02 Redistrict AssessmntAGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
SUBJECT: Participation in a presentation by Bob Bass of Allison, Bass & Associates, L.L.P.,
regarding redistricting the City Council districts and consideration of a resolution approving an order
finding and determining the need to reapportion the voting districts of the City of Paris.
BACKGROUND: The Texas and U.S. Constitution and various federal statutes, including the
Voting Rights Act, require political subdivisions of the State of Texas to observe the requirements
of One-Person-One-Vote in the voting districts which provide political representation to each of those
political subdivisions. In addition, the federal statutes impose a requirement upon said political
subdivisions to maintain the One-Person-One-Vote balance after the annexation of additional
property, population gains through ordinary growth, or population shifts within their political
boundaries. As a consequence, following every ten year federal census, political subdivisions in the
state of Texas, including cities, must review their current population and demographic distribution
as reflected by the most recent federal census, and make reapportionments of single member district
lines to maintain the One-Person-One-Vote balance. The City of Paris has met this requirement in
past years, the most recent census reapportionment being done following the 1990 Census.
Customarily cities, counties, and school districts retain consultants who specialize in reapportionment
to utilize their procedures, data, database, and expertise in proposing new reapportionment lines for
adoption by the political subdivision. The use of such consultants (rather than utilizing employees
of the political subdivision itself) provides a higher degree of integrity and acceptability to federal
officials who must approve the new district lines in conformance with the Federal Voting Rights Act,
and the use of consultants also significantly simplifies the process of review and approval.
At the time of the 1990 Census, the City of Paris used the services of the firm of Allison, Bass
& Associates, L.L.P. of Austin, Texas, to assist in the City's reapportionment. This firm performed
similar services in 1990 for Lamar County, with considerable advantages to both the City and the
County of incorporating where appropriate and possible common boundaries to avoid as much
confusion as possible with regard to polling places and other issues. Lamar County has again
contracted Allison, Bass & Associates, L.L.P. to perform its reapportionment process, a process
recently concluded. The City of Paris, by Council action on February 12, 2001, retained the same
firm of Allison, Bass & Associations, L.L.P. Utilizing the same firm as the County should simplify
the process, allow the firm to update the database utilized for the City of Paris in 1990, thereby
avoiding duplication of effort, and should allow the firm to coordinate the reapportionment process
to the mutual benefit of both entities and their constituents.
DESCRIPTION: In order to complete the reapportionment/redistricting process, Mr. Bass has
recommended in his materials forwarded to the Legal Department a three (3) step process. Step 1,
which involved and required a compilation of significant amounts of documentation and forwarding
same to the firm, has been completed by the Legal Department and the City Clerk. The following is
a summary of the remaining steps excerpted from Mr. Bass' materials for completion of the process:
"STEP TWO: Citizens Advisory Committee
If reapportionment is legally required of the City of Paris, it is
highly recommended that the City Council appoint a Citizens Advisory
Committee to assist in the reapportionment process. This Committee
serves several important functions:
It demonstrates to the Department of Justice that the process was
open and free of undue political influence.
It involves advocacy groups and community leaders the political
process.
3. It reduces the demands and pressures upon the City Council.
Typically, the Citizens Advisory Committee is composed of 11-15 individuals
appointed by the City Council. The Advisory Committee should be representative in
terms of geographic area and racial demographics. One method for the appointment
of the members of this committee is for each Council to appoint two individuals from
their precinct, with the Mayor having three appointments from the City at large. The
Mayor should insure, through his appointments, that the Advisory Committee reflects
the ethnic population of the City as a whole.
The Citizens Advisory Committee would conduct public meetings, and
develop two or three alternative reapportionment plans for public comment. These
plans may be either the result of the Committee process or City Council input. Public
comment should be solicited, recorded and included in the reapportionment
submission.
We recommend that you consider the appointment of this Citizens Committee
shortly after the receipt of our Initial Assessment. The Department of Justice has
always given strong favorable treatment to plans that have been developed in
conjunction with a Citizens Committee. To the extent possible, you should consider
placing recognized minority leadership in the community on the Citizens Advisory
Committee. We have had considerable success in working with these committees and
believe that development of a suitable plan can be considerably strengthened by a
strong committee recommendation.
Our approach is to use the Committee to review and discuss various
redistricting concepts, and to use the demographic data and the importance of
governmental functions to demonstrate weaknesses in any proposed plan. After
preliminary examination of various proposals by the Committee, a limited number of
workable plan designs emerge for final development and consideration by the City
Council.
An early role for the Citizens Advisory Committee is the development of
'criteria' for the reapportionment process. In conjunction with the City's City Council,
criteria for any eventual plan should be identified by the Committee and subsequently
used to 'judge' or' score' any plans that will be considered by the Committee and the
Court. These criteria should include the following standards, and may include other
standards of local concern:
Any plan should insure that recognized minority populations, or
'communities of interest' remain intact within a single electoral unit to
the greatest extent possible. Only where total minority populations are
sufficiently large and dispersed to allow a significant minority impact
on more than a single city ward should minority populations be
divided between more than city ward.
Any plan should not, however, attempt to unreasonably join
geographically remote minority populations into a single ward unless
there are strong and genuine connections between these communities
as reflected by common schools, churches, or cultural ties. For
example, minority populations in two separate areas of town, located
miles apart, may or may not have sufficient links to justify joining
these two minority population centers into a single electoral group.
Particularly when dealing with distinct minority groups, such as Black
and Hispanic populations, a general assumption that separate minority
populations will vote in a similar manner may be unsupportable in fact.
Any plan should address fundamental and necessary governmental
functions and to the extent possible, insure that these functions are
enhanced rather than impaired. For example, the delivery of city
services should be balanced to the extent possible between the
resulting city wards. Physical boundaries such as rivers, which tend to
divide populations in fundamental ways, should be recognized and
communities of interest should be retained intact where possible.
Election administration should not be unduly complex as a result of
election boundaries.
Any plan should insure that election voting precincts under that plan
do not contain territory from more than one commissioners court
precinct, justice precinct, congressional district, state representative
district, state senatorial district, or city ward if the city has a
population of 10,000 or more (this is a strict legal requirement, but
city election wards should be honored in virtually all circumstances,
with city and rural county voters being kept in separate voting
precincts to the extent possible), State Board of Education districts,
and where they exist, other special election districts, such as water,
hospital, or navigation districts being identified to insure harmonious
administration of various election jurisdictions.
Any plan should, to the extent possible, insure that election polling
places be harmonized with county, city and school election polling
places to avoid voter confusion.
Any plan should attempt to locate polling places in convenient, well
known locations that are accessible to disabled voters to the maximum
extent possible. Public buildings should be utilized to the maximum
extent possible as polling places. Where necessary, buildings routinely
open to the public, such as churches, retail businesses, or private
buildings dedicated to public activities, should be used as polling
places.
STEP THREE: Procedures and Timelines
The following procedures and projected timelines should be kept in mind.
1. Provide documentation identified in Step One, above.
This requirement should be completed as soon as possible, not
later than April 15, 2001. - COMPLETED
Documents and maps provided will be compared with
boundaries maintained by the Texas Legislative Council in
computerized form for accuracy.
A computerized map will be produced and presented to the
City for confirmation of accuracy upon release of preliminary
census 'TIGER' files.
2000 demographic data was released March 12, 2001. As
soon as possible thereafter, we will provide an initial
assessment of your existing political boundaries. This
assessment will trigger the need to reapportion if it reveals a
deviation of more than 10% between your largest and smallest
City Wards, in terms of total population.
2. Appoint Citizens Advisory Committee.
In anticipation that reapportionment will be required, each
commissioner should identify in advance not more than three
suitable individuals in their precinct to serve on the Citizens
Advisory Committee.
Each potential candidate should be interviewed regarding
service on the committee. Each individual should be willing to
serve before being formally appointed.
As soon as a determination of need for reapportionment is
made, you will formally form the Citizens Advisory
Committee. This will take place following the presentation of
our initial assessment.
We will provide a package of information to your Citizens
Committee upon appointment, and schedule our first trip to
the City of Paris to meet with both the City Council and the
Committee to explain the Initial Assessment findings and to
adopt Criteria for the Reapportionment Process.
3. Develop criteria for reapportionment.
As discussed in the section above, criteria are an important
benchmark for any plan. The City Council may wish to set
forth its own criteria for inclusion in the evaluation process.
The Citizens Committee will discuss and adopt criteria in their
first meeting.
The Criteria will be used to ' score' or judge each alternative
plan discussed or developed for full consideration.
4. Conduct Public Hearings
As a result of the first meeting with the City Council and the
Citizens Committee, a preliminary proposal will be developed.
This proposal is a starting point only, but it will be based upon
our best understanding of your local needs and concerns, as
well as our evaluation of legal issues presented by your
existing plan. The preliminary proposal will be based upon
your existing boundaries, with adjustments as necessary to
comply with legal requirements.
The preliminary proposal will be provided to the City Council
and to the Citizens Committee. After a short period of review,
we will schedule our next trip to the City of Pads for the first
scheduled public hearings. We normally attempt to schedule
multiple hearings to accommodate citizen work schedules.
Morning, afternoon, or evening meetings will be conducted in
one or more locations in the County.
Based upon public comment received in the initial hearings,
we will develop one or more alternative plans. It is possible
that additional public hearings will be convened. The Citizens
Committee will select at least two alternative plans to present
to the City Council.
The City Council will have one or more alternative plans to
consider for final adoption. The City Council may make
changes in the plan(s) presented by the Citizens Advisory
Committee. Eventually, a final plan will be adopted and
prepared for submission to the Department of Justice.
Under optimal conditions, the Department of Justice has sixty
(60) days in which to review the proposed plan. At the end of
this time, there are three possible outcomes: (1) approval of
the plan, (2) rejection of the plan, or (3) request for additional
information. We make every effort to provide all possible
information initially, but the Department often requests more
information as a means of providing more time to deal with
the massive inflow of submissions.
If a request for more information is received, we will reply as
quickly as possible. The Department of Justice has an
additional sixty (60) day period in which to review the new
material At the end of that second period, the Department
must either accept or reject the proposal. Rejections are rare.
We will be prepared to advise you should this eventuality
Occur.
Elections are implemented under the approved plan, beginning
with the purging and preparation of poll lists in late 2001 ."
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive the presentation by Mr. Bob Bass of Allison, Bass &
Association, L.L.P. and consider action on the resolution approving an order finding and determining
the need to reapportion the voting districts of the City of Paris.
STAFF CONTACT: Larry W. Schenk, City Attorney; and Mattie Cunningham, City Clerk
COST: The cost of the process has already been authorized by prior approval of Mr. Bass' contract.
SCHEDULING: See the excerpts of Mr. Bass' materials under "Description" in this AlS.
COUNCIL DATE: Receive Mr. Bass' presentation and consider for approval the resolution
adopting the order at City Council's July 9, 2001, regular Council meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: See enclosed materials constituting Mr. Bass' initial assessment
of the City's position with regard to reapportionment.
JAMES P. ALLISON
ROBERT T. BASS
R.Bass@Allison- Bass .c om
ALLISON, BASS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.
WAHREN~BERGER HOUSE
208 WEST 14TM STREET
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
May 21, 2001
PAUL D. PALMER
PORTIA F. BOSSE
VIA REGULAR MAIL
Lisa Wright. CLA
City Attomey'sOffice
P.O. Box9037
Paris, Texas 75461-9037
RE: City Reapportionment
Dear Ms. Wright:
This letter will serve as a summary of the attached initial assessment. In addition, we are
providing a suggested Order to carry into effect the necessary findings of the City Council
regarding reapportionment, again based on the initial assessment.
On page 3 of the Initial Assessment, you will fmd a document that details the statistical
measurements applicable to the City of Paris following the 2000 census. The most important
measurement, in terms of reapportionment, is the Total Maximum Deviation, which is the range
of deviation between the largest precinct in terms of population, and the smallest precinct, in
terms of population. A total maximum deviation in excess of 10% will trigger a duty to
reapportion under applicable law. The City of Paris has a total maximum deviation of 53.25%.
As a result of our initial assessment, we are of the opinion that The City of Paris will be
legally obligated to reapportion its political boundaries.
We are providing a suggested Order for action by the City Council to reflect this finding.
Please distribute the copies of the Initial Assessment accordingly. One copy should go to
Larry W. Schenk, the City Attorney. One copy needs to go to each council member, one copy to
the city manager and one to the city secretary.
RTB/afb
Enclosure:
Initial Assessment & Orders
Rober~ T. Bass
\\BASS NTI\NETWORK\NETF1LES\Paris\City reapportionment\Wright 003.doc
ORDER
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PARIS, TEXAS
FIND1NGS OF FACT REGARDING POLITICAL BOUNDARIES
OF
PARIS, TEXAS
FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF 2000 CENSUS DATA
AND
ORDER FOR REDISTRICTING OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES
On the __ day of , 2001, the City Council for the City of Paris ,
Texas met in regular/called session, having posted notice of said hearing in compliance with
Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code.
The City Council of the City of Paris 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 on March 12, 2001. 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.
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
and by the City of Paris.
Based upon this information, Paris has a total maximum deviation of 53.25%. The term
total maximum deviation is determined by dividing the total population of Paris by seven, the
number of City Council 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 pementage is determined. The range between the
largest population by ward and the smallest population by ward is determined. Any total
maximum deviation in excess of ten percent (10%) is presumptively unconstitutional under
established federal law.
As a result of this determination, Paris has a constitutional duty to redistrict it's political
boundaries so as to achieve "One-Person-One-Vote" numerical balance between the seven City
Council wards, within permissible lawful limitations, and, simultaneously, complying with the
Voting Rights Act and applicable state and federal law.
N:~qETFlLES~aris\City reapporfionment~Ordcr to Redistrict -CITY- must.doc
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDUGED and DECREED that the City Council of
Paris, Texas, finding a clear legal duty exists to redistrict 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 hereby enters the following findings off, act and of law:
1. Paris has a total maximum deviation, as defined in this order, of 53.25%.
2. Any total maximum deviation in excess of ten percent (10%) is presumptively
unconstitutional under federal law.
3. As a result, redistricting of existing political boundaries for the present City
Council wards is legally required.
4. Paris, acting by and through it's City Council, is hereby resolved to immediately
undertake such necessary and appropriate action to accomplish redistricting of
existing City Council wards, and any incidental modification of either existing,
consolidated, or newly created election precincts necessary to accomplish such
redistricting.
5. 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 oftbe City of Paris.
6. After due consideration of one or more alternative plans, the City Council shall
adopt a plan deemed to satisfy legal requirements, and which best suits the
legitimate governmental needs of the City of Paris.
7. 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.
8. Only upon preelearance shall such plan, or a plan subsequently modified to obtain
preclearance, be implement for elections in the year 2002 and thereafter, or until a
suitable substitute has been lawfully adopted.
Signed this day of ., 2001.
Mayor, City of Paris
Nga'qEIF1LESXPafis\City reapportionmem~rder to Rcdislrict -CITY- must.doc
INITIAL ASSESSMENT
OF
CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS
FOR PURPOSES OF REAPPORTIONMENT EVALUATION
Prepared by
ALLISON, BASS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
The Wahrenberger House
208 West 14~h Street
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 482-070!
(5 ! 2) 480-0902
Allison. Bass@Allison-Bass. corn
STATISTICAL DEFINITIONS
AND DETERMINATION OF
TOTAL MAXIMUM DEVIATION
City Of Paris
Statistical Measures of Population Equality
Precinct 1 2,845 3,700 -855 -23.11%
Precinct 2 3,057 3,700 -643 -17.38%
Precinct 3 3,611 3,700 -89 -2.41%
prectnct 4 3,926 3,700 226 6.11%
Precinct 5 3,754 3,700 54 1.46%
g'rednct 6 3,890 3,700 190 5.14%
Precinct 7 4,815 3,700 1,115 30.14%,
Ideal Population is def-m ed lo b¢ 25% of total county l~pulation. Absolute and Relative
Deviations mn: difference in actual and ideal
-855 %
1,115 %
-23.11%
to
30,14 %
4S3.00
12.25
225.00
6.09 %
85.75 %
53.25 % Total Maalmttm Deviation is the sum of the relative deviations (%) of the
WORKING FILE
POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS
FOR EACH PRECINCT OFFIC. E
City Of Paris
Working File
PRECINCT
Total Population
Amer. Hawaii/ ML~ti-
Angto Black Indian As(an Hispanic Pac. Is. Olher Racial Total
VTD 0201 1,019 1,650 21 9 115 1 2 25 2,842
VTD 0202 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Pct I 1,019 1,653 21 9 115 t 2 25 2,845
Voting Age Population
Amer. Hawaii/ Multi
Anglo BJack indian Asian Hispanic Pac. IS. Olher Racial T~ta~ Pop
VTD 0201 771 1,159 15 8 71 1 0 13 2,038
VTD 0202 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Pct 1 771 1,182 15 8 71 I 0 13 2,041
VTD 0105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
VTO 0202 1,211 1,405 17 8 205 0 4 54 2,904
VTD 0220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VTD 0325 57 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
VTO 103A 61 11 1 0 2 0 0 0 75
~Pct 2
1,329 1,437 18 8 207 0
Voting Age Population
Amer. Hawaii/
Anglo Black Indian Asian Hispanic Pac. is.
