Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 27
>> let's call up 27.
it is to consider and take appropriate action on risking plans for the following Travis County precincts.
a, county Commissioners, b, justices of the peace and constables, and c, elections.
>> good morning, judge, members of the court, deek eckstein.
since the last time the court met, you all had a work session, there have been a couple maps brought to the attention of the members of the court since then and what I thought we would begin with this morning was by maybe letting the consultants and to the extent they would like to the Commissioners lay out those maps.
the plan 136.
so let me if I can turn it over to the consultant and I think we have -- actually have the big copies of the --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> may it please the court, maybe I can get started here.
to bring you up to date, the current plan, when we compared it with the 2010 census had a district number 4 had a 29,009 -- 229,923 population.
and the largest district was Commissioners precinct 3.
the black district had shrunk to -- black district had shrunk to 19 percent.
and so the goal of this was to get the black precinct as heavily minority as we could so that we could approach what it was in 2000.
and to preserve the hispanic precinct, which had an hispanic population of 56% and a voting age population of -- a spanish surname registration population of about 32%.
we proposed three initial ideas based on meeting with the Commissioners, and then there were a series of five public hearings.
the public hearings were in each one of the Commissioners precincts and then one here at the courthouse.
based on those hearings, I prepared a summary, a map which had the summary of those precincts, which I think is map 139 -- 136, I should say.
and in 136 what it did was it recognized all of the changes between Commissioner's precinct 1 and Commissioner's precinct 3.
those all had been more or less agreed to and where everybody had the same idea, redistricting has a logic to it.
>> mr. Corevalero, you say that was -- 136 is the summary map.
I believe 136 is the map proposed by commission Eckhardt.
>> I'm sorry, it was 109 was the summary map.
I'm sorry.
excuse my misstatement.
and it retained precincts number 101 and 106 in Commissioner's precinct number 1.
it left Commissioner's precinct number 1 at 20.5 percent black, which was a substantial improvement from the current population.
and it had the hispanic population and Commissioner's precinct number 4 lment identical to what it is now at 55%.
and then 136 was the map proposed by Commissioner Eckhardt, and that plan moves part of 106 into Commissioner's precinct 4.
>> actually, it moves 101 into precinct 4, it leaves 106 unchanged.
>> I'm sorry, I misspoke.
it moves part of precinct 101 into precinct 4 and leaves webber owe essentially all of the webberville in precinct number 106.
it then adds precincts 310, 323, 321 and 309 from Commissioner's precinct 3 to Commissioner's precinct 4, and takes precinct's 4 -- excuse me, 462, 437, 421 and 422 out of Commissioner's precinct 4 and the result of that is that Commissioner's precinct number 1 has a 19.7 percent black population and Commissioner's precinct 4 has a 56.2% hispanic population.
it's slightly less than on the black and higher than the current plan and slightly more in the hispanic districts.
>> the numbers that you've given us now are on the handout that mr. Eckstein has?
>> that's correct.
>> thank you.
>> and if you would rather just go from those numbers, I'll be glad to answer any questions you've got.
Commissioner's -- excuse me.
the interesting thing about Commissioner's precinct -- excuse me.
about plan number 139 is that it has a very low -- excuse me, 136 I should say.
it has a very low deviation.
the deviation ranges from minus 1.2% to plus 1.3% or a total deviation of 2.4%.
>> if I could for a moment, the exercise is doing map 136.
point of it was to explore whether or not given the agreement that we knew already existed in the maps, whether or not there was a way to increase the density of african-american in one and the density of hispanic in 4, while also get to go a less than two percent population deviation for all of the precincts.
and that was the purpose of that map to show that yes, we can.
given -- and again, it includes current agreement, although certainly there are other things in it that have not been agreed to by any stretch, so I don't want to misrepresent it.
but that was the point of it was to get the population deviation under two percent while actually increasing the concentration of african-americans and the concentration of hispanics in 1 and 4.
>> yes.
Commissioner's precinct number -- thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner's -- plan number 150, which I guess is the plan that Commissioner Huber wants to forward, has a black population in Commissioner's precinct number 1 of 19.7.
and a -- and a hispanic population in Commissioner's precinct number 4 of 56.2%.
so again, these -- the black percentage and the hispanic percentage are improved above the current plan.
and the deviation on this plan is also very low.
it ranges from a minus 1.2 to a plus 2.2 or its 3.4% deviation, which is actually a comparatively low deviation for most plans.
>> is that a visual representation of that map yet?
>> right here and we have copies.
>> that would be great.
>> I would just like to add that we took this new plan 150 and trying to take something into consideration what everybody wanted and then some sacrifices, and I would like to read the statement in a minute, but we basically built 150 off Commissioner Eckhardt's map, but looked at trying to provide a higher hispanic population in precinct 4 in the process.
>> so with 150, though -- 150, in that particular map, precinct 101 is no longer in precinct 1, is that correct?
because it echos exactly what Commissioner Eckhardt is putting forth where they take precinct 1-- 101 off and those folks off of precinct 1, is that correct?
>> what they essentially do is --
>> I just want an answer to that, is that correct?
>> no.
>> that's not entirely correct.
what they do is they essentially take the Commissioner's precinct number 101 that is in the congressional plan, but which ends up leaving webberville in Commissioner's precinct 106?
>> what I'm trying to say, I said Austin colony.
do you know where Austin colony is?
>> yes.
>> that's my point, that's 101.
that's my point.
>> let me make sure I get this point.
so in map 150, part of 10 of moves to 104.
>> yes, sir, the largest part of 106 moves to --
>> no.
106 doesn't move at all.
>> excuse me, 106 doesn't move at awvment 101, the largest portion of 101 moves to Commissioner's precinct 4.
>> part of 101 goes to 4.
>> all of 106 stays in Commissioner's precinct number 1, plus the part of webberville that's in Commissioner's precinct number 101, that also stays in Commissioner's precinct 1.
>> I would like to read an explanation of 150 since we don't have a good map produced for it and how that works with Commissioner Eckhardt's map.
>> okay.
so have you made all your comments regarding 109 and 1036?
>> that's correct, judge.
I would be glad to answer any questions, but I think that summarizes the dicheses, yes.
>> and you had started on 150.
>> yes, sir.
150 is what she's going to read the statement about and 150 moves that same part of Commissioner's precinct number 101 into Commissioner's precinct number 4 that's in the -- that's in the Eckhardt plan.
and then it moves -- it moves 310, 221, 315 and 302 into Commissioner's precinct number 4.
and as a result of that the hispanic percentage in precinct number 4 ends up as 55.5%, which is approximately the same, slightly better than the current hispanic percentage.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> I would like -- perhaps we could recheck that because according to the calculations we have, it's 56.2%.
>> yeah, because I was going to say if it's going to stay the same, then we ought to leave precinct 4 alone then because it doesn't make sense to transfer people out of four when it is the smallest district.
and I think at this point we're at 55%.
and so any other maps that is less than 55%, it doesn't make sense to me that we would make any change.
which also means that I can't -- I can take some precincts, but we have to make sure that they're not looting the hispanic vote.
it also means that I don't have room to give up anybody.
and so --
>> in order to keep the hispanic percentage high, have you to swap out anglo boxes for heavily hispanic boxes.
that's the only way you can take on population and keep your concentration at 56%.
>> but if we're going to leave through this map, it's going to come up at 55%, we don't need to make any change.
