[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:04]
>> SPEAKER: THE MEETING WILL NOW COME TO ORDER.
MAYOR AND PRO TEM COULD NOT BE WITH US TONIGHT YOU ARE STUCK WITH ME. PLEASE BE PATIENT.
FIRST TIME I'VE HAD TO DO THIS. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ROBERT'S RULES
OF ORDER'S. >> SPEAKER: WE DO.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE IN THIS INSTANCE, COUNCIL RULES DO NOT SPEAK TO WHEN THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM BROWN ABSENT SO THEY DO SPEAK TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
SO YOU NEED TO ELECT A PRESIDING OFFICER OR TEMPORARY PRO TEM FOR EACH OF YOUR MEETINGS THIS EVENING.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND AT THE START OF THE REGULAR MEETING. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO FORWARD AND ELECT SOMEONE AND THEN WE WILL ROLL INTO THE MEETING.
>> SPEAKER: I NOMINATE TOMMY DAWSON.
>> SPEAKER: SECOND. >> SPEAKER: ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? THANK YOU.
[2. MINUTES]
>> SPEAKER: WE CAN PROCEED. >> SPEAKER: WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.
>> SPEAKER: MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SPEAKER: SECOND.
>> SPEAKER: ALL IN FAVOR? PASS.
[3. 2021 REDISTRICTING BRIEFING]
I NOW BELIEVE WE WILL HEAR FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY?>> SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. HE WILL GIVE A 2021 REDISTRICTING BRIEFING ALONG WITH WE HAVE A GUEST THIS
EVENING. >> SPEAKER: MAY I REMOVE MY MASK? AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT TO YOU THAT SINCE OUR PREVIOUS MEETING, TWO MEETINGS AGO, WE CONDUCTED ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED OR ALTERNATE PROPOSED MAP IN ADDITION TO FOR OUR NEW VOTING DISTRICTS. IN ADDITION, TO THAT ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE BY STAFF, WE ALSO REFERRED THE SAME TO LEGAL COUNCIL WHO YOU HAVE HEARD FROM PREVIOUSLY.
MR. GORMAN WALKER WHO ALSO TOOK MY INSTRUCTIONS AND I ASKED HIM TO TRY TO DRAW MAPS OR VERIFY THE MAP THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED, THE ALTERNATE MAP, AS MEETING LEGAL CRITERIA.
IN ADDITION TO THOSE TWO, PROCESSES, MR. WALKER ALSO EMPLOYED AN EXPERT WITNESS, AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA AND FIELD, WHO YOU WILL HEAR FROM TONIGHT. ALL IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO JUSTIFY OR VERIFY OR CONFIRM THAT THE PROPOSED MAP WOULD BE LEGALLY WITHOUT CHALLENGE. I WILL TURN OVER THE PRESENTATION TO MR. WALKER AS HE SEES FIT TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS, NOT ONLY OF OUR PREVIOUS MAP AND WHY IT WAS IN HIS OPINION CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL BUT ALSO ADDRESS THE INFORMATION AND DATA THAT HAS BEEN ANALYZED SINCE WE RECEIVED
THE ALTERNATIVE MAP. >> SPEAKER: JUST A POINT OF INFORMATION BEFORE MR. WALKER SPEAKS, IT WILL ROLL INTO THE REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA AND BE AFTER 7 PM WHENEVER WE COMPLETE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AT WHATEVER TIME.
OKAY. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS. I WAS ASKED TO DO TWO THINGS, TO ADVISE THE CITY, TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE MAP THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE CITY STAFF, AND THEN TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON ANY ADDITIONAL MAPS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.
THE ONLY WHOLE PLAN ADDITIONAL MAP THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY IS I THINK WHAT WE WILL CALL THE NAACP PLAN, IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS WHO THE AUTHOR IS.
WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST MAP, THE MAP THAT WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY, I WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT THE PROCEDURE THE CITY USED WAS EXEMPLARY. THERE WERE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO COME AND REVIEW THE MAP.
THEY COULD ALSO REVIEW IT ONLINE THEY COULD INTERACT WITH CITY STAFF IF THEY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAP.
AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT WAS AN EXEMPLARY OPEN PROCEDURE OF MAP DRAWING AND I HAVE LOOKED AT THE MAP.
I HAVE TALKED WITH THE STAFF ABOUT THE MAP, AND I BELIEVE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND THAT IT IS FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND WITH THE CONSTITUTION. WITH REGARD TO THE NAACP PLAN, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU FIRST TO HEAR FROM DR. TREY HOOD WHO IS HERE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA WHERE HE IS IN THE POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT FIRST ABOUT HIS ANALYSIS OF THE POPULATION NUMBERS BEHIND THE WORD SIX OF THE NAACP PLAN.
