Iowa Consolidation to 4 Districts

[muon2]

Here's an example of why I posed the question in my previous post. Let me start with the result of the map after all mergers and before swaps.



I started by making a swap between the central and west district to get the central district to 1.000 of the quota. Then I made a swap between the northeast and southeast districts to put the se district at 1.001 of the quota. Finally I swapped between the west and northeast districts to get them at 1.000 and 0.999 of quota respectively. It starts from the same baseline, uses a comparable method of swaps, and gets to less population inequality. What would prevent a court from finding that this plan is practicably better?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Here's an example of why I posed the question in my previous post. Let me start with the result of the map after all mergers and before swaps.



I started by making a swap between the central and west district to get the central district to 1.000 of the quota. Then I made a swap between the northeast and southeast districts to put the se district at 1.001 of the quota. Finally I swapped between the west and northeast districts to get them at 1.000 and 0.999 of quota respectively. It starts from the same baseline, uses a comparable method of swaps, and gets to less population inequality. What would prevent a court from finding that this plan is practicably better?

It isn't perfect, but for a plan with almost no deviation from the quota using whole counties it is really quite lovely.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is pretty close to final.


[quote]

But I don't think your final tweak is optimal.  Starting from the above, I begin by making the I-80 counties be the northern edge of the Southeast district by moving Jasper and Iowa Counties to the Southeast and Jones and Jackson to the Northeast. Then to balance it out, the Southeast cedes Lucas to the West and then either the West cedes Worth to the Northeast or exchanges Hardin for Mitchell depending upon whether lower deviation or keeping I-35 north of Des Moines all in the West is considered more important.

[jimrtex]

The balancing step is the real question here. It seems to move away from the county-oriented preferences that drove the plan up to that point. It would be interesting to compare this plan with one produced under the current constraints. Would they be substantially different?

The current (2010) map has a standard deviation of 0.004%, but an internal simplified boundary length of 749 miles.

My final map (so far) has a standard deviation of 0.275%, but an internal simplified boundary length of 639 miles.

Internal simplified boundary length, is the length of the district boundaries measured as straight lines between county boundary junction points, ignoring district boundaries that are coincident with the exterior boundaries of the state. In Iowa it doesn't matter much because the counties are mostly square. The internal simplified boundary length between Dubuque and Jackson cuts across the jog in the boundary. If there is an offset between counties, such as the eastern borders of Story and Polk, the internal simplified boundary length does follow that jog. That is, we are simplifying county boundaries, not district boundaries.

While it appears that the current map is much more equal, that is a misapprehension caused by how the deviation is presented.



Are the circles about equal in area, or do they demonstrate that the people of Iowa would not be choosing their representatives in Congress if these districts were used?

Iowa has no obligation to continue to use the method that it has used in the past. Continuing to do so, may provide protection against complaints of ad hoc rationalization. But in this case, the legislature presumably recognized the failings of the current method (arbitrary division of communities of interest in a moronic pursuit of perfect equality), and substituted a new method:

(1) No division of counties.
(2) Communities of interest based on community input.
(3) Reasonable equality.

So Iowa is on sound legal ground here.

I have not addressed your more substantive point, yet, because I don't know if I have a good answer.

Note to have legal standing to challenge malapportioned districts, you have to live in a district that is underrepresented (overpopulated). When Arkansas drew whole-county districts after 2000, the statute provided two sets of districts. One was whole county districts, the other split three (or perhaps four) counties to reach perfect equality. The statute said that in event of successful legal challenge the uglier split-county map would be used. In effect, it was a poison pill. If someone sued to get "better" districts, they would get "worse" districts. The districts were not challenged.

[jimrtex]

There may not be plausible mechanics to get to the final map, and therefore no way to say that it is better. The rules of Give and Take assumed that there would be some county splits, but that this would be OK since the voters directed the change. But since in Iowa we don't need to county splits, we need a variant. Instead of gradually approaching the quota, which can't be done without splitting counties, each district will attempt to reach the quota on its turn (or at least get closer).

