Correction...

In my previous comment I mistakenly suggested adding precinct 17 to District 2, which it is already in proposal 3B. I should have suggested changing precinct 74 to District 2. Here is my revised suggestions for proposal 3B

10-S to District 1
10-W to District 1
24-Q to District 1
11 to District 1
74 to District 2
18 to District 2
19-E to District 2
42 to District 3
43 to District 3
19-W to District 3
48 to District 4
50-N to District 4
39 to District 7
40 to District 7
41 to District 7

Thank you!

I appreciate the time and effort spent on considering all the possible ways to redistrict our county as to better serve all the residents. I respect all who have made proposals and can see the value in each of them. I do like proposal 3B and will be satisifed if that is what the commission passes, but I do see room for improvement. There were a couple of others that I liked as well, but they also had several changes that I would reccomend. I understand that there are many aspects that must be considered when making these decissions that I am not knowledgable of, so I apoligize if any of my suggestions are not sensitive to any special circumstances. With that being said here are my suggested changes for proposal 3B...

10-S to District 1
10-W to District 1
24-Q to District 1
11 to District 1
17 to District 2
18 to District 2
19-E to District 2
42 to District 3
43 to District 3
19-W to District 3
48 to District 4
50-N to District 4
39 to District 7
40 to District 7
41 to District 7

Thank you!

My vote would be to choose proposal number 5. I think it honors the majority minority of District 1. It also maintains most of the city/county boundaries which makes sidewalks, street lights, fire protection, utility company, alcohol purchases, trash collection, city elections, etc much easier for people to understand. It meets the requirements of the redistricting guide.

I'm sharing my positive thoughts for choosing proposal number 5. If requested I will be glad to share why I don't think the other proposals are as good. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In a previous comment, I indicated that it would make more sense to put the western part of District 1 in a North Knoxville district, but I didn't realize that the current shape of District 1 was basically to accommodate the Voting Rights Act's provision to protect minority rule and that changing the part of District 1 that I was suggesting would violate that. That wasn't my intention. I don't know if this is the right way to do this, but I would like to withdraw my comment.

I reluctantly support Map 5. It seems to have the least impact on a majority minority voting population. None of the maps are good, particularly the current one, which is the starting point. There have obviously been decades of gerrymandering, as evidenced by several of the outer county districts containing minimal city residents as voters. I think the map needs a complete overall. You should go with Map 5 for now, based on timelines. Then I suggest you hire a non-partisan consultant to offer several suggestions and have workshops and public input sessions. The districts should fan out from the city center and contain diverse voting groups from both the city and suburbs. The statute says that you must re-district "at least" every ten years, there is nothing to prevent you offering a better fix in the next few years.

It seems fairly pointless (unless the map is attempting to concentrate the majority of poverty and/or people of color into a single district) to have District 1 dip around Old North Knoxville and then scoop back up to include Mechanicsville/Lonsdale on the western side of I-275. Those western neighborhoods are much more closely connected to North Knoxville in terms of commerce, major roads, and school zoning than they are to the East Knoxville and downtown neighborhoods that the current district map (and all the suggested rezonings) connect them to.

Proposal 2: Vote for this one if you want a large legal bill defending this turd in court (hint: it dilutes minority representation).
Proposal 4: The only decent option so far.

I would echo comments regarding the Compass piece on adding Sequoyah Hills to District 1, this would throw the balance towards West Knoxville rather than keeping the district's population within East Knoxville & downtown. This would also cause larger representational issues, as District 1 has traditionally been a space for minority representation on commission. This district is underpopulated, but I have seen other examples of how to fix this issue (addition of Precinct 41 being foremost), rather than dilute the racial diversity of commission. Also, as a resident of District 4, I do not agree with making major changes to the composition of our district, as the rationale for these changes are not borne out by Census data. To make these changes to Districts 1 and 4 would have unjust ramifications to our electoral system, and I am against this proposition.

I would like to make a suggestion regarding three districts: 1, 3, & 6

District 1 is indeed underpopulated. However, adding Sequoyah Hills to District 1 like mentioned in the Compass last week would decrease the district's Black population from 38% to 35% and throw the balance of political influence in the district towards the west rather than where it currently lies in the district's communities of interest, East Knoxville and downtown.

Among the better ways of fixing D1's underpopulation is to move Precinct 41 into the district. It has a Black population nearly 10x greater than Sequoyah Hills -- 13% rather than Precinct 24Q's mere 1.6% -- and helps the district remain more compact.

Actually, this committee can fix D1 and D3's underpopulation and D6's overpopulation by moving just three bordering precincts during the redistricting process: 40, 41, & 42. As just mentioned, 41 could be moved into D1, and 40 & 42 can be placed in D3. That leaves these three districts with the following populations:

D1 - 53,759 (+540 from ideal pop.)
D3 - 54,133 (+914)
D6 - 54,428 (+1,209)

Assuming the district with the lowest negative deviation matches D6's deviation, the overall deviation would be 4.6% -- well under the 10% target.

This is a continuation of my previous email, since there are limitations on the length of a single email.

I have heard from many people that it is likely that the Sequoyah neighborhood might leave District 4. With West High School being literally a block from the Sequoyah neighborhood, it concerns me that this redistricting committee does not pay attention to maintaining a high school in each district. Ideally this district would also have a middle school that feeds in to it as part of this district (Bearden Middle is the largest feeder, with Northwest Middle probably being the 2nd largest feeder middle school).

Dear Redistricting Committee - as many of you know I am the school board representative for District 4. I have concerns as you are entering in to this process that I want to express dealing with school district zones. Because I am in District 4 and this is the district I am most familiar with, I will bring up the concerns that I have for this district, but I think this applies for all districts.

As a school board member, it is helpful to have the schools in our district align as much as possible. I was told that when the last redistricting happened, there was an effort to make sure every district had at least one high school in it. I currently have 1 high school in my district -- West High School. I have no middle schools in my district, although Bearden Middle School is the major feeder in to West High School. Currently a majority of the elementary schools in District 4 feed in to West High High School -- Sequoyah Elementary, Bearden Elementary, Pond Gap Elementary, Rocky Hill Elementary and about half of West Hills Elementary. Northshore Elementary (West of Pellissippi Parkway) is the only elementary school in my district that has NO students feeding in to West -- the majority going to Bearden High or Farragut High.

A recent article in Compass Knox stated that the Sequoyah Hills precinct might be moved into First Commission District. To do so would be an attack on the election integrity of both the First and the Fourth Districts.

The most important legal and moral issue raised by this change is the electoral integrity of the First District. The First District has provided minority representation on Knox County Commission. This representation has begun to be diluted by gentrification. Addition of the 24Q precinct to the First District would damage the electoral integrity of the district's minority representation probably more than addition of any other adjacent precinct. The data on your website shows that 24Q has 66 black residents out of its total population of 4,061.

There is also no reason to disturb the composition of the Fourth District. By your figures, the Fourth District has very little deviation from its ideal size relative to the other districts. The Fourth District has historically provided geographically compact representation of West Knoxville, and Sequoyah Hills has been part of the Fourth District. To remove Sequoyah Hills from the Fourth District would unravel the electoral integrity of the Fourth District. As a result, I oppose damaging the election integrity of the First and Fourth Districts in this manner.