[Dome]

FIRST REDISTRICTING PLAN

April 12, 2001

 

TO:

SECRETARY OF THE IOWA SENATE
CHIEF CLERK OF THE IOWA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MEMBERS OF THE IOWA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FROM:

DIANE BOLENDER, DIRECTOR
ED COOK, LEGAL COUNSEL
IOWA LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU

I. INTRODUCTION.

   Pursuant to Chapter 42 of the 2001 Code of Iowa, the Legislative Service Bureau delivers to the Iowa General Assembly identical bills embodying a plan of legislative and Congressional districting prepared in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa Code section 42.4. In addition to the identical bills, this memorandum and the accompanying attachments include maps illustrating the plan, a summary of the standards prescribed by law for redistricting, a listing of the population for each district created, a statistical analysis of the plan, and listings of the political subdivisions undivided under the plan. This memorandum, the identical bills, as well as maps illustrating the plan, are also available through the internet on the Iowa Redistricting in 2001 link on the Iowa General Assembly's website (www.legis.state.ia.us).

II. STANDARDS FOR REDISTRICTING.

   Iowa Code section 42.4 prescribes, in subsections 1 through 7, that the following redistricting standards be used in the preparation of redistricting plans:

  1. Districts shall be established on the basis of population. The districts shall each have a population as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population. A Congressional district shall not vary from the ideal population by more than one percent. Districts shall not vary in population from the ideal population for a State Senatorial or State Representative district by an average of more than one percent. A Senate or House district shall not have a population which exceeds that of any other Senate or House district by more than five percent. The burden of proof rests with the General Assembly to justify the selection of any district in a plan which deviates from the ideal population for that district by more than one percent.
  2. Within the population variance limitations of the first standard, and to the extent possible, the number of counties and cities divided among more than one district shall be as small as possible. When there is a choice between dividing local political subdivisions, the more populous subdivisions shall be divided before the less populous, except when a county line divides a city.
  3. Districts shall be composed of convenient contiguous territory.
  4. It is preferable that districts shall be compact in form; however, the first three standards take precedence over the compactness standard. In general, compact districts are those which are square, rectangular, or hexagonal in shape to the extent permitted by natural or political subdivision boundaries. Methods for determining compactness are provided by law and include a length-width compactness standard and a population dispersion standard.
  5. A district shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress, or other person or group, or for the purpose of augmenting or diluting the voting strength of a language or racial minority group. In establishing districts, no use shall be made of any of the following data:
    1. Addresses of incumbent legislators or members of Congress.
    2. Political affiliations of registered voters.
    3. Previous election results.
    4. Demographic information, other than population head counts, except as required by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
  6. Each Representative district shall be wholly included within a single Senatorial district and, so far as possible, each Representative and each Senatorial district shall be included within a single Congressional district. However, the standards described above shall take precedence where a conflict arises between those standards and the requirement, so far as possible, of including a Senatorial or Representative district within a single Congressional district.
  7. The new districting plan shall not be used prior to the primary election of 2002. If a vacancy in a district occurs at a time where a special election is required to fill a term prior to January 2003, the present Congressional, Senatorial, and House district plans as described in the 2001 Iowa Code shall be used.

III. PREPARATION PROCESS BY THE LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU.

   In December 2000, the United States Census Bureau apportioned the United States House of Representatives based upon the 2000 census data and reported to the United States Congress that Iowa would retain five Congressional districts. On March 12, 2001, the United States Census Bureau reported to Iowa the population data needed for legislative districting which the Census Bureau is required to provide this state under United States Public Law 94-171. That data indicated that the population of Iowa on April 1, 2000, was 2,926,324. Because Iowa Code section 42.4, subsection 6, provides that so far as possible each House and Senate district be included in a single Congressional district, the Legislative Service Bureau first developed plans for Congressional districts. Once the proposed Congressional district plan was selected, plans were drawn within each of the five Congressional districts for 10 Senate districts and 20 House districts. Once a legislative redistricting plan for each Congressional district was tentatively selected, the counties adjacent to that Congressional district were examined to determine if the other standards for legislative redistricting could be improved by swapping those counties for territory within the Congressional district containing the proposed legislative districts. The Legislative Service Bureau determined that swapping territory between Congressional districts would not improve the districts so the proposed legislative redistricting plan contains 10 Senate and 20 House district within each Congressional district, with each Senate district containing two House districts.

