Government
Unreasonable Georgetown ANC redistricting plan moves ahead despite compromise proposal
The redistricting plan for Georgetown's ANC 2E, which unfairly and illegally marginalizes students, has moved on to its next phase. Officials should replace this with a compromise plan that I have proposed.
Photo by Schwarzerstein on Flickr.
Last month, I wrote in detail about the problems that exist in the plan. Only 1 of the 8 single-member districts comply with size limits in the law, also ignoring the guidance that Councilmember Evans and Councilmember Michael Brown sent to individuals on redistricting task forces.
Despite these problems, the task force handling ANC 2E's redistricting passed the plan on to Tom Birch, the ANC 2E member that Councilmember Jack Evans picked to chair Ward 2's ANC redistricting efforts. Task force co-chair Ron Lewis also dismissed my compromise proposal.
The plan won't move on to Councilmember Evans without Commissioner Birch's consent. I urge Commissioner Birch ask the ANC 2E working group to produce a new plan, which conforms to DC's redistricting code and which better addresses the needs of every resident of ANC 2E.
Since my previous article, ANC 2E held its August 29th meeting. As DC Students Speak and a number of others covered, students came out in large numbers to this meeting to voice their opposition to the current proposal.
After that, Councilmember Phil Mendelson told the Georgetown Current that the current plan is "grossly discriminatory." He said the co-chairs "can't just turn a blind eye to the principle of one man, one vote. If there's a proposal to create single-member districts of vastly different sizes, lumping students into one or two and then having non-students ... in the remaining undersized SMDs, that would be a violation of the law."
Considering these comments and those of students at ANC 2E's public meeting, I made a motion for reconsideration within our working group. All I called for was further dialogue. We had only had two meetings and considered two plans total, far fewer than the 13 plans that ANC 2A, a comparably-sized ANC, considered. The six who had originally voted against the co-chairs' plan, including ANC 2E Commissioner Charlie Eason, supported the motion.
On September 6th, one day before the reconsideration vote was set to end, ANC 2E Chair and redistricting task force co-chair Ron Lewis approached me about what specific elements about the co-chairs' plan I would like to see changed. I responded with the following map, which I believe represents a fair compromise between the co-chairs' plan and the Flanagan plan described in my earlier piece.
Compromise redistricting plan. Image from Google Maps.
Lewis, Altemus, and Rubino plan, adopted by the ANC 2E redistricting task force.
SMDs 02, 06 and 07 remain exactly the same in this plan as they are in the co-chairs' plan. SMD 05's outline remains very similar to its shape in the co-chairs' plan, with several blocks west of Wisconsin added to bring its population from a too-low 1,710 to a more acceptable 2,107. These blocks also fit with the commercial character of SMD 05.
The primary changes from the co-chairs' plan to this plan resolve around how it deals with Georgetown University's campus and the blocks immediately nearby. Instead of the nearly 2,600-person SMD monstrosities found in the co-chairs' plan, this compromise plan instead brings them within code, with total populations of 1,889 and 2,013.
Here are the populations in this plan and the co-chairs' plan:
| District | This plan | Co-chairs' plan |
|---|---|---|
| SMD 01 | 2,409 | 2,409 |
| SMD 02 | 1,971 | 1,660 |
| SMD 03 | 2,272 | 1,705 |
| SMD 04 | 1,889 | 2,581 |
| SMD 05 | 2,107 | 1,710 |
| SMD 06 | 1,836 | 1,836 |
| SMD 07 | 1,983 | 1,983 |
| SMD 08 | 2,013 | 2,581 |
The recommended SMD size, according to the DC Code, is 1,900 to 2,100.
In the co-chairs' plan, the relative deviance in SMD size is nearly 40%. In the compromise plan I am proposing, it is approximately 24%. I feel as though this is still on the high side, but it is a number I would be far more comfortable with.
I also did not present this compromise plan as a finalized plan. I do not believe it is perfect and am open to making revisions to it. For instance, I think that if the Burlieth residents were amendable to it, moving the block bounded by 34th, 35th, R, and Wisconsin from SMD01 to SMD02 would be sensible, for several reasons.
Unfortunately, discussing such ideas has been impossible. After sending Chairman Lewis my idea of a compromise, I did not hear back about it until September 9th. At this time, Commissioner Lewis sent the working group's finalized recommendations to Commissioner Birch, including this line: "To complete your file, you have previously received a proposal from working-group member John Flanagan, and an email earlier this week contained a proposal from working-group member Jake Sticka. Neither of these proposals has the support of a majority of the working group."
