08-APPROVE ORDINANCE ADOPTING REDISTRICTING PLANCITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET
Submittal Date:
Originating Department:
Presented By:
Agenda Item No.:
9-7-2011
Council Date:
Finance
Gene Anderson
8.
9-12-11
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Motion to approve a ordinance adopting a redistricting plan for the City of Paris Council districts.
POLICY ISSUE(S):
Voter representation.
Following every decennial census, all political jurisdictions are required substantiate their existing
electoral district boundaries or make adjustments to accommodate demographic changes since the last
census. Census data for use in redistricting was released in March and the redistricting process has to be
completed by 2012. Following a public hearing, the City Council will take up for consideration and
possible action one or more alternative plans for the redistricting of City Council districts. The City
Council reserves the right to take any and all appropriate action regarding the redistricting of the City of
Paris's political boundaries, including the acceptance of new boundaries for the City Council districts,
modification of any boundaries, and/or tabling the pending proposals for later consideration and/or
action.
The Public is invited to attend and participate in this meeting. Those wishing to address the City
Council should sign a speakers request form provided for this purpose. Each speaker will be asked to
come before the Council, to identify themselves, their address, and the City Council district they reside
within. Comments should be reasonably concise and to the point. Questions will be answered but the
Council will not permit argument or excessive discussion of any particular topia The hearing will be
conducted under rules of judicial decorum. A tape recording of the hearing will be made of this
hearing. Your comments will be transcribed and included with the submission of the proposed changes
to existing City Council districts to the United States Department of Justice.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
None
EXHIBITS:
Resolution
ACTION:
BUDGET INFO:
❑ Financial Report ❑ Minute Order
Expense
$NA
❑ Department Report ❑ Resolution
Budgeted Amt.
$NA
❑ Presentation ~ Ordinance
yTD Actual
$NA
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other
Acct. Name
NA
Acct. Number
NA
FISCAL NOTES:
None
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
~ Administration Z City Clerk ❑ Communiry Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire
❑ Municipal Court Z Legal ❑ Library ❑ Police ❑ Eng./Public Works ❑ Utilities
City of Paris Revised 2/04/08
- 2O
Draft
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS,
ADOPTING A REDISTRICTING PLAN FOR SEVEN CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS
AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2011 the City Council of the City of Paris, Texas convened in a
special meeting to receive information about the 2010 Federal Census Data and how it
would impact the seven single member Council Districts in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has commissioned and has received an Initial
Assessment by qualified professionals experienced in the field of redistricting law for the
purpose of making a preliminary determination of population distribution between the
seven City Council Districts, and the obligation to comply with "one-person-one-vote"
balance as required by applicable state and federal law; and,
WHEREAS, the initial assessment has been filed in the minutes of the City Council of
the City of Paris, Texas and is also incorporated by this reference hereto as Exhibit 2. A
finding, based upon this assessment, recognized the legal duty to redraw political
boundaries to comply with applicable law, and a copy of these Findings of Fact and Order
calling for the Redistricting of Political Boundaries is entered into the minutes of this city,
by which reference this prior finding is incorporated into this Resolution of the City
Council, Exhibit 3, Resolution Requiring Redistricting; and,
WHEREAS, after convening a Public Hearing for comment upon any and all
proposed redistricting plans, and after meeting in open session for the purpose of
considering alternatives available to the City for the modification of existing political
boundaries in a manner designed to achieve both acceptable levels of numerical balance
between the City Council Districts, and to protect the voting rights of all residents of the
City of Paris, Texas the City Council has determined to adopt the redistricting plan attached
to this Ordinance in map and data form as Exhibit 4, Redistricting Proposal 1D.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PARIS, TEXAS:
Section 1. That the findings set out in the preamble to this ordinance are hereby
in all things approved.
Section 2. That the Redistricting Plan depicted in the maps and data attached to
this Ordinance is hereby approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Paris,
Paris, Texas.
~a
~
Section 3. That a submission of this plan, along with supporting maps, charts,
and/or data will be made to the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, 42U.S.C. §1973.
Section S. That it is expressly understood that implementation of this plan shall
not take place until the receipt of preclearance approval by the United States Department
of Justice.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 2011.
