►
From YouTube: NCSL Redistricting Seminar | All Things Criteria
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Welcome
to
this
afternoon
session,
on
all
things,
criteria
where
there
will
be
four
of
us
talking
about
the
criteria
that
some
states
apply
when
drawing
districts.
I
have
been
asked
to
do
some
housekeeping,
so
we
do
want
this
to
be
an
interactive
experience
for
all
of
you.
So
I
want
to
point
out
a
couple
of
key
features
on
this
page
to
the
right
of
the
screen.
Where
you
can
see
me,
you
will
note
tabs
that
say,
chat
and
q.
A
the
chat
function
is
to
allow
you
to
interact
with
colleagues
attending
the
session.
A
A
I
lead
a
team
that
drafts
bills
and
amendments
to
bills
in
the
areas
of
civil
and
criminal
law,
education
and
public
benefits,
but
I'm
also
the
one
in
the
office
who
handles
issues
dealing
with
redistricting
and
given
the
subject
area
of
my
team,
it
may
sound
strange
that
I'm
the
one
who
handles
redistricting,
but
it
goes
back
to
2001
in
2001
I
was
asked
to
help
staff
the
colorado's
reapportionment
commission
and
ever
since
then
the
office
has
not
let
me
get
away
from
redistricting,
that's
not
to
say
that
I
really
have
wanted
to
get
away
from
redistricting.
A
I
think
it's
fascinating
and
it's
a
nice
change
to
what
I
am
usually
doing.
So
if
I
started
in
2001,
you
notice
that
this
will
be
my
third
round
of
redistricting
and
when
I
was
preparing
the
street.
This
speech
I
was
going
to
you
know
mention
that
I'm
sure
there
were
some
people
in
the
seminar
who
are
on
their
fourth
or
fifth
round
of
redistricting,
and
I
was
amazed
to
hear
this
morning
or
this
afternoon
that
there
were
there
was
someone
who
is
on
his
seventh
round
of
redistricting.
So
that's
off
to
that
person.
A
A
A
First
off,
when
you
you're
looking
at
a
blank
page
of
your
state,
where
do
you
start
well
the
criteria
and
sort
of
the
priority
that
your
state
has
for
the
criteria
tells
you
where
you
should
start
is
maintaining
county
boundaries.
Most
important
is
that
are
there
issues
about
minority
voting
rights
that
you
need
to
consider?
That
may
be
where
you
want
to
start
drawing
your
plan.
A
The
criteria
is
also
useful
when
you're
comparing
plans
otherwise
you're
just
looking
at
you
know
lines
on
a
map.
How
many
times
does
this
plan
split
a
county?
How
many
times
does
you
know
this
county?
This
plan
split
something
else.
A
A
A
That's
where
they,
the
court,
held
that
political
gerrymandering
was
non-just
non-justiceable
in
federal
court,
that
is
federal
courts
won't
hear
claims
that
political
gerrymandering
is
are
unconstitutional,
and
the
court
did
that
because
it
couldn't
fashion
a
standard
by
which
to
judge
how
much,
how
much
political
gerrymandering
is
unconstitutional.
Where
do
you
draw
that
line?
A
As
I
mentioned,
there
are
are
federal
criteria
that
every
state
must
follow.
First,
equal
population
among
districts
for
congressional
districts.
This
means
mathematical,
a
precise
mathematical
equality.
A
Oftentimes
states
will
have
a
deviation
between
the
most
populous
district
and
the
least
populist
districts
of
only
one
or
two
people,
they're
that
close
in
all
other
districts
under
the
14th
amendment.
It
only
requires
substantial
equality,
which
gives
you
more
room
for
a
broader
deviation
than
is
required
for
the
congressional
one,
racial
discrimination
under
the
14th
amendment
you
can't
intentionally
discriminate
against
minorities,
and,
along
with
that,
you
have
to
comply
with
the
federal
voting
rights
act.
A
A
The
traditional
criteria
includes
compactness,
avoiding
strange
arms
of
one
district
stretching
out
into
another,
and
there
are
actually
mathematical
formulas
that
can
be
used
to
measure
compactness
preservation
of
communities
of
interest.
Now
this
may
be
keeping
neighborhoods
in
a
city
together,
or
it
may
be,
maybe
keeping
economic
interests
such
as
agriculture,
together
in
one
district
contiguity,
all
parts
of
a
district
must
be
touching
the
other
parts
of
the
district.
A
You
can't
have
a
island
from
one
district
into
in
the
middle
of
another
district,
preserving
political
subdivisions
so,
except
when
necessary,
to
equalize
population,
you
shouldn't
split
counties
or
cities
and
towns,
and
I'm
going
to
break
away
from
the
list
for
just
a
second
here.
Not
only
do
you
need
to
consider
the
the
criteria
themselves,
but
you
need
to
consider
the
priority
in
which
you
are
to
follow
when
you're,
following
the
criteria
so
for
splitting
counties
and
cities.
