january 7 2020 meeting slideshow

Exactly as extracted, unformatted — for checking against the original. The readable version is easier to read.

COUNCIL OF FIVE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
January 7, 2020
1

Overview
I. Deliverables from 12/19 Meeting
II. Review of MML Data on Districting
III. Lessons Learned from Other Municipalities
IV.Historical Data – Election Candidates
V. Marketing Considerations/Soft Education for Citizens
VI.Foundational Principles of Districting
VII.Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data
2

I. Deliverables from 12/19 Mtg
A. Review Maryland Municipal League (MML) Data
1. Data on Districting
2. Lessons Learned from Municipalities Transitioning
B. Historical Data – Residency and # of Election Candidates
C. Marketing Considerations/Soft Education for Citizens
D. Legal Considerations
1. Foundational Principles
2. Charter Impact from Staggering Elections (TBD)
3. Timeline: Committee Recommendations Election
E. Review CENSUS Data to Conceptualize Districting
3

II. Review of MML Data on Districting
A. June 1991 MML Memo:
• 31 (or 20%) of 154 incorporated cities/towns elect by wards/districts
• Of these 31 with districts:
• 5 (or 17%) had at-large candidates
• 9 (or 30%) have an elected mayor with full voting rights
• 3 (or 10%) permit mayoral voting under special circumstances
B. Dec 2019 MML Data of 159 Maryland Municipalities:
• Election Cycles:
• 92 (or 58%) host elections ODD or EVEN years
• 62 (or 29%) host YEARLY elections
• 5 (or 3%) host elections every THREE or FOUR years
• Terms
• 107 (or 67%) have staggered terms
• 72 (or X%) have 4-yr terms; 18 3-yr terms; 63 2-yr terms
4

III. Lessons Learned from Other Municipalities
A. Impact of turf battles in districts (Arroyo Grande)
B. Overwhelming reasons to do districts; only a few not (Colton)
C. Intermittent requirement to redistrict; limit city’s ability to recruit best elected
officials; creation of fiefdoms (Corning)
D. In large cities districting a necessity, but not for smaller ones; reduce campaign
expenses of candidates; increase opportunities to minorities (Downey)
E. Elected from districts maintains a stronger sense of common good (Fremont)
F. No pros to districting, only cons (Fullerton)
G. Poor minority representation impetus for districts (Glenora)
H. 2 at-large members = statesmen (best interests of whole community); 4 district reps
thought first about own districts and need for deal making (ICMA)
I. Concern of losing whole city focus and generating more deal making (Pacifica)
5

IV. Historical Data – Residency of Election Candidates
6

IV. Historical Data – Number of Candidates
7

V. Marketing Considerations/Soft Education for Citizens
A. Formal/Recurring Email Alerts from Town on Mtgs
• Town of Centreville Update - December 20, 2019
B. Web Page with Advisory Committee Agendas/Minutes
C. Social Media Platforms – Unofficial
D. Option for Non-attendees to Submit Questions and
Feedback?
8

VI. Foundational Principles of Districting
A. 1960s – U.S. Supreme Court decisions: “Population equality” – “1
person, 1 vote”
• Courts will accept variations in population between districts
• District size above or below the average size is its variation
• Total deviation of <10% is generally accepted
B. Redistricting Decision Factors:
• Districts should be compact (with regular boundaries)
• Districts should be contiguous (not separated into 2 or more separate areas)
• Boundaries should follow major geographical or neighborhood boundaries
• And should group together neighborhoods/communities with shared
interests/concerns
• Districts should be based on the overall population – not simply adult/voting
population
• Redistricting should not result in 2 incumbents in the same district
9

VI. Foundational Principles of Districting
C. The Role of Race – the 1965 Voting Rights Act:
“a. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or
procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the
United States to vote on account of race or color . . . .
b. . . . [N]othing in this section established a right to have members of a protected
class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”
• Courts recognize as valid/legitimate goals:
• Compactness, contiguity
• following major geographical/neighborhood boundaries
• Grouping communities with shared interests and concerns
• “Racial gerrymandering” is prohibited (any effort to include or exclude
persons on racial lines regardless of intent)
10

VII. Timelines
Note: Public Hearings Require 21 Days Notice
Council of 5 Advisory
Committee Determines
Recommendations for Town
Council (Dec 19-Feb 19)
Council Decision and Associated Charter Amendments
Town Council Town Council Charter Charter
Receives Review/Decisions Amendments Amendments
Recommendations on Transition Plan Initiated/Public Completed
(Feb 20 Mtg) (Mar 5 & 19) Hearings (Apr 2) (Apr-Jul)
Resulting Election
Candidates File Public Notice of Absentee Ballot
Election Day
Certificate of Candidates for Request Deadline
(Oct 5)
Nomination (Aug 3) Election (Sept 21) (Sept 28)
11

VIII. Districting Scenarios
Based on Census Data
12

VIII. Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data
A. Assumptions:
1. 4 Total Districts; 1 Candidate from Each; 1 At-Large
2. 2010 Population Total of 4,285
3. 4,285 divided by 4 = 1,071.25
B. Potential Scenarios:
Scen 1 Dist 1 Dist 2 Dist 3 Dist 4
A. Scenario 1 - North/South @304 Population 1126 1032 1131 996
Differential 5% -4% 6% -7%
Scen 1 Dist 1 Dist 2 Dist 3 Dist 4
B. Scenario 2 - East/West @Commerce
Population 1126 1140 1023 996
Differential 5% 6% -5% -7%
13

VIII. Districting Scenarios Based on Census Data
Scenario 1 - North/South @304 Scenario 2 - East/West @Commerce
14