THAT PLAN SEEKS TO HAVE TWO MAJORITY DISTRICTS, ONE OF COURSE IS WARD ONE WHICH IS NOT NUMERICALLY MAJORITY DISTRICT -- MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICT BUT IT FUNCTIONS AS ONE BECAUSE MANY OF
[00:05:03]
THE STUDENTS WHO LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT DON'T VOTE AND BECAUSE IT IS CROSS OVER VOTING. SO THAT'S GOOD.WORD SIX IS THE PROPOSED CROSSOVER DISTRICT AND I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO SEE DR. HOOD'S ANALYSIS OF THAT BEFORE I GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT. SO DR. TREY HOOD.
>> SPEAKER: YOU CAN STAND UP AT THE CHOATE -- PODIUM.
>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME.
I AM TREY HOOD FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA.
I WAS ASKED TO DO SOME STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON THE NAACP PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED. SO, FIRST OFF, BIG PICTURE HERE, THIS IS FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN. WE ARE NOT DIVIDING ANYONE INTO DISTRICT AT THIS TIME -- POINT. YOU CAN SEE THE BREAKDOWN OF THE CITY OF AUBURN. VAP MEANS VOTING AGE POPULATION.
I CAN BARELY SEE THESE NUMBERS MYSELF HERE.
WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE -- AND AGAIN THIS IS FROM, ALL CENSUS DATA -- THE CITY OF AUBURN IS ABOUT 71 PERCENT NON-HISPANIC WHITE VAP, AND THEN IF YOU ADD THE MINORITY GROUPS TOGETHER ACROSS THE BOTTOM, NON-HISPANIC BLACK, HISPANIC, NON-HISPANIC ASIAN AND OTHER, OTHER WOULD INCLUDE MULTIRACIAL AND AMERICAN INDIAN, FOR INSTANCE. IF YOU AT ALL OF THOSE TOGETHER YOU GET ABOUT 29.3 PERCENT MINORITY VOTING AGE POPULATION.
IF YOU LOOK AT ANOTHER METRIC, WHICH IS IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PICTURE EMERGES. AGAIN, THIS IS THE 18 PLUS POPULATION WHO ARE CITIZENS FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN.
AGAIN, NOT DIVIDING ANYONE YET INTO DISTRICTS.
NOW YOU SEE 76 PERCENT NON-HISPANIC WHITE, 24.1 PERCENT MINORITY CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT BREAKS OUT INTO THE SPECIFIC MINORITY GROUPS THERE.
NEXT I HAVE JUST A SIDE-BY-SIDE OF THOSE TWO METRICS.
YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A FAIRLY LARGE DROP OFF IN THE NON-HISPANIC ASIAN POPULATION, 8.1 PERCENT VOTING AGE POPULATION, BUT DOWN TO 2.5 PERCENT CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION. THAT IS WHAT CAUSES THE UPTICK IN THE PERCENTAGE FIGURES FOR THE NON-HISPANIC WHITE POPULATION. NOW, NEXT WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THINGS PARSE OUT ON THESE TWO METRICS, THAT IS VOTING AGE POPULATION AND CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION.
IF YOU DIVIDE PEOPLE UP INTO DISTRICTS BASED ON THE NAACP PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THAT DARK LINE AT 15 PERCENT, THAT HORIZONTAL LINE. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE IS THE PERCENTAGE NON-HISPANIC WHITE POPULATION, EITHER VAP OR SEE THAT. THIS IS THE EASIEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT. IF THE BAR IS BELOW THAT HORIZONTAL BLACK LINE, THAT WOULD INDICATE A MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICT. SO FOR INSTANCE, DISTRICT ONE, VOTING AGE POPULATION IS MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICT BECAUSE IT HAS LESS THAN 50 PERCENT NON-HISPANIC WHITE CITIZENS IN THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
AND SO IS D6. YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT BECAUSE D6 IS JUST ALMOST EVENLY SPLIT, BUT IT IS A MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICT USING VOTING AGE POPULATION.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THINGS IN TERMS OF CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, AND AGAIN THIS WOULD GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE POTENTIAL ELECTORATE IN THESE DISTRICTS, A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PICTURE EMERGES WHERE NONE OF THESE DISTRICTS ARE ACTUALLY MAJORITY MINORITY. D1 COMES FIRST, BUT YOU CAN SEE D6 IS FAR AND AWAY NOT A MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICT WHEN LOOK AT THE C MAP POPULATION. SO THE NEXT THING -- HOPEFULLY THIS IS CLEAR. I'M GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THIS. THIS WILL BE TOO LONG.
THE NEXT THING I TOOK A LOOK AT IS TESTING FOR MINORITY VOTE DILUTION. THESE TESTS WERE DEVELOPED BY THE COURTS. THEY GO TO -- BACK TO ABOUT 1986. IT IS CALLED IN JINGLES TEST.
