Redistricting Legislative 1

8/4/2019 Redistricting Legislative 1

1/19

pa 1 o 19Pnnslvana Lslatv Rdstrctn Proposal Updat 1 b Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

Legislative Reapportionment Proposal b Amanda Holt

Contents

p. 2-3 Remarks & Cases

p. 4-5 Statewide Map: Senate Version (update)

p. 6-7 Statewide Map: House Version 3

p. 8-15 Proposed System for Legislative Reapportionment

Snat

p. 9 Step 1: Apportionment

p. 10 Step 2 & 3: Regions and Size

{ note for illustrations of step 4 & 5, see the map on page 3 }

p. 11 Step 6: Senate Minority-Majority Districts & Philadelphia

Hous

p. 12 Step 1: Apportionment

p. 13 Step 2 & 3: Regions and Size

{ note for illustrations of step 4 & 5, see the map on page 5 }

p. 14 Step 6: House Minority-Majority Districts

p. 15 Highlighted Situations and Notes

p. 16-19 House Map Close-Ups

Contact

Thank you for taking the time to consider this proposal. If you would like to speak fur ther with me about this,

please feel free to contact me at creationsbyamanda@gmail.com or 610-395-5014.

Amanda Holt


2/19


Redistricting often seems plagued by partisan activities and biased decisions.

Discussions on this issue often sink into a battle between two political parties. The

casualties of this conict are the people they will represent and the constitution they are

to uphold.

In Lehigh County, where I live, there are many odd divisions of General Assembly districts

which caused me to wonder if the law really required all these splits. In talking with

family and friends living across the state, their areas also had splits that seemed illogical

and promoted a poor representation of their areas.

The PA Constitution states that no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or

ward shall be divided unless absolutely necessary and that districts are to be as nearly

equal in population as practicable. The US Supreme court ruled that a 10% variant is

permissible for the purpose of fullling constitutional requirements like the one in PA.

Recent judicial rulings continue to prove that the 10% variant is still allowable, provided

it is used to keep political subdivisions whole and not used to systematically adjust

the presence of political parties in a district. Idaho, New Hampshire, and New York all

had high variants (in the 9% range) which were upheld in higher courts in the 2001

redistricting cycle.

Further study revealed a method that is non-partisan and impartial which achieves

equal population (as dened by the Supreme Court) with minimal splits to counties,

municipalities, etc. (as required by PA Constitution).

The steps of this method are illustrated on the following pages for both the Senate and

House districts.

The only considerations used were population totals and political subdivisions. The

method leaves out the data that causes a more partisan and biased view of redistricting

(like the residence of incumbents, prior district boundaries, political afliation of

residents, etc.).

Page 3 your packet shows the results for the Senate districts. The column

labeled District Sizes shows that they are within the allowable variant range.

The column labeled Boundary Splits illustrates that the variant was used for

the proper purpose (keeping political subdivisions whole, as required by our

constitution).

Page 5 of your packet illustrates the same thing, except with the House districts.

Page 7 provides the specic steps used to reach this result, with illustrations of

each step on the subsequent pages.

Page 10 and 13 discuss how this process created the required minority-majority

districts (in compliance with VRA laws and judicial rulings).

Close-ups of the House district maps are on pages 15-18.

As you can see, it is possible to create districts that are as nearly equal in population as

practicable (within the 10% variant range) while still keeping political subdivisions whole.

They are compact and contiguous districts that offer the unied representation our

founders considered so fundamental to serving the citizens of this great Commonwealth.

Each map proves that the impartial system proposed here offers a non-partisan way

to create General Assembly districts. It gives the framework necessary to respect

and protect the boundaries of political subdivisions while still adhering to the other

applicable laws.

Many consider a redistricting plan to be superior when it achieves equal district sizes

while still preserving local political subdivisions. Pennsylvania has an opportunity for

greatness. It is my hope that this Commission will seize this moment and chose the

superior way.

Remarks

Based on several judicial cases, the Courts in 2001 said it is allowable to have a variant

in the 9% range, provided it is to preserve whole counties (etc.) and applies this with

consistency statewide (without discriminating).

In looking at a summary of redistricting cases from post-2000 maps, four states had

plans with a larger variant. In three of the four cases, the larger variant was upheld as

legal. Not all of these cases reached the US Supreme Court.

In Georgia, a 9.98% deviation was not allowed for multiple violations of the law

(including not preserving whole counties as well as many other faults -- intentionally

dilutes votes, considering political data, and violated their constitution, among several

other violations). Larios v. Cox, No. 1:03-CV-693-CAP, 300 F. Supp.2d 1320 (N.D. Ga.

Feb. 10, 2004), affd 542 U.S. 947 (June 30, 2004) ( No. 03-1413) (mem.).

In Idaho a 9.71% deviation was allowed for the purpose of preserving whole counties,

etc. without discrimination. Bonneville County v. Ysursa, 2005 Opinion No. 138, 142

Idaho 464, 129 P.3d 1213 (Idaho Dec. 28, 2005)

New Hampshire had an overall range of 9.26% and New York had a range of 9.78%.

Both plans were upheld. See Burling v. Chandler, No. 2002-0210, 148 N.H. 143 (N.H.

July 26, 2002) (House plan) and Allen v. Pataki, No. 02-101712 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y.

County, May 29, 2002).

The summary does not list the Legislative variant in every state, only those challenged.

So some states may have also had a larger variant (close to 10%) that met with no

opposition. (Found document that states 32/50 states have variant above 9%.)

Based on these cases, a variant in the 9% range would be allowed in PA to help us fulll

our constitutional rule about not splitting Counties, etc. unless absolutely necessary for

equal population (equal meaning a less than 10% variant).

