►
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
Okay,
great
all
right,
hi,
everybody
love
to
be
here
at
ncsl
office
hours
again
this
year,
wendy
and
I
embarked
on
a
project
to
present
the
history
of
the
modern
era
of
redistricting
at
the
ncsl
summit,
which
was
in
tampa
last
month,
which
was
really
fun.
Ted
booth
focused
on
the
law,
wendy
focused
on
the
processes
and
the
staffing,
and
I
focused
on
the
tech
and
I'm
just
going
to
sort
of
reprise
that
talk
here
today.
Apologies
for
those
of
you
who
are
who
are
at
tampa.
A
A
A
But
before
diving
into
redistricting.
We
have
to
recognize
that
redistricting
procedures
have
always
been
tied
to
the
census.
So
let's
go
back
in
time
and
do
some
census
history.
So
after
the
first
census
in
1790,
the
population
total
is
about
3.9
million
people.
President
george,
washington
and
secretary
of
state,
thomas
jefferson,
because
back
then
the
census
was
housed
at
state,
thought
that
this
was
an
undercount
which
might
have
been
the
case.
A
In
1880
they
automate
the
process
a
little
bit
with
the
first
tabulating
machine,
which
was
supposedly
twice
as
fast
the
previous
method.
But
this
machine
was
not
up
to
the
job,
because
at
this
point
the
population
has
increased
so
much
from
about
4
million
to
about
50
million
and
they've
increased
the
number
of
categories,
demographic
categories
and
they're
tallying
at
so
many
more
geographic
levels
that
these
tabulation
methods
are
completely
insufficient.
A
It
actually
took
eight
years
to
tabulate
the
1880
census
data,
so
the
census
warned
that,
with
these
methods,
the
1890
census
wouldn't
be
done.
Processing
before
the
1900s
census
had
begun
counting,
so
that's
an
untenable
situation,
so
they
hold
a
contest
to
find
a
more
efficient
method
and
inspired
by
train
conductor.
Punch
cards,
herman
hollerith
enters
the
contest
with
a
machine
that
blows
the
competition
away
it
takes
in
data
on
punch
cards.
A
It
drops
these
spring-loaded
contacts
through
the
holes
where
they
touch
a
pool
of
mercury,
completing
an
electrical
circuit
and
advancing
one
of
these
dials
on
the
machine,
and
this
machine
had
a
pretty
long
life
at
the
census,
with
versions
being
used
through
1940.
and
then
in
1951.
It
was
replaced
with
the
univac
one
computer,
which
was
the
first
commercially
produced
electronic
digital
computer.
A
There
were
46
of
these
computers
eventually
sold
ever
and
the
very
first
one
was
installed
at
the
census
bureau,
which
is
just
to
show
you
that
the
census
bureau
has
always
been
at
the
cutting
edge
of
technology.
Their
computer
weighed
16
000
pounds
it
computed
with
5
000
vacuum
tubes
and
it
really
marks
the
beginning
of
the
computer
age
at
the
census
in
1951
and
it's
40
more
years
until
redistricting
was
computerized
in
most
states.
A
Okay,
so
we
jump
ahead
to
1971.
The
supreme
court's
redistricting
revolution
has
happened,
and
this
is
the
first
time
that
everyone
has
this
computational
constraint
of
equal
population,
but
only
some
states
have
any
sort
of
computerization
at
all
they're,
all
completely
homemade
systems,
sometimes
made
in
collaboration
with
the
university.
A
We
talked
to
linda
megers,
who
in
1971
was
a
grad
student
in
a
group
from
the
university
of
georgia.
That
was
offering
tech
expertise
to
the
legislature
and
she
goes
on
to
keep
georgia
at
the
cutting
edge
of
redistricting
technology
for
the
next
few
decades.
She
said
that
the
redistricting
technology
of
1971
was
incredibly
crude.
She
said
the
census
small
geographies
they
got
were
not
that
useful,
especially
in
rural
areas.
They
had
nothing
to
do
with
natural
or
pre-existing
boundaries,
and
they
crossed
rivers
and
streets
all
the
time
and
in
georgia.
A
Now
in
1981,
thanks
to
the
pl
program,
the
states
that
work
with
the
census
have
lots
of
really
detailed
block.
Data
makers
told
us
that,
after
working
with
the
census
to
block
the
whole
state,
she
was
drowning
in
data.
It
wasn't
quite
what
she
was
expecting.
The
blocks
were
still
really
large
in
the
rural
areas,
but
it
was
a
lot
better
and
for
the
first
time
they
could
come
close
to
drawing
boundary
lines.
