04-Information from Bass and Associates regarding 2010 Census data
INITIAL ASSESSMENT
OF THE CITY OF
PARIS, TEXAS
FOR PURPOSES OF REDISTRICTING EVALUATION
Prepared by
ALLISON, BASS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
The A.O. Watson House
402 West 12th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 482-0701
(512) 480-0902
Law(c~ lison-bass.com
Should you determine that maps depicting various political
boundaries are incorrect, please advise us immediately.
Initial Assessment
Page I of 9
TAB 1
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The Initial Assessment is a narrative analysis of the data contained in the PL94-
171 files provided by the Census Bureau, together with an explanation of the impact such
data may have upon the City of Paris in light of state and federal law.
Following the Supreme Court decision in Avery v. Midland City, 390 U.S. 474; 88 S.
Ct. 1114, 20 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1968), Texas City Councils have been required to make a
periodic assessment of their political boundaries to determine whether the boundaries retain
"one-person-one-vote" balance. This requirement is now carried forward by statutory
requirement in Article 42.001 of the Texas Election Code, and has been extended in turn to
virtually all political bodies that elect representatives from special member districts, or
geographic regions of the political jurisdiction in which the candidates for representative
office must reside.
Therefore, following each federal census, each Texas County, city, school district or
other political entity electing representative officers from geographic regions of the sub-
division should conduct an assessment of existing political boundaries. It should be
carefully noted that simple comparisons between the City population of 2000 and 2010, or
even a more sophisticated analysis of the urban and less populated areas of the City might
not reflect the true extent of population "change" each City has experienced over the last ten
years. "Change" may not directly correlate to "different" or "new" population. For
example, existing populations within a City will, over time, move considerably within the
City, rendering existing political boundaries constitutionally questionable over a ten-year
span. In small population jurisdictions, the movement of a single large family from a one
area of town to another across political boundaries may have a significant impact on the
obligation of that City to redistrict. As a very general rule of thumb, any statistical change
of population between the 2000 and 2010 census more than 3%, plus or minus, will indicate
a potential need for redistricting in order to retain numerical balance between the governing
body's representative districts. Only in rare circumstances will a City experiencing a
population change in excess of 3% avoid the need for rather extensive reapportionment of
the City Council ward lines. However, any assumption that a population change of less than
3% will not require reapportionment is ill advised. Populations will shift within a City over
time. Every City, city, school district or other political entity electing representative officers
from geographic regions of the sub-division, even those with a rather insignificant overall
population change, should carefully examine actual population demographics relative to
their existing political lines to determine the need for reapportionment.
Demographic data is depicted in chart and graphic form for both total population as
well as voting age population. While "One-Person-One-Vote" balance between the City
Council Wards is based upon the entire City population, the availability of voting age
populations is also important in two respects.
Initial Assessment
Page 2 of 9
In Cities inhabited by a significant minority population, the need to create one or
more City Council Wards that assure minority representation requires utilization of voting
age information. While the actual political boundaries will be based upon total population,
the viability of the resulting Ward in terms of the ability to elect requires analysis of voting
age population.
With this general overview, the following sections of this Initial Assessment will
evaluate the City of Paris's political boundaries and attempt to determine whether or not the
City Council should undertake reapportionment. Our assessment will point out areas of
potential conflict with state and federal law, and will also suggest areas that may be
considered for purposes of cost effectiveness and voter/resident convenience.
All computer generated matters contained in this report, including statistical ratios or
formulas, are derived from information taken directly from the Public Law 94-171 files of
the United States Census Bureau. Allison, Bass and Associates, LLP is not responsible for
errors that may occur in the PL94-171 data obtained from the United States Census Bureau.
