My inclination is that we should just rotate out who does different states and pass maps for all 50 (well, excluding single-district states.) It would be such a shame to exclude NY/FL/TX/CA--that's where redistricting gets complicated enough to be interesting.
I also think the map-drawing process should--somehow--be collaborative rather than individuals bringing different maps for a simple up-down vote. Somehow, multiple ideas should be synthesized rather than seeing each map proposal as final and immutable.
Perhaps we could establish a criteria and required to make maps from there (like Michigan does with its commission). We as a body establish certain hard line criteria (no splitting X City, X many minority districts, X Urban Seats) and so on?
Yeah, I agree with Phil.
A lot of cities have utterly horrible city lines and that can cause districts to be non contiguous. You have no choice to split some cities up or your above the 0.75% pop threshold. I like how New England organize their cities.
Me too. Any rules established beforehand would be arbitrary. I would say each state's commission should be allowed to agree on some general rules/principles on its own for its own purposes if it wants to, however. Of course, the commission can always change its mind and adjust its rules (or ignore/waive them) if it runs into some unforeseen circumstances. For example, the Texas state commission might set up a rule that "wherever possible, we will try to draw Hispanic opportunity districts between 65-80% Hispanic population." But if you end up with one that is 81% or 64%, that wouldn't necessarily have to be changed to fit the rule if the 64% or 81% district does the job.
