Dallas Redistricting & your neighborhood

Map 16 was selected by the Dallas Redistricting Commission for presentation to the Mayor.  The more compact map, Map 3, was voted second by the majority of the Commission.

The pages below compare Map 16 districts with Map 3 districts.  They show, district by district, how potential minority representation was gerrymandered and damaged in Map 16, and how it was enhanced in Map 3 with the more compact maps.  If you want to present your council representative or the Mayor with evidence as to why you prefer Map 3 over 16, click on the map below that represents your neighborhood, print it, and send it to them asking that they use Map 3 as the new redistricting map for Dallas for the next decade.

============================================================

District 6

Which District 6 map below will provide the best representation for families living near Love Field?   (Click to enlarge.)

============================================================

 District 3

In Map 16, District 3 is 53.94% Hispanic voting age population (VAP).  In Map 3 the Hispanic VAP for District 3 is 62.05%. Which of the maps below will provide the best and most secure representation for West Dallas families? Or for the families in far Southwest Dallas? (Click to enlarge.)

In Map 16 the weakest of the three Black majority districts is District 7 (see below) with a Black voting age population (VAP) that is vulnerable at only 50.4%.  With the movement of the current District 5 to the west to create a Black majority district in southwest Dallas, District 5 becomes the new "weakest" Black majority district, but significantly stronger, with a Black VAP that is 55.42% and 5 percentage points higher than the Map 16 District 7.   

================================================================

These maps can be clicked on, once to select & once to enlarge, and then can be printed in either portrait (i.e. District 2) or landscape (i.e. District 6 or District 3) format, whichever is best, to show the comparison between the maps. 

============================================================

District 2

District 2 only maintains the eastern end of the current District 2 in Map 3.  Map 3 also strengthens the Hispanic vote by over 4 percentage points by unifying with far East Dallas north of Bruton Road. Gerrymandering is less of a factor in Map 3. 

===========================================================

The South Side of Dallas

The above maps reflect differences between boundary lines for Map 3 and Map 16.

• In Map 16 District 5 has a voting age population (VAP) that is 64.10% Hispanic.  In Map 3 District 5 represents the southwest corner of Dallas and has a VAP that is 55.42% Black. 
• In Map 16 District 7 has a VAP that is 50.4% Black.  In Map 3 District 7 is significantly less gerrymandered and has a VAP that is 66.36% Black.
• In Map 16 District 8 continues to the the longest district in Dallas but has a Black VAP that drops to 61.61%.  In Map 3 District 8 is more compact with a Black VAP that is 67.42%.
• In Map 16 District 4 covers most of the area that District 7 does in Map 3.  In Map 3 District 4 covers the southeast corner of Dallas, and most of the area known as Pleasant Grove, with a Hispanic VAP that is 61.98%.
• In Map 16 District 3 continues to cover far north Oak Cliff and far South Oak Cliff but only has a Hispanic VAP that is 53.94%.  In Map 3 a more compact District 3 covers all of West Dallas and northwest Oak Cliff.  It has a Hispanic VAP of 62.56%.
• In Map 16 District 1 was closest of any district to charges of packing with a Hispanic VAP of 70.56%.  In Map 3 this was avoided by including much of downtown Dallas, and the former area of Little Mexico to embrace Dallas History.  The Hispanic VAP for District 1 in Map 3 is 62.32%.            

The bottom line for minority VAP: it is 1.8% higher on average for each of the 8 minority majority districts in Map 3 when compared with these same 8 districts in Map 16.

===========================================================

Below are numbers that reflect how the more gerrymandered lines of Map 16 damage minority representation in Dallas.  Such gerrymandering should not be allowed to continue in a city that is now over 70% minority but still has a City Council that continues to be majority Anglo.

Remember, click on the above chart to enlarge it.

===========================================================

Print out the above maps for your neighborhood.  Share them with neighbors if you see issues you want to address with the City Council.  Here are email contacts for the Mayor and City Coucil.

If you want to study the full Map 16 that will be submitted to the Mayor, and Map 3 that was the first choice of one commissioner and the second choice of 12 of the remaining 14 commissioners, you may simply load each map in a different tab in your browser and click between them to compare the differences.  Do a right click here for Plan 3 and then click "open in new tab."  Do a right click here for Plan 16 and again click "open in new tab."  These are large maps and may take a while to each load. Once both maps are loaded in different tabs, click on the tab for one of the maps.  Then click on the tab for the other one.  Now click back and forth between the tabs to compare maps.  Move each map to the location you want to compare.

