Should "touch point" districts be considered continuous?

[minionofmidas]

Which scenario are we talking, exactly?

Picture the four corners. Is Colorado one district, Arizona one district, and Utah and New Mexico are one district together? That's arguably preferable to splitting a bit of Arizona off just to make it not technically "touch point" (if Arizona is some county, municipality, whatever).
Or is Utah and New Mexico one district, and Arizona and Colorado another, so the two districts cross each other? I would consider that to be not continuous- they can't both include the point at the middle.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, I dimly remember being shocked by that before.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, just search "point contiguity" - with the quotation marks - rather than "touch point contiguity" without, and while there's not many results (a few hundred) all but one of those on the first page are to the point. (And some use phrases like "touch-point contiguity" or "point-to-point contiguity".)

Incidentally, South Carolina redistricting law lays down that "Point-to-point contiguity is acceptable so long as adjacent districts do not use the same vertex as points of transversal" (I think that's from a summary of the legal situation, not actual statute), ie my scenario one good, scenario two bad.

[minionofmidas]

It was one of my first page google results.