Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting

[jimrtex]

Repost because of delay in dividing Oshkosh and Neenan

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.



Green areas outside Neenah are in the city, but have Neenah town VTDs. They are in AD-71. Green areas north of Oshkosh are in the city, but have Oshkosh town VTDs. They are in  AD-71. The green area on the south end of Oshkosh is in the city but is an Algoma town VTD. It is AD-69

69. Oshkosh city (wards  1, 8-33, 0.951) 0.951

70. Appleton city, Menasha city, Menasha town. and Neenah city (wards 1-13, 16-20, 22-23, 0.360) 0.972. Note: Neenah does not have a Ward 21.

71. Algoma town, Black Wolf town, Clayton town, Neenah city (wards 14-15, 24, 0.84), Neenah town, Nekimi town, Nepeuskun town, Omro city, Omro town, Oshkosh city (2-7, 0.199), Oshkosh town, Poygan town, Rushford town, Utica town, Vinland town, Winchester town, Winneconne town, Winneconne village, and Wolf River town. 0.984

[muon2]

Repost because of delay in dividing Oshkosh and Neenan

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.



Green areas outside Neenah are in the city, but have Neenah town VTDs. They are in AD-71. Green areas north of Oshkosh are in the city, but have Oshkosh town VTDs. They are in  AD-71. The green area on the south end of Oshkosh is in the city but is an Algoma town VTD. It is AD-69

69. Oshkosh city (wards  1, 8-33, 0.951) 0.951

70. Appleton city, Menasha city, Menasha town. and Neenah city (wards 1-13, 16-20, 22-23, 0.360) 0.972. Note: Neenah does not have a Ward 21.

71. Algoma town, Black Wolf town, Clayton town, Neenah city (wards 14-15, 24, 0.84), Neenah town, Nekimi town, Nepeuskun town, Omro city, Omro town, Oshkosh city (2-7, 0.199), Oshkosh town, Poygan town, Rushford town, Utica town, Vinland town, Winchester town, Winneconne town, Winneconne village, and Wolf River town. 0.984

From what I can tell, WI redraws all of its wards after each Census. As cities annex land from towns  new wards in the cities are created, and these wards can be no larger than a single block if that was the size of an annexation. When DRA set up its geography it used a source for the wards (VTDs) that didn't reflect annexations during the decade of the 2000's, but the city and town lines were from the end of the decade (2008?).

That creates the annoying feature of town wards extending into the cities like the green area you have in SW Oshkosh that shows up as Algoma ward 11 on DRA. In 2008 the Atlas has no precinct data for Algoma ward 11, because it didn't exist any more and was a city ward. Matching the 2008 election results to map shapes is made more challenging because the county only keeps the current ward map and that has the redrawn wards from 2011. DRA shows Algoma 11 as Obama 114, McCain 141, but there's no city ward in Atlas with that total. I'm not sure where DRA got its ward results for  Algoma 11.

[jimrtex]

Repost because of delay in dividing Oshkosh and Neenan

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.



Green areas outside Neenah are in the city, but have Neenah town VTDs. They are in AD-71. Green areas north of Oshkosh are in the city, but have Oshkosh town VTDs. They are in  AD-71. The green area on the south end of Oshkosh is in the city but is an Algoma town VTD. It is AD-69

69. Oshkosh city (wards  1, 8-33, 0.951) 0.951

70. Appleton city, Menasha city, Menasha town. and Neenah city (wards 1-13, 16-20, 22-23, 0.360) 0.972. Note: Neenah does not have a Ward 21.

71. Algoma town, Black Wolf town, Clayton town, Neenah city (wards 14-15, 24, 0.84), Neenah town, Nekimi town, Nepeuskun town, Omro city, Omro town, Oshkosh city (2-7, 0.199), Oshkosh town, Poygan town, Rushford town, Utica town, Vinland town, Winchester town, Winneconne town, Winneconne village, and Wolf River town. 0.984

From what I can tell, WI redraws all of its wards after each Census. As cities annex land from towns  new wards in the cities are created, and these wards can be no larger than a single block if that was the size of an annexation. When DRA set up its geography it used a source for the wards (VTDs) that didn't reflect annexations during the decade of the 2000's, but the city and town lines were from the end of the decade (2008?).

