By DOTTY NIST
The Walton County Redistricting Committee is close to completing its task with one redistricting map selected for recommendation and only one additional meeting scheduled for any necessary “tweaks” to the map before presenting the final map to the county commission and school board for consideration.
The committee held its fifth meeting on Oct. 28 at the South Walton Annex. The meeting featured a good deal of committee conversation and public comment. A fear of “games” being played during the remainder of the redistricting process was a refrain during discussion.
On the agenda for consideration at that meeting were the two maps carrying over from the committee meeting two weeks earlier plus seven additional maps. The maps up for consideration were labeled 11D, 11E, 14C, 14D, 16A, 16B, 16C, 16D and 17B.
Patrick Pilcher, committee chairman, observed that there was a lot of similarity between the maps on the Oct. 28 meeting agenda and that the population numbers on all the maps were “very tight.”
The main goal of the redistricting process is to ensure that county districts are as close to equal in population as practical.
Committee member Gary Shipman suggested “jumping over” to a series of maps labeled 16A, 16B, 16C, and 16D. He explained that the 11 and 14 series maps, plus 16A, had been very similar and had represented successive attempts to address the issue of the Oakwood Hills and Mossy Head communities being split between districts. Shipman noted that the goal of keeping these communities into one district was finally achieved with Map 16B.
Based on this reasoning, Shipman moved to strike all the 11 and 14 series maps plus Map 16A. With the motion seconded, public comment was taken.
While complimentary about the committee and its work, South Walton County resident Barbara Morano voiced a concern that was later echoed in different variations by other speakers. This was about the possibility of either a committee member or someone from the public presenting another map to the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at the same time the committee presented its recommended map to the county commissioners.
Clay Adkinson, acting county attorney and legal counsel to the committee, responded no, that the time for presenting new maps to the BCC and the Walton County School Board “should be in this process, based on the process set forth by those boards.” However he noted that those boards would have the choice to adopt, not adopt, change, or adjust the map.
In additional comments Adkinson noted that, short of the committee acting to cut off map submissions by the public, members of the public would not be prevented from coming in, up to the last committee meeting, with map submissions. He suggested setting a cut-off date for these new map submissions by the public in order to allow time for review and analysis of any such maps before the next meeting, which had been set for Nov. 4.
In other public comment, Jim Bagby questioned why maps that had provided for keeping Freeport and DeFuniak Springs from being split into different districts had been eliminated, or were being proposed to be eliminated, in favor of maps that split up those cities.
Responding to those comments, Committee Vice Chairman Robert Nelson pointed out that equality of populations is the first guiding principle for redistricting, followed by compactness and contiguity of districts, then followed, if those are able to be achieved, by not unreasonably or unnecessarily splitting up existing political communities. He interpreted this as applying more in terms of communities going down all the way to unincorporated communities and the precinct level, than to municipality boundaries.
Committee member Gary Shipman also replied, saying that at the outset he had been one of the people “leading the charge” for not splitting cities between districts. He said that after doing some reading, including on legal challenges to redistricting plans that “it’s about trying to keep, the way I read it, people who have similar interests, or political interests, if you will,” from being split up into separate districts, along with having clearly defined boundaries for districts.
Shipman also noted that the committee had discussed that cities often change boundaries, including through annexation.
Camp Creek Lake resident Bob Brooke asked about population north and south of the bay/Intracoastal Waterway. The response was that the census showed slightly over 44,000 north of the bay/intracoastal, counting the prison population, and a little over 31,000 on the south end.
Brooke joined with other speakers who went on record in favor of people living south of the bay having at least two representatives living in their area and familiar with their interests and concerns, along with clear representation for the concerns of the north end on the part of the representatives for that area. He also spoke in favor of a “swing district” between north and south.
Miramar Beach resident Suzanne Harris was critical of a new map that had surfaced with the Oct. 28 meeting, Map 17B.
