[Dome] SECOND REDISTRICTING PLAN*
June 1, 2001

*corrected, June 18, 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. 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, convenient contiguous territory, 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.
   Absolute perimeter score: The difference in miles, expressed as a positive number, between the total perimeter score of a Senate or House legislative redistricting plan, and the total perimeter score of the underlying Congressional redistricting plan.
   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 districts 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.
   Total perimeter score: The distance, in miles, needed to traverse the perimeters of all districts in a redistricting plan.

III. STANDARDS FOR REDISTRICTING – PLAN 2.

  1. Statutory Requirements.
       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.
  2. Senate Resolution 50.
       Iowa law provides that the selection of the second proposed redistricting plan must consider the reasons, if any, provided for the rejection of the first proposed redistricting plan by the General Assembly in so far as they are consistent with Iowa Code section 42.4. Senate Resolution 50 provides several reasons for rejection of the first proposed redistricting plan.
    1. Population equality.
      1. Resolution language.
           BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE, That the Senate requests that the next plan drafted by the legislative service bureau improve the population deviations to more nearly represent the ideal of "one person, one vote"; and
           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Iowa Code section 42.4(4) entitled "Redistricting Standards" states, "It is preferable that districts be compact in form, but the standards established by subsections 1, 2 and 3 take precedence over compactness where a conflict arises between compactness and these standards." Iowa Code section 42.4(1), (2), and (3) state the preferred standards are population equalities, contiguous territories, and district boundaries coinciding with political subdivisions. Additionally, courts have consistently held that lower population deviations from the ideal population should take precedence over compactness of the districts as defined in the Iowa Code. Therefore, the next plan should more closely follow those guidelines; and
      2. Legislative Service Bureau response.
           Iowa Code chapter 42 provides that the selection of a proposed Congressional redistricting plan be based on all of the criteria specified in Iowa Code section 42.4. As the resolution notes, though, population equality is the most important factor and this was taken into account in selecting the second proposed Congressional redistricting plan. In addition, while Chapter 42 contains no provision mandating a certain population equality standard for the second or third Congressional plan different from that prescribed for the first, the requirements of the United States Constitution mandate that a second proposed Congressional redistricting plan must have equal or lower population deviations than the first plan submitted. However, consideration of population equality alone is not required based on the United States Constitution and is also not consistent with the requirements of Chapter 42 or Iowa law in general. The second Congressional redistricting plan selected must be the one that best meets all the requirements of Iowa law, including the standards of compactness and convenient contiguous territory, while providing for equal or better population equality amongst districts.
           Population equality is also important for proposed legislative redistricting plans and was taken into account in selecting the second proposed legislative redistricting plan. While the resolution accurately states that Iowa law provides that compactness is specifically given less precedence than population equality for legislative redistricting, the resolution fails to mention that the standard that includes respect for the boundaries of political subdivisions and the standard that districts should contain convenient contiguous territory are not made specifically subservient to population equality under Iowa law. Instead, these standards are to be maximized consistent with the population equality standards provided in the Code. In addition, the Code does not provide that compactness be completely ignored in selecting a proposed legislative redistricting plan and compactness was considered in selecting the second proposed legislative redistricting plan.
    2. Population comparisons to prior enacted plans.
      1. Resolution language.
           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Senate requests a plan that at a minimum matches, or improves upon, the population deviation in our current Congressional and legislative districts; and,
      2. Legislative Service Bureau response.
           Iowa Code chapter 42 does not require that each successively enacted Congressional and legislative redistricting plan contain lower population deviations than the prior enacted plan at the time that prior plan was enacted. While a desirable goal, Iowa Code chapter 42 merely requires that, based on the current population reported by the Census Bureau, each proposed Congressional district, and each proposed senatorial and representative district, shall be as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population of a district consistent with the other standards enumerated in section 42.4. As noted earlier in this report, the second Congressional plan must be equal to or better than the first plan from a population equality perspective based upon the United States Constitution. Based on Iowa law, the best proposed redistricting plan is not the one that merely has the lowest population deviations but is instead the one with the lowest population deviations that also best meets all of the other non-population enumerated requirements of Iowa Code section 42.4.
    3. Urban-rural interests – regionalization.
      1. Resolution language.
           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That in addition, the Senate requests the legislative service bureau in the next plan, strive to develop Congressional and legislative districts that reflect urban and rural interests in our state to the extent consistent with the Iowa Code. Plan #1 regionalized Iowa at the Congressional level. The districts that are included in Plan #2 should better reflect the convenient, contiguous territory of our state.
      2. Legislative Service Bureau response.
           The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission in its April 25, 2001 report to the Iowa General Assembly specifically noted that several persons criticized the first proposed redistricting plan as not providing a mix of urban and rural interests in the state. However, the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission unanimously concluded that, "However, no objective geographic map-building units exist from the Census Bureau to consider (this issue) in creating redistricting plans." In addition, Chapter 42 makes no provision for considering "urban-rural interests" and any consideration of these interests would likely require examination of demographic information that Chapter 42 specifically prohibits.
           As to the comment that plan #1 regionalized Iowa at the Congressional level, the resolution provided no definition of "regionalized" and provided no guidance as to why the first plan failed in this regard or how this concept is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 42.
           The last statement in this excerpt of the resolution indicates that a proposed Congressional redistricting plan must contain districts which are composed of "convenient, contiguous territory." Chapter 42 does specifically require that districts be composed of "convenient contiguous territory." Any plan submitted to the Iowa General Assembly will meet that requirement.
  3. Convenient contiguous territory.
       Unlike the other standards for redistricting enumerated in Iowa Code section 42.4, the Code does not provide a specific objective measurement for determining whether a proposed redistricting plan contains districts that are composed of convenient contiguous territory. (emphasis added) The only objective measurement provided in the Code is that districts that contain areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. In considering and selecting proposed plans in 1991 and 2001, the Legislative Service Bureau concluded that a proposed plan was considered to meet this requirement if the redistricting plan avoided, to the greatest extent possible but still consistent with the other enumerated standards in the Code, irregularly shaped districts, districts with narrow connections, and districts that are excessively long from north to south or from east to west. Visual inspection of a map alone, however, is not the best way to judge whether a district is composed of convenient contiguous territory since the geographic projection used to display the state and proposed districts on a flat surface (such as Mercator projection or Equidistant cylindrical projection) distorts the true geography. (For instance, if a rectangle were placed over the entire state to include all parts of the state, the actual east-west distance of that rectangle is 449.0808 miles and the actual north-south distance of that rectangle is 215.9695 miles, making the state considerably longer from east to west than north to south than a visual inspection of a flat map would otherwise indicate.) Therefore, objective, measurable, criteria need to be used, to the greatest extent possible, to evaluate whether a proposed redistricting plan best meets this requirement.
       Following submission of the first proposed redistricting plan, the Legislative Service Bureau determined that an objective means for comparing possible plans would be to compare the total number of miles needed to traverse the perimeters of all of the districts in a plan. In essence, the more irregular and oddly shaped the districts in a plan, the greater the number of miles needed to traverse the perimeters of the districts in that plan. The Legislative Service Bureau calculated the perimeters of the Congressional and legislative districts for the second plan and determined a total perimeter score which has been included in this report. In order to more accurately compare the perimeter scores of different legislative redistricting plans based on different Congressional redistricting plans, an absolute perimeter score, representing the absolute difference in miles between the perimeter score for the legislative plan and the perimeter score for the underlying Congressional plan, was also calculated and included in this report. The reason for calculating the absolute perimeter score is that a higher perimeter score for a Congressional plan will lead to a higher score for the legislative plan since the boundary for each Congressional district is also the boundary used for creating 10 Senate and 20 House districts within that Congressional district; therefore, in order to equalize the impact of different Congressional plans when comparing different legislative plans based on those different Congressional plans, the difference between the total perimeter score for a Senate or House legislative plan and the underlying Congressional plan needs to be considered.

