Does anyone have a blank map of the 1976 congressional districts?

[Calthrina950]

The question is as in the title. Does anyone on here have a blank copy of the congressional districts as they were in 1976, at the time of Jimmy Carter's narrow victory over Gerald Ford?

[Karpatsky]

[Adam Griffin]

^^^ Here's one with the colors removed (right-click and open for full size):

[Calthrina950]

^^^ Here's one with the colors removed (right-click and open for full size):

Thank you!

[Mr.Phips]

Lol look at Texas.  1976 may have been the House election that saw the most seats switch parties with the smallest actual net change for the parties.

[Sir Mohamed]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

[muon2]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

Many of those districts are gerrymandered, just not to the extreme shapes we see today. The reason is computers.

Computers and their databases were just moving into the corporate world; one of my college classmates interned with a company to help interpret customer usage data, since no one on staff understood it. Government officials were even less familiar with computers except as tools for the defense and space industries. GIS was in its infancy and was primarily an academic endeavor.

As computers and GIS became more powerful and more accessible to political staffs, the ability to line up political results and demographic groups became easier. That allowed partisan interest to sculpt districts with more precision to get specific results. Those districts are more obviously gerrymandered to look at then these from the 1970s.

[DC Al Fine]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

Many of those districts are gerrymandered, just not to the extreme shapes we see today. The reason is computers.

Computers and their databases were just moving into the corporate world; one of my college classmates interned with a company to help interpret customer usage data, since no one on staff understood it. Government officials were even less familiar with computers except as tools for the defense and space industries. GIS was in its infancy and was primarily an academic endeavor.

As computers and GIS became more powerful and more accessible to political staffs, the ability to line up political results and demographic groups became easier. That allowed partisan interest to sculpt districts with more precision to get specific results. Those districts are more obviously gerrymandered to look at then these from the 1970s.

Could you give some examples of gerrymanders on that map?

[muon2]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

Many of those districts are gerrymandered, just not to the extreme shapes we see today. The reason is computers.

Computers and their databases were just moving into the corporate world; one of my college classmates interned with a company to help interpret customer usage data, since no one on staff understood it. Government officials were even less familiar with computers except as tools for the defense and space industries. GIS was in its infancy and was primarily an academic endeavor.

As computers and GIS became more powerful and more accessible to political staffs, the ability to line up political results and demographic groups became easier. That allowed partisan interest to sculpt districts with more precision to get specific results. Those districts are more obviously gerrymandered to look at then these from the 1970s.

Could you give some examples of gerrymanders on that map?

Cite P. Squire, "Results of Partisan Redistricting in Seven U.S. States During the 1970's", Legislative Studies Quarterly, May 1985:

The paper studied seven states: AL, AZ, CO, FL, IA, NY, and TN where there were changes in the number of districts and one party controlled the process attempting to gain an advantage. The study found,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The study found that AL and FL were most successful in wining more seats than they would be expected to win based on the way the map was drawn - they won 100% of their targeted seats. The other states were more subject to national tides that largely washed out their advantage by the end of the decade or for Pubs in the wave election of 1974.

One measure, still used today is the number of seat wins by a party compared to the number of votes cast for that party. The FL Dems were able to win 71% of the seats on 55% of the votes. On the other side AZ Pubs were able to win 60% of the seats with 49% of the vote, which was regarded as a significant success for their partisan plan.

[dpmapper]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This stat doesn't prove much of anything.  Republicans are more likely to control redistricting in conservative states and vice versa. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't definitive; geographic clustering could be a cause as well.

To give a more direct answer to Al's question, the KY district linking Cincinnati and Louisville suburbs, the TN district linking Memphis and Nashville suburbs, and the MO districts which carve up the St. Louis suburbs all look gerrymander-ish to me. 

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This stat doesn't prove much of anything.  Republicans are more likely to control redistricting in conservative states and vice versa.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't definitive; geographic clustering could be a cause as well.

To give a more direct answer to Al's question, the KY district linking Cincinnati and Louisville suburbs, the TN district linking Memphis and Nashville suburbs, and the MO districts which carve up the St. Louis suburbs all look gerrymander-ish to me.  

At that time control was not necessarily about liberal and conservative. Southern states were conservative, but controlled by Dems. NY was known for liberal Pubs. The author identified districts intended to be won by the controlling party based on metrics available at that time (eg. PVI didn't exist). I'd invite you to read the whole article. Gerrymandering doesn't have to look bad to be effective.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This stat doesn't prove much of anything.  Republicans are more likely to control redistricting in conservative states and vice versa.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't definitive; geographic clustering could be a cause as well.

To give a more direct answer to Al's question, the KY district linking Cincinnati and Louisville suburbs, the TN district linking Memphis and Nashville suburbs, and the MO districts which carve up the St. Louis suburbs all look gerrymander-ish to me.  

