TO: HONORABLE MAYO R AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2023 FROM: CITY CLERK WARDS: ALL
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - RESHA PE RIVERSIDE REDISTRICTING PROCESS ISSUE:
Conduct a Public Hearing to review and disc
uss a presentation from staff and the City’s consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, regarding the process and criteria for establishing new ward boundaries.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing on
the ReShape Riverside Redistricting process and criteria for establishing new ward boundaries;
2. Consider Community of Interest Testim ony and Draft Maps submitted by community members; and
3. Consider Draft Maps A3, B, C2, C3, C4, D, D3, D4 and D5, and select no more than three maps for further discussion for final selection and determination on March 14, 2023.
OR
4. Direct Demographer to make specific revisi ons to selected maps for final selection and determination on March 14, 2023; or
5. Provide further direction as the City Counc il deems appropriate for implementing the City’s ReShape Riverside Redistricting Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Riverside City Charter §402 requires City Council to divide the City into seven wards, review the boundaries of those wards every ten years, and adjust t he boundaries by ordinance to provide for
a substantially equal number of residents in each ward. The resulting redistricting ordinance becomes effective thirty days after it is adopted, and the existing ward boundaries are to be used until the new redistricting ordinance is effectuated. Under Calif ornia Election Code Division 21, Chapter 7, Article 2, new ward s established generally may not be changed until after the next
REVISED REPORT
City Council Memorandum
Date: 2-21-23
Item No.: 21
Redistricting Report ● Page 2
decennial census in 2031. Mo reover, Riverside City Charte r states that ward boundary adjustments may occur more frequently as determined necessary upon receipt of official census data.
The substantive requirements of the Fair Maps Act for drawing ward boundaries are outlined in the California Elections Code §21621. To the greatest extent practic able, the City is required to adopt district boundaries using the criteria in the following order of priority:
1. Equal population of residents (+/- 10% ) in each ward based on census data.
2. Comply with the United Stat es and California Constitutions, including the Federal and California Voting Rights Acts (FVRA and CVRA).
3. Council wards shall be geographically contiguous.
4. The geographic integrity of any local neigh borhood or local community of interest should be respected and included within a single ward for its effective and fair representation in a manner that minimizes its division.
5. Council wards should be easily identif iable and understandable by residents.
6. Council wards shall be drawn to encourage geogr aphical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.
7. Council ward boundaries shall not be estab lished for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.
Riverside City Charter §402 provides that Council ward boundary adjustments during a Councilmember’s term shall not result in disqual ification for membership on the Council during such term. However, the state law criteria for adoption of such boundaries does not include consideration of the location of a Councilmember’s residence.
The City Council met and conferred on the procedural requirements for the Redistricting process during City Council meetings on October 12, 2021, November 16, 2021, and January 11, 2022.
At which time, City Council discussed the City's proposed plan for community engagement, a tentative timeline for establishing the new ward boundaries, a brief report on the California Voting Rights Act, and options for redistricting oversight methods.
On January 11, 2022, having considered the various redistricting approache s, the City Council appointed the Inclusiveness, Community Engagement, and Governmental Processes Committee (ICGC) to oversee and advise staff on the Redistricting process and approved the timeline for the City's Reshape Riverside Redistricting plan.
The ICGC met and conferred on the procedural r equirements for the Redistricting process and received reports on the outreach efforts, heard public testimony, received Communities of interest (COI) testimonies, and reviewed four ten (610) draft maps for their cons ideration on August 3, 2022, October 5, 2022, November 2, 2022, December 7, 2022, and January 4, 2023.
At the conclusion of the ICGC advisory session, the Committee referred six (6) Draft Maps (A3, B, C2, C3, D and D3) to City Council for consideration.
DISCUSSION:
On January 24, 2023, City Council conducted its firs t Public Hearing and considered draft maps referred by the ICGC, heard publi c testimony, and provided Redistricting Partners and staff with direction to advance COI Map D5 and to modify other Draft Maps for future consideration.
Redistricting Report ● Page 3
Subsequently, two three (23) additional COI testimony maps were submitted in DistrictR by Brown and Black Redistricting Alliance – BBRA A3 Modification, Neighbors Better Together – NBT Map ID 168815 and an anonymous submission – Map ID 168178. City Council may direct the Demographer to uplift these COI testimony maps as Draft Maps for consideration.
The draft maps presented for City Council consideration are as follows:
Draft Map A3 (minimal neighborhood splits ): Wood Streets kept whole (drafted by Redistricting Partners)
Map A3 was created to keep together the Wood Streets neighborhood with Ward 1, balancing the population, and all the Grand neighb orhood was kept together in Ward 3. 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 Arlingt on South neighborhood was moved in to Ward 4 to keep the total population deviation under 10%.
