Local vs regional road connections

[jimrtex]

This is a Pierce map. Subunits are based on school districts, adjusted to put all of places in a single subunit.

Lake Tapps CDP, Prairie Ridge CDP, Summit CDP, and Summit View CDP do not have a school district with 2/3 of their population, and form their own subunit.



Pierce has 14506 blocks vs. 34506 blocks in King County, and the merging appears to run much quicker.

[Torie]

Putting on my "artist" hat, what is beyond per adventure is that Jimrtex's maps are a heck of lot prettier than Muon2's hideous washed out affairs. The one above is an object d'art, suitable for framing. I particular like that little horizontal red triangle, with the vertical dodger blue rectangle below, on the lime green background. The light brown shape in the east is also superb.

[muon2]

Here's Thurston using cities and towns, then filling in by school district. As strict as Kitsap is nesting precincts in school districts, Thurston is weak. I guess the Clerk there isn't as concerned about multiple ballots in a precinct.



There are 7 munis and 9 school districts:

Lacey (teal): 36,709
Olympia (green): 46,478
Rainier (forest green): 1,794
Tenino (tan): 1,695
Tumwater (purple): 17,371
Yelm (red orange): 6,848
Bucoda (brown): 562
North Thurston SD (cyan): 51,896
Olympia SD (light green): 19,363
Rainier SD (lime green): 2,600
Centralia SD (blue): 439
Rochester SD (dusty rose): 14,720
Tenino SD (beige): 8.046
Tumwater SD (lilac): 21,236
Yelm (orange): 15,948
Griffin (pink): 6,559

[Torie]

That light green thing near the top has an unfortunate shape. Is that due to geographic barriers?

[muon2]

That light green thing near the top has an unfortunate shape. Is that due to geographic barriers?

The boundary between the precincts in light green and lilac is the actual SD boundary, too. There's not really any population in the western part of that light green area, it's all mountain. However, the Olympia SD (light green) actually includes the western part of state hwy 8 in the pink precinct, but not the part at the junction with US 101. I'm guessing that the western pink precinct is drawn to connect all the parcels along s.h. 8 even though that includes part of western Olympia SD.



You can see how poorly the precincts match here. Kitsap would probably have had an additional precinct with few if any residents to cover the separate SD along s.h 8 if they were in charge.

[jimrtex]

This is a Pierce map. Subunits are based on school districts, adjusted to put all of places in a single subunit.

Lake Tapps CDP, Prairie Ridge CDP, Summit CDP, and Summit View CDP do not have a school district with 2/3 of their population, and form their own subunit.



Pierce has 14506 blocks vs. 34506 blocks in King County, and the merging appears to run much quicker.

Here is combination of 2nd and 3rd level units, based on the refined algorithm for King County.

[jimrtex]

That light green thing near the top has an unfortunate shape. Is that due to geographic barriers?

The boundary between the precincts in light green and lilac is the actual SD boundary, too. There's not really any population in the western part of that light green area, it's all mountain. However, the Olympia SD (light green) actually includes the western part of state hwy 8 in the pink precinct, but not the part at the junction with US 101. I'm guessing that the western pink precinct is drawn to connect all the parcels along s.h. 8 even though that includes part of western Olympia SD.



You can see how poorly the precincts match here. Kitsap would probably have had an additional precinct with few if any residents to cover the separate SD along s.h 8 if they were in charge.

Under vote-by-mail, there is not any reason for having election precincts. Voting jurisdictions and districts can be tied to street addresses, and there is no need for polling places.

However, it appears that Washington has retained its previous law, that requires precincts to conform to city boundaries, and county, state, and federal legislative districts. It also sets a cap of 1500 voters. Oregon now has a cap of 5000 voters.

[jimrtex]

Putting on my "artist" hat, what is beyond per adventure is that Jimrtex's maps are a heck of lot prettier than Muon2's hideous washed out affairs. The one above is an object d'art, suitable for framing. I particular like that little horizontal red triangle, with the vertical dodger blue rectangle below, on the lime green background. The light brown shape in the east is also superb.

