11 (12)
Jennifer L. Hall
From:dklawe@roadrunner.com
Sent:Tuesday,
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] March 1st Council Meeting public comment for Item 11, a Public Hearing
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Good Day:
As the designer of the Redistricting Map 102, I would like to point out a few key points about the map, and why I feel it
best matches the requirements announced last year.
It protects the major communities of interest:
West Anaheim (East of Euclid).
Anaheim Colony
Platinum Triangle
Anaheim Hills
The Resort Area
Pondarosa
Beach Boulevard Specific Plan
Little Arabia
Places the Syracuse Junior High in District 3 (A request of the Public)
Councilmember Diaz mentioned the need for more Hispanic districts. Basically all maps have 5 districts that contain a
majority of Hispanics. Anaheim Hills is the exception. There are two numbers that are discussed. Total Hispanics living in
a district, and the “CVAP” (Citizen Voting Age by Population), or looking at those Hispanics who are eligible to vote (Over
18 and a citizen of the US). In 2016, only one district had a majority CVAP, District 3.
But we have had two Hispanics elected in District 1 (CVAP of 35%) and one in District 4 (48% CVAP), along with a
Hispanic in District 3.
But Hispanics are not the only minority with a large population in the city. Asians have about a 25% in West Anaheim in
Districts 1 & 2, and about 22% in District 6.
Why should we lessen the Asian groups to get to 3 Hispanic CVAP districts? We have seen that Hispanics being elected,
along with a Mayor who is minority. This is why I am asking that District 2, which was approved in 2016, remain the
same on the new map.
One key point that Dr. Levitt has brought up at all the workshops. Federal law states No Racial Gerrymandering.
Another key point is in the “California’s Ranked Criteria”, which are.
1. Geographic Contiguity
2. Undivided neighborhoods and “Communities of Interest”
3. Easily identifiable Borders
1
4. Compactness
My map was drawn with Points 2, which kept the communities of interest identified in 2016 together, AND point 3,
Easily Identifiable Borders. Using the original borders decided in 2016 keeps most folks in the same district, and then the
minor changes needed due to population growth used very identifiable borders. Such as using South and East Streets
(Colony borders) and Interstate 5.
Jim Stevenson wrote an public comment e-mail on February 8th titled Redistricting map preference and comments. He
brings up a good point about using Easily Identifiable Borders.
>> My final points in favor of this map \[#102\] are in how it can address the "confidence in the process" goals of district
representation.
Multiple studies on both the state and national levels show that voters don't trust maps that have many odd shapes and
fingers.
Such maps give the appearance of elected officials selecting their voters, not of voters selecting their representatives.
Even when made with virtuous intentions such as making majority-minority districts, "amoeba-like" political boundaries
breed distrust in voters. This is why the State of California and many national redistricting advocacy groups promote and
use metrics such as "polygon score" to encourage rational boundaries that common people recognize. In Anaheim,
freeways like the 5, and major boulevards such as Euclid and StateCollege should serve as such boundaries when
possible to encourage public trust.<<
I was proud when Dr. Levitt has stated that my map would have been very similar to a map his firm would draw up.
As a resident, I am not in favor of Map 114, since it breaks up West Anaheim, as it takes a portion of the current district
that is East of Euclid and gives it to District 3. also map 114 didn’t use the Easily Identifiable Borders as a focus.
I drew Map 102 to use the spirit of the 2016 districting map as a guide to protect the main communities of interest in
the city, along with using Easily Identifiable Borders to make it easy for the residents of our city to figure out which
district they live in.
Finally, I would like to thank Theresa Bass, the City Clerk Staff, Dr. Levitt and everyone else who helped make the
Community Meeting possible. They were very professional and educational.
Please keep West Anaheim whole, and not change the boundary of District 2.
I hope the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem plus the City Councilmembers will seriously consider Map 102 as the new district map
for the next decade.
Sincerely:
David Michael Klawe
West Anaheim, District 2 resident
2