Redistricting Legislative 1

Legislative Reapportionment Proposal
by 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
Senate
p. 9
p. 10
{ note
p. 11
House
p. 12
p. 13
{ note
p. 14
p. 15
Step 1: Apportionment
Step 2 & 3: Regions and Size
for illustrations of step 4 & 5, see the map on page 3 }
Step 6: Senate Minority-Majority Districts & Philadelphia
Step 1: Apportionment
Step 2 & 3: Regions and Size
for illustrations of step 4 & 5, see the map on page 5 }
Step 6: House Minority-Majority Districts
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 further with me about this,
please feel free to contact me at creationsbyamanda@gmail.com or 610-395-5014.
Amanda Holt
Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1
by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)
page 1 of 19
Remarks
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 conflict 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 fulfilling 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 defined 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 affiliation 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 specific 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 unified 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.
Cases
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 fulfill
our constitutional rule about not splitting Counties, etc. unless absolutely necessary for
equal population (equal meaning a less than 10% variant).
page 2 of 19
page 3 of 19
Pennsylvania Senate Redistricting Proposal

49
Er i e
1.10
.18
31
W e stmor e land
1.06
H unt i n g don
30
W ash i n g ton
.82
32
46
15
P e rr y
L e banon
11
36
C umb e rland
.93
31
33
Berks
1.62
29
ont
g om
44 3.15
L ancast e r
19
B uc k s
2.46
er
.54
Fran k l i n
Note on District Numbers: To avoid any county having undue influence over a particular
election cycle, the map proposal has Chester and Bucks counties trading district numbers as
well as Berks and what used to be District 24 (in the Lehigh, Northampton, and Bucks area).
City of Pittsburgh
58
12
38
10
28
59.2
4
59.25
59.2
17.7
59.3
59.16
59.18
17.18
59.1
17.25
59.
17.
17.27
17.16
17.16
12 17
17.23
59.20
17.20
17.21
49
17.22
17.24
17.29
28
52
16
32
34
46
31
5.13
5.24
30
5.9
30.16
30.15
30.14
30.17
30.12
30.7
30.3
30.1
30.9 30.6
30.2
30.11
30.5 30.4
5.14
5.22
5.28
5.11
5.7
5.5
5.1
5.19
5.4
5.18
1
26
5.17
5.27 5.10
5.16
5.12
5.6
5.8
48
40
5.21
5.25
8
30.8
36
5.23
24
27
5.26
60
51
42
37
25
19
31
47 20 18
15
14
16
5.29
23
5.20
5.15
4 44 6
19
29
42
39
64
54
35
23
62
55
41
33
45
29
5.3
5.2
15
30
30.13
18
43
11
17
20
13
38
14
30.10
28
61
17.14 17.13
17.28
65
59.17.
17.20
C h e st e r
6
58
49
43
14
5.13
5.24
5.9
30.8
30.16
30.15
30.14
30.17
30.12
30.7
30.3
30.1
30.9 30.6
30.2
30.11
30.5 30.4
5.14
5.22
5.28
5.11
5.7
D e lawar e
2.20
42
5.5
25
55
62
5.4
5.18
39
66
65
41
45
5.21
5.1
5.19
1
26
54
23
33
31
18
5.27 5.10
5.16
5.12
5.6
5.8
36
48
19
64
5.25
8
30
35
17.21
17.22
17.24
37
20
47
15
24
27
5.29
46
51
30.13
44
60
40
# of splits by ...
County: 16/67 (was 30/67)
Municipality: 2 (was 3)
Ward: 4 (was 30)
It keeps the difference between large and

small distircts within the range allowed by the
US Supreme Court.
17.25
16
32
29
4
3
Largest: 268,100 / #15 (was 249,252 / #8)

Smallest: 243,909 / #42 (was 239,482 /#39)
Difference: 24,191 (was 9,770)
How The Proposed System Helps
17.23
13
11
28
52
34
Boundary Splits
Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:

