Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 37
Number 37 is next.
then we will call up the health care items. 37 is consider and take appropriate action on redistricting plans for the following Travis County precincts, a, county Commissioners, b, elections.
deece eckstein and the consultant, we need you here.
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> we need to file this item too.
we will give you a 30 minute reprieve.
Number 37, consider and take appropriate action on redistricting plans for the following Travis County precincts.
a, county Commissioners, b, elections.
let me indicate our intention to call up items 33 and 39 after this item.
hopefully that will be this item.
23 and 39.
we asked two questions, about eckstein?
>> yes, sir, judge.
at the conclusion of the public hearing, the court asked for some data with respect to two issues.
max is passing out that information to the court now.
what we have done is mr. Coravel has taken the overall data set for the county and aassumed a change of precinct 266, which is currently scheduled to remain in precinct 2 and move that to prict 3.
if you will look at the summary sheet you will see that has a modest effect on population of about 7,000 in terms of overall population and about six thousand in terms of voting population.
you will see that it makes modest changes in the electoral results for the two target races that we have tracked across all the different plans.
that being the 2008 presidential race and the 2012 gubernatorial race.
the legal size page has more detailed information about the actual demographic and electoral profile for plan 168 as modified by moving precinct 266 from precinct 2 to precinct 3.
>> and it does buy-down the overall deviation from --
>> that's correct.
>> that's what I'm really looking at.
the overall deviation under unmodified 168 is 8.6 and the overall deviation by moving 266 brings it down to 8.3.
>> that's correct.
>> which is the second best deviation of all the maps that are currently in play, I believe.
pulls it down to the lowest it can be and be politically palatable, it looks like.
>> what would that change do to precinct 3?
>> takes the deviation up from 1.4 to 1.2.
>> yes, judge.
in precinct 2 that would raise the deviation from the ideal, from 1.5 to 4.2.
and reduced the overall deviation county wide from 8.6 to 8.3.
>> where are those numbers set out?
>> those numbers are set out on the legal size page that you have in the second column of the top part of that page.
where it has the deviation statistics.
>> but you don't have the overall down, right?
>> right.
>> the overall is right below that where it says 8.3%.
>> he soovment.
>> but it brings the highest deviation down some, but it does swap it between two and three.
>> right.
>> and of course, the change we're talking about makes no changes to the numbers for precincts one or four.
>> what is the population of 266?
7,041 people.
>> yes.
>> 7,041.
>> so if we follow that recommendation, we would move all of the 7,041 into precinct three from two?
>> that's correct.
whairks does that do on the estimated partisan?
impact?
>> there's a slight improvement.
>> judge --
>> under plan 168, for instance, in the 2008 presidential election, in precinct two the democratic candidate got 64.37% of the vote and the republican candidate got 33.2% of the vote.
under the modification that we were asked to look into, that would slightly lower the democratic percentage in precinct two to 64.17 and slightly increase the republican percentage to 34.04.
in precinct three, the democratic percentage in the 2008 presidential election is now 52.58 and the republican percentage is 45.84.
that would slightly increase the democratic percentage in precinct three to 53.06, and the -- and slightly lower the republican percentage in that precinct to 45.35.
in the 2010 gubernatorial race that we use for comparison purposes, under the current plan 168 in the gubernatorial race in precinct two, the democratic candidate received 61.68% of the vote and the republican candidate received 35.08.
under the modification being considered by the court, the democratic percentage would slightly lower to 61.50% and the republican percentage would slightly increase to 35.30.
in precinct three, the democratic percentage under the existing plan 168 was 48.69 percent and the republican percentage was 47.75%.
under the modification discussed by the court, that would increase the democratic percentage slightly to 49.0% and reduce the republican percentage slightly to 47.40%.
>> judge?
>> yes, Commissioner Huber.
>> he just want to --
>> I just want to say I have a problem using these two races to address the percentages for partisan purposes.
we know our precinct and precinct three has a highly engaged voter elock tore rat at the state and national levels.
if you look at the local races, they are lower.
I have a real problem with using only these two races for consideration of partisan purposes.
>> now, mr. Consultant, speak to us again on our deadline, if we have one.
and whether I was genuine last night with myself when I in the middle of the night concluded that today of our drop dead date.
do we have more flexibility or should we -- must we act today?
>> judge, I think you've got more flexibility if you want to take it.
the state doesn't have its plan precleared and they're not --
>> now, we normally lead the state rather than follow them.
