Applying Muon2 scheme for redistricting to Columbia County

[muon2]

I will add updating and putting a sticky on the Muon rules to my to do list.

[muon2]

I am aware of the byzantine procedural rules.

I did draw a map. I don't have a census block map for the county (just a voting district map), so the lines are approximate as to where the chops lie in the town of Kinderhook and Taghkanic.

If I assume a 5% max deviation to get to a 10% range, Ghent is too small to be a district on its own (-6.8%) but Claverack is just barely the right size for a district (+4.97%). I presume that you've compensated for Ghent elsewhere, but why not make Claverack whole instead?

With Claverack whole, the Greenport district would pull about 1000 from Hudson and 600 from Livingston. Ancram, Gallatin and Taghkanic would pull about 1200 from Livingston. That leaves the rest of Livingston with Germantown and Clermont. It's the same chop count in the south but removes the ugly connection (IMO) between Clermont and Gallatin.

In the north you would have to add a chop to bring Ghent up at least 46 people to get the range within 10%. OTOH you could probably make a case of a compelling state interest to accept that extra deviation for a range of 10.79% to keep Ghent whole as a district.

[muon2]

Here's what SCOTUS said about the 10% rule in Brown v Thomson (1983) [citations redacted]:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Brown SCOTUS upheld the WY legislative plan with an 89% range (one district was at 40% of the quota). They found that the WY Constitution provided that counties each have at least one representative, and this had been applied since statehood "free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination."

In Quilter v Voinovich (1994) the district court initially threw out an OH plan with a range of 13.81%  for House districts and 10.54% for Senate districts based on constitutional rules requiring certain districts of up to 10% deviation that consisted of a single county. SCOTUS remanded the case back to lower court with instructions to consider the Brown decision. The lower court reversed itself and upheld the OH plan.

[muon2]

If jimrtex's reading of statute is correct, it would imply that Taghkanic would be wholly with Ancram, Clermont and Gallatin. Then the range of the plan overall would be 19.4%. Are there any federal cases that have tested the ranges produced by application of this 110% rule for chop thresholds?

[muon2]

I am aware of the byzantine procedural rules.

I did draw a map. I don't have a census block map for the county (just a voting district map), so the lines are approximate as to where the chops lie in the town of Kinderhook and Taghkanic.

If I assume a 5% max deviation to get to a 10% range, Ghent is too small to be a district on its own (-6.8%) but Claverack is just barely the right size for a district (+4.97%). I presume that you've compensated for Ghent elsewhere, but why not make Claverack whole instead?

With Claverack whole, the Greenport district would pull about 1000 from Hudson and 600 from Livingston. Ancram, Gallatin and Taghkanic would pull about 1200 from Livingston. That leaves the rest of Livingston with Germantown and Clermont. It's the same chop count in the south but removes the ugly connection (IMO) between Clermont and Gallatin.

In the north you would have to add a chop to bring Ghent up at least 46 people to get the range within 10%. OTOH you could probably make a case of a compelling state interest to accept that extra deviation for a range of 10.79% to keep Ghent whole as a district.

The problem with this analysis I now discern, is that you have exceeded the 10% deviation, where there is another map (mine), that does not, that has the same number of chops. You would have to argue that exceeding 10% is justified, because of the ugly shape of Clermont, and it is worth tri-chopping one town, Livingston, plus go over 10%, in order to get rid of that ugly shape, by smoothing out the lines via the tri-chop. So I see a fair amount of legal risk here.

Actually my original idea had under 10% range with one more chop than yours but less erosity and without the disconnected Clermont appendage. Since Ghent exceeds the deviation from the quota (on the low side) I chopped it and combined the larger part with Stockport and the remainder with Chatham keeping the Census place together. I only dropped that idea when cases with ranges in excess of 10% were noted.