Cases


3/19



4/19


5/19


Pnnslvana Snat Rdstrctn Proposal (District Sizes)

Dstrct S Counts1 253,348 Bucks (part - 253348)

2 254,476 Philadelph ia (part - 254476)

3 254,097 Philadelphia (part - 254097)

4 253,418 Philadelph ia (part - 253418)

5 254,087 Philadelphia (part - 254087)

6 248,516 Chester (part - 248516)

7 255,726 Philadelphia (part - 255726)8 254,202 Philadelphia (part - 254202)

9 255,931 Delaware (part - 255931)

10 254,042 Bucks (part - 254042)

11 253,378 Berks (part - 159544); Montgomery (Part - 93834)

12 252,631 Montgomery (part - 252631)

13 260,090 Lancaster (part - 260090)

14 254,511 Carbon (65249); Luzerne (Part - 163455); Monroe (Part - 25807)

15 268,100 Dauphin (268100)

16 255,855 Lehigh (Part - 255855)

17 250,151 Delaware (part - 48491); Montgomer y (part -- 201660)

18 253,839 Northampton (part - 253839)

19 250,370 Chester (part - 250370)

20 254,789 Bradford (62622); Luzerne (part - 157463); Sullivan (6428); Wyoming (28276)

21 251,653 Clarion (39988); Erie (part - 28054); Forest (7716); Indiana (88880); Jefferson (45200); Warren (41815)22 257,793 Lackawanna (214437); Susquehanna (43356)

23 263,322 Cameron (5085); Clinton (39238); Lycoming (116111); McKean (43450); Potter (17457); Tioga (41981)

24 251,898 Berks (part - 251898)

25 257,614 Adams (101407); York (part - 156207)

26 254,557 Delaware (part - 254557)

27 254,223 Columbia (67295); Montour (18267); Northumberland (94528); Schuylkill (part - 29186); Union (44947)

28 256,930 York (part - 256930)

29 255,397 Bucks (part - 117859); Lehigh (part - 93642); Northampton (part - 43896)

30 254,593 Bedford (49762); Blair (127089); Somerset (77742)

31 257,241 Cumberland (235406); York (part - 21835)

32 250,779 Fayette (136606); Westmoreland (114173)

33 256,345 Franklin (149618); Fulton (14845); Huntingdon (45913 ); Perry (45969)

34 265,010 Centre (153990); Juniata (24636); Mifin (46682); Snyder (39702);

35 257,267 Cambria (143679); Cleare ld (81642); Elk (31946)

36 259,355 Lancaster (part - 259355)37 245,419 Allegheny (part - 245419);

38 245,209 Allegheny (part - 245209)

39 250,996 Westmoreland (part - 250996)

40 244,843 Allegheny (part - 244843)

41 252,803 Armstrong (68941); Butler (183862)

42 243,903 Allegheny (part - 243903)

43 243,974 Allegheny (part - 243974)

44 251,749 Montgomer y (part - 251749)

45 254,226 Monroe (part - 144035); Pike (57369); Wayne (52822)

46 246,506 Greene (38686); Washington (207820)

47 261,647 Beaver (170539); Lawrence (91108);

48 252,671 Lebanon (133568); Schuylki ll (part - 119103)

49 252,512 Erie (252512)

50 260,387 Crawford (88765); Mercer (116638); Venango (54984);12,702,397

Not:

For a list of the specic

cities, boroughs, and

townships used within

each county and district,

please refer to the

Commissions ofce

for an electronic copy

of the data. It was too

lengthy to include in

this summary. It was

emailed in a le named

senate_by_vtd_update.

csv.


6/19

1

2

3

45

6

9

12

5

4

20.18

20.17

20.16

20.15

20.1

1

2

4

5

6

12

16

17

24

26

27

30

31

32

12

3

25

21

27

28

2028

20

18

19

29

15

14

13

8

119

10

7

24

2223

6

2

1

3

5

4

7

1

Fort

Allen

WendelHerm

Middletown

WeaversOldStand

University

NewStanton

Sibel

VTD# 7

VTD# 5

VTD# 1

8

1 7

1 5

1 4

1 1

1

23

3

1 6

1 9

1 2

1 0

9 5

7

1 8

1 3

4

8 .7

8 .41 1 .6

1 1 .3

1 1

.7 1 1 .5

1 1 .4

11.2

1 2 .2

12.1

1 9 .2

8 .3 8

.6

11.1

8 .5

8. 2 8.1

U ni onSquare

ElmTreeEdI

Sport i ngH il l

El mTreeEdI I

L y n d

o n

Millport

Ward1

Ward3

Ward21

1

3

8

4

76

5

9

2

1 7

1 4

1 8

1 6

1 02

83

1

5

6

4

7 911

1 2

1 3

1 9

1 5

1

3

4

5

7

6

2

VTD

North

VTDSouthUp

perEd6

UpperEd

3

UpperEd

5

UpperEd1

U . E d 3

36

7

5

1

4

28

3

6

7

5

1

4

2

9

3 .33 .6

3 .73 .5

3 .1

3 .4

3 .2

3

6

5

1

4

2

22.1

22.5

22.2

2 2 .4

18.16

18. 118.9

18. 1418.15

18.3

18.8 18.13

18. 1731.1

31.931.8

31.1131. 12

31.2

2.27

2.232 .26

2.16

2.252.24

someof t heVTDsinWar d39

27.19

27. 3

40.4

40.14

40.3

26.6

26. 1526.18

26.14

26.13

26.9

26.12

26.19

26.17

26.16

26.8

26.11

26.2 1

26.2226.10

4.14.134.12

4. 19

34.1834.20 34.1034.13

34.36

34.934.534.434.3

34.234.1

34. 16

34.28

34.38

34.26

34.17

34.42

4.7

4.84.2

4.20

4.154.14

57.357.157. 17

57.18

57.2857.1457. 13

57. 15 57. 12

55. 21

55.2755.2955.11

55. 2255.20

55.2455.19

55. 12

55.9

55.1355.1455. 15

55.1655.1755. 18

55.7

55.555.4

55.355.6

55.25 55.2855.26

55. 23

55.10

55.8

55.2

55. 1

41.18

41.2341.19

41.2041.2241.21

4 1 .2 4

41.16

4 1 .2 6 41.25

23.18

23.19

23.17

23.20

23. 21

23.15

7.7

7. 6

7.97.8

7.5

52

2816

32

29 4718

14

20

37

19

31

2545

7

33

23

35

53

54

6255

41

63

56

64

57

65

58

66

50

10

61

4249

17

12

59

22

9

21

38 13

43

11

15

58

2

1

3926

48

36

30

40

51

3 4627

34

444 6

24

60

8

7

4

3

9

5

2

16

6 .5

6 .3

6 .66 .1

6 .26 .4


Pnnslvana Hous Rdstrctn Proposal (Illustration of End Result)

1.42

4.48

1.86

.88

.67

.12

.64

1.46

2.94

1.10

.72

2.73

19.55

1.42

2.30

5.84

3.32

.62 2.181.24

.80

2.03

.73

.24

2.39

.08.51

.69

.63

.28

2.46

.67

.39

8.30

.73

.63

3.76

1.08

.72

.10

1.00

.84

1.04

.75

2.13

2.37

6.58

.29

1.51

.45

1.62

1.86

.69

5.13

3.43

2.71

.92

7.97

12.78

8.93

9.99

4.76

5.59

6.95

4.28

1.30

24.39

20.18

20.17

20.16

20.15

20.1

1

2

4

5

6

12

16

17

24

26

27

30

31

32

12

3

25

21

27

28

20

28

20

18

19

29

15

14

13

8

11

9

10

7

24

22

23

22.1

22.5

22.2

22.4

1 8 .1 6

1 8 .11 8 .9

1 8 .1 4

1 8 .1 5

1 8 .3

1 8 .81 8 .1 3

1 8 .1 7

3 1 .1

3 1 .93 1 .8

3 1 .1 1

3 1 .1 2

3 1 .2

2 .2 7

2 .2 32 .2 6

2.16

2 .2 5

2.24

so me o fth e VTDs i n W a rd 3 9

2 7 .1 9

2 7 .3

4 0 .4

4 0 .1 4

4 0 .3

2 6 .6

2 6 .1 526.1

8

26.