This is the starting point.



With county populations:



(1) Southeast 0.806; (2) West 0.998;  (3) Central 1.135; (4) Northeast 1.061.

Southeast goes first and takes Washington, because it is a salient into the district, and also takes Johnson. This is allowed because it will make Southeast closer to the quota, even though it will overshoot. While there might be sentiment to take other small counties, there isn't enough population as the district would wrap around Johnson. The majority of the district is in the river counties and they aren't necessarily averse to the populous Johnson. It is also somewhat of compromise between the southeastern and river counties, cutting the corner between them.

(1) Northeast 0.836; (2) West 0.998; (3) Southeast 1.030; (4) Central 1.135.

Southeast is in smaller type to indicate that it has completed its turn for this round. Northeast takes Dubuque, Jackson, and Cedar. Northeast needs to take about 0.164, so it needs a big county which Dubuque fulfills. The smaller counties fill out the ticket.

(1) Southeast 0.859; (2) West 0.998; (3) Northeast 0.998; (4) Central 1.135.

West cannot get closer to the quota by taking any county, so it passes. Central then gives Marshall and Jasper to Northeast, and Marion to Southeast, which gets the district close to the quota. These counties are not part of the Des Moines CSA, and are more remote than the other counties. While I had Central directing these counties to their new regions, we could also let them select their own new region after being expelled. In this case, their decision would be the same.

After completion of the first round, we have reduced the deviation range from 0.329 to 0.203.



(1) Southeast 0.901; (2) Central 0.997; (3) West 0.998; (4) Northeast 1.104.

Southeast chooses first, and takes the tier of Jasper, Poweshiek, Iowa, and Cedar.

(1) Northeast 0.991; (2) Central 0.997; (3) West 0.998; (4) Southeast 1.013.

Northeast takes Worth from West; Central passes; and West takes Wayne from Southeast.

After the second round, we have reduced the deviation range from 0.203 to 0.008 (0.8%).



We can not improve any districts by unilateral action, but we can reduce the greatest deviation, between West and Southeast, by swapping Lucas and Wayne.

The final map has a standard deviation of 0.177% (1416) and an internal simplified boundary length of 622 miles.

[muon2]

This seems more rational, but I would quibble with some of the steps. Particularly important is the first pick by northeast. Clinton is part of the Quad Cities CSA and they aren't likely to go there after taking Dubuque. Cedar is shared by the Quad Cities, Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, with the last being the least impactful. The I80 corridor would probably cause northeast to leave it in the south. So instead after Dubuque I would expect northeast to pick Cerro Gordo since Mason City ties in well to the northeast (my family is originally from NE IA).

There is also the question of where Central should pick in the first round. Either they should pick second if the four regions are ranked by deviation before the round, or they should go third as the region with the largest deviation.yet to pick.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I like to go by a rule of thumb that deviations over 1000 are unacceptable.  This map fails to accomplish such.

[muon2]

I like to go by a rule of thumb that deviations over 1000 are unacceptable.  This map fails to accomplish such.

A rule of thumb is nice, but the question should be - are such large deviations justified by other considerations? Demonstrably an IA plan should be able to get deviations under 100 without any county chops. Since counties are whole, the consideration must come from other factors (eg. intact metro areas, erosity). Once those factors are identified, then one asks if those other factors can be met with a lower deviation.

[jimrtex]

I like to go by a rule of thumb that deviations over 1000 are unacceptable.  This map fails to accomplish such.

Are these bubbles not equal in size?



You are looking at from this perspective.



Imagine you were judging persons who were 6-foot tall. Since you wanted to be scientific, 1.829 m.

One of the candidates was 1.831 m, another 1..828 m. You would say that the first was twice as much taller than the ideal as the second was shorter.

A person with any common sense would say they were the same height.

[muon2]

I like to go by a rule of thumb that deviations over 1000 are unacceptable.  This map fails to accomplish such.

Are these bubbles not equal in size?



You are looking at from this perspective.