It has often been asked how the district maps produced by Map 3 (wPlan03c) have been so consistently more compact while also producing higher minority percentages.  While there are many hundreds of  elements that have combined with ideas from dozens and dozens of people along the way, the most central and consistent guidance came from the following map created June 9th: 

The blog posting that day explains the history and reasoning behind this map that has guided the creation of wPlan03c.  If you compare the above map with wPlan03c it will be noted that boundary lines were moved so as to eliminate any danger of charges of "packing."  Other boundaries were moved so as to maximize "communities of interest," a valuable term when used with good intentions, but that can also be use in a way to remind one of a previous time when "separate but equal" was also considered a valuable and respected phrase.

Redistricting: DISD vs Dallas City Council

The more the public understands the contrast between DISD redistricting and Dallas City Council redistricting, the more we all will understand redistricting and how it should be done. Expanding that knowledge benefits us all!

To compare the redistricting process at the Dallas City Council with that same process at DISD is especially frightening when you consider the old teaching truism that you teach more by what you do than what you say in front of a classroom.

What lessons are being given students by the DISD board in their redistricting process? Any senior government class could come to the following conclusions if they were to have observed the past 3 months of the redistricting process within DISD, and failed to also observe Dallas City Council in the same process:

Lesson #1: Redistricting requires more involvement by attorneys than by the public. There were at least three attorneys involved in the DISD redistricting process. DISD only spent about 60% of the amount that Dallas City Council spent on redistricting but it appears that a disproportionate amount of the DISD money was spent on paying attorneys.

Meanwhile, Dallas City Council only had one attorney visible in the redistricting process. She was only there for guidance and legal advice, and she was great! She did not draw maps. It appears attorneys were paid to draw the maps in the DISD redistricting process.

Lesson #2: Redistricting does not require maps being drawn by the public as it is too complex of a process and must be done by professionals. DISD provided no online access or other computer access so that the public could be actively involved in designing the redistricting map.

Meanwhile, Dallas City Council centered their process on maps being drawn by the public and by the commissioners. Those hundreds and thousands of hours spent drawing maps were donations to the city both by the public and by the commissioners who were also volunteers. It was a priceless lesson about public donations of time. It was a practical lesson related to what can be done online. It also helped to expose the power of gerrymandering to the 50+ people involved in the process, and underlined the need to eliminate it. (This was the most priceless lesson students studying only the DISD Board would have missed.)

Lesson #3: The public has no need to know the details of the redistricting process. The public does not even need to see the maps to be voted on beyond maybe seeing the final map two hours before the final vote by the DISD board. The final DISD map was never posted online, and may still not be online as I am writing this, but it was passed by the DISD board last night after less than two hours of visibility to those present at the meeting. Those not present never saw it!

Meanwhile the Dallas City Council had dozens of maps posted online for days before they were ever voted on. The final proposed Dallas City Council map has now been online for 2 days at http://www.dallascityhall.com/redistricting/. It will not be presented to the Mayor till next week. It may be as long as 45 days before it is passed by the Dallas City Council. This provides ample time for the public to study the map, actively criticize the map and suggest alternatives, and write emails, letters, and make phone calls to the Dallas City Council related to the map. (I am actively doing that at http://dallasredistricting2011.blogspot.com/2011/08/compare-dallas-city-council.html.)

Are these the lessons we should be teaching as to how a true democracy functions? What do we want our children to learn? May I suggest that our most advanced government students study BOTH of these redistricting processes and come to their own conclusions. It may be one of those lessons they will remember most from their years in DISD, but they must also study the Dallas City Council process.  The good news is that Dallas City Council process is well documented online along with 100 hours of video from the actual meetings.  Sadly such documentation of the DISD process does not exist.

If the above issues are not shared in gatherings and conversations in Dallas, the potential for our city to become a truly great and sustainable American City will be limited.  Please join in the conversation and the sharing. Invest in our city, our schools, and our future.

Dallas City Council Redistricting Maps 3 & 16 Compared

We must closely compare Map 3 (the wPlan03c Map) with Map 16 (the cPlan16d Map).  Map 16 won the most votes on the Redistricting Commission and will be the map sent to the Mayor and City Council next week unless actions are taken for change.  It will ultimately become the map used to redistrict Dallas City Council Districts for the next decade unless enough citizens rise up to express other opinions. A comparison of the two maps shows why change is needed.

