State Legislature Redistricting

[Miles]

does anyone know what Mike Gronstal's district looks like in Iowa. I really hope he isn't the Tom Daschle of Iowa.

Its a tiny part of Pottawattomie county; largely based in Council Bluffs.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/778px-Iowa_Senate_districts.jpg

[jimrtex]

Proposed map for the Vermont House of Representatives:

http://vermont-elections.org/2011LABMaps.html

It eliminates all of the two-member districts.

Interesting. Does this mean they might be changing the crazy multi-member Senate districts?

I was reading the minutes of the Legislative Apportionment Board.  It is a pretty interesting process.  The redistricting statutes says that the LAB submits their proposal to the legislature and then the legislature may approve the proposal or substitute their own.  There have been comments to the press from members of the Democratic legislative leadership suggesting that the LAB was engaging in an intellectual exercise.

The 2010-11 LAB is a tri-partisan body.  Previously, parties qualified to participate based on their vote in the gubernatorial election (25%), but there was an election with an independent where the Democratic candidate finished 3rd and missed the threshold, so it would have been a uni-partisan GOP board.  The legislature changed it so participation was based on having enough representatives elected for 3 sessions from different counties, and the Progressives qualified along with the Democrats and Republicans.

So there is a chairman appointed by the Supreme Court, and two members of each party, one appointed by the governor, and the other by the party itself.  So instead of a 5-member board, there is a 7-member board.  In the critical votes on going with single member districts, the Progressive and Republican members outvoted the Democrats and the Republican chairman who was appointed by the Supreme Court.

The LAB creates a "tentative proposal" which is then submitted to the "board of civil authority" (BCA) of towns and cities that are tentatively split.  BCA is apparently a generic term that encompasses various forms of government organization.  The BCA may recommend alternative district lines, which the LAB may consider before making their "final proposal" to the legislature.

It is not clear whether the LAB can adjust the entire proposal, or are limited to adjusting the boundaries of town-splits based on recommendations of the BCA.  In earlier versions of the the HB Plan (HB stands for Hintgen and Brooks, the two Progressive member, with Steve Hintgen being the major protagonist), there were 6 2-member "initial districts".  For example, in Middlebury, Middlebury College has enough population for a single house district, but apparently relatively few voters).  It is unclear whether if the Middlebury town board proposed a 2-member initial district whether the LAB could agree, or if they are now stuck with 2 districts.  The minutes of the latest two LAB meetings have not been approved, and are not online, but apparently the LAB decided to go absolutely uniformly to single-member districts.

The alternative GL Plan (GL stands for Gerry Gossens and Tom Little, Gossens is a Democratic member, and Little is the chairman appointed by the Supreme Court.  A Republican, he appears to have widespread cross-party respect.)  provides for the following: 44 single-member, 28 two-member, 4 three-member, 4 four-member, one five-member, and one 17-member "initial districts".

The Vermont reapportionment statutes appears to favor an apportionment, in the conventional sense, as opposed to how it is often used in the US, vs a districting plan.  The legislature approves (as a bill) a final planof initial districts.  The local BCA then subdistrict the initial districts.  If an initial district has 2 members, splitting into single member districts is optional.  If I understand the statute, a town that would be split has absolute veto power, to force either an other plan, or no split.  With an ideal population of 4172, it is pretty hard to avoid town splits if single member districts are used, but may be more avoidable with two-member districts.  This is true, even though the LAB uses a deviation of +10% to -10%, or 20% total, vs. the 10% total that other legislatures typically use.

If an initial district has 3 or more members, then the BCA must subdistrict it into a combination one and/or two member districts.  It appears that the legislature is required to accept any subdistricting plan that complies with statutory provisions - the most severe limit is that the deviation of any district must not exceed the largest deviation of the initial districts (ie + or - 10%).

During the early meetings of the LAB, it appears that Little thought he had the support to create a conventional plan, with multi-member initial districts.  Hintgen kept refining his plan and, Little would make a comment that everything the LAB produced were public records and would be available to the BCA when they did their subdistricts.  But eventually Hintgen got the majority to go with his plan.

