Fair redistricting: Illinois

[muon2]

Sol's map wins for Kentucky!

Were the results published somewhere?

would you like me to make a spreadsheet of all the state votes?

Yes.

kk i'll make it over the weekend (super busy this week )

What's the status of the KY results? I have more than a passing interest. I'm involved with some graduate level academic research on redistricting algorithms, and any feedback about which maps were preferred over others may find its way into that research. Even better would be comments about the maps, but that doesn't seem to be the way panelists want to react. Of course if people want to say why they voted for a particular plan, I'll dutifully make note.

On a side note: Shouldn't Sol be moved into the open Dem spot? Then a Pub or at least an indy would take the second R spot.

I actually want the panelists to make comments, but it’s so difficult to have the others even just vote. I’d be happy to share my opinion though. I thought Sol’s grouping of Lexington and Frankfort made sense. I didn’t particularly like the way your map split that area among four districts. Also, Sol’s KY-05 and KY-01 reflected the ancestrally Dem parts of the state well imo. I look at pop density and voting trend maps primarily in forming my ideas about good district lines

About Sol’s role, there aren’t many Republicans so I’m just having Sol acting as a Republican. If a Republican does want to join then I would move Sol to a Dem. I know there might be concerns about partisan skew, but having 2 Ds and 2 Rs isn’t for them to want to gerrymander for their party, we’re all trying to follow the fair nonpartisan goal

Aren't you concerned that by considering voting trends you might fall prey to subtle gerrymanders? In many states that have enacted or considered neutral reforms, they explicitly require that the maps be made without considering election data to avoid that very thing. IA is a good example of an independent mapping process that bars the map drawers from considering election results.

As an aside, my wife has family in the Lexington area, so I am personally familiar with it. Frankfort isn't that closely affiliated with Lexington. As the state capital it's kind of a shared area by the major metros. I find that's often true when the capital is outside of one of the big cities in the state.

[cvparty]

Aren't you concerned that by considering voting trends you might fall prey to subtle gerrymanders? In many states that have enacted or considered neutral reforms, they explicitly require that the maps be made without considering election data to avoid that very thing. IA is a good example of an independent mapping process that bars the map drawers from considering election results.

As an aside, my wife has family in the Lexington area, so I am personally familiar with it. Frankfort isn't that closely affiliated with Lexington. As the state capital it's kind of a shared area by the major metros. I find that's often true when the capital is outside of one of the big cities in the state.

yeah I realize it's potentially shaky territory but it's only one factor, also yes some slight gerrymandering may occur in states like massachusetts or oklahoma

[muon2]

Here are my two submissions for IN. Both are from the same 2015 thread that included my CO map. Since PVI's weren't available then, I'll add them later this evening. The Indianapolis UCC (Marion , Hamilton,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  Madison,  Hancock) ideally is covered by 3 CDs with 2 packed into thsoe counties. The overall state PVI of R+9 would predict that a 3D-6R would be expected to avoid any skew.

muon2-A
There are no county chops except Marion, and there are no township chops in Marion. UCC cover rules are followed with one less pack than the maximum, so the chop score is 1. The erosity is 81, and the range is 0.89% for an inequality of 12. Politically the districts are 2D, 1e, 1r, 5R based on 2008.



CD 1: -3498; D+5.8
CD 2: -2685; R+8.2
CD 3: +2667; R+18
CD 4: -88; R+16
CD 5: -1451; R+18
CD 6: +2884; R+14
CD 7: -2859; D+13
CD 8: +2790; R+14
CD 9: +2244; R+12

2008 was an unusually good year for Dems in IN. CD 2 in this map was (e)ven R+0, but now has an uncompetitive PVI R+8. The lean Pub CD also shifts hard R, leaving this plan as a 2D, 7R. Of course when this map would have had to be designed those future shifts would be unknown.

muon2-B
All UCCs are maintained with minimal chops. Marion has two chops and a township microcrop, plus there is one other chop to equalize population and minimize erosity, putting the chop score at 4. The erosity is 66, and the range is 0.53% for an inequality of 8. The 2008 partisan breakdown is 1D, 1d, 1e, 3r, 3R.



CD 1: +1050; D+5.7
CD 2: -2252; R+8.1
CD 3: +1547; R+18
CD 4: -2011; R+11
CD 5: -326; R+5.6
CD 6: +173; R+18
CD 7: +841; R+0.7
CD 8: +746; R+16
CD 9: +236; R+11

The partisan shifts from 2008 to 2016 have even more effect on this plan. keep in mind these are shifts compared to the national averages, so that even as the presidential vote was shifting more Pub, the IN vote was shifting even more so. It also shows that though Indy is a huge Dem vote sink, trying to split that to get two CDs could potentially cost Dems a seat.