>> [ laughter ]
>> well, I'm saying they're way behind you.
they've made submission, but they're in the process of litigating it in the district court.
and I don't think there's -- district court is not going to get the recommendation of the defendant department of justice until the middle of next month.
and I would suspect it would be several weeks after that before the court would take any action.
>> okay.
so Commissioner Eckhardt, should we assume that you basically would like for us to agree with your recommendation to move 266 from two to three?
>> yes.
I would even be willing to make the motion today for adoption of 168 with that modification.
>> second.
>> Commissioner Huber, did you wish to respond to the offer to move 166?
we'll come back to you for that motion.
>> I would want to move 266.
>> I'm sorry, 266.
>> yes, I have some thoughts I would like to share.
and I tremendously appreciate Commissioner Eckhardt offering up this precinct because it does make a difference in a number of ways you slice the precinct.
I will say, however, that I still remain concerned, as I mentioned a minute ago, that the part of the numbers that we're looking at in these two races do not accurately reflect the down ballot races.
also, I still remain highly concerned that this precinct is so large and any way that we can make it more concise is better.
I would still like to offer up that I think the two Travis County heights precincts and part of the bouldin precinct would offer perhaps more parity from a standpoint of population.
there's slightly less total than the 266 and bring a slightly higher partisan number.
that said, the will of the court is the will of the court.
I believe that that would work better for precinct three in its representation of its constituents.
>> so what I'm hearing here, and I want to make sure I'm correct, because I think g.e.
168 is significant.
in fact, it's actually a hybrid of ge 166, which is here before.
and the only change that I'm hearing today as far as an amendment to this particular 168, ge 168, is that what Commissioner Eckhardt is asking to amend ge 168 is add voting precinct 266 to precinct three, Commissioner Huber.
am I understanding that correctly?
that is the -- am I understanding that correctly?
>> are you asking me?
>> well, I'm asking Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> I'm sorry, I was counting precincts.
>> pardon.
in other words, you're offering Commissioner Huber 266 from your particular precinct?
>> yes.
>> and which is an amendment, I guess, to the overall ge 168, which was a hybrid from the map that we looked at last week, which was actually ge 166.
so Commissioner Gomez, if you were the one to accept that as part of the motion, I'll second that.
>> well, I think what has been suggested is that 266 go to precinct three as a modification of 168.
so of course I think we ought to approve ge 168 with the modification.
>> I'm sorry --
>> I move for approval of the --
>> I guess we've got a motion if we're ready to do that.
we have a motion by Commissioner Eckhardt to approve ge 168 with the addition of moving 266 from precinct two to precinct three.
>> and I seconded t.
>> that's the motion, right?
that was seconded by Commissioner Gomez?
now, discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Huber again.
>> I would like to point out that I find it highly intriguing that this new map 168 was drawn by agreement between Commissioners from precinct 1 and precinct four with the only point of changes in this map being the precinct three/precinct four line, and find it really intriguing that the Commissioner of prieng three was not included in discussions of how these were drawn.
I find it strange that Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Gomez would take the lead on deciding our line here.
that said, I think 168 is possibly something we could work with.
but it's new on the scene.
I thought we weren't going to have new maps last Friday, but we had a new map.
and I think, judge, that given the newness of this, given the newness of the proposal of 266, given some of the outstanding items that we need to look at along this precinct three/four line, I think we should take another week.
>> there's a motion and a second before us.
and as to the people not getting together, I blame legal.
as usual.
>> [ laughter ] it was not -- it was not possible for us to huddle --
>> it wasn't.
>> outside of open court and reach agreement on various aspects of redistricting, and we asked for legal advice on that several times over the last two, two and a half months, unfortunately.
so most of our negotiating has been in open court.
and to be honest, we have discussed various map options.
consultant thought this is map number 6.
I thought it was number 8.
but clearly there had been a whole lot of them.
we have worked out way through 168.
and it seems to me that since a majority of us is ready to move, we should go ahead and approve this.
I have no problem with having it back on the court's agenda next week for any clarifying questions, comments that we have.
I don't know that the decision gets any easier.
>> but apparently we've had two Commissioners in the last week reach agreement on this.
>> no, the court voted last Tuesday on the boundary line between four and one and also --
>> but I'm talking the boundary line between three and four.
Commissioner Gomez and Commissioner Davis have reached agreement on 168 that this is what it should be in the last week in a new map.
>> we discuss it had on Friday during the work session.