IIUC, the HB proposal now goes to the BCA of towns that are split, and they may recommend alternative boundaries within their towns.  Because of the single-member districts there are lots of towns that are split.  Conceivably the LAB will accept all their recommendations, and they will be happy.  Alternatively, the towns will decide that the single-member districts are horrible and contact the legislators to substitute their own plan.  

A single-member plan is sure to threaten lots of incumbents.  If there are two representatives from a district with 8000 people, there is a good chance they are neighbors.   And even if they are not physical neighbors they might be politically similar.  You might have a more liberal member who happens to live in a farmhouse in a more rural part of town, but is elected by voters in town, or a store owner who lives in town who garners support from rural constituents.  Two incumbents might face one another in a single-member district, with an open seat in the same town, or an incumbent might face a less favorable electorate.

There are also quite a few RD 2-member districts.   With such small districts, personal campaigning can be effective.  It might be feasible to knock on all doors.  And there may also be a high level of civic involvement by ordinary voters.  A strong R incumbent might finish in the top 2 against two D opponents in a nominally Democratic district.  All Republicans will vote for him, and any voter who wants a bipartisan delegation will vote for him, and pick between the two Democrats.  In such a case, the Democrats are actually running against each other, and might not be willing to run as partisan clones.  

The current plan has 42 2-member districts and 66 single-member districts, so 84 representatives (56%) are elected from 2-member districts.  At the time of the OMOV decisions, Vermont elected 2 representatives from each town, so that it had a 246-member House, and there may be a sense that 2-member districts are proper, and single-member districts are exceptional.

After the LAB makes their final proposal for 150-member single member districts, and if it were approved by the legislature, that would be end of the process.  Because all the "initial districts" would be single-member districts, there would be no role for the BCA in the process.

If the GL plan had been adopted by the LAB as the tentative proposal, then there would be very little role for the BCA at this point, since its initial districts only split two towns.  In one case, Milton is split so a Grand Isle two-member district has enough population, with the rest of Milton forming another two-member district.  The other town that is split is Eden, which is split between 2 single-member districts.  If they were in a 2-member district, Johnson would have a dominant position (40% or so) in a 7-town district extending north to the Canadian border.  I'd guess that this was a patch to get a district up to enough population.

If the GL plan were approved by the legislature, then all the initial districts with 2 or more members would be subject to subdistricting by the various BCA.

So my bet is that single-member plan gets tossed by the legislature.  They might adopt the GL plan, or perhaps could take the HB plan and paste all single-member districts together, but I'd guess that they would view it to be so radical it might be totally ignored.  The GL plan has a 17-member Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski district.  The legislature might logically try to split Burlington out as its own initial district (9 or 10 members).

The LAB didn't spend too much time on the Senate plan (until the latter meetings).  Before the OMOV decisions, each county had one senator, with the remainder apportioned by population.   While the Vermont constitution requires one and two-member representative districts, it sets no limits on Senate districts.  Statute provides for apportionment of the 30 senators among counties or groups of counties.  All 14 counties, except Essex and Grand Isle would be entitled to at least one senator.

Chittenden is entitled to about 7.5 senators, with no other county entitled to more than 3.  The reapportionment statutes say that senators should be apportioned to counties or groups of counties, but also the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should be respected.  In the past, towns have been shifted between counties, so that the county-based districts are somewhat like those in Ireland.

It appears that there are several counties that are a little bit short of enough for a whole number of districts that were rounded up, while those that an excess population were two far above to be rounded down, so instead must have had towns shifted out.  And they may have rounded Chittenden up to give it 4 2-member districts.  All in all, the rounding was imbalanced and they ended up with 31 seats.  The constitution says that county and other political subdivision boundaries should be respected, but is not specific about counties.  The statutes say counties (or groups of counties), but because of population equality have not been strictly followed in the past.  The 2-member districts in Chittenden don't really comply with the statute, unless you can make a case that large multi-member districts violate equal protection.  Do Yankees talk enough to be a protected linguistic minority?

