Aurora special City Council adopts final ward map

Share this article:

By Jason Crane

The Aurora City Council held a special meeting Monday, Aug. 29, to adopt a final ward map.

During the City Council Meeting Tuesday, Aug. 23, the Aurora City Council deliberated on several options for potential new ward maps and voted unanimously to pass the redistricting ordinance by selecting proposed Map 2A, with an amendment that shifted several census blocks from Ward 3 to Ward 9.

However, as the consultant, Frank Calabrese, was finalizing the analytics for the final map the following day, he discovered that the amendment caused the total population of Ward 3 to fall below the permissible threshold level.

City government of Aurora documents show in order to re-balance the map, the census blocks must remain in Ward 3, as denoted in the original Map 2A.

To finalize the redistricting process, the City Council voted to adopt Map 2A, as initially introduced and which has been available for public review since August 14 on the City’s website at www.aurora-il.org/ProposedWardMaps.

The redistricting of the City’s wards are a result of the 2020 Census numbers that showed Aurora had a loss of more than 17,000 residents, approximately 10% of the population. City officials previously said there are plans for a special census.

The purpose is to comply with Constitutional and statutory requirements regarding population equity among the City’s 10 wards.

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has the responsibility for enforcement of provisions of the Voting Rights Act that seek to ensure that redistricting plans do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a protected language minority group.

• Three individuals used their voices for up to three minutes each:

Aurora resident Casildo (Casey) Cuevas criticized the city of Aurora administration for lack of communication, not providing information in a timely manner.

Curtis Wilson thanks the Aurora City Council for its work on the ward redistricting. City of Aurora government Facebook video screenshot

“To all the black people on the City Council. You know how it feels to be oppressed, denied to vote as a majority.

“Scheketa (7th Ward alderwoman Scheketa Hart-Burns), thanks to MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), you now have a majority black ward. You didn’t have that before.

“Do you not care about the Latinos? I guess not, because they were here complaining a couple of meetings ago about that.

“My own ward alderman, (Carl) Franco, never returned an E-mail. Thank you! You do not represent me either!

“Most of you are sure a recount is going to happen and we’re going to be back here in two years. It’s going to happen again, but guess what, you’re probably going to vote the same way, again.

“But you’re so sure of the recount, just like you were sure of our mayor being the next governor. That didn’t turn out too well, did it?

“This Council needs to brush up on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

“We’re (Latinos) going from two wards (majority) to one! If that’s not discrimination, I don’t know what is!”

• Aurora resident Sandi Schmitt criticized the process of redistricting the City’s wards. “Quite frankly, I think it has been a disaster.

“I realize that it’s complicated and frustrating. If you all are frustrated, just think how we feel as the community when we haven’t been able to get information on the website.

“There’s a map that’s hard to decipher with, not-easily accessed data, percentages.

“I ended up calling the City mayor’s office, talked to his secretary and she took like 15 minutes to walk me through and to actually figure out how to read the maps and where the data was actually at.

“Much of this frustration and last-minute delays could have been avoided had you involved the people earlier on, say even in May, as to what was happening.”

• Aurora resident Curtis Wilson defended the City Council expressing disappointment in some of the nasty comments made on social media. He referred to a previous court case in the United States District Court of Appeals, Gonzales vs. the city of Aurora in 2006 and again in 2008, that failed to create a genuine issue for trial (click here for more information).

“As I look over you guys (motioning toward the City Council), this is a reflection of America. This is an all-American city. You guys look like the United Nations of the Midwest. This is a great representation.

“I just want to say thank you! Keep up the good work!”

Here is the link to a video of the special City Council meeting:

https://fb.watch/ffg1ce5kog/

Here is some background information provided by the city government of Aurora:
Following the City’s 1976 abandonment of the commission form of government and a 1977 referendum providing for the election of two alderpersons at large, the City has been divided into as few as six, and as many as ten, wards, each electing one alderperson. Regardless of the number of wards, the Council has been required to review the population of its wards following each decennial census to determine whether are substantially equal. In general, redistricting is only necessary if there is no more than a 10% variance between the populations of all of the wards.

In addition to reflecting an unprecedented loss of population citywide, the 2020 Census revealed that several wards greatly exceeded the allowable 10% variation. While the City has reason to believe that the Census undercounted a significant portion of the City’s population (particularly in its near east side), the City Council is obligated to draw its maps based on the Census count pending any special census or correction.

The Law Department, through Special Counsel, Ross Secler of Odelson, Sterk, Murphey, Frazier and McGrath, Ltd., retained Frank Calabrese to assist the City Council in the redistricting process. In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, alderpersons met with the redistricting team in small groups to discuss what adjustments were needed to address population changes. Additionally, the GIS Division made it possible for each alderperson to see the population of each Census block, block group, and tract so that they could better understand how the addition or subtraction of territory affected the overall population of their wards. Alderpersons had full access to the redistricting team and were invited to offer suggestions and provide information as to communities of interest or other considerations that would be helpful in developing a concept map.

