Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting

[muon2]

So you are allowing connections across lakes? Both Monona and Maple Bluff are surrounded by Madison except for frontage on a lake.

Monona has a land connection to Blooming Grove town, and I am treating Columbus-ized towns as being self-contiguous. Mud Lake is not a significant body of water in any case.

I believe that the original boundary between Westport and Madison towns did not follow the PLSS, and that Maple Grove is in the original area of Westport town on the north side of Lake Mendota. On a satellite view you can see the road on the township line between Westport and Burke on the eastern edge of Maple Grove.

This is distinct from the case of Shorewood Hills, which was clearly within Madison town, and there are no residual parts of Madison town near it. However, if there were a case where the population of Shorewood Hills prevented Madison from having a whole number of districts, I could see placing Shorewood Hills with Middleton.

Summary: I disagree with Monona. I can see your point with Maple Grove. When I make the division of Madison, I will take into account the possibility of adding Maple Grove.

Mud Lake is wider than most rivers and there is no bridge. You can say they are contiguous, but to me that's like linking across a body like the Wisconsin river where there is no bridge. Your plan is legal, but much as you have your opinion about population deviation I strive for units that are actually connected.

You  can't get to the "part" of Madison that splits the two pieces of Blooming Grove from the state capitol without going through Blooming Grove.

And it is trivial to get between McFarland and Monona and spend less than a minute in Madison. If you asked for directions in McFarland to get to Monona, do you think someone would tell you that there was no way without going through Madison?

I realize that we fundamentally disagree on the nature and applicability of nick cuts. My bias is heavily influenced by experts who suggested in the last cycle that one of the best criteria to reduce the power of gerrymandering is to require that all parts of a district are connected by road.

Where there are disconnected units one can either treat each piece separately or allow the district to be disconnected based on individual fragments. The second choice is the one WI uses. I can respect that, but I won't use the existence of a disconnected fragment to extend a district into a unit that only connects with that fragment, but not the rest of the district.

[muon2]

Here's the 2016 update for SW WI.



AD 52 (Platteville): PVI (8.5, 5.2, -5.9)
AD 53 (Richland Center): PVI (8.3, 6.7, -3.0)
AD 54 (Baraboo): PVI (7.5, 7.1, -1.9)

AD 55 (Tomah): PVI (1.3, -2.3, -12.3)
AD 56 (Onalaska): PVI (1.9, 0.2, -2.6)
AD 57 (La Crosse): PVI (14.7, 14.0, 11.7)

AD 58 (Marshfield): PVI (2.3, 2.3, -12.9)
AD 59 (Wisconsin Rapids): PVI (3.7, -5.3, -11.7)
AD 60 (Stevens Point): PVI (11.6, 6.4, 2.7)

AD 61 (Portage): PVI (4.0, 4.9, -2.2)
AD 62 (Wautoma): PVI (-5.3, -8.3, -17.6)
AD 63 (Waupaca): PVI (-2.4, -5.9, -17.1)

The Driftless Zone has long been a source of rural Dem support. That rural Dem support was wiped out in 2016. Obama carried 8 of these 12 ADs in 2012 (11 out of 12 in 2008). In 2016 Clinton only carried 2. Even Kerry took 6 of these in 2004.


Gass - Let me know if you have any of the 2016 ward results processed into a spreadsheet yet.

[jimrtex]

So you are allowing connections across lakes? Both Monona and Maple Bluff are surrounded by Madison except for frontage on a lake.

Monona has a land connection to Blooming Grove town, and I am treating Columbus-ized towns as being self-contiguous. Mud Lake is not a significant body of water in any case.

I believe that the original boundary between Westport and Madison towns did not follow the PLSS, and that Maple Grove is in the original area of Westport town on the north side of Lake Mendota. On a satellite view you can see the road on the township line between Westport and Burke on the eastern edge of Maple Grove.

This is distinct from the case of Shorewood Hills, which was clearly within Madison town, and there are no residual parts of Madison town near it. However, if there were a case where the population of Shorewood Hills prevented Madison from having a whole number of districts, I could see placing Shorewood Hills with Middleton.

Summary: I disagree with Monona. I can see your point with Maple Grove. When I make the division of Madison, I will take into account the possibility of adding Maple Grove.

