The Trond can't help it...

[minionofmidas]

I'm redistricting again... based on these rules now:
"Section 26, Article III, of the Texas Constitution requires that house districts be apportioned among the counties according to the federal census population and the following rules:

  (1) a county with sufficient population for exactly one district must be formed into a single district;

  (2) a county with a population smaller than the population needed for a whole district must be kept whole and combined with other contiguous counties to form a district;

  (3) a county that can hold a multiple of whole districts must be divided into that number of districts, with no district extending into another county; and

  (4) each county with a population sufficient for one or more whole districts plus a fraction of another district must be divided into that many whole districts, with the excess population added to other adjacent counties to form an additional district.

In practice, it is sometimes impossible to draw a statewide plan that completely satisfies these rules while maintaining districts with equal populations. The Texas courts have allowed a house plan to violate these rules to the extent necessary to draw a plan that complies with the one-person one-vote requirement."

Texas allows for up to 5% deviation from the average. While reasonable, such a deviation would never pass the SC's muster. I'm going with a two-part rule on this...
The maximum deviation allowed (from the state average) is 2.5%. If this is not attainable, additional county splits will be introduced.
A deviation over 1% is accepted only if there is NO alternative configuration of counties that results in a lower deviation.
After additional county splits, the deviation needs to be less than 1%.

Plus some rules on contiguity...
In case of doubt (borders across lakes or sounds), I decide which counties are contiguous and what is not.
Counties or county equivalents wholly included within another county (cough Virginia cities) may be treated as part of the surrounding county.
The separate parts of noncontiguous counties (cough Norfolk MA) are to be treated as separate counties.

Just like in the TX House, these rules are going to end up with some funny-looking districts, btw.

[minionofmidas]

Maine

1 York, Cumberland, Androscoggin, Oxford, and Franklin Co.s
640,369 (1.005)
2 remainder
634,554 (.995)

New Hampshire
1 Rockingham, Strafford, Carroll, Merrimack, Belknap
625,808 (1.013)
2 Hillsborough, Cheshire, Sullivan, Grafton, Coos
609,978 (.987)
Much as I dislike this map (basically a cleaned-up version of the current one), this is the minimum possible deviation with no split counties.

Massachusetts

1 ca. 92% of Suffolk Co
ca. 637,873 (1.005)
2 rem. of Suffolk Co, coterminous part of Norfolk Co
ca. 637,874 (1.005)
3 ca. 88% of Essex Co (minus Southwestern portion)
ca. 635,308 (1.001)
4 ca. 43% of Middlesex Co
ca. 635,309 (1.001)
5 ditto (leaving narrow strip along Southern perimeter)
6 ca. 85% of Worcester Co (minus Southern portion)
ca. 635,309 (1.001)
7 remainders of Essex, Middlesex, and Worcester; Brookline; 39% of Hampden Co (eastern portion)
ca. 635,308 (1.001)
8 Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire, and 61% of Hampden
ca. 635,309 (1.001)
Notice the additional county split
9 Plymouth Co, Cohasset, and 28% of Bristol Co
ca. 630,749 (.993)
10 Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, and 72% of Bristol Co
ca. 630,749 (.993)
Notice the additional county split (alternatively, Barnstable or Plymouth, rather than Bristol, may be split)

Rhode Island
1 82% of Providence
ca. 524,160 (1.000)
2 remainder
ca. 524,159

Connecticut
1 79% of Hartford
ca. 681,113 (1.000)
2 New London, Middlesex, Tolland, Windham, 3% of Hartford
ca. 681,113
3 83% of New Haven
ca. 681,113
4 77% of Fairfield
ca. 681,113
5 Litchfield, 23% of Fairfield, 17% of New Haven, 18% of Hartford
ca. 681,113
Notice the additional county split (remainder of Hartford - or alternatively of New Haven). Without it, D2 would be at .968.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[minionofmidas]

New York City Area (upstate not even started yet, and won't be done today)
I've decided that Suffolk is adjacent to Westchester - this little bit of magic makes it possible to have no additional county splits!
1 & 2 46% of Suffolk Co (missing portion in NW)
ca. 657,395 1.005
3 & 4 50% of Nassau Co
ca. 667,272 1.020
5 - 7 30% of Queens
ca. 670,672 1.025 (just under that to be precise)
8 - 10 27% of Brooklyn
ca. 670,672 1.025
11 19% of Brooklyn, 10% of Queens
ca. 670,673 1.025
12 & 13 43% of Manhattan
ca. 660,308 1.009
14 14% of Manhattan, Staten Island
ca. 660,307 1.009
15 & 16 50% of the Bronx
ca. 666,325 1.018
17 71% of Westchester Co (missing portion probably along S perimeter)
ca. 657,396 1.005
18 8% of Suffolk Co, 29% of Westchester Co, all of Rockland Co
ca. 657,395 1.005

