HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-16-0100PM-WorkshopFILED FOR RECORD 1
DATE
AT_~~O'CLOCK____A___M ;
KAREN MCQUEEN
; COUNTY CLERK
BRAZOS COUNTY By BRA O
BRYAN, TEXAS
•
I
s
,
01
•
NOTICE OF WORKSHOP SESSION
AND AGENDA
BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION ON
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2001, AT 1:00 P.M. IN ASSEMBLY ROOM 102 OF THE BRAZOS
CENTER, 3232 BRIARCREST DRIVE, BRYAN, TEXAS.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP IS FOR A PRESENTATION BY THE
BICKERSTAFF LAW FIRM RELATIVE TO REDISTRICITING.
.w.
The Brazos Center is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any sign
interpretive services must be requested two business days before the meeting. To 'make
arrangements, call (979) 361-4102.
CON KMIONERS' COURT
WORKSHOP SESSION
MAY 16, 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, beginning at 1:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May
16, 2001 with the following members of the Court present:
Alvin W. Jones, County Judge, Presiding
Torry 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 introduced David Mendez and Alan Bojorquez with
the Bickerstatl; law firm in Austin, Texas. The firm had been retained by Brazos County to assist with the
required redistricting process.
David Mendez led the discussion and presented an overview of requirements for the redistricting
process.
Mr. Mendez presented for review Illustrative Plan I map for Commissioner precincts and a
demographic summary for the plan. He stated that Illustrative Plan I provides an appropriate population
balance between Commissiorzr precincts and avoids unreasonable retrogression ofthe minority voting strength
in the County. The relative geographic configuration ofcurrent Commissioner precincts was retained, although
the precinct boundaries differ significantly in actual detail in a number of places, which is a result of having
to balance population among existing Commissioner precincts that were substantially out of population
balance. The analysis was based on the redistricting criteria adopted by the Commissioners Court indicates
that Illustrative Plan I conforms to all criteria.
This plan is for discussion purposes only to obtain food back from the Court. It was suggested that
the Court review the plan thoroughly to determine if there are areas of concern that have not bees addressed
in this plan
It was announced that public plans should be submitted by July 1, 2001. Public plans must meet all
criteria established by the Court for establishing the Commissioner Precincts.
The County Judge opened the floor for questions from the public.
The next step in the redistricting process is to set a date and time for a public hearing to receive
comments from the public on this plan or any alternative to this plan.
WLIL
Copies of the map and demographics were distributed to various citizens.
Judge Jones thanked the citizens for their attendance and assured them that sufficient notice would be
given for the public hearing and adjourned the meeting. He invited all interested citizens to review the maps
that were posted for public inspection.
•
46
i
The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court Workshop on Redistricting held on May
16, 2001 have been examined are approved this the 1,L day of ^ 2001, in Bryan, Brazos
County, Texas.
G=Yrat.,.7
Alvin W. Jones, Ton odes
County Judge Commissio er, inct
William S. Thornton Randy.
Commissioner, Precinct I Co inner, Precinct 3
A C
Y Cauley, Jr. k7- A-"Ke-A,
Karen cQueen
Commission , Precinct 4 County Clerk
•
BRAZOS COUNTY C(3MMISSIONERS COURT
MEETING ON l.A Tj is 200 L AT /.'cn fL
t
t
F
~c
101
i
Q
~Sm~. Q~
Y W
cy\-
s~
-P,
i A
K/L
If 16
14 tic. v1J01 > -C,04 G C~.a~
;,.r t'~nn .d a ...i.., ri -..~1M ~ .b ..F ',aw1 1•.i+ •w'. ✓•..~`'~Ri.•n.. ~ a. w 1
i
BR.AZOS COUNTY CO SSIONE COURT
MEETING ON 8 ~ 200 ! AT 1 oo GM
,y
i 4
I
0
•
[.I' I
1 , 1
11
IM 7
7
...~~_.a....a.~G.nS1..~.~:..a.aw.t+~...:.u~...Y~~li:~..~.:~.~-~`N+-.~.•_1:.: w=.~:S. ~ar,..`~... `.na ~.t.r 1R ~.~.~+_.L~~...r..N;:..,~_~:..r..~:a1f...'dl.ti~''n:u`1 :..a :t... a.._.... _
t -
Bickerstaff, Heath, Smiley, Pollan, Kever & McDaniel, t,LP
1700 Frail Bank Plana 816 Con v= Awnue Auann. 71•w 7$7012443 (512)17! 141'1 Fu (w)d!o ws w bickerlu f eom
May 16, 2001
•
The Honorable Alvin Jones
Brazos County.ludge
300 E. 26'h Street, Suite 114
Bryan, TX 77803-5327
The Honorable 'T'ony Jones
Commissioner, Precinct I
300 E. 26'h Street. Suite 106
Bryan. TX 77803-5327
The Honorable Randy Sims
Commissioner, Precinct 3
300 E. 26'h Street. Suite 106
Bryan, TX 77803-5327
The I lonorable William Thornton
Commissioner, Precinct 2
300 E. 261h Street. Suite 106
Bryan, fX 77803-5327
The I lonorable Carey Cauley, Jr
Commissioner, Precinct 4
3001: 1-61h Street. Suite 106
Bryan. TX 77803-5327
Re: Report on Illustrative Plan I for commissioner precincts
Dear Judge and Commissioners
l~
u
We ha%e constructed for your review Illustratne Plan I for commissioner
precincts. A copy of the plan map is included as part of this report. Also included in this
report is a demographic summary for the plan Illustrative Plan I provides an appropriate
population balance between the commissioners' precincts (i e• , the total maximum
deviation from the ideal precinct sire is less than the ten percent range that is usually
recognized by the courts as presumptively constitutional) and avoids unreasonable
retrogression of the minorit) voting strength in the Count}.
