Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 37 of 48 <br />3 <br />the line of racial gerrymandering cases sparked by the Supreme Court's Shaw a Reno <br />decision.[3] <br />Compactness refers to a districts' geographic shape and how its interior is dispersed within its <br />boundaries. For instance, a circle is considered to be a perfectly compact shape. In <br />redistricting, the notion of compactness is difficult to evaluate because the line drawer rarely <br />begins with a perfectly compact shape to place districts in. That is; many states and localities <br />already have irregularly shaped borders and boundaries. Moreover, the principle of <br />compactness must compete with other important principles which are discussed below. Thus, <br />the determination of whether a district violates the compactness principle is a complex process <br />based on the interplay of many factors other than geometric shape. <br />Contiguity <br />Contiguity simply requires that all parts of a district be physically connected. Practically <br />speaking, it is a district in which one can travel to all parts of without crossing its border.[4] Most <br />state constitutions require contiguity along with compactness in their congressional and <br />legislative districts.[b] Congress had required in its own internal rules contiguity for <br />congressional districts as early as 1842,[8] compactness was required in the Reapportionment <br />Act of 1911[7], but subsequent revisions of the U.S. Code eliminated the language. Courts <br />however have made it clear that contiguity Is a de facto requirement for districts provided the <br />geography in question does not include islands.[8] <br />Contiguity, like compactness can be a matter of degree. districts can be drawn that are <br />contiguous by way of water or bridge, and two areas of a district may only be contiguous by a <br />small point. Some state constitutions are specific about whether or when water or point <br />contiguity is allowable. <br />Go to Page 2 <br />362 <br />