Mud Lake is wider than most rivers and there is no bridge. You can say they are contiguous, but to me that's like linking across a body like the Wisconsin river where there is no bridge. Your plan is legal, but much as you have your opinion about population deviation I strive for units that are actually connected.

You  can't get to the "part" of Madison that splits the two pieces of Blooming Grove from the state capitol without going through Blooming Grove.

And it is trivial to get between McFarland and Monona and spend less than a minute in Madison. If you asked for directions in McFarland to get to Monona, do you think someone would tell you that there was no way without going through Madison?

I realize that we fundamentally disagree on the nature and applicability of nick cuts. My bias is heavily influenced by experts who suggested in the last cycle that one of the best criteria to reduce the power of gerrymandering is to require that all parts of a district are connected by road.

Where there are disconnected units one can either treat each piece separately or allow the district to be disconnected based on individual fragments. The second choice is the one WI uses. I can respect that, but I won't use the existence of a disconnected fragment to extend a district into a unit that only connects with that fragment, but not the rest of the district.

I do not know the context that the experts were speaking of. Can you cite specific instances where they drew gerrymanders based on non-road contiguity? Are these applicable at all to where the districts are assemblages of legal political subdivisions?

If you are going to take the expert advice literally, then you can not draw a Madison city council district into that area. Madison city limits are a gerrymander, and by accepting them as a basis for apportionment, you are perpetuating the gerrymander.

Here is my comprehension of the political subdivisions in the central part of Dane County.



The major components of Burke, Westport, and Blooming Grove towns are shown with two nodes indicating the major concentration. A connection with any part of the town is a connection with the whole town.

Madison city is shown as two nodes for simplicity.

Verona, Cottage Grove, and Dane (town and village/city) have been indicated with a single node for simplicity.

Lake Mendota and Lake Monona are shown in brown, their location is only indicative.

DeForest is indicated as the main (northern) populated portion of the village. The southern portions appear to be developable, and if they were, I'd permit a connection to Burke town. I could not find an explanation of DeForest. It has the appearance of an annexation followed by a lawsuit that forced a detachment.

The orange connections indicate connections that may be near-corner. At a county level, an offset of one mile would be near corner. At a township level it is just below 5%, marginal but acceptable under certain circumstances.

Madison, Blooming Grove, and Burke towns have been separated from each other. They only connect inward and only.

The purple links from Madison city to McFarland and Sun Prairie city are acceptable. One would hope if you were extending the Madison apportionment area you would take some of the other territories.

[jimrtex]

Grant 0.891, Vernon 0.518, Richland 0.314, and Crawford 0.290 have a total population equivalent of 2.013. The size and location of Grant County means that a small county must be divided. Ordinarily, a preference would be to split a larger county, but that would not really be practical.

A small area in the southern tip of Crawford County, essentially the city of Prairie du Chien is added to  Grant County. I did not  include Prairie du Chien town, in order to balance the population of the two districts, but adding it to AD-56 would be totally acceptable.



56. Crawford: Bridgeport town and Prairie du Chien city. 0.120, Grant (all) 0.891. 1.012

57. Crawford: (all but part in AD-56) 0.170, Vernon (all) 0.518, and Richland (all) 0.314. 1.002.

[jimrtex]

La Crosse has a population equivalent to 1.996 districts and will be divided into two districts. The city of La Crosse has a population equivalent to about 9/10 of the district. Onalaska is too large to be in the same district, so the La Crosse district is extended to the south.



58. La Crosse: La Crosse city, Medary town, and Shelby town. 1.001.

59: La Crosse: (remainder not in AD-58). 0.995.

[jimrtex]

Fond du Lac 1.769 and Green Lake 0.332, have a population equivalent to 2.011 districts. One district will be in Fond du Lac and the other mostly in Fond du Lac and about 1/3 in Green Lake.

The city and town of Fond du Lac have a population equivalent to about 8/10 of a district, and I considered the idea of a doughnut district, but the upper part of the doughnut would cross Lake Winnebago. Instead I added Friendship town and North Fond du Lac which are on the western shore of the lake to the district that runs into Green Lake. I then added some areas to the south (and beyond the southern tip of the lake). This leaves the Fond du Lac district as the the city plus the eastern shore of the lake and the county.



60. Fond du Lac: Calumet town, Empire town, Fond du Lac city, Fond du Lac town, Forest town,
Marshfield town, Mount Calvary village, Osceola town, St. Cloud village, and Taycheedah town. 1.042.