I saw it for the first time during the work session on Friday.
but is real close to some of the other options that we looked at.
and what it doesn't do that I got recommendations for us to do is move the travis heights two public precincts from four to three and this motion doesn't do that.
it leaves them in four basically.
but there has been that issue.
there's been shady hollow and there has been projected partisan percentage.
>> there were lines drawn there that I didn't see and, you know -- so it's because we couldn't.
if two of us talked or if two of us talked to the consultant, we couldn't go talk to the third one.
I mean, we weren't going to violate the open meetings act.
I mean, that is foremost in my mind.
>> (indiscernible).
>> that's the way I felt too, that someone was trying to make a decision on the line for me without notifying me.
so I mean -- but I'm not going to -- it doesn't matter.
just so you know that I did not violate the open meetings act.
>> I propose an amendment to the motion.
>> an amendment?
okay.
>> I actually have a series of amendments I would like to propose.
I think it would be better to take them individually.
>> okay.
>> I propose that because the travis heights precincts of 421, 422 have a lower percentage and a higher base, that those precincts along with precinct 337 with gibson as the southern boundary be substituted for precinct 266.
I believe that will give us a better overall deviation numbers and work better for everyone.
I remind everyone that precincts 421 and 422 have very -- relatively very low hispanic population and their total population is about 6500.
>> okay.
and the second part of that is instead of moving 266 from two to three, instead we move 337 from three to --
>> move 337 with the southern boundary at gibson and move 421 and 462 to precinct three.
>> on this map 462 is already over there.
>> I'm sorry, 421, 422, the travis heights.
>> but 337 is already in three.
>> 437.
437, the bouldin neighborhood, with gibson as the southern boundary, travis heights, 421 and 422.
in lieu of the 266.
>> we have the motion on the -- the outstanding motion before urgs the original motion?
>> it is not friendly, although I completely understand why -- why you are asking us to entertain it.
but it's not friendly to this motion.
>> what if you do it in the form of a substitute motion and we make those changes to ge 168.
instead of the 266 change.
>> make it as a substitute motion then.
>> is there a second?
that motion would die for lack of a second.
>> I have a couple other motions.
>> okay.
>> I move that we amend the motion as stated, and I believe 309 is in plaj -- plan 168 in precinct four.
I move that we take the western tail of precinct 309, which is part of shady hollow, and would allow the shady hollow neighborhood to stay intact in precinct 3.
I think it's important that we listen to our constituents, and that's a very small little tail.
you can actually see it on the map.
it juts out over there.
that's precinct 309.
>> we move the western part of 309 from precinct three to precinct four?
>> no.
309 is in the 168 map in precinct four.
we slice off that western tail and put it back in precinct three.
>> Commissioner, excuse me, Commissioner.
the version of map 168 that I have has part of precinct 309 in precinct three and part of it moving to precinct four.
>> does that address that issue?
because I -- I wasn't clear that it did.
>> if media can show on the screen --
>> okay.
so you're only taking --
>> we see a large screen before us.
can you see it, dietz?
>> yes, sir.
>> and as I understand it -- I'm not -- my gentlemennography may be a little rusty, but I think the southern boundary of what would now go into precinct four and is indicate understand blue on the screen, I believe that's riddle road.
and then the western boundary of what would now go into precinct -- I forgot what street that is.
that little piece of 309 goes to four?
>> that's correct.
this area right here, judge.
>> okay.
and also this area right here.
>> okay.
then I withdraw that because I did not realize that.
>> but the rest of it, the heart of 309d is shady hollow.
>> all right.
then I would also from a cleanup standpoint, I would like to move that we amend this plan to show that precinct 301 absorb precinct 412, which puts all of Sunset Valley in one precinct.
and that that be in precinct three.
it's a small adjustment, but I think it's appropriate for the constituency.
>> all right f we do a motion to amend on that, is there a second?
>> as I owe again, as I understand plan 168, it does have that small -- it does have a small portion of current precinct 412 that would go into precinct three.
>> is that all of the Sunset Valley?
>> as I understand it, that's exactly what the intent of that change s and that is visible on your screen now.
>> can we clarify that between now and next Tuesday in case we need to?
if it's already there, I don't know that -- you think it's in already?
or were you talking about the whole of 412?
just that little part of Sunset Valley part?
>> I was talking about all of 412.
