The 4 redistricting proposals developed by the Township/County unnecessarily move thousands of Township residents (up to 1/3 of the population).  Alternatively, 3 plans developed by private citizens disrupt less than 500 residents (less than 5%), yet only 1 of these plans has been publicly shared. Given that all of the proposals (Proposals 1-5 and the 2 not shared) balance the population with the desired ~20% distribution across each district, why would UPT residents accept unnecessary disruption with the plans that propose to move several thousand residents, when plans that would only move a few hundred work just as well?

• In order for all the UPT districts carry approximately equal population, it is necessary to disrupt (or move) some voters. Currently, based on the total population estimate for UPT from the 2020 census, the 1st and 2nd district have slightly more voters (21% and 22% of voters, respectively) and the 4th has slightly fewer voters (16%).  The 3rd and 5th districts already hover close to the target 20% mark*. 
  • *There is a +/- 3% margin of error in data at the census block level - the population numbers used to calculate the proposed districts are not absolute.  With that in mind, the 3rd and 5th districts are each contiguous and well within the target residents per district, suggesting that no adjustment is needed in these districts whatsoever.​
• The goal of redistricting should be to move 1-2% of voters from the 1st and 2nd to the 4th so that all 5 districts house roughly 20% of the total Township population (~2,170 residents each). Logically, this can be achieved by moving as few as 2-5% of voters across the entire Township. That said...​
  • ​The 4 proposals provided by the Council/County (Props 1, 2, 4 and 5) move an ASTOUNDING 22-31% of voters (2,400 - 3,300 residents) in the Township to new voting districts!  In a map where the highest and lowest district are separated by only 6 percentage points, there is absolutely no practical or mathematical rationale to move 1/3 of voters unless there is a blatant ulterior motive.​
  • Additionally, three (3) proposals were submitted by independent citizens of the Township, that each move less than 5% of voters (under 500 residents) to achieve the desired even split of voters across districts. In fact, the UPT website admits that Council's goal is to achieve "Population Standardization (variance between 0% - 5% of mean)." Since the current map itself already has all districts within 0-5% of the mean, it's unclear why Council is redistricting to begin with - particularly when the 2020 census data (which is used to analyze population across the Township) is an estimate (at only the 90% confidence interval) and not an absolute number, with a margin of error to take into consideration.

​​​
Bottom-line: the population in the Township can easily be standardized by moving just a few hundred voters (less than 5% of the population), yet the 4 plans proposed by UPT Council will unnecessarily disturb and move thousands of voters (at least 22% and up to 31% of the population) to new voting districts!  Three plans proposed by independent residents will disrupt a few hundred voters (less than 5%) and still achieve the same population balance, but only one of these plans is available on the Township website for public review/comment.  It is unacceptable to move thousands of voters when far less disruptive options, that serve the same purpose (balance the population across contiguous districts) are available! ​We deserve better!

Proposed Plan ​(as noted on UPT website)	Number of Residents Who Would be ​Moved to a New Voting District
Plan 1 (Council/County plan)	3,255
Plan 2 (Else original plan)	3,318
Plan 3 (Resident proposed plan)	470
Plan 4 (Council/County plan)	2,817
Plan 5 (Council/County plan)	2,400
Resident-proposed Plan 1 (not shared on UPT website)	254
Resident-proposed Plan 2 (not shared on UPT website)	407