Committee Report to the 2002 Kansas Legislature
FEB 0 7 2002
KANSAS STATE LIBRARY 300 SW 10th AVB RM 343 TOPEKA, KS 6G512-1533
Special Committee on Redistricting
Kansas Legislative Research Department January 2002 Legislative Coordinating Council
Chairperson
Senator Dave Kerr. President of the Senate
Vice Chairperson
Representative Kent Glasscock, Speaker of the House
Lana Oleen, Senate Majority Leader Anthony Hensley. Senate Minority Leader Clay Aurand. Speaker Pro Tern Shari Weber. House Majority Leader Jim Garner. House Minority Leader
Kansas Legislative Research Department 300 SW 10,h. Room 545-N. Statehouse Topeka. Kansas 66612-1504 Telephone: (785) 296-3181 ♦ FAX: (785) 296-3824 [email protected] ♦ http:/skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD/klrd.html
The Kansas Legislative Research Department is a nonpartisan staff agency that serves both the House and Senate under the auspices of the Legislative Coordinating Council. Department staff are assigned to standing and special committees of the Legislature and provide policy and fiscal analysis for those committees and for individual legislators.
Ben F. Barrett, Director William G. Wolff. Associate Director Alan D. Conroy. Chief Fiscal Analyst 3 5141 00175079 4 Special Committee on Redistricting
The Committee was charged with developing Congressional. Legislative, and State Board of Education redistricting plans based upon the 2000 Census of Population for consideration by the 2002 Legislature.
Senate Members Senator David Adkins. Co-Chairperson 0 7 Senator Barbara Allen Senator Lynn Jenkins Senator David Corbin Senator Janis Lee KAN 3/ C. LIBRARY Senator David Haley Senator Edward W. Pugh 1A, f;*V£vF v.f I M ' V 7 W Senator Anthony Hensley Senator Derek Schmidt TGFEKA, K5 66512-1593 Senator Tim Huelskamp Senator Ruth Teichman
House Members Representative Michael O’Neal. Co-Chairperson Representative Clav Aurand Representative Doug Mays Representative John Ballou Representative Melvin Neufeld Representative Lisa L. Benlon Representative Rocky Nichols Representative Marti Crow Representative Peggy Palmer Representative John Edmonds Representative Jan Pauls Representative Troy Findley Representative Jeff Peterson Representative Broderick Henderson Representative Tony Powell Representative Andrew Howell Representative Bill Reardon Representative Thomas Klein Representative Bob Tomlinson Representative Carl Krehbiel Representative Jene Vickrey Representative William G. Mason Representative R. J. Wilson
Committee Staff Kansas Legislative Research Department Revisor of Statutes Office
Mary Galligan Sandv* Sadowski Mary Ann Torrence Bob Nugent Kathie Sparks LuAnn Lawhon Ken HushesW Joseph Wedeking
Committee Secretaryjh Cindy O'Neal Special Committee on Redistricting
D e v e l o p m e n t o f C ongressional , L e g i s l a t i v e , a n d S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t io n R edistricting P l a n s
The Special Committee on Redistricting recommends: Introduction of bills that would enact new districts for Kansas representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Kansas Legislature. A proposed redistricting plan for the State Board of Education will be developed during the 2002 legislative Session.
Minority Report: A minority report was prepared and submitted by Democrat Committee members. That report address the Committee’s recommendations for State Senate and congressional districts.
Proposed Legislation: SB 378. SB 379. and HB 2625 were introduced as recommended in this report.
Background tion districts from contiguous Senate districts. During the regular 2002 Legislative Session, new state House, Senate, Board The House Select Committee on Re- of Education, and congressional districts districting and the Senate Reapportion are to be enacted by the Legislature. The ment Committee, which were appointed goal of redistricting is to equalize popula to serve jointly as the Special Committee tion among districts. By law, the Kansas on Redistricting during the 2001 Interim, Legislature is composed of 125 members adopted guidelines for redistricting prior of the House of Representatives and 40 to the close of the 2001 Legislative Ses Senators. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census sion (Appendix A). Those guidelines of Population, Kansas retains four seats in provided the framework for district draw the U.S. House of Representatives. ing. This report summarizes the Commit tee's activities, conclusions, and recom Article 10. Section 1 of the Kansas mendations. Constitution requires that the Legislature redraw legislative districts each decade in Committee Activities the year ending in 2. Redistricting bills must be signed by the Governor and new Town Hall Meetings legislative districts must be reviewed and approved by the Kansas Supreme Court. The Committee held ten Town Hall The Constitution also directs the Legisla Meetings across the state in May and ture to create the State Board of Educa- June. Panels of approximately ten Com-
Legislative Research Department - i - 2001 Redistricting mittee members conducted each Town remaining in the Third Congressional Hall Meeting. In addition, each meeting District: and included an education component devel- oned and presented through the coopera • Support for keeping Lawrence in a tive efforts of faculty and staff of the single congressional district. University of Kansas, Kansas State Uni versity. Fort Hays State University, Johnson County Town Hall Wichita State University, and the Kansas Meeting— May 16, 2001 Legislative Research Department. Dr. Burdett Loomis of the University Virtually all testimony presented at of Kansas presented the education the Town Hall Meetings addressed component and information from the congressional redistricting. The 2000 Census. The focus of the following paragraphs are brief presentation was the Third Congressional descriptions of the testimony and District. education component presented at each meeting. The following points were made in testimony presented to the Town Hall Several proposals for congressional panel: redistricting were presented at the Town Hall Meetings. Senator Anthony Henslev • The importance of retaining the and Representative Troy Findley integrity of communities of interest presented a congressional plan, (including political subdivisions); and Congressional Plan 1, at each of the hearings. (Appendix B:l). Other • Support for keeping Miami County in proposed plans are noted in the summary the Third Congressional District. of testimony for the meeting at which they were presented. A map of each Mrs. Jean Jones, a resident of Johnson proposed plan is included in Appendix B. County, presented a plan at the meeting Minutes of each Town Hall Meeting are (Appendix B:2). (The plan was on file with the Division of Legislative withdrawn from consideration and Administrative Services. replaced by Jones 7-12 (Appendix B:6) prior to the July Committee meeting.) Douglas County Town Hall Meeting—May 16, 2001 Hutchinson Town Hall Meeting— May 23, 2001 Dr. Steven Maynard-Moody of the University of Kansas presented the Mary Galligan of the Kansas education component and information Legislative Research Department about Kansas’ results from the 2000 presented information about the 2000 Census. The presentation focused on Census. The presentation focused on characteristics of the Third Congressional Census information about the Hutchinson District. area.
The : owing points were made The following points were made in during te:? ..nony at the meeting: testimony presented at the Town Hall meeting: • Support for the City of Lawrence
Kansas Legislative Research Department . 2 2001 Redistricting • Support for including Reno Countv in the Fourth Congressional District: • Support for recognizing economic communities of interest that exist • Support for retaining Reno County in among adjacent counties: and the First Congressional District: • Support for including Reno County in • Advantages of reducing the the Fourth Congressional District. geographic extent of the First Congressional District; and Leavenworth Town Hall Meeting— May 29, 2001 • Support for configuring the 34th Kansas Senate District to include all of Dr. Loomis presented the education Reno County. component which focused on the Third Congressional District and Leavenworth Mr. Ron Svatv, a resident of Ellsworth, County which is adjacent to that district. presented a congressional district plan at the meeting (Appendix B:3). Support for the following points was Wichita Town Hall Meeting— voiced in testimony presented to the May 23. 2001 Town Hall panel:
Ms. Janet Harrah of Wichita State • Maintaining Leavenworth and Riley University made a presentation that counties in the Second Congressional focused on Kansas’ school district District: demographics, population growth in Wichita, and characteristics of the state’s • Retaining the City of Lawrence in the racial and ethnic minority population. Third Congressional District;
The following points were made in • Redrawing the third state Senate testimony presented to the Town Flail district to include primarily panel: Leavenworth County, with a corresponding redefinition of the Fifth • Keep counties and neighborhoods Senate District boundary; whole to the extent possible for purposes of legislative representation: • Redrawing the third state Senate district to include Atchison County, • Respect communities of interest rather possibly Doniphan County, and than partisan considerations: northern Leavenworth Countv (specifically the cities of Leavenworth • Create districts that maintain and and Lansing); and reflect diversity and ensure that minorities are equally represented in • Repealing existing law in order to new districts: include military personnel in the population basis for legislative • Support for repealing the law that districts. excludes nonresident students from census results used for legislative redistricting;
Kansas Legislative Research Department ■ 3 - 2001 Redistricting Kansas City. Kansas Town Hall surrounding communities in the Meeting—May 29. 2001 Second Congressional District;
Dr. Mavnard-Moody presented the • Retaining Fort Riley and Fort education component which focused on Leavenworth in the same the Third Congressional District. congressional district;
The following points were made in • Keeping Riley, Gearv, and testimony presented to the Town Hall Pottawatomie counties together and in panel: the First Congressional District;
• Concern about accuracy of the census • Including Kansas State University in and population figures used as the the First Congressional District; basis for legislative districts: • Retaining the City of Emporia and • Support for retaining Wyandotte Lyon County in the First Congressional County in the Third Congressional District; and District; • Creating districts of equal population • Support for keeping Wyandotte while recognizing communities of County in a single congressional interest. district; and Independence Town Hall Meeting— • Support for retaining the City of June 5, 2001 Lawrence in the Third Congressional District. Ms. Galligan presented information about the collection of census data and Manhattan Town Hall Meeting— Kansas’ census results. The presentation Mav 30, 2001 focused on census results for the Second Congressional District. Dr. Leonard Bloomquist of Kansas State University presented information The following points were made in about U.S. Census data and the First testimony presented to the Town Hall Congressional District. Dr. Bloomquist panel: discussed results obtained from drawing districts purely mathematically as • Southeast Kansas, including compared to results obtained when Montgomery County, is a recognizable communities of interest are taken into community for purposes of consideration. congressional representation;
Support for the following actions was • Concern that Democrats may have voiced in testimony presented to the little or no input in the redistricting Town Hall panel; process;
• Maintaining the core of the existing • Encouragement to create districts that Second Congressional District; are easily understandable;
• Retaining Fort Riley and the
Kansas Legislative Research Department . 4 2001 Redistricting • Support for preserving the core of the Garden City Town Hall Meeting— existing Fourth Congressional District: |une13,2001
• Support for retaining the current Ms. Galligan presented the education number of legislators representing component about the collection of Census Southeast Kansas: data and Kansas’ Census information. The presentation focused on the First • Support for creating a single state Congressional District. Dr. McClearv Senate district encompassing all of repeated the presentation made in Hays. Crawford County: Full Committee Meetings • Support for dividing Crawford County into only two representative districts: Following the conclusion of the Town Hall Meetings, the full Committee met in • Support for preserving the core of the Topeka on July 12, September 6. and existing 13lh Senate District by October 2 to consider proposed expanding into Bourbon and Cherokee congressional plans. Meetings on counties as necessary to achieve the November 27-28 and December 20-21 ideal population size; and focused on proposals for new legislative districts. The following paragraphs • Support for keeping Woodson County summarize testimony and activities at in a House district with Wilson each of those meetings. Minutes of each County and in the state Senate district meeting are filed with the Division of with Montgomery County. Legislative Administrative Services.