The colors are randomly assigned. Should I generate several versions, and let you judge which is best?

Here is Snohomish.

[muon2]

Here's Yakima. As with the others I used the cities and towns as separate subunits (but not places), then school districts for the remaining unincorporated areas. Precincts were assigned to the district with the most population, as best as I could tell from the map (I don't have the block data that jimrtex has.)



The Yakama Indian Reservation takes up a lot of the land in the county. Here are the subunits completely outside the reservation.

Naches town (brown) 795
Naches SD (peach) 7,331

Tieton city (dark blue) 1,191; 57.6% HVAP
Highland SD (slate blue) 4,410; 29.6% HVAP

Selah city (violet) 7,126
Selah SD (lilac) 14,460

Yakima city (dark green) 91,023; 33.5% HVAP
Moxee city (dark aqua) 3,308; 34.0%HVAP
West Valley SD (lime) 11,890
Yakima SD (green) 451
East Valley SD (aqua) 11,352

Union Gap city (tan) 6,047; 38.1% HVAP
Union Gap SD (yellow) 104

Zillah city (olive) 2,964; 35.0% HVAP
Zillah SD (khaki) 2,194; 25.0% HVAP

Sunnyside city (orange-red) 15,854; 75.9% HVAP
Sunnyside SD (salmon) 8,883; 56.4% HVAP

Grandview city (teal) 10,862; 73.6% HVAP
Grandview SD (turquoise) 3,390; 47.6% HVAP

Mabton city (deep pink) 2,286; 89.4% HVAP
Mabton SD (pink) 1,224; 63.6% HVAP

Bickelton SD (coral) 66; 27.3% HVAP

There's an interesting issue that arises here due to the Yakama Indian Reservation. It is served by 4 separate school districts (Mabton SD covers an unpopulated part of the reservation), but only Mount Adams is entirely within the reservation. The cities in the reservation are overwhelmingly Hispanic and less than 20% of the native population lives in those reservation cities. Here are the stats for the reservation subunits:

Harrah town (indigo) 625; 16.8% NVAP; 51.7% HVAP
Mount Adams SD (orchid) 4,257; 48.9% NVAP; 21.6% HVAP

Wapato city (dark red) 4,997; 6.5% NVAP; 79.4% HVAP
Wapato SD (dark salmon) 8,619; 24.2% NVAP; 39.8% HVAP

Toppenish city (medium blue) 8,949; 7.4% NVAP; 78.5% HVAP
Toppenish SD (light blue) 4,949; 20.6% NVAP; 44.1% NVAP

Granger city (green) 3,246; 1.5% NVAP; 83.6% HVAP
Granger SD (light green) 2,353; 11.9% NVAP; 44.1% HVAP

The reservation as a whole subunit, including munis has 29,978 people including a native population of 6,571. Here are some questions.

Should the reservation be kept together as a single subunit?
If the reservation is not a single subunit, should there be a scoring benefit to keeping the subunits that cover it together?
There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?

[Torie]

I don't get the connectivity issue.

The reservation should be treated like a hybrid county, just like I suggest in AZ. That addresses the first two points.

"There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?"

God no. We have the VRA. Leave it at that. What you are suggesting is moving the VRA towards the Florida law with minority opportunity districts.

[jimrtex]

Here's Yakima. As with the others I used the cities and towns as separate subunits (but not places), then school districts for the remaining unincorporated areas. Precincts were assigned to the district with the most population, as best as I could tell from the map (I don't have the block data that jimrtex has.)



The Yakama Indian Reservation takes up a lot of the land in the county. Here are the subunits completely outside the reservation.

