A Spatiotemporal Compactness Pattern Analysis of Congressional Districts to Assess Partisan Gerrymandering: A Case Study with California and North Carolina

References

• Angel, S., and J. Parent. 2011. Non-compactness as voter exchange: Towards a constitutional cure for gerrymandering. Northwestern Interdisciplinary Law Review 4:89–145.
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. J. 2012. Social choice and individual values. 3rd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bação, F., V. Lobo, and M. Painho. 2005. Applying genetic algorithms to zone design. Soft Computing 9 (5): 341–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batkins, S. B. 2008. Cracking, packing, and shacking: Resolving gerrymandering disputes at the ballot box? http://works.bepress.com/samuel_batkins/1 (last accessed 4 May 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Bozkaya, B., E. Erkut, and G. Laporte. 2003. A tabu search heuristic and adaptive memory procedure for political districting. European Journal of Operational Research 144 (1): 12–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookes, R. H. 1960. The analysis of distorted representation in two-party single-member elections. Political Science 12:158–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunell, T. L., and B. Grofman. 2005. Evaluating the impact of redistricting on district homogeneity, political competition, and political extremism in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1962–2002. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Irvine, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, C., and A. Miller. 2010. A measure of bizarreness. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5 (1): 27–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J., and J. Rodden. 2013. Unintentional gerrymandering: Political geography and electoral bias in legislatures. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8:239–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou, C., S. Kimbrough, J. Sullivan-Fedock, C. J. Woodard, and F. H. Murphy. 2012. Using interactive evolutionary computation (IEC) with validated surrogate fitness functions for redistricting. Paper presented at the fourteenth International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Philadelphia, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Douzet, F., T. Kousser, and K. P. Miller. 2008. The new political geography of California. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Public Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engstrom, R. L. 1986. Repairing the crack in New Orleans’ black vote: VRA's results test nullifies “gerryduck.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 16 (4): 109–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forest, B. 2013. Redistricting and the elusive ideals of representation. Political Geography 32:15–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryer, R. G., Jr., and R. T. Holden. 2007. Measuring the compactness of political districting plans. Working Paper No. 13456, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, R. S., and G. L. Nemhauser. 1970. Optimal political districting by implicit enumeration techniques. Management Science 16 (8): B-495–B-508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., and G. King. 1994. A unified method of evaluating electoral systems and redistricting plans. American Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 514–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., G. King, and A. Thomas. 2010. JudgeIt II: A program for evaluating electoral systems and redistricting plans. http://gking.harvard.edu/judgeit (last accessed 4 May 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Grofman, B. 1983. Measures of bias and proportionality in seats–votes relationships. Political Methodology 9 (3): 295–327.
   Google Scholar
• Grofman, B., and G. King. 2007. The future of partisan symmetry as a judicial test for partisan gerrymandering after LULAC v. Perry. Election Law Journal 6 (1): 2–35.
   Google Scholar
• Grofman, B., and P. Selb. 2009. A fully general index of political competition. Electoral Studies 28 (2): 291–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudgin, G., and P. J. Taylor. 1976. Seats, votes, and the spatial organisation of elections. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, D., & S. C. McKee. 2009. The participatory effects of redistricting. American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 1006–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S. W., J. Weaver, H. Siegfeldt, J. Whelan, and P. Zitlau. 1965. Nonpartisan political redistricting by computer. Operations Research 13 (6): 998–1006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge, J. K., E. Marshall, and G. Patterson. 2010. Gerrymandering and convexity. The College Mathematics Journal 41 (4): 312–24.
   Google Scholar
• Hofeller, T., and B. Grofman. 1990. Comparing the compactness of California congressional districts under three different plans: 1980, 1982, and 1984. In Political gerrymandering and the courts, ed. B. Grofman, 281–88. New York: Algora.
   Google Scholar
• Hojati, M. 1996. Optimal political districting. Computers & Operations Research 23 (12): 1147–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, M. 2011. Can compactness constrain the gerrymander? Irish Political Studies 26 (4): 513–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, R. 1980. A theory of parties and electoral systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• King, G., and R. X. Browning. 1987. Democratic representation and partisan bias in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review 81 (4): 1251–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogan, V., and E. McGhee. 2012. Redistricting California: An evaluation of the Citizens Commission final plans. California Journal of Politics & Policy 4 (1): 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Li, W., T. Chen, E. A. Wentz, and C. Fan. 2014. NMMI: A mass compactness measure for spatial pattern analysis of areal features. Annals of Association of American Geographers 104 (6): 1116–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, W., M. F. Goodchild, and R. Church. 2013. An efficient measure of compactness for two-dimensional shapes and its application in regionalization problems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 27 (6): 1227–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lublin, D. 1999. The paradox of representation: Racial gerrymandering and minority interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manninen, D. L. 1973. The role of compactness in the process of redistricting. Seattle: University of Washington.
   Google Scholar
• McConnell, M. W. 2000. Redistricting cases: Original mistakes and current consequences. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 24:103–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKee, S. C. 2008. Redistricting and familiarity with U.S. House candidates. American Politics Research 36 (6): 962–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2013. Political conditions and the electoral effects of redistricting. American Politics Research 41 (4): 623–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKee, S. C., J. M. Teigen, and M. Turgeon. 2006. The partisan impact of congressional redistricting: The case of Texas, 2001–2003. Social Science Quarterly 87 (2): 308–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrotra, A., E. L. Johnson, and G. L. Nemhauser. 1998. An optimization based heuristic for political districting. Management Science 44 (8): 1100–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, P., and B. Grofman. 2013. Redistricting commissions in the western United States. UC Irvine Law Review 3:637–68.
   Google Scholar
• Niemi, R. G., B. Grofman, C. Carlucci, and T. Hofeller. 1990. Measuring compactness and the role of a compactness standard in a test for partisan and racial gerrymandering. The Journal of Politics 52 (4): 1155–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, F. R. 1985. Mississippi congressional resdistricting case: A case study in minority vote dilution. Howard Law Journal 28:397–415.
   Google Scholar
• Polsby, D. D., and R. D. Popper. 1991. Third criterion: Compactness as a procedural safeguard against partisan gerrymandering. Yale Law & Policy Review 9:301–53.
   Google Scholar
• Quinton, N. 2013. Political criteria, political praxis. Political Geography 32:18–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reock, E. C. 1961. A note: Measuring compactness as a requirement of legislative apportionment. Mid-west Journal of Political Science 5:70–74.
   Google Scholar
• Sauer, C. O. 1918. Geography and the gerrymander. The American Political Science Review 12 (3): 403–26.
   Google Scholar
• Silverberg, K. 1995. Illegitimacy of the incumbent gerrymander. Texas Law Review 74:913–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taagepera, R. 1973. Seats and votes: A generalization of the cube law of elections. Social Science Research 2:257–75.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, P. J., and R. J. Johnston. 1979. Geography of elections. New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, D. T. 2002. Congressional redistricting in North Carolina: Reconsidering traditional criteria. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Tufte, E. 1973. The relationship between seats and votes in two-party systems. American Political Science Review 67 (2): 540–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, J. B., and S. W. Hess. 1963. A procedure for nonpartisan districting: Development of computer techniques. The Yale Law Journal 73 (2): 288–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster, G. R. 2013a. Normative goals and demographic realities. Political Geography 32:21–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2013b. Reflections on current criteria to evaluate redistricting plans. Political Geography 32:3–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, H. P. 1988. Measuring the compactness of legislative districts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 13 (1): 105–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar