Redistricting After the 2010 Census Jill Wilson and Clint Pinyan July 18, 2011 Board of Education Redistricting Committee

How Board of Education Districts Can Be Redrawn Resolution of Board of Education (N. C. Gen. Stat. 115C-37(i)) Resolution of Board of Education (N. C. Gen. Stat. 115C-37(i)) Local Legislation Local Legislation Court Order Court Order

Statute Governing Redistricting N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-37(i): The local board of education shall revise electoral district boundaries from time to time as provided by this subsection. If district boundaries are set by local act or court order and the act or order does not provide a method for revising them, the local board of education shall revise them only for the purpose of (i) accounting for territory annexed to or excluded from the school administrative unit, and (ii) correcting population imbalances among the districts shown by a new federal census or caused by exclusions or annexations.... N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-37(i): The local board of education shall revise electoral district boundaries from time to time as provided by this subsection. If district boundaries are set by local act or court order and the act or order does not provide a method for revising them, the local board of education shall revise them only for the purpose of (i) accounting for territory annexed to or excluded from the school administrative unit, and (ii) correcting population imbalances among the districts shown by a new federal census or caused by exclusions or annexations....

Statute Governing Redistricting After the local board of education has revised district boundaries in conformity with this act, the local board of education shall not revise them again until a new federal census of population is taken or territory is annexed to or excluded from the school administrative unit, whichever event occurs first... In establishing district boundaries, the local board of education shall use data derived from the most recent federal census.

Impact of the Statute The Board must redistrict, if redistricting is necessary in order to “correct[] population imbalances among the districts shown by a new federal census.” N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-37(i). The Board must redistrict, if redistricting is necessary in order to “correct[] population imbalances among the districts shown by a new federal census.” N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-37(i). This statute incorporates the “one person, one vote” principle. This statute incorporates the “one person, one vote” principle. An extreme example to illustrate the “one person, one vote” principle: A voter in a one-voter district would have more power to impact the Board than a voter in a one hundred thousand-voter district. An extreme example to illustrate the “one person, one vote” principle: A voter in a one-voter district would have more power to impact the Board than a voter in a one hundred thousand-voter district.

The County’s Uneven Population Growth District Number2000 Total Population2010 Total PopulationPercentage Growth 147,24948,4302.5% 247,54162, % 347,74363, % 445,85660, % 546,72954, % 646,77248,1462.9% 745,71849,6528.6% 847,80350,1725.0% 945,62551, % 421,036488, %

Analysis of the Impact of Uneven Population Growth Courts have routinely applied a “10 percent rule” when determining whether there is substantial equality among districts, so that the “one person, one vote” requirement has been met. Courts have routinely applied a “10 percent rule” when determining whether there is substantial equality among districts, so that the “one person, one vote” requirement has been met. We first calculate the “ideal district” population. To determine the “ideal district” population, we divide the new 2010 Census total county population numbers by the number of Member districts. This yields the population of each district, if they were perfectly equal. We first calculate the “ideal district” population. To determine the “ideal district” population, we divide the new 2010 Census total county population numbers by the number of Member districts. This yields the population of each district, if they were perfectly equal Total County Population488,406 Number of Districts9 Ideal Population Per District54,267

Analysis of the Impact of Uneven Population Growth (continued) We then calculate how much each of the current districts deviates from the “ideal district.” We then calculate how much each of the current districts deviates from the “ideal district.” We then add the deviation of the most populous and least populous districts from the “ideal district” population. We then add the deviation of the most populous and least populous districts from the “ideal district” population. If the total is more than 10%, we need to redistrict. If the total is more than 10%, we need to redistrict.

2010 Population Deviation of Current Districts District Number 2010 Total Population Deviation from Ideal District Percentage Deviation Highest and Lowest 148,430(5,837)-10.8% 262,2948, % 363,2308, % 460,2115, % 554, % 648,146(6,121)-11.3% 749,652(4,615)-8.5% 850,172(4,095)-7.5% 951,543(2,724)-5.0% County Total:488,406 Population Variance:27.8% Ideal District:54,267

Why It Is Necessary for Us to Redraw Member District Boundaries? In Guilford County, the “ideal district” population based on 2010 Census numbers is 54,267. In Guilford County, the “ideal district” population based on 2010 Census numbers is 54,267. The most populous district is District 3, with a variance of 16.5% above the ideal. The most populous district is District 3, with a variance of 16.5% above the ideal. The least populous district is District 6, with a variance of 11.3% below the ideal. The least populous district is District 6, with a variance of 11.3% below the ideal. Adding the two percentages, we get 27.8% which violates the “10 percent rule” and triggers the need to redistrict. Adding the two percentages, we get 27.8% which violates the “10 percent rule” and triggers the need to redistrict.

The Need to Reallocate Population Districts That Must Achieve Smaller Populations: Districts 2, 3 and 4. Districts That Must Achieve Larger Populations: Districts 1, 6, 7 and 8 (and probably 9).

DOJ Preclearance Requirements The Board of Education is one of the entities subject to “preclearance” requirements under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of This means that any proposed redistricting plan adopted by the Board must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice for approval prior to implementation. The DOJ will review to determine if the plan has the purpose or effect of diluting the voting influence of minority voters.

DOJ Preclearance Process The Board must submit a wide variety of information about the redistricting decision (population information, maps considered, description of the redistricting process, etc.). The DOJ has 60 days to review redistricting plans submitted under Section 5. The DOJ may request additional information, as it did after the 2001 redistricting. The DOJ will then either grant “preclearance,” giving the jurisdiction the go-ahead to implement the change, OR The DOJ will object to the plan if it has the purpose or effect of diluting the voting influence of minority voters.