A.J. Hashmi, M.D., Mayor
ATTEST:
Janice Ellis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
W. Kent McIlyar, City Attorney
- ~ 30
Exhibit 2
Initial Assessment
31
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 12"' Street
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 482-0701
(512) 480-0902
Law&al I ison-bass.com
Should vou determine that maps depicting various political
boundaries are incorrect, please advise us immediately.
Initial Assessment
Page I of 9
32
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 ofthe impact such
data inay have upon the City of Paris in light of state and federal law.
Following the Supreme Court decision in Avery v. Midlarrd City, 390 U.S. 474; 88 S.
Ct. 1114.1 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 regioiis 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 assessinent of existing political boundaries. [t 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 ofi 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 chaiige 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-0ne-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
33
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 49
34
♦
40 a~
d 336 W \ J- ~
. ~ ~ GO
~
. ~m 4
, .
'
j
; ° , a ~ I . ~ ° ~1 . ° Y I ~ . , • • i ~
. ~I Rd33620 ~ly ~~/'"t~~~ •U' li..b.._. • .
.
, , • . , .
p ~
, 4,i~. ~ • r
, . . ,
1499~
,
voa ~ ; . ~a„' , o N • _coRaa2zao__.
~
1 0 ~ i } ' Y ' r~ ~ Q . ~ap . . O , ad q336
m . •
+ `w I~ ~ N ' ~ ~ v • .I ~ • G(~ . 0
W 1~ ~ . ~ I
e . .~Co t
• ~ ~5 . • . ~ II . ~ a ♦
. • C il Q
G Rtl 32505 Oh Lak
f' e~CrpakqJ, ~
. .
~ • ~ q i t ♦ ti b%
.1 i . 8' j ~ ~ rc
~
- ° ~ • • , . ~ 1' • E! ~ i ' Q l ~ ~
. t_ • • . . Q , y+ + ~ .
• • fI• 1'° i ~ ~ .t r.
-V~;c
271 . ° ~ . , se~sames~i
o -
o~
a .
M 2e2~ ._'a . . eT-
F
IN.
~ ~ .
• • ~ +
~ ~ U in n' f!'. F~Jo Rd ii
I' ~OO - . ' • 2 ~ ♦ _ .c ' SheM1On HiA-Rtl A . . ~ d
se i- oeTd,, .d . s~ ~ P
• ' a ~ • • °eya s,a _ ~Pg . r J ~ ~ _ H~y ~seim~ ~
. . o
~ °r ~ ~ / 786 ~p~ ~ OS ♦Z Sm odRd \~~(~p 4 ' ~ ;
~ ' W loo A . 4 . , .
. • .
. , ~
a b " tib • - ' t~d ~ . P~ . :;.p
~
O A
<oop~esilr
•Rd 19
A
• Q ~ , ~ ' , Ckme `3
.
86, ~
o . W Cente~ a z . Nf oo r Oak St i, a y
.a\~o , ~ a pz o' 3 Heo~ 1~, S3 j ~
r ' p • ~ , es : , ~ I
. ~ `
W P k St q ,
_ ~
W Hend
c = 0~ wo ♦ - -'y I . n S~ c m W z w ~ F ~ r P M
! a •'4v L I N LL N L y n-~~ n ~ r-1 ~
Can Pb el St D q[.J O
`.m Z~~•~ N N C 1 ~ m
9• ~r ~ ~ ~ ,d~ , r , 3 W h¢ $i N Lr E N ~ o N( USMwy82 E~
ii ~1., ff~~ N Rne81J~5t m~ m ~ ~1 LamerRO o2 Y IA-~F
+
{ 9 p ~ Graham St Z. ffi E Pnce S\ ",J~ m • m• m ~
p r~ ~ ~ . lsm rAVe. : / w 0 1~, rc
.
s Hubbard S~ ~ • ~
1570 uSN`~' ' Z^ . W Ka~fman w y
- - ~
. 3 mf~ ~ ~ ~ w.sre-o si
t,~=ons, 6~, ~ ~
~
.~o • _ ' -i ^ i e on G~tias~~~e Rd
~ ON eo Mm Rd `a ♦ p0 ~~ki~. ^ . " EJacksonSt ~ ~ p ~
~ c
0 I od de~ pn Ra a ~,r ~a • m ~
~m~°
v 4
p N ~
t. .'`✓i rRd'O arp'unai-
o " °_~o ~m , 1brk5t
_ ro
' _ • d ry ` • r ~ ~S286 ' •s -
Rd 23506
CQRd 22500 • C yR~d 11320J q_9 . .
