What if districts could cross through states

[ProgressiveModerate]

Basically every district needs equal population, but they are no longer apportioned by state. Other basic rules of contiguity and VRA still apply (exception of AK and HI which would need to be attatched to the mainland).

A district based entirely in a state needs the approval of that state's government. However, a district that crosses into 2 or more states will need to get the approval of both state governments. This means that Democrats in a state like IL and Republicans in a state like MO may have to compromise since inevitably every state would have leftovers. It'd certainly make things a lot more complicated.

If a district thar crosses state borders can't be agreed upon, the SCOTUS will draw the districts that are issues.

[Schiff for Senate]

Well I mean that sounds very interesting, but the problem here is that on sites like DRA and Districtr you can't draw multi-state districts, so it's kind of hard to see what a potential district like this might look like. Overall I think the problem of gerrymandering may become slightly less severe, because, as you said, blue and red states would occassionally need to compromise. The bigger reason I think this might be a good idea is because it would end disproportionate representation. For instance, Wyoming wouldn't get its own district, though it'd contain the bulk of the population of one district. For another, instead of WV losing its third district, it could have 2 WV-only districts and one district that's split between WV and bordering states. And Montana, instead of getting two whole districts, could have one district in Montana and a second in Montana and some other states. This would fix those sorts of issues, and as I said, another positive effect would be a decrease in gerrymandering. This does sound like a good idea.

[jimrtex]

Basically every district needs equal population, but they are no longer apportioned by state. Other basic rules of contiguity and VRA still apply (exception of AK and HI which would need to be attached to the mainland).

A district based entirely in a state needs the approval of that state's government. However, a district that crosses into 2 or more states will need to get the approval of both state governments. This means that Democrats in a state like IL and Republicans in a state like MO may have to compromise since inevitably every state would have leftovers. It'd certainly make things a lot more complicated.

If a district that crosses state borders can't be agreed upon, the SCOTUS will draw the districts that are issues.

You could have something like the Texas House, where representatives are apportioned among whole counties except if they have a surplus population, in which case an area with a surplus population is joined with another state or surplus area.

If a state's entitlement is defined as being population / quota, where quota is USA_pop / 435 (or whatever number you choose), then define a surplus as being a remainder of between 0.25 and 0.75 of a quota, or a remainder that would result in an average district population in a state deviating from the average by more than 5%.

For example if California were entitled to 52.42 representatives it would have a surplus of 0.42. If West Virginia were entitled to 3.18 representatives it would have a surplus of 0.18 since an average district would have a deviation of 6%.

State's with smaller remainders could be deemed to have a surplus, but only to the extent necessary to be joined with surplus areas of an adjoining state. Let's say that Alabama has a surplus, but Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida do not. Alabama could be joined with one of these states for creation of a district.

When states are joined into an apportionment area, the combined area may not have a surplus (i.e. complementary surpluses should be joined).

A surplus for a state may be divided into multiple areas, but only to the extent necessary to forming a legal district. A plan that has fewer surplus areas defeats any plan with more surplus areas.

Districts may join more than three surplus area may be joined (e.g. a district at the junction of KY, IL, IN).

An area of state with less than a district population may not be created unless necessary for creating equal population districts.

Decide whether to use (1) resident populations (ignoring overseas federal populations), or (2) attribute overseas population to the state capitol (sic), or (3) distribute overseas population on a pro rata basis among the counties of the state.

Define contiguity. Are DE-NJ, MN-MI. RI-NY, AZ-CO, NM-UT contiguous? What about KY-MO.

What are contiguity rules for AK and HI. Is HI contiguous with AK, WA, OR, and CA?

Is AK contiguous with AK, WA, MT, ND, etc.? If MT, how about ID.

Congress has authority to draw congressional districts, and we have just granted it authority to draw interstate districts (in limited circumstances).

So Congress might draw a MI-IN district, and leave a MI area and IN area for the redistricting commissions in each state (or perhaps these are federal commissions as in Canada or Australia or Great Britain).

Districts may not divide a county unless necessary to get a district within 5% of the ideal. However a map that reduces the standard deviation for a state by 0.1% or more defeats a plan with a greater standard deviation. A plan that reduces deviation by a simple swap (one or more counties from District A to District B, in exchange for zero or more counties from District B to District A) replaces the original plan.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Basically every district needs equal population, but they are no longer apportioned by state. Other basic rules of contiguity and VRA still apply (exception of AK and HI which would need to be attached to the mainland).

A district based entirely in a state needs the approval of that state's government. However, a district that crosses into 2 or more states will need to get the approval of both state governments. This means that Democrats in a state like IL and Republicans in a state like MO may have to compromise since inevitably every state would have leftovers. It'd certainly make things a lot more complicated.

