Chops and Erosity - Mid Atlantic Madness

[jimrtex]

I have read Tennant and I don't find anything there that suggests a state can have a range substantially beyond the "minor" variation of 0.79% without something more compelling than the whole counties and minimal population shift in WV. That 0.79% refers back to a number discussed in Karcher v Daggett. As the case notes,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unlike WV, NY does not have a long history of completely preserving counties and they could not use that argument from Tennant (The court found that WV had never in its history chopped a county). A case could be made that preserving towns and cities while chopping some minimal set of counties would better balance those interests. I don't see the case that NY could make to have a range in excess of 1%.

That said, we are only looking at projected estimates for 2020. A larger range makes sense in that context. But it should be understood that as the estimates get closer to Census day and the accuracy of the projection increases, the range should drop accordingly.

New York does have a long history of preserving county boundaries.

In the early 19th century they used multi-member districts. By 1842 they had switched to single-member districts. New York County was divided into 4 districts. Hamilton was also divided but that appears related to its formal organization in 1847.

1850s: New York + Kings
1860s: New York + Kings
1870s: New York + Kings
1880s: New York + Kings + Erie
1890s: New York + Kings + Erie
1900s: New York + Kings + Erie
1910s: New York + Kings + Erie + Queens + Renssellaer + Monroe
1940s: +Nassau, Bronx
1960s: +Suffolk, Westchester.

New York has had some horrid districts, such as all the ones in NYC connected by stretches of water, or that district that connected Rochester and Buffalo by a narrow shoreline strip. Those cannot be considered precedental.

Do you think that Justice Neil Gorsuch's constitution has anything about making districts vary by one person?

"flexible" is the opposite of "rigid".

My plan consistently applies rules that limit division of counties to counties with more population than a single county.

Suffolk: 2 whole districts.
Nassau: 1 whole + 1 surplus (shared with Queens)
Queens: 3 whole + 1 surplus (shared with Nassau)
Kings: 3 whole + 1 surplus (shared with Richmond)
New York: 2 whole + 1 surplus (shared with Bronx)
Bronx: 1 whole + 2 surpluses (shared with New York, Westchester)
Westchester: 2 parts (shared with Bronx, and Dutchess/Putnam)
Erie: 1 whole + 1 surplus (shared wit 7 other counties)

The only things that are slightly irregular are the division of Westchester and Bronx, which is largely dictated by geographic constraints.

My plan has nothing to do with the fact that it is using projected population. That was simply a way to generate a different population base with a different number of districts. I could follow the same approach and generate a map for 2010, or 2016 (using the current estimates).

[muon2]

We've had this debate before. Fundamentally I think that as the range gets up over 1% it starts to look like the substantially equal standard which is applied to the states. The standard for CDs uses the equal as practicable standard. If words mean anything then "substantially equal" is different than "as equal as practicable", and I would expect the court to find that there is a difference. We know that substantially equal can mean up to a 10% range. If the range of a congressional plan approaches 10% and is upheld then there is no difference that I can see.

[jimrtex]

We've had this debate before. Fundamentally I think that as the range gets up over 1% it starts to look like the substantially equal standard which is applied to the states. The standard for CDs uses the equal as practicable standard. If words mean anything then "substantially equal" is different than "as equal as practicable", and I would expect the court to find that there is a difference. We know that substantially equal can mean up to a 10% range. If the range of a congressional plan approaches 10% and is upheld then there is no difference that I can see.

The difference in standards derives from the basis on which 'Reynolds v Sims' and 'Wesberry v Sanders' were decided. Reynolds was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, while Wesberry was based on the court's interpretation of Article I, and a federal statute passed by Congress in 1872, that required election by districts that were "as equal as practicable" (in population). Congress repeated that language in statute for five decades before deliberately removing it.

If words indeed do have meaning, we should look at the understanding of the term when it was placed in statute:

New York congressional districts 1875-1883

[muon2]

I don't find the history of NY CDs compelling before the OMOV rulings of the 1960's. I'm also not seeing the case and 5 justices that would reinterpret Wesberry to match Reynolds during the upcoming cycle.

