Redistricting After the
2010 Census
Jill Wilson and Clint Pinyan
July 18, 2011
Board of Education
Redistricting Committee
How Board of Education
Districts Can Be Redrawn
Resolution of Board of Education (N. C.
Gen. Stat. 115C-37(i))
Local Legislation
Court Order
Statute Governing Redistricting
N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 115C-37(i): The local board of education
shall revise electoral district boundaries from time to time as
provided by this subsection. If district boundaries are set by local
act or court order and the act or order does not provide a method
for revising them, the local board of education shall revise them
only for the purpose of (i) accounting for territory annexed to or
excluded from the school administrative unit, and (ii) correcting
population imbalances among the districts shown by a new federal
census or caused by exclusions or annexations. . . .
Statute Governing Redistricting
After the local board of education has revised district boundaries in
conformity with this act, the local board of education shall not revise
them again until a new federal census of population is taken or
territory is annexed to or excluded from the school administrative
unit, whichever event occurs first . . . In establishing district
boundaries, the local board of education shall use data derived from
the most recent federal census.
Impact of the Statute
The Board must redistrict, if redistricting is necessary in
order to “correct[] population imbalances among the
districts shown by a new federal census.” N.C. Gen. Stat.
Section 115C-37(i).
This statute incorporates the “one person, one vote”
principle.
An extreme example to illustrate the “one person, one
vote” principle: A voter in a one-voter district would
have more power to impact the Board than a voter in a
one hundred thousand-voter district.
The County’s Uneven
Population Growth
District Number 2000 Total Population 2010 Total Population Percentage Growth
1 47,249 48,430 2.5%
2 47,541 62,294 31.0%
3 47,743 63,230 32.4%
4 45,856 60,211 31.3%
5 46,729 54,728 17.1%
6 46,772 48,146 2.9%
7 45,718 49,652 8.6%
8 47,803 50,172 5.0%
9 45,625 51,543 13.0%
421,036 488,406 16.0%
Analysis of the Impact of Uneven
Population Growth
Courts have routinely applied a “10 percent rule” when determining
whether there is substantial equality among districts, so that the
“one person, one vote” requirement has been met.
We first calculate the “ideal district” population. To determine the
“ideal district” population, we divide the new 2010 Census total
county population numbers by the number of Member districts.
This yields the population of each district, if they were perfectly
equal.
2010 Total County Population 488,406
Number of Districts 9
Ideal Population Per District 54,267
Analysis of the Impact of Uneven
Population Growth (continued)
We then calculate how much each of the
current districts deviates from the “ideal
district.”
We then add the deviation of the most
populous and least populous districts from
the “ideal district” population.
If the total is more than 10%, we need to
redistrict.
2010 Population Deviation of
Current Districts
District 2010 Total Deviation from Percentage Highest and
Number Population Ideal District Deviation Lowest
1 48,430 (5,837) -10.8%
2 62,294 8,027 14.8%
3 63,230 8,963 16.5% 16.5%
4 60,211 5,944 11.0%
5 54,728 461 0.8%
6 48,146 (6,121) -11.3% -11.3%
7 49,652 (4,615) -8.5%
8 50,172 (4,095) -7.5%
9 51,543 (2,724) -5.0%
County Population
Total: 488,406 Variance: 27.8%
Ideal
District: 54,267
Why It Is Necessary for Us to Redraw
Member District Boundaries?
In Guilford County, the “ideal district” population
based on 2010 Census numbers is 54,267.
The most populous district is District 3, with a
variance of 16.5% above the ideal.
The least populous district is District 6, with a
variance of 11.3% below the ideal.
Adding the two percentages, we get 27.8%
which violates the “10 percent rule” and triggers
the need to redistrict.
The Need to Reallocate Population
Districts That Must Achieve Smaller
Populations: Districts 2, 3 and 4.
Districts That Must Achieve Larger
Populations: Districts 1, 6, 7 and 8 (and
probably 9).
DOJ Preclearance Requirements
The Board of Education is one of the entities subject to
“preclearance” requirements under Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This means that any proposed redistricting plan adopted
by the Board must be submitted to the U.S. Department
of Justice for approval prior to implementation.
