Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:29:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting  (Read 15845 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 04, 2017, 03:45:37 PM »

The Wisconsin constitution provides that the Assembly have between 54 and 100 members, and that the number of senators is between 1/4 and 1/3 the number of assembly members. Nesting is required. The constitution requires that districts be "bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines, to consist of contiguous territory and be in as compact form as practicable." It is at least implied that districts have roughly equal population. Wisconsin uses a liberal definition of contiguity where disjoint portions of towns are considered to be discontiguous.

Using the ratio of 1/4 for senators would reduce the number of senators from the current 33 to 25 (or less), so a ratio of 1/3 will be used. Conceivably, modifying the number of assembly members from the current 99 might reduce the amount of county splitting, but for reasons of simplicity, I will ignore that possibility. So the assembly will have 99 members, and the senate 33 members. I will draw the assembly members first, and then group them by threes into  senate district.

The raw number of assembly members apportioned to each county is shown in the following map.



Ideally, the districts would be either:

(1) Multiple whole counties in a single district;
(2) Single whole county in a single district;
(3) Single county divided into multiple whole districts.

Districts must be between 95% and 105% of the quota of 57444. However, I will permit single-county, single-member districts to range between 90% and 110% of the quota.

I will first apportion districts among the counties, such that the population of the average district in an apportionment area is between 95% and 105% of the quota. Adherence to county lines will be given priority to adherence to town, city, and village boundaries. In Wisconsin, cities and villages may cross county boundaries, and are independent of towns. I will not cross county boundaries solely to maintain a city or village in one district, so in general, portions of cities and villages in different counties will be treated as a political subdivision of there respective county.

There is a Wisconsin AG opinion that interpreted the constitution as prohibiting the division of small counties (less than one district). While equal protection may require splitting small counties, it should only be done as necessary to conform to equal protection. A plan with fewer small-county splits is preferred to one with more small-county splits.

A surplus fragment is a portion of a county that is less than a whole district. Ideally, there will be no surplus fragments, but equal protection may require their use. A county may have multiple surplus fragments if that will reduce the number of small-county splits, or the total number of surplus fragments.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2017, 05:09:23 PM »

Counties are classified based on their population:



Green: Smaller counties, with a population less than that of a district.
Yellow: Counties with a population equivalent to one district.
Blue: Counties with a population equivalent to a whole number of districts (+- 55)
Orange: Counties with a population equivalent to a whole number of districts plus a surplus.

The orange counties will definitely have at least one surplus-fragment.

While the blue counties could have a whole number of districts within them, it may be necessary to pair them with adjacent counties. For example, Milwaukee and Ozaukee collectively have a population equivalent to 18.002 districts, and there is not another obvious candidate to be combined with Ozaukee.

Some green counties will probably have to be split, particularly in the southwest, and between the Twin Cities (MN) and Eau Claire.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2017, 05:20:38 PM »

Since districts are nested, is it more useful to create whole senate districts first, then go to house districts? By starting with HDs there could be cases where the resulting SD map has more chops than necessary.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2017, 12:32:29 PM »

Since districts are nested, is it more useful to create whole senate districts first, then go to house districts? By starting with HDs there could be cases where the resulting SD map has more chops than necessary.
I would think that might lead to more county splits of house districts.

One problem I ran into Wisconsin, which is similar to Ohio is that you cannot completely avoid small county splits. In Ohio, that has led to the constitution being ignored (or interpreted very liberally).

An alternative would be to apportion seats among regional planning areas. In Wisconsin, there are 9 regional planning areas that almost cover the state.

Regional Planning Areas (pdf)

For some reason, Dane County is a planning region of its own, and the five surrounding counties in the south central part of the state are not in any region. For our purpose they would be placed with Dane.

House districts would be drawn within each region, avoiding the split of small counties. Quality would be measured using the standard deviation of relative deviation. When you simply have a limit, such as 5%, it tends to become a target, as opposed to an outer limit of acceptability.

Splits of small counties could be avoided in Wisconsin if you permitted as much as about 10% deviation.

If done on a consistent and neutral basis, it may comply with OMOV.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2017, 01:30:26 PM »
« Edited: February 06, 2017, 12:02:59 AM by jimrtex »

These are my apportionment regions. The numbers are the number of assembly members from the region.



(1) Milwaukee and Ozaukee 18.002(18), +0.0%. 16 districts in Milwaukee, 1 in Ozaukee, 1 straddling the county line. Two surplus fragments.

(2) Sheboygan 2.011(2), +0.5%. 2 districts in county. No surplus fragments.