I was particularly disappointed by this line because at this time only Commissioner Lewis had been sent the compromise plan. A working group cannot reject a plan it has never seen.
Regardless, the co-chairs' plan is now in Commissioner Birch's hands. If you have thoughts on ways to improve my compromise plan, please leave a comment here. If you are concerned about the process and the plan that may come out of it, please contact Commissioner Tom Birch at bircht@earthlink.net.
Cross-posted at DC Students Speak.
 |
Jake Sticka is a member of Georgetown University's class of 2013, majoring in Government. Originally from San Diego, California, Jake was elected to ANC2E in November 2010. He also serves as President of the DC College Democrats.   |
Comments
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
Note that that's only recommendation and not a requirement. There's lots and lots of precedent for reasons for that not to hold. You can make a case for better representation of those students at GU who are also DC residents, but you shouldn't rely on this 'recommendation' ... 'cause that's all it is ...
by Lance on Sep 13, 2011 1:41 pm • link • report
by Lou DC on Sep 13, 2011 1:44 pm • link • report
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
It may in fact be illegal because it sure looks like the designers of the plan are trying to disenfranchise a specific set of voters.
as for Lance:
You can make a case for better representation of those students at GU who are also DC residents...
It's been said time and time again, students are residents of where they live during most of the year. If they live in GU dorms or in DC during the school year they are DC residents for redistricting purposes. Any attempt to say otherwise ignores the fact that redistricting is based on the Census, and the Census counts students where they live during the school year.
by MLD on Sep 13, 2011 2:13 pm • link • report
In W6, because ex ANC6A chair Joe Fengler is chairing the process, and he is excellent at fair process, it's going well.
From what I've seen in other wards, this is much less the case.
In some wards like 4, it doesn't matter so much because the boundaries didn't change very much. But in wards with big changes in boundaries, getting the process right is key.
by Richard Layman on Sep 13, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report
by Dizzy on Sep 13, 2011 2:35 pm • link • report
Here is the language of the guidelines:
1. "Each single-member district shall have a population of approximately 2,000 people, and shall be as nearly equal as possible."
2. "No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a plan shall result in ANC district populations with a deviation range greater than 10% or a relative deviation greater than plus or minus 5%, unless the deviation results from the limiations of census geography or from the promotion of a rational public policy, including but not limited to, respect for the natural geography of the District of Columbia, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contriguous districts."
3. Additionally, under Vote Dilution Prohibited it says, "no redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall be considered if the plan or amendment has the purpose and effect of dilutiong the voting strength of minority citizens." (And the DC Human Rights Act counts matriculation status as a protected characteristic).
It's hard to look at the districts created in the co-chairs' plan, which vary by nearly 1,000 people in size, and say that this plan meets the spirit--nevermind the letter--of those guidelines.
And I'm not talking about just the campus-related SMD's.
In fact, while the proposed SMD01 includes the traditional neighborhoods of Burleith and Hillandale, it extends beyond the eastern edge of Burleith, incorporating two blocks between 35th and Wisconsin. (Ref: the boundaries noted on Burleith.org, the BCA's website, of which Lenore Rubino is chair, and one of the co-chairs of the redistricting plan).
"Respect for the natural geography of the District of Columbia, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contriguous districts," don't really account for a plan that is far more unequal in its apportionment than the existing SMDs are.
by Jacques on Sep 13, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report
by TM on Sep 13, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
The guidance says
Average (ideal) SMD size: 2,000
Allowable 5% deviation: +/- 100
Maximum SMD size: 2,100 (ideal +5%)
Minimum SMD size: 1,900 (ideal -5%)
The 10% deviation is from smallest to largest, not from the 2,000 target.
Here's the rest of the guidance:
(http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/media/redistrictingmeeting/anc_redistricting_procedures.pdf)
by Jacques on Sep 13, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report
However, in 2000, the number of SMDs outside of 1,800 - 2,200 was 8 citywide. The co-chairs' proposal currently under consideration would create 6 such districts in one SMD.
by Jake Sticka on Sep 13, 2011 3:24 pm • link • report
Jake, just sew them. Get some law and journalism students together and make a nice graduation project of out humiliating DC, Jack Evans, and ANC2E. Let the law students (being a disenfranchised party) start a lawsuit, and let the journalism students be vocal in local and regional media.
by Jasper on Sep 13, 2011 3:34 pm • link • report
I'd be willing to bet that disenfranchising specific groups of residents isn't recognized by any precedent as a reason for deviating from the recommendations. Especially when the deviations are so drastic.
by dcd on Sep 13, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report
by Pelham1861 on Sep 13, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report
I am sure the embaressment to DC will be so large as to result in mass laughter.