4 54 3,057
VTD 0105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VTD 0202 939 951 12 7 132 0 2 32 2,075
VTO 0220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VTD 0325 33 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
V~rD 103A 42 7 I 0 2 0 0 0 52
Pc~ 2 1,014 976 13 7 134 0 2 32 2,178
City Of Paris
Working File
PRECINCT 3
Total Population
Asian Hispanic
Hawaii/
Pac. Is,
Other
VTD 0220 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
VTD 0325 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
VTD 103A 1,876 510 30 3 128 0 2 38 2,587
VTD 203B 824 118 7 22 14 1 0 17 1,003
Pet 3
2,721
An~
628 37 25 142 1
Voting Age Population
Other
VTD 0220 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
VTD 0325 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
VTD 103A 1,449 307 26 3 72 0 0 26 1,883
VTD 203B 660 76 5 11 6 I 0 8 767
2,127 383 31 14 78 1 0 34 2,668
PRECINCT 4
Totnl Population
Hawaii/
Pac. Is.
Other
VTD 0304 2,972 622 38 24 176 4 0 58 3,894
VTD 0325 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
VTD 0426 18 I 0 0 0 0 O 0 19
VTD 0431 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
pct 4
3,001 625 38 24 176 4
Voting Age Population
Amer, Hawaii/
Anglo Black Indian Amah Hispanic Pac. is.
0 58 3,926
Other
VTD 0304 2,368 377 26 20 113 3 0 28 2,935
VTD 0325 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 4
VTD 0426 10 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
VTD 0431 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Pct 4 2,384 380 26 20 113 3 0 28 2,954
City Of Paris
Working File
PRECINCT 5
T#tal Population
Amer. Hawaii/ Multi-
Anglo Btack indian Asian Hispanic Pac. Is. Other Racial ~rotal Pop
VTD 0105 2,791 665 35 10 166 0 5 61 3,733
VTD 0109 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8
VTD 0202 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
VTD 0217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VTD 0220 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
Pct 5 2,809 665 37 10 166 0 5 62 3,754
Voting Age Population
Amer. Hawa~i/ Multi
VTD 0105 2,151 380 23 9 111 0 2 31 2,707
VTD 0109 0 O I 0 0 0 0 0 7
VTD 0202 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
VTD 0217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VTD 0220 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Pct 5 2,169 380 24 9 111 0 2 31 2,726
Total Population
Vating Age Population
VTD 0306 2,470 332 30 40 144 0 0 32 3,048
}'ct 6 2,470 332 30 40 144 0 0 32 3,048
Indian
City Of Paris
V¢orklng File
Other
Multi-
Racial
Totat Pop
VTD 0105 19 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 20
VTD 0109 58 0 0 0 3 0 0 I 62
VTD 0110 338 10 I 0 3 0 0 0 352
VTO 0111 54 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 56
VTD 0112 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
VTD 0430 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
VTD 0431 690 42 8 11 17 1 0 15 784
VTD 307B 250 12 1 2 1 0 0 5 271
VTD 407A 2,943 139 29 36 48 0 2 14 3,211
4.411 203 40 49 73 1
Voting Age Population
Amer. Hawaii/
ArlgJo Blacl( Indian Asian Hispanic Pac. Is.
