Redistricting 2013 Implications

Redistricting sounds easy enough, at least in theory, does it not?

Anyone who can add and subtract should be able to prepare a plan that evenly distributes population such that "each Council District shall contain a nearly equal number of inhabitants" (City Council Resolution No. 84443).

We start with a city population count of 390,724. Divide that by seven districts and we arrive at an ideal or target population of 55,818 for each district.

It follows that the two Council Districts that are over the target need to shrink and the three that are under need to expand so that their populations are equalized.  The remaining two districts, which are only slightly below the target population, could be left alone or given a minor tweak.

So, why all the fuss?

Simply stated, the devil is in the details. That is, how do we get from here to there?  There are myriad ways this population balancing can be accomplished. Redistricting can take the form of tweaking existing Council Districts, leaving them largely intact, or it can involve radical redesign using a "clean slate" approach. Though, to pass the smell test, it must be done in such a way as to comply with the U.S. Constitution, federal and state laws, and the City Charter.

We might start by asking, what does the City Council mean by "nearly equal" in population?

• "Nearly equal" obviously does not mean "equal" or exactly the same.  
• How close, then, must the population of districts be in order to meet with their approval?  We might get as many as eight answers to this question since it is open to interpretation.
• The City Charter, which prevails, says "as equal as possible in population."  
• City Attorney Barbara Parker, in a legal opinion, has written that a 10% deviation (+/- 5%) is generally acceptable.  
• The City's redistricting consultant, in public presentations, has said that 10% is not necessarily acceptable and that any deviation from the ideal population requires an explanation.

It should also be noted that even if districts do not need adjustment from a population standpoint, their boundaries may still be adjusted to: better reflect communities of interest, avoid splitting or reunite neighborhoods, prevent dilution of minority voting power, make them more compact, and/or to easily recognizable boundaries without a lot of zig-zags.

From my perspective, "nearly equal" or "as equal as possible" should be construed to mean within a very narrow range of deviation, perhaps no more than 5% (+/- 2.5%) at the outside. But, that is just my opinion.  The EPA disclaimer, "your mileage may vary," certainly applies here.

City of Oakland
Redistricting Implications of 2010 Population Data
ID	Population Relative to Target	Redistricting Implication	Population Change Needed to Reach Target
D1	Over	Contract	-2,606
D2	Under	Expand	4,151
D3	Over	Contract	-6,692
D4	Close	No Change*	200
D5	Under	Expand	3,005
D6	Under	Expand	1,406
D7	Close	No Change*	538
* D4 and D7 have populations that are within 1% of the 55,818 population target.