The relative geographic configuration of current commissioner precincts was
retained, although the precinct boundaries differ significantly in actual detail in a number
of places, a result of having to balance population among existing commissioner
precincts that were substantially out of population balance. An analysis based on the
redistricting criteria adopted by the Commissioners' Court indicates that Illustrative Plan
I conforms reasonably to all criteria, as discussed below. ,
r
•
r~`
C
Illustrative Plan Letter '
May 16, 2001
Page 2
Criterion 1: Where possible, easily identifiable geographic boundaries should be
followed.
It is easier for citizens to determine the commissioner precinct where they live if
the precinct boundaries follow a major street or natural boundary like a river. All
precincts in Illustrative Plan I follow geographic boundaries or clearly identifiable roads.
Criterion 2: Communities of interest should be maintained in a single precinct,
where possible, and attempts should be made to avoid splitting neighborhoods.
To the extent practicable, where communities of interest were identified,
Illustrative Plan I has avoided splitting them. For example, the East Campus of Texas
A&M University is in Commissioner Precinct 3; we did not also include the West
Campus area, currently in Commissioner Precinct 4, because doing so would isolate an
area of predominantly minority population currently in Precinct 4 the removal of which
could contribute to retrogression in Precinct 4.
Criterion 3: To the extent possible, precincts should be composed of whole voting
precincts. Where this is not possible or practicable, precincts should be drawn in a
way that permits the creation of practical voting precincts and that ensures that
adequate facilities for polling places exist in each voting precinct.
Illustrative Plan 1 splits only six voter tabulation districts (•'V'fDs'"). Census
VTDs 18C and 49 (County election precincts 17 and 16, respectively') are split in the
area immediately adjacent to the County Courthouse, to make the boundar% of Precinct 2
smoother and more regular in that area, and to avoid a point contiguity. there is no
population in the five census blocks (two from election precinct 16 and three from
election precinct 17) that are assigned to Commissioner Precinct 2. Census VTD 21
(Count), election precinct 21) is split to facilitate assignment of the East Campus area of
Texas A&M University to a single commissioner precinct; a single census block is
affected. Census VTD 28 (County election precinct 28), a geographically extended VTD
in the southeast part of time County, is split to facilitate achieving population balance
bet%%cen Commissioner Precincts 3 and I. Census VTD 30C (County election precinct
81) is split to provide a smoothed and more readily identifiable boundary for
Commissioner Precinct 4 in that area; a single census block in the V I D is affected.
Census VTD 40 (Count), election precinct 40) is split to permit inclusion of the
incumbent commissioner for existing Precinct I in new Precinct 1.
' The Census numbering of VTDs in Brazos County is not always consistent with the Count%'s numbering
of its election precincts Where appropriate to avoid confusion, both identifying numbers are given
a m CWU V
11
i
~ l
s
Y
t
F
Illustrative Plan Letter,
May 16, 2001
Page ,
•
•
Criterion 4: Although it is recognized that existing precincts will have to be altered
to reflect new population distribution, any districting plan should, to the extent
possible, be based on existing precincts.