AD-60 will be joined with the two Sheboygan districts in a senate district.

61: Fond du Lac: Alto town, Ashford town, Auburn town, Brandon village, Byron town, Campbellsport village, Eden town, Eden village, Eldorado town, Fairwater village, Friendship town, Kewaskum village, Lamartine town, Metomen town, North Fond du Lac village, Oakfield town, Oakfield village, Ripon city, Ripon town, Rosendale town, Rosendale village, Springvale town, Waupun city, and Waupun town. 0.728, Green Lake: (all) 0.332. 1.059.

There is not an obvious way to balance the population without splitting a small town. The amount of adjustment (about 450 persons does not seem particularly worth it).

[muon2]

So you are allowing connections across lakes? Both Monona and Maple Bluff are surrounded by Madison except for frontage on a lake.

Monona has a land connection to Blooming Grove town, and I am treating Columbus-ized towns as being self-contiguous. Mud Lake is not a significant body of water in any case.

I believe that the original boundary between Westport and Madison towns did not follow the PLSS, and that Maple Grove is in the original area of Westport town on the north side of Lake Mendota. On a satellite view you can see the road on the township line between Westport and Burke on the eastern edge of Maple Grove.

This is distinct from the case of Shorewood Hills, which was clearly within Madison town, and there are no residual parts of Madison town near it. However, if there were a case where the population of Shorewood Hills prevented Madison from having a whole number of districts, I could see placing Shorewood Hills with Middleton.

Summary: I disagree with Monona. I can see your point with Maple Grove. When I make the division of Madison, I will take into account the possibility of adding Maple Grove.

Mud Lake is wider than most rivers and there is no bridge. You can say they are contiguous, but to me that's like linking across a body like the Wisconsin river where there is no bridge. Your plan is legal, but much as you have your opinion about population deviation I strive for units that are actually connected.

You  can't get to the "part" of Madison that splits the two pieces of Blooming Grove from the state capitol without going through Blooming Grove.

And it is trivial to get between McFarland and Monona and spend less than a minute in Madison. If you asked for directions in McFarland to get to Monona, do you think someone would tell you that there was no way without going through Madison?

I realize that we fundamentally disagree on the nature and applicability of nick cuts. My bias is heavily influenced by experts who suggested in the last cycle that one of the best criteria to reduce the power of gerrymandering is to require that all parts of a district are connected by road.

Where there are disconnected units one can either treat each piece separately or allow the district to be disconnected based on individual fragments. The second choice is the one WI uses. I can respect that, but I won't use the existence of a disconnected fragment to extend a district into a unit that only connects with that fragment, but not the rest of the district.

I do not know the context that the experts were speaking of. Can you cite specific instances where they drew gerrymanders based on non-road contiguity? Are these applicable at all to where the districts are assemblages of legal political subdivisions?

If you are going to take the expert advice literally, then you can not draw a Madison city council district into that area. Madison city limits are a gerrymander, and by accepting them as a basis for apportionment, you are perpetuating the gerrymander.

Here is my comprehension of the political subdivisions in the central part of Dane County.



The major components of Burke, Westport, and Blooming Grove towns are shown with two nodes indicating the major concentration. A connection with any part of the town is a connection with the whole town.

Madison city is shown as two nodes for simplicity.

Verona, Cottage Grove, and Dane (town and village/city) have been indicated with a single node for simplicity.

Lake Mendota and Lake Monona are shown in brown, their location is only indicative.

DeForest is indicated as the main (northern) populated portion of the village. The southern portions appear to be developable, and if they were, I'd permit a connection to Burke town. I could not find an explanation of DeForest. It has the appearance of an annexation followed by a lawsuit that forced a detachment.

The orange connections indicate connections that may be near-corner. At a county level, an offset of one mile would be near corner. At a township level it is just below 5%, marginal but acceptable under certain circumstances.

Madison, Blooming Grove, and Burke towns have been separated from each other. They only connect inward and only.

The purple links from Madison city to McFarland and Sun Prairie city are acceptable. One would hope if you were extending the Madison apportionment area you would take some of the other territories.

I understand your map, but it differs from my view. For example, the node for Madison town is at 2120 Fish Hatchery Rd. That piece of Madison town is surrounded by Madison city, so the only connection is to the city. If however the town is chopped, then pieces that do not include the node can have nodes that are connected to other units like Fitchburg city.

