HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-2002 City Redistrict Report to Mayor and Common Council (2) i CITY REDISTRICTING 2002
REPORT TO THE ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL
From the City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATION— SUMMARY 1
BACKGROUND 1
The 1990 Census 1
The 2000 Census 3
2002 CITY WARD REDISTRICTING 3
The City's Choices 3
Why worry about variance in size?
Why worry about different boundaries for city wards, used to elect members 4
of Common Council, and county districts, used to elect county legislators?
Weighing the Choices 4
Alternative ward boundaries 4
What would be the downside of Examples 1 -5? 5
Looking for Further Alternatives 5
The Cost of Having Different Boundaries for Wards and County Districts 6
Confusion of voters 6
Expense 6
Recruiting election inspectors 6
The possibility of a legal challenge if ward populations vary by more 6
than 10%
IMPLEMENTING A 2002 REDISTRICTING 6
THANKS 6
APPENDICES
CITY REDISTRICTING 2002
REPORT TO THE ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL
From the City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force
APPENDICES
Map J City of Ithaca Wards 1992 and Tompkins County Legislative Districts within
the City of Ithaca 2001
Map A— 1 County Legislative Districts within the City of Ithaca 2001
Memorandum C July 10, 2002 Memorandum from Khandikile M. Sokoni to Norma W.
Schwab; Re: Legal Research—Redistricting/Re-Apportionment
Map D Population 2000 by Census Block- Tompkins County Legislative District 004
and Vicinity- Working Map
Table E-1 City of Ithaca Redistricting 2002
Map F City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 1, July 2002
Map G City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 2, July 2002
Map H City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 3, July 2002
Map I City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 4, July 2002
Map O City of Ithaca Redistricting Example 5, July 2002
Table N City of Ithaca Population, Voter Registration, and Votes, 2000-02
Memorandum P July 29, 2002 Memorandum from Khandikile M. Sokoni to Re-
Apportionment/Redistricting File; Re: Is Reapportionment Plan Subject to
Referendum?
� _ s
i
CITY REDISTRICTING 2002
REPORT TO THE ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL
From the City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force
RECOMMENDATION - SUMMARY
The task force strongly recommends that the Common Council adopt the same district lines
for the city that were established in 2001 by the county for the election of the county Board of
Representatives.
The task force recognized that, should this recommendation be adopted, the population
variance will be greater than the normally acceptable 10 %. However, the task force strongly
believes that it is extremely important to avoid
■ voter confusion that would result in those years when both city Council and county
board candidates are running for election
■ additional expense incurred with two sets of election boundaries
■ the difficulty of staffing extra election districts
The task force also found that the special nature of the population of the city, greatly
influenced by transient and student populations, made the larger than usual population
variance defensible, should the redistricting proposal be challenged in court.
While various alternatives to this recommendation were analyzed, the task force did not see a
significant benefit in selecting any of them for consideration. Therefore, only one
recommendation is being put forth to the Common Council (Map A-1*).
BACKGROUND
The 1990 Census
Redistricting of city wards and county legislative districts is required after each decennial
census. In 1992, using 1990 census figures, the city's five wards underwent the first
significant boundary changes in two decades. Before proposing new boundaries ten
years ago, a city redistricting committee sought public comment to assure existing
neighborhoods were not divided between wards. The greatest change was the formation of a
so-called "working class" ward on the city's flats, aimed at representing minorities and low-
income renters who had previously been dispersed among three wards. This change was made
in response to directives from the Mayor and Council who were in office at that time.
Also in 1992, a county redistricting continued a practice of having city wards also serve as
districts for electing members of the county Board of Representatives.
i
City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council
From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002
Mayor Appoints Task Force
In the spring of 2002, Mayor Alan Cohen appointed a redistricting task force, one member
I
from each city ward, 3 Democrats, I Republican, and I independent to reflect city registration.
The mayor on June 28 outlined the job of the task force, including bringing in a redistricting
plan for action by the Common Council by Sept. 4.
l�A-1
..............
..............................
County Legislative Districts
............
....................
..........................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
..............
.....................
. ....... Within the City of Ithaca
......................
....... ............
......... .
...........
...... ....
.... 2001
. . .... . ....
. .. .. ............
...... ............
fake
........... ..
,A a
..........
..............
Proposed as
City Ward Boundaries
by the City of Ithaca
o Redistricting Task Force
U)
August 2002
Z
5449
005
............
LU
�A
0
z
L. 455
5423
(-5.77-
UUJ
001
004
002
Q)
♦
7- Totals are for City portion only
of County legislative district.