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> we need to speak one at a time, though.
I recognized Commissioner Huber.
>> I would like to give the rationale behind 150 because we did take Commissioner Eckhardt's map, we looked at precinct four and felt like there was a better way to improve the hispanic population there.
so -- and I need to build off my original map.
when I presented plan ge 99 several weeks ago, I did so with the idea that each Commissioner precinct should share in the benefits and sacrifices of all the other precincts.
I had hoped there would be some much needed compromise on everybody's part as the Commissioners' court comes to a conclusion on redistricting.
I was encouraged to see Commissioner Eckhardt's ideas embody understand her plan and I applaud her attempts to take into account all the ideas from the previous maps that had been presented while trying to keep the deviation between the precincts as low as possible.
I worked with the consultant to fine tune Commissioner Eckhardt's ideas and her map and in the end we drafted plan 150.
the final plan is one that I now fully support.
I view the first plan I put out there, 99, as a reference point.
furthermore, to be as transparent as possible, I used plan ge 49 on the way and of showing you how I arrived at plan 150, and we've actually decided not to put 149 out there because all we did was add a couple other precincts.
and when we did 49 we realized it didn't provide as high enough hispanic percentages as the precinct Commissioner 4 would need.
so plan 150 solves this problem by making the changes to plan 136, otherwise known as the f cart map.
and plan 150, precincts 208, 267, 269 would go to precinct 3.
that's up in the great hills area.
309 on Eckhardt's map would come back into precinct 3.
and 444 and 445, two downtown precincts, would move to precinct 3.
precinct 302 and 315 move to precinct 4.
and precinct 379 moves to precinct 2.
I looked at the possibility of moving more territory from precinct 3 into precinct 4, but from the list of precincts along this line, and their corresponding hispanic percentages, I was concerned with retrogression as each of these areas would lower the hispanic percentage in precinct 4.
in plan 150 the total population for precinct four is 56.2 hispanic and hispanic voting age population is 50% with this plan.
plan ge 150 is a map from which I hope we can all work.
I believe 150 takes into account many of the ideas shared by everyone on the Commissioners' court.
it also means that each Commissioner's precinct sacrifices some.
precinct 1 takes Pflugerville and keeps precinct 106 while giving up precinct 101.
precinct two keeps northeast metro park, but gives up Pflugerville, and takes in some politically challenging areas.
precinct 3 takes in some politically friendly neighborhoods, but also gives up some friendly hispanic areas to precinct 4.
precinct 4 takes in some major hispanic areas along its boundaries with precinct 1 and 3 and percentages of hispanics overall and the voting age population have increased.
furthermore precinct four gives up low percentages hispanic downtown precincts.
one Commissioner gives every precinct what is needed in regards to the voting rights act and what is most wanted, but also shares the sacrifices across all precincts.
I believe it is very fair.
there has been much talk about fairness, compromise and lending a hand to a friend rather than the lack thereof.
on the national and statewide scene lately.
does anyone need reminding of what our country has been going through recently with the debt ceiling debate?
it is my hope that this Commissioners' court shows its constituents that we actually use fairness, compromise and friendly assistance, fine attributes all, in this deliberation, especially on something as important as redistricting.
thank you.
>> Commissioner Gomez?
>> I guess the comment I would have is those precincts at the bottom, 310, three something else and whatever shady hollow is, I guess those are the politically challenging precincts that would be transferred to precinct four?
we don't have anything in common with folks in precinct three.
especially down toward the county line.
and the population of shady hollow is 17 percent hispanic.
that would go -- we need need the dilution of the hispanic population, but just the bigger fact is the -- there's no commonality between those neighborhoods.
and so these at the bottom I don't -- that's not acceptable to me.
the other thing was I think we need to go back to the other -- I guess the map that -- the summary map, 109, and look at that as well because I think it has the -- pretty close to the numbers and the hispanic population.
yesterday I mentioned to -- I'm glad we're using population numbers because we do redistricting by population, we don't do it by voting age.
and so I'm glad that that, deece, will be corrected on these charts today.
and then -- but I need to have a real close look to even the early maps because I think unless we have a real big map and we can see where all of the different precincts are lining up on the western part of -- that one.
even on the western part.
there's a number here and I think there's -- I need to go through this map -- this list very, very carefully.
something came up here that 461 was going to go into precinct three.
well, we never talked about 461.
and if you're going to move over and take 461, that means coming -- the boundary right now is lamar between precinct four and three.
that means precinct three would jump that lamar boundary and come all the way into manchaca.
we never talked about that.
it never was mentioned before.
so I mean, I really believe I need some extra time to look at this map very, very -- this list very, very carefully and compare it to a large map so I can really see what is involved in this list.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> today is the first day I've seen a visual representation of map 150 -- is it 150?
although I did get Commissioner Huber's textual description of it, so I too would like more time to respond to it.
I do want to respond to the notion at tha at least 310 and 321 were too different from the current constituency of precinct four.
I included some demographic data that cam from a c.a.n.
presentation from the demographers on Friday and there's also an additional slide which I failed to copy.
but it does show particularly in the slide that is the hispanic is a percentage total of population 2000 to 2010, but there is a concentration of hispanic population, but hays county actually has a higher percentage than Travis County, indicating that our southern border along hays county is very much culturally contiguous with what is currently precinct 4.
there's an additional slide from the school district which I will bring to you.
it's the companion slide to the one on the -- on page seven that says low income students.
I've just failed to copy the correct slide.
it's totally my fault.
but it shows that the low income students are clustered not just in the del valle area, but along our southern border with hays county.
so there is definitely some very compelling compatibility at least between 310 and 321, which both have hispanic populations upward of 30%.
I agree that 315 and 302 is the more difficult argument to make because the hispanic populations in those boxes are much -- are much lower, but still significant.
I think it's 17%.
315, it's 8.5%.
and in 302 it's 15.4%.
so I agree that that is more of a stretch, but I think 310 and 321 are frankly no brainers for inclusion in precontinuing 4.
>> 321 I don't have a problem with.
it's the 310.
and I have compromised.
I went -- I did go into 310 and go down south first to take in akins, which also has a minority population that needs to concentrate on not only poverty rate, but dropout rate.
so I mean, I am compromising.
and let me say that I think all the years of involvement in this community, I have -- I have compromised and I have supported democrats and sometimes without the permission of my community, but I went out on a limb for democrats.
and this is 40 years of involvement.
so I think that counts for something and that's not something we need to set aside and say no, Margaret, you haven't done enough.
I have done enough for this community.
>> I don't think anybody is questioning what you have done for the community, but I would like to respond to you have nothing in common with those precincts because there are challenging precincts in all of our -- voting precincts in all of our precincts.
we recognize that.
and part of the redistricting where we're all comfortable and where it works for each of us is like we say looking at the benefits and trade-off.
you mentioned earlier that this was population in numbers and worked very hard on 150 to get you the numbers, but I have a problem when anyone says that I have nothing in common with that -- that precinct or that precinct because in my precinct alone, lago vista and Jonestown have nothing in common with manchaca.
downtown Austin, the two precincts I have proposed taking from you really don't have anything in common with the rest of your precinct.
percentagewise and numberswise.
so I think we're all -- I would actually hate to see that we get very, very o'mojistic in each of our precincts.
we do better, we reach compromise better if we learn to live and work together.
so when the numbers work that to me is the most important thing, not that it's just all looks alike for one precinct.
