Redistricting expert says schedule does not allow enough time for federal approval process
City Auditor Ken Mory and his chief of investigations, Jason Hadavi, briefed the Austin City Council in this morning’s work session, including proposed dates for accomplishing major tasks related to establishing 10 council districts, as approved by voters November 6. (The core of the briefing is contained in the City Auditor’s Slides for City Council Briefing.)
The briefing took place in advance of tonight’s related public forum that starts 7pm in One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road, Room 325. (To see a map, click here.) The purpose of the forum is to encourage participation in the Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission (CIRC) and secure a large and diverse pool of qualified applicants.
The schedule proposed by the City Auditor indicates that the CIRC would adopt a final plan for the 10 geographic districts by April 1, 2014.
Attorney Steve Bickerstaff, who has represented more than a hundred jurisdictions on redistricting in his long legal career, told The Austin Bulldog that April 1, 2014, is not soon enough.
“There is a gross underestimation by the city’s legal counsel of the time it takes to do districts properly and obtain preclearance,” Bickerstaff said of the proposed schedule.
Preclearance is the federal approval process used to review any changes in voting procedures. Voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained. Texas is one of nine entire states subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In addition, designated counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Michigan, and New Hampshire are also covered by the Act.
“This timeline does not allow enough time for preclearance,” Bickerstaff said. “The Department of Justice has 60 days” to review an application for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act ”and may not complete it for another 60 days. Preclearance can take five or six months, although I don’t think it will (for this plan).”
Bickerstaff’s concerns over the time the auditor’s proposed schedule provides for preclearance is at direct odds with advice given to the City Council in this morning’s work session by Assistant City Attorney John Steiner.
“Everything should go as expected and the election should proceed,” Steiner told the council. “I don’t think anything in the auditor’s plan will adversely affect our preclearance plan. Noting in the 10-1 plan is retrogressive, which is essential for preclearance under Section 5.”
April 1, 2014, also appears to be too near the council elections scheduled for November 2014. The City Charter authorizes candidates to start soliciting campaign contributions six months before the election.
For the November 2014 elections that means candidates could start raising money in early May 2014.
It could be fatal to the election if the districting plan approved the CIRC encountered problems in obtaining federal approval of the plan during the election campaigns in which the candidates for 10 council districts will be vying to represent their respective districts.
Ordinance proposed for transition
The Proposition 3: Ordinance No. 20120802-015 was drafted in keeping with the next council elections scheduled to be held in May 2014. Voter approval of Proposition 2, however, moved the elections to November 2014.
Proposition 2 also changed term lengths to four years (vice three currently), limited service to two terms (vice three), and required that staggered elections be held in November of even-numbered years.
The Proposition 3 Ordinance provided flexibility for adjusting dates if elections were moved from May to November. But implementing the adjusted dates will require the City Council to enact a supplemental ordinance to include the details needed to govern the transition.
Bickerstaff and attorney Fred Lewis drafted a proposed ordinance to implement the transition to single-member districts, even-year November elections, and staggered four-year terms.
“The implementation ordinance is needed soon, in my opinion,” Lewis told The Austin Bulldog. “Everyone needs to know what the rules are.”
“It shouldn’t be controversial,” Lewis added.
Bickerstaff sent a cover letter and the proposed ordinance to the mayor and council members November 29. (To see these records click on: Steve Bickerstaff Letter and Proposed Ordinance.)
“Most members of the Council were publicly ambivalent about Proposition 3 perhaps because few, if any, members of the Council thought it would pass,” Bickerstaff’s letter states. “Some members of the Council openly opposed passage of Proposition 3. As a result, some of the supporters of Proposition 3 are now fearful that the city council will try to sabotage implementation of the proposal.”
To allay such concerns and prevent possible criticism, Bickerstaff urged immediate action by the council to further the transition by submitting Proposition 3 itself for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and request expedited consideration.
This preclearance would address the use of the Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission. (This preclearance is separate and apart from the later preclearance that would be needed to gain federal approval of the council districts the Commission draws.)
