Draft Maps

 I was asked to create a new post on the draft maps moving forward through the Pomona Independent Redistricting Commission. All maps can be viewed at drawpomona.org

Some Overview

Every 10 in years ending in 0, the US does a census for the purposes of equalizing representation. This includes all levels of government. At the federal level, different states handle it in different ways. In most jurisdictions, the governing body draws the lines which in some cases results in gerrymandering by politicians to favor their party. In California at the state level, we do this via an independent redistricting commission. This process has been followed also by LA County and the city of Pomona, who each have set up commissions to take it out of the hands of politicians. Some jurisdictions, such as PUSD, still have elected boards do the redistricting.

The original goal is to create roughly equal districts so that each elected official represents nearly the same number of residents (citizens, non-citizens, voters, non-voters, people of voting age and children). Additionally, newer laws require such things as an honest attempt to not divide "communities of interest." That is racial communities, neighborhoods, and other groups with cultural commonalities.

Pomona's Challenges

Ideally, each district would have the same number of residents as determined by the census. Pomona's ideal district would have 25,425. Under law, no district can be more than 10% over or under the ideal number. Pomona's current districts are out of balance as shown here (shown as difference from the ideal number:

• D1 +515 or 2.03% over
• D2 -573 or 2.25% under
• D3 -1175 or 4.62% under
• D4 +2414 or 9.49% over (near limit)
• D5 -5665 or 22.28% under (under limit)
• D6 +4482 or 17.63% over (well over limit)

Thus the commission must take population away from D6 and must add population to D5. Since these districts are at the north and south edges of the city, all districts will be impacted and have changes.

The Maps Moving Forward

At their February 23 meeting, the commission went over all 28 maps submitted by the public and fellow commissioners, as well as two others that were not submitted but were worked on by commissioners. Of these, 4 were not properly population balanced (proposed districts under or over 10% of the ideal number) which were taken out of consideration. After a lot of discussion, the commission moved forward 7 proposed maps for further consideration. These are maps 104, 107, 108, 115, 117, 119, and 129. The commission must choose a final map no later than March 23. They will have a special meeting on March 10 (5pm) to try and come up with a single map for final consideration.

The Map that Should be Eliminated

While the above is mainly fact, here is where I'll get into my opinion. Map 117 despite being population balanced, is the only map moving forward which has ALL districts in the city with over 50% voting age Hispanic population. The Fair Maps laws say that maps should not be created to give any racial group a dominance over others when possible. All the maps have 5 districts with over 50% voting age population which does reflect the city's population, But the other maps do have District 5 that is slightly under 50% Hispanic and the largest possible Asian Pacific Islander population in the 20+% range. As commission chair expressed, map 117 is problematic and would likely be challenge in court. For this reason I feel is should be immediately eliminated.

Maps That Change the North

There appear to be two philosophies about how to make district 6 smaller. My own, and the one exemplified by map 107 of those moving forward for consideration. This would carve out an area to the extreme east of the district, moving it into D4. This would preserve the 10 Freeway as a boundary, include the hospital, fairplex, and Ganesha Hills. To my mind this causes the least amount of disruption to the bulk of D6. It would require trimming some of D4 to its current southern border. What I, personally don't like about map 107 is that it moves D2 from its current mid city alignment north to the 10 Freeway between White and Towne. This would also combine the Wilton and Lincoln Park Historic Districts into one council district.

The rest of the maps attempt to carve out the western side of D6 moving Ganesha Hills and Fairplex into district 1, with map 129 moving a sliver of D6 western edge  going into D5. 

Some Conclusions and Recommendations

None of the maps will please everyone. There are many communities of interest who don't want to be split in their representation, that's the way is always happens. The goals here are the minimize the main for everyone. While I would love to see the historic districts each in a different council district as they are now, that may not be possible due to the shifting population. I do feel that the commission will have a lot of work on their hands at their March 10 meeting to try and converge the 7 maps into one that can be supported by a large part of the population. I think we're on the right track with some of the maps and way off base with some. Mostly, those maps that try to completely redefine traditional districts and make broad changes should be rejected and maps which nudge boundaries at their edges, while maintaining traditional neighborhoods should be considered.

Now it's a wait and see as to the thinking of the commission. Unfortunately, the process was slow to start and now they are faced with making a decision on a quick time schedule without the kind of careful crafting that we all would hope for.