, ' . • • ~ I : f ~•b
; ' • ~c . 1 ` \ a ~
oR4.17400 ~ ` ~ & 271
.I ~3~ ~ oi , L 4ao 1 I• ~ ~ ~S
Q' ' ~ ~ • 5 f° , ' ~ . yw
~79
~a ~ . • , o ~ 24 ~ °
°i ' °i ' I + ~ o ° ' ' ° ' . ~ ~ , '
• ! ~
' ' ' 91--; ~ " 't ~ ; ' ` a . U ` a • s =
~ Q:, e ~ o , • ~ ~ ~ - - -
~ ( ' 4 _ • ~ ~ . . 5 ~ • 'y ~ ` : 'r
. . :.r. .x__.. ~ • ~ r~
~ . . ~ = , ' 3~ i , • • , ~ \ _ oa
~
' ° ~ ' \ [ ~1, • ~A ~ 1 - • • °4 \ °
Je~e~on
~`+-.,/'+t ~ s ~ " ~ ~ ~T • V ' : j ~ ~ ~ j ~ e p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r r ?
. . - ,~`_'~r,~..~..i ~ . I . • ~i • . i • r ~1 , .
l ~ RE 1260 p 1 ~
Voter Districts N
0 ~
02 City of Paris
~ 0 0.5 1 2
3
0 Lamar County I I I I I
4 Miles
Existing Plan
~ 5 Voter Districts
~ g Allison, Bass & Associates, LLP
Date: 05/11/2011
U7 Data Source: 2010 Census
`I'LL . ItL
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"
detenninations 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 froin
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:
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
9 1 k - Ql
4. Therefore, carefully examine the Total Maximum Deviation calculation. If
that number is more than ] 0%, 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 approxiinately 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.
Iiiitial Assessment
Page 5 of 9
2t L - r
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%
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 ot distrfcts). Absolute ana Keiative
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.
Relative Range is the spread in relative deviation from the smallest precinct
~22'2~%t°
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% Total Maximum Deviation is the sum of the relative deviations
of the smallest and largest district, (ignoring and signs).
:~'L~- - 1-s'
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 [nitial
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 justifrcation 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, ineaning 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 Assessmcnt
Page 6 of 9
,:14 - E
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 deterinination of whether or not the minority populations in these areas could be
joined in a single Ward, or perhaps conceiitrated 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 coiicentrations 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 inapped.
Initial Assessment
Page 7 of 9
L~_ -1
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
14.72%
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
County
63.80%
23.09%
1.1891.
0.88%
8.22%
0.00%
0.08%
2.75%
100.00%
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%
333%
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.
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Hawaii/
pac.ls.
Other
Multi
Race
Prec.
Total
°a of
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
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%
0.00%
0.10%
1.82%
100.00%
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
4830%
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%
District4
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%
100.009/c
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 conjunctioii 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 arguinent 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 ot'9
3LV-o
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 gove►-nment. 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
J~ - -1~
Exhibit 3
3~ -7s
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING POLITICAL BOUNDARIES
OF THE CTTY OF PARIS, TEXAS
FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF 2010 CENSUS DATA
AND
ORDER FOR REDISTRICTING OF POLTTICAL BOUNDARIES
On the 22nd day of August 2011, the City Council of the City Paris, Texas mct 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 puiposes by reference, is a copy of the initial assessment conducted by Allison,
Bass & Associates, LLP (Exhibit "1 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 total maximum deviation in excess of ten percent (10°/a) is
presumptively unconstitutional under established federal law.
As a resuit, 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 Council 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, ADJUDUGED and DECREED that the Councii 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 total maximum deviation, as defined in this order, of 34.37%.