14

2 6.13

26.9

26.12

26 .

19

26.1 7

26.

16

26.8

26.11

2 6.2

1

2 6 .2 22 6.1 0

4 .1

4.13

4 .1 24 .1 9

3 4 .1 83 4 .2 0

3 4 .1 03 4 .1 3

3 4 .3 6

3 4 .9

3 4 .5

3 4 .4

3 4 .3

3 4 .2

3 4 .1

3 4 .1 6

3 4 .2 8

34.38

34.26

34.17

34.42

4 .7

4 .8

4 .2

4.20

4.15

4.14

57.3 57.157.17

57.18

57.2857.14

57.13

57.1557.12

5 5 .2 1

5 5 .2 7

5 5 .2 9

5 5 .1 1

5 5 .2 25 5 .2 0

5 5 .2 45 5 .1 9

5 5 .1 2

55.9

5 5 .1 3

5 5.1 4

55.15

55.16

5 5 .1 7

55.18

55.7

55.5

5 5 .4

5 5.3

55.6

55.25

55.28

5 5 .2 6

5 5 .2 3

55.10

55.8

5 5 .2

5 5 .1

41.18

4 1 .2 3

4 1 .1 9

4 1 .2 0

4 1 .2 2

4 1 .2 1

4 1 .2 4

41.16

41 .2 6

4 1 .2 5

2 3 .1 8

2 3 .1 9

2 3 .1 7

23.20

23.21

2 3 .1 5

7 .7

7 .6

7 .9

7 .8

7 .5

5228

16

32

29

4718

14

20

37

19

31

2545

7

33

23

35

53

54

6255

41

63

56

64

57

65

58

66

50

10

61

4249

17

12

59

22

9

21

38 13

43

11

15

58

2

1

3926

48

36

30

40

51

346

27

34

444 6

24

60

Dstrct Ss(Rule: equal population -- 10% variant allowed)

Larst: 65,249 / Carbon (was 62,099 / #58)

Smallst: 60,068 / Delaw. (was 58,751/#114)

Drnc: 5,181 (was 3,348)

Avra: 62,379

Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:

Abov Avra: 3.83% (was 2.65%)

Blow Avra: 3.71% (was 2.89%)

Ovrall Varant: 8.63% (was 5.70%)

How Th Proposd Sstm HlpsIt keeps the difference between large and

small distircts within the range allowed by theUS Supreme Court.

Boundar Splts(Rule: no splits unless absolutely necessary)

# of splits by ...

Count: 42/67 (was 48/67)

Muncpalt: 23 (was over 75)

Ward: 31 (was over 50)

# of Districts that include splits of ...

Counts: 34/203 (was 64/203)

Muncpalts: 39/203 (was 152/203)

Wards: 33/203 (was 97/203)

How Th Proposd Sstm HlpsFewer boundaries are split using this

proposed system.

Ct o Pttsburh Phladlpha Count

C R A f O R D

D e L A W A R eP H

i LA D

e LP H

i A

MONTgOM

eRy

NORT

HAMP

TON

B U C k S

L e B A N O N

B e R k S

L e H i g H

C H e S T e R

L A N C A S T e R

A L L e g H e N y

A D A M S

y O R k

C U M B e R L A N D

P e R R y

D A U P H i N

S C H U y L k i L L

C A R B O N

M O N R O e

P i k e

W A y N e

S U S q U e H A N N A

B R A D f O R D

L A C k A -W A N N AW y O M i N g

L U z e R N e

S U L L i V A N

T i O g A

P O T T e R

L y C O M i N g

M C k e A N

C L i N T O N

C A M e R O N

e L k

f O R e S T

C L e A R f i e L D

M e R C e R

W A R R e N

C L A R i O NJ e f f e R S O N

V e N A N g O

L A W R e N C e

A R M S T R O N g

C A M B R i A

B e A V e R

W e S T M O R e L A N D

i N D i A N A

B U T L e R

e R i e

W A S H i N g T O N

g R e e N e

f A y e T T e

H U N T i N g D O N

B L A i R

f U L T O NS O M e R S e T

B e D f O R D

f R A N k L i N

M if f

L iN

S N y D e R

J UN i

A TA

C e N T R eU N i O N

N O R T H U M -

B e R L A N D

COLUMBiA

MONTOUR

Ver 3


7/19


Pnnslvana Hous Rdstrctn Proposal (District Sizes)# S Counts

1 63,728 Erie

2 62,584 Erie

3 63,617 Erie

4 63,759 Erie

5 62,530 Crawford, Erie, Mercer

6 61,872 Crawford

7 63,328 Mercer

8 63,380 Mercer, Venango

9 62,688 Lawrence10 63,001 Clarion, Venango

11 62,427 Butler

12 63,922 Butler

13 61,430 Chester

14 62,690 Beaver, Lawrence

15 61,527 Beaver

16 61,637 Beaver

17 63,606 Armstrong, Butler

18 60,427 Bucks

19 61,444 Allegheny (Pitts.)


21 62,698 Allegheny


23 61,421 Allegheny (Pitts.)24 62,241 Allegheny (Pitts. part)

25 62,045 Allegheny

26 62,446 Chester

27 62,928 Allegheny

28 61,145 Beaver, Allegheny

29 63,312 Bucks

30 62,958 Allegheny

31 62,962 Bucks

32 62,180 Allegheny

33 60,303 Allegheny

34 62,192 Allegheny

35 61,295 Allegheny

36 62,009 Berks

37 61,889 Berks, Lancaster, Lebanon

38 62,246 Allegheny (Pitts. part)39 60,941 Allegheny

40 61,528 Allegheny

41 61,809 Lancaster

42 60,652 Allegheny

43 63,573 Lancaster

44 63,239 Allegheny

45 63,015 Allegheny

46 61,411 Washington

47 63,759 York



50 62,058 Greene, Washington

51 63,586 Fayette

52 62,578 Fayette53 62,921 Montgomery

Not: For a list of the specic cities,

boroughs, and townships used within each

county and district, please refer to the

Commissions ofce for an electronic copy

of the data. It was too lengthy to include in

this summary. It is on the CD in a le named

house_by_vtd_ver3.csv.

