Agenda packet — Morgan Hill City Council, February 16, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

Special - Regular Meeting Agenda
City Council
Rich Constantine - Mayor
Gino Borgioli - Mayor Pro Tem
John McKay - Council Member
Yvonne Martinez Beltran - Council Member
Rene Spring - Council Member
Wednesday, February 16, 2022 5:30 PM
Virtual Meeting
Link to join the meeting can be found below

VIRTUAL MEETING GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC COMMENT
In accordance with Executive Order N-25-20 and guidance from the California Department of Public Health on gatherings, remote public participation is allowed.

Physical meetings will not be in the City Council Chamber until further notice.

City Council meetings will be live streamed on Channel 17, on the City’s website and on the City’s Facebook page. Those members of the community that would like to participate in the meetings remotely may do so by joining the virtual meeting at:
https://bit.ly/MHCityCouncilMeeting or by calling in to: (669)900-9128, then enter the webinar id: 873 3200 8380#.
 Public comment may be provided in the following ways:

Join the virtual City Council meeting via the link above, when public comment is opened, raise your virtual hand and be called upon to speak for up to 3 minutes - In order to speak, please be sure that your version of Zoom is up to date.  Join the virtual meeting by calling in to the number above, dial *9 to raise your hand and be called upon to speak for up to 3 minutes
 Send public comments in writing to the City Clerk at
[email protected]
* Please note that comments made on Facebook are not considered public comment.

Page 1 of 397 ends

February 16, 2022
2 SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING
A special meeting of the City Council is called at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a workshop.

SPECIAL MEETING
5:30 P.M. Workshop

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Constantine

ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
City Clerk Michelle Bigelow

DECLARATION OF POSTING AGENDA
Per Government Code Section 54954.2- City Clerk Michelle Bigelow

WORKSHOP

1. CITY COUNCIL REDISTRICTING WORKSHOP
Recommendation:

1. Review and discuss draft maps; and

2. Provide direction to staff on which maps and/or changes to bring forward at the March 2, 2022, public hearing for review and adoption.

REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member McKay

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Christina Turner

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Donald Larkin

Page 2 of 397 ends

February 16, 2022
3 OTHER REPORTS

RECOGNITIONS

PROCLAMATIONS
Proclaiming the month of February 2022 as Black History Month.

PRESENTATIONS
YAC Presentation
Developmental Asset #26 - Caring

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item within the Morgan Hill City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Except for certain specific exceptions, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. (See additional noticing at the end of this agenda)

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion. Pursuant to City Council Policies and Procedures (CP 97-01), any member of the Council or public may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar for comment and action.

Time Estimate for Consent Calendar: 1 - 10 Minutes

2. RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORT ON 2021 CITY ENGINEER ACCEPTANCES OF

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS
Recommendation:

Accept and file Annual Report on 2021 City Engineer acceptances of public improvements completed by private development projects.

3. APPROVE CITY OF MORGAN HILL'S EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN UPDATE 2022
Recommendation:

Page 3 of 397 ends

February 16, 2022
4 Authorize the approval, distribution, and use of the updated Emergency Operations Plan.

4. APPROVE GOVERNMENT CODE 65915 DENSITY BONUS CONCESSION FOR A MARKET RATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (SR2021-
0014/SD2021-0004/EA2021-0012 MONTEREY-KERLEY (DENOVA HOMES)) Recommendation:

Adopt resolution approving the request for the following density bonus concession, pursuant to Government Code: Increase in floor area ratio.

5. APPROVE THE DECEMBER 1, 2021, DECEMBER 15, 2021, AND JANUARY 19, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Recommendation:

Approve the December 1, 2021, December 15, 2021, and January 19, 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes.

6. ADOPT RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT CONDUCTION OF IN-PERSON

MEETINGS WOULD PRESENT A PUBLIC HEALTH RISK AND CONTINUING

TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS
Recommendation:

Adopt resolution to continue holding City Council and commission meetings by teleconference.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING COMMENCEMENT OF 2022

HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Recommendation:

1. Open/Close public hearing; and

2. Adopt resolution authorizing Santa Clara County to commence hazardous vegetation abatement activities on the attached list.

8. CONDUCT TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA)

HEARING APPROVING ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR ROYAL OAK VILLAGE APARTMENTS AT 15440 MONTEREY ROAD WITHIN THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL
Recommendation:

1. Open/close public hearing consistent with the requirements of the Federal Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act ("TEFRA") and Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); and

2. Adopt resolution approving the issuance of bonds by the California

Page 4 of 397 ends

February 16, 2022
5 Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), for the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing facility known as Royal Oak Village, located at 15440 Monterey Road (the “Project”).

9. APPROVE EDEN HOUSING'S (EHI) REQUEST TO WAIVE THE 2020

ANNUAL SURPLUS PAYMENT FOR VILLA CIOLINO AFFORDABLE

APARTMENTS TO MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS
Recommendation:

Authorize the approval of a waiver for the receipt of the 2020 annual payment from Villa Ciolino's surplus cash in the amount of $44,777 due to the City to support the property's more immediate urgent rehabilitation needs.

FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Note: in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a), there shall be no discussion, debate and/or action taken on any request other than providing direction to staff to place the matter of business on a future agenda.

ADJOURNMENT

Page 5 of 397 ends

February 16, 2022
6 NOTICE
Any documents produced by the City and distributed to the majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to an open meeting, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Counter at City Hall located at 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA, 95037 and at the Morgan Hill Public Library located at 660 West Main Avenue, Morgan Hill, California, 95037 during normal business hours. (Pursuant to Government Code 54957.5)

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in the foyer of the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Minutes Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful.

When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item of interest to the public, you may do so during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.

Please submit written correspondence to the Minutes Clerk, who will distribute correspondence to the City Council.

Persons interested in proposing an item for the City Council agenda should contact a member of the City Council who may plan an item on the agenda for a future City Council meeting. Should your comments require Council action, your request may be placed on the next appropriate agenda. Council discussion or action may not be taken until your item appears on an agenda. This procedure is in compliance with the California Public Meeting Law (Brown Act) Government Code §54950.

City Council Policies and Procedures (CP 03-01) outlines the procedure for the conduct of public hearings. Notice is given, pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, that any challenge of Public Hearing Agenda items in court, may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or on your behalf at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to the Public Hearing on these matters.

The time within which judicial review must be sought of the action by the City Council, which acted upon any matter appearing on this agenda is governed by the provisions of Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

For a copy of City Council Policies and Procedures CP 97-01, please contact the City Clerk’s office (408) 779-7259, (408) 779-3117 (fax) or by email [email protected].

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (408)779-7259, (408)779-3117 (fax) or by email [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two-full business days before the start of the meeting.

Page 6 of 397 ends

Page 7 of 397 ends

1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Michelle Bigelow, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED BY: City Manager

CITY COUNCIL REDISTRICTING WORKSHOP

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Review and discuss draft maps; and

2. Provide direction to staff on which maps and/or changes to bring forward at the March 2, 2022, public hearing for review and adoption.

Estimated Time: 90 Minutes

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
REPORT NARRATIVE:

Cities that have City Council districts are required to review and, if necessary, due to changes in population or the laws governing districts, re-draw the district boundaries every ten years following the federal census. Although Morgan Hill's districts were only put in place in 2017, they were based on census data from 2020. The City's required City Council Redistricting process began in August 2021. For this workshop, the City Council and community will review and discuss all draft maps that have been submitted.

The City's demographer, National Demographics Corporation, will go through each map and explain the details of the maps and if they meet all requirements. After receiving community feedback on the draft maps, staff recommends that Council provide staff and the demographer direction on which maps to bring forward for modification and/or adoption at the March 2, 2022, City Council Public Hearing.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

Page 8 of 397 ends

1 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Page 9 of 397 ends

A
C
B
D
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
National Demographics Corporation, December 7, 2021
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2021 Public Map 101
Map is not population-balanced
©2021 CALIPER

Page 10 of 397 ends

District A B C D Total
2020 2020 Census (Raw) 11,705 11,801 10,586 11,474 45,566 Deviation from ideal 314 410 -806 83 1,215
% Deviation 2.75% 3.59% -7.07% 0.72% 10.67%
% Hisp 39% 30% 38% 26% 33%
% NH White 43% 42% 40% 50% 44%
% NH Black 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%
% Asian-American 11% 21% 16% 18% 17%
Total 7,391 7,187 6,684 8,643 29,905
% Hisp 26% 25% 28% 19% 24%
% NH White 56% 53% 54% 60% 56%
% NH Black 4% 2% 2% 2% 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 13% 17% 16% 17% 16%
Total 6,909 7,376 6,216 7,618 28,119
% Latino est. 26% 24% 26% 20% 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 24% 22% 24% 18% 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 5% 12% 9% 10% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%
% NH White est. 66% 61% 62% 68% 64%
% NH Black 4% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Total 4,176 4,044 3,782 5,017 17,019
% Latino est. 20% 20% 22% 18% 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18% 18% 21% 16% 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 4% 9% 7% 8% 7%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
% NH White est. 72% 67% 68% 72% 70%
% NH Black 3% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Total 5,849 6,333 5,242 6,694 24,118
% Latino est. 24% 23% 24% 19% 22%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22% 21% 23% 17% 21%
% Asian-Surnamed 5% 12% 9% 9% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%
% NH White est. 67% 62% 64% 69% 66%
% NH Black est. 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 11,030 10,715 10,603 12,172 44,520
age0-19 29% 28% 27% 27% 28%
age20-60 50% 54% 53% 53% 52%
age60plus 21% 18% 20% 21% 20%
immigrants 18% 18% 21% 17% 18%
naturalized 54% 61% 53% 71% 59%
english 72% 68% 66% 74% 70%
spanish 20% 18% 19% 12% 17%
asian-lang 6% 9% 9% 8% 8%
other lang 2% 4% 6% 6% 5%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less
than Very Well" 9% 10% 15% 8% 11%
hs-grad 37% 38% 42% 39% 39%
bachelor 33% 26% 22% 31% 28%
graduatedegree 12% 17% 14% 16% 15%
Child in Household child-under18 36% 44% 36% 39% 39%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 66% 65% 67% 69% 67%
income 0-25k 8% 10% 6% 7% 7%
income 25-50k 13% 9% 15% 11% 12%
income 50-75k 12% 9% 14% 8% 11%
income 75-200k 43% 39% 45% 46% 43%
income 200k-plus 24% 33% 20% 29% 26%
single family 79% 89% 81% 90% 85%
multi-family 21% 11% 19% 10% 15%
rented 33% 17% 33% 23% 27%
owned 67% 83% 67% 77% 73%
Total population data from the California adjustment to the 2020 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC.

Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.

Housing Stats
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
2020 Total Pop
City of Morgan Hill - Public Map 101
Language spoken at home
Immigration
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Age
Voter Registration (Nov
2020)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2020)

Page 11 of 397 ends

A
D
C
B
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
Monterey Rd
National Demographics Corporation, December 7, 2021
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2021 Public Map 102
Map is not population-balanced
©2021 CALIPER

Page 12 of 397 ends

District A B C D Total
2020 2020 Census (Raw) 13,336 12,080 11,662 8,488 45,566 Deviation from ideal 1,945 689 271 -2,904 4,848
% Deviation 17.07% 6.04% 2.37% -25.49% 42.56%
% Hisp 48% 30% 28% 22% 33%
% NH White 30% 41% 54% 56% 44%
% NH Black 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%
% Asian-American 16% 23% 12% 16% 17%
Total 7,211 7,857 8,340 6,497 29,905
% Hisp 34% 23% 22% 18% 24%
% NH White 45% 51% 63% 65% 56%
% NH Black 4% 3% 1% 2% 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 16% 22% 13% 13% 16%
Total 6,529 7,491 8,150 5,949 28,119
% Latino est. 35% 23% 20% 18% 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 32% 21% 18% 16% 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 9% 13% 6% 8% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 3% 2% 1% 1% 2%
% NH White est. 52% 60% 73% 72% 64%
% NH Black 4% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Total 3,226 4,201 5,501 4,091 17,019
% Latino est. 29% 20% 16% 16% 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 27% 19% 15% 14% 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 7% 10% 4% 7% 7%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
% NH White est. 58% 65% 77% 75% 70%
% NH Black 3% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Total 5,238 6,440 7,149 5,291 24,118
% Latino est. 33% 22% 19% 17% 22%
% Spanish-Surnamed 30% 20% 17% 16% 21%
% Asian-Surnamed 9% 13% 6% 8% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2% 2% 1% 1% 2%
% NH White est. 53% 61% 74% 72% 66%
% NH Black est. 4% 2% 1% 2% 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 11,710 11,734 12,128 8,948 44,520
age0-19 27% 29% 28% 26% 28%
age20-60 55% 54% 48% 52% 52%
age60plus 18% 17% 23% 23% 20%
immigrants 22% 19% 17% 14% 18%
naturalized 54% 67% 53% 69% 59%
english 62% 66% 75% 79% 70%
spanish 27% 16% 15% 9% 17%
asian-lang 8% 12% 6% 5% 8%
other lang 3% 6% 4% 6% 5%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less
than Very Well" 17% 11% 8% 5% 11%
hs-grad 41% 40% 38% 36% 39%
bachelor 23% 28% 31% 32% 28%
graduatedegree 11% 15% 15% 18% 15%
Child in Household child-under18 38% 44% 34% 39% 39%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 69% 68% 63% 68% 67%
income 0-25k 7% 10% 7% 5% 7%
income 25-50k 16% 15% 10% 5% 12%
income 50-75k 14% 10% 12% 7% 11%
income 75-200k 44% 36% 46% 50% 43%
income 200k-plus 19% 29% 26% 34% 26%
single family 75% 84% 86% 97% 85%
multi-family 25% 16% 14% 3% 15%
rented 39% 27% 24% 13% 27%
owned 61% 73% 76% 87% 73%
Total population data from the California adjustment to the 2020 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC.

Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.

Housing Stats
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
2020 Total Pop
City of Morgan Hill - Public Map 102
Language spoken at home
Immigration
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Age
Voter Registration (Nov
2020)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2020)

Page 13 of 397 ends

A
B C D
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave
Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
National Demographics Corporation, December 15, 2021
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2021 Public Map 103
This map is not contiguous
(Corrected 12/15/2021)
©2021 CALIPER

Page 14 of 397 ends

District A B C D Total
2020 2020 Census (Raw) 11,509 11,174 11,117 11,766 45,566 Deviation from ideal 118 -218 -275 375 649
% Deviation 1.03% -1.91% -2.41% 3.29% 5.70%
% Hisp 39% 35% 39% 21% 33%
% NH White 43% 40% 40% 52% 44%
% NH Black 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%
% Asian-American 12% 19% 16% 21% 17%
Total 7,020 7,628 7,083 8,175 29,905
% Hisp 25% 26% 28% 18% 24%
% NH White 56% 52% 53% 62% 56%
% NH Black 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14% 18% 16% 16% 16%
Total 6,807 6,829 6,468 8,015 28,119
% Latino est. 25% 27% 27% 17% 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23% 25% 24% 16% 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 5% 10% 9% 11% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
% NH White est. 66% 59% 62% 69% 64%
% NH Black 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Total 4,151 3,784 3,900 5,184 17,019
% Latino est. 20% 23% 22% 15% 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 19% 21% 21% 14% 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 4% 8% 7% 8% 7%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
% NH White est. 72% 65% 68% 74% 70%
% NH Black 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Total 5,806 5,770 5,428 7,114 24,118
% Latino est. 24% 26% 25% 16% 22%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22% 24% 23% 15% 21%
% Asian-Surnamed 6% 10% 9% 11% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
% NH White est. 67% 60% 64% 70% 66%
% NH Black est. 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,604 11,285 11,219 11,412 44,520
age0-19 29% 28% 27% 27% 28%
age20-60 50% 54% 53% 52% 52%
age60plus 22% 18% 20% 21% 20%
immigrants 17% 21% 22% 14% 18%
naturalized 54% 63% 52% 71% 59%
english 74% 65% 66% 77% 70%
spanish 18% 22% 20% 8% 17%
asian-lang 6% 8% 8% 9% 8%
other lang 2% 5% 6% 6% 5%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less
than Very Well" 8% 12% 16% 6% 11%
hs-grad 36% 42% 43% 35% 39%
bachelor 34% 25% 21% 32% 28%
graduatedegree 12% 12% 14% 20% 15%
Child in Household child-under18 35% 40% 36% 43% 39%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65% 68% 67% 67% 67%
income 0-25k 8% 12% 6% 4% 7%
income 25-50k 12% 16% 15% 6% 12%
income 50-75k 11% 10% 15% 7% 11%
income 75-200k 44% 41% 45% 43% 43%
income 200k-plus 25% 21% 19% 40% 26%
single family 82% 81% 79% 98% 85%
multi-family 18% 19% 21% 2% 15%
rented 28% 31% 36% 11% 27%
owned 72% 69% 64% 89% 73%
Total population data from the California adjustment to the 2020 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC.

Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.

Housing Stats
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
2020 Total Pop
City of Morgan Hill - Public Map 103
Language spoken at home
Immigration
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Age
Voter Registration (Nov
2020)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2020)

Page 15 of 397 ends

A
C
B
D
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave
Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
National Demographics Corporation, February 8, 2022
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2022 Public Map 104
©2021 CALIPER

Page 16 of 397 ends

Public Map 104
District A
Total Pop 11,174
Deviation from ideal -218
% Deviation -1.91%
% Hisp 38.8%
% NH White 43%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 11%
Total 6,992
% Hisp 25%
% NH White 57%
% NH Black 4%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 6,657
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 66%
% NH Black 3%
Total 5,663
% Latino est. 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 68%
% NH Black 3%
Total 4,058
% Latino est. 19%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 73%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,413
age0-19 29%
age20-60 50%
age60plus 21%
immigrants 18%
naturalized 55%
english 73%
spanish 19%
asian-lang 6%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
hs-grad 37%
bachelor 35%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 36%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65%
income 0-25k 8%
income 25-50k 13%
income 50-75k 12%
income 75-200k 43%
income 200k-plus 24%
single family 81%
multi-family 19%
rented 30%
owned 70%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.

