RL Committee Meeting Summary: Meeting 2

The Redistricting Lexington Committee (RLC) held its second meeting on Wednesday, September 1st, in the Phoenix Building’s 3rd floor conference room. This meeting again lasted for two hours, with some new demographic information presented, along with discussion about the guidelines and timeline. 

You can read the meeting packet here. 

The group started by reviewing the two models Planning presented during the last meeting: the Traditional (often called Iterative) and Compact plans. As a reminder…

• The Iterative plan keeps the districts mostly as they are, with slight adjustments to account for population changes.

• The Compact plan, on the other hand, is an overhaul of Lexington’s districts and would split the large, rural 12th into several smaller and more socioeconomically diverse districts. 

The RLC heard from Chairman Wilson that VM Kay preferred the Iterative plan after speaking with County Clerk, Don Blevins, about precinct restrictions after the first meeting.

• Keep this in mind because while the Redistricting Committee can make suggestions and recommendations for a particular plan, the final decision lies with Council. 

The RLC also made it clear that the Committee is aiming for the November, rather that the April deadline. This isn’t final either, though, and depending on how the process goes, it may stretch out to April. 

After this review, the RLC then discussed new business. Several themes emerged: representation, future decisions, pros and cons of the compact plan, projected population growth, the USB, political power, public input, and next steps. 

Representation 

The group viewed two Census data maps: Race by Voting Precinct and Hispanic or Latino Voting Precinct, which sparked a conversation about representation.

• They talked about the effects of cracking (splitting a concentrated minority population between districts and diluting voting power) or packing (fitting a large minority population into one or few districts and limiting voting power to fewer districts) districts while acknowledging that neither plan will be able to completely prevent these scenarios. 

Along those lines, when looking at representation, they talked about taking into account the total percentage of a population, as well as total count. This makes a difference when comparing a large area with a smaller population to a smaller area with a larger population. Looking at the percentage of a group of people within the percentage of total population will paint a clearer picture than total number alone. 

Next, the group recognized that if a minority population in a district is cracked, Lexington shouldn’t rely on majority-white districts to elect a minority candidate as their representative.

• Council has lost diversity over the years and the school board is majority white.  

Finally, the group discussed whether or not a Councilmember could represent a very socioeconomically diverse district at all. Needs of campus, urban, suburban, and rural populations vary greatly and are sometimes even at odds with each other. These considerations would weigh heavier on the proposed Compact plan, which would envelope wide areas in one representative district. 

Future Decisions

Committee members brought up several times that the data they’re working with is only prediction at this point. They don’t know exactly what is going to happen over the next 10 years and they talked about needing to decide what to take on and what to leave for the next Redistricting Committee.  

• To that, Planning mentioned that the Sustainable Growth Task Force is working on a report that will identify triggers for expanding the Urban Service Boundary (USB). That report will be released later this month. 

Challenges and Rewards of the Compact plan

Two main arguments emerged regarding the pros and cons of the proposed Compact plan.

• One side stated that a divided 12th would give more ownership and better understanding of Lexington’s rural/urban differences and needs than having the 12th under one representative. 

• The other side disagreed, saying the 12th is able to vote on its interests as a unified block under its current design. Breaking up that block would decrease its political power. 

• Another concern was that more political power resides in the urban core than the rural periphery and breaking up the 12th would weight urban interests over rural. 

Finally, the question of UK’s influence as a landowner was discussed, with the group acknowledging that the institution already has significant power and will likely continue to gain influence in the near future. 

Population Growth

The group again discussed projected population growth patterns. The city is expected to gain 26,000 residents over the next ten years and part of redistricting is taking into account where these residents are most likely to end up. 

Based on available residential land, the areas that are projected to see the most growth are:

• Overbook Farm

• Outer Winchester Rd (Costco area of Hamburg)

• Outer Tates Creek Rd.

Overall, these projected changes will affect districts 1, 2, 6, 12, 7, and 8 most heavily. This data only accounted for growth within the USB.

• When asked, Planning said they can add data for outside of it if the group thought it would be helpful. They said they would have that information at the next meeting.

Extending districts into the USB

Related to population growth, the committee asked if it would be possible to extend more districts into the USB.

• Per Planning, yes, but precincts will often restrict this kind of expansion. The committee will have to take into consideration that precincts outside of the USB often don’t have enough population to add to other districts.

Most of the USB-adjacent land near districts it would make the most sense geographically to extend -- the 9th ,10th, and 11th -- are mostly farmland or owned by the airport.

Also, population is expected to grow most quickly in the East and Southeast of the county, so the 4th, 8th, and 7th districts. It wouldn’t make much sense representationally to expand districts without corresponding population increases. 

On a different topic, the committee discussed the potential for neighborhoods to be shuffled between districts every 10 years if something like the Compact plan were adopted. These are mostly minority neighborhoods that vote as a block and doing so would have a cracking effect. 

Public Input

The committee is still planning on opportunities for public input. They mostly discussed working with Neighborhood Associations to help spread the word about when CMs and Redistricting Committee representatives will be out and about in communities around Lexington. Public input plans are still in the works, so check back for additional information. 

Moving Forward

Finally, before adjourning, the committee discussed the format for future meetings. They decided to break into small groups to work on specific issues that they would then bring to the full committee. They asked for a map of population and precincts so they could start thinking about how precincts could be moved, which GIS agreed to provide. Lastly, they planned to look at additional information from communities within the USB in the next meeting.