Imagine you were judging persons who were 6-foot tall. Since you wanted to be scientific, 1.829 m.

One of the candidates was 1.831 m, another 1..828 m. You would say that the first was twice as much taller than the ideal as the second was shorter.

A person with any common sense would say they were the same height.

But that would be a reasonable standard. For congressional districts we both know the court requires a practicable standard. A reasonable plan only survives if there is no other way to meet well-described criteria used to create it, for example shifting the fewest number of residents as WV did.

[jimrtex]

This seems more rational, but I would quibble with some of the steps. Particularly important is the first pick by northeast. Clinton is part of the Quad Cities CSA and they aren't likely to go there after taking Dubuque. Cedar is shared by the Quad Cities, Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, with the last being the least impactful. The I80 corridor would probably cause northeast to leave it in the south. So instead after Dubuque I would expect northeast to pick Cerro Gordo since Mason City ties in well to the northeast (my family is originally from NE IA).

There is also the question of where Central should pick in the first round. Either they should pick second if the four regions are ranked by deviation before the round, or they should go third as the region with the largest deviation.yet to pick.

Are you mixing up Jackson and Clinton?

You have a point with regard to Cedar. But if Northeast took Dubuque and Jackson, Cerro Gordo would be too large. But they could take Hardin instead of Cedar. The folks in Mason City were the strongest advocates for a northern district across the state ("Like in Minnesota some said"). I have  assumed that the counties on I-35 would choose west over east. But it not 100% true, since I-35 is to the west of Hardin and Franklin. I-35 takes it last jog in Iowa, probably to get closer to Mason City.

In Give and Take, I had assumed all the taking counties would go first, in order of largest deficit after each turn. Then the giving candidates would go in order based on largest surplus after each turn. I'm not sure of what my reasoning was. Perhaps I was thinking that if the order was unchanged, districts that lost enough to switch from a surplus to a deficit in a round, they would miss their turn. Taking is more of a positive action ("which areas do you want to add to your district?" than Giving ("which part of your district do you want to get rid of?"). Maybe there could be a question about volunteers to leave, or at least unfavorable to leaving.

I will try Largest Absolute Deviation after each turn in my next map.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I like to go by a rule of thumb that deviations over 1000 are unacceptable.  This map fails to accomplish such.

Are these bubbles not equal in size?



You are looking at from this perspective.



Imagine you were judging persons who were 6-foot tall. Since you wanted to be scientific, 1.829 m.

One of the candidates was 1.831 m, another 1..828 m. You would say that the first was twice as much taller than the ideal as the second was shorter.

A person with any common sense would say they were the same height.

But that would be a reasonable standard. For congressional districts we both know the court requires a practicable standard. A reasonable plan only survives if there is no other way to meet well-described criteria used to create it, for example shifting the fewest number of residents as WV did.

I think that there should be a quota enshrined into law. Countries around the world use quotas of between 5% and 10%, however I think that a quota for US congressional districts should be either 1% or 2.5%. A quota would be a great improvement, and would vastly reduce ambiguity.

[muon2]

I think that there should be a quota enshrined into law. Countries around the world use quotas of between 5% and 10%, however I think that a quota for US congressional districts should be either 1% or 2.5%. A quota would be a great improvement, and would vastly reduce ambiguity.

States in the US have the latitude to set quotas in the range you suggest for their legislative and other local districts. However, SCOTUS set a much more restrictive standard for congressional districts. The standard is so restrictive that lawyers advising states during redistricting opined that the districts needed to be exactly equal in population. SCOTUS clarified their ruling earlier this decade in the WV case. Now the lawyers say you need exact equality, unless you can show that the deviation is the only way to achieve the state goals. Even then it's not clear that a range in excess of 1% (deviation of 0.5%) would hold up.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I think that there should be a quota enshrined into law. Countries around the world use quotas of between 5% and 10%, however I think that a quota for US congressional districts should be either 1% or 2.5%. A quota would be a great improvement, and would vastly reduce ambiguity.