2. Any total maximum deviation in excess of ten percent (10%) is presumptively
unconstitutional under federal law.
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 or 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, or until a
suitable substitute has been lawfully adopted.
Signed this 22nd day of August, 2011.
TTEST:
. ,
ice Ellis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
W. Kent McII r
3 ~ -
• •
Exhibit 4
Proposal to be Adopted
3 4 - rv1
City of Paris Voter Districts
Proposed Plan 1D
Analysis of Population in the Paris Voter Districts based on 2010 Census data
Actual
Population
Ideal
Population
Absolute
Deviation
Relative
Deviation
District 1
3,522
3,596
-74
-2.06%
District 2
3,580
3,596
-16
-0.44%
District 3
3,541
3,596
-55
-1.53%
District 4
3,709
3,596
113
3.14%
District 5
3,607
3,596
11
0.31%
District 6
3,590
3,596
-6
-0.17%
District 7
3,622
3,596
26
0.72%
Total Population 25,171
Ideal Population is detined as (total district popuiaUOn dwiaea py tne numper or aistncts). Hosoiute ana neiauve
Deviations are difference in actual and ideal.
-74 to 113 Absolute Range is the spread in absolute deviation from the smallest district to
the largest.
-2.06°r6 to Relative Range is the spread in relative deviation from the smallest district
3.14% to the largest.
Absolute Mean Deviation is the average deviation, which is calculated by
43 adding all the absolute deviations (ignoring and signs) and dividing by 7.
Relative Mean Deviation is the average deviation, which is calculated by adding
1.20% 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
21.36 of all the absolute deviations divided by 7.
Standard Deviation of Relative Deviations is the square root of the sum of the
0.59% squares of all the relative deviations divided by 7.
Total Absolute Deviation is the sum of all relative deviations (ignoring and
8.37% signs).
Total Maximum Deviation is the sum of the relative deviations (9'0)
5.20% of the smallest and largest district, (ignoring and signs).
~'y. ~
Ethnic Background of Total Population
Angla
Black
Amer.
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Hawaii/
Pac. Is.
Other
Multi
Race
Prec.
Total
%of
Vot Dist
District 1
1,452
1,586
39
11
328
0
5
101
3,522
13.99%
District 2
1,524
1,504
44
13
351
0
1
143
3,580
14.22%
District 3
2,267
753
37
18
357
0
2
107
3,541
14.07%
District 4
2,634
548
45
33
378
0
6
65
3,709
14.74%
District 5
2,374
743
53
30
268
0
1
138
3,607
14.33%
District 6
2,724
473
37
52
218
0
5
81
3,590
14.26%
District 7
3,084
206
41
65
168
1
1
56
3,622
1439%
Vot Dist
Total
16,059
5,813
296
222
2,068
1
21
691
25,171
100.00%
% of Vot
Dist
63.80%
23.09%
1.189'0
0.88%
8.22%
0.009'0
0.08%
2.75%
1
00.009'0
Ethnic Background as a% of Total Population
Anglo
Black
Amer. ind.
Asian
Hispanic
Haw/Pac
Other
Muki
%Total
District 1
41.233'0
45.03%
1.11%
031%
9.31%
0.00%
0.14%
2.87%
100.009'0
District 2
42.57%
42.01%
1.23%
036%
9.80%
0.00%
0.03%
3.99%
100.003'0
District 3
64.02%
21173'0
1.04%
0.51%
10.08%
0.00%
0.06%
3.02'Y
100.00%
DiStriGt 4
71.02%
14.77%
1.213'0
0.89%
10.19%
0.00%
0.16%
1.75%
100.00%
District 5
65.823'0
20.60%
1.47%
0.83%
7,43%
0.00%
0.03%
3.83%
100.OO%
District 6
75.88%
13.18%
1.03%
1.45%
6.07%
0.00%
0.14%
2.26%
100.00%
District 7
85.15%
5.69%
1.13%
1.79%
4.64%
0.03%
0.03%
1.55%
100.00%
Ethnic Background of Voting Age Population
Anglo
Black
Amer.