54 61,576 Westmoreland





59 62,264 Fayette, Westmoreland

60 62,848 Armstrong

61 62,809 Montgomery

62 63,484 Indiana

63 62,846 York

64 61,086 Lancaster

65 62,673 Erie, Forest, Warren

66 62,452 Elk, Jefferson

67 63,229 Cameron, Elk, McKean

68 63,416 Lycoming, Potter, Tioga

69 63,897 Somerset


71 62,528 Cambria

72 60,719 Franklin, Fulton

73 62,561 Cambria

74 62,783 Cambria, Cleareld , Indiana

75 62,845 Cleareld

76 60,302 Centre, Clinton

77 62,861 Centre78 63,607 Bedford, Somerset

79 63,152 Blair

80 63,937 Blair

81 62,245 Centre, Huntingdon, Mifin

82 62,526 Juniata, Mifin

83 62,465 Lycoming

84 63,279 Columbia, Lycoming, Union

85 62,277 Northumberland, Union

86 62,478 Dauphin, Perry

87 62,476 Cumberland


89 64,542 Cumberland, Franklin

90 63,188 Franklin

91 62,522 Adams

92 61,488 York

93 60,949 York

94 61,834 York

95 62,827 York

96 64,035 Lancaster

97 62,611 Lancaster

98 62,222 Lancaster

99 63,719 Lancaster

100 62,916 Lancaster

101 62,684 Lebanon

102 62,871 Lebanon

103 63,080 Dauphin

104 63,553 Dauphin

105 62,413 Dauphin

106 62,597 Dauphin107 62,876 Northumberland

108 62,870 Northumberland, Snyder

109 63,105 Columbia

110 62,622 Bradford

111 62,798 Sullivan, Susquehanna, Wyoming

112 62,874 Lackawanna



115 63,341 Susquehanna, Wayne

116 64,956 Monroe, Northampton

117 62,293 Luzerne

118 61,010 Lackawanna , Luzerne

119 62,063 Luzerne

120 61,768 Luzerne

121 62,213 Luzerne

122 65,249 Carbon

123 63,140 Luzerene, Schuylkill

124 61,650 Schuylkill

125 62,982 Schuylkill

126 61,446 Berks

127 62,770 Berks

128 63,445 Berks

129 63,095 Berks

130 62,223 Berks

131 62,722 Lehigh132 63,862 Lehigh

133 62,644 Lehigh

134 62,540 Lehigh

135 64,173 Northampton




139 62,112 Pike, Wayne

140 61,065 Bucks

141 64,308 Bucks

142 63,365 Bucks

143 62,717 Bucks

144 61,914 Bucks

145 62,991 Bucks









154 62,469 Chester

155 63,404 Chester

156 61,096 Chester

157 64,765 Chester

158 62,831 Chester

159 62,344 Delaware

160 60,464 Delaware161 62,182 Delaware

162 60,068 Delaware

163 62,038 Delaware

164 61,004 Delaware

165 63,852 Delaware

166 63,678 Delaware

167 60,445 Chester

168 62,001 Delaware

169 62,812 Philadelphia


171 62,525 Centre



174 62,107 Montgomer y


176 64,586 Monroe


178 62,188 Bucks





183 61,006 Lehigh, Northampton


185 63,650 Philadelphia186 63,391 Philadelphia

187 61,363 Lehigh


189 62,293 Monroe




193 63,904 Adams, Cumberland



196 61,269 York








Ver 3


8/19


The Steps and Formulas

Step 1: County Apportionment

a) PA Population / Number of Legislators = Target Average District Population

b) County Population / Target Average District Population = County Apportionment

Step 2. Place Counties into Groups

a) For Senate Districts: Group Counties so that apportionment totals equal as close to a whole number

as possible without breaking county lines.b) For Representative Districts: Group Counties so that apportionment totals equal as close to a whole

number as possible without breaking county lines.

Step 3: Verify County Groups are of equal population, as practicable (within 10% variant range)

a) Population of Grouped County(s) / Number of Apportioned Legislators = Actual District Population

b) Actual District Population / PA Population = Actual District Percentage of Population

Step 4: Divide County Groups exceeding one into districts with one legislator

Step 5: Assign District numbers

Step 6: Verify compliance with Voting Rights Act

a) Preserve existing minority-majority district(s)b) Create new minority-majority district(s), if required.

The Law

The Commonwealth shall be divided

into fty senatorial and two hundred

three representative districts, which

shall be composed of compact and

contiguous territory as nearly equal

in population as practicable. Each

senatorial district shall elect one

Senator, and each representative

district one Representative. Unless

absolutely necessary no county, city,

incorporated town, borough, township or

ward shall be divided in forming either a

senatorial or representative district.

(Article 2, Section 16).

The Goal

To use formulas to follow the law by

creating districts not dvdd b count,

ct, tc. unless absolutely necessary

to keep the population of each district

equal (in a practical sense).

Proposed System

for Legislative Reapportionment


9/19


Pnnslvana Snat Dstrcts Stp 1: Apportonmnt

1.10

.15.54

.31.20

.06

.23

1.71

.35

.46

.21

.16

.03

.16

.36

.72

.27

.18

.67

4.82

.35

.57

1.44

.82

.50

.18

.59

.02.13

.17

.15

.07

.61

.17

.09

2.04

.18

.16

.93

.26

.18

.03

.25

.21

.26

.18

.53

.58

1.62

.07

.37

.11

.40

.46

.17

1.26

.84

.67

1.96

3.15

2.20

2.46

1.17

1.38

1.06

.32

6.01

illustratd Count Apportonmnts (see below for the formula for obtaining this number)