A
If,
in
fact,
you
need
to
do
that
for
to
equalize
the
population,
those
federal
requirements
are
above
the
state
requirements
of
not
splitting
those
another
issue.
Even
within
that
is,
do
are
you
to
preserve
county
boundaries,
or
do
you
preserve
city
and
town
boundaries
in
colorado?
At
least,
we
have
several
cities
that
cross
county
boundaries
are
in
and
are
in
more
than
one
county.
A
Indeed,
in
the
city
of
aurora,
which
is
the
second
or
third
largest
city
in
colorado
that
stretches
across
three
different
counties:
it's
your
priority,
preserving
those
county
boundaries,
or
is
it
preserving
the
city
boundaries
back
to
the
criteria,
preservation
of
the
course
of
prior
districts?
This
is
so
that
the
people
have
some
continuity.
They
know
what
district
they
reside
in.
A
They
may
know
their
representative
and
know
how
to
get
in
touch
with
that
representative,
avoiding
pitting
incumbents
against
one
another,
and
I
think
this
is
so
that
an
incumbent
is
not
ousted
because
of
redistricting.
A
A
A
A
Another
one
is
prohibiting
the
use
of
political
data
in
political
and
election
data
in
drawing
districts,
and
this
is
really
aimed
to
minimize
the
political
gerrymandering
so
that-
and
that
is
political
gerrymandering,
so
you
draw
districts.
So
the
candidates
of
your
party
have
the
chance
to
have
the
best
chance
of
winning
the
most
number
of
districts
and
the
final
new
criteria.
A
B
Thanks
jerry,
I
appreciate
it
and
it's
been
great.
You
know
working
with
you
on
this
panel.
I
have
to
say
that
one
of
the
great
things
about
ncsl,
at
least
from
you
know
my
perspective
as
nonpartisan
staff-
is
that
you
get
to
have
contact
with
people
who
do
similar
work
in
other
states,
and
you
know
I'm
an
attorney
there.
Just
frankly
aren't
that
many
attorneys
it's
a
small
fraction
of
attorneys.
B
You
know
in
the
united
states
that
are
legislative
drafting
attorneys,
so
it's
it's
really
good
to
be
able
to
to
meet
people
like
jerry
and
others
yeah.
So
I'm
mike
gallagher,
I'm
a
legislative
drafting
attorney
with
the
wisconsin
legislative
reference
bureau.
I
drafted
a
number
of
subject
areas
that
include
state
government
and
finance,
public
records,
open
meetings
and
and
other
areas
and,
of
course,
elections
which
I'm
sneaking
suspicion
is
going
to
be
a
a
rather
busy
drafting
area.
B
This
session
with
respect
to
redistricting-
and
I
should
say
also
that
joe
and
stacey-
and
I
we
pretty
much
work
as
a
team
at
lrb-
dealing
with
all
things
you
know
related
to
elections
with
respect
to
redistrict.
B
Most
of
what
we've
done
so
far
is
to
train
local
governments
on
the
law
and
process
related
to
redrawing
local
district
boundaries.
So
now
we're
turning
our
attention
to
state
legislative
and
congressional
redistricting
in
wisconsin.
Redistricting
bills
are
passed
just
like
any
other
law
go
through
the
legislature.
It's
subject
to
veto
by
the
governor
and
lrb
actually
drafts
the
bill.
Well,
actually
we
have.
B
We
have
computer
programming
that
converts
maps
into
you
know
an
actual
bill,
so
the
2010
cycle
was
was
a
notable
exception,
but
most
of
the
time
in
most
recent
decades,
courts
have
ended
up
putting
maps
in
place
in
wisconsin.
B
So
the
two
traditional
redistricting
principles
that
I'm
going
to
be
speaking
about
are
compactness
and
preservation
of
communities
of
interest.
B
Compactness
represents
the
principle
that
districts
should
be
reasonably
geographically
contained.
Another
way
of
thinking
of
it
is
that
the
distance
between
all
parts
of
a
district
you
know,
should
be
minimized
to
the
extent
possible.
We'll
talk
about
that
later.
40
states
have
a
compactness
requirement
in
their
constitutions
or
statutes
with
respect
to
state
legislative
and
congressional
redistricting.
B
So,
for
example,
the
new
york
constitution
requires
that
the
state's
congressional
and
state
legislative
districts
be
as
compact
informed
as
practicable.
I
don't
know
why
we
always
want
to
use
that
word
in
statutes
and
constitution
as
opposed
to
possible,
but
anyways.
It's
it's
harder
to
pronounce
so
there's
this
is.
This
is
very
standard
language
and
there's
virtually
virtually
identical,
compactness
requirement
in
wisconsin's
constitution,
but
only
for
the
state's
state
assembly
districts,
not
for
the
state
senate
states
and
districts
and
congressional
districts.
