The downloadable ZIP file contains Esri shapefiles and PDF maps. Contains the information used to determine the location of the new legislative and congressional district boundaries for the state of Idaho as adopted by Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting on March 9, 2002. Contains viewable and printable legislative and congressional district maps, viewable and printable reports, and importable geographic data files.These data were contributed to INSIDE Idaho at the University of Idaho Library in 2001. CD/DVD -ROM availability: https://alliance-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/m1uotc/CP71156191150001451These files were created by a six-person, by-partisan commission, consisting of six commission members, three democrats and three republicans. This commission was given 90 days to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries for the state of Idaho. Due to lawsuits, the process was extended. This legislative plan was approved by the commission on March 9th, 2002 and was previously called L97. All digital data originates from TIGER/Line files and 2000 U.S. Census data.Frequently asked questions:How often are Idaho's legislative and congressional districts redrawn? Once every ten years after each census, as required by law, or when directed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The most recent redistricting followed the 2000 census. Redistricting is not expected to occur again in Idaho until after the 2010 census. Who redrew Idaho's legislative and congressional districts? In 2001, for the first time, Idaho used a citizens' commission to redraw its legislative and congressional district boundaries. Before Idaho voters amended the state Constitution in 1994 to create a Redistricting Commission, redistricting was done by a committee of the Idaho Legislature. The committee's new district plans then had to pass the Legislature before becoming law. Who was on the Redistricting Commission? Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting was composed of Co-Chairmen Kristi Sellers of Chubbuck and Tom Stuart of Boise and Stanley. The other four members were Raymond Givens of Coeur d'Alene, Dean Haagenson of Hayden Lake, Karl Shurtliff of Boise, John Hepworth of Buhl (who resigned effective December 4, 2001), and Derlin Taylor of Burley (who was appointed to replace Mr. Hepworth). What are the requirements for being a Redistricting Commissioner? According to Idaho Law, no person may serve on the commission who: 1. Is not a registered voter of the state at the time of selection; or 2. Is or has been within one (1) year a registered lobbyist; or 3. Is or has been within two (2) years prior to selection an elected official or elected legislative district, county or state party officer. (This requirement does not apply to precinct committeepersons.) The individual appointing authorities may consider additional criteria beyond these statutory requirements. Idaho law also prohibits a person who has served on the Redistricting Commission from serving in either house of the legislature for five years following their service on the commission. When did Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting meet? Idaho law allows the Commission only 90 days to conduct its business. The Redistricting Commission was formed on June 5, 2001. Its 90-day time period would expire on September 3, 2001. After holding hearings around the state in June and July, a majority of the Commission voted to adopt new legislative and congressional districts on August 22, 2001. On November 29th, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled the Commission's legislative redistricting plan unconstitutional and directed them to reconvene and adopt an alternative plan. The Commission did so, adopting a new plan on January 8, 2000. The Idaho Supreme Court found the Commission's second legislative map unconstitutional on March 1, 2002 and ordered the Commission to try again. The Commission adopted a third plan on March 9, 2002. The Supreme Court denied numerous challenges to this third map. It then became the basis for the 2002 primary and General elections and is expected to be used until the 2012 elections. What is the basic timetable for Idaho to redraw its legislative and congressional districts?Typically, and according to Idaho law, the Redistricting Commission cannot be formally convened until after Idaho has received the official census counts and not before June 1 of a year ending in one. Idaho's first Commission on redistricting was officially created on June 5, 2001. By law, a Commission then has 90 days (or until September 3, 2001 in the case of Idaho's first Commission) to approve new legislative and congressional district boundaries based on the most recent census figures. If at least four of the six commissioners fail to approve new legislative and congressional district plans before that 90-day time period expires, the Commission will cease to exist. The law is silent as to what happens next. Could