Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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).

[jimrtex]

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.

[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.

[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.

[jimrtex]

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?

[jimrtex]

Sheboygan County is entitled to 2.011 districts.



19. Sheboygan city, Sheboygan town, Kohler village. 1.021.
20. Remainder of county. 0.989

[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.

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.

Is this better?

2. Milwaukee (southside east) and West Milwaukee; blue; 0.993; VAP%: 45H, 44W, 6B, 3A, 2O.
3. Milwaukee (southside east) and West Milwaukee; red; 1.000; VAP%: 68H, 20W, 8B, 2O, 2A.

Congress should require a citizenship question on the US Census.

The placement of the 6 districts in northern Milwaukee are reasonable compact and cover the area of highest black concentration. You would apparently have tentacles extending out from the area of highest concentration so as to control more voters. This is an impermissible predominance of race in the drawing of the districts.

[jimrtex]

I would consider a North/South approach for districts 6 and 7, rather than East/West or maybe a more diagonal orientation. I know it is possible to have 6 majority African American Assembly districts in Northern Milwaukee + Brown Deer that are all reasonable in their compactness and the VAP %.

AD-4 and AD-7 may be majority BCVAP. The Census data classifies persons as either Hispanic or not and a combination of the 6 racial categories (2^6 minus 1 combinations = 63). A person is not permitted to not have a race. The table that I am using does not distinguish race for Hispanic persons, so there may be Puerto Ricans who indicate their race as black. For simplicity of calculation, I only used single race persons, so mixed-race persons end up being classified as "other".

So my categories are:

Hispanic, regardless of race.
Non-Hispanic White only.
Non-Hispanic Black only.
Non-Hispanic Asian only.
Other (Total minus 4 other groups, and includes Non-Hispanic AIAN and NHOPI).

A more formal approach would have likely used the one-drop formula which would include mixed-race persons as black rather than other. And finally Hispanic and Asians are much more likely to be non-citizens.

Communities are mostly black for a combination of reasons: (some) blacks like to live with blacks; (some) whites don't like to live with blacks; historical practices such as redlining, covenants, real-estate steering; and economic factors, such as (many) blacks not being able to afford houses in certain areas.

It is unconstitutional to redistrict on the basis of race. While a black community might exist in a social sense, such as shared churches, cultural tastes, etc., it can not be recognized unless it coexists with residential patterns. That is, you can create a district for an area where a significant black population is a characteristic of the area.

The record will show that I made a deliberate effort to increase the black population in AD-4, by moving Brown Deer into AD-8, and Glendale into AD-17, which allowed AD-16 to come further south, moving AD-4 to the west. The eastern boundary of AD-4 is the Milwaukee River, a hard geographcal feature. The inclusion of the Milwaukee wards on the southwestern corner of Glendale was done for population reasons and smoothing the border, but had a secondary benefit of moving some 90% wards out of Milwaukee (if not for the other neutral reasons, they could reasonably be considered cracked since they were placed in a district that is half in Ozaukee County, and does not include many blacks other than in Glendale).

There was a smaller effort for SD-7. SD-9 was brought south for population balance, but also pushes SD-7 slightly more to the west.

I will not vary district populations for political or racial purposes. It is unconscionable to do so. Any irregularities in boundaries are due to following existing ward boundaries or population reasons.

I believe that the way that Muon2 drew the area of Milwaukee west of Wauwatosa may indicate a preponderance of race. There really is no explanation of the L-shaped district other to cut out a majority white area and connect it with  an overwhelmingly black area. He may have also injured the opportunity of the most concentrated black areas to have a representative who actually lives in the area.

In the case of the two Hispanic districts, the original version had split the highest concentration of Hispanics, which is just above 70% into two districts.

[jimrtex]

Waukesha (6.787) and Washington (2.296) are together (9.083) entitled to nine districts, six and most of a seventh in Waukesha, and the remainder of the seventh, and two whole districts in Washington.





In general, I tried to base the districts on the original towns (PLSS townships). Cities and villages tend to have irregular boundaries, and are often enclosed by a town. Where cities or villages were on a district boundary I did cross the town boundary to get better population ballance. I will refer to the original towns as townships, since some have converted to cities or villages (Menominee, Muskego, New Berlin, and Pewaukee)

Waukesha city has a population of 1.231 and must be split and is centered on the Pewaukee-Waukesha township line, so I treated Pewaukee-Waukesha as a single township, and I identified an area with a population equivalent to two districts.