Apparently Republicans tried to break up the Chittenden senatorial district in 2001, and failed. Like for the House, the LAB only makes a proposal which the legislature may adopt or replace.  There might be some support for smaller districts from the other counties, who are wary of 1/4 of the senate being elected from a single big city district.

[Kevinstat]

I've copied the Vermont discussion into the Vermont Legislative Redistricting thread (formerly the Vermont State Senate Redistricting thread).

A moderator might have been able to just move the posts over, but I think this works okay.

[krazen1211]

The numbers are out on NC redistricting.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3b9a1b58949b4bbcbd5a2e2426c811e4/NC--Capitol-Letter/


There are currently 18 House members and seven senators who are black. The proposed maps would create 24 House districts and nine Senate seats where black voters constitute a majority.




The assertion of NC Democrats of course is quite amusing given their history of losing at court litigation.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Proposed Arkansas Senate maps:

Beebe's.
McDaniel's.

State legislative maps in Arkansas are approved by a three-person panel consisting of the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. I've heard these maps guarantee the Democrats about 15-16 seats, so they'd have to hold a couple more seats to keep their majority.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Some of their choices are slightly bizarre. They could definitely have created a totally new Democratic district in Morris County by combining Morristown, Morris Plains, Parsippany and Dover (plus the areas near each that are also Democratic) in one seat, but they chose not to do so for whatever reason, instead stranding all of those areas in R seats.

Turns out this isn't as easy now that I can try it with partisan data. This is the best I could do:



This little gerrymandered beast is still just 52.5% for Obama and averages 52.1% for Republican candidates for other offices. Granted it's more winnable than any of the seats they did put those places in.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Arkansas is done.

[Хahar 🤔]

The proposed California State Senate maps keep a district that stretches from Morgan Hill in Santa Clara County all the way down past San Luis Obispo (while somehow excluding Salinas). It's both ugly and unnecessary.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Proposed WV Senate map:



I hear it's passed the Senate.

[Brittain33]

Is it reasonable to say you can guess which districts favor Democrats based on underweighting or overweighting by population?

[RBH]