A
That
meant
something
to
locals
running
along
main
streets,
for
instance,
whereas
before
the
census
geographies
had
nothing
to
do
with
what
was
on
the
ground,
but
they
had
to
figure
out
how
to
do
this
effectively
with
computers,
not
every
state
computerized
the
process,
but
for
those
that
did,
I
just
want
to
paint
a
picture
of
what
that
process
was
like
because,
of
course,
guis
graphical
user
interfaces.
The
way
we
think
of
interacting
with
computers
now
with
a
keyboard
and
a
mouse
was
still
basically
an
experimental
technology
in
1981..
A
Okay.
So,
let's
draw
some
districts.
Your
tools
are
a
big
brown
prime
550
mainframe
housed
at
your
local
university.
This
is
what
they
used
in
minnesota
in
1981.,
some
giant
paper
maps
with
acetate,
overlays,
some
dry
erase
markers
and
some
empty
punch
cards
for
you
to
record
data
and
then
feed
it
into
your
big
brown.
Mainframe
computers
at
this
time
didn't
have
long-term
storage,
so
punch
cards
like
this
by
the
suitcase,
were
how
you
input
your
data
and
your
programs.
A
Two
staffers
told
us
that
they
lived
in
constant
fear
of
dropping
the
stacks
of
cards,
which
would
scramble
their
data
and
be
nearly
impossible
to
recover
okay.
So
it's
1981
we're
a
high-tech
legislature
and
we
are
ready
to
draw
districts
in
hillsborough
county,
say
using
tracks
and
data
that
I've
completely
made
up
so
step.
One
is
you
receive
data
from
the
census,
maybe
in
the
form
of
reel
to
real
tapes
or
punch
cards,
but
it
basically
represents
a
table
like
this
step.
Two:
is
you
have
this
beautiful
huge
printed
map
of
census
tracts?
A
Let's
lay
it
on
the
ground
staffers,
we
talked
to
said
they
would
cover
entire
rooms
or
hallways
with
maps
and
be
crawling
around
on
them.
Then
you
cover
the
maps
with
acetate.
Overlays
you
crawl
around
on
your
hands
and
knees
drawing
districts
with
your
marker.
We
don't
have
to
use
the
floor.
We
when
he
was
redistricting
illinois
in
1981,
kim
brace,
reported
mounting
maps
on
the
two-story
high
wall
of
the
minority
leader's
office
hanging
really
long
rolls
of
acetate
and
climbing
ladders
to
draw
the
districts
step.
Four.
A
Is
you
read
out
to
another
staffer?
The
district
assignments
for
every
geography
who
would
record
that
data
on
punch
cards
that
basically
represented
a
table
like
this
step,
five
drive
the
punch
cards
to
your
local
university
run
your
tabulation
program,
all
night
step.
Six
come
back
in
the
morning
to
see
the
results,
which
is
a
list
of
each
district's,
total
population
or
other
characteristics.
A
So
I
know
this
doesn't
really
seem
like
a
computerized
process,
but
this
was
pretty
much
the
cutting
edge
in
1981.
So
I
found
very
little
discussion
of
computerized
redistricting
in
1981,
but
I
did
find
this
clip
that
I
would
like
to
play.
But
I
don't
know
if
the
sound
is
going
to
work.
Actually,
I
didn't
think
to
do
this.
Let
me
give
me
a
thumbs
up.
If
you
hear
sound.
A
A
So
you
know
it
seems
like
even
in
1981
there's
this
perception,
this
public
perception
that
redistricting
might
just
be
a
little
bit
beyond
the
technical
capacities
of
legislators,
and
it
sort
of
seems
like
to
pull
this
off
they're
going
to
have
to
hire
these
whiz
kid.
Weirdo
rubik's,
cube
types,
and
indeed
this
is
when
legislators
start
contracting
with
technical
consultants
to
help
out
with
this
work.
So
people
like
bob
walters
of
the
claremont
rose
institute
where
tom
hoffler
also
worked.
A
That's
him
pictured
here,
showing
staffers
how
to
use
their
computerized
redistributing
system
and
consultants
play
a
substantial
role
in
the
process
from
1981
until
today,
and
then
in
1981.
There
are
some
after
the
1981
revolution,
redistricting
sorry,
there
are
some
revolutions
underway,
so
the
census
is
completely
overhauling
how
they
do
geography,
they're
starting
the
tiger
program
to
massively
improve
census,
geography,
accuracy.
