HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.29.21 Public Comment PacketClerk of the Board Andy Pickett Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 T: 530.552.3300
Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.7120
Members of the Board
Bill Connelly | Debra Lucero | Tami Ritter | Tod Kimmelshue | Doug Teeter
buttecounty.net/administration
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
RE:
November 29, 2021
Public Comment Submitted for November 29, 2021 Butte County Board of
Supervisors Meeting Item 3.01 Butte County 2021 Redistricting Draft Maps.
Enclosed please find all public comment related to Item 3.01 at the November 29, 2021 Board
of Supervisors Meeting.
Shyanne Valencia Administrative Assistant to Clerk of the Board
Board of Supervisors Meeting - Item 3.01 eComments Report
Bryce GoldsteinSubmitted At: 11:46am 11-28-21I have spent many hours attempting to draw maps that comply with the long and ever-growing list of directions from Supervisors Connelly, Teeter, and Kimmelshue. It's nearly impossible, if not impossible, to meet all these demands while complying with the FAIR MAPS Act. Unfortunately, this seems to be the point.
By continuously adding demands for lines to be drawn a certain way, the majority supervisors are intentionally making it appear necessary to divide up the cities of Chico and Oroville more than is fair or actually necessary.The purpose of this action is to evade the FAIR MAPS Act criteria that to the extent practicable communities and cities shall be kept undivided. The goal is to crack Chico's majority-liberal voters into four districts instead of three, so that right-wing incumbents living outside of the City have an extremely high chance of maintaining power over at least half of those districts. In reality, no matter how much the supervisorial majority says that agricultural landneeds two districts (note: people vote in this country, not land) or that school districts and other irrelevant boundaries are more important than actual communities of interest, their wishlist does not outweigh the law.
Thank you to Supervisors Lucero and Ritter for their efforts to keep this process transparent and fair. Shame onthe other three supervisors for manipulating this process for partisan gain. We need to approve one of the demographer's fair and equitable maps that incorporates communities of interest testimony, such as A6. Moving forward, we need to prevent gerrymandering from ever happening again in our County, by any party. We should start by establishing a nonpartisan citizens' redistricting commission.
James McCabeSubmitted At: 4:59pm 11-26-21As explained in my attached letter, the instructions proposed to be given to Redistricting Partners will result in the return of a map that will violate the Fair Maps Act. The Board should not give the instructions, but should instead instruct staff to identify in submitted maps those that meet criteria described in the letter, whereupon the Board should notice and conduct another meeting to consider which of those maps should be adopted.
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Comment Regarding Item 3.02 - Today"s BOS Agenda
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 8:42:07 AM
Importance:High
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: adove@redhotmetal.net <adove@redhotmetal.net>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 8:36 AM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Comment Regarding Item 3.02 - Today's BOS Agenda
Importance: High
Dear Clerk,
I respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors include Map A7 to be included when
voting on redistricting. Public opinion is clearly in favor of this map.
Sincerely,
Anna Dove
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Redistributing map
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 7:56:52 AM
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
-----Original Message-----
From: Betty Kannenberg <bbwoods@att.net>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 9:57 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Redistributing map
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
Please adopt map A6 for Butte County.
Teeter had absolutely no right to bring in a different one that would favor one political party over another!!
Betty Kannenberg, Chico
Sent from my iPhone
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Please support Map A6
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 7:52:58 AM
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: Christopher xxxxxx <ccol@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 12:02 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Fwd: Please support Map A6
It was the end of the day writing an email against the maps other than MAP A6;
the second sentence should say:
The other maps make a sham out of claiming to show representative democracy.
The other maps are really just gerrymandering at its worse.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Colson <ccol@att.net>
Subject: Please support Map A6
Date: November 23, 2021 at 10:20:01 PM PST
To: clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net
To the Clerk of the Board,
Politicians do not get to choose their voters, voters choose them. The other maps
make a sham of the other maps that say it shows representative democracy. These
maps are too far from the truth of what the people want.
Thank you for listening,
Chris Colson
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Please support Map A6
Date:Wednesday, November 24, 2021 9:37:05 AM
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Colson <ccol@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:20 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Please support Map A6
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
To the Clerk of the Board,
Politicians do not get to choose their voters, voters choose them. The other maps make a sham of the other maps that
say it shows representative democracy. These maps are too far from the truth of what the people want.
