Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting

Data for the Year 2010 Census Issued September 2004

P.L. 94-171(RV)

text holder

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

The View From the States
The View From the States 49

Prepared within the Census Redistricting Data Office by

Cathy McCully, Chief. Tim Storey, National Conference of State

Legislatures prepared Chapter 5 as well as reviewed the document.

Review was provided by Hermann Habermann, Deputy Director

of the Census Bureau, Preston J. Waite, Associate Director for

the Decennial Census, Arnold A. Jackson, Special Assistant to

the Associate Director, Carol Van Horn, Special Assistant to the

Associate Director, Teresa Angueira, Chief, Decennial Management Division, and staff within the Decennial Management Division,

Robert A. LaMacchia, Chief, Geography Division, and staff within

the Geography Division and Deirdre Bishop, Assistant Chief of

the Census Redistricting Data Office. Editorial review was provided

by Paul Wyatt, Public Information Office. Cover photos and

selected inside photos were provided by the Public Information

Office. Thorough review was conducted during the 2003 Annual

Meeting of the NCSL by those state liaisons listed in Appendix F.

Kim D. Ottenstein, Meshel L. Butler, and Shirley A. Boswell of

the Administrative and Customer Services Division, Walter C. Odom,

Chief, provided publications and printing management, graphics

design and composition and editorial review for print and electronic

media. General direction and production management were

provided by James R. Clark, Assistant Division Chief, and

Susan L. Rappa, Chief, Publications Services Branch.

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Charles Louis Kincannon,

Director

Hermann Habermann,

Deputy Director and

Chief Operating Officer

Preston J. Waite,

Associate Director for

the Decennial Census

U.S. Department

of Commerce

Donald L. Evans,

Secretary

Economics and Statistics

Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs

ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

The U.S. Census Bureau wishes to acknowledge the assistance of

the following individuals and organizations in the preparation of

this booklet:

Acknowledgements
The View From the States 1

Chapter 1. Executive Summary of State Recommendations ................................................ 3

Chapter 2. Understanding the Partnership Requires a Little History – The Early Days ......... 5

Chapter 3. Census Geography ........................................................................................ 13

Chapter 4. Specific Comments From the 2002/2003 Redistricting Conferences:

“State Feedback for the Census 2000 Redistricting Data Programs” ........... 19

Chapter 5. Redistricting 2000 Statistics .......................................................................... 25

Chapter 6. The Census Bureau’s Response ...................................................................... 27

Chapter 7. Benchmarks for the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program ......................... 28

Appendixes A. Public Law 94-171.................................................................................... 30

B. Official Recipients of the 2000 Census P.L. 94-171 Population Counts ....... 32

C. Redistricting Software Vendors ................................................................. 42

D. Total Number of Blocks, Voting Districts and State Legislative Districts

Defined for the P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Program for Census 2000 ... 44

E. NCSL Attendees — Denver 2002 ............................................................. 45

F. NCSL Attendees — San Francisco 2003 ..................................................... 46

G. Federal Register — Establishment of the

2010 Census Redistricting Data Program .................................................. 47

Table of Contents
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska

Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data for the Year 2010 Census:

THE VIEW FROM THE STATES

Report of the Census 2000 Public Law (P.L.) 94-171

Program Evaluation

After the passage of P.L. 94-171 in 1975, the states and the

U.S. Census Bureau came together in a unique partnership aimed at

compliance with the new law. For more than 30 years, the

U.S. Census Bureau, in cooperation with the National Conference

of State Legislatures, has worked with the states to improve this

partnership. Part of the partnership is evaluating the program each

decade. The U.S. Census Bureau has used the states’ evaluations

to build upon the program’s successes and to make changes when

necessary. These evaluations have been documented following the

1980 and 1990 censuses. This report constitutes the final chapter in

the evaluation of the Census 2000 effort.

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia

Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon

Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
The View From the States 3

This chapter consists of a summary

of the major recommendations of the

Elections and Redistricting Committee,

which states made at the 2002/2003 Redistricting

and Elections Committee meetings (see appendixes E and F for attendees). Chapter 4 presents

more detailed comments in support of their

recommendations.

Policy Matters – The Census Bureau announced

after Census 2000 it would not plan for an

adjustment of the official 2010 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171). States requested that they

be notified in advance of any change in this

decision. The states also requested assurance

that there would be only “one” set of official

redistricting and apportionment numbers.

Census Data Items – Continue to provide 100-

percent counts of total persons by race, Hispanic

origin, and voting age for each state-defined

legislative district and voting district (VTD).

Continue to provide census block-level summaries. Continue to update the state liaisons and the

NCSL Redistricting and Elections Committee about

any potential changes to definitions or data items

included in 2010 Census.

Census 2000 Redistricting (P.L. 94-171) Data

Products – Retain P.L. 94-171 data distribution

plans used in Census 2000. Add state legislative

districts as an ongoing geographic area similar

to congressional districts. In addition, include

school districts in the geographic summaries for

the P.L. 94-171 data.

 Geographic

 Programs – Retain the

geographic programs provided in support of

the Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program.

Develop reasonable schedules and adhere to them.

Enumeration Overseas – With reference to

apportionment and redistricting, states request

that the Census Bureau communicate to the states

the status of the Census Bureau’s test enumeration

of Americans residing overseas. Schedule public

hearings to discuss the merit of including or

excluding Americans overseas. In addition, the

Census Bureau should explain to the states the

impact on residency rules as they now exist and

what changes states should anticipate in counting

military personnel overseas.

Census/State Communications – The states

strongly recommend that the Census Bureau make

a better effort to communicate to the states the

economic benefit of having a good census count.

The Census Bureau should put together, four to

five years before the census, a schedule of census

programs to budget for advertising and other

targeted needs for state and local dollars (e.g.,

the Local Update of Census Addresses [LUCA],

promotion, participation in geographic partnership

programs, etc.). Because of the constantly high

turnover in state legislatures, the Census Bureau

Chapter 1.

Executive Summary of State Recommendations
4 U.S. Census Bureau

should begin these communications in the 2005-

2006 time period and continue thereafter.

Paid Advertising – Allow states to piggyback on

the efforts of the Census Bureau’s paid advertising

campaign during the negotiations for the 2010

advertising contract so that the states may use

the advertising materials prepared for census

promotion.

Partnership Programs – Work with each state

liaison to develop a reliable list of local contacts.

The states also recommended continuation of the

LUCA program, but, they added, more time should

be allowed for participation in the program than

was afforded in Census 2000.

Count Question Resolution (CQR) Program –

Encourage the Census Bureau to continue the CQR

program after the 2010 Census. States would

like the Census Bureau to provide block-level data

(such as total population and housing units) as

part of the response to local officials. Without

block-level information, data were not usable for

redistricting purposes. The CQR program should

begin with the release of the P.L. 94-171 data so

corrections are available as soon as possible.

Special Place/Groups Quarters – Take the

necessary steps to ensure that the location of

group quarters be reviewed before the census by

local officials.

Count Review Program – Resume the Count

Review Program for Census 2010. It should be

scheduled so that corrections can be made before

the release of the P.L. 94-171 data. If this is not

feasible, states recommend that the Count Question Resolution Program begin immediately after

the release of the P.L. 94-171 data. The first cases

to be reviewed would be those submitted by

states during count review.
The View From the States 5

The taking of the census every 10 years and the

resulting data tabulations have been the measure

for fine-tuning our representative democracy since

its birth in 1776.

While the data are rich in historical information

documenting the arrival of immigrants in the

1800s from Europe, the existing American Indian

population, the westward migration of settlers,

and the arrival of more immigrants from other

parts of the world, the data collection is actually

mandated by the U.S. Constitution to ensure fair

and equal representation in our state legislatures

and Congress. A decennial census is enshrined in

the Constitution for the primary purpose of

providing data for the reapportionment of the

Congress. For more than 200 years the decennial

census has performed the most basic yet important function in support of our democratic process. By providing the count of the population

used to apportion the number of seats in Congress

among the states and providing our state and

local governments with the population counts

necessary to redraw their legislative districts, the

census has become the foundation of our democracy, as well as the nation’s factfinder.

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Baker v.

Carr that malapportioned legislatures are justiciable issues. In 1963, in Gray v. Sanders,

the court struck down a redistricting plan with

districts that were not equal in population.

In 1964, in Wesberry v. Sanders, the court held

that Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution

required that “....as nearly as is practicable one

person’s vote in a congressional

district is to be worth as much as

another’s.” Again, in 1964, the

court held in Reynolds v. Simms

that state legislative districts must

be “....as nearly of equal population

as is practicable.” Following the

enactment of the 1965 Voting

Rights Act, the courts ruled that

the use of racial criteria in drawing

districts was constitutional.

By 1966, state officials had approached the

Census Bureau to express their need for small-area

data. As state and local officials began to use the

1970 census data, they found that the data themselves often did not match the maps or vice-versa.

Because political control was at stake, congressional and gubernatorial demands to investigate

and correct these problems abounded. In 1971,

the Census Bureau had not met the needs of the

states.

In 1974, the National Legislative Conference

(NLC)—until 1975 a part of the Council of State

Governments when it merged with other national

legislative groups to form the National Conference

of State Legislatures (NCSL)—made the needs of

states clear to Congress. With the passage of the

“.... as nearly

as is practicable

one person’s vote

in a congressional

district is to be

worth as much

as another’s.”

Chapter 2.

Understanding the Partnership Requires a Little History —

The Early Days

As Utah Senate Majority Leader

Michael Waddoups looks on,

U.S. Census Bureau Director,

Charles Louis Kincannon, discusses

the testing of all U.S. citizens overseas at the 2004 NCSL Annual Meeting.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

1965 Voting Rights Act, which required that

redistricting not have the effect of diluting minority voting rights, the states were hard-pressed

to comply using the census data as they were

summarized in the 1970 census. This discovery

led the states to issue, through the NCSL, an

urgent call to Congress. In “Improving the 1980

Census,” they said: “Let State governments define

small census tabulation areas to coincide with the

boundaries of local election

precincts (e.g., voting districts

[VTDs], polling areas or precincts). Pass legislation requiring the Census Bureau to give

us a role in this process.”

The Reapportionment Committee of the NCSL and state

officials issued a report that

recommended:

· Development of congressional legislation requiring

the Census Bureau to

provide state officials with

census population counts

according to the geographic

areas that the states designed to meet their redistricting needs.

· Nationwide block level statistics (it should be noted the Census Bureau

could not comply with this recommendation

until the completion of the Topologically

Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system, [TIGER®] database); became a

reality in the 1990 census.

· Census Bureau recognition of the needs of

those states with early redistricting deadlines.

In 1975, during the congressional hearings before

the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

Subcommittee on the Census and Statistics, House

of Representatives, the state legislatures stressed

their need for a 100-percent count of the population for individual VTDs and other small geographic areas. These small-area counts were

required in order to create new state legislative

districts, as well as the new congressional districts

early in the year following the census.

Redistricting officials pointed out during the

hearings that they must be able to “trade” individual blocks and precincts among the proposed

legislative districts to balance population, achieve

legally required racial and ethnic balance, and

make political compromises to

ensure enactment of plans in

time for statewide elections.

The Census Bureau began its

work with the NLC’s Reapportionment Committee and

State officials before Congress

passed House Resolution 1753

and President Gerald Ford

signed Public Law (P.L.) 94-171

in late 1975 (see Appendix A).

The Census Bureau had much to

do before the 1980 census, the

first census in which P.L. 94-171

was in effect. It was at this

point that the long-standing

partnership between the Census

Bureau, the states and the NCSL

took true and lasting shape.

States asked to receive population counts for census blocks

and VTDs. Census blocks provided the muchneeded flexibility that state legislators required to

comply with the one-person, one-vote mandate.

VTDs can range in size from a single city block to

several contiguous census “blocks.” Multiple

plans could be developed at this geographic level

allowing state legislators to determine the “one

plan” that was politically acceptable. In addition,

this flexibility gave the states the ability to meet

the standards of the U.S. Supreme Court requiring

population equity across state legislative and

congressional districts.

Most states have constitutional or court-imposed

deadlines to complete this sensitive and technically complex task within the year following the

year of Census Day (April 1). Two-thirds of the

Tim Storey, NCSL Fellow and national

redistricting expert, listens to Census

updates presented to the Elections and

Redistricting Committee at the NCSL

Winter Forum in December 2003.
The View From the States 7

states were required to redistrict their legislatures

within 12 months of receipt of the census data,

which was delivered to them no later than April 1,

1981, 1991, and 2001. In addition to the detailed

geographic summaries, states requested race and

voting-age census counts for all geographic

summaries. These data items supported the

requirement to achieve a racial and ethnic balance

consistent with the provisions of the Voting Rights

Act (Sections 2 and 5).