Taxation without Representation!
by greent on Sep 13, 2011 4:16 pm • link • report
Typically these matters include _specific matters_ before ZC, HPRB/HPO (and in Georgetown, the OGB), BZA, ABRA, DDOT public space and plans, OP plans, zoning and building regulation within the context of DCRA, among others.
ANCs are set up more to deal with the Executive branch, not the legislative.
by Richard Layman on Sep 13, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report
by Richard Layman on Sep 13, 2011 4:19 pm • link • report
Redistricting is based on the Census, and that's not in doubt. But it's possible to argue in this particular case, that those counted by the census cannot be plausibly assumed to be DC voters. Redistricting laws (and court decisions) have long equated the two by reasonable assumption because the cases (at least, those I'm familiar with) in front of them have generally involved non-transitory minority residents.
So while the letter of the case-law and statutes might be violated here, it strikes me that the spirit of the law (trying to protect non-transitory voting residents' right to self-rule and representation) might not be.
Can someone, somewhere in this debate, cite some statistics on how many Georgetown students are registered voters in DC?
by Andrew in DC on Sep 13, 2011 4:40 pm • link • report
by Richard Layman on Sep 13, 2011 4:46 pm • link • report
That is not relevant. It has been pointed out several times now, that what counts in the US is the census, and the census tries to take a snapshot where everybody in the US is on census day. It counts everybody. American, alien, legal, illegal, registered, unregistered, healthy, sick, sane, insane, free, in prison, elderly, adult, child, everybody.
And based on that same data all political districts are drawn. Washingtonians should be happy with that, by the way. It counts all those non-voting aliens in town as people living here, and in the end appropriates money for them.
by Jasper on Sep 13, 2011 4:51 pm • link • report
Humor me.
by Andrew in DC on Sep 13, 2011 4:53 pm • link • report
I kinda assumed that the Georgetown law professor in charge of the graduation project has passed the DC bar and can practice law.
by Jasper on Sep 13, 2011 4:54 pm • link • report
No. It is not. End of debate.
by Jasper on Sep 13, 2011 4:55 pm • link • report
Wow, this is so wrong.
Districts are based on the number of people who live in them, not the number of voters. And it's the total number of people, not the number of people over 18, or the number of non-felon people, or any other subset. They are not "equated by reasonable assumption." One area doesn't get an adjustment because it has more kids, or more foreigners who can't vote.
by MLD on Sep 13, 2011 4:58 pm • link • report
I think the above commenters have handled your question well. Let me offer an addition example, though.
In Ward 6, there is an SMD for the DC Jail (6B11 for reference: http://www.anc6b.org/map.html). The seat is vacant and it has been for years (I suspect it will remain that way for the foreseeable future).
Despite the fact that there are 0 registered voters in that SMD, it continues to exist. During the 2000 redistricting process its population was a little over guidance, at ~2,300 but it was still far closer to regulation that the sizes of the campus SMDs being proposed, where hundreds of students are registered to vote.
by Jake Sticka on Sep 13, 2011 5:18 pm • link • report
by greent on Sep 13, 2011 5:48 pm • link • report
Good point. DC has a massive interest in counting people, not just (registred) voters. There are many, many, non-voting people in DC, that give DC weight, and money. They also give DC voters a stronger vote, because they kinda function as dead weight in political districts. Relatively speaking, the vote of a voter in a district where few people vote weights heavier.
@ greent:you said "students", not professors. Goalposts shouln't move. Besides, I am sure the G'town professors live in MD or VA anyway.
I envision students doing the work. If they'd need someone with a bar to formally represent them, they can use a prof. Surely, there's one that can.
It's a pet-peeve of mine that universities rarely seem to unleash the potential of their students for useful stuff. Why aren't campuses stuffed with art of students? Why aren't buildings and campuses largely designed by architecture, urban planning and civil engineering students? Why aren't universities using law students for small cases and pro deo work? [The amount of times I've heard a lawyer would be to expensive for my little conflict with a vendor] Why aren't political science students supporting the Georgetown/GW/AU/Howard/etc SMD representatives?
