Amanda Holt Testimony 4/24/2018

Transcription

1 Amanda Hlt Testimny 4/24/2018 In June 2011, I testified befre the State Gvernment Cmmittee regarding cngressinal districts. It is an hnr t nearly 7 years later be nce again befre the State Gvernment Cmmittee prviding testimny related t redistricting. My 2011 testimnies included detailed infrmatin n hw the cnstitutin might be fllwed and prvided multiple statewide map illustratins fr each chamber. With great persistence, I pursued my redistricting cncerns all the way t the Pennsylvania Supreme Curt and wn in 2012! Justice Castile, in the majrity pinin, praised the strength f the prf presented t the curt. He said: Indeed, the prf is strng enugh that we view it as incnceivable... that the magnitude f the subdivisin splits here was unavidable. After this victry, a secnd set f maps were drawn. My secnd challenge against these revised maps failed in Ultimately, the flaws in the State Senate and State Huse maps adversely impacted ver 7 millin peple (mre than 50% f the state ppulatin). As yu are aware frm the last hearing, Berks Cunty is amng thse which fund mre districts did nt equate t better representatin. The renewed interest this past year prvided anther pprtunity t discuss redistricting cncerns. While there was n public hearing, I still published analysis f the decisin and maps. I als demnstrated with my wn maps hw traditinal redistricting principles cntinue t be ignred. In the last 7 years and thusands f hurs I ve spent engaging in redistricting, I ve asked a questin many f yu are likely asking tday: hw des the legislature restre public trust and integrity t the redistricting prcess? The answer is critical t prtecting the vice f the peple, t addressing verreaches in gvernment, and t ensuring the rule f law prevails. It is essential t preserving ur free gvernment. Tday, I seek t begin a redistricting cnversatin with the Senate State Gvernment Cmmittee, which I hpe will cntinue past this hearing. Wh draws the maps? As this cmmittee is aware, currently legislatures and cmmissins d nt actually draw legislative district maps. They give instructins t anther persn(s) regarding hw the maps shuld be drawn. Take fr instance the Vieth case, in the testimny prvided it was clear the legislature did nt draw the map but Dr. Jhn Memmi did under the instructins f his supervisrs ( Everyne knws the Pennsylvania Supreme Curt did nt actually draw their maps, Nathaniel Persily did under their instructins. This cmmittee understands that even the members f the Legislative Reapprtinment Cmmissin d nt literally draw maps, they have staff perfrming this task. Yet when criticisms are made f the prcess, it is generally nt the map drawer that is the subject f discussin, but thse prviding the instructins t the persn(s) drawing the map. The matter f greatest cncern is then nt the persn drawing the maps, but the instructins they are given. Amanda Hlt (AmandaE.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/AprilExhibits Page 1 f 12

2 S then essentially, these instructins are the criteria used t create legislative district maps. Because the current criteria at best is brad and vague, it pens the dr t at least 531 discretinary instructins t the map drawer. This means measurable standards are f paramunt imprtance. They prtect any semblance f integrity in the prcess and determine if and hw t hld accuntable the map drawer as well as thse prviding instructins, whether a citizen cmmissin r legislative prcess. Review f Senate Bills: Cmmissins After researching and reviewing state cnstitutins and statutes, extensive case law, what has happened bth in Pennsylvania and ther states, it is my pinin that there are shrtcmings in the bills currently being presented t yur cmmittee. Is it impssible t legislate impartiality? Everyne is capable f bias. By what frmula might yu identify members wh will set aside their bias and behave impartially? I can think f n frmula. Is it impssible t legislate partisan balance? If they are nt an elected fficial, there is n recrd (thrugh their vtes) f their cmmitment t their party r stand n issues. Peple d nt always register with the party that reflects their vting preferences r plitical idelgy. Fr instance: They register with a particular party t have a vice in the primary (especially in areas where ne party dminateslike the Demcratic Party in Philadelphia r the Republican Party in certain rural cunties). As a Judge f Electin, I learned sme are unaware their party registratin. thers remain registered with a party because f family lyalty. Vters nt affiliated with a majr party still have a plitical philsphy, which may favr ne f the tw majr parties. Are the timetables realistic r adequate? In many f the prpsals, there is little time fr public cmment t be incrprated int the map revisins. Little time is left fr maps t be reviewed by curts and a remanded map develped if the final map is fund uncnstitutinal. Suggested Map Drawing Criteria When ur Cmmnwealth receives a reputatin as having sme f the wrst gerrymandered legislative districts in the natin, public trust reaches an alltime lw. When bvius district manipulatins are given a pass, the integrity f the whle system cmes int questin. Nne f the prpsed bills really address the rt cause f this redistricting quandary the truth frm James Madisn that all are susceptible t bias, selfinterest, and manipulatin (see page 7). While Amanda Hlt (AmandaE.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaEcm/AprilExhibits Page 2 f 12