>> but I don't think the villa marie homogenizing of communities, especially the minority communities, it's for the purpose of the representation that those communities are going to get.
and I would say that I hope those folks down there are getting representation from you and they have some issues with poverty and dropout.
I used to have onion creek when it was republican.
I worked well with them.
and they were different from the rest -- from east Austin.
but -- I worked well with them, but I never tried to give it away to anybody.
>> we're not giving away because of -- I am not in 150 giving away anything because of the content.
I'm looking at the numbers.
and in my interest in the southern part of the county, you can just look visually at these two maps and see how large the precinct is given the transportation access to that southeastern corner of my precinct, it's huge.
any little bit that I can push that up helps me service better all of the diversity that I have in preen.
precinct 3.
and I care about the hispanics, asians and blacks.
I've got them all.
>> I think they're in a good place then.
>> Commissioner ek har, then Commissioner Davis and then the county judge has a series of motions intended to give direction.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I think that it's imperative that rather than doing what is doing what's right for us, we need to do what's right for the next 10 years.
I think the voting rights acts is a mind blowingly good template for where we need to go.
the voting rights act requires us -- and I can't tell you how pleased I am that the federal government requires this of us, that we maintain or improve upon the voting strength of our minority populations most especially when we are a majority-minority county, which we are now.
under that statistical fact we have no legitimate -- perhaps we have a legal excuse, but we have no real policy excuse not to achieve almost perfect parity among our precincts.
with the kind of diversity we have in our community, we can achieve perfect parity.
so in order to achieve the goal of one man, one vote, and the concentration of african-american in precinct 1 and the concentration of hispanic in precinct four, I will be exceedingly reluctant, let me put it that way because I hate to draw lines in the sand, but I will be exceedingly reluctant to vote for any map that has more than a two point percentage away from parity.
I know that that is achievable under several different scenarios.
scenarios that are absolutely politically pal lottable.
they have two precincts that are at 70% democrat, one precinct that is at 60% democrat, and another one that is essentially a 50/50 split leaning republican.
so it is not politically insurmountable for us to achieve almost perfect parity.
so I call on us to figure out a compromise here that we can all feel at least 70% good about at an under two percent deviation.
there are at least three scenarios that I know of that get us there.
all of which keep the minority percentage better than it is under the current map.
>> Commissioner Davis?
any comments?
>> yes.
thank you, judge.
you know, we have wrestled with this for several months.
in fact, I recall the last time we did the redistricting, it wasn't nearly as controversial as this one has been.
I notice in map 101 for an example -- 109 for an example, from the public hearings and what folks were saying during the public hearings, this is one that our consultants have put together, retains 101 and 106 without being disturbed within precinct 1.
a significant, very significant, because of the fact that Austin colony, for an example, which resides in 101, has 25 percent black.
I mean, you know, it's very diverse.
it has about 55% hispanic.
25% black.
that's a bunch.
that's a bunch of folks.
so that's very important to me as far as making sure we capture all of the people in the community.
and it's kind of disturbing I guess because of the fact that we have all of these maps and I guess it's probably a ball of confusion out there.
I remember an old term, ball of confusion.
we have a ball of confusion.
we have so many maps out there, and this is another one that -- I think right now on website we have seven maps on the internet.
seven.
and this one here I guess will be added, this map 150.
and of course there has been a lot of push-back from dealing with 101 and taking it out of precinct 1.
I mean, the community have overwhelmingly spoke and said no.
106 also.
and I listen to who -- you know, we have been divided on this court.
it's never been a unanimous vote.
in other words, the majority of the court is what it is.
as far as dissension is concerned and I've been on both sides.
sometimes I win, sometimes you lose, but that's just the way you vote.
and of course, as far as this ensuring -- we've given them a lot.
one of the old traditional precincts that when this redistricting first got started in the county was 123.
of course, we no longer have that.
it was to basically ensure that the southern border of precinct 1, the relationship between Commissioner Gomez and I on the southern border is still intact, but not only that, but we gave up portion of 129 for the same southern boundary of tradition in a we have dealing with here for years.
this thing has been based on a lot of growth and a lot of mobility and a lot of upward mobility in the interest of ensuring that we can also have people of color that serve on this court.
now, I -- in fact, on that southern boundary, it may not be mentioned, but it appeared that 126, just a little small portion of 126 also goes to Commissioner Gomez.
and that little area right there just south of oak springs at springdale road to airport, to munson that, is 126.
so 126, 129 and 123 has gone to Commissioner Gomez to have a solid boundary line between our relationships.
and of course, we have all sacrificed.
and if you want to talk about sacrifice, I can go into a whole lot of things if you want to talk about sacrifice.
but we're not talking about that, per se, as far as the things I would like to say about sacrifice.
so I won't go there, not today.
but what I would like to see happen is that we come to closure of this as soon as possible because right now it is a ball of confusion with all of these maps out and we're -- what is this on this map?
we're getting calls here.
the line should be -- am I in this precinct?
am I not in this precinct?
as we go through this process.
so we need to bring this to closure as soon as possible.
and I understand that this map hasn't even been reviewed yet, but here it is before us today.
it hasn't even been reviewed, the latest one, 150.
>> I have a question.
>> hold on, please.
so it hasn't been reviewed yet.
and I understand that Commissioner Gomez is saying that she needs time to look at what's been exchange understand this map between her and Commissioner Huber.
and of course I heard Commissioner Eckhardt say she needs some time.
it appears that that's the direction it's going.
but I just want to throw that out as far as where we come from, where we're going and how we're going to get there.
and let's try to hopefully finally come up with a map to where folks can look at it and say -- and vote accordingly to what you feel is the right thing to do.
thank you.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt as haz a question.
>> I have a question.
all the maps that are out there are really pretty decent maps.
>> yes, they are.
>> and they're all kind of an evolution towards what I think is going to be a really good map.
but you've mentioned 126 and 129.
are those in play?
I thought the only voting box that you were in agreement about giving on your southern side was 123.
>> there were slivers there.
>> it's just a little bitty little stick there to make that southern line.
>> so 126 and 129 are not in play.
so it's 123 that you're giving to precinct four, right?
>> no, just portions of those others also.
>> so a slice off of 126 and 129.
>> 126 at the intersection of springdale road from ledesma to the 123 voting precinct line, that portion of 129 goes to precinct four.
>> that's about a thousand people?
>> I don't recall.
anyway, it's what it is.
but anyway, that's a portion of what we've given to -- but anyway, that is what -- where we are right now.
and of course, he had the -- consultant got the numbers if you need that, Commissioner.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt, did you get your question asked?
>> pretty much.
although it would be nice to know how many people that represents because it's actually a fairly small number of people with a fairly small voter age population.
and one thing I want to bring up, I totally hear you that 101 has 24% african-american.
absolutely.
that is an issue with cutting into 101.
and I don't consider that lightly.
nor did I consider it lightly moving box 200, which is 21 percent black, over to precinct 1.
box 216, which is 23% african-american over to precinct 1.
box 222, which is 21% african-american, over to precinct 1.
and box 224, which is 23% african-american, over to precinct 1.
those are Pflugerville boxes.
and while I dearly love representing Pflugerville, I recognize that those boxes and more absolutely must be moved into precinct 1 in order to keep and actually improve upon the african-american percentage in precinct 1.
