Iowa Consolidation to 4 Districts

[jimrtex]

These are the 17 Regional Council of Governments in Iowa. Each is a potential congressional district. Populations are based on 2016 estimates projected to 2020, and are relative to a quota of just short of 800,000.



In each round, the districts with the least population will be eliminated, and the counties will join other neighboring regions. Each county will make an independent decision. The decision will be made by a redistricting jury (popularly referred to as a redistricting caucus) selected randomly from voters. There might be one juror per 2-5,000 persons, with a minimum of 10 persons.

Interest groups may make presentations. For example, groups from larger cities may advocate for districts based on Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Davenport, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, or Sioux City. Manufacturing groups, farming groups, chambers of commerce might make presentations, as could political parties. Political parties would want to avoid being to direct in their interest, but that somehow it was good for the community.

In Round 1, the three districts to be eliminated are:

Chariton Valley (0.44)
Southern Iowa COG (SICOG) 0.64
Region XII (west central) 0.89

An option would be for two (or more) adjacent eliminated regions to merge. In this case, it was generally agreed that merging all three would be too unwieldy, particularly with Region XII being isolated. There was some interest in a merger of Chariton Valley and SICOG, but once it was realized that the merged region would be eliminated in the next round, these fell through.

Chariton Valley:
This area was once part of Area XV to the east. Presumably there are no hard feelings, but just that a 10-county region was too unwieldy. Isolated and rural as they are, they would not even consider joining Des Moines. All four counties join Area XV.

Southern Iowa (SICOG)

The three western counties (Adair, Adams, Taylor) have no problems joining the southwestern region (SWIPCO). The other four, (Clarke, Decatur, Ringgold, Union) had favored the merger with Chariton Valley and might consider joining Area XV as an effort to create a southern Iowa district.

Region XII:

Crawford and Sac join Siouxland (SIMPCO), Audobon joins SWIPCO. Carroll, Greene, and Guthrie join MIDAS, mostly as a holding action. Guthrie considers joining CIRTPA (it is part of the Des Moines MSA) but there is a feeling that it would be the odd-man out in a big city district.

Did anyone else hear something else at the meetings?

[jimrtex]

Ernest was correct about Ringgold and Union, which did joing SWIPCO.

It is an accident of census classification that Guthrie is part of the Des Moines MSA. Outlying counties are added based on commuting to the central counties. Guthrie is quite rural with about 10,000 persons, and the largest towns around 1500. There are few non-farm jobs, and farms are increasingly larger. I-80 is a straight shot into Des Moines (and West Des Moines), and Dallas is a central county. Part-time farmers and spouses may be able to find a paying job in the city. There is also a lake community in the eastern part of the county which may provide residences for exurban commuters.

Overall XV and Chariton are comfortable with being in a southeastern district.



In the second round two districts will be eliminated:

Upper Explorerland Regional Planning Council (UERPC) (0.100)
Region 6 Planning Commission (0.116)

Upper Explorerland Regional Planning Council (UERPC);

This region in northeastern Iowa divided between those who supported a river core based in Dubuque, and an interior core tied to Waterloo. Allamakee and Clayton join ECIA (Dubuque); Fayette and Winneshiek join INRCOG (Waterloo); and Howard joins NIACOG (Fort Mason).

Region 6 Planning Commission:

This region which did not come up with a geography-based name in 40 years also divided. Hardin joined MIDAS to the west; Marshall joined CIRTPA to make that region a 3x3 square, and the possibility of being in a district with Story or Jasper. Tama joined INRCOG (Waterloo) and Poweshiek joined Region XV for now, to avoid choosing between Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, and Des Moines.

Anyone hear anything else?

[jimrtex]

After 2 rounds 12 districts remain.



In the 3rd Round, 2 districts will be eliminated:

Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC) (0.130)
North Iowa Area Council of Governments (NIACOG) (0.164)

Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC)

The Davenport folks convince the river counties down to Burlington (Louisa and Des Moines) to join the Bi-State Regional Commission (BSRC). The inland counties (Henry and Lee) join Region XV. The Des Moines River flows through Region XV, accounting for Lee's decision.

North Iowa Area Council of Governments (NIACOG)

This region decides to join Mid-Iowa Development Association (MIDAS) Council of Governments en masse. The rural 19-county group keeps "our options" open.