That creates the annoying feature of town wards extending into the cities like the green area you have in SW Oshkosh that shows up as Algoma ward 11 on DRA. In 2008 the Atlas has no precinct data for Algoma ward 11, because it didn't exist any more and was a city ward. Matching the 2008 election results to map shapes is made more challenging because the county only keeps the current ward map and that has the redrawn wards from 2011. DRA shows Algoma 11 as Obama 114, McCain 141, but there's no city ward in Atlas with that total. I'm not sure where DRA got its ward results for  Algoma 11.

Remember that VTD is not identical to Ward. VTD's are delineated by states under PL 94-171. It would depend a lot on whether the Board of Elections pushed the counties and towns to keep the VTD's updated. But the Census Bureau froze the VTD boundaries in 2008. So the mismatch between ward and VTD can be due to (1) VTD not matching late-decade annexations; (2) VTD not being updated rigorously.

I suspect that there is some of (2).

Since the Census Bureau publishes block data, there really isn't reason to have VTD's. In addition, the wards are generally updated after the census. A city, village or town doing redistricting is going to use block data. They might hire a contractor to conform the block data to existing wards, so they can figure out whether they need to be modified or not.

The census boundaries for cities is of April 1, 2010 so that it matches the official population count. It is possible that the Census Bureau does not have correct boundaries, but in that case they do not have the correct population either.

The Census Bureau does publish VTD by county subdivision.

So the VTD for Algoma town ward 8 shows 266 persons, 21 in Oshkosh city, and 245 in Algoma town. Presumably, DRA shows the population of Algoma - T 8 as 266 persons.

I assigned the 21 person to the VTD corresponding to Oshkosh city ward 33 (this is a quick guess based on the overlap between the city and the VTDs). There are likely cases where population of town VTD's ends up in different wards - but to separate that out, I'd need to work with block data and have a 2010 ward map.

There also cases where VTD data for city wards has population for towns. In those cases, I simply subtracted the population out.

My intent is to get the correct population for cities. The aggregate of the VTDs for Oshkosh city is 66,083 the same as the census population for Oshkosh. If you use DRA to draw a district with the Oshkosh wards, you should get 65,191 persons. Correct?

But it is a lot more work to get the VTD boundaries to match city limits.

[jimrtex]

This includes division of Green Bay.

Brown (4.317) and Oconto (0.656) have a population equivalent to 4.973 districts. The area will have five districts, four in Brown, and one spanning the border between Brown and Octonto, with roughly 2/3 in Octonto.



Brown detail.



Green Bay has a population equivalent to 1.811 and will be divided. Beginning with the Oconto-dominated district, the districts basically drew themselves in order to balance population and avoiding splitting cities and towns. Green Bay ended up with towns along the easternmost tier of Brown County to get to two districts. Green Bay was split east and west.

Green Bay does not have a huge minority population (it is mostly Hispanic). The eastern district AD-79 includes most but not all of the more Hispanic wards. Overall, it is unlikely to possible to even get to 20% HVAP in a district, and would be even lower when considering HCVAP.

78. Green Bay city (wards 15-19, 26-49, 1.018) 1.018

79. Denmark village, Eaton town, Green Bay city (wards 1-14, 20-25, 0.793), Green Bay town, Humboldt town, New Denmark town, and Scott town. 1.003.

80. Bellevue village, De Pere city, Glenmore town, Holland town, Ledgeview town, Morrison town, Rockland town, Wrightstown town, and Wrightstown village. 0.972

81. Allouez village, Ashwaubenon village, Hobart village, Howard village, and Lawrence town. 1.024.

82. Brown: Pittsfield town, Pulaski village, and Suamico village. 0.301; Oconto (all) 0.656. 0.956

[jimrtex]

This includes division of Eau Claire.

Eau Claire 1.719, Barron 0.799, Dunn 0.763, Trempealeau 0.502, Buffalo 0.237, and Pepin 0.130, have a population equivalent to 4.149 districts and will be divided into four districts.

