Caroline County Re-Districting Proposal

714 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Caroline County Re-Districting Proposal

  1. 1. Mr. Floyd ThomasChairman, Caroline County Board of SupervisorsP.O. Box 447Bowling Green, Virginia 22427Dear Mr. Thomas;As the Board of Supervisors is aware, every ten years after the completion ofthe decennial census, local governments are required by law to evaluatepopulation changes within their boundaries and to make changes necessaryto ensure equal representation by and between elected officials.The Caroline County Board of Supervisors, recognizing the amount of timeand effort required to undertake such an analysis, established theRedistricting Advisory Committee. The members of the RedistrictingAdvisory Committee as appointed by the Board of Supervisors are: Chair, William “Duke” Whiteside; Mattaponi Frank Gee; Bowling Green Maynard Penney; Bowling Green Eric Deibel; Madison Scott Roberts; Madison Charles Shewbridge; Madison Lynda Keath; Mattaponi Jim Heimbach; Port Royal Bill Wick; Port Royal Henry Barlow; Reedy Church Demetrice Toliver; Reedy Church Rueben Rock; Mattaponi; Caroline NAACP Mack Wright; Caroline County School BoardThe committee was charged with evaluating options for five, six and sevenelection districts and making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.The committee has completed its task and presents its findings andrecommendations to the Board.
  2. 2. The committee would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the staffmembers who provided assistance to the committee as we prepared ourrecommendation to the Board. Those staff members included: Michael Finchum, Director of Planning Angeline Pitts, County Planner Laurel Hammig, Planner-GWRC Ann Neil Cosby, County AttorneyRecommendationThe Redistricting Advisory Committee recommends that the Board ofSupervisors adopt the Five-District Plan (Attachment 1), which retains theReedy Church District as a minority-majority district.Committee Evaluation and Consideration of OptionsAs requested by Board of Supervisors Chairman Floyd Thomas, theCommittee considered and evaluated the merits of five, six and sevenDistrict options. Multiple versions of each plan were evaluated for theirstrengths and weaknesses, while being mindful of the requirements set forthby the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, the Code ofVirginia, and the federal Voting Rights Act, as well as traditionally acceptedredistricting criteria. These requirements and criteria include, but are notlimited to, maintaining one person-one vote by keeping the populations ofdistricts as even as possible, placing boundaries between districts alongeasily recognizable landmarks, establishing districts that are compact andcontiguous, preserving communities of interest, accounting for the residencyof incumbents, and addressing non-retrogression, among other factors.While the committee supports and recommends the five district plan, six andseven district plans (Attachments 2 and 3) were prepared as requested.Advantages of the RecommendationThe Committee selected the five district option for several reasons. First,the option retains a minority-majority district (Reedy Church). Throughoutthe process, the committee supported the standards of non-retrogression andnon dilution of minority voting strength. Since we have not found it possibleto maintain two minority-majority districts, even with a seven district option,we are concerned that increasing the number of districts may be viewed as a
  3. 3. dilution of minority voting strength. The committee feels that the fivedistrict option best addresses those principles, in light of the changingCounty demographics, while balancing the various federal and staterequirements and traditional redistricting criteria.Additional benefits include a compact Madison District with similarcommunities of interest and a Port Royal District that is more contiguousand compact, as compared to its current boundary. This option also retainsall members of the Board of Supervisors within their respective districts.Disadvantages of the RecommendationGiven the varied population densities and other demographic changes thathave occurred between 2000 and 2010, this plan does create several largerdistricts, while other districts are more compact. This is unavoidable due tothe increased population of the County and the need to shift a large block ofpopulation out of the current Madison District (Lake Caroline) whilemaintaining that community of interest. This plan also has the unfortunateeffect of placing three members of the Caroline County School Board in onedistrict.SummaryWe believe that the Five District plan recommended reasonably and bestmeets the criteria required by the re-districting process. We also feel that inthese difficult economic times, creating additional districts would be anunnecessary burden on the taxpayers of Caroline County, when surroundingcounties with comparable or even greater populations have managed wellwith only five districts.We thank you for your willingness to reach out to the citizens of the Countythrough the appointment of this committee and offer our continuedassistance as you move forward with the process.Sincerely,William “Duke” WhitesideChairman, 2011 Redistricting Advisory Committee