you summarize the important dates for Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting one more time please? After January 1, 2001 but before April 1, 2001: As required by federal law, the Census Bureau must deliver to the states the small area population counts upon which redistricting is based. The Census Bureau determines the exact date within this window when Idaho will get its population figures. Idaho's were delivered on March 23, 2001. Why conduct a census anyway? The original and still primary reason for conducting a national census every ten years is to determine how the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives are to be apportioned among the 50 states. Each state receives its share of the 435 seats in the U.S. House based on the proportion of its population to that of the total U.S. population. For example, the population shifts during the 1990's resulted in the Northeastern states losing population and therefore seats in Congress to the Southern and the Western states. What is reapportionment? Reapportionment is a federal issue that applies only to Congress. It is the process of dividing up the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states based on each state's proportion of the total U.S. population as determined by the most recent census. Apportionment determines the each state's power, as expressed by the size of their congressional delegation, in Congress and, through the electoral college, directly affects the selection of the president (each state's number of votes in the electoral college equals the number of its representatives and senators in Congress). Like all states, Idaho has two U.S. senators. Based on our 1990 population of 1,006,000 people and our 2000 population of 1,293,953, and relative to the populations of the other 49 states, Idaho will have two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Even with the state's 28.5% population increase from 1990 to 2000, Idaho will not be getting a third seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Assuming Idaho keeps growing at the same rate it did through the decade of the 1990's, it will likely be 30 or 40 years (after 3 or 4 more censuses) before Idaho gets a third congressional seat. What is redistricting? Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts within each state to achieve population equality among all congressional districts and among all legislative districts. The U.S. Constitution requires this be done for all congressional districts after each decennial census. The Idaho Constitution also requires that this be done for all legislative districts after each census. The democratic principle behind redistricting is "one person, one vote." Requiring that districts be of equal population ensures that every elected state legislator or U.S. congressman represents very close to the same number of people in that state, therefore, each citizen's vote will carry the same weight. How are reapportionment and redistricting related to the census? The original and still primary reason for conducting a census every ten years is to apportion the (now) 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the several states. The census records population changes and is the legally recognized basis for redrawing electoral districts of equal population. Why is redistricting so important? In a democracy, it is important for all citizens to have equal representation. The political parties also see redistricting as an opportunity to draw districts that favor electing their members and, conversely, that are unfavorable for electing their political opposition. (It's for this reason that redistricting has been described as "the purest form of political bloodsport.") What is PL 94-171? Public Law (PL) 94-171 (Title 13, United States Code) was enacted by Congress in 1975. It was intended to provide state legislatures with small-area census population totals for use in redistricting. The law's origins lie with the "one person, one vote" court decisions in the 1960's. State legislatures needed to reconcile Census Bureau's small geographic area boundaries with voting tabulation districts (precincts) boundaries to create legislative districts with balanced populations. The Census Bureau worked with state legislatures and others to meet this need beginning with the 1980 census. The resulting Public Law 94-171 allows states to work voluntarily with the Census Bureau to match voting district boundaries with small-area census boundaries. With this done, the Bureau can report to those participating states the census population totals broken down by major race group and Hispanic origin for the total population and for persons aged 18 years and older for each census subdivision. Idaho participated in the Bureau's Census 2000 Redistricting Data Program and, where counties used visible features to delineate precinct boundaries, matched those boundaries with census reporting areas. In those instances where counties did not use visible features to