States in the US have the latitude to set quotas in the range you suggest for their legislative and other local districts. However, SCOTUS set a much more restrictive standard for congressional districts. The standard is so restrictive that lawyers advising states during redistricting opined that the districts needed to be exactly equal in population. SCOTUS clarified their ruling earlier this decade in the WV case. Now the lawyers say you need exact equality, unless you can show that the deviation is the only way to achieve the state goals. Even then it's not clear that a range in excess of 1% (deviation of 0.5%) would hold up.

What I mean is that, although such a quota wouldn't hold up at current, it should be enshrined into law for future, because at current there is no definitive standard, just a highly ambiguous requirement of (if memory serves me,) "approximately equal in population"

[muon2]

I think that there should be a quota enshrined into law. Countries around the world use quotas of between 5% and 10%, however I think that a quota for US congressional districts should be either 1% or 2.5%. A quota would be a great improvement, and would vastly reduce ambiguity.

States in the US have the latitude to set quotas in the range you suggest for their legislative and other local districts. However, SCOTUS set a much more restrictive standard for congressional districts. The standard is so restrictive that lawyers advising states during redistricting opined that the districts needed to be exactly equal in population. SCOTUS clarified their ruling earlier this decade in the WV case. Now the lawyers say you need exact equality, unless you can show that the deviation is the only way to achieve the state goals. Even then it's not clear that a range in excess of 1% (deviation of 0.5%) would hold up.

What I mean is that, although such a quota wouldn't hold up at current, it should be enshrined into law for future, because at current there is no definitive standard, just a highly ambiguous requirement of (if memory serves me,) "approximately equal in population"

The issue is that SCOTUS made a constitutional determination. Generally Congress can't overturn that without a constitutional amendment. However, the constitution does give Congress some power with respect to its own elections. I believe that if Congress created a national congressional redistricting commission, and gave it clear criteria for districts, they could put a maximum range between the largest and smallest district of 1%. That would allow the commission to have districts with modest inequality as long as they could show that it was the best way to meet the given criteria. But if someone could show that the criteria could be met with lower deviation, they would have to go with that plan instead.

[jimrtex]

This is Part 1.

I think that there should be a quota enshrined into law. Countries around the world use quotas of between 5% and 10%, however I think that a quota for US congressional districts should be either 1% or 2.5%. A quota would be a great improvement, and would vastly reduce ambiguity.

States in the US have the latitude to set quotas in the range you suggest for their legislative and other local districts. However, SCOTUS set a much more restrictive standard for congressional districts. The standard is so restrictive that lawyers advising states during redistricting opined that the districts needed to be exactly equal in population. SCOTUS clarified their ruling earlier this decade in the WV case. Now the lawyers say you need exact equality, unless you can show that the deviation is the only way to achieve the state goals. Even then it's not clear that a range in excess of 1% (deviation of 0.5%) would hold up.

,
What I mean is that, although such a quota wouldn't hold up at current, it should be enshrined into law for future, because at current there is no definitive standard, just a highly ambiguous requirement of (if memory serves me,) "approximately equal in population"

NOTE: In the United States, a "quota" refers to the population of a state (or county or city) divided by the number of districts. That is, it is the target population for each district. In my maps, I normalize populations. For example, Iowa has a quota of 798,552 persons (projected for 2020). I have divided county populations by 798,552, such that Polk County for an example, with a population of 502,164 has a population equivalent to 0.629 quotas (502,164/798,552). A district with a "population" of 1.002 has a population of 798,552 times 1.002 (the 1.002 is rounded to three decimal places, so that the actual population may be +/- about 400).

The difference between a district's population and the quota is its deviation. When it is expressed as as the number of persons, it is of little utility. The relative deviation is the deviation divided by the quota, and usually expressed as a percentage. A district with a relative deviation of 3% would have a population 3% greater than quota. What you are referring to as a quota would be the maximum allowed deviation (or a limit). This can be calculated as either the difference between the largest and smallest district, or as a maximum absolute value.