At that time control was not necessarily about liberal and conservative. Southern states were conservative, but controlled by Dems. NY was known for liberal Pubs. The author identified districts intended to be won by the controlling party based on metrics available at that time (eg. PVI didn't exist). I'd invite you to read the whole article. Gerrymandering doesn't have to look bad to be effective.

PVI is more of a concept than a technology.
There was never anything there to prevent map drawers from effectively calculating what was the same thing as PVI back then if they were willing to spend the time.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This stat doesn't prove much of anything.  Republicans are more likely to control redistricting in conservative states and vice versa.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't definitive; geographic clustering could be a cause as well.

To give a more direct answer to Al's question, the KY district linking Cincinnati and Louisville suburbs, the TN district linking Memphis and Nashville suburbs, and the MO districts which carve up the St. Louis suburbs all look gerrymander-ish to me.  

At that time control was not necessarily about liberal and conservative. Southern states were conservative, but controlled by Dems. NY was known for liberal Pubs. The author identified districts intended to be won by the controlling party based on metrics available at that time (eg. PVI didn't exist). I'd invite you to read the whole article. Gerrymandering doesn't have to look bad to be effective.

PVI is more of a concept than a technology.
There was never anything there to prevent map drawers from effectively calculating what was the same thing as PVI back then if they were willing to spend the time.

The concept of PVI was pretty alien in 1976 (I was taking a college course in presidential elections that fall). Also the idea of using a lot of calculation to maximize congressional gains was also largely unheard of. Typically the parties used county and big city results to make reasonable guesses as to how to protect as many seats as possible. There wasn't any science in it to speak of.

[DINGO Joe]

The narrative I recall from my schooling in the late 80s was the Burton brothers (John and Phil) in California were the cutting edge of such data driven redistricting in California in the 80s.  However, a quick check of the internet doesn't provide me a quick narrative to link to.

[Indy Texas]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

Many of those districts are gerrymandered, just not to the extreme shapes we see today. The reason is computers.

Computers and their databases were just moving into the corporate world; one of my college classmates interned with a company to help interpret customer usage data, since no one on staff understood it. Government officials were even less familiar with computers except as tools for the defense and space industries. GIS was in its infancy and was primarily an academic endeavor.

As computers and GIS became more powerful and more accessible to political staffs, the ability to line up political results and demographic groups became easier. That allowed partisan interest to sculpt districts with more precision to get specific results. Those districts are more obviously gerrymandered to look at then these from the 1970s.

Could you give some examples of gerrymanders on that map?

The neighboring, heavily Republican cities of Midland (Midland County) and Odessa (Ector County) are split into different districts to help prevent any of the West Texas districts from being winnable for Republicans.

[Mr.Phips]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

Many of those districts are gerrymandered, just not to the extreme shapes we see today. The reason is computers.

Computers and their databases were just moving into the corporate world; one of my college classmates interned with a company to help interpret customer usage data, since no one on staff understood it. Government officials were even less familiar with computers except as tools for the defense and space industries. GIS was in its infancy and was primarily an academic endeavor.

As computers and GIS became more powerful and more accessible to political staffs, the ability to line up political results and demographic groups became easier. That allowed partisan interest to sculpt districts with more precision to get specific results. Those districts are more obviously gerrymandered to look at then these from the 1970s.

Could you give some examples of gerrymanders on that map?

The neighboring, heavily Republican cities of Midland (Midland County) and Odessa (Ector County) are split into different districts to help prevent any of the West Texas districts from being winnable for Republicans.

They were both in the 19th district, were they not?  Heavily Republican Lubbock was put there too.  There was no reason why Republicans shouldn’t have won that district in 1978.  Even Gerald Ford got 58% the vote there in 1976 against Southerner Jimmy Carter.

[jimrtex]

The narrative I recall from my schooling in the late 80s was the Burton brothers (John and Phil) in California were the cutting edge of such data driven redistricting in California in the 80s.  However, a quick check of the internet doesn't provide me a quick narrative to link to.

How Redistricting Became a Technological Arms Race


CALIFORNIA G.O.P. SEEKS TO VOID REDISTRICTING

This one mentions that Thomas Hofeller who was then at Claremont had devised a computer program that would produce a fairer map.

Phil Burton supposedly drew the maps at a Chinese restaurant using a mechanical calculator and a road map. He drew a map for brother John that ran from Daly City to Vallejo, and said that it was "gorgeous". John Burton did not run for re-election in 1982, and was succeeded by Bobby Boxer who likely claimed that she "earned it". Phil Burton died in 1983, was succeeded by his widow Sala Burton, and then Nancy Pelosi.

The voters of California overturned the Burton maps in a June 1982 referendum. When a referendum is lodged, the law is suspended. This meant that California was still using the 1970 maps.

A divided California Supreme Court in a divided 4-3 opinion by Justice Liberal Rose Bird ruled that the 1970 maps violated OMOV (and the congressional map would have had too few districts), and ordered that the maps being challenged be used for the 1982 elections.