The DOJ will review to determine if the plan has the
purpose or effect of diluting the voting influence of
minority voters.
DOJ Preclearance Process
The Board must submit a wide variety of information about the
redistricting decision (population information, maps considered,
description of the redistricting process, etc.).
The DOJ has 60 days to review redistricting plans submitted under
Section 5.
The DOJ may request additional information, as it did after the 2001
redistricting.
The DOJ will then either grant “preclearance,” giving the jurisdiction
the go-ahead to implement the change, OR
The DOJ will object to the plan if it has the purpose or effect of
diluting the voting influence of minority voters.
Substance of the DOJ’s
Preclearance Decision
The DOJ determines if it believes that the plan
has either the purpose or the effect of denying
or abridging the right to vote on account of race
or color.
A plan may not lead to “retrogression” in the
position of minority voters with respect to their
effective exercise of the right to vote. In other
words, it cannot make it harder for minority
voters to elect a representative of their choice.
Retrogression Analysis
The DOJ determines if a plan is retrogressive by comparing it to the
“benchmark” or currently implemented district boundary plan.
The Section 5 guidelines identify a number of factors that the DOJ
considers in determining whether a new redistricting plan is
retrogressive, including whether the new plan:
Reduces minority voting strength in any district;
Has fewer districts in which minority voters can elect candidates of choice;
Splits minority communities among several districts;
Over-concentrates minority voters in one or more districts;
Ignores available natural or artificial boundaries without explanation.
Burden is on the Board to show that the change had no
discriminatory purpose and will have no retrogressive effect.
The First Step in the Retrogression
Analysis
This begins with a mathematical comparison of the racial breakdown
of the voting age populations between the current district and any
proposed new districts. The 2010 Census figures are used for these
comparisons, and, because of the nature of the Guilford County
population, the African-American population is the most pertinent
comparison.
The mathematical comparison is where the DOJ will start, but the DOJ
says that it “does not rely on any predetermined or fixed demographic
percentages at any point in the assessment.” And the comparison is
ultimately only one factor in determining whether there has been
retrogression.
Current District Voting Age
Populations
Total White White Black Black Other Race Other Race
Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age
District Population Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage
D1 35,611 13,789 38.72% 17,074 47.95% 4,748 13.33%
D2 47,937 35,071 73.16% 8,493 17.72% 4,373 9.12%
D3 47,698 39,974 83.81% 4,901 10.28% 2,823 5.92%
D4 43,964 24,382 55.46% 16,424 37.36% 3,158 7.18%
D5 42,783 34,214 79.97% 6,031 14.10% 2,538 5.93%
D6 39,904 25,046 62.77% 10,393 26.05% 4,465 11.19%
D7 39,279 32,790 83.48% 4,794 12.20% 1,695 4.32%
D8 38,711 9,484 24.50% 24,243 62.63% 4,984 12.87%
D9 38,074 10,108 26.55% 24,525 64.41% 3,441 9.04%
Totals 373,961 224,858 116,878 32,225
Considerations in Retrogression
Whether a less retrogressive plan can reasonably be
drawn.
Whether drawing a less retrogressive plan would
unreasonably split minority communities among several
districts, or would ignore other community boundaries or
considerations.
Historic voting patterns, such as the participation rate of
minority voters and the historical election of the
candidates of the choice of minority voters.
Whether there has been an over-concentration of
minority voters in any district, or other over-reaction to
retrogression analysis.
The Intersection of One Person,
One Vote and Section 5
Preclearance
Districts 1, 8 and 9 deviate below the “ideal
district” total population and must add
population.
Must do so without causing retrogressive effects.
May not disregard traditional districting
principles, such as compactness, contiguity and
maintaining communities of interest.
Shaw vs. Reno Considerations
The Constitution requires districts that are
not “extremely irregular” and that meet
reasonable concerns about compactness,
contiguousness, geographical boundaries
or political subdivisions.
In Shaw vs. Reno, the Supreme Court
struck down North Carolina’s new
congressional redistricting plan following
the 1990 census for being too irregular.
Other Considerations in
Redistricting
Maintaining incumbent Members in their
districts.
