The first drafts of proposed changes to supervisorial district boundaries in Riverside County indicate multiple communities could be shifting from one neighboring district to another in the ongoing effort to balance represented populations based on the 2020 Census.
On Thursday, the county’s Redistricting Committee released four proposed maps for the Board of Supervisors and public to consider, with minor adjustments to each proposal to meet the county’s goal of having 483,637 residents per district. Officials have acknowledged that reaching the objective will not be possible without variations.
The first public hearing on the revisions was Tuesday, and the board will take comments again on Oct. 19.
“It’s important to have as many people providing input as possible,” board Chair Karen Spiegel said Tuesday. “We will never get to a point where we make everybody happy.”
According to census figures, the county grew 10.4% over the last decade, with the population increasing from 2,189,641 in 2010 to 2,418,185 by 2020, a net change of 228,544.
Under the county’s balancing policy, three districts — 1, 2 and 4 — are in a deficit, while Districts 3 and 5 have surpluses.
Supervisor Kevin Jeffries represents District 1, Spiegel District 2 and Supervisor Manuel Perez District 4. District 3 is represented by Supervisor Chuck Washington, and District 5 by Supervisor Jeff Hewitt.
Washington’s district has 20,744 over the benchmark, and Hewitt’s district has 34,087 more.
One proposed redraw would expand District 4 across most of the San Bernardino National Forest, enveloping Aguanga, Anza, Idyllwild, Mountain Center and Pine Cove, all of which presently belong in District 3.
The same map would move Hemet and San Jacinto out of District 3 and into District 5.
Another proposal would reposition Perris inside District 1, which would in turn, divest virtually every city and community along the Interstate 15 corridor to District 2, with Lake Elsinore and Lakeland Village, where Jeffries resides, no longer being a part of his district.
The same proposal would result in all of the city of Riverside becoming part of District 1, whereas currently only about half of the municipality is within the district.
A more extreme redraw entails shaving District 1 to only Jurupa Valley, Riverside and a few surrounding unincorporated communities, with District 2 enlarging to the east along the borders of Menifee and Perris.
A final proposed redraw would take Cabazon and Whitewater out of District 3 and place them within District 4, while Menifee would leave District 5 and go into District 3, which would alternately lose Hemet and San Jacinto.
State and federal law require that the districts remain contiguous, meaning no gerrymandering or broken lines to fit cities and unincorporated census-designated communities into pockets of one district or another.
District 4 has the largest deficit at 26,173, while District 1 has the smallest at 11,079. Spiegel’s District 2 is down 17,579, according to the county Executive Office.
The redistricting process was delayed five months because of the coronavirus public health lockdowns that hampered the publication of 2020 Census data by federal officials.
The U.S. Constitution requires a decennial Census, and in addition to local political boundaries being redrawn, federal ones are also modified, impacting congressional representation. However, that job will be left to a statewide committee.
Municipalities will decide for themselves how to divvy up wards.
In 2011, the issue of redrawing district boundaries because of population shifts resulted in multiple hearings after the 2010 Census, which showed the number of residents countywide increasing by 42% — 644,000 people — over the previous decade.
The hearings culminated in testy debates, mostly between then-Supervisors John Tavaglione, representing District 2, and Bob Buster, representing District 1. The pair argued over division of segments of the city of Riverside, concentrated in the Casa Blanca, Eastside and University neighborhoods.
The objective was to abide by apportionment targets. To break an impasse, Tavaglione ultimately relented to Buster’s proposal to envelope several neighborhoods that had historically belonged to the Second District.
Buster was defeated for re-election the following year. Tavaglione retired in 2018.
More information on the county’s redistricting plans, including where to email comments and concerns, can be found at www.rivco.org/about-county/county-boards-committees-and-commissions/county-redistricting-efforts.