C R A f O R D

D e L A W A R e PH i

L AD e

L PH i

A

MONTgOMeRy

NORT

HAMP

TON

B U C k S

L e B A N O N

B e R k S

L e H i g H

C H e S T e R

L A N C A S T e R

A L L e g H e N y

A D A M S

y O R k

C U M B e R L A N D

P e R R y

D A U P H i N

S C H U y L k i L L

C A R B O N

M O N R O e

P i k e

W A y N e


B R A D f O R D

L A C k A -W A N N A

W y O M i N g

L U z e R N e

S U L L i V A N

T i O g A

P O T T e R

L y C O M i N g

M C k e A N

C L i N T O N

C A M e R O Ne L k

f O R e S T

C L e A R f i e L D

M e R C e R

W A R R e N


V e N A N g O

L A W R e N C e

A R M S T R O N g

C A M B R i A

B e A V e R


i N D i A N A

B U T L e R

e R i e

W A S H i N g T O N

g R e e N e

f A y e T T e

H U N T i N g D O N

B L A i R


B e D f O R D

f R A N k L i N

M if f

L iN

S N y D e R

J UN i

A TA


N O R T H U M -

B e R L A N D

COLUMBiA

MONTOUR


10/19


Pnnslvana Snat Dstrcts Stp 2: Rons

1.10

.15.54

.31.20

.06

.23

1.71

.35

.46

.21

.16

.03

.16

.36

.72

.27

.18

.67

4.82.35

.57

1.44

.82

.50

.18

.59

.02.13

.17

.15

.07

.61

.17

.09

2.04

.18

.16

.93

.26

.18

.03

.25

.21

.26

.18

.53

.58

1.62

.07

.37

.11

.40

.46

.17

1.26

.84

.67

1.96

3.15

2.20

2.46

1.17

1.38

1.06

.32

6.01

dstrcts dvdd btwn thr or mor counts dstrcts wth all o on count and part o anothr count on or mor dstrcts, all wthn count lns10 29

C R A f O R D

D e L A W A R eP H

i LA D

e LP H

i A

MONTgOM

eRy

NORT

HAMP

TON

B U C k S

L e B A N O N

B e R k S

L e H i g H

C H e S T e R

L A N C A S T e R

A L L e g H e N y

A D A M S

y O R k

C U M B e R L A N D

P e R R y

D A U P H i N

S C H U y L k i L L

C A R B O N

M O N R O e

P i k e

W A y N e


B R A D f O R D

L A C k A -

W A N N A

W y O M i N g

L U z e R N e

S U L L i V A N

T i O g A

P O T T e R

L y C O M i N g

M C k e A N

C L i N T O N

C A M e R O Ne L k

f O R e S T

C L e A R f i e L D

M e R C e R

W A R R e N


V e N A N g O

L A W R e N C e

A R M S T R O N g

C A M B R i A

B e A V e R


i N D i A N A

B U T L e R

e R i e

W A S H i N g T O N

g R e e N e

f A y e T T e

H U N T i N g D O N

B L A i R


B e D f O R D

f R A N k L i N

M if f

L i N

S N y D e R

J UN i

A TA


N O R T H U M -

B e R L A N D

COLUMBiA

MONTOUR

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

5

1

6

7

2

Pnnslvana Snat Dstrcts Stp 3

% # o sats Total Count

268,100 2.11% 1 268,100 Dauphin

265,010 2.09% 1 265,010 Centre, Juniata, Mifin, Snyder

263,322 2.07% 1 263,322 Clinton, Lycoming, Potter, Tioga, Cameron, McKea n

261,647 2.06% 1 261,647 Beaver, Lawrence

260,387 2.05% 1 260,387 Crawford, Mercer, Venango

259,723 2.04% 2 519,445 Lancaster

257,793 2.03% 1 257,793 Lackawanna, Susquehanna

257,267 2.03% 1 257,267 Cleareld, Cambria, Elk

257,262 2.03% 3 771,785 York, Adams, Cumberland

256,345 2.02% 1 256,345 Perry, Huntingdon, Franklin, Fulton

254,836 2.01% 1 254,836 Bradford, Sullivan, Wyoming, Luzerne (par t)

254,593 2.00% 1 254,593 Bedford, Blair, Somerset

254,496 2.00% 5 1,272,481 Bucks, Northampton, Lehigh


254,345 2.00% 2 508,690 Monroe, Pike, Wayne, Carbon, Luzerne (part)

254,334 2.00% 6 1,526,006 Philadelphia

2 54 ,2 23 2 .0 0% 1 2 54 ,2 23 M on to ur, No rt hu mbe rl and , C olu mbi a, Sc huy lk il l ( pa rt ), Un io n

253,353 1.99% 1 253,353 Erie (pa rt), Indiana , Calr ion, For est, Jef ferson, War ren

252,899 1.99% 7 1,770,295 Montgomery, Berks, Delaware

252,803 1.99% 1 252,803 Armstrong, Butler

252,671 1.99% 1 252,671 Lebanon, Schuylkill (part)

250,888 1.98% 2 501,775 Westmoreland, Fayette

250,812 1.97% 1 250,812 Erie (part)

249,443 1.96% 2 498,886 Chester

246,506 1.94% 1 246,506 Washington, Greene

244,670 1.93% 5 1,223,348 Allegheny

255,509 2.01% 50 12,702,379 est. Ovrall Varant: 9.58%

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

2

2

5


11/19


Step 6

Senate Minority-Majority Districts& Philadelphia

Because of strong minority presence in Philadelphia County, any plan must consider minority-majority districts. Districts 3, 4, 7,

8 were all minority-majority districts in 2001 and retained their status.

Creating a 5th minority-majority was attempted by pulling minority populations from surrounding counties. Doing so, however,

did not result in a district that met the Voting Rights Act (VRA) criteria for a minority-majority district. No minority race had a

majority (50% + 1) in the attempted district. There would be no grounds for claim to the contrary under the VRA.

The following two charts list all districts in Philadelphia with racial stats. It is interesting to note the growth of the Hispanic

presence in District 2.

All of Population

#2 #3 #4 #5 #7 #8

White 29.5% 33.0% 22.1% 73.0% 34.3% 29.3%

Black 24.4% 55.5% 53.8% 10.5% 55.0% 54.1%

Hispanic 39.5% 4.9% 13.4% 7.7% 3.1% 5.3%

Asian 4.9% 4.3% 8.0% 6.6% 5.0% 9.0%

Other 1.8% 2.3% 2.7% 2.3% 2.6% 2.4%

Voting Age Population

#2 #3 #4 #5 #7 #8

White 34.8% 38.0% 25.0% 75.5% 37.9% 33.5%

Black 23.1% 50.6% 52.8% 10.1% 51.3% 50.9%

Hispanic 35.3% 4.5% 11.6% 6.5% 2.8% 4.8%

Asian 5.4% 4.8% 8.3% 6.3% 5.7% 8.9%

Other 1.5% 2.1% 2.3% 1.6% 2.3% 2.0%

TrmMinority-Majority District, as

dened by Federal Law, is

when a minority can compose

a 50% plus 1 of the over 18

population within one district.