Mr. Tim Emert, a resident of July 12 Independence, presented a proposed congressional district plan (Appendix The July meeting of the Special B:4). Committee on Redistricting was solely devoted to hearing congressional plan Hays Town Hall Meeting— proposals. The following is a list of all June 12,2001 plans presented at the meeting. Copies of state maps that display each proposal are Dr. Joseph Aistrup of Fort Hays State included in Appendix B. Detailed maps University presented information about are filed with the Committee minutes. A the collection of Census data and Kansas’ summary of all congressional plans Census results. Dr. Aistrup’s presentation presented to the Committee during the focused on the First Congressional interim can be found in Appendix C. District. • Congressional Plan 1 presented by Dr. George McClearv of the University Senator Hensley and Representative of Kansas presented noncensus data Findley (Appendix B: 1); based on an analysis that groups the population by economic interests into 62 • Svaty presented by Ron Svaty, a categories. Dr. McClearv presented a resident of Ellsworth (Appendix B:3); congressional redistricting plan based on communities of interest created from those data (Appendix B:5).
Legislative Research Department - 5 - 2001 Redistricting • Emert 1 presented by former Senator Tim Emert, of Independence • A report on recalculation of the 2000 (Appendix B:4); Census for purposes of legislative redistricting and the history of the • M cClean’ presented by Dr. George state census process provided by Mike McClearv (Appendix B:5); Brassell, Project Manager and Brad Brvant. Deputy Assistant Secretary of • Jones for 7-12 presented by Mrs. Jean State; and Jones, a resident of Johnson County (Appendix B:6). (This plan replaced • Reports from the Republican and the original Jones presented at the Democrat caucuses of the Committee. Johnson County Town Hall Meeting.); Dr. Handlev•/ concluded that reliable • Plan 3a presented bv the Flinthills estimates of the degree of racial block Task Force (Appendix B:7). (This voting among Black and Hispanic voters plan was subsequently withdrawn in recent Kansas elections could not be from Committee consideration bv the produced in many instances. She was proponents.); able to produce reliable estimates of minority voting behavior in only 12 (39 • Peabody presented by the Lawrence percent) of the 31 statewide and legislative Chamber of Commerce (Appendix contests that involved minoritv candidates B:8); in 1998 and 2000. She found that racially polarized voting exists in some, but not • Gardner presented by the Lawrence all, contests. Four of the 12 contests Chamber of Commerce (Appendix showed racially polarized voter behavior B:9); where minoritv and white voters supported different candidates. In the • Tomlinson A presented by remainder, voters were not racially Representative Bob Tomlinson polarized. (Appendix B:10); Mr. Bryant explained that in • Tomlinson B presented by accordance with the state Constitution, Representative Bob Tomlinson results of the federal census are (Appendix B:ll); and recalculated to produce data for legislative redistricting. The goal of the recalculation • HD Congressional 1 presented by is subtraction of nonresident college Representative Tom Klein (Appendix students and military personnel from the B:12). federal count and allocation of resident students and military to their permanent September 6 addresses. In addition to discussing the recalculation procedure and the cost of the At the September meeting the effort, Mr. Bryant told the Committee that Committee received: the Secretary of State has concluded that the requirement for the recalculation • An analysis of racial block voting in should be repealed. Kansas provided by Dr. Lisa Handlev of Frontier International Electoral After meeting separately, the Consulting, LLC, Washington, D.C.; Republican and Democrat caucuses of the
Kansas Legislative Research Department 2001 Redistricting Committee presented their reports. of Riley, Pottawatomie, and Geary counties; N a t i v e American The Republican caucus reported reservations; and other racial and establishing the following priorities: ethnic minority populations.
• Wyandotte and Johnson counties • Any final plan must be created with a should not be separated and should good faith effort to achieve one person, comprise the core of the Third one vote, while adhering to traditional Congressional District; principles of redistricting, the caucus’ priorities, and guidelines adopted by • Reno County should remain in the the Committee. First Congressional District; • Recognize that one plan. Congressional • Harvey and Montgomery counties Plan 1, was made public on April 19. should remain in the Fourth 2001, and presented to the Committee Congressional District; on May 16, 2001. This presentation was made prior to any partisan data • Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth being made available to any members should remain in the same district; of the Committee.
• Pottawatomie, Geary, and Riley • Concur with the statement made at a counties should remain together with Town Flail Meeting: “To unnecessarily Fort Rilev and Fort Leavenworth in split the city of Lawrence into two the Second Congressional District; parts when other accommodations and could be made is also a proposal that I believe is purely political.” • Geographic changes to existing districts should be minimized. • The Democrat caucus believes that the final redistricting plan should not only The most significant unresolved issue be based on one person, one vote, but identified by the caucus was which it also should avoid partisan congressional district Lawrence and gerrymandering and needless splitting Douglas County should be in. of cities.
The Democrat caucus of the The following congressional plans Committee reported establishing the were submitted to the Committee for following priorities, in this order: consideration:
• Achieve the goal of one person, one • Jones 7-27 submitted by Mrs. Jean vote by making a redistricting plan Jones, a resident of Johnson County with the smallest deviation possible. (Appendix B:13J;
• Recognize, retain, and reunite • Option G submitted by Senators communities of interest and prevent Praeger and Oleen (Appendix B:14); the needless splitting of voting districts (YTDs); cities; the Unified • Option H submitted by Senators Government of Wyandotte County; Praeger and Oleen (Appendix B:15); Southeast Kansas; the tri-county area egislative Research Department 2001 Redistricting • Option J submitted by Senators southwest corner of Kingman County Praeger and Oleen (Appendix B: 16); are added to the First Congressional District; • Caucus 1 submitted by the Republican caucus of the Committee (Appendix • The overall deviation from the ideal B: 17); population for the plan is 132 people. The First Congressional District is 65 • Caucus 2 submitted by the Republican people over the ideal and the Third caucus of the Committee (Appendix Congressional District is 67 people B: 18); and under the ideal: and
• Caucus 3 submitted by the Republican • Highway 10 in Douglas County is the caucus of the Committee (Appendix dividing line between the Third and B:19). Second Congressional Districts with evervthing north of the highway to the
October 2 countvm/ line included in the Third Congressional District and everything At the October meeting, ten additional south of Highway 10 included in the congressional district plans were Second Congressional District. The submitted by the Republican caucus of area within the city of Lawrence that is the Committee. Statewide maps of each included in Third Congressional of those plans. Caucus A through I. can be District is bounded by 23rd found in Appendix B:20 through 28. Street/Clinton Parkway; 15lh Street, Detailed maps are filed with the including the University of Kansas Committee’s minutes. West Campus; Iowa: and 6lh Street north to the Kansas River. Caucus J (Appendix B:29) submitted by the Committee’s Republican caucus Caucus J was adopted by the was described as having the following Committee for introduction to the 2002 characteristics: Legislature.
• The plan makes few changes to most Legislative Redistricting of the districts: The Committee held two meetings for
• Most of Nemaha Countvm/ and all of the purpose of discussing and preparing Geary County, except for Fort Riley, House and Senate district plan proposals are added to the First Congressional for introduction to the 2002 Legislature. District; Those meetings were November 27 and 28 and December 20 and 21. The November • Most of the City of Lawrence and rural meeting was devoted to small groups of Douglas County are added to the Committee members working on plans at Second Congressional District; computers in the Statehouse. The Committee did not discuss as a whole any • Most of the City of Lawrence and rural proposed plans at the November meeting. Douglas County are removed from the Third Congressional District; Prior to the December meeting the Committee’s House Republican caucus • North Newton and a township on the submitted a plan, State House 1
Kansas Legislative Research Department . 8 2001 Redistricting (Appendix D:10-14). for Committee M inority R eport consideration. During the December meeting, small groups of legislators Congressional Redistricting worked at computers in the Statehouse to make changes to that plan. Also during The Committee members of the the December meeting the Senate minority party recognize that many members of the Committee worked to difficult decisions have to be made when develop a plan for submission to the full drafting a ten-year congressional Committee. redistricting plan. We also acknowledge and appreciate the hard work that was The Mouse and Senate members of the involved in drafting the plan. Caucus J. Committee met separately as that successfully passed out of the Special subcommittees to consider proposed Committee on Redistricting. However, as plans for the respective chambers. The members of the minority party, we are House subcommittee recommended State very troubled with this plan. House 4 (Appendix D:l-9) to the full Committee. The Senate Republican We respectfully dissent from caucus’ initial plan. Senate 2004 recommending Caucus / based on the (Appendix D:21-23). was altered by the simple fact that it fails to comply with the caucus prior to submission to the Senate legal principles of redistricting as subcommittee. The Senate subcommittee confirmed by the United States Supreme recommended the caucus plan. Senate Court. We dissent also because the plan 2004 A (Appendix D: 15-20). to the full fails to adhere with many of the guidelines Committee. adopted by the majority and minority party members of the Committee. The full Committee approved both subcommittee plans for introduction to The Committee members of the the 2002 Legislature. minority party believe that Caucus } fails in the following areas:
1. Using the 1992 Kansas court case Con clusions and R ecommendations Stephan v. Graves as legal precedent, this map's deviation of 132 people is The Committee recommends unconstitutional. We have proven that introduction of bills that would enact the a reasonable map. known throughout three redistricting plans approved by the our interim proceedings as Committee: Caucus / for Congressional Congressional Plan 1, can be drawn districts: State House 4 for the Kansas which comes far closer to the “one House of Representatives: and Senate person, one vote” doctrine and to the 2004 A for the Kansas State Senate. adopted guidelines of the Committee.