Bickerstaff said this is a necessary precaution to approve everything in the Proposition 3 City Charter amendment. This step is needed because “no other city in the country has gone from an at-large system to single-member districts with a Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”
San Diego used a similar process to transition to single-member districts but that city is not subject to the Voting Rights Act, Bickerstaff said.
The mayor and 10 council districts will be up for election in November 2014. The proposed ordinance would establish a process by which to set up staggered terms for elections in 2016 and later years. The proposed ordinance directs the city clerk to establish a random process for drawing lots to determine which five council members elected in 2014 would get four-year terms and which five council members would get two-year terms.
Voting Rights Act controls
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national organizations, provides historical perspective on the Voting Rights Act (VRA):
“Passed in 1965 after a century of deliberate and violent denial of the vote to African Americans in the South and Latinos in the Southwest—as well as many years of entrenched electoral systems that shut out citizens with limited fluency in English—the VRA is often held up as the most effective civil rights law ever enacted. It is widely regarded as enabling the enfranchisement of millions of minority voters and diversifying the electorate and legislative bodies at all levels of American government.
“Congress has reauthorized the VRA five times, most recently in 2006, when both the House and the Senate approved the measure overwhelmingly in a bipartisan manner. Congress conducted over 20 hearings, heard from over 50 expert witnesses, and collected over 17,000 pages of testimony documenting the continued need for and constitutionality of the statute,” the Leadership Conference website states.
The introduction to Section 5 the Voting Rights Act of 1965 states: “Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.
“This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.”
The Federal Register of February 9, 2011, provided guidance concerning redistricting under Section 5 of the Act: “A plan has a discriminatory effect under the statute if, when compared to the benchmark plan, the submitting jurisdiction cannot establish that it does not result in ‘retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.’ Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 125, 141 (1976).”
The Federal Register guidance further states: “… the jurisdiction must establish that its proposed redistricting plan will not have the effect of ‘diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States’ because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group defined in the Act, ‘to elect their preferred candidate of choice.’”
This report was made possible by contributions to The Austin Bulldog, which operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to provide investigative reporting in the public interest. You can help to sustainThe Austin Bulldog’s coverage by making a tax-deductible contribution.
Related Bulldog coverage: This is The Austin Bulldog’s 42nd article covering issues and activities pertaining to proposed changes to the Austin City Charter.
Citizens Redistricting Forum December 4: City auditor invites public input for citizens redistricting panel and how best to identify applicant qualifications, November 27, 2012
Prop 3 Proponents to Monitor Implementation: Austinites for Geographic Representation form committee to help guide work on 10-1 system, November 25, 2012
City Hustles to Inititate Prop 3 Tasks: Auditor coordinating with proponents of the 10-1 plan to begin what will be a lengthy transition process, November 15, 2012
10- Plan to Rule Council Elections: Both propositions for geographic representation pass but grassroots group dominates election results, November 7, 2012
Mayor: My Commission Beats Your Commission: Mayor Lee Leffingwell lifts idea for citizens to draw council districts and undercut opposing proposition, November 2, 2012
Prop 3 Fundraising Outpaces Prop 4: Financial support for 10-1 far outstrip dollars donated for 8-2-1 hybrid, September 29, 2012
Proposition 3 Campaign Relies on Grass Roots: Austinites for Geographic Representation going door-to-door, running phone banks, and distributing info at polling places, October 21, 2012
Prop 3 Proponents Question Prop 4 Legality: Civil rights attorney and two minority groups say federal preclearance for 8-2-1 is unlikely, October 21, 2012
Poll Triggers Backlash from 10-1 Proponents: Proposition 3 advocates saying Prop 4 playing dirty with a misleading poll, Prop 4 denies the charge, October 17, 2012