Maintaining at least one high school in each
district and considering attendance zone lines.
Keeping voters in their current districts, to the
extent possible.
Not splitting voting precincts between districts,
in order to avoid costs, difficulty in
administration and voter confusion.
Map 1
Map 1
STOK
SF2 NCGR2
MON3
NMAD NWASH
SF1
NCGR1
OR1
OR2
D3
MON2A
SF4 SF3 CG1
CG2
CG3B MON2B SMAD D4
SWASH
CG3A
G28G27
G29 G26
FR3 G40A2 G25 G09 G10 MON1
FR5 G40B D7 G24
NDRI G30 G21 G08
G40A1 G23 G22
FR4 G41 G32 G07
JEF1
G31 G20 GIB
G05 G06
G39 G34 G33 G19 G02 G03 RC1
G42 G18
G17
G35 G12 G04
G43 G38
G16 G13 G11 G01 G68
G36
G37 G15 G67 G72 JEF2
SDRI G64 G45 G44
G63 G49 G48 G71
G69G70
D2 D6
G47
H29B
FR1
G50
G51 G46 D8 G73
G74
JEF3
FR2 G62 RC2
H27 G61 G52
G58 G56 G75
D9 JEF4
H25 G66 G60
H24 H29A G65 G54
H26 JAM2 G59
JAM3 G57 G53
H23 D1 G55 FEN1
H21 H20B H28
H20A JAM1
SUM1
H22 H19B NCLAY1
H18 FEN2 NCLAY2
H15 H19A
JAM4
H16 H17 H10 SUM2 PG1 D5
H11 H06 SUM3
H14 H12
H13 H09
H05
GR
H02 H08 H07
H03 JAM5 PG2
H01 SUM4 SCLAY
H04
Map 1: Total Population Deviation
2010 Total Deviation from Percentage Highest and
District Number Population Ideal District Deviation Lowest
1 51,863 -2,404 -4.43% -4.43%
2 56,268 2,001 3.69% 3.69%
3 53,745 -522 -0.96%
4 54,808 541 1.00%
5 54,954 687 1.27%
6 53,391 -876 -1.61%
7 54,200 -67 -0.12%
8 54,315 48 0.09%
9 54,862 595 1.10%
Population
County Total: 488,406 Variance: 8.12%
Ideal District: 54,267
Map 1: Voting Age Population
Total White White Black Black Other Race Other Race
Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age
District Population Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage
D1 39,481 16,463 41.70% 18,732 47.45% 4,286 10.86%
D2 42,452 30,750 72.43% 7,142 16.82% 4,560 10.74%
D3 40,136 34,834 86.79% 3,117 7.77% 2,185 5.44%
D4 40,732 26,019 63.88% 11,884 29.18% 2,829 6.95%
D5 42,238 32,261 76.38% 6,525 15.45% 3,452 8.17%
D6 43,602 27,336 62.69% 11,212 25.71% 5,054 11.59%
D7 42,855 35,873 83.71% 5,106 11.91% 1,876 4.38%
D8 42,565 10,723 25.19% 27,266 64.06% 4,576 10.75%
D9 39,900 10,599 26.56% 25,894 64.90% 3,407 8.54%
Totals 373,961 224,858 116,878 32,225
Map 2
Map 2
STOK
SF2 NCGR2
MON3
NMAD NWASH
D3 SF1 NCGR1
OR1
OR2
CG2 MON2A
SF4 SF3 CG3B
CG1 MON2B SMAD
D4 SWASH
D7 G27CG3A
G28 G26
FR3 G40A2 G25 G09 G10 MON1
FR5 G40B G29
G24
NDRI G30 G21 G08
G40A1 G23 G22
FR4 G41 G32 G07
JEF1
G31 G20 GIB
G05 G06
G39 G34 G33 G03 RC1
G42 G18 G19 G02
G17
G35 G12 G04
G43 G38
G16 G13 G11 G01 G68
G36
G37 G15 G67 G72 JEF2
SDRI G64 G45 G44
G63 G49 G48 G71
G69 G70
D2 D6
G47
H29B
FR1
G50
G51 G46
D8 G73
G74
JEF3
