city of pasadena introduction to 2011 redistricting 10/5/2011 page 1
TRANSCRIPT
City of Pasadena Introduction to 2011 Redistricting
10/5/2011
Page 1
Current Demographics
Based on 2010 Census data and the American Community Survey:
Population◦ 2010 Census total: 137,122
3,186 (2.4 %) growth since 2000
33.7 % Hispanic 38.8 % Non-Hispanic white 10.6 % African American 15.4 % Asian American
◦ 2010 Census Voting Age Population 29.8 % Hispanic 41.9 % Non-Hispanic White 10.5 % African American 16.2 % Asian American
Citizen Voting Age Population◦ From Census ACS and Dept.
of Justice Special Tabulation data: 24 % Hispanic 13 % African American 11 % Asian American 49 % Non-Hispanic White
Voter Registration by Surname ◦ 19 % Hispanic◦ 8 % Asian-American/Filipino
Voter Turnout by Surname ◦ 16 % Hispanic◦ 7 % Asian-American/Filipino
10/5/2011
Page 2
Page 3
HISPANIC/LATINO POPULATION
Voting Age Population
Voting Age Population
10/5/2011
Page 4
HISPANIC/LATINO POPULATIONCitizen Voting Age Population
10/5/2011
Page 5
AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATIONVoting Age Population
10/5/2011
Page 6
ASIAN-AMERICAN-AMERICAN POPULATIONVoting Age Population
10/5/2011
Page 7
POPULATION DENSITYPopulation per square mile
10/5/2011
Page 8
CURRENT DISTRICT DEVIATIONS Existing District #DeviationPercent Deviation
10/5/2011
9
Current District DemographicsDistrict 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Total 19,339 18,554 20,388 19,230 18,094 21,779 19,738 Latino 49.7% 27.8% 48.8% 21.8% 60.0% 14.0% 17.0%NH White 18.6% 47.7% 19.3% 52.4% 20.2% 60.4% 50.0%NH Black 23.9% 7.4% 17.4% 5.6% 10.5% 5.1% 4.8%NH AmInd 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%NH Asian 6.1% 15.2% 13.1% 18.6% 7.9% 19.1% 26.6%NH HPI 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%NH Other 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5%Multi 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7%Total 14,838 14,994 15,617 15,323 13,779 18,965 17,099 Latino 44.9% 25.0% 43.2% 20.0% 55.6% 13.1% 15.5%NH White 21.6% 49.9% 23.0% 54.6% 23.6% 61.8% 51.3%NH Black 25.1% 7.4% 17.6% 5.3% 10.5% 4.9% 4.7%NH AmInd 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%NH Asian 6.8% 15.9% 14.7% 18.6% 9.1% 18.9% 26.9%NH HPI 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%NH Other 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4%Multi 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7%Total 12,276 12,932 12,088 13,861 11,109 16,804 14,809 Latino 37.8% 23.5% 31.0% 18.8% 42.5% 11.0% 13.5%NH White 22.5% 55.1% 27.8% 63.2% 33.4% 69.3% 60.2%NH Black 32.1% 6.2% 28.5% 5.5% 15.8% 4.7% 5.2%NH Asian 6.2% 11.8% 9.6% 11.1% 6.4% 13.4% 18.6%NH AmInd 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7%NH HPI 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%Multi 0.9% 2.9% 3.1% 1.0% 1.9% 0.9% 0.8%Total 9,655 10,363 8,121 12,160 6,959 14,116 11,090 Spanish Surname 27.0% 18.7% 28.3% 16.0% 34.9% 9.5% 12.8%Asian Surname 4.4% 6.7% 8.0% 9.8% 5.2% 8.8% 10.9%Total 5,169 6,036 3,723 7,629 3,446 9,458 6,739 Spanish Surname 22.8% 16.7% 25.6% 14.6% 31.6% 8.5% 11.2%Asian Surname 4.5% 5.6% 7.4% 8.9% 5.5% 7.1% 8.6%
Total Population
Voting Age Population
Registration by Surname
Turnout by Surname
Citizen Voting Age Population
10/5/2011
10
Rules: Federal Laws Equal Population among districts
◦ Total population: not voting age population, citizens, or voters
◦ Different for 2011: all deviations must be explained.Being within +/- 5 % is no longer enough. This is why NDC recommends all 2011 clients formally adopt criteria.
Federal Voting Rights Act◦ Section 2 – Ensure equal power to elect candidates of choice◦ Section 5 – Avoid retrogression (does not apply to
Pasadena)◦ No racial gerrymandering
For a more in-depth analysis, see the City Attorney’s earlier presentation.
10/5/2011
11
Sec. 2 Federal Voting Rights Act
Requires “Protected Class” populations have an “equal opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice”
No “packing”No “cracking”
No racial gerrymandering allowed◦ Focus on communities and neighborhoods, not
race/ethnicity
10/5/2011
12
Rules: Traditional Criteria
Reasons identified and approved by the US Supreme Court as justifiable reasons for small populationdeviations:
Communities of interest Visible (Natural & man-made) boundaries
◦ Make it easy for residents of a district to understand its borders (and to engage their neighbors in precinct walking or other election activities)
Compactness & contiguity◦ Also makes it easier for voters to understand their district’s borders.
Continuity in office◦ Redistricting, an administrative process, should not tell the voters they can
no longer elect a candidate they have previously elected (which is what happens when two or more incumbents are “paired.”
Population growth◦ Growth is much less certain in 2011 than it was in 2011, so this is harder to
justify than it was in 2001. Preserve Core of existing districts
◦ Don’t move voters around unless needed to achieve one of the other goals.10/5/2011
13
Process (1 of 3)1. Prepare
◦ Conduct initial demographic analysis◦ Adopt schedule◦ Launch project website◦ Launch public participation online redistricting
system◦ Adopt criteria◦ Develop initial draft plans to jump-start discussion
10/5/2011
14
Process (2 of 3)2. Outreach
◦ Educate, engage and empower the public, including: Individuals Community Groups, including “protected class”-focused
organizations The media
◦ What are your community’s “communities of interest”?
Which want to be united? Which want to be divided?
◦ How well do the current and draft plans meet those goals?
◦ Participation kits take the public input beyond just “yes” and “no”
10/5/2011
15
Process (3 of 3)3. Decide
◦ Plan debate and adoption
4. Implement◦ Plan implementation
Coordinated with the County Registrar
10/5/2011
16
Tools (1 of 2)Traditional Redistricting Tools1. 2010 Census data2. Project website3. Media & community education4. GIS software5. Information on redistricting, the Voting
Rights Act, and how the public can participate
6. Provide paper & Excel public participation kits
7. Email address for public questions and public comment
10/5/2011
17
Tools (2 of 2)
New Tools for 2011
1. American Community Survey data
3. Live, interactive maps of plans
4. Google Maps and Google Earth plan files
5. Online redistricting
6. Local GIS data• Zoning, • homeowner associations, • housing developments, • neighborhood associations, • key facilities, • school attendance areas, • aerial imagery, etc.
10/5/2011