Legislatures with Exact Multiples of State Senate to Lower House Membership

[rbt48]

Twenty-three of the forty-nine states with bi-cameral legislatures have exact multiples of state house members compared with their state senate.  For instance, at the extreme, Vermont has 30 State Senators and 150 H of R members for a 5 to 1 multiple.  At the other extreme, 16 states have a less dramatic two to one ratio, with Minnesota at the high end (67/134) and Alaska at the low end (20/40).

So, what are my questions.  Well, I'll try to articulate them so I can pass muster with even the most demanding forum participants.
Questions:  Which of these states create their State Senate districts and:
a.  Elect X lower house legislators in the same senate district boundaries (multiple member districts)?  New Jersey is an example of this method, with 2 Assembly members elected for each State Senate district.
b.  Elect X lower house legislators in the same senate district boundaries, but with separate boundaries within the state senate district for the X lower house members?  I believe that Alaska is an example of this method.  Washington may also be in this class.
c.  Elect their State Senate and lower house districts with the boundaries drawn totally independent of the upper house district boundaries?

Here is a table of those 23 states that qualify for these questions:

State   Upper   Lower   Ratio Vermont   30   150   5 Massachusetts   40   160   4 Alabama   35   105   3 Florida   40   120   3 Ohio   33   99   3 Tennessee   33   99   3 Wisconsin   33   99   3 Alaska   20   40   2 Arizona   30   60   2 California   40   80   2 Idaho   35   70   2 Illinois   59   118   2 Indiana   50   100   2 Iowa   50   100   2 Minnesota   67   134   2 Montana   50   100   2 Nevada   21   42   2 New Jersey   40   80   2 North Dakota   47   94   2 Oregon   30   60   2 South Dakota   35   70   2 Washington   49   98   2 Wyoming   30   60   2

Beyond these questions, it would be insightful to hear why states my have chosen to avoid what would seem to be less complex redistricting challenges for their lower houses by using multiple district members or at least just taking the State Senate districts and dividing them further as needed by the ratio for that state.

Thanks for any input you may provide!

[Figueira]

I'm not going to go through all of these, but off the top of my head I know that Massachusetts falls into option c, while (I think) Iowa and Alaska fall into option b. Vermont has a really weird system that doesn't fall into any of these, IIRC.

However, Massachusetts also has a governor's council with 8 members, whose districts line up with the Senate districts. Neither line up with the House districts though.

[tmthforu94]

Interesting concept - I believe Indiana has completely independent maps for Senate and House, though I certainly think Option B is a good way for states to consider. For us map-makers, certainly keeps things cleaner!

[BuckeyeNut]

Ohio is b, as you've described. Though I guess I'm not sure which districts get drawn first. Each State Senate District is composed of an overlay of 3 House Districts.

[muon2]

IL uses method b - House districts are nested in Senate districts. Before 1980 IL had 3-member House districts elected by cumulative voting. Before 1970 the multi-member House districts were independent from the Senate districts (method c), but for the decade of the 1970's the multi-member House districts were the same as the Senate districts (method a). So in my lifetime IL has used all three methods.

Nested districts (type b) can be convenient for keeping track of members, but it isn't ideal for good neutrally drawn districts. Even if districts were drawn without gerrymanders, either the Senate or House districts come out looking better. If the Senate districts are drawn first the house districts tend to look a bit gerrymandered as they may have to artificially split a reasonable district in the interest of population equality. If the House districts are drawn first then some Senate districts can look a bit like Frankenstein created them, pieced from adjacent districts that together aren't particularly compact.

[Figueira]

IL uses method b - House districts are nested in Senate districts. Before 1980 IL had 3-member House districts elected by cumulative voting. Before 1970 the multi-member House districts were independent from the Senate districts (method c), but for the decade of the 1970's the multi-member House districts were the same as the Senate districts (method a). So in my lifetime IL has used all three methods.

Nested districts (type b) can be convenient for keeping track of members, but it isn't ideal for good neutrally drawn districts. Even if districts were drawn without gerrymanders, either the Senate or House districts come out looking better. If the Senate districts are drawn first the house districts tend to look a bit gerrymandered as they may have to artificially split a reasonable district in the interest of population equality. If the House districts are drawn first then some Senate districts can look a bit like Frankenstein created them, pieced from adjacent districts that together aren't particularly compact.

Interesting; I never thought about it like that.

Of course, that's just how the districts look. I wonder if that still results in bad partisan balance.

[Timothy87]

Twenty-three of the forty-nine states with bi-cameral legislatures have exact multiples of state house members compared with their state senate.  For instance, at the extreme, Vermont has 30 State Senators and 150 H of R members for a 5 to 1 multiple.  At the other extreme, 16 states have a less dramatic two to one ratio, with Minnesota at the high end (67/134) and Alaska at the low end (20/40).

So, what are my questions.  Well, I'll try to articulate them so I can pass muster with even the most demanding forum participants.
Questions:  Which of these states create their State Senate districts and:
a.  Elect X lower house legislators in the same senate district boundaries (multiple member districts)?  New Jersey is an example of this method, with 2 Assembly members elected for each State Senate district.
b.  Elect X lower house legislators in the same senate district boundaries, but with separate boundaries within the state senate district for the X lower house members?  I believe that Alaska is an example of this method.  Washington may also be in this class.
c.  Elect their State Senate and lower house districts with the boundaries drawn totally independent of the upper house district boundaries?

Here is a table of those 23 states that qualify for these questions:

State   Upper   Lower   Ratio Vermont   30   150   5 Massachusetts   40   160   4 Alabama   35   105   3 Florida   40   120   3 Ohio   33   99   3 Tennessee   33   99   3 Wisconsin   33   99   3 Alaska   20   40   2 Arizona   30   60   2 California   40   80   2 Idaho   35   70   2 Illinois   59   118   2 Indiana   50   100   2 Iowa   50   100   2 Minnesota   67   134   2 Montana   50   100   2 Nevada   21   42   2 New Jersey   40   80   2 North Dakota   47   94   2 Oregon   30   60   2 South Dakota   35   70   2 Washington   49   98   2 Wyoming   30   60   2

Beyond these questions, it would be insightful to hear why states my have chosen to avoid what would seem to be less complex redistricting challenges for their lower houses by using multiple district members or at least just taking the State Senate districts and dividing them further as needed by the ratio for that state.

Thanks for any input you may provide!

You're missing Maryland

47 districts elect one senator and three delegates each. Districts can be one 3 member "at-large", a 2 member and 1 member sub-districts or three 1 member sub-districts

[rbt48]

Bad on me!  Forty-seven times three is definitely 141!  How does the legislature decide if a given senate district will have 3 member "at-large", a 2 member and 1 member sub-districts or three 1 member sub-districts?

Why is the Democratic majority stronger in the Senate than the House in Maryland?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

AZ uses method A.