Common Cause and the California Redistricting Project have been conducting statewide outreach to cities and counties to inform jurisdictions of changes to districting laws and on the creation of independent redistricting commissions. Upon receiving a communication from Common Cause, the Board requested they provide a presentation.
In the last round of redistricting in 2010 (and the three prior reapportionments), the Board of Supervisors appointed a committee comprised of five residents to provide recommendations on the revised supervisorial districts. This practice is in keeping with Section 21505 of the State Elections Code, which allows the Board of Supervisors to appoint a committee to study redistricting. Committee recommendations are advisory only. The Redistricting Advisory Committee (RAC) carries out their charge based on the following general guidelines:
a. Provide a maximum of five alternative plans to the Board of Supervisors without ranking for consideration.
b. The population of each of the five districts shall equal one another to the greatest extent possible (deviation between districts not to exceed a maximum of ten percent), based on the results of the U.S. Census.
c. District boundaries shall follow precinct lines, to the greatest extent feasible.
d. In recommending district boundaries, consideration shall be given to the following factors: (1) topography; (2) geography; (3) cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, compactness of territory; and (4) community of interests of the districts.
e. The redistricting process shall comply with all applicable state and local statutes.
f. All meetings of the RAC shall be noticed and open to the public, in compliance with the Brown Act.
In addition to the RAC process, the Board also had the choice of the following alternatives in prior reapportionments. However, these alternatives were not recommended for the following reasons:
1. Designate an advisory committee composed of staff. An advisory committee composed of staff to develop recommended boundaries is not subject to the Brown Act, and as a result, would not allow for the transparency that a committee consisting of appointed citizens would provide.
2. Hold public hearings led by a facilitator for the Board of Supervisors to directly develop revised district boundaries. Developing district boundaries can be a detailed and intensive process. Having Supervisors directly spend hours reviewing detailed census data and developing alternative scenarios may conflict with the efficient operation of Board of Supervisors meetings.
3. Hold a series of workshops throughout the county to solicit public input into how the proposed district boundaries should be drawn, with a summit workshop to vote on preferred district boundaries. While an extensive public process is valuable, it would be difficult to accomplish given the short timelines provided for by State law to complete the redistricting process.
SB 1108 (2016) authorizes all counties and general law cities to establish independent commissions. Beginning January 1, 2017, any general law city or county may now adopt an independent commission by enacting a resolution or ordinance that meets certain minimum criteria. An independent commission has the power to independently adopt new district maps. The local governing board does not approve, and cannot amend, the commission’s maps. Proponents of independent redistricting committees claim the process increases citizen participation, is less politicized, improves transparency, and creates more representative districts.
Currently, only two counties (Los Angeles and San Diego) have independent redistricting commissions, as the enabling legislation was only passed in 2016 and prior to that counties had to have special legislative dispensation to establish an independent commission. In 44 counties, Boards of Supervisors directly reapportion districts, while 11 counties reapportioned districts through an advisory committee, similar to Yolo County. Attached is additional information from Common Cause on SB 1108 and independent redistricting committees (Att. A and B, respectively). |