Dunn will be split, with a bit less than 1/3 attached to Barron, and the remainder attached to Eau Claire. One district will be entirely in Eau Claire, with its surplus divided between two districts.

The city of Eau Claire has a population equivalent to 1.112 districts, so that the district wholly in the county will consist of  most of the city, with a small area trimmed off and placed in a district with the surrounding towns.



Dunn detail.



Eau Claire detail.



About half the population of Dunn is in the Menomonie city area. That area along with the remainder of the southern portion of the county will form a district with a portion of Eau Claire county. The northern part of Dunn will be attached to Barron.

The extreme southeastern tip of Eau Claire was chopped, leaving the bulk of the city as one district. The last ward removed, Ward 18, is fairly populous and leaves the districts somewhat unbalanced population. Other, smaller wards could be removed, but would make the district more irregular. In reality, Ward 18 would likely be divided. But for electoral results purposes it is better to keep it whole.

93. Eau Claire: Eau Claire city (wards 1-15, 17, 19-23, 25-32, 34-38) 1.022. Note Eau Claire does not have a ward 16 or 24.

94. Barron: (all) 0.799; and Dunn: Boyceville village, Colfax town, Colfax village, Downing village, Grant town, Hay River town, Knapp village, Lucas town, New Haven town, Otter Creek town, Ridgeland village, Sand Creek town, Sheridan town, Sherman town, Stanton town, Tainter town, Tiffany town, Wheeler village, and Wilson town 0.240. 1.039

95. Dunn: Dunn town, Eau Galle town, Elk Mound town, Elk Mound village, Menomonie city, Menomonie town, Peru town, Red Cedar town, Rock Creek town, Spring Brook town, and Weston town 0.523; and Eau Claire: Altoona city, Brunswick town, Drammen town, Eau Claire city (wards 18, 33, 39), Pleasant Valley town, Seymour town, Union town, and Washington town 0.530. 1.053.

96. Buffalo (all) 0.237; Eau Claire: Augusta city, Bridge Creek town, Clear Creek town, Fairchild town, Fairchild village, Fall Creek village, Lincoln town, Ludington town, Otter Creek town, and Wilson town 0.186; Pepin (all) 0.130; and Trempealeau (all) 0.502. 1.036.

[jimrtex]

Wisconsin has 72 counties.

The 26 largest counties have one or more whole districts. All 26 counties have the maximum number of whole districts possible.

The next 23 counties (total of 49) have the largest share of their district. This includes all counties down to Vilas with an equivalent of 0.373 districts. Despite being divided, Dunn*, Vernon, and Monroe form the largest component of a district.

I think this represents a good faith effort to avoid unnecessary division of counties.

*This assumes a finer division of Eau Claire city  would be done.

[jimrtex]

Muon2, which cities, etc. did you divide, and in to how many pieces?

My splits are:

Milwaukee 14
Waukesha 2
Racine 2
Kenosha 2
Janesville 2
Madison 4
Oshkosh 2
Green Bay 2
Eau Claire 2

Neenah 2
New Berlin 2

I recall that you divided

West Allis and Oak Creek, and divided Madison into 5 parts. were there others?

[jimrtex]

I've started reading through the District Court decision.

It makes a claim that in 2012, the Republicans won 60 assembly districts with 48.6% of the vote.

But in 23 districts there was no Republican candidate, while there was no Democratic candidate in only 4 districts.

In 2014, Republicans won 63 assembly assembly seats with 52% of the vote.

There were 23 districts with no Republican candidate, three new. Three districts that were uncontested in 2012, were contested in 2014.

29 districts had no Democratic candidate, 26 of which had a Democratic candidate in 2012.

Statewide assembly voting totals are a bogus metric.

[muon2]

Muon2, which cities, etc. did you divide, and in to how many pieces?

My splits are:

Milwaukee 14
Waukesha 2
Racine 2
Kenosha 2
Jamesville 2
Madison 4
Oshkosh 2
Green Bay 2
Eau Claire 2

Neenah 2
New Berlin 2

I recall that you divided

West Allis and Oak Creek, and divided Madison into 5 parts. were there others?