Although it is always possible to construct plans that differ considerably from the
current districting plan, such changes tend to cause voter confusion and interfere with
constituent-incumbent relations Illustrative Plan I is based as much as reasonably
feasible on the current commissioner precincts, which remain in the same geographic
relationship to each other and which have relatively minor adjustments inside the city
limits of Bryan and College Station Because of the disparities in population distribution
over the decade, some precinct lines had to be moved substantially to balance population,
most of that boundary adjustment is outside the cities Since Precincts I and %%ete over-
populated, both had to give up population Precinct 2 was substantially under-populated,
and had to acquire population Precinct 4 was also under-populated. but did not require
substantial adjustment of its boundaries to bring it into population balance Together,
these required changes resulted in making only relatively small chamues mr the precinct'
boundaries in uiban areas, but also moving the non-urban buund,ur lines of
Commissioner Precincts I, 2 and 3 relatively substantralk, in order to achieve the
required population balance among the four conttltts.ronei piecincts
Criterion 5: Precincts must be configured so that they are relate ely equal in total
population according to the 2000 federal census. In no e%ent should the total
deviation between the largest and the smallest precinct exceed ten percent. The
Counh will attempt to achieve a deviation that is less than ten percent under the
data released by the Census Bureau.
1 he precincts in Illustratt\,e Plan I are ielatl\ cly equal In total population
according to the 2000 federal census, with a maximum total population deviation of
842"o as compared with the maximum total de\ration of 47 1900 lot the current
precincts
Comnus.totier Precinct I currently has a total population of -i9 90-1, making it
30 970,0 over the ideal size (35,104) Illustram c Plan I 's Precinct I ha; a total population
of 39.5I;. %%hich reduces It to 4 49% over the ideal .ize
Commissioner Precinct 2 currently has a total population of + 1.9'_2 making it
16 22% below the ideal size Illustrative Plan I Precinu 2 has it total population of
36,607. which makes it only 3 93% below the ideal size
Comml;sioner Precinct 3 currently has a total population of 35,533. making it
I)Vlo under the ideal size Illustrative Plan I's Precinct , has a total population of
35, 33. which brinus it to 2 IS% above the ideal size
•
Illustrative Plan Letter
May 16, 2001
Page 4
Commissioner Precinct 4 currently has a total population of 34,756, making it
8.79% under the ideal size. Plan I's Precinct 4 has a total population of 37,060, only
2 74% below the ideal size.
Criterion 6: The precincts should be compact and composed of contiguous territory.
Compactness may contain a functional, as well as a geographical dimension.
The precincts in Illustrative Plan I are contiguous and are relatively
geographically compact
Criterion 7: Consideration may be given to the preservation of incumbent-
constituency relations by recognition of the residence of incumbents and their
history in representing certain areas.
All incumbents have been retained in their current commissioner precincts in
Illustrative Plan 1, maintaining precinct cores and protecting incumbents from contests
with each other
Criteria 8 and 9: The plan should be narrowly tailored to avoid retrogression in the
position of racial minorities as defined in the Voting Rights Act with respect to their
effective exercise of (fie electoral franchise. The plan should not fragment a
geographically compact minority community or pack minority voters in the
presence of polarized voting so as to create liability under section 2 of the Voting;
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.
There are currently no commissioner precincts that contain a numerical majority
of a snt(-,le minority group ("majority minority precinct") Current Precinct 4 does
contain a numerical majority of combined Hispanics and African-Americans 1"malonty
combined minority precinct"), with a total population that is 38 81% Hispanic and
28 78% African-American, and corresponding voting age proportions of 3i 38°b and
26 70%. respectively
Plan I likewise has no majority minority precincts, but Plan I's Conunnsswnei
Precinct 4 is also a majority combined minority precinct This precinct has a total
population that is 38 09% Hispanic and 28 05% Atrican-American, with corresponding
voting age proportions of 34 65% and 25 69%, respectively We believe that.
considering the correction of the current approximately nine percent under-population for
this precinct, this result is reasonable and is not unduly retrogressive
We hope this analysis has been helpful and that Illustrative Plan I will provide a
basis for your identification of a plan for which public comment may profitably be
I
i
.
II
1
4
i
I
i
•
I
Illustrative Plan Letter
May 16, 2001
Page 5
solicited. We look forward to working with you as you consider this plan. Please do not
hesitate to call us if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Sydney W. Falk, Jr.