The Committee further recommends 2. Caucus I fails to recognize, reunite, or that the Senate Reapportionment retain the following communities of Committee create a redistricting plan for interest: the State Board of Education when new Senate districts, from which State Board • The city of Lawrence is needlessly split districts will be created, are established. in a partisan gerrymandering effort to
defeat the onlvm/ Democrat in our state's
Kansas Legislative Research Department - 9 - 2001 Redistricting congressional delegation. why must we take for granted that it is a purely political process? We believe that • The traditionally united counties of there comes a time when looking out for Geary and Riley are needlessly split the best interest of the party must yield to between two congressional districts. what is best for all of the people, regardless of their political party • Caucus J fails to reunite Montgomery affiliation. County with the other counties of Southeast Kansas, which appears to Stressing that this is constructive be based on the testimony of conferees criticism intended to challenge all who told the Committee that without members of the Committee to do what is Montgomery County in the fourth best for the people of Kansas, we propose district, Congressman Tiahrt would the following as our recommendations for have a harder time being re-elected. what a final congressional map should contain: • Caucus / fails to reunite Reno County with its neighbors Harvey and 1. Achieving “one person, one vote,” by Sedgwick counties and needlessly making a good faith effort to draw and splits the city of Newton in Harvey adopt a redistricting plan with the County. smallest possible deviation.
• Caucus J needlessly splits VTD’s, 2. Recognizing, retaining and reuniting which is contrary to our guidelines “communities of interest” and and which other maps have shown is preventing the needless and totally unnecessary. intentional splitting of the following:
We believe that there has been a more • VTDs common sense, more “good faith’’ effort • Cities in achieving the “one person, one vote” • Unified Government of Wyandotte legal mandate through the introduction of Countv Congressional Plan 1. On the other hand, • Southeast Kansas the highly partisan nature of the • Tri-county area of Riley, Geary, and Committee’s product leaves us no other Pottawatomie counties choice than to suspect that partisan • Native American reservations politics are driving the Caucus J plan and • Other racial and ethnic minority the process which led to its approval. populations
In her testimony before the Special 3. A final redistricting plan should make Committee on June 5, 2001, former a good faith effort to achieve “one Kansas Republican Party Chairwoman person, one vote,” while at the same Rochelle Chronister stated, “To time adhering to the traditional unnecessarily split the city of Lawrence principles of redistricting, the into two parts, when other priorities listed above, and the accommodations could be made, is also a guidelines adopted by the Special proposal that I believe is purely political.” Committee on Redistricting.
We agree. We understand that 4. One such plan, Congressional Plan 1, redistricting is a political process, but was first made public on April 19,
Kansas Legislative Research Department . jq 2001 Redistricting 2001, and presented to the Special powerful people to choose which Committee on May 16. 2001, prior to incumbents they want to gerrymander out any partisan political data being made of office because they are unable to defeat available to members of the them the democratic way, the American Committee. A final redistricting plan way: at the polls. must not only be based on the “one person, one vote” principle, but it We believe that their map. or any other should avoid partisan gerrymandering map. that egregiouslv targets the minority and the needless splitting of a city. party is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14tn Amendment and is Respectfully Submitted, subject to litigation as demonstrated in the U.S. Supreme Court case Davis v. Bandemer. We believe the majority party’s map proposal deliberately and unnecessarily targets Democratic incumbents for defeat and intentionally draws new Republican districts under the following circumstances:
1. In the 4Ih Senate district, the African- American population goes from 52.8% to 44.4%. The dilution occurs when key majority minority VTDs are dispersed into the neighboring 5,h and 6th Senate districts. This is a direct violation of our own Committee guideline 3, which states, Representative Trqy Findley, “Redistricting plans will have neither on behalf of House Democrat the purpose nor the effect of diluting Committee members minority voting strength.” We believe that this type of dilution may also be a violation of section 2 of the Voting Senate Districts Rights Act.
The minority party Senators of the 2. The 36th Senate district is eliminated Special Committee on Redistricting by dividing it into five different respectfully dissent from the official districts, all of which are currently recommendations and conclusions of the represented by incumbent Committee. We want to call attention to Republicans. The existing district is various issues that we find very troubling currently represented by a four-term not only with the majority party's map Democratic incumbent who has been proposal, but also the direction in which overwhelmingly re-elected in this the process has headed thus far. predominantly Republican district. The map proposal would place her in Their map proposal is the worst case the 40th Senate district with only scenario of partisan gerrymandering. We 15,277 (22%) of her current believe it disenfranchises thousands of constituents, rendering any chance of Kansas citizens by allowing a few re-election, while not impossible,
Legislative Research Department - ii - 2001 Redistricting highly improbable. 5. In Johnson County, two new Senate 3. The 28th Senate district is represented districts are drawn without an by a Democratic Senator who has incumbent, one to appease a served in the Kansas Legislature for Republican incumbent who is moving, thirty years, longer than any other and the other to accommodate the person currently serving. This district local Republican machine which is needs only 1.164 (1.7%) more people promoting a candidate for the 2004 to he at the ideal deviation. State Senate election. In fact, as part of Incredibly, the majority party map the Committee’s record, we submitted disrupts this district by deliberately copies of campaign contribution letters and unnecessarily shifting 14,799 of that were sent out earlier last summer its current constituents to the 26lh on behalf of this candidate describing Senate district. In return, 18,828 a new district that would be created people are shifted from the 26th to the specifically for him bv Republican 28th Senate district. 33,677 people, or Senators. half the population of a Senate district, are needlessly shifted We find it hard to believe the Johnson between two districts! This move County Republican machine, in collusion violates our own Committee guideline with our Committee Chairman, would 4.f., which states, “Districts should be draw a map for a candidate who has never easily identifiable and understandable held elective office while gerrymandering by voters.” This shift will only serve elected and experienced Democratic to confuse voters in both districts. Its incumbents out of office! only apparent purpose is to defeat the incumbent Democrat because the 28th Worse yet, the Johnson County Senate district’s current partisan make Republican machine, in collusion with up is virtually dead even while the our Committee Chairman, is engaging in map proposal would create a the ultimate power grab for more clout in Republican district. the Kansas Senate at the expense of rural Kansas. We believe the majority’s map 4. In Wyandotte County, two Democratic proposal will cheat rural Kansas out of ten Senators have been drawn together in more years of representation that it the 6th district, leaving the new 5th deserves and to which it is Senate district without an incumbent. constitutionally%/ entitled. This is being done apparently to force a contest between our two We recognize that the urban areas have incumbents, in direct violation of grown in population over the past ten Committee guideline 4.e., which years. However, we also recognize that states, “Contests between incumbent rural Kansas does not have to lose members of the Legislature or the representation. We believe it is entirely State Board of Education will be possible and constitutionally feasible to avoided whenever possible.” With a draw a Senate map that maintains the simple change in the map - a shift of balance between rural and urban interests, one precinct from the 6th to the 5lh preserves the core of each existing district, Senate district - it is entirely possible and protects the right of our citizens to to avoid a contest between decide who should represent them, incumbents in Wyandotte County. regardless of their political party
Kansas Legislative Research Department - 12 - 2001 Redistricting affiliation. 4. Deference should he given to preserving at least half of any In addition to the above concerns, we incumbent’s current constituent base propose the following as our in the unlikelv event it becomes recommendations as to what a final necessary to draw two incumbents Senate map should contain: into the same district.
1. Adherence to our guidelines Our final concern is with the process. unanimously adopted on April 26, As minority members of the Committee, 2001. and in particular: avoiding VTD we were not involved at any time in the splits, not diluting minority voting discussion and drafting of the majority strength: preserving existing political party’s map. While we believe that there subdivisions to the extent possible; is a willingness by some in the majority recognizing communities of interest; to include us, the process at this time is a v o i d i n g contests between far cry from the fair play and openness incumbents whenever possible; and that led to a bi-partisan consensus ten drawing districts that are easily years ago. identifiable and understandable by voters. Respectfully Submitted,
2. Preference should be given to the right of voters to decide who will represent them to the greatest extent possible Senator Anthonv Hensle\ rather than partisan gerrymandering incumbents out of office.
3. Concurrence on the basic principle mat or lanhTCee that rural Kansas should be entitled to as much representation in the Senate / , f) U/ r as the U.S. and State constitutions allow. Senator Da^vid Hefley / /
ansas Legislative Research Department - 13 • 2001 Redistricting Appendix A
Kansas Legislative Research Department April 26. 2001 Updated July 31, 2001
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR 2002 KANSAS CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING
Adopted by the House Select Committee on Redistricting April 25, 2001 Adopted by the Senate Committee on Reapportionment April 26, 2001
Legislative Redistricting
1. The basis for legislative redistricting is the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census as recalculated by the Kansas Secretary of State pursuant to Article 10, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas and KSA 11-301 et seq.
2. Districts should be numerically as equal in population as practical within the limitations of Census geography and application of guidelines set out below. Deviations should not exceed plus or minus 5 percent of the ideal population of 21,378 for each House district and 66,806 for each Senate district, except in unusual circumstances. (The range of deviation for House districts could be plus or minus 1.069 persons, for districts that could range in population from 20,309 to 22,447. The overall deviation for House districts could be 2,138 persons. The range of deviation for Senate districts could be plus or minus 3.340 persons, for districts that could range in population from 63,466 to 70.147. The overall deviation for Senate districts could be 6,681 persons.)
3. Redistricting plans will have neither the purpose nor the effect of diluting minority voting strength.
4. Subject to the requirement of guideline No. 2:
a. The “building blocks” to be used for drawing district boundaries shall be voting districts (VTDs) as described on official 2000 Redistricting U.S. Census maps.
b. Districts should be as compact as possible and contiguous.
c. The integrity and priority of existing political subdivisions should be preserved to the extent possible.
d. There should be recognition of similarities of interest. Social, cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic interests common to the population of the area, which are probable subjects of legislation (generally termed “communities of interest”), should
be considered. While some communities of interest lend themselves more readilym/ than others to being embodied in legislative districts, the Committee will attempt to accommodate interests articulated by residents.
Legislative Research Department - 14 - 2001 Redistricting e. Contests between incumbent members of the Legislature or the State Board ot Education will be avoided whenever possible.
f. Districts should be easily identifiable and understandable by voters.
Congressional Redistricting
1. The basis for congressional redistricting is the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census as published bv the U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. The “building blocks” to be used for drawing district boundaries shall be Kansas counties and voting districts (VTDs) as their population is reported in the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census.
2. Districts are to be as nearly equal to 672,105 population as practicable.
3. Redistricting plans will have neither the purpose nor the effect of diluting minoritv voting strength.
4. Districts should attempt to recognize “community of interests” when that can be done in compliance with the requirement of guideline No. 2.
a. Social, cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic interests common to the population of the area, which are probable subjects of legislation (generally termed “communities of interest”), should be considered.
b. If possible, preserving the core of the existing districts should be undertaken when considering the “community of interests” in establishing districts.
c. Whole counties should be in the same congressional district to the extent possible while achieving population equality among districts. County lines are meaningful in Kansas and Kansas counties have historically been significant political units. Many officials are elected on a countvwide basis, and political parties have been organized in county units. Election of the Kansas members of Congress is a political process requiring political organizations which in Kansas are developed in county units. Io a considerable degree most counties in Kansas are economic, social, and cultural units, or parts of a larger socioeconomic unit. These interests common to the population of the area, generally termed “community of interests” should be considered during the creation of congressional districts.
