Dubious redistricting scheme lets Placer County supervisors handpick their voters
Placer County’s redistricting process has raised eyebrows from the start. Instead of entrusting this pivotal political power to a nonpartisan, independent board, the Placer County Board of Supervisors delegated it to a county commission with direct conflicts of interest and no prior redistricting experience.
It comes as little surprise that the proposed districts now under consideration appear to be politically influenced and motivated. Despite assurances from county officials that the redistricting process is by the books and community-driven, the changes favoring the county’s Republican strongholds, and therefore likely to keep the party in power, are too numerous to be coincidental.
Namely, in all three maps put forward by the county, the same oddly shaped, precisely-carved-out chunk of western Roseville, which includes new developments along Fiddyment Road, would be moved out of District 1 and into District 2, the supervisorial district encompassing Lincoln.
While it is true that Roseville grew to just under 147,000 people over the past decade, the most significant population growth in the county, the political advantage of the proposed shift is obvious.
Western Roseville is as blue as Placer County gets. Excising a piece of it from District 1 would protect the district’s long-serving conservative supervisor, Bonnie Gore, from a serious Democratic challenge. And it would do so without significantly loosening the GOP’s grip on District 2, whose supervisor, Robert Weygandt, is expected to retire soon.
Thanks to an influx of young families, Roseville has become purple. In the 2020 presidential election, 49.5% of voters in District 1 cast their votes for Donald Trump, only slightly more than the 48.2% that went to Joe Biden. In District 2, 54% of voters supported Trump, a much more comfortable margin over the 43% vote for Biden. Moving an identifiably liberal bloc of District 1 to one of Placer’s more conservative districts all but ensures both remain predominantly red.
According to a blog post by self-described GOP political operative and longtime Placer County resident Aaron Park, strategically drawing a chunk of western Roseville into Lincoln’s district would mean Gore does not have to face supervisorial hopeful Scott Alvord, a Roseville city councilman and one of the few elected Democrats in the county. Park pointed out gleefully that the proposed maps would put Alvord in District 2. “Supervisor Maps Are Out!” he wrote, adding, “All Three Put Scott Alvord in Sup D2 LOL.”
The proposed maps also unnecessarily divide Roseville into three supervisorial districts. To achieve parity, Placer’s supervisorial districts need 81,000 people each. That means Roseville doesn’t have to be divided among more than two supervisors. Cutting the city up into three supervisorial districts is another sign that county officials are gaming the system for political advantage.
The county’s use of an internal commission to oversee redistricting is legal but questionable. Roseville, for example, opted for an Independent Redistricting Commission composed entirely of community members to draw its political maps. Most important to its independence, the Roseville commission has the power to adopt district boundaries without approval by the City Council.
Roseville’s community-driven, apolitical process stands in stark contrast to the county’s. The Placer County Planning Commission, a group of seven men appointed by the Board of Supervisors, is overseeing redistricting. The Planning Commission normally serves as the county’s advisory board on planning, zoning and other land use matters.
Also in contrast to the process in Roseville, the Planning Commission is expected to submit its proposed map to the Board of Supervisors for approval in December. The board doesn’t have to accept the commission’s recommendation. That means the Placer County supervisors, many of whom are running for reelection next year, will effectively be able to draw their own districts.
Asked why the county chose the Planning Commission to oversee the redistricting process instead of an outside, independent group, Assistant County Executive Officer Jane Christenson said the commission’s knowledge of the Brown Act, California’s open public meetings law, would best serve the county given a redistricting timeline shortened by a delayed release of census data.
But the county had 10 years to prepare for this redistricting process, so blaming the decision on a delay of a few weeks doesn’t hold up. Never mind that the Planning Commission, with no prior redistricting experience, had to take time to learn the logistics of an extremely complicated process.
At a recent Planning Commission meeting, members of the public mostly voiced support for four alternative maps submitted by the community.
“Political considerations that benefit or hurt particular individuals must be rejected,” said Wayne Nader, a former member of the Planning Commission. “An inconsistent configuration designed to favor one person rather than the community at large is highly inappropriate. And it’s referred to as gerrymandering.”
Other members of the public raised concerns about a lack of meaningful community input. From a county of nearly 400,000, officials received only 240 community survey responses.
Both Christenson and Planning Commission chair Anders Hauge argued that officials did everything in their power to solicit input. “We certainly covered every nook and cranny of Placer County,” Christenson said.
Now is the most critical time for more Placer County residents to weigh in. The commission will hold another public meeting on Thursday and a public workshop reviewing proposed district boundaries on Nov. 30. In December, it will submit its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, after which the board will choose a map to submit to the state.
The Planning Commission and the elected supervisors must listen to their constituents. While Placer County residents will exercise their power to choose their supervisors next year, the board’s problematic involvement in the redistricting process threatens to allow the supervisors to choose their voters.
This story was originally published October 31, 2021 at 5:00 AM.