[jimrtex]

I don't find the history of NY CDs compelling before the OMOV rulings of the 1960's. I'm also not seeing the case and 5 justices that would reinterpret Wesberry to match Reynolds during the upcoming cycle.

The problem is not Wesberry, The problem is Kirpatrick v Preisler, etc.

Wesberry did not define the term "as nearly as is practicable" (re-read Justice Harlan's dissent). The court apparently borrowed the term from the 1872 statute in which Congress first mandated use of single member districts. It is therefore relevant to understand what "as nearly as is practicable" meant to those (Congress and legislatures) who have actual authority under the Constitution to legislate congressional boundaries.

Explain why you believe the Muon method represents a good faith effort at population equality.

[jimrtex]

I don't find the history of NY CDs compelling before the OMOV rulings of the 1960's. I'm also not seeing the case and 5 justices that would reinterpret Wesberry to match Reynolds during the upcoming cycle.

Why is this better?



And why doesn't it beat anything that can be produced under your rules?

[muon2]

I don't find the history of NY CDs compelling before the OMOV rulings of the 1960's. I'm also not seeing the case and 5 justices that would reinterpret Wesberry to match Reynolds during the upcoming cycle.

Why is this better?



And why doesn't it beat anything that can be produced under your rules?

It might depending on the specific data.

There is a natural trade off of chops for population inequality, and as more geographic units are available the lower the theoretical inequality. Analysis of the 2010 data gave rise to this graph and table from the muon rules thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We looked at use of the table in the MI exercise a few years ago. Summing the CHOP and INEQUALITY scores gave a good measure of that trade off and how well optimized it was. For example, this was my upstate NY plan from last year's estimates (2015 vintage) projected to 2020. The upstate CDs (19-26) have 4 county chops, 1 UCC pack penalty, and a range of 7401 for an INEQUALITY of 13. The total with CHOP is 18 and is paired with an erosity of 44.

This might be even better politically, and it's hard to see any serious complaints from the fruited plain. It keeps chops the same and reduces erosity by 3, so it is certainly better by the basic rules. Two points of the erosity reduction is in a more compact Buffalo-Niagara Falls CD, the other point comes from a reduction of 3 from the Hudson CD with an increase of 2 from the North Country. Everything still projects within 0.5% of the quota for 2020.

[muon2]

As I noted earlier, the precision of the estimates doesn't really work well in trying to project what counties can be grouped together within a 0.5% deviation from the quota. Let me use my map from last year as an example. It used the 2015 county estimates and projected them to 2020 using the same rate of change that occurred between 2010 and 2015. Without changing boundaries, I'll do the same calculation with 2016 estimates.

CD	2020 (2015)	%deviation	2020 (2016)	%deviation
quota (thousands)	776.6	0.00%	768.3	0.00%
19	774.5	-0.28%	771.8	0.45%
20	780.3	0.47%	777.0	1.13%
21	779.6	0.38%	775.7	0.97%
22	777.5	0.11%	765.6	-0.35%
23	773.3	-0.43%	768.8	0.06%
24	775.4	-0.16%	770.9	0.33%
25	772.9	-0.48%	771.0	0.35%
26	777.6	0.13%	774.3	0.78%

The estimates for NY state as a whole dipped lowering the projected quota for 2020 by 8.3K. Even so, the projection has a greater impact on NYC so effectively upstate is now projected to be too big for 8 CDs. The changes from 2015 to 2016 are reflected in projections that go anywhere from a 1.9K drop in CD 25 to a 10.9K drop in CD 22.

The upshot is that projecting whole county groups within 0.5% isn't possible with this level of accuracy in the estimates. Even projections to within 1% would fail as seen in the example CD 20. At best this table suggests that 2% deviations could be projected, but that wouldn't help determine chops if SCOTUS doesn't want to consider those deviations minor in the sense used in Tennant.