Along the Milwaukee County line I could not find any combinations that would permit a single-member area other than the Menominee plus Lisbon townships. The remaining three townships along the eastern edge have a population equivalent to two districts, and are more suburban in character.

Finally, I identified the area in a Washington County that was closest in population to the needed share of the cross-county boundary district.

21 and 22: Pewaukee, Waukesha, Vernon townships plus Mukwonago village; includes Pewaukee city, Pewaukee village, Wuakesha city, and Big Bend village; Pewaukee town is dissolved. (2.043) I hope to create one district wholly within Waukesha city, so the remaining district will be a partial doughnut by lopping off some of the annexation tentacles.

23 and 24. Brookfield, New Berlin, and Muskego townships, plus Butler village; includes Brookfield city, Elm Grove Village, New Berlin city, and Muskego city; Muskego and New Berlin towns are dissolved, and Brookfield town is largely so. (2.011). This will require a split of New Berlin city, the second largest political subdivision in the county. The division will be fairly north within the city, so that one the districts can be largely identified with 23. Brookfield and 24. New Berlin and Muskego.

25. Delafield, Genessee, Mukwonago, Ottawa, and Eagle townships, plus Chenequa village, less Mukwonago village; includes Delafield city, Nashotah village, Hartland village, Wales village, North Prairie village, Dousman village, and Eagle village (1.013).

26. Menominee and Lisbon townships, less Butler village; includes Menominee Falls village, Lannon village, Sussex village, and an unpopulated bit of Milwaukee city; Menominee town is dissolved (0.999).

27. In Waukesha County: Oconomowoc, Merton, and Summit townships, less Chenequa village; includes Merton village, Oconomowoc city, Oconomowoc Lake village, and Lac La Belle village. In Washington County: Erin and Richfield townships, including Richfield village; Richfield town has been dissolved. (0.983).

West Bend has a population equivalent to 0.541 districts, and extends into three surrounding townships to reach 0.771. Adding townships in the northern part of the county, completes the areas.

28. Farmington, Trenton, Kewaskum, Barton, West Bend, Wayne, and Addison townships; includes West Bend city, Newburg city, and Kewaskum village. (1.029).

29 is the remainder of the county, linking the most suburban area of Germantown with the second center of Hartford.

29. Hartford, Polk, Jackson, and Germantown townships; includes Hartford city, Slinger village, Jackson village, Germantown village, and an unpopulated bit of Milwaukee city; Germantown town is largely dissolved. (1.005)

Senate districts are chosen to eliminate the two city chops, and have one district contain the whole of Washington County, and two districts wholly in Waukesha County.

AD 21, 22, and 25 (Waukesha city, and western Waukesha county)
AD 23, 24, and 26 (Eastern tier Waukesha county).
AD 27, 28, and 29 (Washington County and northwestern Waukesha county).

[jimrtex]

Do you have the ward numbers for Milwaukee?

