2010 Quality Control

[christopherkenny]

This issue will document the second round of quality control. There are new checks in finalize_analysis() which are run if year == 2010.
Not everything can be checked automatically, so this will document the manual QC round. The new function quality_control() will help with this round of manual checks!

Alabama

Author: @mzwu
QC: @Aneetej

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Arizona

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @CoryMcCartan

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• AZ 2010 Rules #192
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Arkansas

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @tylersimko

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

California

Author: @mzwu
QC: @emmaebowe

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Colorado

Author: @kevpwang
QC: @mzwu

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Connecticut

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @emmaebowe

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Florida

Author: @taransamarth
QC: @christopherkenny

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Georgia

Author: @Jfer09
QC: @tylersimko

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Hawaii

Author: @taransamarth
QC: @mzhao80

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Idaho

Author: @emmaebowe
QC: @kevpwang

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Illinois

Author: @Jfer09
QC: @emmaebowe

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Indiana

Author: @philipwosull
QC: @kevpwang

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Iowa

Author: @philipwosull
QC: @CoryMcCartan

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• IA 2010 Rules #193
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Kansas

Author: @christopherkenny
QC: @tylersimko

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Kentucky

Author: @kevpwang
QC: @taransamarth

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Louisiana

Author: @mzwu
QC: @Jfer09

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Maine

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @Aneetej

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Maryland

Author: @emmaebowe
QC: @mzwu

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Massachusetts

Author: @Aneetej
QC: @mzhao80

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Michigan

Author: @Aneetej
QC: @kevpwang

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Minnesota

Author: @Jfer09
QC: @mzhao80

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Mississippi

Author: @emmaebowe
QC: @CoryMcCartan

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Missouri

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @Aneetej

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Nebraska

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @kevpwang

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Nevada

Author: @taransamarth
QC: @Jfer09

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

New Hampshire

Author: @taransamarth
QC: @christopherkenny

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

New Jersey

Author: @Jfer09
QC: @taransamarth

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

New Mexico

Author: @mzwu
QC: @mzhao80

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

New York

Author: @taransamarth
QC: @CoryMcCartan

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

North Carolina

Author: @emmaebowe
QC: @christopherkenny

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Ohio

Author: @Aneetej
QC: @christopherkenny

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Oklahoma

Author: @philipwosull
QC: @Aneetej

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Oregon

Author: @Aneetej
QC: @Jfer09

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Pennsylvania

Author: @taransamarth
QC: @mzwu

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Rhode Island

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @philipwosull

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

South Carolina

Author: @Jfer09
QC: @philipwosull

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Tennessee

Author: @Aneetej
QC: @emmaebowe

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Texas

Author: @mzwu
QC: @philipwosull

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Utah

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @Jfer09

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Virginia

Author: @kevpwang
QC: @taransamarth

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Washington

Author: @Aneetej
QC: @taransamarth

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

West Virginia

Author: @mzhao80
QC: @mzwu

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

Wisconsin

Author: @taransamarth
QC: @tylersimko

• The map has the correct shape (up to VTD-matching)
• The districts are numbered correctly
• The document file contains a link to rules, if rules exist beyond federal criteria
• The document file explains pseudo_counties if they are used.

[taransamarth]

@Aneetej Very possible this is just the result of the water boundaries in Washington, but District 10's boundaries are a little off — also may need to double-check the precinct inside of 10 which is assigned to District 3, alongside the stray precinct in District 7.

[kevpwang]

@mzwu There's a very small difference in NE CD 1—the enacted district contains maybe one precinct across the border in Dixon County.

[mzwu]

@kevpwang Slight difference in CO District 2 - pictured below.

[mzhao80]

@taransamarth
For HI, on Oahu with regards to the 1st district:

In the southwest it looks more jagged than the actual 2010 map. The eastern side looks good to me where the 1st district juts out across water to capture the islands assigned to it.