Thank you for listening,
Chris Colson
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Map A6
Date:Wednesday, November 24, 2021 9:37:25 AM
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
-----Original Message-----
From: doran.christie@gmail.com <doran.christie@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 5:24 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Map A6
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
> Dear Supervisors
> We favor MAP A6
> Thank you for considering this.
>
Sent from my iPhone
From:Ring, Brian
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:FW: Butte County Redistricting Comment
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 8:19:46 AM
Attachments:Redistricting Comment.pdf
Good morning Board – please find another comment submitted via the Redistricting website.
Brian Ring
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Administration
25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3311 | M: 530.570.7688 | F: 530.538.7120
From: no-reply@buttecounty.net <no-reply@buttecounty.net>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 8:14 AM
To: Ring, Brian <bring@buttecounty.net>; buttecounty@redistrictingpartners.com
Subject: Butte County Redistricting Comment
Greetings,
A Comment has been received for Redistricting. If any line is blank, that information was not
entered by the Submitter.
First Name: James
Last Name: McCabe
Email:
Phone:
Comment: Meeting: Board of Supervisors Special Meeting
Item: 3.01 Butte County 2021 Redistricting Draft Maps
eComment: As explained in my attached letter, the instructions proposed to be given to
Redistricting Partners will result in the return of a map that will violate the Fair Maps Act. The
Board should not give the instructions, but should instead instruct staff to identify in submitted
maps those that meet criteria described in the letter, whereupon the Board should notice and
conduct another meeting to consider which of those maps should be adopted.
View and Analyze eComments
Thank you,
Butte County
Redistricting Comment
Members of the public are invited to share their comments and suggestions regarding Butte County's supervisorial
redistricting process with the Redistricting Advisory Committee by completing the form below.
First Name Last Name
Email Phone
Comment
File Upload
James McCabe
Meeting: Board of Supervisors Special Meeting
Item: 3.01 Butte County 2021 Redistricting Draft Maps
eComment: As explained in my attached letter, the instructions proposed to be given to Redistricting Partners will
result in the return of a map that will violate the Fair Maps Act. The Board should not give the instructions, but
should instead instruct staff to identify in submitted maps those that meet criteria described in the letter,
whereupon the Board should notice and conduct another meeting to consider which of those maps should be
adopted.
View and Analyze eComments
File type allowed: tiff, jpg, png, docx, doc, pdf, txt, shp, kmz, kml
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW:
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 7:56:32 AM
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: Jerrold Weiner <jweinerdo@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 6:20 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject:
Dear Mr. Picket:
Please adopt map A6. It is the only map that follows all legal
requirements including the Federal Voting Rights Act, the Fair
Maps Act, and the US Constitution.
Thank you,
Jerrold Weiner
1679 Carol Ave.
Chico, CA 95928
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Comment letter regarding agenda item 3.01, Monday Nov 29 2021
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 7:56:13 AM
Attachments:Gerymander letter to BOS 2.pdf
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: Jim McCabe <jfmccabe54@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 4:55 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Comment letter regarding agenda item 3.01, Monday Nov 29 2021
--
Jim McCabe
1
James F. McCabe 9930 Ferson Road Durham CA 95938 November 26, 2021
By email to ClerkofTheBoard@ButteCounty.net
Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965
Re: Agenda Item 3.01, Special Meeting of November 29, 2021
Chairman Connelly and Members of the Board:
This letter concerns the misdirection the Board proposes to give Redistricting Partners as stated in Item 3.1 of the meeting agenda.
The discussion at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, November 22 made it apparent that several supervisors are operating under a misunderstanding of the California Fair Maps Act, and are inclined to adopt maps that would obviously fail to meet its requirements. This letter is offer Supervisors a last clear chance before the Board spends more money having consultants draw a map that will be invalid, and will require the County to waste taxpayer funds in what will be an ultimately unsuccessful effort to defend it.
There are several misstatements of the law and statements of legally improper criteria that were bandied about in Monday’s discussions and in the media talking points emphasized before the meeting. They will be discussed below.