I'm not suggesting to put freshmen to work, but surely seniors and especially master students should be able to contribute to serious causes, under proper supervision? If not, their education is insufficient. It would be a great way for students to get real work experience - something they sorely lack when graduating.
by Jasper on Sep 13, 2011 8:54 pm • link • report
@Jake:
Dude, you have to know that trying to lobby Birch and Evans is futile. Evans wouldn't have appointed someone whom he couldn't trust implicitly to carry out his wishes. Not the publicly-stated guidance you allude to, but his real wishes.
This whole thing was predetermined from the start. The 'winning' plan was authored by the ANC Chair together with two of the most public, vocal, and strident anti-University and anti-student activists. All of this was by design.
Evans knows who butters his bread, and it's not the amalgamated studentry of Ward 2. Save your effort and start approaching law firms about taking this on as a pro bono case. There are constitutional implications and lawyers love con law cases, which almost never come across their plate (especially in pro bono cases) unless they are elite specialists.
@greent
Plenty of GU professors live in DC. Of the law professors in particular, I'm willing to bet a large proportion of them are barred in DC because you can waive in from 48 of the 50 states. Little reason not to if you're going to be based in DC anyway.
Plenty of Georgetown students also stay in DC and the Greater Washington area after graduation - moreso, certainly, than a school like Dartmouth, where a student won election as county treasurer.
Besides, if length of stay was a valid reason to discount residents, then we would have to toss out all the servicemembers and Foreign Service officers who are typically posted here for 2 year stretches.
@AndrewinDC
Ive not seen any recent numbers, but I'd wager they're quite small. I think it's hard to hold this against students: it is asking no small thing of someone to go through the trouble of formally establishing residency, foregoing student reciprocity (which was created for a reason), and registering to vote when you have practically no competitive elections to vote in. If you're not a registered Democrat, make that no competitive elections to vote in.
When students have something to vote for though, there is the potential for them to register in significant quantities, as the Campaign Georgetown movement demonstrated in years past.
by Dizzy on Sep 13, 2011 9:40 pm • link • report
Typically, many students do get such hands-on experience, but through internships and other means. Universities tend to be wary of involving students )undergrads, anyway) in internal affairs and such due to the potential for conflicts of interest and the fact that universities are still conceptualized as being the in loco parentis authority in undergraduates' lives. Very different from Europe and elsewhere.
I do agree with the spirit of what you're saying, though - it would be great if there was an army of Jake Stickas and Aaron Goldses. It's much better political experience than university student government, certainly.
For what it's worth, Law schools all have clinical programs now, and the clinics at GULC, George Washington, and WCL are considered very strong (GULC ranks #1 in US News in this category, WCL is #2).
by Dizzy on Sep 13, 2011 9:54 pm • link • report
It wasn't a debate. It was a gut response, based on the fact that the court cases which establish precedent and the statues are designed to protect voting rights, followed by a question. "Persons" are used as a proxy for measuring voters, because they are repeatably measured by Constitutional mandate and, lets be honest, when these issues were arising, illegal immigration and transitory non-resident voting-age populations were an extremely small subset of the population. 18-20 year olds didn't even have the right to vote at the time (1965 vs. 1971), so college towns weren't really considered to be an issue that needed to be considered in the legislation.
And it was a question because, to me, it presents/presented the following branches:
A) There's a ton of G-town students who are registered. Which would provoke the reaction in me that they are clearly being disenfranchised, this stuff is wrong, someone or several someones need(s) to get kicked in the nuts. While this response was a low-probability, I was prepared to adopt this stance.
and B) There's hardly ANY G-town students who are registered. So this gerrymandering is really a fight about *nothing*, since it won't affect the elected officials a single whit. This is, of course, the branch I was expecting to have to take. I'm not holding this lack of registration against the students, I'm looking at it from a purely practical standpoint, wondering why the Ward 2 commission's even bothering to start the fight (not that it seems its much of a fight).
But y'all jumped on your high horses and didn't want to answer my question. Fine. Smoke you, too.
by Andrew in DC on Sep 13, 2011 10:57 pm • link • report
No, they're not. Because if we wanted to measure voters, we could pretty easily just pull up the list of registered voters and go with that.