While the partnership between

the states and the Census

Bureau had begun, it was apparent that it needed strengthening. After the 1980 census,

the need for nationwide census

blocks became even more evident. With only half the states

participating in the 1980 P.L.

94-171 program, the Census

Bureau realized it must make

rapid gains in supporting the

needs of the states to meet the

spirit of the law. Fortunately,

during the 1980s, technology

had taken on a new role in

census planning, particularly

in its geographic programs.

In cooperation with the U.S.

Geological Survey, the Census Bureau developed

an automated geographic file – the first computerized map of the United States – called TIGER®.

For the first time, the Census Bureau was able to

produce paper maps and digital products consistent with the data tabulations at all geographic

levels, including census blocks. This resulted in

the tabulation of more than 7 million census

blocks in the 1990 census.

In addition to nationwide block-coverage for the

1990 census, the states recommended that:

· The Census Bureau provide preliminary maps

in 1989 and preliminary small-area figures in

the summer of 1990 so that the states could

evaluate preliminary redistricting plans.

· The Census Bureau not adjust the 1990 results

for possible “over- or undercounting” unless

the procedure could be carried down to block

and VTD levels and cover counts for the major

race groups. Such adjustments also must not

jeopardize delivery of data to all states by

April 1, 1991.

· The Census Bureau did not attempt to identify

 “non-documented” immigrants

 in the 1990 census.

· Census residence rules for

 college students not be

 changed.

The 1990 Redistricting Data

Program gave states an opportunity to define the boundaries of

census blocks – since census

blocks could serve as the

building unit in the redistricting

process. For the first time, the

Redistricting Data Program was

divided into three phases:

· Phase 1 (1985) — The Block

 Boundary Suggestion Project

 (BBSP). States suggested

 visible features be used as

 1990 census block boundaries

and ultimately as voting district boundaries.

(Thirty-eight states participated.)

· Phase 2 (1989) — Voting District (VTD) Project.

States delineated voting district boundaries

on TIGER®-generated census maps. (Forty-six

states participated.)

· Phase 3 (January 14, 1991–March 8, 1991) —

Census Bureau delivered P.L. 94-171 data to

state officials. (All states participated.)

For the 1990 census, the Census Bureau provided

100-percent counts of population, race, Hispanic

origin, and voting age for each of the 7 million

blocks and approximately 150,000 voting districts

to all 50 state legislatures weeks ahead of the

Peter Wattson, MN, and Michelle Davis,

MD, take notes during an Elections and

Redistricting Committee meeting.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

April 1, 1991, deadline required by Census Law,

Title 13, U.S. Code. As in 1980, these data were

provided on computer tape and paper. For the

first time, reflecting technological progress in

many fields, the Census Bureau also provided the

redistricting data on compact disc (CD-ROM).

The combination of data and digital spatial data

nationwide led to the development of Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) software. GIS would

revolutionize the process of redistricting, making

data easily available and easily used by all those

interested in the process. With more stakeholders

at the table, each with their own redistricting plan,

the need to quickly and efficiently evaluate plans

became the driving force for adopting advanced

technologies.

Background – Evaluating the 1990

Census Redistricting Data Program

In late 1991, the Census Bureau’s Redistricting

Data Office, with the assistance of the NCSL,

asked each governor and the majority and minority leaders of each state legislature and their key

staff members to provide comments on the 1990

Census Redistricting Data Program. The Census

Bureau also asked for suggestions about the P.L.

94-171 Program for Census 2000. At a May 1992

meeting of the NCSL Reapportionment Task Force

in Kansas City, MO, the comments and suggestions were discussed and expanded. The results

of this meeting were refined at a 1992 conference

by the NCSL Reapportionment Task Force in

Cincinnati, OH. The program evaluation report

was distributed to Task Force members and others

who expressed a strong interest in its work, and

the NCSL Task Force subsequently finalized their

recommendations in Raleigh, NC.

Comments and recommendations made in 1992 in

preparation for the Census 2000 Redistricting Data

Program were:

· Continue to provide 100-percent counts of

total persons by race, Hispanic origin, and

voting age for all census blocks and voting

districts.

· Assure states early that there would be only

one set of official redistricting data.

· Continue to provide data products in electronic and paper formats.

· Continue to provide data products and

geographic products to the governor and the

state legislative majority and minority parties

simultaneously.

· Maintain a close working relationship between

the Census Bureau and the states by participating in state-by-state and regional meetings.

States also recommended continuation of the

NCSL’s Reapportionment Task Force as a

platform for state/Census relations.

· The retention of the Block Boundary Suggestion Project and the institution of a verification

phase.

· The retention of the Voting District Project to

submit voting districts to the Census Bureau

with the addition of a verification phase.

· The addition of state legislative districts to

the necessary geographic summary levels

required for data tabulation.

· The continuation of technical Phase 1 and

Phase 2 training sessions by Census Bureau

staff. Minority organizations stressed the need

for the Census Redistricting Data Office to

continue past efforts to involve their members

in the planning of the Census 2000 Redistricting Data Program.

Census 2000 Redistricting

Data Program

In April 1995, the director of the Census Bureau

invited state officials to participate in the Census

2000 Redistricting Data Program. In July 1995,

the Census Bureau cosponsored with the NCSL

Reapportionment Task Force a training workshop

on the Phase 1 guidelines. In planning for Census

2000, the Task Force passed resolutions dealing

with adjustment and census block numbering on

military installations.
The View From the States 9

On the issue of possible adjustment for overcounts and undercounts, the Task Force adopted

the following resolution:

“The Constitution requires a decennial enumeration of the population of the United States. The

collection and dissemination of census data is a

crucial factor in state

compliance with federal

law relating to reapportionment and redistricting.

The integrity of the census

data lies at the heart of

ensuring citizen confidence in the redistricting

and reapportionment

processes.

In order to maintain the

confidence of the electorate in the voting process,

the statutory transmittal to

the President showing the

population of each state according to the 2000

census and the P.L. 94-171 counts of the 2000

census transmitted to the states should contain

only one number for each item for which data is

tabulated. All relevant publications of the Census

Bureau should indicate that this number is the

only official enumeration that fulfills the requirements of the United States Code, and specifically,

P.L. 94-171. Any range or statement of accuracy

should not be contained as part of the submittal

to the President or the P.L. 94-171 data transmitted to the states and should not be part of

those files.”

With regard to the block numbering on military

installations, the NCSL Redistricting Task Force

adopted a second resolution:

 “WHEREAS state redistricting authorities

must sometimes divide the resident population

on military bases among two or more legislative

districts or congressional districts to achieve districts that have balanced populations in accordance with court-ordered ‘one-person, one-vote’

standards; and

 WHEREAS the U.S. Census Bureau’s guidelines

for the Census 2000 Redistricting Data Program

have allowed state redistricting authorities to

suggest visible ground features inside military

bases for defining individual blocks for tabulating

the Census 2000 Redistricting Data under the

provision of Public Law

94-171,

 BE IT RESOLVED that

each state should work

with the commanders

of military bases in the

states to ensure that

Census Bureau employees

will have access to the

bases for Census 2000

for the purpose of locating

housing and enumerating

military and any civilian

personnel in the specific

locations where they

reside on base; and

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Redistricting Task Force alert the Secretary of Defense to

the states’ need to have census population totals

on a block-by-block basis inside military bases,

thereby enabling states to divide base populations

among two or more legislative districts where

necessary in accordance with court-ordered

‘one-person, one-vote’ decrees.”

These resolutions were passed by the Redistricting

Task Force and adopted by the full National Conference of State Legislatures as official NCSL policy

positions.

Another important policy issue that states faced

for Census 2000 was the matter of how federal

statistical agencies collect and present data on

race and Hispanic origin. Although P.L. 94-171

required the Census Bureau to provide only total

population figures to state officials, the Census

Bureau had provided race and Hispanic-origin data

from the 1980 and 1990 censuses to assist states

in complying with the Voting Rights Act.

“one-person, one-vote”
10 U.S. Census Bureau

In mid-1995, the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) officials invited the NCSL Redistricting Task Force to comment on whether or not OMB

Directive 15 on federal racial and ethnic statistics

should be modified to permit respondents to express multiple

racial backgrounds.

OMB created

an interagency committee

to assist with

empirical

research into

the collection

of such data and to perform policy reviews of

how existing agency programs (e.g., the Census

Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program, the Justice

Department’s Voting Rights Section activities)

might be affected by possible revisions to the collection and presentation of racial and ethnic data.

OMB also solicited public comments through the

Federal Register and a series of regional hearings.

In July 1997, the Redistricting Data Office notified

the states that OMB had published in the July 9

Federal Register the recommendations of the

Federal Interagency Committee for the Review of

Racial and Ethnic Standards concerning possible

changes to the standards for classification of

federal data on race and ethnicity. The Redistricting Data Office ensured that states understood

that:

· These recommendations related directly to the

race and Hispanic-origin questions that might

be used in Census 2000 for the P.L. 94-171

redistricting data.

· This OMB Federal Register Notice and the

committee’s complete recommendations

were published on the World Wide Web at the

GPO Access Web site <www.access.gpo.gov>.

· OMB planned to make a final decision on the

recommendations by mid-October 1997.

The Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Office

informed states that because of the need to meet

operational time schedules for the Dress Rehearsal

Census in April 1998, the Census Bureau would

include the race and Hispanic-origin questions

that reflected the Federal Interagency Committee’s

recommendations, including the suggestion that

an instruction accompany the race question

allowing the respondent to “mark one or more” of

the race groups. This would be a change from

past censuses when respondents could choose

only one race category.

OMB announced its decision to modify Directive

15 and to adopt the recommendations of the

Interagency Committee on October 30, 1997. In

November 1997 and April 1998, Census Bureau

officials met with the Redistricting Task Force and

reviewed the proposed 1998 Dress Rehearsal P.L.

94-171 Redistricting Data file that would include

63 racial categories (cross-classified by voting age

and by not Hispanic or Latino) for each census

block, state-specified voting district, census tract,

place, county, etc. The resulting product would

contain more than 260 data items for each geographic area (e.g., county, voting district, census

block). The Census Bureau described this product

as the P.L. 63 Matrix.

State legislative officials expressed concern over

the prospect of having to create state redistricting

data bases and process many scores of alternative

redistricting plans using the potential 260-plus

data cells for each census block in a state—about

8 million data cells nationwide. In addition, the

Census Bureau and some of its advisors had

concerns about confidentiality with the presentation of such detailed information for such small

geographic areas. As a result, Census Bureau staff

met with members of the Voting Rights Section

of the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, in June 1998, to review the census data

state and local officials would need to comply with

the Section 2 and Section 5 (preclearance) provisions of the Voting Rights Act. As a result of those

discussions, the Census Bureau developed—as an

alternative to the P.L. 63 Matrix—a smaller tabulation containing 20 racial categories, called the

P.L. 20 Matrix.

10 U.S. Census Bureau
The View From the States 11

The P.L. 20 Matrix would give redistricting officials

and others single-race totals, as well as the allinclusive totals of those persons who report one

or more racial categories (i.e., alone or in combination with one or more other races). The Voting

Rights Section reviewed this smaller P.L. 20 Matrix

and informed the Census Bureau that this product

would meet the census information needs associated with Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights

Act. The P.L. 20 Matrix was presented to the NCSL

Redistricting Task Force, as well as the Census

2000 Redistricting Data Program liaisons appointed by each state. The Task Force and the

states felt that this matrix would meet their needs.

One year after the dress rehearsal census, the

Redistricting Data Office issued the CD-ROM prototype containing the P.L. 20 Matrix that presented

the “single-race” tallies (for those respondents who

chose only one of the six race categories) and an

“all-inclusive” tally that represented counts for

each of the same six races marked alone or in

combination. Copies of the CD-ROM were sent

to legislative officials and the redistricting community, and they were asked to provide feedback

on how such data might be used in the redistricting process.

Again, officials from the Census Bureau and OMB

held discussions with senior staff of the Justice

Department’s Civil Rights Division aimed at

determining if the P.L. 20 design would satisfy

their data needs for enforcing the Voting Rights

Act and other civil rights programs. In trying to

use the actual data from the dress rehearsal, the

Department of Justice, as well as other data users,

concluded that the initial P.L. 20 design would

not provide enough flexibility for the range of

programs that use the data. In addition, the “allinclusive” tabulation was confusing because it

was not a count of persons that added up to

100 percent of an area’s population, but instead

constituted a count of “race responses” that

exceeded 100 percent.

At the request of the Department of Justice, the

Census Bureau tabulated the race data for Census

2000 P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data in complete

detail—all 63 categories, i.e., six single race

categories, plus 57 possible combinations of race.

