by
Kathleen Crawford
PCDCC 2nd Vice-Chair
Governmental redistricting is an important process with a 10-year impact, especially in areas of population growth (or loss). Overall, Placer County is increasing in population, especially in the South Placer cities of Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln.
Here’s a brief recap and analysis of two local jurisdictions’ approach to the mandated boundary realignments after the 2020 census. Each governing body took a legally available option. The Placer County Board of Supervisors chose an Advisory Redistricting Commission to create the new boundaries for the 5 supervisorial districts. The Roseville City Charter requires an Independent Redistricting Commission due to voter approval in its latest charter review process. Both Redistricting Commissions had to adjust boundaries due to growing populations.
The City
The city of Roseville began its initial process when the City Council determined that, to comply with the Voter Rights Act, it was necessary to establish 5 districts, each electing a council member living within their district. The adopted map was based, as legally required, on the 2010 census.
Critics of the first map adopted by the City Council noted there were apparent gerrymandered districts. Public opposition to this gerrymandering received attention during the next Charter Review process and resulted in requiring the creation of an Independent Redistricting Commission. Their goal was to draw boundaries following both state criteria and language inserted in the Charter which requires attention to neighborhood association boundaries “as practicable”. Charter language requires 5 public hearings (one in each council district) for public review and input of the draft boundary maps. This language was adopted by a substantial majority of city voters. Importantly, a city council has no authority to modify or change the map adopted by the Independent Redistricting Commission.
In the most recent redistricting effort, several technically savvy citizens submitted maps in addition to the maps generated by the consultant hired by the city. The 5 public hearings generated substantial public interest and several maps were adjusted in response to the public comments. As a result of these adjustments, city Legal Counsel recommended the final adopted map be subjected to an additional 5 public hearings as required by Charter language. The consensus was that the final adopted map greatly improved over the earlier district boundaries by meeting the criteria for compactness, contiguity and neighborhood associations aggregated within a single council district.
Interestingly, a side controversy developed over the number of voters who may experience a 2 year delay in being able to vote for their council member. Since the city has staggered terms, Districts 2 & 4 would normally vote for their council representative in 2022. However, due to the areas of population growth and neighborhood contiguity, some voters are moved to a new district number, changing their next council election to 2024. That issue may continue to be problematic in future census mandated boundary change processes, even as it improves overall representation.
The County
The Placer County Board of Supervisors chose an entirely different process. They used an Advisory Redistricting Commission so the Board could modify or change any recommendation coming from the Commission, thus retaining full control of redistricting.
The Board further muddied the waters by appointing the current Board-appointed Planning Commission to act as the Advisory Commission. Members of the public noted the potential conflict of interest created since Planning Commission members lack independence from the Board itself. Additionally, the Board declined to hire an outside consultant and relied on staff for technical expertise in drawing the new boundaries.
The staff submitted several maps, but 3 versions showed identical boundaries for Roseville which generated opposition from members of the public representing Roseville. One Supervisor complained that he had been redistricted out of the location of his residence. He admitted requesting a map be drawn which would allow him to run for re-election while maintaining his current residence. This is clearly against the guidelines.
Again, several members of the public submitted maps in addition to the staff maps. During the Advisory Committee meetings, the public’s submitted plans were modified to reflect issues raised during the public hearings. Much of the public input was from the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin and Loomis which advocated their city boundaries should be wholly within one district, a concept the staff maps did not achieve. The Advisory Redistricting Commission voted to refer several maps to the Board of Supervisors for adoption.
The next platform for opposition to the staff map occurred at the Board of Supervisors meetings. Despite public member testimony about the shortcomings of the staff map, the Board of Supervisors adopted a staff map. The public was outraged and the Sacramento Bee published an editorial outlining the problematic and flawed process. In addition, activists on both sides of the issues flooded the Supervisors with emails and phone messages requesting that the first adoption be rescinded. On a 3-2 vote, the motion to rescind was approved. After further deliberation, the Board adopted a public-submitted map which passed 5-0.
Lessons Learned
Each jurisdiction’s process to achieve required boundary adjustments generated public interest and comment.
Due to public opposition to the first district map for the City of Roseville, activists drafted and voters adopted charter language to create the Independent Redistricting Commission. The Independent Commission has successfully completed the boundary changes with the public activists showing adaptability to reach consensus. The city council members and city staff (other than Legal Counsel) largely remained outside the process allowing it to be transparent and driven by public input.
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should expect that, at the next Charter Review, recommendations for new Charter language requiring an Independent Redistricting Commission will be forthcoming. Public members noted the cozy relationship between the Board appointed Planning Commission members and Board itself. There was no independent consultant drafting maps and county staff are clearly not sheltered from Board member concerns. The Advisory Redistricting Commission was not responsive to public input and punted the decision back to the Board itself. This embroiled the Board itself directly into an unnecessary controversy.
Making Their Voice Count for Their Future Votes
Bottom line lesson: Despite the process chosen, public comment and input brought substantial change to the boundaries as adopted. This will impact voters’ districts for the next 10 years beginning with the 2022 primary. The importance of Charter language is clear – Placer County Charter Review is within the next 5 years.
I want to thank the technically savvy public members who volunteered hours of their time to submit multiple maps, often revising the maps due to public input. Additionally, I thank the many members of the public who reviewed and commented on the maps with active participation during the process. The final push to get the Placer Board of Supervisors to rescind their original motion would not have been successful without the many advocates persuading the Supervisors to reconsider.
