1st Joint BCC/School Board Redistricting Meeting Completed

The northern half of the proposed new District 1 Commission/School Board District

The southern half of the proposed new District 1 Commission/School Board District

The Escambia Board of County Commissioners and the Escambia County School District held the first of two joint meetings for redistricting this evening.  The meeting was cordial and productive.

All members of the School Board attended and participated.

All members of the County Commission attended and participated except District 2 Commissioner Doug Underhill.  He did not attend this evening's meeting.

After some initial pleasantries--the business at hand commenced after a slow start.  First up, District 5 and District 4 agreed on a one precinct swap which all but balanced these two districts respectively--with District 4 being slightly oversized and having the capacity after this switch to give some population to District 3.

Next up, Commissioner May's district was discussed and numerous proposals were made to increase the population of his district and the minority-majority makeup of his district as well.  Notably, all of Mayfair was tentatively moved from District 2 to District 3.  This gave District 3 a better overall minority-majority percentage which was further improved with the removal of several blocks of District 3 north of Garden street and East over to Baylen Street--but this give from D2 to D3 left D2 in need of several "pick ups" to make the math work.

The final piece of the pie and the most complex was the re-arrangement of Districts 1 and 2.  In order to balance the districts population wise, keep an elected ECUA board member in her seat, make Myrtle Grove whole again and return a sense of cohesion to multiple neighborhoods in the southwest corner of Escambia County--the D1 plan that was worked this evening, pictured above, makes the following changes between these two districts:

--All of precinct 99 goes from D1 to D2

--the portion of precinct 75 that is east of Patricia Drive and south of Cerny Road goes from D1 to D2

--all of precinct 61 goes from D1 to D2

----all the portions of precinct 105 currently in D2 that lie west of Sorrento south to Perdido Key, then encompassing all of Perdido key, go into the new D1 district  (all the rest of precinct 105 north of Perdido key and east of Sorrento would remain in D2).

What I am proposing:

 

-Balances D1 and D2

-Keeps D1 and D2 Schools balanced (keeps Jim Bailey Middle, Helen Caro elementary, and Blue Angels elementary in D1)

-Keeps D1 ECUA board member Vicki Campbell in her elected district, D1

-Does not knock any incumbent (Commission, School Board, ECUA) in either D1 or D2 that is running in 2022----- out of his/her district

-Brings a portion of precinct 105 back to D1 (Which D1 had before 2001 when W.D. Childers made the politically motivated action of taking Marcus Pointe and giving away Perdido Key to avoid losing votes to environmentalists on Perdido Key with whom he clashed at the time----political gerrymandering)

-Maintains even lines and smoother boundaries

-follows the legislation’s requirements

-connects communities of interest Perdido Key, Perdido Bay, and Innerarity

-makes D1 the Book-end SW Boundary district, complementing D4’s SE Boundary District

-balances the district—leaving D2 with a nominal number of additional citizens due to the falling population in that district over the last three decennial censuses.

Next up--the second joint meeting and hopefully a finalization of boundary maps for advertising so the process can be completed in mid-December.

Redistricting Discussions Begin

 And they began with a bang at yesterday's COW.

And I'll preface this post by reiterating what I've already said publicly:  1.)  I'm the only elected representative on the BCC Dais that has gone through redistricting--I was a part of the 2010 redistricting 2.) We should not rush this and try to complete it in three months when it takes 6-7 months to do it properly  3.)  I'll work in whatever timeline the majority of the board wish to proceed in--but statutorily we are not mandated to complete it this year;  the requirement we have is that we can only complete the process in an odd numbered year.

Prior to yesterday--here is what had happened with respect to D1:  I had spoken to each of my D1 counterparts (School Board Member Kevin Adams and ECUA member Vicki Campbell) on the topic of redistricting specifically--and we had general consensus on how we would like to proceed.  D1 is geographically long,  and the sitting, elected members of D1 offices reside in the extreme north (Kevin Adams, Jeff Bergosh ---Beulah)  and the extreme south (Vicki Campbell, Perdido Bay)  so our general boundaries will stay relatively static--in order not to disenfranchise and unseat existing incumbents.  

While recognizing we have to "give" numbers of voters (translating to portions of precincts or possibly entire precincts) to D2 and D3 which both lost population--what we do not have to do and what I won't agree to do is allow D2 Commissioner Underhill to unilaterally cherrypick which areas of D1 he "wants."  He spoke a lot yesterday and didn't say much, a bunch of meaningless gobldygook about who he thinks wants to be in his district and "equities" among other mumbo-jumbo that was unimportant.   And he obviously hasn't done his research on the southern portion of D1 if he so cavilerly was going to knock an ECUA incumbent out of D1 and take 3 schools out of the boundaries of the D1 school board member----massively imbalancing that board and leaving D1 with 7 schools and D2 with 13 schools.

