Reapportionment Advisory Committee

City of Norwalk Reapportionment Advisory Committee August 15, 2024, 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM By Zoom Virtual Meeting To allow public access, anyone may access a meeting by telephone and or Zoom. Specific instructions and links can be found at www.norwalkct.gov/meetings AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Minutes Regular Meeting August 8, 2024 IV. Public Participation V. Presentation and Discussion of Redistricting Options VI. Next Steps VII. Adjournment  III. CITY OF NORWALK REAPPORTIONMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 2024 ATTENDANCE: Diane Cece, Kenneth D’Arinzo, Khea Gibbs, Jody Proct, Susan Remson Brenda Penn Williams (7:01 p.m.) OTHERS: Atty. Steve Mednick, Esther Murillo, Assistant City Clerk; Priti Mathur, ARCBridge; Sam Mathur, ARCBridge I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. D’Arinzo called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM. II. ROLL CALL Mr. D’Arinzo called the roll. A quorum was present. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS a. Chair Mr. D’Arinzo explained that the Committee needed to nominate a Chair. ** MS. CECE NOMINATED MR. D’ARINZO AS CHAIR. ** MS. GIBBS SECONDED. Mr. D’Arinzo asked if there were any other nominations for chair. There were none from the floor. He repeated his question. There was no additional nominations from the floor. ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Vice-Chair ** MR. D’ARINZO NOMINATED MS.REMSON AS VICE CHAIR. ** MS. PROCT SECONDED. Mr. D’Arinzo asked if there were any other nominations for vice chair. There were none from the floor. He repeated his question. There was no additional nominations from the floor. ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. IV. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES City of Norwalk Reapportionment Advisory Committee Regular Meeting August 8, 2024 Page 1  • Regular Meeting July 25, 2024 ** MR. D’ARINZO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 25, 2024 MEETING. ** MS. REMSON SECONDED. ** THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES THE JULY 25, 2024 MEETING AS SUBMITTED PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. V. GENERAL DISCUSSION REGARDING LEGAL AND LOGISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS Mr. D’Arinzo said that Atty. Mednick was present to assist the Committee in their work. Atty. Mednick said that there had been some questions raised in the July meeting. He said the Democratic Registrar had been very active in the process, but they had not heard from the Republican Registrar. Atty. Mednick explained that there had been suggestion to modify the rules in order to allow the Registrars to appoint designees. Atty. Mednick then pointed out that there was a deadline of September 11th coming up from the July 11th initiation and suggested that there be a 30 day extension. This would move the date back to October 11th. He noted that it would be very important to have both political party registrars present and able to provide input to the meeting. Discussion followed about the details. Atty. Mednick then gave an overview about the process and cited the 1962 court decision regarding redistricting. ARCBridge is an experienced company. He also briefly reviewed the standards that the City would need to meet. Keeping the districts as close to how they currently exist is also important. Atty. Mednick then briefly spoke about the Taxing Districts, which is an different entity, and how this would be handled. These Districts were established by a Special Act of the State Legislature and cannot be modified unless it is approve by the State Legislature. The main concern is the establishing the Council Districts and the Board of Education Districts. There have been some concerns about split districts due to the new plan. He then explained a possible solution to the issue may be having a separate tabular and possibly a separate moderator where there was overlap and gave the details. Ms. Cece said that there was at least one area in Norwalk in the Nathan Hale area that had this issue. She noted that Mr. Wells, the Democratic Registrar, had raised this concern along with another potential area. She went on to say that with absentee and early voting, this situation will change. Discussion followed. City of Norwalk Reapportionment Advisory Committee Regular Meeting August 8, 2024 Page 2 Mr. D’Arinzo asked if they would have a name of a designee by the next month. Atty. Mednick said that he would be working with the administration on this. VI. FURTHER DISCUSSION OF REDISTRICTING – ARCBRIDGE SUGGESTED BOUNDARY CHANGES Mr. Sam Mathur said that they had three potential options for the Committee to consider. Ms. Priti Mathur then presented a report. She explained they had done an assessment based on the 2020 census and they are currently unbalanced. She then presented a PowerPoint slide deck and reviewed the various details with the Committee. Mr. D’Arinzo said that the Committee would need to discuss this. Ms. Cece had a detailed question about the general population versus voting age population, which Ms. Mathur reviewed with her. Discussion followed. Ms. Cece asked about a potential solution suggested by Mr. Wells. Ms. Mathur explained that Mr. Wells had based his suggestion on a paper map with number that were only estimates. ARCBridge uses the numbers from the Census. ARCBridge was able to incorporate some of his thoughts into one of their options. VII. NEXT STEPS Mr. D’Arinzo