The Redistricting Data Office immediately notified

the state legislative officials and the NCSL Task

Force. A new disclosure avoidance procedure was

implemented to protect individual data responses

while preserving the actual responses to the race

question. The Census Bureau retabulated the

dress rehearsal data using the P.L. 63 Matrix and

distributed it to the states and to the NCSL so that

data users most interested in redistricting data

would be aware of the proliferation in the race

tabulations and resulting larger data files. The

OMB issued a Bulletin (00-02) on March 9, 2000,

providing general guidance for selected applications of the new race data. On January 17, 2001,

the Department of Justice’s Voting Section issued

detailed guidance on how to use the new race

data in submitting redistricting plans for review

under the Voting Rights Act’s provisions. This

guidance explained how the redistricting community, in particular, should “collapse and aggregate”

the 63 race categories to comply with the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. State legislatures

and private software vendors wrote their redistricting software to support the expanded race

tabulations.

Phases 1 and 2 – Geographic Support

Forty-six states, the District of Columbia and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico participated in

Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Census 2000 Redistricting Data Program. Thirty-six states provided

both voting district and state legislative district

boundaries and codes, while eight states provided

only voting districts, and four states provided only

state legislative districts. As part of Phase 3, the

data dissemination stage, all states would receive

census block-level data for their state aggregated

to the small-area units defined during Phases 1

and 2.

Phase 3 – Data Delivery

In the spring of 2000, and again after the November 2000 elections, the Redistricting Data Office

wrote to the governors and legislative leaders in
12 U.S. Census Bureau

each state to identify the person to whom each

official wished the Census Bureau to transmit

copies of the Census 2000 Redistricting TIGER/

Line® files, paper and electronic maps, and the

Census 2000 P.L. 94-171 redistricting data. By

early January 2001, the TIGER/Line® files were

in the hands of the officially designated recipients

in each state. Legislatures began merging the

Census 2000 block-level geography with their

local voting-district data and, in anticipation of

receiving the P.L. 94-171 census redistricting data,

began testing their geographic information system

and redistricting software.

In early March 2001, the Secretary of Commerce

announced his decision not to statistically adjust

the Census 2000 P.L. 94-171 redistricting data.

CD-ROMs containing the official P.L. 94-171 data

files were delivered beginning on March 7, 2001,

to the governors and majority/minority legislative

leaders in each state, with the last files being

delivered on March 30, 2001. As soon as overnight delivery was confirmed in a bipartisan

manner by each state, these data were made

publicly available at no charge through the Census

Bureau’s American FactFinder® Web site. Because

of the decade long interaction between the Census

Bureau and the states, the states could initiate

their redistricting efforts immediately, thus

satisfying their state-mandated deadlines for

legislative redistricting.

Evaluating the Census 2000

Redistricting Data Program

In early 2002, the Census Bureau and the NCSL

began their decennial review of the Census 2000

Redistricting Data Program. As it did after the

1990 census, the Census Bureau asked the states

“How well did we do in meeting your needs as

required by Public Law 94-171?” This report

provides the most recent response to that question from the states.
The View From the States 13

The precise definition of census geography and

its attributes, such as feature names and address

ranges, has always been critical to the success of

the P.L. 94-171 program. Through this evaluation

process, nationwide census block assignments,

block numbering, and initiatives such as the

Block Boundary Suggestion Project and the Voting

District Project, have been developed in response

to the states’ recommendations. A major goal for

this decade is to improve the spatial accuracy

of the digital street files in the Census Bureau’s

geographic database and to have these files based

on state/local/tribal data where these data meet

or exceed the Census Bureau’s spatial requirements.

Details

Many of the requirements for creating usable data

for redistricting depend on the fine details of

establishing and maintaining accurate geographic

units. Accurate boundaries for census blocks,

voting districts, and state legislative districts, as

well as places, counties, American Indian areas,

and minor civil divisions, are critical to each state’s

ability to compile multiple redistricting plans for

analysis and final selection. This chapter will

examine the successes of Census 2000 and

suggest which aspects of the Census Bureau’s

Census 2000 geographic support should be

continued. It also will examine new initiatives

required to support the ever-evolving national

redistricting plans for the 2010 Census.

Census 2000: What worked –

What didn’t.

Block Boundary Suggestion Project

For Census 2000, the Block Boundary Suggestion

Project (BBSP) was delayed because of a government-wide shutdown in 1995 and

persistent delays in procuring the

new equipment required by the

Census Bureau to produce the

color maps.

States continue to stress the need for census block

data with state input. It has been long established

that block-level data are critical to the needs of

the states since such data give them the flexibility

required to develop redistricting plans. While

states still want the opportunity to help define the

census blocks used to tabulate the 2010 Census

P.L. 94-171 data, they do not want their efforts to

be diminished during Census Bureau field operations. States recommend that the Census Bureau

verify any “must hold” and “guaranteed hold”

features marked for deletion by field staff so their

efforts are not lost. States also would like the

Census Bureau to continue to offer the “do not

hold” option.

Chapter 3.

Census Geography
14 U.S. Census Bureau

States favor combining the BBSP with the VTD

effort later in the decade if this will reduce the

possibility that the field staff will incorrectly undo

their updates. In addition, states must retain the

ability to suggest block

boundaries and provide

legislative and voting

district boundary, name,

and code information in

this phase. The states

recommend that the Census

Bureau update the TIGER®

database with “must-hold”

and “do-not-hold” boundary

changes later in the decade.

This recommendation

encourages the Census

Bureau to enhance the

spatial accuracy of the

TIGER® street network to

provide the states with the most accurate and

current database possible.

Island Groupings

For Census 2000, the state/Census Bureau partnership designed two approaches for solving the

problems associated with the assignment of block

numbers to islands.

1. During the BBSP, states could draw a line

around those islands that they wanted to

be in the same census block.

2. The Census Bureau’s automated algorithm

for block numbering would group unnamed

islands with no roads on them into a single

block if they were within one mile of each

other.

The states noted that state legislative plans often

placed individual grouped islands in different

House and Senate districts. The states acknowledge that individual block numbering of each

island is not the solution. They recommend that

the Census Bureau continue to work with them to

ensure that the appropriate islands are grouped

together as census blocks.

Maintain State Efforts From Previous

Participation

During the first two rounds of the BBSP in 1986

and 1996, states invested time and resources in

identifying unusual census

block boundaries in the

form of feature extensions, ridgelines, ferry

crossings, and stream

crossings. States recommend that this work be

retained in the TIGER®

database as submitted

and approved for prior

censuses as block boundaries for the next census

so they do not have to

resubmit this information

each decade.

Summary for BBSP

1. Combine BBSP with VTD later in the decade.

2. Verify with the state any feature flagged as

a guaranteed block boundary or must-hold

block boundary before deleting. Do not

delete any feature designated by the state

without discussing it first with the state

liaison.

3. The Census Bureau and the states should

work together to determine an efficient

way to group islands.

4. The Census Bureau should retain previously

submitted block boundary suggestions in

its database from census to census.

Voting District Project

Involving County/Parish Governments

In order for the program to be truly successful,

states believe that county/parish local officials

must understand the need to become involved

with their state liaisons early in the decade.

Local officials who are aware of unusual features

required as voting district boundaries need to

share this information with their state liaisons. If

this information is not given to the state liaisons

Jamie Rosenson, Linda Orsini, John Byle, and Donna

Zorn of the Census Bureau’s Geography Division

review a congressional district map prepared for the

108th Congress.
The View From the States 15

districts in the TIGER® database throughout the

decade, in part, so that they can be held as census

tabulation blocks going into Census 2010 (as they

were for Census 2000). The NCSL and the state

legislatures are eager to work jointly with the

Census Bureau to implement this improvement.

Corrections/Updates

During the Census 2000 cycle, some states found

that they had to make corrections and updates

to the VTDs/SLDs after the phase had ended.

Because of operational constraints, the Census

Bureau was unable to make some of these late

changes. It is the hope of the states that the

Census Bureau will work with them to develop

possible ways for states to provide late changes

that are reflected in the P.L. 94-171 data products.

in a timely manner, potential boundaries may

be missed, causing undesirable voting district

assignments and unhappy voters. States recommend a Census Bureau presence early in the

decade to communicate to local officials the goals

and objectives of its Redistricting Data Program

so local officials become engaged.

State Legislative Districts

At the 2002 annual meeting of the NCSL, the

Redistricting and Elections Committee passed a

resolution recommending that the Census Bureau

collect state legislative districts on an ongoing

basis and produce data products, including data

summaries, for the plans that result from the use

of the P.L. 94-171 data set. In addition, the states

strongly recommend maintaining state legislative

For Census 2010, states are recommending the inclusion of state legislative districts on the Census 2010

County Block Maps.
16 U.S. Census Bureau

Maintenance of Voting Districts

States explored the idea of providing changes and

updates to the voting districts during the decade,

but decided this may be too difficult and laborintensive for both the Census Bureau and themselves. The difficulty for the states of keeping

up with multiple changes was too problematic.

Therefore, for Census 2010, no recommendation

was made by the states regarding the ongoing

maintenance of voting districts in TIGER®. While

not in favor of a continued maintenance of voting

districts at this time, states still strongly favor

providing the latest voting districts during Phase

2. In addition, they favor putting an emphasis on

electronic submissions and a verification phase.

States recommend the acceptance of nonvisible

boundaries as voting district (and, therefore,

census block) boundaries. As in 1990 and 2000,

states continue to want the option of designating

voting districts as “actual” versus “pseudo.”

Many states reported frequent problems with the

Census Bureau’s inability to “float” the voting

district boundaries to the new or modified corporate limit or Minor Civil Division (MCD) boundaries. The states request that the Census Bureau

maintain the relationship between municipal

corporate limits and MCD boundaries to VTD

boundaries where those relationships exist and

are reported to the Census Bureau. States recommend providing sufficient time for a thorough

verification phase. For Census 2010, states did

not express any desire to expand the coding

scheme.

Summary for VTD

1. Assist states in involving county and

parish local officials.

2. Include state legislative districts in the

collection of voting districts.

3. Maintain state legislative districts.

4. Collect voting districts only once each

decade.

5. Continue to develop methods for electronic

submission of boundary/attribute information.

6. Continue to include a verification phase

and give states enough time to thoroughly

review their submissions.

7. Accept nonvisible boundaries as voting

district (and, consequently, census block)

boundaries.

8. Accept “pseudo” and “actual” designations

for voting districts.

9. Improve the system by which relationships

between corporate limits and MCDs to

voting districts are managed.

10. No changes are recommended to the

coding schemes for voting districts or

state legislative districts.

11. The Census Bureau should make every

effort to incorporate corrections and

changes to the voting districts and state

legislative districts submitted by the states

as long as these do not jeopardize legallymandated deadlines.

TIGER® Database

States recommend that the TIGER® system improve its spatial and positional accuracy and

support the Census Bureau’s program for enhancing its geographic database. States also recommend that primary and alternate names for a

feature are consistent. The states and NCSL

stand ready to assist with any enhancements.

Electronic and Paper Media

States request that the Census Bureau continue

the option allowing participants to receive paper

and/or electronic files for viewing/printing VTD/

SLD and census tract outline maps, as well as the

county block maps. States did indicate they only

use the .pdf format, and the Census Bureau should

continue to provide .pdf format for the 2010

Census. States also recommend that the county

block maps include the SLD boundaries and their

codes. While all map types were used, states

suggested a better job of scaling would have

resulted in fewer map sheets and recommended

that the Census Bureau review its scaling algorithms.
The View From the States 17
18 U.S. Census Bureau

Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS)

States recommend that they be given a role in

coordinating updates within their states. States

suggested an improved, user-friendly convenient

system to identify entity updates and boundary

changes as recorded in the BAS. States can be a

source for local contact information associated

with updates. The states also recommended that

the state liaison work with the Census Bureau to

improve the methodology for state certification.
The View From the States 19

At NCSL’s annual conferences in Denver in 2002,

and San Francisco in 2003, as well as at the

organization’s spring forum in 2004, participants

reviewed the draft presentation of their recommendations and summarized their thoughts in

their final recommendations for the Census 2010

Redistricting Data Program. This interactive

participation combined with the nationwide

response to the “State Feedback for the Census

Redistricting Data Programs,” issued in January

2002, comprise the core recommendations.

This chapter provides a summary of the topics

considered by conference attendees and respondents to the “State Feedback for the Census

Redistricting Data Programs.” (Appendixes D-E

list the attendees.)

1. Policy Matters

A One-Number Census

Following the release of Census 2000 P.L. 94-171

data, the Census Bureau announced it would

not plan for a potential adjustment of the 2010

Census P.L. 94-171 data. Executive staff stated

that the Census Bureau had spent a considerable

amount of time and energy conducting extensive

research directed at examining demographic

analysis data, the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) results, and Census 2000 information.