   In the development of Congressional, Senatorial, and Representative districts, at no time did any member of the Legislative Service Bureau redistricting team consider the addresses of incumbents, the political affiliations of registered voters, previous election results, or demographic information other than population headcounts. Plan selection was based solely upon population, the numbers of counties and cities kept whole for legislative districts, the presence of conveniently contiguous territory within each district, and the compactness of each district.

IV. GLOSSARY OF TERMS.

   To assist in the understanding of this report and the attached statistical data, the following terms were used to describe various aspects of measuring compactness and the population equality between districts:

   Absolute deviation: The difference, expressed as a positive number, between the actual population in a district and the ideal population for that district.

   Absolute mean deviation: The sum of the absolute deviations of all districts in a plan divided by the number of districts.

   Average length-width compactness: The absolute difference in miles between the east-west width and the north-south height (length) of each district, divided by the number of districts to be created. A lower number indicates better length-width compactness.

   Ideal population: The total population of the state as reported in the federal decennial census divided by the number of districts to be created.

   Mean deviation percentage variance: The absolute mean deviation of a plan divided by the ideal population for districts in that plan, and expressed as a percentage.

   Overall range: The difference between the most populous and least populous district in a proposed redistricting plan.

   Overall range percentage variance: The absolute overall range for a plan, divided by the ideal population for a district, and expressed as a percentage.

   Overall range ratio: The ratio calculated by dividing the population of the most populous district by the least populous district.

V. SELECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

   STANDARDS. Iowa law establishes the standards for drawing and selecting a proposed Congressional redistricting plan. Iowa law provides that a Congressional district shall have a population as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population and it cannot have a population which varies by more than one percent from the ideal district population. Based upon the population data reported by the Census Bureau, the ideal population for each of Iowa's five Congressional districts is 585,265 persons and the maximum allowable absolute deviation for any district is 5,852 persons. In addition, Iowa's constitution requires that Congressional districts be composed of whole counties. Finally, Congressional districts are to be composed of convenient contiguous territory and are to be compact in form. Based upon these guidelines, the Legislative Service Bureau redistricting team began drawing numerous Congressional plans that contained districts as close as possible to the ideal population.

   STATISTICS. The Congressional plan selected had the lowest absolute mean deviation of any of the plans drawn that also had districts that were composed of conveniently contiguous territory that were compact in form. The absolute mean deviation for the plan selected is 130.2 persons with a mean deviation percentage variation of .02 percent. The overall range of the plan, which compares the most populous district to the least populous, is 483 persons with an overall range percentage variance for the plan of .08 percent. In addition, the average length-width compactness of the plan is 72.47 miles. In 1991, the Congressional plan enacted had an average length-width compactness of 109.93 miles.

VI. SELECTION OF SENATE AND HOUSE DISTRICTS.

   STANDARDS. Iowa law establishes the standards used for drawing and selecting proposed Senatorial and Representative districts. The law provides that Senate and House districts be as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population. In addition, because Iowa law provides that the General Assembly has the burden of proof to justify any Senate or House district that deviates from the ideal population by more than one percent, no legislative redistricting plan created for possible selection contained a district which deviated from the ideal population for that district by more than one percent. Based upon the population data reported by the Census Bureau, the ideal population for each of Iowa's Senatorial districts is 58,526 persons with the largest allowable absolute deviation for any Senate district of 585 persons, and the ideal population for each of Iowa's Representative districts is 29,263 with the largest allowable absolute deviation for any House district of 292 persons.

   In addition to the population equality requirements, Iowa law provides that counties and cities be kept whole to the extent possible in legislative districts and that if a county or city is to be divided, the largest in population should be divided. This criteria was not used for cities that lie in more that one county when a legislative boundary line follows that county line. In addition, care was taken to avoid splitting a county or city into more districts than required based upon the population of that county or city.

   Iowa law provides that territory within a district be conveniently contiguous and that districts be compact in form. To the extent consistent with the population and political subdivision standards, the redistricting team tried to draw districts that met the contiguity and compactness standards by avoiding the placement of a single township in a county with a district different from the rest of the county or creating districts with narrow protrusions from the main body of the district.