B
As
the
u.s
supreme
court
said
in
javi
reno
in
1993
districts,
with
quote
dramatically,
irregular
shapes
may
have
sufficient
probative
force
to
call
for
an
explanation.
End
quote:
in
chavi
reno
the
supreme
court
was
asked
to
evaluate
two
majority
african-american
congressional
districts.
I
should
go
to
that
next
slide.
B
Majority
african-american
congressional
districts
in
in
north
carolina,
the
more
unusually
shaped
of
the
two,
was
the
12th
congressional
district
and
I
don't
know
how
well
you
can
see
it
from
your
perspective,
but
it's
the
light
purple
district
that
is
in
the
center
of
the
state,
and
you
can
see
that
it
completely
bisects
or
appears
to
at
least
that
light
green
district.
So
that's
the
district,
we're
talking
about
the
the
supreme
court
described
it
in
a
bit
of
a
colorful
way.
B
B
B
The
supreme
court
ultimately
held
in
1996
that
the
district
was
in
fact
an
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymander
and
it
sounds
like
you're
training
on
the
voting
rights
act
and
perhaps
racial
gerrymandering
is
coming
after
this
presentation
at
some
point
in
the
you
know,
in
the
in
the
program,
but
at
least
you'll
be
a
little
bit
familiar
with
some
of
the
terms.
B
B
Well,
there
isn't
a
single
generally
agreed
upon
standard,
although
there
are
mathematical
formulas
used,
including
ones
that
evaluate
compactness.
You
know
based
on
how
closely
a
district
resembles
a
circle,
but
the
supreme
court
uses
a
little
bit
less
sophisticated
test.
Let's
say
they
use
the
eyeball
test,
and
you
know
looking
at
this
map,
you
can
see
well
the
eyeball
test,
it's
a
pretty
good
test.
So,
if
you
look
at
the
this,
this
is,
of
course,
the
old
congressional
district
map
for
north
carolina.
You
can
see
that
you
can
easily
pick
out.
B
You
know
with
your
eyes
the
relatively
compact
districts
and
distinguish
them.
You
know
from
districts
that
are
that
are
much
less
compact,
so
like,
for
example,
the
dark
green
one
in
the
center
of
the
state
looks
pretty
compact
and
this
large
brown
one
is
district,
one,
the
darker
brown
one,
so
that
was
the
other
district
that
was
at
issue
in
javi,
reno
and
the
court.
I
think
the
court
described
it
as
a
looking
like
a
a
rorschach
inkblot
test
anyways.
I
don't
think
that
district
was
ever
overturned.
B
Only
the
12th
congressional
district,
so
compactness
is
a
redistricting
criteria
that
applies
to
the
physical
geography
covered
by
a
redistricting
plan.
Respecting
communities
of
interest,
on
the
other
hand,
is
a
principle
that
takes
into
account
the
characteristics
of
the
people
themselves,
who
reside
in
diverse
areas
throughout
a
state
in
general.
Preserving
communities
of
interest
means
attempting
to
group
like-minded
or
similar
people
in
a
district
so
that
they
may
elect
representatives
of
their
choice,
who
reflect
their
common
values
in
a
manner
relevant
to
legislative
representation.
B
So
some
states
require
respecting
communities
of
interest
without
elaborating
at
all
on
on
what
that
means.
So,
for
example,
this
is
a
good
example.
New
york's
constitution
requires
simply
that
the
state's
redistricting
commission
consider
the
maintenance
of
communities
of
interest
in
drawing
congressional
and
state
legislative
maps.
B
Other
states
have
a
communities
of
interest
requirement,
but
they
don't
actually
use
that.
You
know
the
magical
words
communities
of
interest,
so
the
constitution
in
alaska,
for
example.
You
know
that
provides
a
good
example.
It
requires
that
districts
for
the
state's
house
of
representatives
be
formed
of
territory
containing
as
nearly
as
practicable.
B
Examples
include
urban,
rural,
industrial
and
agricultural
areas
as
well
as
areas
in
which
the
people
share
similar
living
standards,
use
the
same
transportation
facilities
have
similar
work
opportunities
or
have
access
to
the
same
media
of
communication
relevant
to
the
election
process,
so
that
provision
you
know
pretty
well
sums
up
the
kinds
of
interests
that
make
up
communities
of
interest,
for
you
know
for
purposes
of
redistricting,
so
before
I
hand
you
off
to
stacy,
I
just
want
to
make
a
couple
of
other
points.
B
However,
when
communities
of
interest
align
with
a
specific
population's
race
or
ethnicity
or
ethnic
characteristics,
care
must
be
taken
to
ensure
that
legitimate
political
considerations
and
not
race,
predominate
in
drawing
a
district's
boundaries,
but
there's
a
big
caveat
unless
it's
necessary
to
do
so.
