HISD Redistricting Presentation

HISD RedistrictingBased on 2010 Census

Andrews & Kurth L.L.P.

The Law Offices of Rolondo Rios

Dr. Richard Murray

04/10/23 Andrews Kurth2

I. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FORREDISTRICTING

II. PROPOSED PRIORITIES AND PRINCIPLESFOR REDISTRICTING

III. INITIAL ANALYSIS OF 2010 CENSUS DATA

IV. HISD REDISTRICTING TIMELINE


I. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REDISTRICTING

Population Equality: “One Person — One Vote” Baker v. Carr Reynold v. Sims

Protections Against Discrimination of Racial, Ethnic and Language Minorities

Voting Rights Act

Equal Protection/14th Amendment: Redistricting Based on Race

Shaw v. Reno Bush v. Vera

Texas Constitution: Equal Protection Clause and Equal Rights Amendment


Local governments are required to draw districts that are “substantially equal in population”

Ten Percent Standard: Maximum deviation in population between the largest and the smallest districts

Courts will look at any significant deviation on a case-by-case basis, evaluating all factors used by the governmental body to draw districts

Courts recognize the importance of making districts compact, respecting traditional boundaries, preserving the core of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbents

POPULATION EQUALITY: “ONE PERSON — ONE VOTE”


VOTING RIGHTS ACT: PROTECTION AGAINST RACIAL,ETHNIC AND LANGUAGE MINORITY DISCRIMINATION

Voting Rights Act was enacted to provide minority voters an opportunity to participate in the electoral process and to elect candidates of their choice.

Enacted in 1965 to prohibit a government from imposing a “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

Voting Rights Act was amended in 1975 to include protections for members of language minority groups.


Prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing any voting qualification, standard, practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of any U.S. citizen’s right to vote on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority group.

A plaintiff may prove a Section 2 violation by showing a discriminatory result, not intent.

Courts look to the “totality of circumstances” to determine a Section 2 violation, i.e., whether a redistricting plan would have discriminatory results.

Gingles Test: Preconditions to prove a Section 2 claim

• The minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district;

• The minority group is politically cohesive (i.e., usually votes for the same candidates); and

• The majority group votes as a block to defeat minority-preferred candidates.

SECTION 2: Voting Rights Act


SECTION 5: Voting Rights Act

Applies to all governmental units in Texas.

Any electoral change must be precleared (under Section 5) with the Department of Justice.

Requires the governmental unit to establish that any proposed voting change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or membership in a language minority group.”


The Department of Justice may refuse to preclear a redistricting plan if it would lead to “retrogression” of minority voters.

Preclearance Question: Whether the new redistricting plan causes minority voting opportunities to diminish from what existed under the immediately preceding plan?

In 1990’s, the Department of Justice suffered setbacks in trying to require governmental units to “maximize” minority voting strength through perceived racial gerrymandering.

SECTION 5: Preclearance


EQUAL PROTECTION: Shaw v. Reno

Shaw v. Reno recognized a 14th Amendment Equal Protection cause of action for white plaintiffs where districts were drawn to deliberately include or exclude persons on the basis of race.

Several Supreme Court cases in 1990’s expanded the Equal Protection cause of action; all were 5–4 decisions.

Dilemma for local governments: Satisfy the race-conscious mandate of Voting Rights Act vs. 14th Amendments’ prohibition against race-predominant decision-making.

Districts drawn with race in mind must still by “reasonably compact” and adhere to “sound redistricting principles.”

Race is still factor in redistricting; must be considered in context of other factors.

Hunt v. Cromartie (5–4 decision) reaffirmed that using race, in conjunction with traditional redistricting principles, is not an Equal Protection violation.


II. PRIORITIES AND PRINCIPLES FOR REDISTRICTING

(1) The nine HISD Trustee Districts will be of substantially equal population and, in no event, exceed a ten percent top to bottom deviation.

(2) The new HISD Trustee Districts should be contiguous and reasonably compact.

(3) The new HISD Redistricting Plan will be based, to the extent possible, on the existing trustee district composition.

(4) Where possible, HISD will use easily identifiable geographic boundaries as district boundaries.

(5) The HISD Redistricting Plan will seek to maintain communities of interest in a single district and avoiding splitting neighborhoods when drawing district lines.


(6) The HISD Redistricting Plan will use whole county voting precincts, whenever possible, to draw trustee districts.

(7) The new HISD Redistricting Plan will adhere to the Voting Rights Act and avoid retrogression in the position of racial, ethnic and language minorities with respect to the effective exercise of their right to vote.

(8) The HISD Redistricting Plan will adhere to the Equal Protection Clause and will not use race as the predominate factor in developing the plan.

(9) Recognizing the value of incumbent-constituency relations, the new HISD Redistricting Plan will seek to keep existing trustees in their existing districts.