A
We
talked
to
kathy
clark
mccully,
who
headed
up
the
censuses
redistricting
data
operations
when
the
tiger
program
was
conceived
in
the
mid
80s
and
when
they
conceded
the
program,
they
thought
that
this
would
be
ready
for
2000,
but
it
quickly
became
clear
states
needed
the
program
now.
So
the
geographic
division
of
the
census
decided
they
could
be
ready
in
time
for
1990
and
in
kathy's
words
half
of
the
division
fainted.
A
After
hearing
they
were
going
to
speed
this
program
up
by
10
years,
but
they
kept
at
it
and
kathy
said
that
states
would
grab
her
by
the
caller
saying
we
really.
We
need
to
figure
out
if
we're
going
to
budget
for
paper
or
computers.
So
are
you
actually
going
to
get
tiger
done
in
time
for
1991
and
she
would
say
yes
and
then
they
would
all
go
home.
Everybody
at
the
census
would
go
home
and
sweat
buckets
with
what
they'd
committed
to,
and
at
this
point
the
legislators
think
they
can
do
better.
A
So,
linda
meggers
of
georgia
is
proud
of
how
the
1981
redistricting
went,
but
she
thinks
she
can
do
better
with
the
tiger
data.
So
she
gets
curious
about
tiger.
She
said
that
she
went
into
the
bowels
of
the
census,
building
to
meet
a
little
computer
geek,
who
hadn't
seen
the
sunshine
in
a
long
time,
but
was
clearly
brilliant
at
it.
There's
no
word
on
whether
it
was
this
was
the
same
geek
with
the
rubik's
cube
wandering
the
halls
of
the
legislatures.
A
But
anyway,
after
seeing
tiger,
she
got
excited
about
what
1990
could
look
like.
She
sketches
out
specs
for
an
interactive
redistricting
program
and
goes
to
the
speaker
to
get
the
money
to
budget
a
system.
She
ultimately
finds
her
way
to
esri
and
starts
working
with
them
to
develop
the
system
for
1991..
A
So
the
that
was
the
tiger
program.
The
legislatures
are
getting
creative.
Of
course,
the
pc
revolution
is
underway.
Computers
are
getting
much
more
affordable,
they're
becoming
much
more
usable
thanks
to
guis
and,
of
course
the
law
is
changing.
So
with
the
1982
voting
rights
act,
amendments
and
with
the
supreme
court
clarifying
the
jingles
factors,
there's
now
even
more
computational
constraints
upon
redistricters.
So
all
of
this
leads
to
1991
being
a
real
inflection
point,
a
massive
step
forward.
A
A
Then
you
were
going
to
be
fired
or
your
data
was
going
to
your
database
was
going
to
collapse
or
it
was
just
out
of
control
and
of
course,
at
this
time,
they're
developing
the
movie
office
space
with
the
famous
scene
of
the
three
main
characters
assaulting
a
printer
in
a
field
2001.
The
biggest
changes
are
that
the
hardware
and
the
software
is
really
cheap.
Powerful
computers
are
affordable.
This
is
the
first
year
of
commercial
off
the
shelf
redistricting
software
being
available,
namely
autobound
and
maptitude.
A
This
brings
increased
accessibility
to
counties
and
cities
who
want
to
redistrict,
but
it's
still
not
that
widely
available
to
the
public.
Although
florida
was
an
exception
here,
they
had
a
piece
of
software
called
fred's
2000
that
you
could
check
out
on
cd-rom
at
your
local
library,
and
some
states
would
allow
you
to
reserve
time
at
a
workstation.
If
your
legislator
cleared
you
to
work
with
the
staff,
there's
also
a
wall
street
journal
article
from
2001
about
how
cheap
it
is
to
get
into
the
redistricting
game.
A
But
of
course
it's
still
thousands
of
dollars
to
get
the
software.
So
it's
not
exactly
feasible
for
members
of
the
public
to
get
involved
until
2011
the
dawn
of
the
internet
age.
The
internet
is
fast.
Lots
of
people
have
computers,
and
this
is
really
the
first
time
that
members
of
the
public
can
have
a
chance
to
understand
maps
and
even
draw
some
themselves.
So
dave's,
redistricting,
app
and
district
builder
are
the
notable
public-facing
software
packages.
A
Some
states
and
civil
society
organizations
use
these
tools
to
hold
redistricting
contests,
but
I
don't
believe
that
many
legislators
in
2011
were
using
these
to
increase
transparency
or
solicit
public
input
and
2021.
Of
course,
the
first
test
of
how
the
availability
of
these
tools
might
actually
have
an
impact.
