Census Estimates for 2007 -> 2010 Apportionment

[Хahar 🤔]

My pathetic attempt at redistricting Utah:



I told you it was pathetic.

[muon2]

I'm not convinced that ferries and bridges are the only cross-water connections to allow. Distance should be given some consideration, as the ferry connection from Edmonds/Snohomish to Kingston/Kitsap is greater than the distance from Kitsap to Island at Hansville. Also I would think that an arbitrary cross-water connection where the counties officially connect is no worse than a cross-mountain connection with no pass or adjacent counties in the plains that share a short but finite border with no road.

The Edmonds-Kingston connection is longer only because Kingston has a harbor indentation and Edmonds is slightly to the north of the headland.  There is no connection at Hansville which is completely off the highway system.  The San Juan-Clallam boundary might only exist because of Canada, which makes the Straits of Juan de Fuca an inland waterway.  If Vancouver Island did not exist, the Clallam border would at most only extend 3 miles north, and there wouldn't be the SW corner of San Juan County.

To take another example, I would permit a Richmond-New York link in New York State based on the Staten Island Ferry, while disallowing a Bronx-Nassau link based on the marine boundary.

I would also apply a rule regarding corner connections or near-corner connections: something like the boundary must be 5% of the total boundary of one of the counties, where the boundaries might be idealized:

For the total boundary, use the circumference of a circle with area equal to area of the county, (ie C = 2 sqrt (pi * area) ).  This avoids a penalty for irregularly shaped counties.  And for the shared-boundary, I would apply some sort of algorithm that would reduce kinky borders such as one that follows a meandering stream.

Requiring a highway link might be difficult to apply.  Should Washington 20 be disqualified as link between Whatcom or Skagit and Okanogan counties, but allowed as a link between the two together and Okanagan? 

In other cases, a highway might clip the corner of a 3rd county, but people would be travelling between the two counties.  For example, Colorado 82 NW from Aspen clips the corner of SW Eagle County, but it is a long ways from the Eagle and Vail areas, which would be reached by first going to Glenwood Springs in Garfield County.  The other roads out of Pitkin County are closed in winter.

The county commissioner in southern Hinsdale County, Colorado must travel through 6 other counties (5 county seats) during winter to get to the county seat of Lake City (around 250 miles).  In summer, the trip is reduced to 3 other counties.

I like the idea of requiring a highway link, but I don't know how to practically state a rule.

I understand what you are saying, but I see no political difference between boundaries drawn on water and those drawn on land. If there is no practical highway rule, why should there be a ferry rule?

Also, if there is a ferry rule, one has consider at what width does the rule apply. There are any number of lakes rivers and streams that divide counties. Would the rule prohibit a cross-river link if there is no bridge along that stretch? I think that it becomes very hard to define a clear test that isn't arbitrary.

[jimrtex]

I understand what you are saying, but I see no political difference between boundaries drawn on water and those drawn on land. If there is no practical highway rule, why should there be a ferry rule?

Also, if there is a ferry rule, one has consider at what width does the rule apply. There are any number of lakes rivers and streams that divide counties. Would the rule prohibit a cross-river link if there is no bridge along that stretch? I think that it becomes very hard to define a clear test that isn't arbitrary.

Maritime boundaries are sometimes fairly arbitrary, and provide no economic, transportation, or other demographic linkage.  For example, Queens and Richmond counties in New York share a border, as do Bronx and Nassau counties.  Even given the bizarre shape of some New York City CDs, no one* has considered linking these areas.  But it is quite possible that an automated process might connect those counties if it might reduce the number of cross-border districts, especially given the otherwise low connectivity of those counties.

*Though New York once had a CD that combined Rockland and Richmond counties.

Use of sea areas also increases the possibility of mischievous districts that link to land areas by a shared (unpopulated) water area.  This is already done in New York City.  In 2002, the Democrats in Texas proposed linking a part of eastern Nueces County via Corpus Christi Bay with a rural strip in western Nueces County and several smaller counties in South Texas.  Nueces County has a population equivalent to about 2.2 House seats, and under the Texas and US Constitutions must have 2 whole districts within the county, with the remnant shared with adjoining counties.  So two districts were drawn in Corpus Christi and some smaller towns in the southern and western parts of the county, and the eastern part of the city, where the incumbent lived was linked around the north side of the city via water.   During the floor debate the Representative for the area ended his speech by inflating a rubber raft.

A county must be self-contiguous, by land, if possible.  If that is not possible, the link may be bridge or ferry.  Only if that fails is a third test used, which is nearest crossing.  In the Seattle area, it is reasonable to draw district boundaries across Lake Washington using the 2 bridges.  It would be wrong, IMO, to connect Kenmore and Renton via the lake.  It would also be wrong to connect areas in south and north Seattle via the lake or via Puget Sound, even if those waters within the city limits.