Above Average: 5.16% (was 1.48%)
Below Average: 4.33% (was 2.5%)
Overall Variant: 9.92% (was 4.08%)
17
12
38
26
District Sizes
Average: 254,956
57
56
17.4
17.12
17.10
17.15
59.1
1
59
2
13
59.6
59.9
59.
59.8
59.7
59.1
23
22
59.2
21
20
17.5
17.9
59.14
53
17.2 17.1
17.3
17.8
59.10
59.1
59.12
3
59.2
10
59.2
59.4
22
21
17.6
12
59.1
17.11
11
24
24
25
17.17
27
50
28
66
63
17.26
26
.40
(Rule: equal population -- 10% variant allowed)
Philadelphia County
27
A dams
Yor k
1.71
17.16
17.16
59.16
59.19
Gr e e n e
Fulton
.06
1.96
30.10
Fa y e tt e
.15
17.27
17.29
13
61
17.14 17.13
17.18
57
53
17.4
17.12
17.10
17.2817.15
59.15
59.22
59.24
59.6
59.7
59
59.21
2.04
59.9
17.1
17.3
17.5
17.9
59.8
59.14
59.20
25
17.2
59.10
59.13
59.12
56
10
59.1
59.2
59.4
22
59.25
.59
63
50
9
21
59.18
B e d f ord
.20
12
17
59.23
S om e rs e t
.31
10
59.3
29
23
1.38
24
.53
17.7
1.44
15
J un
.09
17.8
16
30
19
.18
B la i r
17.6
18
20
C ambr i a
59.11
42 38
13
14
17.11
12
16
48
D auph i n
i ata
59.5
11
17
Lehigh
17.17
ff
18
N orthampton
1.17
.58
S chu y l k i ll
lin
17.26
37
23
22
Mi
.18
.50
C arbon
.26
N orthum b e rland
Snyder
35
M onro e
.67
14
27
.37
.16
34
1.26
L u z e rn e
.26
Pike
.23
45
5.20
5.15
9
24
24
25
21
L ac k a wanna
.84
ia
10
26
27
27
20
28
39
43
12
28
C e ntr e
.57
A ll e g h e n y
.07
U n i on
.18
.27
40
Montour
.32
.35
4.82
.15
.61
C l e ar f i e ld
Ind i ana
B e av e r
.46
C olumb
J e f f e rson
A rmstron g
41
.67
S ull i van
C l i nton
.18
.21
W y om i n g
L y com i n g
.16
L awr e nc e
.11
.03
.02
21
C lar i on
B utl e r
.72
23
C am e ron
.13
Wayne
22
20
5.17
M e rc e r
.46
El k
.17
5.23
V e nan g o
.21
47
.25
B rad f ord
.17
.07
For e st
.03
.36
Tioga
P ott e r
5.26
C ra f ord
.35
.17
5.3
5.2
50
S us q u e hanna
M cK e an
W arr e n
.16
Ph
4
2
e lph
ia
i lad6.01
(Rule: no splits unless absolutely necessary)
# of Districts that include splits of ...

Counties: 12/50 (was 42/50)
Municipalities: 8/50 (was 11/50)
Wards: 5/50 (was 10/50)

Fewer boundaries are split using this
proposed system.
page 4 of 19
Pennsylvania Senate Redistricting Proposal (District Sizes)

District Size
1
253,348
2
254,476
3
254,097
4
253,418
5
254,087
6
248,516
7
255,726
8
254,202
9
255,931
10
254,042
11
253,378
12
252,631
13
260,090
14
254,511
15
268,100
16
255,855
17
250,151
18
253,839
19
250,370
20
254,789
21
251,653
22
257,793
23
263,322
24
251,898
25
257,614
26
254,557
27
254,223
28
256,930
29
255,397
30
254,593
31
257,241
32
250,779
33
256,345
34
265,010
35
257,267
36
259,355
37
245,419
38
245,209
39
250,996
40
244,843
41
252,803
42
243,903
43
243,974
44
251,749
45
254,226
46
246,506
47
261,647
48
252,671
49
252,512
50
260,387

12,702,397
Counties
Bucks (part - 253348)

Philadelphia (part - 254476)
Chester (part - 248516)
Delaware (part - 255931)
Bucks (part - 254042)
Berks (part - 159544); Montgomery (Part - 93834)
Montgomery (part - 252631)
Lancaster (part - 260090)
Carbon (65249); Luzerne (Part - 163455); Monroe (Part - 25807)
Dauphin (268100)
Lehigh (Part - 255855)
Delaware (part - 48491); Montgomery (part -- 201660)
Northampton (part - 253839)
Chester (part - 250370)
Bradford (62622); Luzerne (part - 157463); Sullivan (6428); Wyoming (28276)
Clarion (39988); Erie (part - 28054); Forest (7716); Indiana (88880); Jefferson (45200); Warren (41815)
Lackawanna (214437); Susquehanna (43356)
Cameron (5085); Clinton (39238); Lycoming (116111); McKean (43450); Potter (17457); Tioga (41981)
Berks (part - 251898)
Adams (101407); York (part - 156207)
Delaware (part - 254557)
Columbia (67295); Montour (18267); Northumberland (94528); Schuylkill (part - 29186); Union (44947)
York (part - 256930)
Bucks (part - 117859); Lehigh (part - 93642); Northampton (part - 43896)
Bedford (49762); Blair (127089); Somerset (77742)
Cumberland (235406); York (part - 21835)
Fayette (136606); Westmoreland (114173)
Franklin (149618); Fulton (14845); Huntingdon (45913 ); Perry (45969)
Centre (153990); Juniata (24636); Mifflin (46682); Snyder (39702);
Cambria (143679); Clearfield (81642); Elk (31946)
Lancaster (part - 259355)
Allegheny (part - 245419);
Allegheny (part - 245209)
Westmoreland (part - 250996)
Armstrong (68941); Butler (183862)
Montgomery (part - 251749)
Monroe (part - 144035); Pike (57369); Wayne (52822)
Greene (38686); Washington (207820)
Beaver (170539); Lawrence (91108);
Lebanon (133568); Schuylkill (part - 119103)
Erie (252512)
Crawford (88765); Mercer (116638); Venango (54984);
Note:
For a list of the specific
cities, boroughs, and
townships used within
each county and district,
please refer to the
Commissions office
for an electronic copy
of the data. It was too
lengthy to include in
this summary. It was
emailed in a file named
senate_by_vtd_update.
csv.
page 5 of 19
Ver 3
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Illustration of End Result)