The alternative ("Plan 2") would be
1, 2 in Suffolk; 3, 4 in Nassau; 5-7 in Queens; 8-10 in Brooklyn; 11 remnants of Suffolk, Nassau (a very narrow strip), Queens, and part of the Brooklyn remnant; 12 Staten Island and remainder of Brooklyn remnant; 13, 14 in Manhattan; 15, 16 in the Bronx; 17 in Westchester Co; 18 remnants of Manhattan, the Bronx (a very narrow strip) and Westchester, plus not Rockland but Putnam.
This has two very ugly districts and an additional county split (in Brooklyn), but also has the benefits of not bending the rules on contiguity and of having better population balance - all those oversized Queens and Brooklyn and Bronx and Nassau County districts in plan 1 will have to be mirrored by undersized upstate districts.
A final decision on which map to use is possible only after I've done the upstate, obviously.

[KEmperor]

I've decided that Suffolk is adjacent to Westchester

In what Bizzaro reality is this happening?  Suffolk is in no way adjacent to Westchester, even if you account for water boundries.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Carolina
1 662,263 (-0.96%) Greenville, Laurens, Newberry, Oconee, Pickens
2 658,994 (-1.45%) Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, Jasper
3 674,741 (+0.91%) Berkeley, Calhoun, Orangeburg, Richland, Sumter
4.672 343 (+0.55%) Cherokee, Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster, Spartanburg, Union, York
5 670,478 (+0.27%) Abbeville, Aiken, Anderson, Edgefield, Greenwood, Lexington, McCormick, Saluda
6 673,193 (+0.61%) Chesterfield, Clarendon, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Georgetown, Horry, Lee, Marion, Marlboro,Williamsburg

Not as small a deviation as I would like, but not improvable without a radical change, and maybe not even then.  At the very least one would have to abandon having the six largest counties be in different districts.

[minionofmidas]

I've decided that Suffolk is adjacent to Westchester

In what Bizzaro reality is this happening?  Suffolk is in no way adjacent to Westchester, even if you account for water boundries.

What's more, the average of the 11 other constituencies gets to be about .973 of normative size with this... I'll probably have to abandon it.

(Oh yes, and: You're right of course.)

[minionofmidas]

The alternative ("Plan 2") would be
1, 2 in Suffolk; 3, 4 in Nassau; 5-7 in Queens; 8-10 in Brooklyn; 11 remnants of Suffolk, Nassau (a very narrow strip), Queens, and part of the Brooklyn remnant; 12 Staten Island and remainder of Brooklyn remnant; 13, 14 in Manhattan; 15, 16 in the Bronx; 17 in Westchester Co; 18 remnants of Manhattan, the Bronx (a very narrow strip) and Westchester, plus not Rockland but Putnam.

Firstly, just spelling this out in trad format:

New York
1 & 2 46% of Suffolk (missing portion, probably in southwest)
ca.657,696 1.005
3 & 4 49% of Nassau (missing portion, probably in Long Beach)
ca.657,695 1.005
5-7 30% of Queens (missing portion, probably includes Rockaway)
ca.657,695 1.005
8-10 27% of Brooklyn (missing portion, probably in south)
ca.657,696 1.005
11 remainder of Suffolk, Nassau, and Queens; 11% of Brooklyn
ca.657,695 1.005
12 Staten Island, remaining 9% of Brooklyn
ca.657,696 1.005
notice the additional county split
13 & 14 42% of Manhattan
ca.648,175 .991
15 & 16 49% of the Bronx
ca.648,175 .991
17 70% of Westchester
ca.648,175 .991
18 remainder of Manhattan, the Bronx, Westchester; Putnam
ca.648,174 .991

Secondly, I'm going to abandon/water down the "proof there's no better alternative" rule.
Here's the reason - two plans for upstate NY. The first is what I came up with initially (well, the first one I found acceptable). The second is what I found when trying to find out whether it could be done better, with changes in red.

