Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 30, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 30
>> number 30, consider and take appropriate action on redistricting plans for the following Travis County precincts, a, county countyCommissioners.
>> yes, sir, judge, intergovernmental relations, I apologize to the judge and members of the court for having a slow elevator ride down.
I took the scenic route this morning.
let me just give the court a brief update where we are, as members of the court know, on August 16th, you adopted the map for the jp and constable precincts, that is plan ge117.
on August 23rd, you adopted a map for the Commissioners precincts.
the next tasks before the court is to adopt map for new election precincts.
we have been working with the tax assessor collector's office and the county clerk's office with the consultants to begin drawing that map for the election precincts and the challenge we face is exemplified by the handout I just gave you.
this is an example of the kind of work we're doing right now.
the color -- the three different color things that you see, yellow, blue and red, are each new precincts that must be created because one side of, in this case, highway 290, is in a -- is in a different congressional district than the other side and the middle of highway 290 is in a different house district than the other side and the other side of highway 290 is in a different state board of education district and so on and so forth.
so we've been working very hard to reconcile those and get those smoothed out if we can.
for instance, the precinct that's indicated there as new precinct 1212, it's that little pink strip there, of course has no people in it.
so this is just a technical part of the work that we're doing and we've been working to do that.
now, as part of that, we also do have, and of course we have no control over the congressional state house, state senate, or state board of education maps.
those are all drawn by the legislature.
many of them are the subject of litigation and we may see some changes to those maps in the future.
we also have as a separate sort of sub issue some areas where if we take the maps that the Commissioners have drawn for the jps and constables or for the Commissioners, there are some little pieces that we like to reconcile and this is example -- max, let me -- this is an example, the part that is in orange is the lower side of that part that's in original is delineated by a congressional district that was just drawn.
the upper part, where the solid black line is is a current jp and Commissioner precinct boundary.
so we have to now -- one of the things we're going to be asking the court to look at and we'll probably bring this back to the court next week, is to try to reconcile some of those things for instance by moving that jp and Commissioner line one block south in that case so that we follow the same line as the congressional district.
this is not an actual proposal I'm making, this is just an example of the kinds of issues we're trying to reconcile now.
we would like to come back to the court with a cleanup that tries to address all the variations among the plans that we don't have any control over, and then maybe try to smooth out a couple of times variations in the plans that we do have some control over, the consultants are working on that process now, as I said, with the people the the assessor/collector's office and the people with the county office, we hope to bring something to the court next week, but it may be the week after, we do want to give the Commissioners plenty of time to look at it.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> in both of these instances, these are entirely internal to what we drew as precinct one, so it won't have any -- and also it's entirely internal to what is currently jp one, too, correct?
>> actually, the Commissioner -- that's a very good question.
most of the changes that we're having to make, the congressional maps split 55 existing Travis County precincts of state board and house and senate maps each cut a precinct here and there.
but the -- the particular -- the second example I gave you where the boundary line on the jp precinct is --
>> ah.
>> if it would -- right, if we were for instance to reconcile that boundary --
>> that is jp one and two.
>> right.
then that would move.
I don't have the numbers with me.
but I believe that's 60 residents and approximately 30 registered voters, that would move from jp -- I think that's jp one into jp two or that would move from Commissioner one into Commissioner two.
>> it wouldn't move Commissioner one, Commissioner two, but it would move jp one and two.
>> yes.
>> I'm sorry, that's right, just a jp line.
that's correct.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> so that's the -- that's the sort of thing that we're working on.
what I would like to do is provide that information to the court, give everybody plenty of time to digest it, and then we're also working with the county attorney's office on preparing the sub submission that would go to the department of justice, we've got a first draft of that from the consultants that the county attorney's office is looking at now, we're hoping within the next couple of weeks we will be able to bring all that to the court for action.
>> the city is currently looking at what we do here, I guess, for their possibility of having their election -- city council election in may either November.
I think senate bill 100, which may allow cities to move their election day from municipality -- from one day to another have to be looked at and of course I think they may be looking to what we're doing here to some extent because, from what I understand, is that they will possibly need election equipment and things of that nature from the clerk so what I'm trying to figure out here is sense that may be the case, what I'm trying to figure out is the timing of what we do here, would it have any reflection on what they are trying to accomplish at the city of Austin, especially when it comes to maybe the use of the election of equipment if -- in example if it comes in may or if it comes in November.
I think the election equipment possibility may be a runoff or something, may something need to be looked at, but I don't think this may have any impact on that as we proceed, but then again we may.
I don't really know, because it appears to be a timing chain in there of what we do, I think, that may impact them, and are you aware of that?
>> yes, sir, Commissioner, and that's a -- that is actually a great question.
I think that the city is going to have to make its decision based on its own sort of set of factors and whether it wants to do that.
there is a provision in the law that says that the runoff elections for the may -- or excuse me, for the March primary, are now going to be held in late may, which would conflict with the city election which traditionally is held on the second Saturday in may.
so there will have to be some I guess negotiation between them and the county clerk over whether or not all that is doable and how to accomplish that.
that does bring up the point, though, that one of the other impacts of senate bill 100 is to move the filing deadline back.
>> exactly.
>> it used to be that the filing deadline was early in the next year, January 2 or 3rd, the filing period would begin a month before that.
>> right.
>> what senate bill 100 does is move the filing deadline back into December of the previous year, so whereas most elected officials and candidates who are planning to run for offices in next year would be looking at a filing period from December to early January.
now, that filing period will begin on November 12th.
>> right.
>> all of which makes it important for the county to move forward so that we can get pre-clearance on our plan if possible before November 12th.
>> right.
right.
>> we are certainly closing in on the time window that will be open for us to do that, which is why we're hoping to be able to bring this to the court, if not next week, then certainly Tuesday the 13th.
>> right.
that's one of the reasons I polled the question is because of that time line and of course November 12th through I think December 12th is the actual --
>> right, November --
>> is the actual window that we have to operate in, so I think -- and that's why I asked about the possible continuance as far as where we're going, so we -- I -- a window of opportunity is kind of their rowing down, that's why I'm bringing it to that point.
>> yes, sir.
>> all right, thank you.
>> so we expect you to be back next week.
>> I will be back with a status report at a minimum, judge, and hopefully with an action item.
>> will you have the -- bring back issues regarding the jp and constable precinct 2?
boundary change?
>> the --
>> the only reason I ask is that if you do, we need to change the agenda language.
right now they're not included.
>> it may be that in the final map that we prepare that there are minor changes to those boundaries as well, yes, sir.
>> any other questions or comments regarding item 30?
we'll see you next week.
oops.
mr. Reeferseed.
>> I wanted to express my pleasure that I was under the impression that they were trying -- some people in the -- this process were trying to cancel the may elections to save money, ram it all on November which is of course counter productive and anti democratic in spirit, and I want to again make the note that paper ballots, they're a lot cheaper --
>> mr. Reeferseed, we are not posted for that discussion.
do you have anything relevant to this item.
>> I have one relevant comment, Commissioner's court, ladies and gentlemen, citizens, the mayor's term ends on June 15th, 2012 as do other --
>> mr. Defoe, we are not posted for that suggestion.
>> okay.
>> we can't have it with you legally.
>> okay.
just letting you know.
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.
