Post Redistricting--What will the New District 1 Precinct Map Look Like?

I received the above rendering from the Supervisor of Elections Office.  It reflects the new district boundaries post-redistricting.  I've zeroed in on District 1 in the above .jpeg.

These new precinct maps will be presented to the BCC at our upcoming workshope this Thursday.

Meanwhile, there they are for all to see, above.

To download the full .pdf file so you can zoom in to see all 5 district precincts and where your precinct is now, click here.  See the full map, below.

What Will the District Map Look Like if Proposed and Advertised District Map is Approved by BCC December 2nd?

The map and corresponding numbers of voters for our five commissioner's districts will look like what is depicted above----if the BCC moves forward with final approval next week, on December 2nd, as I anticipate we will.

............And of course this data and much more detailed information about the redistricting is all posted on the county's website, here.

Should Doug Underhill be Censured---Again?

At least one angry citizen believes he needs to be---- based upon some misinformation that was put out by the District 2 office in last week's sparsely attended town halls... Read the email we all received, below:

"Dear Commissioners,

During the last three town halls your fellow colleague on the board put out false information on the record on video and it is now posted on your website about the redistricting process and the laws and requirement you are to follow.

As a citizen it is my belief, for you to allow that behavior to stand without a public reprimand is very poor practice for the Board of County Commissioners to allow especially at the juncture of the ten year redistricting process.

It needs to be clearly, documented in writing and in the record of what was false info and what is the truth and available to be reported in local media, published n the agenda and subsequent minutes.

It is my suggestion that you review those recordings and document, in a more concise fashion. what was said to the constituents that is untrue, write in clear language what is in fact true, put it on the agenda and up for a vote prior to the December 2 vote to adopt the published maps.

Otherwise you just have these falsehoods hanging in the public domain.

I believe the chairman viewed the videos and documented some of the outright blatant information that was put out but not yet in an official capacity, only on his blog, and he also posted the letter the attorney sent to you.

It is my thought you should not allow that to stand because it foments division and unnecessary unrest and problems for good governance in a professional manner in Escambia County. The Censure motion is appropriate because it is your duty as a government body to correct bad behavior of another member.

We are governed by rule of law and specific guidelines, not propaganda and falsehoods so please add this to the agenda ahead of time, fully documented, take the vote to Censure, then vote to adopt the map that was settled upon by the joint bodies of local government in the time frame specified by the county attorney.

To let that hang out there unchallenged should not be condoned. 

Of course some is gobbly gook rhetoric but especially that the redistricting does not have to be done or that McMillan being followed is racism by the board.

Are you really going to allow that to stand?

 Sincerely

XXXX  XXXXXXX

Escambia County Citizen"

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.

 

First Underhill "Town Hall" Goes Over Like an Exploding Dragster at the Starting Line.....

Commissioner Underhill's first town hall last night went off about as well as an exploding dragster on the starting line....

Not unlike the infamous explosion at the starting line suffered by Doug Herbert 22 years ago at Pomona--Commissioner Doug Underhill's first "Town Hall" on redistricting last night in Myrtle Grove blew up at the starting line.

Boom.

Nobody showed up, just a smattering of staff, several citizens that challenged Doug's assertions about redistricting (rightfully so) The PKA guy, Doug's compliant secretary and intern, Doug's sister-in-law, a couple of Escambia Hate Watch regulars, Flood Defender man, an angry Beulah resident, and maybe four or five others tops? Maybe a half-dozen truly concerned citizens--not insiders??

The stream was shaky and unsteady, and the whole affair lasted about an hour and a half.  Painfully off-topic rants and inaccurate statements about the process of redistricting-and an insinuation that the latest approved map rendition from the school board and the BCC was the "Bergosh" plan were part of Doug's soliloquy.  Saying the BCC's approved map is "Bergosh" plan is straight up lie.  It was actually a compromise that built on D2 School Board member Paul Fetsko's very rational map--and it was voted upon unanimously by the school board members subsequently and it received a 4-1 vote from the BCC as well.  Only Doug voted against it.

So yes, 9 of 10 elected officeholders voted for the map that Doug inaccurately portrays as the "Bergosh Plan."  (He wants people to believe he is right, and the 9 of us are wrong, I suppose.....)  Good luck with that.