IV. PREPARATION PROCESS BY THE LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU – PLAN
   On April 12, 2001, a bill embodying the first plan of congressional and legislative redistricting was presented to the Iowa General Assembly. On April 25, 2001, and following the conclusion of three public hearings, the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission submitted its report concerning the first proposed redistricting plan to the Iowa General Assembly. On May 2, 2001, the Iowa Senate defeated the first proposed redistricting plan (Senate File 540). On May 3, 2001, Senate Resolution 50 was adopted specifying the reasons for the Senate's rejection of the first redistricting plan.
   Because Iowa Code section 42.4, subsection 6, provides that so far as possible each Senate and House district be included in a single Congressional district, the Legislative Service Bureau first developed plans for Congressional districts. Congressional plans drawn for consideration had to achieve an equal or better population equality than the first Congressional plan submitted. All Congressional plans created with an absolute mean deviation equal to or less than that of the first proposed Congressional redistricting plan (including the first proposed Congressional redistricting plan) were considered. The second proposed Congressional redistricting plan was not selected until after the reasons for the rejection of the first proposed redistricting plan were transmitted to the Legislative Service Bureau for consideration.
   Once the second proposed Congressional district plan was selected, plans were drawn within each of the five Congressional districts for 10 Senate districts and 20 House districts. After a legislative redistricting plan for each Congressional district was tentatively selected, territory adjacent to but outside that Congressional district was examined to determine if the other standards for legislative redistricting could be improved by swapping territory between Congressional 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.

V. SELECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.
   STATISTICAL STANDARDS. 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.
   PLAN 2 STATISTICS. The Congressional plan selected was the plan that best met all statutory and constitutional requirements. The plan selected had the lowest absolute mean deviation of any of the plans 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 47 persons with a mean deviation percentage variation of .00803 percent. The overall range of the plan, which compares the most populous district to the least populous, is 134 persons with an overall range percentage variance for the plan of .023 percent. Both population statistics are improved from the first proposed Congressional redistricting plan. In addition, the average length-width compactness of the plan is 56.65 miles and the total perimeter score for the plan is 3,132.635 miles.

VI. SELECTION OF SENATE AND HOUSE DISTRICTS.
   STATISTICAL STANDARDS. Based on Iowa law, proposed legislative 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. In addition, Iowa law provides that 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. Based upon the population of Iowa as reported by the Census Bureau, the ideal population for each of the fifty senatorial districts in Iowa is 58,526, and the ideal population for each of the one hundred representative districts is 29,263. Based on these population totals, the largest absolute mean deviation permitted for a senatorial redistricting plan is 585 persons and 292 persons for a representative redistricting plan. In addition, the largest overall range permitted for a senatorial redistricting plan is 2926 persons and 1463 persons for a representative redistricting plan. However, because Iowa law also 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, the largest allowable absolute deviation for any proposed Senate district is 585 persons, and the largest allowable absolute deviation for any proposed House district is 292 persons, making the largest allowable overall range of 1170 persons for a proposed Senate redistricting plan and 584 persons for a proposed House redistricting plan.
   SENATE PLAN 2 STATISTICS. The legislative Senate 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. The absolute mean deviation for the Senate redistricting plan selected is 163.12 persons (of a maximum allowable mean deviation of 585 persons) with a mean deviation percentage variation of .28 percent. The overall range for the plan, which compares the most populous district to the least populous, is 855 persons with an overall range percentage variance of 1.46 percent. Both population statistics are improved from the first proposed Senate redistricting plan. In addition, 72 counties were kept whole in a Senate district in the Senate plan with an additional two counties, Howard and Franklin, split only to keep a city or cities in more than one county whole. In addition, 52 precincted cities located within a single county are kept whole in a single district in the Senate plan, 31 cities located in more than one county are kept whole in a single district in the Senate plan, and no city contained within a single county and 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 15.83 miles, the total perimeter score for the plan is 7,993.042 miles, and the absolute perimeter score for the plan is 4,860.407 miles.
   HOUSE PLAN 2 STATISTICS. The legislative House 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. The absolute mean deviation for the House redistricting plan selected is 109.6 persons (of a maximum allowable mean deviation of 292 persons) with a mean deviation percentage variation of .37 percent. The overall range for the plan, which compares the most populous district to the least populous, is 552 persons with an overall range percentage variance of 1.886 percent. Both population statistics are improved from the first proposed House redistricting plan. In addition, 54 counties were kept whole in the House plan with an additional two counties, Howard and Franklin, split only to keep a city or cities in more than one county whole. In addition, 48 precincted cities located within a single county are kept whole in the House plan, 31 cities located in more than one county are kept whole in a single district in the House plan, and no city contained within a single county and 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 10.996 miles, the total perimeter score for the plan is 10,835.579 miles, and the absolute perimeter score for the plan is 7,702.944 miles.