A limit of 5% would permit districts with between 95% and 105% of the quota. Sometimes a range is used, so that a limit of 10% would, for example, permit the district with the largest population to have a population equivalent to 107% of the quota, and  the smallest equal to 97% of the quota.

The SCOTUS has divined that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Justice Harlan pointed out in his dissent, "as nearly as is practicable" is not defined in the majority decision. The term had been used in previous congressional legislation that requires representatives to be districted, but had not been defined, and there is no evidence that States nor Congress gave it too much never mind.

The US Constitution does not require representatives to be elected by district. It provides that each State may decide the time, place, manner of election of its representatives, subject to override by the Congress. Congress, since 1842, has required election from single-member districts. In 1872, it require that districts "as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants." This standard of equality was never explicitly repealed, but also was not re-enacted. After Congress required representatives to be elected from districts in 1842, a few States continued to elect their representatives at-large, and Congress determined that they had been duly elected.

Districts did eventually come to be used, but Congress made exceptions, particularly after the Census. If a State gained representatives, the additional representatives could be elected at-large, until redistricting occurred. Some states went without redistricting for decades, and elected some representatives at large during that time. If a State lost representatives, and had too few districts, it could elect all of its representatives at-large, until it redistricted. Typically, this would only go on for one or two terms, since most areas did not like not having a representative of their own, and the legislature would get the political will to redistrict.

At the time of Wesberry v Sanders, there were only four states (ME, NH, ND, and RI) that had a deviation range of less than 20% of the quota. All four states had two representatives, and it is not too hard to see that the two districts should each have about half the population. Moreover, unless the legislature is also malapportioned, an area with half of a state's population would have a majority in the legislature and should have its own district. Nonetheless, four states with two representatives had greater deviation: ID 410K, 257K (46%); MT 401K, 274K (37%); SD 498K, 183K (93%); UT 573K, 318K (57%). Hawaii elected its two representatives at large. Districts were so horribly malapportioned nobody really considered what "as equal as practicable" might mean. In Georgia where Wesberry v Sanders originated, the largest district, comprised of Fulton, Cobb, and DeKalb counties, had three times the population of the smallest.

After Wesberry v Sanders, congressional districts were challenged throughout the country. Some states redistricted, but didn't go far enough, and court challenges continued. Courts sought a remedy in statute, which was to provide for at-large elections. Congress reacted in 1967 by requiring all representatives to be elected by district. Congress could have set a standard, and they still could, but they didn't and haven't.

This resulted in continued court challenges. If judges didn't like a map, they needed something they could base their ruling on. "I don't like the map" doesn't work. But if there was some inequality, they could latch on to that and say that districts weren't as equal as practicable. In the map that resulted in Kirkpatrick vs Preisler, Missouri had managed to not use the actual census figures, plus had not equalized districts when they could have done so by swapping counties (from the district court decision, it is not clear whether they meant if County C were moved from District A to District B that it would bring both districts closer to the quota, or that moving County C to District B it would make B closer to the quota. In addition since St.Louis had to be divided (it had almost enough population for two districts) those districts could be made quite equal, since it was also required that St.Louis County had to be divided on townships. The relative deviation range in Missouri was 3.13% to -2.84%, which was within your limits.

[jimrtex]

This is Part 2

I think that there should be a quota enshrined into law. Countries around the world use quotas of between 5% and 10%, however I think that a quota for US congressional districts should be either 1% or 2.5%. A quota would be a great improvement, and would vastly reduce ambiguity.

States in the US have the latitude to set quotas in the range you suggest for their legislative and other local districts. However, SCOTUS set a much more restrictive standard for congressional districts. The standard is so restrictive that lawyers advising states during redistricting opined that the districts needed to be exactly equal in population. SCOTUS clarified their ruling earlier this decade in the WV case. Now the lawyers say you need exact equality, unless you can show that the deviation is the only way to achieve the state goals. Even then it's not clear that a range in excess of 1% (deviation of 0.5%) would hold up.

