Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, July 12, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 4
Item number 4 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed redistricting plans for county Commissioner, justice of the peace and constable and voting precincts in Travis County.
we have had four public hearings regarding the Commissioners' precincts, but zero for the justice of the peace and constable and voting precincts, right?
>> that's correct.
>> and we have been asked if we could focus on the Commissioner precincts first, then the justice of the peace and constable, then the voting precincts, in that order, the consultants would be better able to appreciate comments that are given.
and those of you who have participated in the public hearings probably know, our two consultants rolando rios and mr. George corbel and deece eckstein is county staff, he has been working with them also.
they have provided for us written summaries of public testimony given already.
so we would have an opportunity to refer to those written comments several times before we take action on this matter.
and so if we could get our consultants to lay out the options for the Commissioners' precincts in addition to those prepared by the consultants and approved for release by the Commissioners court, at least two Commissioners have generated additional options to look at and so those are available for comment also.
so let's let the consultants lay out really what we would like to get comments on, and then I'll have a word or two for our residents and then we will open it up for public comment.
okay?
>> may it please the court, thank you, judge.
last time we were here we laid out three really not plans but ideas that we could have a hearing on.
and we held the four hearings, as the Commissioners know, and at those hearings people gave public testimony.
now, if you want me to, I can go back through those first three plans, but really I think that it would be a good idea if we focused on the current plans that are offered, but I mean it's up to the court, but I think it would be important to focus on the current plans.
is that 109?
what I tried to do with 109 was to listen to all of the testimony at the hearings and to come up with a modification on the plans that we had that seemed to fit with the testimony.
now, the -- we have -- I have some concerns about the border between Commissioner's precinct number 3 and 4, but what I did with this is I just added the most hispanic voting precincts into 4 from 3 to equalize the population.
it was a great population variance between Commissioner's precincts 3 and 4.
and Commissioner Eckhardt is taking-and under this plan at least, takes a large portion of the population and the land area of Commissioner's precinct 3, and with these two modifications, Commissioner's precinct 3 would meet the deviation requirements.
I think we could -- we could easily defend on the deviation requirements.
and so that's why I put this plan together.
it's not intended to necessarily be a final plan or the plan that you decide to adopt, but it is a plan that I think represents the testimony that I heard at the hearings.
>> and what is the deviation requirement?
>> well, what the supreme court has said is that we have to aim for absolute zero deviation, but that if -- if --
>> deviation from?
>> from the ideal.
the ideal is 250 -- one man, one vote.
the ideal the 256,000, judge.
and the supreme court has said we have to shoot for perfect -- so each one of the precincts are the same size, but if in doing that there are some problems or some local issues that we ought to deal with, supreme court has allowed up to a 10% deviation.
now, the state has for the last 50 years has always gone to 9.9%.
and that's always -- that's always been upheld.
>> so that's what we mean when we say within 10% of population parity.
>> that's right, although because of this recent supreme court case, we have to be careful to say we're not shooting for 10%, we're shooting for absolute zero, but if there are obviously some issues, the freeway and the highways and the lakes and everything else and those things can justify additional deviation.
>> we have to say it or we have to say it and mean it?
>> [laughter]
>> well, I'm saying -- I'm saying it and meaning it, judge.
>> all right.
>> may I ask a question on this point.
george, could you I will loose , what is the benefit from having the most even population distribution among these four precincts?
it's just not picking numbers out of a hat.
there is a reason we shoot for an absolute parity.
>> yes, Commissioner, thank you for making that suggestion.
the reason that we're shooting for low deviation or no deviation at all, the reason for that is to deal with equal protection and due process.
we have -- if you have districts that are greatly -- difference in population like we used to have in state house and the state senate, then you don't have equal protection.
everyone is not given the equal benefit of the law.
and there is also due process issues in that we can't really have a due process from the legislature or in your case actually from quasi judicial issues unless we have equal representation.
now, on the congressional side, because we're dealing with a difference -- a different equal protection and due process, a federal and due process, normally those districts go down to absolute zero.
every one of our congressional districts, for example, is exactly the same size as the others.
because they are not totally equal in population, one has one extra person and one has one fewer person, but other than that, they are absolutely zero.
what the court says is that in situations where a state is involved, there's no -- there's more play in the joints as far as equal protection and due process is concerned.
now, I've argued that that's not the case, but I lost that case.
and so we're dealing now with -- with this play in the joints.
and each one of the plans that -- we have plans, this plan that I suggested as the next step in the redistricting process, and there's a plan plan that Commissioner Huber has suggested and there is two plans that Commissioner Davis has suggested.
and each one of those I think we wouldn't have any problem as far as the equal protection and the due process, the one person, one vote.
I think we could pre-clear all of those as far as the one person, one vote.
I think with the plans the way they are drafted, if we made the right findings when you voted on them, I think that we probably could pre-clear those also.
>> and the difference -- I want to make sure I want to understand what we are talking about when you are saying Commissioner Huber, plan, Commissioner Davis' plan.
of course, Commissioner Davis' plan, the one I'm going to speak on, is that the difference in that plan is that in respect for Commissioner Eckhardt, who will lose a part under one of these plans and retain a part in the other plan, that's why both plans were submitted the way they were.
and, of course, Commissioner Eckhardt had to make that call and I think, you know, she had to make that call.
>> I want to keep my park.
>> she wants to keep her park, you heard that.
so since Commissioner Eckhardt wants to keep her park --
>> our park.
I shouldn't say my park.
I'd like to keep the precinct 2 park.
>> all right.
and since that's the case, it just feels that we should go with the plan, Commissioner Davis' plan, ge, 100, that retains the northeast metro parks, precinct 2.
and, of course, it does meet all the standards, as you said, and the mustard and the one man, one vote, the personal is all there.
the deviation, all those things are there.
and it satifies I think the needs of where we're trying to go.
as far as I'm concerned, and I know we have a lot of folks here to testify, and I think we heard a large, large cry out from the persons in the community when we looked at the different plans.
and, of course, we may want to hear the community, but as far as I'm concerned, I want to move forward with this particular plan, Davis plan ge 100.
and go forward.
which actually embraces all of the things that we have talked about, the federal requirements and all these things.
so it's all encompassed in that and I would like to go forward with that and when the motion is due, I want to make a motion.
we have a lot of folks here.
I'm going to make a motion in a little bit --
>> you won't make a motion today because we're not posted.
>> we're not posted for action?
>> no, sir.
>> okay.
I thought we were.
>> no, there will be other public hearings and we probably won't take action --
>> the court moving forward.
>> there is no action that could be taken legally because we're not posted for action.
>> we'll take input today then, but I'm still letting the public know that whenever it comes back I'm going to support this.
>> but the public should also know at some point the Commissioners court takes a vote and it is the vote that is binding.
the five of us up here --
>> judge, there's an action item number 25.
>> it's an action item.
>> 25 is.
>> number 25.
>> but 25 is not for us to vote on a particular plan.
if it were, Commissioner Huber would be here.
>> well, I mean that may not be your intention, but it would be --
>> 25 is --
>> there's possibility that --
>> 25 is intended to indicate how we plan to proceed from here.
there are areas of disagreement that we have to work through.
at our last open discussion, we talked about a possible work session on August 4th unless the point of disagreement had been resolved.
now, I'm happy with whatever we come up as long as the county lines don't change because I won't be affected.
