HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-14 EC MEMOTO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Lou Ellis, City Clerk,
Harold J. Stitt, Planning Administrat~
February 14 , 1995
1995 Redistricting
I have completed my review of the population counts of each of the City's twelve election
precincts based on the final 1990 Census information. When compared with the information that
you provided me for the 1993 redistricting there are some discrepancies. It is my understanding
that these differences may be due to the County redistricting that took place several years ago . In
any event, I feel comfortable recommending that the current precinct and district boundaries not
be changed even though the letter of the law may not be met in terms of the five percent variance
from the ideal district size. I recommend not changing dist rict boundaries for the following
reasons :
1. The number of persons needed to balance Districts I and IV are so
small ,64 and 33 persons respectively, and the precinct size so comparatively large ,
that simply shifting precincts from one district to another would likely result in an
imbalance in the other districts .
2 . The districts could be brought into conformance if the precincts were split
rather than shifted . This, however, creates the potential for confusion for the
voters if they are required vote at more than one location when County and City
issues are on the ballot.
In conclusion, I believe that a strong case can be made that the current precinct and district
boundaries meet the spirit of the law and changing the districts creates no real benefit and may , in
fact, complicate the voting procedure fo r many citizens .
Attached to this memorandum is a summary of the precinct and district population counts
including an analysis of the variance of each of the districts from the five percent threshold .
Recyc led Paper~
City of Englewood Election Precincts
District County City Precinct District Variance from
Precincts Precincts Population Pooulation Ideal District lit
I 101 1 1,290
104, 105, 109 2 3,367
106 , 107, 110 3 3,121
7,778 +0 .87%
n 108, 114 4 2,754
111, 113, 401 5 3385
112 6 1,242
7,381 0.0%
m 115 , 117 7 2,377
402,403 8 2,505
407,408 9 2,399
7,281 0.0%
IV 116, 118, 121 10 2,876
122, 123, 411 11 2,214
120, 124 12 1,857
6,947 -0.44%
City Total 29,387
lit The Ideal District population is defined as that number derived by dividing the total City
population by the number of election districts . Each district may vary no more that+/-5% from
the ideal . Based on the 1990 population of 29,387, the ideal district would be 7,347 and the 5%
variance would result in a district range of no less than 6,980 persons nor more than 7,714
persons per district.
I