Naches town (brown) 795
Naches SD (peach) 7,331

Tieton city (dark blue) 1,191; 57.6% HVAP
Highland SD (slate blue) 4,410; 29.6% HVAP

Selah city (violet) 7,126
Selah SD (lilac) 14,460

Yakima city (dark green) 91,023; 33.5% HVAP
Moxee city (dark aqua) 3,308; 34.0%HVAP
West Valley SD (lime) 11,890
Yakima SD (green) 451
East Valley SD (aqua) 11,352

Union Gap city (tan) 6,047; 38.1% HVAP
Union Gap SD (yellow) 104

Zillah city (olive) 2,964; 35.0% HVAP
Zillah SD (khaki) 2,194; 25.0% HVAP

Sunnyside city (orange-red) 15,854; 75.9% HVAP
Sunnyside SD (salmon) 8,883; 56.4% HVAP

Grandview city (teal) 10,862; 73.6% HVAP
Grandview SD (turquoise) 3,390; 47.6% HVAP

Mabton city (deep pink) 2,286; 89.4% HVAP
Mabton SD (pink) 1,224; 63.6% HVAP

Bickelton SD (coral) 66; 27.3% HVAP

There's an interesting issue that arises here due to the Yakama Indian Reservation. It is served by 4 separate school districts (Mabton SD covers an unpopulated part of the reservation), but only Mount Adams is entirely within the reservation. The cities in the reservation are overwhelmingly Hispanic and less than 20% of the native population lives in those reservation cities. Here are the stats for the reservation subunits:

Harrah town (indigo) 625; 16.8% NVAP; 51.7% HVAP
Mount Adams SD (orchid) 4,257; 48.9% NVAP; 21.6% HVAP

Wapato city (dark red) 4,997; 6.5% NVAP; 79.4% HVAP
Wapato SD (dark salmon) 8,619; 24.2% NVAP; 39.8% HVAP

Toppenish city (medium blue) 8,949; 7.4% NVAP; 78.5% HVAP
Toppenish SD (light blue) 4,949; 20.6% NVAP; 44.1% NVAP

Granger city (green) 3,246; 1.5% NVAP; 83.6% HVAP
Granger SD (light green) 2,353; 11.9% NVAP; 44.1% HVAP

The reservation as a whole subunit, including munis has 29,978 people including a native population of 6,571. Here are some questions.

Should the reservation be kept together as a single subunit?
If the reservation is not a single subunit, should there be a scoring benefit to keeping the subunits that cover it together?
There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?

Are the numbers for Toppenish SD, NVAP and HVAP (you have NVAP and NVAP)

My inclination would be to keep the reservation whole.

There was an effort to create a Hispanic opportunity legislative district in the Yakima area. This might be a case where they could do so with a separate representative district. The city of Yakima is also in litigation over its city council. One of the interesting amicus briefs in the Texas OMOV case was from the city, who noted that there was no problem coming up with CVAP numbers.

[muon2]

I don't get the connectivity issue.

The reservation should be treated like a hybrid county, just like I suggest in AZ. That addresses the first two points.

"There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?"

God no. We have the VRA. Leave it at that. What you are suggesting is moving the VRA towards the Florida law with minority opportunity districts.

We did spend some time when we looked at AL and we respected contiguous minority counties in the Black Belt the same way we did UCCs. The idea was that rural minority interests were on a par with urban interests. We also wanted to avoid hops over white areas just to link Black areas. One exception was that the AL Black Belt had a mandatory chop to deal with the fact that it extended all the way across the state, but otherwise we avoided chops to the Belt. We applied the same reasoning when we looked at LA.

Is that a bad idea to your mind now?

[jimrtex]

I don't get the connectivity issue.

The reservation should be treated like a hybrid county, just like I suggest in AZ. That addresses the first two points.

"There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?"

God no. We have the VRA. Leave it at that. What you are suggesting is moving the VRA towards the Florida law with minority opportunity districts.

I think there will have to be an objective way to draw minority opportunity districts. If you just try to "comply with federal law" or "comply with the VRA" you are guaranteed to end up in court.

My inclination is to start with counties that are 40%+ CVAP of the target minority, but exclude level 2 units that are less than 20%+ minority. Then repeat for 2nd level units, etc.

Conditionally, add areas that improve connectivity while maintaining an overall 40%+ CVAP. Determine the number of districts that will fit in the area (truncate down). Remove the surplus over that needed to create the whole number of districts. Divide the area into the number of districts.