THESE ARE THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS HERE, THESE PRONGS AND THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THE JINGLES TEST.
[00:10:02]
SPECIFICALLY, PRONG ONE ASKS IS THE MINORITY GROUP SUFFICIENTLY LARGE AND COMPACT ENOUGH TO FORM A MAJORITY AND A SINGLE NUMBER DISTRICT? PRONG TWO IS THE MINORITY DISTRICT POLITICALLY COHESIVE? SO MANY IS THE MINORITY GROUP VOTING TOGETHER? TO THEY HAVE A PREFERRED CANDIDATE OF CHOICE? CAN WE IDENTIFY A CANDIDATE THAT THEY ARE A MAJORITY BEHIND, IN OTHER WORDS? THIS IS A SPECIAL NOTE ON COALITION DISTRICTS.WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED HERE IS ESSENTIALLY A MINORITY COALITION DISTRICT. USUALLY SECTION TWO APPLIES TO SINGLE RACE GROUPS, FOR INSTANCE AFRICAN-AMERICANS OR HISPANICS OR ASIANS. BUT HERE IT IS BEEN PROPOSED THAT A COALITION DISTRICT BE DRAWN WHICH IS COMPRISED BASICALLY OF EVERYONE WHO IS NON-HISPANIC WHITE.
SO IN THAT CASE, TO REACH PRONG TO YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL OF THE MINORITY GROUPS ARE VOTING COHESIVELY FOR THE SAME CANDIDATE. THEY ARE ALL VOTING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, IN OTHER WORDS. SO THAT IS IMPORTANT.
PRONG THREE ASKS THE QUESTION, IF YOU CAN FIND PRONG TWO, YOU GO TO PRONG THREE, WHICH ASKS THE QUESTION IS A PREFERRED MINORITY CANDIDATE OF CHOICE TYPICALLY DEFEATED BY A MAJORITY WHITE BLOCK VOTE? SO THAT IS THE THIRD PART OF THIS. TO SUSTAIN A VOTE DILUTION CLAIM, YOU NEED ALL THREE OF THESE PRONGS, NOT JUST ONE OR TWO OF THEM. SO LOOKING AT PRONG ONE, MY ASSESSMENT AGAIN, WHICH IS BASED ON THESE DATA HERE, ESPECIALLY THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, MY ASSESSMENT ON PRONG ONE IS THAT LOOKING AT THE C THAT POPULATION, NONE OF THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS, THIS IS RECAPPING WHAT I SAID, PROPOSED IN THIS PARTICULAR PLAN WOULD FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY FUNCTION AS MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICTS. AND MOVING ON TO PRONG TWO, WHICH REQUIRES SOME STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS DETERMINE WHAT DIRECTION SPECIFIC RACIAL GROUPS ARE VOTING, FOR WHICH CANDIDATES.
SO I ANALYZED THE 2018 MAYOR'S RACE BECAUSE AGAIN IT IS A NONPARTISAN RACE. THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THE 2014 MAYORS RACE WAS UNCONTESTED SO THERE WAS NOTHING TO ANALYZE THERE. SO THIS WAS THE MOST PROXIMATE WHAT IS CALLED AN ENDOGENOUS OR PROBATIVE ELECTION, LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR PLAN. NOW, ONE CAVEAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS MORE, THERE IS ONLY FOUR PRECINCT TO ANALYZE, WHICH GIVES US VERY LITTLE STATISTICAL POWER.
BUT THE TAKEAWAY POINT IS LOOKING AT THE MAYORS RACE, OR THE MAYORS RUN OFF RACE. THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS THAT I PERFORMED DOES NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT WHITES AND OTHER MINORITY GROUPS HAD DIFFERENT PREFERRED CANDIDATES OF CHOICE.
SO HERE -- SOMETIMES THIS IS CALLED -- WE'RE LOOKING FOR RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING. ARE MINORITY GROUPS VOTING IN ONE DIRECTION FOR ONE CANDIDATE AND WHITE VOTERS VOTING IN ANOTHER DIRECTION FOR ANOTHER CANDIDATE? I CANNOT FIND SUSTAIN STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FOR THAT EITHER ONE OF THESE RACES THAT WAS ANALYZED.
SO MY TAKEAWAY POINT HERE, THE CONCLUSION UNDER PRONG TWO, IS THERE IS NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING PATTERNS FOR THESE ELECTIONS THAT WERE ANALYZED.
MOVING ON TO PRONG THREE. AGAIN, IF PRONG TWO IS NOT SUSTAINED, THERE IS REALLY NO EVIDENCE OF PRONG THREE.