[Torie]

Here is mine. I am not sure what CD in Muon2's map is an "e," using the DRA PVI numbers. I have the usual 7R and 2D districts. I am also not sure he followed the subunits in Marion County, if those subunits are the former towns plus the inner city of Indianapolis prior to Mayor Lugar doing unigov for Marion County when I was an adolescent. I did follow those subunits, although it required two non contiguous chops. I have a pack penalty for the Indianapolis UCC.

[Sol]

I'd actually like to make comments if that's okay--I'll be sure to cross-post them in the future. I was under the impression initially that there might be a certain degree of secrecy on account of the PMs.

Once cvparty releases the results I'll go through them; for some of the states I don't remember the exact nuances of ranking which I did, since I forgot to save some of the PMs.

[Hoosier_Nick]

Can we extend this a day? I've been insanely busy and just realized the deadline is in an hour and a half. I love making maps of Indiana and I'd feel bummed out if I couldn't participate, haha.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Can we extend this a day? I've been insanely busy and just realized the deadline is in an hour and a half. I love making maps of Indiana and I'd feel bummed out if I couldn't participate, haha.

Go for it! I dont think anyone would care if you miss the deadline by like a few hours

[cvparty]

Can we extend this a day? I've been insanely busy and just realized the deadline is in an hour and a half. I love making maps of Indiana and I'd feel bummed out if I couldn't participate, haha.

you have like 10 hours

[Hoosier_Nick]

I JUST WROTE A REALLY REALLY LONG WRITE-UP ABOUT THIS BUT IT DELETED UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Either way, here are the new and old PVIs.
OLD:
Indiana 1  D+8   
Indiana 2   R+11
Indiana 3   R+18
Indiana 4   R+17   
Indiana 5   R+9   
Indiana 6   R+18
Indiana 7   D+11
Indiana 8   R+15
Indiana 9   R+13

NEW:
Indiana 1  D+8
Indiana 2  R+12
Indiana 3  R+17
Indiana 4  R+15
Indiana 5  R+17
Indiana 6  R+15
Indiana 7  D+16
Indiana 8  R+16
Indiana 9  R+14

To make it quick, this map accomplishes everything I wanted. Has 2 suburban seats (IN-05, IN-08) instead of the million we have now (IN-04, IN-05, IN-06, IN-09), Has one centralized rust belt seat (IN-06), divides the 8th and 9th by horizontal geography rather than vertical which makes more sense given Southern Indiana's cultural similarity to the South. It also gives the Northern 3 townships of Marion County to IN-07, which makes more sense given urbanization, racial, etc. patterns of the county. There are also only 8 county splits without comprises geographical compaction.

[Bismarck]

I JUST WROTE A REALLY REALLY LONG WRITE-UP ABOUT THIS BUT IT DELETED UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Either way, here are the new and old PVIs.
OLD:
Indiana 1  D+8   
Indiana 2   R+11
Indiana 3   R+18
Indiana 4   R+17   
Indiana 5   R+9   
Indiana 6   R+18
Indiana 7   D+11
Indiana 8   R+15
Indiana 9   R+13

NEW:
Indiana 1  D+8
Indiana 2  R+12
Indiana 3  R+17
Indiana 4  R+15
Indiana 5  R+17
Indiana 6  R+15
Indiana 7  D+16
Indiana 8  R+16
Indiana 9  R+14

To make it quick, this map accomplishes everything I wanted. Has 2 suburban seats (IN-05, IN-08) instead of the million we have now (IN-04, IN-05, IN-06, IN-09), Has one centralized rust belt seat (IN-06), divides the 8th and 9th by horizontal geography rather than vertical which makes more sense given Southern Indiana's cultural similarity to the South. It also gives the Northern 3 townships of Marion County to IN-07, which makes more sense given urbanization, racial, etc. patterns of the county. There are also only 8 county splits without comprises geographical compaction.

That’s a great map. I love what you did with the Indy metro and the big western district is cool as well. Also glad you put the rural northwestern counties with that district instead of with the region district.