3 shifting the mapdrawing pwer t a grup which is nt dependent n the districts fr their livelihd is wrth cnsidering, it still fails t address the human element which started this cnversatin. Why settle fr a prpsal which leaves the vice f the peple s blatantly pen t be preyed n by human nature? Why leave in place a prcess which requires extreme and egregius visual examples befre the peple may receive a remedy? My experience in the past 7 years as a redistricting enthusiast suggests the best criteria wuld be limited, specific, and clearly measurable. I share why this is critical n my vide The Mst Imprtant Redistricting Standard (view at Benefits f a measurable standard is it prtects the vice f the peple frm thse wh might try and manipulate it. The cnsequence f n measurable standard is n accuntability, which I discuss in my vide Redistricting: Decnstructin f a Map (view at State: 1. Equality: The districts must be as equal as practicable, meaning at r within an verall range f deviatin f 10 percent. A lwer verall range f deviatin shall nt be used unless ding s wuld nt cause any additinal plitical subdivisin t be divided. 2. Except where necessary t meet the equal ppulatin requirements f Sectin 1, n cunty, municipality, r ward shall be divided in frming a Senate r Representative district. a. Divisins t cunties and municipalities shuld be avided whenever pssible. The number f cunties and municipalities in mre than ne district shall be as small as pssible. b. If it is necessary t break a municipal line, the number f wards cntained in mre than ne district shuld be the smallest number pssible. 3. N vting precinct may be divided in frming a Senate r Representative district. Cngressinal: 1. Equality: The districts must be as equal as practicable, meaning t the greatest extent pssible with an verall range f deviatin at r appraching zer percent. a. Any deviatin frm the ideal ppulatin f a district must be used t the extent necessary t keep plitical subdivisins whle as prvided fr in sectins 2 and N municipality shall be divided in frming a cngressinal district unless it exceeds the size f a cngressinal district, in which case: a. N vting precinct may be divided b. All wards must remain whle t the extent pssible (meaning the number f wards cntained in mre than ne district shuld be the smallest number pssible). 3. Whle cunties shuld be in the same cngressinal district t the extent pssible while achieving ppulatin equality. Cngressinal district lines shall break the fewest cunty bundaries pssible. Amanda Hlt (AmandaE.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE,cm/AprilExhibits Page 3 f 12