I think that it's absolutely imperative that we make precinct 1 as rich in african-american voting age population as we can.
and that's the reason why I have not at all contested the moving of a -- an entire other municipality from my precinct into precinct 1.
and I'm only asking that we consider that for precinct four as well without any significant movement on precinct one's southern edge.
precinct four will not have the ability to take on any of the hispanic boxes that are in the southeast corner of precinct three.
>> many have mentioned closure.
where are we in terms of our deadline?
>> well, judge, the department of justice sometimes takes quite awhile, but there's -- but they are trying very hard to get these plans out.
now, less than half the counties in Texas have made submission at this point, so you're not behind the counties.
the large counties, I know harris county still hasn't submitted and nueces county has not commit schmidted.
I don't believe bexar county has submitted yet.
so that most of the large counties as I understand it have not yet submitted.
so you are not behind the rest of the counties.
I think there is plenty of time to get a plan approve before the close of the filing -- period of filing.
and that's what the state is looking at and that's what all the urban counties are looking at.
filing will remain open before you get preclearance, but that's true had we passed this the first day.
>> as our redistricting consultant, your best advice is for us to take final action on a map for submission by what date?
>> well, judge, I think that if you wanted to wait a week, I don't think that's a problem.
we have the submission package ready to go so that as soon as you adopt the plan and we make the appropriate adjustments and the submission package, we probably can make the submission the same day.
>> am I hearing August 23rd?
>> yes, sir, I would like to hear by August 23rd.
>> that's next Tuesday.
>> yes, sir.
>> now, we have multiple maps that we have considered, some older than others.
in my view what we ought to do is give directions to indicate an inclination today so that our consultants can put together a map that contains all of those decisions or recommendations from the court in another map unfortunately or it could be pieces of several maps that we have before us.
so my recommendation would be for us to concentrate on precinct boundary lines between four and one, one and two, two and three, and ultimately four and three.
based on what I have heard, the most problematic area would be the line between four and three.
so it seems to me that what we ought to do is come back with a clean representation of the various options that we have discussed.
and there are many of them.
but I thought we had reached consensus on the other lines, and consensus may not be unanimous, it may be three-two or four-one.
so anybody have a better idea?
>> I -- this is just a question about the current
>> okay.
>> there are certainly some distinct boxes that are in play.
but as you move the distinct boxes one way or the other, because of population parity distribution, you might have to call into question other boxes that were never in play, but are not controversial about moving around.
so for instance, as I played with the maps trying to get it under two percent deviation, there were some boxes that had long been settled to be in one place or another for which they didn't have any -- there were no political ramifications for moving them back and forth.
that if you move them, you get to population parity.
so I don't think -- I'm just wondering how we would deal with that.
>> well, I think that whatever we bring back, a motion can change it next week.
so as long as three people want to do something, it can be done.
if there are recommendations that pretty much all of us agree on, it ought to be pretty easy to make those.
>> it's just that if we go voting box by voting box, I don't think we can -- I fear we will end up with meat loaf rather than core donblue.
>> I was talking about lines that divide missioner's precincts.
you're talking about one, two, three, you're talking about four then.
>> but I'm saying that it needs to be -- it would be -- it would be better if we voted whole scenarios --
>> but in terms of putting a map together, we have seven maps already.
to vote the whole scenario would be basically a motion to approve all of them, which we can't do.
I don't know that we can pick any one of them and -- we could get a majority vote, but I don't know that we would achieve optimal satisfaction if we do that.
>> which base map would we work from?
>> no base map.
what I have in mind are the big decisions affecting the precinct lines based on our discussions to date.
also public input, plus what I've heard members of the court say.
I'm assuming, of course, that we leave the county lines as they are.
I'd have to invoke state law if I need to.
>> [ laughter ]
>> could we use 109 as the base map just so we can all make our comparisons against the same maps?
>> the problem with doing that is I don't know that we put to rest some of these key issues.
do you see what I'm saying?
I think that as to each precinct and the lines dividing precincts, there are big issues that we need to go ahead and give direction on today otherwise we'll end up discussing them at length next Tuesday also.
we advance the ball I think by putting to rest as many of these issues as possible, and where I'm leaning is if I'm ride then we have consensus on several major points, then if we go ahead and decide that and give those directions to the consultant, I think we've advanced the ball.
Commissioner Huber?
>> I just want to thank you because you've pointed out that probably the biggest challenges is the precinct four, precinct three line.
that is in -- there are lots of precincts there.
but because precinct four needs to grow, if -- depending upon how we look at that three-four line makes a difference between whether or not the one-four line is at play.
we can't just look at the three-four boundary lines and get consensus because depending upon what we might agree to there may make a difference in the hispanic population from a standpoint of what the boundary line between four and one make.
I don't think we can make independent decisions for a line because depending upon what those may be on the three-four line it may need that precinct two needs adjustment or precinct one needs adjustment.
it's challenging.
I don't know.
or maybe I don't follow what you're talking about completely.
>> there's no way for us to decide between three and four today.
but we can decide to ask the consultants to lay out the options in writing and we can give ourselves an opportunity to focus on that line a lot more.
it's hard to focus on that line when you've got three or four others in play.
and I do agree that where we draw these lines will impact probably other voting precincts.
there's no way to get around that.
but if we don't do something a bit more definitive today, we start next Tuesday's meeting the same place we started the meeting six weeks ago.
six weeks ago we had fewer maps than we had today.
and I thought I had a better understanding then than today.
there are multiple options.
not that any of them are bad, but all of them can't be perfect.
and in the end unfortunately we've got -- we have to cast votes.
Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> in the spirit of trying to move things forward, at least with the lines that pertain to me, I would like to adopt as a baseline for the purposes of our decision moving forward, if we could adopt the line between precinct 1 and precinct 2 as depict understand 136, the only difference between that and the Davis map is voting box 136 goes back into precinct one.
would that be all right just as a starting place for discussion?
>> I think we need to do as the judge advised, that's to -- if you want to make that as a motion next week, you can.
and I just think all these things that he's laid out, I think he's done a good job of laying out exactly what we need to do.
if that's the case, then we can all start making piecemeal pictures on what we want to start.
and I just think that if the court want to vote that, then they vote for it, but I just think if we end up piecemealing it as you're doing right here, something that you don't agree with, then of course there may be others that may want to do the same thing.
>> let me try this --
>> no, no, no.
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> listen to me.
I think the judge laid it out elegantly when he said that we can come back and you can bring it as part of your motion next week.
>> then let me try this.
how about the Huber map 150 line between precincts two and three as a baseline?
>> what's the difference between that and 109?
>> the difference is that there's I think three precincts that are up in the northeast corner of -- the northwest corner of precinct two that Commissioner Huber suggests move from precinct two to precinct three.
is that correct?
>> uh-huh.
>> but otherwise it is the same as map 109?
with regard to precinct two and three.
>> okay.
last week we had four precincts moves from three to two.
>> four precincts move from three to two.
yes.
and in map 209 it's actually -- 109 it's actually five precincts plus that little knot of three.
so it's --
>> so five precincts moving from three to two.
>> from three to two.
and three moving from two to three.
>> at least look at that as a baseline.
>> that's fine with me.
>> it makes me overpopulated, so I will not vote for a map that ultimately has my overpopulated, but I think for the basis of discussion it's certainly not a problem for me politically to absorb all of boxes, but it is a problem for me from a deviation standpoint.