FR2 G62 RC2
H27 G61 G52
G58 G56 G75
D9 JEF4
H25 G66 G60
H24 H29A G65 G54
H26 JAM2 G59
JAM3 G57 G53
H23 D1 G55 FEN1
H21 H20B H28
H20A JAM1
SUM1
H22 H19B NCLAY1
H18 FEN2 NCLAY2
H15 H19A
JAM4 SUM2
H16 H17 H10 PG1 D5
H11 H06 SUM3
H14 H12
H13 H09
H05
GR
H02 H08 H07
H03 JAM5 PG2
H01 SUM4 SCLAY
H04
Map 2: Total Population Deviation
2010 Total Deviation from Percentage Highest and
District Number Population Ideal District Deviation Lowest
1 51,863 -2,404 -4.43% -4.43%
2 56,268 2,001 3.69% 3.69%
3 54,781 514 0.95%
4 52,858 -1409 -2.60%
5 54,954 687 1.27%
6 53,391 -876 -1.61%
7 55,114 847 1.56%
8 54,315 48 0.09%
9 54,862 595 1.10%
Population
County Total: 488,406 Variance: 8.12%
Ideal District: 54,267
Map 2: Voting Age Population
Total Voting White Voting White Voting Black Voting Black Voting Other Race Other Race
Age Age Age Age Age Voting Age Voting Age
District Population Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage
D1 39,481 16,463 41.70% 18,732 47.45% 4,286 10.86%
D2 42,452 30,750 72.43% 7,142 16.82% 4,560 10.74%
D3 41,156 35,389 85.99% 3,470 8.43% 2,297 5.58%
D4 39,455 25,106 63.63% 11,654 29.54% 2,695 6.83%
D5 42,238 32,261 76.38% 6,525 15.45% 3,452 8.17%
D6 43,602 27,336 62.69% 11,212 25.71% 5,054 11.59%
D7 43,112 36,231 84.04% 4,983 11.56% 1,898 4.40%
D8 42,565 10,723 25.19% 27,266 64.06% 4,576 10.75%
D9 39,900 10,599 26.56% 25,894 64.90% 3,407 8.54%
Totals 373,961 224,858 116878 32225
Map 3
Map 3
STOK
SF2 NCGR2
MON3
NMAD NWASH
SF1
NCGR1
OR1
OR2
D3 D4
CG2 MON2A
SF4 SF3 CG3B
CG1 MON2B SMAD
SWASH
G27 CG3A
G28
G29 G26
FR3 G40A2 G25 G09 G10 MON1
FR5 G40B
D7 G24
G21
NDRI G40A1 G30 G08
G23 G22
FR4 G41 G32 G07
JEF1
G31 G20 GIB
G05 G06
G39 G34 G33 G19 G02 G03 RC1
G42 G18
G17
G35 G12 G04
G43 G38
G16 G13 G11 G01 G68
G36 G72
G37 G15 G67 JEF2
SDRI G64 G45 G44
G63 G49 G48 G71
G69 G70
D2 G47
G50
H29B
FR1 G51 G46 D8 G73
G74
JEF3
FR2 G62 RC2
H27 G61 G52
G58 G56 G75
D9 JEF4
H25 G66 G60
H24 H29A G65 G54
H26 JAM2 G59
JAM3 G57 G53
H23 D1 G55 FEN1
H21 H20B H28
H20A JAM1
SUM1
H22 H19B NCLAY1
H18 FEN2 NCLAY2
H15 H19A
H17 JAM4 SUM2
H16
H11
H10 D6 D5 PG1
H14 H12 H06 SUM3
H13 H09
H05
GR
H02 H08 H07
H03 JAM5 PG2
H01 SUM4 SCLAY
H04
Map 3: Total Population Deviation
2010 Total Deviation from Percentage Highest and
District Number Population Ideal District Deviation Lowest
1 51,863 -2,404 -4.43% -4.43%
2 56,268 2,001 3.69% 3.69%
3 55,421 1154 2.13%
4 54,284 17 0.03%
5 52,118 -2149 -3.96%
6 53,278 -989 -1.82%
7 55,997 1730 3.19%
8 54,315 48 0.09%
9 54,862 595 1.10%
Population
County Total: 488,406 Variance: 8.12%
Ideal District: 54,267