[Hoosier_Nick]

I JUST WROTE A REALLY REALLY LONG WRITE-UP ABOUT THIS BUT IT DELETED UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Either way, here are the new and old PVIs.
OLD:
Indiana 1  D+8   
Indiana 2   R+11
Indiana 3   R+18
Indiana 4   R+17   
Indiana 5   R+9   
Indiana 6   R+18
Indiana 7   D+11
Indiana 8   R+15
Indiana 9   R+13

NEW:
Indiana 1  D+8
Indiana 2  R+12
Indiana 3  R+17
Indiana 4  R+15
Indiana 5  R+17
Indiana 6  R+15
Indiana 7  D+16
Indiana 8  R+16
Indiana 9  R+14

To make it quick, this map accomplishes everything I wanted. Has 2 suburban seats (IN-05, IN-08) instead of the million we have now (IN-04, IN-05, IN-06, IN-09), Has one centralized rust belt seat (IN-06), divides the 8th and 9th by horizontal geography rather than vertical which makes more sense given Southern Indiana's cultural similarity to the South. It also gives the Northern 3 townships of Marion County to IN-07, which makes more sense given urbanization, racial, etc. patterns of the county. There are also only 8 county splits without comprises geographical compaction.

That’s a great map. I love what you did with the Indy metro and the big western district is cool as well. Also glad you put the rural northwestern counties with that district instead of with the region district.

Thank you! And I agree about the Region, it makes a lot more sense to include Michigan City in Lake County's District rather  than the very rural counties south of Lake/Porter. With all do respect, I really don't understand why so many people did that since it means you have a few counties completely disconnected from the Chicago metro in the same district as near-Chicago.

[cvparty]

Thank you! And I agree about the Region, it makes a lot more sense to include Michigan City in Lake County's District rather  than the very rural counties south of Lake/Porter. With all do respect, I really don't understand why so many people did that since it means you have a few counties completely disconnected from the Chicago metro in the same district as near-Chicago.

meh, speaking for myself it's apparently part of the Chicago/Gary MSA and I was trying to make the 2nd more competitive

[Strudelcutie4427]

I JUST WROTE A REALLY REALLY LONG WRITE-UP ABOUT THIS BUT IT DELETED UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Either way, here are the new and old PVIs.
OLD:
Indiana 1  D+8   
Indiana 2   R+11
Indiana 3   R+18
Indiana 4   R+17   
Indiana 5   R+9   
Indiana 6   R+18
Indiana 7   D+11
Indiana 8   R+15
Indiana 9   R+13

NEW:
Indiana 1  D+8
Indiana 2  R+12
Indiana 3  R+17
Indiana 4  R+15
Indiana 5  R+17
Indiana 6  R+15
Indiana 7  D+16
Indiana 8  R+16
Indiana 9  R+14

To make it quick, this map accomplishes everything I wanted. Has 2 suburban seats (IN-05, IN-08) instead of the million we have now (IN-04, IN-05, IN-06, IN-09), Has one centralized rust belt seat (IN-06), divides the 8th and 9th by horizontal geography rather than vertical which makes more sense given Southern Indiana's cultural similarity to the South. It also gives the Northern 3 townships of Marion County to IN-07, which makes more sense given urbanization, racial, etc. patterns of the county. There are also only 8 county splits without comprises geographical compaction.

That’s a great map. I love what you did with the Indy metro and the big western district is cool as well. Also glad you put the rural northwestern counties with that district instead of with the region district.

Thank you! And I agree about the Region, it makes a lot more sense to include Michigan City in Lake County's District rather  than the very rural counties south of Lake/Porter. With all do respect, I really don't understand why so many people did that since it means you have a few counties completely disconnected from the Chicago metro in the same district as near-Chicago.

I agree with you on that one. I think our 1st districts are the same too. It makes more sense to put a more urban industrial area in with the Lake county area than it does to stick farm land in with the Chicago suburbs

[muon2]

Packing urban areas together too heavily guarantees a polarized map with fewer meaningful contests. Having some competitive seats means that when there is a swing in the mood of the electorate, the results respond with a changed delegation. If every state in the country only grouped like socioeconomic areas to form districts, I suspect that wave elections would have very little impact on Congress.

[Hoosier_Nick]

Packing urban areas together too heavily guarantees a polarized map with fewer meaningful contests. Having some competitive seats means that when there is a swing in the mood of the electorate, the results respond with a changed delegation. If every state in the country only grouped like socioeconomic areas to form districts, I suspect that wave elections would have very little impact on Congress.

Although I like the sound of this idea, it doesn't make as much sense when it's put into place, tbh. How would we do this in Massachusetts? Oklahoma? West Virginia? Unless we gerrymandered these states to oblivion, we won't get even close to representational government. So if we do this in states like Indiana, attempting to create competitive seats for the sake of competitiveness, we are putting ourselves in a position where in order to be fair we have to do this everywhere. So while sure, it's good to have competitive districts, I'm not a huge fan of arbitrarily placing republican voters in a democratic district to spread out the potential democratic wins (or visa versa, obviously.)

