Final Report for LWV-RMA on the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Redistricting
Evelyn Marr Glazier, July 2011
In April 2011, Mayor Dwight C. Jones established an advisory committee “with the objective of
viewing redistricting through an economic, social, and demographic lens with an expanded focus
on poverty in the City.” Recognizing Richmond’s increasingly multi-racial and multi-cultural
nature, the Mayor asked the group to make recommendations in the context of redistricting both
to address current realities and to lay the foundation for the next generation of voter
participation. Although City Council is in charge of redistricting, the Mayor formed this
committee to provide additional input to the process.
Committee members included David Hicks, the Mayor’s policy advisor; John Moeser and Thad
Williamson, professors at University of Richmond; former Del. Jean Cunningham; former Sen.
Benjamin Lambert; representatives of community groups including the Virginia NAACP and
League of Women Voters of the Richmond Metro Area; and private citizens.
The full committee met eight times from April through June and presented its report to the
Mayor on July 6, 2011. The group also presented its findings to Council at the informal session
on July 11, 2011.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch covered the committee and its recommendations, including
posting an early draft of the report long before recommendations were final. A proposal to
consider whether decreasing the number of Council districts to five would increase voter
participation received considerable attention.
I was honored to serve on the committee representing the League. I learned a lot about the extent
of poverty in Richmond and about the city’s political history. I think the contacts made, both
with committee members and staff, can be helpful to the League in the future.
Poverty in Richmond
As analysis of demographic data shows that poverty is a serious challenge for the City. The
poverty rate for Richmond now stands at 22%, the highest rate since the Census Bureau began
tracking this indicator in 1970. Over one-third of Richmond’s children under the age of 18 live in
poverty and 78% of elementary and middle school students receive free or reduced-price
lunches. Worse yet, the child poverty rate has increased by 94% over the past ten years.
(Poverty is defined as cash income of $11,000 or less for a single person under 65 and cash
income of $22,000 or less for a family of four.)
Poverty is not evenly distributed throughout the City but is clustered geographically. Council
Districts 1 and 4 are the most affluent; District 6 has the largest number of census tracts with
high concentrations of poverty (and the great majority of the City’s public housing projects). The
concentration of poverty is not an accident. A history of housing segregation and government
policies related to housing finance and redevelopment contributed to these patterns. The African
American and Latino communities bear a disproportionate burden of poverty relative to the
white community.
1
Redistricting Proposals
Considering poverty is a relatively novel approach in urban redistricting processes and the report
argues for two major principles. First, districts should be internally diverse and politically
competitive. Second, poverty should be sufficiently dispersed across districts such that a majority
of districts have poverty rates close to the citywide average. The goal is to improve the political
participation and representation of the poor by maximizing the number of council members with
an incentive to address issues affecting low-income communities.
The report proposes redistricting Plans A and B, which decrease the concentration of poverty in
the Sixth District and distribute the larger public housing communities more widely. The
relatively minor shifts do not represent a major alteration to the city’s current political
geography. In particular, they do not alter the fundamental fact that the First and Fourth Districts,
as presently drawn, are markedly more affluent and have much lower poverty rates than the other
districts.
Consequently, Plan C is also presented for consideration. Plan C would involve two steps: first,
starting over from scratch in drawing the City’s electoral map, and second, exploring whether it
might be much easier to achieve the goals of internally diverse, competitive districts and
balancing poverty across districts if the number of districts were reduced from nine to five.
In shifting populations and redrawing district lines the committee did not consider how political
incumbents would be affected. Unfortunately, Plan A would affect two incumbent School Board
members and Plan B would affect one. No City Council members are affected in these plans. Of
course if Plan C were to be studied and adopted, there would be multiple effects, including
requiring changes to the City’s Charter.
Hispanic and Other Minority Populations
The committee was asked to consider issues raised by the dramatic growth of Hispanic and
Latino residents in the city since 2000, a trend that is expected to continue over the coming
decade. The Hispanic population accounts for approximately 6% of the City’s total population
and is currently concentrated in the Eighth and Ninth Districts. The committee did not
recommend any redistricting proposals specifically related to this group. The committee did
recommend that the City and its elected officials work proactively to incorporate Hispanics and
other minorities into the local political process by encouraging registration, voter education, and
other targeted efforts.
Additional Recommendations
The geographic concentration of Richmond’s poor and minority communities limits the ability of
any redistricting plan to fully redistribute poor and minority populations and equalize the poverty
rate across all Council districts. Recognizing these facts, the committee also considered a
number of broad issues affecting poor and minority populations and their political participation
that are beyond the scope of the current redistricting process. Some issues are those where
2
Council or the City administration could take action immediately, while other issues would
require Charter changes or other action at the state level.
Committee recommendations include that consideration be given to making voter registration
and voting easier, to increasing salaries for Council and School Board to enable more low
income persons to serve, and to whether changing to partisan elections would increase voter
participation. The distribution of poverty should be considered in the redevelopment of public
housing communities. Finally, the City’s goal should be to decrease the number of people in
poverty through vigorous economic development and job creation programs.
The report’s concluding paragraph provides a good sense of the committee’s thinking:
The Commission’s redistricting recommendations together with its emphasis on increasing civic
engagement of low-income citizens are strictly a means to an end. The goal is to create greater
political incentive for elected officials to elevate poverty as a top priority. The more poor people
living in a Council district and the more engaged they become, the greater influence they wield
and the more likely that their concerns will get serious attention. Ultimately, increasing the
political will to reduce poverty should result in sustainable and aggressive programs to create
living wage jobs and provide effective job training for Richmonders.
Note: Much of the text in this summary is excerpted with little change from the
Mayor’s Redistricting Advisory Committee Final Report, July 6, 2011.
3