If a district that crosses state borders can't be agreed upon, the SCOTUS will draw the districts that are issues.

You could have something like the Texas House, where representatives are apportioned among whole counties except if they have a surplus population, in which case an area with a surplus population is joined with another state or surplus area.

If a state's entitlement is defined as being population / quota, where quota is USA_pop / 435 (or whatever number you choose), then define a surplus as being a remainder of between 0.25 and 0.75 of a quota, or a remainder that would result in an average district population in a state deviating from the average by more than 5%.

For example if California were entitled to 52.42 representatives it would have a surplus of 0.42. If West Virginia were entitled to 3.18 representatives it would have a surplus of 0.18 since an average district would have a deviation of 6%.

State's with smaller remainders could be deemed to have a surplus, but only to the extent necessary to be joined with surplus areas of an adjoining state. Let's say that Alabama has a surplus, but Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida do not. Alabama could be joined with one of these states for creation of a district.

When states are joined into an apportionment area, the combined area may not have a surplus (i.e. complementary surpluses should be joined).

A surplus for a state may be divided into multiple areas, but only to the extent necessary to forming a legal district. A plan that has fewer surplus areas defeats any plan with more surplus areas.

Districts may join more than three surplus area may be joined (e.g. a district at the junction of KY, IL, IN).

An area of state with less than a district population may not be created unless necessary for creating equal population districts.

Decide whether to use (1) resident populations (ignoring overseas federal populations), or (2) attribute overseas population to the state capitol (sic), or (3) distribute overseas population on a pro rata basis among the counties of the state.

Define contiguity. Are DE-NJ, MN-MI. RI-NY, AZ-CO, NM-UT contiguous? What about KY-MO.

What are contiguity rules for AK and HI. Is HI contiguous with AK, WA, OR, and CA?

Is AK contiguous with AK, WA, MT, ND, etc.? If MT, how about ID.

Congress has authority to draw congressional districts, and we have just granted it authority to draw interstate districts (in limited circumstances).

So Congress might draw a MI-IN district, and leave a MI area and IN area for the redistricting commissions in each state (or perhaps these are federal commissions as in Canada or Australia or Great Britain).

Districts may not divide a county unless necessary to get a district within 5% of the ideal. However a map that reduces the standard deviation for a state by 0.1% or more defeats a plan with a greater standard deviation. A plan that reduces deviation by a simple swap (one or more counties from District A to District B, in exchange for zero or more counties from District B to District A) replaces the original plan.

For simplicity let's assume these rules for pairing of states:
states not in the Continental US have to be attached to the closest Continental US state
states in the Continental US have to be paired with states that have land borders with them

[jimrtex]

This is the base apportionment. ENTITLE is the POP divided by the quota of 761,169. The overseas population is included in the apportionment. SURP is the remainder beyond the number of whole representatives. For AK, WY, and VT, this is the total entitlement. ROUND is the simple rounded apportionment. DEV is the deviation (i.e. ENTITLE/ROUND - 1.0).

A value of TRUE for REQSHARED means that the state must be included in a cross-boundary arrangement. A value of FALSE means the state could be districted totally within its own boundaries. For a value of FALSE, two conditions must be met:

SURPLUS < 0.250  OR  SURPLUS > 0.750; AND
|DEV| < 5%.

For example, AL has an absolute deviation with greater than 5% with 7 districts, whole AZ has a surplus of 0.405.

23 states could be self-contained, and HI and AK fortunately qualified.

SHARED is TRUE if I included a state in a cross-border district, even though it could be in a self-contained state.

States in RED will be self-contained. States in ORANGE will be in cross-border districts.