In
order
to
comply
with
the
with
voting
rights
act
of
1965.,
if
not
a
court
might
find
that
the
district
is
an
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymander
and,
incidentally,
in
the
in
the
litigation
in
chavez
reno.
B
The
litigation
over
north
carolina's
12th
congressional
district,
one
of
the
defenses
that
was
raised,
was
that
the
the
district
was
drawn
based
on
communities
of
interest
not
based
on
on
race,
and
I
think
what
the
court
ultimately
said
is
that
it
didn't
find
that
the
legislature
actually
had
information
about
communities
of
interest
in
front
of
it
when
it
was
drawing
the
when
it
was
drawing
the
the
district.
So
that's
something
that's
important
to
keep
in
mind
all
right.
B
Second
thing,
so
you
can
see
that
if
you
draw
district
boundaries
to
circumscribe
communities
of
interest,
the
principle
of
compact
you
know
compactness
may
have
to
give
way
right,
at
least
to
some
extent,
sometimes
to
a
great
extent.
B
So
these
two
principles
they
are
in
tension
with
each
other,
but
neither
is
absolute.
There
is
no
requirement
that
districts
be
perfectly
compact.
Consideration
of
other
redistricting
criteria,
such
as
communities
of
interest,
will
often
mean
that
the
district
is
not
nearly
as
compact
as
it
could
otherwise
be,
and
so
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to.
B
C
Thanks
mike
good
afternoon,
everyone,
my
name
is
stacy
duros
and
I
am
a
legislative
analyst
at
the
wisconsin
legislative
reference
bureau.
Legislative
analysts
provide
confidential
nonpartisan
research
and
to
the
wisconsin
legislature,
as
well
as
to
state
and
local
officials
and
agencies,
as
well
as
the
public
analysts,
also
work
closely
with
lrb
drafting
attorneys
on
different
subject
areas.
So,
as
mike
had
mentioned,
I
work
closely
on
elections
related
research
with
mike
and
with
joe
who
you
will
be
hearing
from
shortly
and
he's
covering
two
other
traditional
redis
redistricting
principles.
C
Today,
I'm
going
to
cover
the
two
most
common,
traditional
redistricting
principles
that
are
currently
imposed
by
the
states
on
congressional
or
legislative
districts.
The
first
principle
that
I'll
be
discussing
is
contiguity
and
the
second
will
be
the
preservation
of
political
subdivisions.
So
with
that,
let's
start
with
contiguity.
C
Contiguity
refers
to
the
general
principle
that
all
areas
within
a
district
be
physically
adjacent.
A
district
is
considered
to
be
contiguous
if
all
parts
of
that
district
are
in
physical
contact
with
some
other
part
of
the
district.
For
example,
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
screen,
the
yellow
district.
On
the
left
hand,
side
is
considered
to
be
contiguous
because
you
can
travel
from
any
point
in
that
district
without
crossing
the
district's
boundaries.
C
In
contrast,
looking
at
the
blue
district
on
the
right
hand,
side,
it
is
not
considered
to
be
contiguous
because
you
cannot
travel
from
any
point
in
that
particular
district
without
crossing
the
district's
boundaries.
In
other
words,
some
parts
of
that
district
are
not
connected
to
the
other
parts
again
with
the
pencil
idea.
Imagine
being
able
to
trace
the
blue
district's
borders
with
a
pencil,
and
so
you
would
at
some
point
have
to
pick
up
that
pencil
to
reach
other
parts
of
the
district
that
are
not
connected
to
the
district
itself
as
a
whole.
C
C
You're,
looking
at
a
state
assembly
district
map
for
wisconsin's
47th
assembly
district,
the
district
in
question
that
I'm
going
to
talk
about
today
is
shaded
in
orange
and
outlined
in
a
black,
bold
box.
You
can
see
that
parts
of
the
orange
assembly
district
47
do
not
appear
to
be
connected
or
attached
to
the
rest
of
the
district.
C
They
look
like
small
orange
islands
that
are
surrounded
by
a
sea
of
purple
and
it
resembles
the
non-contiguous
blue
district
that
we
saw
in
the
previous
slide.
However,
to
foreshadow
my
next
talking
point,
this
district
is
drawn
in
such
a
way
as
to
adhere
to
a
different
traditional
redistricting
principle,
mainly
the
preservation
of
political
subdivisions.
C
These
existing
political
boundaries
can
be
taken
into
account
in
order
to
keep
existing
constituencies
within
one
district
together,
rather
than
splitting
that
particular
constituency
across
multiple
districts
and
44
states
include
the
provision
of
preserving
political
subdivisions
in
one
form
or
another,
whether
in
their
constitution
or
statutes,
and
whether
it
applies
to
their
legislative
districts
or
their
congressional
districts
or
again
both
the
next
example
is
a
simple
one.
Just
to
demonstrate
the
principle.