There's
a
lot
more
tools
available
from
journalists,
non-profits,
academia
to
analyze
and
draw
maps
getting
quite
close
in
their
abilities
to
the
standard
software
packages
like
maptitude
and,
of
course,
there's
been
a
huge
increase
in
interest.
A
The
outcome
of
all
these
changes
is
that
anyone
anywhere
can
analyze
a
map
or
create
their
own,
and
you
know
it's
all
well
and
good
to
solicit
public
input.
But
what
happens
next?
How
do
legislatures
take
that
into
account
things
shouldn't
just
languish
on
a
submission
portal?
We
need
ways
to
aggregate
public
input
and
evaluate
maps
based
on
that
input.
C
Thank
you
will,
and
yes,
if
anyone
has
any
stories
they
want
to
share.
Please
come
on
share
those
it'll
it'll
feel
like
a
true
office
hours
if
everyone's
chiming
in-
and
you
know,
if
you
want
to
give
wendy
an
early
christmas
present,
I
think
participation
right
now
is
the
one.
Yes,
that's
exactly
what
she's
looking
for
so
well,
I
did
get
a
a
couple
of
questions
dm
to
me.
A
I
think
that
maptitude
used
to
cost
much
more
than
it
does
right
now.
Now
that
they're
competing
with
pretty
capable
free
apps,
I
think
that
there
will-
probably
always
I
mean-
probably
some
people
on
this
call
are
in
a
better
position
to
to
answer
this,
but
I
think
that
one
of
the
benefits
of
working
with
a
software
vendor
is
that
you
can
request
that
features
be
added
and
they
generally
are
somewhat
responsive
to
that.
A
Whereas,
with
these
more
open
source
projects
like
districter
and
dave's,
redistricting
there's
you
know
there
are
only
one
or
two
developers
working
on
them
at
any
time,
so
they
can't
really
respond
to
their
their
their
clients.
So
I
think,
there's
probably
there'll
probably
still
be
a
role
for
paid
vendors
to
I
mean
I
think
that
they'll
probably
have
to
distinguish
themselves
more
based
on
on
that
feature,
the
fact
that
they
actually
have
employees.
C
Absolutely
and
jeff
says:
there's
still
a
professional
level
of
software
necessary
for
court
and
legislative
bill
enactments.
The
free
software
doesn't
match
up
yet
and
yeah.
I
think
that's
the
key.
It
will
it's
like
the
last
mile
problem
in
transportation
right.
That's
that
that's
the
hardest
part.
Can
you
get
the
you've?
Can
you
get
to
that
that
last
degree
of
sophistication
to
the
point
where
everything
is
you
have
a
complete
network
and
you
or
you
have
a
complete
software
that
you
don't
have
to
do.
C
A
C
A
C
You
have
any
guesses
as
for
what's
next,
just
looking
into
the
future,
I
mean
they're,
pretty
radical
jumps,
70s
80s,
90s,
2000s,
2010s
2010
to
2020.
The
jump
has
largely
been
on
the
software
that
states
aren't
using.
So
maybe
we've
had
a
plateau
with
maptitude
itself.
You
said
that
they
dropped
the
price
because
they're
getting
competition
from
from
free
platforms.
A
So
I
don't
know
what
the
next
big
revolut
yeah.
I
don't
know
about
what
the
next
big
revolution
is
necessarily,
but
you
know,
jeff
said
we're
not
we're
not
there
yet,
and
he
also
said
that
there
are
some
counties
where
dave's
is
what
they're,
using
the
way
that
open
source
software
has
the
quality
of
open
source
free
software
over
the
last
10
years.
The
the
pace
of
improvement
just
across
the
board
like
the
entire
software
industry.
A
It's
not
just
redistricting,
of
course,
has
been
so
much
faster
this
decade
that
it
wouldn't
be
too
surprising.
I
think
that
in
if
in
2031
the
the
free
software
catches
up
to
the
paid
software,
which
could
you
know
potentially
make
it
easier
for
the
public
to
get
involved,
if
everybody
really
does
have
access
to
the
same,
the
same
platform,
the
same
data
formats,
the
same
exact
software.
C
I
have
a
question
that
was
dm
to
me
and
then
we'll
do
lexi's
question
so
question
that
was
dm
to
me.
What
are
your
thoughts
on
states
that
still
use
in-house
software?
If
that's
for
convenience
or
some
other
reason,
this
person's,
not
sure
what
to
make
of
that
is
there?
Is
there
some
reason
why
a
state
would
not
be
getting
a
license
to
a
commercially
available
vendor
and
developing
it
themselves?