[jimrtex]

After 3 rounds 10 districts remain.



In the 4th round two districts will be eliminated:

Northwest Iowa Planning & Development Commission (NWIPDC) (0.175)
Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council (SIMPCO) (0.228)

Northwest Iowa Planning & Development Commission:

There is some support for joining MIDAS, but there is concern that might result in eastern counties joining and creating a district that stretches across the state. There are jokes about an I-90 district. Since SIMPCO is also being eliminated, the only other alternatives are to merge with SIMPCO, or to join SWIPCO. The region is not at all averse to having a Sioux City connection, where there would be a district office. An office in Fort Dodge would be kind of iffy. The vote to merge requires a majority in both districts, which is easily achieved. Had the counties voted individually, MIDAS might have peeled of Emmet and Palo Alto.

Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council:

The support for the merge was almost unanimous.

Because of the merger, the number of districts will be 9, instead of 8. Politics were beginning to be more visible. Steve King is from Crawford in southern SIMPCO. The other representatives are from Dubuque, Iowa City, and exurban Des Moines (Van Meter in Dallas). There were hints that Democrat operatives were trying to create a Repulbican pack. There were arguments on the other side, that "we are all Iowans", and can't we just leave politics out of it for a while.

[jimrtex]

After four round 9 districts remain.



Because of the merger in the previous round, two districts will be eliminated in the 5th round.

Southwest Iowa Planning Council (SWIPCO) (0.273)
Area 15 Regional Planning Commission (Area XV) (0.282)

While the two could merge, this goes nowhere as it is realized that the southern district could be completed by adding areas further north. Those in the southwest would not a representative from Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, or Davenport, those in the southeast would not a representative from the Sioux City.

Southwest Iowa Planning Council:

Recognizing the inevitable, the SWIPCO counties join SIMPCO in a western district stretching from Minnesota to Missouri.

Area 15 Regional Planning Commission (Area XV)

These counties still have hopes of creating a district without Ceder Rapids. They mostly join the Bi-State Regional Commission (BSRC), though with a few defections. Clarke and Decatur join the western district, seeing I-35 as the dividing line between east and west. They are also closer to Nebraska to Illinois, and they may associate Illinois with Chicago, rather Forgottonia. Poweshiek joins ECICOG. You might remember that they had originally joined Area XV after Region 6 had disintegrated (four counties going four ways).

[jimrtex]

After 5 rounds 7 districts remain. The extensive mergers have rendered the names of some of the the underlying RCOG's as meaningless. Siouxland (SIMPCO) is a reference to Sioux City, and Bi-State is based on an interstate region in the Quad Cities of Iowa-Illinois.



One district will be eliminated in the 6th round.

East Central Intergovernmental Association (ECIA) (0.289)

East Central Intergovernmental Association (ECIA)

The counties from Dubuque southward are persuaded to join a river-based district with Davenport and Burlington. The two northern counties, Allamakee and Clayton, are concerned about the westward extension of the district along the Missouri border, and join the Waterloo-centric INRCOG. Three vertical stripes along with a central district is too radical an idea for counties in the extreme northeastern corner of the state. Delaware joins its neighbor Linn in ECICOG. Cedar Rapids is not an alien rival, but just the small city in the neigboring county.

[jimrtex]

If the Area XV counties really wanted to avoid Cedar Rapids, they would do better to follow SWIPCO and join SIMPCO. Politically that would make more sense than joining with Davenport. By linking to the west XV could force Davenport to go with Cedar Rapids so they don't have to.

I'm not sure that it is so much avoiding Cedar Rapids, but a perception that it is in the northern part of the state. If you develop a mental picture of Des Moines being in the center of the state, which it is from a east-west basis. then Cedar Rapids is to the north of it, and therefore in the northern part of the state. They would be much more amenable to being in a district with Iowa City. To the extent that the three state universities are regional institutions, University of Iowa, rather than Iowa State or Northern Iowa would be the local university. There are more alumni from University of Iowa, and with major league sports requiring considerable travel, there are more people who follow the basketball and football at UI, perhaps even holding season tickets.