After wideranging and

exhaustive

efforts on the

part of the

Census Bureau

staff, the

Census Bureau

determined that

it could not adjust census data

at the levels

of geography

required by the

legally-specified date of April 1, 2010, for delivering population counts to the states as required

under Section 141 (C) of Title 13, U.S.C. Improving and measuring census coverage is one of the

primary goals of the 2010 Census. The Census

Bureau will maintain its strong commitment to

improving coverage measurement for the 2010

Census by continuing its research in this area.

Any reversal of the decision not to plan for a

potential adjustment of the 2010 Census should

be communicated to the states immediately.

Enumerating Americans Overseas

States are very interested in the 2004 Overseas

Enumeration Test. Enumeration of the civilian

overseas American population may have an impact

Chapter 4.

Specific Comments From the 2002/2003 Redistricting Conferences:

“State Feedback for the Census 2000 Redistricting Data Programs”

The View From the States 19
20 U.S. Census Bureau

on states from both an apportionment and a

redistricting perspective. In addition, an overseas

enumeration may affect residence rules and the

enumeration of overseas military. States strongly

urge the Census Bureau to provide them feedback

through the decade via the Census Bureau’s

Redistricting Data Office so that they are up to

date on the Census Bureau’s plans and have a

chance to respond.

2. Data Items

Law mandates that the Census Bureau provide the

states with total population counts for various

geographic areas. In addition, the Census Bureau

provided race and Hispanic/Latino-origin and

voting-age data.

The states strongly recommend the retention

of the Census 2000 P.L. 94-171 data items for

the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program.

The attendees noted that the Department of

Justice as well as state and federal courts use and

require these data items in their review for compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Voting-age

population is used to process voter and enrollment data from the local boards of elections. Race

and ethnicity characteristics are used to examine

plans for possible retrogression.

The Census Bureau, prior to implementation

of the 2010 Dress Rehearsal Census and the

2010 Census, should test any changes to the

collection or tabulation of the race tabulation categories used in Census 2000. The

results of this testing should be shared with the

states. States should have time to respond to the

results of the testing before a final decision is

made by the Census Bureau on potential changes

to the collection or tabulation of the race tabulation categories.

While states are not requesting the inclusion of

housing unit totals in the P.L. 94-171 file, they

do not want to wait for Summary File 1 data to

question block-level population counts. Therefore, they recommend an accelerated schedule for

both the count review and the count question

resolution programs.

3. P.L. 94-171 Data Products

State Legislative Districts

The following resolution was passed at the 2002

annual meeting of the NCSL:

The Redistricting and Elections Committee of the

National Conference of State Legislatures strongly

supports the collection of the post-Census 2000

state legislative redistricting plans for the

purpose of:

a) Retabulating data from the Census 2000

long form (SF3/SF4 data); and

b) Maintaining current state legislative

district boundaries in TIGER®.

If a state legislative plan is revised as a result

of action by a legislature or commission, or by

a court order, the committee recommends that

data relative to new state legislative plan be

retabulated by the Bureau through the course

of the decade, as is done currently with new

Congressional plans.

 Adopted by the Committee on July 24, 2002

 Denver, CO

Historically, the Census Bureau retabulates census

data from both the short form and the long form

for each redistricted Congress following the

decennial census. For example, after the 1990

census, the state of North Carolina was retabulated for the 103rd, 104th, and 105th congresses.

States strongly encourage the Census Bureau to

maintain this policy, but also support the retabulation of state legislative districts following the

census data release. States have expressed a

strong desire to provide their state legislative

district boundaries and codes to the Census

Bureau on an ongoing basis for the purpose of

maintaining this geographic area in TIGER®, and

in order to receive census data tabulations by

SLD through the decade.
The View From the States 21

School Districts

States recommend that the U.S. Census Bureau

attempt to include school districts as a summary

level in the P.L. 94-171 data file. For Census 2000,

school district boundaries were held as Census

2000 tabulation blocks, and the school district

codes were provided in the geographic header for

each census block, but the Census 2000 data were

not summarized by school district. For the 2010

Census, states would like to see school districts

added to the geographic summary levels.

American Community Survey – The Long-Form

Replacement for the 2010 Census

The Census Bureau is changing the way it will

conduct future censuses. Starting with 2010

Census, all households will receive a short form,

as in the past. However, detailed demographic,

housing, and economic information previously

collected by the decennial census long form will

be collected by the American Community Survey

(ACS). The ACS will be conducted on an ongoing

basis, with the sample spread across the decade.

By April 1, 2011, the ACS will produce the same

kind of detailed information that was previously

not available until several years following the

census. This means that a wealth of detailed ACS

data will be available in time to complement the

release of the 2010 Census redistricting data set.

An added benefit of replacing the long form with

the ACS is that it will simplify Census 2010–

improving the response by reducing the operational complexities of taking the census. The ACS

also will provide demographic data for congressional and state legislative districts. Following

the release of the 2010 Census redistricting data,

the ACS will take the place of the long form by

supplying the demographic data that are associated with the newly drawn plans. Also, as we

move through the decade, states will no longer

have to wait for the arrival of the Summary File 3

data to have relevant data on citizenship by race

and voting age.

States strongly recommend that if a state legislative plan is revised as a result of action by a

legislature or commission or by a court order, the

Census Bureau will retabulate the short-form data

and tabulate the long-form data using either the

decennial information available or the ACS data,

as is done currently by the Census Bureau with

new congressional plans.

States suggest that any changes to the decennial

census (short-form) data collection and tabulation

resulting from the full implementation of the ACS

be disclosed to the states before final implementation.

American Factfinder®/Census Redistricting

Data Main Page

States strongly support the efforts of the Census

Bureau to develop the American Factfinder®, the

Census Bureau’s online access and dissemination

system. Within 24 hours of confirmation of

receipt of the Census 2000 P.L. 94-171 data by

the state, the Census Bureau had loaded the data

on its Web site for immediate and equal access for

all public data users. Data were available via the

File Transfer Protocol (FTP) system, as well as for

viewing. This diversity in format allowed sophisticated data crunchers and the more casual “lookup” browsers the opportunity to work with the

initial release of data from Census 2000. Many

states easily downloaded both the P.L. 94-171 data

files and the TIGER/Lines® files for their state. In

addition, the availability of the data made it easier

Cathy McCully, Chief of the Census Redistricting Data

Office introduces Debbie Griffin, Special Assistant from

the American Community Survey Staff. Ms. Griffin

updated the Elections and Redistricting Committee on

Census Bureau plans to replace the census long-form

with a more timely and less burdensome survey.
22 U.S. Census Bureau

for local governments and special interest groups

to get involved early in the redistricting process.

While states were pleased with the American Factfinder®, they requested that the Census Bureau

continue to introduce changes to make the system

more intuitive and develop a method for more

easily printing data tables.

States also support the

continued maintenance of

the Census Redistricting

Data page. Many states

use this site to keep track

of the release of their data

sets. The Census Bureau

has updated this site,

which can be accessed at

<www.census.gov/rdo/

www/>.

4. Geographic

Programs

Respect “Must Hold”

Boundaries

States strongly recommend that boundaries

identified as “must hold” not be deleted as a result

of a single update by field staff. The states

requested that features identified as “must hold”

by states, but marked as “not valid” by field

enumerators, should be field-verified a second

time. There was much dissatisfaction with

features being dropped erroneously by Census

Bureau field staff.

Maintain Schedules

States also recommend that the Census Bureau

develop a schedule for its geographic programs

and conform to that schedule. State budgets

require advance planning and allocation of

resources. Maintaining schedules is important

to their ability to fully participate.

For the geographic phases of the 2010 Census

Redistricting Data Program, states also recommend that the Census Bureau:

· Stay on schedule with the implementation of

the geographic phases of the program, such

as the collection of voting districts.

· Retain training workshops. Use the NCSL

meetings as forums and visit state capitols to

conduct training workshops for the various

 geographic collection

 phases of the Redistrict-

 ing Data Program.

· Simplify guidelines/

 written communica-

 tions.

· Keep legal boundaries,

 such as incorporated

 place limits and minor

 civil divisions, up to

 date.

· Improve communica-

 tions with Boundary

 and Annexation Survey

 (BAS) officials.

· Retain the ability of the states to suggest

census block boundaries and provide voting

district and state legislative district information.

· Retain the verification phase for all changes.

Strong Communication

States feel strongly that training sessions for those

phases where they are required to provide information be conducted frequently. They request

that program guidelines not be changed after the

program has started so that retraining is not

required. Large workshop formats and individual

state training are viable forums for training. The

states also recommend that guidelines and other

written communications be simplified.

Linda Meggers, Director of Reapportionment in

Georgia has been an active participant in advising

the Census Bureau. In 1983, Ms. Meggers suggested

the Census Bureau allow states the opportunity to

identify potential census block boundaries.
The View From the States 23

Boundary and Annexation Survey

States have indicated their desire to assist with

the Boundary Annexation Survey (BAS) in order to

ensure that updates are provided to the Census

Bureau in a timely and accurate manner. Several

state-designated liaisons already have begun

working with the Census Bureau on the BAS.

5. Census/State

Communications

Census Bureau Must

Ensure State

Engagement

The economic benefit of

a complete census must

be communicated to the

states early in census

planning. State legislatures understand the

importance of a good

census count and often

are willing to support

census programs through legislation and funding.

For example, during the lead-up to Census 2000,

several states allocated funds, primarily to their

rural counties, to support their participation in

the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA)

program. Rural counties supported the conversion of rural route addresses to an E-911 type

system with city-style addresses. With periodic

briefings, states can better understand where they

need to allocate their resources. With the full

array of information, they can selectively determine which programs would benefit a good count

within their state, counties, and local jurisdictions.

The states recommend that the Census Bureau

develop a schedule, four to five years before the

census, outlining the various partnership programs that will be available to state and local

officials. A dependable schedule will allow states

to develop budgets and advertising that target

their particular needs. In an age of budgetary

belt-tightening, more assistance from the Census

Bureau in keeping state officials informed is

required.

6. Paid Advertising

Piggybacking Paid-Advertising Contracts

The states expressed strong support for the paidadvertising campaign launched for Census 2000,

and hope that the Census Bureau will pursue paid

advertising for the 2010 Census. Census evaluations indicate that the materials prepared to promote Census 2000, both

audio/visual and print,

were very effective in

generating support among

various populations. The

only disappointment

regarding the advertising

campaign expressed by

the states was their

inability to piggyback on

census advertisements.

Many states had either

free airtime or some

limited funding to buy

airtime, but they did not

have larger budgets to

develop their own promotional materials. Because

of contract restrictions, states could not use the

materials produced for the Census Bureau. States

strongly encourage the Census Bureau to examine

the possibility of sharing their materials with the

states by ensuring that contracts allow such

sharing.

States felt that what the Census Bureau spends on

paid advertising is not enough. They emphasized

the need for states to spend funds on advertising

to complement the Census Bureau’s efforts. In

addition, states felt the Census Bureau should

work with the governor and legislature to ensure

that states know where their state dollars might

be most effective.

7. Partnership Programs

State Coordination

States recognize the importance of the partnership

programs and emphasize the need for the Census

Bureau to work more closely with the state to

The Census Bureau updates the Elections and

Redistricting Committee.
24 U.S. Census Bureau

establish local contacts. Programs such as the

Boundary and Annexation Survey and the State

Certification Program are critical to the accuracy

of the geography and, therefore, are critical to the

accuracy of the redistricting data produced by

each decennial census. States strongly encourage

the U.S. Census Bureau to use the states where

appropriate as the coordinating agency for acquisition of legal boundaries. States also recommend

that they be contacted every time the Census

Bureau initiates a partnership program with locally

elected officials. This will positively influence

participation, particularly in rural areas. Again,

the states wish to work with the Census Bureau

to facilitate such participation. The states also

request that staff levels be consistently maintained in the Field Division’s regional offices.

The states reported that changes in staffing in

the regional offices often affected the quality of

the work done with the states.

8. Count Question Resolution Program

Census Tabulation Blocks

States feel strongly that corrections to census

counts must be delivered at the census block

level. If data users cannot allocate the corrected

data to the tabulation census block, it is unusable

in the redistricting process. The provision of

block-level data had been part of the 1990 Count

Question Resolution program following the 1990

census, so the decision not to provide block-level

data after Census 2000 was not understood.

States strongly recommend that block-level data

be included in the 2010 Count Question Resolution Program. In addition, states recommend that

the program begin with the delivery of the P.L.

94-171 data rather than waiting for Summary File 1.