19 Rockland, Orange, 11% of Dutchess
ca.658,956 1.007
20 89% of Dutchess; Ulster, Sullivan, Greene, Delaware, Otsego
ca.658,955 1.007
notice the additional county split, which could just as well go into Ulster or Sullivan instead 
21 Albany, Schenectady, Rensselaer, Columbia
656,752 1.004
22 Schoharie, Montgomery, Fulton, Herkimer, Hamilton, Saratoga, Washington, Warren, Essex, Clinton
649,894 .993
23 Franklin, Saint Lawrence, Lewis, Jefferson, Oneida, Oswego
659,593 1.008
24 Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Tioga, Tompkins, Schuyler, Chemung, Steuben
657,841 1.005
25 Onondaga, Madison, Cayuga, Seneca
643,082 .983
26 88% of Monroe
ca.650,064 .993
27 12% of Monroe; Wayne, Ontario, Yates, Livingston, Orleans, Genesee, Wyoming, Allegany, Cattaraugus
ca.650,064 .993
28 31% of Erie; Niagara, Chautauqua
ca.654,930 1.001
29 69% of Erie
ca.654,931 1.001

19 Rockland, Orange, 9% of Dutchess
ca.654,020 .999
20 91% of Dutchess; Ulster, Sullivan, Delaware, Chenango, Cortland
ca.654,020 1.001
notice the additional county split, which could just as well go into Ulster or Sullivan instead 
21 Albany, Rensselaer, Columbia, Greene, Schoharie, Washington
651,016 .995
22 Herkimer, Montgomery, Schenectady, Saratoga, Warren, Essex, Clinton
643,373 .983
23 Franklin, Saint Lawrence, Hamilton, Fulton, Lewis, Jefferson, Oneida, Otsego
659,344 1.008
24 Broome, Tioga, Tompkins, Chemung, Steuben, Cayuga, Seneca
653,922 .999
25 Onondaga, Madison, Oswego
650,154 .994
26 90% of Monroe
ca.659,676 1.008
27 10% of Monroe; Wayne, Ontario, Yates, Schuyler, Livingston, Orleans, Genesee, Wyoming, Allegany, Cattaraugus
ca.659,676 1.008
28 31% of Erie; Niagara, Chautauqua
ca.654,930 1.001
29 69% of Erie
ca.654,931 1.001

So much more hideous to look at, such a tiny improvement in population balance...

[Erc]

I've decided that Suffolk is adjacent to Westchester

In what Bizzaro reality is this happening?  Suffolk is in no way adjacent to Westchester, even if you account for water boundries.

Somehow, a district even more ugly than my current 18th .  Perhaps even uglier than my State Senate district, which even includes Riker's Island to boost its population :-/

[jimrtex]

I'm redistricting again... based on these rules now:
"Section 26, Article III, of the Texas Constitution requires that house districts be apportioned among the counties according to the federal census population and the following rules:

This looks like something that I originally wrote.  The procedure in Texas is based on the Texas Constitution and judicial interpretations since then.

Explanation of Texas redistricting law, prepared by Legislative Council for state legislature in 2001

Texas Constitution, Article 3, Section 26

The members of the House of Representatives shall be apportioned among the several counties, according to the number of population in each, as nearly as may be, on a ratio obtained by dividing the population of the State, as ascertained by the most recent United States census, by the number of members of which the House is composed; provided, that whenever a single county has sufficient population to be entitled to a Representative, such county shall be formed into a separate Representative District, and when two or more counties are required to make up the ratio of representation, such counties shall be contiguous to each other; and when any one county has more than sufficient population to be entitled to one or more Representatives, such Representative or Representatives shall be apportioned to such county, and for any surplus of population it may be joined in a Representative District with any other contiguous county or counties.

The literal interpretation is that larger counties should form a single representative district that elects one or member district (county) wide.   That is, the Texas Constitution provides for apportionment of representatives among the counties; not for creation of districts.

The first 3 parts are pretty straightforward, with larger counties having multiple representatives, medium counties having one representative, and smaller counties on the frontier being joined together to form a representative district.

