Prince George’s redistricting proposal could harm some communities. So what’s the alternative?

This article is the third in a three-part series to help demystify the redistricting process in Prince George’s County, and explain the impact it can have on our lives.

Today (September 1) the Prince George’s County redistricting commission is scheduled to submit a map of proposed county council districts based on 2020 census results to the County Council.

Redistricting, or the procedure of redrawing legislative district lines, happens once a decade, at the federal, state, and local level, following the national census. And the rules can be different for each jurisdiction. The way that district lines are drawn can determine who holds the power, and how and if it is distributed fairly amongst all residents. The proposed map for Prince George’s replicates serious flaws in the current county council district map that harm low-income communities and increase the political power of the least-dense, least-urban parts of the county.

As two Prince George’s County residents with a keen interest in the redistricting process, we thought it would be helpful to do a series of articles that helps clarify and demystify the process and explain the impact it can have on our lives. In our first article we looked at the redistricting process on the state and local level. In our second piece, we talked about some of the challenges with the 2021 proposed map. Now let’s look at some alternatives.

These alternative redistricting maps provide better representation for low-income and denser areas

Now that the redistricting commission has submitted its “least change” proposal to the county council, the council has three months to consider alternatives before the November 30 deadline to accept or reject the commission’s proposed map.

One set of maps the council could consider are the “Sensible Communities” district proposals prepared by citizen activist and Greater Greater Washington contributor Bradley Heard, who submitted one of them to the commission for their consideration. These maps are based on a different set of criteria than those the commission adopted:

• The sum of the largest and smallest districts’ deviations from an ideal district (i.e., the “maximum population deviation”) must be less than 3.5%, a significantly stricter criterion than adopted by the commission.
• All districts must be compact and contiguous. (Also required by the commission and the county charter.)
• Precincts should not be split between districts. (Also required by the commission.)
• Municipalities should not be split into multiple districts, and splits of census-designated places into multiple districts should be minimized.
• The half-mile walksheds of the Metro stations along any of the county’s four Metro line segments should not be split into multiple districts.
• Incumbents eligible for reelection should not be pitted against each other in a single district. (Not explicitly required by the commission, but their emphasis on a least-change map ensured it.)
• The plan should not result in the denial or abridgement of the rights of any racial or language minority group to participate in the political process. (As required by the federal Voting Rights Act.)

Bradley’s first proposed alternative, shown below, divides the area inside the Beltway and some areas just outside it into five districts. His District 2 is very similar to the commission’s District 2, while the rest of the northern area inside the Beltway is divided into District 3 and District 4. The northern Green Line corridor, and the county’s most urban areas, including nearly all of its former streetcar suburbs, are divided between districts 2 and 3, while the Orange Line corridor, Lanham-Seabrook, and Glenarden are in District 4.

The central and southern portions of the county inside the Beltway are almost entirely divided between District 6 (containing the Blue Line corridor, including the area around Largo) and District 7 (containing the southern Green Line corridor and Joint Base Andrews), although the town of Forest Heights is contained in the northern tip of District 8.

In this proposal, the low-income communities in the central and southern portions of the county inside the Beltway make up a majority of two districts — districts 6 and 7 — instead of just one district, as they do under the commission’s plan. In addition, District 4 will represent a lower-income area than it does today, providing more representation on the council for the county’s low-income communities.

Bradley’s proposed districts also provide better representation for the denser parts of the county inside the Beltway. All five of the districts with substantial areas inside the Beltway have median population densities above the county’s median value of 4,000 residents per square mile: 11,000 and 8,000 residents per square mile, respectively, for districts 2 and 3 in the northern portion of the county, and 5,000 to 5,500 residents per square mile for the three central/southern districts.

Furthermore, the districts are generally more compact than those proposed by the redistricting commission and, because the districts inside the Beltway largely follow Metro corridors, they represent areas that have related public transportation and urban planning concerns. Being linked by Metro would also make it easier for transit-dependent residents to attend events hosted by councilmembers in their district.

One issue that this map shares with the commission’s plan is the absence of a majority-Latinx district. The district with the largest Latinx population, District 2, has a voting-age population that is 49.5% Latinx. Bradley’s second proposal, shown below, adjusts district boundaries, especially in the northern portion of the county, to allow District 2 to include nearly all of the county’s majority-Latinx areas, giving it a voting-age population that is 54.5% Latinx.

Unfortunately, achieving this majority-Latinx district requires breaking a number of municipalities into multiple districts, and increasing the number of splits of census-designated places. It also produces substantially less-compact districts than the first alternative. Whether these trade-offs are worthwhile is an open question, but both of these “Sensible Communities” alternative maps have substantial benefits compared to the map being proposed by the redistricting commission.

Additionally, both of these proposals provide better population equality than the council’s current (2011) redistricting plan, which has a maximum population deviation of 7.30%, or the redistricting commission’s proposed 2021 redistricting plan, which has a maximum population deviation of 6.96%. The Sensible Communities Alternative #1 plan has a maximum population deviation of 1.44%, and the Alternative #2 plan has a maximum population deviation of 1.36%.

What’s next for Prince George’s redistricting plan

According to the county charter, the county council must hold a public hearing on the redistricting commission’s proposed plan between September 16 and October 1 (i.e., within 15-30 days of receiving the plan). Then, it has until November 30 to decide whether to allow the commission’s plan to become law, or to draw its own plan.

The council has tentatively scheduled the public hearing on the redistricting commission’s plan to occur on Tuesday, September 28. There will presumably be an opportunity for the public to submit oral or written testimony in connection with that hearing.

However, you do not need to (and should not) wait until the public hearing to make your wishes known to the council. The earlier you can make your wishes known, the more likely it is that you can actually have an impact on the process. Ultimately, it’s up to all of us to help make our democracy better.