Waterford begins districting process; consultant outlines timeline, data and public mapping tools

Dr. Justin Levitt of National Demographics told the Waterford City Council that moving from at-large to by-district elections is often driven by litigation risk under the California Voting Rights Act and explained the state and federal criteria the city must follow. "The California Voting Rights Act... eliminates the requirement to show the totality of the circumstances," Levitt said, meaning some jurisdictions choose to change voluntarily to secure a legal safe harbor.

Why it matters: The council is beginning a legally prescribed public process that must include at least five public hearings, posting draft maps before the third hearing and adopting a final map in a way that complies with federal and state law. The decision affects how residents will vote for council seats and could reshape local representation ahead of upcoming elections.

Levitt outlined criteria the city must prioritize: equal population (using 2020 census data), avoiding division of communities of interest, identifiable boundaries and compactness. He also described the practical timeline for Waterford: two initial hearings (already underway), two rounds of draft maps posted at least seven days before hearings, a third hearing on maps in March with revised maps March 19 and April 2, and a planned adoption as early as April 2 so the county can implement the change for November elections. Levitt said the city will use 2020 census totals and special tabulations of citizen voting-age population drawn from the American Community Survey (2019–2023), while turnout and registration approximations sometimes rely on surname-based methods.

Public response was mixed. Melissa Perez, a Waterford resident and professional cartographer, criticized the presentation and materials as "incredibly misleading and confusing," urging the council to rely on the most recent and transparent census and ACS data and to make mapping tools available for public use. "This entire data presentation is incredibly misleading and confusing," Perez said, adding she provided alternate block-level maps showing Hispanic and white households are spatially mixed in Waterford. Other speakers opposed or supported the move: Beverly Henry urged the council to "keep Waterford small," saying redistricting isn’t needed for a town of about 9,000 residents; Adrian Orozco voiced support for district elections.

Levitt responded to critics, clarifying that NDC uses 2020 census figures and ACS 2019–2023 special tabulations for citizen voting-age population and that the color maps displayed percentages (not density). He apologized if charts were misleading and described the firm’s methodology and available web tools.

Council members asked practical questions about public participation options and costs: a paper participation packet (including block population figures) is included in NDC’s base contract (listed at $2,000), and an optional online interactive drawing tool (with videos and demos) is available for about $3,000; draft maps created through the online tool must be submitted to staff to be incorporated and analyzed. No procurement vote was taken; council members expressed mixed views about spending but showed interest in offering multiple participation options so residents can submit proposed maps or draw them online.

What’s next: Staff and the consultant will prepare draft maps and public tools as directed; the next hearings and exact map-posting dates were set in the consultant’s schedule (third hearing in March; revised maps March 19 and April 2; adoption April 2 is possible). The council did not adopt a final map or commit to purchasing optional tools tonight.

Provenance: Report and presentation introduced in council public hearing on districting (topic introduction: SEG 213; discussion and tool questions through SEG 1312).