The 4th part says that if one county were entitled to 2.4 representatives, and a neighboring county 0.6 representatives, that the larger county would elect two representative; and the two counties together would elect a 3rd representative, with 80% of the voters in the larger county.  Such flotorial districts have generally been outlawed by the US Supreme Court as violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

After the one-man one-vote decisions of the 1960s, the 1970 redistricting essentially ignored the Texas Constitution.  The Texas Supreme Court in Smith v. Craddick ruled that the Texas Constitution had to be followed insofar as it was not in conflict with the US Constitution.  Tom Craddick, now House Speaker, was at the time one of 9 Republicans in the Texas House (141 Democrats) and the challenged plan had drawn a district line down his street in an attempt to eliminated him.

The 4th part of the Section 26 was then interpreted to mean that an area within a county containing the surplus population could be attached to adjacent counties, or parts of counties to form a district.  It had never  definitively been established whether the surplus could be placed in more than one district - though the minimum number of whole districts must be formed in a county.

Multi-member legislative districts are not in violation of the US Constitution per se, but they often run afoul of the Voting Rights Act.  For example one 1970s plan created an 18-member district for Dallas County (Harris County had single member districts).  The US Supreme Court in Smith v. Regester 412 U.S. 755 (1973) ruled against that particular district, and since the 1980's they have not been used in Texas.

1981 Attorney General regarding redistricting and applicability of Smith v. Craddick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Texas, a smaller county may not be split.  It can be combined with adjacent counties, or the portion of an adjacent county with a surplus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US Supreme Court has generally permitted a 10% total deviation for legislative[/u] districts[/u].  A range from 104% to 94% is just as legitimate as 105% to 95%.  If the districts are within this range, a challenger must be able to prove discrimination.  The fact that they could create an alternative plan with less deviation is insufficient.

In the deviation is greater than 10%, the burden is on the state to prove that it is doing so to further legitimate state purposes.

The original 2000s Georgia legislative redistricting plan was overturned by a federal district court in Larios v Cox because it systematically discriminated against the Atlanta suburbs, even though overall the variance was within the traditional 10% range.

The US Supreme Court has used a different analysis with regard to congressional districts and state legislative districts.   In the case of legislative districts it has based its decisions on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  In the case of congressional districts it has based its decisions on the apportionment language of the original constitution and of the 14th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is no more likely to pass USSC muster than a 10% range.   However, if Congress were to implement your plan it might be possible for Congress to define a wider range than the courts have permitted states to use for congressional district plans.

[minionofmidas]

I've decided that Suffolk is adjacent to Westchester

In what Bizzaro reality is this happening?  Suffolk is in no way adjacent to Westchester, even if you account for water boundries.

Somehow, a district even more ugly than my current 18th .  Perhaps even uglier than my State Senate district, which even includes Riker's Island to boost its population :-/

What else do your state senator and Charlie Rangel have in common?

[minionofmidas]

I'm redistricting again... based on these rules now:
"Section 26, Article III, of the Texas Constitution requires that house districts be apportioned among the counties according to the federal census population and the following rules:

This looks like something that I originally wrote.  The procedure in Texas is based on the Texas Constitution and judicial interpretations since then.

It's not. Unless you write for theLegislative Council website. (Link provided by Sam, btw.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US Supreme Court has generally permitted a 10% total deviation for legislative[/u] districts[/u].  A range from 104% to 94% is just as legitimate as 105% to 95%. [/quote]Ah, thanks. They've been much more restrictive regarding Congress...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is no more likely to pass USSC muster than a 10% range.
[/quote]You're right, I fear... using 1% would sort of defeat the purpose of the exercise though, as additional county splits would have to be done just about everywhere.

So basically I'm going with 2.5% as the limit now, while still attempting to get to 1%.

[minionofmidas]

New Jersey
With just one county under 100,000 inhabitants, just 6 under 200,000, and only 3 over one constituency in size, 5 additional county splits is the best I could do... :/ (Could be dramatically fewer on a 5% variation, I think...)

1 Hudson, 6% of Bergen
ca.660,714 1.021
2 75% of Bergen
ca.660,714 1.021
3 Passaic, 19% of Bergen
ca.660,714 1.021
4 80% of Essex
ca.631,922 .976
5 Morris, 20% of Essex
ca.631,923 .976
6 Union, 15% of Middlesex
ca.636,351 .983
7 85% of Middlesex
ca.636,352 .983
8 Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, 95% of Somerset (alternatively, Hunterdon could be split)
ca.649,723 1.004
9 Mercer, 5% of Somerset, 67% of Burlington
ca.649,723 1.004
10 Camden, 33% of Burlington
ca.649,723 1.004
11 Monmouth, 7% of Ocean
ca.648,830 1.002
12 93% of Ocean, 68% of Atlantic
ca.648,831 1.002
13 Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland, Cape May, 32% of Atlantic
ca.648,830 1.002

