Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 1
Item number 1 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding redistricting plans for the following Travis County precincts: a, county Commissioners, and b, elections.
move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
mr. Eckstein.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, members of the court.
the court has been working throughout the summer on trying to create redistricting plans for the Commissioners court precincts.
last Friday the court held a work session at which it reviewed the map that the court had asked the consultants to draw last week and also heard a presentation about another map.
I think a lot of questions and conversation went back and forth at that work session, and judge, you indicated your intention to accept motion at this point today.
we do have the redistricting consultants in case there are any questions the court has at this point.
>> this will come after item 37.
>> that's correct.
>> do we have the statistical data for the most recent map?
>> yes, we do, and that was -- I think we have a copy of that here and we also have, I think, just the -- I can go upstairs and make a copy of that date.
>> that's the 168 at the bottom.
>> I'm sorry, that's 168 at the bottom.
>> sorry about that.
my mistake.
and I believe that that data was also isn't to you in electronic format last night.
>> and do we have the aggregate disparity?
>> if you look at the -- what is the third column of the chart, you will see -- I'm sorry, the fourth column of the chart, you will see what the deviation from the ideal is for each of the four precincts under any of the plans that the court has been reviewing.
and under plan 168 you will see that the precinct 1 has a 1.9% -- deaf it's a from the norm 1.9% down.
precinct 2 is over the norm 4.5%.
precinct 3, 1.5% over the norm.
and precinct 4 is 4.1% under the norm.
>> and do we know what the aggregate variances?
>> the aggregate variance therefore would be 8.6%.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> did we ever get any numbers on the kuhn goodwin percentages?
we had asked for those last week as well as Friday.
>> Commissioner, I wasn't able to do that study.
that's not part of our election package that we put together.
I did look at the numbers and I think I told you last week that that looks like a down ballot, like the other down ballot elections, and it is around 42 or 43% democratic in Commissioners precinct 3.
>> all of these are down ballot so we've got presidential race and governor race numbers.
my problem is we're not comparing apples to apples when we're looking at the percentages.
>> is there any other response?
>> no other response, judge.
>> for those who are not as familiar with 168 as others, can you just tell us generally what 168 does.
now, it does the same thing for the line between 1 and 4, 2 and 1, 3 and 2, right?
>> that's correct, judge.
>> okay.
and so between 3 and 4, what does 168 do?
>> between 3 and 4, 168 -- this is mr. Stanley's map.
168 moves the southern part of downtown into Commissioners precinct 3.
and it moves voting precinct 4 60 into precinct 3.
half of 12 and so on, judge.
it is very similar to in population and in political effect very similar to all the other plans.
>> okay, so in terms of population?
>> in terms of population, there's about an 8% deviation, which I think is easily defendable in this particular situation.
>> okay, that's overall that 8.6.
>> that's correct.
>> but in terms of population of 3 and 4.
>> population of 3 and 4, let me make sure I'm right on this.
population of 3 and 4, 3 is 259,886.
4 is 245,573.
now, it's not uncommon to underpopulate the minority precincts and here we've done that in both cases.
and we can -- if we do that, we can increase the percentage point a little bit by underpopulating the minority precincts.
>> why is it not uncommon to underpopulate the minority precincts?
is that because they by definition are minorities in the county?
>> well, if -- whatever we can remove that is not minority from a Commissioner precinct or from a district increases the minority percentage.
and at least up until this session of the legislature, there's been a policy in the state to slightly underpopulate the minority population to account for the undercount in the census.
and we've never had a problem with that either in litigation or in -- in -- before the department of justice.
>> but in a circumstance where actually the minority population is the majority in a county and one could appropriately populate and still increase your minority concentration in the precinct, what is our defense to underpopulating?