>> [laughter] but there are four of us, there are four of us here, and based on all I've heard and the open meetings we legally could discuss the various options, we have yet to reach agreement.
>> right, but as far as Davis' ability to make a motion to suggest that you all move forward on a particular map, the language is broad enough to do that.
>> the language is what?
>> is broad enough for you to do that.
>> I thought so.
>> under 25.
>> under 25, yes, sir.
and I'm going to make that motion on item 25.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> george, let me ask you a question about the 109 map.
and we could ask it as a contrast to the Huber map and the Davis map.
one thing I have concerns about in the 109 map is we still have an almost 9% deviation in precinct 4.
considering that we do have to make a finding as to why we are tolerating that deviation when we do have options and the options include precincts along the western edge of precinct 4 that are currently included in precinct 3 that do have significant hispanic population, as well as two precincts, 106 and 101 along the northern edge that also have significant hispanic populations, very high concentrations of hispanics in 106, particularly.
so what -- what would you suggest that we cite as our excuse for not achieving a higher parity?
>> well, before we do that, if I could, what is the -- what is the -- what are the numbers on this particular map?
>> hold on just a second.
on this 109, the numbers for Commissioner's precinct 4 are 55% hispanic and the hispanic registration is just under 32%.
>> and the percentage -- I've got the percentage.
what about 3?
I mean 1.
>> in Commissioner's precinct 1, the black percentage is 22.5 and the hispanic percentage is 42-point -- excuse me, black percentage 20.5 and the hispanic percentage is 42.9.
and there's a 17.5% hispanic registration in 2010.
>> what option is that now?
>> this is 109.
>> okay.
>> that's our proposal.
>> and if I could just follow up, in the Davis map, I believe that the -- the deviation, although it's not included to map as it was passed out at precinct 1 public hearing, but I believe the deviation in population in precinct 4 is even higher in the Davis map than it is in the ge 109 map.
>> that's correct.
>> what is the deviation in the Davis map for precinct 4?
>> we'll get it in just a minute.
>> 6,000?
>> this is a map, 100, ge 100, and the deviation is 9.2%.
>> right.
right.
so it's within the range.
and that's the point I'm trying to say, and, of course, we have folks here that may want to say something about this, and, of course, the Davis 100 map does meet all the requirements and it also satifies the park retention and, of course, in precinct 2.
and so, of course, we wanted to make sure that the public is here, they came down to testify, and judge, it was overwhelming evidence of what and how the folks feel about precinct 1 and what's going on with this redistricting.
that particular public hearing was very well attended and there were questions asked, some folks got answer, some didn't.
but, of course, this is a followup this morning for those folks that are here I think to continue their support of what -- where we're trying go here.
>> the problem is we have seven options, and if I'm not mistaken, we told ms. Huber we would not take action today except conduct a public hearing.
last week we left this off the agenda because you were not available and we had promised you if you were not there, we wouldn't take action, in fact, we wouldn't bring the issue up so we left it off the agenda.
in fairness to Commissioner Huber, we ought not to take action.
however, under 25 whatever motion any member of the court wants to make is fine with me.
>> right.
I just wanted to show the flavor or the intent of what folks are supporting.
>> but some of these options some members of the court have not seen.
me in particular.
I can tell you now though if the four members of the court agree on something, you got five votes because I'll support it.
but I have no reason to believe that there will be unanimity on any one of those options so I think we owe it to ourselves to get as informed as possible.
it may be that this ge 100 is the best in the world so we may end up supporting it.
I don't know.
Commissioner Eckhardt had a question.
>> I had a question.
I've poked around, our hispanic population is up from 28.2% in 2000 to 33.5%.
when you consider the 33.5% hispanic, the 8.5% black, the 5.8% asian, we are approaching a majority-minority county.
and so what -- what legally defensible arguments would we have for not making the dominant hispanic precinct of population parity with the other three precincts?
>> it would be -- it would be better if it was -- if it was equal, totally equal in population.
that would be much better and would be much more defensible.
I'm just saying that based on our experience with the courts, we could go higher if we've got justifications.
>> I'm just asking what's the justification.
that's my question is what's the justification.
because, of course, it's tempt to go change the lines as little as possible because it's expedient.
which would require us to do something more than the lowest common denominator under pre-clearance.
>> Commissioner, I agree with that and I think one of the questions we will have to answer -- answer for the department of justice is we move a significant number of hispanics out of Commissioner precinct 1 on the north side, but we don't move any out on the south side.
now, the justification we could make for that is although both 106 and 101 are overwhelming think hispanic, nevertheless they are slightly larger in terms of black percentage than the black percentage currently in Commissioner precinct Davis' precinct.
so we could argue that although all the logic in the world indicates that they will have to go into Commissioner's precinct 4, and I think that's probably right, nevertheless, we probably could justify it or we may be able to justify it on the fact that it would actually microscopically reduce the black percentage in Commissioner's precinct 1.
>> could we split the baby with regard to -- the regard to the configuration of district -- of voting precincts 101 and 106 so that we could surgically reconfigure so that we can have our cake and eat it too?
>> absolutely, Commissioner.
we could do that.
and we've experimented with that.
>> okay, so there are big issues in each option.
>> that's correct.
>> one is 106.
what do we do with it.
as to 1 and 2, there's that northeast metro park and Pflugerville.
>> there's not much issue there.
I think we're good with that.
>> but I think that -- I really think we at some point need to here from the community, and, of course, 101, it has a significant, a significant black population within that.
and as far as majority and a whole lot of other things, 106, as we stated earlier, I think is something that is being ordered at this point.
and, of course, 106 is not the precinct I think that should be concentrated on.
and, of course, we could still retain 106.
retain 101 in precinct 1, and still meet all the -- all the federal requirements that we ought to meet including Commissioner Eckhardt precinct 2 northeast metro park.
and I think this actually came out in the public hearing that we had.
I wish I had the video to show the testimony.
and the discussion that was had in that particular meeting.
of course, we have folks that are here today will repeat the same thing probably.
>> hopefully not.
>> well, we'll see.
>> hopefully we need a breather on comments.
we'll lay out the issues and then listen to some of the people that have come today.
if you can just tell us what the issues are, then we'll go down the list and let everybody who wants to give comments today give comments.
>> to begin with, judge, the issues between number 1 and number 4 have to do with 101 and 106.
>> okay.
>> and I think the logical thing would be to put it into -- into Commissioner's precinct 4, but there are justifications we might come up with to keep it in precinct number 1.
the next issue is the border between Commissioner's precinct 4 and Commissioner's precinct 3.
now, Commissioner's precinct 3 was way overpopulated.
and in order to reduce the population, Commissioner's precinct 2 adopted -- will adopt a significant portion of Commissioner's precinct 3.
that's the only way we can get the deviation down.
>> without screaming and making a big fuss.
>> there were concerns at the hearings about the Pflugerville area, and but we just don't have any choice in that because the only area of significant black population at this point that's not in Commissioner's precinct number 1 is the Pflugerville area.
so we don't really have a choice in that.
and I think based on the testimony and based on my discussions, that I think this issue could be solved pretty simply.
I think the court can solve that issue pretty simply.
the issue is between 4 and 3.
and the issue --
>> what is it?
>> I'm sorry?
>> specifically what is it?
what areas?