4 The Need fr a Measurable Standard: Amanda Hlt s Testimny, 3/27/18 The legislatin befre yu prpses t take the map drawing pwer away frm the legislature and place it in the hands f citizens. But I ask yu: hw wuld this change imprve the checks and balances in redistricting? James Madisn nted in 1788 hw human nature leads t abuses in gvernment: What is gvernment itself, but the greatest f all reflectins n human nature? If men were angels, n gvernment wuld be necessary. If angels were t gvern men, neither external nr internal cntrls n gvernment wuld be necessary. In framing a gvernment which is t be administered by men ver men, the great difficulty lies in this: yu must first enable the gvernment t cntrl the gverned; and in the next place blige it t cntrl itself. The funders acknwledged the need fr cntrls in gvernment by creating a system f checks and balances. These cntrls were nt nly thrugh a separatin f pwers, but als thrugh the laws they enacted. They referred t the absence f these checks and balances as tyranny, usurpatin, and the end f free gvernment. S, when it cmes t redistricting, hw are the checks and balances wrking? D thse invlved have a sufficient legal bligatin t cntrl their actins in the redistricting prcess? Sme are cncerned the legislature verstepped its bunds in drawing the 2011 cngressinal map. Others are cncerned that the Pennsylvania Supreme Curt verstepped its bunds in finding the map uncnstitutinal and in hw it prvided fr a remedy. All f these cncerns pint t the same missing piece in the redistricting prcess the absence f a clear and measurable standard. And this is a significant shrtcming in the legislatin befre yu. Citizens, like pliticians, are peple t. S where is the bligatin fr the map drawers t cntrl their actins? Other states have prven a measurable standard is a win fr bth legislatrs and citizens. They prtect map drawers wh adhere t the standard frm a curt challenge. But the measurable rule als prtects the peple by allwing them t hld accuntable map drawers wh vilate the standard. I urge yu t first address the underlying, mre fundamental flaw expsed in redistricting in recent times befre turning yur attentin t ther refrms. If the same flawed redistricting prcess is handed ff t anther bdy, what has been gained? It is up t each ne f yu t prmte gd gvernance. Will yu take the advice f James Madisn and ther funders by inserting a redistricting cntrl which map drawers will be bliged t fllw? Or will yu leave the redistricting prcess withut adequate checks and balances, expsing the peple t tyranny, usurpatin, and the end f free gvernment? I ask yu t set aside selfinterest and persnal ambitin. I ask yu t fllw the example f the great funders f ur natin and cmmnwealth. I ask yu t chse t defend the peple and their vice in yur decisin n this imprtant tpic. Amanda Hlt (AmandaE.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/AprilExhibits Page 4 f 12

5 ... Illustratin f Need fr Standard Think f map drawing like placing a dt n a grid. Where will the dt g n this grid? 10 00% 9.50% 9.00% 8.50% 8.00% 7.5 0% 7.00% g 650%, 5.00% 5.50% 4._L... c 5.00%... I Z 450% _.._._._1_ I I I. z 4.00%.. _, a I I. 300/ 2.50% 2.00%. 1.50%. 1.00% 0.5 0% 0_cy I h t Number Splits Nw, hw wuld anther persn determine if yur dt was placed in an allwable lcatin? Amanda HDIt {AmandaE.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cmfAprilExhibits PageS f 12

6 _:.. Hw wuld yu decide which dt is in the cnstitutinal place? 10.DD% 9.50% 9.00% 850% 800% 7,50% 7.00% 6.50% 6.00%I. 5.50% c 5.00% C Va 4.50% z &00% a L I 350v 00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50%. 1.00% 0.50% 0.00/.. I Number Splits What if the rule was the dt had t be n at 8% and as clse t 0 as pssible? Which dt wuld be allwable? Current laws allw the dt t be placed almst anywhere, making accuntability difficult. Amanda Halt lamandae.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/AprilExhibits PageS f 12