David Mendez
Alan J. Bojorquez
Attachments
01
3 dr
1$i .
l
f
I
k
'r, J,4 -di
Brazos County Commissioner Precincts
- Draft Plan 1 Demographic Report -
2000 Census Total and Voting Age Population
District
Persons
Deviation
Hispanic %
of Total
Population
Non-Hispanic
Anglo % o
Total Population
Non-Hispanic
Black % of
Total Population
Non-Hispanic
Asian % of
Total Population
Non-Hispanic
Other % of
Total Population
1
39,815
4.49%
960%
7957%
466%
4.54%
164%
2
36,607
-393%
1502%
7052%
647%
643%
155%
3
38,933
2.18%
980%
8006%
392%
448%
173%
4
37,060
-2.74%
38.09%
3233%
28 05%
043%
1 11%
Totals
152,415
17.88%
66.03%
10.59%
3.98%
1.51%
Ideal Size = 152,415/4 = 38,104 per district.
Total Maximum Deviation = 14.49%- (•3.93%)] = 8.42%
District
Total VAP-
Hispanic % of
Total VAP
Non-Hispanic
Anglo % o
Total VAP
Non-Hispanic
Black % of
Total VAP
Non-Hispanic
Asian 6 of
Total VAP
Non-Hispanic
Other % of
Total VAP
1
32,536
889%
8158%
399%
408%
147%
2
28,506
12.81%
7296%
558%
727%
138%
3
33,472
948%
81 01 %
345%
450%
156%
4
25,166
3465%
38 11%
25 69%
0 55%
100%
Totals
119,680
15.41%
70.23%
8.78%
4.21%
1.37%
-Voting Age Population
1
t
1
3
~y 1 $ t 5115/2001 f
1
Brazos County Commissioner Precincts
! • Draft Plan t
2000 Census Total and Voting Age POgula00n
'Votmp Apo Popoloon
I
i
1
I 1
1
OIStfICt
Persons
Ideal Sit,
00.181,0"
Xnpanlt
t.11wo
».o-
IWWM
Anplo
t.t TVY
4mpa
r.pyabn
Black
to TWY
lean
Amman
Indian
%rt fatal
amt .
Mn
raarawn
Aflan
rtt
111-,.- ar
PKlnc
Islander
talaY
IaAlt
slate.,
rawaw
Clhf
tdtaY
d0.
r.a,aaYn
Tw001
More
t
I
rap-en
1 39 815 38 104 4 49% 3 821 960% 31680 79 57% 1855 4 66% 100 025% 1877 4 54% 14 00
1% 57 0 17% 1
185 77%
7 76607 78104 197% 5500 1507% 75816 7052-4 7159 647% B1 077% 7755 643% i4 004% 70 078
1 % u1 111%
3 k9]3 18101 218% 7811 980% 71170 8706% 1576 792% 98 075% 1,746 448% 27 007% SB 015% 491 175%
37060 18104 114% 14 115 7809% 41981 37 10795 2905% Bt 017% 158 043% 14 004% 29 CC8•A 795 717%
Totals 162,416 27,253 17 88% 100,647 66 03% 16,146 10 59% 760 0 24% 6,066 3 98% 69 005% 170 011% 1,706 112%
Ideal Sdo t 152 41514. 38104 at aanal
stfiCt
Total YAP'
M0 tole
P
VAP
t•I taY
11.0aVt
Vu
AnpIO VAP
sal raY
Atpa vu
Slack YAP
t sl l.a
tiaV VAP
Amuloe
Indbn VAP
sal taY
~ iO
m.n" vAr
Asian VAP
t a taY
-L ?.a
Xawallan•
Paclnt
blander
VAP
t.l tar
Il..a.n.
pt
M.
s,.nea var
OtMf VAP
ta1aY
ant Val
Two 01
Mon
VAP
%a tads
aMa. VAP
1
7
32 576
78506
2 897
889%.
26 544
8158%
1 797
399%
84
076%
1 776
4 08%
14
004%
36
On%
341
IGS%
3
37477
7651
1781%
70199
7796%
1590
558%
56
021%
2073
717%
13
005%
70
0 J1%
294
103%
4
25166
7173
B 171
948%
71117
8101%
1154
745%
87
025%
1506
450%
75
008%
t1
011%
368
110%
S
19,680
8,437
74 65%
15 41%
9 597
84,052
38 11%
70 23%
6 454
10,505
2569%
8 78%
66
303
025%
0 25%
138
6,043
055%
4 2114
6
59
002%
005%
11
114
007%
0 10%
167
1,167
C64%
0 98%
5/154001
1
}Y":~~..",'Y'.C"fiy,1,.,.yr+!,r•.a,C.''t7S'!"n!Ta!q't'a;ITF`_,'9. ..._.~1~n~:
.
1
i
I
I
s
I
.
t
I
I
I
V
I
I
't
r
;
~w~,
1
I
1
1
+ - t
- 5
- i