[muon2]

Packing urban areas together too heavily guarantees a polarized map with fewer meaningful contests. Having some competitive seats means that when there is a swing in the mood of the electorate, the results respond with a changed delegation. If every state in the country only grouped like socioeconomic areas to form districts, I suspect that wave elections would have very little impact on Congress.

Although I like the sound of this idea, it doesn't make as much sense when it's put into place, tbh. How would we do this in Massachusetts? Oklahoma? West Virginia? Unless we gerrymandered these states to oblivion, we won't get even close to representational government. So if we do this in states like Indiana, attempting to create competitive seats for the sake of competitiveness, we are putting ourselves in a position where in order to be fair we have to do this everywhere. So while sure, it's good to have competitive districts, I'm not a huge fan of arbitrarily placing republican voters in a democratic district to spread out the potential democratic wins (or visa versa, obviously.)

I agree that drawing competitive districts solely for that reason generally results in some pretty bad districts. I'm advocating for competitive districts when they are a reasonable option.  If my choice was between two plans that were roughly equal in geographic characteristics, then I would prefer a plan that provides more districts that could change with the mood of the electorate. That's not going to happen in all states all the time.

If you look at my IN plans, both had more competitive districts in 2010 than they do today. That reflects changes in the electorate, but if all were D+10 and R+10 or higher, there would be little chance that they could become competitive over the course of a decade. IN could just as well shifted in ways that made their districts more competitive as in other states, but that it didn't happen doesn't mean it should be excluded at the beginning of the decade.

[Dr. MB]

Ohio plan and Cleveland highlight



Ohio 1 D+6
Ohio 2 R+18
Ohio 3 D+17
Ohio 4 R+4
Ohio 5 R+23
Ohio 6 R+9
Ohio 7 R+3
Ohio 8 R+19
Ohio 9 D+5
Ohio 10 R+4
Ohio 11 D+25
Ohio 12 R+14
Ohio 13 EVEN
Ohio 14 D+5
Ohio 15 R+14
Ohio 16 D+1

Total:
6 R (R>+6)
7 swing (3 D-leaning, 3 R-leaning, 1 even)
3 D (D>+6)

[catographer]

My Ohio Plan.

[KingSweden]

Ohio plan and Cleveland highlight



Ohio 1 D+6
Ohio 2 R+18
Ohio 3 D+17
Ohio 4 R+4
Ohio 5 R+23
Ohio 6 R+9
Ohio 7 R+3
Ohio 8 R+19
Ohio 9 D+5
Ohio 10 R+4
Ohio 11 D+25
Ohio 12 R+14
Ohio 13 EVEN
Ohio 14 D+5
Ohio 15 R+14
Ohio 16 D+1

Total:
6 R (R>+6)
7 swing (3 D-leaning, 3 R-leaning, 1 even)
3 D (D>+6)

That 15th is quite a few CoIs I have to imagine

[Dr. MB]

Ohio plan and Cleveland highlight



Ohio 1 D+6
Ohio 2 R+18
Ohio 3 D+17
Ohio 4 R+4
Ohio 5 R+23
Ohio 6 R+9
Ohio 7 R+3
Ohio 8 R+19
Ohio 9 D+5
Ohio 10 R+4
Ohio 11 D+25
Ohio 12 R+14
Ohio 13 EVEN
Ohio 14 D+5
Ohio 15 R+14
Ohio 16 D+1

Total:
6 R (R>+6)
7 swing (3 D-leaning, 3 R-leaning, 1 even)
3 D (D>+6)

That 15th is quite a few CoIs I have to imagine

I may do a second submission and realign the 6th and 15th.

[cvparty]

1: D+6.3
2: R+17.8
3: R+1.4
4: R+23.0
5: D+4.6
6: R+12.5
7: R+14.3
8: R+18.5
9: D+0.3
10: R+1.8
11: D+32.9
12: R+17.9
13: D+2.2
14: R+4.6
15: D+15.7
16: D+2.8

[muon2]

In 2011 OH held a redistricting competition with strict criteria to judge submitted plans. The criteria weren't the same as the muon rules. For instance they counted county fragments instead of chops, except that is the chop was only the part of a city that crossed the line it wasn't a chop. Whole districts within a county weren't fragments either, even if they included pieces of cities across the line to keep them whole. The competition used different geographical blocks than DRA and scored compactness based on the size of a bounding circle.

