11-15-12 Special Redistricting Minutes

Home Browse Search

Special Advisory Committee for Redistricting November 15,2012 Meeting Minutes Page 2 –+ District 2 has a population of 15,867 (15.7%) which is less than one-sixth (1/6) of the city's population by 984 (1.0%) –� District 3 has a population of 16,020 (15.8%) which is less than one-sixth (1/6) of the city's population by 831 (0.9%) --+ District 4 has a population of 16,918 (16.7%) which is near the one-sixth (1/6) of the city's population only 67 being over --* District 5 has a population of 17,078 (17.0%) which is more than one-sixth (1/6) of the city's population by 227 (0.3%) —> District 6 has a population of 19,610 (19.4%) which is more than one-sixth (1/6) of the city's population by 2,759 (2.7%) Mr. King then briefly highlighted the proposed three (3) options and the "evaluation criteria" for a comparison of Options 1, 2, and 3 set forth in Exhibit F (Exhibit F and maps of Options 1, 2, and 3 attached). He noted that each of the proposed options, in addition to meeting the state law requirements also incorporated such items as minimal movement of precincts, awareness of neighborhood associations, and minimal disruption as possible to the residents. He noted that data on the number of registered voters has also been provided, but is not required. He would have like to also provide demographic information, however he was able to find this information only by individual Census Blocks. The hundreds of Census Blocks must be cross-referenced to Precincts, and the data must be compiled by Precinct then summarized by District. Such information would be useful, but is very time-consuming to produce. Mr. King stressed that he believes that out of diversity comes strength. Mr. King then asked whether there were any other proposals which the Special Committee should review. There were none. He then asked for comments. Council Member White, a member of the Special Committee, noted that she acknowledges that switching Precincts between Districts is necessary in light of South Bend's population decreasing from 107,789 to 101,168. She agrees that the least intrusive option would be the best, and believes that Option # 3 would be her first choice. She added that demographic data is important and presents other challenges. She suggested that the city should have that information made available at a later time. Council President Dieter agreed with Council Member White, noting that the least amount of disruption of the city residents would be best. He also recommended Option #3. Council Vice-President Oliver Davis commended Mr. King for all of the information, and in particular the data set forth in Exhibit F summarizing the comparisons of the three (3) options. He