>> Commissioner's precinct -- the southern part of the county, judge, between Commissioner's precinct 4 and 3.
Commissioner's precinct 4 currently has all of the precincts that have a real heavy population of hispanics.
so that really any of the population that we take out of 3, unless there's some tradeoff there, will actually reduce slightly the hispanic percentage in Commissioner's precinct number 4.
>> although aren't there four or five precincts 3 boxes that have significant hispanic population in them?
I believe it's 321, 323, 355 and 356.
>> yes, but percentage-wise in terms of registered voters, I think they are below what the current precinct 4 is.
I'm not saying we couldn't pre-clear that, I'm saying that that choice is a choice that we would have to make.
and those would be -- would be findings that we would have to prepare for you and for you to make.
>> and also in deference to the Davis map, the Davis map includes those higher hispanic percentage precincts in precinct 4.
>> it does.
>> and really what I'm not getting here, george, and we've heard this over and over again, and I think -- and going through the different Commissioners that you have dealt with in this particular issue, I -- it's beginning to be repetitive and I guess this is really good, I guess, but then again -- let me ask this question.
what is the voting population -- what is the population of precinct as far as voters, what is the voting population as far as precinct 106 is concerned?
what is that population?
I'm sorry, Commissioner, I sent that over to you.
I don't have that.
>> I do.
the voting population of 106 is 3,888 based to documents that you provided early on in our very first agenda item on this.
>> and the point is I wanted to make sure, I was hoping you had all the information, george.
>> we have all that information.
>> hold on, Commissioner, hold on please.
let me talk.
I didn't interrupt you when you spoke.
>> I also didn't make george look like he didn't provide you the information.
>> I asked the question.
>> now, let me play county judge for a while.
we have done the best we could to lay out points of disagreement and we have numerous residents who have come down to give testimony.
lawyer, if we could get you to move down a little bit and make four of those seats available.
I will call four names for those who want to give comments, and as one finishes, I will call another name so we can sort of keep this moving.
we do have quite a list here so we ask you to be respectful of others who want to give testimony, but we would like to hear from all of you.
let me just remind you we will review all of the comments that we have received.
mesello attachment afoya, charles graham, lawrence brown, reverend ira lewis.
please come forward.
and if you just repeat your name for us, we would be happy to get your comments.
if you could make reference to whatever map you are commenting on, that would help us also.
>> judge, if I may also make a inter injection, deece eckstein from intergovernmental relations.
because this is part of the pre-clearance submission to the department of justice, it's important anyone who gives testimony today has signed in on the sign-in sheets that have been provided by our outreach consultants and so I don't think we should stop people from testifying, but is that the sheet you have?
>> these are the sheets.
>> oh, yes, sir.
>> thank you, mr. Eckstein.
mr. Tafoya.
>> yes, sir, first of all good morning, my name is marcello tafoya, a member of lulac district 12.
I'm the previous district 12 director, and primarily, of course, I came to speak on item 25.
but my comments on this here is the whole process, of course, we're in favor of 109, map 109 or 101.
both of them seem to be pretty close to each other.
the only concern we have as far as lulac is concerned is that it precludes the item that the justice department requires.
of course, zero tolerance would be the ideal thing, but, of course, not beyond 10%.
and the fact is in our demographics or in the census the largest minority is the hispanic community.
and the hispanic community is very, very concerned that representation should be one of the requirements and not necessarily voting.
we're strictly talking about the census and the number of people there are in each district.
so in turn what we would like to see more than anything else is that, of course, like I said, we like map 109 or 101, which was just introduced to us today.
we have -- we haven't had a chance to really assess the numbers and everything that's in there.
but what it looks like is the one that favors more -- both of them favor more the outline of the latino or hispanic community.
and in that sense I would just like to say that as long as it precludes the justice department clearance, I don't think we would have very much of a problem and I think that's the ideal thing anyway is get the clearance from the justice department so we can move forward and that's all I have to say.
and I would like to come back at item 25 to speak on that item.
is that fine with you, sir?
>> you will have something different to say on 25?
>> yes, sir, definitely.
>> thank you.
mr. Graham is next.
would ronnie reeferseed please come forward?
>> it's an honor and privilege to be testifying before you today and I'm here to testify on behalf of Commissioner Ron Davis, and I like you too, judge, you are doing a wonderful job.
>> dr. Graham.
>> that didn't cost you anything either.
>> [laughter] but I -- I've known Commissioner Ron Davis for many, many years.
he has absolutely done an incredible job there in that precinct.
and I'm not for one denomination whatsoever.
I'm for the best man.
you picked the best football player, you pick the best basketball player, and he is the best man regardless.
now, he has been in this district, particular district now, and the 100 plan, the Ron Davis plan.
ray charles would know that's the best plan, I promise you all that.
and also, this man right here has been to our district what general macarthur was to our armed forces.
he is absolutely an incredible man.
he needs to be put back in place and the district will be fine.
and we've got a lot of growth in his geographical area.
he has exhibited leadership, determination for honesty and integrity and professionalism, and we absolutely do not need any kind of a change whatsoever instead of just add some more people to his district.
and he has I know a lot of employees that he has because they come by, I'm in the eastern area of his district, and he has discipline and those people take care of the road equipment.
they are very proud to have that job.
and that's very, very important to the taxpayers of the state of Texas not only for Travis County and this district here.
and I highly recommend that the Commissioners court approve the map and description of 100 for Ron Davis, our Commissioner.
and thank you for the fine job that you are doing for us, Commissioner.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Brown is next and would scottie ivory please come forward.
>> I agree with the speaker on mr. Davis' plan.
I haven't studied the plan at all, I haven't been involved, it's too much, but I agree that Ron Davis has done a fine job and I just pray that we continue to keep him in that same position.
in that precinct.
>> okay.
thank you very much.
reverend lewis is next.
would judge glenn bass please come forth.
>> yes.
I'm thankful to be here before the Commissioners court.
I'm thankful to be able to have a voice.
you know, I've heard the gentleman from lulac talk about we're not going to consider -- he doesn't want to consider the voting statistics.
it's a lot of things that I could talk about as an african-american, and what we have gone through since we have been on this -- in this sovereign nation.
america is a sovereign nation.
we have a constitution.
and the -- the 12th chapter of acts -- I mean the 12th chapter of exodus, verse 49, god tells moses about there is one law.
america has become so polluted with such unlawful acts, we have disrespected the one law that keeps us sovereign and that's why people don't want to talk about that.
the last time I was down here I spoke about the dragon in the closet.
in the bible that dragon is talking about satan.
a lot of things that's been done in america they have been done in a satanic way, but truth is always going to prevail.
now, precinct 1 is historically, it's historically an african-american and white ranchers and farmers precinct.
my ancestral blood came out of precinct 1.
migrated from hug eye tastant ht of precinct 1.
don't want to talk about voting because I'm not here to hurt nobody, but I'm here to tell the truth.
you don't want to talk about voting because we know that a lot of hispanics that's in america today are undocumented.
that don't count.
>> I believe we should leave 106 in precinct 1.
>> yes, sir, 106 and 101 stay in precinct 1.
>> okay.
>> that's historically african-american.
and with the white ranchers and farmsers.
my people came off of those farms at the end of slavery and during share cropping days.
we -- we need representation in precinct 1.