Draft Map A3 Total Deviation: 8.1%
22 neighborhoods kept together (slight Downtown split due to a usual census block) 5 neighborhoods split (some neighborhoods were split due to neighborhood lines and census blocks not lining up)
Draft Map B: minimum change (Redistricting Partners)
Map B was created to establish a lower total deviation while maintaining the current lines as much as possible. Boundaries between Wards 1 and 2 were adjusted to smooth out the boundaries and maintain more of the Universi ty neighborhood in Ward 2. Changes in Wards 3 and 4 naturally occurred due to the changes in the census geography data between 2010 and 2020. Changes in Ward 6 occurred to smooth out the lines and follow the highway when possible. Ward 2 has the least number of residents with a deviation of -2.6%, and Ward 5 has the largest deviation at 1.3%.
Draft Map B Total Deviation: 3.9%
Neighborhoods that were previous ly split continue to be split. 14 neighborhoods kept whole
13 neighborhoods split (som e neighborhoods were split due to neighborhood lines and census blocks not lining up)
Draft Map C2: Edited DistrictR 141291 (Community Plan; edited at request of ICGC)
Based on Draft Map C, which wa s created by a member of th e community and submitted on DistrictR (ID: 141291). Draft C2 maintains the stru cture and integrity of Draft C, however, was adjusted to keep Casa Blanca community whole and in Ward 3 at the r equest of the Committee and community members.
Draft Map C2 Total deviation: 7%
16 neighborhoods kept together
11 neighborhoods split (minorly split the Industrial Hunter Park neighborhood)
Redistricting Report ● Page 4
Draft Map C3: Edited DistrictR 141291 (Community Plan; edited at request of ICGC)
Builds on Draft Map C2, with minor changes between Wards 1 and 2 at the request of the ICGC and now maintains Industrial Hunter Park in one ward.
Draft Map C3 Total deviation: 7%
17 neighborhoods kept together
10 neighborhoods split (some neighborhoods were split due to neighborhood lines and census blocks not lining up)
Draft Map C4: Edited DistrictR 141291 (edited at request of City Council)
Builds on Draft Map C2 by adjusti ng the border of Ward 7 from Gram ercy Pl. to Philbin Ave., as requested by Councilmember Perry. Other slight changes were made to balance population, such as placing all of the La Sierra Acres Neighborhood into Ward 6.
Ward 4 has the lowest populati on, with a deviation of -2.4%, and Ward 3 has the largest population, with a deviation of 3.3%.
Draft Map C4 Total deviation: 5.7%
18 neighborhoods kept together
9 neighborhoods split (some neighborhoods were split due to neighborhood lines and census blocks not lining up)
Draft Map D: Brown and Black Redistricting Alliance (Community Plan)
Draft Map D was submitted by the community organization Brown and Black Redistricting Alliance, a group that has been active in this redistricting cycle. The map minimizes neighborhood and communities of interest splits and has appropr iate population deviations. Ward 2 has the lowest deviation at -3.1%, and Ward 1 has the highest deviation at 2%.
Draft Map D Total Deviation: 5.1%
17 neighborhoods kept whole (D owntown, Eastside, and Arlington Height s were slightly split due to the neighborhood lines and census geography data not lining up) 10 neighborhoods split (som e neighborhoods were split due to neighborhood lines and census blocks not lining up)
Swaps Casa Blanca from Ward 4 to Ward 2, which reflects COI testimony received in public outreach meetings
Draft Map D3: Separates Downtown and Eastside (Community Plan; edited at request of ICGC)
Draft Map D3 builds on Draft Map D but separates the Down town and Eastside neighborhoods into different wards while maintaining four ma jority minority wards. Ward 5 has the lowest deviation at -1%, and Ward 3 has the highest deviation at 1.7%.
Draft Map D3 Total Deviation: 2.7%
20 neighborhoods kept whole
7 neighborhoods split (some neighborhoods were split due to neighborhood lines and census blocks not lining up)
Redistricting Report ● Page 5
Draft Map D4: Modification of D3 (Community Plan; edited at request of City Council)
Draft Map D4 builds on map D3; it moves the No rthside Neighborhood into Ward 7 from Ward 1 (at the request of Coucilmember Cervantes), and it moves the community bounded by Canyon Crest Dr., Alessandro Blv., and Via Vista Drive into Ward 5 from Ward 6 (as requested by Councilmember Conder).
Ward 2 has the lowest populati on, with a deviation of -3.3%, and Ward 6 has the largest population, with a deviation of 4.1%.