This is a MD iMAP hosted service. Find more information at http://imap.maryland.gov. This is a map service of archived political districts in the state of Maryland. 2002 districts are depicted. The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) is the repository of Congressional and Legislative districts as well as historical reapportionment and redistricting maps and data. MDP is Maryland's designated State Agency coordinator for the Census Redistricting Data Program with the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Map Service Link: https://archive.geodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/ Boundaries/MD_ArchivedElectionBoundaries/MapServer ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS: The Spatial Data and the information therein (collectively "the Data") is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind either expressed implied or statutory. The user assumes the entire risk as to quality and performance of the Data. No guarantee of accuracy is granted nor is any responsibility for reliance thereon assumed. In no event shall the State of Maryland be liable for direct indirect incidental consequential or special damages of any kind. The State of Maryland does not accept liability for any damages or misrepresentation caused by inaccuracies in the Data or as a result to changes to the Data nor is there responsibility assumed to maintain the Data in any manner or form. The Data can be freely distributed as long as the metadata entry is not modified or deleted. Any data derived from the Data must acknowledge the State of Maryland in the metadata.

Every decade following the Census, states and municipalities must redraw districts for Congress, state houses, city councils, and more. The goal of the 50-State Simulation Project is to enable researchers, practitioners, and the general public to use cutting-edge redistricting simulation analysis to evaluate enacted congressional districts. Evaluating a redistricting plan requires analysts to take into account each state’s redistricting rules and particular political geography. Comparing the partisan bias of a plan for Texas with the bias of a plan for New York, for example, is likely misleading. Comparing a state’s current plan to a past plan is also problematic because of demographic and political changes over time. Redistricting simulations generate an ensemble of alternative redistricting plans within a given state which are tailored to its redistricting rules. Unlike traditional evaluation methods, therefore, simulations are able to directly account for the state’s political geography and redistricting criteria. This dataset contains sampled districting plans and accompanying summary statistics for all 50 U.S. states.

The 2020 Census and redistricting cycle will manifest itself in the United States Congress and state legislatures across the country. Consider the analysis of the midterm elections has been in your state. Yet even though it seems as though discussions about redistricting should be over, every year new students need to learn about elections at the federal, state, and local levels, including where lines are drawn to create electoral districts. This overview of the GeoCivics project will provide educators with materials to engage students in hands-on exploration of this process, from understanding population movement to analyzing current maps. Redistricting may be taught through historical, legal, economic, and geographic frameworks, providing an opportunity to introduce students to online mapping tools, which are increasingly prevalent for understanding, collecting, and analyzing a variety of data.This presentation goes along with the NCGE webinar from Nov 2022 https://ncge.org/uncategorized/join-the-meeting/?nocache=1866932227&playlist=8f8758a&video=d690900Geo Civics - - https://geocivics.uccs.edu/

The Reapportionment Commission adopted legislative redistricting plans on November 30, 2011. The Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the state's congressional redistricting plan in an order dated February 10, 2012

The Maryland General Assembly, under the Maryland Constitution, enacted new congressional districts under SB 1012 (2022) and new state legislative districts under Senate Joint Resolution 2 (2022), based on the changes in population reported in the 2020 U.S. Census and adjusted in accordance with Maryland’s “No Representation Without Population Act” of 2010. The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) is the repository of the 2022 congressional and 2022 legislative districts as well as historical reapportionment and redistricting maps and data. MDP is Maryland's designated state agency coordinator for the Census Redistricting Data Program with the U.S. Census Bureau. For more information, contact: GIS Manager Information Technology & Innovation (ITI) Montgomery County Planning Department, MNCPPC T: 301-650-5620

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Congressional Districts are the 435 areas from which people are elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. After the apportionment of congressional seats among the States based on census population counts, each State is responsible for establishing congressional districts for the purpose of electing representatives. Each congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in a State as practicable. The 115th Congress is seated from January 2017 to 2019. The TIGER/Line shapefiles for the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) each contain a single record for the non-voting delegate district in these areas. The boundaries of all other congressional districts are provided to the Census Bureau through the Redistricting Data Program (RDP).

This data was collected by St. Louis County Board of Elections. It is part of a larger collection (Historical St. Louis County Elections), organized by municipality. Faculty in the Department of Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis, Dr. Brian Crisp and Dr. Matt Gabel, digitized the materials at Washington University in St. Louis and agreed with St. Louis County to have the digital copies deposited in the Open Scholarship Digital Research Materials Repository at Washington University to make it more widely accessible.

This article attempts to untie whether the antimajoritarian outcome in the 2012 U.S congressional elections was due more to deliberate partisan gerrymandering or asymmetric geographic distribution of partisans. The note first estimates an expected seats-votes slope by fitting past election results to a probit curve, and then measures how well parties performed in 2012 compared to this expectation in each state under various redistricting institutions. I find that while both parties exceeded expectations when controlling the redistricting process, a persistent pro-Republican bias in is also present even when maps are drawn by courts or bipartisan agreement. On net, it appears that this persistent bias is a greater factor in the nationwide disparity between seats and votes than intentional gerrymandering.