Both maps can be loaded in different tabs in your browser so you may then click between them to compare the differences.  Do a right click here for Plan 3 and then click "Open in new tab."  Do a right click here for Plan 16 and again click "Open in new tab."  These are large maps and may take a while to each load. 

Once both maps are loaded in different tabs, click on the tab for one of the maps.  Then click on the tab for the other one.  Now click back and forth between the tabs.  You will first see that Districts 11 and 12 are identical on both maps. As you slowly move both maps down using the scroll bars you will see the multiple differences as you click between these maps.  If both maps are in exactly the same location, when you click between them you will get a very good idea of the differences between the districts for that location.  Both maps can be enlarged for much greater detail.

If you have any questions I would be honored to answer them: bbetzen@AOL.com.

If you become concerned about the Map 16 that was chosen for the city by the Redistricting Commission, remember that you may still contact the Mayor and City Council members about your concerns and preferences, including another map such as Map 3.  Here are the email contacts for the Mayor and City Council . 

It may be as long as 45 days before the City Council and Mayor make their final decision on the map to use for our future City Council Districts.

In addition to the concerns documented yesterday about the reduced minority representation in Map 16 as compared to Map 3, there are other concerns:

1. District 6 in Map 16 is pushed south and stretched out over three miles longer into a gerrymandered, irregular shape.  District 2 remains strangely gerrymandered around the center of the city.  These residents most affected by flights from Love Field will again have fragmented representation between two Council members for issues at Love Field.  In Map 3 these issues are made more compact in one district, District 6.  In Map 3 District 6 includes and surrounds Love Field on all sides.  The residents who suffer most from airport noise will be able to have one voice to speak for them relative to the Love Field noise issues, but only if Map 3 is chosen.
2. It is easy to see that District 2 in Map 16 "just doesn't look right" due to gerrymandering.  In Map 3 it is united to the east with the similar far East Dallas community.  The 39 mile long District 2  perimeter in Map 16 is reduced to 29 miles in Map 3 while the voting age Hispanic population jumps four percentage points to over 57% in Map 3 for District 2.
3. The comparisons of District 7 between Map 3 and Map16 is almost painful.  In the gerrymandered Map 16 you find that the resulting Black voting age population is only 50.4%!  In Map 3, with a much more compact and centrally located District 7, the Black voting age percentage is 66.36%, over 15 percentage points higher!  Part of this advantage is lost as District 4 is moved in Map 3 to the southeast corner of Dallas to be the Pleasant Grove district which is majority Hispanic.  Then it is regained significantly as District 5 is moved to the southwest corner of Dallas to become a Black majority district with a Black voting age population that is 55.42% in Map 3 instead of the 50.4% for District 7 in Map 16. (Remember, in summary both maps have three Black majority districts but Map 3 has three much stronger Black majority districts with an average Black voting age population that is over 3 full percentage points higher in Map 3 than in Map 16.)
4. Continue to compare the gerrymandering, district by district flipping between the maps.  With this method it is easy to see which map suffers most from gerrymandering.  What is the reason for this continued gerrymandering?
5. Do not forget the concerns documented yesterday about the critical difference in minority representation between the two maps.  They merit repeating:
   A) The Hispanic voting age percentage averages 3/4 of one percent lower in Map 16 for the average among the 5 majority Hispanic districts when compared with the higher percentages in Map 3. 
   B) While the weakest Hispanic district in Map 3 is 57.63% Hispanic voting age, the same measurements for the two weakest Hispanic majority districts on Map 16 are lower at only 53.94% and 53.39%.  These are not safe percentages.
   C) There is an average 3 percentage points difference between the average Black voting age population for the 3 Black majority districts in each Map.  In Map 3 that Black voting age percentage is three points higher than in Map 16.  D) The weakest Black district in Map 16 has only 50.4% Black voting age population.  On Map 3 that weakest district is 55.42%, a much safer percentage due to the population movements anticipated.  The potential for loosing an additional Black district is much greater in Map 16 than in Map 3. E) Finally, remember that Map 3 has two stronger minority opportunity districts that are each stronger than the one 57.76% minority opportunity district in Map 16. One of the Map 3 districts is over 70% minority!  That represents a very real opportunity for Dallas to have a City Council that has 9 out of 14 members who are members of a minority community.    

The above concerns are still only some of the potential concerns.  You may certainly have others from your own area of Dallas. The Dallas City Council Redistricting Process is not yet over. 

The health of these maps should reflect the health of our City.  The days of "separate but equal" due to gerrymandering must end!  The comparison of Map 3 and Map 16 proves that in Dallas gerrymandering can actually be used to reduce minority representation.  Then, why does gerrymandering remain?