B
11,801
409

3.59%
30%
42%
3%
21%
7,187
25%
53%
2%
17%
7,376
24%
22%
12%
2%
61%
2%
6,333
23%
21%
12%
2%
62%
2%
4,044
20%
18%
9%
2%
67%
2%
10,715
28%
54%
18%
20%
61%
68%
18%
9%
4%
10%
38%
26%
17%
44%
65%
10%
9%
9%
39%
33%
89%
11%
17%
83%
C
11,117
-275
-2.41%
39%
40%
2%
16%
7,083
28%
53%
2%
16%
6,468
27%
24%
9%
2%
62%
2%
5,428
25%
23%
9%
2%
64%
2%
3,900
22%
21%
7%
1%
68%
2%
11,219
27%
53%
20%
21%
52%
66%
20%
8%
6%
16%
43%
21%
14%
36%
67%
6%
15%
15%
45%
19%
79%
21%
36%
64%
D
11,474
82 0.72%
26%
50%
3%
18%
8,643
19%
60%
2%
17%
7,618
20%
18%
10%
2%
68%
2%
6,694
19%
17%
9%
2%
69%
2%
5,017
18%
16%
8%
1%
72%
2%
12,172
27%
53%
21%
16%
71%
74%
12%
8%
6%
8%
39%
31%
16%
39%
69%
7%
11%
8%
46%
29%
90%
10%
23%
77%
Total
45,566
684

6.00%
33%
44%
3%
17%
29,905
24%
56%
2%
16%
28,119
24%
22%
9%
2%
64%
2%
24,118
22%
21%
9%
2%
66%
2%
17,019
20%
18%
7%
1%
70%
2%
44,520
28%
52%
20%
18%
59%
70%
17%
8%
5%
11%
39%
28%
15%
39%
67%
7%
12%
11%
43%
26%
85%
15%
27%
73%
02/08/2022 9:54 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

Page 17 of 397 ends

A
C
B
D
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave
Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
Monterey Rd
National Demographics Corporation, February 8, 2022
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2022 Public Map 105
©2021 CALIPER

Page 18 of 397 ends

Public Map 105
District A
Total Pop 11,213
Deviation from ideal -179
% Deviation -1.57%
% Hisp 31.7%
% NH White 50%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 12%
Total 7,443
% Hisp 21%
% NH White 63%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 13%
Total 7,190
% Latino est. 21%
% Spanish-Surnamed 19%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 71%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,283
% Latino est. 19%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 73%
% NH Black 2%
Total 4,696
% Latino est. 16%
% Spanish-Surnamed 15%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 76%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 11,079
age0-19 29%
age20-60 48%
age60plus 23%
immigrants 16%
naturalized 50%
english 76%
spanish 17%
asian-lang 4%
other lang 3%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 7%
hs-grad 37%
bachelor 33%
graduatedegree 14%
Child in Household child-under18 35%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 8%
income 25-50k 10%
income 50-75k 12%
income 75-200k 46%
income 200k-plus 25%
single family 85%
multi-family 15%
rented 26%
owned 74%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

B
11,445
53 0.47%
29%
42%
2%
24%
7,088
26%
50%
2%
20%
7,172
23%
21%
13%
2%
60%
2%
6,194
22%
20%
13%
2%
62%
2%
3,996
19%
18%
10%
2%
67%
2%
10,617
28%
53%
18%
20%
64%
68%
17%
10%
5%
10%
38%
27%
17%
45%
64%
9%
8%
8%
39%
36%
92%
8%
14%
86%
C
11,337
-55
-0.48%
46%
34%
3%
14%
6,538
33%
48%
3%
14%
6,033
33%
31%
8%
2%
56%
3%
4,882
31%
29%
8%
2%
57%
3%
3,244
28%
26%
6%
1%
62%
2%
10,537
27%
55%
18%
23%
53%
63%
23%
9%
4%
17%
42%
22%
12%
36%
70%
6%
19%
15%
43%
18%
74%
26%
41%
59%
D
11,571
179

1.57%
26%
50%
3%
18%
8,836
19%
61%
3%
16%
7,724
20%
18%
9%
1%
68%
2%
6,759
19%
17%
9%
2%
69%
2%
5,083
17%
16%
7%
1%
72%
2%
12,286
27%
53%
21%
16%
71%
74%
12%
8%
6%
8%
39%
31%
15%
39%
69%
7%
12%
9%
45%
28%
88%
12%
25%
75%
Total
45,566
358

3.14%
33%
44%
3%
17%
29,905
24%
56%
2%
16%
28,119
24%
22%
9%
2%
64%
2%
24,118
22%
21%
9%
2%
66%
2%
17,019
20%
18%
7%
1%
70%
2%
44,520
28%
52%
20%
18%
59%
70%
17%
8%
5%
11%
39%
28%
15%
39%
67%
7%
12%
11%
43%
26%
85%
15%
27%
73%
02/08/2022 9:58 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

Page 19 of 397 ends

Page 20 of 397 ends

Public Map 106
District A
Total Pop 11,340
Deviation from ideal -52
% Deviation -0.46%
% Hisp 38.8%
% NH White 43%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 11%
Total 7,084
% Hisp 25%
% NH White 57%
% NH Black 4%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 6,739
% Latino est. 26%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 66%
% NH Black 3%
Total 5,722
% Latino est. 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 3%
Total 4,094
% Latino est. 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 72%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,586
age0-19 29%
age20-60 50%
age60plus 21%
immigrants 18%
naturalized 55%
english 73%
spanish 19%
asian-lang 6%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
hs-grad 37%
bachelor 34%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 36%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65%
income 0-25k 8%
income 25-50k 13%
income 50-75k 12%
income 75-200k 43%
income 200k-plus 24%
single family 80%
multi-family 20%
rented 31%
owned 69%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

B
11,030
-362
-3.18%
29%
43%
3%
22%
6,769
26%
52%
2%
17%
6,928
23%
21%
12%
2%
61%
2%
5,983
22%
20%
12%
2%
63%
2%
3,896
19%
18%
9%
2%
68%
2%
10,114
29%
53%
18%
20%
62%
69%
17%
9%
5%
9%
38%
27%
17%
45%
64%
10%
8%
8%
39%
35%
91%
9%
14%
86%
C
11,761
369

3.24%
39%
40%
2%
16%
7,416
28%
54%
2%
15%
6,861
27%
25%
9%
2%
62%
2%
5,743
25%
23%
9%
2%
63%
2%
4,026
22%
21%
7%
1%
68%
2%
11,673
27%
53%
20%
21%
52%
65%
21%
8%
5%
16%
43%
21%
14%
36%
68%
6%
16%
15%
44%
19%
79%
21%
36%
64%
D
11,435
43 0.38%
26%
50%
3%
18%
8,637
19%
60%
2%
17%
7,591
20%
18%
9%
2%
68%
2%
6,670
19%
17%
9%
2%
69%
2%
5,003
17%
16%
8%
1%
72%
2%
12,147
27%
53%
21%
15%
71%
74%
12%
8%
6%
8%
39%
31%
16%
39%
69%
7%
11%
8%
46%
29%
90%
10%
23%
77%
Total
45,566
731

6.42%
33%
44%
3%
17%
29,905
24%
56%
2%
16%
28,119
24%
22%
9%
2%
64%
2%
24,118
22%
21%
9%
2%
66%
2%
17,019
20%
18%
7%
1%
70%
2%
44,520
28%
52%
20%
18%
59%
70%
17%
8%
5%
11%
39%
28%
15%
39%
67%
7%
12%
11%
43%
26%
85%
15%
27%
73%
02/09/2022 0:14 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

Page 21 of 397 ends

Page 22 of 397 ends

Public Map 107
District A
Total Pop 11,340
Deviation from ideal -52
% Deviation -0.46%
% Hisp 38.8%
% NH White 43%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 11%
Total 7,084
% Hisp 25%
% NH White 57%
% NH Black 4%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 6,739
% Latino est. 26%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 66%
% NH Black 3%
Total 5,722
% Latino est. 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 3%
Total 4,094
% Latino est. 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 72%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,586
age0-19 29%
age20-60 50%
age60plus 21%
immigrants 18%
naturalized 55%
english 73%
spanish 19%
asian-lang 6%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
hs-grad 37%
bachelor 34%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 36%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65%
income 0-25k 8%
income 25-50k 13%
income 50-75k 12%
income 75-200k 43%
income 200k-plus 24%
single family 80%
multi-family 20%
rented 31%
owned 69%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

B
10,943
-449
-3.94%
29%
43%
3%
22%
6,732
26%
52%
2%
18%
6,887
23%
22%
12%
2%
61%
2%
5,945
22%
20%
12%
2%
62%
2%
3,873
19%
18%
9%
2%
68%
2%
10,070
29%
53%
18%
19%
62%
69%
17%
9%
5%
9%
38%
27%
17%
45%
64%
10%
8%
8%
39%
35%
91%
9%
14%
86%
C
11,848
456

4.00%
38%
40%
2%
16%
7,453
28%
54%
2%
15%
6,902
27%
25%
9%
2%
62%
2%
5,781
25%
23%
9%
2%
63%
2%
4,049
22%
21%
7%
1%
68%
2%
11,718
27%
53%
20%
21%
52%
66%
21%
8%
5%
16%
43%
21%
14%
36%
68%
6%
16%
15%
44%
19%
78%
22%
37%
63%
D
11,435
43 0.38%
26%
50%
3%
18%
8,637
19%
60%
2%
17%
7,591
20%
18%
9%
2%
68%
2%
6,670
19%
17%
9%
2%
69%
2%
5,003
17%
16%
8%
1%
72%
2%
12,147
27%
53%
21%
15%
71%
74%
12%
8%
6%
8%
39%
31%
16%
39%
69%
7%
11%
8%
46%
29%
90%
10%
23%
77%
Total
45,566
905

7.94%
33%
44%
3%
17%
29,905
24%
56%
2%
16%
28,119
24%
22%
9%
2%
64%
2%
24,118
22%
21%
9%
2%
66%
2%
17,019
20%
18%
7%
1%
70%
2%
44,520
28%
52%
20%
18%
59%
70%
17%
8%
5%
11%
39%
28%
15%
39%
67%
7%
12%
11%
43%
26%
85%
15%
27%
73%
02/08/2022 23:56 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

Page 23 of 397 ends

A
C
B
D
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
National Demographics Corporation, December 7, 2021
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2021 NDC Green Map
©2021 CALIPER
Este mapa muestra un enfoque mínimo de cambios en el mapa.

Page 24 of 397 ends

District A B C D Total
2020 2020 Census (Raw) 11,509 11,093 11,117 11,847 45,566 Deviation from ideal 118 -299 -275 456 754
% Deviation 1.03% -2.62% -2.41% 4.00% 6.62%
% Hisp 39% 30% 39% 26% 33%
% NH White 43% 43% 40% 50% 44%
% NH Black 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%
% Asian-American 12% 22% 16% 18% 17%
Total 7,020 6,784 7,083 9,019 29,905
% Hisp 25% 26% 28% 19% 24%
% NH White 56% 54% 53% 60% 56%
% NH Black 3% 2% 2% 3% 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14% 17% 16% 17% 16%
Total 6,807 6,989 6,468 7,855 28,119
% Latino est. 25% 24% 27% 20% 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23% 22% 24% 18% 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 5% 12% 9% 9% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%
% NH White est. 66% 61% 62% 67% 64%
% NH Black 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Total 4,151 3,840 3,900 5,128 17,019
% Latino est. 20% 20% 22% 17% 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 19% 18% 21% 16% 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 4% 9% 7% 8% 7%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
% NH White est. 72% 68% 68% 72% 70%
% NH Black 3% 1% 2% 2% 2%
Total 5,806 6,004 5,428 6,880 24,118
% Latino est. 24% 23% 25% 19% 22%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22% 21% 23% 17% 21%
% Asian-Surnamed 6% 12% 9% 9% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%
% NH White est. 67% 62% 64% 68% 66%
% NH Black est. 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,604 10,116 11,219 12,581 44,520
age0-19 29% 29% 27% 27% 28%
age20-60 50% 53% 53% 53% 52%
age60plus 22% 18% 20% 21% 20%
immigrants 17% 18% 22% 17% 18%
naturalized 54% 62% 52% 71% 59%
english 74% 68% 66% 74% 70%
spanish 18% 18% 20% 12% 17%
asian-lang 6% 9% 8% 8% 8%
other lang 2% 4% 6% 6% 5%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less
than Very Well" 8% 10% 16% 8% 11%
hs-grad 36% 38% 43% 39% 39%
bachelor 34% 26% 21% 31% 28%
graduatedegree 12% 17% 14% 15% 15%
Child in Household child-under18 35% 45% 36% 39% 39%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65% 65% 67% 69% 67%
income 0-25k 8% 9% 6% 7% 7%
income 25-50k 12% 9% 15% 12% 12%
income 50-75k 11% 9% 15% 9% 11%
income 75-200k 44% 39% 45% 45% 43%
income 200k-plus 25% 34% 19% 28% 26%
single family 82% 90% 79% 89% 85%
multi-family 18% 10% 21% 11% 15%
rented 28% 17% 36% 25% 27%
owned 72% 83% 64% 75% 73%
Total population data from the California adjustment to the 2020 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC.

Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.

Housing Stats
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
2020 Total Pop
City of Morgan Hill - NDC Green Map
Language spoken at home
Immigration
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Age
Voter Registration (Nov
2020)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2020)

Page 25 of 397 ends

A
C
B
D
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
Monterey Rd
National Demographics Corporation, December 7, 2021
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2021 NDC Orange Map
©2021 CALIPER
Este mapa mira hacia las carreteras principales y las líneas ferroviarias.

Page 26 of 397 ends

District A B C D Total
2020 2020 Census (Raw) 11,340 11,219 11,444 11,563 45,566 Deviation from ideal -52 -173 53 172 344
% Deviation -0.45% -1.51% 0.46% 1.51% 3.02%
% Hisp 38% 29% 38% 27% 33%
% NH White 44% 42% 40% 49% 44%
% NH Black 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%
% Asian-American 11% 22% 16% 17% 17%
Total 7,177 6,915 7,139 8,675 29,905
% Hisp 25% 26% 27% 20% 24%
% NH White 57% 52% 55% 60% 56%
% NH Black 4% 2% 2% 2% 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 13% 18% 16% 16% 16%
Total 6,729 7,018 6,705 7,667 28,119
% Latino est. 25% 23% 27% 21% 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23% 21% 24% 19% 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 5% 12% 9% 9% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
% NH White est. 66% 61% 62% 67% 64%
% NH Black 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Total 4,104 3,918 3,953 5,044 17,019
% Latino est. 19% 19% 22% 18% 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18% 18% 21% 17% 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 4% 9% 7% 7% 7%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
% NH White est. 73% 67% 68% 72% 70%
% NH Black 3% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Total 5,712 6,066 5,630 6,710 24,118
% Latino est. 23% 22% 25% 20% 22%
% Spanish-Surnamed 21% 20% 23% 18% 21%
% Asian-Surnamed 5% 12% 9% 9% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%
% NH White est. 68% 62% 64% 68% 66%
% NH Black est. 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,617 10,364 11,248 12,290 44,520
age0-19 29% 29% 27% 27% 28%
age20-60 50% 53% 53% 53% 52%
age60plus 21% 18% 20% 21% 20%
immigrants 17% 18% 21% 17% 18%
naturalized 53% 63% 52% 71% 59%
english 72% 69% 66% 74% 70%
spanish 20% 17% 20% 12% 17%
asian-lang 6% 9% 9% 8% 8%
other lang 2% 5% 5% 6% 5%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less
than Very Well" 9% 9% 16% 8% 11%
hs-grad 37% 38% 42% 39% 39%
bachelor 33% 27% 22% 31% 28%
graduatedegree 12% 17% 14% 15% 15%
Child in Household child-under18 35% 45% 36% 39% 39%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65% 64% 67% 69% 67%
income 0-25k 8% 10% 6% 7% 7%
income 25-50k 12% 8% 16% 11% 12%
income 50-75k 12% 8% 14% 9% 11%
income 75-200k 44% 40% 44% 45% 43%
income 200k-plus 24% 35% 19% 28% 26%
single family 79% 91% 80% 89% 85%
multi-family 21% 9% 20% 11% 15%
rented 32% 14% 35% 24% 27%
owned 68% 86% 65% 76% 73%
Total population data from the California adjustment to the 2020 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC.

Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.

Housing Stats
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
2020 Total Pop
City of Morgan Hill - NDC Orange Map
Language spoken at home
Immigration
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Age
Voter Registration (Nov
2020)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2020)

Page 27 of 397 ends

C
A
D
B
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
Monterey Rd
National Demographics Corporation, December 7, 2021
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2021 NDC Yellow Map
©2021 CALIPER
Este mapa analiza un enfoque alternativo, creando un distrito C más central

Page 28 of 397 ends

District A B C D Total
2020 2020 Census (Raw) 11,277 11,254 11,292 11,743 45,566 Deviation from ideal -115 -138 -100 352 489
% Deviation -1.01% -1.21% -0.87% 3.09% 4.29%
% Hisp 35% 27% 46% 25% 33%
% NH White 45% 43% 35% 53% 44%
% NH Black 3% 2% 3% 3% 3%
% Asian-American 13% 25% 13% 15% 17%
Total 7,136 7,183 6,967 8,619 29,905
% Hisp 21% 24% 32% 21% 24%
% NH White 59% 50% 50% 63% 56%
% NH Black 3% 2% 3% 2% 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 16% 23% 13% 12% 16%
Total 6,962 7,217 5,830 8,110 28,119
% Latino est. 23% 21% 32% 20% 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22% 20% 30% 19% 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 6% 14% 7% 8% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
% NH White est. 67% 61% 58% 70% 64%
% NH Black 3% 2% 3% 2% 2%
Total 4,262 4,105 3,270 5,382 17,019
% Latino est. 18% 17% 27% 18% 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 17% 16% 25% 16% 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 5% 11% 6% 6% 7%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
% NH White est. 73% 67% 64% 74% 70%
% NH Black 3% 2% 2% 1% 2%
Total 5,953 6,199 4,814 7,152 24,118
% Latino est. 22% 20% 30% 19% 22%
% Spanish-Surnamed 20% 19% 28% 18% 21%
% Asian-Surnamed 6% 14% 7% 8% 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
% NH White est. 68% 62% 59% 71% 66%
% NH Black est. 3% 2% 3% 2% 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,350 10,543 11,535 12,091 44,520
age0-19 29% 28% 28% 26% 28%
age20-60 50% 52% 54% 53% 52%
age60plus 21% 20% 18% 21% 20%
immigrants 17% 21% 22% 15% 18%
naturalized 59% 67% 49% 64% 59%
english 73% 64% 64% 79% 70%
spanish 18% 17% 24% 10% 17%
asian-lang 7% 13% 7% 6% 8%
other lang 2% 6% 5% 6% 5%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less
than Very Well" 8% 14% 15% 5% 11%
hs-grad 36% 37% 45% 38% 39%
bachelor 35% 26% 21% 30% 28%
graduatedegree 12% 18% 12% 17% 15%
Child in Household child-under18 36% 43% 37% 38% 39%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65% 63% 70% 68% 67%
income 0-25k 8% 5% 9% 7% 7%
income 25-50k 13% 10% 19% 6% 12%
income 50-75k 11% 10% 16% 7% 11%
income 75-200k 43% 38% 42% 49% 43%
income 200k-plus 25% 37% 14% 32% 26%
single family 83% 91% 70% 96% 85%
multi-family 17% 9% 30% 4% 15%
rented 29% 15% 47% 14% 27%
owned 71% 85% 53% 86% 73%
Total population data from the California adjustment to the 2020 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC.

Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.

Housing Stats
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
2020 Total Pop
City of Morgan Hill - NDC Yellow Map
Language spoken at home
Immigration
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Age
Voter Registration (Nov
2020)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2020)

Page 29 of 397 ends

Long Beach
555 E. Ocean Blvd, Ste. 420
Long Beach, CA 90802
Sacramento
555 Capitol Mall, Ste. 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Oakland
1901 Harrison St., Ste. 1550
Oakland, CA 94612
Olson Remcho LLP olsonremcho.com

MEMORANDUM

VIA EMAIL
TO: Don Larkin, City Attorney
FROM: Tom Willis
DATE: January 10, 2022
RE: Contiguity as Applied to the City’s Redistricting Process

SUMMARY
The City is in the midst of redistricting its city council districts to conform to the 2020 census and comply with the recently-enacted State FAIR MAPS Act. The City has released several draft maps including three by its demographer NDC.

Each of NDC’s draft maps splits current District B in order to bring portions of neighboring District D that currently are not contiguous into contiguous districts. Current District B runs through the entire center of the City and is generally bounded by Highway 101 to the North and Monterey and Butterfield Streets to the South. The current architecture puts all of the portions of the City to the north of Highway 101 into one district, District D, even though those portions are not geographically connected; in redistricting terms those portions are not contiguous.

District D consists of four non-contiguous areas: (1) in the south, an area containing Nordstrom and the Jackson Meadows, Jackson Oaks, and Holiday Lake Estates neighborhoods (the South Area); (2) an island containing Live Oak High School; (3) in the north an area containing Mission Ranch and Coyote Creek Estates neighborhoods (the North Area); and (4) an island containing the Math Institute Golf Course. The NDC plans would connect the North and South Areas to the rest of the City in districts that are contiguous. Since the Live Oak School and Golf Course are on islands not connected to any other City land, they cannot be drawn in contiguous districts but in the draft maps have been included in the council districts closest to them.

On December 15, 2021, the City received a letter from Armando Benavides and eight other individuals opposing NDC’s draft maps or any draft map that would split current District B into two or more council districts. In addition to arguing that District B is a community of interest that should be kept whole, Mr. Benavides contends that splitting

Page 30 of 397 ends

Don Larkin, City Attorney
January 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

District B would violate the State FAIR MAPS Act, the California Voting Rights Act, and the federal Voting Rights Act. For the reasons set forth below, we believe those arguments are without merit. Rather, the State FAIR MAPS Act requires districts to be contiguous where possible, meaning that the North and South Areas must be included in districts that are geographically connected with other parts of the City. This will necessitate splitting current District B.

ANALYSIS
I. The State FAIR MAPS Act Requires Contiguous Districts in Morgan Hill In his letter, Mr. Benavides does not really dispute that current District D is not contiguous, that it’s possible to include the North and South Areas of District D in contiguous districts, or that in order to do that current District B must be split.

Instead, he contends that contiguity is only one of four traditional redistricting criteria that the City must consider when drawing districts and that the other three criteria favor keeping Districts B and D as they are.1 Letter at 4. But even if we assume for present purposes that Mr. Benavides is correct that the three other redistricting criteria support keeping Districts B and D unchanged, the argument still fails as a matter of law and is at odds with the plain text of the State FAIR MAPS Act.

Mr. Benavides is referring to the four redistricting criteria that a city must follow once it has ensured that a plan complies with higher ranked criteria set forth in federal and state constitutional and statutory requirements.2 The State FAIR MAPS Act states as follows:
(c) The council shall adopt district boundaries using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
(1) To the extent practicable, council districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous.
1 Those other criteria are keeping neighborhoods and communities of interest whole, making districts easily understandable, and making districts compact. See Elec. Code § 21601(c)(2)-(4). 2 Those include equal population, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the federal Voting Rights Act. See Elec. Code § 21601(a)-(b).