>> well, we come back, Commissioner, to the almost unprecedented situation where we have a precinct that is two-thirds -- more than two-thirds hispanic and 23% black.
and it exceeds the percentage in both the black precinct and the hispanic precinct.
and so the question is do we slightly decrease the black numbers, which are the lowest, or do we slightly decrease the -- and I'm talking now about tenth of a percent.
or do we slightly decrease the hispanic numbers.
and -- I'm carolina of kind of n that.
>> it's a math question.
>> it's about math question but it obviously has political impact.
>> go ahead.
>> building off that question, given all other things meeting requirements, if you are looking at underpopulating a precinct per this discussion, that you are also looking at a precinct that is almost half of Travis County in precinct 3 and your overpopulating it compared to the adjacent precinct by 14,000.
and it continues to be one of the fastest growing precincts.
is there any consideration that is taken along those lines?
>> well, your Commissioner's precinct is geographically the largest one in the county, no question about that.
and your precinct is growing in population.
but the hispanic population in the city is -- or the county, I should say, is growing faster than any other population.
so that if the choice is going to be between Commissioner's precinct 4 and Commissioner's precinct 3, I think the department of justice would rather have us be taking care of Commissioner's precinct 4 rather than Commissioner's precinct 3.
now, if the question you are asking is are there other ways to do it, there are obviously other ways to do it.
and if you took -- if you took more into consideration the politics of the plan, yes, there are even more ways to do it.
but this -- this particular way, as all the other plans, I would judge to comply with the voting rights act and comply with the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution and the statutes that have been enforced to on -- or have been passed to enforce the 14th and 15th amendment.
>> as are all the plans that are presented do meet those requirements.
>> yes, I believe they all do.
this is one of the first times I've been in a situation where I thought all the plans were legal.
>> so if all plans are legal, then why would we also not take into consideration fair, balanced representation geographically and numerically when you are talking about a fast growing precinct?
>> well, I can't put myself in your position, obviously, but there are many other decisions beyond geographic that I know that elected officials usually take into consideration.
and that's all prepare.
>> anything else?
let me ask a couple of more specific questions here.
so what is the estimated partisan percentage of 4 and 3 under 168?
>> I need my glasses, judge.
in 4 and 3 in 168, 4 in the presidential race was 75.9% for president obama, and 3 was 52.58% for president obama.
but I think as the Commissioner is correct in pointing out, down ballot the republicans won by slight margins in the presidential election.
in the -- excuse me, in the -- the 2008 election for governor -- excuse me, 2010 election for governor, I should say, was 75.9% for -- for -- excuse me.
yeah, 73.18% for Commissioner -- for governor -- for -- it was 73.8% for white in 4 and 48.69% for perry in 4.
and perry got 47 -- excuse me, in 3, I should say.
perry got 47.7% of the votes in 3 and perry got 23.7% of the votes in 4.
>> okay, that was -- those past elections.
>> those are the past two elections.
>> so in 168 do we improve the partisan percentage for precinct 3?
>> well, in terms of the partisan percentage that was in existence that you held the last election under --
>> in 168 do we --
>> I'm sorry.
go ahead.
>> do we improve the partisan percentage for precinct 3?
>> yes, you do.
if you compare it to the -- to the current plan.
>> okay.
current 168.
>> no, the current plan, the plan that you were elected -- that the Commissioners were elected under, judge.
>> I was trying to get more information about the impact of 168.
>> sure, and I was going to compare it to the current plan.
>> then let me let you do that.
>> obama, president obama received 50.3% of the votes in precinct 3, and under this proposal, he would have received 52.3% of the votes.
so it increases it by -- by two percentage points.
and perry received 47.7% of the votes under the current plan, and under this proposed plan, he would receive 47.7% of the votes.
so it's virtually the same as far as the governor's election, and it's a little bit higher in terms of -- actually two percentage points is a lot higher in terms of the presidential election.
now, down ballot you have the same -- you have the same differential except down ballot the republican candidates win and the democratic candidates lose.
though by not much.
>> so when you say down ballot, are we talking about all of the elections after the state, state representative, state senator, governor, president, everything under that?