Percent in parentheses is
percent deviation
from one fifth of total city population.
o LEGEND
Census Block
NY State Route
Waterway
Legislative District
Prepared By.Dept of Planning&Development,CAy of Ithaca,NY,July 2002 C—ty dists apr
2
City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Mayor and Common Council,City of Ithaca
From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002
Text on this page and cover amended September 4,2002
The 2000 Census
The county board used 2000 census figures in 2001 to draw new county legislative districts
that, for the first time, crossed the border between the City and Town of Ithaca. Within the
city, 2001 county redistricters followed the city's 1992 ward lines as closely as possible, thus
continuing the practice of not dividing neighborhoods wholly among its legislative districts.
The county then added town residents to the three wards that have common boundaries with
the town, as a way to equalize the population of its newly created county legislative districts
1-5. Town residents were added to the old city Wards 1, 111, and V to create similarly
numbered county districts. Population was shifted among these and the two original wards -I1
and IV - that do not share borders with the town to form county districts of nearly equal size.
For local elections in 2001, the new districts were used to elect county legislators, and the old
1992 city wards were used to elect city legislators. Where 2001 county and 1992 ward lines
did not coincide, new election districts (EDs) were created for the 2001 local elections. These
were created within city wards so that residents could vote for both city Council and county
representative candidates in an appropriate ED.
As an example, some Ward I residents in two of the new EDs were voting for their city
Council member in Ward I and their county representative in District 2. Six such EDs were
created and supplied with their own election inspectors, registration lists, ballots, and voting
machines. This becomes important to understand when we consider one of the alternatives
that faced our 2002 city redistricting task force. (These six 2001 EDs are circled on Map J.)
2002 CITY WARD REDISTRICTING
Our 2002 city task force started its work with a different job from its 1992 counterpart. In
1992 the city could create wards on its own, guided by its ultimate decision to continue five
wards and make their population as equal as possible (+/- 30 residents).
This year's city task force looked at the five county district boundaries within the city already
set until the next census. The two landlocked city districts, 2 and 4, have the same population
as they do when used for county voting but the outer three have fewer, after removing their
Town of Ithaca residents, who do not vote in city elections. Consequently, the difference of
in-city population between the largest, 4, and the smallest, 1, is 819 persons, or 14.23% of the
average city district population of 5,755. (l hese populations are shown on Map Al).
The Cily's Choices
The 2002 city task force briefly considered a number of proposals also presented to the 1992
committee and rejected: At-large elections for Common Council rather than by ward, 10 or
15 smaller wards, and unequal-population wards with weighted voting on Council in
proportion to population. All presented more problems than two other more obvious
solutions. Therefore, they were not pursued.
3
City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council
From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002
b 'r
From its first meeting, the 2002 task force appeared to have two main choices:
■ Accept the five county legislative districts within the city as wards (Map Al), with
populations varying by 14.23%, or
■ Form new city districts, probably by reducing the largest county districts and adding to
the smallest, so as to reduce the variance in total size to 10%.
Why worry about variance in size? Court cases have held that variances of 10% or less are
considered legally reasonable and equitable, and thus not likely to be challenged successfully.
However, the courts have also held that if districts vary by more than 10% for a good reason,
they may be OK. (See Memorandum C from the city attorney.)
Why worry about different boundaries for city wards, used to elect members of Common
Council, and county districts, used to elect county legislators? Extra voting districts,
machines, materials, polling places, and personnel would be needed. In addition, voters
would have to understand in which legislative unit they vote for city and for county officials.
In a community as transient as Ithaca, with a vast majority of renters and undergraduate
college students, potential confusion weighs more heavily than in a more stable one.
Weighing the Choices
Choosing the county districts as wards involves determining:
■ whether the county districts in fact represent whole neighborhoods as the 1992 wards
did,
■ by publicizing the possibility of this choice, whether individuals or groups might
mount a court challenge to a spread of 14+% in the size of wards, and
■ whether a reasonable adjustment of the county district lines might be found that would
create alternative ward boundaries that meet the 10% deviation standard, maintain
neighborhood representation, and provide a supply of voters and of registered voters
from which candidates and political workers might be found to recruit and support
candidates for the city and county legislatures.
Alternative ward boundaries: To test how one might alter district lines so as to reduce the
14+% deviation, staff and the task force chair drew a series of new ward boundaries that
would maintain neighborhoods. The obvious districts to be reduced were the largest, 2 and 4,
and the ones to be expanded were 1, 3, and 5.
In any plan, ward and district lines must follow streets, waterways, or other unmistakable
landmarks (railroad tracks, etc.) Thus one must move whole city blocks in redistricting.
(Map D shows such blocks with the population contained in each, for District 4. Tables E-1
show the resulting populations for Maps F-I & O, examples 1-5.
Five alternatives were produced. (Tables E-1 show the resulting populations for each
proposed new ward arrangement.)