(3) Waukesha and Washington 9.083(9), +0.9%, 6 districts in Waukesha, 2 in Washington, 1 straddling the line, about 4/5 in Waukesha. Two surplus fragments.

(4) Dodge and Jefferson 3.002(3), +0.1%, 1 district in Dodge, 1 in Jefferson, one straddling the line. Two surplus fragments.

(5) Kenosha 2.897(3), -3.4%, 3 districts in county. No surplus fragments.

(6) Racine, Rock, and Walworth 7.972(8), -0.3%. 3 districts in Racine, 2 in Rock, and 1 in Walworth, one straddling Racine-Walworth line (3/5 in Walworth), and one straddling Rock-Walworth line (4/5 in Rock). Four surplus fragments, including two in Walworth.

(7) Dane, Green, Iowa, and Lafayette 9.843(10), -1.6% 8 districts in Dane, 1 in Green and Dane(part) (65% in Green), and 1 in Iowa, Lafayette, and Dane (part)(7/10 in Iowa + Lafayette). Two surplus fragments in Dane.

(8) Grant, Vernon, Richland, and Crawford    2.013(2), +0.7%. One district in Grant and Crawford (part), and one in Vernon, Richland, and Crawford (part). Conceivably the split could be in Richland. One divided small county.

(9) La Crosse 1.996(2), 0.2%. 2 districts in county. No surplus fragments.

(10) Fond du Lac and Green Lake 2.101(2), +5.04%. One district in Fond du Lac, and one straddling the border. One surplus fragment. The excess deviation could be avoided by pairing Fond du Lac with Washington.

(11) Manitowoc, Calumet, Door, and Kewaunee 3.112(3) +3.7%. One district in Manitowoc, one in Calumet and Manitowoc (part), with about 4/5 in Calumet, one in Door, Kewaunee, and Manitowoc (part), with about 4/5 in Door and Kewaunee. Two surplus fragments in Manitowoc.

(12) Outagamie 3.076(3) +2.5%. Three districts in county. No surplus fragments.

(13) Winnebago 2.907 (3) -3.1%. Three districts in county. No surplus fragments.

(14) Columbia 0.989(1) -1.1%. One district in county.

(15) Portage, Waushara, and Marquette 1.913(2) -4.3%. One district in Portage. One in Waushara, Marguette, and Portage(part), with about 7/10 in Waushara and Marquette. One surplus fragment.

(16) Marathon and Shawano 3.064(3) +2.1%. Two districts in Marathon, and one straddling the border with about 7/10 in Shawano. One surplus fragment.

(17) Waupaca 0.912(1) -8.8%. One district in county.

(18) Brown and Oconto 4.973(5) -0.5%. Four districts in Brown, and one straddling the border with about 2/3 in Oconto. One surplus fragment.

(19) Marinette, Forest, and Florence   0.966(1) -3.4.%. One district, no county splits.

(20) Oneida, Langlade, and Menominee 1.048(1) +4.8%. One district, no county splits. Conceivably, Menominee could be placed with Shawano or Oconto. This would reduce the deviation range some, but place Menominee in a district that extends into Brown or Marathon counties.

(21) Douglas and Burnett 1.038(1) +3.8%. One district, no county splits.

(22) Wood and Clark 1.905(2) -4.7%. One district in Wood, one straddling the border. about 3/5 in Clark. One surplus fragment.

(23) Vilas, Adams, Bayfield, and Iron 1.019(1) +1.9%. One district, no county splits.

(24) Monroe, Juneau, Adams, and Jackson 1.961(2) -1.9%. Two districts: Juneau and Adams plus part of Monroe (1/5); and Monroe (4/5) and Jackson. One divided small county. D'ja know that Wisconsin does not have a Van Buren County?

(25) St. Croix, Polk, and Pierce 2.952(3) -1.6%. One district in St. Croix, one straddling Polk and St Croix line (4/5 in Polk), and one straddling Pierce and St. Croix line (7/10) in Pierce. Two surplus fragments.

(26) Eau Claire, Barron, Dunn, Trempealeau, Buffalo, and Pepin 4.149(4) +3.7%. One district in Eau Claire; one in Barron and part of Dunn (30% of Dunn); remainder of Dunn and part of Eau Claire; Trempealeau, Buffalo, Pepin and part of Eau Claire. Alternatively, Pepin and Buffalo could be placed with Dunn, switching the distribution of the Eau Claire surplus. My initial inclination is to keep the Mississippi River counties together. Two surplus fragments and one divided small county.

(27) Lincoln, Taylor, Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price 1.929(2) -3.5%. Requires split of a small county. Likely possibility: Lincoln and Taylor and part of Price; Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and remainder of Rice. One divided small county.