1
2
4
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.6
3.7
4.48
.69
P ott e r
Wayne
.51
12
2
13
6.5
6.2
6.6
6.4
6.1
3
14
17
2
16
30
B la i r
15
.73
.39
29
W e stmor e land
31
5
9
12
3
4
Wendel
Herm
Middletown
W ash i n g ton
3.32
Fort
Allen
Sibel
5.84
University
J un
4.28
11.5
11
18
8.2
8.4
11.2
11.1
15
10
8.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
13
12.1
12.2
14
16
P e rr y
8
9
3
4
7
6.58
L e banon
2
1
19
Berks
2.13
17
15
19
14
13
12
11
6
5
9
8
4
1
16
3
2
10
18
ont
9.99
B uc k s
g om
Upper Ed 1
VTD #1
VTD #5
12.78
Weavers
Old Stand
New
Stanton
8.7
11.6
11.4
12
D auph i n
i ata
.73
H unt i n g don
17
11.3
C ambr i a
6.3
11
18
32
N orthampton
4.76
11.7
24
24
23
22
19
20.18
Lehigh
5.59
19.2
7
9
25
21
20
20.15
20.1
20.16
20.17
2.37
S chu y l k i ll
lin
8.3
8.6
8.5
12
10
26
27
27
28
ff
Mi
.75
2.03
M onro e
2.71
C arbon
1.04
N orthum b e rland
Snyder
Ind i ana
2.30
Pike
.92
1.08
1.51
.63
1.10
19.55
A ll e g h e n y
.29
U n i on
ia
.72
C e ntr e
1.42
Ward 3
L u z e rn e
5.13
C olumb
2.46
1.30
2.73
Ward 1
Ward 21
1.86
Montour
C l e ar f i e ld
A rmstron g
2.94
L ac k a wanna
3.43
L y com i n g
.63
B utl e r
.84
W y om i n g
S ull i van
.08
J e f f e rson
L awr e nc e
.45
.10
C am e ron
C l i nton
.72
20
.69
El k
.64
C lar i on
28
.67
Ed
For e st
.12
M e rc e r
1.86
B e av e r
B rad f ord 1.00
.28
V e nan g o
.88
1.46
Tioga
C umb e rland
3.76
Union Square
Sporting Hill
er
VTD
North
VTD #7
Upper Ed 5
C ra f ord
1.42
S us q u e hanna
M cK e an
W arr e n
.67
U.
Er i e
Upper
Upper
Ed
Ed
VTD South
Elm Tree Ed I
Elm Tree Ed II
L ancast e r
58
66
63
50
.62
2.18
Fran k l i n
A dams
34.18
34.13
34.42
34.10
34.38
34.17
34.5
34.4
34.3
34.2
34.36
7
5
34.26
34.9
34.1
4.15
4.2
4.14
4.8
4.13
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
44
4.7
60
27
46
24
40.4
40.14
30
36
48
18.1
31.12
31.11
31.8
25
Philadelphia County
55.22
41.23
41.19
41.20
55.28
57.12
57.28
57.1
57.17
57.18
41.25
41.18
55.2755.29
41.22
41.16
41.21
55.25
55.26
55.7
55.5
41
5
2.23
2.25
e lph
2.26
2.16
2.27
26.22
some of the VTDs in Ward 39
26.6
26
39
Ph
District Sizes
Boundary Splits
Largest: 65,249 / Carbon (was 62,099 / #58)

Smallest: 60,068 / Delaw. (was 58,751/#114)
Difference: 5,181 (was 3,348)
# of splits by ...
County: 42/67 (was 48/67)
Municipality: 23 (was over 75)
Ward: 31 (was over 50)
(Rule: equal population -- 10% variant allowed)
55
55.11
55.6
55.4
23.15
45
31.1
D e lawar e
8.93
City of Pittsburgh
55.21
55.12
55.8
55.10
55.3
23.18
23.17
31.2
31.9
31
18
18.17
18.16
18.14
26.10
26.15
C h e st e r
14
27.19
40.3
40
18.13
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
18.15
55.1
55.2
23.20
23.19
19
18.8
18.3
18.9
33
7.9
7.7
7.6
27.3
51
2
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.9
62
23
23.21
7.8
7.5
47 20
15
57.15
57.14
57.13
64
54
55.13
42
43
37
16
29
2.24
34.20
34.28
35
55.1455.15
49
13
11
28
32
34
34.16
Yor k
6.95
57.3
61
17
12
38
52
7
26.18
1.62
59
22.2
6
3
53
22.5
22.1
5
4
1
2
5
57
56
10
22
22.4
21
7.97
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
2.39
Fulton
.24
.80
8.30
41.26
Gr e e n e
don
Lyn
41.24
S om e rs e t
1.24
Fa y e tt e
Millport
B e d f ord
i lad
24.39
(Rule: no splits unless absolutely necessary)
58
12
27
63
9
11
25
27
24
23
.4
21
52
49
42
34.20
34.18
34.13
34.42
34.10
34.17
34.9
34.28
34.16
34.5
34.4
34.3
34.2
34.36
34.1
20.17
20.18
29
4.15
4.2
4.14
4.8
4.13
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
44
7.8
4.7
60
46
27
40.3
40.4
40.14
31
2.23
2.25
18.13
2.26
2.16
31.12
31.11
31.9
31.8
31
18
31.1
18.17
18.16
18.1
23.17
31.2
25
55
55.22
55.10
55.29
41.23
41.19
41.20
55.27
55.28
55.25
55.6
55.26
55.7
55.3
41.25
41.18
55.4
55.5
41
41.22
41.21
57.12
57.28
57.1
57.17
57.18
41.16
Average: 62,379
45
23.15
Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:

Above Average: 3.83% (was 2.65%)
Below Average: 3.71% (was 2.89%)
Overall Variant: 8.63% (was 5.70%)
# of Districts that include splits of ...

