These “Sensible Communities” Redistricting Plans Provide Better Representation on the County Council for Prince George’s Diverse Population

By DW Rowlands and Bradley Heard

September 14, 2021

Proposed “Sensible Communities” Redistricting Plan Alternative #1

for the Prince George's County Council.

Created with the Dave’s Redistricting web tool by Bradley Heard.

This article is Part 2 of a two-part series to help demystify the County Council redistricting process in Prince George’s County and explain the impact it can have on our lives. A version of this series appeared on Greater Greater Washington.

On September 1, the Prince George’s County Redistricting Commission submitted its proposed 2021 redistricting plan for the County Council. The council will hold a public hearing later this month to determine whether to allow this plan to take effect, or whether to enact its own plan. The Council must make its decision by November 30.

In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the Redistricting Commission’s proposed plan and described how it disadvantages the lower-income and urbanized residents of the county who live inside the Beltway. We also showed how the commission failed to make a good-faith effort to equalize the population across the nine districts.

In this second part of the series, we discuss two potential alternatives that the County Council could consider: the “Sensible Communities” redistricting proposals prepared by citizen activist and Prince George’s Urbanist publisher Bradley Heard.

Alternative #1: Compact, contiguous districts that fairly represent urban and lower-income inner-Beltway communities

Bradley’s first proposed alternative, shown below, is based on a different set of criteria than those the commission adopted:

• The sum of the largest and smallest districts’ deviations from an ideal district (i.e., the “maximum population deviation”) must be less than 3.5% — a significantly stricter criterion than that adopted by the commission.
• All districts must be compact and contiguous. (Also required by the commission and the county charter.)
• Precincts should not be split between districts. (Also required by the commission.)
• Municipalities should not be split into multiple districts, and splits of census-designated places into multiple districts should be minimized.
• The half-mile walksheds of the Metro stations along any of the county’s four Metro line segments should not be split into multiple districts.
• Incumbents eligible for reelection should not be pitted against each other in a single district. (Not explicitly required by the commission, but their emphasis on a least-change map ensured it.)
• The plan should not result in the denial or abridgement of the rights of any racial or language minority group to participate in the political process. (As required by the federal Voting Rights Act.)
  

Sensible Communities Redistricting Map Alternative #1,
created with the Dave’s Redistricting web tool by Bradley Heard.

(Download this KMZ file to view this map on Google Earth or Google Maps)

Bradley’s Alternative #1 plan divides the area inside the Beltway and some areas just outside it into five districts. Bradley’s proposed District 2 is very similar to the commission’s proposed District 2, and he divides the rest of the northern area inside the Beltway into District 3 and District 4. The northern Green Line corridor and the county’s most urban areas, including nearly all of its former streetcar suburbs, are divided between districts 2 and 3, while the Orange Line corridor, Lanham-Seabrook, and Glenarden are in District 5.

The Alternative #1 plan divides the central and southern portions of the county inside the Beltway almost entirely between District 6 (containing the Blue Line corridor, including the area around Largo) and District 7 (containing the southern Green Line corridor and Joint Base Andrews), except for the town of Forest Heights, which is contained in the northern tip of District 8.

The lower-income communities in the central and southern portions of the county inside the Beltway make up a majority of two districts in Bradley’s plan — districts 6 and 7 — instead of just one district, as they do under the commission’s plan. In addition, District 5 would  represent a lower-income area than it does today, providing more representation on the council for the county’s low-income communities.

The proposed districts in the Sensible Communities Alternative #1 plan also provide better representation for the denser parts of the county inside the Beltway. All five of the districts with substantial areas inside the Beltway have median population densities above the county’s median value of 4,000 residents per square mile: 11,000 and 8,000 residents per square mile, respectively, for districts 2 and 3 in the northern portion of the county, and 5,000 to 5,500 residents per square mile for the three central/southern districts.

Furthermore, Bradley’s proposed districts are generally more compact than those proposed by the Redistricting Commission. Also, because his inner-Beltway districts largely follow Metro corridors, they represent areas that have related public transportation and urban planning concerns. Being linked by Metro would also make it easier for transit-dependent residents to attend events hosted by councilmembers in their district.