C
A
A
I
mean
I
think
that
there
are
some
states
who
still
use
their
own
in-house
software,
because
it's
sort
of
tradition
right,
they're,
familiar
with
it.
They
know
what
it
needs
and
they've.
Actually,
I
think,
like
texas,
for
instance,
has
been
developing
their
same
software
package
for
for
several
decades.
A
So,
but
you
know,
I
think
it
I
mean.
Maybe
people
on
the
call
who
are
in
states
that
are
using
their
own
intab
system
can
chime
in,
but
I
imagine
that
it's
becoming,
I
don't
know
I'd,
be
surprised
if
it
makes
sense
from
both
a
technical
perspective
and
a
cost
perspective
to
develop
your
own
in-house
software,
given
that
the
commercial
offerings
are
a
lot
cheaper
than
they
used
to
be,
I
mean
in
the
in
1991,
like
I
said,
like
most
states
were
you
there
were.
A
C
Or
do
you
require
people
to
have
a
legislator
who
author
sponsors
the
plan
before
disposing?
I
guess
this
is
more
of
a
question
for
not
necessarily
for
will,
but
for
the
audience
in
general.
If
you
have
any
knowledge
about
this,
I
will
say
that
this
is
not
something
that
we've
been
tracking
on
our
redistributing
web
pages,
although
it
is
something
that
just
today,
wendy
and
I
were
discussing-
are
plans
for
gathering
information
on
redistricting
the
future,
and
this
is
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
that
we
would
want
to
capture.
C
But
if
anyone
has
any
thing
on
that,
yes
jeff,
I
see
thank
you
for
coming
in
and
and
saying
what's
happening
in
new
york.
But
if
anyone
else
has
anything
they'd
like
to
add
to
lexi's
question,
throw
it
in
the
chat,
especially
if
you're
not
from
a
state
that
is
using
a
commission,
at
least
in
some
way
like
new
york
or
virginia,
would
love
to
hear.
What's
what
you
all
have
been
doing.
A
Sure
yeah
so
topic
number
two
is:
I
just
briefly
want
to
talk
about
how
to
measure
the
degree
to
which
a
map
splits
localities,
so
that
could
be
counties
or
communities
of
interest.
This
is
a
report
that
we
released
last
month
and
I'm
hoping
that
it
can
be
useful
for
states
that
are
are
still
redistricting,
so
I'm
going
to
be
using
the
term
locality
in
this
talk.
So
what
do
I
mean
by
locality?
Well,
I
mean
it
really
broadly
any
contiguous
geographic
entity
within
a
state
like
a
county,
a
community
of
interest.
A
A
incorporated
place
is
that's
the
census
terminology
for
a
city,
town
or
municipality,
or
a
census
designated
place,
which
is,
of
course
unincorporated
communities
and
american
indian
reservations
and
those
associated
statistical
areas.
So
some
interesting
things
about
these
geographies
is
everyone
in
the
u.s
lives
in
one
or
and
only
one
county,
which
makes
it
sort
of
a
special
case.
A
So
I'm
going
to
use
mostly
counties
in
my
examples
here,
but
everything
should
be
about
equally
applicable
to
the
other
kinds
of
localities
and
people
can
live
in
zero,
one
or
multiple
overlapping
communities
of
interest,
and
I
also
believe
that
people
can
live
in
either
one
or
zero
unincorporated
or
incorporated
places.
So
just
to
give
you
a
map
of
the
area
around
me
in
the
district.
This
is
a
map
of
unincorporated
places
in
orange.
A
These
are
census
designated
places
and
the
red
geographies
are
places
that
the
census
has
recognized
as
being
incorporated
having
some
kind
of
governing
body
associated
with
it.
Okay.
So
what
are
the
advantages
to
keeping
some
localities
whole?
Well,
of
course,
preserving.
The
political
power
of
various
communities
is
important.
A
So
there
are
many
statutes
for
communities
of
interest
which
can
be
communities
that
don't
have
other
protections
and
might
not
be
covered
by
the
voting
rights
act.
It
might
also
be
useful
to
keep
counties
whole
to
inform
voters.
There
was
actually
a
study
that
showed
that
voters
who
live
in
unsplit
counties
are
more
likely
to
know
who
their
representatives
are,
perhaps
because
the
county
can
emerge
as
a
reliable
shorthand
for
who
their
representative
is
and
for
counties.