Initial Assessment
Page 3 of 9
kg~
• f „p. C; ~1~ o ~JQ FM1490 • . • ~5~ . • ~a p
ao i - ~Cl l,• a 'c°Rd 62200 _ ^l
G.R;32505 O'd Lake C I
.I
14
'IV
•I, In, J^ ~(bws ~{moo ~Y.~t ~ J
I < ~ C rf
271 ar r sec~_« s~ f~ ~4 ~
litJ~ U J° Rtl ri
• u o' 1 • in n r
>'C 1.0_... _k • 4• l4 • • o . Shaeon nN ^Rd A t . kM rr is Ln~
c . F S eP'°~~c Banfw -d:r. .d p~~~Ce'.;
Oeyn i ~9~ _ 1-IV Ho~ans Blurt
F• ~~m' • °•b p, l'• • / S. otl Rd 111.• m
•f' U I• eM • ,.f" NW Loa 2 6 . •N ' 1i• , a 1
'1. IL
.t mF a •o~
f'C°Rd 31100 "`i` <o F' •0 I,V
• G " rl.' .l ' GbmeM Rd p7B6MS'~'139, ._..t i Y 1~ .I _ r
\ 86 - - a
c -.5 Y , WCenter < i . o NE ° J oak sf '
a
~o WPwk~si WH a SI g ro N lu, FI S mi P- Mil Rd
C-pbel, sl. ; }in 4w' w Ill tak•v aw or ~t~o
• ? 2 1 j Y~' ? K w~ll~$. T- m r7-'S • ) ° eJ S e uS Hwy az E
_ (7► WChedy 5,$ ur 2 I h 'n .'a r Im'y'a Z' lamer Rtl - aa•~•ti
PIne61WSf Z EPnc°St p 'i • Z• - 82
Graham SI _ z : r gyp` m 7
•oo lam rAv / m , F1.. .tom°i 6
,IFM 1510 US S2 Z w nh Sl' 3 W Krllman U. I w Hubbard St • lc 12'1 • t
e N m J m oe.,.n or .G ~p ow la a =T
Rd
82 a q -
Okl eonMm-~Rd~ ~~''~-_--d•_ EJac ka° sc- rn p
a{{ _
io my,~o .Q 3 J 1_( oaJaiers nqo -L m r, p~ o
t f I CBS J • _ . mm • z' LL i =
FwIdRd
k6 • ` York Sl\ • m. t
4 _ R
SE 28
+ r .
Rd 2250 1
I a
1t ` C~d22600 Co R¢`71320 C,
rvl - . J•~`•_~ ' 0 Rd.114 Ott _ . • • , ti . 4 271
19 !n o\
~1~\i,~t. b. • a7.t "I o) 24 i j~°o ml • s , ,R'
xi- J , i 3~~ • T \o • . , ti. Oy
1 ~1
• i, {L a . C.N. ®1e
Voter Districts N
2 City of Paris 0 0.5 1 2
3 Lamar County I 1 I i I
(-~I 4 Miles
Existing Plan
5 Voter Districts
6 Allison, Bass & Associates, LLP
Date: 05/11/2011
7 Data Source: 2010 Census
TAB 2
INITIAL SUMMARY FINDINGS REGARDING NUMERICAL BALANCE:
Definitions of the various ratios, formula and procedures utilized in the analysis
of City population are provided below. These ratios, formula and procedures have been
largely developed in case law in the field of redistricting, together with generally
recognized methods of sociological study.
NOTE: The Census Data contains Prison inmate populations, and while this
institutionalized population should be included in all gross population numbers used to
determine City eligibility for state or federal programs, grants or revenue sharing, there
are good reasons to exclude this population from "one-person-one-vote" calculations.
Because many institutionalized inmates are detained under felony convictions, or are
being held for deportation for violation of immigration laws, these individuals are
typically not eligible to vote under Texas law, and are most commonly registered to vote,
if at all, in the City of their true residence. As such, large populations of inmates held
within the state or federal prison systems physically located within the municipal
boundaries, or under public or private contract in City facilities, are not generally counted
in the determination of Total Maximum Deviation, or for other "one-person-one-vote"
determinations for City redistricting. For purposes of the Initial Assessment, raw data
has been acquired from the City and/or the Department of Criminal Justice regarding
prison populations. In subsequent census data releases, group housing data may reveal
more specific information, but at this time, we are deducting prison populations from
City population totals in order to arrive at a true "one-person-one-vote" analysis, and to
avoid potential imbalances in population that might result from inclusion of prison
population in Ward totals. Smaller facilities holding persons convicted of both felony
and misdemeanor offenses, juvenile facilities, or facilities holding individuals pending
resolution of pending criminal charges are included within the population counts for the
City, as reflected in the census data.
Please review the information contained under Tab 2 carefully. Please pay
particular attention to the following:
1. Please consider the Absolute Deviation in terms of population between the
Actual Population of each City Council Ward and the Ideal Population.