1   145
1   146
1   184
1   185
1   186
1   187
1   188
1   189
1   200
1   216
1   217
1   218
1   219
1   220
1   221
1   222
1   223
1   224
1   225
1   226
1   227
1   228
1   229
1   230
1   231
1   232
1   233
1   234
1   256
1   257
2   64
2   135
2   138
2   142
2   143
2   144
2   182
2   183
2   235
2   236
2   241
2   242
2   243
2   244
2   245
2   246
2   247
2   248
2   249
2   289
2   290
2   291
2   292
2   293
2   294
2   295
2   296
3   63
3   132
3   133
3   134
3   136
3   137
3   139
3   140
3   141
3   201
3   202
3   203
3   204
3   205
3   206
3   207
3   208
3   209
3   210
3   211
3   212
3   213
3   214
3   215
4   16
4   41
4   48
4   60
4   61
4   62
4   65
4   95
4   96
4   97
4   98
4   99
4   100
4   101
4   102
4   103
4   104
4   105
4   106
4   107
4   108
4   109
4   110
4   111
4   112
4   297
4   298
4   311
4   312
4   313
4   314
5   66
5   67
5   68
5   69
5   70
5   71
5   72
5   73
5   126
5   127
5   128
5   129
5   130
5   131
5   181
5   275
5   276
5   277
5   278
5   279
5   280
5   281
5   282
5   299
5   300
5   301
5   302
5   303
5   304
5   305
5   306
5   307
5   308
5   309
5   310
6   4
6   5
6   6
6   11
6   12
6   13
6   14
6   15
6   17
6   18
6   19
6   114
6   115
6   116
6   117
6   122
6   164
6   165
6   166
6   167
6   168
6   169
6   170
6   171
6   172
6   173
6   174
6   175
6   176
6   177
6   178
6   179
6   180
7   7
7   9
7   10
7   27
7   29
7   30
7   31
7   32
7   33
7   34
7   35
7   36
7   37
7   81
7   82
7   84
7   85
7   86
7   87
7   89
7   90
7   91
7   92
7   93
7   94
7   113
7   118
7   119
7   120
7   121
7   123
7   124
7   125
8   8
8   20
8   21
8   22
8   23
8   24
8   147
8   148
8   149
8   150
8   151
8   152
8   153
8   154
8   156
8   157
8   158
8   159
8   160
8   161
8   162
8   163
8   258
9   25
9   26
9   28
9   74
9   75
9   76
9   77
9   78
9   79
9   80
9   83
9   155
9   259
9   260
9   261
9   263
9   264
9   265
9   266
9   267
9   268
9   269
9   270
9   271
9   272
9   273
12   54
12   55
12   56
12   57
12   58
12   59
12   237
12   238
12   239
12   240
12   250
12   251
12   252
12   253
12   254
12   255
13   190
13   191
13   192
13   193
13   194
13   195
13   196
13   197
13   198
13   199
15   88
15   283
15   284
15   285
15   286
15   287
15   288
16   38
16   39
16   40
16   42
16   43
16   44
16   45
16   46
16   47
16   49
16   50
16   51
16   52
16   53
17   1
17   2
17   3

[jimrtex]

I discovered that the census boundaries for VTDs do not match the city and village boundaries.

What does DRA do?  For example, what does it show for the population of the city of Waukesha (38 wards)?

[jimrtex]

I discovered that the census boundaries for VTDs do not match the city and village boundaries.

What does DRA do?  For example, what does it show for the population of the city of Waukesha (38 wards)?

I believe DRA used the boundaries for cities and wards as they were defined going into the 2010 Census. In 2011 and 2012 the jurisdictions in WI redrew the wards, and one complaint about themap is that the wards were done after, rather than before the legislative districts making moot the need to conform districts to wards. The Census regularly updates its files to match boundaries needed for the ACS and estimates programs.

For example I went to the city of Waukesha's site to get the current council map and identified the wards in each district. I then matched those up with the wards I wanted in each district. Higher numbered wards generally referred to those in areas annexed since 2011-12.

For Milwaukee city I'm about a third of the way through the matching process. Many wards are just renumbered from the previous decade, but there are many cut and recombined wards, too. I'm adjusting my AD boundaries as I go so that the DRA boundaries for 2008 will coincide with current ward boundaries from 2012. This is the master map of Milwaukee's current wards.

Ugh!

The Census bureau only produces data for VTD's for PL 94-171. The VTD cutoff was in 2007 or 2008, with that for city limits sometime later.

In general, I'm attempting to produce a map that reflects political boundaries as of the 2010 Census, in  order to see what the political complexion would have been at that time.

In the case of a city or village that is wholly within a district, I'm willing to treat it as not changing boundaries. For example, Mukwonago village is in AD-21 in my map, while Mukwonago town is in AD-25. For political results, I'm willing to use all wards in the two entities regardless whether the wards have changed for different elections. Does this make sense?

In the case of Waukesha city, it appears that newly annexed areas have been given different wards is because when the county board of supervisors districts were established, a district boundary was established on the town-city boundary. SD-15 includes the Town of Waukesha (as of 2010-11)?, and extends into the Town of Genesee and Town of Vernon. As Waukesha city has annexed since 2010, the annexed areas remain in SD-15, and were given new ward numbers. SD-15 now includes wards 39-49 of Waukesha city.

So for my boundary between SD-21 and SD-22, I will identify Waukesha city VTD's as well as portions of Waukesha town VTD's that were in Waukesha city.

There are 767 persons in Waukesha town VTD's that were in Waukesha city in 2010.

So there must also be 984 persons in Pewaukee city VTD's that were in Waukesha city in 2010.

[jimrtex]

This is the split of Waukesha city and New Berlin cities.



