DATAT CONF 00001
From: Anthony Pedicini <anthony@imagemgmt.colll>
Subje
ct: Re: redistricting
Date: July
6,
2011 6:57:23
PM
EDT To: Pat Bainter <pbainter@datatargeting.com>
Cc: MIKE SHEEHAN <msheehan@datatargeting.colll>, JOEL SEARBY <jsearby@datatargeting.
colll
Yeah Sent from my iPhone On Jul
6,
2011, at 6:50
PM,
Pat Bainter <pbainter@datatargeting.com> wrote: spoke to the attorneys several times today about the potential regression issue we have
in
SD18. This morning, they were adament that we must maintain the percentage of minority representation
in
each of the minority access districts. They were also adamant about one man, one vote
..
this morni
ng
. Their story has changed somewhat this evening. Given the near next to impossibility to maintain both in some cases, they have
floated two unique theones. First, one man, one vote
in
its strictest sense actually only applies to the congressional districts as that
is
a federal constitutional issue and given state's rights, they are not nearly as obliged
to
do
so
.
In
fact, they now say we can deviate as much as plus or minus 5%
on
STATE LEGISLATI
VE
DISTRICTS,
as
long
as
it
is
being done
so in
order to attempt to comply with 5 and 6 and
in
order to attempt to prevent retrogression. So, in affect, we are green lighted to, for example, make some of the panhandle districts light, by as much as minus
5 in
order to be able to bring more population to some of the minority districts.
The second theory, which this is particularly interesting given our discussion about Tampa hispanics, is that we can "couple" certain minorities
if we
can make the case they perform similarly So, instead of just taking the black population
in
Senate District 18, we take the combined Black and Hispanic populations and we shoot, percentage wise, to recreate that.
DATAT CONF 00002
correct Pat Bainter <pbainter@datatargeting.com> Re: redistricting July
7
2011 8:16:41
AM
EDT Michael Sheehan <msheehan@datatargeting.com> ' JOEL SEARBY ' <jsearby@datatargeting.com> On
Jul6
2011, at 10:22
PM
Michael Sheehan wrote: Pat, If we couple certain minorities
it
will be on a district by district bases, correct? Mike -----Original Message-----From: Pat Bainter [mailto:pbainter@datatargeting.com] Sent: Wednesday, July
06
2011
6:51 PM
To: ANTHONY PEDICINI Cc: MIKE SHEEHAN; JOEL SEARBY Subject: redistricting spoke to the attorneys several times today about the potential regression issue we have
in
SD18. This morning, they were adament that we must maintain the percentage of minority representation in each of the minority access districts. They were also adamant about one man, one vote
.
.this morning. Their story has changed somewhat this evening. Given the near next to impossibility to maintain both
in
some cases, they have floated two unique theories. First, one man, one vote
in
its strictest sense actually only applies to the congressional districts as that
is
a federal constitutional issue and given state's rights, they are not nearly as obliged to do so.
In
fact, they now say we can deviate as much as plus or minus 5% on STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS, as long as
it is
being done so
in
order to attempt to comply with 5 and 6 and
in
order to attempt to prevent retrogression. So,
in
affect, we are green lighted to, for example, make some of the panhandle districts light, by
as
much as minus 5%
in
order to be able to bring more population to some of the minority districts. The second theory, which this is particularly interesting given our discussion about Tampa hispanics, is that we can couple certain minorities if we can make the case they perform similarly. So, instead of just taking the black population
in
Senate District 18, we take the combined Black and Hispanic populations and we shoot, percentage wise, to recreate
that
No virus found
in
this message. Checked by
AVG-
www.avg.com Version:
10.0.1388/
Virus Database: 1516/3748-Release Date: 07/06/11
DATAT CONF 00003
Pat, Michael Sheehan <msheehan@datatargeting.com> RE: redistricting July
6
2011 10:22:47
PM
EDT ' Pat Bainter ' <pbainter@datatargeting.com> 'JOEL SEARBY' <jsearby@datatargeting.com> If we couple certain minorities
it
will be on a district by district bases, correct? Mike -----Original Message-----From: Pat Bainter [mailto:pbainter@datatargeting.com] Sent: Wednesday, July
06 2011
6:51 PM
To: ANTHONY PEDICINI Cc: MIKE SHEEHAN; JOEL SEARBY Subject: redistricting spoke to the attorneys several times today about the potential regression issue we have
in
SD18. This morning, they were adament that we must maintain the percentage of minority representation
in
each of the minority access districts. They were also adamant about one man, one vote
..
this morning. Their story has changed somewhat this evening. Given the near next to impossibility to maintain both in some cases, they have floated two unique theories. First, one man, one vote in its strictest sense actually only applies to the congressional districts as that
is
a federal constitutional issue and given state's rights, they are not nearly as obliged to do
so.
In
fact, they now say we can deviate as much as plus or·minus 5% on STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS, as long as
it
is being done so
in
order to attempt to comply with 5 and 6 and
in
order to attempt to prevent retrogression. So,
in
affect, we are green lighted to, for example, make some of the panhandle districts light, by
as
much as minus 5% in order to be able to bring more population to some of the minority districts. The second theory, which this
is
particularly interesting given our discussion about Tampa hispanics,
is
that we can couple certain minorities if we can make the case they perform similarly. So, instead of just taking the black population
in
Senate District 18,
we
take the combined Black and Hispanic populations and we shoot, percentage wise, to recreate that. No virus found
in
this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1388 Virus Database: 1516/3748-Release Date: 07/06/11