Redistricting has NEVER been based on some kind of imputation of the number of voters. Back in the 1800s we didn't just look at how many men who owned property there were. They counted slaves (3/5) when considering redistricting!
I get that you think that it's the case that redistricting considers "voters", but you are seriously mistaken.
by MLD on Sep 13, 2011 11:13 pm • link • report
First I'll confess to not having read the following comments yet .. so, sorry if this is already addressed. But Jasper you are confusing two things. YES, students count in determining census counts. Even 200 odd homeless people listed as living in Dupont Circle (or something like that) count in determining Census numbers. That doesn't equate to who gets represented. It is residents only (voters or not) who get represented. And students who don't file their taxes here (or whose parents claim them elsewhere) or who don't have a drivers licence here etc., are NOT considered residents for any purpose. That's why they can't get Zone 2 stickers. (And I happen to know this from some 30+ years ago when I was a GU student and would have loved to have had a Zone 2 sticker ... instead of risking parking my car in a then abandoned gas station up from the corner of M and Bank Streets.)
by Lance on Sep 14, 2011 12:09 am • link • report
That argument is a red herring ... because those slaves being counted (as well as the non-property owners) were still RESIDENTS ... though not voters. Representatives are meant to represent RESIDENTS. So, like I said, those GU students who are residents are entitled to representation. However, those students who haven't taken the necessary steps to become residents (including first and foremost abandoning their resident status in their home state) are not entitle to this priviledge. I mean ... would you have these individuals be entitled to representation both here AND in their home state? Don't you see how non-sensical that is ... ? So if we had representation in Congress they could call 2 different congressmen to influence how they'd vote on the House Floor on an issue ... ?
by Lance on Sep 14, 2011 12:20 am • link • report
B) There's hardly ANY G-town students who are registered. So this gerrymandering is really a fight about *nothing*, since it won't affect the elected officials a single whit. This is, of course, the branch I was expecting to have to take. I'm not holding this lack of registration against the students, I'm looking at it from a purely practical standpoint, wondering why the Ward 2 commission's even bothering to start the fight (not that it seems its much of a fight).
Not so. Under the plan being put forward, the entirety of the GU student body is being gerrymandered into 2 SMDs (up from the current 1). Since there are literally no non-University persons in these SMDs (the non-students are Jesuits and others who reside on campus like Residence Hall Directors and Chaplains), the student candidate wins by default. Aaron Golds received 48 votes in 2008. Last year, Jake Sticka gathered just nine.
The not-thoroughly-gerrymandered plan would create a third SMG that has both students and non-students. In addition to the all-campus SMDs 04 and 08, Jake would craft an SMD03 that contains both students (Alumni Square, East Campus, and University-owned townhouses, plus students living off-campus in this area, as I did) and non-students. Whether the ANC for this SMD would be a student or a non-student would, in fact, depend on how many students mobilized to register and vote. Given a Campaign Georgetown-like effort, I think it could indeed be a student.
@Lance
Leaving aside your extremely dubious interpretation of who is supposed to be represented by ANCs, the reason GU students cannot get Zone 2 RPP stickers has nothing to do with whether or not they are students. The exclusion of GU students was a specific and targeted policy put into place as a result of Georgetown resident lobbying. A student like Jake, who has not only registered in DC but holds elective office here, still cannot get a Zone 2 permit.
by Dizzy on Sep 14, 2011 12:29 am • link • report
if they're counted in the census, then they are residents for the purposes of redistricting.
The census aims to count everyone in the nation, count them once, and count them in the right place. The numbers we have are the numbers we use - there is no adjustment necessary, nor is an adjustment legal.
And you're wrong - the Census numbers do indeed stand for the purposes of representation. This exact same methodology is used to apportion representatives in the House and inform the redistricting process across the US.
by Alex B. on Sep 14, 2011 8:11 am • link • report
by Dizzy on Sep 14, 2011 11:20 am • link • report
by CBGB on Sep 14, 2011 11:45 am • link • report
by Jacques on Sep 14, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report
As point of fact, the several hundred homeless people that the Census counted within the Dupont Circle ANC area and bunched together as living in Dupont Circle are represented in ANC 2B02. And, according to the redistricting plan being reviewed by the ANC at its meeting tonight, will once again be counted as constituents in ANC 2B02. And they count no more and no less than all the people who own properties or rent among the approximately 2,000 people in ANC 2B02.