Similarly the node or Blooming Grove town is at 1800 S Stoughton Rd. It's a parcel that only includes the town offices and is surrounded by Madison city. If the town is chopped, then other parts can connect to neighboring towns, but together it connects to Madison. It's a trade of chops of the town for other plan goals as I see it.

Both these towns are so intertwined with Madison that it makes sense for them to stay connected with Madison in redistricting. I would suggest that if the population of Madison city were not so close to exactly 4 ADs, then the status of the towns not combining with the city wouldn't even arise.

[Gass3268]

Luckily by the next census, the Town of Madison will probably have been annexed by Madison and Fitchburg. Burke and Blooming Grove hopefully will be gone by 2030. You will also see further growth of Madison into the towns of Middleton, Verona, and Westport. Possibly Cottage Grove and Sun Prairie in the long term. This could also result in Cottage Grove, Verona, and Waunakee merging with their respective towns to prevent the spread of Madison.

Also should note that the Windsor has upgraded from a town to a village, due to their issues with DeForest.

[jimrtex]

So you are allowing connections across lakes? Both Monona and Maple Bluff are surrounded by Madison except for frontage on a lake.

Monona has a land connection to Blooming Grove town, and I am treating Columbus-ized towns as being self-contiguous. Mud Lake is not a significant body of water in any case.

I believe that the original boundary between Westport and Madison towns did not follow the PLSS, and that Maple Grove is in the original area of Westport town on the north side of Lake Mendota. On a satellite view you can see the road on the township line between Westport and Burke on the eastern edge of Maple Grove.

This is distinct from the case of Shorewood Hills, which was clearly within Madison town, and there are no residual parts of Madison town near it. However, if there were a case where the population of Shorewood Hills prevented Madison from having a whole number of districts, I could see placing Shorewood Hills with Middleton.

Summary: I disagree with Monona. I can see your point with Maple Grove. When I make the division of Madison, I will take into account the possibility of adding Maple Grove.

Mud Lake is wider than most rivers and there is no bridge. You can say they are contiguous, but to me that's like linking across a body like the Wisconsin river where there is no bridge. Your plan is legal, but much as you have your opinion about population deviation I strive for units that are actually connected.

You  can't get to the "part" of Madison that splits the two pieces of Blooming Grove from the state capitol without going through Blooming Grove.

And it is trivial to get between McFarland and Monona and spend less than a minute in Madison. If you asked for directions in McFarland to get to Monona, do you think someone would tell you that there was no way without going through Madison?

I realize that we fundamentally disagree on the nature and applicability of nick cuts. My bias is heavily influenced by experts who suggested in the last cycle that one of the best criteria to reduce the power of gerrymandering is to require that all parts of a district are connected by road.

Where there are disconnected units one can either treat each piece separately or allow the district to be disconnected based on individual fragments. The second choice is the one WI uses. I can respect that, but I won't use the existence of a disconnected fragment to extend a district into a unit that only connects with that fragment, but not the rest of the district.

I do not know the context that the experts were speaking of. Can you cite specific instances where they drew gerrymanders based on non-road contiguity? Are these applicable at all to where the districts are assemblages of legal political subdivisions?

If you are going to take the expert advice literally, then you can not draw a Madison city council district into that area. Madison city limits are a gerrymander, and by accepting them as a basis for apportionment, you are perpetuating the gerrymander.

Here is my comprehension of the political subdivisions in the central part of Dane County.



The major components of Burke, Westport, and Blooming Grove towns are shown with two nodes indicating the major concentration. A connection with any part of the town is a connection with the whole town.

Madison city is shown as two nodes for simplicity.

Verona, Cottage Grove, and Dane (town and village/city) have been indicated with a single node for simplicity.

Lake Mendota and Lake Monona are shown in brown, their location is only indicative.

DeForest is indicated as the main (northern) populated portion of the village. The southern portions appear to be developable, and if they were, I'd permit a connection to Burke town. I could not find an explanation of DeForest. It has the appearance of an annexation followed by a lawsuit that forced a detachment.

The orange connections indicate connections that may be near-corner. At a county level, an offset of one mile would be near corner. At a township level it is just below 5%, marginal but acceptable under certain circumstances.