Remember that the ideal population of each ward is the total City population,
divided by the number of single member districts.
2. Next, consider the Relative Deviation, expressed as a percentage, of the
Actual Population of each Ward as compared to the Ideal Population of each
Ward.
3. Redistricting will be necessary to comply with 'One-Person-One-Vote'
standards if the Total Maximum Deviation between the largest Ward and the
smallest Ward (in terms of population) exceeds 10%.
Initial Assessment
Page 4 of 9
4. Therefore, carefully examine the Total Maximum Deviation calculation. If
that number is more than 10%, the City of Paris is legally obligated to make
changes in its political boundaries to re-balance the population to more equal
terms.
5. If the Total Maximum Deviation exceeds approximately 7%, you may want
to consider redistricting in order to re-balance your boundaries, although you
are not legally required to do so at this time. However, with only a few
percentage points separating the City of Paris from the 10% maximum
standard, you would be prudent to consider redistricting at this time. A suit
can be filed at any time the statistical evidence suggests a City's political
boundaries are no longer constitutionally balanced.
6. If the Total Maximum Deviation is below 5%, you are generally safe from
legal challenge on a "one-person-one-vote" basis for the next few years.
Initial Assessment
Page 5 of 9
City of Paris Voter Districts
Analysis of Population in the Paris Voter Districts based on 2010 Census data
Commissioner Actual Ideal Absolute Relative
Precinct Population Population Deviation Deviation
District 1 3,175 3,596 -421 -11.71%
District 2 2,795 3,596 -801 -22.27%
District 3 3,728 3,596 132 3.67%
District 4 4,031 3,596 435 12.10%
District 5 3772 3,596 176 4.89%
District 6 3,706 3,596 110 3.06%
District 7 3,964 3,596 368 10.23%
Total Population 25,171
Ideal Population is defined as (total district population divided by the number of districts). Absolute and Relative
Deviations are difference in actual and ideal.
-801 to 435 Absolute Range is the spread in absolute deviation from the smallest precinct
to the largest.
-22.27% to Relative Range is the spread in relative deviation from the smallest precinct
12.10% to the largest.
Absolute Mean Deviation is the average deviation, which is calculated by
349 adding all the absolute deviations (ignoring and signs) and dividing by 7.
Relative Mean Deviation is the average deviation, which is calculated by adding
9.71% all the relative deviations (ignoring and signs) and dividing by 7.
Standard Deviation of Population is the square root of the sum of the squares
156.75 of all the absolute deviations divided by 7.
Standard Deviation of Relative Deviations is the square root of the sum of the
4.36% squares of all the relative deviations divided by 7.
Total Absolute Deviation is the sum of all relative deviations (ignoring and
67.94% signs).
Total Maximum Deviation is the sum of the relative deviations (90)
34.379'0 of the smallest and largest district, (ignoring and signs).
TAB 3
MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS
We have extracted from the Census data a summary of each City Ward. Prior to
the 1990 census, previously existing election precinct boundaries were often described by
non-physical boundaries, such a survey lines, or "metes and bounds" descriptions of real
property. Since the computerized census first implemented in 1990 was based upon
topological maps, it was necessary to "approximate" those boundaries that were not defined
by a physical boundary such as a road, watercourse, or other physical boundary. These
approximations were described as Voter Tabulation Districts, or VTDs. It should be noted
that the VTD was only an approximation of the actual voting boundaries, since Public Law
94-171 requires that the VTD utilize census blocks as its component parts.
Texas Counties are responsible for the structure of county election precincts. These
county election precincts should recognize city ward boundaries in cities having a
population of more than 10,000. In 1990, most counties adopted election boundaries based
on census blocks, but VTDs are still encountered. The boundaries utilized in this Initial
Assessment are derived from the Texas Legislative Council, and have been, to the extent
possible, confirmed as accurate by local officials. However, some counties continue to have
election precinct boundaries defined in a manner that is incompatible with census block
based mapping. Therefore, in some cases, you may find a discrepancy between the actual
boundary in use, and the census block based mapping boundaries used in this report. All
future election precincts should be based upon census blocks to avoid any discrepancy
between the actual boundary in use and the official boundary description maintained by the
Texas Legislative Council.
