Page 1
10/5/2011

Page 2
10/5/2011
Based on 2010 Census data and the American Community
Survey:

Population
◦ 2010 Census total: 137,122
 3,186 (2.4 %) growth since 2000
 33.7 % Hispanic
 38.8 % Non-Hispanic white
 10.6 % African American
 15.4 % Asian American
◦ 2010 Census Voting Age
Population
 29.8 % Hispanic
 41.9 % Non-Hispanic White
 10.5 % African American
 16.2 % Asian American

Citizen Voting Age Population
◦ From Census ACS and Dept. of
Justice Special Tabulation data:
 24 % Hispanic
 13 % African American
 11 % Asian American
 49 % Non-Hispanic White

Voter Registration by Surname
◦ 19 % Hispanic
◦ 8 % Asian-American/Filipino

Voter Turnout by Surname
◦ 16 % Hispanic
◦ 7 % Asian-American/Filipino

HISPANIC/LATINO POPULATION
Voting Age Population
Voting Age Population
3
10/5/2011

HISPANIC/LATINO POPULATION
Citizen Voting Age Population
4
10/5/2011

AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION
Voting Age Population
5
10/5/2011

ASIAN-AMERICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION
Voting Age Population
6
10/5/2011

POPULATION DENSITY
Population per square mile
7
10/5/2011

CURRENT DISTRICT DEVIATIONS Existing District #
Deviation
Percent Deviation
8
10/5/2011

9
10/5/2011
Total
Population
Voting Age
Population
Citizen
Voting Age
Population
Registration by Surname
Turnout by
Surname
Total
District
Latino
NH White
NH Black
NH AmInd
NH Asian
NH HPI
NH Other
Multi
Total
Latino
NH White
NH Black
NH AmInd
NH Asian
NH HPI
NH Other
Multi
Total
Latino
NH White
NH Black
NH Asian
NH AmInd
NH HPI
Multi
Total
Spanish Surname
Asian Surname
Total
Spanish Surname
Asian Surname
1
19,339
2
18,554
49.7% 27.8%
18.6% 47.7%
23.9% 7.4%
0.3% 0.4%
6.1% 15.2%
0.1%
0.4%
1.0%
14,838
0.3%
0.5%
0.7%
14,994
44.9% 25.0%
21.6% 49.9%
25.1%
0.3%
7.4%
0.5%
6.8% 15.9%
0.1% 0.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0.4%
0.6%
12,276 12,932
37.8% 23.5%
22.5% 55.1%
32.1% 6.2%
6.2% 11.8%
0.5% 0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.6%
2.9%
9,655 10,363
27.0% 18.7%
4.4%
5,169
6.7%
6,036
22.8% 16.7%
4.5% 5.6%
3
20,388
4
19,230
5
18,094
6
21,779
7
19,738
48.8% 21.8% 60.0% 14.0% 17.0%
19.3% 52.4% 20.2% 60.4% 50.0%
17.4% 5.6% 10.5% 5.1% 4.8%
0.3% 0.4%
13.1% 18.6%
0.3%
7.9%
0.4%
19.1%
0.3%
26.6%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
15,617
0.1%
0.4%
0.7%
15,323
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
13,779
0.0%
0.3%
0.6%
18,965
0.1%
0.5%
0.7%
17,099
43.2% 20.0% 55.6% 13.1% 15.5%
23.0% 54.6% 23.6% 61.8% 51.3%
17.6%
0.4%
5.3%
0.4%
10.5%
0.4%
4.9%
0.4%
4.7%
0.4%
14.7% 18.6%
0.1% 0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.3%
0.6%
9.1% 18.9% 26.9%
0.1%
0.3%
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.1%
0.4%
0.7%
12,088 13,861 11,109 16,804 14,809
31.0% 18.8% 42.5% 11.0% 13.5%
27.8% 63.2% 33.4% 69.3% 60.2%
28.5% 5.5% 15.8% 4.7% 5.2%
9.6% 11.1%
0.0% 0.3%
6.4%
0.0%
13.4%
0.6%
18.6%
0.7%
0.0%
3.1%
0.1%
1.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
8,121 12,160 6,959
28.3% 16.0% 34.9%
8.0%
3,723
9.8%
7,629
5.2%
3,446
25.6% 14.6% 31.6%
7.4% 8.9% 5.5%
14,116 11,090
9.5% 12.8%
8.8% 10.9%
9,458 6,739
8.5% 11.2%
7.1% 8.6%

10
10/5/2011


Equal Population among districts
◦ Total population: not voting age population, citizens, or voters
◦ Different for 2011: all deviations must be explained.
Being within +/- 5 % is no longer enough. This is why NDC recommends all 2011 clients formally adopt criteria.
Federal Voting Rights Act
◦ Section 2 – Ensure equal power to elect candidates of choice
◦ Section 5 – Avoid retrogression (does not apply to Pasadena)
◦ No racial gerrymandering

For a more in-depth analysis, see the City Attorney’s earlier presentation.

11
10/5/2011

Requires “Protected Class” populations have an
“equal opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice”


No “packing”
No “cracking”

No racial gerrymandering allowed
◦ Focus on communities and neighborhoods, not race/ethnicity

12
10/5/2011
Reasons identified and approved by the US Supreme
Court as justifiable reasons for small population deviations:






Communities of interest
Visible (Natural & man-made) boundaries
◦ Make it easy for residents of a district to understand its borders (and to engage their neighbors in precinct walking or other election activities)
Compactness & contiguity
◦ Also makes it easier for voters to understand their district’s borders.
Continuity in office
◦ Redistricting, an administrative process, should not tell the voters they can no longer elect a candidate they have previously elected (which is what happens when two or more incumbents are “paired.”
Population growth
◦ Growth is much less certain in 2011 than it was in 2011, so this is harder to justify than it was in 2001.
Preserve Core of existing districts
◦ Don’t move voters around unless needed to achieve one of the other goals.

13
10/5/2011
1.
Prepare
◦ Conduct initial demographic analysis
◦ Adopt schedule
◦ Launch project website
◦ Launch public participation online redistricting system
◦ Adopt criteria
◦ Develop initial draft plans to jump-start discussion

14
10/5/2011
2.
Outreach
◦ Educate, engage and empower the public, including:
 Individuals


Community Groups, including “protected class”-focused organizations
The media
◦ What are your community’s “communities of interest”?
 Which want to be united? Which want to be divided?
◦ How well do the current and draft plans meet those goals?
◦ Participation kits take the public input beyond just “yes” and
“no”

15
10/5/2011
3.
Decide
◦ Plan debate and adoption
4.
Implement
◦ Plan implementation
 Coordinated with the County Registrar

16
10/5/2011
Traditional Redistricting Tools
1.
2010 Census data
2.
3.
4.
Project website
Media & community education
GIS software
5.
6.
7.
Information on redistricting, the Voting Rights Act, and how the public can participate
Provide paper & Excel public participation kits
Email address for public questions and public comment

17
10/5/2011
New Tools for 2011
1.
American Community
Survey data
3.
4.
5.
Live, interactive maps of plans
Google Maps and
Google Earth plan files
Online redistricting
6.
Local GIS data
• Zoning,
• homeowner associations,
• housing developments,
• neighborhood associations,
• key facilities,
• school attendance areas,
• aerial imagery, etc.