Map 3: Voting Age Population
Total White White Black Black Other Race Other Race
Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age Voting Age
District Population Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage
D1 39,481 16,463 41.70% 18,732 47.45% 4,286 10.86%
D2 42,452 30,750 72.43% 7,142 16.82% 4,560 10.74%
D3 41,477 35,919 86.60% 3,301 7.96% 2,297 5.44%
D4 40,758 26,784 65.71% 11,126 27.30% 2,848 6.99%
D5 40.217 30.232 75.17% 6,867 17.07% 3,118 7.75%
D6 41,945 25,969 61.91% 10.937 26.07% 5,039 12.01%
D7 45,166 37,419 82.85% 5,613 12.43% 2.134 4.72%
D8 42,565 10,723 25.19% 27,266 64.06% 4,576 10.75%
D9 39,900 10,599 26.56% 25,894 64.90% 3,407 8.54%
Totals 373,961 224,858 116,878 32,225
Map 4
Map 4
STOK
SF2 NCGR2
MON3
NMAD NWASH
SF1
NCGR1
OR1
OR2
D3 D4
CG2 MON2A
SF4 SF3 CG3B
CG1 MON2B SMAD
SWASH
G27 CG3A
G28
G26
FR3 G40A2 G29 G25 G09 G10 MON1
FR5 G40B
NDRI D7 G24
G21 G08
G40A1 G30 G23 G22
FR4 G41 G32 G07
JEF1
G31 G20 GIB
G05 G06
G39 G34 G33 G03 RC1
G42 G18 G19 G02
G17
G35 G12 G04
G43 G38
G16 G13 G11 G01 G68
G36
G37 G15 G67 G72 JEF2
SDRI G64 G45 G44
G63 G49 G48 G71
G69 G70
D6 G47
H29B
FR1
G50
G51 G46
D8 G73
G74
JEF3
FR2 G62 RC2
D2 H27
G61
G58 G56
G52
D9 JEF4
G66 G75
H24 H25 H29A G60
G65 G54
H26 JAM2 G59
JAM3 G57 G53
H23 D1 G55 FEN1
H21 H20B H28
H20A JAM1
SUM1
H22 H19B NCLAY1
H18 FEN2 NCLAY2
H15 H19A
JAM4 SUM2
H16 H17 H10 D5 PG1
H11 H06
H14 H12 SUM3
H13 H09
H05
GR
H02 H08 H07
H03 JAM5 PG2
H01 SUM4 SCLAY
H04
Map 4: Total Population Deviation
2010 Total Deviation from Percentage Highest and
District Number Population Ideal District Deviation Lowest
1 51,863 -2,404 -4.43% -4.43%
2 53,354 -913 -1.68%
3 55,425 1158 2.13%
4 52,899 -1368 -2.52%
5 52,118 -2149 -3.96%
6 57,156 2889 5.32% 5.32%
7 56,414 2147 3.96%
8 54,315 48 0.09%
9 54,862 595 1.10%
Population
County Total: 488,406 Variance: 9.75%
Ideal District: 54,267
Map 4: Voting Age Population
Total Voting White Voting White Voting Black Voting Black Voting Other Race Other Race
Age Age Age Age Age Voting Age Voting Age
District Population Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage
D1 39,481 16,463 41.70% 18,732 47.45% 4,286 10.86%
D2 40,304 28,769 71.38% 7,092 17.60% 4,443 11.02%
D3 41,607 36,087 86.73% 3,243 7.79% 2,277 5.47%
D4 39,582 25,785 65.14% 11,042 27.90% 2,755 6.96%
D5 40.217 30.232 75.17% 6,867 17.07% 3,118 7.75%
D6 45,777 28,901 63.13% 11,614 25.37% 5,262 11.49%
D7 44,528 37,299 83.77% 5,128 11.52% 2.101 4.72%
D8 42,565 10,723 25.19% 27,266 64.06% 4,576 10.75%
D9 39,900 10,599 26.56% 25,894 64.90% 3,407 8.54%
Totals 373,961 224,858 116878 32225