So I can't resist submitting that winning plan, slightly reworked to fit DRA and the recommendation that cities and towns not be chopped more than is reasonable. This plan keeps subunits whole, using wards within Columbus and Cleveland where they are chopped. The cities of  Crestline, Dublin, Westerville, Buckeye Lake, Reynoldsburg, Plain City and Middletown are kept intact as if they were all in one county. Using the competition measurements there are 8 fragments in 5 chopped counties.



CD 1: +782; D+5.0
CD 2: +2485; R+20
CD 3: +1389; R+2.4
CD 4: -3193; R+18
CD 5: -2730; R+0.8
CD 6: -271; R+13
CD 7: -3363; D+2.9
CD 8: +1756; R+18
CD 9: +1630; R+2.3
CD 10: -1033; R+2.7
CD 11: +2554; D+32; BVAP 46.8% (48% at the block group level, met the standard set by the Urban League for the competition)
CD 12: -419; R+16
CD 13: +2730; R+2.5
CD 14: -419; R+2.9
CD 15: -3269; D+9.7
CD 16: +201; D+1.3

It is interesting to see how the districts here have shifted since the competition. At that time, 8 of those were considered D districts: 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 9 was rated a tossup. Also 11 had a PVI of 2.5 or less. Now only 5 rate D. It shows the dangers of trying to guess the partisan composition a decade out if the districts are designed to be competitive.

Here's the detail for the Columbus area illustrating cities that are kept together in a CD and not penalized with a chop/fragment. There are 7 in this view, including two from one city.

[Strudelcutie4427]

1. R+10 (1889)
2. R+21 (-379)
3. R+4 (-341)
4. R+19 (591)
5. D+6 (110)
6. R+16 (447)
7. R+1 (309)
8. R+13 (-66)
9. D+15 (372)
10. R+5 (-951)
11. D+6 (-282)
12. R+17 (1754)
13. R+3 (-78)
14. D+1 (-285)
15. D+1 (-1336)
16. D+30 (-1772) 49% B 40% W

[jimrtex]

This is my base plan. Ohio does not have a statewide system of RCOG's, and many counties are members of multiple organizations. Instead, I'm basing my map on the UCC's.



UCC allocations:

Cleveland 3
Columbus 2+
Cincinnati 2+
Dayton 1+
Akron 1
Toledo 1
Youngstown 1
Canton 1
Remainder 4-

The four-county Cleveland UCC is entitled to 2.751 districts. The area in the extreme NE corner (Geauga and Ashtabula) has to be added to either Cleveland, Akron, or Youngstown regions. The additional population puts the Cleveland region at 3.021. The small surplus complements the small deficit in the Akron region.

The Cleveland region will be divided into: (1) Medina and Lorain, plus western and southern Cuyahoga; (2) Lake, Ashatbula, and Geagua, plus eastern Cuyahoga; (3) Cleveland and other areas in Cuyahoga. Ideally, this can include the near eastern suburbs, so as to provide a maximum minority population.

The Akron UCC is entitled to 0.975 districts. The deficit will be made up from the Cleveland region. Whether this is from Cuyahoga, Medina, or Geauga depends on what provides the best alignment of the Cleveland districts.

Youngstown UCC and Canton UCC are too large to share a district, so the Youngstown region extends southward picking up small industrial towns along the Ohio River, west of the West Virginia northern panhandle.

The Dayton UCC is slightly greater than one district. Miami is dropped, and Fayette is added based on population balance.

The four-county Cincinnati UCC is entitled to 2.193. Two districts needs three counties, plus most of the fourth. Hamilton has population for 1.113 districts. (1) One district will be in Hamilton; (2) Butler, Warren, remainder of Hamilton, and some of Clermont. (3) The remainder of Clermont will be added to an area eastward along the Ohio River (this counts as one of the four outstate regions).

I had originally extended the Canton district southward parallel to the Youngstown district and to meet up with the Cincinnati river district, but that didn't work out very well.

The four-county Columbus UCC has a population equivalent to 2.290 districts. Delaware fits better with Franklin since it is more a pure suburban area, while Licking and Fairfield have distinct population centers of Newark and Lancaster, respectively. Franklin and Delaware, along with Madison and Union have a population equivalent to 1.989 districts. (1) Columbus and southern and eastern areas of Franklin (1) Northern and western Franklin, including parts of Columbus, and Delaware, Union, and Madison.

Fairfield and Licking will form about half of a district stretching eastward. This counts as another of the four outstate districts.

The Canton region was then extended westward.

This means the two remaining outstate regions will be in the western and north central parts of the state. Ideally, the Toledo area would extend eastward along Lake Erie picking up smaller industrial areas, but this made the two rural areas less compact as they had to stretch into the northwest corner of the state. So instead the Toledo area was shifted to include four rural counties in the northwest.