21. Waukesha city (minus wards 1, 2, 4, 23, 25, 26, and city included in VTD T-6 Waukesha town) 1.008

22. Pewaukee village, Pewaukee city, Waukesha city (wards 1, 2, 4, 23, 25, 26), Waukesha town, Vernon town, Big Bend village, Mukwonago village. 1.035

23. Brookfield city, Brookfield town, Elm Grove village, Butler village, and New Berlin city (wards 3, 8, 9, and 10). 1.007

24. New Berlin city (less wards 3, 8, 9, 10) and Muskego city. 1.004

[jimrtex]

Dodge (1.545) and Jefferson (1.457), together 3.002, are entitled to 3 districts, one in each county, and one spanning the border. Watertown, the largest city, is on the county line, and is logically the center of the cross-border district, while Beaver Dam and Fort Atkinson-Jefferson are the logical centers of the two.

It turns out that the districts are pretty much stripes. There really isn't that much east-west displacement between the centers to justify a different configuration.



31.(0.997) Dodge: Beaver Dam city, Beaver Dam town, Brownsville village, Burnett town, Calamus town, Chester town, Fox Lake city, Fox Lake town, Horicon city, Juneau city, Kekoskee village, Leroy town, Lomira town, Lomira village, Mayville city, Oak Grove town, Randolph village, Trenton town, Waupun city, Westford town, and Williamstown town.

32. (1.020) Dodge: Ashippun town, Clyman town, Clyman village, Columbus city, Elba town, Emmet town, Hartford city, Herman town, Hubbard town, Hustisford town, Hustisford village, Iron Ridge village,
Lebanon town, Lowell town, Lowell village, Neosho village, Portland town, Reeseville village, Rubicon town, Shields town, Theresa town, Theresa village, and Watertown city. Jefferson: Ixonia town, Lac La Belle village, Milford town, Waterloo city, Waterloo town, Watertown city, and Watertown town.

33. (0.985) Jefferson: Aztalan town, Cambridge village, Cold Spring town, Concord town, Farmington town, Fort Atkinson city, Hebron town, Jefferson city, Jefferson town, Johnson Creek village, Koshkonong town, Lake Mills city, Lake Mills town, Oakland town, Palmyra town, Palmyra village, Sullivan town, Sullivan village, Sumner town, and Whitewater city.

Population balance could be improved by moving Milford town from AD-32 to AD-33, but this would split the border crossing, and isolate Waterloo from Watertown.

[jimrtex]

Kenosha has a population equivalent to 2.897 districts and will have three districts.

Racine (3.402), Walworth (1.780), and Rock (2.791) collectively have a population equivalent to 7.972 districts, and will have 8 districts (3 in Racine, 1 in Walworth, 2 in Rock, one spanning the Racine-Walworth border and one spanning the Walworth-Rock border.



The three districts in Kenosha will be undersized (0.966). The city of Kenosha is entitled to 1.727 districts and will be divided, with one district in the city, and one extending outside. The area attached to the north was chosen to balance population between districts. The third district with the rest of the county may have a bit of a Chicago exurb vibe, but that was not deliberate.

The district wholly within Kenosha was based on (1) containing the areas of significant minority population; and (2) the southern part of the city, since the other district will extend into Somers town to the north of the city. The areas of minority concentration (wards 12-16, 19-20) are generally on  a north-south axis, a bit inland from the shoreline. The remainder of the district forms a U-loop around the minority core.

34. Kenosha city (wards 3-6, 12-28,  0.961) 0.961. VAP%: 71W, 16H, 10B, O2, A1

35. Kenosha city (wards 1-2, 7-11, 29-34, 0.767), Paris town, and Somers town. 0.960

36. Brighton town, Bristol town, Bristol village, Genoa City village, Paddock Lake village, Pleasant Prairie village, Randall town, Salem town, Silver Lake village, Twin Lakes village, and Wheatland town. 0.977.

The three assembly districts in Kenosha County will form a senate district.

Racine has a population equivalent to 3.402 districts, and has three districts in the county, and part of a 4th that will extend into Walworth County. The city of  Racine is entitled to 1.373 districts, and will have to be divided. Mountain Pleasant village and the other suburban areas get to enough for two districts. The area around Burlington in the west end of the county, has the population needed for the district that extends into Walworth County. The remainder of the county may have more of a Milwaukee orientation, but was selected based on compactness and population balance.