Certainly, they would hope that Washington would join them, and possibly Johnson. Some people may want to recreate the existing congressional district IA-2 that does split Iowa City from Cedar Rapids. 73 of Iowa's 99 counties are losing population this decade, so there is a bit of jealousy towards the city's that are gaining population. Declining rural areas may have a sense of affinity with struggling river cities which once gave their names to the great western railroads.

The concern with joining with the western district would be that there would be a district stretching to three corners of the state with almost sufficient population for a district. The goals of the voters in the southeastern portion of the state may not be realistic. "We want a district of our own", may simply not be possible, and they have consistently been changing their definition of 'our own'. It might just be an effort to prevent elimination of their area. Something similar has happened in northern Iowa.

[jimrtex]

After six rounds, six districts remain.



In Round 7, one district will be eliminated:

MIDAS (Mid-Iowa Development Association) Council of Governments (MIDAS) (0.347)

MIDAS Council of Governments

The hope for a core group collapses. Counties to the west had wanted the core to expand westward, and those further east had wanted it to go eastward. The counties west of I-35 join the West region, while those to the east join INRCOG.

[jimrtex]

After seven rounds, five districts remain.



In round 8, one district will be removed.

Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments (INRCOG)

Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments (INRCOG)

There is really only one choice, to join ECICOG. Some point that it will result in the district being  overpopulated, but say that is OK since it will likely eliminate southern parts of the district, and besides the goal is not to create the final districts.

The western tier decides to join the west region, in part to take in account the jogs in I-35 at Des Moines and further north.

[jimrtex]

If the public is involved in the counties' choices, then the southern two tiers of counties are not going to want to be in with the band from Des Moines to Iowa City to Davenport. They are much more like MO to the south and would probably see nothing wrong with a largely rural CD that included three corners of the state.

The decision was made by redistricting juries in each county (popularly referred to as redistricting caucuses in Iowa). With one juror per 2,000 persons, most instead had the minimum of 10. Wapello (Ottumwa) would have 17.

Community of interest include factors such as the economy, but also locality. Iowa at one time had 11 congressional districts, so even going with a western district was hard to envision. While you note that the border counties are like Missouri to the south, you are suggesting that they would be at home with counties that border on Minnesota as well.

There was certainly sentiment for the western idea, but ultimately locality won out. There are likely railroad depots throughout the the area converted to historical museums with Burlington Route signs.

[jimrtex]

Four districts emerged after the 8th Round. Region names have been applied to all four.



There will have to be adjustments to balance the population. This map shows the population relative to the quota.



The first step to balancing the population is to adjust the central region. One reason that Iowa is able to achieve such remarkable population balance is the large exposure of district boundaries, particularly in rural areas. When you can add a county with a population of 0.013 and eliminate a county with a population of 0.011 you can make fine adjustment. Since Iowa does not take into account erosity, this sometimes produces districts that jig in and out (see boundary between MN-1 and MN-4 south of the Minnesota line). Iowa's square county boundaries make districts look better.

Since the central region has the shortest boundaries, and counties with substantial population, it will be the hardest to balance, so we begin with it. It happens that we can remove the 3 eastern counties, Marshall, Jasper, and Marion and get quite close to the quota and maintain a compact district. Boone and Story are part of the Des Moines CSA, and Story has a particularly strong connection via I-35 and the fact Iowa State is in Ames.

Marshall and Jasper are shifted to Northeast, while Marion is placed in the Southeast.

[jimrtex]

Based on raw voting results (and assuming INRCOG and ECICOG merge), here are the hypothetical districts' 2016 vote totals:

D1 (West): 29.7 (D)-65.3 (R) (R wins by 35.6 percent, Titanium R)
D2 (CIRTPA): 47.6 (D)-45.4 (R) (D wins by 2.2, Lean D)
D3 (Southwest): 41.5 (D)-52.6 (R) (R wins by 11.1 percent, Likely R)
D4 (INRCOG/ECICOG): 47.2 (D)-46.7 (R) (D wins by 0.5, Tossup

You may have missed that Cerro Gordo, Franklin, Hardin, and Worth shifted to the West.

While political data like this would have been available, it is unlikely to be presented in such a visible fashion. Democrats might have attempted to promote a west region as a Republican pack, but they would/could not have presented on that basis, since it would be the voters making that decision. Instead they would have advocated for community of interest, agriculture and might have talked about a Soybelt. If they could they might arrange for a joint resolution by the county political parties.