Alternative #2: A majority-Hispanic district, but with split municipalities and CDPs

One issue that Bradley’s Alternative #1 map shares with the commission’s plan is the absence of a majority-Hispanic district. The district with the largest Hispanic population, District 2, has a voting-age population that is 49.5% Hispanic. Bradley’s second proposal, shown below, adjusts district boundaries, especially in the northern portion of the county, to allow District 2 to include nearly all of the county’s majority-Hispanic areas, giving it a voting-age population that is 54.5% Hispanic.

Sensible Communities Redistricting Map Alternative #2,
created with the Dave’s Redistricting web tool by Bradley Heard.

(Download this KMZ file to view this map on Google Earth or Google Maps)

Unfortunately, achieving this majority-Hispanic district requires breaking a number of municipalities into multiple districts, and increasing the number of splits of census-designated places. It also produces substantially less-compact districts than the first alternative. Whether these trade-offs are worthwhile is an open question, but both of these “Sensible Communities” alternative maps have substantial benefits compared to the map being proposed by the redistricting commission.

Both Alternatives Comport With “One Person, One Vote”

Unlike the Redistricting Commission’s proposed 2021 plan and the County Council’s current 2011 plan, both of Bradley’s Sensible Communities proposals make a good-faith effort to create districts with as nearly equal population as is practicable, in accordance with the mandates of the U.S. constitution and the county charter. 

The 2011 redistricting plan has a maximum population deviation of 7.30%, and the redistricting commission’s proposed 2021 redistricting plan has a maximum population deviation of 6.96%. By contrast, the Sensible Communities Alternative #1 plan has a maximum population deviation of 1.44%, and the Alternative #2 plan has a maximum population deviation of 1.36%.

Bradley’s two citizen-drawn County Council redistricting plans demonstrate that it was entirely possible for the Redistricting Commission and the County Council to have achieved dramatic reductions in population deviation in the current 2011 plan and the proposed 2021 plan, while still observing traditional redistricting principles. That they did not do so is strong evidence that other illegitimate or discriminatory factors were likely motivating their drawing of district lines.

Show your support for Sensible Communities

The County Council has tentatively scheduled the public hearing on the redistricting commission’s plan to occur on Tuesday, September 28. There will presumably be an opportunity for the public to submit oral or written testimony in connection with that hearing. However, you do not need to (and should not) wait until the public hearing to make your wishes known to the council. The earlier you can give your input, the more likely it is that you can actually have an impact on the process. 

The first thing you can do right now is to complete the feedback form on Bradley’s Sensible Communities page to let him know which plan(s) you support and to offer any further comments. He will be compiling a list of supporters and submitting it to the council. 

The second thing you can do, if you’re a Prince George’s County resident, is to write to the councilmember for your district and the two at-large councilmembers and urge them to support the Sensible Communities plans. 

Finally, please share your thoughts below in the comments, and share these posts with your friends to increase public awareness of this important once-a-decade task. 

Ultimately, it’s up to all of us to help make our democracy better.

Note: This article was modified to switch the labeling of districts 4 and 5 in the text and the graphics, so that District 4 relates to the Bowie district, as it does under the 2011 plan. 

Proposed Prince George’s County Council Redistricting Plan Disadvantages Lower Income and Inner-Beltway Residents

By DW Rowlands and Bradley Heard

September 14, 2021

Members of the Prince George's County Council.
Image by Prince George’s County.

This article is Part 1 of a two-part series to help demystify the County Council redistricting process in Prince George’s County and explain the impact it can have on our lives. A version of this series appeared on Greater Greater Washington.

On September 1, the Prince George’s County Redistricting Commission submitted its map of proposed County Council districts based on 2020 census results to the County Council. Unfortunately, the proposed redistricting plan replicates serious flaws in the current County Council district map that harm lower-income and urban inner-Beltway communities and that increase the political power of the wealthiest, least-dense, and least-urban parts of the county.