C
C
However,
the
image
on
the
right
crosses
multiple
county
boundaries,
which
could
potentially
conflict
with
the
preservation
of
those
political
boundaries.
In
practice,
the
principle
of
adhering
to
existing
political
subdivisions
is
pretty
flexible,
because
most
states
don't
have
a
detailed
set
of
criteria
that
describe
how
counties
and
municipalities
should
be
split
up
or
preserved.
C
Additionally,
some
municipalities
cross
county
lines
themselves.
So
if
map
makers
are
strictly
adhering
to
county
boundaries,
that
could
mean
splitting
up
a
particular
municipality
into
two
district.
Other
redistricting
principles
may
be
at
play.
That
would
account
for
these
splits,
for
example,
if
the
map
maker
needed
to
make
two
districts
equal
in
terms
of
population,
it
would
make
sense
to
potentially
cross
those
political
boundaries
in
order
to
adhere
to
this
federal
requirement.
C
You
have
already
seen
the
image
on
the
right.
It
is
once
again
the
47th
assembly
district
in
wisconsin
shaded
in
orange,
but
this
time
without
a
black
box,
the
image
on
the
left
displays
the
town
boundaries
for
the
town
of
blooming
grove,
wisconsin
and
those
town
boundaries
are
actually
outlined
in
red.
C
C
C
It
all
depends
on
exactly
what
the
map
makers
goals
are
and
if
they
are
prioritizing
geographical
principles
like
contiguity
or
if
they're
prioritizing
political
principles
like
the
preservation
of
communities
of
interest
when
they're
drawing
a
particular
district.
With
that,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
my
colleague,
joe.
D
Thank
you,
stacy,
I'm
I'm
joe
cry:
I'm
a
senior
legislative
attorney
for
the
wisconsin
legislative
reference
bureau.
I've
spent
most
of
my
23
years
at
the
bureau
of
doing
taxes,
but
over
the
last
decade,
or
so
since
the
last
round
of
redistricting
I've
been
involved
in
election
law.
D
I
want
to
digress
just
quickly
mike
mentioned
population
equality
and
doing
it
as
nearly
as
practicable
for
congress,
as
opposed
to
what
is
possible
and
making
the
distinction
between
those
two
terms,
and
it
reminds
me
of
the
way
that
peter
watson
described
it.
Peter
did
redistricting
for
many
years
and
I
believe
he
worked
for
the
minnesota
state
senate.
D
D
D
D
D
Moving
on
to
protecting
incumbents
with
regard
to
avoiding
pitting
incumbents
against
each
other
or
otherwise
protecting
the
incumbents,
that
principle
is
also
considered
a
race,
neutral
principle,
generally
speaking,
that
also
promotes
content
continuity
and
stability
representation.
D
However,
the
more
widely
held
take
on
this
is
expressed
well
in
a
recent
redistributing
report
from
the
state
of
arkansas
that
states
that
avoiding
pitting
incumbents
against
one
another
respects
the
will
of
the
people
who
chose
that
incumbent
at
a
recent
election
now
to
put
kind
of
a
different,
spin
or
different
perspective
on
protecting
incumbents,
pitting
incumbents
against
one
another
tends
to
get
some
unwanted
attention,
some
negative
attention,
with
the
courts
and
with
partisans
alike.
D
At
least
that
has
been
the
case
with
the
court
drawn
maps
and
the
court
decisions
in
the
state
of
wisconsin
it.
It
many
times
appears
to
the
court
to
be
at
least
circumstantial
evidence.
That
partisanship
has
played
too
big
a
role
in
the
drafting
of
the
map.
I'm
not
talking
about
gerrymandering
but
in
particular,
but
just
the
way,
a
court
kind
of
evaluates
any
map
before
it
or
how
it
goes
about
producing
its
own
map.
D
Probably
more
importantly,
the
ncsl
redistricting
2020
guidebook,
which
I've
already
mentioned,
cites
the
supreme
court
decision
in
abrams
and
v
johnson
for
this
proposition
that
when
considering
factors
for
redistricting,
protecting
incumbents
should
be
subordinate
to
other
redistricting
goals,
because
it's
and
I'm
quoting
the
district
court,
inherently
more
political.
D
The
state
picked
up
one
seat
after
1990
census,
so
they
did
have
to
go
about
reapportionment
as
well
as
drawing
on
completely
new
districts
to
compensate
for
the
population
changes.
At
that
time.
Georgia
was
a
covered
jurisdiction
under
section
five
of
the
voting
rights
act,
so
its
plans
were
subject
to
pre-clearance
by
doj.
D
The
plan
ultimately
approved
by
the
department
of
justice
created
three
majority
black
districts,
and
that
was
the
plan
in
place
for
the
1992
general
election,
but
based
on
challenges.
After
that
election,
the
district
court
found
that
race
was
the
predominant
factor
in
the
creation
of
three
majority
black
districts
put
another
way.
