Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 35
35, consider and take appropriate action on redistricting of Travis County Commissioner, justice of the peace and constable and voting precincts.
>> judge and members of the court, I just put this in as a cover your base item just to the possibility for having to update the court on anything going on.
I will report that we had the first of our four public hearings on the redistricting maps last night in the precinct 4 at the jp courtroom there.
Commissioner Gomez led the meeting and did a great job.
we got some good comments from people in the audience about the maps, and a lot of appreciation for the effort to reach out to them and to include them in the process.
we have a meeting tonight in -- at the Lake Travis i.s.d.
education center, I believe it's called, for precinct 3.
that begins at 5:00 p.m.
with sort of a open house, a chance to look at the maps, write comments if you want to and the public part of that meeting or the formal part of that meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.
then we have similar meetings Wednesday night and Thursday night in precincts 2 and 1.
and information about that is available on the county website as well as on the tctv message board screens.
so we're hoping to get a good turnout.
I thought we had a very nice turnout in precinct 4 and hope we do as well in the other precincts.
>> judge, I have some comments and I have a handout.
I would like to read this into the record.
addressed to the Commissioners court on redistricting.
since the issue of redistricting has come to the court I've been disheartened by the actions I have seen and the words so much so that I have directed my to come up with a plan.
what you have in front of you is a map I believe is fair and equitable to everyone and it's a map that shares the benefits and sacrifices between all of the Commissioners.
the populations in each precinct are within the required 10% population deviation and I believe this map fulfills the requirements of the voting rights act.
you will notice that each Commissioner would take some areas that may not be to their preference.
in other words, shared benefits and shared sacrifices.
now here is my concern given recent meetings with the redistricting consultant and comments last week in Commissioners court.
we can work together and negotiate openly, honestly and respectfully or we can draw lines in the sand, put out ultimatums, refuse to consider any other precinct needs but our own and promote further division in this court.
how does this benefit anyone?
how does this benefit your working -- our working dynamic?
how does this benefit your precinct and any other when you immediately dismiss other considerations or options?
I understand the feelings of history surrounding some areas of the county.
just because an area with historical value is in one Commissioner's precinct -- in one Commissioner's precinct is moved into another precinct does not make that area any less significant.
as we all know, Travis County has change understand the last 10, 20, 30 years, and it will continue to drastically change in the near future.
apparently that cannot be said often enough.
no longer are we a small county.
this county is ever evolving and we must evolve with it.
with the surge in population comes transformation in demographics and densities.
if you do not change with it and if you continue to draw lines in the sand, you will cease to be a part of solutions.
we do not and should not build in or own head wind.
we should honestly and openly ask each other what do you feel you need, what would be the best for your constituents and your precincts.
then we have an honest play to start.
attached is my preference for new precinct boundaries and I believe it is honest and fair.
I would hope that my colleagues would do knee the respect to review it and consider it.
I believe in working together.
I don't believe in ultimatums. I just felt like that needed to be said after last week's court discussion.
thank you.
>> this is very close to one of the three maps that was proposed.
and bears consideration.
.are you suggesting we add it?
>> it's not one of the three maps proposed and I have felt frustrated working with the consultants and the meetings we've had.
I am certainly hope to meetings and discussions.
I did not like the ultimatum I heard in court last week.
from one of my peers.
I felt like precinct 3 was not being heard and I felt like it needed to get out there and I would appreciate --
>> let's talk logistics because one precinct meeting has already occurred.
I would be in favor of including this among the four maps.
how would that impact the fact the precinct 4 meeting had already occurred.
would we need to do that one over?
>> I would like a chance to review it.
I need an opportunity to review it before I make any decision today.
and you know, and I should be afforded that before we do anything.
so I need to digest it and see what's what.
but thanks for putting it on the table, but I will definitely, as you suggested, look at it and since you don't feel that you were heard --
>> I mentioned that last week.
>> well, I understand, but you put it into this format, per se, and made your statement.
but I would like to take it and look at it and review it for consideration.
thank you.