The Census Bureau needs to appreciate the strict

numeric deviations permitted under state laws

that require that corrections be made quickly. For

example, in California, deviations must be under

200 persons per legislative district. Some states

felt compelled to involve their congressional

delegations in order to move corrections quickly

enough for possible use in redistricting.

9. Count Review Program

Timing is Everything

The Count Review program was developed for

Census 2000. It was intended to provide state data

experts an opportunity to review the census data

for gross errors and to document those errors for

correction. Some data users had hoped that these

corrections noted by their respective state experts

would be incorporated into the census data files

prior to the release of the P.L. 94-171 data set. The

timing of the program did not allow this, however.

Many data users felt that the Census Bureau could

have begun making these corrections much sooner

than it did. Therefore, the states recommend the

continuation of the Count Review Program for the

2010 Census, but that its design be implemented

with a timeline that would allow corrections to be

made prior to the release of the P.L. 941-171 data.

If this is not possible, states reiterate their recommendation that the Count Question Resolution

Program begin immediately after the release of

the P.L. 94-171 data, with the review of cases

submitted by states during the count review.

,
The View From the States 25

Census 2000 triggered the fourth redistricting

cycle since the landmark one-person, one-vote

decisions of the 1960s. States used state-of-theart technology to draw new redistricting plans

more rapidly than ever before and provide unprecedented public access to the redistricting process.

State legislatures had the task of drawing congressional district plans in all but 12 states. In six

states—Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New

Jersey and Washington—a commission does the

congressional redistricting. Following the 2000

reapportionment, there were seven states that

did not have to draw congressional plans because

they qualified for only one seat in the U.S. House

of Representatives. Those states were Alaska,

Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Vermont, and Wyoming.

In 12 states, initial authority to draw legislative

district lines is given to a board commission.

Legislative redistricting falls directly to the legislatures in the remaining states. Both federal and

state courts frequently become involved when

legislatures are unable to agree on new redistricting plans. Thirty-seven states faced some litigation over either congressional or legislative

redistricting in the 2000 redistricting cycle,

including a handful of cases that wound up in

the U.S. Supreme Court.

As states have accumulated experience and legal

precedent in redistricting, they have worked to

comply with the necessity of enacting districts

that comply with the equal population mandate

of the U.S. Constitution. One way to measure

equal population is by looking at the overall

percentage deviation of a redistricting plan. That

number is essentially a measure of how far the

smallest and largest districts in a plan are from

the ideal district size, which is the total population

divided by the number of seats. The table below

shows the overall population deviations for state

legislative and congressional districts adopted

using 2000 census data.

Chapter 5.

Redistricting 2000 Statistics

The View From the States 25
26 U.S. Census Bureau

Redistricting 2000 Population Deviation Table

2000 Congressional Plan 2000 State House Plan 2000 State Senate Plan

Alabama 636,300 0.00% 0 42,353 9.93% 127,060 9.73%

Alaska N/A N/A N/A 15,673 9.96% 31,346 9.32%

Arizona 641,329 0.00% 0 171,021 3.79% 171,021 3.79%

Arkansas 668,350 0.04% 303 26,734 9.87% 76,383 9.81%

California 639,088 0.00% 1 423,395 0.00% 846,791 0.00%

Colorado 614,465 0.00% 2 66,173 4.88% 122,863 4.95%

Connecticut 681,113 0.00% 0 22,553 9.20% 94,599 8.03%

Delaware N/A N/A N/A 19,112 9.98% 37,314 9.96%

Florida 639,295 0.00% 1 133,186 2.79% 399,559 0.03%

Georgia 629,727 0.01% 72 45,480 1.96% 146,187 1.94%

Hawaii 605,769 0.32% 1,899 22,833 20.1% 46,579 38.9%

Idaho 646,977 0.60% 3,595 36,970 9.70% 36,970 9.70%

Illinois 653,647 0.00% 0 105,248 0.00% 210,496 0.00%

Indiana 675,609 0.02% 102 60,805 1.92% 121,610 3.80%

Iowa 585,265 0.02% 134 29,263 1.89% 58,526 1.46%

Kansas 672,105 0.00% 33 21,378 9.95% 66,806 9.27%

Kentucky 673,628 0.00% 2 40,418 10.00% 106,362 9.53%

Louisiana 638,425 0.04% 240 42,561 9.88% 114,589 9.95%

Maine 637,462 0.00% 23 8,443 9.33% 36,426 3.57%

Maryland 662,061 0.00% 2 37,564 9.89% 112,691 9.91%

Massachusetts 634,910 0.39% 2,476 39,682 9.68% 158,727 9.33%

Michigan 662,563 0.00% 1 90,350 9.92% 261,538 9.92%

Minnesota 614,935 0.00% 1 36,713 1.56% 73,425 1.35%

Mississippi 711,165 0.00% 10 23,317 9.98% 54,705 9.30%

Missouri 621,690 0.00% 1 34,326 6.08% 164,565 6.81%

Montana N/A N/A N/A 9,022 9.85% 18,044 9.82%

Nebraska 570,421 0.00% 0 N/A N/A 34,924 9.21%

Nevada 666,086 0.00% 6 47,578 1.97% 95,155 9.91%

New Hampshire 617,893 0.10% 636 3,089 9.26% 51,491 9.95%

New Jersey 647,257 0.00% 1 210,359 1.83% 210,359 1.83%

New Mexico 606,349 0.03% 166 25,986 9.70% 43,311 9.60%

New York 654,360 0.00% 1 126,510 9.43% 306,072 9.78%

North Carolina 619,178 0.00% 1 67,078 9.98% 160,986 9.96%

North Dakota N/A N/A N/A 13,664 10.00% 13,664 10.00%

Ohio 630,730 0.00% 0 114,678 12.46% 344,035 8.81%

Oklahoma 690,131 0.00% 1 34,165 2.05% 71,889 4.71%

Oregon 684,280 0.00% 1 57,023 1.90% 114,047 1.77%

Pennsylvania 646,371 0.00% 1 60,498 5.54% 245,621 3.98%

Rhode Island 524,160 0.00% 6 13,978 9.88% 27,587 9.91%

South Carolina 668,669 0.00% 2 32,355 4.99% 87,218 9.87%

South Dakota N/A N/A N/A 21,567 9.69% 21,567 9.69%

Tennessee 632,143 0.00% 5 57,467 9.99% 172,402 9.98%

Texas 651,619 0.00% 1 139,012 9.74% 672,639 9.71%

Utah 744,390 0.00% 1 29,776 8.00% 77,006 7.02%

Vermont N/A N/A N/A 4,059 18.99% 20,234 14.28%

Virginia 643,501 0.00% 38 70,785 3.90% 176,963 4.00%

Washington 654,902 0.00% 7 120,288 0.30% 120,288 0.30%

West Virginia 602,781 0.22% 1,313 18,083 9.98% 106,374 10.92%

Wisconsin 670,459 0.00% 5 54,179 1.60% 162,536 0.98%

Wyoming N/A N/A N/A 8,230 9.81% 16,459 9.51%

Overall

Ideal Percent Range Ideal Percent Ideal Percent

District Overall (# of District Overall District Overall

Size Range people) Size Range Size Range

Note: These data are for plans passed using 2000 census figures.

© 2004 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved.
The View From the States 27

Five Phase Program - To carry out many of the

recommendations of the states, it is proposed

that the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program

should become a five-phase program:

Phase 1 - State Legislative District Project

(SLDP) – The Census Bureau will collect state

legislative district boundaries and associated

updates in order to tabulate legislative districts

based on their actual location. This project will

include a verification phase and data tabulation

for legislative districts based on Census 2000

data.

During this time frame the Census Bureau’s

Redistricting Data Office will launch an aggressive

communications plan with the states to ensure

they are informed and prepared for their role in

the 2010 Census. Visits to each state capital to

lay out the various programs will be set up during

calendar years 2005-2006.

Phase 2 - Voting District/Block Boundary

Suggestion Project (VTD/BBSP) – The Census

Bureau will collect the voting district boundaries

in their actual location, as well as feature updates

and updates to state legislative districts. The

states will identify features to include or exclude

as census block boundaries for tabulation in the

2010 Census. If necessary, the Census Bureau

Chapter 6.

The Census Bureau’s Response

will provide new data tabulations for legislative

districts. A verification step will be part of this

phase.

Phase 3 - Data Delivery for the 2010 Census –

The Census Bureau will continue to deliver geographic and data products to the majority and

minority leadership in the state legislatures, the

governor, and the designated P.L. 94-171 liaisons.

The Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Office will

work closely with each state to ensure bipartisan

receipt of the data products.

Phase 4 - Collection of the Post-2010 Census

Redistricting Plans – Through the Census

Bureau’s Redistricting Data Office, the Census

Bureau will collect the new state legislative and

congressional district plans using the Phase 3

materials. The Census Bureau will produce new

geographic and data products based on the new

districts.

Phase 5 - Evaluation and Recommendation for

Census 2020 – Working with the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Census Bureau will

conduct a historical review by the states of the

successes and failures of the Census Bureau to

meet the Public Law 94-171 mandate. Together,

they will develop recommendations for the Census

2020 Redistricting Data Program.
28 U.S. Census Bureau

Chapter 7.

Benchmarks for the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program

Although the next census is six years

away, the planning for the 2010

Census is well under way. Key dates

for state participation in the next

Census Redistricting Data Program

are coming up. The timeline illustrated on this page shows the several

legal deadlines and planned events.

As the Census Bureau plans to select

for testing the methods to be used

to collect the 2010 Census data, we

must make decisions on how the

Redistricting Data Program will be

implemented, as the P.L. timeline

shows. The Census Bureau’s goal is

to provide state legislatures more time than was scheduled in the 1990s to plan budgets and develop

technical systems that will support their redistricting needs in 2011. As the recommendations described

in this report indicate, early planning by the states and the Census Bureau made for the success of the

1990 and Census 2000 Redistricting Data Programs. We intend to build on that and, with the continuing

partnership of the states, that goal will be reached.

Deirdre Bishop and Cathy McCully of the Census Redistricting Data Office will

work closely with Bob LaMacchia and Linda Franz of the Geography Division

over the next several years to ensure the geographic programs supporting

the Redistricting Data Program are effective.

Census 2010 P.L. 94-171 Timeline

March 31, 2001—

All 2000 Census

P.L. 94-171 Data

Shipments Complete

2002—NCSLCensus Bureau

Evaluation

Conferences

2004—Federal Register

Notice Proposing

the Census 2010

Redistricting Data

Program Issued

2005—Final Draft

P.L. 94-171

Specifications

Published in the

Federal Register

2005-2006 Phase 1

State Legislative

District Project

2007-2009

Phase 2 Voting

District/Block

Boundary

Suggestion

Project

April 1, 2010

Census Day

2010-2011 Phase 3

Data Delivery for the

Census 2010 Census

Redistricting Data

Program

April 1, 2011 Legal

Deadline for the

Delivery of the

P.L. 94-171 Data
The View From the States 29

Appendixes
30 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix A.

An Act

To amend section 141 of title 13, United States Code, to provide for the transmittal

to each of the several States of the tabulation of population of that State

obtained in each decennial census and desired for the apportionment or districting of the legislative body or bodies of that State, in accordance with, and

subject to the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, a plan and form suggested

by that officer or public body having responsibility for legislative apportionment

or districting of the State being tabulated, and for other purposes.

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That section 141 of title 13,

United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

 “(c) The officers or public bodies having initial responsibility for the

legislative apportionment or districting of each State may, not later than

three years prior to the census date, submit to the Secretary a plan identifying the geographic areas for which specific tabulations of population are

desired. Each such plan shall be developed in accordance with criteria

established by the Secretary, which he shall furnish to such officers or public

bodies not later than April 1 of the fourth year preceding the census date.

Such criteria shall include requirements which assure that such plan shall

be developed in a nonpartisan manner. Should the Secretary find that a

plan submitted by such officers or public bodies does not meet the criteria

established by him, he shall consult to the extent necessary with such

officers or public bodies in order to achieve the alterations in such plan

that he deems necessary to bring it into accord with such criteria. Any

issues with respect to such plan remaining unresolved after such consultation shall be resolved by the Secretary, and in all cases he shall have final

authority for determining the geographic format of such plan. Tabulations

of population for the areas identified in any plan approved by the Secretary

shall be completed by him as expeditiously as possible after the census

date and reported to the Governor of the State involved and the officers

or public bodies having responsibility for legislative apportionment or

districting of such State, except that such tabulations of population of each

State requesting a tabulation plan, and basic tabulations of population of

each State, shall, in any event, be completed, reported and transmitted to

each respectively State within one year after the census date.”.