   The legislative redistricting plan selected was the plan that best met the population equality standards while keeping the number of counties and cities split into more than one district at a minimum, consistent with the requirement that districts be composed of conveniently contiguous territory and be compact in form.

   SENATE STATISTICS. The absolute mean deviation for the Senate redistricting plan selected is 212.96 persons (of a maximum allowable mean deviation of 585 persons) with a mean deviation percentage variation of .36 percent. The overall range percentage variance for the plan, which compares the most populous district to the least populous, is 1.87 percent. In addition, 75 counties were kept whole in a Senate district in the Senate plan with an additional two counties, Boone and Buchanan, split only to keep a city in more than one county whole. Of the 50 Senate districts created in the plan, seven are composed entirely of whole counties. In addition, 52 precincted cities located within a single county are kept whole in a single district in the Senate plan and no city contained within a single county with a population less than the ideal population for a Senate district was split into more than one Senate district. In addition, the average length-width compactness of the plan is 16.51 miles. In 1991, the Senate plan enacted kept 68 counties whole in a single district, kept 47 precincted cities located within a single county whole, and had an average length-width compactness of 23.42 miles. In 1981, the Senate plan enacted kept 66 counties whole in a single district.

   HOUSE STATISTICS. The absolute mean deviation for the House redistricting plan selected is 149.32 persons (of a maximum allowable mean deviation of 292 persons) with a mean deviation percentage variation of .51 percent. The overall range percentage variance for the plan, which compares the most populous district to the least populous, is 1.97 percent. In addition, 55 counties were kept whole in the House plan with an additional two counties, Boone and Buchanan, split only to keep a city in more than one county whole. In addition, 48 precincted cities located within a single county are kept whole in the House plan and no city contained within a single county with a population less than the ideal population for a House district was split into more than one House district. In addition, the average length-width compactness of the plan is 13.14 miles. In 1991, the House plan enacted kept 49 counties whole in a single district, kept 42 precincted cities located within a single county whole, and had an average length-width compactness of 14.35 miles. In 1981, the House plan enacted kept 48 counties whole in a single district.

VII. NUMBERING OF SENATE DISTRICTS AND INCUMBENT SENATORS.

   After the entire Congressional and legislative redistricting plan was selected, the Legislative Service Bureau proceeded to number the districts created. Article III, Section 6, of the Iowa Constitution provides that "as nearly as possible, one-half of the members of the senate shall be elected every two years." In addition, based on Iowa law, if an incumbent Senator was elected from an even-numbered district and resides in a newly created even-numbered district with no other incumbent Senator residing in that district, that incumbent Senator can serve until January 2005 without an election in 2002. In order to meet this constitutional directive, the Legislative Service Bureau needed to know in which Senate districts incumbent Senators resided and whether they were elected in 1998 (from an odd-numbered district) or 2000 (from an even-numbered district). If an incumbent Senator elected from an even-numbered district resided in a new district without another incumbent Senator, that Senate district was given an even number and the first general election to be held for that proposed Senatorial district will be November 2004.

VIII. TEMPORARY REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMISSION HEARINGS.

   The law requires that for the first redistricting plan, the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission hold three hearings in different geographic areas of the state. The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission has scheduled these hearings for April 17, 18, and 19. In addition, the Commission welcomes written comments on the first redistricting plan by mail to the Legislative Service Bureau or by e-mail at redistricting@legis.state.ia.us. Written comments must be received by the Legislative Service Bureau by April 18 and must also include the name and address of the author. The public hearing schedule is as follows:

   April 17, 2001 - Sioux City
   The Sioux City public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 17, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 5th Floor, City Hall, 405 6th St.

   April 18, 2001 - Iowa City and ICN satellite locations
   The Iowa City public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 18, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the ICN Room at the Iowa City School District Administration Building, 509 S. Dubuque St. The following locations will also permit public comment through an interactive connection with the Iowa City site through the ICN:

   April 19, 2001 - Des Moines
   The Des Moines public hearing will be held on Thursd

ay, April 19, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the Wallace State Office Building Auditorium, 502 East 9th St.

   The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission will meet upon the conclusion of the April 19, 2001, public hearing for the purpose of developing a report summarizing information and testimony received at the hearings to be submitted to the General Assembly.

IX. ATTACHMENTS.

Attached to this Report are the following:

Map 1 - Map of proposed Congressional districts.

