Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
A once every 10-year process that examines the county’s political districts with an eye toward judging their fairness, and redrawing them if necessary to make them more equal and proportionate, is about to begin.
Attorneys Heather Encinosa and Evan Rosenthal, county attorney and assistant county attorney, respectively, informed the Jefferson County Commission on Thursday evening, Feb. 2, that the county was overdue for a redistricting review.
The two informed the commission that per the Florida Constitution, it was required that a redistricting review be conducted following each decennial census.
The statute, the two attorneys said, specifically required that county boards fix their
district boundaries from time to time so as to keep them as nearly equal as possible in proportionate population.
Generally speaking, the two said, the courts have upheld maps where the difference between the population of the largest and smallest districts was less than 10 percentage points. However, deviations greater than 10 percent (i.e., the largest district population being eight percent over ideal and smallest being three percent under) might raise a “red flag,” they said.
The two went on to say that although population equality was the most important factor in drawing voting districts, jurisdictions were permitted to deviate from perfect population equality if it was to accommodate traditional districting objectives, such as maintaining communities of interest or creating geographical compactness.
The two offered the following as key considerations in any map redrawing:
Keeping districts as nearly equal in population as possible.
Following census blocks, the baseline unit of redistricting, as contained in the 2020 census data.
Keeping incumbents in their districts.
Preserving minority voting strength by neither “packing” nor “cracking” districts in a manner that dilutes minority voting strength.
Preserving municipalities and communities of interest.
Keeping districts contiguous.
The law requires that redistricting be done in odd-numbered years, which is why the two attorneys suggested that the county begin the process now. Ideally, they said, it should have been done in 2021, or as soon as possible after the 2020 census. But they said it was understandable that the commission had not tackled the issue in 2021, given the pandemic and everything else that was then going on.
The two duly underscored the technical nature of redistricting, noting that it largely involved the evaluation and processing of census data and recommended that the board hire a consultant with expertise in the area to assist in the effort.
The consultant, the two said, would be tasked with evaluating the county’s 2020 census data and determining, as a first step, if population shifts or increases or decreases in particular districts warranted redistricting.
Granting the technical nature of redistricting, it must be noted, however, that the process at heart is political. Or at least it was in 1990, 2000 and 2010 when the districts boundaries here were redrawn.
Suffice it to say that notwithstanding the data and advice of technical experts, some officials fought tooth and nails to maintain certain lines intact and the process was characterized by much contention. Especially as the school board was also involved in the process and the two governing bodies for long couldn’t agree on where the lines should be.
That said, the commission last week followed the two attorneys’ recommendation and approved the advertisement of a request for proposal for the services of a consultant.
The idea is that if the consultant’s review of the census data shows that changes to the district map are warranted to maintain population equality, the consultant will generate a draft map for the board’s consideration.