In a better world, we would only need two chops in Cuyahoga, one in Franklin, one in Hamilton, and one in Clermont to achieve reasonable equality.


These are the four Cleveland-Akron seats.



OH-1 (Cleveland) Cleveland and eastern suburbs - Cleveland, Euclid, Cleveland Heights)

-0.02%, D+32.53, B47, A 44, H 5, As 2, O 1.

OH-2 (Cleveland Suburban West - Lorain, Elyria, Lakewood)

-0.04%, R+0.15, A 89, B 4, H 4, As 1, O 2.

OH-3 (Cleveland Suburban South and East - Parma, Mentor, Strongsville)

-0.25%, R+4.74, A 92, B 3, As 2, H2, O 1.

OH-11 (Akron - Akron, Cuyahoga Falls)

+0.00%, D+2.58, A 85, B 11, As 2, H 1, O 1.


There are three Columbus area seats.



Franklin County detail



OH-4 (Columbus - Columbus) 97% of the district is in the city of Columbus, Columbus itself is too large for a district, but 91% of the city is in Columbus. The areas of Columbus that are in OH-5 provide contiguity to cities such as Worthington, Upper Arlington, Whitehall, Bexley, and some more populated unincorporated enclaves. Some of the tentacles, such as that between Dublin and Hilliard are trimmed back. Three eviscerated townships: Franklin, Clinton, and Mifflin, parts of two others: Perry, Blendon, and Truro, and two isolated villages: Valleyview and Minerva Park are also included in OH-4.

-0.12%, D+19.77, A 63, B 26, H 5, As 4, O 2.

OH-5 (Columbus Suburbs - Columbus, Grove City. Dublin. Delaware City, Upper Arlington) Roughly 60% of the district is in Franklin, with the remainder in Delaware, Union, and Madison. 94% of the areas in Franlin, that are not in the city of Columbus are in OH-5, where they form about half the district.

-0.13% R+5.19, A 86, B 7, As 4, H 2, O 1.



OH-6 (Eastern - Newark, Lancaster, Zanesville) Roughly half the population are included in the suburban counties of Fairfield and Licking. For population balance, Monroe township of Licking is shifted to OH-5, the western tier of townships of Coshocton is added from OH-14, the southern tier of townships of Belmont is added from OH-13, and the southern tier of Hocking is shifted to OH-9.

+0.20%, R + 14.11, A 94, B 3, O 1, H 1, As 1.


There are four Cincinnati-Dayton areas seats. The Cincinnati UCC has population for just more than two districts, and the Dayton UCC has population for slightly more than one district. For the Dayton district, Miami was dropped and Fayette was added, because it was adjacent and had about the right population. OH-10 includes the two core Dayton metro counties of Montgomery and Greene, and is about 96% nested within the UCC.

Hamilton has the population of about 1.11 districts. The original intent was to have one district in Hamilton, with the other district comprised of Butler, Warren, the remainder of Hamilton (northeast corner) and some of Clermont. The remainder of the UCC (most of Clermont) was placed in a district with counties along the Ohio River to the east.

A somewhat reasonable map was drawn, but the 3-district region was slightly underpopulated. Four towns from southern Fayette, and the southern tier of Hocking were added to OH-9, which left the 3 Cincinnati districts unbalanced. I couldn't find a reasonable way to adjust the plan, so I added Clinton to Butler-Warren district, and shifted the Hamilton portion to the northwestern part of the county. A small part of Clermont is included for population balance.

Most of Clermont is added to the eastern district.



OH-7 (Cincinnati - Cincinnati)

Most of Hamilton county, except the northwest corner.

+0.09%, D+4.89, A 69, B 25, As 2, H 2, O 1.

OH-8 (Northern suburbs - Hamilton, Middletown, Mason)

Butler, Warren, and Clinton counties, remainder of Hamilton, and a smidgen of Clermont (Goshen township, Loveland (Clermont part).

-0.00%, R+17.98, A 86, B 6, As 2, H 1, O 1.

OH-10 (Dayton - Dayton, Kettering, Xenia)

Montgomery, Green, and Fayette. Four townships in Fayette are shifted to ON-9 for population balance.

+0.12%, R+3.96, A 79, B 16, As 2, H 2, O 1.



OH-9 (Clermont, Southern Ohio - Athens, Chillicothe, Portsmouth)

Most of Clermont and 12 whole counties to east. Four townships in Fayette, and southern tier of Hocking added for population balance.

-0.08%, R+15.22, A 95, B 2, O 1, H 1, As 1.