5. Districts should be as compact as possible and contiguous, subject to the requirement of guideline No. 2.
Kansas Legislative Research Department - 15 - 2001 Redistricting Appendix B
Plan Name Pase
Congressional Plan 1 B:1 Jones B:2 Svaty B:3 Emert 1 B:4 McCleary B:5 Jones 7-12 B:6 Plan 3a B:7 Peabodv B:8 Gardner B:9 Tomlinson A B:10 Tomlinson B B:11 Plan HD Congressional 1 B: 12 Jones 7-27 B: 13 Option G B:14 Option H B:15 Option J B: 16 Caucus 1 B:17 Caucus 2 B:18 Caucus 3 B: 19 Caucus A B:20 Caucus B B:21 Caucus C B:22 CaucusD B:23 CaucusE B:24 Caucus F B:25 Caucus G B:26 CaucusH B:27 Caucus 1 B:28 C aucusJ B:29
y nsas Legislative Research Department - 16 - 2001 Redistricting Congressional Plan 1
CN RA DC NT PL SM JW
SH TH SD GH RO OB I MC
WA LG GO TR EL RS
GL WH SC LE NS RH BT 1 PN HM KE FI HG SF ED GY FO PR GT HS KW
— - ME CA BA MT SV sw CM
Plan Name: Congressional Plan 1 Kansas Legislative Research Department June 26, 2001
Map Layers D is tric t # P opulation D eviation % D eviation dJjDistrict 1 672,105 0 0.00% |____|County 2 672,108 3 0.00% 0 20 40 60 3 672,101 -4 -0.00% 4 672,104 -1 -0.00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-1 2001 Redistrictmq Jones
Plan Name: Jones for klrd TR Kansas Legislative Research Department June 22, 2001
Map Layers District # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 705.393 33,288 4.9 5% £ 3 ° ' str'ct | |County 2 671,495 -610 -0.09% 0_____ 20 40_____60 3 637.319 -34,786 -5.18% 4 674.211 2,106 0.31% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-2 2001 RpHi<;frirlinn Svaty
CN RA DC NT PL SM JW RP WS
CDp rv SH TH SD GH RO OB MC CY 1 OT LC WA LG GO TR EL RS DK
I CA j I I ew
GL WH sc LE NS RH BT — ■ < MP MN RC
HM FI ------%_/— RN
ST HS
....1*1 c DA * * m SW CM HP
Plan Name: Svaty Kansas Legislative Research Department May 25, 2001
Map Layers District U Population Deviation % Deviation 1 665,145 -6,9 60 -1 04% [j^Dlstrlct [____)County 2 673.402 1.297 0 19% 0_____ 20 40____60 3 677.659 5.554 0.83% 4 672,212 107 0 02% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-3 2001 Redistricting Emert 1
Plan Name: Emert 1 for klrd TR Kansas Legislative Research Department June 26, 2001
Map Layers District # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 672,143 38 0.01% I ICounty 2 672,141 36 0.01% l^jDistrlct 0 20 40 60 3 672,094 -11 -0% 4 672,040 -65 -0.01 % Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-4 2001 R&districtincj McCleary
Plan Name McCleary 6-30-01 LL Kansas Legislative Research Department June 29, 2001
Map Layers D istrict # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 672,256 151 0.02% ^County 2 672,076 -29 -0% 0 20 40 60 3 672,119 14 0% 4 671,967 -138 -0 02% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-5 2001 Redistricting Jones for 7-12
Plan Name: Jones for 7-12 for klrd TR Kansas Legislative Research Department July 5, 2001 District# Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers 1 672.075 -30 -0% C3|District 2 671,954 -151 -0.02% ]C ounty 3 672,241 136 0.02% 0 20 40_____60 4 672,148 43 0.01 % Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-6 2001 Redistrictinq Plan 3a
1 CN RA DC NT PL
* I SM TH SD GH RO
9 wa LG GO TR EL
1 gl WH SC LE MS RH 1 PN 1 hm KE FI HG ED 1 |~GY FO 1ST GT HS KW
Mb 17. £ mt S V SW CM
Plan Name: Plan 3a for klrd TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department June 26, 2001
Map Layers D istrict t t Population Doviation % Doviation 1 672,100 -5 -0.00% ^^|District |____]County 2 672,131 26 0 00% 3 672,111 6 0 00% 0 20 4 0 60 4 672.076 -29 -0.00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-7 2001 Redistricting Peabody
Plan Name: Peabody for klrd TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department June 29, 2001
Map Layers District U Population Doviation % Doviation H^jDistrict 1 672,091 -14 -0.00% j____jCounty 2 672,099 -6 -0.00% 0_____ 20 40 60 3 672.105 0 0.00% 4 672.123 18 0.00% Miles
Kansas Leptstatwo Research Department Appendix R-ft POO 1 Redisfrirfino Gardner
RA DC NT PL SM JW RP WS MS NM BR 1 CN DP
I CD AT 1 SH TH SD GH RO OB MC CY I RL / PT JA JF LV OT LC ■ x : SN RS WB WA LG GO TR EL DK I GE SA ° 3 EW MR OS LY FR Ml 1 GL WH SC LE 1^S RH BT MP MN 1 RC CS CF PN AN LN HM KE FI HG SF RN HV ED BU GW WO ■ AL BB GY FO SG PR ST GT HS KW KM WL ■ NO CR EK
ME CA BA SU CL MT SV SW CM HP MG LB CQ CK
Plan Name: Gardner for klrd TR Kansas Legislative Research Department June 26, 2001
Map Layers D istrict U Population Deviation % Deviation District 1 672.091 -14 -0.00% [ jCounty 2 672.077 -28 -0 00% 0 20____ 40 60 3 672,127 22 0 00% 4 672,123 18 0.00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-9 2001 Redistricting Tomlinson A
Plan Name: M2_Tomlinson A for KLRD TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department July 5, 2001
District # Population Deviation 7. Deviation Map Layers 1 672.127 22 0% CJ^Distrlct 2 672,095 -10 -0% [ ]County 3 672.092 -13 -0 7 . 0 20 40 60 4 672,104 -1 -0 7 . Miles
Legislative Research Department Apr>«ndix B-10 onn-1 ------Tomlinson B
Plan Name: M2 Tomlinson BforKLRDTR Kansas Legislative Research Department July 5, 2001
Map Layers District # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 672.126 21 0 00% J 3 Z I D istrict ]C o u n ty 2 672.113 8 0 00% 0 20 40 60 3 672.092 -13 -0.00% 4 672.087 -18 -0 00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-11 2001 Redistricting Plan HD Congressional 1
Plan Name: Plan HD Congressional 1 for KLRD TR Kansas Legislative Research Department July 5, 2001
District # Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers District 1 672.115 10 0% 2 672.120 15 0% [ ~~)County 20 40 60 • 3 672,101 -4 o 4 672,082 -23 -0% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department AnnonHiv R.10 Jones 7-27
Plan Name M6 .Jones 7-27 TR Kansas Legislative Research Department August 1, 2001
Map Layers District U Population Doviation % Doviation 1 672.075 -30 -0.00% P 3 lDistrict 2 672,105 0 0.00% ~]County 3 672.090 -15 -0 00% 0 20 40 60 4 672.148 43 0.01% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-13 2001 Redistricting Option G
Plan Name m3tl_Option G 7-11-01 for klrd El TR Kansas Legislative Research Department August 9, 2001
District# Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers 1 672.098 -7 -0 00% [ 3 District 2 672,109 4 0.00% | [County 0 20 40 60 3 672,095 -10 •0.00% 4 672,116 11 0.00% Miles
artooc* t O Option H
Plan Name: m3tLOption H 7-17-01 El TR Kansas Legislative Research Department August 10, 2001
D istrict # Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers 1 672.102 -3 -0.00% l^jDistrlct 2 672.108 3 0.00% | |County 3 672,106 1 0 00% 0_____ 20 40_____60 4 672,102 -3 -0 00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-15 2001 Redislricting Option J
Plan Name: m3tl_0ption J 7-20-01 for klrd El TR Kansas Legislative Research Department August 10, 2001
Map Layers District ft Population Doviation % Doviation 1 672,111 6 0.00% ^^District [___ |County 2 672,098 -7 -0.00% 3 672,109 4 0.00% 0_____ 20 40 60 4 672,100 -5 -0.00% Miles
Woncac t antclotiw/N D _t Caucus 1
Plan Name m3.caucus 1 for KLRD El TR Kansas Legislative Research Department September 10, 2001
D istrict# Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers 1 672.044 -61 -0.01% E 3 D'strict 2 671.959 -146 -0.02% ( ]County 0 20 40 60 3 672.278 173 0.03*70 4 672.137 32 0.00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-17 2001 Redistrictmg Caucus 2
Plan Name m3 Caucus 2 for KLRD TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department September 10, 2001
Map Layers District# Population Deviation % Deviation District 1 668,904 -3,201 -0.48% County 2 673,630 1,525 0.23% 20 40 60 3 671,673 -432 -0.06% 4 674,211 2.106 0.31% Miles
Kansas L©Q\s\ative Research Department Annonrtiv R-1 P OAA 4 r —\ Caucus 3
Plan Name m3_Caucus 3 for klrd El TR Kansas Legislative Research Department September 10, 2001
D istrict # Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers 1 672,117 12 0 00% [^(District 2 672,070 -35 -0 01% | County 3 672,094 -11 -0 00% 0_____ 20 40____ 60 4 672,137 32 0 00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-19 2001 Redistricting Caucus A
Plan Name: m2_caucus_a for klrd TR ei Kansas Legislative Research Department September 25, 2001
District # Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers 1 672.109 4 0 00% ^jDistrict 2 672,119 14 0 00% [ JCounty 3 672,137 32 0 00% 0 20 40 60 4 672,053 -52 -0.01% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Annendix R-?0 o n n a n —i:.i i Caucus B
Plan Name M2 Caucus B for KLRD TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department September 25, 2001 Map Layers District # Population Deviation % Deviation C 3 District 1 672,037 -68 -0.01% 2 672,015 -90 -0.01% |___ ]County 0 20 40 60 3 672,278 173 0.03% 4 672.088 -17 -0.00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-21 2001 Redistricting Caucus C
Plan Name: m2_caucus_c for klrd tr ei Kansas Legislative Research Department September 26, 2001
District # Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers 1 672.099 -6 -0.00% pjDistrict 2 672.137 32 0.00% l |County 3 672.094 -11 -0.00% 0_____ 20 40 60 4 672.088 -17 -0.00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix R-?P Caucus D
Plan Name M2 Caucus D for KLRD TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department September 26, 2001
Map Layers District # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 672.115 10 0 00% ^^jDistrict | |County 2 672.121 16 0 00% 0_____20 4 0 60 3 672.094 -11 -0 00% 4 672.088 -17 -0.00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-23 2001 Redistricting Caucus E