Proposition 4 Campaign Reports Finances: Late report indicates $2685 raised in last three months but fails to provide details about campaign expenses, October 10, 2012
Proposition 3 Campaign Reports Finances: 10-1 campaign proponents raised more than $40,000, Proposition 4’s 8-2-1 advocates’ report not submitted, October 9, 2012
Proposition 3 Rally Draws 150-200 People: Crowd hears fiery speeches by proponents of the 10-1 systemfor electing council members, October 8, 2012
Attorney Bickerstaff Addresses Critics’ Concerns: His September 24 article drew numerous comments about the Proposition 3 Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, October 5, 2012
Feisty Debate Over Electing Council Members: One panelist argues for no change to the at-large system of City Council elections, October 4, 2012
Proposition 3 and 4 Proponents Rev Their Campaigns: Raising money, organizing troops, and pushing plans for geographic representation on Austin City Council, September 28, 2012
Redistricting Need Not Be a Quintessentially Political Process: Independent redistricting commissions for U.S. states and cities, September 24, 2012
Barrientos Lampoons Prop 4 With a Fable: Other proponents of alternative plans for geographic representation push their points, September 14, 2012
Proposition 3 Advocates Falsely Accuse RECA: Group alleges ‘rumor’ of $100,000 pledge by Real Estate Council to defeat Proposition 3, but RECA says not so, September 12, 2012
No-Change Option Surfaces in Ballot Debate: Former Council Member Bob Binder opposes both options on the ballot for geographic representation, September 11, 2012
The Election Wars Have Begun: Interest in how council members elected running high, as face-off debates abound, September 9, 2012
Your Guide to Proposed City Charter Amendments: What’s on the ballot, what it will cost taxpayers, and details provided in the ordinances for each proposition, August 30, 2012
Loud Rally Follows Final Council Vote for 8-2-1: AGR’s Cries Foul Over Work Session Vote for Hybrid; Mayor Leffingwell Said Votes Driven by Ballot Deadline, August 7, 2012
Council Backers of 8-2-1 Plan Accused of Self-Interest: But Facts Don’t Seem to Substantiate Such a Claim, as Related Actions May Bar Most Incumbents From Reelection, August 6, 2012
8-2-1 Near Certain to Go on Ballot: City Council Votes on Second Reading to Put Competition Election Plan on Ballot, July 31, 2012
10-1 Plan Qualifies for November Ballot: Consultant Estimates That 22,435 Signatures Are Valid; Austinites for Geographic Representation Readies for Battle, July 26, 2012
Petition Completed for 10-1 Council Districts: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims 33,000 Signatures, of Which About 22,800 Are Considered Valid, July 16, 2012
Council Puts 10-1 Election Plan on November Ballot: Votes 5-2 on Three Readings to Adopt Petition Language, Votes 4-2 on First Reading to Also Put 8-2-1 on Ballot, June 29, 2012
Citizens Group to Make Final Petition Push: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims to Have 17,000 Signatures, and Shoots for 13,000 More, June 4, 2012
City Council Tackles Charter Amendments: Redistricting Expert, Charter Revision Committee Members, and Grass-roots Group Critical of Task Force Plan, April 26, 2012
Council District Backers Want Quick Ballot Decision: Big Press Conference, Big Pressure Promised, to Get Council Decision Before Council Elections, March 8, 2012
Hard Fought, Heartfelt Charter Decision: Charter Revision Committee Votes 8-7 to Back 10-1 Plan for Council Elections, February 3, 2012
New Restrictions Proposed for Lobbyist Fundraising: Lobbyists Can Only Give Candidates $25 But Can Collect Unlimited Contributions For Them, January 22, 2012
Committee Debates How to Elect Council: Charter Revision Committee Divided Over Pure Districts vs. Hybrid System, January 9, 2012
Thirteen Charter Changes and Counting: Charter Revision Committee’s Next Job: Tackle Plan for Geographic Representation, December 14, 2011
Council Confirms November 2012 Election Date for Charter Amendments: Resolution Ensures Citizens Initiative Won’t Force May 2012 Charter Election, November 3, 2011
Coalition Launching Petition Drive to Get on the Ballot for May 2012 Election, October 18, 2011
Broad Community Interest Focusing on How Mayor and Council Members Elected, October 4, 2011
Coalition Nearing Petition Launch for Grass-roots Council District Plan, August 24, 2011
Maps Prove Select Few Govern Austin: Forty Years of Election History Expose Extent of Disparity, August 4, 2011
City Council to Consider Proposal to Create Geographic Representation: Election Dates, Term Lengths, Redistricting and Other Charter Changes in Council Resolution, April 27, 2011
Petition Launch Imminent to Force Election for Geographic Representation in City Elections, March 7, 2011