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. ATTACHMENTS.
   Attached to this Report are the following:


MAPS
SECOND REDISTRICTING PLAN
June 1, 2001

[Iowa Map with 5 proposed congressional districts]

[Iowa Map with 50 proposed senate districts]

[Iowa Map with 100 proposed house districts]


TABLES
SECOND REDISTRICTING PLAN
June 1, 2001

TABLE 1
CONGRESSIONAL PLAN SUMMARY

DISTRICT NUMBERTOTAL POPULATION% DEVIATION FROM
IDEAL DISTRICT POP.
DEVIATION FROM
IDEAL DISTRICT POP.
PERIMETER DISTANCE IN MILESLENGTH-WIDTH COMPACTNESS IN MILES
15853020.006%37488.73486.61206
2585241-0.004%-24555.76658.72676
35853050.007%40490.36622.77800
45853050.007%40790.618104.56160
5585171-0.016%-94807.15110.57332

Ideal Congressional District Population: 585,265
Lowest Population District: 5     Highest Population District: 3,4
Absolute Mean Deviation: 47 persons
Mean Deviation Percentage Variance: 0.00803%
Total Perimeter Score: 3,132.635 miles
Average Length-Width Compactness: 56.650348 miles

Overall Range

 LOWEST DISTRICT POP.HIGHEST DISTRICT POP.OVERALL
ABSOLUTE-9440134
% VARIANCE-0.016%0.007%0.023%
RATIO:1.0002289  

TABLE 2
SENATE PLAN SUMMARY

DISTRICT NUMBERTOTAL POPULATION% DEVIATION FROM
IDEAL DISTRICT POP.
DEVIATION FROM
IDEAL DISTRICT POP.
PERIMETER DISTANCE IN MILESLENGTH-WIDTH COMPACTNESS IN MILES
1589650.75%43929.1936.702381
258287-0.41%-239262.74311.09256
358501-0.04%-25189.08532.85966
4586950.29%169238.1325.663497
558252-0.47%-274265.0156.234206
658437-0.15%-89254.9930.372412
758374-0.26%-152158.5859.78898
8586960.29%170227.41862.34682
9585280.00%2236.12561.72637
10585300.01%473.5679.487595
11587040.30%17875.5882.545668
1258220-0.52%-306266.97642.5819
13586430.20%117175.8134.812614
1458216-0.53%-31044.4651.90856
15586320.18%106174.5219.617145
16585540.05%28212.97114.4918
17589270.68%40160.3132.100432
1858480-0.08%-46157.7112.416049
19587920.45%26657.9964.897806
2058429-0.17%-97242.67328.56165
21586530.22%127192.51630.6493
2258180-0.59%-346172.2522.089653
23587370.36%21166.7691.106527
24586340.18%108166.7898.607487
2558488-0.07%-38245.98511.19419
2658286-0.41%-240236.54116.32077
2758416-0.19%-110179.75834.49848
2858371-0.27%-155318.1968.769856
2958508-0.03%-18235.2642.12996
3058110-0.71%-41626.7610.896484
3158421-0.18%-10528.542.981577
32587080.31%18228.6037.983299
3358327-0.34%-19926.2570.178813
34586770.26%15166.3493.467578
3558445-0.14%-8191.97216.40057
36587990.47%273213.7220.66092
37588120.49%286165.34732.42507
38587360.36%210222.86910.4656
3958402-0.21%-12435.7630.606707
40585460.03%20177.2147.720814
41585540.05%2831.4874.104686
42585270.00%1169.2535.793875
43588260.51%30035.134.747943
4458345-0.31%-181189.17418.65508
4558463-0.11%-63298.37713.72328
4658388-0.24%-138169.49712.55305
4758266-0.45%-260223.60658.24221
48588110.49%285271.73885.50021
49585540.05%28265.4766.869518
5058472-0.09%-5437.961.928044

Ideal Senate District Population: 58,526
Lowest Population District: 30     Highest Population District: 1
Absolute Mean Deviation: 163.12 persons
Mean Deviation Percentage Variance: 0.27871%
Total Perimeter Score: 7,993.042 miles
Absolute Perimeter Score: 4,860.407 miles
Average Length-Width Compactness: 15.829593 miles

