Assessing South Carolina's 1990s congressional districting

Political Geography

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 189-211

  Cirincione, Carmen ^a   Darling, Thomas A ^b   O'Rourke, Timothy G ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b Div of Govt and Pub Admin   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTORAL GEOGRAPHY; POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

SOUTH CAROLINA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034051892     PISSN: 09626298     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0962-6298(99)00047-5     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Anderson A.J., Dahlstrom W.S. Technological gerrymandering: how computers can be used in the redistricting process to comply with judicial criteria. The Urban Lawyer. 22(1):1990;59-77.
2. Barone M., Ujifusa G. The almanac of American politics 1994. 1994;National Journal, Washington, DC.
3. Barone M., Ujifusa G. The almanac of American politics 1998. 1997;National Journal, Washington, DC.
4. Birge J.R. Redistricting to maximize the preservation of political boundaries. Social Science Research. 12:1983;205-214.
5. Browdy M.H. Computer models and post-bandemer redistricting. Yale Law Journal. 99:1990;1379-1398.
6. Browdy M.H. Simulated annealing: an improved computer model for political redistricting. Yale Law and Policy Review. 8(1):1990;163-179.
7. Burton v. Sheheen (1992). 793 F. Supp. 1329 (DSC).
8. Burton O.V. Legislative and congressional districting in South Carolina. Grofman B. Race and Redistricting in the 1990s. 1998;Agathon, New York.
9. Cameron C., Epstein D., O'Halloran S. Do majority-minority districts maximize substantive black representation in Congress? American Political Science Review. 90(4):1996;794-812.
10. Cirincione C., Darling T., O'Rourke T.G. Does the Supreme Court have it right? Toward a quantitative standard for evaluating congressional redistricting plans after Shaw v. Hunt and Bush v. Vera. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. 1997;American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
11. Cirincione C., Gurrieri G. Computer-intensive methods in the social sciences. Social Science Computer Review. 15(1):1997;83-97.
12. Representation and Apportionment. 1966;Congressional Quarterly, Washington, DC.
13. Congressional Districts in the 1970s. 2nd:1974;Congressional Quarterly, Washington, DC.
14. Craig W.J. Reapportionment and the computer. Law and Computer Technology. 6:1973;50-56.
15. Cranford J.R. The new class: more diverse, less lawyerly, younger. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. 50(44 Supp.):1992;7-10.
16. Cova T.J., Church R.L. Modeling community evacuation vulnerability using GIS. International Journal of Geographic Information Science. 11(8):1997;763-784.
17. Ely J.H. Gerrymanders: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Stanford Law Review. 50(3):1997;607-641.
18. Engstrom R.L., Wildgen J.K. Pruning thorns from the thicket: an empirical test of the existence of racial gerrymandering. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2(4):1977;465-478.
19. Garfinkel R.S., Nemhauser G.L. Optimal political districting by implicit enumeration techniques. Management Science. 16(4):1970;B495-B508.
20. Gaulden, S. (1997). 6th District lawsuit closed for now. The Post and Courier, 8 August, Charleston, LEXIS-NEXIS.
21. Graham C.B. Jr., Moore W.V. South Carolina Politics and Government. 1994;University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
22. Gudgin G., Taylor P.J. Electoral bias and the distribution of party voters. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers. 63:1974;43-74.
23. Huckabee D.C. Congressional Districts: Objectively Evaluating Shapes (CRS Report for Congress). 1994;Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
24. Jenkins M.A., Shepherd J.W. Decentralizing high school administration in Detroit: an evaluation of alternative strategies of political control. Economic Geography. 48:1972;95-106.
25. Karcher v. Daggett (1983). 462 US 725.