Something about "equal justice under law." Just because you lose your job and place or residence doesn't mean you lose your right to vote or right to representation.
by Mike S. on Sep 14, 2011 1:48 pm • link • report
by Dizzy on Sep 14, 2011 4:39 pm • link • report
Oh great. So, DC has written legislation openly discriminating against students. Fan-tas-tic. Georgetown can be proud of itself. Seriously, has nobody challenged this yet? That should take about as long as it takes for the judge to pull herself together.
And this is the city wants to be One City?
by Jasper on Sep 14, 2011 8:37 pm • link • report
As point of fact, the several hundred homeless people that the Census counted within the Dupont Circle ANC area and bunched together as living in Dupont Circle are represented in ANC 2B02.
I think you may have misread my post. 'cause that's the point I was making ... that even the homeless counted in the Circle get represented (whether or not they are voters) because they are RESIDENTS. Students who are going to school here and haven't established residency here (and still are residents of their home states) DON'T get representation ... Because they already have representation ... at home.
by Lance on Sep 14, 2011 11:20 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 14, 2011 11:24 pm • link • report
It was mentioned above, but it merits repeating: you should be very glad that students in DC are counted by the Census here. Without us the city would lose almost 15% of its population, a possibility that I don't think DC government would be too pleased with.
by Jake Sticka on Sep 14, 2011 11:31 pm • link • report
What is Ward 3 doing with AU?
What is Ward 2 doing with GWU?
What is Ward 5 doing with CUA?
What about Howard? Trinity?
It would be interesting to know how other Redistricting Taskforces are treating students elsewhere in the District.
Anyone?
by William on Sep 14, 2011 11:47 pm • link • report
I think you may have misread my post. 'cause that's the point I was making ... that even the homeless counted in the Circle get represented (whether or not they are voters) because they are RESIDENTS. Students who are going to school here and haven't established residency here (and still are residents of their home states) DON'T get representation ... Because they already have representation ... at home.
That's not how the law works.
Short answer - if they've been counted by the census as living in DC, then they count as residents for the purposes of redistricting. Their state of legal residence does not matter.
The reason for this is quite simple - our government represents the people (all of them), even though we have specific rules about who may vote and where they do so.
The census counts everybody once, and only once. If a student is enumerated in DC, then they are to be represented in DC.
Where the census enumerates people is not the same as their state of legal residence. The final population number, nevertheless, is still the basis for determining representation.
For further reading:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/resid_rules/resid_rules.html
THE CONCEPT OF USUAL RESIDENCE
Planners of the first U.S. decennial census in 1790 established the concept of "usual residence" as the main principle in determining where people were to be counted. This concept has been followed in all subsequent censuses and is the guiding principle for the 2010 Census. Usual residence is defined as the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time. This place is not necessarily the same as the person's voting residence or legal residence.
Determining usual residence is easy for most people. Given our Nation's wide diversity in types of living arrangements, however, the usual residence for some people is not as apparent. A few examples are people experiencing homelessness, snowbirds, children in shared custody arrangements, college students, live-in employees, military personnel, and people who live in workers’ dormitories.
Applying the usual residence concept to real living situations means that people will not always be counted at the place where they happen to be staying on Thursday, April 1, 2010 (Census Day). For example, people who are away from their usual residence while on vacation or on a business trip on Census Day should be counted at their usual residence. People who live at more than one residence during the week, month, or year should be counted at the place where they live most of the time. People without a usual residence, however, should be counted where they are staying on Census Day.
The numbers now being used for redistricting are the final count from 2010 - trying to slice out a subset of the population is illegal disenfranchisement of that population.
by Alex B. on Sep 15, 2011 12:16 am • link • report
I agree with your first sentence. I think you are jumping to a conclusion in the second which is neither substantiated by Census rules nor evidenced in practice. Census rules determine how and who to count. District law determines how to apportion. And the District stipulations here ate clearly concerned with cohesiveness of neighborhoods or sub-neighborhoods ... and where a visitor to the city happens to be on the day of the census count has no bearing on that. So yes if you are not a resident you are a visitor. Yes the homeless and the prison population get representation because they are residents. No, the majority of students, who are residents elsewhere for representation purposes, do not also get representation here just because another non-resident student happened to be counted in a census held 7, 5, or even 2 years ago (as in how old the last census will be when the changes take affect.)
