Report of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts to the Anaheim City Council
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL DISTRICTS TO THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL I. Introduction and Executive Summary The Committee on Electoral Districts (hereinafter "Committee") was established by the Anaheim City Council on April 7, 2015, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2015-147 in response to the passage of Anaheim Measures L and M, which were approved by the voters in November 2014. Measure L establishes elections by district for city council seats other than the Mayor, who will continue to be elected city-wide. Measure M increases the number of council seats, not including the Mayor, from four to six and requires staggering of City Council district elections for those seats with four seats being up for election in 2016 (one of which would thereafter randomly be selected for a 2-year term) with three seats up for election in 2018. The Committee is made up of five retired judges who served on the Orange County Superior Court. One, Justice Edward Wallin, who serves as the Committee Chairman, is a resident of the City of Anaheim and a retired Justice of the California Court of Appeal in Orange County. The other four, Judge James Jackman, Judge Nancy Wieben Stock, Judge Stephen Sundvold and Judge Thomas Thrasher, are residents of Orange, Fullerton, Placentia and Villa Park, respectively, and are each longtime residents of Orange County. These four were chosen at random from a group of fourteen retired Orange County Superior Court Judges who filed applications volunteering to serve on this Committee. Summary of Recommendation to City Council: The Committee is pleased to unanimously recommend the attached Committee Recommended Plan (hereinafter "Plan", which, during the Committee’s deliberations was referred to as "Map 3" or "Reyes 2, rev. Aug 29")) described in this report to the City Council of the City of Anaheim for its consideration. The Plan consists of two maps, one of the entire City and one showing only the central and western part of the City for ease of reference, as well as a demographic summary page. The districts are numbered one through six, with Council District 1 being the westernmost district and Council District 6 being the easternmost. The Plan that we are forwarding to the City Council has received the overwhelming support of residents who testified from throughout the City at our 10 public meetings held in various locations in the City. More importantly, it received the most cogent and detailed testimony concerning how it met the legal criteria that guide our deliberations. As retired Judges, we have spent our careers hearing cases in which we hear evidence and apply the law to the facts utilizing our own experiences, observations 1 and judgment. We have done this in this case and have concluded that this Plan does in fact best meet the legal criteria and best reflect the communities of interest within the City of Anaheim. In undertaking these deliberations we were also provided legal counsel and advice on the several maps that we reviewed during our deliberations. The Plan has a total population deviation of 1.40%, with all deviation justified to follow major roads and keep communities of interest intact. It is a contiguous plan that strongly considers compactness, particularly in light of the elongated shape of the city. As the Plan description below details, it carefully delineates communities of interest as articulated in testimony during our public meetings. The Plan utilizes natural and man-made boundaries that are logical and easy to follow. This Plan carefully addresses voting rights. Significant and substantial public testimony supported how this Plan gives minority groups, particularly the large Latino population, the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice (this is also discussed below in more detail). Finally, we heard a substantial amount of support for this Plan from many individuals and groups from throughout the city, including support from those that had submitted "competing" maps, including maps that were in the final grouping of maps considered by the Committee (i.e., supporters of Map 1 and Map 2 before the Committee). II. Public Outreach A comprehensive outreach plan, “Shape Anaheim’s Future,” was developed and presented to the Committee. Outreach continued throughout this process which contributed to the notable community turnout and participation by over 600 attendees at public meetings held throughout the city from May through September, including submission of over 30 boundary map proposals. Samples of the city’s outreach efforts are attached (Attachment E) and include: o Designated districting webpage (www.anaheim.net/districts) – hosted all districting information (agendas, minutes, meeting videos, draft maps, public participation toolkit, Committee meeting calendar, and related documents etc.). A translation tool was made available to translate all related webpages (Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Vietnamese). o Public Service Announcements (PSA) – Designed to encourage residents to join the conversation of districting. Anaheim residents participated in filming seven different PSAs (English and Spanish) and one group PSA explaining the process and encouraging participation. PSAs were aired on Anaheim’s local channel, Time Warner cable, YouTube, linked to e-mail blasts prior to Committee meetings, and posted on the districting webpage. o E-Postcards – grass roots effort to pass-forward information that was emailed prior to each Committee meeting (English and Spanish, with other languages available upon request) to groups/individuals identified by city staff in Police, Fire, Community Services, Pubic Utilities and Planning; 2 included community leaders, organizations, faith based groups, individuals, as well as anyone who submitted map proposals and provided an email address and individuals who signed up at meetings and/or subscribed online. o Press Releases – sent prior to each Community meeting to e-subscribers (over 10,000) and other city lists, including Police Chief’s Advisory Board and Chief’s Neighborhood Advisory Council, which represents 22 city neighborhoods. o Social Media (Facebook and Twitter) – posted e-postcards, press releases and general meeting announcements prior to each Committee meeting. o Fast Facts (English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Tagalog) – One page quick facts with meeting calendar. Placed at city libraries, community centers, city hall, provided to city field personnel and distributed hundreds of copies to residents for distribution. o Frequently Asked Questions – printed and posted online. o Public Utility Newsletter (over 115,000 residents and businesses). o Utility bill inserts. o Ad placement in: o Anaheim Magazine - online and print, reaching over 119,000 residents and businesses. o Andy Anaheim – monthly newsletter of city highlights reaching over 10,000 subscribers. o Community Services, Your Community Guide publication (Spanish – Tu Comunidad). o Media Outlets: o Articles written publicizing the process – OC Register, Orange Juice Blog, Anaheim Blog, OC Weekly, and Excelsior (Spanish paper). o Columns in OC Register, Our Towns Brief section and Anaheim Bulletin, community section. o Publicized by KPCC radio and Orange County Line- KCRW-FM 89.9. o Paid ads in print and online – OC Register, Anaheim Bulletin, The Notice, and Excelsior. o Aired all Committee meetings on ACTV (as well as posted online). o Save Water Expo – provided literature at city booth (June 6). o Presented update and process at Anaheim Beautiful luncheon, consisting of community volunteers and guests. In addition to the foregoing outreach, following the release of consultant draft map plans, the City Clerk and city’s demographer attended all neighborhood council meetings (west, south, central and east Anaheim) to present the maps, encourage further participation and remind the public of the timeline to submit map proposals. III. The Committee Process The Committee conducted 10 public meetings from May through September to hear input from the public regarding the establishment of boundaries for the six council 3 districts. The meetings have been held at locations throughout the City. Committee meetings have been well-attended and there have been numerous public speakers at each meeting. In addition, the City Clerk and the demographic consultant made presentations to all four Neighborhood Councils in July to encourage public involvement in this process and to receive additional public input. The City’s demographic consultant and special legal counsel briefed the Committee on several occasions on the Constitutional, statutory and case law criteria for districting and there has been a large amount of public testimony regarding issues such as population equality, compactness and contiguity of districts, natural and man-made features, and communities of interest. The Committee has received more than thirty districting proposals (some of which were revised and modified with assistance of the demographer) from sixteen different individuals or groups. Members of the public have provided many comments on these proposals. The proposals submitted by the community and demographic consultant, in addition to the written comments on these proposals are attached to this Final Report. The agendas for all Committee meetings were available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese. A Spanish interpreter was available at each meeting and interpreters for other languages were available upon request. Half of the meetings were held at City Hall because of its central