The
district
court
found
that
creating
more
than
one
majority
black
district
would
subordinate
traditional
redistricting
principles
and
allow
race
to
predominate.
D
So
to
get
back
to
the
principles.
I'm
trying
to
talk
about
here
when
examining
the
map
drawing
process
by
the
district
court.
The
supreme
court
noted
that
the
district
court
first
determined
where
to
locate
new
district
11
and
chose
an
area
of
significant
population
growth
near
atlanta
that
would
affect
the
fewest
counties.
D
It's
also
important
to
note
here
that
the
appellants
had
also
challenged
the
district
court's
plan
as
violating
the
constitutional
requirement
of
one
person.
One
vote
based
on
the
plan's
alleged
failure
to
achieve
population
equality
as
nearly
as
practicable
as
mike
had
mentioned
our
phrase
there.
The
district
court
had
created
a
plan
with
an
overall
population
deviation
of
0.35
and
an
average
deviation
among
all
the
districts
of
0.11,
lower
deviations
actually
than
the
1992
plan
approved
by
doj,
and
so
as
kind
of
a
summary
of
the
importance
of
these
traditional
registering
principles.
A
Thank
you
joe,
so
you
just
heard
about
the
traditional
redistricting
principles.
There
are
some
new
ones.
The
traditional
ones
mostly
arose
starting
in
the
1960s
when
redistricting
became
important
because
of
supreme
court
cases
more
recently,
some
some
people
and
academics
have
questioned
some
of
the
traditional
redistricting
principles,
so
some
18
states
criteria
actually
prohibit
the
entity
that
draws
the
districts
from
using
political
or
election
data
in
drawing
plans.
A
Here's
the
the
language
from
the
montana
constitution,
so
the
computer
programs
that
are
used
now
they
they
start
with
the
population
and
demographic
data
from
the
census
bureau,
but
you're
able
to
add
additional
data.
As
was
noted
in
an
earlier
session,
the
election
records
actually
show
the
address
and
party
affiliation
of
every
registered
voter.
A
Additionally,
you
can
get
the
election
results
for
the
last
couple
of
elections,
and
while
you
may
not
be
able
to
break
that
down
to
the
census
block,
because
we
don't
know
how
individuals
voted,
you
can
at
least
get
the
information
for
the
precinct
or
in
census,
talk
the
voting.
Tal
voting,
tally,
district
or
vtd
to
get
an
impression
as
to
how
people
in
that
neighborhood
voted,
and
with
that
information
you
might
be
able
to
predict
how
the
voters
in
a
district
are
going
to
vote.
A
So
it's
not
brand
new,
but
I
think
the
intent
is
to
get
politics
out
of
the
process
as
much
as
possible,
so
you
can
focus
on
other
criteria
and,
as
you
will
note,
montana's,
some
states
also
prohibit
having
the
information
of
an
incumbent
or
a
candidate's
home
address
in
the
database.
Obviously,
this
is
going
to
conflict
with
protecting
incumbents
and
not
pairing
incumbents
against
one
another.
A
Some
states
also
specify
when
such
data
can
be
used,
such
as
only
after
the
maps
have
been
drawn.
Arizona,
is
an
example
of
this
next
slide.
Before
there
you
go
there.
They
allowed
it
to
be
used
not
when
you're
start
drawing
plans,
but
after
a
plan
has
been
done
so
that
you
can
verify
that
you
have
complied
with
the
voting
rights
act
and
other
things
you
may
need
to
use
political
and
election
data
to
do
that
and
again
others
don't
allow
it
in
any
stage.
A
I
would
caution
that,
just
because
the
entity,
that's
drawing
the
map,
can't
have
this
information
doesn't
mean
that
others
in
the
state
won't
have
it.
I
suspect
that
both
political
parties
in
a
state
will
have
it
and
will
use
it
when
they
compare
plans.
A
Another
new
criteria
that
states
use
is
prohibiting
favoring
or
protecting
an
incumbent,
candidate
or
political
party.
Here's
the
language
from
the
colorado
constitution,
some
states
also
add
you
can't
favor
or
disfavor.
I
think
if
you're
favoring,
someone
you're,
probably
disfavoring
the
other
side,
so
I
don't
know
that
that's
necessary.
Always
and
again.
I
think
this
is
to
try
to
avoid
the
extreme
political
gerrymandering
that
we
see
in
some
states,
so
you'll
note
that
in
colorado
that
this
is
not
actually
amongst
the
usual
list
of
criteria.
A
A
A
The
thought
is
that
competitive
districts
will
require
representatives
to
be
more
responsive
to
all
of
the
voters
in
a
district
rather
than
just
the
voters
from
the
candidate's
party,
and
I
think
the
thought
is,
the
practical
effect
is
probably
that
the
representatives
from
those
districts
will
need
to
be
more
moderate
from
those
than
those
from
districts
that
are
solidly
in
favor
of
one
party.