III. INITIAL ANALYSIS OF 2010 CENSUS DATA

•2010 Census Data Confirms Expected Changes in HISD Districts

• Expected Growth in Population in Existing HISD Districts Was Confirmed

• Uneven Changes Will Require Some Adjustments in Most Districts


Current HISD Districts


2000 % 2010 % Change

Total Population 1,259,617 100.0 1,312,684 100.00 + 53,067 + 4.2%

Non-Hispanic Whites

371,784 29.5 342,140 26.1 - 29,644 - 8.0%

Non-Hispanic Blacks

316,624 25.1 309,685 23.6 - 6,939 - 2.2%

Hispanics 510,588 40.5 580,994 44.3 + 70,406 + 13.8%

Asians 51,332 4.1 72,621 5.5 + 21,289 + 41.5%

Others 9,289 0.7 7,244 0.6 - 2,045 - 22.0

The Houston Independent School District encompasses a mature, inner-urban area that now includes less than 25 percent of the metropolitan area population. With little open land available for development except in the south-central part of the district, growth in HISD was just 4.2 percent over the last 10 years. Both the Anglo (Non-Hispanic White) and Black populations declined, with Hispanics accounting for the most of the growth in the district, even though their rate of increase (13.8%) was far below their percentages outside HISD. The greatest percentage increase (41.5%) in the district occurred among Asian Americans.

Population Change in the Houston Independent School District: 2000 to 2010


Population Change in HISD Trustee Districts: 2000 – 2010

The two trustee districts on the north side (1 and 2) lost population, as did Trustee District 3 in the southeast. Three districts (5, 6, and 8) experienced moderate growth over the decade. The fastest growth occurred in District 4 (10,713), District 7 (15,431), and District 9 (25,346).

Because District 9 is more than 14 percent over the mean population for all districts in HISD, and District 1 is more than 8 percent below the mean, the range of 22.40% requires redrawing the present trustee boundaries.

District 2000 2010 Change Deviation from Mean

1 134,864 134,145 - 719 - 0.5% - 11,709 - 8.03%

2 142,676 138,299 - 4,377 - 3.1% - 7,555 - 5.18%

3 145,819 141,324 - 4,495 - 3.1% - 4,530 - 3.11%

4 136,414 147,127 + 10,713 + 7.9% + 1,273 + 0.87%

5 147,053 151,053 + 4,000 + 2.7% + 5,199 + 3.56%

6 141,332 145,202 + 3,870 + 2.7% - 652 - 0.45%

7 135,847 151,278 + 15,431 + 11.4% + 5,424 + 3.72%

8 134,067 137,437 + 3,370 + 2.5% - 8,417 - 5,77%

9 141,545 166,891 + 25,346 + 17.9% +20,965 + 14.37%


Racial/Ethnic Population Change within HISD Trustee Districts 2000 – 2010 for Total Population and Voting Age Population (VAP)

