title
Receive a presentation from District 2 on a request to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission as contained in law under California Elections Code Div. 21, Chapter 9 (EC § 23000-23004) amended by SB 1108 (Allen) Local Redistricting Commissions in 2016 and further amended by SB 1018 (Allen) Elections: state and local reapportionment in 2018
body
Published Notice Required? Yes ____ No _X _
Public Hearing Required? Yes ____ No _X _
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
Supervisor Brown requests that the Board consider an alternate redistricting option and provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance to do all the necessary work to create an Independent Redistricting Commission to evaluate and potentially redraw the Supervisorial District boundaries in 2021 following the outcome of the 2020 Census.
SUMMARY:
Every 10 years, the United States conducts a census to count the entire population of the United States. Based upon the outcome of the decennial census, boundary lines at every level of government are reevaluated and potentially redrawn based on the changes in population. The commissioners would be chosen through a random process and would be required to be impartial.
This proposal would take the authority of drawing the supervisorial boundaries away from the Board of Supervisors and place it with the Independent Redistricting Commission. The proposed Independent Redistricting Commission would be chosen in a fair and impartial process with the goal of making the redistricting completely independent from the Board of Supervisors.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The costs associated with preparing the agenda item are nominal and absorbed by the District 2 office FY2018/19 Adopted Budget.
There will be costs associated with creating an independent redistricting Independent Redistricting Commission. The initial costs will be the staff time to prepare an ordinance and create the Independent Redistricting Commission.
The majority of the costs associated with the redistricting process will come from staff time and consultant costs for preparing proposed boundaries and in holding the necessary public meetings. Those costs will have to be borne regardless of whether the Board of Supervisors retains the authority draws the boundaries or an Independent District Commission is established to draw the boundaries. The 2011 Redistricting was conducted by a consultant company, Environmental Stewardship & Planning, Inc. The cost for the consultant services was $49,000 which did not include the staff time coordinated by a Principle Management Analyst in the County Administrator’s Office. Additional costs for public outreach, while minimal, were absorbed in the County Administrator’s Office budget.
There may be staff costs in the Registrar of Voters office associated with randomly drawing names for commissioner positions and verifying the eligibility of the pool of applicants for the Independent Redistricting Commission. The initial estimate from the Registrar of Voters office is approximately $6,500 per applicant and they have noted specific challenges in researching and verifying family members as well as creating a process to resolve applicant appeals. These costs could be minimized by asking the applicants to certify under penalty of perjury that they meet the requirements rather than doing individual detailed background checks.
DISCUSSION:
Legal Background
Federal and State law require counties to undergo an adjustment to their Supervisorial District boundaries to reflect the outcome of the Census, conducted every ten years.
The United States Constitution provides for the conduct of the population census under Title 13 of the United States Code. That law requires that the census be conducted on or about April 1, 1980, and every ten years thereafter. The returns must be made available within nine months in order to apportion members of the House of Representatives to each of the states. In the intervening years the law requires the U. S. Census Bureau to gather statistics about the residents of the United States for use by Congress. At the Congressional level, districts are exactly equal in population. At the State Legislative and local jurisdiction levels, courts have allowed population between districts to vary (Abate v. Mundt, 403 US 182, 185). Generally, federal courts have allowed deviations up to ten percent between districts as long as there is no evidence of bad faith arbitrariness, or discrimination (Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 US 735; White v. Regester, 412 US 755).
United States Supreme Court decisions in the early 1960’s led to changes in federal and state laws requiring the districts of state and local government legislative bodies to be roughly equivalent in population. This is to ensure the doctrine of “one person-one vote” i.e., the weight of one person’s vote has the same value as another person’s vote. Circumstances in some states that led to the permanent Supreme Court decisions included instances where reapportionment following the Decennial Census had not occurred in some cases for several decades, notwithstanding that populations in some legislative districts grew exponentially while populations in some others grew very little, id at all. The result was that very few voters held disproportionate influence through their respective legislative bodies, and conversely the weight of votes in densely populated districts found their votes diluted.
State of California State and Assembly District Boundaries
Currently the State of California utilizes an Independent Redistricting Commission to draw the boundaries of the Senate and Assembly districts rather than the Legislature drawing them. The process was implement as a result of Proposition 11 which was approved by the voters in November 2008. The state’s process is discussed in more detail further below in this report.