Madison, Blooming Grove, and Burke towns have been separated from each other. They only connect inward and only.

The purple links from Madison city to McFarland and Sun Prairie city are acceptable. One would hope if you were extending the Madison apportionment area you would take some of the other territories.

I understand your map, but it differs from my view. For example, the node for Madison town is at 2120 Fish Hatchery Rd. That piece of Madison town is surrounded by Madison city, so the only connection is to the city. If however the town is chopped, then pieces that do not include the node can have nodes that are connected to other units like Fitchburg city.

Similarly the node or Blooming Grove town is at 1800 S Stoughton Rd. It's a parcel that only includes the town offices and is surrounded by Madison city. If the town is chopped, then other parts can connect to neighboring towns, but together it connects to Madison. It's a trade of chops of the town for other plan goals as I see it.

Both these towns are so intertwined with Madison that it makes sense for them to stay connected with Madison in redistricting. I would suggest that if the population of Madison city were not so close to exactly 4 ADs, then the status of the towns not combining with the city wouldn't even arise.

The street addresses of the town government is an attribute of the node, as are other data such as the name of the town, populations, town limits, it is possible to have other locations associated with the nodes as I have done with my circles. Since the relationships between nodes is geographically-based, we agree it is useful to have geographical information associated with the nodes.

It might depend on the size of any surplus Milwaukee had. If it were 0.200, we might prefer to add a significant external city such as Sun Prairie or Fitchburg, so as to reduce the number of whole districts in Madison (this is somewhat the opposite of the  case in Milwaukee where the suburbs had close to the population for a district and Miilwaukee ended up losing a district.

If it were close to 0.700 I can see augmenting with an area close to the  city.

[muon2]

Luckily by the next census, the Town of Madison will probably have been annexed by Madison and Fitchburg. Burke and Blooming Grove hopefully will be gone by 2030. You will also see further growth of Madison into the towns of Middleton, Verona, and Westport. Possibly Cottage Grove and Sun Prairie in the long term. This could also result in Cottage Grove, Verona, and Waunakee merging with their respective towns to prevent the spread of Madison.

Also should note that the Windsor has upgraded from a town to a village, due to their issues with DeForest.

Apparently the plan going back over a decade was to dissolve the Town of Madison in 2022. Last summer Madison and Fitchburg proposed moving that up to the end of 2016 with most going to Madison and a few southern pieces going to Fitchburg. Since the Town of Madison is still holding meetings, it looks like that hasn't happened.

Blooming Grove has an agreement with Madison to dissolve by 2027, so they will be around for only one more Census. The agreement with Burke includes Madison, DeForest and Sun Prairie and extends until 2036.

[Gass3268]

Luckily by the next census, the Town of Madison will probably have been annexed by Madison and Fitchburg. Burke and Blooming Grove hopefully will be gone by 2030. You will also see further growth of Madison into the towns of Middleton, Verona, and Westport. Possibly Cottage Grove and Sun Prairie in the long term. This could also result in Cottage Grove, Verona, and Waunakee merging with their respective towns to prevent the spread of Madison.

Also should note that the Windsor has upgraded from a town to a village, due to their issues with DeForest.

Apparently the plan going back over a decade was to dissolve the Town of Madison in 2022. Last summer Madison and Fitchburg proposed moving that up to the end of 2016 with most going to Madison and a few southern pieces going to Fitchburg. Since the Town of Madison is still holding meetings, it looks like that hasn't happened.

Blooming Grove has an agreement with Madison to dissolve by 2027, so they will be around for only one more Census. The agreement with Burke includes Madison, DeForest and Sun Prairie and extends until 2036.

I didn't know that the Town of Madison opposed. It would probably be beneficial to everyone to get that integrated into Madison and Fitchburg before 2020. I know that the Town of Burke agreement was the last, but didn't know it was that long. Hopefully that gets pushed up in the future. The rate Madison and Sun Prairie is growing, it might not matter. I made a map once on what a future Madison would look like after all these mergers, I'll have to see if I can find it.

[muon2]

With all our discussion of Madison, I decided to pull the Dane county data for 2016 and see what the ADs show.



