Certainly, should an Idaho map that contains both Canyon and Ada counties in one district be used for the thread? My only concern is having North Idaho and SE Idaho in one district.
That gets back to definitions. Is it better to split the Boise metro, or to put the opposite parts of the state together? The tougher question is why shouldn't the opposite parts of the state be together? Can it be quantified or clearly described?
Fair mapping is tough to defend without principles. States that have fair mapping have language defining how to draw the map. Some states are much better than others at stating what fair means. That gives us the ability to say what we mean, and how it might be better than what states currently use.
What about swapping Payette, Gem, and Boise for Minidoka, Lincoln, and Jerome, making a more Boise-centric district (plus Twin Falls).
Northern Idaho is isolated from all of southern Idaho. Driving from Pocatello to Couer d'Alene is about the same as Boise to Couer d'Alene, and the best routes may be through the Tri Cities in Washington, or Butte and Missoula in Montana.
At the time of Wesberry v Sanders, Idaho was very malapportioned 409K vs 257K. The northern district included Canyon (Nampa) while the southern included Ada (Boise). That is, they were trying to include everything feasible in a Northern Idaho district and were still coming up short.
The minimum change option was to split Boise. With the growth of Boise, it may be feasible now to have a deformed quarter-doughnut.