First, though, I want to review the background and text of the Fair Maps Act, Cal. Elec. Code §§ 21500 et seq.
Antecedents To The Fair Maps Act
The Fair Maps Act, adopted by the Legislature in 2019, applies to county supervisorial redistricting boundary drawing standards nearly identical to those applied to State Assembly, State Senate, U.S. Congressional and State Board of Equalization districts by Article XXI of the California Constitution. Article XXI was added to the Constitution as the result of a voter initiative (Proposition 11) in 2008. Proposition 11 took the task of redistricting away from the California Legislature, and assigned it to a Citizens Redistricting Commission which is charged with applying specific criteria in a specific order in drawing state-level district boundaries.
Proposition 11 was motivated by voter dissatisfaction with legislators drawing their own districts.1 Proposition 11 passed with 50.9% of statewide votes. Butte County voted 55% in
1 The findings adopted in Proposition 11 provide, in part:
The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare their purpose in enacting this act is as follows:
2
favor, 45% against. Butte County voters arguably disfavored gerrymandering more than Californians as a whole.
Sec. 2(d) of Article XXI of the Constitution, adopted by Proposition 11, provides that the redistricting commission “shall establish . . . districts . . . pursuant to a mapping process using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority.” The criteria and priorities in Sec. 2(d) of Article XXI and in the Fair Maps Act are virtually identical, apart from the fact that the Constitution treats the preservation of cities and communities of interest with the same priority, where the Fair Maps Act prioritizes preserving communities of interest above preserving the geographic integrity of cities. In addition, the Fair Maps Act treats census designated places as areas deserving geographic preservation on a par with cities.
Proposition 11’s “strict, nonpartisan rules designed to ensure fair representation” (see n.1) adopt criteria articulated by Special Masters appointed by the California Supreme Court in 1973 to draw district maps for elections in 1974 through 1980 where the Legislature failed to pass district maps that the Governor would not veto. Vandermost v. Bowen (2012) 53 Cal.4th 421, 448 (linking Proposition 11’s district boundary drawing criteria to those articulated in Legislature v. Reinecke (1973) 10 Cal.3d 396 and applied again in Wilson v. Eu (1992) 1 Cal.4th 7070). Reinecke included as a district boundary drawing criterion “community of interests.”2
(a) Under current law, California legislators draw their own political districts. Allowing politicians to draw their own districts is a serious conflict of interest that harms voters. That is why 99 percent of incumbent politicians were reelected in the districts they had drawn for themselves in the recent elections.
(b) Politicians draw districts that serve their interests, not those of our communities. . . . . Voters in many communities have no political voice because they have been split into as many as four different districts to protect incumbent legislators. We need reform to keep our communities together so everyone has representation.
(c) This reform will make the redistricting process open so it cannot be controlled by the party in power. . . .
(d) The independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will draw districts based on strict, nonpartisan rules designed to ensure fair representation. The reform takes redistricting out of the partisan battles of the Legislature and guarantees redistricting will be debated in the open with public meetings, and all minutes will be posted publicly on the Internet. Every aspect of this process will be open to scrutiny by the public and the press.
(e) In the current process, politicians are choosing their voters instead of voters having a real choice. This reform will put the voters back in charge.
Proposition 11, Sec. 2 (2008).
2 “The social and economic interests common to the population of an area which are probable subjects of legislative action, generally termed a "community of interests" (cf. Gov. Code, § 25001) should be considered in determining whether the area should be included within or excluded from a proposed district in order that all of the citizens of the district might be represented reasonably, fairly and effectively. Examples of such interests, among others, are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area or an agricultural area, and those
3
To recap, the concept of objective, nonpartisan criteria for political redistricting in California is nearly fifty years old, having originated in Reinecke. Proposition 11 incorporated Reinecke’s criteria into the California Constitution for statewide redistricting, with three important qualifications: first, it made application of the criteria mandatory; second, it mandated that the criteria be applied in a specific order; and third, Proposition 11 expressly disapproved the drawing of districts to favor or discriminate against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party. Cal. Const., Art. XXI, § 2(e).