Notably--during this event:

--he glosses over the fact he missed the first, all important and once per decade redistricting meeting yet he does not say why he didn't at least call in on "zoom" for the meeting or at least submit a map for our consideration before he left town.  Nope, no explanation on that.

--he bemoans the fact that "we didn't do town halls first"----- when he could have held town halls anytime after he got back from the jet ski races in Arizona and before the second joint meeting --But he didn't.  Why not?

--He makes a point to attempt to make the process a racially divisive wedge issue--knowing full well the direction from FAC and our attorney has been that we must work within the spirit of the McMillan decision and not water down the minority majority district--lest we face civil rights lawsuits/challenges to the map.

--He laments the fact that the time is running out for this process---yet he doesn't mention the fact that he wanted to rush this and finish it this year (even though we do not and did not have to).  He also conveniently does not disclose the fact that I was the commissioner, me, who warned against rushing; I wanted to wait until 2023 to do it right.

--He disregards the wishes of currently serving ECUA board members Vicki Campbell and Lois Benson who preferred NOT to be redistricted out of their seats and requested this reasonable, well established practice and accomodation from the group putting these maps together.  Doug wanted to knock two of them out of their districts...

--He neglects to mention that his first map was bad, but his most recent one is actually worse...

Maybe 5 or 6 citzens spoke total during the meeting--other than that it was a nonstop barrage of

Redistricting Moving Forward--Despite One County Commissioner "Objecting"

The BCC is moving forward with final approval of our redistricting maps which 5 School Board members and 4 of the 5 County Commissioners worked diligently to finalize in a compressed timeframe. One Commissioner, one out of 10 elected officials that put these maps together, is "unhappy..." 

Tuesday the Board made a statement, approved our final redistricting map for advertising, and will advertise what was approved twice over the next four weeks. And on December 2nd, we will have our final public hearing before the BCC at which time we will vote to make the advertised map official.  That's how I see the process unfolding over the next three weeks (which will go by fast--with the Thanksgiving Holidays sandwiched between now and then.....)

Importantly--I believe in this same time period the Escambia School Board will advertise and approve an identical map so the voters will have all local offices (School Board, Commissioner, ECUA Board) running in the same geographic districts.  This will maintain a long established practice of doing this locally in Escambia County in order to assist the Supervisor of Elections and in order to diminish any voter confusion.

Now, I've heard from a smattering of diehard Underhill supporters that do not approve of the map as we voted, 4-1, to advertise for final passage.  A small number of folks who proclaim they do NOT support Underhill also have sent the same sorts of emails to me.

I have received multiple emails supporting the proposed redistricting map, too.

But---- by and large--the overall process has just not garnered a lot of public interest.  It just hasn't.

Most likely it is because folks are busy living their lives, running their businesses, going to their kids' sporting events, planning for the holidays, recovering from the last 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, returning to in-person events, going back to Church Services in person, travelling abroad, planning for the future,  etc., etc., etc......

Most of the more than 130,000 citizens that live in Escambia County's District 1 and District 2 are not hyper-focused on local (or even national) politics.  They are busy living their lives--catching some news at 10PM on WEAR, reading NorthEscambia, and listening to WCOA.  Some (a diminishing number) may even read the PNJ.  But they are not hyper-political; their entire lives and existances do not revolve around what happened at the County, or what the school board did, or what neighborhood is going to be reunited in this redistricting, or what 8 people on a Facebook Hate Site think. Or what Jeff Bergosh says, or What Doug Underhill thinks  They don't live it, they don't care, --they tune out the noise.  In short, they have lives.

So I understand outgoing Commissioner Underhill will plan a "rapid-fire" series of town hall meetings next week to denounce the work of the 5 members of the school board and 4 members of the BCC.  He'll likely attempt to convince folks that the nine of us got it wrong, but he is right..........uh,.... okay. 

Interesting Information on Redistricting from County Attorney's Office.