IF WE CAN'T TELL THAT THERE IS RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING OR NOT, IT IS HARD TO SAY THAT THERE IS SPECIFICALLY FOR ONE A MINORITY PREFERRED CANDIDATE OF CHOICE.
BEING DEFEATED BY A MAJORITY WHITE VOTING BLOCK.
SO THE OVERALL TAKE AWAY POINTS OR CONCLUSIONS HERE IS THAT I WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE STATISTICALLY SPEAKING TO SUSTAIN ANY OF THE THREE JINGLES PRONGS.
AND AGAIN YOU NEED ALL THREE OF THEM TO SUSTAIN A VOTE DILUTION CLAIM. SO MY MAJOR TAKE AWAY POINT HERE FROM THIS ANALYSIS IS THAT THERE IS NOT ANY EVIDENCE IN THE MINORITY VOTE DILUTION RELATED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTING SCHEME. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS NOW OR WAIT OR --
>> SPEAKER: DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM WHAT HE WILL BE AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
AT THIS TIME TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCIL?
>> SPEAKER: THE RELEVANCE OF THE JINGLES TEST, IF THIS WERE TO BE CHALLENGED AND THE MAPPING PROPOSED, THAT WOULD BE CHALLENGED ALLEGATIONS OF VOTE DILUTION'S.
>> SPEAKER: THAT IS ONE. IT COULD BE AGAIN MISTER WALKER COULD SPEAK TO THIS. IT'S MORE OF A LEGAL ISSUE.
THERE COULD BE A VOTE DILUTION CLAIM, THERE COULD BE A 14TH AMENDMENT RACIAL GERRYMANDERING CLAIM.
>> SPEAKER: YOU MENTIONED THAT AND C VAP.
VOTING AGE POPULATION. WHY IS THAT REALLY RELEVANT HERE
[00:15:03]
WE WERE LOOKING AT MAPS? >> SPEAKER: IT IS RELEVANT IF THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION DIVERGES FROM THE VOTING AGE POPULATION. BECAUSE AGAIN YOU ARE DRAWING A DISTRICT. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DRAW A MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICT AND IT CAN'T REALLY FUNCTION THAT WAY, BECAUSE OF A NUMBER OF NONCITIZENS IN THAT DISTRICT, THEN YOU ARE NOT REALLY DRAWING A MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICT IN
THE END. >> SPEAKER: THAT COULD AFFECT ANALYSIS TOO IF WE WERE TO TAKE JUST A TENET OVER THAT COULD VOTE BUT NOT NECESSARILY COUNT CITIZENSHIP, THAT COULD SKEW THE
NUMBERS, IS THAT FAIR? >> SPEAKER: YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE C VAP POPULATION. IN SOME CASES IT DOESN'T MATTER.
THE VOTING AGE POPULATION AND THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION ARE ANALOGOUS TO WHAT REALLY MATTER THAT MUCH.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A DROP OFF FOR CERTAIN MINORITY GROUPS, ESPECIALLY NON-HISPANIC ASIANS.
>> SPEAKER: YOU MENTIONED COALITION, MULTIPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF RACIAL GROUPS KIND OF VOTING TOGETHER.
IS THAT AN -- IS THAT BY DEFAULT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER AREAS OR IS THAT GOING TO BE CANDIDATE RELATED?
DOES THAT ALWAYS HAPPEN? >> SPEAKER: KNOW, DOESN'T ALWAYS EMERGE THAT WAY. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN STATISTICALLY , FOR WHAT I'M SHOWING IT HAS TO BE SHOWN STATISTICALLY THAT IT DOES EXIST.
>> SPEAKER: BUT YOU DIDN'T -- >> SPEAKER: I DIDN'T FIND
EVIDENCE OF THAT. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.
>> SPEAKER: ANY OF THE QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO BE I THINK A BIT REPETITIVE, BUT I THINK IT BEARS IT. THE CITY'S PLAN COMPLIES IN MY OPINION WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND WITH THE CONSTITUTION, FULFILLS THE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO REDISTRICT ITSELF BASED ON THE 2020 CENSUS DATA. UNFORTUNATELY, THE NAACP PLAN DOES NOT. IT CAN'T MEET THE NUMEROSITY REQUIREMENT AS SHOWN DR. HOOD, AND THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VOTING AGE POPULATION AND C VAP IS A GOOD ONE. NORMALLY WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH A MINORITY DISTRICT, IT IS JUST BLACK OR WHITE HERE IN ALABAMA BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ETHNIC GROUPS THAT WE PRESENTLY HAVE. AND WE KNOW ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE CITIZENS. IN THIS CASE, A LARGE PART OF THE POPULATION FOR THE PROPOSED WARD SIX WAS OF ASIAN POPULATION AND NON-HISPANIC ASIAN. AND AS DR. HOOD SHOWED YOU, THAT DROPPED FROM 8.1 PERCENT WHEN WE LOOKED MERELY AT VOTING AGE POPULATION, TO 2.5 PERCENT. THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE REASON THAT THE PROPONENTS OF THAT PLAN CAN'T SHOW THAT IT COULD FUNCTION AS A MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICT.
