Voice of the Community: Director District Boundaries
District 49 voters approved in November 2015 moving community representation to the Board of Education from five at-large seats to five director districts.
In 2017, the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder added additional voting precincts in District 49 to reflect new realities in various political subdivisions. Since precinct boundaries and the total number of precincts within the district have changed, we are required to redefine the District 49 director district boundaries and the voting precincts that comprise them.
Watch Brett Ridgway, chief business officer and the District 49 Board of Education directors discuss the different options for redrawing director district boundaries due to the addition of new voting precincts in District 49. This discussion occurred during the BOE regular monthly meeting on Oct. 12, 2017.
THE NEED TO STRIKE A BALANCE
With respect to statutory guidelines, the most recent census data (2010) should be the measurement tool to make the primary determination and each district should be “as nearly equal in population as possible”. There is no ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ pursuit of this change, nor is there a definition as to what constitutes ‘nearly equal in population as possible’.
While 2010 census data must be used as the official statistical measurement District 49 has grown by more than 17-percent since 2010. It is well known, and observed by new home construction every day, that the district will continue to grow beyond the next census cycle in 2020.
As a result the District 49 community, through the Board of Education, may want to consider current population and near-term growth predictions to determine what level of ‘nearly equal’ they are comfortable with, and which resulting map will resonate best with residents in the determination of the ‘nearly equal’ measurement that is achieved as a result.
The initial formation of the director district representation plan had a very small deviation to average spread of 3.2%, which was important to demonstrate that the plan was feasible. With the latest re-drawing of precincts, we do not see a scenario where that level of precision on 2010 data can be achieved, so board directors must determine the appropriate level of comfort in various options to determine ‘nearly equal’ while achieving boundaries that are clean and clear for district voters, knowing that may stray from the best 2010 census-based statistical measure of ‘nearly equal’.
PRESENTED SCENARIOS
Four different boundary options for the director districts were presented at the BOE meeting on Oct. 12.
For each scenario, a map highlighting the proposed boundaries and a population table, including 2010 census data, 2017 population estimate data, 2022 estimated population data, and the percent difference from the average population of each director district for the given year is presented. For your convenience, more detailed maps of the proposals can be downloaded on the
director districts page of D49.org. In summary, they can be defined as:
SCENARIO 1
Scenario 1: Represents the least change from the current boundaries, but does not provide either good statistical results in historical, current or future views.
|
2010 |
2017 |
2022 |
Director
District |
Census Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Est. Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Est. Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Dist. 1 |
14,579 |
-0.3% |
17,407 |
1.6% |
18,336 |
-3.0% |
Dist. 2 |
14,734 |
0.7% |
17,237 |
0.6% |
20,360 |
7.8% |
Dist. 3 |
13,740 |
-6.1% |
17,080 |
-0.3% |
19,248 |
1.9% |
Dist. 4 |
15,034 |
2.8% |
16,517 |
-3.6% |
17,714 |
-6.2% |
Dist. 5 |
15,054 |
2.9% |
17,413 |
1.6% |
18,815 |
-0.4% |
SCENARIO 2
Scenario 2: Represents a mix of clean boundaries and good statistical measures of ‘nearly equal’.
|
2010 |
2017 |
2022 |
Director
District |
Census Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Est. Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Est. Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Dist. 1 |
14,152 |
-3.3% |
16,493 |
-3.7% |
17,839 |
-5.6% |
Dist. 2 |
13,752 |
-6.0% |
17,124 |
0.0% |
18,687 |
-1.1% |
Dist. 3 |
14,542 |
-0.6% |
17,629 |
2.9% |
19,783 |
4.7% |
Dist. 4 |
15,459 |
5.7% |
17,093 |
-0.2% |
19,502 |
3.2% |
Dist. 5 |
15,236 |
4.2% |
17,315 |
1.1% |
18,662 |
-1.2% |
SCENARIO 3
Represents the best definition of clean, clear, reasonable and effective, with good forward-looking statistics, but not as good in the 2010 census baseline view.
|
2010 |
2017 |
2022 |
Director
District |
Census Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Est. Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Est. Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Dist. 1 |
14,152 |
-3.3% |
16,493 |
-3.7% |
17,839 |
-5.6% |
Dist. 2 |
12,981 |
-11.3% |
16,488 |
-3.8% |
18,039 |
-4.5% |
Dist. 3 |
14,542 |
-0.6% |
17,629 |
2.9% |
19,783 |
4.7% |
Dist. 4 |
15,984 |
9.3% |
17,592 |
2.7% |
20,025 |
6.0% |
Dist. 5 |
15,482 |
5.8% |
17,452 |
1.9% |
18,787 |
-0.6% |
SCENARIO 4
Represents a mix of cleaner boundaries with the best available measure of ‘nearly equal’ based on 2010 census data and ‘ok’ measures of current and future data sets.
|
2010 |
2017 |
2022 |
Director
District |
Census Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Est. Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Est. Pop. |
% Diff.
to Avg. |
Dist. 1 |
14,738 |
0.8% |
16,530 |
-3.5% |
17,782 |
-5.9% |
Dist. 2 |
13,964 |
-4.5% |
17,687 |
3.2% |
19,344 |
2.4% |
Dist. 3 |
14,542 |
-0.6% |
17,629 |
2.9% |
19,783 |
4.7% |
Dist. 4 |
14,661 |
0.2% |
16,493 |
-3.7% |
18,902 |
0.0% |
Dist. 5 |
15,236 |
4.2% |
17,315 |
1.1% |
18,662 |
-1.2% |