As noted in Vandermost, the Constitution now requires the Citizens Redistricting Commission to use a mapping process “that complies with the criteria expressly set forth in article XXI itself. It is of considerable consequence to our analysis that the constitutional provision ranks the applicable criteria by order or priority.” Vandermost v. Bowen 53 Cal.4th at 446. “Unlike former article XXI, section 2, or the judicial decision on which that provision was based, however, the current version of article XXI, in section 2, subdivision (d), expressly ranks the criteria in order of priority, stating explicitly that a lower-ranked criterion is to be followed only when doing so does not conflict with a higher-ranked criterion or criteria.” Id. at 448. The Vandermost Court rejected a proposed map on the ground that other, more criteria-compliant maps were available: “[I]nsofar as this alternative map is concerned, petitioner has provided us with no basis upon which we can conclude that it respects the constitutionally specified criteria at least as much as any of the other proposed maps . . .” Id. at 476 (emphasis supplied). The Court also rejected a map that prioritized the sixth Constitutional criterion (two Assembly districts per Senate district, if practicable) over and in conflict with higher priority criteria. Id. at 478.
The Fair Maps Act Itself
The Fair Maps Act adopted in 2019, applies to county supervisorial district boundary drawing the criteria first articulated in 1973 in Reinecke and transformed into mandatory, ranked criteria by Proposition 11, with a few differences and adjustments. Unlike Proposition 11, the Fair Maps Act leaves map drawing to the legislative body – the Board of Supervisors – rather than assign it to a redistricting commission. Like Proposition 11, the Fair Maps act dictates the criteria to be considered in map drawing, and establishes the order in which such criteria are to be prioritized. The Fair Maps Act departs from Proposition 11 in that while the Proposition treats the geographic integrity of cities, neighborhoods and communities of interest as having the same priority, the Fair Maps Act prioritizes preservation of the geographic integrity of communities of interest over preserving the geographic integrity of cities. In addition, the Fair Maps Act requires preservation of the geographic integrity of census designated places on a par with preservation of the geographic integrity of cities. The Fair Maps Act adds a new criterion, subordinate to the community of interest and city/CDP preservation criteria – that district boundaries be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. Proposition 11 and the Fair Maps Act share a “compactness” criterion subordinate to other criteria.
Criteria. The Act establishes the criteria for drawing supervisorial district boundaries in Elections Code 21500(c):
common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process.” Reinecke, 10 Cal.3d at 412 (footnote omitted).
4
(c) The board shall adopt supervisorial district boundaries using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
(1) To the extent practicable, supervisorial districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous.
(2) To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single supervisorial district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
(3) To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of a city or census designated place shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division.
(4) Supervisorial district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, supervisorial districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the county.
(5) To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, supervisorial districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.
Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c) (emphasis added).
Mandatory Nature of the Criteria and Priorities. As the Supreme Court has held with respect to similar language in Article XXI, § 2 of the California Constitution (Proposition 11), the fact that the statute consistently uses the term “shall” means that the provisions of § 21500(c) are mandatory. A Board of Supervisors exceeds its statutory authority and fails adopt a compliant map if it disregards these criteria, or their priority, or by inventing criteria of the Board’s own choosing, and using such invented criteria instead of the criteria required by the law. It doesn’t matter that, if it were up to you, supervisorial districts would be drawn on some other basis. It’s not up to you. The Legislature has established the district drawing priorities, and it is your sworn obligation to apply them. If you fail to apply them, you will very likely get the County sued.
A number of Supervisors referred to the repeated qualification in the statute “to the extent practicable” to be essentially synonymous with “unless it would prevent you from doing what you want to do.” That is not what it means. The phrases “to the extent feasible” and “insofar as practicable” have been interpreted by California courts. “Practicable” is closely related to “possible” and “feasible.” Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1040. Reasoning by analogy from a California Supreme Court case, Rodriguez held that a wage order requiring employers to adopt a rest break schedule “insofar as is practicable” required the employer “to implement the specified rest break schedule absent an adequate justification why such a schedule is not capable of being put in practice, or is not feasible as a practical schedule.” Id. (emphasis added).