See Bartlett v. Strickland, 129

S.Ct. 1231 (2009).


12/19


Pnnslvana Hous Dstrcts Stp 1: Apportonmnt

1.42

4.48

1.86

.88

.67

.12

.64

1.46

2.94

1.10

.72

2.73

19.55

1.42

2.30

5.84

3.32

.62 2.181.24

.80

2.03

.73

.24

2.39

.08.51

.69

.63

.28

2.46

.67

.39

8.30

.73

.63

3.76

1.08

.72

.10

1.00

.84

1.04

.75

2.13

2.37

6.58

.29

1.51

.45

1.62

1.86

.69

5.13

3.43

2.71

.92

7.97

12.78

8.93

9.99

4.76

5.59

6.95

4.28

1.30

24.39

illustratd Count Apportonmnts (see below for the formula for obtaining this number)



C R A f O R D

D e L A W A R e PH i

L AD e

L PH i

A

MO

NTgOMeRy

NORT

HAMP

TON

B U C k S

L e B A N O N

B e R k S

L e H i g H

C H e S T e R

L A N C A S T e R

A L L e g H e N y

A D A M S

y O R k

C U M B e R L A N D

P e R R y

D A U P H i N

S C H U y L k i L L

C A R B O N

M O N R O e

P i k e

W A y N e


B R A D f O R D

L A C k A -

W A N N A

W y O M i N g

L U z e R N e

S U L L i V A N

T i O g A

P O T T e R

L y C O M i N g

M C k e A N

C L i N T O N

C A M e R O Ne L k

f O R e S T

C L e A R f i e L D

M e R C e R

W A R R e N


V e N A N g O

L A W R e N C e

A R M S T R O N g

C A M B R i A

B e A V e R


i N D i A N A

B U T L e R

e R i e

W A S H i N g T O N

g R e e N e

f A y e T T e

H U N T i N g D O N

B L A i R


B e D f O R D

f R A N k L i N

M if f

L iN

S N y D e R

J UN i

A TA


N O R T H U M -

B e R L A N D

COLUMBiA

MONTOUR


13/19


Pnnslvana Hous Dstrcts Stp 2: Rons

rons o ncludn mor than thr counts rons ncludn thr counts rons ncludn on or two counts10 29

1.42

4.48

1.86

.88

.67

.12

.64

1.46

2.94

1.10

.72

2.73

19.55

1.42

2.30

5.84

3.32

.62 2.181.24

.80

2.03

.73

.24

2.39

.08.51

.69

.63

.28

2.46

.67

.39

8.30

.73

.63

3.76

1.08

.72

.10

1.00

.84

1.04

.75

2.13

2.37

6.58

.29

1.51

.45

1.62

1.86

.69

5.13

3.43

2.71

.92

7.97

12.78

8.93

9.99

4.76

5.59

6.95

4.28

1.30

24.39

C R A f O R D

D e L A W A R eP H

i LA D

e LP H

i A

MO

NTgOMeRy

NORT

HAMP

TON

B U C k S

L e B A N O N

B e R k S

L e H i g H

C H e S T e R

L A N C A S T e R

A L L e g H e N y

A D A M S

y O R k

C U M B e R L A N D

P e R R y

D A U P H i N

S C H U y L k i L L

C A R B O N

M O N R O e

P i k e

W A y N e


B R A D f O R D

L A C k A -

W A N N A

W y O M i N g

L U z e R N e

S U L L i V A N

T i O g A

P O T T e R

L y C O M i N g

M C k e A N

C L i N T O N

C A M e R O Ne L k

f O R e S T

C L e A R f i e L D

M e R C e R

W A R R e N


V e N A N g O

L A W R e N C e

A R M S T R O N g

C A M B R i A

B e A V e R


i N D i A N A

B U T L e R

e R i e

W A S H i N g T O N

g R e e N e

f A y e T T e

H U N T i N g D O N

B L A i R


B e D f O R D

f R A N k L i N

M if f

L iN

S N y D e R

J UN i

A TA


N O R T H U M -

B e R L A N D

COLUMBiA

MONTOUR

10

24

3

4

4

2

5

2

7

1

5

8

9

10

37

7

2

7

5

17

13

11

Pnnslvana Lslatv Dstrcts Stp 3


62,249 0.49% 1 62,249 Carbon

63,752 0.50% 2 127,504 Bedford, Somerset

63,545 0.50% 2 127,089 Blair

63,201 0.50% 4 252,803 Butler, Armstrong

6 3,0 47 0 .5 0% 10 6 30 ,47 2 Er ie, C raw fo rd, M er ce r, C la ri on, Fo re st, Wa rr en, Ven ang o

6 2, 89 8 0 .5 0% 7 4 40 ,2 88 Mo ntou r, N or thu mb er la nd , Un ion , Sny de r, P ot ter, Ti og a, Ly co mi ng , Co lu mb ia

62,862 0.49% 37 2,325,880 Philadelphia, Montgomery

62,852 0.49% 13 817,074 Lehigh, Northampton, Monroe

62,841 0.49% 2 125,681 Cameron, McKean, Jefferson, Elk

62,840 0.49% 5 314,201 Cleareld, Cambria, Indiana

62,814 0.49% 5 314,069 Dauphin, Perry

62,750 0.49% 3 188,251 Sullivan, Wayne, Pike, Susquehanna, Wyoming


62,722 0.49% 8 501,775 Westmoreland, Fayette

62,660 0.49% 8 501,276 Fulton, Cumberland, Franklin, Adams

62,622 0.49% 1 62,622 Bradford

62,615 0.49% 17 1,064,455 Lancaster, Lebanon, Berks

62,525 0.49% 10 625,249 Bucks

62,361 0.49% 8 498,886 Chester

62,149 0.49% 11 683,644 Lackawanna, Luzerne, Schuylkill

62,139 0.49% 7 434,972 York

62,109 0.49% 9 558,979 Delaware

62,092 0.49% 5 310,459 Juniata, Mifin, Clinton, Centre, Huntingdon

61,875 0.49% 24 1,484,995 Allegheny, Beaver, Lawrence

61,627 0.49% 4 246,506 Washington, Greene

62,659 0.49% 203 12,702,379 est. Ovrall Varant: 7.62%

8

1


14/19


Step 6 : House Minority-Majority DistrictsIn 2001, there were 17 House districts that met the criteria for a minority-majority district 14 in Philadelphia, 1 in Delaware,

and 2 in Pittsburgh.