As with Kenosha, the core of the Racine district is the minority area. The district was then extended to the north to reach the city limits and North Bay and Wind Point, which are included for overall population balance among the districts in the county. Wards with a significant minority population 35-50% were added to reach the necessary population. The minority population is generally smallest in the western part of the city. There are two stronger minority wards in the extreme southwestern corner of the city that could not be reached. The district is compact and avoids splitting the minority population, and the remnant of the city has good connectivity to Pleasant Point.

37. Racine city (wards 1-14, 16-21, 23-25, 33-34  0.963), North Bay village, and Wind Point village. 0.997 VAP% (Racine only) 55W, 23B, 20H, 2O, 1A.

38. Racine city (wards 15, 22, 26-32, 0.410), Elmwood Park village, Mount Pleasant village, and Sturtevant village. 0.996

39. Caledonia village, Norway town, Raymond town, Union Grove village, Waterford town, Waterford village, and Yorkville town. 0.979

The three assembly districts entirely in Racine County will form a senate district.

40. Racine: Burlington city, Burlington town, Dover town, Rochester village. Walworth: ... 1.015.



Walworth County is entitled to 1.780 districts. One district will be entirely in the county; one district will extend into Racine County, and another will extend into Rock County. That is, the surplus will be divided between two districts. The population within Walworth County of the two inter-county districts complements the surplus of the other two counties. In addition, placement of the Walworth portion of the districts must match the district in the the adjacent counties.

The Racine County portion of District 40 is focused on Burlington on the extreme western end of that county. This is matched by including towns on the eastern boundary of Walworth County. The Rock County portion of district 42 is based in Beloit, and the district extends into the southwestern corner of Walworth County.

This leaves District 41 as a compact district based around the county seat of Elkhorn and the most populous city of Whitewater. An additional consideration was to not unduly split the area around Geneva Lake.

40. Racine: Burlington city, Burlington town, Dover town, Rochester village (0.430) Walworth: Bloomfield town, Burlington city, East Troy town, East Troy village, Genoa City village, Lake Geneva city, Linn town, Lyons town, Mukwonago village, and Spring Prairie town (0.585) 1.015

41. Darien town, Darien village, Delavan city, Delavan town, Elkhorn city, Geneva town, La Grange town, Lafayette town, Richmond town, Sugar Creek town, Troy town, Whitewater city, and Whitewater town. 0.998

42. Walworth: Fontana-on-Geneva Lake village, Sharon town, Sharon village, Walworth town, Walworth village, and Williams Bay village (0.196) Rock: ... (). 0.982

The three assembly districts that include part of Walworth County form a senate district. All of the county is in the senate district, and it has a majority of the district population, which somewhat makes up for the division among three assembly districts.



Rock County is entitled to 2.791 districts. It will have two whole districts, and a third district that will extend into Walworth County. Janesville (1.107) is slightly larger than a district and will have to divided. To keep all of Janesville in one senate district, the small surplus will be placed in the other district wholly in Rock County. This then places Beloit into the district that extends into Walworth County. While it be nice to include Beloit town with Beloit city, this does not work out population wise.

42. Walworth: Fontana-on-Geneva Lake village, Sharon town, Sharon village, Walworth town, Walworth village, and Williams Bay village (0.196) Rock: Beloit city, Bradford town, Clinton town, Clinton village, Johnstown town, La Prairie town, and Turtle town (0.786) 0.982

43. Janesville city (all but 5, 1.007) 1.007

The map is kind of messy. The annexed areas on the south and west are in AD-43. The annexed areas to the northeast are counted within Ward 5 and are part of AD-44.

44. Avon town, Beloit town, Brodhead city, Center town, Edgerton city, Evansville city, Footville village, Fulton town, Harmony town, Janesville city (ward 5, 0.100), Janesville town, Lima town, Magnolia town, Milton city, Milton town, Newark town, Orfordville village, Plymouth town, Porter town, Rock town, Spring Valley town, and Union town. 0.998

Districts 43 and 44, along with a district in Green and Dane county will form a senate district.

[jimrtex]

I have decided to eliminate the single-district counties with a deviation of between 5% and 10% (Sauk, Waupaca, and Chippewa). Rather than redo the entire map, I made as few changes as possible - as if I was responding to a court decision.