After the election the California legislature which was elected using the map that the voters rejected, passed modified maps that were signed into law by a much younger Jerry Brown before he left office for the first time (the California legislature takes office in December, governor-elect George Deukmejian took office in January 1983). The bill passed with a 2/3 vote, which allowed attachment of an urgency clause that prevented a new referendum.

[DC Al Fine]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

Many of those districts are gerrymandered, just not to the extreme shapes we see today. The reason is computers.

Computers and their databases were just moving into the corporate world; one of my college classmates interned with a company to help interpret customer usage data, since no one on staff understood it. Government officials were even less familiar with computers except as tools for the defense and space industries. GIS was in its infancy and was primarily an academic endeavor.

As computers and GIS became more powerful and more accessible to political staffs, the ability to line up political results and demographic groups became easier. That allowed partisan interest to sculpt districts with more precision to get specific results. Those districts are more obviously gerrymandered to look at then these from the 1970s.

Could you give some examples of gerrymanders on that map?

The neighboring, heavily Republican cities of Midland (Midland County) and Odessa (Ector County) are split into different districts to help prevent any of the West Texas districts from being winnable for Republicans.

They were both in the 19th district, were they not?  Heavily Republican Lubbock was put there too.  There was no reason why Republicans shouldn’t have won that district in 1978.  Even Gerald Ford got 58% the vote there in 1976 against Southerner Jimmy Carter.

It looks like Odessa was stuck in with the El Paso centric 16th at the time.

[Mr.Phips]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

Many of those districts are gerrymandered, just not to the extreme shapes we see today. The reason is computers.

Computers and their databases were just moving into the corporate world; one of my college classmates interned with a company to help interpret customer usage data, since no one on staff understood it. Government officials were even less familiar with computers except as tools for the defense and space industries. GIS was in its infancy and was primarily an academic endeavor.

As computers and GIS became more powerful and more accessible to political staffs, the ability to line up political results and demographic groups became easier. That allowed partisan interest to sculpt districts with more precision to get specific results. Those districts are more obviously gerrymandered to look at then these from the 1970s.

Could you give some examples of gerrymanders on that map?

The neighboring, heavily Republican cities of Midland (Midland County) and Odessa (Ector County) are split into different districts to help prevent any of the West Texas districts from being winnable for Republicans.

They were both in the 19th district, were they not?  Heavily Republican Lubbock was put there too.  There was no reason why Republicans shouldn’t have won that district in 1978.  Even Gerald Ford got 58% the vote there in 1976 against Southerner Jimmy Carter.

It looks like Odessa was stuck in with the El Paso centric 16th at the time.

It looks like it was the central city that was stuck in 16th rather than the suburbs.  I assume the Central City of Odessa would have been more Dem leaning.

[jimrtex]

This map looks more reasonable and less gerrymandered.

Many of those districts are gerrymandered, just not to the extreme shapes we see today. The reason is computers.

Computers and their databases were just moving into the corporate world; one of my college classmates interned with a company to help interpret customer usage data, since no one on staff understood it. Government officials were even less familiar with computers except as tools for the defense and space industries. GIS was in its infancy and was primarily an academic endeavor.

As computers and GIS became more powerful and more accessible to political staffs, the ability to line up political results and demographic groups became easier. That allowed partisan interest to sculpt districts with more precision to get specific results. Those districts are more obviously gerrymandered to look at then these from the 1970s.

Could you give some examples of gerrymanders on that map?

The neighboring, heavily Republican cities of Midland (Midland County) and Odessa (Ector County) are split into different districts to help prevent any of the West Texas districts from being winnable for Republicans.

The 19th district was held by George Mahon from 1934-1978 its only representative ever since it was created in 1934. His last 14 years were as chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

He only had a Republican opponent 3 times, the last in 1976 when he won 55-45.

His Democratic successor was Ken Hance, who in 1978 portrayed his young opponent (32 at the time) as a Connecticut Yankee outsider.  16 years later that opponent would become governor, and 6 years after that president.

Hance was a very conservative Democrat, who would carry Reagan's tax cuts. In 1984, he narrowly lost the Democratic nomination for US Senator. In 1986 and 1990 he lost the Republican nomination for governor, though he was elected as a Republican to the Railroad commission.

In the 1984 election to replace Hance, the Democrat got 42% of the vote, one of only two Democrats since then to clear 40% (in 2018, the Democrat got 25%).

It is not clear that the 1970 districts were not drawn simply to balance population. A court decision made the boundaries look a lot worse. In any event, 35K of 91K of Ector County was in TX-19. Generally, the eastern side of Odessa is wealthier than the west side, some of which is not actually in the city (see Saturday Night Lights, the book). Odessa has refinery and was closer to oil production and more working class, while Midland is more management. Until recently, there was not that much production from Midland County, though that has changed somewhat with fracking.

At one time TX-16 reached almost to Fort Worth and has gradually been retracting. Before the 1970 redistricting both