BUT ALSO IF THE ASIAN POPULATION DROPS FROM A .1 VOTING AGE POPULATION, TO 2.5 CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, THEN IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME THAT THOSE MAJORITY OF ASIAN POPULATION THAT ARE NOT CITIZENS ARE NOT ENGAGED IN A POLITICAL COALITION WITH THE OTHER MINORITY GROUPS IN THE PROPOSED WARD SIX.
SO THERE IS NOT ONLY NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED OF A COALITION OF ALL OF THOSE DISPARATE MINORITY GROUPS, BUT NO EVIDENCE THAT THE HISPANIC VOTERS AND ASIAN VOTERS AND THE BLACK VOTERS AND THE OTHER MINORITY GROUP VOTERS VOTE TOGETHER, SUPPORT AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAME CANDIDATES. BUT ALSO WE KNOW THAT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE ASIAN POPULATION ISN'T EVEN IN THE GAME AT ALL BECAUSE THEY ARE NONCITIZENS.
SO FOR THOSE TWO REASONS ALONE, I WOULD SAY THAT THE PLAN DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS OR THE CONSTITUTION.
IT MERELY GROUPS PEOPLE TOGETHER BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY.
THIRD, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE THAT IN THE DISTAL ELECTIONS WHITES VOTE IN ONE DIRECTION AND MINORITY VOTES IN THE OTHER.
IN FACT, IT APPEARS FROM THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DR. HOOD THAT THERE IS SOME CROSS OVER VOTING BY WHITES IN SUPPORT OF COUNCILMAN FINCH TAYLOR AND IN WARD ONE WHICH IS GOOD.
SO IN SUM, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SECTION TWO VOTE DILUTION.
FINALLY, WARD SIX WAS ADMITTEDLY DRAWN WHAT WE HEARD THAT ON DECEMBER 21, IN A RACIALLY CONSCIOUS MANNER WHICH IS NOT
[00:20:04]
PERMITTED. SO BASED ON THESE REASONS, I WOULD SAY THAT IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE CONSTITUTION. LET ME ADD ALSO THAT WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST POINT I RAISED, WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF MINORITIES AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MINORITY MEMBERS IN THE PROPOSED SECOND MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICT.THE CITY STAFF TRIED TO CREATE ON ITS OWN A SECOND MAJORITY DISTRICT WITH A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF MINORITY MEMBERS AND THEY JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO DO IT. THAT INDICATES TO ME THAT IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO DO GIVEN THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF AUBURN TODAY. IN TEN YEARS, WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN GIVEN POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CITY.
MAYBE IN TEN YEARS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE TWO MINORITY DISTRICT BUT I DON'T THINK YOU CAN CREATE A SECOND MINORITY DISTRICT NOW AND COMPLY WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE CONSTITUTION. I WOULD BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY
QUESTIONS. >> SPEAKER: QUESTIONS FOR
MR. WALKER? >> SPEAKER: MR. WALKER, THIS BODY HAS RECEIVED A NUMBER OF E-MAILS, SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONING YOUR CREDENTIALS AND YOUR ASSOCIATIONS.
I THINK IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THOSE CRITICISMS FROM THE PUBLIC AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD SHARE WITH US YOUR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARTICULAR CRITICISMS AIMED AT YOU ABOUT AN ASSOCIATION WITH A POLITICAL OPERATIVE BY THE NAME OF THOMAS POPULAR.
>> SPEAKER: ANCHIA FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THAT.
THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS I THINK MADE AT THE JANUARY FOR MEETING WHICH I WAS NOT HERE. ABOUT MR. HOSSLER.
THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT HE WAS A PERSON WHO WAS PROMINENT I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY IN REPUBLICAN REDISTRICTING CIRCLES.
HE I BELIEVE IN THE 2010 REDISTRICTING CYCLE, HE HELPED IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER DRAW THE PLANS FOR A NUMBER OF STATES, INCLUDING NORTH CAROLINA, WHICH IS SORT OF LIKE -- IF THE YANKEES ARE THE YANKEES BASEBALL, NORTH CAROLINA IS THE YANKEES OF REDISTRICTING. THERE IS MORE LITIGATION THERE ABOUT REDISTRICTING THAN ANY OTHER STATE, I THINK.
THERE IS ONE DISTRICT THERE, CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 12 THAT IS BEEN IN THE SUPREME COURT ABOUT FIVE OR SIX TIMES.
