The geo-graph in practice: creating United States Congressional Districts from census blocks

Abstract

Every 10 years, United States Congressional Districts must be redesigned in response to a national census. While the size of practical political districting problems is typically too large for exact optimization approaches, heuristics such as local search can help stakeholders quickly identify good (but suboptimal) plans that suit their objectives. However, enforcing a district contiguity constraint during local search can require significant computation; tools that can reduce contiguity-based computations in large practical districting problems are needed. This paper applies the geo-graph framework to the creation of United States Congressional Districts from census blocks in four states—Arizona, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and New York—and finds that (a) geo-graph contiguity assessment algorithms reduce the average number of edges visited during contiguity assessments by at least three orders of magnitude in every problem instance when compared with simple graph search, and (b) the assumptions of the geo-graph model are easily adapted to the sometimes-irregular census block geography with only superficial impact on the solution space. These results show that the geo-graph model and its associated contiguity algorithms provide a powerful constraint assessment tool to political districting stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Altman, M.: Is automation the answer? The computational complexity of automated redistricting. Rutgers Comput. Technol. Law J. 23(1), 81–142 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bozkaya, B., Erkut, E., Laporte, G.: A tabu search heuristic and adaptive memory procedure for political districting. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 144(1), 12–26 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Burnett, K.D.: Congressional apportionment. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-08.pdf (2011). Accessed 29 Dec 2011

  4. 4.

    Butler, D., Cain, B.E.: Congressional Redistricting: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives. MacMillan Publishing Company, New York (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    D’Amico, S.J., Wang, S.J., Batta, R., Rump, C.M.: A simulated annealing approach to police district design. Comput. Oper. Res. 29, 667–684 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    di Cortona, P.G., Manzi, C., Pennisi, A., Ricca, F., Simeone, B.: Evaluation and Optimization of Electoral Systems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Drexl, A., Haase, K.: Fast approximation methods for sales force deployment. Manag. Sci. 45(10), 1307–1323 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Horowitz, E., Sahni, S.: Fundamentals of Computer Algorithms. Computer Science Press, Rockville (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kalcsics, J., Nickel, S., Schröder, M.: Towards a unified territorial design approach—applications, algorithms and GIS integration. TOP 13(1), 1–56 (2005)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kernighan, B.W., Lin, S.: An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 49(1), 291–307 (1970)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    King, D.M.: Graph theory models and algorithms for political districting: an approach to inform public policy. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2012)

  12. 12.

    King, D.M., Jacobson, S.H., Sewell, E.C.: Efficient geo-graph contiguity and hole algorithms for geographic zoning and dynamic plane graph partitioning. Math. Program. Ser. A 149(1–2), 425–457 (2015)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    King, D.M., Jacobson, S.H., Sewell, E.C., Cho, W.K.T.: Geo-graphs: an efficient model for enforcing contiguity and hole constraints in planar graph partitioning. Oper. Res. 60(5), 1213–1228 (2012)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mehrotra, A., Johnson, E.L., Nemhauser, G.L.: An optimization based heuristic for political districting. Manag. Sci. 44(8), 1100–1114 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Missouri Census Data Center: MABLE/Geocorr2010: Geographic correspondence engine with census 2010 geography. http://mcdc1.missouri.edu/MableGeocorr/geocorr2010.html (2011). Accessed 29 Dec 2011

  16. 16.

    Public Mapping Project: About the data. http://www.publicmapping.org/resources/data (2011). Accessed 29 Dec 2011

  17. 17.

    Ricca, F.: A multicriteria districting heuristic for the aggregation of zones and its use in computing origin-destination matrices. INFOR 42(1), 61–77 (2004)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ricca, F., Scozzari, A., Simeone, B.: Weighted Voronoi region algorithms for political districting. Math. Comput. Model. 48(9), 1468–1477 (2008)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ricca, F., Scozzari, A., Simeone, B.: Political districting: from classical models to recent approaches. 4OR 9(3), 223–254 (2011)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ricca, F., Simeone, B.: Local search algorithms for political districting. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 189, 1409–1426 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Schwartzberg, J.E.: Reapportionment, gerrymanders, and the notion of compactness. Minn. Law Rev. 50, 443–452 (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Shirabe, T.: A model of contiguity for spatial unit allocation. Geogr. Anal. 37(1), 2–16 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Shirabe, T.: Districting modeling with exact contiguity constraints. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 36(6), 1053–1066 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Tarjan, R.: Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 1(2), 146–160 (1972)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Theobald, D.M.: Understanding topology and shapefiles. ArcUser. http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0401/topo.html (2001). Accessed 12 May 2011, April–June

  26. 26.

    United States Census Bureau: 2010 Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2010/tgrshp2010.html (2011). Accessed 29 Dec 2011

  27. 27.

    United States Census Bureau: Tallies of census blocks by state or state equivalent. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/2010census/census_block_tally.html (2011). Accessed 27 May 2011

  28. 28.

    Webster, G.R.: Reflections on current criteria to evaluate redistricting plans. Polit. Geogr. 32, 3–14 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Yamada, T.: A mini-max spanning forest approach to the political districting problem. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 40(5), 471–477 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The computational work was conducted with support from the Simulation and Optimization Laboratory at the University of Illinois. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation [IIS-0827540]. The second author was supported in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research [FA9550-10-1-0387, FA9550-15-1-0100]. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, the National Science Foundation, or the United States Government. This work originally appeared in the Ph.D. dissertation of the first author [11].

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. M. King.

Additional information

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation [IIS-0827540]. The second author was supported in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research [FA9550-10-1-0387, FA9550-15-1-0100].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, D.M., Jacobson, S.H. & Sewell, E.C. The geo-graph in practice: creating United States Congressional Districts from census blocks. Comput Optim Appl 69, 25–49 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-017-9936-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Planar graphs
  • Graph partitioning
  • Geographic districting
  • Graph connectivity