Map 2 - Map of proposed plan for Senate and House of Representative districts, including detailed maps of metropolitan areas. (Large map: 34 by 22 inches)

Map 3 - Map of proposed Senate districts.

Map 4 - Map of proposed House districts.

Table 1 - Populations and population variance statistics for each Congressional district.

Table 2 - Populations and population variance statistics for each Senate district.

Table 3 - Populations and population variance statistics for each House district.

Table 4 - Counties kept whole in Senate and House districts.

Table 5 - Dividable precincted cities located within a single county kept whole in Senate and House districts.

Table 6 - Cities located in more than one county kept whole in Senate and House districts.

Table 7 - Numbers of Senate and House districts contained wholly or partially within each county.

 

 

TABLES
FIRST REDISTRICTING PLAN
April 12, 2001

TABLE 1
CONGRESSIONAL PLAN SUMMARY

DISTRICT NUMBER

TOTAL POPULATION

% DEVIATION FROM
IDEAL DISTRICT POP.

DEVIATION FROM
IDEAL DISTRICT POP.

1

585447

0.03%

182

2

585408

0.02%

143

3

585253

0.00%

-12

4

585252

0.00%

-13

5

584964

-0.05%

-301

Ideal District Population: 585,265
Lowest Population District: 5     Highest Population District: 1

Overall Range

 

LOWEST POP. DISTRICT

HIGHEST POP. DISTRICT

OVERALL

ABSOLUTE

-301

182

483

% VARIANCE

-0.05%

0.03%

0.08%

RATIO:

1.00083

 

 

Mean Deviation
Absolute: 130.2 persons     % Variance: 0.02%

TABLE 2
SENATE PLAN SUMMARY

DISTRICT NUMBER

TOTAL POPULATION

% DEVIATION FROM
IDEAL DISTRICT POP.

DEVIATION FROM
IDEAL DISTRICT POP.

1

58991

0.79%

465

2

58472

-0.09%

-54

3

58254

-0.47%

-272

4

58730

0.35%

204

5

58965

0.75%

439

6

58197

-0.56%

-329

7

58162

-0.62%

-364

8

59045

0.89%

519

9

58129

-0.68%

-397

10

58019

-0.87%

-507

11

58568

0.07%

42

12

58363

-0.28%

-163

13

58686

0.27%

160

14

58505

-0.04%

-21

15

58656

0.22%

130

16

58260

-0.46%

-266

17

58675

0.25%

149

18

58464

-0.11%

-62

19

58582

0.09%

56

20

58580

0.09%

54

21

58251

-0.47%

-275

22

58711

0.32%

185

23

58052

-0.81%

-474

24

58547

0.04%

21

25

58493

-0.06%

-33

26

58710

0.31%

184

27

58340

-0.32%

-186

28

58483

-0.07%

-43

29

58193

-0.57%

-333

30

58530

0.01%

4

31

57985

-0.93%

-541

32

59082

0.95%

556

33

58927

0.68%

401

34

58654

0.22%

128

35

58792

0.45%

266

36

58589

0.11%

63

37

58527

0.00%

1

38

58654

0.22%

128

39

58632

0.18%

106

40

58403

-0.21%

-123

41

58834

0.53%

308

42

58660

0.23%

134

43

58664

0.23%

138

44

58347

-0.31%

-179

45

58554

0.05%

28

46

58146

-0.65%

-380

47

58536

0.02%

10

48

58216

-0.53%

-310

49

58686

0.27%

160

50

58823

0.51%

297

Ideal District Population: 58,526
Lowest Population District: 31     Highest Population District: 32

Overall Range

 

LOWEST POP. DISTRICT

HIGHEST POP. DISTRICT

OVERALL

ABSOLUTE

-541

556

1097

% VARIANCE

-0.92%

0.95%

1.87%

RATIO:

1.01892

 

 

Mean Deviation
Absolute: 212.96 persons     % Variance: 0.36%

TABLE 3
HOUSE PLAN SUMMARY

DISTRICT NUMBER

TOTAL POPULATION

% DEVIATION FROM IDEAL DISTRICT POP.

DEVIATION FROM IDEAL DISTRICT POP.

