Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting – May 9, 2011

The Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee (SRCAC) met on Monday, May 9, 2011, at 6:03 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at New City Hall, 915 I Street. The meeting was called to order by Chair Julius Cherry. Thirteen members were present; Bill Camp and Phil Pluckebaum were absent. The committee received staff presentations on redistricting history, neighborhoods, communities of interest, and the Voting Rights Act. Public testimony was heard on all three substantive topics. The committee approved the minutes of the May 2 meeting. No votes on substantive redistricting decisions were taken, but the committee received direction to continue outreach ahead of the May 16 map submission deadline.

Public Comments & Testimony

• John DeGlow (College Glen Neighborhood Association) expressed full support for keeping neighborhoods intact as a redistricting criterion. He described College Glen’s well-defined boundaries (American River, Folsom Boulevard, Watt Avenue, Howe Avenue), its active 400‑member association, and its preference to remain whole within either District 6 or District 4.
• Darrell Roberts (African American Leadership Coalition) stated the coalition’s position that traditional African American neighborhoods—Oak Park, Meadowview, Del Paso Heights, and newer areas such as South Natomas—should be kept intact. He noted the coalition is working on maps and plans to meet with other groups to present a broader community perspective.
• Nick Abdis (Valley View Acres Community Association) expressed a strong desire for his neighborhood to remain in District 1, citing its long history (annexed in the mid‑1960s), shared interests with North Natomas, and ongoing issues (levee improvement, panhandle development, Twin Rivers school district security).
• Rick Bettis (resident of Friedmont Park) cautioned that not all neighborhood associations are equally active; some exist only on paper. He urged the committee to verify functional associations before using them as redistricting building blocks.
• David Lindner (pastor, Bridge of Life Church; Gardenland Northgate neighborhood) pleaded for the committee not to overlook Gardenland Northgate, a historic and diverse neighborhood that has felt “skipped over” by the city. He asked that the neighborhood not be fragmented by redistricting.
• Mario Guerrero (Equality California, registered lobbyist) urged the committee to recognize the LGBT community as a community of interest, citing 16,953 LGBT individuals in the city and California Supreme Court precedent. He said they would submit maps later that week showing a geographically compact population in the central city.
• Greta Lassen (River District Board) requested that the River District be included in a united central city district, noting shared redevelopment goals with downtown and the downtown partnership.
• Wendy Hoyt (Downtown Sacramento Partnership) advocated for uniting the central city (bounded by the American River, Sacramento River, Highway 50, and I‑80) into one council district. She emphasized the 32,000 residents and 75,000 employees and argued that the area’s common urban policy issues are currently splintered across three districts.
• Rosanna Herbert (Rainbow Chamber of Commerce) supported uniting the central city and urged the committee to recognize the LGBT community as a community of interest. She stated the chamber would present data next week demonstrating a high concentration of LGBT individuals downtown and midtown.
• David DeLeon (Greater Sacramento Urban League; African American Leadership Coalition) listed several African American communities of interest (North/South Natomas, Del Paso Heights, Oak Park, Meadowview, Glen Elder, Lemon Hill). He stressed that the coalition will advocate to prevent these core communities from being split.
• Dr. James Reed (former chair of 1991 and 2001 African American redistricting committees) reported that the African American coalition has prepared maps balanced within plus or minus one percentage point and will submit them next Monday. He noted that the coalition successfully reunited Meadowview in 1991 after it was illegally split in 1981.

Discussion Items

Item 1: Weekly Report of Redistricting Activities (Oral Report)

Staff reported on media corrections (a newspaper inaccurately described population growth as 5% instead of 14.6% and claimed no eligible Latino applicants for the committee—in fact, two Latinas serve). Staff stated the committee has completed extensive outreach, including updates to the redistricting webpage, a reminder to 4,500 neighborhood service list members, flyers at city libraries and community centers, and a presentation to Sacramento State political science classes. The deadline for map submissions is May 16. IT Manager Maria MacGunigal was announced as the recipient of the “2011 Best of California Outstanding IT Service and Support Award.” Received and filed.

Item 2: Sacramento Redistricting History

Scot Mende presented a chronological overview from 1921 (at‑large election) to 2001. Key statistics: in 1971 each district averaged 31,801 people (variance under 1%); today each district will represent an average of 58,311 people—an 83% increase. The city population grew 14.6% between 2000 and 2010 (increase of 59,740). The presentation highlighted how maps varied in complexity over the decades and noted that 14 maps have been submitted so far. Received and filed.

Item 3: Neighborhoods as a Redistricting Criterion

Derrick Lim (Neighborhood Services Director) explained that neighborhoods can be defined by many factors (geography, social interaction, subdivision maps, business corridors, council districts). He noted the city uses a general reference map and that neighborhood associations are self‑defined; there are well over 100 active groups. Committee members asked about overlapping boundaries, mapping accuracy, and how neighborhood viability is verified. Public testimony emphasized the importance of keeping neighborhoods whole. Received and filed.

Item 4: Communities of Interest as a Redistricting Criterion

Ellen Marshall (Senior Planner) reviewed the seven charter criteria and defined communities of interest as populations with common social, economic, or political interests that should not be divided. She gave examples such as Little Saigon (recognized by Council Resolution 2010‑051). She noted communities of interest can be identified through demographic data, surveys, or community testimony. Received and filed.

Item 5: Overview of Voting Rights Act (Oral Report)

Deputy City Attorney Matt Ruyak presented a legal overview of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), emphasizing Section 2, which prohibits vote dilution. He explained key terms: majority‑minority districts, influence districts, crossover districts, packing, and cracking. He clarified that Sacramento is not covered by Section 5 (preclearance) and that the primary redistricting standard is equal population (one person, one vote). He noted that Section 2 violations require proof of three Gingles factors: a sufficiently large and compact minority group, political cohesion, and white bloc voting that usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidate. He also discussed racial gerrymandering under the 14th Amendment and the possibility of state equal protection claims regarding sexual orientation. Received and filed.

Item 6: Approval of May 2, 2011 Committee Minutes

Moved by Porter, seconded by Bowler. Approved unanimously (13 yes; 2 absent: Camp, Pluckebaum).

Key Outcomes

• All staff presentations were received and filed as recommended.
• The minutes of the May 2, 2011 meeting were approved (13‑0).
• The committee acknowledged the May 16 deadline for map submissions and noted that 14 maps had already been received.
• No substantive redistricting decisions or votes were taken; the committee will continue to gather input and review maps in upcoming meetings.
• Correspondence received during the meeting will be posted to the city website the next morning.