AD 43 (Sun Prairie): PVI (9.9, 9.9, 11.1)
AD 44 (Monona): PVI (21.5, 23.6, 22.1)
AD 45 (Madison - North Side): PVI (30.7, 32.8, 35.3)

AD 46 (Madison - UW): PVI (29.3, 26.7, 34.0)
AD 47 (Madison - Arboretum): PVI (27.3, 28.8, 34.0)
AD 48 (Middleton): PVI D+18 (17.9, 17.1, 25.4)

AD 49 (Stoughton): PVI D+12 (12.6, 11.0, 12.7)
AD 50 (Fitchburg): PVI D+15 (15.7, 14.7, 20.4)
AD 51 (Waunakee): PVI D+9 (10.0, 8.8, 13.0)

Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Well actually we see the polarization inherent in the electorate. The PVI shift I've been showing in N and W WI has all been Pub. Yet in Dane it's all to the Dems, including shifts in excess of 5%. But this is an area that Dems were already dominant, and they've packed even more of their voters in this white liberal bastion in 2016.

[jimrtex]

Luckily by the next census, the Town of Madison will probably have been annexed by Madison and Fitchburg. Burke and Blooming Grove hopefully will be gone by 2030. You will also see further growth of Madison into the towns of Middleton, Verona, and Westport. Possibly Cottage Grove and Sun Prairie in the long term. This could also result in Cottage Grove, Verona, and Waunakee merging with their respective towns to prevent the spread of Madison.

Also should note that the Windsor has upgraded from a town to a village, due to their issues with DeForest.

Thanks for pointing out Windsor. The map of DeForest had deannexation written all over it. I assume Windsor didn't like DeForest grabbing its tax base along the highway.

[jimrtex]

Luckily by the next census, the Town of Madison will probably have been annexed by Madison and Fitchburg. Burke and Blooming Grove hopefully will be gone by 2030. You will also see further growth of Madison into the towns of Middleton, Verona, and Westport. Possibly Cottage Grove and Sun Prairie in the long term. This could also result in Cottage Grove, Verona, and Waunakee merging with their respective towns to prevent the spread of Madison.

Also should note that the Windsor has upgraded from a town to a village, due to their issues with DeForest.

Apparently the plan going back over a decade was to dissolve the Town of Madison in 2022. Last summer Madison and Fitchburg proposed moving that up to the end of 2016 with most going to Madison and a few southern pieces going to Fitchburg. Since the Town of Madison is still holding meetings, it looks like that hasn't happened.

Blooming Grove has an agreement with Madison to dissolve by 2027, so they will be around for only one more Census. The agreement with Burke includes Madison, DeForest and Sun Prairie and extends until 2036.

I didn't know that the Town of Madison opposed. It would probably be beneficial to everyone to get that integrated into Madison and Fitchburg before 2020. I know that the Town of Burke agreement was the last, but didn't know it was that long. Hopefully that gets pushed up in the future. The rate Madison and Sun Prairie is growing, it might not matter. I made a map once on what a future Madison would look like after all these mergers, I'll have to see if I can find it.

The agreement between DeForest, Sun Prairie, Madison, and Burke would let DeForest annex some areas to the west of its current southern part. Sun Prairie could go east and south of its current boundary about a mile. Madison could get to the Windsor line in a fairly narrow area, and would have required permission of Sun Prairie and DeForest to go into Windsor, but that is moot now. Madison could also get to the town of Sun Prairie line on about a 3-mile front.

Sun Prairie and the town of Windsor had an agreement that would have let Sun Prairie to take about 1/4 of the town. It appears that is dissolved by the incorporation of Windsor as a village (by a 97% vote).

Sun Prairie has an agreement with the town of Bristol which would let Sun Prairie annex a small area for urban development, and an area for industrial develop which would share revenues. An area on the western boundary of Bristol north of Sun Prairie would be developed as residential, and remain in the town. Commercial development would be limited to3 acre sites.

There may be some regional and state planning requirements that are keeping Madison from going into the towns of Sun Prairie and Cottage Grove.

Madison also has an agreement with the town of Middleton to leave the last 1.5 to the west.

[jimrtex]

Manitowoc 1.418, Calumet 0.852. Door 0.484, and Kewaunee 0.258, collectively have a population equivalent to 3.112 districts, and will have 3 districts. One wholly in Manitowoc, one containing all of Calumet and part of Manitowoc, and one containing all of Door and Kewaunee and part of Manitowoc,

The average population of 1.037 is somewhat high, so special attention will be paid to population equality. The cities of Manitowoc and Two Rivers are both too large to be placed in the districts coming across the county line. So they will form the core of the Manitowoc-only district, along with the surrounding towns of Two Rivers, Manitowoc, and Manitowoc Rapids.