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Hawaii/
Pac. Is.
Other
Multi
Race
Prec.
Total
% of
Vot Dist
District 1
1,154
1,119
27
8
182
0
5
46
2,541
13.46%
District 2
1,178
1,116
35
8
172
0
0
77
2,586
13.70%
District 3
1,808
527
30
16
204
0
2
49
2,636
13.979'0
District 4
2,170
371
39
27
217
0
S
33
2,862
15.16%
District 5
1,909
498
40
21
141
0
0
73
2,682
14.21%
District 6
2,178
327
33
39
113
0
5
41
2,736
14.50%
District 7
2,486
148
26
48
97
0
1
25
2,831
i5.00Yo
Vot Dist
Total
12,883
4,106
230
167
1,126
0
18
344
18,874
100.00%
% of Vot
Dist
68.26%
21.75%
1.22%
0.88%
5.97%
0.00%
0.10%
1.82%
100.00%
Ethnic Background as a% of Voting Age Population
Anglo
Black
Amer.lnd.
Asian
Hispanic
Haw/Pac
Other
Multi
%Total
District 1
45.429'0
44.04%
1.06%
0.31%
7.1690
0.00%
0.203'0
1.81%
100.00%
District 2
45.55%
43.16%
1.35%
0.31%
6.65`Y
0.00%
0.00%
2.98%
100.00%
District 3
68.599'0
19.99%
1.149'0
0.61%
7.74%
O.OO%
0.08%
1.86%
100.00%
District 4
75.82%
12.96%
1.36%
0.94%
7.58%
0.00%
0.17%
1.15%
500.00%
District 5
71.18%
18.57%
1.499'0
0.789'0
5.265'0
0.00%
0.004'0
2.72%
100.00%
District 6
79.6190
11.95%
1.213'0
1.433'0
4.13%
0.0090
0.18%
1.5Oq
500.00%
District 7
87.81%
5.23%
0.92%
1.709'0
3.43%
0.00%
0.049'0
0.88%
100.00%
3~- C)
. . ~ .
. Rd33640 ~ ~ ~.~o~tl 5✓$ ~ . ~ e
• " r a , ~ 0 bdND Cl • . ~
Q ~ ~ e b u .C~
o e ' w,
• ° `
~ ° < i , ° u~ ~ • . .
~ „ ' • • . ob-e ~ s • _ - -
ll
.
~ ~ ~ ~ h. ~ ~ ol• .
e m' Rd 33b20
. , • ~ e ,r-~
} o . ' ' ( y~,.
~..'~~~fe~ . o ' •vy FM 1499) ~ ~ , • P ~ . p ^r
i •o , . . ~ ~ . o.... . _..i~ ' • o ~CoRd42200_.._. 1
- ~
i e e ~~~~~i~ ~~o/ ~p ~ _ " p
i . •
:
1n ~ ~ 1 ~ < ' ~i~ ' 0 ,~y
a •
' 4 w : ~~~m~wn.~r~ , w • ~ . •
.,w ' iw~ > • i . 3 GP~ ~o~dd
•
' e • I 3 • ' ° • o' ' . , • ~ p~ry
. ~ S a * . • - 60
tl.,' ° . ' ~ L~ . • W ~ Yy U r~ . ~ p ~
i ' • ' Go Rd 32505 ~ Old lake'C~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ • wI P ~
Ol ~ 21 • i ~ • ~ ' ~
Rd
i ~?i , r..J
• • ~.s~ ~ • . o , . . . . p .4. G'
. . . ~ • . ~e ' , e - L
° ; _ ° 8 ~ , :J ~
271 ses, a _me st . .
{ ~'(~F ~ •.~ca . ~ ~ , , f \ a ~ .
~ . f ' y ~P . ~ f ~0 a • ~ 5,~ v. = u`r'i Q,. ~ .
'LS'L~° . • ~ ~t.
F~ ~ I , . _ . • ° L,y ~ . ` o f
. •
v 4 . i ~ j , ~9 ~ ' ~ . • e y D ~ e ' p`~ ~ ° . r---~_1f U.r~ p ~p .
