LAW AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Jay Schenirer, Chair, District 5
Jeff Harris, Vice Chair, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Eric Guerra, District 6
COMMITTEE STAFF
Wendy Klock-Johnson, Assistant City Clerk
Steve Itagaki, Supervising Deputy City Attorney
Consuelo Hernandez, Director of Governmental Affairs
Law and Legislation
Committee
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after Agenda was published.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Public Comments – Matters Not on the Agenda
1 May 23, 2022
Sacramento Ethics Commission
City Hall
Sacramento, CA
RE: Matters not on Agenda - Redistricting Charter Change Recommendations
Dear Commissioners:
At the April 19, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council passed a motion requesting the Ethics Commission’s input on potential changes to the Sacramento City Charter concerning redistricting. Primarily, the Council was looking for recommendations to resolve a conflict between state law and longstanding city practice as to when newly adopted council districts maps take effect. The Council also asked that this Commission consider whether other relevant amendments, including commissioner education, should be added to the City Charter.
On behalf of SPAN and the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County, we are strongly supportive, in concept (pending review of draft language), of amending the City Charter to (1) clarify that newly adopted city council district lines become effective at the next regular election for each district following approval of district boundaries by the Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission and (2) providing more comprehensive training to new redistricting commissioners. We also believe several other redistricting-related, mostly technical amendments should be made to provide for a smoother process in future cycles, and urge the Ethics Commission to recommend the additional proposed charter amendments (3 - 12) below.
We realize that considering redistricting-related charter amendments is not on today’s agenda; however, we are providing these recommendations in advance so that the Ethics Commission may have sufficient time to consider them before your next meeting, where we expect you will review the redistricting amendments.
Thank you,
/s/ Brenda Main /s/ Nicolas Heidorn
President Director
League of Women Voters Sacramento Policy Analysis Network of Sacramento County
CC: Law & Legislation Committee, City Attorney
2 1) Clarify that newly adopted lines are effective at the next regular election. The practice of the City, going back decades, has been to treat newly-redrawn council district lines as immediately in effect after adoption, changing in mid-term which constituents councilmembers represent. However, this interpretation conflicts with state law (see Elections Code Sec. 21626), as well as court decisions going back to the 1970s, holding that elected officials serve their constituents for the full four-year term to which they are elected, without interruption due to redistricting. As the City Attorney has since confirmed, new council district lines actually go into effect at the regular election after redistricting, which may be in a year ending in 2 or 4, depending on the district.
To ensure there is no confusion in future years, the Sacramento City Charter should be amended to better explain the effective date of the new maps. The current language states that the Independent Redistricting Commission-adopted maps are “effective immediately upon adoption,” which indicates maps are effective without requiring further City Council action, but could be misconstrued as changing district lines and councilmembers’ constituents mid-term.
City Charter language should be revised to reflect state law.
2) Provide more comprehensive training to Independent Redistricting Commissioners.
Independent redistricting is vital to fully participatory democracy and viewed as the gold standard for redistricting reform across the country. Because redistricting occurs only once every ten years, on-board training for commissioners is important to a successful process. In particular, recent confusion over the issue of accelerated or deferred constituent areas, which did not come up during the redistricting process, indicates additional education may be helpful for both commissioners and the public.
City Charter language should require the Commission receive appropriate training, including the impact of accelerated and deferred voters, as follows:
Amend 178(d):
(d) The city clerk and the city attorney, or their respective designees, or staff or consultants to the commission, shall, no later than March 1, 2021, and thereafter by March 1 in every year ending in one, train the commissioners on common redistricting terms and concepts, including “cracking,” “packing,” “deferred voters,” and “accelerated voters”; the history of redistricting in the city; the legal requirements of this article, including redistricting criteria and transparency requirements; federal and state law regarding redistricting, including the requirements of the state FAIR MAPS Act and the federal Voting Rights Act; open meeting requirements;, and general rules of parliamentary procedure.
3) Require the City to hire a redistricting expert or demographer to assist the Independent Redistricting Commission. Most cities and counties, and every local independent redistricting commission in the state, that we are aware of, except Sacramento, hired an outside redistricting expert to assist with their redistricting process. While staff did an admirable job assisting Sacramento’s inaugural commission, we believe outside experts must assist in this significant endeavor, so Redistricting Commissioners and the public do not rely solely on staff to re-learn the ins and outs of such a weighty process every ten years. To ensure impartiality, these experts should be hired by the Independent Redistricting Commission, not the City Council.
