Instances of "locally complete" nesting in states with non-integer H/A:S ratios

[Kevinstat]

One instance: Maine has 35 Senators (it could alternatively have 31 or 33 under the present Maine Constitution) and 151 full-fledged (caveat immaterial to this discussion) Represenatives, all elected from single-member districts.  Under last year's redistricting plan (Maine waited until 2013 to redraw it's legislative districts, but future redistricting will be done the year after the census) all districts are with 5% of the ideal population as of and according to the 2010 census.  But the city of Lewiston, with 0.9641/35 and 4.1596/151 of Maine's population, will have one whole Senate district (same as in the past decade) and four whole House districts with no partial districts (it had a partial fifth district in the past decade; it had something like 4.3/151 of Maine's population as of and according to the 2000 census).

The only other instances I'm aware of are in Hawaii, at least in the plan following the 2000 census, where seats were apportioned among the counties rather than statewide and deviations only calculated from the county average.  (So Kauai's one Senate district didn't very at all from the Kauai average!  Shocker!   )  See Jimrtex's thorough analysis at https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=131671.msg2805710#msg2805710 .

Does anyone know of any other instances where a number of whole House/Assembly/[whatever the lower house of the Legislature is called] districts (including multi-member districts) are contained within a single Senate district* with no partial [lower house] districts within that Senate district even though the ratio of lower house members to upper house members in that state is not an integer?

*Preferably a single-member Senate district but I'll allow for multi-member Senate districts as long as the number of Senators in that district isn't a multiple of the denominator in the fractional [lower house member]upper house member] ratio, like not, for example a 2-member, 4-member, 6-member etc. Senate district in a state with a 5:2 House member:Senate member ratio.

[Kevinstat]

New Hampshire has just one Senate district that consists entirely of whole House districts: Senate District 13, consisting of 6 of Nashua's 9 wards.  Eash Nashua ward is a 3-member House district, and there are no floterial districts covering any of that city.  So that's 18:1 Representative:Senator nesting in a state with a 16_2/3:1 Representative:Senator ratio.  I haven't looked at the numbers but if all districts involved are within 5% of the ideal then the math is fairly tight, as six three-member House districts (or 18 single-member House districts) averaging -3.85% would make for a Senate district at +3.85%.  Plausible though as wards in a city, if they have been redrawn in time to be used as the building blocks for House districts, should be close to equal in population.

Three other Senate districts are entirely covered by House districts that are entirely within that Senate district, but they each contain part, but not all, of at least one floterial House district.  And one of those floterials elects three members so it's not like, "Oh, that hardly counts."  It definitely counts.  The only "violation" in one of those three districts (Senate District 4) is a single-member floterial that is probably about 2/3 in that Senate district based on the number of Representatives elected by the two single-member districts contained within it.  But Senate District 3 (Carol County and friends) probably has a greater claim to "near-nesting" than Senate District 4, as its only violation is its inclusion of Winterville Valley (pop. 247 as of and according to the 2010 census), the only town in Grafton County in Senate District 3.  Of course, 247 is around 7 or 8 percent of a population of a single-member New Hampshire House district with no floterial (which Winterville Valley is in) so not as negligible as it might seem at first glance to people in states with much larger populations per State Representative.

[Kevinstat]

El Paso is growing faster than the country, but slower than the the state.  In 2010, the senate district was extend outward by a few counties, and by 2020 will probably reach Del Rio.  Meanwhile the San Antonio-based 23rd was stretched further into El Paso which probably contributed to the election of Pete Gallego of Alpine, defeating San Antonio candidates in both the primary and general election.

Yet El Paso County still has five whole House districts.  They were all within 5% of the ideal House district population as of 2010 (but all over 4% on the small side), and the Senate district is only +0.68% (it would have been -1.29% without the four small counties next the east) but it seems odd to me for a single-member upper house district in a state with less than an n:1 lower house member:upper house member ratio to consist of all the territory of n lower house districts plus some more territory.

Does Texas's "county line rule" (the prevailing interpretation of the juxtaposition of requirements in the Texas constitution with the federal "one person, one vote" requirements, last I knew) prevent a county that can have a certain number of whole House districts but they would average less than the ideal (like El Paso County), does it prevent it from having territory outside the county added to that last House district to make the numbers closer?

Also, does the "county line rule" apply to the Senate districts at all?  I see at least three partial districts in Dallas County, so I'm thinking no, but that could have been required by some other situation such as VRA requirements.