IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/usppxx/v7y2020i1p19-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Legislative County Clustering in North Carolina

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Carter
  • Zach Hunter
  • Dan Teague
  • Gregory Herschlag
  • Jonathan Mattingly

Abstract

North Carolina’s constitution requires that state legislative districts should not split counties. However, counties must be split to comply with the “one person, one vote” mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court. Given that counties must be split, the North Carolina legislature and the courts have provided guidelines that seek to reduce counties split across districts while also complying with the “one person, one vote” criterion. Under these guidelines, the counties are separated into clusters; each cluster contains a specified number of districts and that are drawn independent from other clusters. The primary goal of this work is to develop, present, and publicly release an algorithm to optimally cluster counties according to the guidelines set by the court in 2015. We use this tool to investigate the optimality and uniqueness of the enacted clusters under the 2017 redistricting process. We verify that the enacted clusters are optimal, but find other optimal choices. We emphasize that the tool we provide lists all possible optimal county clusterings. We also explore the stability of clustering under changing statewide populations and project what the county clusters may look like in the next redistricting cycle beginning in 2020/2021. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Carter & Zach Hunter & Dan Teague & Gregory Herschlag & Jonathan Mattingly, 2020. "Optimal Legislative County Clustering in North Carolina," Statistics and Public Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 19-29, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:usppxx:v:7:y:2020:i:1:p:19-29
    DOI: 10.1080/2330443X.2020.1748552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/2330443X.2020.1748552
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/2330443X.2020.1748552?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kiera W. Dobbs & Rahul Swamy & Douglas M. King & Ian G. Ludden & Sheldon H. Jacobson, 2024. "An Optimization Case Study in Analyzing Missouri Redistricting," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 54(2), pages 162-187, March.
    2. Amariah Becker & Dara Gold, 2022. "The gameability of redistricting criteria," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1735-1777, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:usppxx:v:7:y:2020:i:1:p:19-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uspp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.