an attempt at Tennessee State Senate redistricting






SD1 (Southerland-R): 71/29 McCain, 64/36 Rep (71/29 McCain, 64/36 Rep)
SD2 (Ramsey-R): 71.5/28.5 McCain, 65/35 Rep (71/29 McCain, 65/35 Rep)
SD3 (Crowe-R): 70/30 McCain, 64/36 Rep (71/29 McCain, 65/35 Rep)
SD4 (Faulk-R): 71/29 McCain, 62/38 Rep (71/29 McCain, 63/37 Rep)
SD5 (McNally-R): 67/33 McCain, 57/43 Rep (69/31 McCain, 61/39 Rep)
SD6 (winner of Special Election-R): 62/38 McCain, 55/45 Rep (65/35 McCain, 58/42 Rep)
SD7 (Campfield-R): 59/41 McCain, 55/45 Rep (56/44 McCain, 52/48 Rep)
SD8 (Overbey-R): 72/28 McCain, 65/35 Rep (72/28 McCain, 65/35 Rep)
SD9 (Bell-R): 73/27 McCain, 65/35 Rep (72.5/27.5 McCain, 65/35 Rep)
SD10 (Berke-D): 57/43 McCain, 50.1/49.9 Rep (50.3/49.7 McCain, 56/44 Dem)
SD11 (Watson-R): 70/30 McCain, 62/38 Rep (73/27 McCain, 65/35 Rep)
SD12 (Yager-R): 70/30 McCain, 62/38 Rep (71/29 McCain, 60/40 Rep)
SD13 (Ketron-R): 64/36 McCain, 60/40 Rep (64/36 McCain, 57/43 Rep)
SD14 (Stewart-D): 65/35 McCain, 55/45 Rep (63/37 McCain, 53/47 Rep)
SD15 (Burks-D): 65/35 McCain, 56/44 Rep (65/35 McCain, 55.5/45.5 Rep)
SD16 (Tracy-R): 59.5/40.5 McCain, 54/46 Rep (59/41 McCain, 54.5/45.5 Rep)
SD17 (Beavers-R): 66/34 McCain, 58/42 Rep (66.5/33.5 McCain, 58/42 Rep)
SD18 (open): 68/32 McCain, 61/39 Rep (67/33 McCain, 60/40 Rep)
SD19 (Harper-D): 81/19 Obama, 79/21 Dem (86/14 Obama, 83/17 Dem)
SD20 (open): 62/38 Obama, 62/38 Dem (55/45 Obama, 56/44 Dem)
SD21 (Henry-D): 55/45 McCain, 52/48 Rep (55/45 Obama, 56.5/43.5 Dem)
SD22 (Barnes-D and Roberts-R): 61/39 McCain, 54/46 Rep (56/44 McCain, 52/48 Rep)
SD23 (Johnson-R): 64.5/35.5 McCain, 62/38 Rep (66/34 McCain, 63/37 Rep)
SD24 (Herron-D): 62/38 McCain, 52/48 Rep (63.5/36.5 McCain, 53/47 Rep)
SD25 (Summerville-R): 58/42 McCain, 51/49 Rep (61/39 McCain, 52/48 Rep)
SD26 (Gresham-R): 60/40 McCain, 53/47 Rep (62.5/37.5 McCain, 55/45 Rep)
SD27 (Finney-D): 59/41 McCain, 52/48 Rep (58/42 McCain, 51/49 Rep)
SD28 (Kyle-D): 79/21 Obama, 73/27 Dem (71.5/28.5 Obama, 67/33 Dem)
SD29 (Ford-D): 76/24 Obama, 70/30 Dem (78/22 Obama, 72/28 Dem)
SD30 (open): 65/35 McCain, 56/44 Rep
SD31 (Kelsey-R): 54/46 McCain, 56/44 Rep (53/47 McCain, 57.5/42.5 Rep)
SD32 (Norris-R): 65/35 McCain, 64/36 Rep (69/31 McCain, 63/37 Rep)
SD33 (Tate-D): 81/19 Obama, 75/25 Dem (80/20 Obama, 74/26 Dem)

The 30th moves out of Memphis (where it was a 66/34 Obama/63D/37R district).

High AfAm-percentage districts

SD10: 19.5% (was 31.4%)
SD11: 16.1% (was 7%)
SD19: 53.1% (was 56.2%)
SD20: 21.9% (was 23.1%)
SD26: 28.4% (was 20.6%)
SD27: 23.4% (was 27%)
SD28: 65.1% (was 58.1%)
SD29: 62.7% (was 70.2%)
SD31: 32% (was 32.7%)
SD32: 21.1% (was 18.5%)
SD33: 73.9% (was 72.7%)

and the former SD30 was 47.5% African-American

Predicted effects. Even districts up in 2012/Odd districts up in 2014

2012:
Berke loses or comes close in the closest election in the district since 1984.
Stewart loses or comes close. Stewart won by 6.95% in 2008.
The Republicans keep the open 18th and the Democrats keep the open 20th.
Joe Haynes goes into retirement.
Roberts defeats Barnes.
Herron could hold the 24th.
Gresham could get a solid challenge. Kyle could get a solid primary challenge.
Republicans pickup the open 30th.

The Senate goes from 20-13 Republican to 22-11 Republican at worst. Maybe even 24-9 Republican or 25-8 if Herron retires or gets a solid challenge.

2014:
If Burks retires, her seat goes Republican. Henry would probably retire and his seat goes Republican. Summerville and Finney should get solid challenges. The partisan composition would be a range from 21-12 Republican to 28-5 Republican with the 5 Democrats being Ford, Tate, Kyle, the 20th district incumbent, and Harper.

And a look at Maury county since the border between the 30th and 13th may not be clear



So i'm sure this violates the Tennessee Constitution

[BigSkyBob]

Are these the new Ohio legislative maps?