West Allis is no longer chopped. I kept the smallest district large enough that the range is less that 10%.

Here's my AD chop list for cities:

Kenosha
Racine
Janesville
Oak Creek
Milwaukee 11 chops (there are 12 ADs all or partially in Milwaukee, one partial AD has two fragments linked by West Milwaukee.
Waukesha
Madison 4 chops (5 ADs, 2 with two fragments each)
Oshkosh
Green Bay
Eau Claire

The SD chop list for cities is
Milwaukee 4 chops
Madison 1 chop (includes 1 fragment isolated by Monona)

[jimrtex]

Muon2, which cities, etc. did you divide, and in to how many pieces?

My splits are:

Milwaukee 14
Waukesha 2
Racine 2
Kenosha 2
Jamesville 2
Madison 4
Oshkosh 2
Green Bay 2
Eau Claire 2

Neenah 2
New Berlin 2

I recall that you divided

West Allis and Oak Creek, and divided Madison into 5 parts. were there others?

West Allis is no longer chopped. I kept the smallest district large enough that the range is less that 10%.

Here's my AD chop list for cities:

Kenosha
Racine
Janesville
Oak Creek
Milwaukee 11 chops (there are 12 ADs all or partially in Milwaukee, one partial AD has two fragments linked by West Milwaukee.
Waukesha
Madison 4 chops (5 ADs, 2 with two fragments each)
Oshkosh
Green Bay
Eau Claire

The SD chop list for cities is
Milwaukee 4 chops
Madison 1 chop (includes 1 fragment isolated by Monona)

I am starting to compile the results for statewide elections from 2004-2010. Generally, the results will be by City-Town-Village (CTV).

I then add a column for district number. Using SUMIF(), I can total population and election results by district.

But split cities have multiple districts. For those, I create a separate sheet with values for each ward. I can then compute values for CTV district parts.

On the main sheet there will be rows for each CTV part (e.g. I will have 14 rows for Milwaukee, you would use 12). Actually I will have 15, I will keep one row for the whole city.

For Neenah and New Berlin, you can specify the district for the entire city, while I would do the same for Oak Creek.

[jimrtex]

I figured out how to make my ward maps conform to the 2010 census city limits. I used the following procedure:

(1) Isolate VTD's associated with a city. In Wisconsin, VTD's include the city name in the VTD name.

(2) Clip the VTD's to the city limits. This removes territory that was outside the city limits, but inside a city-associated VTD. This might be territory that was de-annexed or simply reflect non-conformance between wards and VTD's.

(3) Take the union of the territory inside the city limits and the clipped VTD's. This adds territory that was inside the city, but outside the VTD's associated with the city. This was either territory annexed into the  city, or non-conformance between VTD's and ward boundaries.

(4) Convert multipart features into single parts. A part is an area within a continuous boundary. A feature may have multiple parts. For example, Step 3 added the portion of a city outside the clipped VTD's as a multipart feature that reflected dozens of annexations that are physically disjoint. A few VTD's were also multipart. For example, the area to the east of the city (site of a landfill) is part of Ward 11.

(5) Merge parts into VTD's. This extends the VTD's which we have census data for to include annexed territories. A somewhat similar process was used to adjust the population associated with VTD's.

The final map matches the city limits at the time of the 2010 census, and the total population of the VTD's matches the population of the city. They might not match ward boundaries or populations.

Wisconsin tends to have large boards of supervisors. For example,  Eau Claire County has 29 supervisors elected by district (about 3400 persons per district). Districts may originally conform to city boundaries at the start of the decade, but annexations might be into a town in another district. Thus additional wards are created during the decade. A "ward" is essentially a voting precinct. City council and county supervisor districts are aggregates of wards.

Eau Claire City

[muon2]

Do you need lists of 2008 wards for my splits for comparison?

[jimrtex]

Do you need lists of 2008 wards for my splits for comparison?

I hope to put in a spreadsheet.

