Inclusiveness, Community Engagement, and Governmental Processes Committee TO: INCLUSIVENESS, COMMUNITY DATE: JANUARY 4, 2023
ENGAGEMENT, AND GOVERNMENTAL
PROCESSESS COMMITTEE
FROM: CITY CLERK WARDS: ALL
SUBJECT: RESHAPE RIVERSIDE REDISTRICTING UPDATE
ISSUE:
Review and Discuss the Reshape Riverside Redistricting Update.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Inclusiveness, Community Engagement, and Governmental Processes Committee:
Receive and file an update on the Reshape Riverside Redistricting Plan Consider Community of Interest Testimony and Draft Redistricting Maps Suggest possible changes and adjustments to Redistricting Partners for revision; and Select a map or maps to refer to City Council for further deliberation; or Provide further direction to Redistricting Partners and City staff as the Inclusiveness, Community Engagement, and Governmental Processes Committee deems appropriate while implementing the City's Reshape Riverside Redistricting Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Riverside City Charter Section 402 requires City Council, by ordinance, to divide the city boundaries into seven wards, review the boundary limits of the wards every ten years, and adjust, by ordinance, those boundaries to provide for a substantially equal number of residents in each Ward. The City must adopt ward boundaries by August 2023.
On January 11, 2022, after consideration of the various redistricting approaches, the City Council determined that the Inclusiveness, Community Engagement, and Governmental Processes Committee (ICGC) oversee and advise staff on the Redistricting process and approved the tentative timeline for the City's Reshape Riverside Redistricting Outreach Plan.
On August 3, 2022, the ICGC hosted its first public hearing. During the hearing, the Committee received public testimony. It directed staff to add two in-person Saturday meetings to the City's outreach plan, including the working community who cannot attend the meetings during the week.
On October 5, 2022, the ICGC conducted its second public hearing. During the hearing, the Committee received a report on the outreach efforts, received public testimony, and reviewed four maps introduced for their consideration. Two of the four maps (Draft A and B) were drafted by Redistricting Partners; a community member submitted Draft C via the DistrictR tool, and Draft D submitted by the Brown and Black Redistricting Alliance.
On November 2, 2022, the ICGC held a public meeting to receive a report on the outreach efforts, heard public testimony, and reviewed six draft maps for their consideration. After discussion, the Committee voted to withdraw Draft Map C for consideration and instructed Redistricting Partners to modify Draft Map D, keeping the Arlanza Community together.
DISCUSSION:
On December 7, 2022, the ICGC discussed an updated and presented five Communities of Interest (COI) testimonies for the Committee's review and consideration. During the discussion, the Committee directed Redistricting Partners to uplift DistrictR ID 148396 "8231 Modified" and to make some adjustments to create some majority/minority wards for future consideration.
Draft Map A3: Wood Streets kept whole
A3 builds on A2 (minimal neighborhood splits). A3 was created to keep together the Wood Streets neighborhood with Ward 1. The Grand Neighborhood was held together in Ward 3 to balance the population. A portion of the Downtown neighborhood was moved into Ward 3 due to an unusually shaped census block. A portion of Ward 5 in the Arlington South neighborhood was moved into Ward 4 to keep the total deviation under 10%.
Total Deviation: 8.1%
21 neighborhoods kept together
6 neighborhoods split (slight Downtown split due to an unusual census block) Draft Map E: Edited "8231 Modified" DistrictR submission Uplifted DistrictR map "8231 Modified," which was edited to help ensure the map complies with the Voting Rights Act. Additional smaller edits were made to keep neighborhoods together when possible.
Total Deviation: 8.1%
17 neighborhoods kept together
Included in the count were Arlanza and Eastside, which had minor splits due to census blocks being shared with other neighborhoods 10 neighborhoods split (Downtown and Hawarden Hills split due to usual census blocks) Visualization: Downtown and Eastside are separated; Eastside and University are kept together As requested, Redistricting Partners created a map to keep University and Eastside together while using the highway to separate Downtown and the Eastside. This map could not achieve the Latino CVAP levels needed to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Total Deviation: 7.5%
In addition, the ICGC may consider uplifting one or more of the COI testimonies as a draft map for future consideration. Below is a summary of the COI submissions provided since the last ICGC public hearing:
DistrictR 161531, "All Riverside Districts"
Total Deviation: 5.1%
Majority Minority Wards: four
As currently drafted, the proposal does not comply with the Fair Maps Act. However, ICGC may direct the Demographer to make slight edits for compliance.
