If state lawmakers want a truly politically unbiased map of voting districts in Pennsylvania, they will need to look beyond the traditional map-making criteria, according to Carnegie Mellon professor John Nagle.
“Traditional” criteria include best efforts to keep voting districts compact, and to not split existing political boundaries.
“Why should Pennsylvania (election) reformers wish to prevent an independent commission from trying to achieve fairer and more responsive redistricting plans by constraining it to adhere to the traditional criteria?” Nagle asked in “What Criteria Should Be Used for Redistricting Reform,” which he will discuss Jan. 10 at the American Association of University Women’s meeting in Murrysville.
The paper examines whether the redrawn 2018 Pennsylvania congressional map and other redistricting efforts are fair and responsive for state voters — essentially, whether the map can expect to result in consistently competitive voting districts.
Nagle’s talk will include his analysis of Pennsylvania voting maps and the complexity of trying to create a fair and responsive set of voting districts.
There is no cost to attend the meeting, which will be at 9:30 a.m. at the Murrysville Community Library, 4130 Sardis Road in Murrysville.
Click here to read Nagle’s paper.
Patrick Varine is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Patrick at 724-850-2862, pvarine@tribweb.com or via Twitter @MurrysvilleStar.