26. Kousser M. Colorblind Injustice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction. 1999;University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
27. Kuzenski J.C. South Carolina: the heart of GOP realignment in the South. Bullock C.S., Rozell M.J. The New Politics of the Old South. 1998;Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.
28. Lam N.S., Liu K.-B. Use of space-filling curves in generating a national rural sampling frame for HIV/AIDS research. Professional Geographer. 48(3):1996;321-332.
29. Lublin D. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. 1997;Princeton University Press, Princeton.
30. Macmillan W., Pierce T. Optimization modeling in a GIS framework: the problem of political districting. Fotheringham S., Rogerson P. Spatial Analysis and GIS. 1994;Taylor & Francis, Bristol.
31. Manly B.F.J. Randomization and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. 2nd:1997;Chapman and Hall, London.
32. Maxwell D.W. Spatial planning of school districts. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 62(4):1972;582-590.
33. McDonald M.D., Engstrom R.C. Detecting gerrymandering. Grofman B. Political Gerrymandering and the Courts. 1990;Agathon, New York.
34. Mehrotra A., Johnson E.L., Nemhauser G.L. An optimization based heuristic for political districting. Management Science. 44(8):1998;1100-1114.
35. Miller v. Johnson (1995). 519 US 900.
36. Morrill R.L. Redistricting revisited. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 66(4):1976;548-556.
37. Morrill R.L. Political Redistricting and Geographic Theory. 1981;Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC.
38. Morrill R.L. Redistricting, region, and representation. Political Geography Quarterly. 6(3):1987;241-260.
39. Nagel S. Simplified bipartisan computer redistricting. Stanford Law Review. 17:1965;863-899.
40. Niemi R.G., Grofman B., Carlucci C., Hofeller T. Measuring compactness and the role of a compactness standard in a test for partisan and racial gerrymandering. Journal of Politics. 52:1990;1155-1181.
41. Noreen E.W. Computer-intensive Method for Testing Hypotheses: An Introduction. 1989;John Wiley & Sons, New York.
42. O'Loughlin J. The identification and evaluation of racial gerrymandering. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 70:1982;353-370.
43. O'Loughlin J., Taylor A. Choices in redistricting and electoral outcomes: the case of Mobile, Alabama. Political Geography Quarterly. 1(4):1982;327-339.
44. O'Rourke T.G. The impact of reapportionment on Congress and State legislatures. Rush M.E. Voting Rights and Redistricting in the United States. 1998;Greenwood, Westport, CT.
45. Parker F.R. Shaw v. Reno: a constitutional setback for minority representations. PS: Political Science and Politics. 28:1995;47-50.
46. Pildes R.H., Niemi R.G. Expressive harms, 'Bizarre Districts,' and voting rights: evaluating election-district appearances after Shaw. Michigan Law Review. 92:1993;483-587.
47. Rossiter D.J., Johnston R.J. Program GROUP: The identification of all possible solutions to a constituency-delimitation problem. Environment and Planning. 13:1981;231-239.
48. Rural West Tennessee African-American Affairs Council, Inc. v. McWherter (1995). 977 F. Supp. 1096 (W.D. Tenn.). Affirmed 516 US 801.
49. Shaw v. Hunt (1996). 517 US 899.
50. Shaw v. Reno (1993). 509 US 630.
51. SC State Conference of Branches, Etc. v. Riley (1982). 533 F. Supp. 1178 (DSC). Affirmed 459 US 1025.
52. South Carolina House of Representatives (1994). 1994 Post Session Report. Columbia, SC.
53. South Carolina State Budget and Control Board (1995). South Carolina Statistical Abstract 1995. Columbia, SC.
54. Statewide Reapportionment Advisory Committee v. Theodore (1993). 508 US 968.
55. Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). 478 US 30.
56. USCS (United States Code Service) (1999). Title 42, section 1973. LEXIS-NEXIS.
57. Weaver J.B., Hess S.W. A procedure for nonpartisan districting: development of computer techniques. The Yale Law Journal. 73(1):1963;287-308.
58. Wesberry v. Sanders (1964). 376 US 1.