PUBLIC LAW 94-171—DEC. 23, 1975

Public Law 94-171

94th Congress

Dec. 23, 1975

[H.R. 1753]

89 STAT. 1023

Population,

tabulation for

State legislative

apportionment.
The View From the States 31

 SEC. 2. (a) The heading for section 141 of title 13, United States Code,

is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: “; tabulation for

legislative apportionment”.

 (b) The table of sections for chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code,

is amended by striking out the item relating to section 141 and inserting

in lieu thereof the following:

“141. Population, unemployment, and housing; tabulation for legislative

 apportionment.”.

 Approved December 23, 1975.

89 STAT. 1024 PUBLIC LAW 94-171—DEC. 23, 1975

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

HOUSE REPORT No. 94-456 (Comm. on Post Office and Civil Service).

SENATE REPORT No. 94-539 (Comm. on Post Office and Civil Service).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 121 (1975):

Nov. 7, considered and passed House.

Dec. 15, considered and passed Senate.
32 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix B.

Alabama

The Honorable Steve Windom

Lt. Governor

The Honorable Lowell Barron

President Pro Tem

The Honorable Tom Butler

Senate Majority Leader

The Honorable Marcel Black

Co-Chairman of the Reapportionment Committee

The Honorable Steve French

Co-Chairman of the Reapportionment Committee

The Honorable Charles Langford

Chairman, Senate Democratic Caucus

The Honorable Bill Armistead

Senate Republican Caucus

The Honorable Chris Pringle

Minority Leader

House of Representatives

Mr. Larry Childers

Office of the Governor

Dept. of Economic and Community Affairs

Mr. Jeff Woodward

Chief of Staff for Speaker Hammett

Ms. Bonnie Shanholtzer

Staff Director, Reapportionment Office

Ms. Monica Cooper

Office of Senate Minority Leader

Mr. Dorman Walker

Counsel, Joint Reapportionment Circle

Alaska

The Honorable Fran Ulmer

Lt. Governor

The Honorable Rick Halford

President of the Senate

The Honorable Loren Leman

Senate Majority Leader

The Honorable Brian Porter

Speaker of the House

The Honorable Jeannette James

House Majority Leader

The Honorable Joe Green

House of Representatives

Mr. Chris Miller

Office of the Governor

Chief, Research and Analysis Staff

Official Recipients of the 2000 Census P.L. 94-171 Population Counts

Mr. Kevin Jardell

House of Representatives

Counsel

Mr. Patrick Flynn

House Minority Leader’s Office

Mr. Gordon S. Harrison

Executive Director, Redistricting Board

Mr. Mike Gutierrez

Senate Minority Leader’s Office

Ms. Annette Kreitzer

Chief of Staff

Senate Majority Leader’s Office

Arizona

The Honorable Jane Dee Hull

Governor

The Honorable Warren Whitney

Deputy Secretary of State

The Honorable Randall Gnant

President of the Senate

The Honorable Rusty Bowers

Senate Majority Leader

The Honorable Jack Brown

Senate Floor Leader

The Honorable Jim Weiers

Speaker of the House

The Honorable Carolyn Allen

House Majority Leader

The Honorable Ken Cheuvront

House Democratic Leader

The Honorable Wes Marsh

House of Representatives

Mr. Greg Jernigan

Office of the President of the Senate

Mr. John Mills

House of Representatives

Mr. Scott Celley

Governor’s Office

Ms. Marge Ray

Legislative Council

Arkansas

The Honorable Mark Pryor

Attorney General

The Honorable Larry Crane

Asst. Attorney General
The View From the States 33

The Honorable Sharon Priest

Secretary of State

The Honorable Mike Beebe

President Pro Tem

The Honorable John E. Brown

Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable Shane Broadway

Speaker of the House

The Honorable Harmon R. Seawel

House Majority Leader

The Honorable Jim Magnus

House Minority Leader

Ms. Sarah Breshears

State Data Center

Ms. Dannette Tranpansky

Office of Rep. Jim Hendren

Mr. Olan W. Reeves

Chief Legal Counsel

Office of the Governor

Mr. Shawn Womack

Senate

Mr. Ronald Sheffield

Secretary of State’s Office

California

The Honorable Ross Johnson

Senate Minority Leader

Ms. Linda Gage

Office of the Governor

Ms. Sandi Polka

Office of Senate President Pro Tem

Mr. Doug Yoakum

Redistricting Director, Assembly Republican Caucus

Ms. Susie Swatt

Senate Republican’s Office

Mr. Saeed Ali

Senate Majority Leader’s Office

Mr. Jim Wisley

Office of the Speaker

Ms. Diane M. Griffiths

Chief Counsel to the Speaker

Colorado

Mr. Charles Brown

Colorado Legislative Council

Mr. Marv Koleis

Colorado Dept. of Local Affairs

Ms. Rebecca Lennahan

Office of Legislative Legal Services

Connecticut

The Honorable David Pudlin

House Majority Leader

Ms. Amy Carpino

Asst. Legal Counsel for Governor

Mr. Justin Gargiulo

Senate Republican Office

Mr. Gary W. Berner

House Republican Office

Mr. Daniel P. Pullium

Office of Senate Democrats

District of Columbia

The Honorable Anthony A. Williams

Mayor

The Honorable Linda W. Cropp

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Evans

Chairman Pro Tem

The Honorable Carol Schwartz

DC Council Member

The Honorable Sharon Ambrose

DC Council Member

The Honorable Harold Brazil

DC Council Member

The Honorable David Catania

DC Council Member

The Honorable Phil Mendelson

DC Council Member

The Honorable Jim Graham

DC Council Member

The Honorable Kathleen Patterson

DC Council Member

The Honorable Adrian Fenty

DC Council Member

The Honorable Vincent Orange

DC Council Member

The Honorable Kevin Chavous

DC Council Member

The Honorable Sandy Allen

DC Council Member

Mr. Herb Bixhorn

Mayor’s Office of Planning

Delaware

The Honorable Ruth Ann Minner

Governor

The Honorable Edward J. Freel

Secretary of State
34 U.S. Census Bureau

Mr. John Matlusky

Chief of Staff

Mr. Rick Puffer

House Democratic Office

Mr. Robert Skomorucha

State Data Center

Florida

The Honorable Rudy Garcia, Jr.

House Committee on Reapportionment

Mr. Jim Anderson

Governor’s Office

Mr. Ed Montanaro

Director, Office of Economic and

 Demographic Research

Mr. Agustin G. Corbella

House Majority Leader’s Office

Ms. Pam Potter-Ricco

Senate Minority Leader’s Office

Mr. John Guthrie

Senate Select Committee on

Reapportionment and Redistricting

Mr. Geoffrey Becker

House Majority Leader’s Office

Mr. Barry Kling

House Minority Leader’s Office

Mr. Todd Thomson

House Procedural and Redistricting Council

Georgia

Ms. Linda D. Meggers

Legislative Redistricting Office

Mr. Morgan Perry

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

Ms. Tracy Horgan

Caliper Corporation

Mr. Hugh Peterson

Director of Intergovernmental Relations

Office of the Governor

Hawaii

The Honorable Sam Slom

Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable Galen Fox

House Minority Leader

Ms. Dawn Yoshimura

House of Representatives

Mr. Dwayne D. Yoshina

Chief Election Officer

Mr. David Takashima

Office of Elections

Mr. Jim Hall

House Minority Research Office

Idaho

Mr. Brian Whitlock

Governor’s Office

Mr. Alan Porter

Information Services Manager

Ms. Susan Bennion

Legislative Services

Mr. Ross Borden

Legislative Services

Illinois

The Honorable Richard Juliano

Office of the Governor

Mr. Jim Drew

House Republican Staff

Mr. Ray Marchiori

Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor

Mr. Tim Mapes

House Speaker’s Office, Chief of Staff

Mr. Michael Tristano

Chief of Staff

Office of the House Republicans

Mr. Dan Donahue

Senate Majority Office

Mr. Kim Brace

Election Data Services, Inc.

Mr. Dan Hagan

State Board of Elections

Indiana

The Honorable Sue Landske

Asst. President Pro Tem

The Honorable Brian Bosma

House Republican Leader

The Honorable Patricia Miller

Indiana Senate

Ms. Emma Keys

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

Mr. Philip J. Sachtleben

Executive Director, Legislative Services Agency

Mr. Robert Rudolph

Legislative Services Agency

Ms. Maureen Bard

Legislative Services Agency
The View From the States 35

Mr. Mark Stratton

Legislative Services Agency

Mr. F. Gerald Handfield

Office of the Governor

Director, Commission on Public Records

 and State Archivist

Mr. Charles M. Coffey

Office of the Governor

Ms. Anne Hathaway

House of Representatives

Iowa

The Honorable Steve Sukup

Speaker Pro Tem

The Honorable Andy McKean

President Pro Tem

Ms. Beth Henning

State Library

Office of the Governor

Mr. Gentry Collins

House Republican Caucus Staff

Mr. Gary Rudicil

Legislative Services

Mr. Kimball Brace

Election Data Services

Kansas

The Honorable Shari Weber

House Majority Leader

The Honorable Jim Garner

House Minority Leader

The Honorable Mike O’Neal

Vice-Chair, Redistricting Advisory Group

Ms. Mary Galligan

Legislative Research

Mr. Jeremy Anderson

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

Ms. Joyce Glasscock

Office of the Governor

Kentucky

Ms. Joyce Honaker

Legislative Research Commission

Mr. Ron Crouch

State Data Center

Office of the Governor

Louisiana

The Honorable Mike Foster, Jr.

Governor

The Honorable Tom Schedler

Senate Republican Caucus

The Honorable Francis C. Heitmeier

Senate Democratic Caucus

The Honorable Mike Walsworth

Republican Delegation, House of Representatives

The Honorable Wilfred Pierre

Legislative Black Caucus

The Honorable Charles D. Lancaster

House Committee on House and

 Governmental Affairs

Ms. Kathleen Randall

Asst. Clerk of the House of Representatives

Mr. Glenn Koepp

Asst. Secretary of the Senate

Maine

The Honorable Mary E. Small

Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable Joe Bruno

House Republican Floor Leader

Mr. Richard A. Sherwood

Governor’s Office

Mr. Ryan Low

Office of the Speaker

Ms. Tamara Pogue

Senate Majority Office

Mr. Patrick Damon

House of Representatives

Mr. Brian D. Whitney

Senate Pro Tem Office

Maryland

Mr. Mike Lettré

Department of Planning

Ms. Nasrin Rahman

Department of Planning

Mr. Jeff Getek

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

Mr. Tim Perry

Office of the Senate President

Mr. Thomas S. Lewis

Office of the Speaker

Mr. Karl Aro

Department of Legislative Services

Ms. Stephanie K. Barry

House Minority Leader’s Office
36 U.S. Census Bureau

Massachusetts

Mr. Dave Paleologos

Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth

Mr. John Gaviglio

State Data Center

Mr. John Brockelman

MA Republican Party

Mr. Robert Edgren

Office of the Senate Asst. Majority Leader

Ms. Kathryn Fellows

Office of the House Minority Leader

Mr. Christopher J. Barrett

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

Ms. Maryann C. Calia

House of Representatives

Mr. Michael J. Walsh

Office of the Senate Majority Leader

Michigan

The Honorable John J. H. Schwarz, M.D.