Note: in the first adjustment Marshall and Jasper will shift from Central to Northeast and Marion will shift from Central to Southeast.

[jimrtex]

After trimming the Central Region



The next step is to balance the Northeast and Southeast regions. We start by moving Washington to the southeast, eliminating a bump because of Washington's original RCOG. This reduces the disparity from 1.157 to 0.847, to 1.129 to 0.875.

We could move five smaller counties to the Southeast, but this tends to isolate Johnson (Iowa City) as the Southeast district wraps around it. Instead, we move Johnson to Southeast. This reduces the difference between the districts, though it does make the Southeast district the larger district:

1.072 to 0.932.

Again we could equalize by moving smaller counties to the Northeast (e.g. Marion and Mahaska), but this results in increased erosity. So instead we move Dubuque to the Northeast, reducing the disparity, but flipping the districts:

1.057 to 0.948.

Now we move the two counties that come closest to equalizing: Jones and Poweshiek

1.008 to 0.996.

Summary of changes: Johnson, Jones, Poweshiek, and Washington to Southeast; Dubuque to Northeast.

[jimrtex]

This is pretty close to final.



But we improve equality a bit by rotating slightly counterclockwise, while improving erosity a bit by eliminating the gap tooth of Poweshiek, which reduces the isolation of Jasper.

Poweshiek to Northeast; Iowa to Southeast.
Mitchell to West;
Decastur to Southeast.

Final map - awaits lawsuits.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jimrtex]

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?

Ohio requires each senate district to be composed of three house districts. It also requires that counties be minimally divided among senate districts.

So if you have a county with 8 house districts. You would have two senate districts entirely in the county comprised of 3 house districts each, and another senate district comprised of two house districts in the county plus another house district. Simple.

But imagine you had three counties.

A(2) : B(8) : C(2)

6 of the House districts in B can form two senate districts. But what single district in A or C can be added to it? Even if A and C were adjacent, you would have to split one of those counties.

S1: B1, B2, B3
S2: B4, B5, B6
S3: B7, B8, A1
S4: A2, C1, C2

You have complied with the constitution with respect to B and C, but have divided A.

S1: B1, B2, B3
S2: B4, B5, B6
S3: B7, A1, A2
S4: B8, C1, C2

This version keeps A and C whole, but divides B.

My recollection is that the 2010 problem involved Cuyahoga County. Because the neighboring counties (other than Geauga) are large and have more than one house district, and there was no way to solve the problem. Northeast Ohio is constrained because you can't go into Lake Erie or Pennsylvania. Other areas of the state are less densely populated and you can go in more directions. The new apportionment standards for Ohio, at least say that if you have to violate constraints, you should do the fewest possible.

[jimrtex]

The Give and Take Process is designed to balance district populations by gradually adjusting populations. While it splits counties, this is done under control of the voters, and presumably less susceptible to gerrymandering.

In this application, after each equalization pass, district boundaries will be reset to whole counties based on the district with the majority of the population.



Initially Southeast has large deficit (0.194), Central has a large surplus (0.136), Northeast had a moderate surplus (0.061), and West has a tiny deficit (0.002).

The divisor for the first round is 10, and Southeast takes (0.194/10) = (0.019) from any of its three more populous neighbors. It chooses Washington. While we could track townships, I just kept track of the total.

Central gives (0.136/10) = (0.014) to any of its three smaller neighbors. It prioritizes the three counties not in the Des Moines CSA as follows: (1) Marshall, which is not part of the CIRTA RCOG, and not adjacent to Polk because of the boundary offset; (2) Marion because it is more rural, and the Des Moines River is somewhat disruptive ti travel Pella; and (3) Jasper because it is a straight shot to Newton down I-80, and therefore in easy commuting range. So the first transfer is Marshall to Northeast.

Northeast has lost 0.019 and gained 0.014 giving it a surplus of 0.056, and must give 0.006 to a smaller neighbor. It doesn't want to lose territory to the west, as some folks are agitating to expand westward and include Cerro Gordo (Mason City). So it goes along with the transfer of Washington.

West needs to take a tiny amount from a larger neighbor. It chooses the more rural Mitchell, rather than Boone or Marion.

The second round with a divisor of 9 repeats the process, except Southeast has completed the transfer of Washington, and begins taking of Johnson.