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

[muon2]

Are these the new Ohio legislative maps?

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

Yes, and the Apportionment Board is expected to approve them at their meeting this morning. The group that ran the competition has an analysis of the proposal in terms of the contest parameters.

Edit: It has been approved.

[jimrtex]

Are these the new Ohio legislative maps?

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

Yes, and the Apportionment Board is expected to approve them at their meeting this morning. The group that ran the competition has an analysis of the proposal in terms of the contest parameters.

Their interpretation of the constitution is wrong.  The constraint is not on one district dividing more than two units, but rather the boundary between two districts dividing more than one unit.

You can't split off the piece of McCoysville where Bob Hatfield lives (and then cut off a big chunk of Hatfieldtown where many of his supporters live AND put the rest of McCoysville and Hatfieldtown in another district.

If you accepted the contest interpretation, then it is a violation of the constitution for a district to split both Montgomery and Greene counties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"such units" is a reference to the units prescribed in division (B) - counties, townships, municipalities, and city wards.   "between two districts" is describing the boundary between any pair of two districts.

Their interpretation would mean that if City A was divided between District 1 and District 2, and Township B was divided between District 2 and District 3, that "two districts" would refer to "three districts".

When I submitted my entry they asked about my plan which included districts that split both Cincinnati and Columbia Township and Cincinnati and Sycamore Township.  I explained that their interpretation was wrong, and didn't hear any more about it.

Similarly with respect to the drawing of two 50% BVAP senate districts in Cuyahoga County, I not only sent them a lengthy explanation of why it was impossible, I sent them demonstration maps showing the problems with an attempt at two majority BVAP districts, and also provided a plan with 5 majority BVAP house districts.

The "winning" plans clearly violated the Ohio Constitution to draw their senate districts (and the case in NC would appear to indicate that a State may not exceed reasonable state reapportionment standards to create VRA districts.

[muon2]

Are these the new Ohio legislative maps?

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

Yes, and the Apportionment Board is expected to approve them at their meeting this morning. The group that ran the competition has an analysis of the proposal in terms of the contest parameters.

Their interpretation of the constitution is wrong.  The constraint is not on one district dividing more than two units, but rather the boundary between two districts dividing more than one unit.

You can't split off the piece of McCoysville where Bob Hatfield lives (and then cut off a big chunk of Hatfieldtown where many of his supporters live AND put the rest of McCoysville and Hatfieldtown in another district.

If you accepted the contest interpretation, then it is a violation of the constitution for a district to split both Montgomery and Greene counties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"such units" is a reference to the units prescribed in division (B) - counties, townships, municipalities, and city wards.   "between two districts" is describing the boundary between any pair of two districts.

Their interpretation would mean that if City A was divided between District 1 and District 2, and Township B was divided between District 2 and District 3, that "two districts" would refer to "three districts".

When I submitted my entry they asked about my plan which included districts that split both Cincinnati and Columbia Township and Cincinnati and Sycamore Township.  I explained that their interpretation was wrong, and didn't hear any more about it.

Similarly with respect to the drawing of two 50% BVAP senate districts in Cuyahoga County, I not only sent them a lengthy explanation of why it was impossible, I sent them demonstration maps showing the problems with an attempt at two majority BVAP districts, and also provided a plan with 5 majority BVAP house districts.

The "winning" plans clearly violated the Ohio Constitution to draw their senate districts (and the case in NC would appear to indicate that a State may not exceed reasonable state reapportionment standards to create VRA districts.

I tend to agree with your interpretation of the Constitution as far as splits, but I disagree with your conclusion about the black majority senate districts in Cuyahoga.

There is a way to draw two black-majority districts, even following the ward rules. I didn't follow the ward rules, because I was aiming for better compactness and didn't have to follow wards for the competition.

The way to two black-majority districts while preserving wards requires an unconstitutional split of Cuyahoga. The key is to get Oakwood, Glenwillow and Solon into one of the two districts which leaves separate fragments on both the eastern and southern ends of the county.