As it appears in the Fair Maps Act, the phrase “to the extent practicable” means that if the criterion can reasonably be met (i.e., is capable of being put into practice), any map that does not
5
meet the criterion violates the law. In Vandermost, the Supreme Court interpreted similar language in Proposition 11 to hold that a map that does not “respect[] the . . . specified criteria at least as much as any of the other proposed maps” is invalid. Vandermost, 53 Cal.4th at 476. “To the extent practicable” is not a license to ignore any criterion a Supervisor finds inconvenient.
Prohibition Against Partisan Line Drawing. The Fair Maps Act also contains a relevant prohibition:
(d) The board shall not adopt supervisorial district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.
Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(d) (emphasis added).
The Criteria In Context For Butte County Supervisorial Districts
The Fair Maps Act requires that districts be of nearly equal population, and that the drawing of boundaries does not violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution or the federal Voting Rights Act. Cal. Elec. Code §§ 21500(a), (b). For reasons explained below in connection with “community of interest,” the Board’s requests to Redistricting Partners to create a map with two “ag” districts, or two “valley districts” or two “rural districts on the west side” would result in a map that violates the Equal Protection provisions federal and state constitutions. But we needn’t get to a deep constitutional analysis: the directions that the Board majority seems to favor giving Redistricting Partners so flagrantly violate the Fair Maps Act that in the litigation over the resulting map, the constitutional issues will likely never be reached.
The “contiguity” requirement of Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(1) is easily met in this case. All maps submitted to date appear to have met this requirement.
The geographical integrity of neighborhoods and communities of interest criterion of Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(2) requires such communities to be kept in the same district, at least where it is possible to do so without violating higher priority criteria (e.g., nearly equal population). The Fair Maps Act itself contains a short definition of “community of interest.” Cal Const. Art. XXI, §(d), from which the Fair Maps Act is drawn, contains a fuller explanation that is consistent with the Fair Maps Act.3 Butte County’s own redistricting website gives as examples of “communities of interest”: “clusters of senior citizens in one community or a group of college students living in a densely populated area near a campus, or people who live in a downtown area or hillside, agricultural, urban or even people who share concerns such as transportation, airport noise, dog parks etc.” In the context of Butte County, these communities include the Mechoopda, student housing areas at the University, city dwellers living in more densely populated areas of the city and served by the same transportation systems, Cohasset and other communities on urban-forest interface, and agricultural land users. Under the mandatory guidelines, communities of interest should not be broken up, if feasible to keep them together while meeting the roughly equal population requirement. Note: the community of interest
3 “A community of interest is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process.”
6
criterion is not a mechanism by which the Board may consider input from a community claiming “we want to be divided.” More below.
The geographical integrity of cities and census designated places criterion of Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(3) requires such territories to be kept in a single district, at least where it is possible to do so without violating higher priority criteria (nearly equal population and communities of interest). Note that this is true even if an incumbent supervisor has no objection to or even welcomes the balkanization of a city in his or her district: a Supervisor’s willingness to ignore a mandatory statutory provision does not change the law: if it can be done, .
Given that roughly half of the county population is within the City of Chico (100,000+), it is not possible to draw a map in which Chico is not parceled among at least three districts with populations of roughly 42,000. There is nothing about the roughly equal size and community of interest criteria, as applied, though, that suggest Chico need to be parceled out over more than three districts. It is entirely feasible to minimize the division of Chico and census designated places in Butte County while meeting the higher-priority equal population and community of interest criteria. I have created on DistrictR a map that meets all of the criteria of Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c). See Map FMA criteria actually applied: 86950. The feasibility of this map demonstrates that any map that spreads Chico across four supervisorial districts violates the Fair Maps Act.
The “easily identifiable and understandable by residents” criterion of Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(4) is new in the Fair Maps Act. Map 68936, which has considered but has now been disapproved, illustrates how this criterion can be violated. In that map, it was virtually impossible to drive, within the City of Chico, the boundary of the district in the northwest corner of the County. Map 86950 illustrates how the “understandable” criterion can be met: the two districts that are almost wholly within the City of Chico are divided on an South East-North West basis by heavily used roads.
The compactness criterion of Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(5) requires map drawers to favor the association of nearby areas of population over more distant populations. Taken in conjunction with and as subordinate to the community of interest and minimization of cities and census designated place criteria, this criteria disapproves, for example, putting a small slice of a city into a district shared by low density, rural territory.