>> no, judge, when I talk about down ballot, I'm referring to the elections for the state supreme court and for the railroad commission.
elections in which people probably don't know the names of the candidates and elections in which -- which are just impulse voting for democrats and republicans.
>> and you have put the Commissioners court, the August Commissioners court in that category.
>> no, I don't, judge, and I think that's a point to be made is that the down -- most of the down ballot candidates, the candidates for land Commissioner and so don't have a relationship between the constituents that a Commissioner would have.
and so I think a Commissioner probably would -- would get more significantly more votes than the down ballot statewide -- I think the down ballot statewide is the floor.
>> okay.
in 168 we leave shady hollow in 3.
>> that's correct, judge.
>> do we split 437?
part of that in 3 and part in 4?
>> I didn't, we do, judge.
>> and 437 is travis heights.
>> along the barton springs road?
>> yes, along barton springs.
>> okay.
>> and 437 is travis heights?
>> no, it's becker.
>> what number is travis heights?
>> 421 and 422.
>> what do we do with those?
>> those remain in Commissioner's precinct 4.
>> and members of the court, just for your edification, I think on your t.v.
monitor in front of you you have a blowup map of some of the different precincts as we go through these maps.
>> on the 437 split.
>> yes.
>> that's at barton springs?
>> that's correct.
>> and there's no population north of there.
in other words, it's a land bridge.
>> it's a land bridge, that's correct.
>> a minute ago we learned that we in 168 increased the partisan percentage of precinct 3 by two percentage points.
>> it did in president obama's election, yes.
>> and all the maps actually increase precinct 3's partisan percentage points.
every map that's been proposed does, as well as increase the minority concentration in precinct 1.
>> yes.
by removing some of the precincts that went into your Commissioner precinct, it did -- it did substantially improve the Commissioner's precinct 4.
>> so we credit that to who was in the election more than the boundary lines.
>> I'm sorry, judge?
>> we credit that change to who was in the election more than the boundary lines?
>> no, I think -- I mean I think the boundary lines because we're comparing the boundary lines from the same elections, I think the boundary lines probably make the difference.
what I'm saying is that the -- most of the difference is made up as a result of this horse head that is taken out of Commissioner's precinct 3 and put into Commissioner's precinct 2.
that makes up most of the political difference.
>> so the partisan improvement in map 168 is not really due to the difference between 168 and other maps.
>> no, it's the same.
these are the same in all the maps.
>> right.
that's my pointed.
thank you.
>> court members, anything else from court?
we are post to do conduct a public hearing.
if you would like to give comments on item number 1, the redistricting item for Commissioners and polling precincts, please come forth at this time and have a seat and give us your name and we would be happy to get your comments.
mr. Priest.
>> judge, Commissioners, morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
I want to ask the elected -- the individuals that's doing this, the earlier comments you made, I know that you all have been asked a lot of questions that have nothing to do with the justice department whatsoever or redistricting, they are political in nature, but along the lines that precincts that were minority precincts could have smaller numbers and that this was something that justice department and the legislatures in the past have leaned toward.
if you look at our Commissioners court, we have quite a bit of minority representation, and one of the reasons for that if I'm not mistaken, it's okay to have a minority precinct with smaller numbers because this would more assure minority people to be elected.
but I guess the question that I had is, the reason I'm bringing that up is it would have been perfectly legal to keep the current precincts as they are.
correct?
>> judge, did you want me to respond?
>> yes, sir.
>> all right.
well, we couldn't keep the current precincts the way they are because of population deviation.
that's a violation of the 14th and the 15th amendments.
so we can't -- we had to equalize the population.
and in making a change in equalizing the population, the federal voting rights act requires that we not make it worse for minority candidates.
in other words, that we do everything we can to keep their percentage numbers at the same level.
that's the same responsibility that the state undertook when it did its congressional and house redistricting and it's the same responsibility that everybody that's doing redistricting throughout the entire country that's covered by the federal voting rights acts, and all of Texas is, it's the same responsibility is to maintain the impact on the political process the same as it is today.