Overall Range

 LOWEST DISTRICT POP.HIGHEST DISTRICT POP.OVERALL
ABSOLUTE-416439855
% VARIANCE-0.71%0.75%1.46%
RATIO:1.01471  

TABLE 3
HOUSE PLAN SUMMARY

DISTRICT NUMBERTOTAL POPULATION% DEVIATION FROM IDEAL DISTRICT POP.DEVIATION FROM IDEAL DISTRICT POP.PERIMETER DISTANCE IN MILESLENGTH-WIDTH COMPACTNESS IN MILES
1294440.62%18122.7672.763726
2295210.88%25824.6892.691247
329006-0.88%-257168.3249.612516
4292810.06%1816916.47802
5293420.27%79198.15832.89324
629159-0.36%-104114.2823.909774
7292890.09%26179.49624.32161
8294060.49%143183.62322.65847
929169-0.32%-94174.6560.372343
1029083-0.62%-180146.9339.750218
1129075-0.64%-188177.08924.58327
12293620.34%99209.5248.997103
1329198-0.22%-6526.5257.105194
1429176-0.30%-87158.438.436619
15293300.23%67166.58316.356
16293660.35%103143.58833.9977
1729227-0.12%-36127.61124.68525
18293010.13%38177.1224.9771
1929135-0.44%-12844.8641.644901
20293950.45%13255.4822.234611
21294940.79%23148.8914.875213
2229210-0.18%-5341.7237.409688
2329082-0.62%-181130.21624.2747
2429138-0.43%-125186.29322.95723
25293630.34%100148.24115.35761
26292800.06%1757.2368.101518
2729051-0.73%-21227.615.170862
2829165-0.34%-9839.4324.262978
29292790.05%16202.3939.617145
30293530.31%9051.8150.928128
31294780.73%215135.9834.083751
3229076-0.64%-187168.09638.64628
33293830.41%12053.3922.939223
34295440.96%28123.5063.402423
3529188-0.26%-75144.5422.416049
36292920.10%2962.5012.851889
37292950.11%3231.1954.46017
38294970.80%23435.8214.179652
3929144-0.41%-119120.2943.907563
40292850.07%22170.382.440163
4129238-0.09%-25110.89216.38274
42294150.52%152118.33916.206
4329076-0.64%-18766.0964.59884
4429104-0.54%-159190.172.089653
45294110.51%14833.2992.397049
46293260.21%6367.5890.344498
4729222-0.14%-41129.5072.954492
48294120.51%149109.0882.308955
4929191-0.25%-7263.98311.92686
50292970.12%34196.07516.64447
5129132-0.45%-131158.34819.90953
5229154-0.37%-109151.43111.63991
5329047-0.74%-216179.27830.87994
54293690.36%10629.7371.176311
5529159-0.36%-104224.16727.94382
5629212-0.18%-51224.3241.470579
57292750.04%12175.8092.583877
5829233-0.10%-30185.56410.0668
5929110-0.52%-15319.5794.663442
6029000-0.90%-26326.5750.264489
6129108-0.53%-15521.8910.301523
62293130.17%5014.580.795815
63294850.76%22228.3658.964353
6429223-0.14%-4014.0910.20113
6529071-0.66%-19215.3512.230811
6629256-0.03%-718.1310.628955
67293310.23%6854.0975.401081
68293460.28%8321.3623.863758
6929143-0.41%-120122.04916.40057
70293020.13%3941.3781.794902
71294980.80%235110.1725.216948
72293010.13%38206.93729.04455
73293010.13%38200.54132.42507
74295110.85%24862.6177.129239
75294540.65%191138.51623.79699
76292820.06%19205.5962.414184
77293490.29%8620.4232.147415
7829053-0.72%-21030.9691.266477
79292730.03%10126.31910.04828
80292730.03%1090.45118.69432
8129196-0.23%-6725.3090.018586
82293580.32%9524.3680.988447
83292740.04%11144.3912.86735
8429253-0.04%-10104.1018.722458
85294000.47%13725.9962.077562
86294260.56%16322.410.498783
8729052-0.72%-211210.05918.93186
88292930.10%3068.9655.085256
8929103-0.55%-160163.2757.153974
90293600.33%97203.26824.77894
9129067-0.67%-196148.1175.370403
92293210.20%5893.41411.67418
93292740.04%1160.5174.864365
9428992-0.93%-271187.15973.18077
95294060.49%143175.83322.58993
96294050.48%142223.85953.96292
97292860.08%23180.24227.03995
98292680.02%5168.8454.907272
9929164-0.34%-9918.854.455956
100293080.15%4534.6120.491114