A
So
again
I
mentioned
the
priority
of
the
criteria
generally,
creating
as
many
competitive
districts
as
possible
is
the
last
or
at
least
at
the
bottom
of
the
list
of
the
priorities.
Making
drawing
them
really
difficult.
A
A
Again,
if
you
merge
this
with
the
states
that
prohibit
favoring,
an
incumbent,
candidate
or
party,
especially
at
the
district
level,
drawing
them
can
be
extremely
difficult
in
colorado,
el
paso,
county
and
the
city
of
colorado
springs.
The
major
city
in
it
are
considered
republican
strongholds.
A
It
is
possible
to
draw
one
competitive
senate
district
in
el
paso
county
and
two
competitive
house
districts,
but
obviously,
when
you
do
that,
you
are
favoring
the
democratic
candidates
in
florida,
I
think
those
districts
you
might
be
able
to
challenge
in
colorado
again.
We'll
look
at
the
map
as
a
whole.
A
The
first
question
is
from
mike
fortner
in
suburban
areas,
people
often
identify
more
with
their
school
district
than
city,
and
definitely
more
than
counties
have
preserving
school
boundaries
been
used
as
a
criteria.
B
B
Goes
to
communities
of
interest,
but
first
I
just
have
to
thank
joe
for
the
practicable
smackdown
that
he
gave
me.
So
it
was
well
yeah,
and
that
is
one
of
the
it
wasn't
listed.
I
don't
think
in
the
california
constitution,
you
know
that's
pretty
extensive
list,
but
school
districts
is
also
one
of
the
things
that
can
be
taken
into
account
for
communities
of
interest.
A
And
I
think
yeah
a
school
district
may
be
considered
a
political
subdivision
as
well.
Yeah.
B
That's
not
true
in
wisconsin,
but
I
know
other
states
could
be
different.
We
that
that
isn't
yeah
so.
D
I
think
the
it
obviously
it's
easier
if
the
school
district
boundaries
coincide
with
the
other
boundaries,
because
again
in
wisconsin,
that's
not
always
the
case,
so
the
farther
you
dig
down
from
county
to
city
and
then
the
school
district,
the
harder
it
gets
to
make
all
these
lines
and
again,
I'm
speaking
from
the
perspective
of
wisconsin.
D
It's
hard
to
get
all
these
lines,
to
kind
of
sync
up
and
in
in
wisconsin
it's
a
real
problem
for
the
local
clerks
when
it
comes
to
an
election
when
school
districts
aren't
within
the
other
election
district
boundaries.
A
Okay,
I
can
take
the
next
question:
where
can
we
find
a
list
of
the
states
that
do
require
respecting
communities
of
interest?
That's
by
mn
and
another
plug
for
redistricting
2020?
There
is
an
appendix
to
this.
That
is
a
chart.
It
has
your
states
on
the
left-hand
side
and
a
list
of
all
of
the
criteria
or
most
of
the
criteria
that
we've
talked
about,
including
communities
of
interest
and
there's
a
check
or
actually,
I
think,
there's
a
letter
as
to
whether
it
applies
to
the
state
legislative
districts
in
the
congressional
district.
B
Yeah,
I
think
that
yeah,
that's
political
gerrymandering,
right
there
right.
So
what's
the
us
supreme
court
has
said
that
it
won't
touch,
although
in
some
states
it
might
be
something
that
you
can.
You
could
litigate
in
state
court.
D
Yeah,
I
think,
and
again
my
perspective
is
having
looked
at
the
decades
of
federal
court
cases
in
wisconsin
the
at
least
those
courts
have
been
very
careful
about
not
mixing
the
two
so
that
when
they're
looking
at
a
community
of
interest,
there
was
one
case,
probably
back
from
the
90s,
that
the
court
really
needed
more
information
from
more
information
on
the
ground.
Basically,
that
you
know
is,
is
to
have
a
cohesive
neighborhood.
Do
they
go
to
the
same
schools?
D
Do
they
have
some
other
background
that
is
different
from
whether
or
not
we
should
be
looking
at
creating
a
majority
minority
district,
so
they're
really
careful
about
trying
to
keep
those
two
ideas
separate
if
they
can.
But
it's
not,
it's
not
an
easy
thing
to
do
so.
If
you
have
a
compact
neighborhood
of
a
racial
minority,
it's
they
have
a
community
of
interest
related
to
that
for
sure.
But
I
think
the
courts
have
been
pretty
careful
about
trying
to
separate
out
that
idea
of
community
of
interest
as
being
something
different.
C
So
point
contiguity
exists
when
the
area
of
the
district
touches
the
rest
of
the
area
of
a
district
at
only
one
single
point.
So
if
you
can
picture
say
like
a
checker
board
and
you
have
the
different
colored
tiles,
two
same
colored
squares
that
are
adjacent
on
the
diagonal
of
the
checkerboard
are
considered
to
be
point
contiguous
as
to
which
states
explicitly
allow
or
prohibit
it.