>> to further comment on where I think you are erring, we've already voted into precinct 2 justice of peace maps, if my understanding is correct.
and that precinct 2 justice of the peace precinct was changed but in fact it could have remained the same, that particular precinct, as it was.
>> yes, the courts have held that the judicial elections, which is what they say a jp and a constable are, the judicial elections are not covered by one person, one vote.
so they could have remained the way they are or they could change.
that's a political decision that's made by the political decision with a small p that's made by the elected body.
>> so precinct 2 could have remained the same and that's where I'm trying to clear up the semantics for the public.
precinct 2 justice of the peace election district could have remained the same.
but also the changes that we see such as for example precinct 3 and 4 with, for example, shady hollow being placed in Margaret Gomez's district, the -- the map that we have over here is more closely reflected the less we change precinct 4.
because as you recall, and maybe deece, you might remember this as well, most of the public came out.
in fact, I'm not sure if I've heard of one person that came out and spoke before the Commissioners court that wanted the justice of the peace precinct 2 changed.
but the precinct 4, Margaret Gomez's precinct, the overwhelming of the majority of the public has asked at all these hearings that they be kept as much as they are.
but with this area of shady hollow being taken out of precinct 3, that could remain the same and that map still be a legal map.
>> I think that the area of shady hollow has not been taken out of precinct it remains in Commissioner precinct 3.
>> right, but you have several maps and in one of them they had it out, right?
>> yes, one of the maps was to show the Commissioners what would happen if they were moved out.
I think that was sponsored by one of the Commissioners.
>> so what do you see as the boundary lines, this is my final question, judge, referring to your previous comments we won't change the county lines.
>> thank you.
>> on this precinct -- all of the precinct maps have common boundaries such as precinct 3 with precinct 4 and so on and so forth.
what is the -- why is there not a map most reflective of what's currently as we have versus this gerrymandering situation?
I mean is there any process by which you look at those lines versus just waning off, snaking off like you see precinct 2?
>> well, I don't agree that any of the proposed plans are less compact than the current plan.
I think they are all somewhat better than the current plan and the indentation at the bottom of the map, which I suspect is what you are talking about, that is in the existing plan.
it doesn't -- there's no change on that particular precinct.
>> I think he's talking about the snaking over to northeast metro.
the reason for that is -- that's northeast metro park.
there's not a whole lot of population there.
just to keep the distribution of the metropolitan parks in all four of the precincts.
>> can you in this process change the elections from two to four years?
>> no.
that's a state constitution.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Priest.
mr. Reeferseed.
>> thank you, sir.
I'm ronnie reeferseed, and I'm wondering how many plans are there that -- we're speaking of that are all -- they all happen to be qualified by your estimation, how many plans are we talking about?
>> well, I think what the court has been looking at is six.
>> six plans.
okay.
and so --
>> well, in terms of overall plans, the last plan is 168.
so we've drawn an awful lot of plans.
not all of which we've given to the Commissioners, but we've drawn a lot of plans.
>> okay.
so of the ones that you've given to the Commissioners, those are the ones you would consider, like you say, they are all adequate, they would all be within the legal realm of satisfying the criteria.
>> they are all constitutional in my view and they all would pass the department of justice.
>> great.
well, that was why I was wondering, it seems as if there is only one here that's fully documented and ready, you know, to show all the information for.
is there some reason why this one is a preferred one by your estimation?
>> I think all of these, 54, 55, 65, 68, all of them have the same data and it's all been provided to the Commissioners.
and it all will be part of the record for the department of justice.
>> okay.
>> and if I could just add to that, mr. Reeferseed, the court has considered in public hearings or in these meetings I think somewhere around 20 plans now.
so, for instance, as recently as Friday we had a different set of five maps in this room.
last Tuesday we had a different set of four maps from that in this room.
so as -- partly as just a management strategy on my part I've tried to keep it where the court is just looking at the latest map.
we have upstairs the other maps that are referenced on this page, for instance, and can bring them downstairs or can let you come look at them if you want to look at the other maps, if that's what your question is.