You can still contact the Mayor and City Council members about your concerns before they make a final vote: Email Contacts for the Mayor and City Council . Notice the link at the top of that page which will allow you to send the same email to all council members and the Mayor at one time.

If the above issues are not shared in gatherings and conversations in Dallas, the potential for our city to become a truly great American City will be limited.  Please join in the conversation and the sharing. Invest in our city, our future.  Share the above issues with your friends.

More Compact Districts & Stronger Minority Representation

The 8/23/11 Dallas City Council Redistricting meeting was a very pleasant surprise.

I had anticipated a short meeting. I signed up to speak upon arrival to thank the Commissioners for their work. Then I began to be greeted by people who were present to speak out in support of Plan 3 and discovered many promising facts.  People wanted the more compact plan found in Plan 3.  The Commissioners had received 250 emails from citizens supporting Plan 3.  The people were angry that Plan 3 had been voted down. About 30 speakers had already signed up by email to speak, most of them in support of Plan 3. Due to the volume of speakers the Commission limited the time to 2 minutes instead of the normal 3 minutes.

The public speakers addressed multiple issues related to compactness, the gerrymandering remaining in Plan 16, and the way Plan 3 would treat their own neighborhoods better.  It was discovered that while only 1 commissioner had voted for Plan 3 as their first choice at the last meeting, 12 others had voted for Plan 3 as their second choice. It was argued it should have been the second choice. There was anger expressed regarding the politics involved in plan selection. It was very reassuring to listen to the testimony.

After the public testimony, the possibility of submitting the other two plans as second and third choices, along with the first choice of Plan 16, was discussed. It was ultimately voted down. Most of the evening was spent considering amendments to both Plan 16 and Plan 5 before the final vote. The meeting did not end until about 11:30 PM.

It appears that the potential for greater progress, than appeared possible when Plan 3 lost the first place vote three days ago, may have been revived. It would be a dream come true if Dallas could get rid of the 35 miles of gerrymandered boundary lines that remain in Plan 16 and improve minority representation in the process.

No matter what happens, we need to celebrate the progress. It appears that Dallas will certainly get rid of 125 miles of the current 609 miles of boundary lines between city council districts. It is estimated there are now just over 160 miles of such boundary lines that only exist due to gerrymandering. Thus we will have eliminated about 78% of those lines with Plan 16. That is wonderful progress!

But, while the final version of Plan 16 sent to the mayor, cPlan16d, is an improvement for minority representation in general, cPlan16d does not improve the potential for minority representation as much as Plan 3. This is especially true in the potential for Black representation. While both plans have three majority Black districts, in this last version of Plan 16 the average of the three Black voting age population (VAP) percentages for these districts is only 59.69%. In Plan 3 this same average is 63.06%, over three percentage points higher!

The weakest of the three Black majority districts in Plan 16 has a VAP percentage of only 50.40%. In Plan 3 the weakest of the three Black majority districts is significantly stronger: 55.42% !  Given the potential population movements happening, the potential for such a low number as 50.40% to move below 50% and weaken is very high.  The strongest possible districts are needed!

A similar weakness in the Hispanic districts is shown by comparing Plan 3 with Plan 16. Both have 5 Hispanic majority districts, but the average VAP percentage is .75% (¾ of one percent) higher in Plan 3 than in Plan 16. The significance of this grows in that the weakest VAP percentage district in Plan 3 is over 3.5 percentage points higher than the two weakest districts in Plan 16. The difference between a 57.63% district and a 53.39% district can be significant when you allow for residents unable to vote due to citizenship.

A potentially very significant difference between Plan 16 and Plan 3 is that Plan 16 only has one minority opportunity district.  It has a minority population of only 57.76%. Plan 3 has two minority opportunity districts, both of which have higher minority populations (70.09% and 58.86%) than the one opportunity district in Plan 16. 

The final difference between Plan 16 and Plan 3 is that the sixth strongest Hispanic district in Plan 3 has a Hispanic VAP percentage of 42.61%. This is significantly stronger than Plan 16 with a sixth strongest Hispanic district that has a Hispanic VAP percentage over 9 percentage points lower: only 33.36%.

Remember: these achievements in stronger minority representation in Plan 3 over Plan 16 are all made while also achieving significantly more compact districts! Plan 3 eliminates 31 more miles of gerrymandered Dallas City Council boundary lines than does Plan 16.