7 Reference Materials Review f Senate Bills: Map Criteria D the prpsals eliminate existing lphles which hinder and prevent accuntability? The tw bills which include mapdrawing criteria (SB 243 and SB 767) fail shrt f being a limiting and enfrceable standard. Generally speaking, SB 767 includes standards mre limited and defined than SB 243. Ppulatin equality: SB243 Cmpactness: Cngressinal wrding is flexible (which is gd) but als fails t make it clear which criteria are acceptable reasns t use flexibility. Legislative: why use a lwer standard than allwed under federal law? Federally, 10% is acceptable withut review, and even higher deviatins might be allwed with apprpriate state justificatin. SB 767 Hw will therwise allwed by law be interpreted? Under federal case law, ppulatin deviatins f ver 3,000 persns was allwed in Based n this wrding, what are acceptable reasns t deviate? I d nt see keeping cunties/municipalities whle amng thse reasns. SB 243 Hw will it be knwn what ideal measurement is reasnable given the gegraphic cnfines f the state? A specific measurement will create divisins nt required fr any ther reasn. SB 767 attempts t avid this by remaining vague n measurement ( t the extent pssible ) and making it clearly secndary t ther criteria (fr instance, splits are nt allwed t create cmpact district). A better apprach. Federal rules I VRA: SB 243 silent SB 767 Hw has case law indicated VRA cnsideratins shuld be cnsidered in redistricting? Racecnscius redistricting can be uncnstitutinal (Shaw v. Ren 1993 and Miller v. Jhnsn 1995). Hw might the legislatin avid making race the primary cnsideratin and instead keep the neutral redistricting principle f respecting lcal gvernment bundaries predminant? Respect lcal gvernment bundaries: 5B243 Hw des it define abslute necessity (the term curts have fund ambiguus)? It des nt. While requiring ratinale fr the divisins, where is the legal measurement fr determining if the ratinale is sund? It des require vting precincts remain whle, which is excellent. 5B767 Hw will curts interpret t the extent pssible? I believe the definitin ffered in the subsequent pint (which references fewest number pssible ) pints t a numeric minimum. But des it need t prtect against a map drawer wh excessively splits ne cunty t avid any splits in a neighbring cunty? Desn t the phrase this sectin then include the pint n cmpactness? I d nt believe this is the intent. Where are the requirements fr certain types f places t remain whle? Fr instance, vting precincts r municipalities. Amanda Hlt (AmandaE.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/AriIExhibits Page 7 f 12

8 Cases f Interest Cases where state districts were verturnedfrfailure t create map with fewest splits pssible r upheld fr having created fewest splits pssible ( rg/resea rch/redistri ctingjredistricti ngcasesu m maries2010present.aspx) Frm the cases belw, it is clear an independent cmmissin des nt make redistricting prblems g away. Independent Cmmissins have been fund t draw maps that vilated their state s cnstitutin. It is prven measurable standards make it pssible t hld accuntable whever draws the maps and prtects thse wh draw cnstitutinal maps. Tennant v. Jeffersn Cunty, N , 567 U.S. (Sep. 25, 2012) The Jeffersn Cunty Cmmissin and residents f Jeffersn Cunty alleged that West Virginia s 2011 cngressinal plan vilated the nepersn, nevte principle f Article I, 2, f the U.S. Cnstitutin. West Virginia created a redistricting plan that had a maximum ppulatin deviatin f 0.79 percent (the variance between the smallest and largest districts). The State cnceded that it culd have made a plan with less deviatin, but that ther traditinal redistricting principles such as nt splitting cunties, aviding cntests between incumbents, and preserving the cres f prir districts were legitimate state bjectives. The district curt held that the State s asserted bjectives did nt justify the ppulatin variance. The U.S. Supreme Curt held that the legislature did prvide a sufficient recrd cnnecting the State s interests and the necessary deviatin needed t sustain thse interests. The curt reversed and remanded the case t the district curt. Twin Falls Cunty v. Idah Cmm n n Redistricting, N , 2012, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idah 2ó12). The Idah Supreme Curt interpreted the requirements f art. Ill, 5, as being mandatry, thus hlding that the nly permissible reasn t deviate frm art. III, 5, was t cmply with the Equal Prtectin Clause, and nly then t the smallest extent necessary. Because the cmmissin had cnsidered plans that split fewer cunties and als cmplied with the Equal Prtectin Clause, the plan the cmmissin ultimately adpted did nt split as few cunties as was practicable. Thus, the cmmissin s plan vilated the Idah Cnstitutin. The curt directed the cmmissin t recnvene and adpt new maps that cmplied with the mandates f bth the federal and state cnstitutins. In re Reapprtinment f the Cb. Gen. Assembly, N. 115A282, 332 P.3d 108 (Cb. Nv. 15, 2011). The cmmissin s plan that the legislature ultimately adpted split several cunties arund Denver int multiple districts, claiming this was necessary t cmply with the Vting Rights Act. The challengers t the maps said there was n evidence indicating a need t create majrityminrity districts in either f the cntested cunties (Jeffersn and Arapahe), and thus the cmmissin needlessly vilated art. V, 47(2) s prhibitin n minimizing the number f cities and twns with multiple districts. The Supreme Curt held that the cmmissin had nt established a need t cmply with the Vting Rights Act, and thus it imprperly infringed n the cmmands f 47(2). The districts were remanded t the cmmissin t be redrawn crrectly. Amanda Halt lamandae.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/AprilExhibits Page 8 f 12