Map 17B put District 5 wholly south of the bay and placed District 4 both south of the bay to the west of U.S. 331 and on the north side of the bay, encompassing Freeport and areas to the north and west of the city. The map also extended District 1 as far west as CR-393 south of U.S. 98 and as far west as U.S. 331 north of U.S. 98, resulting in one district totally south of the bay and two other districts, Districts 4 and 1, extending into south Walton County.
Harris urged for Map 17B to be discarded immediately and questioned who had proposed the map. No answer was forthcoming, and Adkinson indicated that maps could be submitted anonymously.
Harris spoke of other maps that she had heard were “going around,” and said she had been told that people were waiting to present them directly to the BCC when the committee presented their recommended map. She urged the committee to vote not to allow this. “I expect not to have any more maps sprung on everybody at the BCC meeting,” she said.
Addressing Harris’s comments, Adkinson said he did not know if any committee member had considered doing what she had discussed. He cautioned any committee member who might be considering doing so/standing up as a member of the public following the committee process, that this would be, in his opinion, in dereliction of that committee member’s duty. “Your obligation:” he emphasized, “submit the maps to the committee.”
“I would hope no one on this committee is planning on doing that,” Shipman commented.
South Walton County resident Fred Tricker was of a different opinion on Map 17B, speaking in favor of this map.
He said he was aware that there had been “a big push” to have two south Walton County districts (located totally south of the bay), “but I don’t think it’s the right thing to do.”
“I think,” he said, “we need to have as much integration between north and south as we can accomplish, that’s practical, because we don’t have a north Walton, we don’t have a south Walton, it’s Walton County.” Tricker also pointed out that district representatives are elected countywide.
“So,” he concluded, “I favor 17B of all the maps that are in here. I think 17B is the one that’s closest to what we need to do.”
Eastern Lake resident Brenda Rees spoke in favor of another map, Map 16C. Along with having the two districts totally located south of the bay, she saw as an advantage the map’s bringing Point Washington back onto a south Walton County commissioner’s seat, “since it is really…one of the most historic communities in Walton County.” Rees emphasized the continuity of interest between Point Washington and other south Walton County communities.
Currently Point Washington is part of District 1, which also includes Freeport, Bruce, Portland, Red Bay, and other communities north of the bay.
After some additional comment, including support for Shipman’s motion to strike all the 11 and 14 series maps plus Map 16A, a committee vote was taken on the motion. It was approved with all aye votes.
Committee discussion subsequently turned briefly to Map 16B and Map 16C, with Committee member Tom Cooper then bringing up Map 17B. He observed that it appeared that Map 17B would put the county commissioners and the school board members for District 4 and District 5 out of their districts. He moved to strike the map for that reason.
A question was raised whether the fact that a map would remove an official or officials from their district(s) would be considered valid as a sole reason or driving force for rejecting the map from a legal standpoint.
There was public comment in opposition to the map by Morano and Bagby, with Bagby calling Map 17B “probably the most gerrymandered or misgerrymandered map that you have in the whole group…”
However, on Adkinson’s advice that the reason Cooper had stated for rejecting the map was “problematic,” Cooper withdrew his motion.
Shipman then moved to strike Map 17B for other reasons, including that in his opinion the map was “poorly drawn in defining the boundaries between the different districts.” In addition he was critical of the map with regard to serving community interests.
“I think everyone has made it clear they want two districts totally south of the bay,” Shipman said, “the population justifies it. We are also supposed to look at compactness of districts. I don’t think this does it. So I move to strike it.”
Other discussion included that for one district Map 17B did not meet the committee goal of having a three-percent or less variance from the optimum population for equality of all five districts.
The motion to strike 17B was approved with all aye votes, and discussion turned to the only two surviving maps, Map 16B and Map 16C.
The essential difference noted between the two maps was that 16C divided District 2 from District 3 along Highways 181-A and 181-C near the eastern county line while 16B kept the property on both sides of those highways in District 2.
Nelson recommended Map 16B over Map 16C for this reason and because of the close ties of residents in the area of these highways on both sides.
Following additional discussion there was a motion by Cooper to discard Map 16C and retain Map 16B.
Speaking in favor of Map 16B was Morano. Harris also spoke in support of 16B, calling the map “definitely the most desirable,” partly because it would not split neighbors into two different districts (along Highways 181-A and 181-C).
Cooper’s motion to discard 16C and retain 16B, the final map remaining, was approved with all aye votes.
“The motion carries, that leaves us with..” Chairman Pilcher concluded, with Adkinson finishing the sentence, “one map, Mr. Chairman 16B.”
Adkinson began a discussion on additional requirements for the committee, including addition of overlays to the map selected by the committee in order to ensure that none of the proposed district lines cut through a voting precinct or through school property.
Shipman voiced concern upon hearing about the requirements regarding the overlays, worrying that it might be necessary for the committee to start redrawing districts when they were trying to finalize their recommendations. He questioned when any redrawing necessitated by the overlays would be accomplished.
Adkinson reminded the members that an additional committee meeting had been advertised for Nov. 4. He told the committee members that staff could have things set up in order to be able to do any needed redrawing “dynamically” during that meeting so that the recommendations could be finalized then.
Adkinson recommended that, in order for staff to accomplish this, that the committee set a noon Nov. 1 deadline for any additional maps to be submitted. He explained that, as with Map 16B, overlays would be provided to the committee together with any new map submittals. He was hopeful of there being no additional maps submitted by the committee. However Adkinson said he would not be surprised to see non-committee maps coming in (from members of the public.)
In additional discussion it was determined that no map had yet been submitted by a member of the public during the current redistricting committee process.
“I think we make it easy.” Shipman said. “I make a motion that we cut off tonight any further maps, and that this map (16B) is submitted, subject to reviewing the overlay and perhaps tweaking this map to comply with any problems that the overlay may show.”
Cooper seconded the motion.
There was discussion on whether cutting off map submittal immediately could present a notice requirement violation. Nelson voiced concerns that there could be such issues with the action. Adkinson advised that this was the committee’s call to make—but warned that there could potentially be a complaint from a member of the public who might have wanted to submit a map and was not able to do so. He emphasized that providing this opportunity would be solely for the purpose of “allowing the utmost amount of public participation.”
There was discussion among the committee pro and con allowing time for the public to submit additional new maps. Committee member Charlie Simmons spoke in favor.
Shipman countered that citizens had been participating in the committee process along with the members all along. He said he had come to the meeting thinking this would be the last committee meeting.
There was discussion that the Nov. 4 meeting, when set, had been described as a tentative meeting to take place in the event the committee had not finished its task by the Oct. 28 meeting.
Shipman said he understood that another meeting was needed for the overlays but added, “What I don’t want is someone to have a chance to play games and suddenly spring something on us at the next meeting.”
“If you didn’t get a map from a citizen, I agree,” said Morano. “It needs to be closed up tonight.” She said this was the first she had heard about overlays despite attending all five committee meetings.
Bagby agreed, saying, “It’s not that the public has not had an opportunity to give you maps.”
“You’ve had all these meetings, everybody’s had this opportunity,” he added.
“I hope you all vote to close this tonight,” Harris concurred, lamenting the lack of participation by the public in the redistricting committee process.
Adkinson asked for clarification on Shipman’s motion to cut off map submittals, and Shipman stated that it would apply both to committee members and members of the public.
The motion was approved with aye votes from all committee members present except Nelson and Simmons, who voted no, resulting in all new map submittals being cut off.
The meeting was adjourned with plans for the committee to convene for its final meeting at 4 p.m. on Nov. 4 at Freeport Commons, in line with the committee’s goal of having redistricting recommendations ready by Nov. 14 in preparation for the county commission and school board to adopt redistricting plans before the end of 2021.
Information on the Redistricting Committee, including maps, is available on the Walton County website, www.co.walton.fl.us.