Orange County advisory committee rejects three proposed redistricting maps; debates over Horizon West and Pine Hills continue

The Orange County Mid Decennial Redistricting Advisory Committee on June 18 voted to reject three proposed draft plans after presentations by map authors, public commenters and extended committee discussion.

Public commenters pressed the committee to draw maps that give fast‑growing neighborhoods such as Horizon West focused representation. "We need a district map that gives Horizon West the focus and advocacy it deserves," said David Terry of Winter Garden. Commissioner Myra Uribe, speaking as a guest, said she has been "looking at maps" and that county residents are talking more about the process and its effects on upcoming elections.

The committee reviewed three sponsored plans during the meeting: SPEARS 4 (presented by Calvin Pham and sponsored by Member Spears), a map submitted on behalf of Vicky Vargo (presented by Joe Kelsheimer), and a plan by James (Jim) Callahan and sponsored by Member Washington. Each map drew detailed critique from committee members and legal staff about population deviation, municipal splits and whether the plans preserved communities of interest.

Attorney White, the committee's legal adviser, reviewed statutory compliance and population deviation for the proposals. He said SPEARS 4 had a maximum population deviation of 7.35 percent and that the plan "appear[ed] to indicate a successful balance of the race neutral, traditional redistricting principles, as well as federal and state law," while noting several municipalities and designated places would be split. For Vargo's map he reported a maximum deviation of 8.88 percent and for the Washington/Callahan plan 7.94 percent;

Committee discussion focused heavily on Pine Hills and Tangelo Park and on whether the maps preserved or diluted Black and Hispanic voting‑age populations (VAP) in existing District 6 and District 3. Several members said they could not support plans that reduced the Black voting‑age share in District 6 from its current level (often cited in meeting remarks as about 48 percent) down into the high 30s. Member Jimmy Alfont argued the county's minority populations together amount to a majority and that mapmakers should not produce proposals that leave only one strong minority district. Other members praised efforts to keep the urban core together and to avoid splitting precincts.

Speeches from map authors and supporters gave the committee specifics about their goals and tradeoffs. Calvin Pham said his SPEARS 4 map tried to avoid splitting precincts and to respect environmental and urban/rural identities around Lake Apopka. Vicky Vargo said she designed her submission to be "close to the current map," to ease future adjustments, and to create a District 6 that might require no changes through 2040. Jim Callahan said he began from state legislative districts to avoid race as a primary criterion and noted several precincts on county borders that needed reassignment.

Votes at a glance - SPEARS 4 (Pham/Spears) — Motion to deny advancing the map carried. Mover: Member Alfont. Second: Co‑chair Evans. Roll call recorded a majority vote to reject the map; Member Arias was recorded as absent. - Vargo / Kelsheimer 1 — Motion to reject the map carried. The roll call vote recorded a majority in favor of rejection. - Washington / Callahan — A motion to approve the map failed on roll call; a subsequent motion to reject the map then carried.

The meeting also took routine administrative actions: the committee approved minutes from a prior meeting (motion carried), and staff announced procedural deadlines and changes. Scott, a staff member, reminded the committee that July 3 (11:59 p.m.) is the final map submittal date for the current round, and that the next committee meeting is July 9 in the BCC chambers. The chair reported that the County Commission had approved changing the committee absence threshold from three missed meetings to five.

What remains unresolved Committee members directed staff and consultants to continue refining maps and to bring revised plans to upcoming meetings. Several members urged map authors to try revisions that would keep Tangelo Park and core Pine Hills precincts together with District 6 or to explain tradeoffs that would preserve minority voting‑age shares. The chair warned that the upcoming weeks will have heavier workloads as more maps arrive and staff prepares to modify maps live during meetings.

The committee did not adopt any plan at the June 18 meeting; members and map sponsors said they will return with revised submissions in the next rounds. The next Redistricting Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for July 9 at the BCC chambers, and July 3 is the final submittal deadline for new maps.