Council rejects new district maps
PALMDALE — The City Council, on Wednesday, rejected the recommended maps of new Council member districts from the Council-appointed Advisory Redistricting Commission, sending them back to the Commission for new recommendations to be considered in the next two weeks.
The vote was 4-1 to reject the two maps, with Councilmember Juan Carrillo dissenting.
The 11-member Advisory Redistricting Commission was established by the Council to recommend new district boundaries using data from the 2020 Census and following redistricting guidelines established in state and federal law.
With the Council’s rejection of its recommendation, the Commission will have to meet within seven days to refine its recommendation, based on the reasons given by the Council for the rejection. The new maps must be published for seven days before the Council may consider them.
The two maps discussed by the Council, on Wednesday, were one created by a coalition of Latino organizations called ALVA and one submitted by the public. Both were vetted by the city’s consultant, NDC, and met the necessary criteria.
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Loa made the motion to reject the two recommended maps.
The ALVA map, in particular, did not meet the requirement to be compact, he said, with District 3 stretching north to south, with a small sliver connecting the two sections south of Plant 42.
He also argued that it did not respect the requirement to be contiguous with respect to communities, dividing the Antelope Valley Country Club from housing east of Division Street.
“It seems to me there’s been some intent that’s not driven by trying to keep communities together, but instead is trying to pursue some political agenda,” Loa said, adding he thinks it shows a partisan discrimination by placing two sitting Council members in one district.
Loa added he felt the two recommended maps were drawn to target certain Council members for removal, and that those supporting the ALVA map “belong to the same political party and are attempting to knock out an adversary, a political opponent.”
It appears that the ALVA map would place Loa and Councilmember Austin Bishop in District 2, although Loa’s
comments focused on himself and District 4 Councilmember Juan Carrillo as the two Latino members on the Council. Loa said the recommended maps would jeopardize that representation.
Carrillo, who made a substitute motion to accept the ALVA map, which died for lack of a second, noted that both maps create three of the four districts with a majority Latino population, which he said would create an equal opportunity to have a Latino elected.
Carrillo said rejecting the maps is disrespectful to the Commission and the community who participated in the process, a sentiment that was echoed by some members of the public who spoke after the vote.
Public comment received, Wednesday, and at earlier public hearings was largely in support of the ALVA map.
Mayor Steve Hofbauer said the demographics in the proposed maps are not that different from the current map.
The Council was concerned about the fact the Commission recommended two maps, instead of the four that had been initially selected during their proceedings, on Jan. 20. During that meeting, the Commissioners voted to reduce the recommendation to the two that were presented, on Wednesday.
“I think that there was a good-faith effort to bring forth four maps by the Commission, and that was thwarted,” Loa said.
The resolution that established the Commission did not specify how many maps may be presented to the Council for consideration, City Attorney Christopher Beck said.
The two maps ultimately recommended to the Council were chosen from 11, which included those submitted by the public and ones drafted by consultant NDC.
Map 208 designates the west side of the city, essentially from 10th Street West, as District 2, and the far east side as District 4. It creates a compact District 3 in the city’s most populous east-central area and District 1 stretches from Columbia Way (Avenue M) to Pearblossom Highway in between Districts 2 and 3.
This map has the most equally divided population of those considered, with a .05% difference between the largest and smallest districts, according to the analysis provided by consultant NDC.
Map 208 has three districts with majority-Hispanic voting age populations, with only District 2 having less than half at 33%. For the city as a whole, 52% of the citizen voting age population is Hispanic, according to the 2020 Census data provided by NDC.
The second map recommended by the Commission is one created by the community organization ALVA. This map is somewhat similar to 208, except that District 1 is compacted between roughly Rancho Vista Boulevard (Avenue P) and Pearblossom Highway and approximately 10th Street West and 20th Street East. District 2 is the city’s west side, District 3 stretches from Columbia Way beyond Pearblossom Highway and District 4 is the city’s east side from roughly 40th Street East.
This map has a difference of 2.84% between the largest and smallest districts. The federal requirement is a deviation of less than 10%; both recommended maps are well within this requirement.
The current district map, with the latest population figures, actually still fits under that requirement, with a deviation of 8.09%, consultant Kristen Parks said.
The demographic distribution of the citizen voting-age population using existing districts is nearly the same as for Map 208.