(28) Sauk   1.079(1) +7.9%. One district in county.

(29) Chippewa 1.087(1) +8.7%. One district in county.

Summary of excessive divisions.

23 Surplus fragments, seven more than necessary. Milwaukee and Waukesha could have 16 and 7 districts respectively, but their fractions of 0.498 and 0.783 are far from being negligible or almost a whole. If we exclude them, there are are 5 surplus fragments. No large county has fewer districts than the whole number it is entitle to, so it is just the case of the surplus being divided between two districts for Walworth, Dane, Manitowoc, St. Croix, and Eau Claire.

Four small counties are split.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2017, 03:55:53 PM »

Since senate districts matter, too, I decided to start from the top down. I set all senate districts within 5% of the quota and tried to minimize chops. I also preserved the UCC rules here. There are a total of 14 county chops, 11 of which are required in large counties. The only city chops are those required for Milwaukee and Madison. 3 house districts would then be nested in each SD.



Kenosha: -3.4%
Green, Lafayette, Racine, Rock, Walworth (3 SD): -3.1%; chop in Racine, Rock
Milwaukee, Ozaukee (6 SD): +0.1%; 5 chops in Milwaukee, 4 chops in Milwaukee city; this incudes 2 BVAP majority SDs and a 40% HVAP SD.
Washington, Waukesha (3 SD): +2.8%; 2 chops in Waukesha
Dodge, Jefferson: +0.1%
Dane, Iowa (3 SD): -3.0%; 2 chops in Dane, chop in Madison city
Crawford, Grant, Richland, Sauk, Vernon: +3.1%
Adams, Columbia, Juneau, La Crosse, Marquette, Monroe, Wood (2 SD): +5.3%; chop in Juneau
Green Lake, Portage, Waupaca, Waushara: -3.7%
Buffalo, Clark, Jackson, Pepin, Pierce, Taylor, Trempeleau: -3.3%
Chippewa, Eau Claire, Rusk: +2.1%
Barron, Dunn, St Croix: +1.0%
Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Polk, Sawyer, Washburn: +0.6%
Marathon, Shawano: +2.1%
Calumet, Fond du Lac, Manitowoc, Sheboygan (2 SD): +1.7%; chop in Sheboygan
Outagamie: +2.5%
Winnebago: -3.1%
Florence, Forest, Langlade, Lincoln, Marinette, Oneida, Price, Vilas: +2.0%
Brown, Door, Kewaunee, Menominee, Oconto: -3.7%
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2017, 12:48:21 AM »

Since senate districts matter, too, I decided to start from the top down. I set all senate districts within 5% of the quota and tried to minimize chops. I also preserved the UCC rules here. There are a total of 14 county chops, 11 of which are required in large counties. The only city chops are those required for Milwaukee and Madison. 3 house districts would then be nested in each SD.



Kenosha: -3.4%

Green, Lafayette, Racine, Rock, Walworth (3 SD): -3.1%; chop in Racine, Rock
Shouldn't this be -1.1%

Milwaukee, Ozaukee (6 SD): +0.1%; 5 chops in Milwaukee, 4 chops in Milwaukee city; this incudes 2 BVAP majority SDs and a 40% HVAP SD.
Washington, Waukesha (3 SD): +2.8%; 2 chops in Waukesha
Dodge, Jefferson: +0.1%
Dane, Iowa (3 SD): -3.0%; 2 chops in Dane, chop in Madison city
Crawford, Grant, Richland, Sauk, Vernon: +3.1%
Adams, Columbia, Juneau, La Crosse, Marquette, Monroe, Wood (2 SD): +5.3%; chop in Juneau
Green Lake, Portage, Waupaca, Waushara: -3.7%
Buffalo, Clark, Jackson, Pepin, Pierce, Taylor, Trempeleau: -3.3%
Chippewa, Eau Claire, Rusk: +2.1%
Barron, Dunn, St Croix: +1.0%
Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Polk, Sawyer, Washburn: +0.6%
Marathon, Shawano: +2.1%
Calumet, Fond du Lac, Manitowoc, Sheboygan (2 SD): +1.7%; chop in Sheboygan
Outagamie: +2.5%
Winnebago: -3.1%
Florence, Forest, Langlade, Lincoln, Marinette, Oneida, Price, Vilas: +2.0%
Brown, Door, Kewaunee, Menominee, Oconto: -3.7%

I think you will end up with 5 divided small counties: Dunn, Buffalo, somewhere in pale yellow, Juneau, and Crawford.

Chippewa will not have a whole district, and Sheboygan will not have two.

The smallest assembly district in the flesh colored district (Superior coast) will have a deviation of -5.05%.

You have one more surplus fragment (2 in Sheboygan, one more in Rock and Fond du Lac), one less in Dane, Manitowoc, and St.Croix. Or possibly two more if you count Chippewa as having two surplus fragment.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2017, 09:08:07 AM »

WI doesn't have a specific constitutional rule permitting a 10% deviation for whole counties. Their annotated constitution only references that the range not exceed 10%. Based on that I adhere to a 5% deviation. Columbia is the only single county-single HD I recognized, so there are three counties I require chops for that you do not. Chippewa is one of those, and my grouping insures that the Eau Claire UCC stays within one SD.

If I group the clusters (by notable city) in your plan into whole SDs. I get the following:
Green Bay+Marinette (2 SD)
Manitowoc (1 SD)
Appleton (1 SD)
Oshkosh (1 SD)
Wausau (1 SD)
Rhinelander+Ashland+Superior (1 SD)
Hudson (1 SD)
Hayward+Chippewa Falls (1 SD)
Eau Claire+La Crosse (2 SD)
Wisconsin Rapids+Tomah+Stevens Point+Waupaca+Portage+Fond du Lac+Sheboygan (4 SD)
Baraboo+Platteville (1 SD)
Madison+Racine (6 SD)
Fort Atkinson (1 SD)
Waukesha (3 SD)
Milwaukee (6 SD)
Kenosha (1 SD)

The number of SD in excess of 1 above is the number of chops needed. The above grouping requires 17 chops plus the UCC cover penalty, for 18 chops at the senate level. That compares to 14 in my plan.

My cluster of southern counties from Racine to Lafayette shows a total of 8.907 HD on your map. Divided by three gives 2.969 SD or -3.1%.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2017, 12:38:06 PM »

WI doesn't have a specific constitutional rule permitting a 10% deviation for whole counties. Their annotated constitution only references that the range not exceed 10%. Based on that I adhere to a 5% deviation. Columbia is the only single county-single HD I recognized, so there are three counties I require chops for that you do not. Chippewa is one of those, and my grouping insures that the Eau Claire UCC stays within one SD.

If I group the clusters (by notable city) in your plan into whole SDs. I get the following:
Green Bay+Marinette (2 SD)
Manitowoc (1 SD)
Appleton (1 SD)
Oshkosh (1 SD)
Wausau (1 SD)
Rhinelander+Ashland+Superior (1 SD)
Hudson (1 SD)
Hayward+Chippewa Falls (1 SD)
Eau Claire+La Crosse (2 SD)
Wisconsin Rapids+Tomah+Stevens Point+Waupaca+Portage+Fond du Lac+Sheboygan (4 SD)
Baraboo+Platteville (1 SD)
Madison+Racine (6 SD)
Fort Atkinson (1 SD)
Waukesha (3 SD)
Milwaukee (6 SD)
Kenosha (1 SD)

The number of SD in excess of 1 above is the number of chops needed. The above grouping requires 17 chops plus the UCC cover penalty, for 18 chops at the senate level. That compares to 14 in my plan.

My cluster of southern counties from Racine to Lafayette shows a total of 8.907 HD on your map. Divided by three gives 2.969 SD or -3.1%.

2.969 / 3 = 0.990 = 1 - 1.1%

I would organize the Senate districts differently.

There are five counties larger than a senate district:

Milwaukee, Waukesha, Brown, and Racine would have one surplus fragment.
Dane would have two.

I'm not overly concerned with an extra surplus fragment. You have two in Brown and 1 in Dane, vs. two in Dane and one in Brown.

Smaller split counties:

Rock, Fond du Lac, Portage, Dunn, Price, Marathon, and Monroe.

You split: Juneau, Rock, and Sheboygan.

My plan: House 4, Senate 7
Yours: House 7, Senate 3

I particularly don't like the division of Chippewa and Sheboygan. For districts with with 55,000 persons I am indifferent to the use of UCC, where counties are a more appropriate scale.

My preference is to focus on the House. I don't like nesting, and the Wisconsin constitution simply says House districts can't be divided in creating senate districts.

BTW, I assume you know that I am eventually going to be measure political efficiency. Either of our plans are applying neutral non-political criteria.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2017, 01:24:24 PM »

I was measuring cluster deviation and you were measuring mean district deviation.

I measure chops and you are measuring fragments. I thought we all debated this years ago and concluded that chops were a better measure. Chops put large and small counties on an equal footing and reduce the incentive to split a single county multiple times.

The idea of a UCC as a tool to avoid cracking urban areas or diluting rural areas seems just as applicable for legislative districts. These problems show up in gerrymandered maps at any scale.