I had started gathering the data for 2004 to 2010 but got side tracked trying to normalize the results. Different cities and towns would change their election arrangements over time. I should only have to worry about wards for the cities that are split.

[jimrtex]

Green Bay city.

[jimrtex]

Neenah city



Oshkosh ciity

[jimrtex]

Do we know whether Wisconsin updated their VTD's during the 2000's?

[jimrtex]

Standard deviation of relative deviation = 2.68%.

27 of 99 districts absolute relative less than 1%
51 of 99 less than 2%
72 of 99 less than 3%
84 of 99 less than 4%
94 of 99 less than 5%
5 of 99 greater than 5%

[muon2]

Do we know whether Wisconsin updated their VTD's during the 2000's?

Clearly they add new wards as annexations happen, but I haven't seen anything that shows a change in the existing wards during the decade.

[jimrtex]

Do we know whether Wisconsin updated their VTD's during the 2000's?

Clearly they add new wards as annexations happen, but I haven't seen anything that shows a change in the existing wards during the decade.

They would have updated wards in 2001 or 2002.

But the Census Bureau only uses VTD's for the Census. Moreover, the meaning of VTD's is up to each state, including whether they are delineated at all. The district court opinion says that the Wisconsin legislature deviated from past practice by redistricting prior to re-warding. But if they had re-warded after the census, then there would not have been any use of the VTD's. And with block data available there is no real reason to use VTD's.

OK I found some stuff:

Legislative Technology Services Bureau - Data Library

What does DRA use?  Where is Waukesha "36"? On the southwest corner or on the west side?

[jimrtex]

Racial breakdown of VAP:

Overall, Wisconsin VAP is 86% White, 5% Black, 5% Hispanic, 2% Asian and 2% Other. White, Black, Asian, and Other count non-Hispanic only. Other includes AIAN, NHOPI, and multi-race persons.

The following districts have 10% or more minority population (i.e. they are less than 90% White)

W77, H15, A3, B3, O2 AD-1 Far South Milwaukee
H45, W44, B6, A3, O2 AD-2 Near South Milwaukee
H68, W20, B8, O2, A2 AD-3 Near South Milwaukee and city of West Milwaukee
B48, W41, H6, A3, O2 AD-4 Westside, Near Northside
B60, W26, H6, A6, O3 AD-5 Near Northside West
B92, W4, H2, O2, AO AD-6 North Milwaukee
B49, W42, H3, A3, O2 AD-7 North Milwaukee West
B57, W33, A5, H3, O2 AD-8 Far North Milwaukee and Brown Deer
B53, W36, A5, H4, O2 AD-9 Far North Milwaukee West
W87, H6, A3, B2, O2 AD-10 Oak Creek and city of South Milwaukee
W88, A4, B4, H4, O1 AD-11 Franklin, Greendale, Hales Corner (county jail is in Franklin)
W86, H6, B3, A3, O2 AD-12 Milwaukee (Bayview, downtown), Cudahy, and St. Francis
W86, H7, A3, B2, O2 AD-13 Greenfield and Milwaukee (West Allis-Greenfield finger)
W86, H7, B3, O2, A2 AD-14  West Allis
W88, B5, H3, A3, O1 AD-15 Wauwatosa and Milwaukee (Wauwatosa-West Allis finger)
W88, B4, A4, H3, O2 AD-16  Milwaukee (eastside), Whitefish Bay, and Shorewood
W82, B11, A3, H2, O1 AD-17 Northeast Milwaukee County and southern Ozaukee County

W85, H7, A6, B1, O1 AD-19 Sheboygan city,

W84, H10, A3, B2, O1 AD-21 Waukesha city (except eastern edge)

W71, H16, B10, O2, A1 AD-34 Kenosha city (central and east)
W82, H8, B6, A3, O2 AD-35 Kenosha city (north and west), Somers and Paris

W56, B22, H19, O2, A1 AD-37 Racine city (central and east)
W79. B11, H8, A1, O1 AD-38 Racine city (west), Mount Pleasant, Elmwood Park and Sturtevant