President Pro Tem

The Honorable Dan DeGrow

Senate Majority Leader

Mr. R. Lance Boldrey

Deputy Legal Counsel

Mr. Mike Vatter

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

Mr. Alan L. Mann

House Republican Caucus Services

Ms. Rebecca Jarvis

Office of the President Pro Tem

Ms. Lisa Dedden

House Democratic Policy

Minnesota

The Honorable Jesse Ventura

Governor

The Honorable Don Samuelson

President of the Senate

The Honorable John Hottinger

Asst. Majority Leader

Mr. Lee Meilleur

Office of State Planning

Mr. David Birkholz

Office of State Planning

Mr. Peter S. Wattson

Senate Counsel and Research

Ms. Sarah Anderson

Office of the Speaker of the House

Mississippi

The Honorable Eric Clark

Secretary of State

The Honorable Hob Bryan

Senate Elections Committee

The Honorable Tommy Reynolds

House Apportionment and Elections Committee

Mr. Michael Boyd

Governor’s Office, Policy and Planning

Mr. James “Ted” Booth

General Counsel, PEER Committee

Ms. Gloria Tramel

House of Representatives

Ms. Danita Jones

Office of the Speaker Pro Tem

Missouri

The Honorable Mark Abel

Speaker Pro Tem

The Honorable Ronnie DePasco

Asst. Senate Minority Floor Leader

Mr. Ryan Burson

Office of Administration/Redistricting Office

Mr. Darrell Jackson

House Redistricting Office

Mr. Stephen S. Davis

Office of the House Minority Floor Leader

Mr. Neil Kessler

Office of the Senate Republicans

Mr. Ron Kirchoff

Office of the Senate Majority Floor Leader

Montana

Ms. Rosana Skelton

Secretary of the Senate

Ms. Janine Pease Pretty on Top

Presiding Officer of the Districting

 and Apportionment Commission

Mr. Allan Cox

Office of the Governor

Mr. Charles Dresser

Office of the Senate Majority Leader

Ms. Susan Byorth Fox

Legislative Services Division

Office of the Executive Director
The View From the States 37

Nebraska

Mr. Chris Stanton

Legislative Council

Ms. Cynthia G. Johnson

Legislative Council

Nevada

Mr. Scott Wasserman

Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel

Mr. Keith Munro

General Counsel

New Hampshire

The Honorable Arthur Klemm

President of the Senate

The Honorable Carl Johnson

President Pro Tem

Mr. Rich Sigel

Office of the Governor

Mr. Grant Bosse

Office of the Speaker of the House

Mr. Thomas Duffy

Office of State Planning

Office of the Governor

Mr. Todd Quinn

Democratic Leader’s Office

Ms. Carol Pletcher

New Hampshire Senate

New Jersey

The Honorable Joseph A. Palaia

President Pro Tem

The Honorable Nicholas R. Felice

Speaker Pro Tem

The Honorable Paul DiGaetano

Assembly Majority Leader

Ms. Connie Hughes

Office of the Governor

Mr. Glen Beebe

Office of the Assembly Minority Leader

Ms. Patricia O’Connor

Office of the House Minority Leader

Mr. Thomas P. Giblin

Chairman, State Democratic Committee

Mr. Chuck Haytaian

Chairman, State Republican Committee

Mr. Tom Bonier

NCEC

Ms. Shirly Goetz

Dept. of Labor Market and Demographic Research

Ms. Donna Phelps

Office of the Senate Majority

Mr. Pat Gillespie

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

New Mexico

The Honorable Rebecca Vigil-Giron

Secretary of State

The Honorable Hoyt Clifton

Asst. Secretary of State

The Honorable Rod Adair

NM Senate

The Honorable Stuart Ingle

Senate Minority Floor Leader

The Honorable Ted Hobbs

House Minority Leader

Mr. Lou Gallegos

Office of the Governor

Ms. Paula Tackett

Director, Legislative Council Services

Mr. Jon Boller

Legislative Council Services

Mr. Michael Sharp

Research and Polling, Inc.

Legislative Redistricting Project

New York

The Honorable Joseph L. Bruno

Senate President/Majority Leader

The Honorable Dean Skelos

Co-Chairman, Legislative Task Force on Demographic

 Research and Reapportionment, Senate

The Honorable Paul A. Tokasz

Assembly Majority Leader

Ms. Leslie A. Maeby

Governor’s Office

Ms. Debra A. Levine

Co-Executive Director, Reapportionment Task Force

Mr. Lewis M. Hoppe

Co-Executive Director, Reapportionment Task Force

Mr. Todd Breitbart

Senate Minority Leader’s Office

Mr. David Schaefer

Assembly Minority Leader’s Office

Mr. J. Michael Boxley

Counsel to the Speaker

Mr. Thomas Nardacci

Legislative Task Force
38 U.S. Census Bureau

North Carolina

Ms. Norma Mills

General Counsel

Mr. Bill Gilkeson

Legislative Services

North Dakota

The Honorable John Hoeven

Governor

The Honorable Jack Dalrymple

Lt. Governor/President of the Senate

The Honorable Karen K. Krebsback

President Pro Tem

The Honorable Gary J. Nelson

Senate Majority Leader

The Honorable Aaron Krauter

Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable LeRoy Bernstein

Speaker of the House

The Honorable Wesley R. Belter

House Majority Leader

The Honorable Merle Boucher

House Minority Leader

The Honorable Carolyn Nelson

North Dakota Senate

Mr. John D. Olsrud

Director, Legislative Council

Mr. John Bjornson

Legislative Council

Ohio

The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell

Secretary of State

The Honorable Rhine L. McLin

Ohio Senate

The Honorable Leigh F. Herington

Senate Minority Leader

Mr. Barry Bennett

Office of the Governor

Mr. Bill Klatt

Chief Legal Counsel to Governor

Mr. David Kennedy

Legislative Affairs

Mr. Dana Walch

Office of the Secretary of State

Mr. Mark Darr

House of Representatives

Mr. Ray DiRossi

Ohio Senate

Mr. Brian Rothenberg

Senate Democratic Caucus

Mr. Mike Cook

Senate Democratic Caucus

Dr. Michael Finney, Ph.D.

Cleveland State University, Office of the Dean

Mr. Steven R. Kelley

Dept. of Development

Manager, Office of Strategic Research

Mr. Joe Turbett

Office of the Speaker

Ms. Sharon Bliss

Cleveland State University

Levin College of Urban Affairs

Dr. Mark Salling, Ph.D.

Cleveland State University

Office of the Dean

Mr. Jim Tilling

Attorney General’s Office

Oklahoma

Ms. Lexa Shafer

Senate Redistricting Coordinator

Mr. Spencer Guinn

Deputy Director of Appointments

Office of the Governor

Mr. Wes Glinsmann

Legislative Assistant to the House Minority Leader

Ms. Shirley Russell

House of Representatives Redistricting Coordinator

Mr. Erik Polak

Office of the Republican Floor Leader

Ms. Tracy Horgan

Caliper Corporation

Oregon

Mr. Patrick Egan

Assistant to the Chief of Staff

 Office of the Governor

Ms. Melissa Williams

Chief of Staff, Office of the Senate Majority

Ms. Annette Price

Director, Policy and Communication

 Office of the Senate President

Mr. Duane Bales

Office of the House Majority Leader

Ms. Betsy Smith

Caucus Administrator, House Democratic Office

Mr. Barry Pack

Chief of Staff, Senate Democratic Leadership Office
The View From the States 39

Mr. Steve Barnett

Committee Services

Mr. Paddy J. McGuire

Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary of State

Pennsylvania

Mr. Kim Coon

Center for Community and Economic Development

Ms. Kathy Sullivan

Legislative Data Processing Center

Mr. Mark McKillop

Office of the Senate Democratic Leader

Mr. Bill Schaller

House Republican Reapportionment Services

Ms. Scott Casper

House Democratic Office

Mr. John Memmi

Senate Republican Redistricting Office

Rhode Island

The Honorable Lincoln Almond

Governor

The Honorable Edward S. Inman, III

Secretary of State

The Honorable Charles D. Walton

Senate President Pro Tem

The Honorable William Irons

Senate Majority Leader

The Honorable Dennis L. Algiere

Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable John B. Harwood

Speaker of the House

The Honorable Gerard M. Martineau

House Majority Leader

The Honorable Robert A. Watson

House Minority Leader

Ms. Geri Guardino

Office of the Governor

Mr. Elmer Cornwell

House Majority Leader’s Office

Mr. Kim Brace

Election Data Services, Inc.

South Carolina

Mr. Bobby Bowers

Budget and Control Board

Mr. John P. Hazzard

Office of the Senate President

Mr. Cam Crawford

Office of the Republican Caucus

Mr. Dwight M. Cauthen

Office of the Republican Leader

Ms. Ashley Harwell-Beach

Chief Counsel, House Judiciary Committee

Ms. Swati N. Shah

Asst. Chief Counsel, Judiciary Committee

Ms. Tracy Horgan

Caliper Corporation

Mr. Stephen Bates

Office of the Governor

South Dakota

The Honorable Carole Hillard

Lt. Governor/President of the Senate

The Honorable Arnold Brown

Senate President Pro Tem

The Honorable Barbara Everist

Senate Majority Leader

The Honorable Jim Hutmacher

Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable Scott Eccarius

Speaker of the House

The Honorable Matt Michels

Speaker Pro Tem

The Honorable Bill Peterson

House Majority Leader

The Honorable Mel Olson

House Minority Leader

Mr. Jim Soyer

Office of the Governor

Ms. Nancy Nelson

University of South Dakota

Tennessee

The Honorable Ben Atchley

Senate Republican Leader

Mr. Justin P. Wilson

Office of the Governor

Mr. Steve Kriegish

Director, Legislative Information Services

Ms. Pam Mason

Office of the House Minority Leader

Ms. Tracy Horgan

Caliper Corporation

Ms. Ellen Tewes

Office of Legal Services

Ms. Jane Bauer

Office of the Senate Majority Leader

Mr. Dennis Pederson

Office of Local Government
40 U.S. Census Bureau

Texas

The Honorable William Ratliff

Lt. Governor

The Honorable Chris Harris

President Pro Tem

The Honorable D. R. “Tom” Uher

Speaker Pro Tem

The Honorable Delwin Jones

Chairman, House Redistricting Committee

The Honorable Mario Gallegos

Texas Senate

The Honorable Troy Fraser

Texas Senate

The Honorable Jeff Wentworth

Chair, Senate Committee on Redistricting

The Honorable Mike Jackson

Vice-Chair, Senate Committee on Redistricting

The Honorable Bob Glaze

House Committee on Redistricting

Mr. Alan Ware

Director, Redistricting Program

Mr. Bob Pemberton

Office of the Governor

Ms. Denise Davis

Office of the Lt. Governor

Mr. Mark Borksey

Office of Texas House Republican Caucus

 Redistricting Committee

Utah

Mr. Mike Christensen

Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel

Ms. Lisa Hillman

State Data Center

Office of Planning and Budget

Vermont

The Honorable Howard Dean, M.D.

Governor

The Honorable Douglas Racine

Lt. Governor

The Honorable Deborah Markowitz

Secretary of State

The Honorable Peter Shumlin

President Pro Tem

The Honorable Richard J. McCormack

Senate Majority Leader

The Honorable John H. Bloomer, Jr.

Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable Walter E. Freed

Speaker of the House

The Honorable John LaBarge

House Majority Leader

The Honorable John Patrick Tracy

House Minority Leader

The Honorable Bill Doyle

Vermont Senate

The Honorable Jerry Kreitzer

House of Representatives

Mr. Michael Chernick

Legislative Council

Virginia

The Honorable Mary Margaret Whipple

Chair, Senate Minority Caucus

The Honorable Morgan Griffith

House Majority Leader

The Honorable Richard Saslaw

Senate Democratic Leader

Ms. Rachel G. Ayoub

Office of the Senate Majority Leader

Ms. Lynn Wisman

Office of the Governor

Mr. J. R. Austin

Legislative Services

Mr. Larry Robinson

Virginia Employment Commission

Ms. Regina Payne

Office of the Lt. Governor

Washington

Mr. Daryl Miller

Asst. Redistricting Coordinator

Mr. Mike Mohrman

Office of Financial Management

Office of the Governor

Mr. Ethan Moreno

Redistricting Office

Mr. Roman Daniels-Brown

Office of the Speaker of the House

Mr. Paul Campos

Washington State Senate

Mr. Tom Hoemann

Senate Democratic Caucus

Mr. David Elliott

Asst. Director of Elections

Secretary of State’s Office

Mr. Brad Jurkovich

House Democratic Caucus
The View From the States 41

Washington State Redistricting Commission

Digital Engineering Corporation

West Virginia

The Honorable Bob Wise

Governor

Ms. Teresa Bowe

Redistricting Data Office

Ms. Sandy Westfall

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

Mr. John Mullins

Office of the House Minority Leader

Mr. Chris Marr

Office of the House Majority Leader

Ms. Tracy Horgan

Caliper Corporation

Wisconsin

The Honorable Bonnie Ladwig

Chair, Assembly Committee on Census

 and Redistricting

Mr. Larry Barish

Legislative Reference Bureau

Mr. Tony J. VanDerWielen

Legislative Technology Services

Mr. Peter Cannon

Legislative Reference Bureau

Ms. Kathy Nickolaus

Assembly Republican Caucus

Wyoming

The Honorable Jim Geringer

Governor

The Honorable Joe Meyer

Secretary of State

The Honorable Hank Coe

President of the Senate

The Honorable Grant Larson

Vice-President of the Senate

The Honorable April Brimmer Kunz

Senate Majority Floor Leader

The Honorable Rich Cathcart

Senate Minority Floor Leader

The Honorable Rick Tempest

Speaker of the House

The Honorable Randall Luthi

Speaker Pro Tem

The Honorable Fred Parady

House Majority Floor Leader

Chris Boswell

House Minority Floor Leader

The Honorable Harry B. Tipton, M.D.