I'm thankful to god that -- and not because he's my cousin, but I'm thankful to god that Ron Davis look like me.
we need somebody that look like us.
like miss Gomez look like precinct 2, precinct 3, 4.
I'm sorry, I get the numbers straight after a while.
miss Eckhardt look like precinct 2, which is the middle class white.
and miss Huber, who represent precinct 1, which is the rich white.
precinct 3.
I'll get the numbers right.
y'all know what I'm trying to say.
let's be honest about this.
we talk about the justice department, well, the justice department has to uphold the constitution.
that's what I stand on.
you know, luke -- I can't help I give scriptures because I'm a servant of god.
luke 22 and 23 talks about how the satan entered judas and judas with the pharosees to betray jesus.
the bible say enter judas to betray jesus.
acts 9:27 when paul was knocked from his beach, jesus told him, you can't kick against a prick.
the prick is talking about the truth.
>> thank you.
>> we've got to be about the truth.
>> thank you f, mr. Reeferseed is next.
judge bass will testify during the part on the j ps.
nell peterson was here but does not want to speak?
mispeterson?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> beg pardon?
would you like to speak?
okay.
miss peterson is coming forth.
mr. Reeferseed.
>> thank you, judge.
I don't know if it's working or not.
but -- there we go.
okay, thank you, judge.
I'll be brief.
I'm here to express my dismay with this entire process and I know I'm not blaming you guys.
I'm here to express my dismay of this entire process of dividing people into et nosean struck groupings because that only exemplifies bigotry.
why did america elect a black man for president?
what do we get from chopping us up into cults saying I can only represent if this person looks like me.
that's a regressive concept in my mind.
I personally, not to bore you, but I voted ten times for a black man to be president of the united states.
ten times.
okay?
and I'm not black.
so you know, this idiocy of -- I think it's not -- I shouldn't say idiocy.
I think it's non-- it's not the way we should be headed.
we should be trying to get beyond ethnocentric grouping.
>> we have miss ivy and could we get doorly nunn?
would you like to speak?
no.
but you favor the ge 100 map?
don zimmerman.
mr. Zimmerman here?
equasi evans?
I know mr. Evans was here.
he's here.
and willie lewis.
>> he's gone.
>> he's gone.
and brocken bro please come forth.
ms. Ivory.
>> good morning.
I just wanted to first thank you for this opportunity to be able to speak.
I would like for precinct 106 and the other precinct to remain as is, and I just want to think about how we don't want precinct 1 messed with at all.
and I'm sorry miss Huber is not here because she hasn't been in the midst of us because I wanted to say to her personally what business did she have in trying to write up a plan for precinct 1 and in the change in precinct 1.
she should have thought on her own precinct.
but I want to leave it as it is because Ron has worked these many years, it's been tough, been real tough here at Commissioners court for him.
but I applaud him to stand up.
you see, I was always told stand up for what is right whether you have to stand by yourself, stand up for what is right.
and that's the one thing he does.
he's most time in minority group all the time.
he's battling all the time for the people.
and that is his job.
that's his job to do what he was sent here to do, do the work to improve precinct 1.
and look at all the accomplishments that have come under his leadership.
and I just think you should leave it alone.
if it's not broke, don't fix it.
and god is on the right side with what is right.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Ivory.
>> you are aware, of course, that the Davis plan also draws a district from miss Huber.
>> I'm sorry, we should have let Commissioner Davis draw the plan.
thank you.
>> miss peterson is next and could we get don zimmerman is gone?
read it gray?
edith gray?
is miss gray here?
bertha jones.
>> I'm not going to speak.
>> richard franklin.
miss peterson.
good morning.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
I'm nell peterson and it is a great pleasure and honor for me to be here to address you today.
we are very thankful for Commissioner Davis for all the many things that he's done for us over the years, and I too want us to maintain precinct 1 as it is because of all the accomplishments that he has done for us.
he's very hard working, as miss ivory said, he loves the people.
and what he does is on behalf of the people and for the good of the people and we would like everything to stay as it is and remain our Commissioner for the zoning maps to remain as he so desires.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, miss peterson.
mr. Evans.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
we just celebrated Juneteenth last month and we all know that the civil war ended in 1865, but it ended in April and we didn't get freed in Texas until a few months later.
but it was -- it wasn't until 1965 that they passed the voting rights act.
because after 1886, african-americans lost their right to vote.
throughout the south.
they didn't have the right to rote for over 80 years.
1865, president johnson signed the civil rights act guaranteeing african-americans the right to vote.
I've read the act and to my understanding it is based on people who are eligible to have the right to vote.
there's no denying there's a great growth in hispanic population and there's a great decrease in the african-american population, but we also have a history.
and if we're going to count people based on the voting rights act, we have to count people who have the right to vote, not people who don't against those who do.
so I'm in favor of the Davis map.
Commissioner Davis pointed out the Austin colony was currently in precinct 1 but could be moved.
>> [inaudible] lived in Austin colony.
turner lived in Austin colony.
can you imagine taking turner's house out of precinct 1?
I can't see that.
and I hope you don't do that.
support the Davis plan, please.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Evans.
miss brockenbrow is next.
and john williams.
>> thank you.
I just want to thank the court for letting us speak and I want to thank economic Commissioner Davis foreverythinr precinct 1 and support the 100 plan which allows for the precinct 2 park to stay in precinct 2.
I'm strongly in favor of 106 and 101 staying in precinct 1.
historically, I spent a year doing research at the state archives and the deed office and, you know, those -- that's always been precinct 1.
and it would just be a shame to see it go to another precinct.
just from an historical point of view and we just want to be in Ron Davis' precinct.
we strongly support his plan to keep 101 and 106 in precinct 1.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
mr. Franklin is next.
would louis rodriguez come forward?
>> I don't plan to speak.
>> thank you.
we've got the last name is pennick.
can't make out the first name.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> no, sir, you have to be -- we need to get you on the microphone.
mr. Franklin.
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners.
I'm in support of Commissioner Davis' ge 101 plan.
it appears that moving 1 and 106 out of that area doesn't make a whole lot of sense since we're trying to reach african-american parity and those two precincts are extremely african-american.
why would you move them to another district.
there's also some historical contexts we need to look at, but we know the history hasn't played into a whole lot of decisions when it comes to eastern Travis County, but I would like you to consider the history of that area and the fact it's been historically african-american and move out of precinct 1 would make a huge difference.
I'm also concerned -- we're not looking at the other districts and how they should be affected along the border of precinct 3 and 4 where there's a large contingency of latinos that are basically in precinct 4 -- I mean precinct 3 that should be in precinct 4 if they would decide to look at real parity in voting numbers.
I'm here in support of Commissioner Davis' plan 101 -- 100, ge 100.
thank you.
>> thanks.
>> thank you, mr. Franklin.
miss thompson is next and can we get -- I think mr. Barstow is here on the jp constable, right?
fidel a investment evedo.
>> it's hard to separate your support for leaving the precinct together with Commissioner Davis' representation of it.
a lot of us have just known him to serve that community so well and we have such confidence in him that to separate that would not be possible, in our minds.
so this is a vote -- my -- my comments are saying -- are supporting him in that district and I'm very thankful that we've had him all these years that we've had.
and I definitely am in favor of leaving those precincts there.
so the one thing that I would like for you to remember is that the lady before said if it's not broke, don't fix it.
and in Texas we rely on that a lot.
this is something that is successful and that the people that live in this community are feeling very good about.
so I do not see why you would challenge that at all.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, miss thompson.
mr. Williams is next.