The collaborative process described above began in May and continued through June. Beginning in July, the Rules, Administration, and Procedures (RAP) Committee began considering two similar map proposals, entitled “Plan 1A” and “Plan 1B.” The two maps, developed by Mr. Calabrese represented a broad consensus among the alderpersons, but reflected different boundaries between Wards 1, 8 and 10.

Following two special RAP Committee meetings convened for the purpose of receiving input from both alderpersons and the public on the two concepts, as well as after receiving numerous e-mail comments, Mr. Calabrese developed map concept “Plan 2A,” which combined aspects of the prior two concepts and made other changes that reflected input from the public and the committee. On August 12, the redistricting team met with representatives of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (“MALDEF”) to discuss the redistricting proposal(s) and any concerns or questions they or other civic organizations may have.

Following its meeting with the redistricting team, MALDEF submitted a proposed redistricting plan that increased the number of wards where Latinos represent a majority of the voting age population of US Citizens (CVAP) to three. The redistricting team designated MALDEF’s proposal as “2B.” Mr. Calabrese developed two additional concepts, designated 2C and 2Ds, which increased the number of wards with majority Latino CVAP populations to three and two, respectively.

During Its meeting of August 16, the RAP Committee considered and deliberated upon all four maps, and ultimately decided to send all four maps to the Committee of the Whole (COW) for its consideration. Despite sending all four proposals to the COW, the Committee did express reservations about the significant changes in traditional ward boundaries required in Proposals 2B and 2C which disrupted established communities. The Committee also received additional public input on the redistricting process.

During its meeting later on August 16, the COW considered all four proposals and ultimately decided to advance both maps 2A and 2D to the August 23 City Council meeting as unfinished business. The COW set aside proposals 2B and 2C for essentially the same reasons the RAP Committee had discussed: both concepts radically changed long-established ward boundaries and divided several of the City’s neighborhoods and communities.

[August 25, 2022 Update]
Shortly before the City Council’s August 23, 2022, Mr. Calabrese presented the Council with three additional map proposals: 3A, 3B, and 3C (collectively the “3-Series.”) Each of the 3-Series maps represented a modification of Map 2D. Map 3A presented relatively minor changes to Map 2D, while Maps 3B and 3C reconfigured Wards 4 and 6 to attempt to create an additional ward where Latinos comprised either a majority of the citizen voting aged population or 60% of the overall voting age population. Both configurations involved moving the Aurora University neighborhood out of Ward 4 and into Ward 6 and moving Ward 4 farther north into the downtown areas.

The City Council deliberated on proposals 2A, 2D, 3A, 3B, and 3C for nearly two hours. The Council expressed concerns over the manner in which Maps 3B and 3C changed the traditional character of Wards 4 and 6. Alderman Llamas similarly expressed concern that all of the 3-Series Maps and Map 2D completely divided a traditional and long-established Latino community in the Pigeon Hill neighborhood and radically reconfigured Ward 1.

Eventually, the City Council focused its deliberations on Map 2A. During these deliberations, the Council amended Map 2A by moving a small portion of Ward 3 in Kendall County into Ward 9 with the goal of slightly improving Ward 3’s reported Latino population numbers. Before unanimously approving Map 2A as amended, the Council declined to further adjust the map to move an unpopulated parcel from Ward 8 to Ward 10.

Discussion:
All of the redistricting plans submitted for the City Council’s consideration fully complied with all applicable federal and state constitutional and statutory requirements. While the populations of the wards are not precisely equal, they are within the permitted deviations. Additionally, each plan creates wards that are both compact and contiguous. Each plan creates four wards that have a majority Latino population, at least four wards that have a majority Latino voting age population, and at least one ward that has a majority Latino citizen voting age population with at least three additional wards that have an estimated Latino citizen voting age population exceeding 40%, and with Latinos representing a plurality of the estimated citizen voting age population in two of those wards.

[August 25, 2022 Update]
During the review of the proposed redistricting plans, the City Council acknowledged approximately an overall 10% variance between the population of the City as reported by the 2020 Decennial Census and the 2020 American Community Study (ACS), which is another Census product. This variance, which was greatest in the heavily Latino areas east of the Fox River, made it impractical for the City Council to consider citizen voting age population estimates (which is only available through the ACS) as a reliable metric.

Impact statement:
The maps also reflect a policy preference to alter ward boundaries as little as possible. As noted above, the City disputes the results of the 2020 Census. The loss of 20,000 or 10% of its residents over the course of the last decade would have been detected by several City departments, but consistent with the Census’s American Community Survey data throughout the 2010s, the City’s population appeared stable. For this reason, combined with the Census’s admission that Illinois likely experienced an undercount, the City anticipates that a subsequent census will more accurately reflect the City’s population. Whether the City Council desires to consider a mid-decade redistricting at that time is within its discretion, however given that possibility and the feelings of the existing City Council, all of the redistricting proposals sought to move as few residents from one ward to another as possible.

Leave a Reply