>> currently precinct 412 has this boundary that's indicated here under plan 168.
this part of precinct 412 would go into precinct 3.
it would then be up to the next stage in the court's process, which is the refashioning of election precincts, bl to merge that into precinct 301 or put it in with another precinct.
but what is the eastern half of precinct 412 would remain in precinct four.
>> next phase would be when we approve the polling precincts.
>> yes, which we hope to bring to the court in a couple of weeks.
>> so is it your intention to volume the Sunset Valley incorporated limits?
>> we're leaving sunset together.
and we're just cleaning off just enough to clean up that -- that border.
>> the intention is to take the incorporated limits of Sunset Valley and have it entirely in precinct three.
>> sure.
>> we can bring that back simply and clearly on Tuesday, assuming the original motion passes.
>> one more proposed amendment.
since the very first one didn't get any traction.
on precinct 437, the bouldin neighborhood, I just have a philosophical problem with creating a land bridge and currently the line goes down barton springs road so that we can get the two precincts north of the river.
I would propose that we set the southern boundary of the splitting of precinct 437 at gibson.
that gives some voting coming to precinct three.
>> do we know how many voters that would impact?
you're suggesting the southern boundary beginning at gibson be moved to precinct three from precinct four?
>> north, yeah.
north of gibson be moved to precinct three.
>> any estimate of the voter impact of that?
>> I'm trying to figure that out here.
>> it may be a minute to do this.
it may be within the deviation range in that's the question you're asking.
it would have a small effect on the makeup.
>> so the equivalent of that would be to --
>> if you can put this on the screen, judge.
you have a more detailed map of precinct 437 available now.
it shows that the southern boundary of precinct 437 now I believe is mary street, is that correct?
and what Commissioner Huber is asking would be to move that further north to gibson street, which is I think somewhere right here.
>> is that amendment friendly?
>> not to me.
>> may I ask a clarifying question?
is it your intent to move the boundary north to gibson street that you would then want all of precinct 437 to be in precinct three?
>> no.
I'm saying that instead of the current map on 168 where the boundary, the southern boundary is barton springs road, the northern part of that, that that barton springs road boundary be moved down to gibson street.
there's relatively no population north of barton springs and it's just -- it is gerrymandering to create a land bridge so that you can take the precincts north of the river.
>> I don't think it's gerrymandering because we have a land bridge in the northern part to get the northeast metro park over to precinct two.
and that's exactly what happened there.
that's not gerrymandering.
I don't call it gerrymandering.
are we going to call it gerrymandering.
>> there are people in that.
there's relatively no people in this.
>> it's call it a good government move.
>> [ laughter ] does that cause enough difference to be meaningful?
are we talking about impacting just a handful of voters?
>> in terms of deviation it would still work, judge, as far as I can tell.
in terms of overall voting, any change for an elected official is important.
one-10th of a percent increase in the democratic or republican voting often makes a difference between a win and a lose.
so it is significant.
>> okay.
the motion is for 137 -- for 437, the southern boundary be gibson instead of barton springs.
>> correct.
>> and that was a motion to amend the original motion.
is there a second?
that dies for lack of a second.
we are back to the original motion unless there are other amendments to be considered.
the original motion is to approve 168 with the addition of moving 266 from precinct two to precinct three.
any more discussion on the motion?
>> I just -- I do have some discussion on the motion.
it was very hard for me not to second the 437 split.
I think that that would have been an easy thing to do, frankly, although I could not second it because I did not believe that the primary motion would pass with it in there.
the dem grafg kel statistics as reported out by the u.s.
census over the last 10 years make it clear that we can and should do better with regards to the distribution of our minority concentration and the overall equality in our population distribution among the precincts.
I had high hopes going in that we would be able to achieve that, that we would both be able to come to an equalization among the four precincts at the same time as we increased the concentration of hispanics and african-americans in precinct one and precinct four.
all the statistics indicate that we can have our cake and eat it too.
but I recognize that we're just not there politically.
we did pretty well as far as putting up maps in hispanic and african-american concentration.
as I've said before earlier today, every single map before us today has the african-american percentage higher than what it is currently.
and every single map that is before us today has the hispanic percentage in precinct four staying at between 55 and 56 percent, which is considerably higher than the hispanic overall in the county.
so in that regard, we really have excelled as a county.
but with regard to the population distribution, we have not.
and that's problematic for me.
in terms of the cons tuitional explanation of one man, one vote, we've been less successful.
I think that the motion today, even though I concede that I think a workout on 437 would have been good, but I do not believe it's politically possible.
