Antioch Council advances new Map 521, modified Map A for redistricting, Common Cause warns of possible lawsuit by residents
Redistricting Map 521
Torres-Walker’s suggested changes moves Ogorchock from District 3 to 4
By Allen D. Payton
During their special meeting study session on redistricting on Tuesday night, Feb. 22, 2022, the Antioch City Council, after voting against Map 91 again, and new Map 521, they chose to move that map forward along with a modified Map A, for consideration at another study session on March 8. A representative of Common Cause told the council the city could face a lawsuit from anyone in a neighborhood that is divided and warned them not do so in their final map choice.
Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker asked the consultants of Q2 Data and Research to make modifications to Map A. Torres-Walker’s changes moves the neighborhood in which District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock lives, into District 4.
Had Map 91 been adopted, it would have resulted in the neighborhood in which District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson lives being moved into District 3, which means she could not run for re-election, in the November election, or would have had to move in order to live within the new District 4 boundaries.
The council reviewed all the maps, including three drawn by the consultants of Q2 and 12 submitted by members of the public. The 12 included three new submissions since the council’s Feb. 8 meeting at which they rejected both Maps B and 91, and the majority returned to Map A which four of the council members had previously rejected.
“We have a total of 15 maps, now,” said consultant Karin Mac Donald, owner and senior researcher of Q2. “We hope, tonight you will choose a final map that you can vote on at the meeting on March 7.”
City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asked MacDonald to review all of the maps for the council and public, which Jane Hood of Q2 did.
Screenshot of Antioch City Council Agendas and Minutes page on City website as of Feb. 22, 2022, showing none of the minutes for this year’s council meetings have been posted.
Public Comments Again Support Map 91
Antioch resident Mark Jordan was the first to speak during public comments chastising City Clerk Ellie Householder for not having the minutes of this year’s council meetings on the city’s website, just like was the problem, last year. (See related article)
“First, it would be helpful if the City Clerk would post the minutes on the City website,” he said.
“On the 25th of January, you voted on two final maps. On the mayor’s Facebook page he said there were two map finalists. Then the mayor, on his own volition, decided to start over again. That’s the very definition of authoritarianism. It’s not democratic. It’s not what the 115,000 people of Antioch want.”
“The law was changed in 2019. AB849 was passed,” Jordan continued. “There were very specific requirements that were changed. Anyone can petition the Superior Court. Currently, you’re violating your own rules by backing up” and reconsidering Map A.
Sandy Hartrick spoke against Map A because it was the only option the council majority said they would consider and it “clearly divides a community of interest.”
William Chapman spoke next, saying, “My concern is in the continuity of the areas. I have worked in the past with campaigns. We need boundaries that are definable…that keep people together. The map needs to have districts that are bound by normal conditions, major roads. The communities should stay together as communities…as they vote.”
“A resident for going on 37 years in Antioch. I know it pretty well,” said Mary Chapman. “The only comment I have, tonight is to see the final map show all the council members…and not favor a particular political candidate.”
“The redistricting…as mandated by the law should follow state law. So, I read AB849,” said Tom Hartrick. “The map shouldn’t favor political parties or candidates. The map moved forward at the last meeting doesn’t follow that. It appears the public is speaking…if we are ignored the council is opening us up to a lawsuit under the FAIR MAPS Act.”
Lindsey Amezcua also spoke about the FAIR MAPS Act and the requirement on keeping neighborhoods and communities of interest together.
“Most of the maps violate state law,” she said. “There are three maps left that follow state law. It’s fiscally reckless to adopt any map that doesn’t follow state law.”
Alicia Taylor said, “I like Map 21 and not 91. But I must stick with my original and support 91….it follows major roads.”
Former Antioch Mayor and current School Board Trustee Mary Rocha said, “I thought you had made a decision. I don’t understand. I want to speak on Map 91. This map does not divide any communities of interest. It follows the Voting Rights Act. I’m still in support of Map 91.”
On Zoom, Harry Thurston, who spoke in favor of Map B during last meeting, this time spoke in favor of Draft Map A. It “most closely represents the demographics in the city,” he said.
Francisco Torres from ACE organization, who also supported Map B, during the last meeting, also spoke in favor of Map A.
Another speaker spoke in favor of Map A. “There’s five different criteria. The key word at the beginning is ‘to the extent practical’. I believe Map A does the best job. Nothing’s going to be perfect,” she said. “Map A is the most perfect of all the other ones. It was made by the professional contractors. Those who are saying it’s against the law are saying the professionals don’t know what they’re doing.”
Gretchen Egen, a member of the Martinez Independent Redistricting Commission said, “I am in favor of Map 91. Map A completely does not follow the criteria. Map 91 follows Lone Tree Way. I sat in the chambers during the lawsuit against Martinez. The only reason we lost was the Assembly bill passed in October 2019 had not yet passed.”
She said the council will be sued if they choose Map A.
“Your demographers don’t live there. But they said, ‘we don’t know your city,” she continued. “I implore you to listen
Dave asked the council “to adopt Map 91. It does not violate state law and is in the best interests of the city’s residents.”
Kaelen Perrochet, regional with California Common Cause, said, “We’d like to disabuse that the requirements of the FAIR MAPS Act are parameters, as Mayor Thorpe said at a previous council meeting. Partisan gerrymandering is illegal under state law. The mandate is to preserve the communities of interest. If the council does not…anyone in your city will have standing to sue. California Common Cause urges the city council to prioritize respecting…preserving communities of interest.”
Phillip Mobina said, “I want to vote for Map 91, the non-gerrymandered map. It’s clearly not gerrymandered to keep council members in their seats, so they don’t have to move.”
Antioch Council redistricting Modified Draft Map A changed during the council meeting on Feb. 22, 2022. Area in red circle modified by Mayor Thorpe. Area in blue circle modified by Councilwoman Torres-Walker.
Council Discussion, Two Make Modifications to Map A
Mayor Lamar Thorpe said, “we have until April to get this done. This made-up stuff of gerrymandering is nonsense. To question people’s motives is wrong. Members of the public can share their thoughts.”
“If you look at the school district’s map, it divides communities of interest a lot more than we’re doing,” he added.
However, the FAIR MAPS Act does not apply to redistricting of school or special district boundaries.
District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock then made a motion to adopt Map 91 and Mayor Pro Tem and District 4 Councilman Mike Barbanica seconded the motion.
The motion failed 2-3 with Thorpe, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting no.
Torres-Walker then brought back up Map A.
“I support this map and I want to have a discussion about this,” she said.
The only concern I have about this, and I’ve had this concern for some time, and that’s the area south of James Donlon. I have had a concern that this portion of town now be in District 2. I’d like to look at the mapping tool…and see what that looks like.”
Consultant Jane Hood of Q2 then moved the Census Tracts south of James Donlon Blvd. from Districts 4 to 2, as in Maps 58, 91, 503, 512, 516 and 521.
Then Torres-Walker asked to keep using the mapping tool. She asked the consultant to move another section from Districts 3 to 4.
Thorpe then asked to move a section from Districts 2 to 3, using Garrow Drive instead of Lone Tree Way as the boundary.
“I’d like to look at 58, please because I believe that accomplishes that,” Barbanica then stated.
Thorpe then had Hood return to the area south of James Donlon Blvd. and divide the Mesa Ridge neighborhood between Districts 2 and 4.
“Silverado would be the street that would be the dividing line,” Thorpe said. “We can come back to this one.”
Barbanica then asked to look at 516 and 521. “Is there a difference between the two?”
“We have 512, 516 and 521. I said they are the exact,” said Hood. “They were slightly different and submitted by two different individuals.”
Barbanica then made a motion to adopt Map 521 and Ogorchock seconded the motion.
The motion would
“You can’t make that motion
“You can make a motion if that’s the final map he wants to select,” said Attorney Smith.
The motion failed 2-3 on the same split.
“I like what I’m seeing, here. I don’t mind bringing it back,” Thorpe then said. “We can bring back the one we’re working on.”
“I would like to bring the modified Map A, back,” Torres-Walker said.
“I think it’s still a working draft,” Thorpe responded.
Hood then showed the modified Map A.
“I would like to see that,” Torres-Walker said.
Both maps will be brought back at another study session on redistricting on March 8.
the attachments to this post:
ACC Draft-Map-Modified-A 022222 marked
ACC Draft-Map-Modified-A 022222
Antioch Council Agendas & Minutes 2022