County Supervisorial District Boundaries
In California, the Elections Code (EC) provides guidance to counties in regard to supervisorial redistricting and have been updated several times since the last redistricting was conducted in 2011. In particular, AB 1440 (Campos-2014), SB 1108 (Allen-2016), and SB 1018 (Allen-2018) amended have amended or repealed sections of the EC as follows:
• EC § 21500 requires the Board of Supervisors, following each decennial federal census, and using that census as a basis, “adjust the boundaries of any or all of the supervisorial districts of the county so that the supervisorial districts shall be as nearly equal in population as may be and shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 10301 of Title 52 of the United States Code, as amended. In establishing the boundaries of the supervisorial districts the Board may give consideration to the following factors: (a) topography, (b) geography, (c) cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory, and (d) community of interests of the supervisorial districts.” (Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 732, Sec. 36. (AB 1536) Effective January 1, 2016.)
• EC § 21501 provides that “the boundaries of the supervisorial districts shall be adjusted by the board before the first day of November of the year following the year in which each decennial federal census is taken. If the board fails to adjust the boundaries before the first day of November following the year in which the federal census is taken, a supervisorial redistricting commission shall do so before the 31st day of December of the same year. The adjustment of the district boundaries shall be immediately effective the same as if the act of the supervisorial redistricting commission were an ordinance of the board, subject, however, to the same provisions of referendum as apply to ordinances of the board.” (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
• EC § 21502 requires the supervisorial redistricting commission shall be composed of the district attorney, who shall be chairman, the county assessor, and the county elections official if he or she is elected by the qualified electors of the county, or, if not, the county superintendent of schools if he or she is elected by the qualified electors of the county, or, if not, the sheriff. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
• EC § 21503 provides that “at any time between the decennial adjustments of district boundaries, the board may cause a census of the county to be taken as provided in Section 26203 of the Government Code, and may adjust the boundaries of the supervisorial districts on the basis of that census, or on the basis of population estimates prepared by the State Department of Finance or the county planning department or planning commission, pursuant to Section 21500.” (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
• EC § 21504 provides that “any person claiming that the estimates of population used in the redistricting pursuant to Section 21503 do not reflect the current population within the district boundaries more accurately than the most recent census data, may commence an action in the superior court in declaratory relief to determine that fact. The action shall be brought within 30 days after the adoption of the redistricting ordinance.” (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
• EC § 21506 provides that “the term of office of any supervisor who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which he or she was elected.
At the first election for county supervisors in each county following adjustment of the boundaries of supervisorial districts, a supervisor shall be elected for each district under the readjusted district plan that has the same district number as a district whose incumbent’s term is due to expire.
A change in the boundaries of a supervisorial district shall not be made within 45 days before the first day for circulating nomination papers for an election of supervisors in the county or between the direct primary election and the general election.” (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
• EC § 21507 provides that prior to “adjusting the boundaries of a district pursuant to Section 21500, 21503, or 21504, or for any other reason, the board shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposal to adjust the boundaries of the district prior to the public hearing at which the board votes to approve or defeat the proposal.” (Added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 873, Sec. 3. (AB 1440) Effective January 1, 2015.)
The next Decennial Census is in 2020 and is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2020 when apportionment counts are scheduled to be delivered to the President. The 2020 Decennial Census is required to be available one year following the conduct of the census, on or about April 1, 2021. Based upon the outcome of the decennial census, the boundaries of the supervisorial districts are required be adjusted by the Board of Supervisors before the first day of November of the year following the year in which each decennial federal census is taken.
Supervisor Brown is requesting that, rather than the five supervisors seated in 2021 determining the boundaries of their supervisorial districts, that an Independent Redistricting Commission be established by County ordinance to determine what those boundaries will be. The central idea behind this proposal is that voters should choose their elected officials; elected officials should not choose their voters.
Legal basis for an Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw the Supervisorial District boundaries:
In 2014 Assembly Bill 1440 (Campos) added Section 21507 requiring that before adjusting the boundaries of a district, the board shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposal to adjust the boundaries of the district prior to the public hearing at which the board votes to approve or defeat the proposal.