3 City Charter language should require the City begin an open-bid process to hire a redistricting expert or demographer before the Commission is selected and the Commission, once formed, select its preferred expert, as follows:
Amend 178(c):
(c) The city council shall appropriate sufficient funds for the commission to hire a redistricting expert or demographer following a competitive selection process. The city shall solicit proposals for this role in advance of the commission being seated so that, soon thereafter, the commission may select its preferred redistricting expert or demographer. Subject to the funds appropriated to the commission by the city council, the commission may also hire an executive director and other staff or consultants and redistricting, technology, outreach, or other consultants, following a competitive selection process.
4) Require the City Council to assign an elected official to provide constituent services to any residents who reside in deferred areas. Whenever redistricting occurs for an elected body with staggered four-year terms, certain areas will have a two-year period of double- representation (so called “accelerated areas”) and other areas will have a two-year period without formal representation (so called “deferred areas”). The City Council is currently deciding how best to provide constituent services to deferred areas, which may include having the Mayor provide for these areas or the incumbent Councilmember whose district, if that person is re- elected, will ultimately include the deferred areas.
City Charter language should require the City Council adopt a resolution to provide constituent services for the deferred areas, but leave specifics as to how this is accomplished to Council discretion, as follows:
Add 178(i):
(i) The city council shall, no later than November 15, 2032, and thereafter by November 30 in every year ending in the number two, adopt a resolution assigning an elected official to provide constituent services to constituents residing in areas of the city that, because of redistricting, will for a period of time not be represented by a councilmember elected by the voters of that area. The resolution shall provide sufficient resources for the assigned elected official to provide service to these constituents.
5) Eliminate the need for the Independent Redistricting Commission to reconvene for a City Clerk update. After a final map is adopted, if the City annexes territory, the current Charter language suggests the City Clerk should reconvene the Commission to approve the annexation.
However, the council district to which the annexed territory is added is defined by the City Charter, with no discretion for the Commission to choose a different district to which to add this territory. The requirement for convening the Commission is therefore unnecessary and could become a significant problem, for example, if territory is annexed in 2028 and the City cannot find Redistricting Commissioners to approve the update. The City would then have to undergo a lengthy commissioner recruitment process for what is a purely ministerial act.
City Charter language should allow the City Clerk to update the map when an annexation occurs without requiring Commission approval, as follows:
4 Amend 171:
(d) The commission shall redraw council district boundaries only once per decade as provided in subsection (a), unless the commission is ordered to do so by a court or if requested by the city clerk to approve an update pursuant to subsection (e).
(e) Any territory that is annexed, consolidated, or otherwise attached to the city shall be allocated to a council district pursuant to this subsection, effective upon the completion of such annexation, consolidation, or other proceedings. The city clerk shall update the final map accordingly. (1) If the territory’s boundary is contiguous to the boundary of not more than one council district, the territory shall be allocated to that council district. (2) If the territory’s boundary is contiguous to the boundaries of two or more council districts, the territory shall be allocated to the council district with which it shares the longest boundary. (3) If the territory’s boundary is not contiguous with the boundary of any council district, the territory shall be allocated to the closest council district.
Amend 172:
(b) The term of office of each commissioner begins on December 1 of a year ending in zero, and expires on January 1 of the next year ending in zero. Sixty days after a final map has been adopted the commission shall cease to meet, unless reconvened by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by the city clerk or the city attorney pursuant to the following:
(1) The city clerk may reconvene the commission to approve a city clerk update pursuant to Section 171(e).
(2) The city attorney may reconvene the commission to consider settlement options if the final map is legally challenged.
6) Give City staff more flexibility on the timing of the Commissioner application process.
Section 174 includes a detailed timeline for the Commissioner application process. However, as we learned with the pandemic, flexibility is beneficial. Some of the dates are also confusing. For example, the Charter calls for the Clerk to update the Council on applications received to date in June (Section 174 (d)) and to specify additional outreach that is being undertaken to ensure sufficient applicants are recruited; however, that update occurs after the application period has already closed (174 (b)).
City Charter language should give the City discretion as to timing for completing different aspects of the Commissioner application process. Instead of providing specific dates, the Charter should specify minimum lengths of time for certain key periods of the application process, as follows:
Amend 174:
(b)The city clerk shall, no later than February 1, 2020, and by February 1 beginning in 2030 and in each year ending in the number zero thereafter, initiate and widely publicize an application process, open to all city registered voters who meet the requirements of Section 173, in a manner that promotes a qualified commissioner applicant pool that is large and reflective of the diversity of the city. This process shall remain open for at least 90 days until May 1, 2020 and until May 1 in each year ending in the number zero thereafter.
