MIN RDC 2011-10-21.tif - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to be bitten by one of those with the notion that regardless of what it is, if it is less, then we are going to have to take it. So we need to be clear, of the six that we took out, that we did not eliminate for some particular purpose, that all of those have been amended many times, as Ms. Wille's has, so her continued efforts are very helpful, thoughtful pieces, but they don't provide, they are not in a position to somehow trump what we come up with. So I want to make sure of that. I also want to make sure that we all understand what the issue of a 10% deviation is and how we calculate it, because it is something that we haven't talked about. So, I've asked that question recently, and I think both Mike and Karen have given me some insight on that. So, my interpretation of that, and I would like to have our attorney confirm that, is that the 10% deviation is the difference between the highest - - -It is the sum of the highest variance and the lowest variance without the variance sign; without the negative sign. So, that way, which is odd because if we stay within 4.99 %, we would never get over 10 %. So, it is almost a non criteria as long as you stay within the 4.99 %. That interpretation, which is the highest variation and the lowest variation, take away the negative sign and add them; that is what they mean by a 10% deviation. MR. CHANG: Mr. Melrose, that is my understanding, yes. MR. MELROSE: It is kind of an odd number because if we stay under 4.99% it's a moot issue anyway. Good. I was afraid it was going to be adding up all of the variations, all the positives and all of the negatives and that would be a problem; that would make this variation issue a problem. If that's the interpretation, then I want us all to work on the same page. CHR. SIRACUSA: On one of the maps, I tried it both ways, just to see what happened. I took the nine variations, and added and subtracted, and then divided by nine to get an average. I got, on that particular map I got 9.8 %. Then I just took the highest and the lowest and I got 9.8 %. So, I'm not sure if it was just a fluke at that point or if it would work that way with all of them, but I thought it was interesting. MR. MELROSE: But we have a common understanding of what the standard deviation is. I think we have a common understanding that 4.99% is where we work from today; I think we can do this, I think we can do it and make most of the people happy. I would agree that there are some constraints and it sucks, but that's what it is. And our job is one person, one vote, as close as we can get within the 4.99 %. CHR. SIRACUSA: Let me ask Kyle a question as long as he's up there. We are putting you on the hot seat this morning. The previous plan that came out ten years ago, there was an 8.9% deviation I believe in one of the districts. And the Supreme Court ruling let it stand because they said that it was done in the spirit of keeping, of being most inclusive. It wasn't done to keep people out, or for gerrymandering reasons, it was done to be inclusive; and because the reason for that deviation was altruistic, they were going to let it stand. Does this set a precedent? If 8.9% is okay, what about 9.1 % or what about anything else? Do you follow my question? MR. KAHAWAIOLA`A: Before the counsel answers that - -- 9