As two Prince George’s County residents from north and central/south county with a keen interest in the redistricting process, we thought it would be helpful to do a series of articles that helps clarify and demystify the process; explain the impact it can have on our lives; and suggest viable alternatives. 

What is Redistricting?

Redistricting is the process of redrawing legislative district lines. It takes place every 10 years, following the national census, at the federal, state, and local level. Each jurisdiction has its own unique rules and processes. (For a deeper dive on redistricting, check out the All About Redistricting website maintained by the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.) 

The way that district lines are drawn can determine who is eligible to run for office, whether certain neighborhoods or community interests will be adequately represented, and whether some Black, Hispanic, and low-income communities will have a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. 

Maryland’s statewide redistricting has been the subject of a great deal of media and academic attention, largely because of the way state lawmakers have historically drawn heavily gerrymandered congressional districts to ensure that seven of Maryland’s eight US House seats are likely to favor Democratic, rather than Republican, candidates. By contrast, very little attention is being paid to the ways in which county and municipal legislative districts are being drawn in Maryland. 

The redistricting process in Prince George’s County

As required by the county charter, the County Council must hold a public hearing on the redistricting commission’s proposed plan between September 16 and October 1 (i.e., within 15-30 days of receiving the plan). Then, it has until November 30 to decide whether to allow the commission’s plan to become law, or to draw its own plan.

The county charter requires that council districts be “compact, contiguous, and equal in population.” However, the redistricting commission decided early on that it would be guided by one primary goal: “least change”  — i.e., making only the minimum changes necessary to ensure that the population deviation among the existing council districts does not rise to the level where they would be legally presumed to be in violation of the “one person, one vote” principles inherent in the US Constitution. 

In the end, the redistricting commission elected to retain the 2011 redistricting plan, with the exception of five precincts that it moved to reduce population disparities among the districts. Specifically, two precincts in Adelphi were moved from District 1 to District 2; one precinct in Glenn Dale was moved from District 3 to District 4; and two precincts in District Heights were moved from District 6 to District 7.

The redistricting commission’s proposed 2021 county council districts, based on 2020 census data. 
Map drawn by D.W. Rowlands using the Dave’s Redistricting web tool.

Unfortunately, the redistricting commission’s “least change” proposal replicates the problems with the current County Council districts: several districts are quite oddly shaped, and nearby communities that share common interests are not particularly well-represented. Additionally, as discussed below, the proposed 2021 County Council redistricting plan dilutes the voting strength of lower income and urban communities inside the Beltway and fails to provide equally populated council districts as required by the county charter.

The redistricting commission’s proposed 2021 districts disadvantage lower-income populations

Prince George’s County is incredibly diverse, with both some of the Washington, DC region’s lowest-income census tracts inside the Beltway and some of the nation’s highest-income majority-Black census tracts outside the Beltway. Since the 2020 census redistricting data that was released earlier this month does not include income data, we approximated each of the proposed districts with 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate data.

The central and southern portions of inner-Beltway Prince George’s County (south of US Route 50) are divided into four districts: Districts 5, 6, 7, and 8, although this area has a population of roughly 215,000 residents — enough to make two ideally-sized districts of 107,500 residents each. The median resident of this area lives in a block group with a median household income of $65,000 per year — well below the county’s median household income of $85,000 and only 63% of the DC metro area’s median household income of $103,750.

Despite the fact that this is an area of concentrated low incomes, only one of the four districts that cover this area — District 7 — has a median block group with a household income below $75,000 per year, while two — District 6 and District 8 — have median block groups with household incomes well above the $85,000 median household income for the county.

This type of blunting of lower-income inner-Beltway populations can be highly problematic, because it can reduce the voice, influence, and perspective of that demographic on the council, which can skew legislative decision-making in a way that does not represent the interests of the whole county.

The proposed districts are also bad for urbanism

The residents living inside the Beltway comprise about 43% of the county’s population. That is equivalent to almost four ideal districts of 107,500 residents. However, the Redistricting Commission’s proposed plan divides this area into eight districts. (Only District 9 has no extension within the Beltway.) This grouping of districts is bad for urbanism and public transportation, because it does not reflect the true densities of the county’s inner-Beltway urban core.

The median resident inside the Beltway lives in a block group with a density of 7,500 residents per square mile; yet only one inner-Beltway district, District 2, reflects a population with a median resident density of 7,500 or higher. In fact, only three of the county’s nine districts — districts 2, 3 and 7 — have median residents living at population densities higher than the county median population density of 4,000 residents per square mile.

This “cracking” of high-density areas is particularly notable in the lower-income areas inside the Beltway in Districts 5, 6, 7, and 8, as discussed above. The median resident of these four districts inside the Beltway lives in a block group with a density of 6,000 residents per square mile. Only District 7, with its median density of 7,000 residents per square mile, has a median density higher than the county median of 4,000 residents per square mile.

Likewise, only 45% of central and southern county inner-Beltway residents live in single-family detached housing; yet only one of the four districts — again, District 7 (encompassing Capitol Heights, District Heights, Seat Pleasant, Suitland, and surrounding communities)  — has a clear majority of residents not living in single-family detached housing.

The northern portion of the county inside the Beltway has a similar, albeit less severe issue with density cracking. While District 2, which is made up of some of the most-urban parts of the county, has a median density of 11,000 residents per square mile, the other three northern districts that extend inside the Beltway — districts 1, 3, and 4 (encompassing Laurel, Bowie, Hyattsville, College Park, Greenbelt, and surrounding areas) — have median densities of 4,000, 6,500, and 3,000 residents per square mile, respectively. However, the portions of these three districts inside the Beltway, plus the outside-the-Beltway portion of the city of Greenbelt (all of which is in District 4), have the population of an ideal-sized district and a median population density of 8,000 residents per square mile

If the portion of the county inside the Beltway were divided into four more-compact districts instead of the eight districts it is split among now, it is likely that all four seats would represent areas with median densities of at least 6,000 residents per square mile, and that the two northern districts would have median densities of at least 8,000 residents per square mile: a much stronger voice for density and transit than we have today.

The 2021 plan does not equalize population among the districts

The primary purpose of redistricting after every decennial census is to ensure that legislative districts at the federal, state, and local level all comport with the “one person, one vote” requirements of the US Constitution. That principle requires that districts be equally sized, so that no one person’s voting strength is greater than anyone else’s.

To figure out what the “ideal district population” is, one takes the total population of the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recent census, and divides it by the number of districts in the legislative body. So, for the Prince George’s County Council, based on the county’s 2020 total population of 967,201, the ideal population for each of the nine council districts is 107,467 people.

Of course, it is impossible to achieve mathematical precision when drawing districts. Therefore, the Supreme Court clarified in the 1964 case Reynolds v. Sims that lawmakers must “make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts…as nearly of equal population as is practicable.” For congressional districts, the sum of the numeric deviation of the smallest and largest districts (i.e., the “maximum population deviation”) typically has to be under one percent.

However, courts allow more flexibility in drawing state and local districts. Maximum population deviations over 10% are presumptively unconstitutional, but if the maximum deviation is below 10%, the person challenging the plan must show that illegal, discriminatory, or illegitimate factors caused a greater-than-necessary deviation.

The Redistricting Commission’s proposed 2021 plan has a maximum population deviation of 6.96%. That is because they were working from a “least change” perspective in modifying the 2011 plan, which itself had a maximum population deviation of 7.30%. But even the commission’s hired consultant, Stanford Law professor Nate Persily, conceded that a “least change” plan easily could have been drawn with maximum population deviations well under 2% without splitting precincts.

In our next article, we will review a couple of alternative redistricting proposals for the Prince George’s County Council that provide better representation for the lower-income and more densely populated inner-Beltway portion of the county, and that provide more compact, contiguous, and equally populated districts, in keeping with the US Constitution and the Prince George’s County Charter.