W88, H9, B1, O1, A1 AD-41 Central and western Walworth County (Elkhorn and Whitewater)
W78, H11, B9, O1, A1 AD-42 Beloit city and southeastern Rock and southwestern Walworth

W82, B6, H6, A3, O2 AD-48 Eastern Madison
W78, B8, H7, A5, O2 AD-49 Madison isthmus and lake-shore snake.
W79, A11, H4, B3, O2 AD-50 Madison University of Wisconsin
W80, A8, B5, H5, O2 AD-51 Western Madison
W79, H10, B6, A3, O1 AD-55 Southern Dane, includes Fitchburg and Madison Town

W89, A5, H3, O2, B1 AD-65 Appleton city

W89, A7, H2, B1, O1 AD-75 Wausau, Weston, Schofield (city and towns).

W82, O6, H6, A3, B3 AD-78 Western Green Bay
W81, H12, A3, O2, B2 AD-79 Eastern Green Bay and eastern Brown County

W90-, O9, H1, A0, B0 AD-87 Vilas, Ashland, Bayfield, and Iron counties.

Some observation: Racine has a much larger Black population than Kenosha. Is this directly from the South, or secondary from Milwaukee and Chicago. What is the manufacturing base of the cities? Didn't AMC manufacture in Kenosha?

There is a remarkable racial variation between Janesville and Beloit (Beloit is 20%+ more minority). I would have guessed they were twins.

The Fitchburg-Madison town seat has as large a minority population as the Madison seats.

Large Asian population in Appleton and Wausau and Sheboygan. I assume Hmong?

Less than 1% of the voting age population is Indian (0.79%), but half of that is concentrated in nine districts. In all cases, the population is associated with reservations or trust lands.

7.65% AD-87 Vilas, Ashland, Bayfield, and Iron. Each of the first three counties have a reservation.
5.54% AD-83 Oneida, Langlade, Menominee. About 4/5 of the AIVAP is in Menominee.
4.67% AD-77 Shawano and eastern Marathon. Most of the AIAN population is in Shawano.
4.65% AD-78 Western Green Bay city.
4.09% AD-97 Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price. Most of the AIAN population is in Sawyer.
3.41% AD-66 Eastern Outagamie.
2.69% AD-81 Western Brown.
2.42% AD-84 Douglas and Burnett. The largest concentration is in Burnett.
2.38% AD-88 Western Monroe and Jackson. The largest concentration is in Jackson.
2.22% AD-30 Marinette, Forest, and Florence. The largest concentration is in Forest.

[muon2]

Do we know whether Wisconsin updated their VTD's during the 2000's?

Clearly they add new wards as annexations happen, but I haven't seen anything that shows a change in the existing wards during the decade.

They would have updated wards in 2001 or 2002.

But the Census Bureau only uses VTD's for the Census. Moreover, the meaning of VTD's is up to each state, including whether they are delineated at all. The district court opinion says that the Wisconsin legislature deviated from past practice by redistricting prior to re-warding. But if they had re-warded after the census, then there would not have been any use of the VTD's. And with block data available there is no real reason to use VTD's.

OK I found some stuff:

Legislative Technology Services Bureau - Data Library

What does DRA use?  Where is Waukesha "36"? On the southwest corner or on the west side?

Waukesha 36 in DRA is the southwesternmost ward. DRA has 38 wards for Waukesha. 14 is the hardest to find as it appears a smattering of blocks otherwise surrounded by Pewaukee 7. The city borders in DRA extend beyond the city wards in many places, and I assume this is an area where there were annexations between the time of the ward shapefiles and the city/town lines file.

My plan put all but wards 1 through 4 in AD 33, while wards 1 - 4 attach to Brookfield city and town and Elm Grove village in AD 31.

[jimrtex]

What does DRA use?  Where is Waukesha "36"? On the southwest corner or on the west side?

Waukesha 36 in DRA is the southwesternmost ward. DRA has 38 wards for Waukesha. 14 is the hardest to find as it appears a smattering of blocks otherwise surrounded by Pewaukee 7. The city borders in DRA extend beyond the city wards in many places, and I assume this is an area where there were annexations between the time of the ward shapefiles and the city/town lines file.