The below four-page memo on redistricting appears to indicate that we, the county, do not necessarily have to complete the redistricting process we have started by the end of this year.  Apparently, we can finish it up by March of 2022 according to this opinion.  The only sticking point:  This additional flexibility is specifically NOT authorized for the school board member districts which MUST only be set in odd-numbered years.  Knowing we do not want to create voter confusion on this issue (Commissioner districts different than School Board Districts)--I still am of the belief we should attempt to have identical districts as has been the practice previously and also that we do not need to rush the process.  If the school board cannot finish in '22--we shouldn't rush to do so either.  Because there is NO consensus on where the lines should be drawn going forward between D1 and D2--that much we all know for sure.  Doug Underhill has expressed "silly"(a word choice he makes frequently) ideas about what he thinks the lines should look like.  His ideas are garbage that will go nowhere. So, with all this said, we will see how our first joint meeting goes--and whether or not we can realistically adhear to the aggressively-agendaed, self-imposed "schedule" the current Board Chair has set for this process to be completed.  (I'm not optimistic we'll hash it out by November 2nd--a little over a month from now--in order to meet this self-directed, rushed timeframe.  But we'll see.....)

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.

Florida Elections Bill Heads to 3rd Reading in the House (Sans the Onerous Commissioner Elections Language)

Watching SB 90 and HB 7041 over the last month finally take shape has been the epitome of sausage making.   We like how it turns out, watching the process of making it-----not so much... 

Yesterday the Florida Senate passed their version of this year's big priority among Republicans nationawide ---an Elections Administration Bill---- largely along partisan lines and via a 23-17 vote.  All Democratic Senators along with one Republican voted against this bill.  But it passed the Senate.

The House version was similar, but it had a very onerous provision attached that really amounted to a poison pill.  This provision would have required that all commissioners in non-charter counties that are voted by single member districts run again next year--to include those of us that just won fresh 4-year terms in 2020.  It was a horrible idea, the language was unconstitutional, and it would have been problematic.

No, not problematic---It would have been a disaster ---had that language made it into the final bill under consideration presently.  

But this language was never in the Senate Bill, and last night at 1:33 AM the House Sponsor--seeing the Senate got their own bill over the line--- offered a strike all amendment that removed this punitive language that targeted duly elected county commissioners and instead adopted the Senate's  Bill language.

That was a good move, and the smart play.  Several State Senators (and more importantly, their legislative liaisons, had been made aware of the language in the house bill that was targeting county commissioners--and it appears the Senate had no appetite whatsoever to pick this fight unnecessarily...as that language, again, was NEVER considered in their bill)

So after a flurry of  Democratic amendments were considered and voted down today--House bill sponsor, Representative Blaise Ingnolia, was able to get his strike-all amendment passed forward to a third reading tomorrow on the House floor---at which point is looks all-but certain that the Senate's bill language will win the day, and will be passed by the House and subsequently make it's way to the Governor for his consideration.

Although it would seem counterintuitive that Governor DeSantis would support this bill--I have heard from some sources that he does not favor this bill.  So we will see what happens after the third reading tomorrow.

Meanwhile--those of us commissioners around the state (nearly 100) who would have had to re-run had this original language remained, can all breath a collective sigh of relief.  

That's not going to happen.  At least it does not appear likely this go round..

And that is a good thing.  

Escambia County School Board Proposed Revised District Boundary Map and Statistics

(Dark Blue Lines indicate existing district boundaries, color shaded areas indicate proposed boundaries, and red stars indicate the current residences of School Board, BOCC, and ECUA representatives)

After an initial School Board/BOCC joint meeting on the subject of redistricting in May and now a subsequent meeting yesterday—a proposed revised district map has emerged.

From the beginning, the unanimous consensus among and between members of the BOCC and School Board has been that our respective districts should be identical.

As a result of meetings with staff from the Supervisor of Elections Office and our counterparts on the county commission, school board members from all five districts may now have districts that mirror the BOCC.

The map above and corresponding data reflects the product of yesterday's excrutiating, tedious, deliberative, and meticulous 3.5 hour joint session. 

My prediction is that this map will be the final draft rendition, as I clearly heard at yesterday’s open, advertised joint meeting that at least three BOCC members and three School Board members indicated support for this map, as proposed, to be the best rendition under all of the constraints that guide the redistricting process.

Once each respective body conducts public meetings and takes input from the community, the maps will be voted on by each board.  If the maps change as a result of public input and/or any other reasons, the School Board and BOCC would most likely hold another joint session to iron out any changes.  While not mandated by law, (again I'll restate) that my impression is that the majority of the BOCC and School Board members want identical districts;  The common goal, from what I've heard after attending all of these meetings, is to follow every law and rule and have identical BOCC/School Board Member districts after this mandatory redistricting process is completed.

This map will be discussed again briefly at the school board workshop this Thursday morning at 8:00 AM, Room 160 of the Hall Center.