I believe that Chippewa must be split under the WI constitution. 10% is just not an option. I agree that it is preferable to pack two HDs in Sheboygan. I could keep my cluster but move the chop at the cost of some erosity. I'll take a look to see if it is worth the cost. I assume when I go to the HD level there may be other SD changes that suggest themselves.

I'm glad we both see this as a way to look at the efficiency gap in a neutral way. It will be interesting to compare results. The court decision used 2012 as a measure, but DRA only has 2008. Which year of precinct results are you planning to use for split counties?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2017, 07:40:25 AM »

I was measuring cluster deviation and you were measuring mean district deviation.

I measure chops and you are measuring fragments. I thought we all debated this years ago and concluded that chops were a better measure. Chops put large and small counties on an equal footing and reduce the incentive to split a single county multiple times.

The idea of a UCC as a tool to avoid cracking urban areas or diluting rural areas seems just as applicable for legislative districts. These problems show up in gerrymandered maps at any scale.

I believe that Chippewa must be split under the WI constitution. 10% is just not an option. I agree that it is preferable to pack two HDs in Sheboygan. I could keep my cluster but move the chop at the cost of some erosity. I'll take a look to see if it is worth the cost. I assume when I go to the HD level there may be other SD changes that suggest themselves.

I'm glad we both see this as a way to look at the efficiency gap in a neutral way. It will be interesting to compare results. The court decision used 2012 as a measure, but DRA only has 2008. Which year of precinct results are you planning to use for split counties?
The Wisconsin constitution states that apportionment should be "according to the number of inhabitants", so we are dealing with federal equal protection requirements.

The Wisconsin constitution directs that assembly districts be bounded by county, town, precinct, or ward boundaries. I will interpret "town" to mean "town, city or village". It would trivialize the provision to interpret it as meaning all boundaries are equivalent. It is a rational state interest to avoid unnecessary division of counties by assembly districts.

The Wisconsin constitution just requires senate districts to be contiguous and convenient and not split assembly districts, so its linkage to political subdivisions is weaker.

A 10% limit for single-county districts has been upheld in Ohio, and also in a case where the no-excessive splitting restrictions wouldn't work east of Cleveland. Permitting single-county single-member districts to have a slightly greater deviation is a manageable standard.

Splitting of a county, essentially cracks the county. Larger counties will have to be divided among multiple districts. Attempting to place whole districts in a large county is a neutral rational state interest. While splitting a surplus between two districts is less desirable, it was done in the decision where the 5% standard was set (White v Weiser).

The Wisconsin Constitution calls for apportionment and districting, with emphasis given to apportioning. While floterial districts are correct as far as apportionment among counties, they don't work for elections. But replacing floterial districts with districts spanning a boundary is faithful to the overall apportionment scheme.

Splitting a surplus into multiple parts is not desirable, but preferable to division of a county, or too much deviation.

Wisconsin has ward/precinct level results in an accessible form (xlsx). IIRC, the legislature originally used a blend from the 2010 election statewides. I think those would also match the census data.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2017, 01:49:07 PM »

OH had a detailed process in its constitution that included the creation of HD that were a whole county up to 10% variation. The court upheld that in the context of its overall constitutional rules for redistricting. I understood that OH removed that provision in the 2015 amendment due to complaints about equal representation.

WI has no detailed language for the process as OH had. The annotations to the WI constitution clearly reference a limit of 10% on the range. Barring a constitutional amendment in WI, I don't see any way to justify a single county HD beyond the limits of the 10% range.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2017, 03:50:40 PM »

Milwaukee and Ozaukee are apportioned 18 representatives, one in Ozaukee, one straddling the border, roughly half and half, and 16 in Milwaukee County.





The northern border of Mequon makes a solid boundary corresponding to a township line.

The north shore suburbs of Milwaukee have a population corresponding to 1.129 districts. The only way to get within range would to be exclude Fox Point; or Bayside and River Hills, both which would create isolated enclaves. I don't see an obvious way to complete the remnant of the border-straddling district, so I took the four northernmost suburbs of Brown Deer, River Hills, Bayside, and Fox Point, and will need to a small bit of the city of the Milwaukee to reach the quota.

Working around the southern and western parts of the city of Milwaukee the following form reasonable districts made up of whole towns/cities/villages:

Oak Creek and South Milwaukee (-0.4%)
Franklin, Greendale, and Hales Corner (-2.5%)
West Allis (+5.2%)

Anything else requires division of smaller towns.