9 Legislative Research Cmmissin v. Fischer, N. 2012SC (Ky. Apr. 26, 2012) On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Curt nted that it had previusly adpted a limit n ppulatin deviatins f plus r minus 5 percent frm the ideal, rather than the federal limit f 10 percent n the verall range f deviatins. At least ne district in each plan had a deviatin f mre than 5 percent, which was nt saved by having ther districts less than 5 percent. The curt held that the Legislative Research Cmmissin had nt carried its burden f prving the excessive ppulatin deviatin was a result f a cnsistently applied ratinal state plicy. Since plaintiffs had demnstrated that fewer cunty splits and ppulatin deviatins f n mre than five percent culd be achieved in bth the Huse and Senate, the new maps adpted by the legislature in 2011 were uncnstitutinal. Mre v State, 436 S.W. 3d 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) Article II, 6 f the Tennessee Cnstitutin prhibits splitting cunties t frm senatrial districts. In 2012, the General Assembly adpted a Senate redistricting plan splitting eight cunties with an verall ppulatin range f 9.17 percent. Plaintiffs challenged the cnstitutinality f the plan based n cunty splitting and ffered a plan that split five cunties with an verall ppulatin range f percent as a plan mre cmpliant with the Tennessee Cnstitutin. N plan splitting fewer cunties with an verall ppulatin range under either 9.17 percent r 10 percent was ffered as an alternative. Affirming summary judgment in favr f the state, the Tennessee Curt f Appeals fund that the state demnstrated that crssing cunty lines was necessary t best achieve ppulatin equality n balance with the state cnstitutinal interests. Bingham Cunty v. Cmm n fr Reapprtinment, 2002 Opinin N. 30, 137 Idah 870,55 P.3d 863 (Idah Mar. 1, 2002) On remand, the Cmmissin adpted a new plan, L91, n January 8, The plan had an verall range f percent and detailed Findings and Cnclusins. The Curt fund that the ratinal state plicies used by the cmmissin preserving whle cunties and preserving traditinal neighbrhds and cmmunities f interest were nt applied cnsistently statewide. It als fund that the plan vilated the Idah Cnstitutin by dividing cunties mre than was necessary t meet equalppulatin requirements. Fllwing the statutry plicy f preserving traditinal neighbrhds and cmmunities did nt justify vilating the cnstitutinal prhibitin against splitting cunties. The Curt directed the Cmmissin t recnvene and adpt a new legislative plan. Bnneville Cunty v. Ysursa, 2005 Opinin N. 138, 142 Idah 464, 129 P.3d 1213 (Idah Dec. 28, 2005) In March 2002, the Cmmissin adpted plan L 97. The plan had a maximum deviatin (verall range) f 9.71 percent. Varius cunties, vters, and state representatives challenged the plan as a vilatin f bth the federal ne persn, ne vte requirement and state cnstitutinal and statutry requirements fr the districtdrawing prcess. The Supreme Curt appinted a special master t develp a factual recrd. The special master submitted his reprt in September In December 2005, the Curt rejected all challenges. It fund that the underppulatin f districts in nrth Idah did nt discriminate against vters in nt nrth Idah, since the ppulatin deviatins were within tlerable limits and there was n evidence f an intent t discriminate against nt nrth Idah. It fund that the Cmmissin had nt abused its discretin in deciding which cunties t split and in what ways in rder t meet equalppulatin requirements. Amanda Hlt (AmandaEcm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/AprilExhibits Page 9 f 12