4
City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council
From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002
■ Example 1, map F, shifts two blocks along E. State and Mitchell Sts. out of 4, one
each into I and III, resulting in a new total deviation of 11.49%
■ Example 2, map G, shifts three blocks along E. State St. out
■ of 4 and into 1, also resulting in a deviation of 11.49%
■ Example 3, map H, shifts 3 populated blocks on Cascadilla Park Rd. and Stewart Ave.
from 4 to V, resulting in a deviation of 11.94%.
■ Example 4, map I, similar to 2-G, shifts 4 blocks along E. State St. from 4 to I and
results in a deviation of 10.78%
■ Example 5, map O, shifts one block of College Ave.-Linden Ave. from 4 to 111, and
one containing Titus Towers from 2 to I, resulting in a deviation of-1.27% in I,
+1.67% in 11, +2.83% in III, +2.09% in IV, and -5.32% in 5, a total deviation of
8.15%.
What would be the downside of Examples 1 -5? Table N shows District 4 already to be tied
for the lowest(17%) percentage of population voting in the '01 local election. The blocks
being removed in these examples all have more homes and fewer student dormitories than the
average of the district as a whole, and would thus further lower the already smallest voter
registration-to-population ratio of any city district. Examples 1-5 would further lower the
number of voters sending an official to represent them (331 in the 2001 election, compared
with 786, 898, and 1,061 in the three districts electing officials with the most votes).
The difficulties, expense and confusion likely to result from having different city and county
districts are discussed later in this report.
Looking for Further Alternatives
The task force wrote to 28 neighborhood officials, the heads of the six political parties in the
city, and the League of Women Voters, and invited the public in programs on cable Channel 7
and WHCU and the front page of the Ithaca Journal--to give the task force their ideas,
including any alternative ward plans. Three reporters and five other members of the public
attended one or more of the task force's four meetings.
Three members of the public made proposals and a fourth raised questions.
■ The president of the south Hill Civic Association suggested one block at the foot of
South Hill be moved from district 2 to district 1, which contains all the other South
Hill blocks.
The task force learned that county rules will not allow changes in the county district
lines until the next census. The city may consider changes for its wards. An exchange
of letters between the task force chair and the president of the South Hill
Neighborhood Association deals further with this. The association requests further
consideration by the county and city redistricting task force after the 2010 census. The
task force chair will send a copy of this exchange and the task force's report to the city
and county clerks to call to the attention of 2010 census redistricters.
5
City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council
From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002
` ■ A Council member from ward IV urged the task force not to remove blocks with
mostly permanent residents from Ward IV. The Ward IV request is a reason for not
accepting Examples 1-5 discussed above.
■ A Council member from Ward III urged the city adopt the county
districts. He did not see any significant gain in tinkering with the districts established
by the county, but he did see substantial voter confusion if we did make changes.
The Cost of Having Different Boundaries for Wards and Countv Districts
Confusion of voters: The county Board of Elections and others reported voters
confused in 2001 when faced with voting for their Council member in one ward and their
County legislator in another, as happened where the county districts had to be different.
Expense: The existence of two sets of boundaries in 2001 required the county Board
of Elections to create six small election districts where properties fell in a city ward different
from the similar county district. The added expense for 2001 primary and general elections
was $3,700. The cost of renting six additional voting machines, $500 apiece, was credited
against the purchase of new machines that were necessary in any event in 2001 because of
new machine requirements. But in the future each additional district would required an extra
election machine, a cost of$3,000 per district. Extra districts would be needed in other years
of local elections, at least five in a decade, and when Common Council vacancies exist.
Recruiting election inspectors: Election officials report increasing difficulty
recruiting the four inspectors needed to staff each district
The possibility of a legal challenge if ward populations vary by more than 10%:
The city attorney addresses this question in Memo C: "We shall restate the fact that safest
plan is one that has a deviation of 10% or less. However, in the event that the city
decides to adopt the county plan that would result in a 14% deviation, we are of the opinion
that this plan would be legally defensible provided the justifications relied on are not arbitrary
or discriminatory, which in this case they would not be."
IMPLEMENTING A 2002 REDISTRICTING
Memo P from the office of the City attorney holds that the city can adopt a 2002 redistricting
plan by local law rather than a referendum as originally thought.
THANKS
The task force's job was made easier by the work of the Office of the City Attorney and
Tompkins County and City of Ithaca Planning staffs, most particularly Ruth Aslanis of the
city. She developed maps, statistics, reports and notes on meetings that provided a solid base
for our decisions.