[Torie]

I don't get the connectivity issue.

The reservation should be treated like a hybrid county, just like I suggest in AZ. That addresses the first two points.

"There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?"

God no. We have the VRA. Leave it at that. What you are suggesting is moving the VRA towards the Florida law with minority opportunity districts.

We did spend some time when we looked at AL and we respected contiguous minority counties in the Black Belt the same way we did UCCs. The idea was that rural minority interests were on a par with urban interests. We also wanted to avoid hops over white areas just to link Black areas. One exception was that the AL Black Belt had a mandatory chop to deal with the fact that it extended all the way across the state, but otherwise we avoided chops to the Belt. We applied the same reasoning when we looked at LA.

Is that a bad idea to your mind now?

Alabama was about counties that were contiguous and deemed to be a UCC of some sort. I am not even sure it is a good idea, but it seemed benign enough. In  CA, almost every county will be in an Hispanic UCC come to think of it before long. The maybe we should have white counties become a UCC that get above 40% WVAP. It might be a genie out of the bottle situation. To go internally into counties, and start having more metrics dealing with minority subunits, artificially created or not, is really having this go off the rails.

I did suggest a mechanic when sorting through maps by the decision maker to go farther, with bipartisan consent I might note. That is the right balancing test here.

[muon2]

I don't get the connectivity issue.

The reservation should be treated like a hybrid county, just like I suggest in AZ. That addresses the first two points.

"There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?"

God no. We have the VRA. Leave it at that. What you are suggesting is moving the VRA towards the Florida law with minority opportunity districts.

I think there will have to be an objective way to draw minority opportunity districts. If you just try to "comply with federal law" or "comply with the VRA" you are guaranteed to end up in court.

My inclination is to start with counties that are 40%+ CVAP of the target minority, but exclude level 2 units that are less than 20%+ minority. Then repeat for 2nd level units, etc.

Conditionally, add areas that improve connectivity while maintaining an overall 40%+ CVAP. Determine the number of districts that will fit in the area (truncate down). Remove the surplus over that needed to create the whole number of districts. Divide the area into the number of districts.

To add to jimrtex's comment, in IL before the 2010 election there was concern that there would be a Pub gov. In anticipation there was legislation to specifically encourage coalition and crossover districts. The minority groups were and remain concerned going forward. If there is a question of selling the idea, minority interests will want to see protection of areas that don't rise to the level of the VRA but could significantly influence election outcomes.

[muon2]

Here's Yakima with the Yakama reservation kept whole, and then cities and towns as separate subunits elsewhere.



Naches town (brown) 795
Naches SD (peach) 7,287

Tieton city (dark blue) 1,191; 57.6% HVAP
Highland SD (slate blue) 4,410; 29.6% HVAP

Selah city (violet) 7,126
Selah SD (lilac) 12,460

Yakima city (dark green) 91,067; 33.4% HVAP
Moxee city (dark aqua) 3,308; 34.0% HVAP
West Valley SD (lime) 11,890
Yakima SD (green) 451
East Valley SD (aqua) 11,352

Union Gap city (tan) 6,047; 38.1% HVAP
Union Gap SD (yellow) 104

Zillah city (olive) 2,964; 35.0% HVAP
Zillah SD (khaki) 2,194; 25.0% HVAP

Sunnyside city (orange-red) 15,854; 75.9% HVAP
Sunnyside SD (salmon) 8,883; 56.4% HVAP

Grandview city (teal) 10,862; 73.6% HVAP
Grandview SD (turquoise) 3,390; 47.6% HVAP

Mabton city (deep pink) 2,286; 89.4% HVAP
Mabton SD (pink) 1,224; 63.6% HVAP

Bickelton SD (coral) 66; 27.3% HVAP

Wapato SD (dark salmon) 976; 35.2% HVAP

Toppenish SD (light blue) 1,982; 52.5% HVAP

Granger city (green) 3,246; 83.6% HVAP
Granger SD (light green) 1,813; 50.8% HVAP

Yakama Indian Reservation (orchid) 29,978; 21.8% NVAP; 54.8% HVAP

[Torie]

I don't get the connectivity issue.