Excuses, Misstatements of the Law, and Illegal Standards
The Board majority has, to my understanding, never expressed the least bit of interest in the actual boundary drawing requirements of the Fair Maps Act, other than the provision requiring districts of roughly equal population. Instead, they have invented excuses to ignore the law, and map-drawing criteria that are either not found in the law, or are in direct conflict with the law.
Excuse: “There is no guidance on what the Fair Maps Act requires (so we can do whatever the hell we want).” False. The substantive criteria embodied in the Fair Maps Act have largely been around for almost fifty years, and have in various prior formulations, been the subject of California Supreme Court decisions. Where, as here, the language of the law passed by the Legislature is clear and unambiguous and has been authoritatively interpreted in other contexts, there is no need for court decisions about the Fair Maps Act to interpret what the law means. The plain language of the law governs. The guidance establishes that the Fair Maps Act unambiguously requires Boards of Supervisors to apply the district boundary criteria in the statute, and to employ those criteria in the priority laid out in the law.
Misstatement of the Law: “Redistricting Partners Map A5 had Chico in four districts, so that means the Fair Maps Act permits a plan in which Chico is divided among four different
7
supervisorial districts.” False. Redistricting Partners has not purported to give the Board legal advice on what complies with Fair Maps Act, and what doesn’t (they’re not lawyers) and even if they had, “advice” that Chico can, consistent with the Fair Maps Act, be divided into more than three supervisorial districts, is wrong. See above. Map A5 was drawn in response to requests from Board members to draw a map using criteria not found in the Fair Maps Act (“show us two ag districts on the west side”), not as a demonstration of Redistricting Partners’ understanding and application of the Fair Maps Act. Because a map dividing Chico among only three districts can be drawn in compliance with all of the other requirements of the Fair Maps Act (see Map 86950), any map parceling Chico out into four or five districts fails to meet the requirement of the law, despite the fact that Redistricting Partners drew a map with Chico in four districts.
Misstatement of/Conflict With Law: “Ag interests are a community of interest, and they had said they want to control two supervisorial districts, so the community of interest criterion supports the creation of two westside districts using population borrowed from the City of Chico.” False. Agricultural interests do represent a community of interest, but the statutory criterion requires keeping the community together, not breaking it (and the City of Chico) up into multiple districts. Given the population of the ag lands within the County, almost all of the agricultural community of interest can be (and should be) placed in a single supervisorial district. Furthermore, this rationale is a pretext for political favoritism. See below.
Illegal Standard: “All supervisors should have rural constituents because city residents have city council members they can complain to.” Out of left field. This “basis” for drawing districts has no foundation whatsoever in the Fair Maps Act, and conflicts with a number of the Fair Maps Act district drawing criteria. The Fair Maps Act does not permit whether a resident has a city council to be considered in any stage of the supervisorial district drawing process. Communities of interest are to be kept together, where possible. Rural residents are more likely to share a community of interests with other rural residents (be they Ridge dwellers or orchard dwellers) than they are to share interests with City of Chico residents. City of Chico residents are more likely to share a community of interest with other City of Chico residents, rather than with rural residents. To the extent they can, rural residents should generally be associated with other rural residents, and city residents with other city residents, both because of the “community of interest” and non-division of census designated places criteria. The suggestion is that Chico voters, who are in general more centrist than other County voters, must have their relative voting strength diluted so that, what, more supervisors can handle issues from the fixed number of non-urban voters in Butte County? This criterion for drawing a map, which has been articulated at one time of another or in one form or another by three different Supervisors, (a) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and California Constitutions by disfavoring urban voters in favor of rural voters, (b) violates Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(2) by dividing communities of interest (rural residents and various communities of interest in and around Chico) among multiple districts where they need not be divided, (c) violates the minimization of city and census designated place division requirement of Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(3), and (d) violates the “compactness” requirement of Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(5) in that in forming districts covering Chico, it bypasses nearby areas of City of Chico population in favor of more distant rural areas of population. In addition, this rationale is another pretext for political favoritism. See below.
A Pretext For Deliberate Gerrymandering
The instructions that Board majority proposes to give to Redistricting Partners are naked instructions to draw an illegal map for the purpose of favoring future Republican candidates in Butte County supervisorial elections.
