14-ADOPTING ORDER TO REDISTRICT POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF PARISCITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET
Submittal Date:
Originating Department:
Presented By:
Agenda Item No.:
08/OS/2011
Council Date:
Legal
W. Kent McIlyar
14.
08/22/2011
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Public hearing, deliberate and possibly act on a Resolution adopting Findings of Fact and an Order
calling for the Redistricting of Political Boundaries and City Council Districts within the City of Paris in
accordance with the 2010 Census Data.
POLICY ISSUE(S):
Legal.
BACKGROUND:
City Council engaged the services of Allison, Bass & Associates to perform an initial assessment of the
City's existing political boundaries based upon population data from the 2010 Census. At the City
Council meeting of June 9, 2011, Mr. Bass presented statistics to the City Council informing them that
based on 2010 Census data and existing Council District lines, the City of Paris had a total maximum
deviation of 34.37%. Any total maximum deviation in excess of 10% is presumptively unconstitutional
under Federal Law. Based upon the findings, Mr. Bass said that redistricting would be required for the
City of Paris.
At the City Council meeting of June 9, 2011, City Council gave direction to Mr. Bass to develop the
redistricting documents, a plan, and a map.
Adopting Findings of Fact and an Order calling for the Redistricting of Political Boundaries is required
for the redistricting process and submission to the Department of Justice.
BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
EXHIBITS:
Resolution
ACTION:
BUDGET INFO:
❑ Financial Report ❑ Minute Order
Expense
$
❑ Department Report Z Resolution
Budgeted Amt.
$
❑ Presentation ❑ Ordinance
y'I'D Actual
$
Z Public Hearing ❑ Other
Acct. Name
Acct. Number
FISCAL NOTES:
REV[EWED AND APPROVED BY:
Z Administration E City Clerk ❑ Community Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire
❑ Municipal Court E Legal ❑ Library ❑ Police ❑ Eng./Public Works ❑ Utilities
City of Paris Revised 2/04/08
99
Draft
S:attorney/reswork/current/redistricting order 8-22-11
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS;
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND AN ORDER CALLING FOR THE
REDISTRICTING OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF PARIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
2010 CENSUS DATA ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU
AND STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND SECTION 8 OF THE CITY CHARTER;
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID ORDER AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST TO SAME; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Paris has previously retained the firm of
Allison, Bass & Associates, L.L.P. to conduct an Initial Assessment of existing political
boundaries and City Council districts of the City of Paris as a result of the issuance of
Census data by the United States Census Bureau; and,
WHEREAS, the result of said assessment indicates the district lines for said existing
City Council districts must be adjusted in accordance with Section 8 of the City Charter,
State and Federal law, and the U.S. Voting Rights Act; and,
WHEREAS, the City's consultant has called for the issuance of an official order of the
City Council directing the redistricting of said political boundaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PARIS, TEXAS, THAT:
Section 1. The findings set out in the preamble to this resolution are hereby in
all things approved.
Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts Findings of Fact regarding the need to
redistrict its political boundaries following publication of the 2010 Census data and hereby
authorizes and directs the issuance of an Order calling for Redistricting of Political
Boundaries, and does further authorize the Mayor to execute said Order and the City Clerk
to attest to same, a copy of said Findings of Fact and Order is attached hereto and
incorporated herein for all purposes as Exhibit "A."
Section 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage.
100
PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of August, 2011.
A.J. Hashmi, M.D., Mayor
ATTEST:
Janice Ellis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
W. Kent McIlyar, City Attorney
101
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING POLITICAL BOUNDARIES
OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS
FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF 2010 CENSUS DATA
AND
ORDER FOR REDISTRICTING OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES
On the 22nd day of August 2011, the City Council of the City Paris, Texas met in a called session,
having posted notice of said meeting in compliance with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code.
The City of Paris, City Council has previously retained the firm of Allison, Bass & Associates,
LLP, of Austin, Texas, to conduct an Initial Assessment of existing political boundaries of the City of Paris,
following the issuance of census data by the United States Census Bureau. Attached to this Order, and
incorporated herein for all purposes by reference, is a copy of the initial assessment conducted by Allison,
Bass & Associates, LLP (Exhibit " I This assessment is based upon PL94-171 data, as required by
federal law, and is further based upon information provided to Allison, Bass & Associates, LLP by the
Texas Legislative Council, the Texas Association of Counties and by the City of Paris, Texas.