HE ASSISTED THERE. I MET MR. HOSSLER ONE TIME.
I THINK IT WAS AT A REDISTRICTING CONFERENCE AT THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATORS HAD BEFORE THE START OF THE 2010 CYCLE. WE TALKED.
HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT REDISTRICTING AND I WAS AT THAT TIME WORKING ON REVISING OR MAKING SURE THAT THE STATE'S GUIDELINES FOR REDISTRICTING COMPLIED WITH LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAPPENED IN THE INTERVENING 16 YEARS SINCE I HAD LAST REVISED THE GUIDELINES. AND HE SAID HE WOULD BE GLAD TO LOOK AT THEM SINCE HE WORKED IN MANY STATES AND PRESENT -- AND HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES OR AT LEAST HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. I THINK THAT WAS MAYBE WE HAD A FEW OTHER E-MAILS AFTER THAT. MY LAST E-MAILS WITH HIM WERE IN 2011. IN 2018 I THINK HE DIED.
I DIDN'T KNOW THIS UNTIL RECENTLY.
AFTER HE DIED HIS DAUGHTER FROM WHOM HE APPARENTLY WAS ESTRANGED GOT COPIES OF COMPUTER FILES OF HIS THAT BETRAYED SOME FAIRLY I THINK EGREGIOUS POSITIONS WITH REGARD TO HOW REDISTRICTING COULD BE USED TO STEAL VOTES FROM DEMOCRATS AND FROM MINORITY GROUPS AND PERHAPS SOME RACIST VIEWS TOO.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH MR. HOSSLER ABOUT ANY OF THAT BACK WHEN I MET HIM IN 2010 OR IN THE FEW E-MAILS WE EXCHANGED IN 2011.
I DON'T OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. I THINK REDISTRICTING SHOULD BE DONE IN A WAY THAT MAKES OUR DEMOCRACY FUNCTION AND I CERTAINLY THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY VIGILANT IN THE PROTECTION OF MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS IN ORDER TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY WORK I BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS DRAWN DOES THAT.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ADDRESS THAT.
>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: I HAVE A QUESTION.
YOU MENTIONED CROSS OVER VOTING FOR WARD ONE.
[00:25:01]
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? >> SPEAKER: WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS THAT DR. HOOD PUT UP.
>> SPEAKER: LET ME PUT THOSE BACK UP CHART?
>> SPEAKER: THE CHART. >> SPEAKER: YOU CAN ROLL
THROUGH THEM. >> SPEAKER: GO BACK.
>> SPEAKER: THAT ONE? >> SPEAKER: I MAY BE WRONG BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THAT WITHOUT THINKING IT WAS NAACP PLAN. I WONDER IF YOU MIGHT NOT GET CROSS OVER VOTING IN YOUR CONTEXT WOULD BE WHITE SUPPORT FOR YOU. AND I THINK YOU MUST GET SOME IN ORDER TO BE -- YOUR DISTRICT HAS CONSISTENTLY RETURNED A BLACK CANDIDATE TO THE CITY COUNCIL DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN FACT THERE IS A MINORITY OF BLACK PEOPLE IN THE POPULATION.
PART OF THAT IS DUE I THINK TO CITIZENS -- TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A LOT OF STUDENTS IN YOUR DISTRICT YOU DON'T VOTE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND PART OF IT I THINK IS THAT YOU GET AND YOU SHOULD SUPPORT FROM WHITE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN
THE DISTRICT. >> SPEAKER: SO YOU SAY THAT, BUT HOW CAN YOU TELL? WHEN PEOPLE GO IN AND THEY VOTE, THEY FILL OUT THIS FORM TO VOTE. HOW CAN YOU TELL THE BLACK --
VOTING FOR WHO? >> SPEAKER: I COULD BE WRONG.
I WAS JUST BASING THAT ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS A MINORITY OF BLACK VOTERS IN YOUR DISTRICT, YET YOU WIN, SO YOU MUST BE GETTING SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, IS WHAT I WAS SAYING.
>> SPEAKER: BUT THE NUMBERS ARE SO LOW IN WARD ONE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DID YOU DETERMINE -- TO DETERMINE THAT FROM THE NUMBERS? I THINK IN 2018 -- I COULD BE WRONG -- WARD ONE HAD ABOUT 6500 PEOPLE AND THERE WAS ONLY MAYBE 600 PEOPLE THAT VOTED. BETWEEN ME AND THE TWO CANDIDATES. HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE? I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WAS THAT DETERMINED THAT ALL OF THE VOTES COULD HAVE BEEN ALL BLACKS OR SOME OF THE VOTES COULD HAVE BEEN MIXED? HOW IS THAT DETERMINED TO SAY THAT I GOT A CROSSOVER VOTE?