STATE	POP	ENTITLE	SURP	ROUND	DEV	REQSHARED	SHARED
Alabama	5030053	6.608	0.608	7	-5.6%	TRUE	TRUE
Alaska	736081	0.967	0.967	1	-3.3%	FALSE	FALSE
Arizona	7158923	9.405	0.405	9	4.5%	TRUE	TRUE
Arkansas	3013756	3.959	0.959	4	-1.0%	FALSE	FALSE
California	39576757	51.995	0.995	52	0.0%	FALSE	FALSE
Colorado	5782171	7.596	0.596	8	-5.0%	TRUE	TRUE
Connecticut	3608298	4.740	0.740	5	-5.2%	TRUE	TRUE
Delaware	990837	1.302	0.302	1	30.2%	TRUE	TRUE
Florida	21570527	28.339	0.339	28	1.2%	TRUE	TRUE
Georgia	10725274	14.091	0.091	14	0.6%	FALSE	TRUE
Hawaii	1460137	1.918	0.918	2	-4.1%	FALSE	FALSE
Idaho	1841377	2.419	0.419	2	21.0%	TRUE	TRUE
Illinois	12822739	16.846	0.846	17	-0.9%	FALSE	FALSE
Indiana	6790280	8.921	0.921	9	-0.9%	FALSE	FALSE
Iowa	3192406	4.194	0.194	4	4.9%	FALSE	FALSE
Kansas	2940865	3.864	0.864	4	-3.4%	FALSE	FALSE
Kentucky	4509342	5.924	0.924	6	-1.3%	FALSE	FALSE
Louisiana	4661468	6.124	0.124	6	2.1%	FALSE	FALSE
Maine	1363582	1.791	0.791	2	-10.4%	TRUE	TRUE
Maryland	6185278	8.126	0.126	8	1.6%	FALSE	TRUE
Massachusetts	7033469	9.240	0.240	9	2.7%	FALSE	FALSE
Michigan	10084442	13.249	0.249	13	1.9%	FALSE	TRUE
Minnesota	5709752	7.501	0.501	8	-6.2%	TRUE	TRUE
Mississippi	2963914	3.894	0.894	4	-2.7%	FALSE	FALSE
Missouri	6160281	8.093	0.093	8	1.2%	FALSE	FALSE
Montana	1085407	1.426	0.426	1	42.6%	TRUE	TRUE
Nebraska	1963333	2.579	0.579	3	-14.0%	TRUE	TRUE
Nevada	3108462	4.084	0.084	4	2.1%	FALSE	TRUE
New Hampshire	1379089	1.812	0.812	2	-9.4%	TRUE	TRUE
New Jersey	9294493	12.211	0.211	12	1.8%	FALSE	FALSE
New Mexico	2120220	2.785	0.785	3	-7.2%	TRUE	TRUE
New York	20215751	26.559	0.559	27	-1.6%	TRUE	TRUE
North Carolina	10453948	13.734	0.734	14	-1.9%	TRUE	TRUE
North Dakota	779702	1.024	0.024	1	2.4%	FALSE	FALSE
Ohio	11808848	15.514	0.514	16	-3.0%	TRUE	TRUE
Oklahoma	3963516	5.207	0.207	5	4.1%	FALSE	FALSE
Oregon	4241500	5.572	0.572	6	-7.1%	TRUE	TRUE
Pennsylvania	13011844	17.095	0.095	17	0.6%	FALSE	FALSE
Rhode Island	1098163	1.443	0.443	1	44.3%	TRUE	TRUE
South Carolina	5124712	6.733	0.733	7	-3.8%	TRUE	TRUE
South Dakota	887770	1.166	0.166	1	16.6%	TRUE	TRUE
Tennessee	6916897	9.087	0.087	9	1.0%	FALSE	FALSE
Texas	29183290	38.340	0.340	38	0.9%	TRUE	TRUE
Utah	3275252	4.303	0.303	4	7.6%	TRUE	TRUE
Vermont	643503	0.845	0.845	1	-15.5%	TRUE	TRUE
Virginia	8654542	11.370	0.370	11	3.4%	TRUE	TRUE
Washington	7715946	10.137	0.137	10	1.4%	FALSE	FALSE
West Virginia	1795045	2.358	0.358	2	17.9%	TRUE	TRUE
Wisconsin	5897473	7.748	0.748	8	-3.2%	TRUE	TRUE
Wyoming	577719	0.759	0.759	1	-24.1%	TRUE	TRUE

[Stuart98]

Like most good ideas that would alter the structure or composition of the federal government, it would never happen because you'd never get enough states to agree to it.

[jimrtex]

These are my proposed combinations of states. For these groups, ROUND is the total number of representtives for the group.

 

STATE	POP	ENTITLE	SURP	ROUND	DEV
OR-ID	6082877	7.991	0.991	8	-0.1%
MN-WI-SD-MT	13580402	17.842	0.842	18	-0.9%
OH-MI	21893290	28.763	0.763	29	-0.8%
CT-RI	4706461	6.183	0.183	6	3.1%
ME-NH-VT-NY	23601925	31.007	0.007	31	0.0%
WV-MD-DE	8971160	11.786	0.786	12	-1.8%
VA-NC	19108490	25.104	0.104	25	0.4%
SC-GA	15849986	20.823	0.823	21	-0.8%
FL-AL	26600580	34.947	0.947	35	-0.2%
WY-NE-CO	8323223	10.935	0.935	11	-0.6%
TX-NM	31303510	41.126	0.126	41	0.3%
AZ-UT-NV	13542637	17.792	0.792	18	-1.2%

Ideally, I would pair two states that could not be self-contained but this did not work out except for:

OR-ID(8): 5 in OR, 2 in ID, and one 58% OR-42% ID.