A
So
there
are
statutory
requirements
to
count
the
localities
that
are
split
or
measure
the
ways
that
localities
are
split,
but
even
when
there
aren't,
we
think
that
it's
important
to
be
able
to
have
a
metric
of
how
badly
a
map
splits
a
given
set
of
localities
so
that
you
compare
maps-
and
you
know-
advocate
for
one
over
the
other,
for
instance-
or
say
this-
this
map
is
no
good
okay.
So
how
do
you
measure
that?
A
Well,
this
graphic
gives
you
an
example
of
how
it's
usually
done,
which,
if
you
want
to
measure
how
badly
counties
are
split.
You
just
count
them.
So
if
you
look
at
the
top,
I've
highlighted
the
number.
I've
highlighted
every
county
that
spans
more
than
one
district
in
the
2011
north
carolina
redistricting,
and
then
I've
done
the
same
for
the
2016
redraw,
which
you
can
see
splits
about
a
third
the
number
of
counties.
A
Another
way
to
do
it
is
to
just
count
the
pieces.
So
if
you
look
at
gila
district
in
arizona,
it's
split
into
two
districts
and
if
you
look
at
pinal,
it
would
split
into
it
split
into
three
districts.
So
this
would
be
a
slightly
different
way
of
measuring
it
than
just
counting
the
number
of
splits.
So
both
of
these
are
what
we
call
geography-based
metrics,
and
I
believe
these
are
the
only
metrics
that
have
been
used
in
court.
C
C
If
you're
trying
to
minimize
the
number
of
total
counties
or
the
total
splits
among
counties
like
he
had
one
take
arizona
if
you
had
maricopa
one
huge
county
and
you
wanted
to
minimize
your
spits,
maybe
you
just
split
every
single
congressional
district
into
maricopa,
and
then
you
say:
oh,
I
only
split
one
county
at
least
maricopa
county.
All
my
other
counties
are
kept
whole,
but
that
one
county
where
most
of
the
population
is
has
no
semblance
of
a
district
identity
at
all.
D
One
of
the
problems
is,
it
is
basically
is
that
counties
were
set
up
to
do
one
thing
and
and
legislative
redistricting
and
the
voting
rights
act
and
you
know,
was
originally
set
up
to
deal
with
male
apportionment,
which
was
you
know,
inherently
set
up
in
the
way
that
counties
were
organized,
and
so
one
of
the
ways
that
we've
handled
it
traditionally
in
montana
is
as
well.
You
know
counties
and
cities
and
towns
and
down
to
school
districts,
precinct
levels
they're
all
taken
into
account,
but
they
all
remain
in
the
area.
D
You
know
who
cuts
the
fewer
counties,
though
you
know
we,
our
maps
have
always
stood
up
very
positively
in
that
that
area
there.
But
you
know
yeah
county,
the
the
the
former
our
exaggerated,
say
over
over
what
you're
trying
to
achieve.
You
know
it
costs
you
other
things
you're
trying
to
accomplish
in
your
plan.
A
Yeah,
those
three,
those
are
all
really
good
points.
Thank
you
both
ben
and
commissioner
lamson.
Another
problem
is
that
these
don't
take
into
account
where
the
people
are
they
just
you
know
it's
people
who
need
representation,
not
land
and
to
your
point,
not
counties
might
not
even
the
best
be
the
best
way
to
give
land
representation
right.
It's
not
the
most
meaningful
unit
potentially,
but
with
both
of
these
metrics.
You
know
they
count
a
99
1
split,
just
the
same
as
a
50.
50
split,
that's
one
problem.
A
So
a
better
way
to
do
it
is
to
account
for
the
people,
because
it's
people
who
vote
and
people
who
need
representation.
There
are
a
few
different
metrics
in
the
literature
which
our
report
compiles
and
we
also
introduce
a
new
one
called
split
pairs
that
we
we
like
for
its
ease
of
explanation,
which
is,
of
course,
very
important.
So
the
way
that
you
measure
the
split
pairs
metric
is
I'm
going
to
illustrate
with
a
simple
example.
A
Another
way
of
describing
this
metric
is
with
this
hypothetical
story
where
a
random
person
doesn't
remember
their
district,
so
he
picks
a
person
randomly
from
his
locality
and
asks
what
that
person's
district
is.
He
then
guesses
that
he
lives
in
the
same
district?
What
is
the
probability
of
guessing
wrong?
It's
the
split
pairs
metric,
so
obviously
this
wouldn't
really
happen
in
real
life.