I made that split in my plan and I provided a lengthy rationale, which in a nutshell starts with a proof that at least one county must be treated unconstitutionally in NE OH. Then when considering which county to split unconstitutionally I found three reasons to support the choice of Cuyahoga. It is the largest population county, it only is required to have 10 whole house seats based on population, and by doing so one can create two black-majority districts without any other constitutional violations.

[jimrtex]

I tend to agree with your interpretation of the Constitution as far as splits, but I disagree with your conclusion about the black majority senate districts in Cuyahoga.

There is a way to draw two black-majority districts, even following the ward rules. I didn't follow the ward rules, because I was aiming for better compactness and didn't have to follow wards for the competition.

The way to two black-majority districts while preserving wards requires an unconstitutional split of Cuyahoga. The key is to get Oakwood, Glenwillow and Solon into one of the two districts which leaves separate fragments on both the eastern and southern ends of the county.

I made that split in my plan and I provided a lengthy rationale, which in a nutshell starts with a proof that at least one county must be treated unconstitutionally in NE OH. Then when considering which county to split unconstitutionally I found three reasons to support the choice of Cuyahoga. It is the largest population county, it only is required to have 10 whole house seats based on population, and by doing so one can create two black-majority districts without any other constitutional violations.

Is it the county that violates the constitution, or each district?  I would argue that the requirements are on the drawing of the house districts.

You can draw 11 districts in Cuyahoga; or 10 districts and one that is almost entirely in Cuyahoga (see 11.08).  The rules are general for all counties.  And it should be considered a violation of equal protection to take advantage of the large size to create many districts that are overpopulated or underpopulated, which is systematic bias.

I think that creation of house districts and senate districts are independent processes, though there may be some feedback to adjust house districts so that they can be combined.  Your viewpoint may be based on your experience in Illinois, where senate districts are split to form house districts.  My solution would be to increase the size of the Ohio House to 105 members and eliminate the nesting requirement (105 is chosen so as to not reduce the number of senators, and to eliminate the possibility of any natural nesting (105/33 is 3.18).

To create 2 50% BVAP senate districts results in 4 50% BVAP house districts, and the packing of two of the house districts to overwhelm the district in west Cleveland  (70.6%, 59.9%, and 19.9%) to yield 50.1%; and the other is 56.0%, 51.0%, 45.5% for 50.7%.  If you totally ignored city and ward boundaries, and perhaps even precinct boundaries, you might be able to squeeze those 3 house districts over 50%.

And the majority depends on how mixed-race persons are tabulated.  So even though 2 50% BVAP are possible, albeit with a violation of the constitution, it is not a desirable result, since 5 50% BVAP house districts can quite comfortably be accomplished without packing or narrowly clawing bast 50%, which produces a senate district with a comfortable 50% BVAP, and another in the 40% range with two representatives.

Plus the contest rules were schizophrenic, since they created an incentive to crack elsewhere.

[muon2]

I tend to agree with your interpretation of the Constitution as far as splits, but I disagree with your conclusion about the black majority senate districts in Cuyahoga.

There is a way to draw two black-majority districts, even following the ward rules. I didn't follow the ward rules, because I was aiming for better compactness and didn't have to follow wards for the competition.

The way to two black-majority districts while preserving wards requires an unconstitutional split of Cuyahoga. The key is to get Oakwood, Glenwillow and Solon into one of the two districts which leaves separate fragments on both the eastern and southern ends of the county.

I made that split in my plan and I provided a lengthy rationale, which in a nutshell starts with a proof that at least one county must be treated unconstitutionally in NE OH. Then when considering which county to split unconstitutionally I found three reasons to support the choice of Cuyahoga. It is the largest population county, it only is required to have 10 whole house seats based on population, and by doing so one can create two black-majority districts without any other constitutional violations.

Is it the county that violates the constitution, or each district?  I would argue that the requirements are on the drawing of the house districts.