TX-NM(41): 38 in TX, 2 in NM, and one 78% NM-22% TX. This might cross over in El Paso.

FL-AL(35): 28 in FL, 6 in in AL, and one 62% AL-38% FL. This might improve the Mobile district by going in to Pensacola.

NC-VA(25): 13 in NC, 11 in VA, and one 62% NC-38% VA.

CT-RI(6): 4 in CT, 1 in RI, and one 60% CT-30% RI.

ME-NH-VT-NY(31), 1 in ME, 1 in NH, 26 in NY, one 79% ME-21% NH, one 60% NH-40% VT, and one 55% NY-45% VT.

ME has only one neighbor, and the combination is even further off. We could go south into MA, but that leaves VT isolated, and it can't be paired with NY alone. The group results in VT being divided, and the surplus from NH, but overall the districts might not be so unreasonable:

Continue the southern ME district on down the coast into NH. This might get Kennebec and Androscoggin into the northern district.

VT gets divided length wise which is the traditional division of the state. The Connecticut river portion of VT gets matched up with Connecticut river portion of NH. That leaves the whole district in the state in Manchester-Nashua instead of splitting the two.

The western part of VT gets added to the North Country district in NY, which has begun to leak out of the North Country. This keeps it pulled up more along the Canadian border.

WV-DE-MD(12): 1 in DE, 2 in WV, 7 in MD, one in MD 67%-DE 33%, one in MD 60%-WV 40%.

DE with a surplus of 0.302 has no neighbors with significant surpluses, and second neighbors VA, NY, OH, and WV are involved in other groupings. A WV-OH pairing was the easiest to break apart.

While as a group of states the trio seems unwieldy, the two cross-border districts may be quite reasonable. DE and WV get a little bit extra representation, while the Eastern Shore and western Maryland districts get some extra population. If MD does elect 9 representatives, it will be likely to have 2 Republicans.

An alternative would place 8 whole districts in MD, and a single cross-border district of WV 40%-DE 33%-MD 20%. The MD corridor of around 205K persons would be awful even by MD standards. Note the corridor would not have to be along the northern MD border, so long as there are whole districts north of the corridor and south of the corridor. This corridor would be worse than the old I-95 district in NC, or the mark of Zorro in LA.

OH-MI(29): 15 in OH, 13 in MI, and one OH 64%-MI 36%.

With the OH-WV pairing broken, MI is the next choice. The cross-border district would take up some of the Monroe and southern tier area of MI which is sometimes hard to place in a district, as well as eliminating a Toledo-Cleveland district.

SC-GA(21): 14 in GA, 6 in SC, and one in SC 79%-GA 21%.

The deficit for SC of 0.267 is just outside the permitted range of 25%. Conceivably it could be ignored one did not use a hard rule for recognizing surpluses.

WI-MN-SD-MT(18): 7 in WI, 7 in MN, 1 in MT, and one WI 82%-MN 18%, one SD 62%-MN 38%, and one SD 56%-MT 44%.

WI-MN could be paired, and WY-SD could be paired, but that leaves MT isolated. MT-ID could be paired but that would leave OR isolated. So this group of four is intended to transfer a surplus from WI-MN to MT.

SD could conceivably have one whole district, but then the cross-border seat would be MT 44%-MN 38%-SD 18% with a strip across northern SD of 133K connecting eastern MT with southwestern MN. Due to the sparsity of population and missing both Rapid City and Sioux Fall, the strip might be reasonably thick, but SD might prefer to have a majority in two districts with a more natural east-west split.

AZ-UT-NV(9): 9 in AZ, 4 in UT, 4 in NV, and one AZ 52%-UT 35%-NV 13%

AZ and UT alone would have a surplus of 0.708 or a bit less than the 75% threshold. 99K from NV is added in. The NV area could be in the southernmost tip or in eastern NV linked in from UT. Like in the case of GA added to SC, this might be avoided with a more lenient standard.

CO-NE-WY(11): 7 in CO, 2 in NE, one WY 76%-CO 24%, and one NE 59%-CO 41%.

With WY-SD and CO-NE work as pairings, but with SD used with MT, WY needs to be placed with both CO and NE. With two cross-border seats it is best to split the surplus areas in CO, the largest state. The two areas could be in the northwestern corner and eastern plains.

Seats lost: RI, CO, MN-WI, ME-NH (though they are compensated by a partial seat)
Seats gained: NY, MD, OH, AZ

There are 31 apportionment regions, 19 are single state. and 12 are multi-state.

I have already done ND and AK.