Advisory committee reviews mapping software, outlines submission rules; minutes approved

Orange County staff and consultants demonstrated the county’s redistricting website and mapping software at the advisory committee meeting, explained map submission rules, and described the legal and election administration steps that follow the committee’s recommendations.

The mapping website demonstration showed an interactive tool with four tabs (current map, census 2020 data and comparisons, mapping software, and maps received). Staff explained the public cannot submit maps directly; maps must be sponsored by a committee member and will undergo consultant and county legal review. The committee’s published workflow includes a four‑day analysis window after submission and a visible “maps received” dashboard indicating maps under review, approved for the next meeting, or removed.

Legal baseline and data: Assistant County Attorney Saundra White and consultants told the committee that federal and state law require use of the decennial census as the baseline for population calculations. White said supplemental data sources such as the American Community Survey or university estimates may be used to provide context, but the 2020 Census provides the block‑level race and ethnicity detail required for legal compliance. A consultant noted that adding many additional data layers to the mapping tool could slow performance.

Elections and precincts: Dan Helm of the Supervisor of Elections’ office said the elections office will update voter ID cards and mail notices of new precincts and polling‑place changes after the county finalizes precinct boundaries. “We will send out voter ID cards to give people updated information about their locations as well as polling places and information,” Helm said. He asked the committee to avoid splitting precincts where practicable because precinct splits increase administrative burden during implementation.

Administrative actions and schedule: The committee approved the draft minutes from the previous MRAC meeting (motion and second recorded at the meeting; no individual roll‑call votes were taken on the record). The committee chair and co‑chair also acknowledged receipt of an electronic public comment that had been omitted from the earlier meeting’s record. Members were reminded that maps intended for review at the next meeting must be submitted through committee members by the stated four‑day deadline; the committee’s next public meeting was announced for April 2 at 6 p.m. at the John Bridges Community Center in Apopka.

Ending: Consultants and staff said they will keep the mapping website and tools available to committee members and the public, run submitted maps through technical and legal review, and return candidate maps to the committee for discussion at subsequent meetings.