You can draw 11 districts in Cuyahoga; or 10 districts and one that is almost entirely in Cuyahoga (see 11.08).  The rules are general for all counties.  And it should be considered a violation of equal protection to take advantage of the large size to create many districts that are overpopulated or underpopulated, which is systematic bias.

Sections 11.10 and 11.11 deal with the creation of House and Senate districts from counties. Section 11.10(C) elaborates on section 11.08. When I looked at the inherent conflict in the constitutional requirements applied to NE OH, I considered a number of sections that could be violated and resolve the problem. I also felt that to resolve the problem only one section should be violated. It appears that most plans chose to violate section 11.11 on the formation of Senate districts. I see nothing to indicate that a violation of section 11.10(C) isn't equally acceptable to resolve the conflict. Actually, by resolving it that way, I can do a better job of spreading population since I don't have to systematically underpopulate Cuyahoga.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had done an shared map designed to create 11 black-majority House districts and 4 in the Senate. In that plan, without any unusual squeezing, HD 8 is up to 49.4% without going into Cleveland. Based on the testimony on the congressional plan, I would think that would be sufficient to elect the candidate of choice.

It's not hard to balance the wards and percentages when a plan isn't trying to micromanage compactness. For instance, this is a simple adjustment to the competition plan that divides no more than one ward between a pair of districts. The percentages in 11 and 12 become 67.5% and 65.6%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would think that 2 SDs and 4 HDs over 50% with a fifth HD just under 50% would be better than 1 SD and 5 HDs over 50% with a second SD just under 50%. The upper chamber seat is usually given more importance by minority groups.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No argument there. As we have discussed previously, a threshold test for compactness would have greatly reduced the schizophrenia for me. The map I posted above would lose about a point and a half in the competition even though the boundaries of only 4 of 99 districts were adjusted.

[jimrtex]

Is it the county that violates the constitution, or each district?  I would argue that the requirements are on the drawing of the house districts.

You can draw 11 districts in Cuyahoga; or 10 districts and one that is almost entirely in Cuyahoga (see 11.08).  The rules are general for all counties.  And it should be considered a violation of equal protection to take advantage of the large size to create many districts that are overpopulated or underpopulated, which is systematic bias.

Sections 11.10 and 11.11 deal with the creation of House and Senate districts from counties. Section 11.10(C) elaborates on section 11.08. When I looked at the inherent conflict in the constitutional requirements applied to NE OH, I considered a number of sections that could be violated and resolve the problem. I also felt that to resolve the problem only one section should be violated. It appears that most plans chose to violate section 11.11 on the formation of Senate districts. I see nothing to indicate that a violation of section 11.10(C) isn't equally acceptable to resolve the conflict. Actually, by resolving it that way, I can do a better job of spreading population since I don't have to systematically underpopulate Cuyahoga.

I wasn't really referring to the current census, where Cuyahoga is entitled to 10.985 representatives, but rather the case where it might be entitled to10.485 and divided into 10 or 11 districts wholly within the county, which could be done without going outside 5% per district deviation, but I believe should be regarded as violation of equal protection since the discrimination is applied to an identifiable class of persons: Cuyahogans.

Doesn't your senate plan split Cuyahoga between 5 districts?

To create 2 50% BVAP senate districts results in 4 50% BVAP house districts, and the packing of two of the house districts to overwhelm the district in west Cleveland  (70.6%, 59.9%, and 19.9%) to yield 50.1%; and the other is 56.0%, 51.0%, 45.5% for 50.7%.  If you totally ignored city and ward boundaries, and perhaps even precinct boundaries, you might be able to squeeze those 3 house districts over 50%.

I had done an shared map designed to create 11 black-majority House districts and 4 in the Senate. In that plan, without any unusual squeezing, HD 8 is up to 49.4% without going into Cleveland. Based on the testimony on the congressional plan, I would think that would be sufficient to elect the candidate of choice.

It's not hard to balance the wards and percentages when a plan isn't trying to micromanage compactness. For instance, this is a simple adjustment to the competition plan that divides no more than one ward between a pair of districts. The percentages in 11 and 12 become 67.5% and 65.6%.

