Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting Committee Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts two amended maps, rejects several amendments; 6 maps remain under review
Summary
At its Aug. 18 meeting the Orange County Mid Decennial Redistricting Advisory Committee approved two amended maps (Afont 2 as Map 6b and Henry 2 amended as Map 7a), withdrew one amendment, rejected multiple other amendments, and approved procedural minutes. The committee narrowed the field but left seven maps for final consideration next week.
The Orange County Mid Decennial Redistricting Advisory Committee on Aug. 18 voted to advance two amended county redistricting plans and to reject several other amendments, moving the committee closer to its deadline to forward maps to the Board of County Commissioners.
Key decisions: The committee accepted Afont 2 (presented in the agenda as Map 6b) and Henry 2 amended (Map 7a). Member Affant moved to advance Map 6b (second: Member Arias); the motion passed by an 8–7 vote. Member Henry moved to accept Map 7a (second: Member Jones); the motion passed on roll call (14–1). The committee also rejected several proposed amendments: it voted to reject the Baga amendment to Alphonse 2 (Map 3a), and it rejected an amended Washington 2 (Map 2a). A separate attempt to adopt the Johnson amendment to Henry 1 (Map 5a) failed on a roll call.
What the motions did: Map 6b (Afont 2b) was presented as a “clean‑up” version designed to round District 6 and to avoid splitting Pine Hills; the county attorney’s technical review noted the plan lowered maximum population deviation to 7.29% and concluded the plan would likely pass constitutional muster. Attorney White told the committee the amendment “would pass constitutional muster.”
Map 7a (Henry 2 amended) contains small boundary adjustments around Ocoee, Edgewood and the Econ River corridor; the technical review noted only minor municipal splits under that amendment and no compactness or contiguity problems that would preclude legal compliance.
Minutes and procedure: The committee approved the Aug. 6 and Aug. 12 meeting minutes as presented. Member Affant withdrew an earlier amendment (Map 6a/Afont 2a) by unanimous consensus at the start of the map discussion; that amendment was therefore removed from consideration.
How members voted: The committee used roll call votes for close or contested items. The most contested vote was Map 6b (Afont 2b), which passed 8–7. Map 7a passed by roll call with one negative vote (Pizzini/Pazzini recorded a nay); several other rejections passed by clear roll call margins. Members explained votes on competing policy grounds: some argued for preserving municipal integrity (for example, keeping Winter Park intact), others emphasized creating two strong minority‑opportunity districts and keeping census‑designated places whole.
Next steps: The committee set a schedule to resume work and asked sponsors to be prepared to present and defend their maps at the next meeting, where the panel intends to narrow the field to two maps for the County Commission. The committee’s technical consultants and staff will be available to redraw small boundary corrections in real time at the next session.
No formal final map was adopted; the committee’s actions were limited to advancing or rejecting proposals for the Board of County Commissioners’ consideration.