What I mean is that, although such a quota wouldn't hold up at current, it should be enshrined into law for future, because at current there is no definitive standard, just a highly ambiguous requirement of (if memory serves me,) "approximately equal in population"

Two decades later in New Jersey, a plan with a deviation range of 0.698%, 1/9 of that in Missouri, was rejected in Karcher v Daggett. The New Jersey legislature had redistricted once, but then decided to increase the black population of a couple of districts (this was not a pack, but rather an attempt to increase the black population in order that a representative could be elected by the black population). They were careless in creating the districts, and the Republicans sued, not because they thought the inequality was too great, but because they didn't like the districts. But it turned out that inequality could be reduced by swapping some towns, and a map had been proposed that did that.

The SCOTUS ruled that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In this case, New Jersey claimed that the amount of deviation was less the estimated error in the census. While this is true, it does legitimize variation in district populations. If anything, it is possible that a census error would make the inequality worse. If District A had a population of P according to the census data, and District B had a population of Q, but by the "true" population the districts had populations of P' and Q', then it is quite possible that P' - Q' is greater than P - Q. Unless the legislature had some information about census errors, then they could reliably determine whether the errors would reduce deviation or increase it.

In 1985, Congress passed a law (P.L. 94-171) which requires the Census Bureau to work with states to provide them with necessary data for redistricting. In the past, states might not have the fine-scale data to redistrict below the county or township level. Townships are non-functional throughout the South and West. As a consequence of P.L. 94-171, the Census Bureau began collecting and releasing data on a census block basis, where a census block is roughly equivalent to a city block bounded by four streets. The P.L. 94-171 data is the first data other than the state totals used for apportionment that is released in the '1' year after a census (e.g. 2011 and 2021). The largest states have over a million census block, and it becomes trivial to equalize population (to within one person) as well as draw gargoyle districts. It became practicable to do so. Practicable does not mean practical or having anything to do with common sense. It means able to put into practice.

The standard set out in Karcher v Daggett was understood to mean that if the plaintiffs could demonstrate greater equality, then the state defendants had to justify their map as necessary to achieve some legitimate goal (i.e. prove that they were not gerry-witches.) It was easier to simply make the districts equal in population, than to prove that they were justified in not doing so. This might be especially true if their goals were not entirely legitimate (or could be construed as not being legitimate). In one case, there was an 18-person deviation. But the legislature quickly passed a new map eliminating the deviation, and the issue went away.

Following the 2010 Census, West Virginia redistricted its three congressional districts. The legislature rejected a "perfect plan" that would split counties, move 1/3 of the states population into a different district and pair two incumbents. Instead, they adopted a plan that would shift one county with 1.5% of the state's population into a different district, and leave a population deviation range of 0.789%. The Jefferson County Commission offended that their county in the extreme eastern tip of eastern panhandle was in the same district as Kanawha County (Charleston) outraged that their district had a population deviation more than 0.5% sued. The district court agreed, however the SCOTUS overturned the decision in Tennant v Jefferson County Commission, in effect saying that their decision in Karcher v Daggett had been misinterpreted.

The SCOTUS determined that the West Virginia best vindicated three legitimate state interests (1) not moving voters around; (2) protecting incumbents; and (3) not splitting counties; better than any other map. Maps that protected incumbents, did not split counties, and had better equality, moved more voters. Maps that did not split counties, and achieved the best equality would pair incumbents and shift more population around. Maps that achieved perfect equality, would do so at the expense of splitting counties (and could have been done without materially modifying districts with moving only 3200 persons).

Note that protecting incumbents may be a legitimate state interest. Protecting incumbents may preserve their power in Washington, as well as preserving the choice of voters from past elections. If someone has been elected for 10 terms, it may be because the voters like him and believes he represents them well.

