This document provides information about redistricting criteria and process for the City of Hesperia. It discusses the types of election systems, requirements of the California Voting Rights Act which favors district-based elections, and examples of how districts can provide representation for geographically concentrated minority groups. The document also outlines Hesperia's timeline for public input and map adoption, defines communities of interest, and provides demographic data to inform the districting process.

1. City of Hesperia Council Districting 2017
Criteria and Process
Justin Levitt, Vice-President
Douglas Johnson, President
National Demographics Corporation (NDC)
March 7, 2017

2. Election Systems
March 7, 2017
1. “At Large” or “Citywide” elections
2. “From District” or “Residence” requirements, with at large elections
3. “By District” voting
2
The California Voting Rights Act
favors by-district voting

3. Why Districts?
March 7, 2017
3
At-Large Election
100 majority voters
20 opposition
voters
By-District Election
30 majority
voters
20 opposition
voters
10 majority voters
30 majority
voters
30 majority
voters
When one voting bloc significantly
outnumbers another, the majority
wins every at-large seat.
But if the smaller group is geographically
concentrated, it can elect someone who
shares their views to the Council or Board.

4. Large-Scale Shift Statewide
 Signed into law by Gov. Gray
Davis in 2002
 Suspended by Superior Court ruling in
the Modesto case, but reinstated by
appeals court in 2006.
 Switched (or in the process of
switching) as a result of CVRA:
 At least 142 school districts
 28 Community College Districts
 53 cities
 1 County Board of Supervisors
 8 water and other special districts.
 Key decisions & settlements
 Only Palmdale has gone to trial on the
merits (the city lost)
 Key settlements:
 Palmdale: $4.7 million
 Modesto: $3 million
 Highland: $1.3 million
 Anaheim: $1.1 million
 Whittier: $1 million
 Santa Barbara: $600,000
 Tulare Hospital: $500,000
 Madera Unified: plaintiff attorneys asked for
$1.8 million, but received about $170,000
 Hanford Joint Union Schools: $118,000
 Merced City: $42,000
 Placentia: $20,000
March 7, 2017
4

5. Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965
March 7, 2017
 Gingles v Thornburg US Supreme Court ruling set up tests for liability:
1. Can the protected class constitute the majority of a district?
2. Does the protected class vote as a bloc?
3. Do the voters who are not in the protected class vote in a bloc to defeat the preferred
candidates of the protected class?
4. Do the “totality of circumstances” indicate race is a factor in elections?
 A violation exists if a jurisdiction fails all four tests
5

6. CVRA Legal Impacts
March 7, 2017
 CVRA makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs to force jurisdictions
into “by-district” election systems
 Eliminates two of the US Supreme Court’s Gingles tests:
1. Can the protected class constitute the majority of a district?
2. Does the protected class vote as a bloc?
3. Do the voters who are not in the protected class vote in a bloc to defeat the
preferred candidates of the protected class?
4. Do the “totality of circumstances” indicate race is a factor in elections?
 Liability is now determined only by the presence of
racially polarized voting
 These expert-driven cases are almost prohibitively
expensive, even if a jurisdiction wins
6

7. Inland Empire Changes
March 7, 2017
7
Changed due to CVRA:
Banning, Chino, Corona, Eastvale, Hemet, Highland, Rancho
Cucamonga, Wildomar, Yucaipa, Upland
Changing due to CVRA:
Cathedral City, Chino Hills, Fontana, Hesperia, Indio, Redlands
Under CVRA Threat:
Apple Valley, Victorville, Rialto

8. Current Timeline
March 7, 2017
Date Event
Council adopts Resolution of Intent
March 7 Kickoff meeting and Public Hearing to take testimony on the composition of
potential districts
March 21 Public Hearings to take testimony on the composition of potential districts (at
regular Council meetings)
March 27 Deadline for initial public map submissions
March 30 Draft maps (including public submissions) published.
April 18 Public Hearing regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the
proposed sequence of elections
May 2 Public Hearing regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the
proposed sequence of elections
May 16 Public Hearing and Map Ordinance Introduction (at regular Council Meeting)
June 6 2nd reading and final adoption of ordinance
November 2018 First two Council districts hold elections
November 2020 Remaining two Council Districts hold elections
8

9. Community Engagement “3 E’s”
March 7, 2017
1. Engage the public
 Through press, social media, outreach to community organizations, and
word of mouth
2. Educate the community
 Share tonight’s information about the process and requirements
3. Empower residents
 The public’s voice matters
9

10. Decide on Criteria
 Equal Population
 Federal Voting Rights Act
 Communities of interest
 Compact
 Contiguous
 Visible (Natural & man-made) boundaries
 Respect for voters’ wishes and continuity
in office
 Planned future growth
Federal Laws Traditional Criteria
10
March 7, 2017