In the latest round of House apportionment following the 2020 Census, the state of New York lost a seat by an extremely small margin: if a mere 89 people were added to the state’s 20 million population, it would have kept the seat. Political observers pointed to the Census’s tendency to undercount minority and immigrant populations as the primary culprit. However, New York’s seat loss is as much as an issue of apportionment as it is of counting: the current apportionment method used by the federal government, Huntington-Hill’s method, is biased against the more populous states such as New York. If an alternative apportionment method were used, such as Webster’s method, New York would also have kept the seat. This article discusses four historical apportionment methods – Hamilton’s method, Huntington-Hill’s method, Jefferson’s method, and Webster’s method. These methods are then evaluated against three criteria of within-quota, consistency, and unbiasedness. The article proceeds to show that Huntington-Hill’s method has produced biased apportionment results in eight out of nine apportionments since its official adoption in 1941. It concludes with the recommendation of replacing the current apportionment method with the only unbiased divisor method: Webster’s method.

This is a MD iMAP hosted service. Find more information at http://imap.maryland.gov. This is a map service of archived political districts in the state of Maryland. 2002 districts are depicted. The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) is the repository of Congressional and Legislative districts as well as historical reapportionment and redistricting maps and data. MDP is Maryland's designated State Agency coordinator for the Census Redistricting Data Program with the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Map Service Link: https://archive.geodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/ Boundaries/MD_ArchivedElectionBoundaries/MapServer ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS: The Spatial Data and the information therein (collectively "the Data") is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind either expressed implied or statutory. The user assumes the entire risk as to quality and performance of the Data. No guarantee of accuracy is granted nor is any responsibility for reliance thereon assumed. In no event shall the State of Maryland be liable for direct indirect incidental consequential or special damages of any kind. The State of Maryland does not accept liability for any damages or misrepresentation caused by inaccuracies in the Data or as a result to changes to the Data nor is there responsibility assumed to maintain the Data in any manner or form. The Data can be freely distributed as long as the metadata entry is not modified or deleted. Any data derived from the Data must acknowledge the State of Maryland in the metadata.

2020 TIGER FilesTopologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) files are a product of the U.S. Census Bureau. These files include vector data on features such as transportation and hydrography, landmarks, Congressional Districts, and census blocks and tracts.Full technical documentation for TIGER/Line® Shapefiles can be found here.2020 Redistricting DataPublic Law (P.L.) 94-171, enacted by Congress in December 1975, requires the Census Bureau to provide states the opportunity to identify the small area geography for which they need data in order to conduct legislative redistricting. The law also requires the U.S. Census Bureau to furnish tabulations of population to each state, including for those small areas the states have identified, within one year of Census day.Since the first Census Redistricting Data Program, conducted as part of the 1980 census, the U.S. Census Bureau has included summaries for the major race groups specified by the Statistical Programs and Standards Office of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Directive 15 (as issued in 1977 and revised in 1997). Originally, the tabulation groups included White, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander, plus “some other race.” These race data were also cross-tabulated by Hispanic/Non-Hispanic origin. At the request of the state legislatures and the Department of Justice, for the 1990 Census Redistricting Data Program, voting age (18 years old and over) was added to the cross-tabulation of race and Hispanic origin. For the 2000 Census, these categories were revised to the current categories used today.To view the full technical documentation for the 2020 Census Redistricting Data, please click here.

(Link to Metadata) Vermont General Assembly is periodically re-apportioned to reflect the state's changing population patterns. The current apportionment process is guided by Title 17, Chapter 34A of the Vermont Statutes Annotated. The Legislative Apportionment Board, an appointed body, proposes a draft apportionment plan. The General Assembly may refer to this plan in its enactment of legislative apportionment for the ensuing decade. The redistricting process of the Vermont State House and Senate is regulated by Act 151., which is an act relating to professional regulation and redistricting the Senate and the House of Representatives. The House district lines for this layer were downloaded from the 2012 Legislative Reapportionment web site (see link above) H. 789 was the final bill passed by the House and Senate that defined new House district boundaries.