Ironically, two of the protected incumbents are no longer US representatives. The only incumbent still in office is David McKinley (WV-1, north). He was elected in 2010 after the Democrats knocked off 14-term incumbent Alan Mollohan in their primary. Mollohan had some ethics allegations against him, which is embarrassing when you are ranking member on the Ethics Committee. This provided an opening for McKinley who narrowly won the general election with 50.4% of the vote. The Democrat-controlled legislature was likely not wanting to protect McKinley, but keeping the district open for an expected reversal.

Shelley Moore Capito (WV-2, central) as the first female representative from West Virginia, first Republican in 18 years, and daughter of three-term governor Arch Moore, had developed immense personal popularity, winning her last election to the House in 2012 by a 70-30 margin. The legislature may have expected her to run for the Robert Byrd Senate seat against Joe Manchin (Manchin was elected in a special election in 2010, and was up for election for a full-term in 2012). Capito ran for re-election to the House in 2012, and then was elected to the US Senate in 2014, replacing the retiring Jay Rockefeller. Ironically, WV-2 is now held by Republican Joe Mooney who served in the Maryland Senate from 1999 to 2011, followed by three years as chair of the Republican Party of Maryland. He had actually filed to run for election in 2014 to the US House from Maryland, before moving to Charles Town (sic), WV in Jefferson County to run and be elected to the US House from West Virginia.

Democrat Nick Rahill (WV-3, south) was defeated after 19 terms in 2014. The seat or its predecessor had been held by Democrats since 1958.

[muon2]

That is a great summary Jim. I hope you don't mind if I quote you on it when I write or talk on the subject.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

...
had three times the population of the smallest.
...

I applaud the time, effort and thought you put into your posts, your posts are of the highest quality.
My only nitpick is what I have left remaining in my quote of your post, a ratio of 3:1 of largest to smallest district isn't big at all. Look at the Playmander, which helped make Thomas Playford IV the longest term of any elected government leader anywhere under the Westminster system. He served for 27 Years! Incidentally Playford is a absolutely fascinating character who I would encourage people to research on.

[jimrtex]

...
had three times the population of the smallest.
...

I applaud the time, effort and thought you put into your posts, your posts are of the highest quality.
My only nitpick is what I have left remaining in my quote of your post, a ratio of 3:1 of largest to smallest district isn't big at all. Look at the Playmander, which helped make Thomas Playford IV the longest term of any elected government leader anywhere under the Westminster system. He served for 27 Years! Incidentally Playford is a absolutely fascinating character who I would encourage people to research on.

There were likely legislatures in the US that were malapportioned such that that for South Australia would look like child's play. As in South Australia, most of these were due to a rapidly urbanizing population, coupled with a decline in rural populations. One reason that malapportionment was deemed judiciable was that the legislatures that might have to propose constitutional or statutory changes would be cutting them out of seats.

Incidentally when I read your note, I thought Playmander was an online game, and "Thomas Playford IV" just a character in the game, who I imagine might have been knighted, so he would be Sir Thomas, or Tommy depending on his audience.

(loudly) "I want to be Thomas Playford IV!"
(louder) "No I want to be Sir Thomas!"
(squealing) "You were Thomas last time! Mum!"
(authoritative) "If you children don't squabbling, I'll transport the lot of you to Adelaide, I will."
(softer) "Well you have to abolish Frome, and divide Enfield, it's only fair if you are Thomas Playford IV"

At the time of Wesberry v Sanders, the most extreme congressional ratios were MI 4.53, TX 4.39, CO 3.34, and OH 3.07.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

...
had three times the population of the smallest.
...

I applaud the time, effort and thought you put into your posts, your posts are of the highest quality.
My only nitpick is what I have left remaining in my quote of your post, a ratio of 3:1 of largest to smallest district isn't big at all. Look at the Playmander, which helped make Thomas Playford IV the longest term of any elected government leader anywhere under the Westminster system. He served for 27 Years! Incidentally Playford is a absolutely fascinating character who I would encourage people to research on.

There were likely legislatures in the US that were malapportioned such that that for South Australia would look like child's play. As in South Australia, most of these were due to a rapidly urbanizing population, coupled with a decline in rural populations. One reason that malapportionment was deemed judiciable was that the legislatures that might have to propose constitutional or statutory changes would be cutting them out of seats.