6
City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council
From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002
y r
i
APPENDICES
City Redistricting 2002 --Report To The Ithaca Common Council
From The City Of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force,August 20,2002
City of Ithaca Wards 1992
Cayuga Labe „ and Tompkins County
G, � �' Legislative Districts
Within the City of Ithaca 2001
�l p j 0
z
5449
005
T r
Q 5551
0
C7 o
5423
004 003
z1 62'42
002ch
-iC
U S►x ►le;
S
J�
P
� � E
County District
x242 Population/City only
City Ward 1992
TC Leg Dist 1
TC Leg Dist 2
�o = TC Leg Dist 3
Totals shown are 2001 TC Leg Dist 4
TC legislative district totals. TC Leg Dist 5
Area of Difference
Obetween City 1992
and TC 2001
Prepared By: Dept of Planning&Development,City of Ithaca, NY,June 2002
-- County dists.apr
1
1 `
\ I;
A_
% �ayug Lake
County Legislative Districts
Within the City of Ithaca
2001
%
i w
lL o
�`.� U)
5449
5832° `, a
005 ,
:'�`c� ✓ w
».._---- • U) Q
LU i—
°'%, z 551
5423
(-5.770/
o"
003
� 6 004
002
O
O
%' ��
Cl/ Totals are for City portion only
of County legislative district.
Percent in parentheses is
percent deviation
from one fifth of total City population.
LEGEND
C7 Census Block
NY State Route
Waterway
1'
Q Legislative District
Prepared By: Dept of Planning&Development, City of Ithaca, NY,July 2002 __ county dists.apr
•
OF.....
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Grecri Strccr Ithaca, New York 1-1850-5690
OFFRA: OF 1-111: CTF)
Norma W Sch%\ah. cirv.,atorncv Tcicphonc: 0()— _-t-o;oj
0%. ......
Patricia DL11111. Ci[N.A[torricv F:LX: 00—
Khandikilc M. S()koni, ,Associate Arro nicN,
MEMORANDUM
To: Noma W. Schwab, City Attorney
CC: John TVIarcham, Chair of the Re-Apportionment Committee; Ruth Aslanis, Planning
Systems Manager✓
From: Khandikile M. Sokoni, Associate Attorney /4111
Date: July 10, 2002
Subject: Legal Research — Re-districting/Re-Apportionment
This memo addresses the various issues presented by John Marcham regarding the City's
legislative district lines.
Constitutional Standards
In determining whether a particular apportionment plan meets the requirements of the Equal
Protection Clause, the critical question is whether the plan adequately apportions representatives on
a population basis. Abate, et al. v. Mundt, et. al., 253NY2d 309, (1969), aff d 403 US 182 (1971).
The ideal situation is one that would precisely reflect the principle of one-person one-vote. However,
the issue is not to be resolved merely in terms of a sterile mathematical exercise. As the court
pointed out in Reynolds v. Shnins, ')77 US at p.577, "The Equal Protection Clause requires that a
state make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts as nearly of equal population
as is practicable.* it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each has
an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is
hardly a workable constitutional requirement."
Instead what is required is a case by case examination of the particular circumstances at hand
in order to determine whether the State or municipality has made a good faith effort to achieve
equality of representation and whether there Is sufficient justification for any variance from absolute
equality. Abate v. Afundt, id at p.315.15. Accommodation of this reality is achieved through a
presumption that is sometimes referred to as the "ten-percent rule". Where a state or municipal
apportionment plan deviates from equality by less than ten (10) percent, it is presumed
constitutional, and a challenger has the burden of proving, that even such "minor deviation" is the
--mi Equal opportunity Employer%vidi a commitment to workforce diversification.
result of discriminatory state action. Abate v. Rockland County Legislature, 964 F.Supp.817
(1997). Conversely, a plan with a deviation of more than 100% creates a prima facie case of
discrimination and consequently must be justified by the State. LL
The Courts have evolved three levels of scrutiny when considering permissible variations
from strict equality: When reviewing apportionment of congressional districts, the permissible
variation from strict equality is almost micrometric and the justification required for such deviation
is correspondingly stringent. Abate v. Jfundt, 25 NY2d 309 at 315 citing Wesberry v. Sanders, 376
US 1, 84, 84 S. Ct. 526. Decisions involving apportionment of State Legislatures tend to reflect a
broader scope for permissible deviations and a more tolerant attitude toward the practical
justification for deviations. Abate, (1d.) citing Fortson v. Dorsey. 379 US 433, at 437, 85 S. Ct. 498.
Lastly, courts have indicated a willingness to allow a still broader scope for permissible deviations
fi-om strict population equality and the justification for such deviations when dealing with local
legislative bodies. Abate, (1d.) citing Sailors v. Board of Education., 387 US 105, 87 S. Ct. 1549.