This indicates gerrymandering can be used to lessen minority representation.  (Click here to compare Map 3 and Map 16 more completely to form your opinions based on the shapes of the districts alone.)

Lessen gerrymandering and our City Council will more accurately reflect our city with an ever greater number of people stepping forward to serve. Campaign contributions will be less of a factor for potential leaders to consider.

It is a joy to be involved in a competition between two plans in the Dallas City Council Redistricting race that are both fighting to provide the highest minority representation possible in Dallas. The power of our democracy is being shown!   No matter which plan wins, we all win!

Dallas City Council Redistricting Plan 3 died about 8 PM on 8-20-11

It is sad to announce to the hundreds of supporters, and the 22 who spoke at the forum to support the plan, that Plan 3 is no longer in the running to be the redistricting plan for Dallas City Council. 

At this evenings meeting after the forum the Commissioners wrote their first choice, second choice, and third choice on a sheet of paper in an effort to eliminate one map.  After that was done it was decided that the two plans with the most first choice votes would be the ones to go forward. The one with the least first choice votes would be out.  Plan 16 received 10 votes, Plan 5 received 4 votes. Plan 3 only received 1 vote for first choice.  Plan 3 was out.  The Chair states that all of the votes would be read into the record.

=======================================
This vote was ultimately recorded on page three from the minutes for the Commission Meeting on 8/20/11.  Here is a link to the copy of these minutes on the Commission web site.  Here are the results of those votes by the 15 Commissioners, followed by the percentage, in parenthesis, of Commissioners who thought that the plan should either be first or second:

wPlan03c: 1 first place vote, 12 second place votes , 2 third place votes, (86.7%)
cPlan05b: 4 first place votes, 1 second place vote, 10 third place votes,  (33.3%)
cPlan16b: 10 first place votes, 2 second place votes, 3 third place votes, (80.0%)
=======================================

The strange way in which the votes were interpreted were certainly disappointing, but there was no opportunity for comment from the public relative to the questionable logic involved in the elimination of Plan 3 instead of Plan 5.  One commissioner spoke up who noticed the irregularity, but they were overruled by the others.

Only 8 votes are needed for a plan to be selected.  Ten votes were received this evening by Plan 16.  Unless there are major changes by Tuesday, it is certain Plan 16 will be the selection.

I am still in the Commission meeting.  It is now 9:21 PM.  They continue "tweaking" the remaining plans, 16 & 5.  The staff analysis of the results of these changes will hopefully be posted on the Redistricting web site Monday along with the new maps. We need to watch and see if these changes will weaken these plans from the strength they had originally shown as significant improvements to the current Dallas City Council District Map.

Dallas City Council Redistricting Forum Handout 8/20/2011

Several hundred copies of the following will be distributed around the City Council Chambers today.  Click on them to enlarge:

Dallas Media on City Council Redistricting Plan 3

It has been a good week in the media for Plan 3. Now enough people must speak out at the 8/20/11 2:00 PM Dallas City Council forum so that wPlan03c, now just called Plan 3, is chosen. It is an investment in our future.

Bill Betzen has the best redistricting plan Dallas Morning The best of the bunch was submitted by Bill Betzen, a Dallas blogger and very interested citizen. His map closely hews to the original high-minded ... News (subscription) (blog) - Michael Landauer - 2 hours ago

Editorial: Redistricting panel should focus on principles over ... Dallas Morning News (subscription) - 23 hours ago The best of the bunch was submitted by Bill Betzen, a Dallas blogger and very interested citizen. His map closely hews to the original high-minded ...

Dallas Morning News (subscription)

Meet the Man Who Will (Probably) Draw the New Dallas City Council ... Dallas Observer (blog) - Anna Merlan - Aug 11, 2011 If for some reason you haven't been following redistricting with undivided attention, Betzen's name might not be familiar to you. But if you've gone to even ...

Dallas Observer (blog)

Since the 8/20/11 Forum the following media stories were circulated about the Dallas redistricting process:

Dallas Redistricting Battle Lines Drawn  NBC Dallas-Fort Worth - Ashanti Blaize - 1 day ago Citizens packed Dallas City Hall on Saturday making their opinions known as the city considers three redistricting plans. ...

Pleasant Grove Residents Want Own Council Seat 

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Head to southeast Dallas – and you’ll find an old community with a strong identity. “You’re in Pleasant Grove,” said Sabrina Harris, who was raised here. “Yea, yea, it’s well known.”
Politically, though, Pleasant Grove has no identity at all, making up a small part of four different city council districts.