As a general rule, where the total minority percentage exceeds 25% of the total
population, there is ample justification to create at least one, or where the minority
population is sufficient, more than one City Council Ward that contains a potential voting
majority of minority residents. In concentrations greater than 40%, consideration should be
given to creating at least one City Council Ward with a potential voting majority of minority
residents, with the possibility of any "excess population" being used to impact one or more
other Wards. Where the total minority concentration exceeds 40%, the issue of "Packing"
becomes a consideration, meaning that minority populations cannot be "packed" into a
single Ward, but must be allowed to influence as many Wards as the total minority
population warrants without efforts to fragment otherwise contiguous concentrations of
minority population.
Minority representation must not be diluted, and where possible, a voting majority of
minority residents should be created if sufficient minority populations existing within a
reasonably compact and contiguous geographic area. In order to achieve the maximum
minority representation within the demographic and geographic limitations in existence, it
will be necessary to determine which City Ward, and which census blocks within each
Ward, contain the highest percentage of minority population and to take such reasonable
measures as will insure the highest possible minority voice in City government. To achieve
this goal, some attention must be paid to voting age minority residents. In order to create a
Initial Assessment
Page 6 of 9
viable voting majority of ethnic, race or language minority voters, it is necessary to attain a
voting age population within at least one City Council Ward of approximately 55% or
better. In order to accomplish this high number of voting age population, a total population
figure in excess of 60% is typically required. This is due to the statistically younger
populations in most minority categories, which yield lower numbers of voting age residents,
and in historically lower voting age turnout in minority communities of interest.
A determination of whether or not the minority populations in these areas could be
joined in a single Ward, or perhaps concentrated in an effort to maximize minority impact
upon elections is difficult to assess without a more detailed evaluation of historical voting
patterns, racial demographics, and the realities of political boundaries.
When taken with the numerical imbalances that must be addressed, it would appear
that if at all possible, minority populations might be concentrated in at least one City
Council Ward to the degree possible to achieve an acceptable potential minority
concentration. Typically, the City Council Ward with the largest minority concentration
prior to redrawing lines is the best candidate for any alternative plan, but other possible
constructions of Ward lines might well result in a favorable racial profile.
Fragmenting minority population concentrations must be avoided. Any
modification of political boundaries to accomplish compliance with the requirements of the
Voting Rights Act must be carefully considered.
Maps for Hispanic and Black populations are provided in this assessment. Other
Non-Anglo Populations, such as Asian, American Indian, Pacific Islander, Other or Multi-
racial categories in excess of 3% aggregate will also be mapped.
Initial Assessment
Page 7 of 9
Ethnic Background of Total Population
Anglo Black Amer. Asian Hispanic Hawaii/ Other Multi Prec. %of
Indian Pac. Is. Race Total County
District 1 1,163 1,495 40 5 363 0 5 104 3,175 12.61%
District 2 1,260 1,124 31 0 286 0 1 93 2,795 11.10%
District 3 2,477 764 37 22 335 0 2 91 3,728 14.81%
District 4 2,611 869 41 58 339 0 7 106 4,031 16.01%
District 5 2,431 814 54 12 327 0 0 134 3,772 14.99%
District 6 2,767 499 49 53 238 0 5 95 3,706 14.72%
District 7 3,350 248 44 72 180 1 1 68 3,964 15.75%
County 16,059 5,813 296 222 2,068 1 21 691 25,171 100.00%
Total
% of 63.80% 23.09% 1.18% 0.88% 8.22% 0.00% 0.08% 2.75% 100.00%
County 1 1 i i i i I
Ethnic Background as a % of Total Population
Anglo Black Amer. Ind. Asian Hispanic Haw/Pac Other Multi %Total
District 1 36.63% 47.09% 1.26% 0.16% 11.43% 0.00% 0.16% 3.28% 100.00%
District 2 45.08% 40.21% 1.11% 0.00% 10.23% 0.00% 0.04% 3.33% 100.00%
District 3 66.44% 20.49% 0.99% 0.59% 8.99% 0.00% 0.05% 2.44% 100.00%