Page 31 of 397 ends

Don Larkin, City Attorney
January 10, 2022

Page 3 ends

(2) To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
(3) Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the city.
(4) To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.

Cal. Elec. Code § 21601 (emphasis added).

As the plain text makes clear, the criteria are to be applied in order of priority and contiguity is the first criterion. Thus, contiguity must be prioritized over all other criteria. Moreover, the requirement of contiguity is mandatory: “council districts shall be geographically contiguous.” Thus, section 21601(c) clearly requires all portions of a district to be geographically connected, and that requirement must be satisfied before a city moves on to the other criteria, such as keeping neighborhoods whole or districts compact.

Despite the clear language of Elections Code section 21601, Mr. Benavides argues that the qualifier “to the extent practicable” introduces some flexibility into the contiguity requirement. We disagree. Given the mandatory nature of the requirement, we believe the phrase “to the extent practicable” means that districts must be contiguous if it is possible to do so but the standard also realizes that in some cases it is impossible to make municipal districts contiguous because there may be islands of incorporated areas that are surrounded by other cities or unincorporated areas. That is the case with respect to two incorporated islands of the City: the golf course and Live Oak High School. It is impossible to draw those areas into a contiguous district. Thus, the standard accommodates those situations when contiguity is impossible but nonetheless requires contiguity where is it possible. That is the case for the South and North Areas of the city – it is possible to include them in contiguous districts. Therefore, Elections Code section 21601 requires them to be so drawn.

Page 32 of 397 ends

Don Larkin, City Attorney
January 10, 2022

Page 4 ends

II. Splitting District B Would Not Violate the California Voting Rights Act Mr. Benavides next contends that splitting District B could subject the City to liability under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). His argument is not that splitting District B by itself would violate the CVRA. Rather he seems to be arguing that the potential plaintiffs who demanded the City convert to district elections under the CVRA agreed to the City’s remedial plan of keeping the mayor position at-large, instead of requiring all five council seats to be elected by district elections, in return for an agreement that the City would draw and maintain District B in its current form, namely stretching through the urban center of the City. He implies that if District B were redrawn, those potential plaintiffs could sue the City over the fact that the mayor is elected at-large instead of by-district, and that the CVRA requires all city council seats to be elected by-district.

Mr. Benavides is correct that the CVRA defines an “at large” method of election as, among other systems, “one that combines at-large elections with district-based elections.” Cal. Elec. Code § 14027. That could cover an election of an at-large mayor with other council members elected from districts. The CVRA contains no apparent exception for jurisdictions that want to convert to district elections but maintain an at-large mayoral election. Thus, Mr. Benavides finds some support from the text of the CVRA when viewed in isolation.

However, notwithstanding section 14027, there is a provision in the Government Code that supports the position that a general law city can comply with the CVRA by converting to district elections for councilmembers but retaining an at-large election for mayor. Well after the CVRA was adopted in 2002, the Legislature passed legislation that encouraged jurisdictions to move to district elections by limiting their liability from a CVRA challenge if they did so. See Cal. Elec. Code § 10010. As part of those changes, the Legislature also passed SB 493 in 2015 that allowed general law cities to transition to district elections without first having to seek voter approval. That provision has been amended twice since then and currently states:

Notwithstanding Section 34871 or any other law, the legislative body of a city may adopt an ordinance that requires the members of the legislative body to be elected by district or by district with an elective mayor, as described in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 34871, without being required to submit the ordinance to the voters for approval. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall comply with the requirements and criteria of Section 21601 or 21621 of the Elections Code, as applicable, and include a declaration that the change in the method of electing members of the legislative body is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001

Page 33 of 397 ends

Don Larkin, City Attorney
January 10, 2022

Page 5 ends

(Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 14025) of Division 14 of the Elections Code).

Cal. Gov’t Code § 34886 (emphasis added).

Government Code section 34871 states that a city’s “legislative body may submit to the registered voters an ordinance providing for the election of members of the legislative body in any of the following ways: . . . (c) By districts in four, six, or eight districts, with an elective mayor pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 34900).” Given that section 34886 allows general law cities to convert to districts to comply with the CVRA but retain an at-large election for mayor “notwithstanding . . . any other law”, the section appears to trump Elections Code section 14027. In addition, section 34486 was added by statute in 2015, and amended both in 2017 and 2019, all of which occurred well after the California Voting Rights Act was adopted in 2002. “It is well established that a statute enacted later in time controls over an earlier-enacted statute, and it is equally well established that a specific statute prevails over a statute that is more general.” Cross v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. App. 5th 305, 322 (2017) (citing State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 4th 940, 946 (2015)).

Further, at least two CVRA cases that were tried to judgment required the cities to adopt district elections but permitted the jurisdictions to maintain an at-large mayor even though the mayor was a voting member of the council. See Yumori-Kaku v. City of Santa Clara, 59 Cal. App. 5th 385, 408 (Dec. 30, 2020) (trial court approved district-based elections with a mayor elected at-large; the issue was not, however, addressed in the appellate opinion); see also Juarequi v. City of Palmdale (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC483039) (same).

Although those courts did not analyze the issue, apparently neither the court nor plaintiffs objected.

III. Splitting District B Would Not Violate the Federal Voting Rights Act Finally, Mr. Benavides argues that if the City “splits District B in two parts a practice known in Section 2 parlance as ‘cracking’ when it disproportionately concentrates minority voters – it would run the risk of a Section 2 action in federal court.” Letter at 8. Again, we believe the argument is not supported by the facts or law.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides that no “standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race or color” or membership in a language minority group. 52 U.S.C. § 10301. “A violation [of Section 2] is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes . . . are not equally open to participation

Page 34 of 397 ends

Don Larkin, City Attorney
January 10, 2022

Page 6 ends

by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Id.

The Supreme Court has established a number of elements that a plaintiff must prove to demonstrate that a redistricting plan violates section 2. Initially, a section 2 plaintiff must satisfy the three so-called Gingles preconditions. Then, only if those are met, will a court consider whether under the totality of the circumstances, the challenged practice impairs the ability of the minority voters to participate equally in the political process. Courts have, however, stated that it would be a very unusual case in which plaintiffs could establish the existence of the Gingles preconditions but fail to establish a violation of section 2 under the totality of the circumstances test. See NAACP v. City of Niagara Falls, 65 F.3d 1002, 1007 (2nd Cir 1995).

The three Gingles factors are the following:

1. The minority group must be sufficiently large and compact to constitute a majority in a single district;

2. The minority group must be politically cohesive; and

3. The minority group must be able to demonstrate that the majority votes sufficiently in a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the minority’s candidate of choice.

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50-51 (1986).

To meet the first Gingles factor, a minority group must establish it could constitute a majority (50%+1) of the citizen voting age population (CVAP) of a district.

Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 186 (2009); Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1425 (9th Cir. 1989) (requiring CVAP rather than total population to show a majority district under section 2).

Mr. Benavides claims District B in its current form is or should be protected by the VRA. Thus, to state a claim under the VRA, a plaintiff would have to establish that all three Gingles are present with respect to District B. But on its face District B does not meet the first Gingles factor: no minority group constitutes a majority of CVAP. The relevant CVAP numbers for District B are: 26% Latino, 3% Black, 18% Asian, and 52% White. Moreover, not even a claim that District B should be treated as a coalition district – where more than one minority group prefer the same candidates and have similar voting patterns – would be meritorious since the White population still constitutes a majority of the CVAP.

Page 35 of 397 ends

Don Larkin, City Attorney
January 10, 2022

Page 7 ends

For this reason, it is clear that the VRA does not require or compel the City to maintain District B in its current form.

TAW:NL
(00455769-3)

Page 36 of 397 ends

From: Donald Larkin
To: Rich Constantine; Gino Borgioli; Rene Spring; Yvonne Martinez Beltran; John McKay Cc: Christina Turner; Michelle Bigelow
Subject: Redistricting Information
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 12:13:08 PM
Attachments: 2021 Redistricting for Community Empowerment -How To Guide.pdf Dear Mayor and Council Members,
You have received several e-mail messages from residents concerned about the advice you have received from our consultants, outside counsel, and myself about the new requirements for redistricting. The attached how-to guide published by the ACLU and Common Cause contains additional guidance about the redistricting process, including the contiguity requirement. I would encourage you to read this information prior to the workshop next week. More general information about the concepts of contiguity and communities of interest can be found here: https://latino.ucla.edu/redistricting-criteria-and-legal-requirements/ Redistricting Criteria and Legal
Requirements | Latino Policy & Politics
Initiative
The UCLA Voting Rights Project is the flagship project of the UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Initiative aimed at creating an accessible and equitable system of voting for all Americans through impact litigation, research, and clinical education to expand access to the ballot box.
latino.ucla.edu
Best regards,
Don
Donald A. Larkin
City Attorney
City of Morgan Hill
Tel: (408) 778-3490
Email: [email protected]
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or attorney-client privileged material. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

Page 37 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 1

Page 38 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 2 The ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU of Southern California work to protect and advance civil rights and liberties, including the right to vote and the right to fair representation. We strive for a democracy that is just and equal. We seek to ensure that all communities, including people of color, people impacted by the criminal legal system, Californians with limited-English proficiency, people with disabilities, and other historically underrepresented communities have meaningful and fair access to engage in our democracy.

California Common Cause is dedicated to building a democracy that includes everyone. A state affiliate of the nonpartisan nonprofit organization Common Cause, California Common Cause works on voting rights, redistricting, government transparency, and money in politics reforms to end structural inequities in our state and local democracies and to create governments at all levels that are accountable to and reflective of California’s communities.

RESEARCH/WRITING:

Kiyana Asemanfar
Program Manager, California Common Cause
Christina Fletes-Romo
Voting Rights Attorney, ACLU of Northern California
Julia A. Gomez
Staff Attorney, ACLU of Southern California
Angélica Salceda
Democracy and Civic Engagement Director, ACLU of Northern California Jonathan Mehta Stein
Executive Director, California Common Cause
EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE:

Peter Eliasberg
First Amendment and Democracy Director, ACLU of Southern California Jenna Pittaway
Director of Creative, ACLU of Southern California
DESIGN:

Caylin Yorba-Ruiz
Graphic Designer, ACLU of Southern California
MAPS:

Caylin Yorba-Ruiz
Graphic Designer, ACLU of Southern California
Sophie Beiers
Data Journalist, ACLU National
PUBLISHED:

April 2021

Page 39 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 3

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
PART I: The Rules of Redistricting
Traditional Redistricting Principles
Substantial Equality of Population
Requirements of the Federal Voting
Rights Act of 1965
Empowering Historically Disenfranchised
Communities
PART II: The Redistricting Process
Redistricting Commissions
Cities and Counties
County Boards of Education, School
Districts, Community College
Districts and Special Districts

CLOSING

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY

ENDNOTES
5 6
10 11
17 19
20 21
27 31
32 35
40

Page 40 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 4 OVERVIEW Redistricting is the process of redrawing the district maps used by political jurisdictions to elect public officials. This process takes place every ten years following each decennial census and affects all government bodies that use district elections including the U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, county boards of supervisors, city councils, school boards, and special districts (e.g., water and health care districts). This year, hundreds of government bodies throughout the state will begin the process of redrawing their lines ahead of the 2022 elections.

District lines have enormous power. Decennial redistricting ensures that each district has about the same population so that each person is equally represented in government.

Redistricting can also keep people with common interests, cultures, languages, and histories bundled together so
they can effectively advocate for themselves and make
their voices heard in local affairs. Where lines are drawn may determine who wins an election and, in turn, which
communities have representation and what laws or policies are passed. These lines will have an impact for at least the next ten years, and many times inform where lines will be drawn in the decades that follow.

Unfortunately, in jurisdictions across the United States, district lines have been and continue to be drawn in a
way that splits communities apart, robbing them of their voice and making it harder to elect a representative
responsive to their needs. District lines have also been used to pack communities together, so they have influence in fewer districts than their size merits. To prevent these sorts of abuses and manipulations, there are federal and state laws that provide communities with protections in the redistricting process. In this Guide, we discuss those protections and give an overview of local redistricting processes to help your organization best advocate for the communities you serve.

Page 41 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 5 Part I:

THE RULES OF

REDISTRICTING
There are many factors that go into redistricting. The following criteria, however, guide all line drawing:
• Constitutional Mandate. Districts must be substantially equal in population. • Federal Mandate. District maps must comply with Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). • Traditional Redistricting Principles. Depending on the jurisdiction, complying with some of these principles may be required.

Although the constitutional and federal mandates take priority, we first discuss traditional redistricting principles because these concepts strongly inform other redistricting concepts.

Page 42 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 6 State and federal law recognize a set of general criteria that guide redistricting, often referred to as “traditional redistricting principles.”1 In California, state law requires that counties2 and cities3 adopt districts using the following criteria in this order of priority:

1. Contiguity;

2. Maintaining neighborhoods and communities of interest;

3. Minimizing the division of a city or census designated place (for counties);

4. Following natural and artificial boundaries; and

5. Geographical compactness (only where it does not
conflict with preceding criteria).4
These principles lie at the heart of the redistricting process and serve important democratic purposes. For example,
ensuring contiguity and compactness in district maps
helps avoid the practice of gerrymandering because it
limits the opportunities line drawers have to improperly manipulate lines. Contiguity and compactness also help to bind communities together and in turn help enable effective representation.

Contrary to the law for cities and counties, no state laws explicitly require county boards of education, school
districts, community college districts, and special districts to follow traditional redistricting principles. However, because these criteria are meant to help line drawers
draft fair and equitable maps, it is a best practice for all line drawers, whether required by statute or not, to follow traditional redistricting criteria closely.

Traditional
Redistricting
Principles
GERRYMANDERING refers to
the manipulation of district
lines to improperly affect
political power. Lines can be
gerrymandered to favor certain
political parties, racial groups,
or incumbents. Conversely,
lines can be gerrymandered
to limit the opportunities of
a political party, to dilute the
vote of minority groups, or to
draw out an incumbent from
their existing district.

ELBRIDGE GERRY (NATIONAL PORTRAIT

GALLERY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION)
The term “gerrymander” was first used in
1812 to describe a district map signed into
law by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge
Gerry. The map was improperly drawn to
protect partisan interests, resulting in one
district that resembled a salamander.

REMEMBER,
it is mandatory for most
cities and counties to
comply with traditional
redistricting principles, and
they are also prohibited from
adopting district boundaries
for the purpose of favoring or
discriminating against a
political party.5

Page 43 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 7 1 2
3 4
City of
Oceanside
Districts
Below we highlight three redistricting principles that are key to ensuring the drawing of fair maps: contiguity,
communities of interest, and compactness.
• Contiguity. The Supreme Court has identified contiguity as a redistricting principle.7,8 Contiguity is simple to ensure. A district is contiguous if its perimeter can be traced in one, unbroken line. A district consisting of two or more unconnected areas is not contiguous. Unless
your jurisdiction is itself noncontiguous (e.g., the City of San Diego), all districts in your jurisdiction should be contiguous.

TIP
If your jurisdiction is refusing
to adhere to traditional
redistricting principles, we
recommend that you provide
public comment stating that
evidence that line drawers
followed traditional redistricting
principles often forms part of a
jurisdiction’s defense in voting
rights cases.6
City of
San Diego
Districts
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
8 The City of Oceanside is contiguous. All four of its
districts are contiguous, consistent with state law. The City of San Diego is noncontiguous. For this reason,
District 8 had to be drawn in a noncontiguous manner.

Page 44 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 8 • Communities of Interest. The Supreme Court
recognizes keeping communities of interest whole as a
key part of the map-drawing process.9,10 A jurisdiction’s communities of interest are its overlapping sets of
neighborhoods, networks, and groups that share
interests, priorities, views, cultures, histories, languages, and values. The following is a non-exhaustive list of
elements that help define communities of interest:
• Shared interests in issues such as schools, housing,
transit, health, and environmental conditions;
• Common social and civic networks, including
churches, temples, mosques, homeowner
associations, and community centers, and shared
use of community spaces, like parks and shopping
centers;
• Racial and ethnic compositions, cultural identities,
and language;
• Similar socio-economic factors such as income and
education levels;
• Other shared political boundary lines, such as
shared school districts; and
• Natural and man-made features, including streets,
highways, canals, hills, etc.

There is no single, simple, concrete definition of a
“community of interest.” In practice, a holistic picture of the communities of interest in the jurisdiction takes shape only through extensive public testimony from
community members. To make sure they get the district
lines right, line drawers need to schedule as many
workshops and public hearings as possible to hear that
testimony.

A note about communities
of interest and RACE and
ETHNICITY. Race and
ethnicity are one of many
factors that can help define
your community of interest.

However, they cannot be the
only factors. It is possible
for a group of individuals to
share race in common but
have different priorities and
concerns, interact infrequently,
or not share similar socioeconomic backgrounds. For
that reason, these individuals
likely would not constitute a
community of interest.

Because of this, you should
always use various types
of factors to describe your
community of interest. It can
include the race and ethnicity
of your community if that is
a shared characteristic, but
your testimony should also
highlight, where relevant,
shared interests, common
social and civic networks,
similar socio-economic factors,
and shared neighborhoods
and/or political boundaries.

We discuss the role of race
in redistricting in more detail
when we cover the federal
Voting Rights Act below.

Page 45 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 9 • Compactness. A compact district is one where people
within the district live relatively near each other.11
Most courts have applied an intuitive “eyeball” test to determine if a district is compact.12 Some courts have
also looked at mathematical measures that, for example, compute the ratio of the area of the district to the
area of the minimum enclosing circle for the district.13 Although districts that are shaped closer to a circle are technically more compact than districts with tendrils,
line drawers do not need to prioritize simple geometric shapes.14 Instead, line drawers must prioritize higher
ranked criteria, such as a jurisdiction’s communities of interest and compliance with the Constitution and the
VRA, both of which are discussed later in this Guide.

To illustrate what is and is not acceptably compact for purposes of redistricting, attached in Appendix A are
examples of districts that courts have found are or are not compact.

Page 46 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 10 All districts within a political jurisdiction must have “substantial equality of population” to ensure that each person is equally represented in government. For example, if a jurisdiction has five districts and a population of 50,000, the ideal district size is 10,000 people. Federal and state law require substantial equality of population because drawing districts of exactly equal populations is difficult and often at odds with the other goals of a line-drawing body. Drawing district lines that keep communities of interest intact, that reflect public testimony, and that are contiguous and reasonably compact may result in districts that have slightly different populations.

How much of a departure, or deviation, from the ideal
district population size is allowed between districts? For state and local redistricting (i.e., anything other than congressional redistricting), the Supreme Court has stated that a difference between the largest and smallest district (total deviation) of up to ten percent will be assumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise.17 Maps with total deviations above ten percent can be justified only in rare circumstances.18
Note that the appropriate measure of population when
considering substantial equality of population is total population, not alternative measures like the population of voters or the citizen voting-age population (CVAP).19,20 This reflects the principle that a legislative body, like a city council or the governing board of a school district, represents all of a jurisdiction’s residents, not merely those who are eligible to vote.

Substantial Equality
of Population

CALCULATING SUBSTANTIAL

EQUALITY OF POPULATION
1 2
3 4
5 10,300
10,050
10,350
9,850
9,450
+3.0%
+0.5%
+3.5%
-1.5%
-5.5%

DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION
Total deviation: 9.0%
(3.5% + 5.5%)
Total population:

Ideal district population:
50,000
10,000
(50,000 ÷ 5 districts)
Note: You get a total deviation of 9% by
adding the deviation of the smallest district
(3.5%) with the deviation of the largest
district (5.5%).

Page 47 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 11 The VRA stands for the idea that every voter should have a chance to cast a meaningful ballot. To achieve this
goal, Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or language.21 This means, among other things, that line drawers cannot intentionally or unintentionally create maps that dilute the voting power of racial, ethnic, and language minorities.

Because it is impossible to ensure maps do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity without looking at race or ethnicity, the Supreme Court has declared that districting may be performed “with consciousness of race.”22 At the same time, the Supreme Court does not permit racial
gerrymanders—maps where race is the dominant and
controlling factor that line drawers consider when they place residents within or outside a district.23 To avoid a racially gerrymandered map, line drawers must seek to keep politically cohesive communities of interest together that share similarities in addition to their race or ethnicity.

Below we discuss the ways in which maps have been drawn to dilute the voting power of minority groups and how line drawers can avoid creating these types of maps.

Requirements of the
Federal Voting Rights
Act of 1965
We use the term “MINORITY”
in this Guide because it tracks
the language used in relevant
statutes and case law. We
recognize that Black, Brown,
Indigenous, and other
communities of color have
been referred to as minorities
despite, in some cases, not
being numerical minorities.

We also recognize the term
minority carries with it
an incorrect connotation
regarding a lack of
socio-economic and political
power.