>> yeah, yeah, that was basically it.
and so I could as a citizen just come up there and look at them.
>> sure.
those are on the website.
>> that's right, and they are also on the Travis County website.
>> and I'm sure these fine individuals have access to all of that or they have it in their -- even a more accessible -- y'all are aware of all that stuff too.
>> more than we care to admit, mr. Reeferseed.
>> [laughter]
>> so my question I guess is it going to be decided on just this one plan or these other ones going to be considered in their totality with all the maps and everything.
>> I think all the plans are on the table for the court to make a decision about.
>> that's great.
thanks so much.
>> dr. Kim.
>> excuse me.
do you have any paper to dispute to me or to the people, do you have any written paper to distribute of your plan?
>> we can make copies of -- we have a sum rye sheet --
>> how many pages?
>> it's actually one page and there's a second page to it that shows some of the plans that the court was looking at a couple weeks ago.
>> can I have one?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> please take that one.
>> and the second question, do other counties also have
>> [indiscernible] the district, election district?
>> all counties and all cities electing for single-member districts and all special districts will be electing single-member districts and the state legislature, all of their districts all have to be redistricted.
I think we figured out there was a total of around 7,000 districts that have to be drawn in Texas, and you have four of them.
>> and when you say something to plan, why do you mention minority or majority or classify some people.
the Texas constitution, the u.s.
constitution is blind to the classification of people.
>> the supreme court has held that the federal voting rights act is constitutional, and we are required under the federal voting rights act not to lessen the impact of minority voters on the political process.
and that's the right to vote and to elect a candidate of their choice.
and that's why we were very careful about the numbers between Commissioner's precinct 3 and 4.
because if we can't demonstrate to the department of justice that those numbers are correct and that they don't dilute the minority vote, it's likely that the Commissioner's plan will be objected to, which means that we have to start all over from scratch.
and I don't think the court wants to do that.
>> I really appreciate you to make the election system perfect, but are you familiar with Texas supreme court chief justice said election process here in Texas is broken?
he asked to Texas legislature in 2009 and 2011 to fix it.
they didn't do it.
>> the chief justice in that context was speaking about the process by which the state elects judges.
and was arguing for a change in the way in which we elect judges.
I don't think he was speaking to the electoral process in general.
>> judges decide everything here.
>> mr. Reeferseed.
>> thank you, sir.
I just wanted to thank dr. Kim there for making a point that I wanted to touch on.
I know it's not really y'all's to decide, but it's kind of a opinion question.
but is it not presumptious to assume that minorities cannot be represented unless the person who is elected is a minority?
isn't that just backward and just kind of race baiting in a way?
in other words, you just can't allow somebody -- I mean how do you creep track -- why is that an assumption it's an improvement to, like dr. Kim said, you don't want to judge a book by its color.
that goes both ways.
you don't want to assume that just because a minority person is elected, boy, you are definitely going to get a good job and better representation.
>> dr. King was the major proponent of the voting rights act in recognition that our system for decades if not centuries had not been color blind in its selection of its leaders and had therefore not adequately represented all of the population.
for.
>> okay, well, that's a valid point and I stand at a long-time supporter of dr. King and not to bore you, but I wrote about dr. -- reverend martin luther king as a child in third grade when he was still alive.
I was writing about his peace and --
>> anything related to this matter, mr. Reeferseed?
>> no, but I guess not.
>> I see dr. King turning over in his grave hearing you supporting him.
anybody else to give comments during this --
>> hold on, hold on.
>> mr. Reeferseed, thank you very much.
mr. Pena, your comments.
anybody else on item number 1?
if so, please come forward, we're about to close the public hearing.
item number 1, please come forward if you would like to give comments.
we have three seats available.
mr. Pena.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, gus pena proud east Austin native.
proud united states marine corps veteran.
and I vote.