•'.N . ~ • ~y , ( ~JOJoRd
a..t.,. _ Sa ' ' Z u~..u~i•~ • , ' f(p~~ ~4 Shatton Hill Rd 0' ~
o ^ ' , p. ~P y py. • BenN+o ,od.Td' • 4 '0
r._. ' ^ n i~' • o. a ~ BshO 9~ f. S_ ~"T' ' • F e Hogans BWff • m
i. . • • „~q . F.y' ~g pr ~ ' ~ w Small ood Rd f, a ip ~
~ ~ o,o~ . •'S' b NWlooP28G . NO~ . . . •in ~ Q . 4• :CnC
`Co Rd 31100 . . • . F(~ ~ ~ . • d ~ ~ 49 o-
~ ~ ` `i • \,i ~ ' • •2~ 86 ' Ciement Rd ~`~BS~:SPr 139 ~ ~ U
/ •
1 • ~pO Q W'Center51 i _ o NE T Oak St p ~ n 3 ~ ~
Hanin Dr ~ a t,
~ d T . ~ p z8fi • m 9Y m
~~`4e.ol ~ ~ W Park St
W HerMerson St mW z N ' w ~ _Pine Mill Rd ~ A.
Campbell S! a ^ ~r~ y } view or
s~•
_ US Hw y 62 E
Che rry 5 t L ~ i n Z m m'~ Z (n. ~
in ap N f LamarRd r a~.~...~..t=
~
• g V = ~ = N r?ine BIuR St m E Price St ~ Z . Z m 82
Graham SVz ~ ,
p N , . ~ LamarAVe . m ; w y . 1~ ~
~ • gq~miA~ (n Bonhem 51 W Kaufman St . / : 'n + . ' f , ~ • ~ /i
[FM 1510 Ug NwY ~ a~ 5 C . , w y . ~1 • ~ - 2
"f1 ~+'g p, • .'i. ui
V m n' Dawn.Dr
, e g N ~
~n m
$2 . o m
Oy Clarksville Rd
, . "
n`• OldBonhamRd a. $-y"'^~--.-~'•,• °i ~ a y.' cksonSt Qeg ~
: 5~ . n o~ ~ ~ ttlo ' • Mnu~..~e :
~ S ~ a• ~ SYcamoreSt ~ O ~.~d• 1 `
CII.. 8ig C)/t ^ . ~o
~ • ~ I,, ~OOp ~ Q ~ N £ O • _ N . . _
Q ~ ~ • • L ~ • ~U r ~ .
Pield Rd ' • ' , . . ri
~'otW . ~ Kgw~Ra• N
CedarL• • ~ N ~ p;~~PoRRd
~ 0~~ y . N h YorkSln 3 b 0 ~
0,0 { . . v . ~ SE Loo 0 P. 86 • . ' ~~~Jmir ~
. a ~ M ~,,~`~•;I ^ u ~ Pmf .0
cortdzzsoo 4
• i Co Rd 22500 ~ Co'Rd 91320
~ 'E • ' coRaaiaoo.d 271
~i . ' ~ • • Q~ e • ``^-t ~ ~o r ~ . ' . °sy
o • ~ a~ . ~ ~ ~ o ~g , ~n ~`r
V • ' •
24 ° ~ ~g ' ° ~ . • ?
• RO22 ~ v ~ . . ~ I y m A o,l.
♦ ~ ~~D ~ r d1o ~ ~ } \ . ~ - ~ ~ ~ • • • ~
`:i, • C~ . e ~ i.. 1 " k-~____ ~ _ s ~ ~ ~ °ld re
~ , A n a " ' ,5. ' S ~ ° R
.°•I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ° • ° ° • ~ .
\ • F,-..._._f-'~.~___ ~
o ~ . , ' • d- ~ ~ • ~ ~ • o • S Colleginte , • p .
Co Rd 12600
2 City of Paris
r",'•~ 0 0.5 1 2
~ ~ ~
3 Lamar County
4 Miles
5 Proposed Plan 1 D
Voter Districts
6 Allison, Bass & Associates, LLP
L_-„e 7 ~ Date: 08/30/2011
31~-- Data Source: 2010 Census
N
Voting Districts