Counties: 34/203 (was 64/203)
Municipalities: 39/203 (was 152/203)
Wards: 33/203 (was 97/203)
2.27
26.22
26.10
26.15
40
48
18.15
18.14
27.19
30
36
19
18.8
18.3
18.9
14
27.3
51
32
15
24
7.6
7.5
37
55.21
55.11
23.18
33
7.9
7.7
55.1
55.2
23.20
23.19
47 20
29
55.23
55.20
55.12
55.9
62
23
23.21
43
2.24
15
55.17
55.8
65
55.24
55.16
55.15
16
32
34
16
30
34.26
18
19
34.38
20.15
20.1
20.16
28
26.18
17
55.19
55.18
55.13
11
20
54
35
57.15
57.14
57.13
64
55.14
13
38
14
61
17
12
3
28
59
22.2
13
57.3
53
22.5
22.1
57
56
10
22
22
41.26
22
50
12
41.24
21
20
24
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
28
66
10
26
26.6
26
39
It keeps the difference between large and

small distircts within the range allowed by the
US Supreme Court.
ia

Fewer boundaries are split using this
proposed system.
page 6 of 19
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (District Sizes)

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Size
63,728
62,584
63,617
63,759
62,530
61,872
63,328
63,380
62,688
63,001
62,427
63,922
61,430
62,690
61,527
61,637
63,606
60,427
61,444
61,467
62,698
61,515
61,421
62,241
62,045
62,446
62,928
61,145
63,312
62,958
62,962
62,180
60,303
62,192
61,295
62,009
61,889
62,246
60,941
61,528
61,809
60,652
63,573
63,239
63,015
61,411
63,759
60,997
62,040
62,058
63,586
62,578
62,921
Counties
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Crawford, Erie, Mercer
Crawford
Mercer
Mercer, Venango
Lawrence
Clarion, Venango
Butler
Butler
Chester
Beaver, Lawrence
Beaver
Beaver
Armstrong, Butler
Bucks
Allegheny (Pitts.)
Allegheny (Pitts.)
Allegheny
Allegheny (Pitts.)
Allegheny (Pitts.)
Allegheny (Pitts. part)
Allegheny
Chester
Allegheny
Beaver, Allegheny
Bucks
Allegheny
Bucks
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Berks
Berks, Lancaster, Lebanon
Allegheny (Pitts. part)
Allegheny
Allegheny
Lancaster
Allegheny
Lancaster
Allegheny
Allegheny
Washington
York
Washington
Washington
Greene, Washington
Fayette
Fayette
Montgomery
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
61,576
62,169
62,260
63,634
63,708
62,264
62,848
62,809
63,484
62,846
61,086
62,673
62,452
63,229
63,416
63,897
62,084
62,528
60,719
62,561
62,783
62,845
60,302
62,861
63,607
63,152
63,937
62,245
62,526
62,465
63,279
62,277
62,478
62,476
60,996
64,542
63,188
62,522
61,488
60,949
61,834
62,827
64,035
62,611
62,222
63,719
62,916
62,684
62,871
63,080
63,553
62,413
62,597
62,876
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Fayette, Westmoreland
Armstrong
Montgomery
Indiana
York
Lancaster
Erie, Forest, Warren
Elk, Jefferson
Cameron, Elk, McKean
Lycoming, Potter, Tioga
Somerset
Montgomery
Cambria
Franklin, Fulton
Cambria
Cambria, Clearfield, Indiana
Clearfield
Centre, Clinton
Centre
Bedford, Somerset
Blair
Blair
Centre, Huntingdon, Mifflin
Juniata, Mifflin
Lycoming
Columbia, Lycoming, Union
Northumberland, Union
Dauphin, Perry
Cumberland
Cumberland
Cumberland, Franklin
Franklin
Adams
York
York
York
York
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lebanon
Lebanon
Dauphin
Dauphin
Dauphin
Dauphin
Northumberland
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
62,870
63,105
62,622
62,798
62,874
62,237
61,414
63,341
64,956
62,293
61,010
62,063
61,768
62,213
65,249
63,140
61,650
62,982
61,446
62,770
63,445
63,095
62,223
62,722
63,862
62,644
62,540
64,173
62,968
60,942
63,019
62,112
61,065
64,308
63,365
62,717
61,914
62,991
61,699
61,360
61,902
63,474
63,577
62,239
63,652
62,275
62,469
63,404
61,096
64,765
62,831
62,344
60,464
62,182
Ver 3
Northumberland, Snyder
162 60,068 Delaware
Columbia
163 62,038 Delaware
Bradford
164 61,004 Delaware
Sullivan, Susquehanna, Wyoming
165 63,852 Delaware
Lackawanna
166 63,678 Delaware
Lackawanna
167 60,445 Chester
Lackawanna
168 62,001 Delaware
Susquehanna, Wayne
169 62,812 Philadelphia
Monroe, Northampton
Luzerne
171 62,525 Centre
Lackawanna, Luzerne
Luzerne
Luzerne
174 62,107 Montgomery
Luzerne
Carbon
176 64,586 Monroe
Luzerene, Schuylkill
Schuylkill
178 62,188 Bucks
Schuylkill
Berks
Berks
Berks
Berks
183 61,006 Lehigh, Northampton
Berks
Lehigh
Lehigh
Lehigh
187 61,363 Lehigh
Lehigh
Northampton
189 62,293 Monroe
Northampton
Northampton
Northampton
Pike, Wayne
193 63,904 Adams, Cumberland
Bucks
Bucks
Bucks
196 61,269 York
Bucks
Bucks
Bucks
199 62,929 Cumberland
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
For a list of the specific cities,
Montgomery
Montgomery
boroughs, and townships used within each
Chester
county and district, please refer to the
Chester
Chester
Commissions office for an electronic copy
Chester
of the data. It was too lengthy to include in
Chester
Delaware
this summary. It is on the CD in a file named
Delaware
Delaware
house_by_vtd_ver3.csv.
Note:
page 7 of 19
Proposed System
for Legislative Reapportionment
The Law
The Commonwealth shall be divided
into fifty senatorial and two hundred
The Steps and Formulas
three representative districts, which
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
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.
Step 5: Assign District numbers
(Article 2, Section 16).
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 Goal
To use formulas to follow the law by
creating districts not divided by county,
city, etc. unless absolutely necessary
to keep the population of each district
equal (in a practical sense).
page 8 of 19
Pennsylvania Senate Districts Step 1: Apportionment