Plan Name: m2_caucus e for klrd tr ei Kansas Legislative Research Department September 26, 2001
District # Population Deviation % Deviation Map Layers District 1 672,057 -48 -0.01% 2 672,171 66 0.01% [__]County 0 20 40 60 3 672,137 32 0.00% 4 672,053 -52 -0.01% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-24 onn < r~» „ .j _ Caucus F
Plan Name: M2 Caucus F TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department September 26, 2001 Map Layers District # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 672,080 -25 -0 00% | ^ JDistrict [ jCounty 2 672,148 43 0.01% 0 20 40 60 3 672,137 32 0.00% 4 672,053 -52 -0.01% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-25 2001 Redistricting Caucus G
Plan Name: m2_caucus^g for klrd tr ei Kansas Legislative Research Department September 26, 2001 Map Layers District # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 672,072 -33 -0 007. ^jDistrict [_ JCounty 2 672,156 51 0 01% 0 20 40 60 3 672,137 32 0.00% 4 672,053 -52 -0.01% Miles
Knomam Laotutattvo Rnnnnrch Appondlx B-2(» P O O 1 P oH isfrirfino Caucus H
Plan Name: M2_Caucus_H for KLRD TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department September 26, 2001 Map Layers District tt Population Deviation % Deviation f^jDistrict 1 672.159 54 0 01% ]County 2 672,069 -36 -0.01% 0 20 40 60 3 672,137 32 0.00% 4 672,053 -52 -0.01% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-27 2001 Redistricting Caucus I
Plan Name: m2_caucus_i for for klrd tr ei Kansas Legislative Research Department September 26, 2001 Map Layers District # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 672,159 54 0.01% ^^District [ ]County 2 672,112 7 0.00% 0 20 40 60 3 672.094 -11 -0.00% 4 672,053 -52 -0.01 % Miles
K.wnmam V Ro»«rtrrh Hooniimont Aor*«nrtl>» R ? n 9Qfi1 t-t r* r~f rt Caucus J
Plan Name: M2 Caucus J for KLRD TR El Kansas Legislative Research Department October 3, 2001 Map Layers D istrict # Population Deviation % Deviation 1 672.170 65 0 01% l^jDistrict |___ [County 2 672.114 9 0 00% 0_____20 40 60 3 672.038 • 67 -0.01% 4 672.096 -9 -0.00% Miles
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix B-29 2001 Redistricting A P P FN D IX C Summary of Plan Characteristics All Plans
Plan Nam e Population and ()verall M in o rity Preservation of Contiguity and (Main Proponent) Geography Basis Deviation Population * District Core Split Units Compactness * *
Congressional 1 Plan Based on 7 people or 0.00% Highest Black Largest shill is 22% o counties split. 5 that arc* Dislric Is are (Senator 1 lenslev counties and V I I )s. population: 0.0% to ol total population in not split in tin* c imeiil plan. c ontiguoiis Knee f and Representative 0.7% in the 4 district the* 2 ' dislric 1 2 cities split clue to in e a s u i e in i n 1 • i n < 11 e v) 11 i g h os 1 Hispanic noncontiguous parts 0 40— max 0 5 1 population: 10% in the 1 district.
Jones Plan Based on wBole 08.074 people or Highest Black Largest shill is 20 7% One* citv is splil along a Dislric t s a i e (Mrs. lean (ones, count ies. 10.13% population: 8.0% to ol total population in countv Boundary. c ontiguoiis Roei l lolinsnn (lotinlv) 0 5% in tin* 4 1 district the* 2'"' distric t 111 c»a s II i e III 1 II 11 i g B e s 1 Hispanic o 48 max 0 50 population: 10% in the 1 district.
M c( deary Plan Based on 2M0 people or 0.04% Highest Black Largest shift is 47.8% 4 counties split, none* that Dislric t s a i e (l)r. Ci no r (( e counties and VII)s. population: 12.4% to ol total population in arc* split in t lie* current plan. con! iguous. Him’i k Mr( deary) 14.4% in the 2' 1 district. the 2'"' district. 5 cities split along county in ea sure: m i n 11 i g h e s t Hispanic boundaries 0 42— max. 0.57. population: 100% in the r ’district.
Miner! 1 Plan Based on 104 people or 0.02% Highest Black Largest shill is 27.8% 4 counties split, none that Districts are (Mr. Tim Lmert. counties and V I 1 )s. population: 8.5% to ol total population in are split in t In* e urrent plan. cont iguous. Koec k Independence) !l 1% in 1 Ik* A 1 district tIn* 2 ' district. 4 cities split along county m ea s ii re : m i n Highest Hispanic boundaries. 0 4 1 —max. 0 40. population: 10 4% in the 1 'district.
Plan .'la Plan based on .ST) people or 0.0 1% Highest B 1 a e k Largest shift is 0.1% 4 counties split. 2 that are Districts are (Mini Hills task counties and V I I)s. population: 8.0% to ol total population not split in 1 he*current plan. contiguous Knock Force) 0.5% in the* 4 distric t. in the? 2"' district. 5 cities split: 4 along county in ea s ii re : m i n Highest Hispanic boundaries; 1 (citv of 4' 0.45— max. 0.50. population: 10.0% in the cl ass (along a VII) C' district. Boundary; and Lawrence* splil with 24.757 people in the 2 ' district and 58.441 people in the* 4 district.
(iard n er Plan Based on SO people oi 0.0 1 '%> Highest B 1 a c k Largest shill is 10 4% B counties split. 4 that arc* Districts are (Lawrence ( chamber counties. V I 1 )s. and population: 8.0% to ol total populalion in not splil in the current plan contiguous ol (Commerce) ( iensus Blocks. 0.5% in tin* 4 1 distric t. the* 2"'1 district. 2 V I 1 )s split. 4 c ities split: Koec k measure min Highest Hispanic 1 due to noncontiguous 0.42 - max 0 44 population: 10.0% in parts; 1 along a county the 1N district. Boundary;and K( 'split with 8.488 people in the* 2"' dislric 1 and 140.478 people in the 4"' dislric;!.
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix C-1 2001 Redistricting APPENDIX C Summary of Plan Characteristics All Plans
Plan Nam e Population and O verall M ino rity Preservation of Contiguity and (Main Proponent| Geography Basis Deviation Population * District Core Split Units Compactness * #
Peahody Plan based on 32 people or 0.00% Highest Black Largest shift is 10.4% 0 counties split. 4 that are I) i s t r i ( t s a i el (Lawrence Chamber counties and V I Ds. population: 0.0% to ot total population in not split in tin* ( urrenl plan. cont iguous. Roe< k| Of Commerce) 0.6% in the 3 ' district. the 2"'1 district. 3 cities split: KC with m e a s u r e : in i n Highest Hispanic 3.101 people in the 2'"1 0.34— max. 0.43 population: 10 f>% in tin* district and 143,705 people 1 ''district. in the 3'1 district: 1 along a county boundary; 1 due to noncontiguous parts.
Jones for 7-12 Plan based on 287 people or 0.04% Highest Bl a c k Largest shift is 27.0% 4 counties split that are not Districts a i el (Mrs. Jean Jones, counties and V I Ds. population: 0.5% to ol total population in split in the current plan. 1 contiguous. Knock! Johnson County) 10.1% in the 3 1 district. the 2"' district. city is split due to ill ea s u r e : m i n Highest Hispanic noncontiguous parts. 0.33— max. 0 47 population: 10.4% in tin? L'districl. Svaty Plan based on whole 12.514 people or Highest Black Largest shift is 43.4% 4 cities split along county Districts a r ei (Mr. Ron Svaty, counties. 1.00% population: 0.4% to of total population in boundaries. cont iguous Knee k| LI Is worth) 10.0% in I he 3 '1 district. tin* r'disti ie.t. measure: mi n Highest Hispanic 0.12— max. 0 45. population: 0.0% in the 2"'1 district. Tomlinson A Plan based on 35 people or ().() 1 % Highest Black Largest shift is 0.2% 4 counties split, 3 that are Districts are (Representative Bob counties, VTDs, and population: 0.7% to ol total population in not split in tin*current plan. contiguous. Roeckl Tomlinson) Census blocks. 0.3% in the 3"1 district. the 2"1,1 district 2 VTDs split 0 cities split: m e a sun*: m i n| Highest 11 i s pa n ic 3 on county boundaries: 2 0.32— max. 0.54 population: 10.0% in due to noncontiguous parts; I he 1 'district. and Lawrence split with 61.570 people in the 2 district and 10,520 pimple in the 3"' district. jTomlinson B Plan based on 30 people or 0.01% Highest B I a c k Largest shift is 20.8% 3 counties split. 2 that are Districts arc (Representative Bob counties, VTDs. and population: 0.7% to ol total population in not split in the*current plan. cont iguous R o n k| I Tomlinson) Census blocks. 0.3% in the 3 1 district. the 2 1 district. 1 V I D split. 3 cities split: m e a s u r e: m i n| Highest Hispanic Peabody as in 1002 plan; 1 0.36— max. 0.57. population: 10.4% in the city on a county boundary; 1 'district. and Lawrence split with 61.570 people in the 2"' district and 10.520 people in the 3r,‘ district.
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix C-2 2001 Redistricting x ! VI A APPENDIX C Summary of Plan Characteristics All Plans
Plan Name Population and O verall M in o rity Preservation of ( Mntiguily and (Main Proponent) Geography Oasis Deviation Population * District Core Split Units Compai Iness * *
II 1) Congressional 1 Plan based on 30 people* or 0.01% Highest black 1 .aigesl shill is 1 5.0% 0 c ounties split. 5 1 hat arc* 1) l s 1 i 1 c t s a 1 e (Kep. lout Klein) counties and VTDs. population: 9.0% to ol total population in not split in t In* ca11rent plan. c out iguous Koee k 9.7% in the 3 1 distric t. the 2 1 dislric t 3 cities split due to in c* a s ii i e : in i n Highest Hispanic none ontiguoiis parts. 0.30- max 0 40 population: 10.0% in the* 1 district
|ones 7-27 Plan based on 73 people or 0.01% Highest black Largest shift is 30.1% 4 c nunties split, none t hat Districts .mi (Mrs. |ean Jones, counties. VI 1 )s. and population: 9.5% to ol total population in arc* split in t lie c urrent plan. c out iguous Koee f lohnson (Monty) (Census blocks. 10 1% in the 3 ' district. the* 2 distric t. 1 VII) split pails. 1 citv in ea s u r e : in i n 11 i g h es l Hispanic split due to none ontiguoiis 0 30— max 0 47 population 10.4% in parts. the? l'district.