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 7:01 am • link • report
Prisoners are counted for DC purposes at the DC Jail, even though they are actually residents elsewhere in the city. Hence the former 6B11 ANC, which was composed entirely of folks in the Jail and DC General Campus. So they are handled pretty much the opposite of what you just said.
by Tim Krepp on Sep 15, 2011 7:12 am • link • report
No, the majority of students, who are residents elsewhere for representation purposes, do not also get representation here just because another non-resident student happened to be counted in a census held 7, 5, or even 2 years ago (as in how old the last census will be when the changes take affect.)
Again, this is factually wrong. Everyone is counted once, and in one place. If a student is counted in DC, then they are to be represented in DC. If they are counted in DC, then they are not accounted for in any other jurisdiction.
Your point about the passage of time is also irrelevant. The census is a snapshot in time and provides an objective point for us to base our redistricting on. Are you suggesting that the elderly couple who passed away following the census should be stricken from the record? No, that's not how the system works.
People are born, others die. Some move in, some move out. The only way to get a single number to make decisions on is to use the snapshot-in-time census numbers.
by Alex B. on Sep 15, 2011 7:31 am • link • report
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 8:02 am • link • report
Who says? You?
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 8:04 am • link • report
Who says? You?
Can you read? Federal rulings and case law say so.
Furthermore, you're making an arbitrary decision on residency for the purpose of redistricting based on the fact that these people are students. And that's specifically against DC law (can't discriminate based on matriculation status).
by MLD on Sep 15, 2011 8:47 am • link • report
Nowhere else in DC (or anywhere in the U.S., for that matter) are voting districts apportioned based on the number of voters.
You are advocating for a deliberate public policy minimizing the representation of a certain class of people based on what you think are good policy reasons.
If you want to count the number of registered DC voters and reapportion all Wards, ANCs, and SMDs based on that, that's one thing. But to make an arbitrary, data-free decision that a certain group (who may not agree with your politics) is deserving of less representation, and justify it with one other case of people you don't think should be represented, (Census be damned), is incredibly irresponsible.
by Jacques on Sep 15, 2011 8:59 am • link • report
Don't get ahead of yourself - just because nobody else makes unfair discriminatory decisions with regards to representation doesn't mean that DC can't lead the way!
by MLD on Sep 15, 2011 9:13 am • link • report
Who says? You?
No, not me. I am merely the messenger.
Who says? The US Census Bureau. The Supreme Court of the United States. The Council of the District of Columbia.
Consider the implications of your proposal to eliminate students from the redistricting calculations because they might not be registered to vote locally (emphasis on might).
Should we also cut children under the age of 18 out of the process? They represent ~20% of the DC population, and I can guarantee that those non-voting children aren't evenly distributed across the District.
The census counts people. Our legislative districts represent people, not voters. Democratic power comes from the people. Why is this? Think back to the founding days of our nation, when suffrage was not nearly as universal as it is now.
by Alex B. on Sep 15, 2011 11:04 am • link • report
There's your mistake. Not gonna happen.
by Jasper on Sep 15, 2011 11:34 am • link • report
Where did I ever say they were apportioned by voters? I said by residents. Do you understand the difference?
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 11:50 am • link • report
Who's talking about discriminating based on matriculation. Like I already said, any student who wishes can become a DC resident and thereby be eligible for representation. And they start that process by renouncing their out-of-state residency. I.e., Getting off the voting roles in their former state, changing their drivers license to here, registering their vehicles here, and paying their income tax here in DC as a DC resident. I.e., by doing the necessary things to become a DC resident. The discrimination is by residency and that is perfectly legal AND fair.
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 11:54 am • link • report
Again, I never said that only voters get representation. RESIDENTS get representation. Someone who has residency elsewhere by definition cannot also have residency here. And it is RESIDENCY that determines representation. Please quit throwing out the red herring of talking about voters instead of residents.
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 11:57 am • link • report
Yes, residency determines representation. What you're missing is that the definition of residency used by the Census Bureau has nothing to do with legal residency or voting registration.
The numbers being used in redistricting already take this into account. If a person has been counted in the 2010 Census, then they are a resident and must be accounted for in redistricting. Period.
Your definition of 'resident' is in error. I posted the relevant definition above.
by Alex B. on Sep 15, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report
What you're missing is that the definition of residency used by the Census Bureau has nothing to do with legal residency or voting registration.
The numbers being used in redistricting already take this into account.