>> SPEAKER: LET ME BE CLEAR. I DID NOT DO A FULL ANALYSIS OF YOUR DISTRICT. HE WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I SAW FROM LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS. IT MAY BE THAT THERE IS NOT ANY CROSS OVER VOTING AND THE REASON THAT YOU WIN IS BECAUSE THE STUDENTS DON'T VOTE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW.
>> SPEAKER: OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> SPEAKER: BUT WHAT I DO KNOW --
>> SPEAKER: BUT WHEN YOU STICK THAT LITTLE THING IN THE BOX IS NOTHING ABOUT RACE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW DID YOU -- >> SPEAKER: I THINK THE GOLDEN STANDARD ON THAT WOULD BE THE EXIT POLLING WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE HERE. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT YOUR DISTRICT CONSISTENTLY PERFORMS AS A MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICT EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY IT IS NOT ONE.
SO THAT'S GOOD. >> SPEAKER: ANY OF THE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MISTER WALKER EXPECT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SPEAKER: RICHARD DAVIDSON,
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? >> SPEAKER: AT THIS TIME I DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE COUNCIL.
I DO KNOW THAT NOT ONLY DO WE ASK FOR ADDITIONAL DATA OR EVIDENCE TO HELP ANALYZE THE PROPOSED MAP, WHICH WE NEVER GOT , THE CITY STAFF ENDEAVORED TO RE-CREATE THE MAP IN A LEGAL WAY AND COULDN'T DO IT AND THEN SEPARATELY AND DISTINCTLY SO DID MR. WALKER. AND STILL CAN'T GET TO A LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE MAP OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT THE CITY MANAGER PROPOSED. THAT IN CONCLUSION IS THE SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN. THE FEAR I HAVE IS THAT IF YOU CREATE A MAP THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION PRACTICALLY WITH MINORITY DISTRICTS, AND THEY ARE NOT POSSIBLE TO FUNCTION BECAUSE CITIZENS -- VOTERS YOU ARE RELYING ON TO MAKE THE DISTRICTS ARE NONCITIZENS AND CAN'T VOTE, THEN YOU CREATE A SITUATION THAT IS DILUTED BOTH WARD ONE AND SIX THAT THERE MAY NOT BE ANY MINORITY CANDIDATES ELECTED AND THAT IS A GREAT RISK IN MY LEGAL
VIEW. >> SPEAKER: MOVING ON TO QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE CITY MANAGER CROUCH?
>> SPEAKER: MAY I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK CITY STAFF A QUESTION ABOUT THE WORK THAT WENT INVOLVED IN THE CITY MAP?
>> SPEAKER: RICHARD DAWSON, YOU ARE GOOD WITH THAT?
>> SPEAKER: I'M FINE. >> SPEAKER: LEGAL COUNCIL -- I
[00:30:04]
WILL CHOOSE THE STAFF MEMBER. >> SPEAKER: I KNOW IT WAS BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON IN THIS PRESENTATION, BUT I WOULD LIKE -- IF IT IS IS ALL POSSIBLE -- O COMMENT ABOUT THE ATTEMPTS THAT THEY MADE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF A SECOND
MINORITY DISTRICT. >> SPEAKER: MR. GRAAF, MR. KIT
KIP, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? >> SPEAKER: MOST DEFINITELY THIS WAS AN EXERCISE WE PURSUED. HE PURSUED IT IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. WE LOOKED AT INDIVIDUAL MINORITIES. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE NOT NUMEROUS ENOUGH NOR COMPACT ENOUGH TO SERVE IN THAT WAY.
AND THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT THESE COALITION MINORITY GROUPS.
BUT AS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE JINGLES, WE WERE JUST UNABLE TO FIND A PRACTICAL WAY TO PUT THEM TOGETHER THAT WASN'T THEN VIOLATING ANY OF THESE OTHER BOUNDARIES THAT WE HAVE TO WORK
WITHIN. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE HEARD THAT ASPECT OF THE WORK THAT HAS GONE ON IN CREATING THIS MAP.
I APPRECIATE THAT. >> SPEAKER: I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TOUCH ON SEVERAL HUNDRED HOURS OF STAFF TIME HAS BEEN SPENT EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVE MAP THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE NAACP AND MUCH CARE AND TIME WAS TAKEN TO EVALUATE EVERY BIT OF IT TO MAKE SURE THAT DATA -- WAS DATA MISSED ON OUR END, ANYTHING WE COULD DO. TO MR. GRAPHS POINT, WE LOOKED VERY EARLY ON AT THE CITY AS A HOLE AND WE LOOKED AGAIN AND AGAIN INTO DECEMBER AND THIS EARLY PART OF JANUARY.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT WAS SPENT AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE ALTERNATIVE MAP THAT WAS SUBMITTED. WE LOOKED AT A PROOF OF CONCEPT MAP PRIOR TO THAT. BUT THE CLARITY THAT WE ARE PROVIDED BY THE NAACP WAS TO FOCUS ONCE THE ALTERNATIVE MAP WAS SUBMITTED TO FOCUS ON THAT WHICH WE DID.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT WAS SPENT INTENTIONALLY AND WITH GREAT EFFORT TO BE SURE THAT WE HAD
EVALUATED IT THOROUGHLY. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.