Page 48 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 12 Packing and Cracking
Various redistricting techniques have historically been used, and are still used, to dilute the political power of racial, ethnic, and language minorities. The two most common
techniques are “packing” and “cracking.”
Packing refers to concentrating as many individuals from a minority group as possible in as few districts as possible to limit the total number of districts in which they have influence. For example, if a community could be 55 percent of the voting age population in two different districts but are concentrated together such that they are 80 percent of just one district and 15 percent of another, “packing” has occurred. Now, instead of the minority group being able to elect a candidate of their choice in two districts, they only have enough political power to elect a candidate of their choice in one district.

Cracking refers to fragmenting concentrations of minority populations among multiple districts to ensure that they have no effective voice in any one district. For example, if a community could be 60 percent of one district but is instead split so that it is 30 percent of two different districts, “cracking” has occurred. In other words, instead of having the political power to elect a candidate of their choice in one district, the minority group has been split up in such a way so that they do not have enough political power to elect a person of their choosing in any district.

The examples to the left demonstrate three ways a
line drawer could map four districts within the same
jurisdiction. In this simplified hypothetical, minority voters are represented by light blue dots. The first example
“packs” light blue voters into district 3. The second “cracks” them into all four districts. The third example does neither, thus avoiding minority vote dilution. To prevent packing, cracking, and other discrimination in our elections systems, Majority-minority districts are highlighted
in orange.
% of Minority Residents

PACKING

CRACKING

NEITHER
11%
22%
0%
11%
33%
56%
89%
33%
11%
11%
33%
56%
D1 D2 D3 D4

PACKED DISTRICT
1 3 4

CRACKED DISTRICT
1 2
3 4

NEITHER
1 2
3 4
2

Page 49 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 13 Drawing a District Map that Complies with the VRA
The VRA aims to ensure that the vote of minority groups is not diluted as a result of the manner in which district lines are drawn. To avoid this form of vote dilution (and violating Section 2 of the VRA), line drawers must create district maps with one or more “majority-minority” districts, or districts where a politically cohesive minority group has an effective opportunity to elect candidates of choice, when:
• the minority group is large enough to constitute the
majority of the voting population in a geographically
compact district;
• the minority group is politically cohesive, and the
majority group votes as a bloc to usually defeat the
minority group’s preferred candidates; and,
• looking at the totality of the circumstances, the minority group has less of an opportunity to participate in the
electoral process and elect candidates of their choice
than the majority group.25
To determine whether the VRA requires one or more
majority-minority districts in your jurisdiction, line drawers should ask themselves the following questions during the redistricting process:
• Is the jurisdiction home to a politically cohesive
minority group?
Here, line drawers must determine whether the minority
group shares a preference for certain candidates or
ballot measures. Line drawers should look to indicators such as past election results and public testimony to
assess whether a minority group is politically cohesive.

TIP
You can speak to this question
by providing examples of the
issues over which the minority
group has coalesced. For
example, if the minority group
recently organized to oppose
an anti-immigrant ordinance
or to support a particular
candidate, you can highlight
this as evidence that the
minority group is politically
cohesive.
the VRA prohibits district maps that unlawfully dilute the voting power of any racial, ethnic, or language minority group.24 Map drawers do not need to intend to discriminate against minority voters for a map to be found in violation of Section 2 of the VRA. It is enough that a map results in minority vote dilution for it to be found unlawful.

Page 50 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 14 • Has the minority group had difficulty electing
candidates of choice because the majority group
votes opposite to the minority group’s preferences?
If the majority group is consistently voting contrary to the minority group, it may be difficult, if not impossible, for the minority group to successfully vote their
preferences depending on how the lines are drawn.

Think back to “cracking.” If a cohesive minority
group makes up 60 percent of a district, they have an
opportunity to successfully vote their preferences in
such a district. But if the group is split up between two districts, such that they only make up 30 percent of
each district, they will never be able to successfully vote their preferences if the majority group that makes up 70 percent of each district consistently votes opposite of the minority group’s preferences.
• Is the minority group large enough to constitute
a majority in a geographically compact voting
district?
Section 2 of the VRA protects only the ability of a
minority group to elect candidates of their choice, not the ability to influence the outcome of an election.26 The Supreme Court has held that, to show that a minority
group can elect a candidate of choice, they must
constitute more than 50 percent of a hypothetical voting district. This is a bright-line rule to help assess whether the VRA mandates majority-minority districts in your
jurisdiction. In practice, there are instances where a
politically cohesive group can elect a candidate of choice even if they constitute less than 50 percent of a voting district (see crossover voting and minority coalition
voting, discussed below), and instances where they
cannot elect a candidate of choice even if they constitute more than 50 percent of a voting district (e.g., because of low voter registration rates or voter suppression
tactics). Notwithstanding this reality, the VRA’s Section 2 requirements kick-in only if this 50 percent threshold is met in a hypothetical district.

TIP
Line drawers should look to
public testimony and conduct
what is known as “racially
polarized voting analysis” to
answer this question. A racially
polarized voting analysis
looks at past election results
and, using various statistical
methods, determines whether
the results show that the
minority group votes cohesively
and that the majority group
also votes cohesively to usually
defeat the minority group’s
preferred candidates.

Page 51 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 15 In making this numerical assessment, line drawers
must look at citizen voting age population numbers. We
discuss this measure of population in the next section. • Does the minority group have less of an
opportunity to participate in the electoral process
and elect candidates of their choice?
Line drawers must use answers to the questions listed
above plus a non-exhaustive list of factors, known as
the “Senate Factors,” to determine whether, given the
“totality of the circumstances,” the minority group has less of an opportunity than other voters to participate in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice.27 The Senate Factors include questions such as
whether the minority group has faced discrimination in
voting or other areas and whether the group continues
to bear the effects of that discrimination.28
If the responses to the questions above are “yes,” line drawers must create one or several districts where the
minority community has a real or effective opportunity
to elect candidates of their choice. Depending on the
community, a real or effective opportunity may mean
a district where the minority group is well above 50
percent of the district, to account for issues such as voter disenfranchisement or low voter registration rates, or
slightly under 50 percent, if there are enough coalition or crossover votes to allow the minority group to elect candidates of choice.

TIP
You can speak to the Senate
Factors by presenting
testimony about historical,
structural, and overt racism
in your jurisdiction. If your
jurisdiction previously had an
at-large system of voting, for
example, you could highlight
this as part of your testimony
because such systems tend to
enhance the opportunity for
discrimination against minority
groups.29 You can also point to
socio-economic data and reallife experiences to show that the minority group continues
to bear the effects of past
discrimination.

1. History of official
voting-related
discrimination;

2. Existence of racially
polarized voting;

3. Extent to which the
jurisdiction has used
voting practices or
procedures that
tend to enhance
the opportunity for
discrimination against
the minority group;

4. Exclusion of members
of the minority group
from candidate slating
processes;

5. Extent to which
minority group
members bear
the effects of
discrimination in areas
such as education,
employment, and
health;

6. Use of overt or subtle
racial appeals in
political campaigns;
and

7. Extent to which
members of the
minority group have
been elected to
public office in the
jurisdiction.

SENATE FACTORS

INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO THE:

Page 52 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 16 As discussed above, different measures of population exist.

When considering the substantial equality of population requirement mandated by the Constitution, the total
population of each district is used. However, the population measure that is used to determine whether a racial, ethnic, or language minority can be the majority of a voting
district is not the total population. Instead, the measure used is the “citizen voting age population,” or “CVAP,” meaning the population of the district’s residents who
are United States citizens and 18 years of age or older.30 This is because Section 2 of the VRA specifically seeks to prevent discrimination against voters, while the Constitution seeks to ensure equal representation of all persons within a jurisdiction. Essentially, CVAP is meant to represent registered voters plus eligible, but unregistered individuals.

The demographer hired by your jurisdiction should be
able to provide extensive data on the citizen voting age population in the jurisdiction to analyze the types of
districts that can be drawn and to ensure compliance with Section 2 of the VRA.

The Population
Measure Used for
Drawing a Majorityminority District

Page 53 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 17 Empowering
Historically
Disenfranchised
Communities
A jurisdiction can use various kinds of districts to empower historically disenfranchised communities. The appropriate districts for any particular jurisdiction depend on the size of the communities in that jurisdiction, how spread out or compact they are, how politically cohesive they are, and the testimony from community members indicating their
common interests and desires for their particular districts.

There are four types of districts that help ensure that racial, ethnic, and language minorities are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in the jurisdiction’s elections:
• Majority-minority district. Discussed above, a
majority-minority district is a district where, among
other things, “a minority group composes a numerical,
working majority” of the district.31 A key element
of these districts is that the minority group is large
enough to have a real or effective opportunity to elect candidates of choice.
• Crossover district. A district is known as a “crossover district” when a politically cohesive racial, ethnic, or language minority is not large enough to compose
the majority of a district but is large enough that
when the minority’s votes are combined with those of
similarly minded voters from the majority, the preferred candidates of the minority have an opportunity to win.

The Supreme Court has held that the VRA does not
mandate the creation of crossover districts but that
jurisdictions “that wish to draw crossover districts are free to do so.”32
• Minority coalition district. A district where two or
more politically cohesive racial, ethnic, or language
minority groups are combined to form a district where
they have an effective opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

Page 54 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 18 Although the Supreme Court has not addressed whether
the VRA requires the creation of coalition districts, a majority of federal circuit courts that have considered the question have held that coalition districts must be created when two or more minority groups are large
enough to together form 50 percent of a geographically
compact district, are politically cohesive, have
experienced difficulty electing candidates of their choice, and have experienced discrimination historically.33
Importantly, the Ninth Circuit has implicitly recognized that coalition districts are protected under the
VRA,34 and the California Supreme Court has written
approvingly of coalition districts.35
• Influence district. A district where a politically
cohesive racial, ethnic, or language minority is not large enough to compose the majority of a district but is still substantial enough in size to influence election outcomes in that district. While the Supreme Court has made clear that the VRA does not require influence districts,36 just as with crossover districts, nothing prevents line drawers from creating influence districts if they so choose. The California Supreme Court has written approvingly of
influence districts.37

Page 55 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 19 Part II:

THE REDISTRICTING

PROCESS
California law provides a number of general requirements for the redistricting processes of most counties, cities, county boards of education, school districts, community college districts, and special districts and provides specific requirements for Los Angeles County38 and San Diego County.39 Below we discuss general redistricting process requirements for counties, cities, county boards of education, school districts, community college districts, and special districts. Note, however, that your jurisdiction may have its own, local requirements.

Starting in the spring of 2021, your organization should research jurisdiction-specific processes and raise questions about redistricting during public meetings.

Page 56 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 20 Legislative bodies (e.g., county boards of supervisors, city councils, and governing boards of school districts) have historically drawn the lines during decennial redistricting, and this remains the practice today in a majority of
jurisdictions. State law, however, authorizes counties, general law cities, school districts, community college districts, and special districts to create redistricting commissions.40 Charter cities have independent home rule authority to create redistricting commissions and are not bound by state law requirements for commissions.41
State law imposes restrictions on who can serve on
advisory, hybrid, and independent redistricting commissions and on the appointment process for hybrid and independent commissions.47
Redistricting commissions can improve public participation and help depoliticize the redistricting process. As a result, they often increase public trust in the redistricting process and the resulting district map. Commissions, particularly independent commissions, are a recommended best
practice by good government organizations. If you would like your jurisdiction to set up an advisory or independent redistricting commission, your organization should push for that during and outside of public meetings in the
spring of 2021 to ensure that the seated commission has sufficient time to plan a redistricting process. For a list of jurisdictions that have created independent commissions, best practices compilations, and an ordinance generator, visit www.localredistricting.org.

Redistricting
Commissions
HYBRID and INDEPENDENT

REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS assume
all hearing and posting
responsibilities that would
otherwise fall on the legislative
body and are subject to
the Ralph M. Brown Act
(California’s open meetings
law for local jurisdictions),
the Public Records Act,
and the same redistricting
requirements that apply to
legislative bodies.45

ADVISORY REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS are subject to
the Brown Act.46

ADVISORY

REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS only
have the power to
recommend maps to the
legislative body.42
HYBRID

REDISTRICTING

COMMISSIONS
recommend two or more
maps to the legislative
body and the legislative
body chooses among
those maps.43

INDEPENDENT

REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS have the
power to adopt maps
without any input from
the legislative body.44
•
•
•
3 TYPES OF

REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS:

Page 57 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 21 In 2019 and 2020, California Common Cause cosponsored
AB 849 (Bonta) and AB 1276 (Bonta), respectively, to put in place new requirements for city and county redistricting that maximize public participation, increase transparency, and protect communities in the line-drawing process. These laws apply to all counties (other than Los Angeles and
San Diego Counties, which have their own rules in state law), general law cities, and charter cities.48 To ensure fair representation and full compliance with these new state laws, line drawers must conduct a robust public engagement process that offers maximum accessibility for California’s language minority populations, people with disabilities, other historically underrepresented communities, and the public at large.

Map Adoption Deadlines
Currently, the deadline for counties and cities to adopt maps is December 15, 2021 if they have June 7, 2022
primaries, and April 17, 2022 if their next regular election is during the November 2022 general.49 However, because the Census Bureau will not release redistricting data until late summer or early fall 2021, these map adoption and
other redistricting deadlines may change to ensure there is sufficient time for public participation in the redistricting process. To keep up with any potential changes, you can go to California Common Cause’s webpage on resources.

Cities and Counties

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
and SAN DIEGO COUNTY
have their own rules for their
redistricting processes. You can
learn more about San Diego
County’s redistricting process
by visiting its commission’s
website or reviewing sections
21550 to 21553 of the California
Elections Code. You can learn
more about Los Angeles
County’s redistricting process
by visiting its commission’s
website or reviewing sections
21530 to 21535 of the California
Elections Code.

Page 58 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 22 Step One: Redistricting Webpage
Cities and counties are required to create a webpage
dedicated to local redistricting.50 The webpage must
include, in all legally required languages, an explanation of the redistricting process and the process for giving public comment.51 The Secretary of State (SoS) provided templates in 10 languages to help local jurisdictions meet this requirement, although cities and counties can also create their own materials. The webpage must also include, or link to, the following:
• Procedures for the public to testify during a public
hearing or to submit written testimony directly to
the line drawers, in English and all legally required
languages;
• a calendar of all public hearing and workshop dates;
• the notice and agenda for each public hearing and
workshop;
• a recording or written summary of each redistricting
hearing and workshop;
• each draft map considered by the line drawers; and
• the final map that is adopted.52
Step Two: Public Engagement
Outreach and Education
The line drawers in your jurisdiction must engage in
a thorough public outreach process. State law requires
cities and counties to encourage residents, including
those in underrepresented communities and non-English
speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting process.53 To do this, local governments must do public outreach about redistricting to local media organizations and to good government, civil rights, civic engagement, and community groups or organizations that are active in the jurisdiction, including those serving limited-Englishproficient communities, the disability community, and other historically underrepresented communities.54

Page 59 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 23 State law also requires jurisdictions to create an interested persons sign-up on the jurisdiction’s webpage.55 Ideally, this outreach should occur well before redistricting hearings begin.

Cities and counties with substantial limited-Englishproficient populations must also translate certain redistricting materials and provide live interpretation at redistricting hearings upon a timely request.56 The
applicable languages for counties are the same languages already required under Section 203 of the VRA. When
available, the SoS will identify and post the applicable languages for each city here. You should request that your county also translate materials and offer live interpretation in the languages identified by the SoS for cities because it may be a more expansive list.

Public Testimony
Jurisdictions must accept redistricting testimony or
draft maps in writing and electronically.57 To maximize transparency, jurisdictions should consider posting all submitted testimony on their dedicated webpage and,
when received in advance of a redistricting hearing, public testimony and proposed maps should be included in the
agenda packet for that hearing.

Further, and consistent with the Brown Act, jurisdictions must allow members of the public to provide live comment during redistricting hearings and workshops.58 Jurisdictions must record or prepare a written summary of line drawer deliberations and public comment.59 Note that if your
jurisdiction limits the amount of time for public comment the Brown Act requires that limited-English-proficient
speakers using consecutive, as opposed to simultaneous, interpretation be allotted at least twice that time.60 For example, if your jurisdiction limits public comment to two minutes, non-English speakers have four minutes to provide comment if the interpretation is consecutive.

TIP
There are many ways in which
your organization can help with
public outreach and education.

For example, you can offer to
present to the line drawers
about recommendations
for the best ways to engage
your community or provide
the line drawers with a list of
community organizations they
should engage and educate.

You can also encourage the
line drawers to identify a
staff member for the public
to contact should they
experience technical problems,
have questions about the
redistricting process, or have
meeting accommodation
requests. Finally, you can
encourage your jurisdiction to
partner with line drawers for
other jurisdictions in the region
to educate and notify residents
of opportunities to engage in
redistricting. This will maximize
city and county resources,
streamline information,
and minimize confusion for
residents.

Page 60 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 24 This is also an opportunity for your community to begin defining the physical boundaries of the community. This can be done through submitting draft maps, draft districts, or draft community of interest maps (tracing the boundaries of your community of interest on a map). Below we discuss ways in which your jurisdiction can make the process of submitting maps more accessible to the public.

Step Three: Public Hearings
Number of Public Hearings and Workshops
Before adopting a final map, line drawers must hold at least four public hearings to receive input on where lines should be drawn.61 This includes at least one hearing before, and at least two hearings after, drawing their first draft map.62 The fourth required hearing and additional hearings can be held either before or after the draft map has been drawn.63
To improve accessibility for people with traditional working hours, at least one hearing must be held on a Saturday, on a Sunday, or after 6 p.m. on a weekday.64 Ideally, all meetings should be held on days and at times that allow working people to attend. Cities and counties may hold
stand-alone hearings on redistricting or include these
hearings as part of a regular meeting. If a redistricting hearing is a part of a regular meeting,65 the hearing must begin at a fixed time, which must be publicly noticed.66 Notice of Hearings and Workshops
The date, time, and location of a hearing or workshop
must be published online at least five days in advance.67 This requirement is reduced to three days in the last 27 days before a jurisdiction’s redistricting deadline.68 You can encourage your jurisdiction to provide as much advance
notice as possible for all hearings, including by publishing agendas, materials, and draft maps.

TIP
Written and live testimony
is your community’s
opportunity to inform line
drawers about communities
of interest in your region and
to advocate for the way in
which lines should be drawn.

If your community shares
neighborhoods, interests,
history, language, and/or
values, this is your chance to
define your community to the
line drawers to ensure that
it is kept intact over one or
several districts, depending on
the size of your community.

Visit commoncause.org/
localredistricting2021
for a template on how to
give community of interest
testimony, along with a wide
range of other resources and
tools. You can also refer to
the section on communities
of interest in Part I for ideas
on how to best describe your
community of interest. If
your community is politically
cohesive and has faced
historical discrimination on
account of race, ethnicity,
or language, this is also
an opportunity to share
testimony to make the case
for the creation of a majorityminority, crossover, coalition, or influence district.

TIP
You should encourage your
local jurisdiction to strive to
offer far more than these
four hearings, advertise them
widely, and to make these
hearings as accessible as
possible.

Page 61 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 25 The California Citizens Redistricting Commission, for
example, provides notice, agendas, and materials 14 days in advance for all meetings. Remember that jurisdictions must maintain and update a calendar of hearing and workshop
dates on the redistricting webpage.69
Accessibility
Jurisdictions must ensure that all hearing locations are accessible to persons with disabilities.70 You can encourage greater accessibility by flagging to your jurisdiction that inperson and remote hearings should include American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation and closed captioning for individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing.

You can also encourage your jurisdiction to hold hearings in different geographic areas to improve accessibility for all communities. Hearing locations should be well-known venues in the community and should be accessible via public transit. Finally, you can encourage your jurisdiction to make all public hearings, including in-person hearings, available remotely using a video platform such as Zoom and YouTube.

In this way, members of the public with certain health
concerns, or who otherwise cannot attend in person, can still observe and participate in the redistricting process.

Cities and counties must provide live translation of a
redistricting hearing in any required language if a request is made by a member of the public at least 72 hours (or three days) in advance.71 If less than five days of notice is provided for a hearing because a jurisdiction is close to its redistricting deadline, requests for translation only need to be made at least 48 hours (or two days) in advance.72
TIP
You should encourage your
jurisdiction to coordinate with
other jurisdictions in your
region about redistrictingrelated hearing and workshop dates to minimize conflicts.

Your jurisdiction should also
avoid scheduling hearings that
conflict with California Citizens
Redistricting Commission
hearings in the region.

TIP
To promote an inclusive
process, you can encourage
your jurisdiction to provide live
interpretation and translation
in all required languages
regardless of whether a
request was made in advance.

