Demographer’s Report on Community Meetings to Discuss Draft Trustee Area Plans Gavilan Joint Community College District August 11, 2015 Jeanne Gobalet, PhD Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. www.Demographers.com 1
In April, the Board voted to change the method of trustee election, effective at the next election (Nov. 2016). On July 14, the Board voted to ask for public comments on Draft Plans I, II, and III at community meetings: July 29 – Morgan Hill August 1 ‐ Hollister August 4 – Gilroy 2
Tonight’s Agenda: Overview of community meetings & public input received LULAC/MALDEF Plan received 8/1/15 Demographer’s reconstruction of this plan Comparison of Draft Plans I, II, III and LULAC/MALDEF Plan Suggestions for some minor plan modifications Next steps: September 8 Board meeting: Demographer reports to Board and the Board holds a public hearing. October 13 Board meeting: Demographer reports to Board and the Board holds a public hearing. Board adopts a plan. District implements the plan (steps prescribed by law). 3
Demographer’s Report: July 29 (Morgan Hill) – no members of the public arrived within 30 minutes of the scheduled meeting time. August 1 (Hollister) – just before the meeting, LULAC members presented the LULAC/MALDEF Plan to the District. See accompanying “NOTES” for a summary of public comments. 11 community members, 4 staff, 3 board members attended this meeting. August 4 – Gilroy – See accompanying “NOTES” for a summary of public comments. 13 community members, 4 staff, 3 board members attended this meeting. 4
LULAC/MALDEF Overview (LGDR re ‐ creation) 5
LULAC/MALDEF Northern detail (LGDR re ‐ creation) 6
LULAC/MALDEF Hollister detail (LGDR re ‐ creation) 7
Demographer’s Summary of Draft Plan I, II, III, and LULAC/MALDEF Plan characteristics (Yellow shading = significant differences among plans; Blue shading = some plan revisions possible) Criterion Draft Plan I Draft Plan II Draft Plan III LULAC/MALDEF Plan Demographer's Comment Required 1 Population equality: 7.0% 8.6% 8.6% 7.4% All deviations are less than 10% total plan deviation 2 Voting Rights Act: 2 areas; Estimated 3 areas; Estimated 3 areas; Estimated 3 areas; Estimated 2013 Draft Plans II, III, and LULAC/MALDEF all Number of Hispanic- 2013 CVAP = 70% & 2013 CVAP = 58%, 2013 CVAP = 58%, CVAP = 63%, 63%, & 61% have 3 trustee areas with Hispanic majority trustee areas 66% 56%, & 58% 56%, & 58% (MALDEF reported 54%, majorities. Draft Plan I might be described (TAs) 53%, & 59%; they used a as concentrating Hispanics in two TAs different estimation method) when there could be three. Permitted, but Required Comunities of Interest: 3 K-12 district boundaries Not possible when Not possible when Not possible when Not possible when meeting More important to meet the required criteria taken into account meeting required criteria meeting required criteria meeting required criteria required criteria 4 City limits taken into Some boundaries follow Little regard for city San Juan Bautista split San Juan Bautista intact City populations are such that Morgan Hill, account city limits; San Juan limits; San Juan between TAs 5 & 7 but (combined with part of Gilroy, & Hollister must be split among Bautista is intact Bautista split between could be intact with no western Hollister); some TAs. San Juan Bautista can be kept intact TAs 5 & 7, but could be change in plan boundaries follow city limits in a TA that includes part of Hollister. intact with no change in deviation; boundary plan deviation between TAs 1 & 2 follows city limits County distribution of Five complete TAs in Four complete TAs in Four complete TAs in Four complete TAs in Santa Draft Plan I has one TA with portions in TAs Santa Clara County and Santa Clara County and Santa Clara County and Clara County and one in San both counties. The LULAC/MALDEF Plan two in San Benito none in San Benito none in San Benito Benito County. TAs 5 and 7 has two TAs that cross the county line, County. TA 6 serves County. TAs 5, 6, and County. TAs 5, 6, and serve both counties. and Draft Plans II and III have three TAs both counties. 7 serve both counties. 7 serve both counties. that do so. Treatment of rural areas Trustee Area 6 serves Trustee Area 7 serves Trustee Area 7 serves MALDEF's National Draft Plan I has the largest concentration of the largest number of the largest number of the largest number of Redistricting Coordinator said the District's rural population in a single rural area residents rural area residents rural area residents that TA 7 serves the rural Trustee Area (outside of the incorporated (16,019) (10,871) (10,871) areas of both counties. It is cities and unincorporated communities of very large geographically. Aromas, San Martin, Ridgemark, and Tres Trustee Area 7 serves the Pinos). largest number of rural area residents (10,931) 8
Demographer’s Summary of Draft Plan I, II, III, and LULAC/MALDEF Plan characteristics (Yellow shading = significant differences among plans; Blue shading = some plan revisions possible) Criterion Draft Plan I Draft Plan II Draft Plan III LULAC/MALDEF Plan Demographer's Comment Other acceptable criteria: 5 Use intact Census yes yes yes yes All plans meet this criterion geography (Census blocks) 6 Geographical TA boundaries follow TA boundaries follow TA boundaries follow TA boundaries follow major The college district has some very large, compactness, existing precinct major roads, highways, major roads, highways, roads, highways, or water lightly populated (mountainous) areas, so it topography, contiguity boundaries to the extent or water features such or water features such features such as creeks and is necessary to have some very large TAs. possible while as creeks & rivers. TA as creeks & rivers. TA rivers, as well as some city All TAs are contiguous. Draft Plan I has considering other 1/2 boundary is 1/2 boundary follows limits. the smallest difference in TA square miles; criteria. As a result, Monterey Road city limits LULAC/MALDEF Plan has the largest. some TA boundaries are oddly-shaped. 7 Anticipate future No No No No Not possible while meeting population populations shifts (if equality requirement possible) 8 TA boundaries keep Most TA boundaries Some TA boundaries Some TA boundaries MALDEF's National Draft Plan I is mostly precinct-based; the election precincts intact follow existing precinct follow precinct follow precinct Redistricting Coordinator said other plans use some precinct boundaries. boundaries. boundaries, most do boundaries, most do the group that developed this not. not. plan did not take precinct boundaries into account. Some precincts are kept intact, but many are not. 9 Avoid head-to-head Trustees Breen (2016) Trustees Brusco (2016) No trustee pairings Trustees Brusco (2016) & Only Draft Plan III avoids trustee pairings. contests between & Locci (2018) paired in & Perry (2018) paired in Perry (2018) paired in TA 1 ; incumbents (term TA 7. Boundary TA 1 Trustees Breen (2016) & expirations shown in adjustments between Locci (2018) paired in TA 7 parentheses) TAs 3, 6 & 7 could change pairings of the 3 Hollister area trustees 9
Recommend
More recommend