>> if there's agreement to accept from three five voting precincts instead of four, that's fine with me.
so if your motion is to do that, plus the other changes set forth in 109 --
>> the other changes set forth in 150.
so essentially I'm accepting the 150 line saying that from a political standpoint I have no problem absorbing those boxes from precinct three; however, I have a problem with it from a deviation standpoint.
I do not believe that if I absorb all of those boxes, we will be under a two percent deviation for each one of the precincts.
>> so how close -- this is 150 between three and two?
>> yes.
>> how close is that to 109?
I think I understand the five polling precincts, but the other changes that 150 can change --
>> are not in 109.
>> 109 is the same with the exception of three boxes.
and those three boxes, Commissioner Huber, will probably be able to tell us better.
>> (indiscernible).
>> but it's otherwise the same as 109 with the inclusion of those three boxes.
>> so generally speaking, those changes will do what to three and what to two?
>> it will be one, two, three, four, five boxes I will be taking from three and three boxes that precinct three will be taking from two.
>> okay.
I understand the five boxes from three to two.
but the boxes that go from two to three between two and three there's -- y'all agree on that?
>> from a political standpoint, yes.
from a population deviation standpoint, no.
>> but in term of the map for next week, yes or no?
>> in terms of the map for next week, yes.
>> I second that motion.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber, yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis against.
>> no, I was voting in favor.
>> all right.
a very slow yes from Commissioner Davis.
>> yes.
that's between those two.
>> the line between four and one.
my motion is to direct that we leave 106 and 101 in precinct 1.
that we transfer 123 and parts of, I'm told, what, the slivers in 126 and 129 as depicted now in 109.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion on that motion?
Commissioner Huber.
>> if 101 stays in precinct 1, that is significantly going to affect the balance of the population change between three and four, which then dominoes on what we've just agreed to on three and two.
>> any more discussion?
>> yes, sir.
>> on the motion?
Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> 101 or in the alternative, 106, is an absolute lynch pin to population parity.
if 101 or 106 do not move into precinct four, I do not see any way to get below two percent population deviation.
nor do I see it to do it in a way that keeps the hispanic percentage at intiks% or higher in pe precinct four.
56%.
the reason why that is a problem for me and I can't vote for a map that doesn't move one or the other of that precinct in some portion is because we have an hispanic population that has grown by 30% in the last 10 years.
I don't see how we can leave precinct four the last populated of our four precincts.
I see how we can do it legally, but frankly that's the lowest common denominator and we're Travis County.
we're supposed to be setting the bar.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against, show Commissioners Eckhardt and Commissioner Huber.
as to the line between one and two, I move that we direct the consultants to put a map that shows Pflugerville going to precinct one, northeast metro park staying in precinct two and the other changes that are reflected in map 109.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion?
>> a discussion on that matter is that with regard to population parity again there are some boxes that are non-controversial between Commissioner Davis and I that could rebalance under population disparity.
boxes 160, 160 are possibilities.
box 136 is a possibility.
I moved 136 back over to precinct 1 in map 136 in order to maintain a population parity.
it's a very rich box in voters.
a plum for either one of us, but it's a plum that he currently holds and therefore he moved it back in his precinct.
that is the only change between 136 and Commissioner Davis' proposed map.
additionally northeast metro park -- I hate to say this, but I feel like I need to say it.
I dearly want to hold on to northeast metro park, but I do concede, as I have conceded before, it is an emotional desire to hold on to it.
if that is what it takes to get movement on the southern line of precinct 1, I will give northeast metro park to precinct 1.
if that is what it takes.
I hate to say that.
I would hate to do that, but I think my emotional desire to hold on to northeast metro is not nearly as compelling as my desire to see a population parity that will make, frankly, the majority minority constituency as powerful as it can be over the next 10 years.
>> and map 109, she does retain, Commissioner Eckhardt, does retain northeast metro park.
I second that motion, judge.
>> how many seconds do we have, miss porter?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> could you restate the motion, please?
>> the motion really is 109 would be the line between two and one.
what that would do is give Pflugerville to one, leave northeast metro park in two, and the other changes along I guess i-35 that 109 reflects.
I thought that was consensus pretty much up until a moment ago.
>> well, and I can vote for this motion if we can amend it slightly to say that line, while entertaining northeast metro and 136 moving into precinct 1 for population parity.
>> okay.
is that what we do in 109?
>> no.
that's what is different from 109.
I'm fine with tent 9 line for purposes of discussion and your motion as long as the motion says that is the line recognizing that northeast metro park and 136 are the two areas in play for population parity.
>> I think our lawyers will tell us that if you and Commissioner Davis will were to get together and discuss that between now and next Tuesday, that would be legal.
>> is that true?
>> discuss that.
>> I would have to think about that for a second.
>> I think our lawyers will think about that and give us good advice on it later.
>> [ laughter ] the judge's recommendation would be if y'all can chat, if do you that, come back next week with some indication of that or make a motion.
what I'm trying to do is just give the consultants specific things to work on between now and next week.
I'm trying to free them up too, to spend a bit more time working on the options that separate three and four so that we can see them, whether that's two options or -- there will probably are five or six.
but that would help me.
if we could have the numbers of the polling precincts there plus population, ethnic breakdown for each option and population parity is important too.
the other thing is whatever we end up with is we ought to look at population parity and get the deviation down as low as possible.
my goal has never been two percent.
my goal the first day was zero.
second day it was under 10 as the law sets as a maximum.
so we do the best that we can do.
and ultimately I don't know that anybody of us either one of us, any of us would be completely satisfied.
but I think that we ought to achieve as much satisfaction collectively as possible.
>> judge, we can talk until next year.
I'm not going to agree to that.
and it's a motion been made.
I seconded it to leave 136 in both the precinct two.
>> the motion is whatever is reflected in the map.
>> 209.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] but I do think that if in fact the way we're heeded, each of us will be able to spend a lot more time looking at 3 and 4 between now and next week.
>> I have a problem here and that is by default on the votes we've taken before the population exchange between 3 and 4 is going to significantly cut into my base in the southern part my precinct.
it leaves me in this process which is a problem I've had in the get go in working with the consultant because they've never taken into consideration the dynamics of that part of the precinct for me.
and I have a problem with three votes that put it down to a line for 3 and 4 to make the decision for the whole group.
that leaves no choices except that area to solve the problems.
>> we've problem solved any others.
it's just that the problems in the others are a whole lot less problematic than between 3 and 4.
>> if we can't come up with a configuration, if we can't come up with a configuration between 3 and 4 that works for the precinct 3 Commissioner and all of the other numbers which I want everybody to be -- have their needs satisfied, then it means that I lose.
because we've already said these other three lines are in place.
>> it's not just about the line between 3 and 4.
it's also about the line between 1 and 2.
the line between 1 and 2 is the lynchpin to the line between 3 and 4.
the only reason why I'm leaving wiggle room on the line between -- between 1 and -- I'm sorry, scratch that.
it's the line between 3 and 4 and the line between 1 and 4.
there's really very -- there's little to no controversy the line between 1 and 2.
the only reason why we wiggle roomed there is to give breathing space to make compromise on the line between 1 and 4 and the line between 3 and 4.
there's really, you know, I'm set, I really don't have anything to argue about as far as my precinct.
it's really about those two lines.
