On Wednesday, Nov. 3, the Executive Office Technical Redistricting Committee will present a series of maps to the 2020 Advisory Redistricting Committee. The intent is for ARC to make recommendations to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on how the supervisorial boundaries should be adjusted based on the 2020 federal census data.
The board plans to hold two more public hearings, Nov. 9 and 16, before deciding on the new boundaries, which need to be adopted by Dec. 15.
EOTC has prepared nearly a dozen maps for ARC. Six were requested from the supervisors at the end of the Oct. 19 public hearing. Six maps have been submitted from the public, of which four were discussed at that public hearing. The board asked EOTC to do more analysis on two of the maps.
County drafted maps
Among the six maps EOTC analyzed, no consistency occurs on which district includes Hill communities. And in some maps, north of Pine Cove is different from the Idyllwild area and in others, the Anza and Pinyon areas are in different districts.
In three maps, all Hill communities from north of Pine Cove to the south, including Anza, Lake Riverside and Aguanga, are part of District 4. This district comprises the desert cities from Palm Springs east to Blythe.
In two of the maps, Idyllwild, Pine Cove and Mountain Center are essentially the eastern boundary of District 5. Hemet, San Jacinto, Beaumont and west to Moreno Valley is the preponderance of the district. From just south of Lake Hemet, Garner Valley, Anza and Aguanga are part of District 3.
In the sixth map, Idyllwild, Pine Cove, Mountain Center and Garner Valley to Aguanga are aligned with District 3. The neighborhoods north of Pine Cove seem to be split between districts 4 and 5. The boundary seems to follow Highway 243.
EOTC has analyzed these maps for several criterion. The population variance between districts ranges from 0.24% to 3.06%. The maps with the least variance place the Hill in either district 3 or 5. The maps with the greatest variance have the Hill communities in District 4.
Each map maintains traditional boundaries. However, it was impossible, as the supervisors suspected, to avoid splitting some cities — three in five maps and four in one map. Riverside city was split in each option and Jurupa Valley was separated in five maps.
The cities of Hemet and San Jacinto, Jurupa Valley and Riverside, and Lake Elsinore and Wildomar were in different districts in five maps. The Anza, Sage and Aguanga areas were split in three maps.
Every option had a slightly greater-than 50% Hispanic voting age population in District 1. It ranged from 50.001% to 50.58%.
EOTC recommended that four of these maps be presented to the supervisors. Two of them placed the Hill areas in District 4 and two placed them in District 5.
Community submitted maps
Four of the six community maps assigned the Hill areas to District 4. In one map, the Hill was included in District 3, which stretched from Cabazon in the north to Temecula in the south. EOTC recommended that ARC forward this map to the board.
The sixth map only proposed boundaries for districts 1 and 2 and left the remainder of the county to be assigned.
The equal population of districts was applied less rigorously in these options. In two, the difference between the largest and smallest was nearly 100,000 people. One map created five districts with none having a majority Hispanic or Latino voting-population majority. Another created two districts with this majority.
Next steps
All public suggested maps had to be submitted by Nov. 1 to be available at the ARC Nov. 3 meeting. ARC comments and recommendations will be presented to the supervisors at their Nov. 9 meeting.
The board also will hold a public hearing Nov. 16 and ARC will meet again Dec. 1.