()ption (> Plan based on 2 t people or 0.00% Highest black largest shift is 21 1% 4 counties split. 3 that an* 1) i s t i i c t s a i e (Senators Piaeger counties. VTDs, and population: M.3% to ol total populat ion in not split in tliec uirent plan. c out iguous Koee k and ()leen) (iensus blocks. 9.0% in the* 3 district. tlie? 2 1 distric t. 10 V I 1 )s split. It) cities are in ea s DM' in i n 11 i gh es t Hispanic split: 0 along county 0.32— max. 0 4H population: 1 1 2% in boundaries; 2 due? to the 1 Misti i< t nonconI iguous parts: Lawrence with ft people in the 2'"' district and HO.090 people in the 3"' district; and KC with I(l.7r»7 people in the 2"'1 disliict and 130. 104 people in lIn* 3 1 district. Option II Plan based on li people or ().()()% 11 i g h e s t III a c: k Largest shift is 37.5% 3 counties split. 2 that are Districts are (Senators Praeger counties. VTDs. and population: M.3% to of total population in not split in tin*current plan. contiguous. Knee k and ( )leen) ( .ensus blocks. 9.0% in the 3 district. the 1 'district H VTIVs split, t citv split m e a s u r i*: m i n Highest Hispanic due to noncontiguous parts. 0.22— max 0.40 population: *1.4% in the t" district.
Option | Plan based on 13 people' or 0.00% Highest IMack Largest shift is 35.9% 3 counties split none? that Districts are (Senators Praeger counties. V I I)s. and population: 0.2% to of total populat ion in are splil in the current plan, c.ont iguous. Koee k and ( )leen) ( Census blocks. H 11% in tin* 3"' district. the* I 'district. b V' I Ds split. 2 c ities arc* in ea sure*: in i n Highest Hispanic split a long c o u n t y 0.22 max. 0.55. population: 0.4% in the boundaries 4 1 district.
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix C-3 2001 Redistrictiny APPENDIX C Summary of Han Characteristics All Hans
Plan Nam e Population and O verall M in o rity Preservation of Contiguity and (Main Proponent) Geography Basis Deviation Population District Core Split Units Compactness # *
Caucus 1 Plan based on 3 19 people or 0 .05% Highest Black Largest shift is 9.1% 4 counties split. 3 that are Districts a r ri (Republican caucus) counties. VTDs, and population: 0.9% to of total population in not split in the current plan. contiguous. Ron k| (Census blocks. 9.5% in the 3"' district. the 2'"1 district. 5 VTDs split . 5 cities split: measure: min 0.35 Highest Hispanic Lawrence with 23.902 max. 0 49 population: 10.0% in people in the 2"'1 district the r'district. and 50.130 people in the 3' district; Netawaka on kickapoo Reservation boundary; and 3 cities split along county boundaries.
Caucus 2 Plan based on whole 5.307 people or Highest Black Largest shift is 14.3% 2 cities split on county Districts a r el (Republican caucus) counties 0.79% population: 8.5% to of total population in boundaries. contiguous. K neck I 9.1% in the 3 '1 district. the 2'’'1 district. in ea sure: min Highest Hispanic 0.31— max 0.44 population: 10.7% in the r'district. Caucus 3 Plan based on 07 people or 0.01% Highest Black Largest shift is Hi.7% 4 counties are split, none ol Districts are] (Republican ( iaucus) counties. VTDs. and population: 8.5% to ol total population in which are split in the cont iguous. Roe( kl Census blocks. 9.1% in the 3 '1 district. tin* 2,,,, district. current plan. 3 VTDs are m eas ure: in i n Highest Hispanic split around the kickapoo 0.3 1 — max 0 40 population: 10.7% in Reservation. 3 cities split: 1 the r'district. along a reservation boundary; and 2 on county boundaries.
Caucus A Plan based on 84 people or 0.01% Highest Black Largest shift is 37.5% 3 counties are split, none of 1) i s t r i ( t s a r ei (Republican caucus) counties and VTDs. population: 8.0% to ol total populat ion in which are split in the contiguous Roe< kl 9.1% in the* 3"' district. the* 2” 1 district current plan. 1 city is split m ea s u r e : in i n 11 i g h es I Hispanic on a county boundary. 0.20— max. 0.44 population: 1 1.8% in the r'district. Caucus B Plan based on 203 people or 0.04% Highest Black Largest shill is 10.1% 3 counties are split, one of Districts arc (Republican caucus counties and VTDs. population: 8.9% to of total population in which is split in the current contiguous. Roe< k| 9.5% in tin* 3 1 district. the 2,,,, district. plan. 3 cities are split: measure: min Highest Hispanic Lawrence with 50.130 0.30— max. 0 49 population: 11.1% in the people in 3r'' district, and l'district. 23.902 people in 2' 1 district; and 2 cities split along county boundaries.
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix C-4 2001 Redistrictinq A P P I ’NIM* V < A PPEN D IX C Summary of Plan Characteristics All Plans
Plan Naim? Population and Overall Minority Preservation of Contiguity and (Main Proponent) Geography Basis Deviation Population* District Core Split Units Compactness**
CaucusC Plan based on 40 people or 0 (11% Highest H 1 a ( k Laigest shill is l 5 4% •l i mint ies are split, none* ol 1) i s 1 r i e Is a i e (Republican caucus) counties and V I I )s. population: H 5% to o| total population in whic h an* split in the* e out iguous Ron k
0 1% in the 4 1 district. the 2 ' (listiic t e urn'll! plan 5 e ilie*s an* m ea s i i i e : in i ll 11 i g hos t Hispanic split along county 0 .40 max 0 40 population: 1 l 2% in the houndar i»*s 1 ’district
Caucus 1) Plan based on 55 people or 0.110% Highest black 1 .argest shill is 15.0% A counties an* split, none of Dislric is a i e ( Republican caucus) counties and V I 1 )s. population: 8.5% to ol total population in which are split in the e out iguous Roee k 0 1% in the' 4 1 distiiet. thi' 2,mI district. current plan 1 e itv is split m ensure: in i n Highest Hispanic: along a county boundary. () .ll-m a\ 0 48 population: 1 1.1% in thi' r'district.
Caucus E P 1 a n b a sod o n 1 1M people or 0.02% Highest black 1 .argest shift is 10.2% 5 counties are* split, none* of Districts a l e (Republican ( iaucus) counties and V I I)s. population: 8 (>% to of total population in which are* split in the e out iguous. Roee k b 1% in the 4 dislric:!. Iho 21"1 dislricl curre’nt plan. 2 e ities are* in e* a s u r e : III i ll Highest Hispanic split along c: o u n t v 0 2(»—max. 0 5 1 population: 10.0% in bounelarie's. the 1 district.
ICaucus 1 Plan based on Of) people? or 0 01% Highest black Lai gest shift is 10.9% b countie's are? split, none* ol Dist rie:t s a r e ( Republican c aucus) counties and VII)s. population: 8.0% to ol total populat ion in which are* split in the* e ontiguoiis Roe*e k 0.1% in the 0 1 district. the' 2,,‘' district. current plan. 1 e itv is split m ea s ii r e : m i n Highest Hispanic due to noncontiguous parts. t).2«i— max. 0 51 populat ion: 1 1.0% in the 1 district.
I Caucus (» Plan based on 10.1 people or 0.02% Highest black I.aigest shift is 10 0% 5 c:ounties are split, none? of 1) i s t i i i Is a i e* 11Republican caucus) counties and VII)s. population: 0.0% to ol total population in which arc* split in the contiguous, Roee k 0 1% in the 4"' distiic t the 2 ”1 dislric t current plan. I e ities are* m ea sure* m i n Highest Hispanic split: A along county o 2b— max n 50 population: 1 1.0% in boundaries ; and 1 clue to the 1 disti id. noncontiguous parts.
I Caucus II P 1 a n liasod on 100 people or 0.02% Highest black Largest shill is 17.0% 4 counties are? split, none* e>f Districts a r e‘ 1 (Republican caucus) counties and V I 1 )s. population: 0.0% to of total population in which are? split in the cont iguous Roee k 0 1% in the A district. tIn' 2 ' district. current plan. 2 citie*s are in ensure: m i n Highest Hispanic split: 1 due* to 0 2b— max. 0.52 population: 10.0% in the noncontiguous parts: and 1 r'district. along county boundaries.
ICaucus 1 Plan based on 1 (Hi people or 0.02% Highest black Largest shift is 17.0% 4 counties are* split, none* of Districts a i r l|Republican caucus) counties and V I I)s. population: 0.5% to of total population in which are' split in the contiguous. 9.1% in the' O'1 district. the 2"1 district current plan. 2 c:itie?s are* Roee k measiue Highest Hispanic split: 1 along a county min. 0.55 max 0 52 population: 10.0% in the boundary; and 1 due to 1 district. noncontiguous parts.
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix C-5 2001 Redistricting APPENDIX C Summary of Plan Characteristics All Plans
Plan Name Population and O verall M ino rity Preservation of Contiguity and (Main Proponent) Geography Basis Deviation Population * District Core Split Units Compactness * *
C au cu s) Plan based on 132 people or 0.02% Highest 0 I ac k Largest shift is 9.2% 5 counties are split. 1 of Districts a i < (Republican caucus) counties. VTDs, and population: 8.7% to of total populat ion in which is split in the current contiguous. Census blocks. 9.3% in the 3 1 district. the 2"1 district. plan. 0 VTDs are split. 4 Koeck measure: Highest 11 i s pa n i c cities are split: 2 along min. 0.35—max 0 47 population: 10.9% in county boundaries; 1 due to the 1 'district. noncontiguous parts: and Lawrence with 49,949 people in the 2'"' district and 30.149 people in the 3 '1 district.
* Nolo: Among the1992 congressional districts, the maximum Mack population is 8.3% to 9.0% in the 3"' district. The Hispanic population (all races) is 11 1% in the r'district. * ‘ Note: The Knock measure is an area-based measure that compares each district to a circle, which is considered to be tin? most compact shape possible, l or each district, the Koee k test computes the ratio of the area of the district to tin* area of the minimum enclosing circle for the district. The measure is always between 0 and 1. with 1 being tin* inns compact. The Koeck test computes one number for each district and the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation for the plan. The current plan (1992) m inim um is 0.36 and the maximum is 0.50.