>> SPEAKER: THERE IS A STATEMENT SAYING THAT SOME DATA WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE NAACP THAT WE HAD REQUESTED.
COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? >> SPEAKER: MR. DAVIDSON?
>> SPEAKER: WE ENDEAVORED TO ANALYZE ANY EVIDENCE OF COHESION , ANY EVIDENCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE ARTICULATED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING IN JINGLES TO MEET THE SECTION TWO ANALYSIS. BUT ADMITTEDLY, EVEN FROM THE PODIUM PREVIOUSLY, THAT EVIDENCE WASN'T THERE AND WASN'T SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL. THE FIRST TIME YOU HEARD OF THAT MAP WE GAVE AMPLE TIME FOR THAT TO BE PRODUCED.
WHEN IT WASN'T PRODUCED WE SIMPLY TRIED TO DO IT INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY AND TO NO AVAIL. SO I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT IT IS NOT THERE. SPOT SO IT PHENOMENALLY EVIDENCE OF COHESION AMONGST THE VARIOUS GROUPS THAT CONSTITUTED.
>> SPEAKER: ALTERNATIVE MAP. >> SPEAKER: AND AS I WOULD SUGGEST IT WAS MORE AN AGGREGATE OF GROUPS AS IT IS COHESION.
THERE IS NO COHESION. THE ULTIMATE IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. THEY ARE BEING AGGREGATED WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY FUNCTION COHESIVELY.
>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.
I THINK THE RESPONSE WAS IF I RECALL THAT IT WAS COHESION, THAT IT WAS OF -- ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN FOR EVIDENCE AND THE RESPONSE WAS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THAT WAS ON THE CITY TO PROVIDE SUCH RESPONSE OR TO FIND THE INFORMATION WE PRESENTED TO YOU. WE HAVE TRIED EVERY BIT TO PROVE VOTER COHESION AND WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DO THAT.
ONE OF OUR CHALLENGES HAS BEEN THAT YOU DON'T GET TO INSERT YOUR OPINION AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO WHEN WE ARE DOING A RAW DATA ANALYSIS AND LOOKING AT THE LAW BUT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS IN THE DATA TO PROVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
PEOPLE WOULD SAY, INHERENTLY THIS IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE CITIZENS OF AUBURN OR DIFFERENT GROUPS OR WHETHER THEY ARE COHESIVE OR NOT. WE WERE LOOKING FOR DATA TO BACK THAT UP OF -- WHICH HE COULD NOT FIND.
AGAIN, STAFF IS AN ADVISING MODE ON THIS BUT WE ARE EVALUATING BASED ON OUR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND YOU HAVE HEARD FROM MULTIPLE EXPERTS ABOUT THEY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN PART TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ALSO FIND THIS INFORMATION AS WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT IN ANY FORM
OR FASHION AT THIS TIME. >> SPEAKER: I HAVE ONE THE QUESTION. I HAVE BEEN -- I HAVEN'T BEEN IN ATTENDANCE AND A NUMBER OF PRESENTATIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVE MAP PROVIDED BY THE NAACP. ONE OF THEIR ASSERTIONS IS REGARDING GERRYMANDERING, THAT GERRYMANDERING IS LEGAL IF IT IS DONE -- I AM PARAPHRASING HERE -- ONE OF THEIR ASSERTIONS
[00:35:03]
IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE, THAT GERRYMANDERING CAN BE CONSIDERED LEGAL IF IT SUPPORTS A MINORITY BODY.OR A MINORITY VOTING BLOCK. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS
SUBSTANCE AND MERIT? >> SPEAKER: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IS THAT WHEN WE DRAW DISTRICTS NOW, IN THE PAST YOU WOULD START WITH THE MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICT.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS CHANGED THE LAW.
WHAT THEY SAY NOW IS THE MAP SHOULD BE DRAWN RACE BLIND.
AND THEN AT THE END WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR FINAL MAP YOU CAN LOOK AT RACE AND SEE IF THERE IS A STRONG BASIS IN EVIDENCE FOR TAKING RACE BASED STEPS THAT PREDOMINATE OVER THE TRADITIONAL DISTRICTING CRITERIA IN ORDER TO CREATE WHAT SHOULD BE A MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICT. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCE
WE HAD HERE. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.
>> SPEAKER: ANYTHING ELSE? MOVE FOR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.