I agree with this statement. The numbers being produced are the larger universe of EVERYONE ... have to be dealt with as part of the redistricting process.
'If a person has been counted in the 2010 Census, then they are a resident and must be accounted for in redistricting. '
I don't agree with this latter statement. Being counted in the census doesn't magically confer residency. And that is why during the redistricting process, the cohesion of neighborhood RESIDENTS need to be taken into account because as you yourself said 'Yes, residency determines representation' I.e., That is why places like Georgetown can't go strictly off the larger census population but needs to adjust to give RESIDENTS fairer representation in terms of grouping them together for representation of their shared interests. Non-residents don't come into play in this representation.
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 12:20 pm • link • report
Again, I never said that only voters get representation. RESIDENTS get representation. Someone who has residency elsewhere by definition cannot also have residency here. And it is RESIDENCY that determines representation.
You're right. And Alex B already posted the census definition of residency. And we use the Census to determine population for the purpose of voting districts. And the Census counts the GU students as residents.
But feel free to just ignore nine-tenths of what everyone is saying and carry on!
by MLD on Sep 15, 2011 12:21 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 12:23 pm • link • report
2. You may want representation of DC residents to work in a different way, and you may want to be able to exclude certain people who live in DC from "residency" counts, but you've got a bunch of supreme court case law in your way.
by MLD on Sep 15, 2011 12:32 pm • link • report
Being counted in the census doesn't magically confer residency.
No, it doesn't magically confer legal residency to an individual. As I posted above, the census counts 'usual residency,' which is different from legal residency and from voting residency.
What you keep ignoring is that legal residency is irrelevant for the purposes of redistricting. 'Usual residency' is the kind of residency that matters. If a person has been counted in DC through the 2010 Census, then they are a usual resident of DC - and the various legislative districts for DC must be structured based on that fact.
This is not my opinion of how things should be, this is what the law says.
by Alex B. on Sep 15, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report
Now ... What you say though would lead to situations where someone 'sleeping' here on Census day retains their out-of-state legal residency and never votes here or registers a car here ... BUT is in fact 'represented' by someone they cannot vote and have no real lasting stake in being represent ... Odd situation if that is in fact the law ...
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 4:55 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 4:57 pm • link • report
This was covered in an earlier comment in the thread, but I'll just repeat it.
The Census counts you at your Usual Residence, not the place you happen to be on April 1 of the Census.
So if you live in New York City, but you have to be in Washington every Monday (so you sleep here on Mondays), your "usual residence" is in New York City. You still get counted in New York City, even if you happen to be sleeping in Washington on Census Day.
by Matt Johnson on Sep 15, 2011 5:14 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report
STUDENTS
Boarding school students living away from their parental home while attending boarding school below the college level, including Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding schools -Counted at their parental home rather than at the boarding school.
College students living at their parental home while attending college - Counted at their parental home.
College students living away from their parental home while attending college in the U.S. (living either on-campus or off-campus) - Counted at the on-campus or off-campus residence where they live and sleep most of the time.
College students living away from their parental home while attending college in the U.S. (living either on-campus or off-campus) but staying at their parental home while on break or vacation - Counted at the on-campus or off-campus residence where they live and sleep most of the time.
U.S. college students living outside the U.S. while attending college outside the U.S. - Not counted in the census.
Foreign students living in the U.S. while attending college in the U.S. (living either on-campus or off-campus) - Counted at the on-campus or off-campus residence where they live and sleep most of the time.
Taken from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/resid_rules/resid_rules.html for all the details on residence rules and the Census.
by Kate W on Sep 15, 2011 5:45 pm • link • report
Students are still counted at their universities under the concept if usual residence. In fact, students are specifically defined by the Census as having their "usual residence" at their university if that is where they live most of the year.
Alex B explained this earlier: http://tinyurl.com/ 3w6edvo
by Matt Johnson on Sep 15, 2011 5:48 pm • link • report
The Census Bureau rules also have an impact on political representation, federal funding and demographic statistics for college towns. As with prisoners, a large college presence may inflate a town's political clout in the state legislature. Many billions of dollars in federal funding is guided by census counts based on population totals, so college towns may benefit. The rules have been challenged for these reasons, but court decisions have upheld the Census Bureau's practices."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1525/census-college-students-where-to-count-them
by sillychildren on Sep 15, 2011 6:00 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 15, 2011 11:51 pm • link • report
Add a Comment