In 2016 Senate Bill 1108 (Allen) added Chapter 9 of the Elections Code (EC § 23000-230004) pertaining to elections for state and local reapportionment which allows a local jurisdiction to establish by resolution, ordinance, or charter amendment an independent redistricting commission, a hybrid redistricting commission, or an advisory redistricting commission composed of residents of the local jurisdiction to change the legislative body’s district boundaries or to recommend to the legislative body changes to those district boundaries.
In 2018 Senate Bill 1018 (Allen) amended Sections 23000-23003 related to redistricting alternatives and added Section 23004 related to jurisdictions other than counties to contract with counties for redistricting purposes.
Redistricting Options resulting from SB 1108 and SB 1018 include:
1. Option 1 - Advisory Redistricting Commissions (§23002)
A local jurisdiction may prescribe the manner in which members are appointed to the commission provide that person is not an elected official of the local jurisdiction, or a family member, staff member, or paid campaign staff of an elected official of the local jurisdiction, shall not be appointed to serve on the commission. A local jurisdiction may impose additional requirements or restrictions on the commission, members of the commission, or applicants to the commission in excess of those prescribed by this section. (Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 462, Sec. 3. (SB 1018) Effective January 1, 2019.)
2. Option 2 - Independent Redistricting Commissions (§23003)
A local jurisdiction may prescribe the manner in which members are appointed to the commission, provided that the jurisdiction uses an application process open to all eligible residents and provided that the commissioners are not directly appointed by the legislative body or an elected official of the local jurisdiction. A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if the person or any family member of the person has been elected or appointed to, or been a candidate for, an elective office of the local jurisdiction in the eight years preceding the person’s application. Additional criteria apply and is included in the full text of the law contained in Attachment A of this staff report.
3. Option 3 - Hybrid Redistricting Commissions (§23003)
Same criteria apply to Hybrid Redistricting Commissions as Independent Redistricting Commissions noted in Option 2 above.
Background of the State of California’s Legislative District Independent Redistricting Commission at the ballot:
In November of 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11 which created The California Redistricting Commission (Commission) to draw the boundaries lines of the state legislature. The members of the Commission were to be chosen in such a way as to create a lack of partisanship and political protection and/or retribution in drawing the boundary lines. The residents of Solano County voted for Proposition 11 with 52% of the vote in favor. This proposition took the power to draw state legislative lines away from the legislature.
In November of 2010, California voters rejected Proposition 27, which would have repealed the Commission. Solano County voters voted against Proposition 27 with 57% of the vote against repeal.
Also in November of 2010, California voters approved Proposition 20. Proposition 20 extended the power of the Commission to draw the lines for the House of Representatives’ districts in California in addition to the state legislative lines. Solano County voters voted in favor of Proposition 20 with 60% of the vote in favor.
In November of 2012, the California voters were asked whether or not they wanted to keep the state Senate lines drawn by the Commission with Proposition 40. 71% of California voters voted in favor of keeping the new lines. Solano County voters voted in favor of keeping the state Senate lines with 70% of the vote in favor.
The people of California and specifically the people of Solano County have repeatedly supported redistricting by an independent commission. The voters have made abundantly clear that they want boundary lines that are fair and free of political manipulation to favor incumbents or to punish opponents.
California’s Redistricting Process:
California’s independently drawn assembly and congressional lines, in addition to being the clear preference of voters in California and Solano County specifically, have been lauded for their fairness, transparency, lack of partisan consideration and superiority over their predecessors.
Scholars who have reviewed California’s independently drawn lines have reached the conclusion that this process produced superior outcomes to the previously drawn lines.
“California's new assembly, senate, and congressional districts are more congruent with geographic communities of interest than their predecessors.”
“There is little doubt that the maps produced by the CRC, and the process through which these plans came about, represented an important improvement on the legislature-led redistricting of 2001. The new district boundaries kept more communities together and created more compact districts while at the same time increasing opportunities for minority representation. ... [T]hey have the potential to modestly increase competition in California elections and the responsiveness of the legislative branch to changing voter preferences.”