11. Defining Communities of Interest
March 7, 2017
“A Community of Interest (COI) is a neighborhood or community that would benefit
from being maintained in a single district because of shared interests, views, or
characteristics.”
Possible community feature/boundary definitions include:
 School Attendance Areas
 City borders
 Natural neighborhood dividing lines, such as highway or major roads, rivers, canals,
and/or hills
 Areas around parks and other neighborhood landmarks
 Common issues, neighborhood activities, or legislative/election concerns
 Shared demographic characteristics
 Such as similar levels of income, education, or linguistic isolation
 Ancestry (Not race or ethnicity)
Does a Community of Interest want to be united in one district, or to be
divided to have a say in multiple elections?
11

12. March 7, 2017
2010
Demographic
Summary
12
The City’s 2010 Census
population of 90,173
means that each of the
Council districts will have
18,000 residents
(the total population
divided among 5 districts).
Race/Ethnic Profile Count Percent ACS Profile Count Percent
Total Population 90,173 ACS Total Population 92,296 2%
Latino 44,091 49% Age 0 - 19 31,062 34%
NH White 37,027 41% Age 20 - 60 47,389 51%
NH Black/African-American 5,269 6% Age 60+ 13,845 15%
NH Native American 759 1%
NH Asian-American 2,158 2% Immigrant 13,895 15%
NH Pacific Islander 291 0% Naturalized (pct of total immigrants) 6,495 47%
NH Other 218 0% Age 5+ 85,131
NH Multi-Race 360 0% Speak English at home 58,667 69%
Voting Age Population total 61,017 Speak Spanish at home 24,695 29%
VAP Latino 26,399 43% Speak an Asian language at home 904 1%
VAP NH White 28,669 47% Speak other language at home 865 1%
VAP NH Black/African-American 3,271 5% Speak English only "well" or less 9,465 11%
VAP NH Native American 606 1% Age 25+ 54,058
VAP NH Asian-American 1,525 2% Age 25+, no HS degree 12,390 23%
VAP NH Pacific Islander 179 0% Age 25+, HS degree (only) 36,423 67%
VAP NH Other 150 0% Age 25+, bachelor degree (only) 3,371 6%
VAP NH Multi-Race 218 0% Age 25+, graduate degree (only) 1,875 3%
Citizen VAP total 56,973 Households 26,424
CVAP Latino 23,891 42% Child under 18 in Household 10,065 38%
CVAP NH White 27,114 48% Income $0-25k 7,216 27%
CVAP NH African-American 3,893 7% Income $25-50k 7,236 27%
CVAP NH Asian & Pacific Islander 995 2% Income $50-75k 5,134 19%
CVAP Other (incl. Nat. Amer. & Pac. Isl.) 1,079 2% Income $75-200k 6,431 24%
Voter Registration (Nov. 2014) 37,031 Income $200k+ 407 2%
Latino Reg 13,138 35% Housing units 28,898
Asian-Surnamed Reg. 364 1% Single-Family 25,121 87%
Filipino-Surnamed Reg. 291 1% Multi-Family 3,776 13%
Est. NH White Reg. 20,569 56% Vacant 2,473 9%
Est. African-Amer. Reg 2,438 7% Occupied 26,424 91%
Democratic Reg. 12,532 34% Rented 9,916 38%
Republican Reg. 13,519 37% Owned 16,509 62%
Other/No Party Reg. 10,980 30%
Voters Casting Ballots (Nov. 2014) 11,709 32% Voters Casting Ballots (Nov. 2012) 23,428 65%
Latino voters 2,706 23% Latino voters 6,776 29%
Asian-Surnamed voters 95 1% Asian-Surnamed voters 180 1%
Filipino-Surnamed voters 80 1% Filipino-Surnamed voters 150 1%
Est. NH White voters 7,911 68% Est. NH White voters 14,505 62%
Est. African-Amer. Reg 818 7% Est. African-Amer. Reg 1,654 7%
Democratic voters 3,741 32%
Republican voters 5,715 49%
Other/No Party voters 2,253 19%
Sources: 2010 Census, California Statewide Database (2012 and 2014 November elections), 2011-2015 American Community Survey Special Tabulation of Citizen
Voting Age data, and 2011-2015 American Community Survey data. "Latino" registration and turnout numbers are Spanish-surnamed data adjusted with US Census
Population Division's California adjustment factor.

13. Latino CVAP
March 7, 2017
Total City Population: 90,173
49% Latino
41% “Non-Hispanic White”
6% African-American
2% Asian-American
2% Other
Citizen Voting Age (‘eligible
voter’) Population:
42% Latino
48% “Non-Hispanic White”
7% African-American
2% Asian-American
1% Other
13

14. Asian-Americans
March 7, 2017
14
Asian-American and
Pacific Islanders are
not concentrated in
any area of the City.

15. African-Americans
March 7, 2017
15
The yellow block
has only 5 residents.

16. Renters
March 7, 2017
16
Data available at the
larger ‘census tract’ level
only (shown with green
borders).

17. Multifamily Housing
March 7, 2017
17
“Multifamily” is the
Census term for
apartments and
condominiums.

18. Other Demographic Data Available
March 7, 2017
 Additional data is available for use in identifying
“communities of interest” when drawing districts:
 Education levels
 Languages spoken at home
 Income levels
 Percentage immigrants
 And much, much more
18

19. Discussion
March 7, 2017
19