Incidentally when I read your note, I thought Playmander was an online game, and "Thomas Playford IV" just a character in the game, who I imagine might have been knighted, so he would be Sir Thomas, or Tommy depending on his audience.

(loudly) "I want to be Thomas Playford IV!"
(louder) "No I want to be Sir Thomas!"
(squealing) "You were Thomas last time! Mum!"
(authoritative) "If you children don't squabbling, I'll transport the lot of you to Adelaide, I will."
(softer) "Well you have to abolish Frome, and divide Enfield, it's only fair if you are Thomas Playford IV"

At the time of Wesberry v Sanders, the most extreme congressional ratios were MI 4.53, TX 4.39, CO 3.34, and OH 3.07.

Well Thomas Playford's grandfather Thomas Playford II was also the SA premier in the 1880s and 90s.
The ratio during the Playmander was 12:1, due its constitution requiring 2 rural seats for each urban seat.
Playford was an extremely interesting fellow, with perhaps the most interesting being his relationship with Labor, he frequently cooperated with them and referred to them as "our Opposition", while identifying his real opponents as the conservatives within his party, which he decried as being "critical without being helpful".

He was good friends with the Leader of the Opposition Mick O'Halloran. Indeed, Mick stated "I wouldn't want to be Premier even if I could be. Tom Playford can do more for my voters than I could if I were in his shoes." I mean he had eagerly sought to get a papal audience for many years, but he had been told by the Vatican that only Heads of State could be given such an audience. Then, when mentioned it to Playford, a Baptist, he then organised an audience with Pius XII for while he was in Europe to attend Queen Elizabeth II's coronation and took O'Halloran and Mrs O'Halloran to the Vatican with him.
And finally when Mick O'Halloran died while still in office Playford organised a State Funeral and was one of the pallbearers.

Just to reflect on that, imagine if Nancy Pelosi suddenly dies next week, and Paul Ryan, after organising her State Funeral, carries her coffin during the service and publicly expresses great grief at her passing. Just think about that.

[BuckeyeNut]

I have a novice question for JimTrex or anyone willing to answer. If another state was to take up Iowa's method, but a single county had significantly more population that a single Congressional district -- let's say Illinois' Cook County for simplicity's sake -- what would happen?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I have a novice question for JimTrex or anyone willing to answer. If another state was to take up Iowa's method, but a single county had significantly more population that a single Congressional district -- let's say Illinois' Cook County for simplicity's sake -- what would happen?

It would be declared unconstitutional.  Only states that have enough counties that none are that large are allowed to use this method.

[muon2]

I have a novice question for JimTrex or anyone willing to answer. If another state was to take up Iowa's method, but a single county had significantly more population that a single Congressional district -- let's say Illinois' Cook County for simplicity's sake -- what would happen?

It would be declared unconstitutional.  Only states that have enough counties that none are that large are allowed to use this method.

The IA constitution requires whole counties, but the IA code requires the legislature to justify variances in excess of 1%. This is similar to hat happened in the OH Senate in 2011, where the legislature had to choose between conflicting laws. I assume they would divide the large county with as few chops as possible.

[BuckeyeNut]

I have a novice question for JimTrex or anyone willing to answer. If another state was to take up Iowa's method, but a single county had significantly more population that a single Congressional district -- let's say Illinois' Cook County for simplicity's sake -- what would happen?

It would be declared unconstitutional.  Only states that have enough counties that none are that large are allowed to use this method.

The IA constitution requires whole counties, but the IA code requires the legislature to justify variances in excess of 1%. This is similar to hat happened in the OH Senate in 2011, where the legislature had to choose between conflicting laws. I assume they would divide the large county with as few chops as possible.

If not too off topic, could you elaborate on the conflicting laws that went up against one another for redistricting the Ohio Senate in 2011?

And to Solid4096, we could just assume, somehow, Polk County nearly doubled in size.