The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners overrode the public input against redistricting today, Oct. 30, and voted 3-2 to proceed with advertising two maps for final redistricting consideration (Maps 2-A.1 and 4-A.1) Opposing the motion were Hines and Ziegler.
(At the Board redistricting meeting of Oct. 30, the Board accepted public input, but limited speakers to 3 minutes (normally people have 5). My talk was truncated thanks to the time crunch - here it is in full, with pumpkins - TM)
At the Board’s last public discussion, some expressed a preference for straight lines instead of wiggly lines. This is a common notion of what fair redistricting is supposed to look like. Straight lines offer the appearance of neutrality with regard to political, social, and economic conditions.
There’s more to appearances than just straight lines, however.
The maps in your packet today offer a variety of solutions to the balancing of district populations.
You have 7 maps - four earlier maps, and three maps newly adjusted to better balance the population.
There’s Map 1-A,
and
Map 2-A and 2-A.1
Map 3-A and 3-A.1
Map 4-A and 4-A.1
The only map that doesn’t have an updated alternative is Map 1-A.
As it happens, 1-A is the only map that doesn’t move Precinct 233, where I and thousands of other people live, from District 2 to District 1.
And as it happens, of all the District 2 precincts that could be moved into District 1, #233 has more registered republicans than any other -- 3,951.
It also has the largest total population of registered voters: 8,225 (including 2,000 independents, 2274 Democrats)
If one wanted to help a Republican candidate win District 1 in 2020, moving Pct. #233 to that district would be the strongest choice.
In short, while avoiding the appearance of finagling with wiggly lines at the micro level, 6 of the 7 maps pluck Pct. 233 wholesale from District 2 and drop it into District 1. The appearance of cherry picking has moved from the micro to the macro level. Instead of wiggly lines and cherry-picking, it’s one mighty big pumpkin being transplanted, with straight lines.
The second curious thing about Map 1-A is that it’s not been updated to achieve smaller variances. Your consultant has updated the other 6 maps to balance their populations, but not Map 1-A.
In South County, the new modifications made to Maps 2-A.1 and 3-A.1 follow the boundary of the city of North Port, and don’t split the West Villages, where people objected to being split into two districts.
As it happens, the consultant could have adjusted Map 1-A the very same way. Doing so would both have respected the wishes of the West Villagers and achieved an equalized population on a par with, or better than, the other new maps. Let’s recall: Map 1-A is the only map that doesn’t move Pct. 233 into District 1.
Failure to update Map 1-A creates the unavoidable appearance of something other than pristine neutrality. Any of these three maps could have been disadvantaged by splitting North Port and the West Villages. But only Map 1, the one least favorable to the Republican Candidate for District 1, still has this disadvantage.
The Board could fix this: Simply direct the consultant to create a “Map 1-A.1” adopt the same lines in North Port as Maps 2-A.1 and 3-A.1. With that change, those who have intensively studied the maps say Map 1-A.1 would equalize population across districts better than all the rest.
If for no other reason than for the sake of appearances, the public deserves a clear explanation: Why was Map 1-A not afforded a balancing update along with all the others?
Doing so potentially could reduce the appearance of partisan gerrymandering that now, like a ghostly orange pumpkin, haunts this process, regardless of all the nice straight lines.