Speaker Pro Tem

Mr. Rick Memmel

A and I Computer Technology

Mr. Glenn Lang

Legislative Service Office

Puerto Rico

The Honorable José A. Andréu-García

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

The Honorable Sila María Calderón-Serra

Governor of Puerto Rico and President PDP

The Honorable Leo Diaz-Urbina

President NPP

The Honorable Rubén Berríos-Martínez

President PIP

The Honorable Antonio Fas-Alzamora

President of the Senate

The Honorable Carlos Vizcarrondo-Irizarry

President, House of Representatives

The Honorable José L. Dalmau-Santiago

PDP Senate Majority Speaker

The Honorable Kenneth McClintock-Hernández

NPP Senate Minority Speaker

The Honorable Fernando Martín-García

PIP Senate Minority Speaker

The Honorable Roberto Maldonado-Vélez

PDP Majority Speaker

The Honorable Edison Misla-Aldarondo

NPP House Minority Speaker

The Honorable Victor García-San Inocencio

PIP House Minority Speaker

The Honorable Juan R. Melecio

President, State Election Commission

LCDO. José A. Valentín

State Election Commission

LCDA. Damaris B. Mangual-Vélez

PIP Electoral Commission

LCDO. Carlos J. López-Feliciano

PDP Electoral Commission

Mr. Pedro J. Figueroa-Costa

NPP Electoral Commission

Ms. Lillian Torres-Aguirré

Director, Office of the Census Puerto Rico

 Planning Board
42 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix C.

Redistricting Software Vendors

Caliper Corporation

4819 Cumberland Avenue

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Tel: 301-654-4704

Fax: 301-654-4722

E-mail: hsimkowitz@caliper.com

www.caliper.com

Contact – Howard Simkowitz

Product – Caliper Corporation is the developer

of Maptitude for Redistricting, feature-rich redistricting software plus pre-built TIGER® geographic

layers with P.L. 94-171 data attached. It also

includes SF1, SF3 and ACS census data, a TIGER®

translator, and imports and exports shapefiles.

It can be deployed on a stand-alone PC or in a

complex network environment permitting the

sharing of data and redistricting plans. It is a

proven product in use by a majority of the state

legislatures. Caliper also provides software

customization, data manipulation and analysis,

consulting, and litigation services.

Digital Engineering Corporation/

Citygate GIS, Inc.

125 Cathedral Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

Tel: 410-295-3333

Fax: 410-295-3418

E-mail: fhejazi@digitalcorp.com

Contact – Fred Hejazi

Digital Engineering Corporation is the developer

of AutoBound Redistricting. AutoBound provides

complete redistricting solutions from the initial

data import using a built-in TIGER® import tool

to the workspace management, which enables

administration of hundreds of plans centrally

through a networked environment. For 2010,

AutoBound will be based on ESRI’s ARCGIS and

ARC Server technologies. Digital Engineering

also provides consulting and litigation support

for redistricting cases.

Election Data Services, Inc.

1401 K Street, NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20005-3417

Tel: 202-789-2004

Fax: 202-789-2007

E-mail: info@electiondataservices.com

www.electiondataservices.com

Contact – Kimball W. Brace, President

(1) For the Census Redistricting Data Program:

ArcView®-based software, databases, and consulting services for BBSP (Phase 1 Block Boundary

Suggestion Project) and VTDP (Phase 2 Voting

District Project), including onsite assistance

for the identification of TIGER/Line® segments

as proposed census block boundaries (Phase 1)

and the creation of legislative district and voting

district boundary files for the Census Bureau

(Phase 2).

(2) For congressional, legislative, and local government redistricting: construction of geographic,

demographic, and election databases; plan drafting assistance and strategic analysis of redistricting plans; staffing of redistricting commissions;

and expert witness testimony and litigation

support for redistricting court challenges.

ESRI

380 New York Street

Redlands, CA 92373

Tel: 703-506-9515 x8048

Fax: 703-506-9514

E-mail: rayers@esri.com

www.esri.com/industries/elections

Contact – Rick Ayers

Product – ESRI is the world leader in the geographic information system (GIS) software industry. ESRI software helps you accomplish redistricting and precincting tasks faster, easier, and more

efficiently. The ESRI network of business partners

also provides a wide range of elections-related

solutions, data and services. For more information on how ESRI and its partners can help your

organization with political redistricting, please

visit us at <www.esri.com/industries/elections>.
The View From the States 43

International Computer Works, Inc.

111 South Riverhills Drive

Temple Terrace, FL 33617-7221

Tel: 813-988-0434

Fax: 813-985-5661

E-Mail: ken@icwmaps.com

www.icwmaps.com

Contact – Ken Tozier

GeoElections operates within the MapInfo Professional environment and includes a module that

imports U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line® Files

creating over 40 layers of map data and a module

that provides an easy-to-use method with which

to link Census demographics to the mapped data

supporting the creation of thematic maps and

redistricting functions.

POLIDATA®

3112 Cave Court

Lake Ridge, VA 22192

Tel: 703-690-4066

Fax: 202-318-0793

E-Mail: clark@polidata.us

www.polidata.us

Contact – Clark Bensen, Principal Consultant

POLIDATA® Demographic and Political Guides

Polidata provides reference tools for demographic

and political research, and publishes books for

each state: the DEMOGRAPHIC GUIDE and the

ELECTION HISTORY are available for most states.

POLIDATA® Political Data Analysis

Polidata provides consulting to assist stakeholders

in the development of data resources needed for

map drawing; precinct-level election datasets a

speciality and district-level election analysis for

previous elections; litigation support as attorney

and/or expert witness.

Public Systems Associates, Inc.

2431 South Acadian Thruway

Acadian Centre, Suite 570

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Tel: 225-346-0618

Fax: 225-346-0626

www.publicsystems.org

Contact – Paula Bishop, Sr. VP

Product – Plan 2000-A custom redistricting application, integrated with Intergraph’s GeoMedia,

providing the ability to customize districting

plans for state and municipal areas. Plan 2000

utilizes Census population and geographic data

as well as the state’s statistical and election data.

Production of customized maps and reports of

districting plans easily crafted with Plan 2000.

Sammamish Data Systems, Inc.

P.O. Box 70382

Bellevue, WA 98005-0382

Tel: 425-867-1485

Fax: 425-869-5262

E-mail: bob.Schweitzer@sammdata.com

Contact – Bob Schweitzer

Sammamish Data Systems provides GIS software

and files for Direct Mail and Political Redistricting.

Sammamish Data Systems provides redistricting

consulting work, primarily in the state of Washington, including drafting plans, reviewing plans,

legal challenges, etc. A national company,

Sammamish Data Systems has strong ties to

direct mailers and resident list brokers. Since

1980, Sammamish Data Systems has provided

redistricting assistance, being the first to provide

a PC based GIS package.
44 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix D.

Total Number of Blocks, Voting Districts and State Legislative Districts Defined

for the P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Program for Census 2000

State Legislative State Legislative

Census 2000 Voting Districts Districts

State Name Tabulation Blocks Districts Senate House

Alabama 175,220 1,987 35 105

Alaska 21,874 467 20 40

Arizona 158,294 1,330 30 30

Arkansas 141,178 2,805 N/A N/A

California 533,163 N/A N/A N/A

Colorado 141,040 2,980 35 65

Connecticut 53,835 834 37 152

Delaware 17,483 400 22 42

District of Columbia 5,674 8 N/A N/A

Florida 362,499 N/A N/A N/A

Georgia 214,576 2,733 56 180

Hawaii 18,990 341 N/A N/A

Idaho 88,452 880 35 35

Illinois 366,137 11,488 60 119

Indiana 201,321 5,034 50 100

Iowa 168,075 2,885 50 100

Kansas 173,107 3,730 40 125

Kentucky 122,141 N/A N/A N/A

Louisiana 139,867 3,521 40 106

Maine 56,893 287 N/A N/A

Maryland 79,128 1,691 N/A N/A

Massachusetts 109,997 2,108 41 161

Michigan 258,925 5,366 38 110

Minnesota 200,222 4,094 N/A N/A

Mississippi 136,150 2,089 52 122

Missouri 241,532 3,960 34 163

Montana 99,018 N/A N/A N/A

Nebraska 133,692 1,888 49 0

Nevada 60,831 1,291 16 42

New Hampshire 34,728 86 25 N/A

New Jersey 141,342 6,138 41 41

New Mexico 137,055 1,346 42 70

New York 298,506 13,374 61 150

North Carolina 232,403 2,648 42 98

North Dakota 84,351 N/A 49 49

Ohio 277,807 N/A 33 99

Oklahoma 176,064 2,108 48 101

Oregon 156,232 N/A 30 60

Pennsylvania 322,424 9,407 50 204

Rhode Island 21,023 568 51 101

South Carolina 143,919 2,173 46 124

South Dakota 77,951 979 35 35

Tennessee 182,203 2,407 33 99

Texas 675,062 8,284 N/A N/A

Utah 74,704 1,829 29 75

Vermont 24,824 38 13 109

Virginia 145,399 2,169 40 100

Washington 170,871 7,475 49 49

West Virginia 81,788 1,909 16 56

Wisconsin 200,348 N/A 33 99

Wyoming 67,264 470 30 60

Puerto Rico 56,781 1,714 N/A N/A

Totals 8,262,363 129,319 1,536 3,576

Note: An “N/A” in a column indicates that the state did not submit boundaries or codes for that

entity to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The View From the States 45

NCSL Attendees

2002 Annual Meeting

Denver, CO

(July 23, 2002)

Reapportionment Task Force Members

State Name Organization

California Karin McDonald University of California

Colorado Jeramiah Barry Office of Legislative Legal Services

Tim Storey NCSL

Connecticut Mary Janicki Office of Legislative Management

Ed Maley Senate

District of Columbia Robert Berman U.S. Department of Justice

Joe Rich U.S. Department of Justice

Jamie Rosenson U.S. Census Bureau

Donna Zorn U.S. Census Bureau

John Byle U.S. Census Bureau

Bob LaMacchia U.S. Census Bureau

Cathy McCully U.S. Census Bureau

Kim Brace Election Data Services

Georgia Linda Meggers General Assembly/Reapportionment Services

Robert Strangia General Assembly/Reapportionment Services

Kentucky Joyce Croft Legislative Research Commission

Tom Troth Legislative Research Commission

Joyce Honaker Legislative Research Commission

Maryland Nasrin Rahman Maryland Office of Planning

Fred Hejazi Digital Engineering Corp.

Michigan Ed Sarpolus

Mississippi Ted Booth Joint Legislative Reapportionment Committee

Thomas Reynolds House of Representatives

New Jersey Frank Parisi Office of Legislative Services

Ohio Bill Heaphy

Lynda Jacobson Legislative Services

Oklahoma Lexa Shafer State Senate/Reapportionment Staff

Kay Daley State Legislature

Pennsylvania John Memmi Senate Republican Redistricting Office

Tennessee Tom Fleming Office of Local Government

Doug Himes Legislature

Ellen Tewes Office of Legal Services

Texas Clare Dyer Texas Legislative Council

Utah Stewart Smith Office of Legislative Research/General Counsel

Mark Andrews

Vermont Michael Chernick Legislative Council

Virginia Rick Ayers ESRI

Mary Spain Division of Legislative Services

Appendix E.
46 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix F.

NCSL Attendees

2003 Annual Meeting

San Francisco, CA

(July 2003)

State Name Organization

California Jim Wisley California Legislature

Karin MacDonald State Wide Data Base-UV Berkeley

Colorado Tim Storey National Conference of State Legislatures

District of Columbia Bob LaMacchia U.S. Census Bureau

Jamie Rosenson U.S. Census Bureau

Kim Brace Election Data Services

Donna Zorn U.S. Census Bureau

Frank Vitrano U.S. Census Bureau

Cathy McCully U.S. Census Bureau

Bryan Whitener Federal Election Commission

Georgia Linda Meggers Legislative Redistricting Office

Indiana Craig Fry State Representative

Maryland Kristen Rohanna Digital Engineering Corp.

Howard Simkowitz Caliper Corp.

Minnesota Peter Wattson Senate Counsel

Mississippi Ted Booth Joint Reapportionment—PEER Committee

Montana Susan Fox Legislative Services

New Hampshire Rep. R. B. “Dick” Drisko House of Representatives

New Jersey Frank Parisi Office of Legislative Services

New Mexico Ed Sandoval House of Representatives

New York Debra Levine Reapportionment Office

Jeff Wice Counsel

North Carolina Rep. Martha Alexander House of Representatives

Pennsylvania Suzanne O’Berry Redistricting Office

Cheri Hull Redistricting Office

South Carolina Paula Benson Staff Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee

Tennessee Doug Himes Legal Services

Ellen Tewes Legal Services

Utah Jerry Howe Legislative Research

Washington Cam McIntosh U.S. Census Bureau, Seattle Regional Office

West Virginia Jo Vaughn Redistricting Analyst
The View From the States 47

Appendix G.
48 U.S. Census Bureau