Kansas Logislalive Research Department Appendix 0-6 POO 1 fZc+clistricrtinri Appendix D
Flan Name Pase
State House 4 - (approved bv Committee) Statewide map D: 1 Johnson and Wyandotte cos. D:2 Wichita D:3 Topeka and Lawrence D:4 Garden City, Hutchinson, Manhattan, Pittsburg and Frontenac D:5 State House 4 Population Summary Report D:6-9 State House 1 - Statewide map D:10 State House 1 Population Summary Report D:11-14 Senate 2004 A - (approved by Committee) Statewide map D:15 Johnson. Leavenworth and Wyandotte counties D:16 Wichita D:17 Topeka and Lawrence Areas D:18 Senate 2004 A Population Summary Report D:19-20 Senate 2004 - Statewide map D:21 Senate 2004 Population Summarv Report D:22-23
2001 Redistricting Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D-1 State House 4
W= Wichita districts 82-89. 91.92. 94-99, 100, 103. 105 TL= TopeKa and Lawrence districts 44 46.52-58 ErWyandotte and Johnson Co districts 14-26. 28 37.39.48 49
Plan: M2 HR State House 4 for KLRD TR Map Layers n District ( jCounty 0______20 40______60 Miles Kansas Legislative Research Dept 12/21/01
Kansas I egislativc Research Department Appendix I) I 2001 Rcdisincfing Johnson and Wyandotte counties ^£3 4 = p —j—
—— -
Miles Kansas Legislative Research Dept. 12/21/01
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D 2 2001 Redistrictinn Plan: M2 HR Slate House 4 (or KLRD TR Map Layers □ District County Wichita City Limit 0_____1 2____ 3
1 . Miles I□1 Wichita Kansas Legislative Research Dept 12/21/01 □ f MIM ST H / /* *"■' *% a, c 1 • • % \ | SG • 4 . I 89 I » I ----- r 1 \ 1 * 85 1 1 - »»• V 99 \ HU • •’ r ■ r ■ ■ i ► v ■ .-»* • at-.'' ? r x 3 \ Q1 ‘ s 1 3 • - v,---- ! L :: ► 1
r1'
87„.:
.L.MAtifU Slka-L.'j
Ltkm LLlL
81
Kansas l egislative Research Department Appendix I) 3 2001 Rcdistficling Kansas Legislative Research KansasDepartmentLegislative
77M9C9UUC Appendix D 4 D Appendix 01 Redistncting 2001 Plan: M3_State House 4 for KLRD TR KLRD for 4 House M3_State Plan: ass eiltv Rsac Dp 12/21/01 Dept Research Legislative Kansas 0 [District -j—[ | ____ Map Layers Map (County ess Place Census 2 1 Miles
_____
3
xc? Garden City, Hutchinson, ——i crf4^ Manhattan, A ' u Pittsburg, and □ D D t* __J r €•1 • ^ —j ---»— —a F rontonac i T f l . . r
r Plan M2 HR State House 4 for KLRD TR 64 0 1 2 3 Wiles Kansas Legislative Research Dept 12.71'01
M ile s Kansas Legislative Research Depi 12'2M>1
B Willowbfook
CR
101
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D 5 2001 Redistricting Plan M2_HR State House 4 tor KLRD I R PlanTvpe House
Administrator Duane Simpson User KLR D
Population Summary Report
DISTRICT K Population DEVIATION % PEVN
1 21.495 117 0 55
L 2 2 . 4 U 1.053 4 93
3 21.870 492 2 30
4 21.796 418 1 96
5 21.020 -358 -1 67
6 20.669 -709 -3 32
•j 21.801 423 1 98
8 22.320 942 4 41
0 21.019 -359 -1 68
10 21.103 -275 -1 29
1 I 20.397 -981 -4 59
12 21.857 479 2.24
1? 20.989 -389 -1 82
14 22.177 799 3 74
15 21.615 237 1 11
16 20.352 - 1.026 -4 80
17 21.718 340 1 59
18 20.434 -944 -4 42
2 19 21.380 0 01
20 22.289 91 1 4 26
21 21.689 311 1 45
A. A. 21.257 -121 -0 57
23 20.937 -441 -2 06
24 21.761 383 1 79
25 20.860 -518 -2 42
26 22.059 681 3 19
27 22.101 723 3 38
28 22.255 877 4 10
29 20.639 -739 -3 46
30 22.018 640 2 99
31 21.292 -86 -0 40
32 20.398 -980 -4 58
33 22.285 907 4 24
34 22.210 832 3 89
35 21.823 445 2 08
36 21.055 -323 -151
37 22.157 779 3 64
38 21.936 558 2 61
39 21.414 36 0 17
40 20.609 -769 -3 60
41 20.475 -903 - 4.22
Friday December 21. 2001 4:09 PM Paue I Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D 6 2001 Redistrictini: Plan M2_HR State House 4 tor KLR D 1 R Administrator Duane Simpson T ypc Mouse User KLRD
d is t r k t K Population or \ u t i o s •. nr \ n
42 20.506 -782 -3 66 4 ; 22.046 668 3 12
44 22.214 856 4 00
4S 21.714 316 1 57
41> 21.816 418 2 05
4 ' 20.118 -1.040 -4 86
4S 21.814 436 2 04
40 22.141 763 3 57
50 20 4 15 -063 -4 50
51 20.888 -400 -2 29
52 20.615 -763 -3 57
51 20.720 -649 -3 04
54 20.746 -632 -2 96
5 s 21.471 05 0 44
56 21.KM -274 -1 28
57 20.482 -806 -4 10
5S 20.001 -477 -2 23
50 2 1 .646 268 1 25
60 21.5.10 152 071
61 21.820 451 2 1 1
62 22.118 040 4 40
61 22.128 050 4 44
64 20027 -451 -2 11 _ ■> -> -> 65 20.00.1 .475
66 2 1.500 122 0 57
6" 21.201 -177 -0 83
68 20 400 -078 -4 57
60 21.055 577 2 70
70 20.585 -793 -3 71
7) 20.1.18 -1.040 -4 86
20.717 -641 -3 00
71 20.552 -826 -3 86
74 20.400 -879 -4 1 1
75 21.H i -65 -0 30
76 21.662 284 1 .1.1
21.432 54 0 25
78 22.098 720 3 17
70 22.420 1.051 4 92
80 22 441 1.063 4 9^
81 21.021 543 2 54
82 21.006 -282 -1 32
8.1 21.173 -205 -0 96
84 20.410 -968 -4 51 2 18 85 21.843 465 1 01 86 21.787 409 77 5 3 63 8n 22.153 -1 00 88 21.145 -23.1
4 00 PM Page 2 Friday December 21.2001 2001 Redistrictine Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D 7 Administrator Duane Simpson Plan M2_HR Slate House 4 for KLRD TR User KLRD 1 ype House
DEN UTIOS •• DEN s DISTRICT K Popultnon
-2 98 89 20.740 -638 189 0 88 90 21.567 -0 75 91 21.217 -161 -754 -3 53 92 20.624 284 1 33 93 21.662 -3 98 94 20.528 -850 0 41 95 21.466 88
96 22.063 685 3 20 -2 04 97 20.942 -436 -1 15 98 21.133 -245
99 21.929 551 2 58
100 22.197 819 3 83
101 20.794 -584 -2 73
102 20.681 -697 -3 26
10T 21.330 -48 -0 22
104 21.046 -332 -1 55
105 20.567 -811 -3 79
106 21.012 -366 -1 71
107 21.082 -296 -1 38
108 2 1.094 -284 -1 33
109 21.419 41 0 19
1 10 20.433 -945 -4 42
111 21.851 473 2 21
112 20.692 -686 -3 21
113 20.447 -931 -4 35
1 14 22.41 1 1.033 4 83
115 22.310 932 4 36
116 22.432 1.054 4 93
117 fate.•}-> i1 «•■>*? > 749 3 50
118 21.302 -7<> -0 36
119 22.419 1.041 4 87
120 21.937 559 261
121 20.588 -790 -3 70
122 21.239 -139 -0 65
123 20.957 -421 -1 97
124 21.706 328 1 53
125 22.148 770 3 60
Total Population 2.672.257
Ideal District Population 21.378 Summan Siatistici Population Ranee 20.338 to 22.441 Ratio Ranee I 10 Absolute Ranee -1.040 to 1.063
Absolute Overall Ranee 2.103 00 Relative Ranee -4 86® o to 4 97%
Relative Overall Ranee 9 84% Absolute Mean Deviation 566.30
Friday December 21.2001 4:09 PM Page 3 Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D 8 2001 Redistrictinq Plan M2_HR State House 4 for k l.R D T R Administrator Duane Simpson 7 ype House User KLRD Relative Mean Deviation 2 65° o Standard Deviation (v4>
Fnda> December 2 1.2001 4 09 PM Paee 4 Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D 9 2001 Redistnctine State House 1
CN OA OC NT PL SM JW OP ws MS NU |
106 120 109 CD I SM TH SO GM oo oo MC
121 110 1C WA IG GO rn EL os
118 CW
r.i sc If NS OH 8T
111 oc
PN 112 113 MM KE El HG Sf ON ,123 117 122
[ | PO ST GT HS KM 116 124 0 A MT SV SW HP 115 114 125
W= Wichita districts 83-89. 91.92. 94-98. 100. 102. 103 Tl= Topeka and Lawrence districts 44-46.52.53. 55-58 E=Wyandotte and Johnson Co districts 14-26. 30-35. 28 29.37.48.49
Plan: M2 HR Stale House 1 for KLRD tr el Map Layers [ County □ District 0______20 40______60
Miles Kansas Legislative Research Dept. 12/17/01
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix I) It) 2001 Rcdistncting Plan M2.HR State House I tor Kl R[) tr ei 1*1.in 1 ypc House
Adminivtr.iior Duane Simpson l scr KIRI)
Population Summary Report
DIST MIC T K Population DEX IATION *. DEN N
1 21.036 -342 -1 60
21.355 .23 -0 1 1
\ 21738 360 1 68
4 21.62" 240 1 16
S 20.87- -501 -2 34
6 20.669 -■*00 -3 32 7 21 402 24 0 II
8 21.374 -4 -0 02
9 2 1 409 31 0 15
10 21.832 454 2 12
11 20.650 -728 .3 41
12 21.773 395 1 85
I" 21.255 -123 -0 58
14 *> *» j f j 799 3 74
15 21.615 237 1 1 1
10 20.352 -1 026 -4 80
r 21.718 340 1 50
is 20.434 -044 -4 42
10 21.380 0 01
20 2 2 .2SO 011 4 26
21 21.680 311 1 45 ■> •> -*| ■><- - - -121 -0 ^
20.037 -441 -2 06
24 21.761 383 1 70
25 20.860 -518 -2 42
26 22.050 681 3 10
•>*7 22.101 723 3 38
28 22.255 87- 4 10
20 20.639 -730 -3 46 2 90 30 22.018 M 0 -4 05 31 20.513 -865
32 21.260 -100 -0 51
33 22.115 737 3 45
34 21.807 420 2 0!