Based upon this information, the City of Paris has a total maximum deviation of 34.37%. The
term total maximum deviation is determined by dividing the total population of the City of Paris by the
number of city wards to determine an ideal ward size. The actual population of each ward is then
determined, based upon the official population data contained within the census count, as defined by Public
Law 94-171. The actual population of each ward is compared to the ideal ward size and a range of
deviation by percentage is determined. Any tota] maximum deviation in excess of ten percent (10%) is
presumptively unconstitutional under established federal law.
As a result, of this determination, the City of Paris, Texas has a constitutional duty to redistrict its
political boundaries to achieve "One-Person-One-Vote" numerical balance between the Couiicil wards at a
legally acceptable margin of deviation, and to make such changes as are necessary to comply with the
Voting Rights Act and applicable state and federal law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJLIDUGED and DECREED that the Council Members of the
City of Paris, Texas find that it has a legal duty to redistrict. The public interest will be served by redrawing
the existing political boundaries of the City of Paris in such a manner as to comply with applicable state and
federal law. The City Council of the City of Paris hereby enters the following findings of fact and of law:
1. The City of Paris has a tota] maximum deviation, as defined in this order, of 3437%.
- ~ 102
2. Any total maximum deviation in excess of ten percent (10%) is presumptively
unconstitutional under federal ]aw.
3. The City of Paris, acting by and through its City Council, is hereby resolved to
immediately undertake such necessary and appropriate action to accomplish redistricting
of existing city wards, and any incidental modification of existing, consolidated, or newly
created election wards necessary to accomplish such redistricting.
4. The City Council shall henceforth convene in open meetings, duly posted in accordance
with the Texas Open Meetings Act, to take up and consider one ar more alternative plans
for the legal redistricting of the City of Paris.
5. After due consideration of one or more alternative plans, the City of Paris shall adopt a plan
deemed to satisfy legal requirements, and which best suits the legitimate governmental
needs of the City of Paris.
6. Such plan shall, after adoption, be submitted to the United States Department of Justice for
review as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1973, otherwise known as the Voting Rights Act.
7. Only upon preclearance shall such plan, or a plan subsequently modified to obtain
preclearance, be implemented for elections in the year 2012 and thereafter, ar until a
suitable substitute has been lawfully adopted.
Signed this 22nd day of August, 2011.
A.J. Hashmi, M.D., Mayor
ATTEST:
Janice Ellis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
W. Kent McIlyar
- 1 103
INITIAL ASSESSMENT
OF THE C1TY 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 12b Street
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 482-0701
(512) 480-0902
Lawna allison-bass.com
Should vou determine that maps depicting various political
boundaries are iacorrect, please advise us immediatelv.
Initial Assessment
Page ] of 9
►I 1 11
EXHIgIT
104
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 Cily, 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 e]ect representatives from special member districts, or
geographic regions of the political jurisdiction in which the candidates for representative
office must reside.
Therefore, following each federa( 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, schoo) district or other political entity electing representative officers
from geographic regions of the sub-division, even those with a rather insignificant overalt
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 oT9
- - 105
ln Cities inhabited by a significant minority population, the need to create one or
more City Councii 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 rnay occur in the PL94-171 data obtained from the United States Census Bureau.
Initiai Assessment
Page 3 of 9
106
. . ~~64G ~ _ ~ ' . ♦ E t No 1 r • L '
~ f cnRd ,~-p°^(p- ~j ~ /~_9/N,tt ~ C+ ,rv~ ~~~f`c ~
. s • li r ~
~ ~ ~ r 4' E c y•coR ~ ` .t i ,~(~i~~uJe~lLr.c~? <1 ~ T . . . ~ ' ~
...e
oled~'~ fj~~~AAt499: . u~ ! i~ ~ ~
~ 9 ~CaRaa270D e • ~a 4~
3 ' • + S .,I .
~ .