Pennsylvania
One or two very odd groupings, three additional county splits but it looks like two (Chester County gets split three ways - that's two additional splits, not one), 4-5 districts outside the one percent range, one of which could only be helped by massive changes and perhaps not even then while the other 3-4 are just barely outside.
1 & 2 42% of Philadelphia
ca.644,934 .998
3 86% of Montgomery
ca.644,935 .998
4 Lehigh, 14% of Montgomery, 16% of Philadelphia (did I mention very odd? Only way to avoid an additional county split. Berks could do the job here - though not as well, numerically speaking - but Lehigh isn't needed elsewhere)
ca.644,934 .998
5 Delaware, 23% of Chester
ca.649,661 1.005
6 Lancaster, 41% of Chester
ca.649,661 1.005
7 Berks, Lebanon, 36% of Chester
ca.649,660 1.005
8 Bucks, 21% of Northampton (the other additional split)
ca.653,275 1.011
9 Schuylkill, Carbon, Monroe, Pike, Wayne, 79% of Northampton
ca.653,275 1.011
10 Luzerne, Lackawanna, Wyoming, Columbia, Montour
643,012 .995
11 York, Adams, Franklin, Fulton, Juniata
639,438 .989
12 Dauphin, Cumberland, Northumberland, Perry, Snyder
641,176 .992
13 Susquehanna, Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Lycoming, Union, Centre, Clinton, Potter, Cameron, Elk, McKean, Forest, Warren
646,982 1.001
14 Cambria, Bradford, Blair, Huntingdon, Mifflin, Indiana, Jefferson, Clearfield
642,717 .994
15 Erie, Crawford, Venango, Mercer, Lawrence
643,710 .996
16 Westmoreland, Butler, Armstrong, Clarion
658,233 1.018
17 & 18 50% of Allegheny
640,833 .991
19 Beaver, Washington, Greene, Fayette, Somerset
653,648 1.011

[Kevinstat]

jimrtex is right about the language in the Texas constitution.  See here.

[Verily]

New Jersey
With just one county under 100,000 inhabitants, just 6 under 200,000, and only 3 over one constituency in size, 5 additional county splits is the best I could do... :/ (Could be dramatically fewer on a 5% variation, I think...)

My analysis:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong Democratic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democratic (presumably most of southern Bergen with central and northeastern Bergen; my district)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democratic (presumably northwestern Bergen; Paterson-Clifton-Passaic outweigh conservative areas)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong Democratic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak Republican, maybe stronger depending on how Essex is split

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong Democratic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democratic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong Republican

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democratic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong Democratic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republican

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong Republican

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak Republican


Very favorable to Democrats (gain of at least one seat), but the current map was drawn to be favorable to Republicans.

[Verily]

Here's a map of that redistricting with my guesses as to how each county would be split geographically. (I tried to take into account areas of particular cultural similarity when splitting counties.) Districts 9 and 12 have an awful border; I would rejig 9, 11 and 12 to cross more county lines.

[Verily]

I was interested in what exactly the Bergen map would look like, so I created the one below. Red is the Bergen district (NJ-02). Blue areas go to the Passaic district (NJ-03), and yellow areas go to the Hudson district (NJ-01).



These towns are in the Bergen district:
Hackensack
Bogota
Englewood
Englewood Cliffs
Teaneck
Leonia
Fort Lee
Bergenfield
Tenafly
Edgewater
Cliffside Park
Palisades Park
Paramus
River Edge
New Milford
Oradell
Creskill
Alpine
Ridgefield
Fairview
Ridgefield Park
Emerson
Haworth
Dumont
Demarest
Closter
Maywood
Rochelle Park
Norwood
Rockleigh
Northvale
Old Tappan
Harrington Park
Westwood
River Vale
Montvale
Hillsdale
Washington
Little Ferry
South Hackensack
Teterboro
Moonachie
Carlstadt
Hasbrouck Heights
Woodcliff Lake
Ho-Ho-Kus
Lodi
Park Ridge
Saddle River
Ridgewood
Wood-Ridge
Saddle Brook
Wallington
East Rutherford
Rutherford


These are in the Hudson district:
Lyndhurst
North Arlington

And the rest are in the Passaic district.