10 Measurable Criteria in Other States (selected highlights) I Rule n Ppulatin Rules n N Splits Clrad The state shall be divided int as Except when necessary t meet the equal ppulatin many senatrial and representative requirements f sectin 46, n part f ne cunty districts as there are members f the shall be added t all r part f anther cunty in senate and huse f representatives frming districts. Within cunties whse territry is respectively, each district in each cntained in mre than ne district f the same huse having a ppulatin as nearly huse, the number f cities and twns whse equal as may be, as required by the territry is cntained in mre than ne district f the cnstitutin f the United States, but same huse shall be as small as pssible. When in n event shall there be mre than cunty, city, r twn bundaries are changed, five percent deviatin between the adjustments, if any, in legislative districts shall be as mst ppulus and the least prescribed bylaw. (Cnstitutin) ppulus district in each huse. (Cnstitutin) Idah Districts shall be substantially equal Divisin f cunties shuld be avided whenever in ppulatin and shuld seek t pssible. Cunties shuld be divided int districts nt cmply with all applicable federal whlly cntained within that cunty nly t the standards and statutes. (Cde) extent reasnably necessary t meet the requirements f the equal ppulatin principle. In the event that a cunty must be divided, the number f such divisins, per cunty, shuld be kept t a minimum. (Cde) Divisin f cunties shuld be avided whenever pssible. cunties shuld nly be divided int districts nt whlly cntained within that cunty t meet the requirements f the equal ppulatin principle r the Vting Rights Act. Smetimes, it will be necessary t divide a cunty int districts nt whlly cntained within that cunty. The number f such divisins, per cunty, shuld be kept t a minimum. (1991 Instructins) Kansas Districts shuld be numerically as The integrity and pririty f existing plitical equal in ppulatin as practical subdivisins shuld be preserved t the extent within the limitatins f Census pssible [under the ppulatin guideline]. (Legislative gegraphy and applicatin f State Cmmittee Guideline) guidelines set ut belw. Deviatins shuld nt exceed plus r minus S Cngressinal: Whle cunties shuld be in the same percent f the ideal ppulatin cngressinal district t the extent pssible while (Legislative State Cmmittee achieving ppulatin equality amng districts. Guideline) Kentucky Cunties shuld be used as district building blcks where pssible, and t the extent cnsistent with ther aspects f these criteria, recgnizing that sme cunties will f necessity be split in rder t achieve stated equality f ppulatin gals. Amanda Halt (AmandaE.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/ArilExhibits Page 10 f 12

