“While I don't want to bog you down with the 2050, I do want it to be consciously in your mind that densification and fill-in is the main goal of Vision 2050 to urbanize us,” Uribe said. “As you look at those numbers, just remember that as best as you can.”

Committee Co-Chair Camille Evans later suggested that showing where Vision 2050’s targeted sectors are within the county could help the committee forecast future higher populations so they’re “mindful” of growth in larger districts. The long-term, comprehensive plan is expected to direct most new development to the urban sector where 44 percent of the county’s future population growth is expected to go. Targeted sectors include unincorporated, high-population centers near downtown Orlando, University of Central Florida and I-Drive tourism corridor. 

“By the time we're doing redistricting in a few years, we're going to have to revise that district drastically,” Evans said. “Obviously we are tied to the 2020 census data, but I think if we include some sort of resource, within our collection of resources online, it will be helpful from a vision point.”

Majority-minority v. plurality 

Diversity and fair representation in the districts have been a hot topic for the committee in recent weeks, aided by numerous calls from the public for members to consider minority groups in redistricting decisions. 

While characterizing his map as "not perfect," committee member and attorney Rishi Bagga said he believed it still addressed many of the committee and public’s concerns and could be used as a blueprint moving forward.

“I think by doing what we're doing with this map, we're preserving a lot of the nature of the existing districts,” he said. “There's not too dramatic of a change, but it still does make sure that there's adequate minority access.”

The Bagga map would split the municipalities of Belle Isle, Ocoee, Orlando and Winter Garden between districts, as well as the communities of Clarcona, Fairview Shores, Lockhart and Union Park. 

Pine Hills residents have spent weeks lobbying the committee to make their community part of one unified district, and Bagga’s map would keep it whole. 

Districts 4 and 8 would become Hispanic-majority districts under this this map, but it would not create two Black-majority districts. Instead, it would create two Black-plurality districts in Districts 6 and 7. Assistant County Attorney Shonda White explained the difference for the committee. 

In a plurality, she said, a certain demographic isn't quite the majority. "They're just under the majority and could influence an election with the help of crossover votes from other demographics," she explained. In a majority-minority district, the demographic "likely controls the outcome of the election just based on the fact that the voting population is over 50 percent."

But while the 15-member committee showed more enthusiasm for Bagga’s map than any of the previous submissions, there were still concerns, namely the impact on existing majority-minority districts. 

Committee member James Auffant’s biggest objection to the map was the “historical” loss of District 3 as a Hispanic-majority district, which he said was created in the 1980s. 

“You have converted District 3 into a 58 percent white district,” Auffant said. “You have changed it significantly. … We have not had a 58 percent [white] district in Orange County since 1962.”

Committee member Tom Callan added that having two plurality districts "may lead to none."

Bagga expressed similar concerns about turning majority districts into plurality districts, but asked the committee to consider the letter from eight Democrats on the Orange County Legislative Delegation, which requested that maps be drawn with two predominantly Black districts and at least two predominantly Hispanic districts. 

“I think I didn't know of a great way to do this, admittedly, but I think that listening to [the delegation’s] concerns and with some trust in their leadership, I thought that this was probably the best way to do it,” he said.

Ultimately, the committee voted down Bagga’s map 8-7, but the vote was the closest the committee had come to accepting a map for further consideration. 

Committee Co-Chair Tico Perez said the committee will need to work on adopting appropriate maps for long-term consideration in the coming weeks to move forward. 

“I feel a little bit like we're looking for perfect every time, and one fatal flaw kills a map,” he said. “I just want to put into perspective the timelines on these things, because after the first week of July, there will be no more map submissions." He said the committee will only have what they have "in the hopper at that point" to work with.

Evans said Bagga’s map offered committee members a glimpse into the “reality of the sausage-making process” they will have to engage in to reach a consensus. 

“I want to say that this is a map that reflects the level of change we'll probably see in our county by the time this is finished,” Evans said. “Ultimately, drawing these new lines for eight districts is going to be very much a different look for our county, and so I think it's a good shock value moment for us, too.”

The committee next meets on May 22 at the Orange County Administration Center in the BCC Chambers to discuss the map submitted by Auffant. All future meetings, which are open to the public, are scheduled to be held in this location until a plan is adopted by September. All maps can be viewed here.