commissioner precincts showing 2000 census total and voting age
population.
Maps showing the Commissioner precinct lines as they currently exist, percent Black population by
2000 census block, and percent Hispanic population by 2000 census block were shown.
Questions were taken from citizens throughout the presentation.
Judge Jones thanked the citizens for their attendance and assured them that sufficient notice would
be given for the next meeting and presentation of information and adjourned the meeting.
i
~
r
f
7
I
F
~
•j
4
a~
y
i
1
tI
f
'
C
.r!
1!
t
~ t l
EL
_ L _t
-
C]
•
0
The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court Workshop on Redistricting held on
March 27, 2001 have been examined are approved this the 19 day of June, 2001, in Bryan,
Brazos County, Texas.
Alvin W. Jones, Tony ones
County Judge Commissioner, Precinct 1
William S. Thornton Randy Sim
Commissioner, Precinct 1 Commissioner, Precinct 3
tt
-
-
71
C Ay Cauley, r. en McQueen
Commission , Precinct 4 - County Clerk
r
i
BR.AZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
MEETING ON 3 - 27 200 AT 1 ion pry pjra3os
~edts+r~cfe- PuloliLri~~. Cent-r'
AM E
ORGANIZATION/D
t
i
(
.f
I;
i
t
i
I'
1
7
f'
1
f
,
r•
r
r
t
i
s
F
0
k -
1
J
L
L
j,
p
C GC~~K
C~
BRA qA/ BRV F~E~-fl
I.
t►ZG V,21 -1
yN
w s
~
~vp2Jf G~
Htsig
S
I `
J
C/
7
•
•
1
I
j
BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
MEETING ON 3-)-,7 200 AT f,,oo prx (~jra3os
wed j;ffic.~vj - PLJol ' ie_ Wes,,-i rt~ oe,,tye-r'
NAME nRGANIZA.TION/DEPARTMENT
lle e ~1 VavQ ~
~~JA~Cl
a J047
wmui;ll
1
THIS
PAGE
LEFT
r
x
,
r
l
t
r
i
F
i
~
.i
BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
i
' VOL 2~ PAGE A *y
L. .l'. - J. ..~~^'t' hi-r - ..j •~.`4 S.i .Y~ 4' - _~-4.~,_~_ _ _•{I,•1, -F~ :.1~,
p
r