In Schneider v. Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420, at 428 (1972), the New York Court of Appeals stated
in Footnote 3:
"There may be good reason for treating local government apportionment as a distinct
problem. As the Court noted in Abate, local legislative bodies have fewer members and
local legislative districts have fewer voters than their State and national counterparts. Thus,
it may be more difficult to devise apportionment plans that comply with numerical equality
at the local level. Furthermore, there are over 80,000 units of local government serving
various functions. A certain flexibility may, therefore, be desirable to facilitate
intergovernmental co-operation at this level. [see e.g. Avery v. Midland County, 390 US
474, 485, 88 S. Ct. 1114 (1968)]."
Cases Involving Re-Apportionment Plans
In Abate, et al. v. Mundt, et. al., 25 NY2d 309, Rockland County was governed by a Board
of Supervisors, consisting of the Supervisors of each of the County's five constituent towns. In
1966, a Federal District Court, upon a funding that the board was malapportioned, ordered that a plan
be devised which would satisfy the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause and that such plan
be submitted to the voters of the county for their approval. The Board devised a plan in which each
district was assigned its legislators according to the district's population in relation to the population
of the smallest district. Consequently the total deviation between the most under-represented and
the most over-represented district was 12%.2
Plaintiffs in Abate attacked the plan both on the ground that the board had made no attempt
at achieving equality of representation in terms of population and on the ground that the utilization
of multimember districts was inherently defective. The plaintiffs also attacked the so-called "two-
hats" provision of the plan under which each Town Supervisor, by virtue of his election to that
Twenty five years after the initial dispute regarding the Rockland County re-apportionment plan litigated in 1969-
1971, the U.S District Court adjudicated another apportionment plan involving Rockland County. While the U.S
Supreme Court upheld the plan in 1971, the plan before the Court in 1997 was held unconstitutional.
It was 11.9% to be exact but the New York Court of Appeals rounded that off to 12,,o.
office, %would also automatically become a member of the County Legislature. Th„ Special Term
upheld the constitutionality of the Rockland County apportionment plan but modified the "ttvo-hat"
provision. The matter went on appeal to the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals, and finally
even to the United States Supreme Court, all of which upheld the validity of the plan.
In upholding the plan, the Court of Appeals recognized the fact that "variations from a pure
population standard might bejustified by such state policy considerations as the integrity of political
subdivisions, the maintenance of compactness and contiguity in legislative districts or the
recognition of natural or historical boundary lines * * * The recognition of such factors in devising
an apportionment scheme is permissible so long as they are free of any taint of Arbitrariness or
discrimination."Id at 315.
These considerations can be applied to the City of Ithaca's proposed plan to adopt a re-
apportionment plan that follows the County lines resulting in a 14.2°o deviation. Clearly since this
deviation is greater than 10%, the City re-apportionment will not be able to benefit from the
presumption of validity. Therefore, what is critical is to ensure that the City has sufficient
justification for its deviation, and that the Committee carefully set forth its reasoning. Some of the
reasons why the City would want to adopt the Tompkins County plan include the following:
(1) The logistical convenience of ensuring that the electorate do not get confused about
where to vote for which officers. Ithaca, having a significant transient population is
at a risk of voters facing this problem;
(2) A plan that follows the County lines will ensure that the City is able to maintain the
character of its neighborhoods;
(3) The City's decision to adopt the County plan is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
The County recently conducted extensive deliberations, seeking input from the
public, at which deliberations the City government was represented.
Twenty-five years after the 1969 litigation involving the Rockland County re-
apportionment plan under review in the Abate case, the courts once again had occasion to
review another one of the County's re-apportionment plans which now yielded a deviation
of 19.8%. This time around(in 1997) it was held to be unconstitutional. The Court found
that the inter-governmental co-operation justification was no longer applicable because the
County had since gotten rid of the requirement that County Representatives nad to be Town
Supervisors. The Court also rejected the argument about preserving the nature of the
community based on the fact that in the twenty-five year period since the 1969 Abate case,
the character of Rockland County had changed significantly and had taken on a more urban
character based in part on the construction of the Tappanzee bridge, and the population
becoming more diverse.
This turn of events serves as a good example of how these determinations are based
on a case by case examination of the particular circumstances at hand. A review of
additional cases shows that there is no fixed pattern when it comes to what percentages are
typically upheld: We have come across cases where a 28°% deviation was held to be
unconstitutional. Meanwhile, one Court found a re-apportionment plan that had a 4.7%
deviation to be unconstitutional because this was a unique case where there were only two
3
. � f
voting districts. Therefore, there was insufficient justification for them to not comply with
absolute equality.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we shall restate the fact that the safest plan is one that has a
deviation of 10% or less. However, in the event that the City decides to adopt the County
plan that would result in a 14% deviation, we are of the opinion that this plan would be
legally defensible provided the justifications relied on are, not arbitrary or discriminatory,
which in this case they would not be.