Er i e
1.10
S us q u e hanna
M cK e an
W arr e n
.16
.17
P ott e r
For e st
.03
El k
V e nan g o
.21
.17
.13
S ull i van
.02
.46
C e ntr e
.35
B e av e r
.57
A ll e g h e n y
Mi
.18
.50
C ambr i a
1.44
N orthum b e rland
Snyder
B la i r
.18
J un
.09
P e rr y
1.06
.15
S om e rs e t
.31
.54
B e d f ord
.20
Fulton
.06
A dams
.40
ont
g om
B uc k s
2.46
er
L ancast e r
2.04
.59
Fran k l i n
L e banon
Berks
1.62
3.15
C umb e rland
.93
Fa y e tt e
N orthampton
1.17
Lehigh
1.38
.53
H unt i n g don
W ash i n g ton
.82
.58
D auph i n
i ata
.18
W e stmor e land
C arbon
.26
S chu y l k i ll
in
fl
Pike
.23
M onro e
.67
.26
.37
.16
Ind i ana
4.82
.07
U n i on
.18
ia
.32
.27
.67
.21
L ac k a wanna
.84
1.26
L u z e rn e
C olumb
.15
.61
C l e ar f i e ld
A rmstron g
.11
W y om i n g
L y com i n g
Montour
.18
L awr e nc e
B utl e r
.72
.03
C am e ron
J e f f e rson
C lar i on
Gr e e n e
.17
Wayne
C l i nton
.16
.36
.25
B rad f ord
.07
C ra f ord
.35
M e rc e r
.46
Tioga
Yor k
1.71
6.01
1.96
C h e st e r
D e lawar e
Ph
i lad
e lph
2.20
Illustrated County Apportionments (see below for the formula for obtaining this number)

page 9 of 19
ia
Pennsylvania Senate Districts Step 2: Regions

1
Er i e
1.10
S us q u e hanna
M cK e an
W arr e n
.16
.17
P ott e r
V e nan g o
.21
M e rc e r
.46
El k
.57
A ll e g h e n y
C ambr i a
1.44
10
.15
J un
.09
S om e rs e t
.31
Fulton
.06
.54
districts divided between three or more counties
N orthampton
1.17
P e rr y
1.38
L e banon
1.06
ont
g om
3.15
B uc k s
2.46
er
L ancast e r
2.04
.59
A dams
Lehigh
Berks
1.62
.53
C umb e rland
.93
Fran k l i n
.58
D auph i n
i ata
B e d f ord
.20
C arbon
.26
S chu y l k i ll
.18
Fa y e tt e
ff
.26
N orthum b e rland
lin
H unt i n g don
1
Gr e e n e
.18
B la i r
W e stmor e land
W ash i n g ton
.82
Mi
.18
.50
2
M onro e
.67
.37
.16
Snyder
.35
Pike
.23
1.26
L u z e rn e
ia
4.82
.07
U n i on
.18
C e ntr e
Ind i ana
B e av e r
Montour
.67
.15
.61
.32
.27
.46
C olumb
J e f f e rson
A rmstron g
1
.21
L ac k a wanna
.84
L y com i n g
C l e ar f i e ld
Wayne
.11
W y om i n g
S ull i van
.02
C l i nton
.18
.03
.16
L awr e nc e
B utl e r
.72
.13
.17
C am e ron
C lar i on
.17
For e st
.03
.25
B rad f ord
.07
C ra f ord
.35
.36
Tioga
Yor k
1.71
.40
D e lawar e
2.20
districts with all of one county and part of another county
6.01
1.96
C h e st e r
Ph
i lad
e lph
one or more districts, all within county lines
Pennsylvania Senate Districts Step 3