11 Michigan (cngressinal) Michigan (state) The cnstitutinal guideline is that each cngressinal district shall achieve precise mathematical equality f ppulatin in each district. (Cde) (d) Senate and huse f representatives districts shall have a ppulatin nt exceeding 105% and nt less than 95% f the ideal district size fr the senate r the huse f representatives unless and until the United States supreme curt establishes a different range f allwable ppulatin divergence fr state legislative districts. (Cde) Cngressinal district lines shall break as few cunty bundaries as is reasnably pssible. If it is necessary t break cunty lines t achieve equality f ppulatin between cngressinal districts as prvided in subdivisin (a), the number f peple necessary t achieve ppulatin equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift. Cngressinal district lines shall break as few city and twnship bundaries as is reasnably pssible. If it is necessary t break city r twnship lines t achieve equality f ppulatin between cngressinal districts as prvided in subdivisin (a), the number f peple necessary t achieve ppulatin equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift. (Cde) (e) Senate and huse f representatives district lines shall preserve cunty lines with the least cst t the principle f equality f ppulatin prvided fr in subdivisin (d). (f) If it is necessary t break cunty lines t stay within the range f allwable ppulatin divergence prvided fr in subdivisin (d), the fewest whle cities r whle twnships necessary shall be shifted. Between 2 cities r twnships, bth f which will bring the districts int cmpliance with subdivisins (d) and (h), the city r twnship with the lesser ppulatin shall be shifted. (g) Within thse cunties t which there is apprtined mre than 1 senate district r huse f representatives district, district lines shall be drawn n city and twnship lines with the least cst t the principle f equality f ppulatin between electin districts cnsistent with the maximum preservatin f city and twnship lines and withut exceeding the range f allwable divergence prvided fr in subdivisin (d). Missuri (h) If it is necessary t break city r twnship lines t stay within the range f allwable divergence prvided fr in subdivisin (di, the number f peple necessary t achieve ppulatin equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift, except that in lieu f abslute equality the lines may be drawn alng the clsest street r cmparable bundary. (1) des nt divide cunties, except in large metrplitan areas (2) des nt divide cities, except in large metrplitan areas and except when cities are in mre than ne cunty (Huse Cmmittee Guidelines) Amanda Hlt (AmandaEcm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/AnrilExhibits Page 11 f 12

12 Mntana Nebraska The districts must be as equal as practicable, meaning t the greatest extent pssible, within a plus r minus 1% relative deviatin frm the ideal ppulatin f a district as calculated frm infrmatin prvided by the federal decennial census. The relative deviatin may be exceeded nly when necessary t keep plitical subdivisins intact r t cmply with the Vting Rights Act. (Cde) Ppulatin equality and maximum ppulatin deviatin. All legislative districts must be as nearly equal in ppulatin as is practicable within a maximum deviatin f n mre than plus r minus 5% frm the ideal ppulatin (Guideline) Cngressinal: Ppulatin amng districts shall be as nearly equal as practicable, that is, with an verall range f deviatin at r appraching 0%. N plan will be cnsidered which results in an verall range f deviatin in excess f 1% r a relative deviatin in excess f plus r minus 0.5%, based n the ideal district ppulatin. Any deviatin frm abslute equality f ppulatin must be necessary t the achievement f a legitimate state bjective as that cncept has been articulated by the United States Supreme Curt. (Legislative Reslutin) District bundaries must cincide with the bundaries f plitical subdivisins f the state t the greatest extent pssible. The number f cunties and cities divided amng mre than ne district must be as small as pssible. When there is a chice between dividing lcal plitical subdivisins, the mre ppulus subdivisins must be divided befre the less ppulus, unless the bundary is drawn alng a cunty line that passes thrugh a city. (Cde) District bundaries shall fllw cunty lines whenever practicable and shall define districts that are cmpact and cntiguus as these terms have been articulated by the United States Supreme Curt. Shuld adherence t cunty lines cause a redistricting plan, r any aspect theref, t be in vilatin f principles set frth by the United States Supreme Curt in interpreting the United States Cnstitutin, that requirement may be waived t the extent necessary t bring the plan r aspect f the plan int cmpliance with these principles. (Legislative Reslutin) State: In establishing new legislative district bundaries, the Legislature shall create districts that are as nearly equal in ppulatin as may be. N plan will be cnsidered which results in an verall range f deviatin in excess f 10% r a relative deviatin in excess f plus r minus 5%, based n the ideal district ppulatin. (Legislative Reslutin) Amanda Hlt (AmandaE.cm). Supplemental infrmatin at AmandaE.cm/AprilExhibits Page 12 f 12