~UO ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ , , Pa^ , 0 pnp3,
3 •~t-1, ' I C ' . I ~ `o/, CO~ ~
s X~ rC. o l~T • •
~ '~c . . GoRd32505 • pb
lake~4Rtl ~ . ~?L. 4 .e~ • ° - O~;' ,ft • .~t a I
~~t Wi. . 'm ' ` ,e . • _ ' o
` ~ ` {4 s ~s I . . i. • 4
~ ~ ' ` ~ • ~ • ~ ~
{ i ~ i"°~.. ` p ~Y~ ~i ~ ~ • .
o 271 _ ~ C~r ' + ffi~~` ~ Fr
• ~ • ot 9 ~ ~ , • , ~ 1 5 • 'i i _ E'c V •
gq0 ~ O ' ~ • ~ . q a'~"`
o ~ 1j ~ e ~ ~ ~ ' • _ •a~w. - . ~J ' y~
a 4 . ' ~,J ~~4° ~ ~ - s' . u , • m o . o ~ ° ~
• o ~ ~!o f ' e t~. t~ u° • ' z H ~ e . ~ • _ ~ ~''~,F. ` •
` ~ . + J. Rd ~
fihellon Mil Rd
'CF Abnk Ln
' , ~ ~e _ ~ Bentwoodld' ~ C o ~I
' 6 ~ E ~@'Ao 7t H ~ 81utt ~
I ci'~• • I ~ • . 1 ~Oo .e ~ 5 oERE
•''CoRd 91700 e ~ 4 ~1C .ya#"~joo- B ~ . y N , . ~ ~ ` ,
~ TM~• ~ ~ Hf too B ~ , ` • ~»r e ~•u
~86 Cbmeii Nd p7 6~r5 739, e ~ ~ , o I ~
OekS~ • , P
~ ~ wc.~te~~,
~ oP2g6'' D•~ H~lngD~ i
~BO ~ Z W P~ak, 51 yyHrE on51 g Z ~ E,e PlneMilRtl
. ~ ~ ~r..' ~ 1 ~ ren~ ~r~ ~.~uC. ~N L '`y m g S ~~l A 5 ~
f
~ Cmo Isi 3 ) w ~ °
w f, ~ '-tj&. ~ i ~uk vlwv Dr o 0
;~i Z~ _ _ ~ 1 qy z s
i ' /y N 71-' WChertVSt S~Fn` t Jm~ p• ~f~~ I~ ~j umerRd ~~~y lISIT YBZ E.
~
S 1 . ( i^1~~; S£~ ~r ~ i P,InaBIJ151 m EPl~si A Z'. .
G n,m.si.} 82
,.+i L" "T ' ' ~ 6 ~ : I ' W ♦ ~ ~ Ay C
.~FM'7510 m5l ~ WKWfmsn It , N• HWDaMdI / , N s C~ ~ 6
,~`w` j; N~ "'F~ 1 l L`~'~ "'~ic ~5~°,..:~-•.:F.S N i" o~s~ v oN
a
~82
Fr s
Otl Bonfam R YsonSl
+ ~~bo ~ ~ , ~ + m b JBlefs n
S Rd ~ y ~ e "'~1~M .iA~ / • v~r
~
h Q
C rBS ` a ~ LLI
voroRa - e a m . ~ r
n~d~' r~ c • °a • -
e~~Re -
• ~ ,.._t„_. ` ~~(1 • ~N,~,.°~,~•--~
~ •
' ~ yPro~ks\o . yy e e ~+1 ` 1brk5l'
F~ ~ ~ •ti ,c. t~ - ~ . N
SE 21~~ad~d
C C • , ~ ~ ~ 1 ~t . caazzsoo ~ae2aso~ °~6~ . •
CoR 11920 a d~
oJ~ ~ • _ • e f . • a
` T 271
. • e , t ~ t . , ~ ; ~ ~ o e . ~ . 1 ~ Gsywi
\ ~ • I° y • . f e ~ 6,.
J
e ok ` o ~ ~ - • . ~ ~ •
. 24
t, ~a~'^.' ~ .~a ~ ~y ` C c~~~ • 9 ~f` . , ~
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ • ` _ . , r . .
a i 3a 4 ` F •
..('1 ~ ~ c , f.; ~r sl a • f , ' i' ` Dy,eYho'
~ d
~R
cote . • ° ~ ,
~ C d i[BO ~ ~Voter Districts
LM._._,1 2
~3
~4
~5
~6
~7
City of Paris
Lamar County
Existing Plan
Voter Districts
N
0 0.5 1 2
1 1 i 1 i
Miles
Allison, Bass & Associates, LLP
Date: 05/11/2011
Data Source: 2010 Census
- - 10'7
TAB 2
INITIAL SUMMARY FINDINGS REGARDING NUMERICAL BALANCE:
Def nitions of the various ratios, formula and procedures utilized in the ana(ysis
of City population are provided below. These ratios, formula and procedures have been
(argely developed in case ]aw in the field of redistricting, together witlt generally
recognized methods of sociological study.