Were the initial apportionments of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate inevitable? This paper determines the coalitional stability of apportionment rules considered at the Constitutional Convention assuming the Convention limited itself to the rules proposed. Using each state's vote share as a measure of state preference, we find that the stability of legislative apportionment depended upon the states making decisions. Equal apportionment was in equilibrium with thirteen states present, as in the Continental Congress, but when Rhode Island and New Hampshire were absent during the first third of the Convention all rules were in a top cycle. With New York departing near the middle of the Convention, equal apportionment and the Three-Fifths Clause both became stable, and the Great Compromise was reached. We conclude that the Great Compromise was partly the result of historical contingency (i.e., which states participated), rather than necessity.

Amidst the backdrop of conspiracy theory, anti-democratic policymaking, and increasing political violence in the United States, bolstering support for liberal democratic norms is of the utmost importance. Past research, however, suggests that simple information-based appeals to the public will not work, as for many, their commitment to such norms are outweighed by partisan priors. I argue instead that outparty perspective taking can enhance support for liberal norms; this study, in particular, focuses on gerrymandering as a violation of the norm of electoral fairness. Through my video-based survey experiment, I plan to show that by generating understanding and empathetic feeling for an outparty member subject to norm-violating behavior, partisans register greater opposition to extreme partisan gerrymandering even when their own party stands to benefit. I also posit that cross-party perspective taking will bolster support for policies that require fair redistricting practices. This study can point to the role that encouraging perspective in political communication can play in preventing democratic backsliding.

2020 TIGER FilesTopologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) files are a product of the U.S. Census Bureau. These files include vector data on features such as transportation and hydrography, landmarks, Congressional Districts, and census blocks and tracts.Full technical documentation for TIGER/Line® Shapefiles can be found here.2020 Redistricting DataPublic Law (P.L.) 94-171, enacted by Congress in December 1975, requires the Census Bureau to provide states the opportunity to identify the small area geography for which they need data in order to conduct legislative redistricting. The law also requires the U.S. Census Bureau to furnish tabulations of population to each state, including for those small areas the states have identified, within one year of Census day.Since the first Census Redistricting Data Program, conducted as part of the 1980 census, the U.S. Census Bureau has included summaries for the major race groups specified by the Statistical Programs and Standards Office of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Directive 15 (as issued in 1977 and revised in 1997). Originally, the tabulation groups included White, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander, plus “some other race.” These race data were also cross-tabulated by Hispanic/Non-Hispanic origin. At the request of the state legislatures and the Department of Justice, for the 1990 Census Redistricting Data Program, voting age (18 years old and over) was added to the cross-tabulation of race and Hispanic origin. For the 2000 Census, these categories were revised to the current categories used today.To view the full technical documentation for the 2020 Census Redistricting Data, please click here.

(Link to Metadata) The Senatorial district lines for this layer were obtained from the Vermont Legislature website (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/02redistricting/), while the geospatial lines were selected from the datalayer BoundaryTown_TBHASH. Each Senatorial district is comprised of existing Vermont town boundaries. The redistricting process of the Vermont State House and Senate is regulated by Act 151., which is an act relating to professional regulation and redistricting the Senate and the House of Representatives. During conference negotiations between the House and Senate, it became necessary (for technical reasons) to append ALL of S.300, including both House and Senate reapportionment plans, to House Bill H.761, the Professional Regulation bill, which was passed as Act 151, An Act Relating to Professional Regulation and Redistricting the House and Senate, completing the 2002 legislative reapportionment. For more information, please see the above listed URL.