[Torie]

Putting aside whether SCOTUS would tolerate deviations in excess of 1%, this conversation confused me. The census will generate the final numbers. Until then, what we are doing is just a theoretical exercise. The idea that the deviations should be increased given the numbers are uncertain going forward, makes no sense to me. No map will become law based on projections. Am I missing something here?

[muon2]

If the goal is to share maps that show what might be in 2020, and those maps are based on minimizing chops and erosity, then I'm saying those maps may have little to do with what will really be possible after Census data comes out. A 1% shift in the overall deviation due to differences in projection vs future reality can substantially change the groupings that minimize chops.

[Torie]

If the goal is to share maps that show what might be in 2020, and those maps are based on minimizing chops and erosity, then I'm saying those maps may have little to do with what will really be possible after Census data comes out. A 1% shift in the overall deviation due to differences in projection vs future reality can substantially change the groupings that minimize chops.

Indeed they can. That's why nobody knows where Columbia County will ultimately be parked, even if we knew that your metric was going to be followed, which obviously is not the case either. The only thing this exercise does is test your metric as the numbers change, as to what the maps would look like if those were the final numbers. That to me is why using a wider range is a total waste of time. Heck if the range is wide enough, we can get rid of most chops.

[jimrtex]

If the goal is to share maps that show what might be in 2020, and those maps are based on minimizing chops and erosity, then I'm saying those maps may have little to do with what will really be possible after Census data comes out. A 1% shift in the overall deviation due to differences in projection vs future reality can substantially change the groupings that minimize chops.

I disagree with that as a goal.

I think we are just manipulating our data set in a realistic way (projecting population, and reducing the number of congressional districts to  produce a different test case. We could just as easily use historical data.

[jimrtex]

I don't find the history of NY CDs compelling before the OMOV rulings of the 1960's. I'm also not seeing the case and 5 justices that would reinterpret Wesberry to match Reynolds during the upcoming cycle.

Why is this better?



And why doesn't it beat anything that can be produced under your rules?

It might depending on the specific data.

There is a natural trade off of chops for population inequality, and as more geographic units are available the lower the theoretical inequality. Analysis of the 2010 data gave rise to this graph and table from the muon rules thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We looked at use of the table in the MI exercise a few years ago. Summing the CHOP and INEQUALITY scores gave a good measure of that trade off and how well optimized it was. For example, this was my upstate NY plan from last year's estimates (2015 vintage) projected to 2020. The upstate CDs (19-26) have 4 county chops, 1 UCC pack penalty, and a range of 7401 for an INEQUALITY of 13. The total with CHOP is 18 and is paired with an erosity of 44.

This might be even better politically, and it's hard to see any serious complaints from the fruited plain. It keeps chops the same and reduces erosity by 3, so it is certainly better by the basic rules. Two points of the erosity reduction is in a more compact Buffalo-Niagara Falls CD, the other point comes from a reduction of 3 from the Hudson CD with an increase of 2 from the North Country. Everything still projects within 0.5% of the quota for 2020.

My latest upstate plan has a range of 880, more than 8 times as good as your plan.

What interest does the state of New York have in tying its hands with your method. As the plaintiff attacking your plan, I have met the first condition of Karcher v Doggett. What important state interests are vindicated by your method?

In Kirkpatrick v Preisler, the SCOTUS rejected shape and communication ties as justification for larger deviation. Are erosity and chops legitimate metrics for some legitimate state objectives?

A particular reason the SCOTUS rejected setting a de minimis deviation range, was that legislators might tend to use the maximum range as a target. Isn't this same problem inherent in using a single value to measure inequality?

[muon2]

So with the idea that the sets of numbers are independent, here's what I might draw for upstate NY using 2016 county estimates projected to 2020. CDs are all within 0.5% of the quota and chops are minimized and placed to minimize erosity. CD 18 (with Hudson) is drawn to avoid a macrochop since it would only be about 14K overpopulation with whole counties.

