I had an opportunity today to inspect both proposed maps for the City Council redistricting. Also, there was another map showing each precinct and the election results from the 2010 Mayoral race as well as a map showing voting results accumulated over 10 years. When do an overlay of the 2 proposed maps with the voting block results, you end up with the following results:

1. Under the Schellenberg map, you would end up with a City Council that composed 7 Democrat Districts and 7 Republican Districts. There are only 3 minority-majority Districts. That results in retrogression of the current minority-majority Districts. (The At-Large seats are not affected since they are city wide voting)

2. Under the Original Committee map, there are 4 minority-majority seats preserved and there are 6 Democrat Districts and 8 Republican Districts. Minority Districts are preserved as far an numbers and no retrogression has occurred. (At-Large seats are still unaffected with either map)

Now, what I found most interesting is that there has been little Democrat "opposition" or verbal assault on the Schellenberg Map. From all indications, only ONE Democrat on City Council has voiced any opposition, and few Democrats are voicing opposition to that map. So I wondered even more as to why that was the case. Well, obviously, Democrats stand every chance to pick up another City Council Seat, even though it would be retrogressive in nature.

So I made a phone call to a well trusted Democrat that I knew would give me the entire reasoning. Their comment astounded me. "We are MORE than happy to NOT speak up, since we are allowing the Tea Party to carry the water on the Schellenberg map FOR US". That way, to paraphrase, we get another seat, will most like face court challenges, OR it will NO map will get voted on- or split- and then the Courts will draw the maps.

THEN, there was indication that they believed that the Court would draw something close to the Schellenberg map that WOULD give them the 7-7 split AND also the preservation of the 4 minority access Districts. So they were MORE than happy to allow the Tea Party to throw this into limbo and create a fight that WOULD benefit the Democrats in 2 Districts.

I am aware that the big push is for Compact Districts. That DOES seem like a "good idea", however, it is a fact that there are several reasons for District shapes as they are drawn. Some are political, others are racial, and others are geographical. Sometimes, the objective desired with one criteria will skew things to another.

I am NOT taking sides one way or the other, but ONLY relaying information as it was presented.