2 36 4,815
Other
VTD 0105 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 16
VTD 0109 41 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 45
VTD 0110 264 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 273
VTD 0111 35 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 37
VTD 0112 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
VTD 0430 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
VTD 0431 514 25 5 9 9 1 0 8 571
VTD 307B 187 7 I 2 1 0 0 3 201
VTD 407A 2,349 92 21 32 31 0 0 8 2,533
Pct 7 3,443 131 29 43 46 1 0 21 3,714
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF
CITY OF PARIS'S
EXISTING POLITICAL
BOUNDARIES
City Of Paris
Ethnic Background of
Total Population
Amer. Hewnii! MUI§ Prec. % of
Precinct I 1,019 1,653 21 9 115 I 2 25 2,845 10.99%
Precinct 2 11329 11437 18 8 207 0 4 54 3,057 11.80%
precinct 3 2,721 628 37 25 142 1 2 55 3,611 13.94%
Precinct 4 3,001 625 38 24 176 4 0 58 3,926 15.16%
Precinct 5 2,809 665 37 10 166 0 5 62 3,754 14.50%
Precinct 6 3,04~. 518 35 46 189 0 3 57 3,890 15.02%
Precir~t 7 4,411 203 40 49 73 1 2 36 4,815 18.59%
Count~ Total 18,332 5,729 226 171 1,068 7 18 347 251896 100.00%
% of Counly 70.79% 22.12% 0.87% 0.66% 4.12% 0.03% 0.07% 1.34% 100.00%
Ethnic Eackgronnd as a % of
To~al Popolation
Precinct 1 35.82% 58.10% 0.74% 0.32% 4.04% 0.04% 0.07% 0.88% 100.00%
Precinct 2 43.47% 47.01% 0.59% 0.26% 6.77% 0.00% 0.13% 1.77% 100.00%
Precinct 3 75.35% 17.39% 1.02% 0.69% 3.93% 0.03% 0.06% 1.52% 100.00%
Precinct 4 76.44% 15.92% 0.97% 0.61% 4.48% 0.10% 0.00% 1.48% 100.00%
Prec~nc! 5 74.83% 17.71% 0.9~6 0.27% 4.42% 0.00% 0.13% 1.65% 100.00%
Precinct 6 78.20% 13.32% 0.9(~ 1.18% 4.86% 0.00% 0.08% 1.47% 100.00%
Precinct 7 91.61% 4.22% 0.8S% 1.02% 1.52% 0.02% 0.04% 0.75% 100.00%
Ethnic Bacl~raund of
¥otteg Age Pnpalatian
Amer. Hawaii/ MUI~ Prec. % of
Anglo Black Indian Asian Hispanic Pac Is. Other Racial Total County
Precinct I 771 1,162 15 8 71 I 0 13 2,041 10.56%
Precinct 2 1,014 976 13 7 134 0 2 32 2,178 11.27%
Prednct 3 2,127 383 31 14 78 1 0 34 2,668 13.80%
Precinct 4 2,384 380 26 20 113 3 0 28 2,954 15.28%
Precinct 5 2,169 380 24 9 111 0 2 31 2,726 14.10%
Precinct 6 2,470 332 30 40 144 0 0 32 3,648 15.77%
Prec~nc{ 7 3,443 131 29 43 46 1 0 21 3,714 19.21%
County Total 14,378 3,744 168 141 697 6 4 191 19,329 100.00%
% of C~mty 74.39% 19.37% 0.87% 0.73% 3.61% 0.03% 0.02% 0.99% 100.00%
City Of Paris
Analysis of Population in
Anglo
Black Indian
Ethnic Background as a % of
Voting Age Population
Asian Hispanic
Hawaii/
Pac Is Other
Total
Precinct 1 37.78% 56.93% 0.73% 0.39% 3.48% 0.05% 0.00% 0.64% 100.00%
Precinct 2 46.56% 44.81% 0.60'A 0.32% 6.15% 0.00% 0.09% 1.47% 100.00%
Precinct 3 79.72% 14.36% 1.16% 0,52% 2.92% 0.04% 0.00% 1.27% 100.00%
Precinct 4 80.70% 12.86% 0.88% 0.68% 3.83% 0.10% 0.00% 0.95% 100.00%
Precinct 5 79.57% 13.94% 0.8~% 0.33% 4.07% 0.00% 0.07% 1.14% 100.00%
Precinct 6 81.04% 10.89% 0.98% 1.31% 4.72% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05% 100,00%
Precinct 7 92.70% 3.53% 0.78'/, 1.16% 1.24% 0.03% 000% 0.57% 100.00%
City Of Paris
Graphs Based On Entire Population
Precinct population
as · % of County
Precinct 1
Ethnic Comoosition
Precinct 2
Eltmic Comoesi~on
Precinct 3
Ethnic Composition
Precinct 4
Ethnic Comp~liion
Precinct
Ethnic Coml~osition
Precinct 6
Ethnic Compo~ith)n
Precinct 7
Ethnic Composition
MAPS
MAP 1
EXISTING PRECINCTS
P~=in~ 3 Fr~n~ ?
City Of Paris
Existing Precincts
MAP 2
HISPANIC POPULATION
0105
7
91 to 10~ Percent
m76 to 90 Percent
61 to 75 Percent
DPr~ln~
V~er Peeclncts
· . I~Jor Roads
Ci~ ~ Paris
Hispanic Population by
Percentage per Block
MAP 3
BLACK POPULATION
0110
7
· . Major Roads
City ~ Paris
Black Population by
Percentage per Block