%
# of seats
Total
# of seats
Total
268,100
2.11%
268,100
Dauphin
254,345
2.00%
508,690
265,010
2.09%
265,010
Centre, Juniata, Mifflin, Snyder
254,334
2.00%
1,526,006
263,322
2.07%
263,322
Clinton, Lycoming, Potter, Tioga, Cameron, McKean
254,223
2.00%
254,223
Montour, Northumberland, Columbia, Schuylkill (part), Union
261,647
2.06%
261,647
Beaver, Lawrence
253,353
1.99%
253,353
Erie (part), Indiana, Calrion, Forest, Jefferson, Warren
260,387
2.05%
260,387
Crawford, Mercer, Venango
252,899
1.99%
1,770,295
259,723
2.04%
519,445
Lancaster
252,803
1.99%
252,803
257,793
2.03%
257,793
Lackawanna, Susquehanna
252,671
1.99%
252,671
Lebanon, Schuylkill (part)
257,267
2.03%
257,267
Clearfield, Cambria, Elk
250,888
1.98%
501,775
Westmoreland, Fayette
County
County
Monroe, Pike, Wayne, Carbon, Luzerne (part)
Philadelphia
Montgomery, Berks, Delaware

Armstrong, Butler
257,262
2.03%
771,785
York, Adams, Cumberland
250,812
1.97%
250,812
Erie (part)
256,345
2.02%
256,345
Perry, Huntingdon, Franklin, Fulton
249,443
1.96%
498,886
Chester
Bradford, Sullivan, Wyoming, Luzerne (part)
246,506
1.94%
246,506
Washington, Greene
Bedford, Blair, Somerset
244,670
1.93%
1,223,348
Bucks, Northampton, Lehigh
255,509
2.01%
50
12,702,379
254,836
254,593
254,496
2.01%
2.00%
2.00%
1
1
5
254,836
254,593
1,272,481
Allegheny
Est. Overall Variant: 9.58%
page 10 of 19
ia
Step 6
Senate Minority-Majority Districts

& Philadelphia
Term
Minority-Majority District, as
defined 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).
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
Voting Age Population
#2
#3
#4
White
29.5%
33.0%
22.1%
Black
24.4%
55.5%
Hispanic
39.5%
Asian
Other
#2
#3
#4
White
34.8%
38.0%
25.0%
Black
23.1%
50.6%
5.3%
Hispanic
35.3%
5.0%
9.0%
Asian
2.6%
2.4%
Other
#7
#8
73.0%
34.3%
29.3%
53.8%
10.5%
55.0%
54.1%
4.9%
13.4%
7.7%
3.1%
4.9%
4.3%
8.0%
6.6%
1.8%
2.3%
2.7%
2.3%
#5
#7
#8
75.5%
37.9%
33.5%
52.8%
10.1%
51.3%
50.9%
4.5%
11.6%
6.5%
2.8%
4.8%
5.4%
4.8%
8.3%
6.3%
5.7%
8.9%
1.5%
2.1%
2.3%
1.6%
2.3%
2.0%
#5
page 11 of 19
Pennsylvania House Districts Step 1: Apportionment

Er i e
4.48
.69
Tioga
P ott e r
For e st
.12
V e nan g o
.88
M e rc e r
1.86
El k
.67
.69
Wayne
.51
S ull i van
.08
.72
C e ntr e
1.42
B e av e r
2.30
A ll e g h e n y
19.55
ff
Mi
.75
2.03
C ambr i a
5.84
N orthum b e rland
Snyder
Ind i ana
B la i r
W e stmor e land
.73
J un
H unt i n g don
4.28
P e rr y
Fa y e tt e
.62
2.18
S om e rs e t
1.24
B e d f ord
.80
Fulton
.24
Fran k l i n
Berks
2.13
1.62
A dams
6.58
B uc k s
9.99
ont
g om
12.78 e r
L ancast e r
8.30
2.39
N orthampton
4.76
Lehigh
5.59
L e banon
C umb e rland
3.76
3.32
2.37
D auph i n
i ata
.73
W ash i n g ton
C arbon
1.04
S chu y l k i ll
lin
.39
M onro e
2.71
1.08
1.51
.63
1.10
2.73
.29
U n i on
ia
A rmstron g
Pike
.92
L u z e rn e
5.13
C olumb
2.46
1.30
Montour
C l e ar f i e ld
B utl e r
.84
L ac k a wanna
3.43
1.86
.63
J e f f e rson
L awr e nc e
.45
W y om i n g
L y com i n g
C l i nton
.72
2.94
.10
C am e ron
.64
C lar i on
Gr e e n e
B rad f ord 1.00
.28
C ra f ord
1.42
1.46
S us q u e hanna
M cK e an
W arr e n
.67
Yor k
6.95
7.97
C h e st e r
24.39
8.93
D e lawar e
Ph
i lad
e lph
Illustrated County Apportionments (see below for the formula for obtaining this number)

page 12 of 19
ia
Pennsylvania House Districts Step 2: Regions

4.48
Er i e
.69
10
C ra f ord
1.42
V e nan g o
.88
El k
.08
2.03
C ambr i a
5.84
B la i r
.73
.39
J un
4
S om e rs e t
1.24
Fa y e tt e
Gr e e n e
.62
2.18
B e d f ord
Fulton
.24
.80
N orthampton
4.76
Lehigh
5.59
Berks
2.13
4.28
6.58
L e banon
C umb e rland
3.76
Fran k l i n
1.62
A dams
8.30
Yor k
6.95
24.39
7.97
8.93
C h e st e r
9
D e lawar e
10
regions of including more than three counties
regions including three counties
Pennsylvania Legislative Districts Step 3

62,249
62,722
# of seats
Total
501,775
# of seats
Total
County
0.49%
62,249
Carbon
62,660
0.49%
501,276
0.49%
62,622
1,064,455
63,752
0.50%
127,504
Bedford, Somerset
63,545
0.50%
127,089
Blair
62,615
0.49%
17
County
Fulton, Cumberland, Franklin, Adams