You can also encourage your
jurisdiction to keep a list of
interpreters.

Page 62 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 26 Step Four: Mapping
Cities and counties may not release draft maps until at least 21 days after the release of state-adjusted census data.
73 This waiting period applies to cities and counties
and does not preclude community groups or members of
the public from proposing maps during this period. In fact, this requirement was created to give the public sufficient time, before any draft maps are released, to digest the new data, understand what it means for their communities, and provide input to line drawers. In addition, it ensures that cities and counties take the time needed to assess VRA
compliance and draw maps based on the official census
data. If state-adjusted census data is released less than 90 days before a city or county’s redistricting deadline, the waiting period may be reduced to seven days; if the stateadjusted census data is released less than 60 days before the deadline, the waiting period may be eliminated.74
Draft maps must include the total population, citizen voting age population, and racial and ethnic characteristics of the citizen voting age population of each district, to the extent that information is available.75 Most demographers will have access to this information and should be asked to include it with every draft map they produce.

Once maps are available, they must be posted online for at least seven days before a final map is selected.76 This requirement is reduced to three days in the last 27 days before a jurisdiction’s redistricting deadline.77 Cities and counties, however, should strive to give more than seven days to the community to evaluate draft maps and provide feedback, and should post draft maps considered at any
public hearing or workshop well ahead of the hearing.

Community members need a meaningful opportunity to
digest draft maps, to identify recommendations, and to
possibly develop alternative maps.

TIP
To make the process more
accessible, you should
encourage your jurisdiction
to provide a mapping tool
to the public and identify a
contact person for questions
and assistance. Redistricting
consultants and line drawers
can provide mapping tools,
and there are publicly
available tools that have been
developed by the California
Statewide Database (creator
of Draw My CA Community),
MGGG Redistricting Lab at
Tufts University (creator of
Districtr), and the Princeton
Gerrymandering Project
(creator of Representable).

TIP
Early in the redistricting
process, ask your city and/or
county to commit to providing
more than seven days for
residents to evaluate draft
maps and provide feedback
before adopting the final maps.

The California Statewide
Database is responsible for
creating a state-adjusted
dataset used for state and local
redistricting. STATE-ADJUSTED
DATA is census data that
has been merged with state
election data and that has
been adjusted to count persons
incarcerated in state prisons in
their home communities, rather
than the correctional facilities
where they are detained.

Page 63 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 27 County boards of education, school districts, community college districts, and special districts are governed by some general state redistricting requirements. Unlike cities and counties, however, state law does not provide detailed guidance on redistricting processes for these types of
jurisdictions. Below we provide an overview of these general requirements and requirements under the Brown Act. As
with cities and counties, county boards of education, school districts, community college districts, and special districts in your region may have their own, local requirements. Be sure to research jurisdiction-specific processes and to learn more and raise questions about these processes during
public meetings.

County Committees on School District Organization
Each county that is not also a city must have a county
committee on school district organization (county
committee).78 County committees are either appointed,
locally elected, or made up of the county board of
education.79 Relevant here, county committees have some redistricting duties.

County Boards of Education
There are a handful of statutory requirements that govern the redistricting processes of county boards of education where board members are elected through voting districts, known as trustee areas.

The county committee must redraw the lines of county
board of education trustee areas following each decennial census.81 Like with city and county redistricting, trustee areas must be “as nearly equal in population as possible,”82 and the trustee map must comply with the VRA.83 The
county committee may also consider the following factors in redrawing trustee area lines: topography; geography; cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory; and communities of interest.84 Remember that even where a jurisdiction is not explicitly required to follow traditional redistricting criteria, failure to follow these criteria may result in maps that are not representative of County Boards of
Education, School
Districts, Community
College Districts, and
Special Districts
What are COUNTY BOARDS
OF EDUCATION?
County offices of education are
usually governed by a county
board of education. Depending
on your county, county boards
of education may, among other
things, establish and oversee
county charter schools, hold
public hearings and adopt
Local Control Accountability
Plans (LCAPs), serve as an
appellate body for student
expulsions and interdistrict
transfers, educate specific
student populations, and
oversee programs and services
for special education, juvenile
court schools, and charter
schools.80

Page 64 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 28 communities served by the board of education and may
serve as evidence of constitutional and/or VRA violations should the district map be challenged in court.

The county committee must comply with the Brown Act: it must hold at least one public hearing before adopting a map and it must publish an agenda at least three days before the hearing.85 These are baseline requirements, however.

To ensure that there is robust public participation, the county committee should strive to hold much more than
one public hearing on redistricting. For example, most
cities and counties will hold at least four public hearings on redistricting and the Los Angeles Redistricting Commission will hold at least nine public hearings.86
The county committee must file new trustee maps with
the county board of supervisors no later than March 1,
2022.87 This means that to be safe, redistricting processes must be completed by February 28, 2022. Note that if your jurisdiction has a primary or special election in 2022, the map adoption deadline might be earlier to account for the pre-election calendar. Check with your governing board to confirm.

School Districts and Community College Districts
The governing board of each school district or community college district88 must redraw trustee area lines following each decennial census.89,90 Boards also have the option to create a redistricting commission to lead the redistricting process.91
In addition to the benefits of redistricting commissions outlined above, encouraging your school or community
college district to establish a hybrid or independent
redistricting commission will also impose a number of
requirements on the commission that are not required of governing boards when they are in charge of drawing the lines.92 In particular, hybrid and independent commissions must publish draft maps and make the maps available for at least seven days before a final map is adopted and must hold at least four redistricting public hearings.93 Governing

Page 65 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 29 boards, on the other hand, are only required to comply with the Brown Act: they must hold at least one public hearing before adopting a map and they must publish an agenda at least three days before the hearing.94
Trustee areas must be, “as nearly as may be possible,”
equal in population,95 and the trustee map must comply with the VRA.96 State law does not provide additional guidance on traditional redistricting principles, but you should encourage your school district or community college district to follow these principles closely to ensure the line drawers adopt a fair map that can withstand legal challenges.

The deadline for governing boards or commissions to adopt trustee area maps is February 28, 2022.97 If they fail to adopt a new map by this deadline, the county committee
takes over the process and must adopt new lines by April 29, 2022.98 Note that, if your jurisdiction has a primary or special election in 2022, the map adoption deadline might be earlier to account for the pre-election calendar. Check with your governing board to confirm.

Special Districts
Boards of certain special districts must redraw district lines following each decennial census.100,101 These boards also have the option to create a redistricting commission to lead the redistricting process.102
In addition to the benefits of redistricting commissions outlined above, encouraging special districts to establish a hybrid or independent redistricting commission will also require the commission to hold at least four redistricting public hearings and publish draft maps and make the
maps available for at least seven days before a final map is adopted.103 Boards, on the other hand, are only required to hold two public hearings.104
Voting districts must be “as far as practicable, equal
in population,” and the district map must comply with
the VRA.105 The board may also consider the following
factors in redrawing district lines: topography; geography; What are SPECIAL DISTRICTS?
Special districts are local
governments created to deliver
specialized services that the
local city or county does not
provide.99 Special districts can
provide services such as water,
health care, and fire services,
among other services.

Page 66 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 30 cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory; and communities of interest.106 Remember that even where a jurisdiction is not explicitly required to follow traditional redistricting criteria, failure to follow these criteria may result in maps that are not representative of communities served by the special district and may serve as evidence of constitutional and/or VRA violations should the district map be challenged in court.

Line drawers must adopt a new district map within
180 days before the first election in which the special district uses the new map.107 Remember, because census
data will not be released until late summer or early fall 2021, it is possible that the legislature may change mapadoption deadlines to accommodate redistricting processes, particularly for jurisdictions that have primaries.

Page 67 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 31 Closing:

A FINAL NOTE ON

REDISTRICTING
Redistricting is immensely important to our collective political power. The way lines are drawn will not only impact who our communities have the power to elect, but ultimately our ability to shape the local, state, and federal policies that affect our everyday lives, from education equity, immigrant rights, and housing justice, to transforming the criminal legal system. The redistricting process is your opportunity to advocate for lines that are truly representative of our communities. Although certain aspects of redistricting can be very technical, there are many organizations throughout the state working on these issues that can help to support your efforts, including coalitions in various regions.

If you have questions about any redistricting concepts or want to get connected with other organizations working on redistricting, we are here to support you. Please reach out to:

California Common Cause: [email protected] and commoncause.org/localredistricting2021/
ACLU of Northern California: [email protected]
ACLU of Southern California: [email protected]

Page 68 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 32 Appendix A:

ADDITIONAL CONTEXT

ON COMPACTNESS

Page 69 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 33 Districts have rarely been successfully challenged on the ground that they are not compact. Courts understand that districts frequently have somewhat irregular shapes because line drawers must create districts that are reflective of community of interest testimony.

The only time the Supreme Court has rejected a district on compactness grounds was in Shaw v. Reno108 and Shaw
v. Hunt.
109,110 In those cases, the Supreme Court considered
North Carolina Congressional District 12, an African
American majority district. The district is the skinny, forest-green district on the map below. The Supreme Court observed that the district was “approximately 160 miles long and, for much of its length, no wider than the I-85 corridor. It winds in snakelike fashion . . . until it gobbles in enough enclaves of black neighborhoods.’”111 The Supreme Court also noted that the district was “non-compact by any objective standard that can be conceived” and purportedly “the least geographically compact district in the Nation.”112 The Court also had evidence that the line drawers had
created the district because they had subjugated all
considerations, including compactness, to a desire to
intentionally separate voters by race.

The Court ultimately found that race was the “predominant factor” in drawing District 12 and that it was not compact enough to survive legal challenge.113 The district had to be redrawn.

NORTH CAROLINA

CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT 12

Page 70 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 34 On the other hand, in Cano v. Davis a California state
court found that Congressional District 51, which at the time included a long stretch that ran along the U.S.-Mexico border and connected Imperial County with south San Diego County, was “reasonably compact.”114 The court found that the district was “no more irregular in shape than any other district created by the legislature, and certainly [did] not constitute a showing of bizarreness that would support an inference that the [district was] racially gerrymandered.”115 As a result, the district was allowed to stand.116

CALIFORNIA

CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT 51

Page 71 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 35

GLOSSARY

Page 72 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 36 Advisory redistricting commissions recommend maps
to the legislative body (e.g. city council, county board of supervisors) but do not have the legal authority to select a final map.

A census block is the smallest level of geography for
which the U.S. Census Bureau releases demographic data.

A census block is an area delineated by visible features including roads, streams, railroad tracks as well as
nonvisible features such as property lines and city, county, school district limits. Census blocks are contained within Census Tracts.

A census designated place is a term used by the U.S.

Census Bureau to indicate an unincorporated community
or a geographical area that has a population but is not legally incorporated. For example, there are unincorporated communities in California that are not part of a city or town but are instead governed by the county where they are located.

A census tract is a subdivision of a county that has about 4,000 residents. Census tracts are contained within counties and census tracts contain Census Blocks. Census tracts are delineated by visible features including roads and rivers as well as national parks and reservations.

Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) refers to residents who are United States citizens and 18 years of age or older.

A coalition district is formed when two or more politically cohesive Minority groups are combined in order to have a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

Also known as a Minority Coalition District.

Communities of interest (COI) are communities that share similar issues, concerns, and/or characteristics. They
can be made up of overlapping sets of neighborhoods,
networks, and groups that share, among other things, socioeconomic demographics, priorities, views, cultures, histories, languages, and values. Communities of interest benefit from being kept together in a district in the line-drawing process so they can speak with one voice on local, state, or federal political issues.

ADVISORY REDISTRICTING

COMMISSION

CENSUS BLOCK

CENSUS TRACT

CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACE

COALITION DISTRICT

COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST

CITIZEN VOTING AGE

POPULATION

Page 73 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 37

CRACKING

CROSSOVER DISTRICT

DECENNIAL CENSUS

DEMOGRAPHER

GERRYMANDERING

HYBRID REDISTRICTING

COMMISSIONS
The shape of a district is compact when people within the district live relatively close to each other. In California state law, a district is considered compact when “nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.”
The shape of a district is contiguous if its perimeter can be traced in one, unbroken line.

Cracking occurs when Minority groups are split across
multiple districts, thus diluting their presence in each district and ensuring that they have less political influence than their size would properly merit.

A crossover district is formed when a politically cohesive Minority group is combined with similarly minded voters from the numerical majority in such a way that the Minority group’s preferred candidates have an opportunity to be
elected.

The decennial census is the counting of every person
residing in the United States. The decennial census count occurs every ten years and is mandated by the United
States Constitution. Decennial census data is used to
redraw the lines of voting maps. The decennial census is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

A demographer is an expert in statistical analysis related to human populations. Demographers are used in the
Redistricting process to analyze Decennial Census data and create the proposed maps.

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of district lines
to improperly affect political power and give one group an unfair political advantage over another. Racial
gerrymandering is prohibited under federal law and partisan gerrymandering is prohibited under California state law.

Hybrid redistricting commissions recommend two or more
maps to the legislative body (e.g. city council, county board of supervisors) that the legislative body must choose between without modification.

COMPACTNESS

CONTIGUITY

Page 74 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 38 Independent redistricting commissions have the authority to draw and adopt maps without any input from the legislative body (e.g. city council, county board of supervisors).

An influence district is formed when a politically cohesive Minority group is not large enough to make up the majority in the district but is still substantial enough in size to influence election outcomes in that district.

A majority-minority district is formed when the portion of a Minority group that are citizens of voting age makes up the majority of the citizens of voting age in the district overall, thus giving the Minority group a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of choice. Put more simply, a district where the majority of eligible voters belong to a Minority group is a majority-minority district. Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act mandates that majority-minority districts be drawn in specific circumstances.

Minority is a term used in relevant redistricting statutes and case law to refer to racial, ethnic, and language
minorities.

See Coalition District.

A district is noncontiguous if it consists of two or more unconnected areas.

Packing occurs when individuals from a Minority group are concentrated in as few districts as possible to limit the total number of districts in which the Minority group will have political influence.

Redistricting is the process of redrawing district maps used by political jurisdictions to elect public officials.

State-adjusted data is Decennial Census data that has been merged with California state election data and adjusted to count persons incarcerated in state prisons in their home communities instead of the correctional facilities where they are detained.

INFLUENCE DISTRICT

MAJORITY-MINORITY

DISTRICT

MINORITY

MINORITY COALITION DISTRICT

NONCONTIGUOUS

PACKING

REDISTRICTING

STATE-ADJUSTED DATA

INDEPENDENT

REDISTRICTING

COMMISSIONS

Page 75 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 39

TRADITIONAL REDISTRICTING

PRINCIPLES
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Federal and state law requires that each district within a jurisdiction be substantially equal in population. Districts do not have to have exactly equal populations, but the largest district cannot have more than a ten percent population difference compared to the smallest district.

Traditional redistricting principles are a set of criteria that guide the redistricting process. They include Contiguity, maintaining Communities of Interest, minimizing the division of a city or census designated place, following natural and artificial boundaries, and geographical Compactness. Under California law, cities and counties are required to follow specified traditional redistricting principles when drawing district lines.

The U.S. Census Bureau is the federal government entity in charge of collecting data about people and the economy. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau counts every resident of the United State during the Decennial Census and collects survey data about the country’s population, housing, and workforce via the American Community Survey.

SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL

POPULATION

Page 76 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 40

ENDNOTES

Page 77 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 41 1 See, e.g., Shaw v. Reno (“Reno”), 509 U.S. 630, 647, 651 (1993); Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c) (counties); id. § 21601(c) (general law cities); id. § 21621(c) (charter cities); id. § 22000(a) (special districts); Cal. Educ. Code § 1002(a)(1)-(4) (county boards of education).
2 The commissions for Los Angeles County and San Diego County must follow redistricting criteria similar to criteria all other cities and counties must follow. Cal. Elec. Code § 21534(a)(3)-(5) (Los Angeles County); id. § 21552(a)(3)-(5) (San Diego County).
3 Redistricting criteria in the California Elections Code do not apply to charter cities where a charter excludes consideration of redistricting criteria other than those identified in the charter or where the charter provides two or more traditional criteria for redistricting other than the requirement that districts be equal in population. Cal. Elec. Code § 21621(e).
4 Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c) (counties); id. § 21601(c) (general law cities); id. § 21621(c) (charter cities). 5 Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(d) (counties); id. § 21601(d) (general law cities); id. § 21621(d) (charter cities). 6 Reno, 509 U.S. at 647 (recognizing that although adhering to redistricting criteria is not constitutionally required, redistricting criteria are nonetheless important “because they are objective factors that may serve to defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered”); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 978 (1996) (noting that jurisdictions facing an equal protection challenge to their map could avoid strict scrutiny by “respecting their own traditional districting principles”). 7 Reno, 509 U.S. at 647.
8 The California Elections Code provides the following guidance on contiguity: “Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous.” Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(1) (counties); id. § 21601(c)(1) (general law cities); id. § 21621(c) (1) (charter cities).
9 See, e.g., Bush, 517 U.S. at 977 (holding that a “district that [takes] into account traditional districting principles such as maintaining communities of interest . . . may pass strict scrutiny”). 10 The California Elections Code provides the following guidance on communities of interest: “A ‘community of interest’ is a population that shares common social or economic interest that should be included within a single supervisorial district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.” Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(2); see also id. § 21601(c)(2) (general law cities); id. § 21621(c)(2) (charter cities).
11 The California Elections Code provides the following guidance on compactness: “To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, supervisorial districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.” Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(5) (emphasis added); see also id. § 21601(c)(4) (general law cities); id. § 21621(c)(4) (charter cities).
12 See, e.g., Montes v. City of Yakima, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1377, 1393 (E.D. Wash. 2014) (noting that the compactness of districts in proposed remedial maps was “easily confirmed by simply looking at the maps”); Cuthair v. Montezuma-Cortez, Colo.

Sch. Dist., 7 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1167 (D. Colo. 1998) (finding that a disputed district was compact using a “simple visual inspection”).
13 See, e.g., Montes, 40 F. Supp. 3d at 1393 (discussing the Reock test for compactness). 14 Bush, 517 U.S. at 962 (“The Constitution does not mandate regularity of district shape.”). 15 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579 (1964); Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(a) (counties); id. § 21601(a) (general law cities); id. § 21621(a) (charter cities); Cal. Educ. Code § 1002(a) (county boards of education); id. § 5019.5(a)(2) (school districts and community college districts); see also Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379-80, 381 (1963) (rejecting state legislature voting system where representatives were selected on a county basis resulting in inequality because counties varied widely in population size); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 1, 7-8 (1964) (holding that congressional districts must be equal in population “as nearly as is practicable”).
16 See Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 577 (recognizing that “[m]athematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement” and “a practical impossibility”).

Page 78 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 42 17 White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 764 (1973) (“[W]e do not consider relatively minor population deviations among state legislative districts to substantially dilute the weight of individual votes in the larger districts so as to deprive individuals in these districts of fair and effective representation . . . we cannot glean an equal protection violation from the single fact that two legislative districts in Texas differ from one another by as much as 9.9%”). 18 See, e.g., Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 325 (1973) (affirming population deviation of 16.4 percent because deviation was “based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy”). 19 Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(a)(1) (counties); id. § 21601(a)(1) (general law cities); id. § 21621(a)(1) (charter cities); see also Cal. Educ. Code § 1002(a) (for county boards of education, requiring that districts be “as nearly equal in population as practicable”); Cal. Educ. Code § 5019.5(a)(2) (for school districts and community college districts, requiring that the population of each area be “as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as each of the other areas”) (emphasis added); Cal. Elec. Code § 2200 (for special districts, requiring that districts be “as far as practicable, equal in population” using decennial census data). 20 The Supreme Court decided in Evenwel v. Abbott that the “one person, one vote” principle of the Equal Protection Clause allows a state or locality to design its districts based on total population. 1136 S. Ct. 1120, 1132-33 (2016) (noting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have used total population to redistrict “for decades, even centuries”).

Observers read the language of the decision as discouraging the use of other metrics, but the Court did not rule out those other metrics. We know of no locality in California that has used any metric other than total population, and all relevant state law either explicitly or implicitly requires the use of total population. See supra note 19. 21 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301.
22 Bush, 517 U.S. at 958.
23 See, e.g., Reno, 509 U.S. at 640-42, 658; Shaw v. Hunt (“Hunt”), 517 U.S. 899, 905 (1996). 24 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301(a).
25 Conversely, to successfully challenge a district map on the ground that it does not contain a majority-minority district in violation of Section 2, a plaintiff must first establish the “Gingles” factors: (1) the minority group constitutes a majority in a geographically compact district; (2) the minority group is politically cohesive; and (3) the majority votes as a bloc to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidates. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 49-51 (1986). Racially polarized voting analysis is used to prove Gingles factors 2 and 3. If these factors are satisfied, a court will then seek to determine if, under the “totality of circumstances,” the districting plan results in minority vote dilution. Id. at 43-46; see also Johnson v.

