Here's the Next Big Push: Let's Just Wait Until 2023!!

Whether smiling while they say it a la Mr. Rogers--or with a serious look on their face similar to Henry Rollins--a lie is a lie, facts are facts, and numbers don't lie......no matter how information is delivered.... 

Now, suddenly, a few people are demanding we stop the redistricting process and wait until 2023 to do it.  Interesting--- that's what I said in March, April, July and September.  Loudly, and publicly.

But then majority of the BCC, including Doug Underhill, wanted to plow forward and finish in 2021-- so that's what we did.  I'm happy to work at the speed the majority wants--that's called politics.

Now, at the 11th hour, 59th minute, and 59th second metaphorically speaking-- with advertised draft final maps at the county and at the school board set for adoption in the next three weeks---some folks realize they don't like the map.  

They're throwing all kinds of reasons at the wall like a Jackson Pollack artwork---hoping desperately that something will stick and stop this process.

Now they want to reverse course, do nothing and hold on to the status quo with respect to our district sizes.

But at this late stage that is an unrealistic, untenable position.

Here's Why:

Attorneys for both the School Board and the BCC have urged us—since our first joint meeting in October and in the strongest possible terms, to complete this process this year ahead of the elections of 2022 due to the fact that currently our districts are outside of the legally allowed deviation of 10% between the highest and lowest populated districts.   This, according to the attorneys, could very well trigger a lawsuit and we would be very vulnerable as everyone has been told, publicly, that we are now officially outside of the 10% allowable deviation as our districts stand currently.

 Now, I know that my counterpart from D2, Doug Underhill, and his staff intern and secretary are telling folks at their sparsely attended town halls this past week that “we are NOT outside this population deviation threshold” (47:30 of this video)---however this statement is a blatant lie.  If you look at the census data fact-sheet (pictured below) that we all received from the Supervisor of Elections David Stafford this past August-----anyone and everyone can see with crystal clarity that the numbers do not lie and we are, indeed, out of balance beyond 10% between the largest district (D1—68,158 citizens currently)   and the smallest district (D2--- 61,111 citizens currently).  This is calculated by taking what should be the ideal district size post-census provided by the Supervisor of Elections to the board (64,381 citizens), multiplying that number by 5% which equals 3,219 and adding that number to an ideal sized district of 64,381 citizens to reach the maximum allowable high end deviation size of 67,600 citizens.  To arrive at the smallest possible district's size without a 5% deviation, we simply take the ideal sized district of 64,381 and subtract the 3,219 (5%) to reach the figure of 61,162.

 

Currently—District 1 has a population of 68,158 and is above the 5% threshold district size of 67,600 citizens.

Currently---District 2 has a population of 61,111 and is below the 5% threshold district size of 61,162 citizens.

look at the data chart below, for yourself, to see the numbers.  Numbers do not lie.  Wanna still think I'm lying while you believe those that are really lying?  request this table yourself from the SOE's office.

 

The difference between these two district population sizes exceeds 10% and nobody has to be a math major to work this out.  It is what it is, no matter what any politician or his secretary or aide tells you with a serious look or a smiling face.   Facts are facts, numbers do not lie.

They (Doug and his intern) next go on to lie about the proposed population size of District 1 post-redistricting--exclaiming D1 will be "topheavey" after the process and one of the largest districts population wise. This was proclaimed at their very lightly attended "Town Hall" last night in Beulah.  Doug expounds on this misinformation with additional gobledygook and gibberish that is nonfactual drivel (beginning 49:20 of this video)--all the while knowing that in the current, most recently voted --the new D1 is the second smallest (Only D5 is smaller) of the five districts population-wise, smaller than the ideal sized district by 818 residents,  for the exact, precise reason that it makes sense to be smaller ahead of the planned growth that is coming to the district over the next 10 years.  This is a fact--do not be feeble and maleable like a human, kool-aide chugging Gumby doll and let a politician (or his secretary) look you in the face and lie to you.  Fact check them. Don't believe me?---check the data chart for the most recently proposed district maps for adoption, post redistricting, on the county website, here, and also posted below:

 

BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY:  

Look at the agenda item for what it is we will be adopting on December 2nd--it is posted on the county's website---here  If adopted as it is being presented and advertised....DISTRICT 1 WILL BE THE SMALLEST OF THE 5 DISTRICTS AT JUST 61,909 IN POPULATION POST REDISTRICTING---BARELY OVER THE MINIMUM SIZE TO MEET THE 10% DEVIATION THRESHLD.  Again--don't believe me or your lying eyes--fact check me by going to the county's public site.  Dough and his secretary and intern know this stuff.  Don't let them lie to your face.

Watch out for any politician that will look you in the eye and lie to you.  When you catch them lying to you, call them out for it and ask them to explain it.  Hold them accountable.  

Otherwise get out of the way because you are an enabling water-carrier, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Lies, lies, lies, "clown hall" dis-informational sales jobs, potential lawsuits and a rapidly ticking clock.....  

For all of these reasons and many more that we could get into but won’t—maintaining the status quo on current district lines and sizes at this, the 11^th hour, 59^th minute, and 59^th second,  is an unrealistic, untenable option.

We must and we will move forward on Dec. 2nd.