[jimrtex]

So with the idea that the sets of numbers are independent, here's what I might draw for upstate NY using 2016 county estimates projected to 2020. CDs are all within 0.5% of the quota and chops are minimized and placed to minimize erosity. CD 18 (with Hudson) is drawn to avoid a macrochop since it would only be about 14K overpopulation with whole counties.

You are using a target deviation range of 1%, where the SCOTUS has explicitly refused to set a de minimis standard. Your plan has a deviation range about 8 times as large as my last plan. What state interest justifies this large deviation?

[muon2]

So with the idea that the sets of numbers are independent, here's what I might draw for upstate NY using 2016 county estimates projected to 2020. CDs are all within 0.5% of the quota and chops are minimized and placed to minimize erosity. CD 18 (with Hudson) is drawn to avoid a macrochop since it would only be about 14K overpopulation with whole counties.

You are using a target deviation range of 1%, where the SCOTUS has explicitly refused to set a de minimis standard. Your plan has a deviation range about 8 times as large as my last plan. What state interest justifies this large deviation?

I set an upper limit (not a target) of 1% range to be consistent with described minor deviations. I find a state interest in minimizing divisions of political subdivisions including counties and towns. I find a state interest in making districts compact in terms of the road connections between political subdivisions. I find a state interest in minimizing population balanced by those other interests using a consistently applied measure of that balance.

[Torie]

That "speech" by Muon2 has a nice cadence. He must be a politician or something.

[muon2]

That "speech" by Muon2 has a nice cadence. He must be a politician or something.

But what of the map? Did the rules work on this year's data set well enough to satisfy the fruited plain?

[Torie]

That "speech" by Muon2 has a nice cadence. He must be a politician or something.

But what of the map? Did the rules work on this year's data set well enough to satisfy the fruited plain?

I quite like your map. The major flaw is the carve out of Schenectady from the Albany CD, but life is not perfect. But the CD that Columbia County is parked in is far superior to mine, which had a carve out of Hudson, that would freak folks out. although the folks involved are so few, that the freak out would not have much punch. Faso will send you an Xmas card for your map. You saved his butt.

[muon2]

That "speech" by Muon2 has a nice cadence. He must be a politician or something.

But what of the map? Did the rules work on this year's data set well enough to satisfy the fruited plain?

I quite like your map. The major flaw is the carve out of Schenectady from the Albany CD, but life is not perfect. But the CD that Columbia County is parked in is far superior to mine, which had a carve out of Hudson, that would freak folks out. although the folks involved are so few, that the freak out would not have much punch. Faso will send you an Xmas card for your map. You saved his butt.

The Albany UCC is like Grand Rapids, a UCC too large for one CD and requiring a macrochop to satisfy the pack rule. Shifting the macrochop to a UCC pack penalty greatly reduces erosity in both cases.

[jimrtex]

So with the idea that the sets of numbers are independent, here's what I might draw for upstate NY using 2016 county estimates projected to 2020. CDs are all within 0.5% of the quota and chops are minimized and placed to minimize erosity. CD 18 (with Hudson) is drawn to avoid a macrochop since it would only be about 14K overpopulation with whole counties.

You are using a target deviation range of 1%, where the SCOTUS has explicitly refused to set a de minimis standard. Your plan has a deviation range about 8 times as large as my last plan. What state interest justifies this large deviation?

I set an upper limit (not a target) of 1% range to be consistent with described minor deviations. I find a state interest in minimizing divisions of political subdivisions including counties and towns. I find a state interest in making districts compact in terms of the road connections between political subdivisions. I find a state interest in minimizing population balanced by those other interests using a consistently applied measure of that balance.

The SCOTUS has said that setting an upper limit becomes a target. What are the deviations of your districts, and what is the maximum deviation range, and what is the standard deviation of the deviations?

As early as Reynolds v Sims (quoted in Kirkpatrick v Preisler) the court rejected communication concerns as a rationale for deviation.