If you wanted a less arbitrary rule, you could consider local opinion, perhaps as expressed by local governing bodies.  Such expression should be made before the redistricting commences.  For example, if the Clallam and San Juan county commissioners agree that the two counties are neighbors for districting purposes, they are neighbors.  If the Whatcom and Okanogan commissioners say that they are not neighbors, they are not.  There would have to be a reasonableness test applied, so that even if King and Pierce counties said they weren't neighbors it would be rejected.

[muon2]

I understand what you are saying, but I see no political difference between boundaries drawn on water and those drawn on land. If there is no practical highway rule, why should there be a ferry rule?

Also, if there is a ferry rule, one has consider at what width does the rule apply. There are any number of lakes rivers and streams that divide counties. Would the rule prohibit a cross-river link if there is no bridge along that stretch? I think that it becomes very hard to define a clear test that isn't arbitrary.

Maritime boundaries are sometimes fairly arbitrary, and provide no economic, transportation, or other demographic linkage.  For example, Queens and Richmond counties in New York share a border, as do Bronx and Nassau counties.  Even given the bizarre shape of some New York City CDs, no one* has considered linking these areas.  But it is quite possible that an automated process might connect those counties if it might reduce the number of cross-border districts, especially given the otherwise low connectivity of those counties.

*Though New York once had a CD that combined Rockland and Richmond counties.

Use of sea areas also increases the possibility of mischievous districts that link to land areas by a shared (unpopulated) water area.  This is already done in New York City.  In 2002, the Democrats in Texas proposed linking a part of eastern Nueces County via Corpus Christi Bay with a rural strip in western Nueces County and several smaller counties in South Texas.  Nueces County has a population equivalent to about 2.2 House seats, and under the Texas and US Constitutions must have 2 whole districts within the county, with the remnant shared with adjoining counties.  So two districts were drawn in Corpus Christi and some smaller towns in the southern and western parts of the county, and the eastern part of the city, where the incumbent lived was linked around the north side of the city via water.   During the floor debate the Representative for the area ended his speech by inflating a rubber raft.

A county must be self-contiguous, by land, if possible.  If that is not possible, the link may be bridge or ferry.  Only if that fails is a third test used, which is nearest crossing.  In the Seattle area, it is reasonable to draw district boundaries across Lake Washington using the 2 bridges.  It would be wrong, IMO, to connect Kenmore and Renton via the lake.  It would also be wrong to connect areas in south and north Seattle via the lake or via Puget Sound, even if those waters within the city limits.

If you wanted a less arbitrary rule, you could consider local opinion, perhaps as expressed by local governing bodies.  Such expression should be made before the redistricting commences.  For example, if the Clallam and San Juan county commissioners agree that the two counties are neighbors for districting purposes, they are neighbors.  If the Whatcom and Okanogan commissioners say that they are not neighbors, they are not.  There would have to be a reasonableness test applied, so that even if King and Pierce counties said they weren't neighbors it would be rejected.

I like your idea for a means for a redistricting commission to accept agreement for non-adjacency. I also would suggest that the default starting point is to use adjacency as set by the map, be it land or water. However, in my interpretation, I wouldn't arbitrarily link Richland and Rockland counties, since it would technically pass through Kings, New York, Bronx, and Westchester counties in the Hudson. That's a lot of split counties!

[jimrtex]

I like your idea for a means for a redistricting commission to accept agreement for non-adjacency. I also would suggest that the default starting point is to use adjacency as set by the map, be it land or water. However, in my interpretation, I wouldn't arbitrarily link Richland and Rockland counties, since it would technically pass through Kings, New York, Bronx, and Westchester counties in the Hudson. That's a lot of split counties!

I could see an initial object application of a rule, with the commission then making a subjective determination.

I wasn't suggesting that Rockland and Richmond be linked, but noting that it had been.  In the 1820s' 1824, the CD's in the downstate area were:

CD 1: Queens and Suffolk).  Nassau wasn't split off from Queens until around 1900 when the remainder of Queens was annexed to NYC.

CD2: Kings, Richmond, and Rockland.  I had forgotten that Brooklyn was also included in the district.

CD3: New York (3 representatives elected AL)

CD4: Putnam and Westchester (the Bronx was split off from Westchester around 1900) at the time the modern 5-borough NYC was established.

CD6: Orange

At the time, Orange had more than Kings and Richmond combined, so it appears that Rockland was added to the southern counties to make up the numbers.

[AkSaber]

How long has it been since a census didn't give California any Congress seats?

1920 was the last.  California had 11 House seats before and after the census.

Ah, thanks. It has been a long while. My how tiny Cali's population was back then.

[jimrtex]

How long has it been since a census didn't give California any Congress seats?

1920 was the last.  California had 11 House seats before and after the census.

Ah, thanks. It has been a long while. My how tiny Cali's population was back then.

But that was because Congress didn't reapportion after the 1920 Census.  They should have had 14 representatives.  Because of the skip, they went from 11 to 20 after 1930 (Virginia currently has 11, and Illinois has 19).