District 4 64.77% 21.56% 1.02% 1.44% 8.41% 0.00% 0.17% 2.63% 100.00%
District 5 64.45% 21.58% 1.43% 0.32% 8.67% 0.00% 0.00% 3.55% 100.00%
District 6 74.66% 13.46% 1.32% 1.43% 6.42% 0.00% 0.13% 2.56% 100.00%
District 7 84.51% 6.26% 1.11% 1.82% 4.54% 0.03% 0.03% 1.72% 100.00%
Ethnic Background of Voting Age Population
Anglo Black Amer. Asian Hispanic Hawaii/ Other Multi Prec. % of
Indian Pac. Is. Race Total County
District 1 913 1,091 29 4 197 0 4 43 2,281 12.09%
District 2 997 832 25 0 149 0 1 60 2,064 10.94%
District 3 1,981 504 31 18 202 0 2 44 2,782 14.74%
District 4 2,118 575 32 41 185 0 5 53 3,009 15.94%
District 5 1,959 580 42 12 173 0 0 60 2,826 14.97%
District 6 2,183 348 38 37 124 0 5 49 2,784 14.75%
District 7 2,732 176 33 55 96 0 1 35 3,128 16.57%
County 12,883 4,106 230 167 1,126 0 18 344 18,874 100.00%
Total
% of 68.26% 21.75% 1.22% 0.88% 5.97% 0.00% 0.10% 1.82% 100.00%
County
Ethnic Background as a % of Voting Age Population
Anglo Black Amer. Ind. Asian Hispanic Haw/Pac Other Multi %Total
District 1 40.03% 47.83% 1.27% 0.18% 8.64% 0.00% 0.18% 1.89% 100.00%
District 2 48.30% 40.31% 1.21% 0.00% 7.22% 0.00% 0.05% 2.91% 100.00%
District 3 71.21% 18.12% 1.11% 0.65% 7.26% 0.00% 0.07% 1.58% 100.00%
District 4 70.39% 19.11% 1.06% 1.36% 6.15% 0.00% 0.17% 1.76% 100.00%
District 5 69.32% 20.52% 1.49% 0.42% 6.12% 0.00% 0.00% 2.12% 100.00%
District 6 78.41% 12.50% 1.36% 1.33% 4.45% 0.00% 0.18% 1.76% 100.00%
District 7 87.34% 5.63% 1.05% 1.76% 3.07% 0.00% 0.03% 1.12% 100.00%
TAB 4
GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING
Some attention should be given to "straightening" political boundaries into more
uniform shape. In some cases, certain boundaries may be altered to use a more commonly
understood or recognized physical boundary in lieu of a poorly identified or recognized
boundary. Public Law 94-171, which directed the Census Bureau to develop a uniform
mapping and demographic profiling approach for use by small computers, required that all
voter tabulation districts (VTDs) follow census block boundaries. In many cases, City
wards had been previously drawn in a manner that did not follow a census block boundary.
This required the State of Texas, acting in conjunction with the State Data Center and the
Texas Legislative Council, to move the actual voting district boundary to coincide with a
nearby census block boundary for tabulation purposes only. The resulting VTD was no
longer "actual," but an approximation referred to as a "pseudo-voting district."
Every reasonable effort has been made to conform the pseudo voting district to
actual political boundaries. However, due to the nature of the available data base, and the
requirements of Public Law 94-171, there may be occasions in which the pseudo voting
districts, or the resulting lines between City Council Wards, are different from those that
actually exist. Again, the use of the pseudo voting district was for tabulation purposes only,
and any apparent difference between actual and apparent political lines should be considered
as minimal. However, since all later census counts will be undertaken upon the census
blocks, there could be a valid argument that a necessity to alter current election district
boundaries to match the census block format exists. Under these circumstances, new
political lines will be required to avoid conflict with census block lines that do not match
current political area definitions. While matching census blocks to actual political lines
would not, in and of itself, generally support a decision to reapportion under the
circumstances that exist in the City of Paris, there is a justifiable combination of factors that
would support a reapportionment decision. These factors would include:
1. Redrawing election precincts to increase voter convenience.
2. Harmonizing actual political lines with pseudo voting districts based upon
census blocks.
3. Redrawing all lines to achieve "one-person-one-vote" deviations of the smallest
possible percentage.
Initial Assessment
Page 8 of 9
CONCLUSION
Redistricting should be viewed as an opportunity for streamlining City
organization, and a chance to address as many issues as possible to achieve greater
participation and involvement in City government. This is the time to plan for future
growth, anticipate costs of government operations, and to involve the public in the process
of City government. We look forward to working with you in this exacting but rewarding
process.
Initial Assessment
Page 9 of 9