1

29456

0.66%

193

2

29535

0.93%

272

3

29308

0.15%

45

4

29164

-0.34%

-99

5

29011

-0.86%

-252

6

29243

-0.07%

-20

7

29361

0.33%

98

8

29369

0.36%

106

9

29521

0.88%

258

10

29444

0.62%

181

11

29061

-0.69%

-202

12

29136

-0.43%

-127

13

29137

-0.43%

-126

14

29025

-0.81%

-238

15

29532

0.92%

269

16

29513

0.85%

250

17

29073

-0.65%

-190

18

29056

-0.71%

-207

19

28981

-0.96%

-282

20

29038

-0.77%

-225

21

29345

0.28%

82

22

29223

-0.14%

-40

23

29379

0.40%

116

24

28984

-0.95%

-279

25

29433

0.58%

170

26

29253

-0.03%

-10

27

29474

0.72%

211

28

29031

-0.79%

-232

29

29123

-0.48%

-140

30

29533

0.92%

270

31

28997

-0.91%

-266

32

29263

0.00%

0

33

29195

-0.23%

-68

34

29480

0.74%

217

35

29392

0.44%

129

36

29072

-0.65%

-191

37

29553

0.99%

290

38

29029

-0.80%

-234

39

29423

0.55%

160

40

29157

-0.36%

-106

41

29214

-0.17%

-49

42

29037

-0.77%

-226

43

29407

0.49%

144

44

29304

0.14%

41

45

29067

-0.67%

-196

46

28985

-0.95%

-278

47

29198

-0.22%

-65

48

29349

0.29%

86

49

29190

-0.25%

-73

50

29303

0.14%

40

51

29262

0.00%

-1

52

29448

0.63%

185

53

29043

-0.75%

-220

54

29297

0.12%

34

55

29176

-0.30%

-87

56

29307

0.15%

44

57

28983

-0.96%

-280

58

29210

-0.18%

-53

59

29135

-0.44%

-128

60

29395

0.45%

132

61

29002

-0.89%

-261

62

28983

-0.96%

-280

63

29536

0.93%

273

64

29546

0.97%

283

65

29383

0.41%

120

66

29544

0.96%

281

67

29158

-0.36%

-105

68

29496

0.80%

233

69

29295

0.11%

32

70

29497

0.80%

234

71

29312

0.17%

49

72

29277

0.05%

14

73

29142

-0.41%

-121

74

29385

0.42%

122

75

29154

-0.37%

-109

76

29500

0.81%

237

77

29143

-0.41%

-120

78

29489

0.77%

226

79

29321

0.20%

58

80

29082

-0.62%

-181

81

29547

0.97%

284

82

29287

0.08%

24

83

29244

-0.07%

-19

84

29416

0.52%

153

85

29473

0.72%

210

86

29191

-0.25%

-72

87

29160

-0.35%

-103

88

29187

-0.26%

-76

89

29358

0.32%

95

90

29196

-0.23%

-67

91

29060

-0.69%

-203

92

29086

-0.61%

-177

93

29280

0.06%

17

94

29256

-0.02%

-7

95

28976

-0.98%

-287

96

29240

-0.08%

-23

97

29476

0.73%

213

98

29210

-0.18%

-53

99

29338

0.26%

75

100

29485

0.76%

222

Ideal District Population: 29,263
Lowest Population District: 95     Highest Population District: 37

Overall Range

 

LOWEST POP. DISTRICT

HIGHEST POP. DISTRICT

OVERALL

ABSOLUTE

-287

290

577

% VARIANCE

-0.98%

0.99%

1.97%

RATIO:

1.01991

 

 

Mean Deviation
Absolute: 149.32 persons     % Variance: 0.51%

TABLE 4
COUNTIES KEPT WHOLE IN A SENATE DISTRICT
(Total: 75)

Adair
Adams
Allamakee
Appanoose
Audubon
Benton
Bremer
Buena Vista
Calhoun
Cass
Cedar
Cerro Gordo
Cherokee
Chickasaw
Clarke
Clay
Clayton
Crawford
Davis

Decatur
Delaware
Des Moines
Dickinson
Emmet
Fayette
Floyd
Franklin
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hancock
Harrison
Henry
Howard
Humboldt
Ida

Iowa
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jones
Kossuth
Lee
Louisa
Lucas
Lyon
Madison
Mahaska
Marshall
Mills
Mitchell
Monroe
Montgomery
Muscatine
O'Brien