A
This
is
not
how
people
report
their
congressional
district,
but
it
gives
you
a
sense
of
why
this
metric
is
a
more
fine
measurement
of
the
severity
of
a
split
rather
than
just
counting
whether
a
locality
is
split
or
not
so
clearly,
there's
a
better
way
of
evaluating
maps
in
this
way,
but
it's
not
that
useful
unless
it's
implemented
somewhere.
Luckily,
the
princeton
gerrymandering
project
has
implemented
it
on
their
report
card.
Representable
is
a
service,
so
this
is
their
report
card.
A
They
are
also
using
it
in
some
of
their
work
to
try
to
measure
how
badly
a
map
splits
a
given
set
of
communities
of
interest
and
the
code
for
doing
all
this
is
open,
source
and
simple
to
use
if
you
are
at
all
coding
inclined
so
yeah
with
that.
I'd
like
to
hear
your
considerations,
what
I
could
do
to
make
this
useful
to
you
if
your
state
is
still
at
the
stage
of
redistricting,
where
this
kind
of
kind
of
thing
would
be
useful.
There's
of
course,
really
interesting
challenges
here.
A
So
you
know,
for
instance,
measuring
county
splits
is
one
thing,
because
the
set
of
counties
is
defined
and
basically
never
changes,
but
with
communities
of
interest
you
have
the
problem
of
where
are
they?
Are
they
real?
Are
they
submitted
by
partisan
actors?
What
set
do
we
include-
and
this
is
important
to
figure
out
because
in
some
cases
like
michigan,
for
instance,
communities
of
interest
are
ranked
higher
than
counties.
C
C
Thank
you
all
right.
Well,
if
anyone
has
any
questions,
I
think
we'll
is
sticking
around
for
at
least
a
couple
more
minutes,
but
normally
at
this
point
in
the
call
we
would
shift
over
to
a
discussion
of
some
update
of
some
topic
or
another.
But
today
we
don't.
We
don't
have
an
update
on
any
particular
roundup,
but
we
do
have,
which
I
think
is
much
better-
is
wendy
underhill.
B
Everybody
I
I
want
to
say
that
this
morning
we
have
coffee
together
every
every
morning
and
some
of
us
drink
coffee.
Some
of
us
don't-
and
we
talk
about-
what's
going
to
happen
that
day,
that
kind
of
stuff-
and
it
came
up
that
we're
getting
close
to
the
end
of
the
year.
This
is
our
last
office
hours,
and
so
the
thought
was.
Maybe
there
was
something
to
be
done
to
wrap
it
all
up.
So
I
don't
know
that
this
is
well
vetted.
B
I
will
just
say
that
it's
a
list-
and
this
is
the
first
thing
on
on
it.
In
2021,
we
at
ncsl
spent
a
huge
amount
of
time
thinking
about
census
delays.
I
think
you
did
in
the
states
too.
That
is
so
yesterday's
news
over
working
under
staff-
that's
what
we
were
doing
for
most
of
this
year
and
I
guess
I'd
say
that
we
still
are,
but
we
were
fortunate
to
get
sage
drager
to
who's
on
the
line
with
us
here
to
join
us
mid-year.
B
That
was
a
great
relief
and
we're
so
glad
she's.
Here,
I'm
guessing
most
of
you
are
also
working
understaffed.
I
wish
I
could
say
that
that
was
so
over
differential
privacy.
Oh,
my
goodness,
I
felt
like
that
was
my.
The
only
topic
in
my
family
told
me.
I
needed
to
stop
it
just
button
it
up.
When
I
wanted
to
say
the
words
differential
privacy
stop,
so
it
is
quiet
for
now
it
may
easily
raise
its
head
again,
I'm
not
sure
between
us.
We
testified
at
least
three
dozen
times
in
the
states.
B
I
think
that's
a
record
and
I
don't
know
if
we'll
get
that
high
any
time
in
the
future.
If
you
want
us
to
come
talk
about
something,
and
if
you
know
anything
about
that
topic,
we'll
certainly
be
happy
to
come
out
and
do
it,
but
I
think
that
that's
going
to
be
different
in
the
coming
year
than
it
is
in
this
year,
I'm
going
to
just
skip
right
past
that
one
covid
we're
still
dealing
with
it.
It
was
true
all
of
2020
one.
B
It
was
true
most
of
2020
and
I
don't
know
when
it's
going
to
change
but
we're
still
dealing
with
it.
We
can
never
do
a
meeting
without
stopping
to
think
does
this
make
sense?
What
are
our
protocols
that
kind
of
a
thing?
True
where
you
are
too?
I
know
the
aftershocks
of
the
2020
presidential
election
are
very
much
still
with
us.