Dear Commission: Happy Independence Day holiday! I am a resident of Boulder County and have a deep background in GIS technologies and demographic mapping applications. I've been following congressional redistricting developments from the commission closely over the past couple weeks. It's pretty cool to be able to "get my map geek on" and create a map of my own (using Dave's Redistricting App and exported to GeoJSON format -- file attached) which adheres as closely as possible to the specifications of Amendment Y (particularly with respect to equal representation, not splitting political jurisdictions -- counties, cities, etc. -- and reflecting communities of interest). I also worked to be as responsive in my map as possible to many of the points raised in other public comments submitted to the commission thus far. I feel quite good about the result and would like to share that with you at this time. This map can also be viewed online at: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::d45019ad-0d0e-41e1-8949-4325bd031b20 Highlights of the attached map are as follows: - Only 6 counties are split in this plan, fewer than the existing 2010 CD map (7 splits) or current CD preliminary plan (9 splits). The 6 splits are: * Teller * Adams * Arapahoe * Jefferson * Weld * Denver -- very minimally split just to necessarily shed extra population from the 1st CD - Partisan split of districts is well-representative of the state overall: * GOP districts: 2 solid (4th and 5th CDs), 2 tilt (3rd and 7th CDs) * DEM districts: 2 solid (1st and 2nd CDs), 2 lean (6th and 8th CDs) - Several cities/towns which are split between different counties are kept whole in single district -- e.g., Longmont and Erie fall across both Boulder and Weld counties and those are kept together in a CD (which is what necessitated the relatively small splitting of Weld County) - Variance in population between all 8 districts is <10 people - Sensitive to multiple ethnic/cultural, economic, and political/social communities of interest - Racial/demographic splits: * Hispanic population

20% in 3 districts (4th, 8th, and 1st CDs) * Black population >10% in 6th CD, ~10% in 1st CD * Overall minority population >30% in 2 districts (1st and 6th CDs), 25-30% in 3 additional districts (8th, 4th, and 5th CDs) - Two predominantly rural districts: * Western Slope (3rd CD -- tilt GOP) * Eastern Plains (4rd CD -- solid GOP) - New 8th CD allocated to north Denver metro-Boulder commuter crescent (northeastern Jefferson, Broomfield, and western Adams counties) and has a denser Hispanic community than other non-1st CD metro districts (i.e., denser than the 2nd, 6th, and 7th CDs) - San Luis Valley/SLV kept whole within 3rd CD - Arkansas River valley below Salida kept whole within 4rd CD - Continental Divide used as natural boundary between North-central districts (between 2nd and 3rd CDs) - CSU and CU maintained within 2nd CD (Boulder and Larimer counties are entirely within 2nd CD) Thank you for your service to our state and consideration of my submission. Sincerely, Laura J. Westerfield

Public Law (P.L.) 94-171, enacted by Congress in December 1975, requires the Census Bureau to provide states the opportunity to identify the small area geography for which they need data in order to conduct legislative redistricting. The law also requires the U.S. Census Bureau to furnish tabulations of population to each state, including for those small areas the states have identified, within one year of Census day.Since the first Census Redistricting Data Program, conducted as part of the 1980 census, the U.S. Census Bureau has included summaries for the major race groups specified by the Statistical Programs and Standards Office of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Directive 15 (as issued in 1977 and revised in 1997). Originally, the tabulation groups included White, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander, plus “some other race.” These race data were also cross-tabulated by Hispanic/Non-Hispanic origin. At the request of the state legislatures and the Department of Justice, for the 1990 Census Redistricting Data Program, voting age (18 years old and over) was added to the cross-tabulation of race and Hispanic origin. For the 2000 Census, these categories were revised to the current categories used today.

Public Law 94-171, enacted in 1975, requires the Census Bureau to provide redistricting data in a format requested by state governments. Within one year following the 1990 decennial Census (by April 1, 1991), the Census Bureau provided the governor and legislature of each state with the population data needed to redraw legislative districts. This collection contains the same substantive and geographic variables as the original Public Law 94-171 files [see CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990 [UNITED STATES]: PUBLIC LAW (P.L.) 94-171 DATA (ICPSR 9516)] but with the population counts adjusted for undernumeration. Adjusted Public Law 94-171 counts are supplied for a sample of one-half of blocks in the United States and a complete selection of areas with 1,000 or more persons. Each state file provides data for the state and its subareas in the following order: state, county, voting district, county subdivision, place, and block. Additionally, complete summaries are provided for the following geographic areas: county subdivision, place, consolidated city, state portion of American Indian and Alaska Native area, and county portion of American Indian and Alaska Native area. Area characteristics such as land area, water area, latitude, and longitude are provided. Summary statistics are provided for all persons, for persons 18 years old and over, and for housing units in the geographic areas. Counts by race and by Hispanic and non-Hispanic origin are also recorded.