An official website of the United States government
Political Districting to Minimize County Splits When dividing a state into districts for elections, one traditional criterion is that political subdivisions like counties and cities should not be divided unnecessarily. Some states go as far as to say that the number of county splits should be minimized, but previously there was no scalable exact method for determining this. With new integer programming techniques, Shahmizad and Buchanan exactly compute this minimum number for all states and district types (congressional, state senate, state house) across the USA.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on February 3, 2026
A Widespread Belief About County Splits in Political Districting Plans Is Wrong
Consider the task of dividing a state into k contiguous political districts whose populations must not differ by more than one person, following current practice for congressional districting in the USA. A widely held belief among districting experts is that this task requires at least k − 1 county splits. This statement has appeared in expert testimony, special master reports, and Supreme Court oral arguments. In this article, we seek to dispel this belief. To illustrate, we find plans for several states that use zero county splits, that is, all counties are kept whole, despite satisfying contiguity and 1-person deviation. This is not a rare phenomenon; states like Iowa and Montana admit hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of such plans. In practice, mapmakers may need to satisfy additional criteria, like compactness, minority representation, and partisan fairness, which may lead them to believe k − 1 splits to be minimum. Again, this need not be true. To illustrate, we conduct short case studies for North Carolina (for partisan fairness) and Alabama (for minority representation). Contrary to expert testimony and Supreme Court oral arguments from Allen v. Milligan (2023), we find that fewer than k − 1 county splits suffices, even when subjected to these additional criteria. This demonstrates our narrow point that k − 1 county splits should not be assumed minimum and also suggests that districting criteria do not conflict as much as people sometimes believe. The optimization methods proposed in this article are flexible and can assist mapmakers in satisfying them.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1942065
- PAR ID:
- 10579893
- Publisher / Repository:
- Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy
- ISSN:
- 1533-1296
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
How do judges decide issues of equality? While prior scholarship demonstrates that judicial attributes such as partisan identification, gender, race, age, and career backgrounds help elucidate judicial decision-making, considerably less attention has been devoted to how judicial empathy may influence or condition judicial decision-making. Such scholarly attention is especially lacking in the study of courts outside of the United States. To bridge this critical gap, we examine how judicial empathy affects decision-making behavior by analyzing data from the Supreme Court of Canada from 1982 to 2015. We find compelling evidence that trailblazer women’s unique personal experiences exert a strong influence on judicial behavior within the Canadian Supreme Court. In fact, our findings demonstrate that the effects of judicial empathy extend across a broader array of discrimination cases in Canada compared to previous findings on the American courts. We find that trailblazer women have a greater propensity to vote in favor of discrimination claimants compared to their male peers. Normatively, these effects manifest as judicial empathy in discrimination cases where trailblazers themselves likely faced upward mobility challenges.more » « less
-
Abstract The 1993 US Supreme Court decisionDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence,Daubertis frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in theJournal of Forensic Sciencesto assess why authors continue to citeDaubertand express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within theDaubertframework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles presentDaubertas a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However,Daubertwas intended to be a flexible tool for judges—not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of theDaubertdecision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to “satisfy” admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science—which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.more » « less
-
Clark, Tom (Ed.)Abstract Do lower court judges influence the content of Supreme Court opinions in the United Kingdom? Leveraging original data, we analyze opinion language adoption practices of the UK Supreme Court. We advance a theory where the justices’ choices to adopt language from lower court opinions are influenced by Supreme Court-level attributes and Court of Appeal case characteristics. We uncover compelling evidence that UK Supreme Court justices incorporate language extensively from the written opinions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. Our findings have significant implications for opinion formulation, doctrinal development, and higher and lower court interactions within comparative courts.more » « less
-
Abstract The significance and influence of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions derive in large part from opinions’ roles as precedents for future opinions. A growing body of literature seeks to understand what drives the use of opinions as precedents through the study of Supreme Court case citation patterns. We raise two limitations of existing work on Supreme Court citations. First, dyadic citations are typically aggregated to the case level before they are analyzed. Second, citations are treated as if they arise independently. We present a methodology for studying citations between Supreme Court opinions at the dyadic level, as a network, that overcomes these limitations. This methodology—the citation exponential random graph model, for which we provide user-friendly software—enables researchers to account for the effects of case characteristics and complex forms of network dependence in citation formation. We then analyze a network that includes all Supreme Court cases decided between 1950 and 2015. We find evidence for dependence processes, including reciprocity, transitivity, and popularity. The dependence effects are as substantively and statistically significant as the effects of exogenous covariates, indicating that models of Supreme Court citations should incorporate both the effects of case characteristics and the structure of past citations.more » « less