Osceola
Page
Palo Alto
Pocahontas
Poweshiek
Ringgold
Sac
Shelby
Sioux
Tama
Taylor
Union
Van Buren
Wayne
Winnebago
Winneshiek
Worth
Wright

COUNTIES KEPT WHOLE IN A HOUSE DISTRICT
(Total: 55)

Adair
Adams
Allamakee
Appanoose
Audubon
Bremer
Buena Vista
Calhoun
Cedar
Cherokee
Chickasaw
Clayton
Davis
Decatur

Dickinson
Emmet
Fayette
Floyd
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hancock
Harrison
Henry
Howard
Humboldt

Ida
Iowa
Jackson
Jefferson
Louisa
Lucas
Lyon
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
O'Brien
Osceola
Page
Palo Alto

Pocahontas
Poweshiek
Ringgold
Sac
Shelby
Tama
Taylor
Union
Van Buren
Wayne
Winnebago
Worth
Wright

TABLE 5
DIVIDABLE PRECINCTED CITIES LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE COUNTY AND KEPT WHOLE IN SENATE AND HOUSE DISTRICTS

CITIES KEPT WHOLE IN SENATE DISTRICTS

Algona
Altoona
Ames
Anamosa
Ankeny
Atlantic
Bettendorf
Boone
Burlington
Camanche
Carroll
Cedar Falls
Charles City

Cherokee
Clarinda
Clear Lake
Clinton
Coralville
Creston
Denison
Dubuque
Evansdale
Fairfield
Fort Dodge
Fort Madison
Glenwood

Harlan
Hiawatha
Independence
Indianola
Johnston
Manchester
Maquoketa
Marion
Marshalltown
Mason City
Mount Pleasant
Muscatine
Nevada

Newton
Norwalk
Oelwein
Orange City
Oskaloosa
Ottumwa
Pleasant Hill
Sioux Center
Spencer
Storm Lake
Waverly
Webster City
Windsor Heights

CITIES KEPT WHOLE IN HOUSE DISTRICTS

Algona
Altoona
Anamosa
Ankeny
Atlantic
Boone
Burlington
Camanche
Carroll
Charles City
Cherokee
Clarinda

Clear Lake
Clinton
Coralville
Creston
Denison
Evansdale
Fairfield
Fort Dodge
Fort Madison
Glenwood
Harlan
Hiawatha

Independence
Indianola
Johnston
Manchester
Maquoketa
Marion
Marshalltown
Mason City
Mount Pleasant
Muscatine
Nevada
Newton

Norwalk
Oelwein
Orange City
Oskaloosa
Ottumwa
Pleasant Hill
Sioux Center
Spencer
Storm Lake
Waverly
Webster City
Windsor Heights

TABLE 6
CITIES LOCATED IN MORE THAN ONE COUNTY AND KEPT ENTIRELY WITHIN A SINGLE SENATE AND HOUSE DISTRICT

Ackely
Adair
Casey
Clearfield
Clive
Dows
Dyersville
Eddyville
Edgewood
Fairbank
Janesville
Jesup
Lenox
Lu Verne
Lytton
Protivin
Riceville
Shelby
Sheldahl
Statford
Stuart
Tabor
Urbandale
Zwingle

