Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Districting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clovis council narrows redistricting options, directs staff to pursue five-district plans
Summary
After a third public hearing on moving from at-large to district elections, the Clovis City Council instructed staff and its demographer to stop pursuing four-district-plus‑mayor configurations and to focus on three draft plans that create five council districts, asking the public to submit any alternative five‑district maps.
City Clerk Brianna Clara opened a third public hearing on the city’s transition from at-large elections to district-based elections, noting the process followed a council adoption of Resolution 24-110 on Oct. 7 to begin the transition and that the city had received a demand letter alleging racially polarized voting under the California Voting Rights Act.
Jeff (Dr.) Tilton, the city’s demographer from the National Demographics Corporation, reviewed draft maps submitted by the consultant and by members of the public. He said the city received nine draft plans: five plans drawn as four districts with an at-large mayor and four plans drawn as five single-member districts. He explained legal constraints — the requirement to use 2020 Census blocks, equal-population goals (courts generally tolerate up to a 10% variance), the Federal Voting Rights Act, and California criteria such as contiguity, compactness and avoiding lines drawn to favor or discriminate against incumbents or parties.
“The goal was to create compact districts and minimize neighborhood splits,” Tilton said as he displayed the maps and associated data tables, which include citizen voting-age population (CVAP) breakdowns for each district and population deviation figures for each plan.
The hearing drew public comment from several Clovis residents. Brian Wilson asked whether councilmembers would be required to live in the district they represent; Jeff Tilton and staff confirmed district residency would be required for the seat. Joshua Engel, who lives near the southwest border of the city, told the council he supported moving to district elections and said he favored five districts because he believes a smaller constituency would increase responsiveness. “They’re going to be more listened to,” Engel said. Molly Annala and Susan Patterson said they preferred the current at-large system or, if a change is required, a five-district plan with a rotating mayor because it provides multiple elected officials residents can contact.
Council discussion after public comment produced clear direction: a majority of councilmembers said they saw little public benefit in a four‑district-plus‑at‑large‑mayor system and preferred moving forward with five single-member districts. Council members discussed compactness, maintenance of mixed neighborhoods, and the value of keeping the Old Town area as part of a broader mixed district rather than its own isolated district; some members voiced concern that making Old Town a stand-alone district could invite claims that it would be prioritized over the rest of the city.
Councilmembers also asked staff to continue outreach, post the consultant’s data tables and maps online, and encourage the public to submit additional five-district maps by the deadlines already posted by staff. Tilton said the next hearing on draft maps will be Feb. 11 (the packet listed Feb. 10 in error) and the council expects to select a final map on March 3; the demographer set public deadlines of Jan. 30 for maps to be considered at the Feb. 11 hearing and Feb. 21 for maps to be considered for the March 3 meeting.
The council did not adopt a final map at this hearing. Instead, it directed staff and the consultant to remove the nonviable four‑district plans from the next round and to return with refined five‑district maps and with proposed sequencing (which districts’ elections would fall in 2026 versus 2028). Tilton and staff reiterated the maps include tables with population deviation, CVAP percentages, and other demographic breakdowns; those data tables remain available on the city’s redistricting web page.
Why this matters: The change affects how Clovis residents elect councilmembers and could change the mix of voters represented in each seat. The council’s direction narrows the formal choices the demographer will refine and sets the schedule for final selection in March.
What comes next: Staff and the demographer will post updated maps and data ahead of the Feb. 11 hearing and will accept public map submissions per the deadlines announced. The council also asked staff to make it easier for residents to see which proposed district would include their home.