Sauk (1.079) is added to the region comprised of Dane, Green, Iowa, and Lafayette. The average error for that group improves from -1.6% to -0.7%.

(7) Dane, Sauk, Green, Iowa, and Lafayette 10.922 (11), -0.7% 8 districts in Dane, 1 district in Sauk, 1 in Green and Dane(part) (65% in Green), and 1 in Iowa, Lafayette, Sauk(part), and Dane (part)(8/10 in Iowa, Lafayette, and Sauk). Three surplus fragments, with two surplus fragments in Dane.

Waupaca (0.912) is added to Outagamie, recognizing a small surplus in Outagamie. The average error improves from +2.5% to -0.3%.

(12) Outagamie and Waupaca, 3.988 (4) -0.3%. Three districts in Outagamie, with the fourth district comprised of Waupaca (90% plus of district) and a small surplus fragment of Outagamie. One surplus fragment.

Chippewa (1.087) is added to a region comprised of Lincoln, Taylor, Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price 1.929(2) -3.5%. The region is then split, with a northern region consisting of Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price; and southern region comprised of Chippewa, Lincoln, and Taylor. The northern district will be slightly overpopulated, but a split of a small county is eliminated.

(17) Chippewa, Lincoln, and Taylor, 1.947 (2) -2.6%. One district in Chippewa, one district in Lincoln and Taylor, with a small portion of Chippewa (about 1/9 of the district). One surplus fragment.

(27) Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price 1.069(2) +6.9%. One district, no county splits Slightly excessive deviation.



(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, Sauk, Green, Iowa, and Lafayette 10.922 (11), -0.7% 8 districts in Dane, 1 district in Sauk, 1 in Green and Dane(part) (65% in Green), and 1 in Iowa, Lafayette, Sauk(part), and Dane (part)(8/10 in Iowa, Lafayette, and Sauk). Three surplus fragments, with 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 and Waupaca, 3.988 (4) -0.3%. Three districts in Outagamie, with the fourth district comprised of Waupaca (90% plus of district) and a small surplus fragment of Outagamie. One surplus fragment.

(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) Chippewa, Lincoln, and Taylor, 1.947 (2) -2.6%. One district in Chippewa, one district in Lincoln and Taylor, with a small portion of Chippewa (about 1/9 of the district). One surplus fragment.

(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) Sawyer, Washburn, Rusk, and Price 1.069(2) +6.9%. One district, no county splits Slightly excessive deviation.

Summary of excessive divisions.

26 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.

Three small counties are split.

[jimrtex]

Do you have a map showing the Janesville split?

Janesville city is completely whole (AD 10) except for ward 5 on DRA which is the far northern end of the city. That corresponds essentially to wards 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26 on the current ward map.

Thanks, but it was jimrtex's map where I couldn't tell where the split was in Janesville. Once I'm done with his map, I'll go through your's to come up with the 2016 numbers.

Working on it.

My map  is based on political  subdivisions: towns, cities, and villages. When I split a city, I use VTD's, but the VTD's don't match the cities. So I'm having to find VTD's that are split between subdivisions. Usually, these are town VTD's that have a little bit of a city that has been annexed, or maybe the VTD's haven't been updated. When this happens I try to figure out the city ward that the population belongs to and add it to the VTD for that ward for the city.

In a few instances there is a small part of a town in a city VTD. In those cases, I simply subtract out the town population.

So the total population of the VTD's for a city (that is divided) will match the population for the city. The boundaries of the VTD's won't precisely match the city limits.

I'm not bothering trying to update all the VTD populations, since for political subdivisions that are not split, I never use the VTD (or ward) except as part of a total for the subdivision.

In real life, a state government should require political subdivisions to delineate neighborhoods. If necessary, they should feed new block boundaries to the Census Bureau.

In December of the '0' year, the Census Bureau releases the census geography (e.g block boundaries, but not block populations). The state would then be able to define neighborhoods in terms of census blocks. Once the PL 94-171 data arrives, the state can go ahead and redistrict. If they have to divide a city, they can divide based on neighborhoods.

An ideal assembly district size is roughly 57,000. Neighborhoods of 5,000 or less can generally be assembled into districts within 5% deviation. Perhaps cities with a population below 10,000 or even 20,000 can be exempted. There would generally be other ways to group communities. If it were absolutely necessary to divide such a small community, it could be done on a special case basis, where the city participates in the division.