OH-12 (Toledo - Toledo, Bowling Green)

Six counties in extreme northwest Ohio. 79% of the district is in the Toledo UCC. Two townships are shifted in from Ottawa for population balance.

+0.04%, D+3.00, A 81, B 11, H 5, As 1, O 1.

OH-15 (Western - Springfield, Lima, Sidney)

13 counties in western Ohio. Western tier of Putnam shifted in for population balance.

+0.02%, R+21.44, A 93, B 4, H 1, O 1, As 1.

OH-16 (Northern - Mansfield, Findlay, Marion, Sandusky)

13 counties in northern Ohio. Two townships in Ottawa shifted to OH-11, western tier of Putnam shifted to OH-15, western tier of Ashland shifted in from OH-14 for population balance reasons.

+0.04%, R+13.90, A 92, B 4, H 3, O 1, As 1.




OH-13 (Youngstown - Youngstown, Warren, Steubenville)

6 counties in northeastern Ohio. The linear shape is due to Akron and Canton districts constraining the district to the Pennsylvania and West Virginia line. The southern tier of Belmont townships is shifted to OH-9 for population balance.

-0.02%, R+2.05, A 88, B 8, H 2, O 1, As 1.

OH-14 (Canton - Canton, Massilon, Wooster,)

7 counties in northeastern Ohio. The district is forced south and west by Akron and Younstown districts. The western tier of Ashland townships is shifted to OH-16 for population reasons. While providing a cleaner-looking boundary, aligned with the Lorain/Huron-Erie border to the north, it does come right up to the Ashland city limits. An alternative would take a couple of townships from the southern part of the county. The western tier of Coshocton is shifted to OH-9 for population balance.

+0.13% R+11.00, A 93, B 4, H 1, O 1, As 1.


Final Map:




UCC's

Cleveland 2.751 districts:

OH-1 1.000 (100% in UCC), OH -2 1.000 (100%), OH-3 0.752 (75%)

Columbus 2.289 districts.

OH-4 0.999 (100%), OH-5 0.863 (86%), OH-6 0.427 (43%)

Non-optimal split preserves county boundaries, keeps Fairfield and Licking together.

Cincinnati 2.192 districts.

OH-7 1.001 (100%), OH-8 0.942 (94%), OH-9 0.250 (25%)

Non-optimal split preserves county boundaries better.

Dayton 1.108

OH-10 0.966 (97%), OH-15 0.142 (14%)

Non-optimal split preserves county boundaries.

Akron 0.975

OH-1 0.975 (98%)

Toledo 0.787

OH-12 0.787 (79%)

Youngstown 0.623

OH-13 0.623 (62%)

Canton 0.521

OH-14 0.521 (52%)


Large Counties:

Cuyahoga 1.775

OH-1 1,000 (100% in county, includes all of Cleveland), OH-2 0.3

43 (34%), OH-3 0.433 (43%)

Non-optimal packing of Cuyaghoga, due to UCC extending on east and west of county along lake shoreline.

Franklin 1.614 districts

OH-4 0.999 (100%, includes 91% of Columbus), OH-5 0.615 (62%)

Hamilton 1.113

OH-7 1.001 (100%, including all of Cincinnati), OH-8 0.112 (11%)


Small County Splits:

Geauga: OH-3 0.105, OH-11 0.025
Clermont: OH-9 0.250, OH-8 0.024
Putnam: OH-16 0.031, OH-15 0.011
Licking: OH-6 0.221, OH-5 0.010
Ashland: OH-14 0.064, OH-16 0.009
Ottawa: OH-16 0.049, OH-12 0.009
Belmont OH-13 0.091, OH-6 0.007
Hocking OH-6 0.034, OH-9 0.007
Fayette OH-10 0.035, OH-9 0.005
Coshocton OH-14 0.048, OH-9 0.003

Total Gerryvictims 0.110 (79628)
Gerry Rate 6.9 (per 1000)

[Dr. MB]

This is my base plan. Ohio does not have a statewide system of RCOG's, and many counties are members of multiple organizations. Instead, I'm basing my map on the UCC's.



UCC allocations:

Cleveland 3
Columbus 2+
Cincinnati 2+
Dayton 1+
Akron 1
Toledo 1
Youngstown 1
Canton 1
Remainder 4-

The four-county Cleveland UCC is entitled to 2.751 districts. The area in the extreme NE corner (Geauga and Ashtabula) has to be added to either Cleveland, Akron, or Youngstown regions. The additional population puts the Cleveland region at 3.021. The small surplus complements the small deficit in the Akron region.