De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1009-14 (1994).
26 Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231, 1272 (2009). 27 Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36-38 (citing S.Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 28-29 (1982)). 28 Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36-38 (citing S.Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 28-29 (1982)). 29 See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47-48 (“This Court has long recognized that . . . at-large voting schemes may operate or cancel out the voting strength of racial [minorities in] the voting population.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted, alterations in original).
30 Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F. 2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[E]ligible minority voter population, rather than total minority population, is the appropriate measure of geographical compactness”). 31 Bartlett, 556 U.S. at 13 (emphasis added).
32 Bartlett, 556 U.S. at 24.
33 Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F. 2d 1240, 1244 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that Black and Latino communities may be combined to meet the first Gingles condition of a geographically compact minority); Concerned Citizens of Hardee Cnty. v.

Hardee Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 906 F. 2d 524, 525, 526 (11th Cir. 1990) (acknowledging that Black and Latino communities could be combined to form a majority-minority district, meeting the first Gingles condition, but upholding district court ruling that Black and Latino communities were not shown to be politically cohesive, failing the second Gingles condition); but see Nixon v. Kent Cnty., 76 F. 3d 1381, 1386 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that Congress did not intend for multiple minority groups to be combined to meet the first Gingles condition).

Page 79 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 43 34 Badillo v. City of Stockton, Cal., 956 F. 2d 884, 886, 891 (9th Cir. 1992). 35 Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal. 4th 707, 715 (1992).37 See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47-48 (“This Court has long recognized that . . . at-large voting schemes may operate or cancel out the voting strength of racial [minorities in] the voting population.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted, alterations in original).
36 League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 446 (2006). 37 Wilson, 1 Cal. 4th at 715.
38 Cal. Elec. Code §§ 21530-21535 (requirements for Los Angeles Independent Redistricting Commission). 39 Cal. Elec. Code §§ 21550-21553 (requirements for San Diego Independent Redistricting Commission). 40 Cal. Elec. Code § 23001.
41 See Cal. Elec. Code § 23000(e), (f) (noting that charter cities are not covered by California Elections Code chapter). 42 Cal. Elec. Code § 23000(a).
43 Cal. Elec. Code § 23000(c).
44 Cal. Elec. Code § 23000(d).
45 Cal. Elec. Code § 23003(h), (i).
46 Cal. Elec. Code § 23001 (noting advisory commissions are established by “resolution, ordinance, or charter amendment”); Cal. Gov’t Code § 54952(b) (defining legislative body as including advisory committees created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action).
47 See, generally, Cal. Elec. Code §§ 23000-23004.
48 Note that, as with any state law, city charters may override some requirements of AB 849 and AB 1276. 49 Jurisdictions with elections between January 1, 2022 and before July 1, 2022 must adopt maps 174 days before that election, while jurisdictions that do not have elections during that time period must adopt maps 205 days before their next regular election. Cal. Elec. Code § 21501(a)(2)-(3) (counties); id. § 21602(a)(2)-(3) (general law cities); id. § 21622(a)(2)-(3) (charter cities).
50 The jurisdiction must also maintain the webpage for at least 10 years after the line drawers adopt a final map. Cal. Elec.

Code § 21508(g) (counties); id. § 21608(g) (general law cities); id. § 21628(g) (charter cities). 51 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(g) (counties); id. § 21608(g) (general law cities); id. § 21628(g) (charter cities). 52 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(g) (counties); id. § 21608(g) (general law cities); id. § 21628(g) (charter cities). 53 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(a) (counties); id. § 21608(a) (general law cities); id. § 21628(a) (charter cities). 54 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(a)(1)-(2) (counties); id. § 21608(a)(1)-(2) (general law cities); id. § 21628(a)(1)-(2) (charter cities). 55 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(a)(2) (counties); id. § 21608(a)(2) (general law cities); id. § 21628(a)(2) (charter cities). 56 At the very least, translated materials must include a general explanation of the redistricting process and the procedures for a member of the public to testify during a public hearing or submit written testimony. Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(b), (g) (1)-(2) (counties); id. § 21608(b), (g)(1)-(2) (general law cities); id. § 21628(b), (g)(1)-(2) (charter cities). 57 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(e) (counties); id. § 21608(e) (general law cities); id. § 21628(e) (charter cities). 58 See, e.g., Cal. Elec. § 21507.1(a) (requiring four public hearings “at which the public is invited to provide input”); id. § 21508(g)(2) (requiring line drawers to establish procedures for the public to testify during a public hearing); Cal. Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a).58 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(e) (counties); id. § 21608(e) (general law cities); id. § 21628(e) (charter cities). 59 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(f) (counties); id. § 21608(f) (general law cities); id. § 21628(f) (charter cities). 60 Cal. Gov’t Code § 54954.3(b)(2).
61 Cal. Elec. Code § 21507.1(a) (counties); id. § 21607.1(a) (general law cities); id. § 21627.1(a) (charter cities). 62 Cal. Elec. Code § 21507.1(a)(1)-(2) (counties); id. § 21607.1(a)(1)-(2) (general law cities); id. § 21627.1(a)(1)-(2) (charter cities). 63 See, generally, Cal. Elec. Code § 21507.1(a) (counties); id. § 21607.1(a) (general law cities); id. § 21627.1(a) (charter cities).

Page 80 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 44 64 Cal. Elec. Code § 21507.1(b) (counties); id. § 21607.1(b) (general law cities); id. § 21627.1(b) (charter cities). 65 Cal. Elec. Code § 21507.1(d) (counties); id. § 21607.1(d) (general law cities); id. § 21627.1(d) (charter cities). 66 Cal. Elec. Code § 21507.1(d) (counties); id. § 21607.1(d) (general law cities); id. § 21627.1(d) (charter cities). 67 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(c) (counties); id. § 21608(c) (general law cities); id. § 21628(c) (charter cities). 68 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(c) (counties); id. § 21608(c) (general law cities); id. § 21628(c) (charter cities). 69 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(g)(3) (counties); id. § 21608(g)(3) (general law cities); id. § 21628(g)(3) (charter cities). 70 Cal. Elec. Code § 21507.1(c) (counties); id. § 21607.1(c) (general law cities); 21627.1(c) (charter cities). 71 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(b), (h) (counties); id. § 21608(b), (h) (general law cities); id. § 21628(b), (h) (charter cities). 72 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(b) (counties); id. § 21608(b) (general law cities); id. § 21628(b) (charter cities). 73 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(d)(3)(A) (counties); id. § 21608(d)(3)(A) (general law cities); id. § 21628(d)(3)(A) (charter cities). 74 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(d)(3)(B) (counties); id. § 21608(d)(3)(B) (general law cities); id. § 21628(d)(3)(B) (charter cities). 75 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(d)(2) (counties); id. § 21608(d)(2); id. § 21628(d)(2) (charter cities). 76 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(d)(1) (counties); id. § 21608(d)(1) (general law cities); id. § 21628(d)(1) (charter cities). 77 Cal. Elec. Code § 21508(d)(1) (counties); id. § 21608(d)(1) (general law cities); id. § 21628(d)(1) (charter cities). 78 Cal. Educ. Code § 4000.
79 See, e.g, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 4002, 4005, 4020.
80 California County Boards of Education, County Boards of Education, http://www.theccbe.org/en/AboutUs/ CountyBoardsOfEducation (last accessed Mar. 8, 2021).
81 Cal. Educ. Code § 1002(b).
82 Cal. Educ. Code § 1002(a).
83 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301(a).
84 Cal. Educ. Code § 1002(a)(1)-(4).
85 Gov’t Code § 54954.2(a).
86 See, e.g., Cal. Elec. Code § 21607.1 (requiring four hearings for general law cities); id. § 21534(c)(2)(A) (requiring seven hearings for the Los Angeles County Independent Redistricting Commission). 87 Cal. Educ. Code § 1002(c).
88 The governing boards of community college districts with campuses in more than one county do not have the power to conduct decennial redistricting. In such instances, the county committee on school district organization is tasked with redrawing the lines. Cal. Educ. Code §§ 5019, 5019.7.
89 Cal. Educ. Code § 5019.5(a).
90 Note that governing boards of school and community college districts that do not also serve as the county board of education have the power to draw trustee area lines only during decennial redistricting. Cal. Educ. Code § 5019.5(c); id. § 5019(a)(1). In all other instances, including mid-decade redistricting and initial districting (e.g., as a remedy for a California Voting Rights Act violation), the county committee has the final say on the trustee area lines. Id. § 5019.5(c) (limiting the redistricting power of school and community college boards to decennial redistricting); see also id. § 5019(a) (providing that county committees have the power to rearrange the boundaries of trustee areas). 91 Cal. Elec. Code § 23001.
92 Cal. Elec. Code § 23003(j).
93 Cal. Elec. Code § 23003(j).
94 Gov’t Code § 54954.2(a).
95 Cal. Educ. Code § 5019.5(a)(2).
96 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301(a).

Page 81 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 45 97 Cal. Educ. Code § 5019.5(b).
98 Cal. Educ. Code § 5019.5(b).
99 California Special Districts Association, Learn About Districts, https://www.csda.net/special-districts/learn-about (last accessed Mar. 8, 2021).
100 Cal. Elec. Code § 22000(a).
101 These requirements do not apply to district maps where only landowners vote for directors. Specific Districts in particular may have their own district-specific requirements. As previously noted, be sure to research jurisdiction-specific requirements, including the authorizing act that created your special district. Cal. Elec. Code § 22000(a). 102 Cal. Elec. Code § Code 23001.
103 Cal. Elec. Code § 23003(j).
104 Cal. Elec. Code § 22001.
105 Cal. Elec. Code § 22000(a); 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301(a). 106 Cal. Elec. Code § 22000(a).
107 Cal. Elec Code § 22000(d).
108 Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
109 Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 906 (1996).
110 The Supreme Court deemed North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District a racial gerrymander meriting strict scrutiny and remanded it to a federal District Court. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. at 641, 658. The District Court held the district passed strict scrutiny and the Supreme Court, considering the district a second time, reversed. Hunt, 517 U.S. at 916-18. 111 Reno, 509 U.S. at 635-36 (citations and quotations omitted). 112 Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 906 (1996).
113 Hunt, 517 U.S. at 906, 916.
114 Cano, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
115 Cano, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 1222.
116 Cano, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 1252.

Page 82 of 397 ends

REDISTRICTING FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: A Legal How-To Guide 46

Page 83 of 397 ends

From: Armando Be < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 3:55 PM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] REDISTRICTING- CONCERNS AND REQUEST FOR FAIR AND OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC MAP 103
Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

The 2019-2021 amendment to section Election Code 21601 (c) (1-4), intended to protect minority communities, provides a list of requirements for redistricting according to guidelines in the VRA. In order of priority "contiguity" is first in the list followed by "communities of interest". Each factor on the list is qualified with "To the extent practicable" and “shall”.

The city attorney opinions the meaning of “priority” and “to the extent practicable” requires Districts to have 100% contiguous boundaries solely because contiguous is listed first on the list. He opinion that the words “to the extent practicable” mean impossible based on the application of similar words "frequently" used in environmental statutes. The standard for interpreting the meaning of words in a statute is the "plain meaning" of the words. So, if ANY contiguity is possible, he reasons it must be 100% achieved regardless of what happens to the communities of interests. His opinion, if applied to Morgan Hill, basically forces a break-up and severance of District B and D and greatly reduces the chance that members of historically marginalized minority communities will be elected to serve on the Council. The result is that only District maps can be drawn which divide current Districts B and D and rejoin the pieces into two dissimilar halves.

DISTRICT D CAN BE DECLARED 100% CONTIGUOUS IN TWO WAYS. The two areas of District D are separated by county land, which makes it impossible to achieve 100% contiguity, a jurisdictional barrier. We are interpreting the words in the statute to mean that where there are jurisdictional barriers, the city can declare a district boundary as contiguous "to the extent practicable". Such an interpretation, based on the plain meaning of the words, would serve well to protect the community of interest of District B and D as they currently exist. The statute provides “Areas Separated by water connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are contiguous". We read that as a principle that so long as there is the ability for people to freely travel between separated areas, the boundary is contiguous. In District D, the two areas are connected by a vast network of county roads and highway 101 so people can easily travel to and from the areas.

Page 84 of 397 ends

THE CITY ATTORNEY DID NOT CORRECTLY INSTRUCT THE CITY
COUNCIL. No court has issued a ruling as to the precise meaning of the words "priority" and to the "extent practicable". Our position is that the meaning of the words are ambiguous, inconclusive, and open to interpretation depending on whether one renders a narrow or a broad interpretation to the plain meaning of words within the context of the intent of the legislature. The City Attorney's opinion relies on the 'frequent" application of the words to environmental statutes and not on the plain meaning of the words. However, the attorney went beyond just rendering his opinion as to words meaning. He declared that Public Map 103 is “illegal”. After declaring the map “illegal” he then declared that if the council were to approve Public Map 103 that the "city would probably be sued by the California Attorney General or somebody else looking to get attorney's fees on a pretty easy case".

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other citys' attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

The City Attorney has an obligation to render opinions that are fair, objective, and impartial. We believe it was wrong for the City Attorney to declare Map 103 "illegal" and that if the Council selects it that the California Attorney General will sue Morgan Hill. He has not instructed the City Council that his advice/opinion of the meaning of the words in the statute serve only as advice and that the council can consider it along with any other interpretations of the words submitted by the public and may fairly consider all maps from the perspective of the legislative intent to protect minority communities. The Attorney’s opinion appears to suggest to the council and the community that his interpretation of the statute has the force of law and therefore the council is not free to consider any other interpretations or risk being sued (speculation). He has failed to instruct the City Council that they can, and indeed have a legal duty to, consider all interpretations of the meaning of the words of the statute submitted for its considerations and may evaluate Public Map 103 fairly, along with the other maps, without fear that they are going to select an illegal map or fear that the California Attorney General is going to sue the city.

The words "priority" and "to the extent practicable" are ambiguous and inconclusive and subject to differing interpretation depending on whether one seeks to prioritize 100% contiguous boundaries, even when there are jurisdictional barriers that prevent that, or one wants to prioritize communities of interests and to increase the chances that those historically marginalized minority communities have a representative in the city council.

We anticipate that the City Council will select a map on February 16, 2022. We, the undersigned, believe Public Map 103 should be fairly considered along with the other maps without the stigma of being labeled “illegal” and speculations that the California Attorney General is going to sue Morgan Hill if the council selects that map for its 2020 districts. We request Mayor Constantine act to ensure that the City Attorney takes corrective action to remove the stigma to Public Map 103 and the fear that he created by his extraneous comments,

Page 85 of 397 ends

We request Mayor Constantine to ensure that the City Attorney provides proper instructions to the Council regarding its oversight role and responsibility to fairly consider all reasonable interpretations as to the plain meaning of the words in the statute offered by the public and to fairly consider all maps submitted, including Public Map 103.

We request Mayor Constantine to assure the public and the Council that the City Attorney is obligated to forcefully defend any interpretation of the meaning of the words of the statute that three of you chose to adopt and the map that three of you select, including Public Map 103. The burden of proof in litigation brought by anyone to challenge your decision just requires that your decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by any evidence. With such low burden of proof, we are confident that our City Attorney will have an easy case to win if you select the best map for Morgan Hill, Public Map 103.

Regards
Armando Benavides, Sally Casas, Mario Montemayor, Kathy Napoli, Rick Badillo, Ernesto Gomez, Delia Gomez, Roberto Aguirrez, Brenda Cayme, Yolanda Barba, Rob Guynn, Edith Duran, Alicia Cortez, Ruben Garcia, James Leslie, Sylvia Topete, Patricia Darling, Luz Guerra, Juan Cardona, Alexandria Cayme cc: Broad Distribution including to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

Page 86 of 397 ends

From: Richard Konda <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:50 AM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] City of Morgan Hill Redistricting
Importance: High
Dear Mayor Constantine and members of the Morgan Hill City Council:

I wrote to you in December 2021 with our concerns about the "cracking" of current District B and Public Map 103. In our view, Public Map 103 does not violate the contiguity requirement of the Fair Maps Act. In fact, Public Map 103 is the only map that will keep the communities of interest in current District B together. As you well know, when the Election Code was amended, those amendments were intended to protect minority communities. We disagree with the City Attorney's opinion that districts must be 100% contiguous. The code clearly states that "to the extent practicable". We agree with the analysis by Armando Benevides in his February 8, 2022 email. He states in that email, ". . as long as there is the ability for people to freely travel between separated areas, the boundary is contiguous. In District D, the two areas are connected by a vast network of county roads and highway 101 so people can easily travel to and from the area."
We agree with Mr. Benevides that Public Map 103 must be considered and adopted because it is the only map that increases the chances that marginalized communities will be able to elect candidates of their choice for the next 10 years.

Sincerely,
Richard Konda
Executive Director
Asian Law Alliance
991 West Hedding St., Suite 202
San Jose, CA 95126
(408)-287-9710
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 87 of 397 ends

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete the message.

Page 88 of 397 ends

From: Robert Guynn < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:05 PM
To: Christina Turner <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC MAP 103
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
You have a choice- to interpret that redistricting statute narrowly or broadly. How you chose will have great impact on the drawing of our electoral districts.

Interpret the statute narrowly and you are sending out a message that the legislature absolutely mandated and intended that District boundaries have to be 100% contiguity. A narrow interpretation divides Districts B and D, two very important and unique communities of interest, and recouples them into extremely dissimilar communities of interest, when it is impossible to achieve because of county land dividing the areas. Also, you will also set back the historically marginalizes minority community to 2017, when District B was drawn to capture the downtown corridor community of interest and to increase the chances that a member of the historically marginalized minority communities will be elected to the council.

Interpret the statute broadly and you are sending a message that the legislature did not mandate 100% contiguity when it cannot be achieved and that it intended to protect minority community. A broad interpretation is a public declaration you want to protect District B and D’s very important community of interests and draw the boundary lines to encapsulate each respective district and to protect the increased probability that a member of the historically marginalizes minority communities will be elected.

The city attorney interpreted the statute narrowly. But his interpretation is just an opinion that you can weight. His opinion does not carry the force of law. The city attorney’s declarations that public map 103 is “illegal” and that if you adopt Map 103 the California Attorney General would come and sue Morgan Hill are nothing but extraneous statements that he should not have made- not when he is interpreting a legislative statute that has never been interpreted by a court. He has a duty to the community and the Council to render opinions that are fair and objective. His extraneous comments were unnecessary and not fair and objective to citizens and council members who support Public Map 103.

Why should we citizens not have a right to declare District D contiguous if its areas are separated by county land and not water and the areas are connected by Highway 101 and a vast network of county roads to allow the movement of people between the areas? Applying that principle would enable us to draw the district lines around very important communities of interests and protect the voting rights of minority groups Only because the city attorney says that it does not apply because the legislature did not specifically write that it applied? Well, it also did not declare that it did not apply. So again, the City Attorney wants you to apply the principle narrowly but you can certainly apply it broadly.

It is sad to see that our city attorney is so narrowly interpreting every part of the statute that would allow you to consider and select Public Map 103, even when he know that the results would be to completely divide two very important communities of interest and to redraw them in such a way that unites two dissimilar communities of interests. He should provide correct instructions to the Council that you are free to select whichever map you deem would be for the best of the Morgan Hill You don't often get email from r . Learn why this is important

Page 89 of 397 ends

community and he would be legally obligated to defend your decision on the map the majority of three you select, including Map 103.

I hope that three of you interpret the statute broadly in the best interest of the community and to ensure that a member of historically marginalized minority communities has a greater chance of being elected to the council. I believe that Public Map 103 is best for Morgan Hill.

Thank you,
Robert L. Guynn
________________________
Resident of Morgan Hill
Thanks Christina

Page 90 of 397 ends

From: Jim Leslie < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Redistricting
To: Mayor Rich Constantine, Morgan Hill City Council Members, Donald Larkin and Christina Turner I’d like to pass on my thoughts regarding redistricting that is currently being considered in Morgan Hill.

It seems that there are two issues in play that influence this issue: 1) the concept of contiguity and 2) communities of interest.

Contiguity and Communities of Interest -
Contiguity is not completely defined. It can mean that an area being considered for inclusion in a district must be contiguous, meaning that it must be physically touching another area being considered for inclusion in that district. However, the issue isn’t completely cut and dry with other factors entering into mix. Specifically, if an area can’t be included because there are other parties who own property which doesn’t permit two parcels from touching (i.e. the federal/state/county or private ownership), then “communities of interest” shall also be considered as an important factor in the redistricting process.

Furthermore, contiguity can also exist if there are roadways that run through/link the subject parcels together the provide convenient access. In the case of the parcels being discussed, those roadways do exist and they are certainly convenient to all members of that parcel. Such is the situation in District D.

