Supervisors' redistricting plan gets OK on a 3-2 vote

After two months of lengthy discussions, three public hearings and working with independent third-party advisers to draft a redistricting plan, the Franklin County Board of Supervisors voted by a 3-2 margin on Monday, April 4 to approve a post-2020 Census beat boundaries proposal.

In the end, the two no votes on the proposal came from District 1 Supervisor Ronald Hunt and District 3 Supervisor Mike “Dirt” Hunt.

District 2 Supervisor Henry “Eddie” Stebbins, District 4 Supervisor Pat Larkin and District 5 Supervisor Jimmie “Bodi” Bass voted to approve the plan as presented.

The 35-minute final hearing, held in the main courtroom at the Franklin County Courthouse in Meadville, focused again on the legalities of redistricting and gave residents another opportunity to express their views and concerns.

Attorney Ben Griffith of Oxford, who has helped spearhead the local redistricting effort since February, said the process sought to bring the count of people into alignment by seeking equal population numbers in each district — in line with one person-one vote guidelines.

“One map has been in consideration by the board — in conjunction with several others that were developed — and it had some changes made to it for technical reasons that made complete sense,” Griffin said.

Kate Dorion, a project and data manager for Flo Analytics, reiterated a point she had made during two previous public meetings that local population changes found after the Census necessitated alterations to the county’s five beat boundaries.

“We are going through this process because Franklin County’s population range based on the 2020 Census in light of previously established district lines was almost 20 percent,” Dorion said.

“The law requires those number be under 10 percent when comparing the populations of the largest and smallest districts in the county, and the proposal we’re looking at puts that number at 6.1 percent.”

Dorion pointed to a display map that showed a number of small changes in all districts where residents were shifted between beats to help achieve the more “population balanced” goal in which each beat has generally the same number of people.

She also noted several benchmarks were part of the mandated redistricting effort including requirements that beats be contiguous and in compliance with existing laws including federal Voting Rights Act statutes.

“Other requirements with redistricting prohibit favoring or disfavoring a protected class or political party, and district boundaries should be as compact as possible,” she added.

“We know districts are not going to be perfect squares, but should be as compact as we can get them. Additionally, communities of interest along with existing man-made and geographic boundaries play a role in the process.”
Flo Analytics serves local governments and school districts across the United States and takes a data-driven, impartial approach in spearheading the redistricting initiative.

During the public participation portion of Monday’s meeting, Franklin County resident Juanita Brown questioned if there were discrepancies found with the proposal under consideration — particularly based on population or race — would there be time to address those issues.

Griffin said supervisors started the redistricting process on Feb. 14 with three community hearings and the public was provided an opportunity to present any alternate plans or maps for consideration.

“No one is prevented from bringing in an alternative — even today at this third public hearing — but none has been presented,” he added.

“The board has followed multiple criteria in line with the federal Voting Rights Act and other alternative factors that are in line with traditional redistricting principles, including keeping communities of interest intact, that each district is contiguous and as compact as possible and incumbent supervisors are separated out with no two members being placed in the same district — so they do not have to run against each other to the extent it can be done.”

Griffin said all of the objectives, as set forth under redistricting guidelines, had been met under the proposal up for consideration by the board.

“It would be entirely up to the board as to whether or not it would stop this process and start all over,” he went on to say.

Brown said she was not asking that action to be taken, but wanted to know if any conflicts or concerns found in the proposal could be changed.

“That would be a matter for the board to decide based on an evaluation of facts and information,” Griffin responded. “To my knowledge, there is no alternative plan in front of us.”

At that point in the meeting, Dorion opened a discussion related to the demographics of the county’s beats in the plan that was being considered.

Under the proposal, District 1 would have a Black-African American population of 61.5 percent while the number for this ethnic group in District 3 would sit at 51 percent.
“We were able to draw the line to make sure (District 3) was just over 50 percent (African-American) based on the overall demographic of the whole county,” Dorion said. “This was the best map we could come up with where you have two majority black districts.”

Whites would hold majorities of 68.8 percent in District 2; 81.7 percent in District 4; and 84.8 percent in District 5.

Griffin said there was nothing preventing the board on Monday from holding off on moving forward with a redistricting plan.

“The question comes down to whether or not there is a need for that and if they have an alternative in front of them that needs to be considered,” he added.

“This board has not had any glitches or problems (with this plan) that indicated trouble. The plan the board has in front of them is probably the most responsible and fairest version of redistricting.

“There are probably more perfect versions out there, but the question comes down to whether this is substantially in compliance with state and federal laws.”

Griffin also addressed concerns about the validity of the federal Census data, which he said is presumed to be accurate.

“That is the case unless someone can show that the data is not correct,” he continued.

“There are some challenges that are under consideration in other parts of Mississippi and in other states.

“The question comes down to whether or not there is enough of a variance to get the Census Bureau to change their data. Right now, we don’t have any indication there is a conflict in the Census data as reported.”

With approval of the redistricting plan, Griffin said several behind-the-scenes steps will be necessary to have the proposal fully enacted prior to Jan. 1, 2023:

• Data will be provided to the local circuit clerk and election commissioners to address polling place changes and precinct assignments for residents who will be shifted between beats.

• Information related to the redistricting will be published in the newspaper.

After the vote was taken, an unidentified spectator asked if there were any comments from the board on its 3-2 split decision, but nothing was said publicly from anyone either favoring or opposed to the plan.

Circuit Clerk Warren Walker then read aloud the complete measure adopted by supervisors at the close of the hearing.

After the meeting, another Franklin County resident, Robert Fleming, reiterated concerns he raised during a previous public session on redistricting.

“I understand all the rules that were laid out and I look at the voting population by ethnicity, and my overall concern is with District 3,” Fleming said.

“With the racial make-up, I worry that Franklin County could have only one Black supervisor. My idea was to have two predominately Black districts and two predominately White districts and the fifth district could go either way.”

Fleming said, in his view, such a redistricting plan could provide more of a balance of power among the supervisors.

“Still, my major concern with this plan is that we’re going to lose one of the black supervisors we have now — in District 3 — with 51 percent of the population being Black. It’s not about race, but about representation.”

Fleming, who has been a leader in the local NAACP organization in Franklin County, said he was certain there is an alternative to what was adopted by supervisors on Monday.

He said he would likely confer with state-level NAACP leaders to see what could be developed to address the concerns he and others share.

“Unfortunately, the plan was voted on and approved,” Fleming continued.

“The last time I was here in February, I asked them to look closely at the map they approved, which was better than other maps proposed.

“Still, I don’t believe the map that was adopted is the best solution for Franklin County. I’m only one person, and it’s too early to say if there will be a (legal) challenge to this plan.”