The proposed map found it necessary to create 20 minority-majority districts.

1 previous minority-majority districts fell short of the required quota due to the changes in populations and district sizes

(specicaly the one in Delaware).

Of the previous minority-majority districts, all 14 were retained in Philadelphia as well as the 2 in Pittsburgh.

4 new minority-majority districts were created in the following counties: Berks (1 - Reading); Delaware (2 - Darby/Upper

Darby area); Lehigh (1 - Allentown).

Creating additional minority-majority districts was attempted by crossing political subdivisions. Doing so, however, did not result

in a district that met the Voting Rights Act (VRA) criteria for a minority-majority district. No minority race had a majority (50% + 1)

in the attempted district. So although several came close, there would be no grounds for claim to the contrary under the VRA.

The following two charts list all minoirty-majority house districts with racial stats.

All of Population

#19(Pitts.)

#24(Pitts.-

Penn)

#127(Berks)

#133(Lehigh)

#161(Delaw.)

Darby

#163(Delaw.)

U. Darby

#177(Philly)

7.23.33

#180(Philly)

7.42.49

#185(Philly)

26.39.40

#186(Philly)

36.48

#188(Philly)

27.46.51

#190(Philly)

4.34

#191(Philly)

6.24.44.60

#192(Philly)

28.38.52

#195(Philly)

11.16.29.47

#197(Philly)

19.37.43

#198(Philly)

12.13.17

#200(Philly)

50

#201(Philly)

10.22.59

#203(Philly)

35.61

White 38.3% 39.6% 28.1% 27.5% 40.6% 17.4% 15.5% 5.2% 29.5% 28.0% 26.6% 25.5% 14.4% 18.5% 10.4% 8.8% 7.1% 33.8% 8.7% 17.5%

Black 54.2% 54.4% 10.0% 11.7% 52.6% 64.8% 24.3% 50.9% 55.3% 54.0% 57.3% 63.9% 74.1% 74.1% 82.8% 34.1% 86.4% 56.1% 85.2% 51.8%

Hispanic 2.1% 1.6% 58.5% 56.7% 2.6% 4.6% 54.6% 34.2% 3.9% 4.4% 3.5% 3.3% 2.9% 2.6% 3.2% 53.1% 3.0% 3.1% 2.8% 16.6%

Asian 2.7% 1.3% 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 10.2% 3.9% 7.7% 9.1% 11.2% 9.5% 4.9% 6.0% 2.5% 1.6% 2.6% 1.1% 4.7% .7% 11.5%

Other 2.7% 3.1% 2.1% 2.5% 2.7% 3.0% 1.7% 2.0% 2.1% 2.3% 3.2% 2.4% 2.7% 2.3% 2.1% 1.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.6% 2.6%

TrmMinority-Majority District, as

dened by Federal Law, is

when a minority can compose

a 50% plus 1 of the over 18

population within one district.

See Bartlett v. Strickland, 129

S.Ct. 1231 (2009).

Not on NumbrsNumbers correspond to the

emailed spreadsheet with

breakdown by VTD.

Voting Age Population

#19 #24 #127 #133 #161 #163 #177 #180 #185 #186 #188 #190 #191 #192 #195 #197 #198 #200 #201 #203

White 42.9% 44.4% 35.4% 34.6% 45.4% 20.7% 19.8% 6.3% 34.6% 32.5% 30.8% 28.8% 17.8% 21.5% 13.3% 10.8% 8.8% 35.6% 9.9% 21.2%

Black 50.0% 50.7% 10.6% 11.4% 49.1% 62.1% 23.5% 51.3% 51.1% 50.6% 52.0% 61.3% 69.7% 71.3% 79.8% 34.2% 85.2% 55.2% 84.8% 49.5%

Hispanic 2.0% 1.3% 51.1% 50.5% 2.1% 4.3% 51.1% 32.1% 3.5% 3.9% 3.4% 3.0% 2.7% 2.3% 3.0% 50.8% 2.6% 2.6% 2.3% 15.0%

Asian 2.9% 1.4% 1.4% 1.7% 1.5% 10.5% 4.3% 8.4% 9.0% 11.1% 10.8% 4.9% 7.3% 2.9% 1.9% 2.8% 1.3% 4.6% .8% 12.2%

Other 2.1% 2.3% 1.5% 1.8% 1.9% 2.4% 1.3% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 3.0% 1.9% 2.6% 2.1% 2.0% 1.4% 2.1% 1.8% 2.1% 2.1%

Ver 3


15/19


Pnnslvana Hous Rdstrctn Proposal

Highlighted Situations and Notes

Non-Contuous Count Subdvsons: #41 (Lancaster Twp) -- The Township of Lancaster is not contiguous as portions of the township

(and even Manheim Twp) are occasionally interspersed with Lancaster City (#96). In the approved

2000 PA redistricting plan, these districts were allowed even though they contained these non-

contiguous portions. So it appears that non-contiguous county sub divisions do not count toward

making a non-contiguous district.

Mnort-Majort Dstrcts #161 (Delaware - orange colored) While having a 50% plus 1 majority of the total population,

it just falls short of the number for the over 18 population (49.1%). Because the 49.1% still gives

the minority a majority, it seems unnecessary to cross county subdivisions to bring it up to the

technically required 50% plus 1. If the Courts do not agree, then this could be met by moving

Philadelphia Wd 3 Precinct 21 and 22 from District 163 to 161. District 163 would take two VTD

from Ward 34 (District 90).

Several districts contained a large minority presence, but failed to reach the required 50% plus 1

minimum. Every effort was made to adjust the boundaries by splitting county subdivisions to reach

a majority. In each case, however, it was not possible to reach the required 50% plus 1 population

majority that would justify the splitting of County Subdivisions. Therefore, these districts were

left with whole County Subdivisions. They are: #96 (Lancaster City, Lancaster); #103 (Harrisburg,

Dauphin); and #159 (Chester City, Delaware) as well as several districts in the Philadelphia region

(especially #179 and #202).

Trms Equal Population, as dened by Federal

law, is a less than 10% overall variant in

Legislative districts, especially when used to

keep County Subdivisions whole. See Brown v.

Thomson, 462 U. S. 835 (1983)

Minority-Majority District, as dened by

Federal Law, is when a minority can compose

a 50% plus 1 of the over 18 population within

one district. See Bartlett v. Strickland, 129

S.Ct. 1231 (2009)

Not on Numbrs Numbers correspond to the emailed

spreadsheet with breakdown by VTD.