Even the California Supreme Court, in upholding the Commission’s boundaries (Vandermost v. Bowen, 53 Cal. 4th 421, 484), concluded that “[N]ot only do the Commission-certified Senate districts appear to comply with all of the constitutionally mandated criteria set forth in California Constitution, ... the Commission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally appears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process...”
The Commission also gave serious consideration to public testimony. In Solano County specifically, residents who testified before the Commission saw their testimony received strong consideration. For instance, residents of Solano County testified in favor of the southern part of the county and the northern part of the county being represented by different assembly districts. This was designed to allow for the agricultural part of the county to be included with other agricultural areas and the Bay Area portion of the county to be included in the Bay Area. While there has been discussion as to whether this best serves Solano County, the Commission utilized the testimony it was given from Solano County residents.
Redistricting in Solano County:
2001 Redistricting Process
In June of 2001, the Board of Supervisor appointed an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee of two supervisors whose purpose was to bring back a recommended redistricting plan for consideration by the full Board. All Board members to also encourage to individually meet with staff so that alternatives reflecting Board member input could be brought back for review by the Advisory Committee. It was the consensus of the Board that the Advisory Committee would conduct a public meeting at which staff-developed alternatives would be considered.
Before former Supervisor Barbara Kondylis was on the Board, during the 1990 Census, her house was drawn a few blocks outside of District 1. In order to continue to be eligible to run to represent District 1, Supervisor Kondylis was forced to move.
2011 Redistricting Process
In January 2011, staff recommended the Board of Supervisors appoint a Technical Committee consisting of the Director of Information Technology, or designee (GIS Coordinator and Assistant Registrar of Voters); Resource Management Director(or designee - likely County Surveyor); County Counsel (or designee); and the County Administrator to work together from their respective disciplines to come up with proposed boundary alternatives.
A consultant, John Taylor from Environmental Stewardship and Planning Inc., was retained to assist the Technical Committee with development of alternative redistricting scenarios. Mr. Taylor retired in 2006 from Solano County, but while employed by the County, was responsible for the redistricting process in 1991 and 2001.
The redistricting process ended up centering on controversy as to where to place the city of Dixon. Dixon was ultimately taken out of District 5 and moved to District 4. This move was cited as a reason why Supervisor Kondylis voted against the current boundaries. Also, former Supervisor Linda Seifert voted against the current boundaries. Her rationale was disagreement with District 2 losing parts of Fairfield to District 3. The current boundaries were approved on a 3-2 vote of the Board of Supervisors.
The 2010 Census resulted in a total of 413,344 persons living in Solano County as of April 1, 2010. His was up 18,802 or 4.77% from the 2000 Decennial Census. The desirable mean population for each district, (i.e., divide the total population by the number of supervisorial districts) a desirable mean population of 82,669 resulted.
Federal and State redistricting guidelines, established largely by a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, provide that the overall range, i.e., the difference in population between the largest and the smallest districts, not exceed 10%. In 2011, the overall range between the largest district (District 3 with a 5.08% deviation from the mean) and smallest district (District 4 with a -3.88% deviation from the mean) at 8.96% was less than the 10% maximum.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board could:
1. Decide to maintain status quo and continue to have the County manage the redistricting process.
2. Decide not to provide direction to staff to begin the process of creating an Independent Redistricting Commission and retain the power to draw the lines for the Board. This option is not recommended as the voters of Solano County have expressed a preference for independent redistricting at the state level. Allowing an Independent Redistricting Commission to determine the boundaries will remove those who benefit most from the boundaries from drawing them.
3. Decide to pursue other options in EC §23000-23004 including creating an Advisory Redistricting Commission which will recommend boundaries while the Board of Supervisors will ultimately retain control over drawing their own boundaries. This option is not recommended as it still leaves power to draw the boundaries with those who will benefit most from the boundaries.
4. Decide to place a measure on the 2020 ballot creating an Independent Redistricting Commission for the County residents to decide what process should be used. While this option is superior to all of the alternatives, it is not recommended in place of Supervisor Brown’s request. This is because the voters of Solano County have shown a preference for independent redistricting at the state level, so their desires are clear. Also, a ballot measure would incur an unnecessary cost to prepare the measure and then an unnecessary cost for the election. The staff costs for implementation would remain unchanged.