Ideal House District Population: 29,263
Lowest Population District: 94     Highest Population District: 34
Absolute Mean Deviation: 109.6 persons
Mean Deviation Percentage Variance: 0.37453%
Total Perimeter Score: 10,835.579 miles
Absolute Perimeter Score: 7,702.944 miles
Average Length-Width Compactness: 10.996298 miles

Overall Range

 LOWEST DISTRICT POP.HIGHEST DISTRICT POP.OVERALL
ABSOLUTE-271281552
% VARIANCE-0.926%0.960%1.886%
RATIO:1.0190397  

TABLE 4
COUNTIES KEPT WHOLE IN A SENATE DISTRICT

(Total: 72)

Adair
Adams
Allamakee
Appanoose
Audubon
Benton
Bremer
Buchanan
Buena Vista
Butler
Calhoun
Carroll
Cass
Cedar
Cherokee
Chickasaw
Clarke
Clay
Clayton
Davis
Decatur
Des Moines
Dickinson
Emmet
Floyd
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Humboldt
Ida
Jackson
Jefferson
Jones
Keokuk
Kossuth
Lee
Louisa
Lucas
Lyon
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Mills
Mitchell
Monona
Monroe
Montgomery
O'Brien
Osceola
Page
Palo Alto
Pocahontas
Poweshiek
Ringgold
Sac
Shelby
Taylor
Union
Van Buren
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Winnebago
Winneshiek
Worth
Wright

COUNTIES KEPT WHOLE IN A HOUSE DISTRICT
(Total: 54)

Adair
Adams
Allamakee
Appanoose
Audubon
Benton
Buchanan
Buena Vista
Butler
Calhoun
Carroll
Cedar
Cherokee
Chickasaw
Clarke
Clayton
Davis
Decatur
Dickinson
Emmet
Floyd
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Humboldt
Ida
Jackson
Jones
Keokuk
Louisa
Lucas
Lyon
Madison
Mitchell
Monroe
Montgomery
O'Brien
Osceola
Page
Palo Alto
Pocahontas
Ringgold
Shelby
Taylor
Van Buren
Washington
Wayne
Winnebago
Worth
Wright

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

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
Barnes City
Bevington
Cascade
Casey
Dows
Dyersville
Edgewood
Fairbank
Farnhamville
Forest City
Gilmore City
Janesville
Lenox
Lu Verne
Mitchellville
Nora Springs
North English
Protivin
Riceville
Shannon City
Shelby
Shenandoah
Stuart
Sumner
Tabor
Victor
West Bend
West Branch
Zwingle

TABLE 7
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS PER COUNTY

County04/01/2000 Census PopulationSenate Districts RequiredSenate Districts in Plan 2House Districts RequiredHouse Districts in Plan 2
Adair8,2431111
Adams4,4821111
Allamakee14,6751111
Appanoose13,7211111
Audubon6,8301111
Benton25,3081111
Black Hawk128,0123456
Boone26,2241213
Bremer23,3251112
Buchanan21,0931111
Buena Vista20,4111111
Butler15,3051111
Calhoun11,1151111
Carroll21,4211111
Cass14,6841112
Cedar18,1871111
Cerro Gordo46,4471223
Cherokee13,0351111
Chickasaw13,0951111
Clarke9,1331111
Clay17,3721112
Clayton18,6781111
Clinton50,1491223
Crawford16,9421212
Dallas40,7501223
Davis8,5411111
Decatur8,6891111
Delaware18,4041212
Des Moines42,3511122
Dickinson16,4241111
Dubuque89,1432345
Emmet11,0271111
Fayette22,0081213i
Floyd16,9001111
Franklin10,70413ii13iii
Fremont8,0101111
Greene10,3661111
Grundy12,3691111
Guthrie11,3531111
Hamilton16,4381112
Hancock12,1001112
Hardin18,8121111
Harrison15,6661111
Henry20,3361111
Howard9,93212iv12v
Humboldt10,3811111
Ida7,8371111
Iowa15,6711212
Jackson20,2961111
Jasper37,2131223
Jefferson16,1811112
Johnson111,0062446
Jones20,2211111
Keokuk11,4001111
Kossuth17,1631112
Lee38,0521122
Linn191,7014477
Louisa12,1831111
Lucas9,4221111
Lyon11,7631111
Madison14,0191111
Mahaska22,3351212
Marion32,0521122
Marshall39,3111122
Mills14,5471112
Mitchell10,8741111
Monona10,0201112
Monroe8,0161111
Montgomery11,7711111
Muscatine41,7221223
O'Brien15,1021111
Osceola7,0031111
Page16,9761111
Palo Alto10,1471111
Plymouth24,8491212
Pocahontas8,6621111
Polk374,601771313
Pottawattamie87,7042435
Poweshiek18,8151112
Ringgold5,4691111
Sac11,5291112
Scott158,6683366
Shelby13,1731111
Sioux31,5891223
Story79,9812233
Tama18,1031212
Taylor6,9581111
Union12,3091112
Van Buren7,8091111
Wapello36,0511222
Warren40,6711122
Washington20,6701111
Wayne6,7301111
Webster40,2351324
Winnebago11,7231111
Winneshiek21,3101112
Woodbury103,8772345
Worth7,9091111
Wright14,3341111

