Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 22
Item number 22, consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, redistricting plans for the following Travis County precincts, county Commissioners, 1, 2, justices of the peace and constables, 3 elections, and b, preclearance submission to the united states department of justice.
>> good morning, deece eckstein.
I'm here today to give an update and to suggest to the court what action it may want to take at a future meeting.
hopefully next Tuesday.
here's where we stand.
as the members of the court know, on August 16th we adopted new boundary lines for the justice of the peace and Commissioner and -- excuse me, and constable precincts.
on August 23 we adropped new boundary lines for the Commissioner precincts.
we have been working with the tax assessor-collector's office and the county clerk's office to reconcile the boundary lines in order to create the new election precincts.
in that process we've identified about 65 -- I would say between 60 and 65 of our current election precincts that somehow have to be tinkered with in order to match up congressional line, state board of education lines, state house lines, state senate lines, justice of the peace and constable lines and Commissioner lines.
there's about 65 of those changes that we're going to propose to you and about a dozen of those would actually affect the lines that you already approved for the justice of the peace and constable precincts and for the Commissioners court precincts.
I have taken the opportunity to visit with all of you about that and to show you where those specific changes would be, and what we're hoping to do is present to you a map of proposed election precincts, proposed Commissioner precincts that would make the minor changes to the Commissioner lines, and proposed jp and constable precincts for your final approval next week.
at the same time we want to propose to you or present to you the proposed pre-clearance submission.
the consultants have been working on the pre-clearance.
we're putting together the various appendices.
there were four public hearings held at various points around the county and another two public hearings actually held right here in this courtroom in order to get a lot of input from people in our community about the lines.
those would all -- notes of those meetings would all become append ices as well as through our email and website.
we're putting all that together and will have that to members of the court by Thursday for them to review with the goal of taking final action on Friday.
today I'm just here -- I'm sorry, final action next Tuesday.
I'm here just to see if there is any questions that members of the court have about the proposed changes to the election precinct maps that we have been discussing with the court.
>> yeah, I had one I think we need to look at and I have alfred stanley here who has been working with me throughout this process and thank him for this.
but it's basically looking at all the changes to try to see if we can comply and conform with those particular lines that you mentioned, congressional, state board of education, the legislature, senate and jp and all the other folks there.
there were some concerns that I had as far as looking at precinct 216 and that was the feeders going into that.
and, of course, looking at that particular scenario and looking at the population there and also the -- again, to try to conform with what we're trying to do.
but I'm going to let alfred stanley maybe explain to the court exactly what that entails and, of course, try to get to some type of deviation and ideal population, I think, which is -- has been brought up several times.
but anyway, since we're tinkering with those particular situations trying to conform to the other required lines as far as concerned, I'm going to let alfred stanley I guess at this point with permission of the court to maybe make his presentation to the court on that particular situation after the lines and things that deece had mentioned, how it has affected us.
>> okay.
yes, sir.
>> I have some handouts for the court.
>> if you give them to Commissioner Davis, he will pass them on down.
>> give one to the clerk, if we've got one.
>> one more copy, may as well give Commissioner Huber one.
let's not punish her for not being here.
>> so you wouldn't have to get up, judge.
>> I appreciate that.
>> good morning.
I'm alfred stanley, and Commissioner Davis asked mr. Eckstein to send me the cleanup transfers last week to take a look at.
I am a statistician by training.
and everything is very reasonable in terms of the purpose mr. Eckstein described of making sure every voting precinct or voting tabulation districts is voting for the same offices.
there is a big area in the proposed transfers.
you'll see at the top chart, from 164 to 211, that involves 583 people.
that's a fairly big chunk.
most of the other transfers are less than 100 each.
but they do add up.
the transfers from precinct 1 to precinct 2 as proposed amount to 818 people, which you'll see as the total column of the first chart.
one of the -- I put them in a little bit different order than deece gave them to me.