District 1

2000 2010

Total Pop. 134,864 100.0% 134,145 100.0% Change

Anglos 35,548 26.4% 33,987 25.3% - 1,561 - 1.1%

Blacks 7,972 5.9% 8,161 6.1% + 189 + 0.2%

Hispanics 89,504 66.4% 89,741 66.9% + 237 + 0.5%

Asians 938 0.7% 1,625 1.2% + 687 + 0.5%

Others 902 0.7% 631 0.5% - 271 - 0.2%

VAP Pop. 96,194 100.0% 98,519 100.0% Change

Anglos 30,620 31.8% 29,862 30.3% - 758 - 1.5%

Blacks 5,551 5.8% 5,940 6.0% + 389 + 0.2%

Hispanics 58,547 60.9% 60,902 61.8% + 1,355 + 0.9%

Asians 755 0.8% 1,317 1.3% + 562 + 0.5%

Others 721 0.8% 438 0.5% - 283 - 0.3%


Population Change in HISD Trustee Districts: 2000 – 2010

District 2

2000 2010 Change

Total Pop. 142,676 100.0% 138,299 100.0% - 719 - 0.5%

Anglos 19,162 13.4% 16,139 11.7% - 3,023 - 1.7%

Blacks 70,072 49.1% 58,516 42.3% - 11,556 - 6.8%

Hispanics 52,183 36.6% 62,330 45.1% + 10,047 + 8.5%

Asians 718 0.5% 736 0.5% + 18 0.0%

Others 541 0.4% 578 0.4% + 37 0.0%

VAP Pop. 101,123 100.0% 101,130 100.0% + 7 0.0%

Anglos 16,205 16.0% 14,303 14.1% - 1,902 - 1.9%

Blacks 51,062 50,5% 45,687 45.1% - 5,375 - 5.4%

Hispanics 32,879 32.5% 40,273 39.8% + 7,394 + 7.3%

Asians 574 0.6% 609 0.6% + 35 0.0%

Others 403 0.4% 438 0.4% + 35 0.0%


District 3

2000 2010 Change

Total Pop. 145,891 100.0% 141,324 100.0% - 4,567 - 3.1%

Anglos 16,509 11.3% 9,453 6.7% - 7,056 - 4.6%

Blacks 16,998 11.7% 13,978 9.9% - 3,020 - 1.8%

Hispanics 107,721 73.9% 113,856 80.6% + 6,135 + 6.7%

Asians 3,984 2.7% 3,581 2.5% - 403 - 0.2%

Others 607 0.4% 456 0.3% - 151 - 0.1%

Total VAP 97,765 100.0% 97,439 100.0% - 326 - 0.3%

Anglos 14,341 14.7% 8,398 8.6% - 5,943 - 6.1%

Blacks 11,694 12.0% 10,488 10.8% - 1,206 - 1.2%

Hispanics 68,340 69.8% 75,472 77.5% + 7,132 + 7.7%

Asians 2,943 3.0% 2,752 2.8% - 191 - 0.2%

Others 447 0.5% 329 0.3% - 118 - 0.2%



District 4

2000 2010 Change

Total Pop. 136,414 100.0% 147,127 100.0% +10,713 + 7.9%

Anglos 29,253 21.4% 32,097 21.8% + 2,844 + 0.4%

Blacks 78,435 57.5% 75,157 51.1% - 3,278 - 6.4%

Hispanics 19,636 14.4% 25,334 17.2% + 5,692 + 2.8%

Asians 8,052 5.9% 13,685 9.3% + 5,633 + 3.4%

Others 1,038 0.8% 854 0.6% - 182 - 0.2%

Total VAP 105,649 100.0% 118,876 100.0% +13,227 +12.5%

Anglos 26,850 25.4% 29,546 24.9% + 2,696 - 0.5%

Blacks 57,945 54.9% 58,523 49.2% + 578 - 5.7%

Hispanics 13,186 12.5% 17,860 15.0% + 4,674 + 2.5%

Asians 6,818 6.5% 12,221 10.3% + 5,403 + 3.8%

Others 850 0.8% 726 0.6% - 124 - 0.2%

Racial/Ethnic Population Change within HISD Trustee Districts 2000 – 2010 for TotalPopulation and Voting Age Population (VAP)