>> I'm john williams. I'm a resident of voting precinct number 106.
judge, in deference to your request, I spoke at the earlier public hearing and I sent my comments to you folks by email so I won't repeat them again.
but as a resident of precinct 106, which is a very small precinct as has been pointed out in terms of population, I believe it should stay in Commissioner precinct 1.
and I'll give mr. Eckstein a copy of what I sent you folks.
>> thank you, mr. Williams. We'll be sure to read that several times to show our appreciation.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Pennick is next.
>> I'm pleased to be here.
I've never been here before and I don't know a lot what's going on, but I commend those who have sacrificed and do whatever is just and right.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> you favor 106 and 101 remaining in precinct 1, mr. Pennick?
>> yes, sir, that's what's just and right.
>> okay.
well, it's also just and right to keep it short so you were just and right today.
mr. Acevedo.
>> judge, Commissioner, it always creates a dilemma every ten years when we have to go through this process.
it seems like just yesterday we were doing this.
I want to thank our Commissioner of precinct 2 for doing her research and really giving up as much territory as you have.
which is a challenge for those of us who live in that precinct including myself.
I'm testifying on behalf of the league of latin american citizens out of the Pflugerville area where we welcome a new Commissioner there.
we also need to look at what has happened as the latino community continues to grow.
we're at that crisis now regardless of what represents us as Commissioners, we're going to have to face the reality that the latino community will continue to grow by 2016, we will definitely have some major changes in this.
as I favor Commissioner Davis' plan to some extent, I also want to tell you that my -- my -- my best shot at this would be to go with what has been drawn with either 109 or 101.
we're looking at a crystal ball that, Commissioners, you will have it in your hands sooner than later.
by 2020, hopefully I'll live that long to come back and say I told you so.
so Commissioner Margaret Gomez, I appreciate all that you have done as well as mr. Davis.
and that in closing on behalf of the league of latin american citizens, we're going to do what's right with the numbers that we have.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
what did we decide about don zimmerman?
>> he did a written --
>> okay.
whether I called your name or not, if you would like to give comments on the Commissioner's options, please come forward.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> yes, sir, and we'll get to you sign on the way out if you haven't signed already.
I don't have you on my list here.
>> let me mention first, judge and court, my comments are in writing.
but I'm very concerned.
of course I support --
>> name.
>> nelson
>> [inaudible].
>> and my comments are in writing.
but I want to share a concern because I hear the conversation about this process legally, I only hear certain principles being expressed.
very concerned about what we would see as unfairness here.
I'm going to cite a case that you might want to take a look at in terms of the attorneys.
the case is called allen versus the state board of elections.
I'm sure most lawyers know about that case.
it's a very important case.
it's not based on population, it's based on fairness.
in '65 we wanted a right to vote so the process is driven by fairness, not numbers.
something critical for this entire process.
it says very clearly here on pre-clearance, you must
>> [indiscernible] that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose or the effect of discrimination based on race or color.
that's important.
fast forwarding, the burden of proof under current section 5 jurisprudence -- and finally, the proposed changes should dilute the voter minorities.
so I want to challenge you based on what I've seen thus far some of these plans it's very clear there's a certain kind of political manipulation occurring.
we're going to challenge that at every step possible, and I can assure you if there is any attempt to discriminate the african-american population we're going to sue before you can get to court.
I would invite you to be fair, the people and consider that we've gone forward in many ways in this county, but despite demographic and population changes to have a just and fair system.
if you do this process in fairness and justice, we won't have any problems. But if you let folks who have hidden motives dictate this process, we're going to fight you.
it's going to be an ugly process.
be fair, prudent and make sure you respect the voting population but also justice and fairness.
thank you very much.
>> mr. Linder, if you looked at georgia versus ashcroft discussing the numbers with regard to population and fairness.
while it's --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> if you come out with a fair argument.
and people will perceive that, I gurn tee you they're going for follow you.
as a court, as a court, I'll let you finish.
I'm saying don't minimize the importance of -- go ahead.
>> let me ask you this.
you say we personalize this.
I would beg to differ.
we're trying desperately not to.
but redistricting cannot be about the current sitting Commissioners.
it must be about the next 10 years.
because as you well know, you are such a student to the voting rights act, I know that you know this, it's actually defending the status quo and standing on tradition and current voting strengths.
those are the very reasons that the voting rights act was implemented.
because that was continuing a racist regime.
so we must look at the changes that have occurred and -- and while we certainly want to preserve our history, we don't want to do it at the expense of our current circumstance where we're seeing we must recalibrate and rebalance amongst all of the interests in Travis County.
>> clearly, clearly, you have the right to do that.
>> an obligation.
>> what I'm saying, even having said that, ma'am, considering the history, the culture and integrity of that precinct, continue the sacrifices, consider the fact that as an organization, naacp, we're not going to let any court minimize the importance of our black population, all that I'm saying is if you proceed in fairness, people can perceive that to be fair, believe me we can tell, if you act in a just and before you department way, again the rest will take care of itself.
enough folks in this county who have good sense to do that, be mindful of the fact that if you don't do it, there will be -- serious, serious --
>> I'm hearing your threat loud and clear.
what I'm trying to express is that the threat is unwarranted because I think all of us here are trying to serve a higher cause of a balance among all of the interests.
>> as a -- I take your word for it.
then hey this conversation can be erased from the record because I hope that you do the right thing.
do the right thing, the rest will take care of itself.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you mr. Linder.
>> I'm here to testify today -- and -- and first of all, thank you for all of your work that you are doing on this -- as a necessary thing, 10 years, thank goodness it doesn't have to happen every five.
I would like to make my remarks concerning maps 101 -- 100 and 101.
give you a little history.
I started working on -- on helping Commissioner Davis, my client, on making sure that when we're reconfiguring precinct 1 we're maximizing -- african-american voters in the new precinct as there has been a lot of population shifts to address.
and as a -- as it developed, as I saw other maps, I took it upon myself to make suggestions with regards to -- to precinct -- the other three precincts.
number one, adhere the one man, one vote as much as possible.
that we can't have retrogression under the voting rights act.
third, I think that the wishes of the incumbents to maintain areas that -- after all, these are the areas that elected them.
after all having to make adjustments for the size or the voting rights act of maximizing the strength of the minority populations, I've tried to keep that in mind.
and have that guide me.
on 101, the vra imperatives of precincts 1 and precincts 4, they keep the Travis County multi-ethnic voting coalition together.
which -- which is important and they preserve the same kind of precincts that elected all of the Commissioners in the first place.
I don't think any of them in the 101 or 104 would be -- would be -- would be terribly -- different than -- than as much as possible.
I would like to point out with the other maps, 101,
>> [indiscernible], are the only maps that just get the hispanic voting age population.
above 50%.
while at the same time, being -- complying with -- with -- with -- of having roughly equal sized precincts.
although map 88 getting the hispanic voting age population up to 51.4%, the -- the precinct 4 is 11.9% off the ideal and the first meeting I had with Commissioner Davis and the redistricting consultant, mr. Korble, he stressed the need to keep things within 5 percent or guidance was to keep things within 5%, that was his guide dance as an attorney -- guide dance as an attorney.
guidance as an attorney.
quickly, I urge you to look at hispanic voting age population on precinct 4 on all of these maps, because that's what -- I think that guides the justice department a little bit more than the total population because we're talking about the people who are allowed to vote.
map 82, 49.5% hispanic voting age population, 87.