…
(d) No later than June 30 of each year ending in the number zeroWithin seven days of the midpoint of the application period, the city clerk shall report to the city council on applications received up to that point and any additional outreach that is being undertaken or planned to ensure that the applicant pool has a sufficient number of qualified applicants and reasonably reflects the city’s diversity. 5 (e) After the close of the application period,By August 1, 2020, and by August 1 in each year ending in the number zero thereafter, the city clerk shall review and remove individuals who are disqualified under Section 173 from among the commission applicants. If the resulting applicant pool does not have at least 40 qualified applicants, including 3 qualified applicants from each existing city council district, the city clerk shall reopen the application period for one month at least 30 days and conduct additional outreach to ensure that the pool meets these requirements.
(f) After a qualified applicant pool has been constituted,No later than September 15, 2020, and by September 15 in each year ending in the number zero thereafter, the city clerk shall publish and transmit to a screening panel a list with the names of all qualified applicants. … (g) From the eligible applicant pool, the screening panel shall, no later than November 1, 2020, and by November 1 in each year ending in the number zero thereafter, create a subpool of the 25 to 30 applicants most qualified to perform the duties of the commission, including at least two applicants from each existing council district. The screening panel shall have at least 45 days to review the applications of the qualified applicants and to create the subpool of the most qualified applicants.
7) Define what constitutes a “substantially similar” map. At its last meeting, the Redistricting Commission changed some boundaries of its proposed final map then adopted that map, as amended, as the final map. Under Charter Section 176(b), a proposed final map may be amended and adopted at the same meeting only if the amended map remains “substantially similar” to the proposed final map. Staff explained that the proposed changes being contemplated, if adopted by the Commission, would have a 96.2% population stability with the proposed final map, which would likely be deemed substantially similar. While that seems correct, a bright-line standard would likely be more helpful in the future.
City Charter language should define “substantially similar” to mean 95% of residents in the adopted map reside in the same district as in the proposed final map, as follows:
Amend 176:
(b) Prior to adopting a final map, the commission shall hold at least eight public meetings, including one public meeting in each existing council district. A final map may not be adopted unless a proposed final map with substantially similar council district boundaries has been adopted at least seven days earlier at a prior public meeting. For the purposes of this section, an adopted final map is presumed to be “substantially similar” to a proposed final map if more than 95% of the residents in the adopted final map are located in the same council district as they were in the proposed final map.
8) Clarify that Independent Redistricting Commissioners’ duty not to discuss redistricting matters ends once the period for challenging maps has ended. Also clarify that this prohibition only applies to discussions around City Council district boundaries, so as not to deter Commissioners from engaging in community education about the redistricting process.
City Charter language should clarify that Commissioners may not discuss how City Council district boundaries are drawn, but can generally discuss redistricting processes, outside of a public meeting, and that this obligation not to discuss maps ends once the adopted map is no longer subject to legal challenge, as follows:
Amend 176:
(d) From the date that the first commissioners are selected by random draw until 30 days after the adoption of a final map, cCommission members and staff may not communicate with or receive communications about redistricting matters from anyone regarding how council district boundaries should be 6 drawn except at a public meeting or through the process established for accepting written public comment.
This subsection does not prohibit:
(1) communication between commission members, staff, legal counsel, and consultants retained by the commission that is otherwise permitted by state and city open meeting requirements; or (2) commissioners, staff, legal counsel, or consultants from engaging in public education and outreach, including explaining how the commission functions and encouraging public participation in the redistricting process.
9) Require the Independent Redistricting Commission, at its hearings in each of the 8 Council Districts, to invite neighborhood associations and community group leaders to present their proposals for neighborhood or community of interest boundaries. Some of the Commission’s early meetings were sparsely attended. This was, in part, because the pandemic forced district-specific meetings to be held virtually. However, for the district-specific meetings, the Commission should be required to invite neighborhood groups in the district to present before the Commission to explain what are the neighborhood's boundaries, what are key attributes of the neighborhood, and what are important issues in the neighborhood.
Community groups should also be invited to make similar presentations about significant communities of interest within the city.
City Charter language should require the Commission to invite neighborhood associations, and give it the discretion to invite other community groups, and/or individuals, to present on their communities, as follows:
Amend 176:
(b) Prior to adopting a final map, the commission shall hold at least eight public meetings, including one public meeting in each existing council district. A final map may not be adopted unless a proposed final map with substantially similar council district boundaries has been adopted at least seven days earlier at a prior public meeting.