[mzhao80]

@Aneetej
For MA, 8 regions that might benefit from another inspection. Some of these may be from resolution issues. Notably it looks like there is an inset of district 9 inside of district 8 (could be water but still looks discontiguous)

[mzhao80]

@Jfer09
MN:
Documentation says

## Redistricting requirements
In Minnesota, districts must:

1. be contiguous
2. have equal populations
3. comply with VRA section 2
4. be geographically compact
5. preserve political subdivisions and communities of interest as possible 
6. avoid pairing incumbents but also cannot give unfair advantage to incumbents (least important criteria)

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/2011Redistricting/A110152Order11-4-11.pdf

### Interpretation of requirements
We do not adhere to all criteria in the guidelines. We include the following constraints:

1. We enforce a maximum population deviation of 0.5%. 
2. We use a pseudo-county constraint to help preserve county and municipality boundaries.

It may be clearer to just say which criteria we are not looking at (e.g. incumbency)? I think the others are all covered already.

[mzhao80]

@christopherkenny The data sources section of the docs refers to our redistricting data files in different ways across different states ("2020 redistricting data files", which was the default in the template, or "2010 redistricting data files" if someone manually changed it). The linked page is to [https://alarm-redist.org/posts/2021-08-10-census-2020/]. Is it maybe more clear if we refer to them as the 2010 redistricting data files for 2010 and somehow mention where others can get the 2010 files since they are not on the linked page?

[mzwu]

@taransamarth This got hidden in my previous comment but in the PA documentation we're missing a link to the rules.

[christopherkenny]

Probably the best thing to do @mzhao80 is if we add a link to that old post. I can do that real quick.

[kevpwang]

@philipwosull For IN, a few differences in district boundaries.

CD 1 & 2:

CD 2 & 3:

CD 3 & 5:

[mzwu]

@emmaebowe For MD, the districts have a "240" prefix that need to be removed (pictured below). Also, the documentation file is missing a link to the rules.

[mzhao80]

@Jfer09 Got this message when running quality control on MN 2010:

Error in (function (msg) :
TopologyException: unable to assign free hole to a shell at 802507.48883659998 168395.4652218

[taransamarth]

@Jfer09 For NJ — missing a link to the redistricting rules/statutes. The sentences on pseudocounties could probably be rephrased more clearly? ("In all counties that have a population greater than or equal to 50% of the target district population, we create pseudocounties using municipalities. These counties are: Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, and Union" or something)

[christopherkenny]

@Jfer09 Got this message when running quality control on MN 2010:

Error in (function (msg) :
TopologyException: unable to assign free hole to a shell at 802507.48883659998 168395.4652218

Okay, that suggests that we need to run sf::st_make_valid() on the underlying map. If you pull and rerun quality_control() with make_valid = TRUE it should work. @Jfer09, we can update on the dataverse. I'll add to #187.

[mzhao80]

@Jfer09 in southern Minnesota, two areas that might need to be double-checked.

[philipwosull]

@Jfer09 for South Carolina the readme should be updated so the sources for the state specific requirements are more descriptive. For example [State House Guidelines](link here). Also for the Data Sources section I think the ALARM website has been updated so I think it is fine to just cite that.

[Aneetej]

@mzhao80 Slight difference in Maine as noted in the images just south of Augusta

[philipwosull]

@mzwu For Texas I'm not sure if under the Redistricting requirements section you want to add the standard lines about districts needing to be contiguous & have equal populations.

Perhaps @christopherkenny can offer some guidance.

[philipwosull]

@mzhao80 For Rhode Island there appears to be a slight difference in the boundary near Providence.

[philipwosull]

@Jfer09 It looks like for South Carolina on the boundary between District 5 and 6 there might be a discontinuity (piece of 6 in 5).

[philipwosull]

@mzwu For Texas there appear to be the following shape issues

• District 33 appears to have three disconnected parts (in districts 12,24, 6)

• District 25 appears to have a disconnected part inside of 31

• District 35 appears to have a disconnected part inside 10

• The border of District 28 and 23 looks different

• The border of District 35 and 20 appears potentially discontinuous at places

• The border between District 5 and 1 looks a little different