OK so DRA uses the VTD's from the Census. Ward 36 is now on the west side.

I just read through the state law regarding warding. Wards are not directly related to election of anybody, but are used to construct aldermanic, supervisor, and assembly districts.

Wards are intended to be as permanent as possible, and are ordinarily only changed following the census. Wards have an allowable range of population, which is based on the size of the city. For cities with population in the range of 39K-150K, the ward range is 800-3200. Wards above the maximum are required to be divided into one or more wards. Wards below the minimum are merged with other wards, with the possibility of subsequent re-division.

Wards may be adjusted for VRA reasons, but I'm not really sure how this works. A small area with a few thousand people, that has racial differentiation within, is likely to be in transition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 5.15, which governs re-warding, was initially enacted in 1971 following the OMOV decisions. The term "ward" replaced "precinct" and it is clear that "ward" is not the Wisconsin term for an election precinct, but rather the unit for assembling aldermanic, supervisor, and legislative districts*. 5.15 has been continuously updated to reflect changes in census methodology, such as Census blocks.

Municipalities are now required to send updates of their ward boundaries semi-annually to the Legislative Technology Service Bureau.

Ward boundaries are now based on municipal boundaries as of the Census date.

Ward populations may be under the minimum limit to comply with county lines, school districts, islands with residents, new territory, loss of territory, and conformance with census geography (area within the legal boundaries of cities, but outside the city boundaries used by Census Bureau.

Ward boundaries may not cross aldermanic, supervisor, assembly, and congressional district boundaries.

When counties update their supervisor boundaries after the census, it is somewhat of a negotiated process. They first provide a tentative plan to the municipalities, indicating the areas to be used for supervisor districts, after which municipalities update their ward boundaries. It also provides that counties may consult with municipal officials. This sounds somewhat like my approach to redistricting. A county might determine that a city is entitled to 3.4 supervisors, and combine it with an adjacent town entitled to 0.7 supervisors. After this was determined, the city would re-ward. To meet OMOV criteria for supervisor districts it is probable that ward boundaries must be adjusted.

Municipalities must also redraw aldermanic districts after the census, and these might also require tweaking of ward boundaries.

Over time, ward boundaries may drift from their original purpose of recognizing COI and neighborhoods. A better approach would be to make the wards semi-permanent, then require division of wards be kept to a minimum during the districting process (the ward sizes are fine for legislative and congressional districts to always use whole wards). If a ward (neighborhood) required division for supervisor or alderman districts it could be divided into parts.

Municipalities are permitted to combine wards for polling places. However cities with population over 35K are required to report results by ward. A fairly new provision permits wards with fewer than 20 voters to be reported with a larger ward.

Municipalities must update wards following changes in boundaries, whether through annexation or detachment. Annexations might cross supervisor or assembly district boundaries that were fixed to city limits at the previous census. In these cases it would be necessary to create new wards. And since newly annexed areas may be placed in undersized wards, it may be easier for a city simply to place all new annexations in new wards.

I suspect that the VTD's for the 2010 Census match the wards established after the 2000 Census. New wards created between 2000 and 2010 for annexed areas might not serve any purpose for being placed in VTD's, since they were only temporary. Now that the census bureau provides PL 94-171 data on a block basis, there really is no purpose for defining VTD's. Wisconsin is fully capable for tabulating data for wards.

[jimrtex]

Madison city east



Madison city west

[jimrtex]

Janesville



Racine



Kenosha

[jimrtex]

I'm stuck.

After the 2001 re-warding, Waukesha had 38 wards. By 2004 it had 55 wards, 8 of the 17 new wards had votes recorded, but only 72 votes in the total. The state has a record of these votes, but does not have a map showing their location. I could not find any maps on the county or city websites. The closest I have is supervisor results for 2010 in which I can associate the new wards with 2001 wards.

Overall in 2004 there were about 35,000 votes in Waukesha.

Any ideas what to do?

(a) Discard the 72 votes.
(b) Keep trying to find a ward map.
(c) Associate the votes with a location on a best guess basis.