2024 New Laws Series, Part 5:
Redistricting Procedural Mandates for Special Districts Added to FAIR MAPS Act
By: Paul Mitchell, President, Redistricting Partners
This past legislative year saw the passage of five redistricting bills by the State Legislature, with three signed into law and two vetoed by the Governor. A key driver of these legislative initiatives was a report by California Common Cause, which evaluated the successes and failures of local municipal redistricting in 2021-2022. This was particularly focused on cities and counties undergoing redistricting for the first time under the state's new FAIR MAPS (Fair And Inclusive Redistricting for Municipal and Political Subdivisions) Act.
The FAIR MAPS Act (FMA) emphasizes transparency and public engagement, and aims to end local gerrymandering for political, incumbent, or other purposes. However, the report found mixed results: some cities and counties excelled in separating their redistricting from political considerations, while others only technically complied with the law, failing to align their process with the reform's intent.
The report also highlighted issues in special districts, noting, "[w]hile some cities and counties disregarded their legal obligations under the FMA, many of the worst abuses this cycle occurred with school district and special district redistricting, which was not subject to the FMA’s transparency, outreach, or line-drawing requirements."
The most important legislation for special districts was AB 764 (Bryan), which strengthened the FAIR MAPS Act of 2019 by extending transparency and reforms to county boards of education, school districts, community college districts, and special districts.
This new law explicitly prohibits counties, county boards of education, cities, school districts, community college districts, and special districts from considering incumbents and their home addresses during redistricting. Additionally, cities, counties, and education districts with populations over 250,000 must share a redistricting public education and outreach plan at least a month before the first meeting.
The bill also mandates that all local jurisdictions follow a ranked list of criteria when drawing boundaries, ensuring that special districts, school districts, and community college districts have election districts that are relatively equal in population, contiguous, maintain communities of interest, have clear and understandable lines, and are compact.
County boards of education, school districts, and community college districts with populations over 250,000 will be required to adopt additional transparent redistricting policies that mirror those of cities and counties in the 2021 redistricting cycle. Key provisions include:
- Posting draft maps seven days before adoption.
- Providing video, audio, or written documentation of public hearings related to redistricting.
- Keeping redistricting materials and information on the agency’s website for at least 10 years.
- Holding at least one public workshop on redistricting and five public hearings (two meetings before and three after the release of draft maps).
- Special districts and small education districts must hold at least one workshop before draft maps and two public hearings after their release.
- Assuming the special district has a website, they must keep redistricting materials and information on their website for at least 10 years.
Other municipal redistricting bills signed by the Governor, SB 314 (Ashby) and AB 34 (Valencia), do not affect special districts but illustrate the state's intention for greater reforms in agencies identified in the California Common Cause report as not fully complying with the FAIR MAPS Act. These bills require Sacramento and Orange Counties, respectively, to use Citizens Redistricting Commissions for all future redistrictings, with 14 local residents and two alternates as members. These positions are not political appointments, further reducing political interference in the redistricting process. Similar laws have been enacted for Fresno, Kern, and Riverside Counties.
However, not all introduced legislation was enacted. Governor Newsom vetoed AB 1248 (Bryan), which would have mandated independent redistricting commissions in cities and counties with over 300,000 residents and education districts with over 500,000 people, and SB 52 (Durazo), which would have required the same for all charter cities with a population of over 2.5 million people, targeting the City of Los Angeles.
With this being the first legislative session after the 2020-2021 redistricting, further bills impacting future redistricting in 2030 are likely to be considered in the coming years.
Despite the new laws being perceived as burdensome by some, it's noteworthy that in the 2020-2021 cycle, each of the special districts we worked with voluntarily mirrored the FAIR MAPS Act in their redistrictings. These processes were successful, leading to better community understanding, fair districts, and public engagement such that special districts were commonly adopting maps based on public submissions.
The legislature has shown an interest in fairer redistricting and, while some may fairly bristle at more directives from Sacramento, special districts have demonstrated their capability for fair redistricting even when not legally obligated.
Communication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice. Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these communications.
Take a look back at previous parts of the 2024 New Laws Series in CSDA eNews for more in-depth overviews of new laws affecting special districts:
#AdvocacyNews
#FeatureNews#Elections#Governance