Draft Map D4 Total Deviation: 7.4%
20 neighborhoods kept whole
7 neighborhoods split (some neighborhoods were split due to neighborhood lines and census blocks not lining up)
Draft Map D5: Modification of Draft Map D (Community Plan; edited by Community) Draft Map D5 was submitted by the Brown and Black Redistrictin g Alliance and builds on Draft Map D. Please refer to their official letter for the full narrative of the map.
Ward 2 has the lowest populati on, with a deviation of -3.1%, and Ward 1 has the largest population, with a deviation of 4.7%.
Draft Map D5 Total Deviation: 7.8%
16 neighborhoods kept whole
11 neighborhoods split (som e neighborhoods were split due to neighborhood lines and census blocks not lining up)
Redistricting Legal Analysis:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6, 1965 and prohibits racial discrimination in voting. In general, Federal law provides that maps that have the effect of discrimination should be avoided.
In order to decide whether a pr oposed redistricting plan (map) vi olates the Voting Rights Act because it has the effect of discrimination, courts follow a two-part test. The first part of the test is commonly referred to as the “Gingles” factors— because the factors were first announced in the Supreme Court case entitled Thornburg v. Gingles. To satisfy the Gingles factors, a plaintiff must prove that: the minority group in question is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute the majority of a dist rict; voters in the minority group in question tend to vote together for the same candidates (i.e., ar e politically cohesive); and voters in the majority group tend to vote cohesively against the candidate preferences of the minority group in question (also known as bloc voting).
If the three Gingles factors are satisfied, then the court would move to the second part of the test:
whether under the “totality of circumstances,” the challenged redistrictin g plan (or other voting law) denies members of the mi nority group an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of choice. In this analysis, courts consider, among other factors, the history of voting discrimination in the jurisdiction at issue, the record of discrimination in education, housing, employment, health and other areas of life in the challenged jurisdiction, whether minority candidates have been elected in the challenged jurisd iction, the existence of racially polarized voting and racial appeals in elections in the c hallenged jurisdiction, and the responsiveness of elected officials to the needs and interests of t he minority community. If the court concludes that Redistricting Report ● Page 6
the three Gingles factors are present, and that under the “t otality of circumstances” the redistricting plan prevents minor ity voters from having an equa l opportunity to elect their candidates of choice, the court could conclude t hat the redistricting plan has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In California, citizen voting-age p opulation, not just populat ion, plays a role in redistricting. The 9th Circuit (which includes California) requi res citizen voting-age population to be used to determine whether a population cons titutes at least 50% of a di strict, as required under the Gingles test’s first prong. This means that California, which is in the 9 th circuit, requires that the City look at citizen voting-age population.
At the January 24, 2023 public hearing, Redistricting Partners recommended that the City Council consider adopting maps which had at least three majority minority districts (wards), with at least a 54-55% percent majority minority districts (wards), in order to avoid a challenge of a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
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 Redistricting process aligns with the Envision 2025 Cross-Cutting Threads as follows:
1. 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 soun d policy, inclusive of community engagement in the decision-making process.
2. Equity – Community members will utiliz e interactive tools. Some may participate in a redistricting commission to ensure that ne wly established ward boundaries comply with federal and state laws that encourage equity for all stakeholders.
3. Fiscal Responsibility – Riverside is a prudent steward of public funds and ensures responsible management of the City's financial resources wh ile providing quality public services to all. The City Clerk's Office is committed to exploring services provided internally Redistricting Report ● Page 7
instead of consultants and lookin g for creative ways to reduce the redistricting program's fiscal impact and outreach efforts.
4. Innovation – Riverside's Redistricting Framework in cludes a marketing strategy that will consist of non-English language s, including American Sign Language. The redistricting website will host interactive tools promot ing collaborative public partnerships with redrawing ward boundaries.
5. 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 fluc tuating times alike. Reviewi ng the ward boundaries every ten years is essential to maintain sustainab le 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
Susan Wilson, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to form: Phaedra A. Norton, City Attorney
Attachments:
1. Draft Map A3 incl uding Street Overlay
2. BBRA Map A3 Modification
3. Draft Map B includ ing Street Overlay
4. Draft Map C2 incl uding Street Overlay
5. Draft Map C3 incl uding Street Overlay
6. Draft Map C4 incl uding Street Overlay
7. Draft Map D includ ing Street Overlay
8. Draft Map D3 incl uding Street Overlay
9. Draft Map D4 incl uding Street Overlay
10. Draft Map D5 including Street Overlay
11. Map ID168178
12. NBT Map ID168815
13. Riverside Redistricting Presentation
14. Notice
15. Draft Map Ranked Criteria Matrix