…
(f) Prior to adopting a final map, the commission shall hold at least eight public meetings, including one public meeting in each existing council district. The commission shall invite representatives of each neighborhood association recognized by the city to present information about their neighborhood at a public meeting held in the district in which most residents represented by that neighborhood association are located. The commission may also invite representatives of other community groups or organizations that represent communities in the city to present information about that community.
10) Require the Independent Redistricting Commission’s report, explaining the rationale for the Commission’s final map, to be adopted within three weeks of final map adoption.
The purpose of the Commission's final report is to justify how the final map complies with the redistricting criteria in the City Charter. Since a challenge to the final maps must be brought within 30 days, the final report should be produced prior to the expiration of that 30 day period.
City Charter language should require the Commission to adopt its final report within 21 days of adoption of its final map, as follows:
Amend 176:
(a) Within six months after census-block-level population data from a regular United States decennial census is made available to the public, the commission shall adopt a final map establishing new council district boundaries and a final report explaining its decision. The final map shall include a precise map and written description of the boundaries of each council district. In the final report, which shall be adopted no later than 21 days after the final map, the commission shall explain the rationale for the council district boundaries it has adopted, including, at a minimum, an explanation of how the final map complies with the 7 redistricting requirements and criteria in Section 175 and a reasonable justification for any council district boundary that does not comply with any redistricting criterion.
11) Require that Redistricting Commissioners’ applications be publicly available, including demographic information. Sacramento, possibly alone among local independent redistricting commissions in the state, did not reveal Commission applicants’ individual volunteered demographic information. This made it very difficult for the public, the Ethics Commission, and the randomly-selected members of the Commission to consider and select commissioners who reasonably reflect the diversity of Sacramento, as required by City Charter.
City Charter language should mandate that the Commission’s applicant demographic information be made available to the public, as follows:
Amend 174:
(c) The city clerk shall create an application for prospective commissioners, and seek assistance from a broad range of community-based organizations in outreach efforts. Applicants shall attest on the application, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided is true. Except for an applicant’s home address, contact information, or other sensitive information that should be kept confidential for safety or privacy reasons, the answers an applicant provides on a submitted application, including an applicant’s demographic information, shall be made available to the public.
12) Change the selection process so fewer Redistricting Commissioners are randomly selected and more are selected by the initial group of randomly-selected commissioners.
Under current law, 8 commissioners are randomly selected from a pool of applicants screened by the Ethics Commission. Those 8 commissioners then select the final 5 commissioners from the remaining applicants in the pool. Random selection is an important safeguard to ensure the impartiality of the Commission. However, it is not necessary that a majority of the Commission be randomly selected, and an unrepresentative random draw can be hard to correct when only a minority of the Commission is directly selected. Allowing the direct selection of more commissioners by the initial group of randomly-selected commissioners will better ensure a well-rounded body of commissioners that reflects the city’s diversity.
City Charter language should mandate random selection of 6 commissioners (instead of 8) and have those 6 select the final 7 (instead of 5) Commissioners and 2 alternates. The language should maintain the requirement that at least 1 commissioner must come from each of the 8 City Council districts.
Amend 174:
(h) Immediately after the subpool has been created, and at that same public meeting, the chair of the screening panel shall randomly select eight six names – one from each from a different existing council district – from the subpool. These eight six individuals shall serve as commissioners on the commission. (i) The initial commissioners selected pursuant to subsection (h) shall select five seven additional commissioners and two alternates to serve on the commission from the remaining applicants in the subpool.
Each selection requires six four affirmative votes from among the eight six initial commissioners, and the selection must be made at a publicly noticed meeting after the public has had the opportunity to provide written and oral comment. The initial commissioners shall make each selection on the basis of the applicant’s relevant analytical skills, familiarity with the city’s neighborhoods and communities, ability to be impartial, and apparent ability to work cooperatively with other commissioners. The commission as a whole shall include at least one commissioner from each of the eight existing council districts and should reasonably reflect the city’s diversity; provided that, other than the requirement of geographic diversity in this subsection, no quotas, formulas, or ratios may be applied for this purpose.
From: Charlene Jones
To: Public Comment
Subject: To City Council Law & Legislation Committee and Steve Itagaki, Supervising Deputy Attorney Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 11:46:58 AM
Attachments: SPAN-LWV Sac Redistricting Charter Amends 5.23.22.pdf Hello,
Please forward the attached letter from the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County and Sacramento Policy Analysis Network to the City Council's Law & Legislation Committee and Deputy Attorney Steve Itagaki.
Thank you,
Charlene Jones
League of Women Voters Sacramento County