4
—
�� 166
Population 2000 by Census Block 1428
T Tompkins County Legislative District 004 _ x
And Vicinity- Working Map 205
0 ~ I
25 �
005 1.16 7
771 0 7
63
1
- . 178 0
0
0 00 004
—
\" 17 0
67-
213
003
5
r 6�1 25 697 o
54 - 241 4 j v _
E BU F ALO,T �`
67 166 957
L `
- - 5 67.� 11
�
002
57 <_c s r ! —
c >
1`09
1292
55
43 12
_�•i C a. � rl
,/• a 9
54
88 r. 60
�t
-- --
8222 0 �`rS V�• c
vD
•o) f f-.J
r
4
\/t-60
-
° J
_ 103
18 v
215
001 =
r_
working maps.apr Prepared By: Dept of Planning&Development, City of Ithaca, NY,June 2002
City of Ithaca Redistricting 2002 - Examples
No Change example
w/2000 NUMBERS and 2001 County Boundaries City average is 5755 Ward 1992
District/War County District Whole Pop in City portion City Dev_from_Avg Perc_ Dev Perc_Total_Pop 1990_POP
001 6486 5423 -332 -5.77% 18.85% 5897
002 6110 6110 355 6.17% 21.23% 5880
003 6173 5551 -204 -3.54% 19.29% 5938
004 6242 6242 487 8.46% 21.69% 5928
005 6145 5449 -306 -5.32% 18.94% 5898
Totals 31156 28775 0.00%
900.00% 29541
Population outside City in Districts 1, 3 and 5 is 2381
Total deviation spread as City wards = 14.23
Example 1 City average is 5755 Ward 1992
Ward Pop w/County Dists Pop w/ example 1 City Dev_from_Avg Perc_ Dev Perc-Total-Pop 1990_POP
001 5423 5483 -272 -4.73% 19.05% 5897
002 6110 6110 355 6.17% 21.23% 5880
003 5551 5700 -55 -0.96% 19.81% 5938
004 6242 6033 278 4.83% 20.97% 5928
005 54491 5449 -306 -5.32% 18.94% 5898
Totals 28775 28775 0.00% 29541
900.00%
Total deviation spread = 11.49
Example 2 City average is 5755 Ward 1992
Ward Pop w/County Dist Pop w/example 2 City Dev_from_Avg Perc_ Dev Perc Total_Pop 1990_POP
001 5423 5596 -159 -2.76% 19.45% 5897
002 6110 6110 355 6.17% 21.23% 5880
003 5551 5551 -204 -3.54% 19.29% 5938
004 6242 6069 314 5.46% 21.09% 5928
005 54491 5449 -306 -5.32%1 18.94% 5898
Totals 28775 28775 0.00% 29541
100.00%
Total deviation spread = 11.49
Example 3 City average is 5755 Ward 1992
Ward Pop w/County Dists Pop w/example 3 City Dev_from_Avg Perc_ Dev Perc_Total_Pop 1990_POP
001 5423 5423 -332 -5.77% 18.85% 5897
002 6110 6110 355 6.17% 21.23% 5880
003 5551 5551 -204 -3.54% 19.29% 5938
004 6242 6080 325 5.65% 21.13% 5928
005 5449 5611 -144 -2.50% 19.50% 5898
Totals 28775 28775 0.00% 29541
100.00%
Total deviation spread = 11.94
r
Example 4 C;cf average is 5755 Ward 1992
Ward Pcp w/ County Dists Pop w/example 4 City Dev_from_Avg IlDerc_ Dev Perc_Total_Pop 1990_POP
001 5423 5661 -94 -1.63% 19.670,'o 5897
002 6110 6045 290 5.04% 21.01°% 5380
003 5551 5551 -204 -3.54% 19.29110 5938
004 6242 6069 3141 5.46% 21.09°/- 5928
005 5449 5449 -306 -5-.32%1 18.94% 5898
Totals 28775 28775 0,00% 29541
100.00%
Total deviation spread = 10.78
Example 5 City average is 5755 Ward 1992
Ward Pop w/County Dists Pop w/ example 5 City Dev from_Avg Perc_ Dev Perc Total Pop 1990—POP
001 5423 5682 -73 -1.27% 19.75% 5897
002 6110 5851 96 1.67% 20.33% 5880
003 5551 5918 1631 2.830 20.57'/.l 5938
004 62421 5875 1201 2.09% 20.42% 5928
005 54491 5449 -306 -5.32% 18.94%1 5898
Totals 28775 28775 0.00%
100.00% 29541
Total deviation spread = 8.15
Data&Map Sources: 2000 Census w/CQR Corrections, Tompkins County ITS, City of Ithaca Digital Planimetric Map Set
F1
City of Ithaca Redistricting
Cayug Lake ( Example 1 , July 2002
G,
lr
0
z
5449
a
h a`
ui
T
N� J Q
Q
J 0
w � o
5483 w
U
-4.73%) o
o �o
�o
0 0�
Six ile �ST�TF
S
J�
P °
F�
�O
J
Q
c'otals are population in 2000.