Bradford
Lancaster, Lebanon, Berks
0.50%
252,803
Butler, Armstrong
62,525
0.49%
10
625,249
Bucks
63,047
0.50%
10
630,472
Erie, Crawford, Mercer, Clarion, Forest, Warren, Venango
62,361
0.49%
498,886
Chester
62,898
0.50%
440,288
Montour, Northumberland, Union, Snyder, Potter, Tioga, Lycoming, Columbia
62,149
0.49%
11
683,644
Lackawanna, Luzerne, Schuylkill
62,862
0.49%
37
2,325,880
Philadelphia, Montgomery
62,139
0.49%
434,972
York
62,852
0.49%
13
817,074
Lehigh, Northampton, Monroe
62,109
0.49%
558,979
Delaware
62,841
0.49%
125,681
Cameron, McKean, Jefferson, Elk
62,092
0.49%
310,459
Juniata, Mifflin, Clinton, Centre, Huntingdon
62,840
0.49%
314,201
Clearfield, Cambria, Indiana
61,875
0.49%
24
1,484,995
62,814
0.49%
314,069
Dauphin, Perry
61,627
0.49%
246,506
62,750
0.49%
188,251
Sullivan, Wayne, Pike, Susquehanna, Wyoming
62,659
0.49%
203
12,702,379
i lad
Westmoreland, Fayette
63,201
Ph
e lph
regions including one or two counties
0.49%
62,622
10
37
L ancast e r
7
2.39
B uc k s
9.99
ont
g om
12.78 e r
17
W ash i n g ton
3.32
5
P e rr y
13
2.37
D auph i n
i ata
.73
H unt i n g don
C arbon
1.04
S chu y l k i ll
in
W e stmor e land
1.51
M onro e
2.71
11
ia
2.30
M
.75
1.08
N orthum b e rland
Snyder
l
iff
A ll e g h e n y
.29
U n i on
.63
Pike
.92
L u z e rn e
5.13
C olumb
.72
C e ntr e
5
24
L ac k a wanna
3.43
1.86
2.46
1.30
1.42
19.55
S ull i van
Montour
C l e ar f i e ld
Ind i ana
.84
W y om i n g
L y com i n g
1.10
2.73
.45
.10
.63
A rmstron g
4
B e av e r
C am e ron
.51
B utl e r
.69
Wayne
J e f f e rson
L awr e nc e
2.94
.67
C l i nton
.72
S us q u e hanna
B rad f ord 1.00
.28
.64
C lar i on
1.46
Tioga
P ott e r
2
For e st
.12
M e rc e r
1.86
M cK e an
W arr e n
.67
Allegheny, Beaver, Lawrence

Washington, Greene
Est. Overall Variant: 7.62%
page 13 of 19
ia
Step 6 :
Ver 3
House Minority-Majority Districts
Term
In 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.
Minority-Majority District, as
defined 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).
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
(specificaly 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.
Note on Numbers
Numbers correspond to the

emailed spreadsheet with
breakdown by VTD.
The following two charts list all minoirty-majority house districts with racial stats.
All of Population
#19
(Pitts.)
#24
#127
(Pitts.Penn)
(Berks)
#133
(Lehigh)
#161
#163
#177
#180
#185
#186
#188
#190
#191
#192
#195
#197
#198
#200
#201
#203
(Delaw.)
Darby
(Delaw.)
U. Darby
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
(Philly)
7.23.33
7.42.49
26.39.40
36.48
27.46.51
4.34
6.24.44.60
28.38.52
11.16.29.47
19.37.43
12.13.17
50
10.22.59
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%
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%
page 14 of 19
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal
Ver 3
Highlighted Situations and Notes

Non-Contiguous County Subdivisions:
#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 noncontiguous portions. So it appears that non-contiguous county sub divisions do not count toward
making a non-contiguous district.
Minority-Majority Districts
#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).
Terms
Equal Population, as defined 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 defined 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)
Note on Numbers
Numbers correspond to the emailed

spreadsheet with breakdown by VTD.
page 15 of 19
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 1 of 4) Ver

Western Half of Pennsylvania
1
2
4
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.6
3.7
8
7
12
10
26
27
24
24
21
20
9
6.3
25
27
28
11
12
1
2
13
23
22
6.5
6.2
6.6
6.4
6.1
3
28
14
6
20
20.1
17
20.15
18
16
30
19
15
20.16
20.17
20.18
29
32
31
5
9
12
3
4
Wendel
Herm
Middletown
New
Stanton
Fort
Allen
Sibel
University
Weavers
Old Stand
page 16 of 19
Ver 3
Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Map Close-Ups 2 of 4)