By the fourth round the transfer of Marshall to Northeast is complete, and the transfer of Marion begins. At this point populations are Southeast 0.901, Central 1.081, Northeast 1.019, and West 0.999.

By the sixth round, Northeast is pulled below a quota, and must take from a larger neighbor. It choose to take from West, quickly reversing the transfer of Mitchell, and starts to take from Worth. West is forced to take from Central, since it can't take back from Northeast and begins to nibble from Boone.

By the seventh round, the transfer of Marion has been completed, and the transfer of Jasper begins. At this point the populations are Central 1.038, Southeast 0.977, Northeast 0.989; and West 0.995. Central now has the largest deviation and goes first, continuing the transfer of Jasper.

In the 9th round, the order of West and Northeast reverses, and West begin to take back in Worth, while Northeast is forced to take from Central, taking a bit more from Jasper.

Before the 10th Round the populations are Central 1.011, Southeast 0.992, West 0.998, and Northeast 0.999. The divisor for the round is 1.

Central continues to transfer Jasper. This gives Northeast a population of 1.010, and the largest deviation. Northeast gives to Southeast. This gives Southeast a population of 1.002 and West a population of 0.998, and the two are equalized with a tiny transfer of Wayne.

All districts have equal population. But we move counties into districts with which they have the largest population in.

Washington and Johnson are transferred from Northeast to Southeast.
Marshall and Jasper from Central to Northeast.
Marion from Central to Southeast.
Worth from West to Northeast.

[jimrtex]

After completion of the first 10 rounds of Give and Take, the total deviation has decreased from 0.392 to 0.144. Because all of Johnson was transferred Southeast now has the surplus and Northeast the deficit.

Populations in order of absolute deviation: Southeast 1.072, Northeast 0.942, West 0.989, Central 0.997.

It is possible to construct a district in eastern Iowa including Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Davenport and Iowa City, but without major swaps in order to encompass Cedar Rapids, this is out of range. So the decision for Southeast was whether to get rid of Dubuque in order to make a more compact district, return Marion to Central (or Northeast) or move rural counties to West.

The southern counties want the counties to the west to serve as a counterbalance to the cities along the river. Johnson (Iowa City) holds the balance of power, and ultimately votes to Give Dubuque to Northeast making the district more centered on Iowa City.

Northeast has a deficit and must Take from any of its three larger neighbors. There is little sentiment to take Story other than from ISU alumni, and there are many UNI and Iowa alumni to reject this. So the choices are to take Dubuque or expand to the west. Ultimately the decision is made to take Cerro Gordo (Mason City). "That will put us right close to a quota:.

West has a deficit and must take from Central or Southeast. Some want to nibble at Boone, but the final decision is to take Wayne from Southeast. Central takes tiny bits of Marion from Southeast.

In the fourth round, Wayne is completely transferred to West, and they begin taking from Lucas.

At the start of the 5th round the populations are:

Southeast 1.035, West 0.983, Northeast 0.985, Central 0.998.

This has reversed the order of Northeast and West, so the West can now take from Northeast, and begins to take back Cerro Gordo. Northeast is force to take from Southeast or Central, and begins to take Dubuque.

This pattern continues through the 10th round.

At that point, West had taken back all of Cerro Gordo, and had just barely began to take from Worth. West had taken all of Wayne and a tad of Lucas, and keeps Wayne.

48.6% of Dubuque had been transferred to Northeast. Since this is not a majority, Dubuque stays with Southeast.

Some observers are wondering whether this system will work out. Others say, let's shift Wayne and see if it makes a difference.

[jimrtex]

At that point, West had taken back all of Cerro Gordo, and had just barely began to take from Worth. West had taken all of Wayne and a tad of Lucas, and keeps Wayne.

48.6% of Dubuque had been transferred to Northeast. Since this is not a majority, Dubuque stays with Southeast.

Some observers are wondering whether this system will work out. Others say, let's shift Wayne and see if it makes a difference.

After another round Lucas was transferred to West, but then it got stuck as it proved impossible to flip Dubuque to Northeast.

Adding another rule. that the largest county had to be switched, so Southeast instead shifted Marion to Northeast. But this seemed a little bit like 'jimrtex ex machina'. Iwould have to whisper in the ears of the voters to make it work.