The instructions that the maps must contain two “valley” districts (meaning west side, rural districts with a lot of agricultural voters) would require Redistricting Partners to draw an
8
indefensible map. There are insufficient voters in the agricultural lands on the west side of the County to support two districts totaling 84,000 people, so the City of Chico community of interest and city integrity would have to be violated to form the “valley” districts out of groups that do not share a community of interest. This instruction is not calculated to keep the agricultural community of interest together (as contemplated by the law) – it explicitly splits that community for a purpose not permitted under the Fair Maps Act. The majority’s instruction is intended to give Republican voters on the west side of the valley a chance to elect two supervisors, rather than one. It is no accident that the map that sparked the majority’s interest in two “valley” districts (which were referred to as “ag” districts until someone realized that might sound like unwarranted favoritism) was sparked on a map (68936) drawn by the Chief of Staff for Republican State Senator Brian Dahle. As the Redistricting Partners representative stated at last Monday’s hearing, analysis of that map using Auto Draw demonstrated that it was the result of “partisan gerrymandering.”
Similarly, the instructions that Chico may be divided into 4 districts, Oroville may be divided into 3 districts,” if followed, would result in an indefensible map. These instructions ignore both Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c)(2) and (c)(3). The instructions fail to account for the fact that a Fair Maps Act compliant map (Map 86950) may be drawn that divides Chico into only three districts, and Oroville into only two. The Board will find itself in the same spot as the losing party in Vandermost: “[I]nsofar as [the map based on Board majority instructions] is concerned, [the Board majority] has provided us with no basis upon which we can conclude that [its requested map] respects the constitutionally specified criteria at least as much as any of the other proposed maps . . .” Vandermost, 53 Cal.4th at 476. Once again, since the requested division of Chico and Oroville is not in service of fulfilling the law, it clearly is in service of something else: diluting the votes of City of Chico voters across as many different supervisorial districts as possible.
For the foregoing reasons, the action stated in the meeting agenda should NOT be taken. To do so would waste further taxpayer money on an illegal gerrymandering scheme that will not succeed.
9
Recommended Action
To meet the December 15, 2021 map adoption deadline with a map that will not be obviously deficient, the Board should instruct staff to identify any already submitted maps that meet the criteria described below, agendize all qualifying maps for consideration at a noticed meeting held on a schedule compliant with the Fair Maps Act, and adopt one of those maps:
• Districts of roughly equal population (tolerating modest underpopulation of district including Paradise) • Chico divided into three supervisorial districts • Student and low income housing in County, but outside City of Chico western boundary associated with a Chico supervisorial district • Mechoopda lands entirely within a Chico supervisorial district • Oroville divided into no more than two supervisorial districts • Entirety of Berry Creek and Honcut census designated places in same district as majority of Oroville • Cohasset, Forest Ranch and Paradise census designated places in same district • District boundaries (particularly within densely populated areas) largely follow major roads or physical features
Sincerely,
James F. McCabe
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Redistricting Map
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 7:58:20 AM
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: hypatia13@aol.com <hypatia13@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 4:33 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Redistricting Map
As a resident of Butte County I am writing to ask that any map chosen follow the Fair
Maps Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Constitution of the United States. If not, I
fear we will waste time and money fighting useless lawsuits trying to defend the
choice of an illegal district map.
Juliet Hauser
1364 Keri Lane
Chico, 95926
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Map A7
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 7:57:26 AM
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: Linda Furr <ljbfurr2@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2021 4:37 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Fwd: Map A7
Begin forwarded message:
From: Linda Furr <ljbfurr2@gmail.com>
Subject: Map A7
Date: November 27, 2021 at 4:23:02 PM PST
To: " ClerkoftheBoard@buttecounty.net"
<ClerkoftheBoard@ButteCounty.net>,
Please give my following message to members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors: As
a 73 year resident of Butte County, California, I humbly ask that you please make Map A7
your choice in redistricting along fundamental recommendations from professional
redistricting Consultants. Current Supervisors simply must stay loyal to long-established,
honorable guidelines in determining our people’s future representation in a county as large
and diverse as ours.