The reservation should be treated like a hybrid county, just like I suggest in AZ. That addresses the first two points.

"There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?"

God no. We have the VRA. Leave it at that. What you are suggesting is moving the VRA towards the Florida law with minority opportunity districts.

I think there will have to be an objective way to draw minority opportunity districts. If you just try to "comply with federal law" or "comply with the VRA" you are guaranteed to end up in court.

My inclination is to start with counties that are 40%+ CVAP of the target minority, but exclude level 2 units that are less than 20%+ minority. Then repeat for 2nd level units, etc.

Conditionally, add areas that improve connectivity while maintaining an overall 40%+ CVAP. Determine the number of districts that will fit in the area (truncate down). Remove the surplus over that needed to create the whole number of districts. Divide the area into the number of districts.

To add to jimrtex's comment, in IL before the 2010 election there was concern that there would be a Pub gov. In anticipation there was legislation to specifically encourage coalition and crossover districts. The minority groups were and remain concerned going forward. If there is a question of selling the idea, minority interests will want to see protection of areas that don't rise to the level of the VRA but could significantly influence election outcomes.

Let a state decide that, with whatever overlay they want over a model code metric. It is not appropriate for a uniform model code. I think it will make matters a mess. Every map we have ever done might be affected. This is a new and novel idea really, beyond counties, and I pointed out the Pandora's box that may have been opened there. You might suddenly have nodes of counties that are UCC's everywhere, hashing things up as Hispanic population expands. This should not be about the VRA expansion act. Personally, I would like to see the VRA rolled back, not expanded, but that is just me. If a compact 50% MVAP map can be drawn, then the minority will be protected, using metrics which are frankly more workable than this concept (although some of the details are still being hashed out ala Virginia, but hopefully more of those details will become known). I think I know where SCOTUS is going on this.

[Virginiá]

Personally, I would like to see the VRA rolled back, not expanded

Eeeek. Explain yourself. What do you want to see rolled back? Even the loss of pre-clearance has led to exactly what people thought would happen: GOP-controlled states doing whatever is in their power to make voting more difficult/annoying for people who don't vote Republican.

[Torie]

Personally, I would like to see the VRA rolled back, not expanded

Eeeek. Explain yourself. What do you want to see rolled back? Even the loss of pre-clearance has led to exactly what people thought would happen: GOP-controlled states doing whatever is in their power to make voting more difficult/annoying for people who don't vote Republican.

Glad you asked, and welcome to the most weedy and esoteric thread on Atlas, as the lawyer and the scientist fence away. Scientific and legal minds just work differently, I have found.

Anyway, the VRA has been the Pubs' best friend in most places, and in recent times, Section 5 an even better friend. The latter gave an excuse for the Pubs to black pack CD's, in order to bleach adjacent areas, and make them more friendly for a white Pub as opposed to a white Dem. That was because Section 5 was more than procedural. It had this retrogression metric, that if the existing CD was X percentage of a minority, the new CD could not be lower. So when an existing CD was say 54% BVAP, the new one needed to be black packed to have a no lower percentage, even if say 42% would effectively elect a black. SCOTUS put an end to all of that, and basically if a gerrymander, ruled that such a 54% CD was illegal black packing.

As a practical matter, almost no where now, except maybe for a couple of Hispanic CD's in CA, and maybe one or two in Texas, and maybe on Hispanic Brooklyn-Queens CD, the VRA does not really elect more minorities to Congress than are elected now. The Pubs in almost all instances want minority CD's, and the Democrats are not able as a political matter to deprive minorities of CD's. Thus, for example,  a black friendly district will always be drawn in the Cleveland area (even though no VRA CD exists there anymore), despite the fact that the result is to create either a lean Pub, or at least a tossup CD in the NE corner of Ohio, that otherwise would be safe for a white Dem.

That's my take anyway. The VRA has now mostly lost what was good and useful about it, and is now to a substantial extent a Pub tool.

[Torie]

I don't get the connectivity issue.