[minionofmidas]

Thanks Verily, a verily cool  map.

[minionofmidas]

jimrtex is right about the language in the Texas constitution.  See here.

I meant that it wasn't written by him, but came straight from the TX government. I accidentally clipped a sentence too few from the quote.


AND I'VE POSTED THIS POST BEFORE. WHO THE EF DELETED IT, AND MORE TO THE POINT, WHY???

[minionofmidas]

Maryland
1 City of Baltimore
651,154 .984
2 89% of Baltimore County
ca.672,019 1.015
3 11% of Baltimore County, Harford, all the Eastern Shore except Somerset
ca.672,019 1.015
4 Anne Arundel, Calvert, St Mary's, Somerset
675,177 1.020
5 82% of Prince George's
ca.660,400 .997
6 18% of Prince George's, Charles, Howard, Carroll
ca.660,400 .997
7 75% of Montgomery
ca.652,659 .986
8 25% of Montgomery, Frederick and points west
ca.652,658 .986

Notes: This is the only possible configuration without any additional county splits.
Yes, I know that D6 is horrible.
Republicans might like this map. It basically has 3 ultrasafe Dem seats, 3 safe Rep seats, and two Dem-leaning marginals.

[minionofmidas]

Ohio
Could probably be improved on in a number of small ways, but will do for now. One additional county split, which is impossible to avoid. (Montgomery alone = too small. Montgomery + either Darke or Preble = too small. Montgomery + any of the other 5 neighboring counties = too large. Montgomery + Darke + Preble = too large. Montgomery + Darke + any of the 3  additional counties bordering Darke = too large.) There is no alternative to the Summit-Cuyahoga link.

1 & 2 46% of Cuyahoga
ca.645,626 1.024
3 Summit, 8% of Cuyahoga
ca.645,625 1.024
4 Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Trumbull
646,250 1.025 (just under that)
5 Stark, Portage, Tuscarawas
621,073 .985
6 Mahoning, Columbiana, Carroll, Harrison, Jefferson, Belmont, Guernsey, Noble, Morgan
628,189 .996
7 Erie, Lorain, Medina, Wayne
626,874 .994
8 Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Seneca, Wyandot
639,422 1.014
9 Huron, Ashland, Richland, Crawford, Marion, Morrow, Hardin, Union, Delaware, Knox
623,016 .988
10 Williams, Defiance, Paulding, Van Wert, Mercer, Fulton, Henry, Wood, Putnam, Allen, Auglaize, Hancock
623,028 .988
11 59% of Franklin
ca.627,341 .995
12 41% of Franklin, Licking, Madison
ca.627,341 .995
13 Clark, Miami, Greene, Champaign, Shelby, Darke, Preble, Logan
619,947 .983
14 Montgomery, 46% of Warren
ca.631,852
15 Butler, 54% of Warren, 25% of Hamilton
ca.631,851
16 75% of Hamilton
ca.631,852
17 Clermont, Brown, Clinton, Highland, Adams, Fayette, Scioto, Jackson, Pickaway, Ross, Pike
623,046 .988
18 Lawrence, Gallia, Meigs, Vinton, Hocking, Athens, Perry, Fairfield, Muskingum, Coshocton, Holmes, Washington, Monroe
614,898 .975 (just over)

[minionofmidas]

Indiana
1 Lake, Porter, Newport, Jasper
675,971 1.001
2 Saint Joseph, LaPorte, Elkhart, Starke, Marshall, La Grange, Pulaski
675,804 1.000
3 Allen, Adams, Wells, Huntington, Kosciusko, Fulton, Whitley, Noble, DeKalb, Steuben
676,198 1.001
4 Hamilton, Madison, Delaware, Grant, Blackford, Jay ,Randolph, Hancock, Henry
675,424 1.000
5 79% of Marion
ca.676,788 1.002
6 21% of Marion; Johnson, Hendricks, Boone, Morgan, Putnam, Shelby, Clay, Owen, Brown, Rush
ca.676,788 1.002
7 Wabash, Miami, Cass, Howard, Tipton, Carroll, White, Clinton, Tippecanoe, Benton, Warren, Fountain, Montgomery, Vermillion, Parke, Vigo, Sullivan
676,817 1.002
8 Vanderburgh, Posey, Warrick, Spencer, Perry, Gibson, Pike, Dubois, Orange, Lawrence, Monroe, Martin, Daviess, Knox, Greene
674,060 .998
9 Wayne, Fayette, Union, Franklin, Decatur, Bartholomew, Dewborn, Ohio, Switzerland, Ripley, Jennings, Jefferson, Scott, Clark, Floyd, Jackson, Washington, Harrison, Crawford
672,635 .996