>> what two lines?
>> between 1 and 4 and between 3 and 4.
if there's no significant change with the exception of that one precinct, that one box, 126, then very little can change on the line between 3 and 4.
>> well, a whole lot can change there.
I mean I think what we need to do next week is come in fully informed as to all of the options and discuss them as long as we choose to.
but ultimately we have to make a decision and that will come down to a vote.
now, the motion before us is the line between 1 and 2 as set forth in map 109.
any more discussion on that motion?
>> this is just our base map from which to work.
it's not -- we're not setting our vote in stone.
correct?
>> not set in stone because what I hope we're doing is giving consultants direction to put together a map that we plan to start from next week, but what I'm saying that map will simply have options set forth in 4 and 3 if you follow the Biscoe strategy.
but if somebody has a better one, Biscoe will withdraw his.
>> no, I will vote for this, but I just want to say that based on if this vote goes, is approved based on the previous vote that was just had, by pure math it will leave precinct 3 overpopulated and will leave precinct 4 underpopulated.
we will have to change the two lines that we -- the line we just voted on and the line we're discussing voting on right now in order to achieve population parity.
>> I don't know that we will have to do that.
>> in order to achieve population parity.
>> well, but population parity has different definitions.
I'm thinking of within terms of 10% of deviation.
>> I'm thinking 2%.
>> the last time I thought that was interest on a bank account.
any more discussion on the motion?
>> judge, I just want to say one other thing you are asking about whether Commissioners can discuss their boundary lines and the answer is no based on your discussions just now because the fact of the matter is any change in a boundary line is going to affect other boundary lines which is going to require discussions with a third Commissioner.
>> then you reduce to writing whatever your ideas are, share those with the court and make sure you put at the bottom of the memo do not respond.
how is that, mr. Bradford?
>> it's deliberations.
>> yeah, any -- any sharing of information falls under the definition of deliberations under the open meetings act.
>> you and your colleagues agree on that?
not necessarily the one that you left, but --
>> I -- I don't know, but I would imagine that I have a high -- that most people have a high regard of my interpretation of the open meetings act because of my previous time to attorney general's opinion committee.
>> the problem I'm having is it doesn't make sense for us to come into court next Tuesday and each of us hand out a list of recommendations.
my thing is if you have a list, put it together before then and get it to the rest of the court, just as backup for the item.
what's the difference between that and backup for the item?
you don't have to answer that right now.
we have a motion before us.
is there any more discussion of that motion?
that's the dividing line between 1 and 2 as set forth in map 109.
all in favor of that?
show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Eckhardt, yours truly voting in favor.
voting against show Commissioner Huber.
as to the line between 3 and 4, we had how many options, do you think?
>> four.
map 100, map 150, map 109 and map 136.
they are all different.
>> but I thought we were going to look at 109 as the base.
>> I think that as to 3 and 4 rather than trying to get specific directions today, we ought to ask for a depiction of the -- there are four options, the four options.
and show how each of them would impact 3 and 4.
population parity, ethnic makeup.
>> you can't determine --
>> any other relevant facts.
>> you can't do that without looking at the other two.
>> the 150 line makes no sense between 3 and 4 unless you look at 1 and 4.
>> my motion basically is put together all the options as to 3 and 4 with relevant information.
>> but I ask the consultants can you put together that relevant information without -- well, I suppose you could use the votes that we just took with regard to the line.
we just created another map.
>> they have complete latitude as long as we see that in writing before next Tuesday, in my view, and it comes from the consultants.
>> we need it before Friday because we have to have a chance to look at it.
we gave our information to the consultant on Friday and we only got maps and information right -- literally right before court yesterday.
>> would 5:00 Thursday give you enough time?
>> yes, judge.
>> that would give us Friday and the weekend.
>> is this the only map layout that y'all are able to provide?
this is illegal I believe.
>> is that 150?
>> uh-huh.
no, I'm talking about -- well, at the smaller size where we want to look at it and review it, you cannot see the voting precincts and you cannot read the voting precincts in the areas that we need to look at the most.
if you need to generate it by quadrants so it's larger, we just need to be able to read where we're looking at that's so critical.
this kind of map is useless.
>> let me ask this.
in view of the level of agony and the county judge's appreciation of the gravity of this situation, does the court believe that we ought to try to schedule a work session untelevised Monday afternoon?
>> absolutely.
>> and where we look at the master map and whatever those options are as to 3 and 4.
give us an opportunity to mull over it, discuss it, do whatever we wish Monday afternoon.
at least that will give us overnight and when we come in Tuesday maybe be better prepared to discuss it.
now, it strikes me that we had public hearings on maps that were not available then but are available now.
so the question is whether we want to schedule on Tuesday at 9:00 a public hearing on redistricting for those that want to come in and see where we are.
>> I think we should.
>> now, the problem is that what we share with those who ask for it would be what we get Thursday at 5:00.
but we can certainly make that available.
and what it would do as to 3 and 4 would be the options, but it would also contain any other information that the consultants think we should consider.
>> I think that's a good --
>> is that all right?
if there is not objection, we'll schedule a work session on Monday afternoon at 1:30.
>> won't Friday be best?
Friday afternoon?
>> well, I'm not sure we would have an opportunity to really think through what we get.
see what I'm saying?
so if we get from the consultants the fruit of our work today, we'll only have pretty much overnight to look at it.
I was trying to give us pretty much Friday and the weekend.
but as the person whose area will not be impacted by this, I could be available Friday.
which is better, Friday or Monday?
>> I can be here Friday.
>> I can do either one.
>> Commissioner Davis?
now, is Friday enough time for consultants?
>> yes, judge, and I can try and get these options together by Wednesday.
maybe that will help.
>> is Friday what you are talking about, judge?
>> yes, sir, looks like Friday at 1:30.
it could take an hour, it could take much, much longer.
but basically we will commit to commence at 1:30 and take whatever time is necessary to get it done.
how's that?
>> sure.
>> see how easy that was?
now, some residents have come down to give testimony today.
>> judge, there was another issue though that I think that the -- this is it for maps.
>> okay.
>> and I think we need to all agree this is it and so we can go back and I think we said we were going to look at 109 as the base to start for these recommendations.
>> no, no, the votes --al the votes we just took were about creating another map.
>> well, I know, but it's still a summary of all these others.
but that means we still have just one map to look at for the public hearing.
and then too, to be able to hand out that map to the public so that when they want to make comment, they will have the map that we're all looking at and not, you know, all these other maps.
but I think to now just work on that summary based on these others for the public hearing and the work session.
>> but what we just voted on will produce five maps.
it will produce one that has the votes with regard to the line between 1 and 2, 2 and 3.
and 1 and 4.
and then there will be four additional maps that are four options with regard to the line between 3 and 4.
that is what we just voted.
>> but the other votes we've taken sounds like quadrant maps.
>> we haven't voted on that one yet.
>> the last one was the option -- I asked if there were four, three, fourer five, six, but if we set the options out as to line between 3 and 4 is the essence of that recommendation.
did I put it in the form of motion?
>> yes.
>> was there a second?
>> no.
>> is there a second?
secretaried by Commissioner Gomez.
-- seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion of that.
all in favor.
show Commissioners Davis and Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
against Commissioner Eckhardt and Huber.
so I think my position would be that any recommendation different than the motion we took today would be fine to bring forth with a short explanation and a motion.
and then we decide whether a majority of the court wants to discuss it or not.
my thinking is somebody may come up with the best idea in the world between now and Tuesday.
if so, we want to give ourselves a fair opportunity to consider those ideas.
with that idea.
>> may I ask just as a point of direction to the consultants, if we could fill out the remainder of the cells on this spread sheet with regard to the presidential race and the governor's race.
>> you should have an updated version.
>> great, great, never mind.
all done.
because we won't be able to get that -- that statistical analysis on the fly.
we'll have to extrapolate from this.
because I don't think you all will be able to have that analysis by Wednesday on this new map or on the four permutations as it pertains to the new base map.
so we'll have to extrapolate, so -- I'm good now that I know that this is done, but I just want to manage expectations here.
do you think you can provide for us in the moment the presidential and the governor's race breakdown or permutations we come up with at the work session?
>> I can do that, Commissioner.
>> you can?
>> yes.
>> I know that's hard and so I just wanted to manage expectations.
>> I would request another one as well because the gubernatorial race has some unusual dynamics in Travis County.
>> you would like to see --
>> I would like to see a third comparison from a voting year in addition to the presidential --
>> do you have a suggestion about that, Commissioner?
>> I was using the cune/goodwin race.
if that one is --
>> 2010.
>> want the consultants to pull the other races and see what's interesting and bring that back?
or if you have a more specific recommendation between now and when?
tomorrow at noon?
let the consultant know.
if you can get it to us by 5:00 Wednesday, fine.
others as soon as possible.
we will post a work session -- if we get it posted by 1:30.
>> today we can.
>> we can have it 1:30 Friday.
>> judge, if I may, I'll be glad to send Commissioner Huber a breakdown on those two elections, all of the statewide candidates for those two elections, and if you want to choose which ones you want in the summary, we'll be glad to put those in.
>> okay.
>> I didn't quite follow you.
I just have a problem with the white/perry campaign because I think that's not a usual voting percentage capacity in Travis County.
given the nature of the issues around that.
>> what I'm saying is I'll be glad to send you a list of all of the -- all of the numbers that I can pull in the short period of time and you can decide if you want any one or however many of those you want.
in addition to these two.
>> I just felt like -- that would be fine.
we just need more comparisons besides just two.
I have a summary of where we have, judge.
so we need to -- in addition to the four votes that we just took, you then said that if anybody came up with another map based upon what the consultants may be working on but with a little tweak, I didn't quite follow you on that.
the court may or may not be willing to look at that.
>> I think if you bring it to the meeting and the majority of us wants to consider it, then we do.
>> okay.
>> however, speaking personally, I don't know that my brain can take another map.
other than the one that shows these decisions today.
>> it will have to though because
>> [inaudible] we made today are not going to be the map.
that was the discussion, right?
these are iterations.
>> these are throwing out old maps that didn't work and bringing in new maps that work better.
that's been the process all along.
>> but if my counting is accurate, and I was always good up to ten, a majority of the court wants to do something similar to what we have decided today.
and that's consistent with the other discussions we've had in this courtroom over the last month and a half, two months also.
>> that's a good point.
that may be a fight simply not worth fighting.
>> I didn't say that.
you just can't win all of them.
now, if you are here to give comments and you have a position contrary to what we have just decided, then you should come forth at this time.
give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
if you agree with what we've done, just send us an email patting us on the back.
I say it that way because we have spent about an hour and a half, hour and 20 minutes on it so far but I think we ought to be fair to those who have come down.
if you do not agree with actions we've just taken, please come forth, give us your name and let us know.
and we will need a couple of those chairs probably.
if we could -- I think we've seen this map 136 -- 8 -- 136.
did we just move it to the side so somebody can sit right there.
one person has come forth.
anybody else?
yes, sir, reverend.
>> yes, sir.
thank you, judge.
I'm a 60-year-old african-american.
I've seen -- I've seen and I've been a part of a lot of unfair things that have been done to the african-americans.
and what I'm saying is someone anonymously sent me a count nationwide how -- you know, as a servant of god, I love everybody.
I want to see everybody treated right.
but as I said before, we are a sovereign nation.
I keep hearing this one time we're talking about count, the next time we're talking about voting rights.
I keep hearing all these contradictive things that have been thrown into this thing.
we're a sovereign nation, we have a constitution.
and to try to stay civil according to our constitution, things shouldn't just be done sporadically and barbaricly.
someone sent me a map and they showed a great explosion in the latino population.
and anybody in their -- with a rationale mind know that a lot of the latino -- where I live, right now I live in precinct 4.
I have homestead in precinct 1 which I'm moving back to precinct 1.
but I called the police out there a lot for different things, and I had a and grow officer tell me one time, he said, mr. Lewis, everybody live around you are illegal.
a white officer told me that.
he said -- I love in dove springs.
he said the majority of people live in dove springs are undocumented people.
and what I'm saying is if we are going to talk about these fair counts and these different precincts and things, we know -- we know these numbers are not fair.
we know they are not fair.
and I'm trying to hold on to what's right.
and I think 106 as a whole as well as 101 as a whole need to stay in precinct 1 because the right count that I really believe in my soul, the right count and those two precincts and precinct 1 has a great population of african-americans.
to be represented in both precincts.
and that's what I want to say.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> reverend lewis, let me say for the record though every single map that is in play, every single map that's been proposed actually increases the concentration of african-americans in precinct 1.
increases the percentage.
every single map.
>> but you know what?
I know -- I know del valle has a great population of african-americans, just like Commissioner Davis said.
Austin colony has a great number of african-americans.
I'm from that area.
I know that area like I know the back and front of my hand.
I hear what you are saying, Commissioner Eckhardt, but no, ma'am, I cannot -- in the fairness in my mind agree to what you are saying because -- and I also heard this thing blown out awhile ago political.
that's what this is really all about.
it's about politics.
Texas -- Texas -- Texas, it's hard for a democrat to win in Texas anymore.
because these boundary lines been snaked all kinds of ways to make sure that the republicans dominate Texas.
that's why I talk about the dragons in the closet.
we don't want to talk about true.
when I say we, I'm talking the ones -- we are not talking about me.
I'm talking about the ones who are trying to dominate.
>> thank you, reverend.
thank you.
>> anybody else?
>>
>> [inaudible] and my grandmother and grandfather bought property at sprinkle back in 1946.
and out in that community there weren't a lot of black people, but they all were homeowners.
>> speak into the mic.
>> and during redistricting --
>> speak into the microphone.
>> I'm sorry.
in the redistricting out there this house that had been the barr mansion was moved.
we were in bastrop county.
when we left, we came back, a house had been moved from sprinkle, old cameron road, over to the sprinkle cutoff.
it was now in not manor where we paid taxes for so many years, but it was in Austin-Travis County.
they took over our water well.
it became the blue goose utility company.
they took over our tank, which was a swimming tank.
filled it with all kinds of debris, old cars, all kinds of old trucks.
some had Travis County on there.
they had an old -- it was an old bus that used to carry prisoners back and forth to jail.
they had it out there.
they literally, I stood -- I stood here.
they changed it around because in moving it some of it by being an old house some of this fell off.
but it's still a beautiful place.
but this was my room down here.
and I stood and I watched through the trees here, guys running around in white hooded robes as they burned the buildings.
they burned them down.
my grandmother came from downstairs upstairs and even though I was a child I had the presence of mind to put my finger to my lips and say be quiet, don't say anything.
so now they are taking this house, they've completing redone it, they've set it over on the Austin-Travis County side, they burned down outline of the houses.
when my family would build more houses on there, they would go out and burn them down.
as a matter of fact, we had a relative who was -- had done six weeks in the military and boot camp.
he went home from boot camp, he was in there sleeping one night and they burned that house done.