The
election
took
place,
of
course,
at
the
end
of
2020.
B
We
all
remember
that
it
wasn't
until
january
20th
that
it
felt
like
it
was
over,
but
then
even
then,
it
wasn't
over
because
there
is
still
concern
for
many
people
in
our
nation
whether
that
election
was
properly
conducted
and
the
result
was
the
correct
one.
We
see
that
in
a
million
different
ways.
We
see
it
primarily
in
the
legislation
that's
flowing
past
us.
B
B
Usually
we
have
fewer
bills
introduced
in
a
even
numbered
year.
I
don't
know
whether
I
could
guess
that
it
will
be
true
for
this
year
or
not
the
redistricting
seminars.
Many
of
you
were
there
for
it,
and
that
was
certainly
a
highlight
for
ben
and
christy
and
me
those
are
all
in
the
rearview
mirror.
What's
in
the
windshield,
not
a
it's,
not
a
mirror.
When
we're
looking
at
the
the
windshield,
we
are
expecting
to
be
able
to
do
a
series
of
strong
elections
seminars.
B
If
any
of
you
are
interested
in
what
that
means,
or
if
any
of
you
would
like
to
help
fund
that
or
any
of
you
have
ideas
about
what
we
should
include
by
all
means
get
in
touch
with
us.
That's
aspirational
for
us
misinformation
and
disinformation
is
not
just
our
team
thinking
about
it,
but
everybody
in
the
legislature
and
everybody
who's.
A
thinking
person
is
considering
what
is
misinformation
and
disinformation?
How
do
we
ourselves
know
we're
not
drinking
in
the
wrong
stuff,
and
how
do
we
help
our
younger
folks?
B
I'm
thinking
school-age
kids
understand
the
difference
between
good
information
and
questionable
information.
In
2021
we
had
a
reprieve
from
most
election
coverage
duties.
There
were
the
elections
in
new
jersey
and
virginia,
and
we
did
our
part
to
talk
about
the
news
with
that.
But
basically
it
was
an
off
year
for
us
and
we
were
happy
to
be
kind
of
out
of
the
limelight
on
that
front.
B
B
Male
voting
this
last
year,
you'll
remember
that
there
was
a
lot
of
mail
voting
in
the
2020
election,
of
course,
and
then
there
we
thought
there
was
going
to
be
a
lot
of
legislation
related
to
that
and
there
was
in
some
ways,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
or
the
end
of
the
year,
we
had
far
more
legislation
that
increased
the
amount
of
mail
voting.
That's
permitted
in
the
nation
then
decreased
it.
B
So
we'll
see
what
the
voters
do
in
2022,
whether
they
revert
back
to
usual
modes
or
if
they
stick
with
it,
and
we've
got
our
eye
on
that
and
then
last
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
office
hours.
I
think
we've
said
before
that
we're
not
planning
on
sticking
with
the
twice
a
month,
format
we're
going
to
go
to
once
a
month,
and
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
ben,
but
I
think
we
agreed
that
it
would
be
the
first.
B
It
would
be
the
second
tuesday
of
the
month,
not
the
second
and
the
fourth,
and
what
we'd
really
like
to
know
from
you
all
is
what's
useful
about
it.
I
like
to
think
that
it's
kind
of
fun,
maybe
a
break
in
the
day,
but
what
is
useful
about
it?
What
would
you
like
to
see
us
doing
with
it
any
any
other
thoughts
about
that,
and,
in
fact,
if
we
go
even
broader
than
just
office
hours
as
we're
thinking
about
2022
we're
thinking,
how
do
we
serve
our
members?
You
all.
C
Well
said:
wendy,
thank
you
so
much
and
thank
you
to
all
of
you
for
coming
to
these
office
hours
and
being
our
our
stalwart
attendees,
even
though
we're
dropping
down
to
one
per
month,
I'm
looking
forward
to
continuing
these
conversations
with
you
in
the
new
year.
But
since
this
is
our
last
one
of
2021,
I
think
we'll
just
close
by
saying,
happy
holidays.
C
B
D
D
B
B
D
No,
I
just
I
was
saying
that
it
was
the
first
time
that
I
actually
saw
that
presentation
and
I
work
more
on
like
our
election
admin
side.
So
I
don't
know
so
much
about
redistricting,
especially
its
history
and
all
of
that
technology.
You
said
so
you
did
a
great
way
of
explaining
it
and
then
also
seeing
all
of
those
photos.
It's
kind
of
surreal
right
that,
like
that
was
the
process,
and
so
it
was
super
neat
learned
a
lot
thanks.