Eastern Half of Pennsylvania
Ward 1
Ward 3
Ward 21
8.7
11.7
11.6
18
11.5
11
8.2
8.4
11.3
11.4
8.3
8.6
8.5
17
11.2
11.1
15
10
8.1
9
5
7 4
2
3
13
12.1
12.2
14
16
19.2
12
19
17
Ed
15
14
13
U.
19
12
9
8
4
1
11
2
1
Upper Ed 1
16
3
2
10
18
9
3
4
7
VTD #1
5
VTD #5
VTD
North
Upper Ed 5
VTD #7
Union Square
er Ed
Upp
er Ed
VTD South
Upp
Sporting Hill
Elm Tree Ed I
58
Elm Tree Ed II
66
63
50
9
21
57.3
59
22.2
61
17
34.42
34.10
34.38
34.17
34.5
34.4
34.3
34.2
7
5
34.26
34.9
34.36
34.1
4.15
4.2
4.14
4.8
4.13
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
44
4.7
60
46
27
40.4
62
23
23.19
7.6
18.13
55.22
41.23
41.19
55.11
41.20
55.28
57.12
57.28
57.1
57.17
57.18
41.25
41.18
55.2755.29
41.22
41.16
41.21
55.25
55.6
55.26
55.7
55.3
55.4
55.5
41
23.18
23.17
23.15
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
55.1
55.2
23.20
23.21
33
7.9
7.7
7.5
18.15
31.8
25
45
31
18
31.1
18.17
18.16
18.14
8
30
36
48
18.1
5
2.23
2.25
2.26
2.16
2.27
26.22
26.10
26.15
40
42
7.8
19
18.8
18.3
18.9
14
27.19
40.3
40.14
15
27.3
51
2
49
37
20
47
29
24
2.24
34.13
26.18
34.18
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
34.20
34.28
16
32
34
34.16
28
52
7
43
11
6
3
55.21
55
55.12
55.8
55.10
65
55.24
55.23
55.20
13
38
5
4
1
2
5
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.1455.15
55.13
55.9
41.26
Millport
on
nd
64
54
35
57.15
57.14
57.13
41.24
12
Ly
53
22.5
22.1
57
56
10
22
22.4
26.6
26
39
page 17 of 19
Ver 3

Pittsburgh and Surrounding Area
8
7
12
10
26
27
24
24
21
20
6.3
25
27
28
9
12
1
2
13
23
22
11
6.5
6.2
6.6
6.4
6.1
3
28
14
6
20
20.1
17
20.15
18
16
30
19
15
20.16
20.17
20.18
29
32
31
5
9
12
3
4
Wendel
Herm
Mid
page 18 of 19
No
Philadelphia and Surrounding Counties
Ver 3
Upper Ed 5
per
Up
per
Up
3
Ed
58
66
63
50
9
22
22
.4
21
57.3
59
22.2
61
17
34.13
34.42
34.10
34.17
34.5
34.4
34.3
34.2
34.36
7
5
34.26
34.9
34.16
7.8
34.1
4.15
4.2
4.14
4.8
4.13
4.20
4.19
4.1
4.12
44
4.7
60
46
27
40.14
8
30
36
48
18.13
18.3
18.15
31.2
31.12
31.11
31.9
41.23
41.19
41.25
41.18
41.20
41.22
41.1
41.21
55.26
55.7
55.3
55.4
55.1
55.5
41
23.17
23.15
31.8
25
45
31
18
31.1
18.17
18.16
18.14
18.1
5
2.23
2.25
2.26
2.16
2.27
26.22
26.10
26.15
40
19
18.8
18.9
14
27.19
40.3
15
27.3
51
40.4
37
55.29
55.28
7.5
47 20
29
24
7.6
55.22
55.27
23.18
33
7.9
7.7
55
55.25
55.6
55.2
23.20
23.19
2.24
34.18
26.18
26.14
26.13
26.9
26.12
26.8
26.19
26.11
26.17
26.21
26.16
34.20
34.28
62
23
23.21
43
16
32
34
34.38
42
55.10
57.18
26
2
5
28
52
7
55.8
55.9
57.1
57.17
41.
6
1
49
55.21
55.11
55.13
11
55.23
55.20
55.12
57.12
57.28
65
55.24
24
55.19
55.18
55.17
55.16
55.15
55.14
13
38
64
54
35
57.15
57.14
57.13
41.
12
53
22.5
22.1
57
56
10
26.6
26
39
page 19 of 19
6
Ed

Redistricting Legislative 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Redistricting Legislative 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legislative Reapportionment Proposal

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

p. 16-19 House Map Close-Ups

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

Pennsylvania Senate Redistricting Proposal

Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

It keeps the difference between large and

Largest: 268,100 / #15 (was 249,252 / #8)

How The Proposed System Helps

Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:

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

(Rule: no splits unless absolutely necessary)

# of Districts that include splits of ...

How The Proposed System Helps

Pennsylvania Senate Redistricting Proposal (District Sizes)

Bucks (part - 253348)

Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (Illustration of End Result)

B rad f ord 1.00

some of the VTDs in Ward 39

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

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

(Rule: no splits unless absolutely necessary)

Percentage Largest/Smallest District is:

# of Districts that include splits of ...

Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1

some of the VTDs in Ward 39

How The Proposed System Helps

It keeps the difference between large and

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

How The Proposed System Helps

Pennsylvania House Redistricting Proposal (District Sizes)

Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

The Steps and Formulas

three representative districts, which

Step 1: County Apportionment

shall be composed of compact and

Step 5: Assign District numbers

(Article 2, Section 16).

Step 6: Verify compliance with Voting Rights Act

Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

Pennsylvania Senate Districts Step 1: Apportionment

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

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

Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Proposal Update 1

by Amanda Holt (610.395.5014 / creationsbyamanda@gmail.com)

Pennsylvania Senate Districts Step 2: Regions

districts divided between three or more counties

districts with all of one county and part of another county

one or more districts, all within county lines

Pennsylvania Senate Districts Step 3

Centre, Juniata, Mifflin, Snyder