>> [indiscernible] so I'm saying that to tell you that I agree with you all to an extent, but there are a lot of hispanics and there are a lot of black people down river road that you wouldn't even believe anybody lived down.
and the ku klux klan I do know because I know who was responsible for burning down our houses, the ku klux klan, the titans, the Texas knights of the ku klux klan, they would go down this those areas, target those black people after separating them because that's what they are going to do, they are going to separate them from their own people or those that might be in positions to help them.
that is my concern.
my concern is of those people, black, hispanics, they are not going to bother the whites, but it will be the hispanic community.
I drive around a lot.
I see a lot of things.
and I know that a lot of those roads as well as black people and they are homeowners and it saddens me to know that they might have to go through what I had to go through as a child.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else?
now, there is the issue of the proposal from the precinct 2 constable.
and the constable is here today.
>> good afternoon -- or good morning.
I've got nothing else to add other than what was presented in the workshop.
>> then we had the map that went along with that.
>> judge, excuse me.
just because I knew we were going to be focusing on the Commissioners court maps, I did not bring down our big wall map of the proposed for the jp and constable maps.
>> just generally tell us what it would do.
>> generally it would move four precincts that are currently in jp precinct -- jp and constable precinct 2 into precinct 5 and replace those with four others from precinct 5 into jp constable precinct 2.
>> overall population is impacted how?
>> population would go up I think -- I think by 3,000.
but, again, just four boxes for four boxes.
taking up the boxes around -- around the office which is currently precinct 2 office.
>> okay.
and you and the precinct 5 constable basically agreed on that.
>> yes.
>> questions, court members?
>> no, but I have a motion for us to approve those moves.
>> this is not 117?
>> yes.
>> ge 117.
>> ge 117.
I second that motion.
>> motion to approve by Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> as the Commissioner with the greatest overlap on the precinct 2 constables and jp boundaries, they are not contiguous.
my precinct is different, but I have the largest overlap.
there is a significant issue with the distribution of workload among the constables and the precincts -- constables and the jps as the precincts are currently configured, but there is also a significant difference in the work each constable chooses to do.
and so I think that is something worthy of us looking at on a countywide basis.
I don't believe we're fully cooked on this.
we don't have the same kind of time constraints on this kind of redistricting on jps and constables that we do with our own seats.
I think that we should take a closer look and more comprehensive look with regard to the workload and the work mix of the various constables and jps rather than piecemealing it.
>> okay.
yes.
your name, please.
>> rosemary edwards, in between 2 and it seems to me from the discussion this morning that this court has lots of things that are undecided that you have to decide that are statutorily required of the court because of the redistricting.
I'm surprised you would want to take on another issue that is fraught with some I think voting rights issues and certainly with the load of the court with jp 2 bringing in about 43% of the entire income in the county, that it would certainly overload this already rather stressed district and certainly the constable's office is not in any way constrained from doing the community outreach that he's spoken about in this court.
it is certainly and Commissioner Gomez affirmed that that you cross boundary lines and do things in a way that does present the constables' relationships in the best ways with other parts of the community.
so he's not restrained and continuing to do the things he's done very well in those four areas or four precincts that are right near the jp court.
I would strongly support what Commissioner Eckhardt is saying.
this jp court is really overstressed now and probably with have to come to this court asking for additional staff and additional resources if this decision were made.
>> as I said last time, it's not going to be significant and I believe strongly that numbers will go down.
as I stated this was more proactive and reactive.
being proactive would alleviate a lot of problems. But being out there also, we talked about the numbers, the numbers are there.
if you look at precinct 1, they have a real heavy workload and that's just precinct 1 and they have less manpower.
we're the ones doing the evictions, moving people out.
by them -- by the people especially those boxes around the office which makes it more efficient because the office is located right there.
it just makes it better overall for everybody and especially for the ones who at one time used to be able to come to that courthouse and that's what they want.
they want to reach out.
they want to be able to come back to that courthouse.
we're right there and we're right in their backyard and that's what they are asking for.
everything else that we do when we talk about in reference to community outreach, just the impressions of being there, but being that we're so close, it just comes -- it's just like a -- it's just right there.
we need to be there.
that courthouse needs to be for the people who are right there.
and that's the whole reason behind all this.
there's people there that are asking for assistance, not just from the constables but also from the judge at the courthouse itself, the presence of the courthouse being where it's located at.
>> remind me how close the -- these precincts are to the courthouse.
>> actually rutland, metric, breaker, those used to be in precinct 2 and they are walking distance, they are right there.
if you look at the map and you zoom in its walking distance.
it's -- it's -- like I said earlier, I made the comment it's not a rock throw, it's a rock toss.
it's just that that courthouse is taken away from the people there.
>> we have the same issue with the precinct 3 office though.
the precinct 3 office also is set at the eastern edge of precinct 3 so there are many people in precinct 4 who live much closer to the precinct 3 office than they do to their precinct 4 office.
I think this is something that we need to look at from a efficiency standpoint definitely, but it's not just an issue for precinct 2.
>> yeah, I can't speak for the Commissioners, but in reference to the constables and the jp, there's been agreement, it's been that way before and we're just trying to get it back to what it used to be for the people who reside there.
and the numbers are there.
they speak for themselves.
I brought them up last time.
there's nothing to height.
we have activity reports.
these are done monthly.
and simply by looking at it, you can see that the numbers aren't going to be that significant.
and again, like I said, we're the ones, the constables office are the ones who will be out there and we're not asking for any more help, not asking for any more bodies and it's a lot more efficient, especially fuel efficient, to have us there.
>> how much additional work is it for the consultant if we approve this request?
>> well, the maps have already been drawn and the -- you know, demographic data has already been assembled for this.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
>> I would like to add one thing.
the two people that came in this morning and were actually speaking on behalf of their fellow constituents in jp 2, no one seems to be mentioning that the inconvenience that they will have in having to come down to downtown for jp 5 for that I of their issues.
and it just seems like the constituents in those four precincts, their voting strength, they are largely hispanic, their voting strength would be diluted if they were going into jp 2.
so I think that needs to be considered too.
>> the solution actually where the population is higher, there's more hispanic population in precinct 2 than there is in precinct 5.
also you made reference to, having to -- we don't have the wall map, but they are having trouble almost the same distance to go to precinct 2 as precinct 5.
of course, we don't have the wall map, but if you can see those voting distance, that's one of the reasons they are not going further as to now precinct 2.
in comparison if you see the boxes around precinct 2, we're surrounded by precinct 5.
we're kind of in a peninsula.
so it's -- it is just a lot easier for them to come to precinct 2's office than it would be, and really there's not that much difference.
around the block to go to precinct 5 because of the distance.
it's the same distance, about from here going this way from here to go this way.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioner Gomez, Davis, yours truly voting in favor.
voting against Commissioner Huber and Eckhardt.
thank you all very much.
>> thank you, judge.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
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.