49.6%, 99, 49.6%, 109, 48.5%, and again the -- the only map that -- that -- that -- that gets above 50%, other than 100 and 101, is 88, which is off by 12 -- almost 12% in the deviation.
in addition, it's -- it moves precinct 106 from -- from 88 -- 88 moves 106 from precinct 1 to precinct 4, that doesn't really help in achieving the hispanic voting numbers because that precinct is not majority hispanic.
it's a little bit under majority hispanic.
so you're never going to get to -- that's not helping you get to a majority hispanic precinct in 106.
in addition, 99 submitted by Commissioner Huber which moves 101 to precinct 4, precinct 101 to precinct 4, precinct 101 is majority hispanic, but it is also 24% african-american.
it's very difficult -- you can't really take the african-americans out of 101 and keep them in Commissioners precinct 1 very easily because there's no good way to get though those census -- to get to those census blocks.
>> what about 106?
with regard to census blocks?
>> what about 106 with regard to census blocks?
>> again, as I pointed out, 106, you have to go through 101 to get there at some point and it's not majority hispanic.
>> but do you see an option for taking a look at a reconfiguration of 106 for 101.
>> I have looked at those options, I have struggled with them.
ultimately I have found that the best way to address it is to work on the western border and to move the -- move the census block, to look not -- not at the voting to be plagues districts or whatever -- tabulation districts or whatever they're called but the voting precincts as we say normally to grab the census blocks from within those voting precincts.
then once you have done that, the -- the 101 and 106 aren't needed to -- to hit the size requirements because precinct 4 becomes both big enough and -- and majority hispanic with regard to the --
>> still a 9% population deviation --
>> no one hundred.
>> hold on.
I like what you did with 101 or 100 the one that has the northeast metro in precinct 2, I totally concede that.
but your version of the map that has northeast metro actually in either version, I see how you redrew the western boundary of precinct 4 and I -- I applaud that redrawing of the western boundary of precinct 4 because it does pick up sizable hispanic populations in central south.
but I still push you on the fact that 106 and 101 have sizable hispanic populations, extremely dark percentages.
and what I'm asking you is do you see a way to split the baby on 106 and 101 that would be most advantageous for us in the long haul for the next decade, we're redistricting for the next 10 years y'all, this court will not be here in this configuration in 10 years or even five years.
so we must do it to the benefit of future elected officials and more to the point future constituents who are represented by those elected officials.
>> I understand the short answer is no, I haven't found on way to too that -- found a way to do that.
>> mr. Korble, do you see a way to do it.
>> let's let mr. Stanley finish his testimony.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner Davis, I notice that you said deviation 9%.
that would be the top to bottom deviation, I believe.
and what we've done -- I think the guidance that I received from mr. Korble was to keep each individual precinct to 5%, precinct 4 is at minus 4.9%.
>> anything further mr. Stanley?
>> no.
>> can we get you to sign in on the way out.
>> yes, sir.
thank you for your time.
>> now, can we briefly describe options on the j.p.
and constable?
we're not required bylaw to address those.
but our position early on I think to the extent that the agreement was reached, we would try to accommodate that.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> all right.
do we need that description of -- of who is here to testify on the j.p.
and constables?
why don't we get y'all to come forth at this time.
looks like I'm looking at jp's and constables, maybe they know more about that an the -- than the rest of us anyway.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> there was a question about the breakdown --
>> [no microphone]
>> you need to get on the microphone, please.
>> we need you to the microphone.
>> there was a question about the minority break down in precincts 101 and 106, I will be glad to give that to you if you want that for the record.
>> please do.
>> 101 has 10,718 people.
that's 24% black and 61.3% hispanic.
106 has 3,888 and 7.2% black and 49.6% hispanic.
now, if you took those precincts out, it actually would increase by very small amount, but actually would increase the black percentage in Commissioner Davis's Commissioner's precinct.
>> okay, thank you.
yes?
we get your names, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> I'm judge glen bass.
I would really rather hear from someone who can present a plan, because no plan other than the one that I saw yesterday, which has possibly be revised has actually been shared with me.
so perhaps the constable could share first what his intention is.
>>
>> [indiscernible], precinct 2.
I think we discussed the map and we had a map on there prior to this last map, this last census.
around the precinct 2 office, that used to be more precinct 2.
if you look at the current map now, where our office sits now, we're actually paper -- we're cookie cut around where the office is.
with everything around us being precinct 5 and then precinct 1.
I wanted the opportunity that -- that for the community wise is that -- is that they have no representation where it is now you can toss a rock over to the hispanic community there, actually now they have to go downtown to be represented.
I feel because of the issues that are in that area, that I could do some impact with the constable's office working that area.
as it is now, we are working with the community there, her asking the homeowners associations to come to us and ask for assistance.
it is a problem area.
but knowing the culture, knowing the people, I feel that there could be a lot of -- that could be deterred.
but again, prior to this last census, that used to be precinct 2.
now it is precinct 5.
but, you know, you've got to give and take and of course I work with -- with -- gracious to have the opportunity to work with the justice of the peace evans and constable elfant to work around that and in doing so I took four boxes but I had to give up four boxes.
but again being able to represent the community around my office, which is like I said not a rock throw, but a rock toss away from where we sit right now.
>> he so you picked -- so you picked up four boxes from what precinct.
>> five.
I picked up five boxes around the office and I gave up five boxes going west.
>> so you picked up from precinct 5.
>> I picked up from precinct 5 boxes around the current office area which is rutland, metric, that area there, which if you were to look, the finger where their office is and everything around it is precinct 5.
again all that being predominantly hispanic.
>> you gave up four boxes.
>> I gave up four boxes.
>> where did they go?
>> they're to the west.
>> is that three?
>> that's constable 5.
>> kind of like a new even exchange.
>> okay.
you took from five and you gave to five.
>> yeah.
I took from five and I gave to five.
>> yes.
>> so how would the j.p.
be impacted by that?
>> well the impact there would be of course that being a problem area, it will be a
>> [indiscernible] work evictions, but again the constable's office will be the ones doing the evictions.
my suggestion is we were to take that in, working out there, we can help the community to where hopefully, you know, being some of the rates, some of the issues there will be down sized so it won't be so much of an issue.
but then again they feel they are not represented.
of course the homeowners association wants more representation there and wants more -- more community policing there.
which we are trying to do.
>> all right.
so judge bass, have you had an opportunity to -- to assess what impact it would have on your j.p.?
>> well, let me see, first of all, this plan came in the 11th hour.
we are just a little over 30 days away from when the commission I believe had planned on finalizing its plans, that August 23rd date that I believe you are all looking towards.
so here we are just barely 30 days short of that, and now I'm hearing five boxes today.
I heard four boxes yesterday.
I'm confused, scans stable is it four boxes or is it five boxes?
>> it's precinct 5, four and four.