NOTE: The Census Data contains Prison inmate populations, and while this
institutionalized population should be included in al) 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. [n 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 ] 0%.
lnitia! Assessment
Page 4 of 9
108
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.
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.
lnitial AssessmeN
Page 5 of 9
109
City of Paris Voter Districts
Analysis of Population in the Paris Voter Districts based on 2010 Census data
Commissioner
Precinct
Actual
Population
Ideal
Population
Absolute
Deviation
Relative
Deviation
District 1
3,175
3,596
-421
-11.71°/a
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 S
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
iaeai ropuiaiion is aerinea as (totai aistnct popuiation divitled by the number ot 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).
34.37% Tota) Maximum Deviation is the sum of the relative deviations (90)
of the smallest and largest district, (ignoring and signs).
- - 1iU
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 rea]
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. lt 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 e]ection 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 accuraxe by local of~icials. 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 block:s to avoid any discrepancy
between the actual boundary in use and the o{ficial 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 geater 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 maatimum
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
III
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 populatio», 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 historical ly 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.
Frapnenting 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 lndian, Pacific Islander, Other or Multi-
racial categories in excess of 3% aggregate will also be mapped.
Initia] Assessment
Page 7 of 9
11,21
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 dish-icts (VTDs) follow census block boundaxies. In many cases, City
wards had been previously drawn in a mar►ner that did not follow a census block boundary.
T'his 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. Nowever, 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.
lnilial Assessment
Page 8 of 9
11%'31
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 eaacting but rewarding
process.
Initial Assessmert
Page 9 of 9
114
Ethnic Background of Total Population
Anglo
Black
Amer.
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Hawaii/
Pac.ls.
Other
Multi
Race
Prec.
Total
% of
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
14J2%
District 7
3,350
248
44
72
180
1
1
68
3,964
15.75%
County
Total
16,059
5,813
296
222
2,068
1
21
691
25,171
100.00%
% of
Cou nty
63.80%
2109Y
1.18%
0.88%
8.22%
0.00Y
0.08%
2.7590
100.00Y
Ethnic Background as a% of Total Population
Anglo
Black
Amer.lnd.
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
45.08q
40.21%
1.11%
0.00%
10.23%
0.00Y
0.04%
333%
100.003a
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%
1.029'0
1.449/.
8.41'Ya
0.00%
0.17%
2.63%
100.00Y
District 5
64.45%
21.58Y
1.43%
0.32%
8.67%
0.00%
0.00'Y
3.55qa
100.00q
District 6
74.66%
13.46%
132%
1.43%
6.42%
0.00%
0.13%
2.56%
100.00Y
District 7
84.51%
6.26%
1,11%
1.829~
4.54'Y
0.03%
0.03%
1.72%
100.00%
Ethnic Background of Voting Age Population
Anglo
Black
Amer.
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Hawaii/
Pac.ls.
Other
Multi
Race
Prec.
Total
%of
County
District 1
913
1,091
29
4
197
0
4
43
2,281
12.09'Y
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
14.749'0
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
Total
12,883
4,106
230
167
1,126
0
18
344
18,874
100.00%
% of
County
68.26%
21.75%
1.22%
0.88%
5.97%
01 0%
0.10%
1.82%
300.00%
Ethnic Background as a% of Voting Age Population
Anglo
Black
Amer.lnd.
Asian
Hlspanlc
Haw/Pac
Other
Multi
%Total
District 1
40.03%
47.83%
1.27%
0.18%
8.64%
0.00%
0.18%
1.89%
100.003;
Distritt 2
48.30%
4031'Y
1.21%
0.003'0
7.22%
0.00%
0.05%
2.91%
100.0095
District 3
71.21%
18.12%
1.119'0
0.65%
7.26%
0.00%
0.07Y
1.58%
100.00%
District 4
70.39qo
19.11%
1.06%
1.36%
6.15%
0.00%
0.17%
1.76%
SOO.OOY
District 5
69.32%
20.52%
1.499'0
0.42%
6.12Yo
0.00%
0.00%
2.12%
100.00Y
Dirtrict 6
78.41%
12.50%
1.36%
133%
4.45%
0.00%
0.18%
1.76%
SOO.OOY
District 7
8734%
5.63%
1.05%
1.76%
3.07%
0.00%
0.03%
1.12%
100.00%
11.5