>> do we have the latitude as individual Commissioners at our precinct public hearings to -- to put forward additional maps that haven't been approved by the Commissioners court?
>> we didn't last night at the precinct 4 hearing.
and what -- but I also made it very clear that we had not approved any maps at the Commissioners court level yet and that the three maps that we were putting out for people's perusal were ideas.
they were not based on deals made among and between members of the court.
and they were there for their comment.
they really wanted to -- they had a packet of the maps of the three ideas that have been put out there, and I think that most of them wanted to take them under advisement and look at them a little closer to see what -- you know, what each one was -- was about.
we tried to make sure that they didn't call them proposals, you know, or that they are not anything that we were proposing, but rather they are ideas that have come up.
and -- but --
>> since they are soft suggestions, I for one don't see an issue with including other -- other maps for consideration at the public hearings.
>> I think we can each come up with another map.
>> well, I guess part of the problem is though we have a website.
a lot of folks are going to our website looking at the maps that they expect to see in the public hearing.
today is what, Tuesday.
Wednesday and Thursday is right around the corner -- well, the next three days actually will be public hearings.
and what I do not want to do is make sure -- I want to make sure that everyone has access to what we're doing.
so we'll have to look at this and then those folks that are looking at our website are looking at those maps now and making comments or either how they want to make comments on what's coming up.
and so I hear what we're saying, but again, I think we need to afford the opportunity to look at this and digest what it's all about.
and -- and I guess when we release them we didn't approve anything, we just released it out to the public, which I have no problem with, but I still would like to look at it and am quite sure other folks in the community may want to see this and maybe there's another map somewhere that somebody else want to bring up.
but I guess my whole point is how do we exhaust these different variations of maps as we go through this process.
and I'm quite sure there will be several maps before it's all said.
>> I think my overriding point here is this is certainly my preferred map, but you have to work together and we've got two precincts that have to shrink and we have two precincts that have to grow.
and what one person wants in one precinct is necessarily going to affect all other three precincts.
not just the one they are adjacent to.
that's not what I was hearing last week.
>> also I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for not being able to come to precinct 4 redistricting hearing because I had the precinct 2 bond meeting public hearing last night and that was the reason why I wasn't there.
it wasn't a reflection of lack of interest in how that would play out nor a lack of recognition how it will affect precinct 3.
>> I think that's going to happen.
I can't go to all of them so that will happen.
>> with regard to the proposed map, I can at least, you know, just from eyeballing see the difference for precinct 2 is that -- and again, I applaud you for the idea of a we have to find a balanced approach where we all give to get and get to give.
and with regard to this map, it appears that the precinct 2 give would be -- what's different about it than the other three maps because the other three maps have me giving Pflugerville to one, but I would also give northeast metro.
and could you elucidate on how it's different from I think is it the third map that also includes 106 in precinct 4?
is that map 88?
>> I don't really have that --
>> yes, ma'am, 88.
>> does it look very simply -- throor 88 with at least I know with the exception to my precinct of losing northeast metro.
>> I know one of my concerns was the number of the volume of population that would have to be taken out of my precinct by precinct 4 to meet her -- her needs and population in precinct 4.
>> I recall map 88, still precinct 4's population deviation was too high for the voting rights act, if memory serves.
>> and we know it's a massage it from all different angles because we've got the voting rights act which is rimo.
and then we have to have our population numbers which we have to get to.
so this was just our run app at what we thought was worth looking at and are happy to discuss it through the consultant.
my staff worked with george corebell on this to make sure the basic needs.
>> to put this in perspective and tell me if this is not a fair, but it looks like a high bride between maps 87 and 88.
>> probably.
>> that's exactly what it is.
>> which I -- I personally feel we need to go to a hybrid of maps 87 and 88 so I applaud you for moving the needle on that.
>> I just feel like it needs more discussion and that I wanted to be sure precinct 3's interests were out there on the table because I had not felt that before today.