TABLE 7
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS PER COUNTY

County

04/01/2000 Census Population

Senate Districts Required

Senate Districts in Plan 1

House Districts Required

House Districts in Plan 1

Adair

8,243

1

1

1

1

Adams

4,482

1

1

1

1

Allamakee

14,675

1

1

1

1

Appanoose

13,721

1

1

1

1

Audubon

6,830

1

1

1

1

Benton

25,308

1

1

1

2

Black Hawk

128,012

3

3

5

6

Boone

26,224

1

2i

1

2ii

Bremer

23,325

1

1

1

1

Buchanan

21,093

1

2iii

1

2iv

Buena Vista

20,411

1

1

1

1

Butler

15,305

1

2

1

2

Calhoun

11,115

1

1

1

1

Carroll

21,421

1

2

1

2

Cass

14,684

1

1

1

2

Cedar

18,187

1

1

1

1

Cerro Gordo

46,447

1

1

2

2

Cherokee

13,035

1

1

1

1

Chickasaw

13,095

1

1

1

1

Clarke

9,133

1

1

1

2

Clay

17,372

1

1

1

2

Clayton

18,678

1

1

1

1

Clinton

50,149

1

2

2

2

Crawford

16,942

1

1

1

2

Dallas

40,750

1

3

2

4v

Davis

8,541

1

1

1

1

Decatur

8,689

1

1

1

1

Delaware

18,404

1

1

1

2

Des Moines

42,351

1

1

2

2

Dickinson

16,424

1

1

1

1

Dubuque

89,143

2

3

4

5

Emmet

11,027

1

1

1

1

Fayette

22,008

1

1

1

1

Floyd

16,900

1

1

1

1

Franklin

10,704

1

1

1

2

Fremont

8,010

1

1

1

1

Greene

10,366

1

1

1

1

Grundy

12,369

1

1

1

1

Guthrie

11,353

1

1

1

1

Hamilton

16,438

1

1

1

1

Hancock

12,100

1

1

1

1

Hardin

18,812

1

2

1

2

Harrison

15,666

1

1

1

1

Henry

20,336

1

1

1

1

Howard

9,932

1

1

1

1

Humboldt

10,381

1

1

1

1

Ida

7,837

1

1

1

1

Iowa

15,671

1

1

1

1

Jackson

20,296

1

1

1

1

Jasper

37,213

1

1

2

2

Jefferson

16,181

1

1

1

1

Johnson

111,006

2

3

4

5

Jones

20,221

1

1

1

2

Keokuk

11,400

1

2

1

2

Kossuth

17,163

1

1

1

2

Lee

38,052

1

1

2

2

Linn

191,701

4

4

7

7

Louisa

12,183

1

1

1

1

Lucas

9,422

1

1

1

1

Lyon

11,763

1

1

1

1

Madison

14,019

1

1

1

1

Mahaska

22,335

1

1

1

2

Marion

32,052

1

2

2

3

Marshall

39,311

1

1

2

2

Mills

14,547

1

1

1

2

Mitchell

10,874

1

1

1

2

Monona

10,020

1

2

1

2

Monroe

8,016

1

1

1

1

Montgomery

11,771

1

1

1

1

Muscatine

41,722

1

1

2

2

O'Brien

15,102

1

1

1

1

Osceola

7,003

1

1

1

1

Page

16,976

1

1

1

1

Palo Alto

10,147

1

1

1

1

Plymouth

24,849

1

2

1

2

Pocahontas

8,662

1

1

1

1

Polk

374,601

7

9vi

13

16vii

Pottawattamie

87,704

2

3

3

5

Poweshiek

18,815

1

1

1

1

Ringgold

5,469

1

1

1

1

Sac

11,529

1

1

1

1

Scott

158,668

3

4viii

6

7ix

Shelby

13,173

1

1

1

1

Sioux

31,589

1

1

2

2

Story

79,981

2

3

3

4

Tama

18,103

1

1

1

1

Taylor

6,958

1

1

1

1

Union

12,309

1

1

1

1

Van Buren

7,809

1

1

1

1

Wapello

36,051

1

2

2

4x

Warren

40,671

1

2

2

3

Washington

20,670

1

3xi

1

3xii

Wayne

6,730

1

1

1

1

Webster

40,235

1

2

2

3

Winnebago

11,723

1

1

1

1

Winneshiek

21,310

1

1

1

2

Woodbury

103,877

2

3

4

5

Worth

7,909

1

1

1

1

Wright

14,334

1

1

1

1

iOne district due to keeping the city of Sheldahl whole in district 21.
iiOne district due to keeping the city of Sheldahl whole in district 41.
iiiOne district due to keeping the city of Fairbank whole in district 50.
ivOne district due to keeping the city of Fairbank whole in district 99.
vOne district due to keeping the city of Urbandale whole in district 36.
viOne district due to keeping the city of Sheldahl whole in district 21.
viiOne district due to keeping the city of Sheldahl whole in district 41.
viiiOne district due to keeping the city of Durant whole in district 36.
ixOne district due to keeping the city of Durant whole in district 72.
xOne district due to keeping the city of Eddyville whole in district 75.
xiOne district due to keeping most of the city of Coppock whole in district 40.
xiiOne district due to keeping most of the city of Coppock whole in district 80.

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

Return To Home

Comments about this site or page? lsbinfo@legis.state.ia.us

Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.

© 1995 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa

11-Apr-2001 01:46 PM
ec/sw