Percent in parentheses is percent
deviation from one fifth of total 2000 City population.
0�o Area of Variation From
Tompkins County
Legislative Districts, 2001
2002 Potential Ward Boundary
Prepared By: Dept of Planning& Development, City of Ithaca, NY,July 2002 examples.apr
Cayug Lake City of Ithaca Redistricting
Example 2, July 2002
G�
CO
2
0
I }
a
T
a >
Q
p U
o
5596 alz w o
(-2.76%)
s-
(-3. '4%) o
i,
cn �Six „,►le Q� T�TF
V �
OQ3'
J�
Nc
CO
Totals are population in 2000.
Percent in parentheses is percent
deviation from one fifth of total 2000 City population.
0�p Area of Variation From
Tompkins County
Legislative Districts, 2001
2002 Potential Ward Boundary
Prepared By: Dept of Planning&Development,City of Ithaca, NY,July 2002 examples.apr
. H
Cayug Lake
9G City of Ithaca Redistricting
Example 3, July 2002
C)
OlL 0
COO
z
a
T �
LU
5423 w
55
-5.77%) o
0
1
taw
de.
�sTgT�
,. S
��yP syr
J�
Q'
CO
Totals are population in 2000.
Percent in parentheses is percent
deviation from one fifth of total 2000 City population.
0 FO
Area of Variation From
Tompkins County
Legislative Districts, 2001
2002 Potential Ward Boundary
Prepared By: Dept of Planning&Development,City of Ithaca, NY,July 2002 examples.apr
i
I
Cayug Lake
City of Ithaca Redistricting
Example 4, July 2002
� D LU
Flo P
I CO
f }
z
5449
(-5
a'
005
LU
� 0
o w
5661 : � 1
004
(-1 .63 -
001 , 003
002
Six ile et �qT�
S
OQY
J�
Q
CO
Totals are population in 2000. Percent in
parentheses is percent deviation from
one fifth of total 2000 City population.
Total deviation from smallest to largest ward is 10.78%
0 2�
Area of Variation From
Tompkins County
Legislative Districts, 2001
2002 Potential Ward Boundary
Prepared By: Dept of Planning&Development, City of Ithaca, NY,July 2002 examples.apr
i
' I O
Cayug Lake
-9G
c� M City of Ithaca Redistricting
o w Example 5, July 2002
o
U)
z
I �
5449
(-5.3
a
005
t
t
5682 004 918 003
(-1 .27)
J;
001 ,
r
, o
x
002/f1 0.Nii
y . R
OSTgT�
s
J�
P
0
J•
Totals are population in 2000. Percent in
parentheses is percent deviation from
one fifth of total 2000 City population.
Total deviation from smallest to largest ward is 8.15%
0�O
Area of Variation From
Tompkins County
Legislative Districts, 2001
2002 Potential Ward Boundary
Prepared By: Dept of Planning &Development,City of Ithaca, NY,July 2002 - examples.apr
Cit of Ithaca Population, voter r -
registration, and votes, 2��• 02
By City Wards
TL �1 II -T7 -� rT
Population , 2000 ;X 7'�
° 00 Registration z z
Reg . / pop . % ! �! I 5"d. 114 I ! .I 5
Voters
2 21x9 2 Ci Z8j I (�5 �I 71 1 1 3
Voters/reg . 17
voters/pop.
I dig
' 01 Registration j 431
l bi I I) .3l o
Reg . /pop -
Reg .
eg . /pop .Reg . loss v. ' 00
Registration lost 3 i
Voters , locl off . r o ' ! iz 1
Voters/reg . % 3 l
Voters/pop . -.% i d
11
Voters ' 01 v. ' 00 i
, I I
102 Registration 2 s h (' t 3^ I tl t
Reg . /pop . % i l9
Reg . loss v. 101 l fid° 746ta
Reg . lost pl -
I I _ - i:l _I --
By County Districts within City
i � r 1 41 1 11 - 1 11 1 91T,
Population Z 1 z$ T
101 Registration I ' '2 - 1 Y '19' 11 31111 11 14; 1
Reg . /pop . % y 4�5 I
Voters , locl off . C � 3
Voters/reg . % 4. 131W 4' 1
Voters/pop . % 1 ------
102
' 02 Registration 131 ! 3111 11 Sn 11 I t I Ii q 111116 '1
Reg . /pop . 1 1*1d 7 7 111 ISIJ
�
Reg . loss v . 101 I is
Reg . lost % 1
Figures from Tompkins County Board of Election and Department of
Planning and City of Ithaca Department of Planning, compiled by
Ruth Aslanis & John Marcham July 2002 .