Substance of the DOJ’s Preclearance Decision The DOJ determines if it believes that the plan has either the purpose or the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. The DOJ determines if it believes that the plan has either the purpose or the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. A plan may not lead to “retrogression” in the position of minority voters with respect to their effective exercise of the right to vote. In other words, it cannot make it harder for minority voters to elect a representative of their choice. A plan may not lead to “retrogression” in the position of minority voters with respect to their effective exercise of the right to vote. In other words, it cannot make it harder for minority voters to elect a representative of their choice.

Retrogression Analysis The DOJ determines if a plan is retrogressive by comparing it to the “benchmark” or currently implemented district boundary plan. The DOJ determines if a plan is retrogressive by comparing it to the “benchmark” or currently implemented district boundary plan. The Section 5 guidelines identify a number of factors that the DOJ considers in determining whether a new redistricting plan is retrogressive, including whether the new plan: The Section 5 guidelines identify a number of factors that the DOJ considers in determining whether a new redistricting plan is retrogressive, including whether the new plan: Reduces minority voting strength in any district; Reduces minority voting strength in any district; Has fewer districts in which minority voters can elect candidates of choice; Has fewer districts in which minority voters can elect candidates of choice; Splits minority communities among several districts; Splits minority communities among several districts; Over-concentrates minority voters in one or more districts; Over-concentrates minority voters in one or more districts; Ignores available natural or artificial boundaries without explanation. Ignores available natural or artificial boundaries without explanation. Burden is on the Board to show that the change had no discriminatory purpose and will have no retrogressive effect. Burden is on the Board to show that the change had no discriminatory purpose and will have no retrogressive effect.

The First Step in the Retrogression Analysis This begins with a mathematical comparison of the racial breakdown of the voting age populations between the current district and any proposed new districts. The 2010 Census figures are used for these comparisons, and, because of the nature of the Guilford County population, the African-American population is the most pertinent comparison. The mathematical comparison is where the DOJ will start, but the DOJ says that it “does not rely on any predetermined or fixed demographic percentages at any point in the assessment.” And the comparison is ultimately only one factor in determining whether there has been retrogression.

Current District Voting Age Populations District Total Voting Age Population White Voting Age Population White Voting Age Percentage Black Voting Age Population Black Voting Age Percentage Other Race Voting Age Population Other Race Voting Age Percentage D135,61113, %17, %4, % D247,93735, %8, %4, % D347,69839, %4, %2, % D443,96424, %16, %3, % D542,78334, %6, %2, % D639,90425, %10, %4, % D739,27932, %4, %1, % D838,7119, %24, %4, % D938,07410, %24, %3, % Totals373,961224, ,878 32,225

Considerations in Retrogression Whether a less retrogressive plan can reasonably be drawn. Whether drawing a less retrogressive plan would unreasonably split minority communities among several districts, or would ignore other community boundaries or considerations. Historic voting patterns, such as the participation rate of minority voters and the historical election of the candidates of the choice of minority voters. Whether there has been an over-concentration of minority voters in any district, or other over-reaction to retrogression analysis.

The Intersection of One Person, One Vote and Section 5 Preclearance Districts 1, 8 and 9 deviate below the “ideal district” total population and must add population. Districts 1, 8 and 9 deviate below the “ideal district” total population and must add population. Must do so without causing retrogressive effects. Must do so without causing retrogressive effects. May not disregard traditional districting principles, such as compactness, contiguity and maintaining communities of interest. May not disregard traditional districting principles, such as compactness, contiguity and maintaining communities of interest.

Shaw vs. Reno Considerations The Constitution requires districts that are not “extremely irregular” and that meet reasonable concerns about compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries or political subdivisions. In Shaw vs. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down North Carolina’s new congressional redistricting plan following the 1990 census for being too irregular.

Other Considerations in Redistricting Maintaining incumbent Members in their districts. Maintaining at least one high school in each district and considering attendance zone lines. Keeping voters in their current districts, to the extent possible. Not splitting voting precincts between districts, in order to avoid costs, difficulty in administration and voter confusion.

Map 1

Map 1: Total Population Deviation District Number 2010 Total Population Deviation from Ideal District Percentage Deviation Highest and Lowest 151,863-2, % 256,2682, % 353, % 454, % 554, % 653, % 754, % 854, % 954, % County Total:488,406 Population Variance:8.12% Ideal District:54,267

Map 1: Voting Age Population District Total Voting Age Population White Voting Age Population White Voting Age Percentage Black Voting Age Population Black Voting Age Percentage Other Race Voting Age Population Other Race Voting Age Percentage D139,48116, %18, %4, % D242,45230, %7, %4, % D340,13634, %3, %2, % D440,73226, %11, %2, % D542,23832, %6, %3, % D643,60227, %11, %5, % D742,85535, %5, %1, % D842,56510, %27, %4, % D939,90010, %25, %3, % Totals373,961224, ,878 32,225

Map 2

Map 2: Total Population Deviation District Number 2010 Total Population Deviation from Ideal District Percentage Deviation Highest and Lowest 151,863-2, % 256,2682, % 354, % 452, % 554, % 653, % 755, % 854, % 954, % County Total:488,406 Population Variance:8.12% Ideal District:54,267

Map 2: Voting Age Population District Total Voting Age Population White Voting Age Population White Voting Age Percentage Black Voting Age Population Black Voting Age Percentage Other Race Voting Age Population Other Race Voting Age Percentage D139,48116, %18, %4, % D242,45230, %7, %4, % D341,15635, %3, %2, % D439,45525, %11, %2, % D542,23832, %6, %3, % D643,60227, %11, %5, % D743,11236, %4, %1, % D842,56510, %27, %4, % D939,90010, %25, %3, % Totals373,961224,