Four new maps appeared Friday on a Hays County web page, each presenting different redistricting options for the county's four commissioner precincts. (Thanks to an alert reader and commenter for finding them.) In all likelihood, five maps will be presented and discussed at the commissioners court's Tuesday July 12 meeting. Redistricting is on the agenda. A lot of work goes into drawing new precinct maps every ten years following the Census to balance population growth and representation of racial and minority groups. For a closer look, click on the maps. For a look at all the proposed maps go to this link: ftp://ftp.co.hays.tx.us/gis/redistricting/
15 comments:
Plans J, L, L2, L3, and L4 are the five selections offered for commissioner precinct redistricting. At a first quick look, Plan J should be tossed out. Unlike all the "L" plans, it lumps Hispanic and black populations in one count.
Another possible objection is that the most recent Congressional map was not used in configuring the L map selections. (Plan C141 was used, but C148 is the one currently being considered in court.) Since some of the lines on the L maps seem to be drawn along Congressional lines, that might be something to consider.
There is a so-called Ideal Number which is supposed to be aimed for in drawing precincts. Each map has a "Total Deviation" from the "Ideal." For each L map, the Total Deviation is:
Plan L - 9.32%
Plan L2 - 9.95%
Plan L3 - 8.56%
Plan L4 - 5.79%.
By Federal law, deviation can be no more than 10%, and the lower the deviation, the more desirable the plan is. By that measure, Plan L4 would be best.
Under all four L plans, Precinct 4 is shorted on population, and on three of them, Precinct 3 is shorted also.
On the other hand, Precinct 1 gets
1,000-2,000 more voters than it should have on all four L plans. That should be easy to fix.
The problem is that our wonderful legislators have redrawn district maps 3 times within 10 years!
So much for redistricting once every 10 years. The GOP is never satisfied.
Every year the party wants more and more. It's not enough that Texans already voted in a large majority of Republicans to state offices.
Simply stated, the GOP wants to be certain that Democrats will NEVER get a majority in Texas. That's all this is about.
There is a Federal legal suit filed that will test the redistricting waters.
Barbara, the J redistricting plan stands for "JustUs."
Under Precinct Redistricting Plan L4:
Precinct 1 (Debbie Ingalsbe) has been extended farther to the north, resulting in 1133 people too many over the Ideal Number. Just draw her boundary back to the south until 1133 people are excluded.
Precinct 2 (Mark Jones) has 461 people too many, but it will be even more over the Ideal if it gains 1133 people from Precinct 1 (above). Whatever the eventual Precinct 2 overage is, give that number of voters to Precinct 4.
Precinct 3 (Will Conley) is 1143 too few people under Plan L4. Extend Precinct 3 to the north, above Hilliard Road.
Precinct 4 (Ray Whisenant) needs to go farther east into what is now Precinct 2, to add 452 voters and the voters lost to Precinct 3 above.
Just possible solutions.
I really think this is a lot to do about nothing. What's the difference if Ingslby or any other Commissioner gets a few more or less citizens. Where did all this "Total Deviation" crap come from? It sounds like something the Feds would come up with.
I'd throw all 5 maps face down on the floor with a sugar cube on each and wait for a fly to land on one and that would be the one. Talk about party neutral.
The L plan makes most sense to me due to its inclusion of Rolling Oaks and Lone Man Mountain neighborhoods which have always been closer to Wimberley inside pct. 3. These neighborhoods are presently inside pct. 4 (Dripping) which does not make sense.
Plan L Fan-it does seem that "communities of interest" would be considered-Wimberley w/ Wimberley instead of Dripping Springs, etc. What I have heard so far from the negotiations is that Pct 230 (very close to Buda) will be moved to Dripping, and possibly the Leisurewoods neighborhood (currently in Pct 226-Mark Jones) will also be moved to Dripping. The city or community entities appear not to matter to those making the recommendations.
To PLAN L Fan,
Both Lone Man Mountain Road and
Rolling Oaks Drive are included in Precinct 3 in proposed Plans L and L4. I didn't take the time to search that for Plans L2 and L3.
On the L plans, it looks like the 2 commissioners on the redistricting committee struck some sort of deal. Conley knows that most of Wimberley and Woodcreek are less than pleased with him, and so he doesn't want to enlarge his current Precinct 3 by adding any territory that is anywhere near W&W. And he doesn't want to move farther east into what is now Ingalsbe's heavily-Hispanic Precinct 1. (Latinos typically vote Democrat -- not good for Herr Conley, a Republican.) So what's a guy to do?
Some of the contorted maps are a result....
Ingalsbe gave herself a pad of between 1,000 and 2,000 voters over the Ideal population for a precinct -- into Latino territory.
Self-serving, no? Plus it throws the other 3 precincts off their Ideal populations.
A majority of the population of Hays County now lives along the I-35 Corridor. And this is the area that is continuing to grow by leaps and bounds.
So why does the Hill Country still warrant 50% of the representation of the 4 Commissioners on the Court?
To Anonymous, July 11, 2:24 PM:
If by "Hill Country" you are referring to Precincts 3 and 4, they will be 40% (2 commissioners of 5 voting members) of the Court, and they will represent 50% of the population (2 of 4 precincts which are all at or near the same population), but they will represent about 75-80% of the AREA of the county. There's nothing sinister going on.
Each commissioner will represent the same number of PEOPLE, whether his/her precinct is large or small in AREA. How many times does this have to be explained to you?!
The party out of power here in Hays County is the biggest bunch of whiners I have ever had the displeasure to witness. Not everything is a conspiracy when you and your party have been left at the post on Election Day. The party in power is in power because that is what the voters wanted, in case you missed it.
Sure the Republicans will structure the districts in a way more favorable to them when they have the option, just like the Democrats did before them. Since the districts are mandated by law to represent the population equally there really isn't that much wiggle room, so much of this chatter is really meaningless.
There are new precinct redistricting plans --Plan M1 Revised, Version 2 and Plan N.
M1 Revised, Version 2 shortchanges both Precincts 3 and 4 in favor of Precincts 1 and 2. It has populations for those precincts as:
Precinct 1 - 40,922
Precinct 2 - 40,783
Precinct 3 - 37,675
Precinct 4 - 37,727.
Plan N has both Dripping Springs and parts of Wimberley in the same precinct (Precinct 4), which probably neither of those cities cares for. Wimberley would also lose some influence in the redrawn Precinct 3 because one of its most
populous areas, Woodcreek North,
goes to Precinct 4 (Dripping Springs).
Plan N, like M1 rev2, shortchanges Precincts 3 & 4 on population:
Precinct 1 - 40,904
Precinct 2 - 41,040
Precinct 3 - 37,545
Precinct 4 - 37,709.
Plan N also has a high Total Deviation (9.13%) from the Ideal Number.
So far, Plan L4 still has the lowest Total Deviation - 5.79%.
Hays County Communications sent out
a notice that the statistics for the Plan N map were incorrect. The correct statistics for Plan N are:
Population for Pct. 1 - 40,169
Population for Pct. 2 - 39,142
Population for Pct. 3 - 38,761
Population for Pct. 4 - 39,035.
The Total Deviation for Plan N is 3.58%, not 9.13%
Post a Comment