Given the fact that third party ownership of land in District D does, in fact, already exist, then fulfilling “communities of interest” must be considered in order to ensure adequate representation is maintained by all members of the community, regardless of racial, religious, and socio-economic status.

The existing Morgan Hill District Map has already established that these conditions currently exist and that there is nothing illegal about the current map. It is not a “one size fits all” proposition whatsoever in our community. District B, as currently defined, represents a clear “community of interest” which should not require any alteration.

Given these realities, my view is that Map 103 adequately establishes fair representation, easy access and inclusion to all members of our community.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best regards,
James A. Leslie

Page 91 of 397 ends

From: Kris Cabral < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 1:03 PM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] REDISTRICTING
Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

Page 92 of 397 ends

regular ferry service are contiguous". We read that as a principle that so long as there is the ability for people to freely travel between separated areas, the boundary is contiguous. In District D, the two areas are connected by a vast network of county roads and highway 101 so people can easily travel to and from the areas.

The City Attorney's opinion relies on the 'frequent" application of the words to environmental statutes and not on the plain meaning of the words. However, the attorney went beyond just rendering his opinion as to words meaning. He declared that Public Map 103 is “illegal”.

After declaring the map “illegal” he then declared that if the council were to approve Public Map 103 that the "city would probably be sued by the California Attorney General or somebody else looking to get attorney's fees on a pretty easy case".

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103.

In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

The City Attorney has an obligation to render opinions that are fair, objective, and impartial.

We believe it was wrong for the City Attorney to declare Map 103 "illegal" and that if the Council selects it that the California Attorney General will sue Morgan Hill. He has not instructed the City Council that his advice/opinion of the meaning of the words in the statute serve only as advice and that the council can consider it along with any other interpretations of the words submitted by the public and may fairly consider all maps from the perspective of the legislative intent to protect minority communities. The Attorney’s opinion appears to suggest to the council and the community that his interpretation of the statute has the force of law and therefore the council is not free to consider any other interpretations or risk being sued (speculation). He has failed to instruct the City Council that they can, and indeed have a legal duty to, consider all interpretations of the meaning of the words of the statute submitted for its considerations and may evaluate Public Map 103 fairly, along with the other maps, without fear that they are going to select an illegal map or fear that the California Attorney General is going to sue the city.

Page 93 of 397 ends

wants to prioritize communities of interests and to increase the chances that those historically marginalized minority communities have a representative in the city council.

I anticipate that the City Council will select a map on February 16, 2022. I believe Public Map 103 should be fairly considered along with the other maps without the stigma of being labeled “illegal” and speculations that the California Attorney General is going to sue Morgan Hill if the council selects that map for its 2020 districts. I request Mayor Constantine act to ensure that the City Attorney takes corrective action to remove the stigma to Public Map 103 and the fear that he created by his extraneous comments, I request Mayor Constantine to ensure that the City Attorney provides proper instructions to the Council regarding its oversight role and responsibility to fairly consider all reasonable interpretations as to the plain meaning of the words in the statute offered by the public and to fairly consider all maps submitted, including Public Map 103.

With such low burden of proof, I am confident that our City Attorney will have an easy case to win if you select the best map for Morgan Hill, Public Map 103. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/2182/Draft-Maps).

Regards, Kris Cabral

Page 94 of 397 ends

From: Callie Curry < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:20 PM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding Redistricting
Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
Succinctly, approve Public Map 103 a choice for which you have received LOTS of input and support from our community. Do not break up Districts B and D. There is no need to fix something that is not broken.

Please heed the opinion of our/your community whom you represent.

Best Regards,
Callie

Page 95 of 397 ends

From: PJ Darling
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 12:27 PM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Why you should vote NO on redistricting Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

Page 96 of 397 ends

connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are contiguous". We read that as a principle that so long as there is the ability for people to freely travel between separated areas, the boundary is contiguous. In District D, the two areas are connected by a vast network of county roads and highway 101 so people can easily travel to and from the areas.

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

Page 97 of 397 ends

those historically marginalized minority communities have a representative in the city council.

In closing, I kindly ask that you remember to put the residents of Morgan Hill first.

Thank you...

With kind regards,
Patricia Darling

Page 98 of 397 ends

From: Lisa K < >
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:38 AM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] District lines
Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

His opinion, if applied to Morgan Hill, basically forces a break-up and severance of District B and D and greatly reduces the chance that members of historically marginalized minority communities will be elected to serve on the Council. The result is that only District maps can be drawn which divide current Districts B and D and rejoin the pieces into two dissimilar halves.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

Page 99 of 397 ends

However, the attorney went beyond just rendering his opinion as to words meaning. He declared that Public Map 103 is “illegal”. After declaring the map “illegal” he then declared that if the council were to approve Public Map 103 that the "city would probably be sued by the California Attorney General or somebody else looking to get attorney's fees on a pretty easy case".

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

Page 100 of 397 ends

consider all reasonable interpretations as to the plain meaning of the words in the statute offered by the public and to fairly consider all maps submitted, including Public Map 103.

Page 101 of 397 ends

From: Kimberly Collins < >
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:26 AM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Important - Redistricting
Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

Page 102 of 397 ends

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

Page 103 of 397 ends

consider all reasonable interpretations as to the plain meaning of the words in the statute offered by the public and to fairly consider all maps submitted, including Public Map 103.

Page 104 of 397 ends

From: Natalie Prcevski < >
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Morgan Hill City Council’s Redistricting Map 103 Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

Page 105 of 397 ends

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

Page 106 of 397 ends

From: Shayna Adams <
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:30 AM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Redistricting - Morgan Hill Public Map 103 Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

The city attorney opinions on the meaning of “priority” and “to the extent practicable” requires Districts to have 100% contiguous boundaries solely because contiguous is listed first on the list. He opinion that the words “to the extent practicable” mean impossible based on the application of similar words "frequently" used in environmental statutes. The standard for interpreting the meaning of words in a statute is the "plain meaning" of the words. So, if ANY contiguity is possible, he reasons it must be 100% achieved regardless of what happens to the communities of interests.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

Page 107 of 397 ends

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

Page 108 of 397 ends

consider all reasonable interpretations as to the plain meaning of the words in the statute offered by the public and to fairly consider all maps submitted, including Public Map 103.

Page 109 of 397 ends

From: Christina Turner
To: Michelle Bigelow
Cc: Donald Larkin
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] REDISTRICTING
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2022 12:08:01 PM
Please supplement.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ron Cabral
Date: February 10, 2022 at 12:02:57 PM PST
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>, Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>, Rene Spring <[email protected]>, John McKay
<[email protected]>, Christina Turner
<[email protected]>, Gino Borgioli
<[email protected]>, Donald Larkin
<[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] REDISTRICTING
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

Page 110 of 397 ends

statute is the "plain meaning" of the words. So, if ANY contiguity is possible, he reasons it must be 100% achieved regardless of what happens to the communities of interests.

THE CITY ATTORNEY DID NOT CORRECTLY INSTRUCT THE CITY COUNCIL. No court has issued a ruling as to the precise meaning of the word's "priority" and to the "extent practicable". Our position is that the meaning of the words are ambiguous, inconclusive, and open to interpretation depending on whether one renders a narrow or a broad interpretation to the plain meaning of words within the context of the intent of the legislature. The City Attorney's opinion relies on the 'frequent" application of the words to environmental statutes and not on the plain meaning of the words. However, the attorney went beyond just rendering his opinion as to words meaning. He declared that Public Map 103 is “illegal”. After declaring the map “illegal” he then declared that if the council were to approve Public Map 103 that the "city would probably be sued by the California Attorney General or somebody else looking to get attorney's fees on a pretty easy case".

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

Page 111 of 397 ends

the words in the statute serve only as advice and that the council can consider it along with any other interpretations of the words submitted by the public and may fairly consider all maps from the perspective of the legislative intent to protect minority communities. The Attorney’s opinion appears to suggest to the council and the community that his interpretation of the statute has the force of law and therefore the council is not free to consider any other interpretations or risk being sued (speculation). He has failed to instruct the City Council that they can, and indeed have a legal duty to, consider all interpretations of the meaning of the words of the statute submitted for its considerations and may evaluate Public Map 103 fairly, along with the other maps, without fear that they are going to select an illegal map or fear that the California Attorney General is going to sue the city.

Regards, Ron Cabral
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted

Page 112 of 397 ends

to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Page 113 of 397 ends

From: Joe Baranowski
To: Rich Constantine; Yvonne Martinez Beltran; Rene Spring; John McKay; Gino Borgioli Cc: Donald Larkin; Christina Turner; Michelle Bigelow
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Bridges
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2022 2:18:47 PM
Hello City Council members,
Our unique City has a precedent of honoring the important principle of community of interest. I have never experienced what it is like to have my vote marginalized by a government entity, but I have heard and listened to the voices in our community that have. I understand why the ongoing redistricting outcome is so important to everyone who knows from firsthand experience that a community of interest can be marginalized by splintering its voters among several districts, thereby diluting its impact and I strongly support honoring the precedent our City has established to stop that from happening. If you want to begin building bridges to the Morgan Hill community, I hope that you will support and defend the principle and precedent that is embodied in Map 103.

The non-contiguous regions of District-D in Map 103, have many bridges connecting them. Because the bridges are built over county land instead of over a body of water, they just happen to be called streets, roads, or avenues.

Our City Attorney has recognized that ‘islands’ of voters can be created by land as well as water barriers but nonetheless has essentially asked you to believe that the difference between a ‘real’ bridge and a street/road/avenue would have the State Attorney General or some ‘ambulance chasing' attorney jumping at the chance to sue Morgan Hill, and that with near certainty the hypothetical plaintiff would find a California court that would view our City's Good Faith attempt to follow all provisions of the law while recognizing our geographical uniqueness and desire to keep intact a precedent that protects the principle of community of interest an 'easy loser' over a never ruled on meaning of the ambiguous words "to the extent practicable".

Mr. Borgioli’s claim that all anyone must do to convince themselves that Mr. Larkin is right is to spend a few minutes Googling is false and should be summarily dismissed.

Mr. McKay defends Mr. Larkin’s advice and his designation of Map 103 as “illegal” because he reached out to other attorneys who told him that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and other cities seek his advice.

I believe that the more relevant context for deciding how to weigh what you have been told is to ask whether “the City Attorney has an obligation to render opinions that are fair, objective, and impartial”, as Mr. Benavides has suggested in a letter to you.

Unfortunately, based on another recent opinion [1] and the misleading way he attempted to justify that opinion, I believe Mr. Larkin has failed to uphold that obligation. You may feel that nothing that Mr. Larkin has done in some other matter is

Page 114 of 397 ends

relevant to the present issue and that even mentioning an ‘unrelated’ case represents an ‘attack’ on Mr. Larkin. I respectfully disagree. The actions and opinions Mr. Larkin rendered in supporting Trammel Crow’s position are a matter of public record. They have already had significant consequences to the residents of Morgan Hill and, if left standing, will almost certainly continue to negatively impact the community. The City Attorney has had more than eight months to explain his actions and position but has declined to do so.

I do not believe that what you were told during the decision-making City Council meeting on June 23 was a fair and reasonable interpretation of the Morgan Hill Zoning Code and a developer’s claim that you must ignore key provisions within it. I hope something similar does not happen again, and I fully support Mr. Benavides request that Mayor Constantine ensure that the City Attorney provides proper instructions to the Council regarding its oversight role and responsibility to fairly consider all reasonable interpretations as to the plain meaning of the words in the statute offered by the public and to fairly consider all maps submitted, including Public Map 103.

Regards,
Joe Baranowski
[1] In supporting Trammell Crow’s assertion [2] that the Morgan Hill Design Review process must be turned upside down and be considered as ministerial for CEQA purposes, Mr. Larkin responded to a letter from Mr. Benavides by referencing the McCorkle case [3] which Trammel Crow’s lawyer had cited. In that case the California appellate court wrote (emphasis added):
“”We do not believe that our Legislature in enacting CEQA intended to require an EIR where the sole environmental impact is the aesthetic merit of a building in a highly developed area. To rule otherwise would mean that an EIR would be required for every urban building project that is not exempt under CEQA if enough people could be marshaled to complain about how it will look”
In his reply [4] which was supplemented to the June 23 meeting, Mr. Larkin wrote (emphasis added):
“Courts have held that site and design review, which involves aesthetic regulation do not give an agency authority to consider the project’s environmental consequences.” And then goes on to quote the part of the ruling, “to rule otherwise ……”.

I believe that asking how an experienced attorney could consider “where the sole environmental impact is the aesthetic merit” to mean the same thing as “which involves aesthetic regulation” - which completely misrepresents what the McCorkle ruling really means, is a legitimate question that should be explained and that the ‘instructions’ given to the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding how the Design Permit process is to be interpreted should be fully reviewed in a Public Hearing.

Page 115 of 397 ends

[2] http://morganhillca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx? Type=4&ID=8117&MeetingID=2033
[3] McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, 89–90, as modified (Jan. 25, 2019).
[4] ]http://morganhillca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx? Type=4&ID=8330&MeetingID=2071
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Page 116 of 397 ends

From: Christina Turner
To: Michelle Bigelow
Cc: Donald Larkin
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Redistricting
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2022 4:47:51 PM
Please supplement.

On Feb 10, 2022, at 2:50 PM, Julie Allen < >
wrote:
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this
is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Mr. Spring, I request that all maps be considered including MAP 103. Map 103 best represents hillside communities and should remain District D.

Please vote for MAP 103.

Julie Allen
Resident of District D
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user.

For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Page 117 of 397 ends

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important From: Christina Turner
To: Michelle Bigelow
Cc: Donald Larkin
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] REDISTRICTING
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2022 4:48:04 PM
Please supplement.

From: tommosgrove
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:01 PM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] REDISTRICTING
Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members, In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council. The 2019-2021 amendment to section Election Code 21601 (c) (1-4), intended to protect minority communities, provides a list of requirements for redistricting according to guidelines in the VRA. In order of priority "contiguity" is first in the list followed by "communities of interest". Each factor on the list is qualified with "To the extent practicable" and “shall”. The city attorney opinions the meaning of “priority” and “to the extent practicable” requires Districts to have 100% contiguous boundaries solely because contiguous is listed first on the list. He opinion that the words “to the extent practicable” mean impossible based on the application of similar words "frequently" used in environmental statutes. The standard for interpreting the meaning of words in a statute is the "plain meaning" of the words. So, if ANY contiguity is possible, he reasons it must be 100% achieved regardless of what happens to the communities of interests. His opinion, if applied to Morgan Hill, basically forces a break-up and severance of District B and D and greatly reduces the chance that members of historically marginalized minority communities will be elected to serve on the Council. The result is that only District maps can be drawn which divide current Districts B and D and rejoin the pieces into two dissimilar halves. DISTRICT D CAN BE DECLARED 100% CONTIGUOUS IN TWO WAYS. The two areas of District D are separated by county land, which makes it impossible to achieve 100% contiguity, a jurisdictional barrier. We are interpreting the words in the statute to mean that where there are jurisdictional barriers, the city can declare a district boundary as contiguous "to the extent practicable". Such an interpretation, based on the plain meaning of the words, would serve well to protect the community of interest of District B and D as they currently exist. The statute provides “Areas Separated by water connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are contiguous". We read that as a principle that so long as there is the ability for people to freely travel between separated areas, the boundary is contiguous. In District D, the two areas are connected by a vast network of county roads and highway 101 so people can easily travel to and from the areas. THE CITY ATTORNEY DID NOT CORRECTLY INSTRUCT THE CITY COUNCIL. No court has issued a ruling as to the precise meaning of the words "priority" and to the "extent practicable". Our position is that the meaning of the words are ambiguous, inconclusive, and open to interpretation depending on whether one renders a narrow or a broad interpretation to the plain meaning of words within the context of the intent of the legislature. The

Page 118 of 397 ends

City Attorney's opinion relies on the 'frequent" application of the words to environmental statutes and not on the plain meaning of the words. However, the attorney went beyond just rendering his opinion as to words meaning. He declared that Public Map 103 is “illegal”. After declaring the map “illegal” he then declared that if the council were to approve Public Map 103 that the "city would probably be sued by the California Attorney General or somebody else looking to get attorney's fees on a pretty easy case". It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill". The City Attorney has an obligation to render opinions that are fair, objective, and impartial. We believe it was wrong for the City Attorney to declare Map 103 "illegal" and that if the Council selects it that the California Attorney General will sue Morgan Hill. He has not instructed the City Council that his advice/opinion of the meaning of the words in the statute serve only as advice and that the council can consider it along with any other interpretations of the words submitted by the public and may fairly consider all maps from the perspective of the legislative intent to protect minority communities. The Attorney’s opinion appears to suggest to the council and the community that his interpretation of the statute has the force of law and therefore the council is not free to consider any other interpretations or risk being sued (speculation). He has failed to instruct the City Council that they can, and indeed have a legal duty to, consider all interpretations of the meaning of the words of the statute submitted for its considerations and may evaluate Public Map 103 fairly, along with the other maps, without fear that they are going to select an illegal map or fear that the California Attorney General is going to sue the city. The words "priority" and "to the extent practicable" are ambiguous and inconclusive and subject to differing interpretation depending on whether one seeks to prioritize 100% contiguous boundaries, even when there are jurisdictional barriers that prevent that, or one wants to prioritize communities of interests and to increase the chances that those historically marginalized minority communities have a representative in the city council. I anticipate that the City Council will select a map on February 16, 2022. I believe Public Map 103 should be fairly considered along with the other maps without the stigma of being labeled “illegal” and speculations that the California Attorney General is going to sue Morgan Hill if the council selects that map for its 2020 districts. I request Mayor Constantine act to ensure that the City Attorney takes corrective action to remove the stigma to Public Map 103 and the fear that he created by his extraneous comments, I request Mayor Constantine to ensure that the City Attorney provides proper instructions to the Council regarding its oversight role and responsibility to fairly consider all reasonable interpretations as to the plain meaning of the words in the statute offered by the public and to fairly consider all maps submitted, including Public Map 103. I request Mayor Constantine to assure the public and the Council that the City Attorney is obligated to forcefully defend any interpretation of the meaning of the words of the statute that three of you chose to adopt and the map that three of you select, including Public Map 103. The burden of proof in litigation brought by anyone to challenge your decision just requires that your decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by any evidence. With such low burden of proof, I am confident that our City Attorney will have an easy case to win if you select the best map for Morgan Hill, Public Map 103. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/2182/Draft-Maps). Regards, -Tom Mosgrove Morgan Hill
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Page 119 of 397 ends

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
From: Christina Turner
To: Michelle Bigelow
Cc: Donald Larkin
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Comment on redistricting and the November 2022 election Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 11:03:42 AM
Please supplement.

From: Dani Piazza
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 10:43 AM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on redistricting and the November 2022 election Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

Page 120 of 397 ends

where there are jurisdictional barriers, the city can declare a district boundary as contiguous "to the extent practicable". Such an interpretation, based on the plain meaning of the words, would serve well to protect the community of interest of District B and D as they currently exist. The statute provides “Areas Separated by water connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are contiguous". We read that as a principle that so long as there is the ability for people to freely travel between separated areas, the boundary is contiguous. In District D, the two areas are connected by a vast network of county roads and highway 101 so people can easily travel to and from the areas.

THE CITY ATTORNEY DID NOT CORRECTLY INSTRUCT THE CITY COUNCIL. No court has issued a ruling as to the precise meaning of the words "priority" and to the "extent practicable". Our position is that the meaning of the words are ambiguous, inconclusive, and open to interpretation depending on whether one renders a narrow or a broad interpretation to the plain meaning of words within the context of the intent of the legislature. The City Attorney's opinion relies on the 'frequent" application of the words to environmental statutes and not on the plain meaning of the words. However, the attorney went beyond just rendering his opinion as to words meaning. He declared that Public Map 103 is “illegal”. After declaring the map “illegal” he then declared that if the council were to approve Public Map 103 that the "city would probably be sued by the California Attorney General or somebody else looking to get attorney's fees on a pretty easy case".

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103.

The City Attorney has an obligation to render opinions that are fair, objective, and impartial.

I anticipate that the City Council will select a map on February 16, 2022. I believe Public

Page 121 of 397 ends

Map 103 should be fairly considered along with the other maps without the stigma of being labeled “illegal” and speculations that the California Attorney General is going to sue Morgan Hill if the council selects that map for its 2020 districts. I request Mayor Constantine act to ensure that the City Attorney takes corrective action to remove the stigma to Public Map 103 and the fear that he created by his extraneous comments, I request Mayor Constantine to ensure that the City Attorney provides proper instructions to the Council regarding its oversight role and responsibility to fairly consider all reasonable interpretations as to the plain meaning of the words in the statute offered by the public and to fairly consider all maps submitted, including Public Map 103.