This is the version of your plan that I had modified to be based on whole wards. 



11.07(C) can only be used if it is not feasible to create districts with the units in 11.07(B).  And it is feasible to do so.  I doubt that lack of ready access to ward boundaries in the contest would count as non-feasible, since they were available on the SOS web site.

If a challenge were going to be made to the apportionment board plan it would be based on not forming districts from whole counties and whole cities and city wards when it was feasible to do so.  I really don't think it was the intent of the constitution that of only 5 districts made up of whole counties includes the 4 single-county districts that are outside the 5% deviation range.

This removes the two least Black wards from use in the 6 house districts.  I'm pretty sure I selected the other cites based on having 6/11 of the total county population.  It also required a change in the district that extends into Medina.

While it wasn't necessarily the intent to create 70.6% and 60.0% districts, rather than two that were at 65%, there may be no way to do so using whole wards plus all the other constraints.  10, 11, and 12 form the 50.1% senate district.  I may have had to pull Newburgh Heights out to tip the balance, which stretches from the airport to both East Cleveland and Maple Heights.

It is District 7 that is the 45% district, once you eliminate the split of Ward 10 and add University Heights you are in trouble, since Euclid is under 50%.

And the majority depends on how mixed-race persons are tabulated.  So even though 2 50% BVAP are possible, albeit with a violation of the constitution, it is not a desirable result, since 5 50% BVAP house districts can quite comfortably be accomplished without packing or narrowly clawing bast 50%, which produces a senate district with a comfortable 50% BVAP, and another in the 40% range with two representatives.

I would think that 2 SDs and 4 HDs over 50% with a fifth HD just under 50% would be better than 1 SD and 5 HDs over 50% with a second SD just under 50%. The upper chamber seat is usually given more importance by minority groups.

How would a court look at it when that second seat was achieved by packing a pair of house districts and adding a 20% white district in west Cleveland?

[BigSkyBob]

Proposed Missouri State Senate districts:


http://oa.mo.gov/bp/redistricting/documents/Senate%20Apportionment%20Map%208.5x11%20Statewide.pdf


Proposed Missouri State House districts:

http://oa.mo.gov/bp/redistricting/documents/House%20Apportionment%20Plan%208.5x11%20Statewide.pdf

For detailed maps:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/s_default.asp?id=maps

[RBH]

the data

http://oa.mo.gov/bp/redistricting/pdf/House%20Election%20Table.pdf

Partisan splits
from 02 to 10: 102-61 R
2008: 87 to 76 R
2010: 123 to 40 R

Competitive districts (within 10%)
from 02 to 10: 41
2008: 53
2010: 21

I think they skewed some of their data by including state senate/rep races. It'd be a far better indication of tendencies to stick to races where both parties have a candidate.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Maryland's proposed districts.

Some observations:

- Looks like they're trying to screw Sen. Nancy Jacobs, the erstwhile Senate Minority Leader, out of her seat, by cutting the Cecil County portion out of the 34th.
- Speaker Michael Busch gets a safe district in Annapolis. They're splitting up a lot of the House districts in Anne Arundel, probably trying to squeeze another seat or two out.
- 38th gets split up three ways, probably to protect Del. Norm Conway, but possibly also to try to pick up 38A. Doesn't look like they did much to shore up Sen. Mathias, except maybe to cut out a bit of Wicomico southeast of Salisbury.
- 3rd shrinks a bit, probably will help out Sen. Ronald Young.
- It looks like they screwed Sen. James Brochin in the 42nd by making his district a lot more Republican. I'm not sure why they did that.

[BigSkyBob]

Proposed Tennessee state Senate maps:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/redist/Plan%20H%20StMap.pdf

Regional insert maps here:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/redist/redistricting.html

[BigSkyBob]

Proposed New York Legislative Districts:



http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I hope Cuomo vetoes that mess.

[ag]

I hope Cuomo vetoes that mess.

According to NYT, his aides are already saying he will.