The reservation should be treated like a hybrid county, just like I suggest in AZ. That addresses the first two points.

"There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?"

God no. We have the VRA. Leave it at that. What you are suggesting is moving the VRA towards the Florida law with minority opportunity districts.

I think there will have to be an objective way to draw minority opportunity districts. If you just try to "comply with federal law" or "comply with the VRA" you are guaranteed to end up in court.

My inclination is to start with counties that are 40%+ CVAP of the target minority, but exclude level 2 units that are less than 20%+ minority. Then repeat for 2nd level units, etc.

Conditionally, add areas that improve connectivity while maintaining an overall 40%+ CVAP. Determine the number of districts that will fit in the area (truncate down). Remove the surplus over that needed to create the whole number of districts. Divide the area into the number of districts.

To add to jimrtex's comment, in IL before the 2010 election there was concern that there would be a Pub gov. In anticipation there was legislation to specifically encourage coalition and crossover districts. The minority groups were and remain concerned going forward. If there is a question of selling the idea, minority interests will want to see protection of areas that don't rise to the level of the VRA but could significantly influence election outcomes.

At least when it comes to Congress, what you are doing is not gong to elect more minorities. And nobody has been pushing for what you are doing either. It's novel. The way to do it was what I suggested. In most places, getting more minorities elected, gets more Pubs elected too, unless you do something grotesque like that CD in Arizona going from Phoenix to Tucson to Yuma. And the minority politicians don't really care about districts unless they are actually performing. Absent that, and they are useless. Just ask Corrine Brown if you don't believe me.

[muon2]

I don't get the connectivity issue.

The reservation should be treated like a hybrid county, just like I suggest in AZ. That addresses the first two points.

"There is a large rural and small town Hispanic population in some of the subunits, so should these subunits be treated like the rural black counties of the South and maps be penalized that chop the cluster?"

God no. We have the VRA. Leave it at that. What you are suggesting is moving the VRA towards the Florida law with minority opportunity districts.

I think there will have to be an objective way to draw minority opportunity districts. If you just try to "comply with federal law" or "comply with the VRA" you are guaranteed to end up in court.

My inclination is to start with counties that are 40%+ CVAP of the target minority, but exclude level 2 units that are less than 20%+ minority. Then repeat for 2nd level units, etc.

Conditionally, add areas that improve connectivity while maintaining an overall 40%+ CVAP. Determine the number of districts that will fit in the area (truncate down). Remove the surplus over that needed to create the whole number of districts. Divide the area into the number of districts.

To add to jimrtex's comment, in IL before the 2010 election there was concern that there would be a Pub gov. In anticipation there was legislation to specifically encourage coalition and crossover districts. The minority groups were and remain concerned going forward. If there is a question of selling the idea, minority interests will want to see protection of areas that don't rise to the level of the VRA but could significantly influence election outcomes.

At least when it comes to Congress, what you are doing is not gong to elect more minorities. And nobody has been pushing for what you are doing either. It's novel. The way to do it was what I suggested. In most places, getting more minorities elected, gets more Pubs elected too, unless you do something grotesque like that CD in Arizona going from Phoenix to Tucson to Yuma. And the minority politicians don't really care about districts unless they are actually performing. Absent that, and they are useless. Just ask Corrine Brown if you don't believe me.

I suspect we will have to see how SCOTUS rules on VA, and whether some guidance on performing minority districts emerges.

It is the minority interest groups who push to keep their communities intact. I'm not talking about minority politicians, whose goals may be more political. There was a great deal of testimony in IL to that effect in 2011, so I didn't think my question was so novel. I think the minority interest groups would complain mightily if a system was totally blind to their interests. Aren't we catering to some of those interests by keeping reservations intact as hybrid counties?

[Torie]

Ah, using Reservations as the nose in the tent. You're thinking like a lawyer now. I like it! But no, Reservations have separate governance mechanisms, and really are hybrid counties. And their impact is limited vis a vis giving them special consideration given their special status. Given those twin considerations, my hybrid mechanism is perfect Goldilocks. It gets the balancing test right, with no collateral damage. Thanks for your nose visiting the tent.