This leaves:

Wauwatosa (0.808)
Greenfield (0.639)
Cudahy and St. Francis (0.481)

Which each could form a substantial portion of a district, to completed with an adjacent area of the city of Milwaukee. In the case of Wauwatosa and Greenfield, I intent to include the fingers of Milwaukee on either side of West Allis. West Milwaukee is shown with Greenfield, but that is mainly for population reasons (Greenfield has fewer people than Wauwatosa). Conceivably, West Milwaukee could be included in a Hispanic majority seat (it is 24% Hispanic).

The Cudahy, St. Francis district will likely extend westward, without producing a narrow peninsula in south Milwaukee.

The southern north shore suburbs of Glendale, Whitefish, and Shorewood have a population equivalent to 0.699 of the quota. That district will likely be extended southward along the lakefront to avoid intruding too much in the black areas to the east.

This leaves 9 districts entirely in the city of Milwaukee. Given the relative long skinny north-south profile of Milwaukee, they should be relatively easy to draw (i.e. fewer options). Attention will be paid to the Black and Hispanic areas in the northern and southern parts of the central city, away from the lakefront.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2017, 07:13:12 PM »

OH had a detailed process in its constitution that included the creation of HD that were a whole county up to 10% variation. The court upheld that in the context of its overall constitutional rules for redistricting. I understood that OH removed that provision in the 2015 amendment due to complaints about equal representation.

WI has no detailed language for the process as OH had. The annotations to the WI constitution clearly reference a limit of 10% on the range. Barring a constitutional amendment in WI, I don't see any way to justify a single county HD beyond the limits of the 10% range.
See Voinovich v. Ferguson, 63 Ohio St. 3d 198 - Ohio: Supreme Court 1992

Brown v. Thomson 462 U.S. 835

The Ohio Constitution, as you and I interpreted, it provided a lot of structure to legislative redistricting. The redistricting board had never interpreted that way. The first time it was applied, they left Zanesville out of the map, and perhaps perceived that the division of small counties should not be limited.

However, the part that they were able to consistently follow was with respect to larger counties, where whole House districts were created within the county, with the remainder placed in a single district. This is retained under the new version (on the version of the constitution that is on the Ohio legislative website, they have both the old text and the new text. The new text is not effective until January 1, 2021).

The 90% to 110% was somewhat equivocal, and IIRC, I had chopped Wood county because it permitted fewer splits elsewhere. If the new Ohio constitution were applied to Wisconsin, it would be required to place a whole district in Chippewa (and Sauk), with a small fragment attached to other counties. Similarly, Waupaca would have to be augmented a bit (I would probably decide that Outagamie has a small surplus).

Anyhow, if you read through the Ohio decision, you will see that it was not strictly due to the single-county rule, but rather with problems due to Geauga and Ashtabula being trapped by counties entitled to more than one representative. We had to deal with a similar situation in 2010.

It is odd that the annotation is from two 2016 decisions. I'm not sure why they included Evenwel v Abbott. All it said it is permissible to use inhabitants for the population base. Maybe they read Ginsburg's majority opinion which was slanted to indicate that inhabitants was preferred.

The part about Harris was probably to justify the current map which was presumed to be legal because it was within 5% limits (until the district court made their ruling).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2017, 04:58:46 AM »

Milwaukee VTD showing areas that have a majority Black or Hispanic VAP.



What is striking is that the majority black areas extend to the northwestern limits of the city and the county, yet Mequon (in Ozaukee) and Menominee Falls (in Waukesha) are about 2% black.

Brown Deer is 24% black, and Glendale is 14% black, so more inland areas must be more affordable.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2017, 09:57:20 AM »
« Edited: February 14, 2017, 09:05:29 AM by muon2 »

I found that maintaining two majority HVAP districts puts a serious constraint on the map in Milwaukee. This version has them at 64% and 51%. The SD they are in is 40% HVAP. There are also 6 BVAP majority districts ranging from 52% to 69% forming two majority BVAP SDs. I chopped Oak Creek to keep one SD out of Milwaukee city.

If I use the 10% range limit, I might be able to avoid the small chop into West Allis. That will require no other district to be smaller than 0.952. It's something I'll come back to at the end, but for now it's chopped.



Edit: By controlling the smallest districts elsewhere, I was able to keep West Allis whole with a range of 9.884%. The HVAP-majority ADs are at 65.3% (Menomonee Valley) and 51.3% (Polonia). The BVAP-majority ADs are at 60.2% (West Side), 53.1% (Triangle), 57.1% (Harambee), 62.5% (Capitol Heights), 52.3% (Granville), and 69.3% (Havenwoods). This now reflects the final edits.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2017, 05:10:44 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 11:56:33 PM by jimrtex »

This is a work in progress, I was losing track of where I was at.