  4. 4. Attachment 15 District Option  Total  Am  %Am District  Deviation  % Dev  White  % White  Black  % Black  Asian  % Asian  Hawaiian  % Hawaiian  Other  % Other  Population  Indian  Indian Bowling  5,570  ‐139  ‐2.43%  3,906  70.13%  1,402  25.17%  84  1.51%  24  0.43%  1  0.02%  25  0.45% Green Madison  5,798  89  1.56%  4,093  70.59%  1,306  22.53%  34  0.59%  53  0.91%  12  0.21%  72  1.24% Mattaponi  5,672  ‐37  ‐0.65%  3,951  69.66%  1,383  24.38%  40  0.71%  43  0.76%  3  0.05%  82  1.45% Port Royal  5,601  ‐108  ‐1.89%  3,878  69.24%  1,438  25.67%  32  0.57%  27  0.48%  5  0.09%  62  1.11% Reedy  5,904  195  3.42%  2,821  47.78%  2,846  48.20%  23  0.39%  31  0.53%  1  0.02%  32  0.54% Church                                 % 18+  Voting Age % 18+  18+  % 18+  18+ Am  18+  % 18+  18+   % 18+   18+ White  Am   18+ Other  % 18+ Other      (18+) Pop  White  Black  Black  Indian  Asian  Asian  Hawaiian  Hawaiian  Indian Bowling  4,415  3,143  71.19%  1,103  24.98%  67  1.52%  21  0.48%  1  0.02%  18  0.41%     Green Madison  4,100  2,950  71.95%  935  22.80%  23  0.56%  44  1.07%  4  0.10%  53  1.29%     Mattaponi  4,284  3,023  70.56%  1,060  24.74%  26  0.61%  36  0.84%  3  0.07%  57  1.33%     Port Royal  4,352  3,044  69.94%  1,157  26.59%  20  0.46%  23  0.53%  2  0.05%  35  0.80%     Reedy  4,550  2,189  48.11%  2,219  48.77%  19  0.42%  27  0.59%  1  0.02%  21  0.46%     Church 
  5. 5. Attachment 26 District Option  Total  Am  %Am District  Deviation  % Dev  White  % White  Black  % Black  Asian  % Asian  Hawaiian  % Hawaiian  Other  % Other  Population  Indian  Indian Bowling  4,740  ‐18  ‐0.38%  3,349  70.65%  1,152  24.30%  79  1.67%  14  0.30%  1  0.02%  25  0.53% Green Madison  4,833  75  1.58%  3,524  72.92%  1,043  21.58%  33  0.68%  40  0.83%  8  0.17%  46  0.95% Lake  4,811  53  1.11%  3,519  73.14%  974  20.25%  34  0.71%  41  0.85%  6  0.12%  62  1.29% Mattaponi  4,865  107  2.25%  2,836  58.29%  1,709  35.13%  19  0.39%  47  0.97%  1  0.02%  68  1.40% Port Royal  4,774  16  0.34%  3,243  67.93%  1,278  26.77%  26  0.54%  21  0.44%  5  0.10%  57  1.19% Reedy  4,522  ‐236  ‐4.96%  2,178  48.16%  2,219  49.07%  22  0.49%  15  0.33%  1  0.02%  15  0.33% Church                                 % 18+  Voting Age % 18+  18+  % 18+  18+ Am  18+  % 18+  18+   % 18+   18+ White  Am   18+ Other  % 18+ Other      (18+) Pop  White  Black  Black  Indian  Asian  Asian  Hawaiian  Hawaiian  Indian Bowling  3,741  2,684  71.75%  902  24.11%  62  1.66%  14  0.37%  1  0.03%  18  0.48%     Green Madison  3,569  2,663  74.61%  765  21.43%  17  0.48%  31  0.87%  4  0.11%  30  0.84%     Lake  3,403  2,535  74.49%  694  20.39%  24  0.71%  38  1.12%  2  0.06%  43  1.26%     Mattaponi  3,664  2,142  58.46%  1,318  35.97%  16  0.44%  41  1.12%  1  0.03%  53  1.45%     Port Royal  3,733  2,571  68.87%  1,031  27.62%  18  0.48%  17  0.46%  2  0.05%  32  0.86%     Reedy  3,591  1,754  48.84%  1,764  49.12%  18  0.50%  10  0.28%  1  0.03%  8  0.22%     Church 
  6. 6. Attachment 37 District Option  Total  Am  %Am District  Deviation  % Dev  White  % White  Black  % Black  Asian  % Asian  Hawaiian  % Hawaiian  Other  % Other  Population  Indian  Indian Bowling  4,095  17  0.42%  2,828  69.06%  1,050  25.64%  71  1.73%  14  0.34%  1  0.02%  23  0.56% Green Carmel  4,139  61  1.50%  2,816  68.04%  1,106  26.72%  25  0.60%  34  0.82%  2  0.05%  29  0.70% Church Lake  4,270  192  4.71%  3,088  72.32%  884  20.70%  25  0.59%  36  0.84%  6  0.14%  58  1.36% Madison  4,002  ‐76  ‐1.86%  2,803  70.04%  994  24.84%  31  0.77%  27  0.67%  6  0.15%  39  0.97% Mattaponi  4,090  12  0.29%  2,538  62.05%  1,296  31.69%  23  0.56%  35  0.86%  1  0.02%  65  1.59% Port Royal  4,027  ‐51  ‐1.25%  2,710  67.30%  1,108  27.51%  20  0.50%  20  0.50%  5  0.12%  44  1.09% Reedy  3,922  ‐156  ‐3.83%  1,866  47.58%  1,937  49.39%  18  0.46%  12  0.31%  1  0.03%  15  0.38% Church                                 % 18+  Voting Age % 18+  18+  % 18+  18+ Am  18+  % 18+  18+   % 18+   18+ White  Am   18+ Other  % 18+ Other      (18+) Pop  White  Black  Black  Indian  Asian  Asian  Hawaiian  Hawaiian  Indian Bowling  3,219  2,261  70.24%  816  25.35%  57  1.77%  14  0.43%  1  0.03%  16  0.50%     Green Carmel  3,040  2,100  69.08%  819  26.94%  17  0.56%  31  1.02%  2  0.07%  15  0.49%     Church Lake  2,993  2,210  73.84%  623  20.82%  18  0.60%  34  1.14%  2  0.07%  41  1.37%     Madison  3,010  2,143  71.20%  753  25.02%  18  0.60%  20  0.66%  2  0.07%  28  0.93%     Mattaponi  3,186  1,998  62.71%  1,029  32.30%  17  0.53%  27  0.85%  1  0.03%  51  1.60%     Port Royal  3,156  2,144  67.93%  899  28.49%  14  0.44%  16  0.51%  2  0.06%  25  0.79%     Reedy  3,097  1,493  48.21%  1,535  49.56%  14  0.45%  9  0.29%  1  0.03%  8  0.26%     Church 

×