I put them in order of the precincts that are being transferred into, the current vtds or voting precincts that populations are being transferred into, thus 205 has population coming into it from 109.
211 has population coming into it from 164.
215 has population coming in from 110 and 112.
216 from 110 and 111.
and 225 from 110.
that little part has no population in it on the 225 because it essentially along major census blocks along major frontage roads and inside major thoroughfare.
110 and 111 -- the portions of 110 and 111 have to go into 216 for the purposes that deece described.
however, I'd like to present an alternative which would be to make all the above changes, combine the pieces of -- the portion of 110 and 111 into 216 and move 216 into precinct 1.
>>
>> [inaudible] is exceedingly un-- does not want to do that because it would split the wells branch.
they were very vocal with regard to 216 because 216 was originally moved into precinct 1, but the wells branch community would be split in half along wells branch boulevard with that south of wells branch going into one precinct and that north of wells branch going into another.
the -- the community is exceedingly cohesive and very racially and economically diverse, which is something, of course, we want to encourage.
so at least from where I stand right now, I don't think wells branch would be in favor of that.
>> may I finish?
>> yes.
I just wanted to make sure that that piece of information was on the table before we moved much further down the road.
>> okay.
well, in any case, the -- the bottom three charts show plan 170 as it is today before any cleanup changes.
currently there's a deviation of minus 1.92% in precinct 1 and plus 1.78% in precinct 2.
the second chart shows the deviations after the proposed cleanups as they are coming -- as they've been presented to the court by mr. Eckstein and the consultants.
precinct 1 would move to minus 2.24% deviation and precinct 2 to 2.09% deviation.
finally, the idea -- and it's just an idea -- of moving the combined portions of 110, 111 with 216 to precinct 1 would result in a deviation in precinct 1 and precinct 2, population-wise, of less than .1%.
.07% specifically.
precinct 216 is one of the more african-american precincts in the -- in northern Travis County at 223.4%.
it would have a positive impact on precinct 1 being more african-american, and that's all I have to say.
thank you.
>> so the black population in precinct 216 is almost at 23%?
>> the black population of 216 is 23.4%.
>> 23.4%.
and it does satisfy all of the requirements as far as the cleanup that deece has presented to us today as far as the -- the boundaries, the congressional and all those particular cleanup aspects that deece mentioned earlier, it conforms with that also?
>> yes.
the portions -- the portion of 110 and 111 moving into precinct 216 vote for the exact same offices as all of the rest of 216.
so yes.
>> okay.
judge, I understand that we're not going to take action on this today.
I don't think you -- it's not an action item.
>> well, we posted it that way, but I did tell Commissioner Huber that my understanding is we would be given a briefing and would look to next Tuesday to really take action.
>> okay.
well, I would like for the back -- the information that we have today that's been presented by mr. Stanley to deece and also the court members, I would like for this could be considered next Tuesday.
for action.
>> just so that in the spirit of considering it for next week, I'm -- I'm trying to still my breathing here.
alfred, thank you very much for calling me on Friday and I'm sorry I was not able to call you back before the three-day weekend and I really appreciate you trying to get this out to me before today.
I am very concerned about splitting the wells branch community, and for the record, although 216 does have a high percentage of african-americans, I have already moved a huge chunk of the african-american population from precinct 2 to precinct 1 in the move of the entire municipality of Pflugerville, the second largest municipality in all of Travis County, from precinct 1 to precinct 1 to bring the percentage of african-americans in precinct 1 up from what was under the current plan I believe 19% up to close to 21% under the plan that we voted.
so we've already progressed considerably in improving the african-american percentage in precinct 1 from the movement of an entire municipality, 50,000 people.
I understand the logic that you present, mr. Stanley, on the 818 people, but we already moved 50,000.
and I would hate to split a community when we have already achieved what we've set out to do which was improve the african-american percentage in precinct 1.
my precinct has changed more than any of the other precincts through this redistricting.
the shape of my precinct is radically different from what it was a month ago.
the -- the content of my constituency is radically different, more so than the changes in any of the other districts.