I was not able to attend any of the public hearings because there's so much going at the city and at the state level.
I appeared before the -- and mr. Eckstein, you were there, at the senate redistricting committee, at the house.
they got sick and tired of looking at me.
I'm a former discrimination investigator for justice and department of treasury, investigator with the department of treasury.
I just want to tell you this much that I hear a lot about hispanic population, et cetera.
my concern is this is that it's -- and I do know about the 14th and 15th amendment.
I know about the vra.
I believe strongly and pretty good public process and having a public hearing, but what I'm most concerned about those not politically involved, we did not reach out to them to know exactly what impact it will have on them.
I'm concerned about educating the public.
I wanted to ask a question and if possible briefly, I'm going to cut it short so we can get to other items. The hispanic population in between 4, Commissioner Gomez, I don't want to quote you as saying much for the map.
>> I was for the map that would give the hispanic population the percentage that would not allow back sliding in the number as required by the v.r.a.
>> I'm with that also.
I ran for city council and did a poor job of running for justice of the peace.
I want to tell you this much, a lot of voters are sick and tired of the process where the department of justice thinks it's fair and fair and -- unequal, excuse me.
it should be decided by the voters as to whether it does bear the burden by d.o.j., department of justice.
that's a matter for the courts to decide.
d.o.j.
has been overturned.
I just wanted to say thank you for the public hearings, although a lot of people were left out of the loop.
Commissioner Huber, you know the trailer parks in your precinct and a lot of people complained.
they are sick and tired of politics.
to testify in front of a elected body, they are sick and tired of politics and we're tired of being used because of the color of our skin.
I wanted to say this, I pray to the good lord that this is a good, fair, equitable process.
I just -- I just don't like it.
growing up an american-mexican descent, I feel it's not a good process.
and I leave it up to see how it goes.
I want to thank you for your time and comments, Commissioners, judge, because it does bear a burden -- rather bear a good burden on tax paying hispanics.
we need to educate them.
thank you very much.
>> thank you, mr. Pena.
yes, ma'am.
>> may I point out in response to mr. Pena's very salient issues.
all of the maps that are in play, all of them have the hispanic percentage in precinct 4 between 55 and 56.2%.
it's currently at 56%.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> my thing I haven't heard or seen any of the maps I guess that you -- there's been several maps on display like last week and they are not the same maps that we were privy to at precinct 1 when we had the meeting with Commissioner Davis.
so I'm sure a lot of things have changed.
and we have no idea on -- as to what's on the maps that are going to be presented to you for your final decisions concerning precinct 1.
we just don't know what it's going to look like.
>> and let me respond to that, and again, I would like to thank each and every one of you that participated in that meeting.
very involved, very intense, very informative meeting.
if you recall, there was two maps that came from me at that time.
one was -- well, ge 101 and the other ge 100.
and the borders on each one of those maps are the same borders that are here on this map 168.
>> okay.
>> in other words, the borders between precinct 1 and 2 are the same and between 1 and 4 are the same.
as you remember, there was a big dispute about Austin colony.
>> right.
>> well, these maps support Austin colony, which is the voting precinct 101 along with webberville.
you remember the mayor being there and all those folks.
>> exactly.
>> remember all the testimony.
so this map, ge 168, reflects that.
>> okay.
>> and, of course, you guys are going to have a meeting, I spoke with a person by the name of rudy williams.
>> tomorrow.
>> and he has that map 100.
and the map 100 and the difference between ge 101 and ge 100 is that we wanted to make sure looking at the metro parks, each one of us here on this Commissioners court have metro parks in their precinct.
>> okay.
>> and, of course, ge 101 did not reflect retention of northeast metro park, which is Commissioner Eckhardt's here.
so what happened is ge 100 shows that she retains her park.
>> okay.
>> so that's the only difference.
but the borders are still the same.