Ver 3


16/19

1

2

3

45

6

9

12

5

4

20.18

20.17

20.16

20.15

20.1

1

2

4

5

6

12

16

17

24

26

27

30

31

32

12

3

25

21

27

28

2028

20

18

19

29

15

14

13

8

11

9

10

7

24

22

23

6

2

1

3

5

4

7

1

FortAllen

WendelHerm

Middletown

WeaversOldStand

University

New

Stanton

Sibel

1

3.3 3.6

3.73.5

3.1

3.4

3.2

3

6

5

1

4

2

8

7

4

3

9

5

2

16

6.5

6.3

6.66.1

6.2

6.4

Ver 3


Pnnslvana Hous Rdstrctn Proposal (Map Close-Ups 1 of 4)

Wstrn Hal o Pnnslvana


17/19

VTD#7

VTD#5

VTD#1

8

17

15

14

11

1

23

3

16

1912

10

95

7

18

13

4

8.7

8.4

11.6

1 1

.3

1 1 .

7

11.5

11.4

11.2

12.2

12.1

19.2

8 .3 8

.6

11.1

8 .5

8.28.1

UnionSquare

ElmTreeEdI

SportingHill

ElmTreeEdII

Lynd

on

Millport

Ward1

Ward3

Ward21

1

3

8

4

76

5

9

2

17

14

18

16

102

8

3

1

5

6

4

7 9

11

12

13

19

15

1

3

4

5

7

6

2

VTD

North

VTDSouthUp

perEd6

UpperE

d3

UpperEd

5

UpperEd1

U.Ed3

36

7

5

1

4

2 8

3

6

7

5

1

4

2

9

22.1

22.5

22.2

22.4

18.16

18.118. 9

18.14

18.15

18. 3

18.818.13

18. 17

31.1

31. 9 3 1. 8

31. 11

31.12

31.2

2. 27

2. 232.26

2. 16

2. 252

.24

someof theVTDsinW ar d39

27. 19

27. 3

40. 4

40. 14

40. 3

26. 6

26.1526.18

26.14

26.13

26.9

26.1 2

26.19

26.17

26.16

26.8

26.11

26.21

26.2226.10

4.14.13

4.124.19

34.1834. 20

34.1034.13

34.36

34. 9

34. 5

34. 4

34. 3

34.2

34. 1

34. 16

34. 28

34.38

34.26

34.17

34.42

4.7

4.8

4.2

4. 20

4.15

4.14

57. 3 57. 157.17

57.18

57. 2857.14

57.13

57. 1557.12

55.21

55.27

55.2955.11

55.2255.20

55.2455.19

55. 12

55. 9

55. 13

55.1455.15

55.1655.17

55.18

55.7

55.5

55.4

55.3

55.655.25

55.28

55.26

55.23

55.10

55.8

55. 2

55.1

41.18

41.2341.19

41.2041.22

41.21

4 1 .2 4

41.16

4 1 .2 6

41.25

23.18

23. 19

23.17

23.20

23.21

23. 15

7.7

7. 6

7. 97.8

7. 5

5228

16

32

29 4718

14

20

3719

31

2545

7

33

23

35

53

54

6255

41

63

56

64

57

65

58

66

50

10

61

4249

17

12

59

22

9

21

38 13

43

11

15

58

2

1

3926

48

36

30

40

51

346

27

34

444 6

24

60



eastrn Hal o Pnnslvana

Ver 3


18/19

1

2

3

45

6

9

12

5

4

20.18

20.17

20.16

20.15

20.1

1

2

4

5

6

12

16

17

24

26

27

30

31

32

12

3

25

21

27

28

2028

20

18

19

29

15

14

13

8

11

9

10

7

24

22

23

6

2

1

3

5

4

7

1

Wendel

Herm

8

7

4

3

9

5

2

16

6.5

6.3

6.66.1

6.2

6.4



Pttsburh and Surroundn Ara

Ver 3


19/19

1

3

4

5

7

6

2

36

7

5

1

4

2 8

3

6

7

5

1

4

2

9

22.1

22.5

22.2

22.4

18.16

18.118.9

18.14

18.15

18.3

18.818.13

18.17

31.1

31.9 31.8

31.11

31.12

31.2

2.27

2.232.26

2.16

2.25

2 .2

4

someoftheVTDs inWard39

27.19

27.3

40.4

40.14

40.3

26.6

26.1526

.18

26

.14

26

.13

26

.9

26

.12

26

.19

26

.17

26

.16

26

.8

26

.11

26

.21

26.22

26.10

4.1

4.13

4.124.19

34.1834.20

34.1034.13

34.36

34.9

34.5

34.4

34.3

34.2

34.1

34.16

34.28

3 4

. 3 8

3 4

. 2 6

3 4

. 1 7

34.42

4.7

4.8

4.2

4.20

4.15

4.14

57.357.1

57.17

57.18

57.28

57.14

57.13

57.1557.12

55.21

55.27

55.29

55.11

55.2255.20

55.2455.19

55.12

55.9

55.13

55.14

55.15

55.16

55.17

55.18

55.7

55.5

55.4

55.3

55.6

55.25

55.28

55.26

55.23

55.10

55.8

55.2

55.1

41.18

41.23

41.19

41.20

41.22

41.21

4 1 .2 4

4 1. 1 6

4 1 .2 6

41.25

23.18

23.19

23.17

23.20

23.21

23.15

7.7

7.6

7.9

7.8

7.5

5228

16

32

29 4718

14

20

37

19

31

2545

7

33

23

35

53

54

6255

41

63

56

64

57

65

58

66

50

10

61

4249

17

12

59

22

9

21

38 13

43

11

15

58

2

1

3926

48

36

30

40

51

3

46

27

34

444 6

24

60



Phladlpha and Surroundn Counts

Ver 3

Redistricting Legislative 1

Documents

Redistricting: Jurisdiction, Public Participation and...

Elementary School Draft 1 Fall 2016 Redistricting

Legislative Redistricting

House Redistricting Subcommittee and Senate Redistricting...

Redistricting Appeal 1

Redistricting Simulation Evaluation › ... ›...

Overview Structure Organization Functions –Legislative...

Guide to Local Redistricting - Legislative...

The Legislative Branch Chapter 4. Texas Legislature -...

SVRS 8.0 – Redistricting Checklist · SVRS 8.0 –...

Redistricting -...

Congressional Redistricting Law: Background and · PDF...