>> so four boxes, okay.
but now these boxes, I hold in my hands a map, these are not just lines on a map we're talking about, these are families we're talking about.
we're talking about going into a more dense area, taking four boxes that is predominantly multi-family housing, apartment complexes, that would bring roughly 70 to 80 plaintiffs and defendants additionally into my court on a monthly basis.
I'm doing that by arriving at an upwards of 35 to 40 evictions that we would be handling more than we do currently.
the interaction with those 70 to 80 plaintiffs and defendants, all the correspondence that's required with that, we're talking about adding work to my precinct that is already to the max.
I have never complained to this commission about the work that we do, though.
and we have made great strides in the past six months to catch up from where we were when I came into office.
what this would take away from us is take away four very significant boxes.
we're not talking about lines on a map here, we're talking about billy on mesa road, established single family neighborhoods that they would then be taking from my precinct and putting into precinct 5.
this plan is unacceptable.
I oppose this plan.
the elephant in the room is what we're really talking about here is the constable's race in the next cycle.
that's what we're talking about, let's not avoid.
that is what the issue is.
thank you.
>> judge, may I ask -- judge bass, as far as the comparable dockets, where does the precinct 2 docket stand in overall numbers of cases in comparison to the other three dockets?
>> I don't have the latest numbers on the other precincts.
but I can tell you that we will have approximately 40,000 civil and criminal cases filed this year.
roughly 12,000 to 13,000 of those will have their day in court.
that's the volume that we deal with.
again, we are making great strides, though, to get to those plaintiffs and defendants in a timely manner, more timely than we were in January.
but if you put this additional burden on us, I'm going to have to come back to you for additional resources.
and I just sat down for a budget meeting, I was not told of any additional resources that I'm getting.
here we would be giving more of a burden to my court for the sole purpose of benefiting a race that's coming around in November this year.
>> we already have two courtrooms operating full time at precinct 2.
>> one operating full-time, one I have a visiting judge, the Commissioner has been gracious to give me, I believe, 50,000 a year in budget for visiting judge.
we are operating that court as often as we can, but within the constraints of the dollars that this commission has already given us.
>> we are not under any constraint to redistrict j.p.'s and constables right now.
we could study the issue longer and then come up with a plan, hypothetically, six months from now, one year from now if you wanted to, correct?
>> Commissioner, you raised a very good point.
there is no pressure to do this now.
the only pressure that's coming to do this is coming from my left here.
because recently when I talked with each of my j.p.
peers, there was no interest on the part of any of my peers in making any changes.
some are here in this room today, but they're not seated up here because we're not talking about modifying any of their lines.
we're talking about redrawing the lines for -- for my precinct, his precinct, precinct 5, so -- so this is unacceptable and I see no benefit.
this is about a race, this is not about the people that are actually in precinct 2.
>> although hypothetically, lines could be redrawn for redistricting of the constables and j.p.'s in order to better distribute the workload across the county in the class c and j.p.
civil docket.
>> I have rise are raised no concerns to that effect because again we're -- we are able to maintain what we're currently doing and there is a cost to the taxpayer when you modify these lines.
there's confusion out there when you do that.
it breaks down our efficiency.
we would actually slow down during the period of time that we're going through transition of that.
so my intent is to -- is to ask this commission that you not redraw the lines for the j.p.
precincts, that you leave them the way they are for now.
unless there is a burning reason to do it later, I see no need to do it now.
you have afforded my court the budget that I need to maintain at the level that we're maintaining and I'm grateful for that.
there is no need to do this change.
>> why don't we give you two weeks to try to get together, let us know in two weeks whether you have been able to reach agreement or not.
you have not had an opportunity to look at this map yet.
>> yesterday I looked at a variation --
>> can we get y'all to try to get together within the next two weeks, let us know if you have not reached agreement, let us know that.
if you have, let us know that, by email, telephone or any method that you deem appropriate.
how is that?
>> I would just like to say in closing that this is not political.
it is that we're talking about redistricting because the Commissioners says we have to because of what the census has done.
I have been in precinct 2 since 1993, I have seen how it's grown especially with the hispanic community.
they need a voice.
they do not have that voice.
what we're trying to do in the community is get
>> [indiscernible] the community constable's office is daily and weekends on our time going out there and starting programs to reach out to this community.
it not just the hispanic communities but across all walks of life.
because there's some need out there.
to just turn a blind eye and allow it to happen, I don't see that happening.
especially when it's in my back yard and there's a great opportunity here that I'm able to men people and that's what I'm trying to do.
it has nothing to do with politics, it's just what is fair.
yes, we will get together and hopefully come back to you in two weeks.
>> two weeks from today is the 26th of July.
let us know by then, thank you.
>> anybody else here on j.p., constable precincts?
if so, please come forth.
okay.
j.p., constable precincts.
>> yes, sir.
>> yes, sir.
>>
>> [indiscernible] item 25 from -- from the first one.
my name is marcello, from lulac.
the fact that we need to have standing.
these individuals are elected like y'all are elected, like everybody else is elected.
I feel that under our understanding they're talking about the workload, when you have a constable that has come go from one side of the county all the way to the other, they don't discuss the costs and the manpower that it takes.
they're talking about court trials, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
but I think that it needs to have parity.
because we are the largest of the minority we need to be represented by somebody other than that.
of course my understanding is that it doesn't necessarily have to be an hispanic.
it's a person that we choose to represent us.
and in this case, in many of the area that's they're discussing right now, the hispanic community is not being served properly.
we do the more courts as you can see and some of the -- some of the numbers of owe over cases that are being brought forward, but at the same time there's also the possibility of bringing in judges to do heavy loads.
these things are not even being considered either.
what we're asking is that before even considering a situation we need parity, we need to be able to have standing there when it comes to the numbers, especially with the census, if not maybe bring the justice department in to look it over, see what's wrong there.
if there isn't any parity or if there isn't any standing as far as the community of color is concerned.
so that's our concern as far as lulac.
>> okay, thank you.
now, anybody here to give comments regarding voting precincts?
if so, please come fort.
voting precincts, please come forth.
have a seat.
if you give us your name again, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> thank you, judge.
my name is cesar
>> [indiscernible] with the league of latin american united citizens, I'm president of council 4816 in the Pflugerville area.
the fact that we're looking at not being mandated by the courts or mandated constitutionally or whichever way it is brought forward, to redraw these lines, we are -- we have to look at what we -- what we can do to better service our communities.
at large.
if I think the gentleman that -- that judge bass is correct.
it will increase his workload.
however, those are -- those are the consequences of being an elected official.
it is -- perhaps
>> [indiscernible] left trying to -- to -- to establish a pattern or perhaps keep it in -- in partisan politics and as it is as we may say.
however, only right to be able to draw these lines so that there is some type of parity and the distribution of the workload as we have seen a tremendous increase in precinct 3.
it's on the right -- it's only right that precinct 5 takes up some of that.
and in order to do that, we have to draw those lines.
so, yes, I'm very much in favor of the -- of the map that has been presented here, while yet there would be a lot of discussion in the next couple of weeks as to whether it's fair to everybody else and the other judges, especially j.p.'s, as they pick up some extra workload.
it's not going to get any less.
let's face it, it's not.
so -- so whether judge bass is right or whether the precinct 3 judge is right, we need to do the right thing and bring that into consideration.
I think this particular map will do that.
and I thank you.
>> thank you.
>> voting precincts?
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, Commissioners, I'm james randall.