DistrictR 161536, "asdf"
Total Deviation: 15.8%
Majority Minority Wards: three
As currently drafted, the proposal does not comply with the Fair Maps Act. However, ICGC may direct the Demographer to make edits for compliance.
Another critical criterion of the redistricting process is the Voting Rights Act requirements. The method includes determining whether the City is required to maintain minority majority wards (or "VRA wards"), and the City must examine the three prongs of Gingles, as established in the U.S. Supreme Court case Thornburg v. Gingles (1986).
Prong 1 - is there a minority population large and concentrated enough in one or more geographic area(s) to constitute the majority of the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)? Between 2010 and 2020, wards 6 and 7 became majority Latino when examining the CVAP data. This fact implies that Prong 1 is satisfied.
To determine if prongs 2 and 3 are also satisfied, the City hired a demographer to conduct a Racially Polarized Voting (RPV) analysis to answer those two questions:
Prong 2: is there evidence that a protected class under the VRA is voting en bloc/are politically cohesive? Prong 3: is there evidence that the majority population is voting in a way that denies the protected class the ability to elect their candidate(s) of choice? The RPV analysis will be used to determine if the City is required to create VRA Wards and, if so, how many. The analysis will be completed on or before December 31, 2022.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
The City’s Redistricting Plan contributes to the City Council’s Envision 2025 Strategic Plan Priority and Goals:
Community Well-Being – Ensuring safe and inclusive neighborhoods where everyone can thrive with the following goal:
Goal 2.4 - Support programs and innovations that enhance community safety, encourage neighborhood engagement, and build public trust; and, High Performing Government – Providing world-class public service that is efficient, accessible, and responsible to all, with the following goals:
Goal 5.2 - Utilize technology, data, and process improvement strategies to increase efficiencies, guide decision making, and ensure services are accessible and distributed equitably throughout all geographic areas of the City.
Goal 5.3 - Enhance communication and collaboration with community members to improve transparency, build public trust, and encourage shared decision-making.
The proposed Redistricting format, public outreach, and marketing strategy align with the Envision 2025 Cross-Cutting Threads as follows:
Community Trust – The establishment of a redistricting format and the outreach strategy that includes workshops in every ward to draft new Ward boundaries are resident-led participation and public input, creating sound policy, inclusive of community engagement in the decision-making process.
Equity – Community members will utilize interactive tools. Some may participate in a redistricting commission to ensure that newly established ward boundaries comply with federal and state laws that encourage equity for all stakeholders.
Fiscal Responsibility – Riverside is a prudent steward of public funds and ensures responsible management of the City's financial resources while providing quality public services to all. The City Clerk's Office is committed to exploring services provided internally instead of consultants and looking for creative ways to reduce the redistricting program's fiscal impact and outreach efforts.
Innovation– The redistricting website will host interactive tools promoting collaborative public partnerships with redrawing ward boundaries. Riverside's Redistricting Framework includes a marketing strategy that will consist of non-English languages, including American Sign Language Sustainability & Resiliency – Riverside is committed to meeting the present needs without compromising the needs of the future and ensuring the City's capacity to persevere, adapt and grow during fluctuating times alike. Reviewing the ward boundaries every ten years is essential to maintain sustainable and resilient representation for a more sustainable future.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
Prepared by: Donesia Gause, City Clerk
Approved as to form: Phaedra A. Norton, City Attorney
Attachments:
Draft Maps A, A2, B, C2, D and D2 including Street Overlay Draft Map A3
Draft Map E
Visualization of Downtown/Eastside Split
DistrictR 161531
DistrictR 161536
Community of Interest Testimony Summary
Reshape Riverside Redistricting Update ● Page 2