An area along the Calumet line in the west was delineated, as well as an area along the Kewaunee line in the north. The remainder of the towns, generally to the south and southwest of the city of Manitowoc remain in Manitowoc district.





62. Manitowoc: Cato town, Centerville town, Cleveland village, Liberty town, Manitowoc city, Manitowoc Rapids town, Manitowoc town, Newton town, Two Rivers city, Two Rivers town, and Valders village. 1.035

63. Door (all) 0.484; Kewaunee (all) 0.358; Manitowoc: Cooperstown town, Francis Creek village, Franklin town, Gibson town, Kellnersville village, Kossuth town, Maple Grove town, Maribel village, Mishicot town, Mishicot village, Two Creeks town, and Whitelaw village 0.197, 1.039.

64. Calumet (all) 0.852; Manitowoc: Eaton town, Kiel city, Meeme town, Reedsville village, Rockland town, Schleswig town, and St. Nazianz village. 0.186, 1.038.

[jimrtex]

Outagamie 3.076 and Waupaca 0.912 collectively have a population equivalent to 3.988 districts and will be divided into 4 districts, 3 in Outagamie, and one including all of Waupaca plus a sliver of Outagamie.

Appleton with a population of 1.045 forms one district. The suburban areas to the east of Appleton don't quite have enough population for a district, but too much to include the suburbs to the west. The district is extended northward into more rural areas.

The Waupaca district includes all of New London which straddles the county line, and areas to the north which match the overhang of Waupaca. This leaves the remainder of Outagamie for the final district in Outagamie, with over half of its population in Grand Chute and Greenville.





65. Outagamie: Appleton city. 1.045

66. Outagamie: Buchanan town, Combined Locks village, Freedom town, Kaukauna city, Kaukauna town, Kimberly village, Little Chute village, Oneida town, Vandenbroek town, and Wrightstown village. 0.972.

67. Outagamie: Black Creek town, Black Creek village, Bovina town, Center town, Cicero town, Dale town, Ellington town, Grand Chute town, Greenville town, Hortonia town, Hortonville village, Howard village, Maine town, Nichols village, Osborn town, Seymour city, Seymour town, and Shiocton village. 0.986.

68. Outagamie: Bear Creek village, Deer Creek town, Liberty town, Maple Creek town, and New London city 0.073; Waupaca (all) 0.912. 0.985

[jimrtex]

Winnebago 2.907 is entitled to 3 districts.

Oshkosh 1.150 is too large for one district and will have one district, with the surplus trimmed off. The Appleton suburbs: Appleton City, Menasha city and town, and Neenah city and town are too large for a district. One possibility would be to split Menasha Town, keeping the cities whole. I instead decided to split Neenah city, based on splitting the larger entity.

If the area trimmed from Neenah is on the south, and that from Oshkosh on the north, roughly 40% of the remaining district will be between Neenah and Oshkosh on the shore of Lake Winnebago.



69. Oshkosh city (part, 0.969) 0.969

70. Appleton city, Menasha city, Menasha town. and Neenah city (part, 0.357) 0.969

71. Algoma town, Black Wolf town, Clayton town, Neenah city (part, 0.087), Neenah town, Nekimi town, Nepeuskun town, Omro city, Omro town, Oshkosh city (part, 0.181), Oshkosh town, Poygan town, Rushford town, Utica town, Vinland town, Winchester town, Winneconne town, Winneconne village, and Wolf River town. 0.969

[muon2]

Moving on to Waukesha and surroundings 2016:



AD 31 (Brookfield): PVI (-17.2, -18.0 -10.6)
AD 32 (New Berlin): PVI (-16.5, -19.4, -15.4)
AD 33 (Waukesha city): PVI (-7.4, -10.6, -6.8 )

AD 34 (Muskego): PVI (-20.0, -23.2, -22.1)
AD 35 (Oconomowoc): PVI (-18.7, -22.3, -18.5)
AD 36 (Pewaukee): PVI (-20.8, -24.1, -20.2)

AD 37 (Menominee Falls): PVI (-15.5, -18.0, -13.6)
AD 38 (Hartford): PVI (-21.0, -24.3, -25.0)
AD 39 (West Bend): PVI (-16.6, -20.6, -21.7)

AD 40 (Fort Atkinson): PVI (-0.9, -2.3, -6.0)
AD 41 (Watertown): PVI (-11.4, -15.6, -21.0)
AD 42 (Beaver Dam): PVI (-5.3, -4.2, -12.3)

The suburban areas nearest Milwaukee (ADs 31, 32, 33, 37) show a push back against Trump and a Dem shift in the PVI. Farther west in AD 40, 41, 42 the typical rural Pub swing is present.