CA is going to need special consideration the way you are going, for whites, or it will be reverse discrimination. That is where this will end up in the end with all of this, and we don't need or want to end up there.

Not that it matters, or will change my mind, but where have "minority interests" weighed in, when it did not involve a "performing district" being on the line vis a vis the decision made?

[muon2]

Ah, using Reservations as the nose in the tent. You're thinking like a lawyer now. I like it! But no, Reservations have separate governance mechanisms, and really are hybrid counties. And their impact is limited vis a vis giving them special consideration given their special status. Given those twin considerations, my hybrid mechanism is perfect Goldilocks. It gets the balancing test right, with no collateral damage. Thanks for your nose visiting the tent.

CA is going to need special consideration the way you are going, for whites, or it will be reverse discrimination. That is where this will end up in the end with all of this, and we don't need or want to end up there.

Not that it matters, or will change my mind, but where have "minority interests" weighed in, when it did not involve a "performing district" being on the line vis a vis the decision made?

The one clear example that I know is the substantial testimony from the Asian American Institute and their allies in IL during legislative redistricting hearings in 2011. Chinatown on the south side, Albany Park on the north side, and a cluster of neighborhoods in the the near north suburbs were presented as areas with Asian majority neighborhoods that should not be chopped as happened in 2001. None of the areas were going to qualify to be a performing district, but given Chicago's ethnic coalitions, they wanted to be preserved as an influential bloc.

[Torie]

Ah the drawing of lines within big cities. Perhaps some more flexibility is needed there. Just a thought. We are going back down the road to communities of interest. If the ethnic neighborhoods are compact, and the lines not erose, or within subunits, then there will not be gratuitous chop ups. And we seem to be talking more and more about legislative districts, where these things will tend to be more in play, anyway. Anyway, again I suggest that if  a state wants to add metrics for more racial gerrymandering, they can do so. In general, I think it is opening a Pandora's Box. The whole system will tend to fall apart. In your hypo, the Chinese will not be helped all that much, if they happen to be divided between different subunits.

[Torie]

Here's Yakima with the Yakama reservation kept whole, and then cities and towns as separate subunits elsewhere.



Naches town (brown) 795
Naches SD (peach) 7,287

Tieton city (dark blue) 1,191; 57.6% HVAP
Highland SD (slate blue) 4,410; 29.6% HVAP

Selah city (violet) 7,126
Selah SD (lilac) 12,460

Yakima city (dark green) 91,067; 33.4% HVAP
Moxee city (dark aqua) 3,308; 34.0% HVAP
West Valley SD (lime) 11,890
Yakima SD (green) 451
East Valley SD (aqua) 11,352

Union Gap city (tan) 6,047; 38.1% HVAP
Union Gap SD (yellow) 104

Zillah city (olive) 2,964; 35.0% HVAP
Zillah SD (khaki) 2,194; 25.0% HVAP

Sunnyside city (orange-red) 15,854; 75.9% HVAP
Sunnyside SD (salmon) 8,883; 56.4% HVAP

Grandview city (teal) 10,862; 73.6% HVAP
Grandview SD (turquoise) 3,390; 47.6% HVAP

Mabton city (deep pink) 2,286; 89.4% HVAP
Mabton SD (pink) 1,224; 63.6% HVAP

Bickelton SD (coral) 66; 27.3% HVAP

Wapato SD (dark salmon) 976; 35.2% HVAP

Toppenish SD (light blue) 1,982; 52.5% HVAP

Granger city (green) 3,246; 83.6% HVAP
Granger SD (light green) 1,813; 50.8% HVAP

Yakama Indian Reservation (orchid) 29,978; 21.8% NVAP; 54.8% HVAP

Given where the highways are, that map works just fine. In fact, even without seeing the new subunits, a map drawer would do about the same thing anyway, in deciding where to chop. At least that is what I did, and you did, since our chops were about the same. And with other map iterations involving a chop of the county, they still pretty much hewed to the subunit lines.