I
don't
know
that
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
don't
know
if
jerry
mike
or
joe,
you
want
to
weigh
in
on
your.
B
C
B
It
is
prohibited
in
wisconsin
right
or
not,
or
we
don't
know.
I
guess
I
should
probably
know
that.
A
B
A
I
think
it's
a
general
rule,
it
is
prohibited
that
point.
Continuity
does
not
constitute
continuity.
I
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
specific
state
that
allows
point
contiguity,
but
I
think,
as
a
general
rule,
it
is
not
not
allowed.
A
Next
abc
asks:
how
is
an
incumbent
gerrymandering
district
map
to
maps
to
protect
themselves
different
than
criteria
of
protecting
incumbents?
Also,
why
have
the
voters,
what
why
not
have
the
voters
decide
which
of
the
two
they
want.
D
It's
a
really
interesting
question.
I
think
the
I
guess
the
the
lens
I
look
at
it
from
is
protecting
incumbents
doesn't
necessarily
at
first
blush
seem
like
a
good
idea,
but
the
alternative
pitting
two
against
each
other
is
kind
of
the
lens.
I
look
at
that
through
and
again
based
on
the
way
these
cases
have
arised.
What
usually
is
the
problem
is
that
to
gain
an
advantage
to
your
your
pitting
two
accumbens
against
each
other
who
happen
to
be
not
not
my
party
affiliation,
and
so
it
appears
to
be
looking
at
an
advantage.
D
I
don't
know
if
that
really
answers
the
question,
but
I
mean
yeah
protecting
yourself
from
being
out
of
office
yeah,
it's
a
consideration.
It
certainly
comes
up
in
the
gerrymandering
cases
to
give
yourself
a
safe
seat.
D
So
it's
a
it's
a
fine
line
as
far
as
a
legitimate
use
for
protecting
the
incumbent,
as
opposed
to
giving
yourself
what
would
appear
to
be
an
unfair
advantage,
but
I
think
that
also
plays
into
the
emerging
criteria
that
jerry
talked
about
too,
where
at
least
there
are
some
states
who
are
not
looking
at
it.
For
that
information.
A
Oftentimes,
the
constitution
or
statute
will
specify
which
order
you're
to
follow
the
the
criteria
in
colorado.
The
our
earlier
constitutional
provision
was
not
explicit
about
that,
and
there
were
court
cases
that
actually
so
the
courts
actually
determined
what
the
what
the
order
of
priority
was
so
again,
you're
not
you're,
going
to
need
to
check
either
your
constitution
and
statute,
or
maybe
some
of
the
case
law
related
to
the
order
of
the
priority
that
you
need
to
follow.
B
A
And
here's
one
that
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
maybe
someone
does.
But
what
happens
if
some
of
these
criteria
are
not
implementable
using
a
redistricting
algorithm.
A
And
I
think
that's
a
new
mathematical
process
for
drawing
plans
using
a
a
mathematical
algorithm,
rather
than
looking
at
some
traditional
criteria.
A
And
while
I
haven't
used
algorithms
in
the
past,
I
think
you
would
probably
run
the
algorithms
and,
if
it
violate
you,
had
maps
that
violated
some
criteria
that
you
couldn't
put
into
the
algorithm.
You
just
have
to
look
at
all
of
those
maps
on
an
individual
basis
to
take
a
look
at
it.
D
Yeah,
it
may
be
that
you,
you
end
up
judging
the
result
after
the
fact,
so
you
run
your
algorithm
algorithm
and,
and
you
compare
it
to
what
your
the
principles
are,
you're
trying
to
accomplish.
C
A
And
the
last
question
that
I
see
is
from
john
on
the
new
york.
I
think
it's
the
new
york
senate
redistricting,
commissioner,
where
does
nesting
and
co-terminally
fall
in
the
criteria
hierarchy
and
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
con
yeah.
A
I
am
not
familiar
enough
with
the
new
york
constitution
and
I
think
it's
been
changed
at
least
with
the
new
commission,
so
I'm
gonna
have
to
punt
on
that
one.
I
think
you're
gonna
have
to
ask
someone
in
the
new
york
senate
who
we
may
have
around
later
today.
If
you
want
to
ask
that
question
later
today,.
A
And
I
think
we're
about
out
of
time
and
if
anyone
has
any
last-minute
questions
feel
free
to
ask
otherwise.
I
know
I
will
at
least
be
around
at
the.
Although
I
don't
consider
myself
an
expert,
I
have
been
invited
to
be
at
the
ask
the
experts
after
this
so
I'll
be
around.
A
And
with
that,
thank
you
for
your
attention
and
I
think
the
next
session
starts
in
about
10
minutes
so
stick
around
and
if
you
have
any
questions
of
any
of
the
panelists
from
any
of
these
sessions
today,.