District 5

2000 2010 Change

Total Pop. 147,053 100.0% 151,053 100.0% + 4,000 + 2.7%

Anglos 83,135 56.5% 73,873 48.9% - 9,262 - 7.6%

Blacks 11,354 7.7% 11,651 7.7% + 267 0.0%

Hispanics 40,074 27.3% 47,712 31.6% + 7,638 + 4.3%

Asians 11,037 7.5% 16,824 11.1% + 5,787 + 3.6%

Others 1,434 1.0% 993 0.7% - 441 - 0.3%

Total VAP 110,465 100.0% 112,919 100.0% + 2,454 + 2.2%

Anglos 65,725 59.5% 58,537 51.8% - 7,188 - 7.7%

Blacks 8,131 7.4% 8,804 7.8% + 673 + 0.4%

Hispanics 27,141 24.6% 32,186 28.5% + 5,045 + 3.9%

Asians 8,417 7.6% 12,677 11.2% + 4,260 + 3.6%

Others 1,051 1.0% 751 0.6% - 336 - 0.4%



District 6

2000 2010 Change

Total Pop. 141,332 100.0% 145,202 100.0% + 3,870 + 2.7%

Anglos 64,086 45.3% 49,904 34.4% - 14,182 - 10.9%

Blacks 25,145 17.8% 29,497 20.3% + 4,352 + 2.5%

Hispanics 37,783 26.7% 49,936 34.4% +12,153 + 7.7%

Asians 12,826 9.1% 14,852 10.2% + 2,026 + 1.1%

Others 1,492 1.1% 1,013 0.7% - 479 - 0.4%

Total VAP 108,694 100.0% 112,234 100.0% + 3,540 + 3.3%

Anglos 54,235 49.9% 43,226 38.5% - 11,009 - 11.4%

Blacks 17,566 16.2% 21,900 19.5% + 4,334 + 3.3%

Hispanics 25,710 23.7% 34,304 30.6% + 8,594 + 6.9%

Asians 10,067 9.3% 12,063 10.7% + 1,996 + 1.4%

Others 1,116 1.0% 731 0.7% - 385 - 0.3%



District 7

2000 2010 Change

Total Pop. 135,847 100.0% 151,278 100.0% +15,431 +11.4%

Anglos 79,842 58.8% 75,265 49.8% - 4,577 - 9.0%

Blacks 8,048 5.9% 11,975 7.9% + 3,927 + 2.0%

Hispanics 39,810 29.3% 52,046 34.4% +12,236 + 5.1%

Asians 6,300 4.6% 10,992 7.3% + 4,692 + 2.7%

Others 1,847 1.4% 1,000 0.7% - 847 - 0.7%

Total VAP 112,313 100.0% 124,393 100.0% +12,080 +10.8%

Anglos 70,572 62.8% 66,548 53.5% - 4,024 - 9.3%

Blacks 6,252 5.6% 9,755 7.8% + 3,503 + 2.2%

Hispanics 28,496 25.4% 37,913 30.5% + 9,417 + 5.1%

Asians 5,463 4.9% 9,374 7.5% + 3,911 + 2.6%

Others 1,530 1.4% 803 0.6% - 727 - 0.8%



District 8

2000 2010 Change

Total Pop. 134,067 100.0% 137,437 100.0% + 3,370 + 2.5%

Anglos 27,773 20.7% 38,270 27.8% +10,497 + 7.1%

Blacks 16,031 12.0% 15,153 11.0% - 878 - 1.0%

Hispanics 87,249 65.0% 78,335 57.0% - 8,914 - 8.0%

Asians 2,208 1.7% 4,590 3.3% + 2,382 + 1.6%

Others 806 0.6% 1,089 0.8% + 283 + 0.2%

Total VAP 98,201 100.0% 108,295 100.0% +10,094 +10.3%

Anglos 25,704 26.2% 35,974 33.2% +10,270 + 7.0%

Blacks 11,954 12.2% 11,863 11.0% - 91 - 1.2%

Hispanics 58,037 59.1% 55,418 51.2% - 2,619 - 7.9%

Asians 1,836 1.9% 4,085 3.8% + 2,249 + 1.9%

Others 670 0.7% 955 0.9% + 285 + 0.9%



District 9

2000 2010 Change

Total Pop. 141,545 100.0% 166,819 100.0% +25,274 +17.9%

Anglos 16,476 11.6% 13,324 7.9% - 3,324 - 3.7%

Blacks 82,539 58.3% 85,597 51.3% + 3,058 - 7.0%

Hispanics 36,628 25.9% 61,704 37.0% +25,076 +11.1%

Asians 5,269 3.7% 5,736 3.4% + 467 - 0.3%

Others 633 0.5% 630 0.4% - 3 - 0.1%

Total VAP 96,573 100.0% 117,165 100.0% +20,592 +21.3%

Anglos 13,694 14.2% 11,187 9.5% - 2,512 - 4.7%

Blacks 55,545 57.5% 61,636 52.6% + 6,091 - 4.9%

Hispanics 22,943 23.8% 39,341 33.6% +16,398 + 9.8%

Asians 3,950 4.1% 4,595 3.9% + 645 - 0.2%

Others 436 0.5% 406 0.3% - 30 - 0.2%



HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT MAP


III. TIMELINE FOR REDISTRICTING WORK

April 1 – May 1

• Complete 2010 population analysis for each trustee district

• Analyze most current case law on redistricting

• Presentation on redistricting to Board Members at workshop

• Review previous HISD submissions to the Department of Justice

• Compile results of recent HISD elections; prepare polarization analysis of relevant elections

• Prepare draft Priorities and Principles for Redistricting for Board discussion

• HISD – Adoption of Priorities and Principles


TIMELINE (continued)

May 1 – June 1

• Attorneys and demographer respond to inquiries from Board Members

• Prepare Draft HISD Redistricting Plan based on 2010 population using existing district lines

• Review Draft HISD Redistricting Plan with Board contact person

• Offer Draft Redistricting Plan to Board Members, seek further input and adjust Plan accordingly

• Prepare analysis of Plan with existing districts and the resulting Voting Rights Act implications

• HISD Board Meeting – set public hearings on Draft HISD Redistricting Plan



June 1 – July 1

• Hold public hearings on HISD Redistricting Plan

• Prepare final HISD Redistricting Plan with relevant analysis and tables



July 1 – August 1

• Board of Trustees adoption of final HISD Redistricting Plan

• Preparation and submittal of the HISD Redistricting Plan to the Department of Justice for preclearance

• Respond to the Department of Justice with additional information as needed


Gene Locke

Andrews & Kurth L.L.P.

600 Travis

Suite 4200

Houston,Texas

(713) 220-3956

Questions?Questions?

Rolondo Rios

The Law Offices of Rolondo Rios

115 E. Travis

Suite 1024

San Antonio, Texas

(210) 222-2102

Dr. Richard Murray

Dept. of Political Science

University of Houston

Houston, Texas

(713) 743-3909

(713) 743-3927

Documents

HISD Redistricting Presentation