The Cleveland region will be divided into: (1) Medina and Lorain, plus western and southern Cuyahoga; (2) Lake, Ashatbula, and Geagua, plus eastern Cuyahoga; (3) Cleveland and other areas in Cuyahoga. Ideally, this can include the near eastern suburbs, so as to provide a maximum minority population.

The Akron UCC is entitled to 0.975 districts. The deficit will be made up from the Cleveland region. Whether this is from Cuyahoga, Medina, or Geauga depends on what provides the best alignment of the Cleveland districts.

Youngstown UCC and Canton UCC are too large to share a district, so the Youngstown region extends southward picking up small industrial towns along the Ohio River, west of the West Virginia northern panhandle.

The Dayton UCC is slightly greater than one district. Miami is dropped, and Fayette is added based on population balance.

The four-county Cincinnati UCC is entitled to 2.193. Two districts needs three counties, plus most of the fourth. Hamilton has population for 1.113 districts. (1) One district will be in Hamilton; (2) Butler, Warren, remainder of Hamilton, and some of Clermont. (3) The remainder of Clermont will be added to an area eastward along the Ohio River (this counts as one of the four outstate regions).

I had originally extended the Canton district southward parallel to the Youngstown district and to meet up with the Cincinnati river district, but that didn't work out very well.

The four-county Columbus UCC has a population equivalent to 2.290 districts. Delaware fits better with Franklin since it is more a pure suburban area, while Licking and Fairfield have distinct population centers of Newark and Lancaster, respectively. Franklin and Delaware, along with Madison and Union have a population equivalent to 1.989 districts. (1) Columbus and southern and eastern areas of Franklin (1) Northern and western Franklin, including parts of Columbus, and Delaware, Union, and Madison.

Fairfield and Licking will form about half of a district stretching eastward. This counts as another of the four outstate districts.

The Canton region was then extended westward.

This means the two remaining outstate regions will be in the western and north central parts of the state. Ideally, the Toledo area would extend eastward along Lake Erie picking up smaller industrial areas, but this made the two rural areas less compact as they had to stretch into the northwest corner of the state. So instead the Toledo area was shifted to include four rural counties in the northwest.

In a better world, we would only need two chops in Cuyahoga, one in Franklin, one in Hamilton, and one in Clermont to achieve reasonable equality.


These are the four Cleveland-Akron seats.



OH-1 (Cleveland) Cleveland and eastern suburbs - Cleveland, Euclid, Cleveland Heights)

-0.02%, D+32.53, B47, A 44, H 5, As 2, O 1.

OH-2 (Cleveland Suburban West - Lorain, Elyria, Lakewood)

-0.04%, R+0.15, A 89, B 4, H 4, As 1, O 2.

OH-3 (Cleveland Suburban South and East - Parma, Mentor, Strongsville)

-0.25%, A 92, B 3, As 2, H2, O 1.

OH-11 (Akron - Akron, Cuyahoga Falls)

+0.00%, A 85, B 11, As 2, H 1, O 1.


There are three Columbus area seats.



FranklinCounty detail



OH-4 (Columbus - Columbus) 97% of the district is in the city of Columbus, Columbus itself is too large for a district, but 91% of the city is in Columbus. The areas of Columbus that are in OH-5 provide contiguity to cities such as Worthington, Upper Arlington, Whitehall, Bexley, and some more populated unincorporated enclaves. Some of the tentacles, such as that between Dublin and Hilliard are trimmed back. Three eviscerated townships: Franklin, Clinton, and Mifflin, parts of two others: Perry, Blendon, and Truro, and two isolated villages: Valleyview and Minerva Park are also included in OH-4.

-0.12%, D+19.77, A 63, B 26, H 5, As 4, O 2.

OH-5 (Columbus Suburbs - Columbus, Grove City. Dublin. Delaware City, Upper Arlington) Roughly 60% of the district is in Franklin, with the remainder in Delaware, Union, and Madison. 94% of the areas in Franlin, that are not in the city of Columbus are in OH-5, where they form about half the district.

-0.13% R+5.19, A 86, B 7, As 4, H 2, O 1.



OH-6 (Eastern - Newark, Lancaster, Zanesville) Roughly half the population are included in the suburban counties of Fairfield and Licking. For population balance, Monroe township of Licking is shifted to OH-5, the western tier of townships of Coshocton is added from OH-14, the southern tier of townships of Belmont is added from OH-13, and the southern tier of Hocking is shifted to OH-9.

+0.20%, R + 14.11, A 94, B 3, O 1, H 1, As 1.

There are several Columbus-area noncontiguous parts.