>> and then we can't abandon the thought though, the basic thought that is there in terms of the voting rights act and the fact that precinct 4 is the smallest of the precincts.
and that is that for every person that I give up, I have to take in two.
so it you kind of wonder where -- what's the net gain of all that.
and so it could be that we're shuffling people around, but they are not really having an impact of increasing the population, plus maintaining the correct percentage of hispanics.
so it's a little -- it's a little touchy, you know, but yeah, I think if we all kind of cooperate and, you know, we'll get there.
there was one thing last night that somebody said, you know, enemies are made over this redistricting.
I have no intention of being enemies with anybody.
>> resume 2.
>> I do not intend that to happen at all.
and I think we just need to find the room to work it.
>> and we haven't heard from the public and I think, as I stated again, we need to hear from the public.
and, of course, I don't know exactly what the comments were last night, written or either verbal.
maybe there is something that the community is telling us that we don't know about.
maybe a merger of this, maybe something unique, but I think after it's all said and done we have enough information, we have a lot of information out there and at the end of the day I think the public will comment on what they feel is maybe some of the things that as long as they don't violate the voting rights act what they also see in this process.
maybe that map end upcoming from what we hear from the overall general public during these sessions because I think what's probably here and I haven't had a chance to review this yet and I'm going to have to go through it thoroughly and look at it very thoroughly and just not make a whim decision is that the redistricting effort may suggest that some of these combinations of what's here is something that someone else is thinking across countywide public hearings.
so I don't think it's not a lack of information.
I think a lot of information probably is out there with the maps that we have.
if they need to be hybrids or whatever else, but I think the public needs to have a say in that.
and, of course, there may be another map that comes out on what the public is suggesting us to do.
so I don't want to -- I don't want to sideswipe or undermine or either overstep the input from the public that we have always embraced public hearings from this Commissioners court anyway, we've embraced the public hearing process and then listened to what the folks are saying.
I haven't had that opportunity yet.
they haven't had a chance to look at those maps yet as far as going through a public hearing process.
and maybe there is a merger.
I don't really know.
but I'm going to find out and I don't think all the information that was taken and gathered last night, I don't think -- I don't believe all that information has been separated and annie lied and quantified and stuff like that at this point.
so I just don't want to get ahead of myself, and let's see what the public have to say.
>> it is my position that the court voted to release the three maps that were before us last week.
>> exactly.
>> however, as is the case with legislation, each of us as individually elected officials has a right to present our constituents whatever we think they should see.
so I have no problem with an individual court member bringing forth additional recommendations, but I think that in fairness it should be made clear what the court has approved for release and what the individual Commissioner has brought to the table.
and when we revisit those options, then I think any new stuff that we ought to consider should be brought back.
I'm looking forward to the three options we approved for release as well as any other ideas that we should discuss.
how is that?
>> that's fine.
>> sounds good to me.
>> and for one thing, those public hearings have already been announced.
that's consistent with the law, isn't it?
as well as good government principles.
yes.
okay.
anything further on this item?
>> I might just point out, judge, that the goal of these public hearings was to get us a level of feedback on a number of options and then to give the consultants an opportunity to create perhaps a new map between now and July 12th.
and it was at the July 12th hearing that that new map might be unveiled.
force so I think your comments and the process you are describing here both from the perspective of three released maps and with respect to any other proposals is consistent with that general trend or general direction we're heading.
>> they are idea, not proposals.
>> ideas.
>> let me say that jackson conducted a very well, a very good public hearing last night.
she moderated and made sure everybody knew what the ground rules were and that everybody's comments whether they were verbal or written would have the same weight in being turned over to the court.
and we got started at 5:00 and we were out of there by 6:45.
and because people were already had gone through and they were -- everybody was seated waiting for the presentation.
I had a time.
a terrific time.
>> you all had so much fun, I'm going to have to go to one of these.
>> you are always welcome, judge.
>> I've been trying to stay out of the way.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