iOne district due to keeping the city of Fairbank whole in district 23.
iiOne district due to keeping the city of Dows whole in district 5 and one district due to keeping the city of Ackley whole in district 22.
iiiOne district due to keeping the city of Dows whole in district 9 and one district due to keeping the city of Ackley whole in district 44.
ivOne district due to keeping the city of Riceville whole in district 7.
vOne district due to keeping the city of Riceville whole in district 14.

TABLE 8
Congressional Redistricting Plans Statistical Comparisons

  Absolute Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Percentage Variance Overall Range Overall Range Percentage Variance Average length-width compactness in miles Total Perimeter Score Longest E-W distance for a district in plan (Dist #) Longest N-S distance for a district in plan (Dist #)
Current Congressional Districts104.94 persons0.018%279.23 persons0.048%109.932896.825 miles307 (Dist #3)137.59(Dist #2)
First Proposed Congressional Redistricting Plan130.2 persons0.022%483 persons0.080%72.472832.104 miles>266.49 (Dist #3)202.48(Dist #5)
Second Proposed Congressional Redistricting Plan47 persons0.008%134 persons0.023%56.653132.635 miles266.56 (Dist #4)202.48(Dist #5)

Note: The figures listed as the absolute mean deviation and the overall range for current Congressional districts are adjusted from the actual 1991 figures based on Iowa's total 2000 population.

TABLE 9
Legislative Redistricting Plans Statistical Comparisons

  Absolute Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Percentage Variance Overall Range Overall Range Percentage Variance Average length-width compactness in miles Counties kept whole Precincted cities kept whole Cities in more than one county kept whole Total Perimeter Score Absolute Perimeter Score Longest E-W and N-S distance for a district in plan (Dist #)
Current Senate Districts137.14 persons0.23%847.3 persons1.45%23.426847247716.717 miles4819.892 milesE-W: 134.85 (46) N-S: 67.66 (49)
First Proposed Senate Redistricting Plan212.96 persons0.36%1097 persons1.87%16.517552248166.023 miles5333.919 milesE-W: 99.44 (27)
N-S: 89.32 (10)
Second Proposed Senate Redistricting Plan163.12 persons0.28%855 persons1.46%15.837252317993.042 miles4860.407 milesE-W: 126.36 (48)
N-S: 84.99 (28)
 
Current House Districts123.39 persons0.42%577.5 persons1.97%14.3549422410644 miles7747.175 milesE-W: 88.36 (11)
N-S: 59.16 (15)
First Proposed House Redistricting Plan149.32 persons0.51%577 persons1.97%13.1455482411041.068 miles8208.964 milesE-W: 97.94 (50)
N-S: 66.36 (49)
Second Proposed House Redistricting Plan109.6 persons0.37%552 persons1.89%1154483110835.579 miles7702.944 milesE-W: 95.28 (94)
N-S: 61.02 (56)

Note: The figures listed as the absolute mean deviation and the overall range for current House and Senate Legislative districts are adjusted from the actual 1991 figures.


Return To Home


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

31-May-2001 08:02 PM
ec/sw