I had really just a general question that I wanted to ask the court here.
it relates to congressional district boundaries and their effect on the election -- the voting precincts.
my precinct 130 is one of several dozen precincts that will be split by the new congressional district boundaries.
and a question that I guess that I have is does that require the voting precincts to be redrawn so that they are not split by the new congressional district boundaries?
if so, when would that process take place?
it seems like the precincts that are detailed here largely do not address that question.
and I did submit a proposal with regard to my particular area, to -- to -- that accounted for the fact that I was going to lose voters out of my precinct to another congressional district and I would pick up voters elsewhere.
so I just appreciate any comments that the court might have on that.
>> okay.
that's a good question.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> we're working on the voting precincts right now.
there are 100 voting precincts that are split by the congressional plan.
and -- and essentially when they're split like that, we have to divide them and you can't elect -- you can't have more than one race in each voting precinct.
so that to the extent possible, we're going to combine the precincts and it may be necessary to actually create some very small precincts just because the state was so sloppy in the way they put those lines together.
an example of that, for example, down a highway, you will have sometimes as many as four separate census blocks in the middle of a highway.
so that if the state draws a line down one side of the highway, and your voting
>> [indiscernible] down the middle of the highway, then we have to create a voting precinct in the totally in the highway that has absolutely no population in it.
and in houston there are hundreds and hundreds.
here they've been able to minimize the number, but as a result of the congressional I think we're going to probably have a number of those.
>> additionally, we also have the issue of voting precincts that have more than 10,000 in them.
they will also be split.
>> yes.
yes.
we have a list of those and we gave you some examples of how we're talking about splitting them.
I think that the goal in the -- in the drawing of the precincts is twofold.
first of all, you hold elections for a number of jurisdictions.
so that we ought to simplify the -- the voting precinct so that it simplifies your process of holding those elections.
secondly, there -- as you know, we're in the -- we're in the -- particularly over in the western portion of the county, there are-- it's hard to get from here to there.
we're looking at suggestions from a number of different people and we have some examples that we have given you of where there's been a suggestion that we move population so that people can get to the polls more easily.
and -- and that's an ongoing process, people ask about what happens if the concurrent congressional plan is declared unconstitutional, which I certainly hope that it will be.
and then we'll just have to make the changes that are necessary.
>> what schedule do we think that we're on?
>> well, judge, normally when we are involved in this, we go ahead and handle the county redistricting first and then deal with the voting precincts.
and we're going to be drawing those voting precincts at the same time that we're dealing with the county redistricting, so that hopefully we'll be able to submit them to the department of justice at the same time or shortly after we submit the Commissioners redistrictingors constables redistricting.
I might say, though, it's very unlikely to get a voting rights objection to the polling places or voting precincts.
that's only happened once in Texas out of all of the hundreds of objections that we've had, it's only happened once, those were in extreme circumstances.
so that we normally expect that's going to preclear very easily.
>> mr.
>> [indiscernible] wants to know about 130?
when will we an to believe let him know about that one.
>> I can call him this afternoon.
>> can we do that.
>> judge, if I may speak to that.
mr. Randall has already submitted a map to us.
we have that map and have given it to the consultants.
the consultants now are working through this long list of precincts that have been split by the congressional map or one of the other maps.
and we're hoping to work all of that out.
I'm sure the consultants will be glad to follow specifically mr. Randall, but I wanted you to know we did get your stuff that's part of the mix of options that we're considering.
>> thank you.
I know it's a very, very complicated process when you have these new lines.
I just wanted to understand what the schedule was and maybe a follow-up question.
once you've worked down to that level of the voting precincts, will the public be given an opportunity to review the maps before a final vote is taken by the court for the individual voting precincts?
>> that's fine with me.
>> yeah.
>> we can plan to do that.
>> if it's scheduled -- the schedule that we set up, following of course those comments that you have made today, the continuing schedule I think July the 15th I think is the -- is the additional comments that would be even coming in this week.
it would be good for that to go.
because that is a situation in precinct 130, in precinct 1, of course that -- that line and I think it may be from what I understand maybe
>> [indiscernible] lane.
>> but yeah so
>> [multiple voices]
>> northern part of my precinct --
>> right.
that's a big deal.
you've got berkman up there and that whole little area up there, 290 stuff like that, patton.
so I think that he needs to get a response as quickly as possible and of course -- of course then it would be for further review later.
but please make sure that -- deece say they do have the information.
I want to make sure that's included.
>> thank you, I know that you all hadn't received my comments.
I appreciate y'all's consideration very much.
>> sign in on the way out.
>> please.
>> similar to those issues, don't we have an issue with the disputed precinct 101 it too is between two congressional districts, 10 and 35.
>> yes --
>> anybody else to give comments --
>> they found a way to split it.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> if so, please come forward.
if you give us your name, we would be happy to get brief comments.
if you would sign in on the -- on the signout sheet afterwards.
>> yes, judge.
my name is
>> [indiscernible] joseph, I'm an educator.
and I hope my comments are germane to the topic.
I came a little late.
but I wanted to thank Commissioner Davis for sending a reminder e-mail to me yesterday.
my comments are specific to the voting rights act of 1965 and from an educator's perspective I would ask that if it's possible for you to put just a little bit of information for citizens to understand the constitutional issues, 14th and 15th amendment.
when I went to the June 3rd Commissioners meeting, there was some discussion about race, but I think that if individuals understood the significance of the voting rights act and the implications that are set by that act, then they might be a little bit more informed.
the other thing that I would askathathathatho#nno carrierrint
>> so if you would consider that everyone does not have topography, background, that looking at a static map is not going to help them give you informed information, they basically will give you emotional testimony.
which may or may not have anything to do with the map.
so I think that it's important to explain encumbenca, racial gerry man dering of the district, things of that sort.
I think that pretty much covers it, pros and cons, if you would also put what's different between the three maps, also include the two maps from the gentleman who was the statistician at the June 30th hearing as well.
that would be very helpful.
so with that in mind, I would just ask you to please consider the different educational levels and also the fact that this is an important issue but only comes up every 10 years or maybe you might consider speaking of it more during the interim period, but it doesn't mean that you are uneducated as a citizen.
this issue is something that's not on the forefront.
you can look at it from the perspective of educating the citizens about those issues that are legal in a actually would help them understand this from a layman's perspective.
I thank you.
if you have any questions I will gladly answer them.
>> with the accommodating data sheet, it has the city-wide, county-wide maps, it has
>> [indiscernible] maps, just -- wall maps, and -- and so it just has a series of -- of indicators in there, inset in all of those different categories that go along with those maps.
they are on the internet if you would like to retrieve and look at more information for your students.
I appreciate your comments and appreciate your concerns.
thank you.
>> I would just add, Commissioner Davis, that I did look at ge 82, I believe, is the first map.
as an example.
there were like five attachments, four pdf's in one zip drive.
but there was no explanation.
so just looking at -- I'm just saying in general for all of the redistricting issues, just looking at one map to another, doesn't really help an individual who doesn't have the time to study the map.
so -- so just a little information that -- pros and cons or maybe what changes between the maps might help them to be able to navigate and give you good feedback.
>> thank you, those are very, very good comments.
>> thank you so much, thank you for the email.
I actually had written comments.
since you took the personal time to send it, I should come.
>> thank you.
>> move that the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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.