>> okay.
>> and, of course, that 100 map, ge 100 map, will be presented to you tomorrow.
>> okay.
so is that -- is this the stanley map?
>> yes, exactly.
the one that alfred stanley presented, that's the one we are talking about.
>> did we also pick up the Pflugerville area?
>> yes.
>> yes, and every map that's in play, the african-american percentage goes to 20.5 because of the move of Pflugerville.
in every single map.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your arms. Participation.
we really appreciate that.
>> and if you do go to the Travis County website, www.traviscountytx.gov.
there are 15 county Commissioner precinct maps, proposed maps up there for you and anybody else to review with all the data for them and all that sort of thing.
so I believe that as we said, we've been using the phrase every map that's in play.
every map that's in play is on that website.
>> and more actually.
>> for you and every member of the public to review in agonizing detail if you would like to.
>> I guess the question is if the court decides, miss smith, to vote on a map today, let me ask this question.
when will that map be available on the website if the court takes action today so folks will know exactly what we have done, and that will be the latest version would be that map.
>> also and it's necessary that we take -- is it necessary that we take that action today?
>> I don't know.
that's the court's call.
but anyway, let me ask that, how long would it take to get that version of the map on the website?
>> Commissioner, if you adopt one of the plans that are in -- that -- one of the 15 plans that are on the website, we will just move it to adopted status.
if you make some changes in it, it probably will take until maybe 5:00 today before we're able to get that map up.
>> okay.
thank you.
I just wanted just to bring that out for edification and for f.y.i.
purposes.
>> thank you.
last call for persons who wish to testify during this public hearing on item number 1.
let me make sure I understand one other point here.
so travis heights is 421 plus 422.
>> yes, sir.
>> and right now it's in 4.
it stays in 4.
>> right now those are in precinct 4 in the current map and remain in precinct 4 in plan ge 168.
>> okay, and the total population of travis heights is?
>> precinct 421 has 3,355 people in it with a voting age population of 3,055.
precinct 422 has 3,156 people with a voting age population of 2,603.
we're talking about 7,000 people.
and I don'tn?fziy thr tore the registered voters, I don't think.
>> what is the hispanic makeup of 421?
>> the hispanic -- the percentage of precinct 421 is 10.4%, 10.0% voting age population.
the hispanic population of precinct 422 is 27.1%, 21.7% voting age population.
>> okay.
thank you.
court members, any other comments?
>> I have one.
with regard to the configuration of the new map, I looked at the possibility of moving box 266 from my precinct -- one issue I have with map 168 is under the current map I go from a population deviation of negative 2.20 to a population deviation of positive 4.5.
as I've stated before -- sorry about that -- my goal on the whole was tonr get below 2% deviation to get as close to the ideal of the constitution and the voting rights act as I could.
by moving 266 over to precinct 3, at least by my calculation I think I can move my population deviation from 4.5 down to 1.8.
I would like that confirmed, if I could, before we take it up, but I think that's the case.
>> yes, precinct 455, did you say?
>> 2 of 6.
moving 266 over to precinct 3.
I think it will at least achieve my goal of under 2% in my precinct.
and it also has a policy benefit of making the central business district whole in one Commissioner's precinct.
>> see what impact it has on precinct 3 also.
do you have those answers now or do you want to have them whether we call the action item you up.
>> if you don't mind, I would like a few minutes to make sure we do it right.
>> we're going to call this item back up.
the action part is --
>> number 37.
>> -- 37 after item number 4.
for action.
what we need to know is if we approve Commissioner Eckhardt's recommendation regarding 266, what impact would that have on 3.
and the questions that she asked about it.
>> right.
>> is that okay?
>> if you give me a few minutes, judge, I can get you that.
>> it's going to take 10 or 15 minutes to get to the action item.
move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
by the way, if you are here on the redistricting, the action part of the item is number 37.
and we will call 37 a and b up after item number 4, which hopefully we will get to very, very soon.
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.