Linda Furr (530-893-1291)
1307 Arcadian Ave.
Chico, Ca. 9t5926
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: In support of A 6 A7
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 7:53:23 AM
Attachments:lettter to county clerk.docx
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: Paula Busch <buschprints@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 12:37 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: In support of A 6 A7
Dear Butte County Board of Supervisors,
I am writing this email to ask that Map A6 (now a combination of A3 &
A4) be adopted by the Butte County Board of Supervisors as part of our
redistricting process at 1pm Nov. 18, 2021. It is a good map. It is the only
map now before the board that meets all the legal requirements of the
Voting Rights Act, purposefully keeping communities of interest together.
It was drawn by our paid consultants and reflects the comments they
received from the people.
The communities of Forest Ranch and Cohasset are "together' in a
"foothill" district which is what its constituents want. It maintains two
urban districts for Chico, the most dense and populated portion of the
county. It returns the Barber Neighborhood to Chico where it belongs! It
is a good map.
Map #69836, submitted by Supervisor Teeter on Nov. 9, 2021, appeared
out of nowhere, at the final hour, after all the public comments had been
heard. This is so wrong. I see it as a move on to intentionally dilute the
voters of another party. These lines go against the mandate of the Voting
Rights Act, are not what the people asked for, and are not acceptable.
This is gerrymandering at its worst happening right here in Butte County. It
is driven by lies, manipulation and political gain. Shame on you. It is not
OK. We are better people than that.
Please place my email in the permanent public record on Redistricting.
Paula Busch
385 E. Sacramento Ave
Chico
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:Public Comment Redistricting - FW: Redistricting
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 7:57:10 AM
Please see public comment pertaining to redistricting.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: Sandi John <revsandijohn@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2021 12:48 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Redistricting
Dear Board of Supervisors,
I am a constituent strongly urging you to support map A7 , and to ensure that any map selected is legal, consistent
with the recommendations of the Consultants and non-partisan.
Thank you very much,
Sandra John
1420 Half Dome Way
Chico, CA 95928
From:Ring, Brian
To:Alpert, Bruce; Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ring, Brian; Ritter, Tami;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne
Subject:FW: Butte County Redistricting Comment
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 8:34:52 AM
Attachments:Redistricting Comment.pdf
Good morning Board – please find another comment submitted via the Redistricting website.
Brian Ring
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Administration
25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3311 | M: 530.570.7688 | F: 530.538.7120
From: no-reply@buttecounty.net <no-reply@buttecounty.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 8:24 PM
To: Ring, Brian <bring@buttecounty.net>; buttecounty@redistrictingpartners.com
Subject: Butte County Redistricting Comment
Greetings,
A Comment has been received for Redistricting. If any line is blank, that information was not
entered by the Submitter.
First Name: Shari
Last Name: Scott
Email: scottjs2908@gmail.com
Phone: 530-520-7988
Comment: I am again urging the supervisors to vote for Map 6. It is irritating, that according
to the comments received by this Board, a majority of the people want Map 6. But arrogance
of some members chose to pursue their own agenda. Let me remind you members that you are
to present the PEOPLE. Quit acting like little kids who don't get their way and do your job
which is to listen to the people. Vote for Map 6 and quit playing games with the people of this
county.
Thank you,
Butte County
Redistricting Comment
Members of the public are invited to share their comments and suggestions regarding Butte County's supervisorial
redistricting process with the Redistricting Advisory Committee by completing the form below.
First Name Last Name
Email Phone
Comment
File Upload
Shari Scott
scottjs2908@gmail.com 530-520-7988
I am again urging the supervisors to vote for Map 6. It is irritating, that according to the comments received by
this Board, a majority of the people want Map 6. But arrogance of some members chose to pursue their own
agenda. Let me remind you members that you are to present the PEOPLE. Quit acting like little kids who don't
get their way and do your job which is to listen to the people. Vote for Map 6 and quit playing games with the
people of this county.
File type allowed: tiff, jpg, png, docx, doc, pdf, txt, shp, kmz, kml
Board of Supervisors Meeting- Speaker Report
Special Meeting – November 29, 2021
Speaker: Bryce Goldstein
Item for Comment: Item 3.01
Platform: Webex