I would very much like to keep wells branch whole.
and I believe that the citizens in wells branch, whether they are on the north side of wells branch parkway or the south side of wells branch parkway also wants to remain whole.
>> remind me of what happens, mr. Eckstein, if we do not make all of the recommended changes?
let's say we choose to leave them of them as they are so you would end up with smalling polling precincts?
>> correct.
as they mentioned earlier, a little piece of precinct 164 which we wanted to move into 211 because we now have this -- I guess it's six blood k by one block area that has been moved into a different congressional district.
if we were to decide not to make that change, we would have to create that small area as a separate voting precinct.
they would need to have their own polling places for purposes of party primary elections, but could obviously participate with another polling place or in the voting centers program for general elections.
but that would be an example of what we would have to do, and that would be -- you know, obviously some inconvenience to our voter registrar people and to our tax assessor -- I'm sorry, elections administration people.
>> okay, I vote in 122, lbj high school.
I used to vote at ymca up at 183.
122 is consolidated with some other precinct at lbj.
and as far as I know it's consolidated the primary and the general elections.
you are talking about the physical voting place.
so why wouldn't we be able to even if you had two or three small polling precincts combine them on election day to facilitate easy voting and the efficient use of personnel?
>> I think we can do that on general election days.
my understanding, and this may have been part of senate bill 100, is that for the primary elections, there has to be a gathering place for the meetings that they have that night, the precinct convention, and that the election day has to be at the place that is going to be that gathering place.
that's my understanding.
I don't know if that's new law or not and somebody from the county clerk's office would be more competent than me to get into the details.
but we've been working with the assumption that even if we were to create that solo -- that little area I gave as an example, that they would have to on primary election day have a polling place somewhere inside the geographic boundaries of that area.
for other elections they could identity at other places including at the voting centers that the county is going to eventually move to.
>> so separate voting -- separate meeting rooms in the same building would not be sufficient?
>> I -- I just -- I'm beyond my depth here and I don't want to --
>> lbj is a pretty big high school.
you can go in and walk to the right, I'm sure there's a meeting room down there somewhere.
and walk to the left and really what you say, how you say it is really your business and probably not shared with the others because it's big enough.
>> and I think the intent is not to worry about confusion among different polling -- among different precincts as it is to give people a location they know they are supposed to come to that evening for their precinct convention.
but I'm just not sure if that's a new requirement or not and we'll get back to the court about that today.
>> mr. Stanley, anything else you want to add?
>> may I speak to the last issue, judge?
>> sure.
>> the -- I've looked into this because of the way my own precinct, 278, is affected by the congressional lines.
any time you have a very small precinct, you have a problem with regard to the democratic party rules of delegate selection to the state convention.
and although the democratic nominating process is a party process, it's also a public process.
it's not a private institution, it's a quasi, you know, it's a public process of choosing nominees that will be on the ballot.
specifically if a -- if a precinct doesn't have 300 votes for the -- I don't know how the republican process works, but on the democratic side, if a precinct doesn't have 300 votes for the gubernatorial nominee, that precinct is combined with some other small precinct, not necessarily close by, for the purposes of delegate selection to the state convention.
so from my point of view, being in an area that's downsized to about -- this is precinct 278, to about 500 people, and not having 300 votes for the gubernatorial nominee, down the road my voters, participants, delegates, will be paired with somebody from I don't know where in Travis County.
so it's not just what happens on convention night, there's something more to it.
I think that getting these tiny precincts eliminated as much as possible is a good idea and I would not suggest that I personally say that the 164 to 211 transfer of 583 people shouldn't happen.
I think that, you know, if -- that it should happen regardless of your -- the court's decision on the idea I presented earlier.
I think it should get as many of the small areas put into a larger area as possible for many different reasons.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> anything further on this item?
anybody else here on 22?
>> we'll see you next week, judge.
>> I can hardly wait, mr. Eckstein.
>> 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.