said he had spoken with Ms. Dixon and Atty. Candela about having a hybrid meeting rather than just a virtual meeting. He asked the Committee for their thoughts. Ms. Penn-Williams joined the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Ms. Penn-Williams said that she would prefer virtual. Ms. Remson said that she would like to attend at least one regular meeting. Ms. Cece said that she hoped that the hearing would be a hybrid meeting, but also mentioned that there were some people who would not be available before 7 p.m. Mr. D’Arinzo said he would prefer the virtual meetings other than Public Hearing. Ms. Cece asked for clarification about the Public Hearing. Mr. D’Arinzo said he thought that they needed to have Republican presence before they can schedule a public hearing. He added that he would be in touch with Atty. Mednick and ARCBridge about the various details. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. D’Arinzo announced that the next meeting would be on Thursday, August 15th. He adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted S.L. Soltes Telesco Secretarial Services City of Norwalk Reapportionment Advisory Committee Regular Meeting August 8, 2024 Page 3  V. City of Norwalk CT - Redistricting 2024 Presented by ARCBridge Consulting & Training Inc. August 15th, 2024 Comparison of Options 3 DEVELOPED BY ARCBRIDGE & 1 BY THE REGISTRAR’S OFFICE 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 2 Option 1 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 3  OPTION 1 - Pros & Cons Pros Cons ✓Population Equality –Maximum Deviation ❖District A splits a Taxing District should be under 10%; Maximum Deviation is 2.91%. It is the lowest in all 3 options. ❖Some splits due to block boundaries ✓Compact & Contiguous – The districts are compact and contiguous. Census blocks & Census data was used to build districts ✓Fair Representation of Minorities – District B is over 50% Hispanic and District A is an opportunity minority district. ✓Minimum Changes ✓City Council/BOE - No Council or Board of Education official is affected 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 4 Option 2 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 5  OPTION 2 - Pros & Cons Pros Cons ✓Meets Population Equality Criterion –Maximum Deviation should be under 10%; Maximum Deviation is 4.78%. ❖District A splits a Taxing District ✓ Compact & Contiguous – The districts are compact and ❖Some splits due to block boundaries contiguous. ✓Uses Census blocks and Redistricting data to build districts ✓Fair Representation of Minorities – District B is over 50% Hispanic and District A is an opportunity minority district. ✓Minimum Changes ✓City Council/BOE No Council member is affected. ✓BOE – BOE Member – Kara Nelson Baekey is affected but she is at large 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 6 Option 3 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 7  OPTION 3 - Pros & Cons Pros Cons ✓Meets Population Equality Criterion –Maximum Deviation should be under 10%; Maximum Deviation is 3.92%. ❖Some splits due to block boundaries ✓ Compact & Contiguous – The districts are compact and contiguous. ✓Uses Census blocks and Redistricting data to build districts ✓Fair Representation of Minorities – District B is over 50% Hispanic and District A is an opportunity minority district. ✓Minimum Changes ✓City Council/BOE - No Council or Board of Education official is affected ✓No new splits of Taxing Districts are added 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 8  Registrar of Voters Reapportionment Proposal F O U R PA R C E L S I N V O LV E D ( S E E F I R S T F O L LO W I N G S L I D E F O R O V E R V I E W A N D T H E F O L LO W I N G D E TA I L S L I D E S ) : FIRST: MINIMAL CHANGES PROPOSAL: T R A N S F E R E A C H O F T H E F O U R P I E C E S B E LO W F R O M P R E C I N C T S A 4 A N D A 3 TO T H E NEAREST DISTRICT (EITHER C OR D). A 4 – G E O R G E AV E . , T H E L A R G E S T P I E C E O F A 4 ( 4 3 6 V OT E R S & A 4 – R O O S E V E LT S T. , T H E T R I A N G U L A R P I E C E O F A 4 ( 8 2 V OT E R S ) ( TOTA L = 5 1 8 V OT E R S : M O V E F R O M A 4 TO C 2 ) S E E S E C O N D F O L LO W I N G S L I D E A 4 – G L E N D E N N I N G S T. , T H E S M A L L S T R I P B E T W E E N F T D & D 2 ( 6 3 V OT E R S ) M O V E F R O M A 4 TO D 2 , S E E T H I R D F O L LO W I N G S L I D E A 3 – P L AT T S V I L L E AV E . , T H E N O N - C O N T I G U O U S P I E C E O F A 3 ( 5 3 V OT E R S ) M O V E F R O M A 3 TO D 1 , S E E F O U R T H F O L LO W I N G S L I D E Overall view of District A and surrounding area Minimal Change ROV proposal: District D District D Light Blue: A3-Plattsville – change to D1 Yellow: A4- Glendenning – change to D2 Orange: A4-Roosevelt and A4-George – Change to C2 Additional ROV proposal: Green: Ponus School area – Change to D1 Pink: South part of A3 – change to E3 District C C3 Purple – Consultant Proposal, ROV opposes transferring this piece (or part of it) because it breaks up the taxing district without a compelling reason, doesn’t deal with the other little pieces of District A which currently vote far from their neighbors and would require a new voting District E precinct (C3)  Pros & Cons of Option 4 (Registrar’s plan Pros Cons Follows the Taxing Districts ❖Drawn on a paper copy ❖Based on estimated voter data ❖Does not follow the Census blocks or Census 2020 data ❖Cannot be recreated with census blocks 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 11 Questions/Comments 7-8-2024 CITY OF NORWALK, CT - REDISTRICTING 2024 12