Did you produce your connectivity graph at the outset of the redistricting process, and available to all potential participants or was it a post hoc construction?

Side issue: won't either your 16 or 17 have to go into the Bronx?

[Torie]

That "speech" by Muon2 has a nice cadence. He must be a politician or something.

But what of the map? Did the rules work on this year's data set well enough to satisfy the fruited plain?

I quite like your map. The major flaw is the carve out of Schenectady from the Albany CD, but life is not perfect. But the CD that Columbia County is parked in is far superior to mine, which had a carve out of Hudson, that would freak folks out. although the folks involved are so few, that the freak out would not have much punch. Faso will send you an Xmas card for your map. You saved his butt.

The Albany UCC is like Grand Rapids, a UCC too large for one CD and requiring a macrochop to satisfy the pack rule. Shifting the macrochop to a UCC pack penalty greatly reduces erosity in both cases.

Yeah, I understand. But you asked the Fruited Plain reaction. The Fruited Plain would accept easier the severance from Albany of Saratoga County than Schenectady County.

[muon2]

The connectivity graph for the counties of NY was reposted last year, and I used the same one this time. The rules for extending connectivity to subdivisions of counties is covered in the muon rules thread. The cut set created from the partitioned connectivity graph is a measure of the compactness of the districts, akin to the dozens of other measures of compactness. Even if compactness is disallowed as a compelling state interest, chops certainly are allowed as it keeps political subdivisions whole.

As I read Kirkpatrick, the variances for which issues like chops and erosity would be impermissible apply to the specific variances in the MO map with a range of 5.97%. If the prohibition on using county integrity as a justification were absolute, WV would not have prevailed in Tennant with a 0.79% range. But WV did prevail while MO did not, so that implies that these factors may justify minor variances depending on the specifics of the case.

On the side note: LI + SI has almost exactly 11 CDs (-449 under quota). Manhattan+Bronx is 106K over quota for 4 CDs so yes, CD 16 dips into the Bronx.

[muon2]

That "speech" by Muon2 has a nice cadence. He must be a politician or something.

But what of the map? Did the rules work on this year's data set well enough to satisfy the fruited plain?

I quite like your map. The major flaw is the carve out of Schenectady from the Albany CD, but life is not perfect. But the CD that Columbia County is parked in is far superior to mine, which had a carve out of Hudson, that would freak folks out. although the folks involved are so few, that the freak out would not have much punch. Faso will send you an Xmas card for your map. You saved his butt.

The Albany UCC is like Grand Rapids, a UCC too large for one CD and requiring a macrochop to satisfy the pack rule. Shifting the macrochop to a UCC pack penalty greatly reduces erosity in both cases.

Yeah, I understand. But you asked the Fruited Plain reaction. The Fruited Plain would accept easier the severance from Albany of Saratoga County than Schenectady County.

That's a case where the 0.5% limit really matters. Saratoga and Oneida are almost the same population, but Saratoga is projected to be about 2K larger in 2020. Schenectady+Montgomery+Schoharie is 2.5K larger still. It would be nice to rotate those counties between the three districts to get the alignment you'd like. However, the combined CDs 19, 20, 21 are about 8K under quota, so they have to be divided up carefully to avoid a chop and the rotation causes that to fail. BTW I noticed that I incorrectly colored Fulton which should be in CD 21. Fixed

I have a question on subdivisions for LI. The towns in Nassau and Suffolk are larger than one would like. What subdivision makes sense - school districts?

[Torie]

As I noted above the chop of Saratoga County in my map is right on the edge, very close to the point where the chop can be lost, with the Albany CD taking Hamilton County instead.

Granted in some cases the precinct lines do not fit, but it should be villages that are used (the precinct lines can be corrected). Even if the entirety of the territory is not covered in villages, the odd territory remaining would need to be cut reasonably to keep the erosity score down.

I asked you before to remind me what the penalty is for a subdivision chop, and again for a bridge chop. My impression in both cases is that it results in more erosity penalty points.