Regards,
Dani Piazza
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Page 122 of 397 ends

From: Christina Turner
To: Michelle Bigelow
Cc: Donald Larkin
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] REDISTRICTING: CA ELECTION CODE SECTION 21534 PROVIDES INSIGHT TO THE DEGREE OF DISCRETION THE CA LEGISLATORS GRANTED CITIES.

Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 11:07:15 AM
Please supplement.

From: Armando Be >
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:16 AM
To: Rich Constantine <[email protected]>; Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] REDISTRICTING: CA ELECTION CODE SECTION 21534 PROVIDES INSIGHT TO THE DEGREE OF DISCRETION THE CA LEGISLATORS GRANTED CITIES.

Mayor Constantine, Council Members, and City Manager,
We strongly believe that our State Legislators grant the City sufficient discretion and flexibility to apply the factors in Election Code 21601 ©(1-4) in a way that best serves Morgan Hill. It is difficult to believe that our State Legislators chose to give paramount importance to contiguity and that it boxed the Council into a corner and completely removed the Council’s discretion to decide the degree of "contiguity", when the word is qualified with the clause "to the extent practicable".

The correct standard to ascertain the meaning of statutory language is to look at the plain meaning of the words, the legislative history, and finally to the reasonableness of the proposed construction”.

It is safe to assume that the Legislature carefully chose its word to denote the degree of discretion and flexibility it granted cities to apply the 4 factors to draw districts. The use of “shall” with no qualifying words commands 100% contiguity, regardless of the consequences to achieve. On the other hand, the legislature uses words like “may give consideration” to denote flexible discretion. Within the continuum of the words “shall” and “may consider” lies the degree of discretion the Legislature grants cities when it includes the phrase “to the extent practicable”.

The continuum denoted by the words in the CA Elections Code section 21534 ©(1- 5) provides valuable insight to the degrees of discretion. This redistricting statute was amended in 2020 and took effect on January 1, 2021, the same as Election Code section 21601. It notes:

ELECTION CODE SECTION 21534
In order of priority*
“©(3) Districts shall be geographically contiguous.”
“©(4) The geographic integrity of any city, local neighborhood, or local community

Page 123 of 397 ends

of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of paragraphs (1) to (3).” “©(5) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with paragraphs (1) to (4) inclusive, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of populations are not bypassed for more distant areas of population.”
*Section 21534 ranking of the factors include the Federal requirements. ____________________________________________________
Section 21534 clearly demarks a continuum of degrees of discretion the Legislature granted that can be applied to Section 21601 (c)(1-4). The phrase "to the extent practicable” is third in the ranking of priority below “to the extent possible”.

This word difference in the two clauses is important because the City Attorney says that the Section 21601 contiguous factor, qualified with "to the extent practicable", means “if it is possible and could be done, then it should be done”. If that was the intended meaning the Legislature clearly would just have used the qualifying words “to the extent possible” (forced continuity) or 'shall be" without a qualifier clause to the continuity factor as it did in Section 21534. That the Legislators did not, is compelling evidence that the intent of the legislature was to grant cities some discretion and flexibility in applying the factors, including contiguity.

The "to the extent possible" clause best captures the city attorney’s meaning "If it is possible and could be done, then it should be done". And, in Code section 21534 that clause is ranked one higher in the order of priority over "to the extent practicable"The definition of "to the extent practicable" does not appear to naturally capture the phrase "If it is possible and could be done, then it should be done".

The Section 21534 statutory words provide valuable insight and can assist in interpreting the Section 21601 (c) (1-4) factors. Since in section 21601 the contiguity factor is qualified by the phrase 'to the extent practicable" instead of "to the extent possible" that may be viewed as reasonable evidence that the Legislature did not require 100% contiguity or forced contiguity. In fact it is evidence that it left the city council discretion to declare District D as being contiguous to the “extent practicable”.

The discretion granted by the CA Legislators is a discretion that the City should want to exercise, especially when the issue deals with the protection of voter’s rights, preserving the integrity of communities of interest and protecting minority communities.

Relying on the opinion of the City Attorney, one council member commented “The Voters Rights Act was intended to protect voters and protect communities of interest .. and here we are, we come down with something from the State that says well that is not our primary concern, the primary concern is contiguity .. I don’t see the logic, but it’s the law, … Sacramento, boy they missed the point.” Even this councilmember appeared dismayed at the thought that the Legislators were abandoning the protection of communities of interest and minority communities.

Page 124 of 397 ends

As noted above, the courts apply a three-prong test to ascertain the meaning of the words in a statute-apply the plain meaning of the words, examine the legislative history, and finally assess the reasonableness of the proposed construction”.

It does not appear reasonable to force a council member to conclude that the Legislators have forsaken the protection of communities of interest and the protection of minority communities. That the Legislators carefully chose the clause “to the extent practicable” for the continuity factor and not “to the extent possible, and not “shall” without a qualifier, is compelling evidence that our Legislators did in fact intended to protect communities of interest and minority communities.

We commend the Mayor and council members who have faith in our Legislative leaders. We applaud those council members who carefully assess the words “to the extent practicable”, and give them the meaning that best reflects the legislative intent to protect our communities of interest and minority communities. We applaud those council members who are willing to exercise the degree of discretion inherent in the Legislators' word choice that protects minority communities and communities of interest.

We hope that the Mayor and council members recognize that our CA Elected Officials are more interested in protecting and advancing the communities of interest and minority communities over contiguity, especially when the boundary barriers are natural or jurisdictional.

It is our position that Public Map 103 would best serve Morgan Hill. The map retains the district boundaries that were drawn in 2017 to increase the probability that a representative of minority groups will get elected to the Council. It also respects the very important community of interests that runs along the Monterey Road corridor represented by District B and of Districts A,C, and D that branch out East and West from the corridor.

It is noted that the Asian Law Alliance wrote in an email to the council: “In our view, Public Map 103 does not violate the contiguity requirement of the Fair Maps Act. In fact, Public Map 103 is the only map that will keep the communities of interest in current District B together. As you well know, when the Election Code was amended, those amendments were intended to protect minority communities. We disagree with the City Attorney's opinion that districts must be 100% contiguous. The code clearly states that "to the extent practicable". We agree with the analysis by Armando Benevides (sp) in his February 8, 2022 email.”
Please exercise the discretion and flexibility granted by the Legislature to the City and declare District D contiguous to the “extent practicable” in Map 103 or contiguous under the “Areas Separated by Water Connected by a Bridge” principle. We believe either declaration is legally appropriate to allow the Council to fairly consider the benefits of Public Map 103.

Regards,
Armando Benavides, Sally Casas, Mario Montemayor, Kathy Napoli, Rick Badillo, Ernesto Gomez, Delia Gomez, Roberto Aguirrez, Brenda Cayme, Yolanda Barba, Rob Guynn, Edith Duran, Alicia Cortez, Ruben Garcia, James Leslie, Sylvia Topete,

Page 125 of 397 ends

Patricia Darling, Luz Guerra, Juan Cardona, Alexandria Cayme, Emmanuel Vasquez, Cheryl Paxton, Joe Baranowski
cc: Broad distribution
ReplyReply allForward
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Page 126 of 397 ends

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
From: Christina Turner
To: Michelle Bigelow
Cc: Donald Larkin
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Redistricting
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 1:08:33 PM
Please supplement.

From: Darcy Foster
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 12:44 PM
To: Yvonne Martinez Beltran <[email protected]>; Rene Spring <[email protected]>; John McKay <[email protected]>; Christina Turner <[email protected]>; Gino Borgioli <[email protected]>; Donald Larkin <[email protected]>; Rich Constantine <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Redistricting
In light of the current concern over the redistricting of our voting districts, I would ask that the Council postpone any hasty decision regarding Districts B, C and D. More public discussion is needed.

Thank you,
Darcy Foster
16910 Sundance Drive
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Page 127 of 397 ends

1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Michelle Bigelow, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED BY: City Manager
TALLER DE REDISTRIBUCIÓN DE DISTRITOS DEL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL RECOMENDACIÓN(S)

1. Revisar y discutir borradores de mapas; y

2. Proporcionar instrucciones al personal sobre qué mapas y/o cambios presentar en la audiencia pública del 2 de marzo de 2022 para su revisión y adopción.

Hora prevista: 90 Minutes
NARRATIVA DEL INFORME:

Las ciudades que tienen distritos del Concejo Municipal están obligadas a revisar y, si es necesario, debido a cambios en la población o las leyes que rigen los distritos, volver atrazar los límites del distrito cada diez años después del censo federal. Aunque los distritos de Morgan Hill solo se implementaron en 2017, se basaron en datos del cens 2020. El proceso de redistribución de distritos del Concejo Municipal requerido por la Ciudad comenzó en agosto de 2021. Para este taller, el Concejo Municipal y la comunidad revisarán y discutirán todos los borradores de mapas que han sido presentados. El demógrafo de la Ciudad, Corporación Nacional de Demografía, revisará cada mapa y explicará los detalles de los mapas y si cumplen con todos los requisitos. Después de recibir comentarios de la comunidad sobre los mapas preliminares, el personal recomienda que el Concejo proporcione al personal y al demógrafo instrucciones sobre qué mapas presentar para su modificación y/o adopción en la Audiencia Pública del Concejo Municipal del 2 de marzo de 2022.

Page 128 of 397 ends

From: Toni Tryforos
To: CityCouncil
Cc: Donald.Larkin@morganhill
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Redistricting Map 103
Date: Saturday, February 12, 2022 6:04:55 PM
Dear Mayor Constantine and Council Members,
In 2017, the Morgan Hill Council switched to district elections in response to community leaders' concerns about the lack of representation in the Council of historically marginalized minority communities. District B was drawn to encompass its unique community of interest and, because the demographic features along the Monterey Road corridor boundaries would best realize the objective to have a member elected to the Council from such marginalized minority communities. In 2018, District B voters elected a Latina, which diversified the Council.

It is quite apparent that the intent/outcome of the City Attorney's extraneous declarations was to detrimentally chill (intimidate) the Council to not consider or select Public Map 103. In fact, after he made the comments one council member declared that the City Attorney has an excellent reputation and that other city attorneys seek his advice. Another commented that in fact the CA Attorney General would sue "a small town like Morgan Hill".

I request Mayor Constantine to assure the public and the Council that the City Attorney is obligated to forcefully defend any interpretation of the meaning of the words of the statute that three of you chose to adopt and the map that three of you select, including Public Map 103. The burden of proof in litigation brought by anyone to challenge your decision just requires that your decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by any evidence. With such low burden of proof, I am confident that our City Attorney will have an easy case to win if you select the best map for Morgan Hill, Public Map 103. ([https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.morganhill.ca.gov%2F2182%2FDraftMaps&data=04%7C01%7CMichelle.Bigelow%40morganhill.ca.gov%7Cbf7deb0e95ce428267fc08d9ee9538cf%7Ce11e3e269cf64968a58a8c3e515ebe87%7C0%7C0%7C637803146944852118%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Nq1hEwVEY7hihiZH2YPMQsqdX6PAlxFESmKcL9KgOKI%3D&reserved=0] (https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.morganhill.ca.gov%2F2182%2FDraftMaps&data=04%7C01%7CMichelle.Bigelow%40morganhill.ca.gov%7Cbf7deb0e95ce428267fc08d9ee9538cf%7Ce11e3e269cf64968a58a8c3e515ebe87%7C0%7C0%7C637803146944852118%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Nq1hEwVEY7hihiZH2YPMQsqdX6PAlxFESmKcL9KgOKI%3D&reserved=0)) In closing, I sincerely hope and urge you to really pay attention to what’s truly in the best interests of the community and not for your political gains. The voters hold your future political aspirations, so hopefully you make the right decision and prove you deserve my vote along with my family and community.

Regards,
Toni Tryforos
Sent from my iPhone
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Item # 01
AGENDA DATE: 2/16//2022
SUPPLEMENT # 1

Page 129 of 397 ends

From: Sandra Lim
To: CityCouncil
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Redistrict map
Date: Sunday, February 13, 2022 9:45:13 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
I support map number 103 that better represents minorities in our city.

Sandra Lim
670 Count Fleet Court
Morgan Hill
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

Page 130 of 397 ends

155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612 Tel 510. 763. 9800 Fax 510. 835. 1417 www.gbdhlegal.com

FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
February 15, 2022
From,
Morris J. Baller
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Via E-Mail Only
To,
Michelle Bigelow
City Clerk
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 9503
[email protected]
Re: City Council Redistricting
Dear Mayor Constantine and Members of the City Council:

I write to you from the perspective of a voting rights attorney who was personally involved in, and largely responsible for, the City of Morgan Hill’s decision to change its election system from at-large to by-district elections in 2017, in order to comply with the California Voting Rights Act. As you may know, and can confirm from a review of the demand letter that I sent to the City at that time and the public records regarding the City’s response to my letter, the underlying basis of the demand for Morgan Hill to change its election system was the historically nearly-complete absence of Latino/a Council members and the inability of Morgan Hill’s large population of Latino voters to elect candidates of their choice under the at-large system given the presence of racially polarized voting patterns that existed in Morgan Hill as they do in most California municipalities. Those facts exposed the City to a lawsuit by Latino voters under the CVRA, which I and my firm, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, were prepared to bring if necessary at that time. To both its own credit and the benefit of its residents, the City quickly and “voluntarily” changed its election system, avoiding the necessity of litigation. The resulting change in both election outcomes and governance in the City within the few brief years since then has been remarkable, and, I firmly believe, beneficial to all portions of the community from a democratic and representational standpoint.

Now, however, it’s my understanding that the City is considering the adoption of a decennial redistricting map that would to a significant extent undo the gains and advantages achieved by the City’s change in its election system, to the detriment particularly but not exclusively of the Latino and lower-income communities whose voting strength had been diluted under the at-large election system and could once again be diluted should the City disregard or subordinate the community of interest among Latinos and lower-income residents – and other

Page 131 of 397 ends

FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Michelle Bigelow -2- February 15, 2022
residents of both current District B and current District D without regard to their ethnic or income level profile – in adopting a new district map.

In order to avoid that outcome, and to remain faithful to the underlying goal of eliminating racial discrimination in elections, I strongly urge you to adopt a map that preserves intact the areas now within Districts B and D, to the extent possible consistent with the necessity to preserve population equality, and to reject any map plan that divides each of those areas and rearranges them into two new districts oriented along a west-to-east axis crossing the current natural dividing line of Highway 101. Avoiding those evils would protect the City from potentially divisive and costly litigation: the current hybrid election system, with its at-large mayor election, remains an “at large election system” under the definition of the CVRA’s section 14026(c), and any districting plan that has the effect of discriminating against Latino voters would also be subject to legal challenge under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. But more importantly, a map retaining the basic configuration of the current districts B and D would promote the fair representational goals of the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act of 2018, the principle of respecting communities of interest, and good governance and political responsiveness of the City Council in relation to all of Morgan Hill’s residents. Such a map has been presented to the Council and is available for consideration for adoption with whatever further small adjustments may be necessary to preserve population equality and other legitimate factors – Map 103. The City should adopt and use that map for its elections over the next decade.

The legal principles governing redistricting under Elections Code section 21601(c) and their application to Morgan Hill – with its unusual geography including a “hole” consisting of County land between the northern and southern sections of what is now District D – have been fully and appropriately described and analyzed by an active group of your citizens coordinated, and articulated in a series of letters and petitions, by Armando Benavides with the participation and support of many other Morgan Hill voters. I am very familiar with those communications and with the preliminary opinions of the City Attorney on this matter. I sincerely believe that Mr. Benavides’ arguments are correct, and respectfully suggest that the City Attorney’s position is based on an unnecessarily and incorrectly rigid interpretation of the “contiguity” requirement of section 21601(c)(1), and on a concomitantly incorrect disregard of the other districting factors spelled out in subsections (c) (2), (3), and (4), especially the community of interest factor embodied in subsection (c)(2). As has been pointed out, the legislative purpose underlying the 2018 Act was to prevent gerrymandering via “cracking” or “packing” that would diminish minority communities’ voting strength; the requirement to achieve contiguity “to the extent practicable” and consistent with the other districting factors – including, most importantly, keeping COIs together - was intended to protect minority and COI voting strength, not to diminish it by a wooden interpretation that effectively makes a narrowly defined contiguity factor eliminate all other considerations. It would be not just ironic, but tragic, if Morgan Hill were to cancel out the most practically significant gains of its recent election system change in

Page 132 of 397 ends

FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Michelle Bigelow -3- February 15, 2022
the mistaken belief that it is thereby bowing to the Legislature’s actual intention, when that intention was to empower – not disenfranchise – minority voters.

I could elaborate on these points, but I don’t believe it is necessary or would be productive to add another “lawyer letter” or legal analysis to the ones that Mr. Benavides has so ably presented. Instead, I appeal to you, in the interest of both the City and its Latino and other residents, and in the interest of the quite different communities of residents in Districts B and D as currently configured, to enact Map 103 or another map that preserves the present configuration of those areas of the City without “cracking” them in a way that would have adverse effects both racially and politically.

The history of voting rights in California, unlike many parts of our country, has been one of steady progress toward greater democracy and racial fairness. Morgan Hill made an important and praiseworthy advance that served both of those interests in 2017, and better and more responsive governance has resulted. It would be a disservice to those goals and a huge step back from their achievement to enact a districting plan that divides not just one but two communities of interest, one of which includes a strong plurality or majority of lower-income and racial-minority residents concentrated in the central corridor area. The City has much to gain, and nothing to lose, by “doing the right thing.”1 Morgan Hill should opt to continue
moving forward, and not regress politically backward, in its revision of the district maps.

Sincerely yours,
Morris J. Baller
Cc: Official list serve: [email protected]
Armando Benavides, Esq.
1 It is wildly improbably that the State Attorney General – the author of the FAIR ACT and a strong advocate for minority voting rights – would even consider suing Morgan Hill for adopting a map based on the kind of holistic and flexible interpretation of section 21601 (c)(3) that Mr. Benavides correctly urges the City to utilize. It is far more likely that minority voting rights advocates would sue the City for discrimination in districting if it were to split or crack the District B area.

Page 133 of 397 ends

A
C
B
D
101
101
E Dunne Ave
Peebles Ave
Cochrane
Rd
Llagas Rd
Monterey St
W Main Ave
Watsonville
Rd
National Demographics Corporation, February 14, 2022
City of Morgan HillRedistricting 2022 NDC Map 108
©2021 CALIPER

Page 134 of 397 ends

NDC 108
District A
Total Pop 11,167
Deviation from ideal -225
% Deviation -1.98%
% Hisp 38.0%
% NH White 43%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 12%
Total 6,804
% Hisp 24%
% NH White 57%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 6,669
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 66%
% NH Black 3%
Total 5,695
% Latino est. 23%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 68%
% NH Black 3%
Total 4,092
% Latino est. 19%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 73%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,206
age0-19 29%
age20-60 50%
age60plus 22%
immigrants 18%
naturalized 55%
english 75%
spanish 18%
asian-lang 6%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 8%
hs-grad 36%
bachelor 35%
graduatedegree 13%
Child in Household child-under18 35%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65%
income 0-25k 8%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 11%
income 75-200k 44%
income 200k-plus 25%
single family 83%
multi-family 17%
rented 27%
owned 73%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

B
11,445
53 0.47%
29%
42%
2%
24%
7,088
26%
50%
2%
20%
7,172
23%
21%
13%
2%
60%
2%
6,194
22%
20%
13%
2%
62%
2%
3,996
19%
18%
10%
2%
67%
2%
10,617
28%
53%
18%
20%
64%
68%
17%
10%
5%
10%
38%
27%
17%
45%
64%
9%
8%
8%
39%
36%
92%
8%
14%
86%
C
11,383
-9
-0.08%
40%
41%
2%
14%
7,177
29%
55%
2%
13%
6,554
28%
26%
8%
2%
62%
2%
5,470
26%
24%
8%
2%
64%
2%
3,848
23%
21%
6%
1%
69%
2%
11,411
27%
53%
19%
21%
50%
65%
22%
8%
5%
16%
43%
21%
13%
36%
68%
6%
16%
15%
44%
18%
76%
24%
39%
61%
D
11,571
179

3.55%
33%
44%
3%
17%
29,905
24%
56%
2%
16%
28,119
24%
22%
9%
2%
64%
2%
24,118
22%
21%
9%
2%
66%
2%
17,019
20%
18%
7%
1%
70%
2%
44,520
28%
52%
20%
18%
59%
70%
17%
8%
5%
11%
39%
28%
15%
39%
67%
7%
12%
11%
43%
26%
85%
15%
27%
73%
02/15/2022 9:50 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

Page 135 of 397 ends

Morgan Hill City CouncilFebruary 16, 2022

Morgan Hill City Council
February 16, 2022