'� �""� CITY OF ITHACA
a ;
re 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 1-4850-5690
4 i
s
OFFICE OF THE CM .AITOILVEI'
\ornia \t: Sch�.::h. Cir,•-Attornev Telephone: oo- 2-4-6504
PoR4?EO Patricia Dunn. .Lsistant Cit} Attorney FxK: OO- 2-4.050-
Khandikile .11. '�okoni. Associate attorney
MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE
To: Re-apportionment/Redistn'cting File
From: Khandikile M. Sokoni, Associate Attorney � p i�'�'`•
Date: July 29, 2002
Subject: Is Reapportionment Plan Subject to Referendum?
The Chair of the Reapportionment Committee, Mr. John Marcham, recently contacted this
office to seek an opinion as to whether or not the City's Reapportionment plan was subject to a
referendum. I explained to him that ordinarily such a plan is only subject to a referendum upon a
petition of a percentage of the electorate, or upon Common Council's own motion.
The Law provides that a local law establishing an apportionment plan is subject to a
referendum only in the manner provided by §24(2)(j) of the Municipal Home Rule Law [see id.
§10(1)(ii)(a)(13)(e)]. Under that provision, a local law relating to apportionment is subject to a
referendum upon petition or upon the submission of the local law to a referendum by the legislative
body on its own motion.
Despite the above provisions,we had concluded that the City's present re-apportionment plan
would need to go to referendum because the prior one did. This position was taken based on the
doctrine of legislative equivalency that requires that a law only be amended or repealed by, at least,
the same level of scrutiny used to enact it. Therefore, a local law cannot later be amended by
resolution because the latter offers a lesser level of scrutiny than the means initially used to enact
the law. The New York State Attorney General stressed this doctrine in a 1974 opinion in which
the City of Ithaca was advised that the 1965 referendum that banned fluoride in the City's water
supply could only be repealed by referendum. Quoting 6 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [3d
ed.] (1969, revd.) §21.03, the Attorney General stated:
"To render the power of initiative and referendum effective and prevent its circumvention
by a change of law by the municipal council or other legislative assembly, the legislative
power of the council is commonly restricted by a provision that an ordinance or amendment
to an ordinance adopted by the electors shall not be repealed or amended by the Council. In
K:\KHANDI\RESEARCFEapportionment referendum.doc 1
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ;r!
such case, the ordinance or amendment to an ordinance can be repealed or amended only by
a vote of the electorate in the same manner in which it was adopted * * *".
Since our records revealed that the City of Ithaca's 1992 apportionment plan was
subsequently subjected to a referendum in 1996, we felt that it was prudent to amend it by nothing
less than a referendum. However, it was not clear to us why this plan would have been sent to
referendum four years after it was passed. In searching for an answer to this question we discovered
that the City Attorney's Office. around that time had done a "Mandatory Referendum Review"
exercise which resulted in a compilation of numerous local laws which over the years had been
enacted or amended, and were erroneously not subjected to mandatory referendum. It then came
to our attention that the City's 1992 apportionment plan was one of them. The reason for subjecting
the 1992 apportionment plan to a referendum in 1996 was to correct a past error: Apparently, in
1973 §C-3 of the City Charter was amended to reduce the number of wards from seven (7) to five
(5). This change, despite abolishing four elective offices (by cutting out four Council seats), was
never subjected to mandatory referendum as required by law. This error was carried on into the next
two decades. The reason for the 1996 referendum was to regularize the abolition of Common
Council seats which was done in 1973. Therefore,what was being subjected to referendum in 1996
was not the 1992 apportionment plan per se,but rather the 1973 cut from 7 to 5 wards which resulted
in the abolishment of four elective offices.
Based on the foregoing, we are of the view that there is, after all, no reason to subject the
present reapportionment plan to a referendum. This plan would only be subject to referendum upon
petition, or on Common Council's own motion.
cc: John Marcham, Chair of the Reapportionment Committee
Julie C. Holcomb, City Clerk
Norm W. Schwab, City Attorney
Attachments For the Records:
1. Copy of 1996 referendum;
2. Copy of 1974 opinion of the Attorney General on Fluoride Local Law.
3. Copy of Excerpt from"Mandatory Referendum Review".
K:\KHANDI\RESEARCH\apportionment referendum.doc 2
} CITY REDISTRICTING 2002
REPORT TO THE MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL
City of Ithaca NY
From the
City of Ithaca Redistricting Task Force
August 20, 2002
Amended September 4, 2002
Redistricting Task Force Members:
John Marcham, Chair,
Ward IV
Lucy Brown, Ward H
Laura Lewis, Ward V
Paul Steiger, Ward I
Stuart Stein, Ward III