[Gass3268]

While it might be a Trump only thing, I would not be shocked if some of the parts of the WOW counties closest to Milwaukee County could become competitive in the future. Especially Brookfield, Mequon, and Waukesha.

[MasterJedi]

While it might be a Trump only thing, I would not be shocked if some of the parts of the WOW counties closest to Milwaukee County could become competitive in the future. Especially Brookfield, Mequon, and Waukesha.

Likely a Trump only thing, I can't see any of those areas becoming competitive any time soon.

[jimrtex]

Columbia 0.989 is entitled to a single district. It is the only single-county single-district in the state.



72. Columbia (all) 0.989

[jimrtex]

Portage 1.219, Waushara 0.426, and Marquette 0.268 have a population equivalent to 1.913 districts, and will have two districts. One district will be in Portage, while the other will include all of Marquette and Waushara, and part of Portage. Almost 3/4 of the district will be in Waushara and Marquette. Special attention will be paid to equality due to the overall deficit.

Portage-Waushara-Marquette.



Portage detail.



The Portage district must be in the northern part of the county, and contain Stevens Point. Plover and surrounding towns are added to get to the desired population.

73. Portage: Carson town, Dewey town, Eau Pleine town, Hull town, Junction City village, Linwood town, Milladore village, Park Ridge village, Plover town, Plover village, Sharon town, Stevens Point city, and Whiting village. 0.954

74. Marquette (all) 0.268; Portage: Alban town, Almond town, Almond village, Amherst Junction village, Amherst town, Amherst village, Belmont town, Buena Vista town, Grant town, Lanark town, Nelsonville village, New Hope town, Pine Grove town, Rosholt village, and Stockton town. 0.265; Waushara (all) 0.426. 0.960.

[jimrtex]

Marathon 2.334 and Shawano 0.730 have a population equivalent to 3.064 districts and will have three districts. Two districts will be in Marathon. The third district will include all of Shawano and part of Marathon. About 3/4 will be in Shawano.

Marathon-Shawano



Marathon detail.



Two tiers of towns on the eastern edge of Marathon were added to Shawano. Kronenwetter village was the perfect size to complete the district, and alternatives would make the boundary more irregular.

Wausau city and town and Weston village and town are about the correct size for a district, and butt up against the eastern district. Schofield city is added for population balance. The remainder of the county (west) forms the other district.

I swapped Hewitt and Guenther towns to achieve better population equality without harming the border significantly.

75. Marathon: Schofield city, Wausau city, Wausau town, Weston town, and Weston village. 1.027

76. Marathon: Abbotsford city, Athens village, Bergen town, Berlin town, Bern town, Brighton town, Brokaw village, Cassel town, Cleveland town, Colby city, Day town, Dorchester village, Eau Pleine town, Edgar village, Emmet town, Fenwood village, Frankfort town, Green Valley town, Halsey town, Hamburg town, Hewitt town, Holton town, Hull town, Johnson town, Knowlton town, Maine town, Marathon City village, Marathon town, Marshfield city, McMillan town, Mosinee city, Mosinee town, Rib Falls town, Rib Mountain town, Rietbrock town, Rothschild village, Spencer town, Spencer village, Stettin town, Stratford village, Texas town, Unity village, and Wien town. 1.016.

77. Marathon: Bevent town, Birnamwood village, Easton town, Elderon town, Elderon village, Franzen town, Guenther town, Harrison town, Hatley village, Kronenwetter village, Norrie town, Plover town,
Reid town, and Ringle town 0.291; Shawano (all) 0.730. 1.021.

[jimrtex]

Brown and Oconto 5 districts. To be continued.

[Gass3268]

jimrtex, confirming that you have not finished all of the Districts in Dane County, correct?