[minionofmidas]

Illinois
1-8 12% of Cook
653,223 .999
9 Will, 3% of Cook
653,223 .999
10 Lake
644,356 .986
11 72% of DuPage
654,140 1.001
12 Kane, 28% of DuPage
654,140 1.001
13 McHenry, Boone, Winnebago, Stephenson, Jo Daviess
651,549 .997
14 La Salle, Grundy, Kendall, DeKalb, Ogle, Lee, Livingston, Ford, Woodford, Marshall, Putnam, Bureau, Carroll, Whiteside, Henry
652,155 .998
15 Rock Island, Mercer, Warren, Henderson, Hancock, Adams, McDonough, Schuyler, Brown, Pike, Calhoun, Fulton, Knox, Stark, Peoria, Scott, Greene
655,346 1.003
16 Tazewell, Mason, Cass, Morgan, Menard, Sangamon, Macoupin, Logan, McLean, DeWitt, Piatt
660,069 1.010 (just under, actually.)
17 Madison, Saint Clair, Jersey, Monroe, Washington, Clinton, Bond, Perry
655,720 1.003
18 Kankakee, Iroquois, Vermillion, Champaign, Edgar, Douglas, Coles, Moultrie, Macon, Shelby, Cumberland
654,716 1.002
19 remaining 29 counties to the South (with an unfortunate northern tip in Christian County)
658,095 1.007

[minionofmidas]

Michigan
1 UP and everything down to Alcona - Oscoda - Crawford - Missaukee - Grand Traverse - Leelanau
669,274 1.010
2 Muskegon, Oceana, Mason, Manistee, Benzie, Wexford, Lake, Osceola, Clare, Isabella, Gladwin, Midland, Newaygo, Gratiot, Ogemaw, Roscommon
671,659 1.014
3 Kent, Montcalm, Mecosta
676,154 1.021
4 Kalamazoo, Van Buren, Allegan, Ottawa
658,845 .994
5 Jackson, Calhoun, Hillsdale, Branch, Saint Joseph, Cass, Berrien
664,700 1.003
6 Ingham, Eaton, Livingston, Barry, Ionia
658,199 .993
7 Genesee, Lapeer, Shiawassee, Clinton
660,485 .997
8 Iosco, Arenac, Bay, Saginaw, Tuscola, Huron, Sanilac, Saint Clair
667,931 1.008
9 55% of Oakland
ca.660,768 .997
10 45% of Oakland, 16% of Macomb
ca.660,769 .997
11 84% of Macomb
ca.660,768 .997
12 - 14 32% of Wayne
ca.657,223 .992
15 Washtenaw, Monroe, Lenawee, 4% of Wayne
ca.657,223 .992

[minionofmidas]

Need to keep this thread up & running...

Wisconsin

Milwaukee can't be paired with Waukesha, and Waukesha can't be paired with Kenosha and Racine, which kind of limits options. (Waukesha can be paired with Kenosha without Racine, and Racine can be paired with Milwaukee, but while legal, the outer Milwaukee district would look exceedingly ugly.)

1 72% of Milwaukee
ca.677,971 1.011
2 28% of Milwaukee; Ozaukee, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Fond du Lac
ca.677,970 1.011
3 Racine, Kenosha, Walworth, Rock, Jefferson
658,495 .982
4 Waukesha, Washington, Dodge, Columbia, Green Lake, Marquette, Waushara
674,716 1.006
5 Dane, Green, Lafayette, Iowa, Grant, Sauk, Richland, Vernon, Crawford
667,135 .995
6 Door, Kewaunee, Brown, Outagamie, Winnebago, Waupaca, Oconto
680,025 1.014
7 La Crosse, Eau Claire, Juneau, Adams, Monroe, Trempealeau, Buffalo, Pepin, Pierce, Saint Croix, Dunn, Chippewa, Clark, Polk, Barron
666,098 .993
8 Wood, Portage, Marathon, Shawano, Menominee, Langlade, Lincoln, Marinette, Florence, Forest, Oneida, Vilas, Taylor, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Washburn, Burnett, Iron, Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas
661,265 .986