35 21.443 65 0 30 2 0" 36 21.820 442
* 7*» 875 4 00 2 61 38 21.936 558 0 17 30 21414 36 -0M 40 21.241 -13" 006 4 66 41 22.374
11:02 A M Pace 1 Wednesday December 12. 2001 Appendix D 1 I 2001 Redistrictim: Kansas Lecislatixe Research Department Plan M2.HR State House 1 for KLRDtr. .Cl Administrator Duane Simpson Type House User K L R D d is t r ic t K Population DFNIATIQS •• DEV S
a : 2 1.076 -302 - l 41
A} 22.046 668 3 12
44 22.234 856 4 00
45 21.755 377 1 76
46 21.816 438 2 05
47 22.146 768 3 59
48 21.814 436 2 04
49 22.141 763 3 57
50 20.415 -963 -4 50
51 20.888 -490 -2 29
52 20.615 -763 -3 57
$3 21.023 -355 -1 66
54 20.747 -631 -2 95
55 20.988 -390 -1 82
56 20.567 -811 -3 79
57 21.130 -248 -1 16
58 20.980 -398 -1 86
59 21.646 268 1 25
60 21.530 152 071
61 20.518 -860 -4 02
62 2 1.896 518 2 42
63 21.050 -328 -1 53
64 20.927 -451 -2 11
65 20.903 -475
66 21.500 122 0 57 67 21.354 -24 -0 1 1
68 20.400 -978 -4 57
69 21.955 577 2 70
70 20.585 -793 -3 71 71 20.338 -1.040 -4 86 -T-* 20.737 -641 -3 00 / % 20.552 -826 -3 86 74 20.499 -879 -4 11 75 21.313 -65 -0 30 76 21.662 284 1 33 77 21.432 54 0 25 78 21.881 503 2.35 79 21.294 -84 -0 39 80 22.014 636 2 98 81 21.701 323 1 51 82 21.096 -282 -1 32 83 21.173 -205 -0 96 84 20.410 -968 -4.53 85 21.843 465 2 18 86 21.787 409 1 91 87 22.153 775 3 63 88 21.145 -233 -1 09 Plan M2_HR State House 1 for KLR D tr_ei Administrator Duane Simpson 1 > J H f House User KLRD DISTRK J 8 Population Of \ UTIOS *. DFV n
89 20 740 -638 -2 98 90 21.567 189 0 88 91 21.217 -161 -0 75 92 20 624 -754 -3 53 tp 22.1 12 734 3 43 94 21.425 47 0 22
95 21 466 88 0 41
90 21.150 -228 -1 07 9“ 20 942 -436 -2 04 98 21.133 -245 -1 15
99 21.929 551 2 58
100 22.197 819 3 83
101 20.794 -584 -2 73
102 20.567 -811 -3 79
103 21.330 -48 -0 22
104 2 1.046 -332 -1 55
105 20.681 -697 -3 26
106 21.012 -366 -1 7!
10" 21.082 -296 -1 38
108 21.094 -284 -1 33
109 21.419 41 0 19
1 10 21.945 56" 2 65
1 1 1 22.180 802 3 75
112 20.692 -686 -3 21
i n 21.181 -19" -0 92
1 14 2 1.90" 529 2 4"
115 21.653 275 1 29
1 16 22.189 81 1 3 79
i r 21.963 585 2 74
118 20.915 -463 -2 17
1 19 20.784 -594 -2 78
120 21.93" 559 2 61
121 22.370 992 4 64
122 21.805 42" 2 00
123 20.95" -421 -1 97
124 21.706 328 1 53
125 22.148 7^0 3 60
Total Population 2.672.257 Ideal District Population 21.378
Summary Statistics Population Ranee 20.338 to 22.374 Ratio Ranee I 10 Absolute Ranee - 1.040 to 996 Absolute Overall Ranee 2.036 00
Relative Ranee -4 86° o to 4 66° o
Relative Overall Ranee 9 52°o Absolute Mean Deviation 480 92
W ednesday December 12. 2001 1 1:02 AM Pa«:e 3
Kansas Leeislative Research Department Appendix D 15 2001 Redistrictine Administrator Duane Simpson Plan M2_HR State House for KLRD tr_ei User K L R D Type House
Relative Mean Deviation : 25%
Standard Dev lation 560 00
Wednesday December 12. 2001 1 1:02 AM Page 4
Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D 14 2001 Redistricting Senate 2004 A
CN RA DC SM NT PI JW RP ws MS NM BR
21 1 CD AT SM TH SO gm RO OB
40
WA IG GO TR El RS
Gl WM SC IE NS RH BT
37 PN MM KE FI MG rSF
GY 39 FO PR S! GT MS KW 38 33 ME CA BA MT SV SW CM
Plan: M3 Senate 2004 A for KLRD TR Map Layers I™ " ! District County 0______20 40 60
Miles Kansas Legislative Research Dept. 12/21/01 Kansas I egislativc Research Department Appendix I) I 5 2 001 Rcdistru.lint! Kansas Legislative Research Dept. 12/21/01 Kansas Legislative Research Depanment Appendix D 16 2001 Redistncting
G ______ 6 Ian M'.Senate 2004 A tor Kl R[) TR p,an TvPc Senate Administrator l * r KLRD Population Summary Report RICT K Population nr m a t io s % PF\ s 1 66.600 -200 -0 31 “> 65.089 -1.1 17 -1 07 67.141 535 0 80 -4 07.240 414 0 65 5 6". 390 590 0 88 6 66.093 -113 -0 17 00.294 -512 -0 77 8 64.830 -1.970 -2 95 9 07.022 210 0 32 10 00.88” 81 0 12 11 04.259 -2.547 -3 81 12 04.149 -2.657 -3 98 13 04.” 74 *2.032 -3 04 14 03.823 -2.983 -4 4” 15 00.620 -180 -0 28 10 07.904 1.098 1 64 r 64 491 -2.313 -3 40 is (>4.520 -2.280 -3 41 19 64.930 -1.870 -2 80 20 04.” 4S -2.058 -3 08 21 "0.1 10 3.310 4 95 s s 09.000 2.794 4 IS 2 } 06.004 -202 -0 30 24 68.804 1.998 2 99 25 67.054 248 0 37 20 68.32" 1.521 2 28 ^ *7 67.795 989 1 48 2S 09.671 2.865 4 29 29 68.608 1.802 2 70 30 68.801 1.995 2 99 31 70.115 3.309 4 95 32 64.413 -2.193 -3 58 33 66.335 -471 -0 71 34 64.871 -1.935 -2 90 35 04.739 -2.067 -3 09 36 63.843 -2.963 -4 44 37 67.994 1.188 1 78 38 69.77| 2.965 4 44 39 69.652 2.846 4 20 40 68.914 2.108 3 16 Fnda> Decem ber 21.2001 11 30 AM Page I Kansas Leeislattse Research Depanment Appendix D 19 2001 Redistrictine Administrator Plan M 3 .Senate 2004 A lor KLRD TR KLRD Type Senate User lotal Population 2.672.25" Ideal District Population 66.806 Summary Statistics Population Ranee 63.823 to 70.116 Ratio Range 1 10 Absolute Ranee -2.983 to 3.310 Absolute Overall Range 6.293 00 Relative Ranee -4 47° o to 4 95°. o Relative Overall Range 9 42% Absolute Mean Deviation 1.644 18 Relative Mean Deviation 2 46° o Standard Devlation 1.964 04 Friday December 21.2001 1 1:30 A M Page 2 Kansas Legislative Research Depanment Appendix D 20 2001 Redistrictine Senate 2004 CN RA DC NT PI JW SM TM SD GM RO OB MC 40 L, _ 1C LG WA GO TR El RS TTj GL WH SC IE NS RM BT RC 37 PN MM KE FI SF PN 39 34 PR GT HS ST KW KM ME CA BA SW T MT SV CM HP 38 33 Plan: m3 Senate 2004 for KLRD TR Map Layers I i Districts [County 0______20 40 60 Miles Kansas Legislative Research Dept. 12/20/01 Kansas I egislative Research Department Appendix D 2I 2001 Rcdistrictmp Plan m3_Senate 2004 tor KL.RD l k Plan I ype Senate Administrator Rob Meal) User k l RD Population Surnman* Report ■ DISTRICT K Population DFMATION % DEN N 1 66.600 -206 -0 31 65.6X9 -1.117 -1 67 1 67.341 535 0 80 4 67.240 434 0 65 5 67.396 590 0 88 0 66.693 -113 -0 17 7 66.294 -512 -0 77 8 64.836 -1.970 -2 95 0 67.022 216 0 32 10 66.887 81 0 12 1 1 64.259 -2.547 -3 81 12 64.149 -2.657 -3 98 13 64.774 -2.032 -3 04 14 63.823 -2.983 -4 47 15 66.620 -186 -0 28 16 64.283 -2.523 -3 78 17 65.253 -1.553 -2 32 18 64.526 -2.280 -3 41 10 64.936 -1.870 -2 80 20 64.748 -2.058 -3 08 21 70.116 3.310 4 95 ■> "i 69.600 2.794 4 18 23 66.604 -202 -0 30 24 68.804 1.998 2 99 25 67.054 248 0 37 26 68.327 1.521 2.28 1 7 67.795 989 1 48 28 69.671 2.865 4 29 29 68.608 1.802 2 70 30 68.801 1.995 2 99 31 70.115 3.309 4 95 32 64.413 -2.393 -3 58 33 66.335 -471 -0 71 34 64.871 -1.935 -2 90 35 67.600 794 1 19 36 63.843 -2.963 -4 44 37 67.994 1.188 1.78 38 69.771 2.965 4 44 39 69.652 2.846 4 26 40 68.914 2.108 3 16 ______Thursday December 20. 2001 5:07 PM Paee 1 Kansas Legislative Research Depanment Appendix D 22 2001 Redistrictine Plan m3_Senate 2004 for KLRD TR Administrator Rob Mealy Type: Senate User KLRD Total Population 2.672.257 Ideal District Population 66.806 Summary Statistics Population Range 63.823 to 70.116 Ratio Range 1 10 Absolute Range; -2.983 to 3.310 Absolute Overall Range 6.293 00 Relative Range; -4 47% to 4 95% Relative Overall Range 9 42% Absolute Mean Deviation 1.628 98 Relative Mean Deviation: 2 44% Standard Deviation 1.954 75 5:07 PM Page 2 Thursday December 20. 2001 2001 Redistrictinu Kansas Legislative Research Department Appendix D 23