The moss green district is 85% complete, and I skipped a ward. I like that the two northern Milwaukee city districts are bounded by the township line, but I have to cross somewhere. I think I will do a small counterclockwise rotation in the north.

I have created a Hispanic "district" comprised of the wards that are 50%+ HVAP. It is equivalent to 1.63 districts and is 65% HVAP. I might try to expand it westward into the arm between West Allis and Greenfield. Alternatively, I could shift the Milwaukee portion of the Cudahy-St.Francis to be more northward, and put the last district into southern Milwaukee with an arm out to between West Allis and Greenfield.

The purple area is not yet assigned to a district.

The two remaining black districts would then be side-by-side. Note: West Milwaukee will be placed in a Milwaukee district.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2017, 06:36:58 PM »

I recall the 7th circuit demanding a certain configuration of the 2 Hispanic districts.

Link

Link

In recent briefs, the plaintiffs argued the Legislature violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Latinos by dividing them into two Assembly districts on Milwaukee's south side instead of concentrating them into one.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2017, 07:03:35 PM »

I recall the 7th circuit demanding a certain configuration of the 2 Hispanic districts.

Link

Link

In recent briefs, the plaintiffs argued the Legislature violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Latinos by dividing them into two Assembly districts on Milwaukee's south side instead of concentrating them into one.

One of my ADs is at HVAP of 64% which should be over 50% HCVAP. 62% is usually the threshold, though the 7th circuit ruled in IL that 59.2% was sufficient to elect a Latino candidate of choice.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2017, 02:17:28 PM »
« Edited: February 09, 2017, 07:51:00 PM by jimrtex »

This is my final map for Milwaukee County.



1. Milwaukee (far south); tan; 0.990; VAP%: 77W, 15H, 3A, 3B, 2O.
2. Milwaukee (southside west); blue; 0.986; VAP%: 54H, 36W, 6B, 2O, 2A.
3. Milwaukee (southside east) and West Milwaukee; red; 1.000; VAP%: 57H, 30W, 8B, 3A, 2O.
4. Milwaukee (westside and near northside); lime; 1.012; VAP%: 48B, 41W, 6H, 3A, 2O.
5. Milwaukee (westside); blue; 1.012; VAP%: 60B, 26W, 6A, 6H, 3O.
6. Milwaukee (northside); purple; 0.992; VAP%: 92B, 4W, 2H, 2O, 0A.
7. Milwaukee (northside west); green; 0.996; VAP%: 49B, 42W, 3H, 3A, 2O.
8. Milwaukee (far northside) and Brown Deer; mauve; 0.995; VAP%: 57B, 33W, 5A, 3H, 2O.
9. Milwaukee (far northside west); yellow; 0.994; VAP%: 53B, 36W, 5A, 4H, 2O.
10. Oak Creek and South Milwaukee; light blue; 0.968; VAP%: 87W, 6H, 3A, 2B, 2O.
11. Franklin, Greendale, Hales Corner; orange; 0.996; VAP%: 88W, 4A, 4B. 4H. 1O.
12. Milwaukee (Bayview, downtown), Cudahy, and St. Francis; green; 1.008; VAP%: 86W, 6H 3B, 3A, 2O.
13. Greenfield and Milwaukee (West Allis-Greenfield finger); pink; 0.989; VAP%: 86W, 7H, 3A, 2B, 2O.
14. West Allis; kelly green; 1.052; 86W; 7H, 3B, 2O, 2A.
15. Wauwatosa and Milwaukee (Wauwatosa-West Allis finger); slate; 0.995; VAP%: 88W, 5B,  3H, 3A, 1O.
16. Milwaukee (eastside), Whitefish Bay, and Shorewood; orange; 0.979; VAP%: 88W, 4B, 4A, 3H, 2O.
17. Mequon, Glendale, Fox Point, Bayside, Thiensville, River Hills, and Milwaukee (Glendale indention); red; 0.995; VAP% (Milwaukee County only): 74W, 19B, 3A, 3H, 1O,
18: Northern Ozaukee County (off map); 1.043.

Senate districts:

SD1. AD1-3, southern Milwaukee;
SD2. AD4-6. westside and near northside Milwaukee;
SD3. AD7-9. northwest Milwaukee.
SD4. AD 10-12. southern Milwaukee county and southern shoreline.
SD5. AD 13-15. western Milwaukee county.
SD6. AD 16-18. Ozaukee County and northern shoreline Milwaukee County.

And a version without wards.

Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2017, 03:04:50 PM »

Any complaints if I were to calculate partisan data of these districts (swing, trend, etc.)?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2017, 08:42:33 PM »

Any complaints if I were to calculate partisan data of these districts (swing, trend, etc.)?
Good idea, but can you hold off posting anything yet?

The claim of the lawsuit is that the map-drawers had partisan data at a fine level, and then eliminated the 50-50 districts by making them more Republican flavored, moving Republicans in from other donor (districts). I want to avoid being tempted to set boundaries for partisan reasons.

Would it help to have ward lists for Milwaukee, any other cities that are split?

Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2017, 08:48:15 PM »

Any complaints if I were to calculate partisan data of these districts (swing, trend, etc.)?
Good idea, but can you hold off posting anything yet?

The claim of the lawsuit is that the map-drawers had partisan data at a fine level, and then eliminated the 50-50 districts by making them more Republican flavored, moving Republicans in from other donor (districts). I want to avoid being tempted to set boundaries for partisan reasons.

Would it help to have ward lists for Milwaukee, any other cities that are split?

Yeah, I'll hold off posting until you are completely done and yes ward lists would be extreamly helpful.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2017, 11:38:04 PM »

Sheboygan County is entitled to 2.011 districts.



19. Sheboygan city, Sheboygan town, Kohler village. 1.021.
20. Remainder of county. 0.989
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2017, 05:27:08 AM »

This is my final map for Milwaukee County.



1. Milwaukee (far south); tan; 0.990; VAP%: 77W, 15H, 3A, 3B, 2O.
2. Milwaukee (southside west); blue; 0.986; VAP%: 54H, 36W, 6B, 2O, 2A.
3. Milwaukee (southside east) and West Milwaukee; red; 1.000; VAP%: 57H, 30W, 8B, 3A, 2O.
4. Milwaukee (westside and near northside); lime; 1.012; VAP%: 48B, 41W, 6H, 3A, 2O.
5. Milwaukee (westside); blue; 1.012; VAP%: 60B, 26W, 6A, 6H, 3O.
6. Milwaukee (northside); purple; 0.992; VAP%: 92B, 4W, 2H, 2O, 0A.
7. Milwaukee (northside west); green; 0.996; VAP%: 49B, 42W, 3H, 3A, 2O.
8. Milwaukee (far northside) and Brown Deer; mauve; 0.995; VAP%: 57B, 33W, 5A, 3H, 2O.
9. Milwaukee (far northside west); yellow; 0.994; VAP%: 53B, 36W, 5A, 4H, 2O.
10. Oak Creek and South Milwaukee; light blue; 0.968; VAP%: 87W, 6H, 3A, 2B, 2O.
11. Franklin, Greendale, Hales Corner; orange; 0.996; VAP%: 88W, 4A, 4B. 4H. 1O.
12. Milwaukee (Bayview, downtown), Cudahy, and St. Francis; green; 1.008; VAP%: 86W, 6H 3B, 3A, 2O.
13. Greenfield and Milwaukee (West Allis-Greenfield finger); pink; 0.989; VAP%: 86W, 7H, 3A, 2B, 2O.
14. West Allis; kelly green; 1.052; 86W; 7H, 3B, 2O, 2A.
15. Wauwatosa and Milwaukee (Wauwatosa-West Allis finger); slate; 0.995; VAP%: 88W, 5B,  3H, 3A, 1O.
16. Milwaukee (eastside), Whitefish Bay, and Shorewood; orange; 0.979; VAP%: 88W, 4B, 4A, 3H, 2O.
17. Mequon, Glendale, Fox Point, Bayside, Thiensville, River Hills, and Milwaukee (Glendale indention); red; 0.995; VAP% (Milwaukee County only): 74W, 19B, 3A, 3H, 1O,
18: Northern Ozaukee County (off map); 1.043.

Senate districts:

SD1. AD1-3, southern Milwaukee;
SD2. AD4-6. westside and near northside Milwaukee;
SD3. AD7-9. northwest Milwaukee.
SD4. AD 10-12. southern Milwaukee county and southern shoreline.
SD5. AD 13-15. western Milwaukee county.
SD6. AD 16-18. Ozaukee County and northern shoreline Milwaukee County.

And a version without wards.



I'd be concerned about a 92% BVAP district (AD 6) it looks like a clear case of packing. It would certainly get challenged. If the claim is that the 48% BVAP and 49% BVAP districts adjacent to that are VRA-performing, then why not split AD 6 between two districts and make both over 46% BVAP and claim that they would both be performing?

Also the 57% HVAP AD 3 would definitely lose in court. As krazen pointed out the 60% HVAP AD lost in 2012 and was redrawn.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.1 seconds with 13 queries.