NOTE: The plan author submitted a revision to this submission. See HPUBC0023.
Summary:
- Congressional Redistricting Plan
- 1 District
- Complete: 474,301 unassigned census blocks
- Contiguous: YES, this 1 district is contiguous
- Direct Impacts: Orange, Osceola and Polk counties
- Submitted to the Florida House of Representatives
- Submitted by Emilio Perez (Latino Justice PRLDEF) of Goldenrod, Orange/Seminole counties
Open Plan in MyDistrictBuilder or Another Application:
- KMZ File: Save and Open Plan in MyDistrictBuilder
- Block Assignment File: Save and Open Plan U.S. DOJ format
Statistics:
- PDF File: Open District Summary Population Report
- PDF File: Open District by County – Shares of Population Report
- CSV Spreadsheet File: Open Census & ACS Summary Statistics
- CSV Spreadsheet File: Open Census & ACS Expanded Statistics
Maps:
- PDF File: Open Complete Map
Filed under: Congress - Partial Plans, florida, Orange, osceola, polk, redistricting
Staff note that Emilio Perez and other supporters of this plan presented this plan to the House and Senate redistricting committee in Orlando, Florida on July 27, 2011. To see/hear their comments, visit http://www.floridaredistricting.org/media.aspx.
Gerrymandering at its finest. What happened to the intent of the voters initiative to be compact and to follow city, county and geographical boundaries? Why can’t Osceola County vote for Osceola representation, Orange County for Orange County representation, and Polk county for Polk Representation? Let each county fight it out within their county.
Amendment 6 says “Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.”
Dave, I think you answered your own question when you wrote, “Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.” This district looks like an opportunity district to elect a Hispanic candidate of choice. In the new law, that takes precedence over compactness, although frankly this district is reasonably compact for a minority opportunity district. Also note, what you quoted above is actually the ballot summary. You should quote the exact text of the law, not the ballot summary.