Antioch selects new district election map for voting
Map, which divides city in four zones, is similar to previous one
It took many hours and several contentious meetings, but Antioch finally has a new district map for council elections.
The council approved a modified Map A, which was drafted by a professional demographer the city had hired and is the most similar to the current map, only modifying the border between Districts 3 and 4.
By law, election districts must be redrawn every 10 years to reflect population shifts based on the latest census data. The city adopted its current district boundaries in 2018 when it switched from at-large to district elections.
Last fall, the council invited residents to submit their own maps gearing the districts to have equal populations within each and recognizing factors such as natural geography and communities of interest, and balancing them in terms of total population and voting age, among other factors. Eight drafts, three drawn by council direction, five from residents, were later winnowed down to two, both of which were rejected in late February.
On Tuesday, the council could have chosen from among 15 maps, including two that it had rejected early on but later were moved forward as finalists.
The demographer-drawn Map A, with slight modifications, and resident-drawn Map 521 both had a number of detractors and supporters as did others not considered finalists.
Sandra Hartwig voiced concerns that the majority council would not vote for a map that would have two councilmembers – Monica Wilson and Lori Ogorchock – in the same district. That would leave Wilson out as her term ends this year and she would not be able to rerun in the same district, the resident said.
“I ask you to not break up neighborhoods of interests or communities of interest by which laws interpreted as a geographical area composed by residents who share similar interests, and those that are familiar with the community,” she said, citing some of the guidelines for designing district maps. “…Communities of interest go beyond simply neighborhoods.”
She also asked the council to make the boundaries “easily identifiable,” which she said Map 91 – not one of the finalists – did do, so she supported that one.
Not following the Fair Maps Act for designing a district map “could open us up to costly lawsuits,” she added.
Former Councilman Allen Payton encouraged councilmembers to choose Map 521, which he said followed the Fair Maps Act and leaves all councilmembers in their own district, even though that is not supposed to be a consideration in the design. Map 521 leaves all of the older Mira Vista Hills neighborhood together instead of splitting it apart like Map A does, he said.
Longtime resident Harry Thurston and two others, however, supported Map A.
“It (Map A) provides districts that are geographically contiguous, maintains geographic integrity of the local neighborhoods and local communities of interest, so the districts are easily identifiable and understandable by residents,” he said.
“The districts are geographically compact, the districts are balanced in terms of total population and voter age population and the district conforms to concentration of minority voters,” Thurston added.
“It checks off all the five criteria and it’s really simple,” another resident said. “It’s an easy solution.”
Mayor Lamar Thorpe asked consultants to see the map again and tried moving the borders to avoid breaking up neighborhoods, but found the task near impossible while keeping population numbers similar and meeting other criteria.
Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker asksed if both maps followed the Fair Maps Act criteria, and the consultant said they all were created with that in mind.
Ogorchock meanwhile noted that the consultants didn’t live in the city, suggesting that they do not understand the communities of interest nor take them into consideration.
“What we basically do is we implement your direction and make sure that the Fair Maps Act search criteria are followed,” consultant Karin MacDonald said. “And we let you know if there is an issue.”
Barbanica asked about dividing neighborhoods, pointing out a split in District 2 in Map A and noting he found no splits in Map 521.
“The Fair Maps Act basically says that you should try to keep neighborhoods together as much as practicable,” consultant MacDonald said. “So you do the best you can. And I think in almost every map that I have seen, there are some neighborhoods that are going to be split and some neighborhoods that you’re able to keep together.”
With little said, the council then approved Map A, with Barbanica abd Orgochock dissenting.
Check back for updates.