He was unprepared, and in reality his contribution to the process is not really significant---as he has publicly announced multiple times he is not running again for office.  He's a lame duck.   His wife has even stated this as well on public facebook chat sites, multiple times, saying they have a "countdown" going as to when he leaves office.  (What she probably doesn't realize is a lot of us are doing that same countdown too 😛 )

So these, and many others really,  are just the very topical, initial reasons why what D2 proposed yesterday goes right into the garbage heap, it's a non-starter.

While it appears that D5 and D4's minor adjustments may be easy and non-complex---D1, D2, and D3 will not be.  If we're going to attempt to "rush" the process (which I do not support) then an approach which makes sense is to start out with a map that makes sense--the 2000 map--and add/subtract as appropriate and necessary from there.  That's what we'll be doing going forward.  And along the way we will invariably have to compromise on some aspects.  But if we are going to rush it--this is where we will start from the perspective of the 3 elected D1 officeholders.  Otherwise, I'd just as soon do it the right way, with adequate time and attention to detail, in 2023 (As I have stated multiple times now).

I'll be discussing this issue with Rick Outzen later this morning on Real News with Rick Outzen on WCOA at 8:15.  

When I get the podcast back, I'll post it here.

Census 2020: Escambia County's Population Breakdown, District by District

 

Yesterday afternoon, commissioners were provided with the above chart for our information as we prepare to undertake the decennial redistricting process.  As anticipated--Districts 1 and 5 have grown significantly, District 4 has increased slightly, and Districts 2 and 3 have lost population since the last census in 2010.

First Look: Census Numbers in Escambia County-District by District

The above information was forwarded to commissioners late yesterday afternoon by Supervisor of Elections David Stafford.  It is to be considered an early, very preliminary estimation; the full board will be discussing this information and a preliminary re-districting timeline later this morning at our regular meeting beginning at 9:00 AM.

Interesting, but not entirely surprising, to see D1 with the biggest growth/population gains.

D3 lost the most--meaning this already non-compact district will grow even more tentacles in order to stay balanced with the rest of the districts.  Looks like D2 will also need to gain citizens-- as it, too, lost a significant number of residents over the last decade according to this initial look.....

Proposed Schedule for Redistricting Will Be Discussed Tomorrow Morning by the BOCC

 As requested by a majority of the board members at our recent committee of the whole, our attorney Alison Rogers has emailed board members a tentative timeline for completing our redistricting in a compressed fashion---- due to the expected late arrival of our census data from the Census Bureau.

This is putting us in a position where we must complete 6-8 months worth of work in essentially less than four months.

For my part, I don't believe we should rush it.  

The statute plainly states that for counties the redistricting shall be completed "from time to time" but it does not state that it must be done in the first year following the census data being released.  The caveat that we as commissioners around the state face is that we can only, statutorily, complete our redistricting in odd numbered years.  That is codified in statute.  So, if we can't complete it this year, it has to carry over to 2023.  Conversely---the state representatives and senators do not have this same odd-year only redistricting restriction.  In fact, they will do their January through March early session next year, and then work the rest of the year to carefully finish their new boundaries in the fall of 2022----AFTER their elections--giving them a full nearly two year cushion until their next election in their "new districts."  They ARE allowed to do their redistricting in even years.  So it will be very, very comfortable, workable, and convenient for them.

Not so for us.

Given the historical civil rights era rulings that dictate that we in Escambia County must have at least one minority-majority district--our redistricting must take into consideration the "before and after" demographics of any switching of precincts and districts; it's not simply a mathematical, formulaic calculation as it is in other places.  If we rush it and get it wrong, we can be challenged in court and that's a can of worms we don't need... 

I know this, because I'm the only one on the dais that was an elected official in 2011 the last time the BCC and school district did this, redistricting, after the 2010 census.  And we did it right and took the time necessary and importantly--we got our data on time, in February.   Yet it still it took us a solid 7 months to do it right, ultimately completing it in September of 2011.

So no, I'm not going to accede to a self-imposed, self-generated timeline when there is no statutory requirment nor a reason to do this.  Especially this year with COVID-19 throwing everything off.   If we can get it done efficiently this year, I'm willing to try.  But I won't rush it for my vote,  not for anyone,  because doing it right is much more important than acquiesing to someone's artificial deadlines which are surely driven by political agendas.

So we will see how it goes, and if we actually get our data in August from the Census Bureau.

Meanwhile--see the attorney's proposed, draft timeline below: