Redistricting Committee of the Legislative Council Minutes
	August 14, 2000 Minutes provided by the Legislative Service Bureau

MEMBERS PRESENT

MEETING IN BRIEF

Minutes prepared by Richard Johnson, Deputy Director, LSB
Organizational staffing by Diane Bolender, Director, Ed Cook, Legal Counsel, and Gary Rudicil, Senior Computer Systems Analyst

1. Procedural Business.
2. Local Redistricting Efforts.
3. Vendor-Technical Consultant Recommendations.
4. Additional Business.
5. Attachment.
6. Materials Distributed to the Redistricting Committee.

I. Procedural Business.

Call to Order. The second meeting of the Redistricting Committee of the Legislative Council was called to order by Senator JoAnn Johnson, Cochairperson, at 1:04 p.m., Monday, August 14, 2000, in the Reagan Committee Room of the State Capitol, Des Moines, Iowa. Representative Falck was present by video conference call.

Minutes of June 26, 2000. Senator Kibbie moved that the minutes of the meeting of June 26, 2000, be approved as submitted. There being no additions or corrections, the motion was adopted by voice vote.

Next Meeting Date. The Committee agreed to meet during the week of January 8, 2001, the first week of the upcoming legislative session. However, Cochairperson Johnson stated that the Committee would remain on call and could meet prior to Session if necessary.

Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:07 p.m.

II. Local Redistricting Efforts.

Cochairperson Johnson asked the speakers on the agenda to each introduce themselves as they began their remarks to the Committee regarding local redistricting efforts.

1. Secretary of State's Office.
      Mr. Bob Galbraith, the Administrator of Elections for the Secretary of State's Office, described that an informal group of government officials interested in local redistricting and reprecincting has been meeting since May. The group includes representatives of the Secretary of State's Office, the Information Technology Department, the Legislative Service Bureau, the State Data Center in the Library Services Division of the Department of Education, the Iowa State Association of Counties, the Iowa League of Cities, and the Iowa Association of School Boards. He noted that under Iowa statute the 125 largest cities must complete their reprecincting 60 days after the General Assembly enacts new congressional and legislative redistricting plans or by September 1. The 99 counties have 90 days or until October 15 to do the same. However, about one third of the counties need to comply with the cities' deadline due to the counties' use of voting precinct lines in drawing single-member equal population districts for election of county supervisors. Under the statute the Secretary of State must approve all local redistricting and reprecincting or the Secretary of State's Office must itself complete the local redistricting and reprecincting. During the 1991 redistricting process, the Secretary of State's Office finalized plans itself for approximately 11 counties and 17 cities, both large and small. The Secretary of State's Office, under the statute, may request the assistance of the Legislative Service Bureau in performing these tasks, which it has done in the past. Subsequent to the 1991 redistricting process, the Legislative Service Bureau did assist the Secretary of State in drawing single-member equal population districts for the election of supervisors in Winneshiek County. In order to assure that local redistricting and reprecincting are successfully accomplished, it is therefore preferable for all concerned that the Secretary of State's Office provide technical assistance to the local jurisdictions in order to make certain that they comply with the statutory redistricting and reprecincting requirements. The local jurisdictions are very diverse in their use of technology for redistricting purposes. Some are quite sophisticated but many have little or no access to such technology or to persons knowledgeable enough to use such technology in the redistricting process. The Secretary of State's Office received an estimate of $425,000 in 1998 to contract for technical assistance for all the local jurisdictions. The Office believes that such assistance for this year could be secured at a very reduced rate. Mr. Galbraith suggested that perhaps regional technology and support resources could be established to provide access to the local jurisdictions in their redistricting efforts.
2. Iowa League of Cities. Mr. Steve Kendall, City of Oelwein, and Mr. Paul Dekker and Mr. Joe Corey, City of Urbandale, testified on behalf of members of the Iowa League of Cities. The speakers raised the following points in their remarks to the Committee. During the last round of redistricting in 1991 most cities performed the redistricting tasks manually, using Census Bureau data. Some cities have now developed some GIS capabilities and would perform redistricting using this technology if data, technology, and trained personnel become available. Smaller cities will not have GIS capability because of its expense and the training curve for GIS users. Some regional planning centers do have GIS capabilities, such as the community college in Postville, which serves a five-county area. This is also true with councils of governments (COGS), which generally compile economic development and labor statistics. Some COGS have GIS capacity and others do not. In response to a question, Mr. Dekker noted that annexations were not fully taken into account in the final redistricting of 1991, with the result being that cities had to conform their precincts to legislative district boundaries, and that corrections to the Census Bureau counts of perhaps 3 percent were never incorporated by the Census Bureau.
3. Iowa State Association of Counties. Mr. Kent Slothouber, Jasper County Auditor, and Ms. Donna West, Adams County Auditor, testified on behalf of members of the Iowa State Association of Counties. The speakers raised the following points in their remarks to the Committee. The 1991 redistricting and reprecincting at the local level were largely accomplished manually. Many counties still do not have GIS capabilities and therefore it would be advantageous if the counties could work together with the General Assembly, the Secretary of State's Office, and the cities to secure GIS technology for redistricting purposes. However, no issues exist with respect to state-level activities, which impede local redistricting and reprecincting. In addition, no significant inaccuracies in the Census Bureau data from 1991 were recalled. The speakers responded to a question regarding county planning for redistricting, stating that their respective counties had not specifically budgeted for the redistricting duties required to be performed in 2001.
4. Iowa Association of School Boards. Ms. Margaret Buckton, Iowa Association of School Boards, testified on behalf of members of the school boards association. The speaker raised the following points in her remarks to the Committee. Many school districts have even less budget capacity and time and staff resources than do cities and counties. The Association would welcome software and technical assistance to assist school districts in redistricting. In addition, standardization of submissions by school districts to the Secretary of State's Office would be beneficial. Ms. Buckton proposed that if redistricting software packages costing perhaps $15,000-20,000 were made available regionally, both the local political subdivisions and citizens interested in redistricting on the state or local level could access such software. This access would prevent some separate and inefficient contracting by the local political subdivisions with a variety of vendors. One way to accomplish this might be for the General Assembly to include local political subdivisions in its master agreement with its redistricting vendor. Comments by Committee members included a recommendation that all local political subdivisions investigate the possibilities of working with the General Assembly's vendor or other vendors and that regional sites such as community colleges, councils of governments, and area education agencies be considered as redistricting resource centers.

III. Vendor-Technical Consultant Recommendations.

1. Vendor Choice. Mr. Ed Cook, Legal Counsel, Legislative Service Bureau, briefed the Committee on the activities related to the negotiating and entering into of a contract between the Legislative Council and a vendor for Phase 3 of redistricting. Such a contract, in accordance with the action of the Legislative Council in June 2000, must be finally approved by the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Legislative Council, in consultation with the Minority Leaders, after continuing consultation with the members of the Redistricting Committee. Cochairperson Johnson asked for a motion from the Committee with regard to a vendor for Phase 3. Cochairperson Brunkhorst moved that the Redistricting Committee recommend to the Legislative Council Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and the Minority Leaders that Election Data Services, Inc. (EDS, Inc.), located in Washington, D.C., be accepted as the vendor for Phase 3. Senator Kibbie seconded the motion and the motion was approved on a voice vote.
2. Contract Inclusions. The Committee then moved to a discussion and action on inclusion of essential and optional services under the contract with EDS, Inc. Mr. Cook explained the most significant cost savings that have been negotiated with respect to Legislative Service Bureau (LSB) redistricting software (a reduction from $65,220 to $36,470) and with respect to election and registration data preparation (an approximate reduction from $80,000 to $59,416). Mr. Cook briefly explained the five major, proposed optional services under the contract: (1) 1999 population estimates for initial testing and training on the software; (2) multi-race and sampling population data analyses; (3) geocode voter registration database preparation instead of disaggregating precinct-level election data; (4) Internet public access to redistricting software; and (5) on-site technical support. Cochairperson Brunkhorst distributed a one-page spreadsheet proposing that all essential services be recommended for inclusion in the contract. His proposal also recommended including optional services (1), (3), and (5), relating to 1999 population estimates, geocoding voter registration files, and on-site support for two rather than four months. His proposal excluded contracting for optional services (2) and (4), relating to multi-race and sampling population data analyses and Internet public access to redistricting software. The total projected cost under his proposal is estimated at $230,926.68.
      Regarding sampling population data analyses, Mr. Cook stated that not contracting for the optional sampling analyses would not affect Iowa's receipt of both unadjusted and adjusted data from the Census Bureau, if both are made available. The Census Bureau will decide next year which data will be made available, with the data released in March 2001 at the earliest and in April 2001 at the latest. Were such a sampling population data analyses contracted for, the analyses could not be used by the LSB but only by the caucus staffs. Regarding adjustments to the actual counts made by the Census Bureau in 1990, Mr. Cook commented that the total population adjustment for all of Iowa was 13,000, and that a major area of adjustment was related to university students in Johnson and Story counties, remembering that the census count is taken on April 1 and includes persons' residences on that day.
      Regarding racial analyses, Mr. Cook noted that analyses of racial and multiracial characteristics could be quite complex and would include characteristics, such as Hispanic or non-Hispanic, which are not technically considered racial characteristics.
      Regarding the inclusion of one public access computer for use by the public, Ms. Diane Bolender, Director, Legislative Service Bureau, stated that such a public access computer could be located in the Capitol in the Legislative Information Office or in the Law Library. She also commented that the Legislative Council has approved the purchase of additional hardware needed for such public access and for the caucus staffs, which would principally include large monitors and relatively inexpensive color printers. A concern was raised that the public access computer in the Capitol would not allow for local political subdivisions to access redistricting software. The public access computer is intended to be used by the public in accessing congressional and state legislative district redistricting capabilities but is not designed for political subdivisions' use for local redistricting and reprecincting. A suggestion was made that the Secretary of State's Office might be able to assess whether local political subdivisions or regional entities, like councils of governments, community colleges, and area education agencies, possess the hardware necessary to run local redistricting software. This local redistricting software, however, would be different from the software being made available to the public in the Capitol to access congressional and state legislative redistricting capabilities.
      Cochairperson Brunkhorst moved that the Redistricting Committee recommend to the Legislative Council Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and the Minority Leaders that the contract with EDS, Inc. include all essential services and optional services (1), (3), and (5), relating to 1999 population estimates, geocoding voter registration files, and on-site support for two rather than four months, all of which are contained on the one-page spreadsheet distributed by Representative Brunkhorst, with the total projected cost estimated at $230,926.68. The spreadsheet is attached to these minutes. Senator Kibbie seconded Representative Brunkhorst's motion. Representative Falck moved to amend the Brunkhorst motion to include optional service (2), relating to multi-race and sampling population data analyses, at a cost of $25,000. He stated that such analyses could assist the members of the General Assembly with regard to concerns about census undercounting, partly because of issues relating to filling out the Census Bureau's long form. Senator Kibbie seconded Representative Falck's motion. Representative Metcalf noted that such analyses could not be used by the LSB due to the statutory restrictions on the LSB's use of data. Representative Falck's amendment failed on a voice vote. Representative Brunkhorst's original motion was approved on a voice vote, with Representative Falck asking to be recorded as voting "nay."
      Mr. Cook described several contract language issues contained in his August 14, 2000, memorandum to members of the Redistricting Committee. The first issue relates to a contract provision allowing EDS, Inc. to provide software and technical consulting but not political consulting services to other units of state or local government or to wholly nonpartisan, nonprofit or quasi-governmental bodies. The second issue relates to extending the contract with EDS, Inc. beyond September 2001 if necessary. The third issue relates to prohibiting EDS, Inc. from providing litigation assistance to an entity which might bring suit challenging an enacted redistricting plan. Senator Kibbie moved that a recommendation be made that language relating to the first issue be included in the contract. Representative Brunkhorst moved that language relating to issues two and three also be included in the motion. The original motion was so amended and the Committee approved recommending inclusion of language relating to all three issues by a voice vote.

IV. Additional Business.

1. Governor's Role in Redistricting. Senator Kibbie raised the issue of the Governor's involvement in redistricting. He asked the Committee if it was correct that the Governor would be required to sign the legislation containing any redistricting plan for the plan to become law. The Committee deferred to Mr. Cook, who commented that the State Constitution refers to a redistricting plan as having been enacted into law and provides that the Supreme Court must reapportion the state if an apportionment of the state by the General Assembly does not become law by September 15. He noted that Iowa Code chapter 42 also requires the Legislative Service Bureau to submit identical bills embodying any redistricting plans to the Senate and the House of Representatives. He concluded that these constitutional and statutory requirements all imply that the Governor's signature or an override of the Governor's veto is required for a redistricting plan to become law. The members of the Committee asked no further questions and made no further comments regarding the issue.
2. Committee of the Whole. Senator Kibbie suggested that the committee-of-the-whole procedure should be used by the General Assembly to inform members about the redistricting law and process since the majority of current members were not members in 1991 when the last redistricting plan was adopted. Ms. Bolender noted that the committee-of-the-whole procedure was used in the Senate in 1991. Senator Kibbie moved that the Redistricting Committee recommend to the Legislative Council and legislative leadership that the committee-of-the-whole procedure be used in each chamber during the first part of the 2001 Legislative Session to inform the members about the redistricting law and process. Senator Angelo seconded the motion and the motion was approved on a voice vote.
3. Census Bureau Data Delivery to Iowa. Representative Metcalf moved that the Redistricting Committee or legislative leadership write all members of Iowa's congressional delegation, urging them to do whatever they can to facilitate a timely delivery of census data to Iowa. The motion was approved by unanimous consent.
4. Redistricting Timeline Information to Local Political Subdivisions. Senator Kibbie requested that all local political subdivisions and interested associations should be informed of the state redistricting timelines so that the political subdivisions can plan their local redistricting and reprecincting work and adequately budget and provide resources for such work. Ms. Bolender stated that the Legislative Service Bureau could provide this timeline to the political subdivisions and interested associations as requested by Senator Kibbie.
      Regarding the release of data to Iowa by the Census Bureau, Mr. Cook stated that the Census Bureau must report the apportionment of congressional seats among the states, which is solely based on headcounts, to Congress by December 31, 2000. The Census Bureau will deliver the detailed census data to the states in March or April of 2001. This data could contain both the unadjusted and the adjusted numbers, depending on any changes in federal law or changes in policy by the federal administration in office in 2001.
5. Redistricting Plans and Incumbents. Senator Kibbie asked about the redistricting plans submitted by the LSB and whether the plans would refer to incumbents or their addresses. Ms. Bolender answered that the only reference to incumbents would be in the numbering of the Senate districts. Mr. Cook commented that, in this process, the LSB must attempt to maintain the four-year terms of as many Senate members as possible through the designation of odd-numbered or even-numbered Senate districts as those districts carrying either two-year or four-year terms. The redistricting plans submitted by the LSB will have no reference to House member incumbency of any kind. Ms. Bolender noted that the news media would immediately and thoroughly analyze the redistricting plans in terms of member incumbency.

V. Attachment.

The following attachment is included with these minutes:

Chart entitled Redistricting Vendor/Technical Consulting Contract. Not included with web version.

VI. Materials Distributed to the Redistricting Committee.

The following materials were distributed to the members of the Committee prior to or at the meeting and are on file in the Legislative Service Bureau:

1. Memorandum to the Redistricting Committee from Ed Cook, Legislative Service Bureau, dated August 8, 2000. Attached to the memorandum were the minutes from the Redistricting Committee meeting of June 26, 2000, the Report of the Redistricting Committee to the Service Committee of the Legislative Council, which was approved by both the Service Committee and the Legislative Council at their June 27, 2000, meetings, and a memorandum from Diane Bolender, Director, Legislative Service Bureau, previously distributed to the Redistricting Committee, regarding Redistricting Phase 3 Budget Authorization for FY 2001.
2. Memorandum to the Redistricting Committee from Ed Cook, Legislative Service Bureau, regarding Contract Language Issues.

Comments about this site or page? webmaster@legis.iowa.gov

Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.

© 1995 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa

Last update: 04-Dec-2000 12:03 PM
sw