I think we've squeezed the fruit and gotten as much juice as we can.
I think in 8.3% -- an 8.3% deviation is probably the best we can do.
so with that, that's my only comment on the motion that's before us today.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
>> judge, I would just like to say this, and I know it's been pretty tough, uphill battle.
number one, I would like to thank everyone here in Travis County who have taken the time to participate in these public hearings.
I think it's very impressive when you see this many folks come out to be involved in a redistricting map effort of the Travis County Commissioners' court, along with the jp and also the constables.
precinct maps.
I would like to thank the persons in precinct one who have stood by this process and also standing room only crowd on June 30th in support of the borders that have been established here as reflected in this 168 map as far as precinct one and the relationship between precinct one and two and also the relationship between precinct one and four.
I think you spoke eloquently.
I think the testimony that have come back to this Commissioners' court by the persons as we continue to go through this process, you have not given up on this process.
and I would like to applaud each and every one of you for your input in these hearings.
we need this as far as what you think is the best thing to do in our particular precincts.
I know I take that to heart when it comes to precinct one.
so that was just my comments.
thank you.
>> thank you.
any more discussion?
comments?
Commissioner.
>> I would just like to say a special thank you to Commissioner Eckhardt because she has given and given and given this n.
this process.
she's worked with precinct one, she's worked with precinct three, and I think she alone has demonstrated a willingness to consider the county as a whole and the needs of all the constituents.
and I have to say I'm disappointed in the process as it relates to precinct one and four, but it is what it is and I will be delighted to represent my precinct as it is carved out, and I thank you again, Commissioner Eckhardt, for your willingness to understand some of the needs in precinct three.
>> thank you for not tampering with my lines, Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> [ laughter ] Commissioner Gomez?
>> well, let me say that I think I've worked in this field, political community, for some 42 years.
and I don't believe that I have ever, ever left out anybody in this community.
I think even though I'm in precinct four, I believe I have voted on issues that affect people in other counties.
so I think my record speaks for itself.
as far as taking care of precinct one and four, you betcha, especially precinct one where there's -- you said there was an increase of population.
let's look at that increase.
it's one point.
it's 19 percent.
that told me right off the bat that this was a population that we needed to take care of first and foremost.
after that according to the law, and yes, I follow laws to the letter, especially this one and the purchasing act and any other act that -- or any other law that may get me in trouble, I don't want to wind up in trouble at all.
so I pay close attention to laws to the letter.
and I'll pay attention to them in spirit whenever I can.
but I think that my first duty or responsibility that I took on was to make sure that precinct one was intact.
I wasn't going to force him to take anything -- to give up anything that would reduce that 20%.
it's not a whole lot of expansion, y'all.
and when you look at precinct four, we're concentrated in the southeastern quadrant.
it doesn't mean that we haven't moved out.
we've moved out to other parts of the county: when you talk culturally about a community there are a lot of things we share regardless of where we live.
and so -- and we don't want to be totally absorbed by the we stand on two worlds.
so we're just a little -- I guess a little more complex.
it's a good complexity and one that enables us to learn, to learn about people who are different from us and willing to work with people who are different from us.
and so I -- that is the process that I have followed throughout this process.
and thank goodness it just comes around every 10 years.
>> thank you, Commissioner Gomez.
you really have -- thank you very much for those comments.
very well received.
for what you've done.
>> all in favor?
show Commissioners Davis, Eckhardt, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Huber voting against.
I suggest that we have this matter back on the court's agenda next week with language that would enable us to consider any parts that need to be clarified.
that we also put together a one or two pager that highlights changes that we have made.
one to distribute to residents and two to make sure that each of us fully understands the import of actions taken today.
any objection to that?
>> no, judge.
>> yes, sir?
>> and I asked an earlier question with this particular modification, and I think that staff gave me and the consultant gave us an answer that any changes they would have them on the web page for the viewing public to see exactly what we've done.
and I don't know exactly what was the timeline on that as far as what we've done here today as far as the map is concerned because I know I'm going to get some calls about it and we probably all will get something as far as what is out there on the web page as far as what we've done today.
I'm just trying to --
>> let's get it up asap, preferably sometime today.
>> okay.
>> is that possible?
>> we'll try.
>> not sometime today, then early tomorrow.
how's that?
is there an objection?
>> no objection.
can I get one of those?
may I have one of those maps, please?
>> okay.
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.
