Congressional Redistricting: Comparing the Two Plans for the New Seventh

There seems to be a tremendous amount of hyperbole and rhetoric but very few facts surrounding
the debate as to which congressional redistricting plan, the Houses or the Senates, is better for
Republicans. My goal now is to not waste time discussing who voted for what plan and why but
to concentrate instead on the facts and numbers to reach reasonable conclusions based on where
they lead.
While this summary concentrates on comparing the competing seventh district plans, its
important to note that all seven districts were examined and the overall results were similar.
Congressional districts 1-4 are Strong Republican districts, district 5 is Likely Republican,
district 6 is Strong Democrat and district 7 details are below. Geographically the makeup of
the two competing seventh districts are as follows, the House plan has it located in the northeast
corner of the state in the Pee Dee region anchored by Horry and Florence counties and the Senate
plan has it the southeast corner of the state in the lowcountry region anchored by Beaufort,
Berkeley and Dorchester counties.
Using data from various sources including the 2000 and 2010 US Census, election results and exit
polling, I tried to answer three questions:
1. What is the likelihood of a Republican being elected to this seat today?
2. What is the likelihood that this seat will become more Republican over time?
3. What is the likelihood of the individual plans surviving Department of Justice scrutiny,
avoiding lawsuits and 3 Obama appointed judges draw new plans?

The Raw Data

The election data I am using is the Haley/Sheheen governors race, in November 2010, the
McCain/Obama Presidential race of November 2008 and Congressional races in 2008 and 2010.
As election cycles go these actually provide very good base data, as Haley/Sheheen and
McCain/Obama were tight races with energized base on both sides. The only outlying variable
being the irregularly high African American turnout in the 2008 election but that was statewide
and not limited to any particular region.
Census data provides a snapshot of population and the demographic makeup of that population on
a specific year (2000 or 2010) and can show trends based on the changes that occur between the
snapshots. Census data DOES NOT provide voting preference data or political party preference
data. The biggest error I see people making is equating the Black Voting Age Population with
Democrat Voting Age Population. Basically stating that a high BVAP number equates to a
high probability of Democrat candidate success. This misses a variable in the equation that has
helped nearly every Democrat who has won statewide office and many who have won statehouse
or congressional offices, that is that White People Vote For Democrats. While minority voters in
the state have voted somewhat monolithically Democrat (95% in the last 2 general elections),
white voters have been split (albeit not evenly split, but split). Any consultant will tell you that
the formula for a Democrat to win statewide requires 95% of the minority vote + 30% of the
white vote. And while minority Democrat voter percentages are relatively constant throughout all
the regions of the state, white voter percentages are not constant. Meaning white democratic
voter concentrations are higher in certain areas of the state than in others.
Some assumptions and adjustments were made to make the calculations easier. First since exit
polling from 2008 and 2010 indicates that the Democrat minority voter percentages were 96% in
2008 and 95% in 2010, that percentage was adjusted to 100%. It ends up that adjusting the
African American voter turnout to 100% Democrat for this case would only affect the results by

one tenth of one percent (.05x.02). I also did not include third party candidates in the
calculations. The goal of this analysis is to find out the degree to which this is a Republican or
Democrat favored district adding third party candidates whose results were consistent but
statistically insignificant does not favor any particular party in these examples.
Calculations
Lets start off with some Acronyms:
BVAP Black Voting Age Population percentage (US Census Bureau)*
WVAP White Voting Age Population percentage (US Census Bureau)*
ONWVAP Other Non White Voting Age Population percentage (US Census Bureau)*
WDVAP White Democrat Voting Age Population percentage*
DVAP Democrat Voting Age Population*
*As percentage of entire voting age population
As I stated earlier you cannot estimate voter preference or party affiliation by simply looking
Census data but you can make estimations when you add additional data as well. In this case, we
use the voting data. As I said for the base of calculations I started off with the adjustment that
minority would vote 100% Democrat (thus the BVAP + ONWVAP is the base percentage
number for the Democrat winning formula above.) So we need to estimate the likelihood of a
white voter in a given district will vote for a Democrat.
The formula I used is fairly simple assuming all minority voters went Democrat that means that
the Republican vote were made up of WVAP and the difference between WVAP and the
Republican vote percentage would consist of white voters voting for Democrats.
WVAP-GOP%= WDVAP
BVAP+WDVAP+ONVAP=DVAP
This is a very simple formula but if the results are consistent across several election cycles it
should give a good estimate of the White Democratic Voter percentage. And in the case of
Congressional District House Analysis the spread between the House WDVAP and Senate
WDVAP plans stayed fairly consistent across the last two election cycles.
Here is the racial makeup from the 2010 Census:
Census 2010 Data
House Seventh
BVAP
28%
WVAP
68%
ONVAP
4%

Senate Seventh
30%
62%
8%

What is the likelihood of a Republican being elected to this seat today?

2010 Governors Race
Haley GOP%
WDVAP
DVAP

House Seventh
53%
15%
47%

Senate Seventh
53%
9%
46%

Congress 2010
Congress GOP%
WDVAP
DVAP

House Seventh
58%
10%
42%

Senate Seventh
56%
5%
43%

McCain/Obama 2008
McCain GOP%
WDVAP
DVAP

House Seventh
54%
14%
46%

Senate Seventh
52%
10%
48%

Congress 2008
Congress GOP%
WDVAP
DVAP

House Seventh
46%
23%
55%

Senate Seventh
49%
13%
51%

The likelihood of a Republican being elected to this seat today is good or the district clearly
LEANS REPUBLICAN for both the House and Senate plan.
However, the data reveals several points, first is that both districts are electorally essentially the
same. While the Senate plan has a higher minority voter percentage the House district clearly has
a consistently higher percentage of white Democrat voters. In every race the White Democrat
Voter Percentage is higher in the House plan vs. Senate plan, ranging from 40% to 100%.
Historically, this fact can be solidified by examining recent statehouse election results. Voters in
the seventh district House plan consistently reelect white Democrat Senators like Dick Elliot,
Vincent Sheheen, Yancy McGill and John Land. As a matter of fact, of the 9 state senators who
would represent the House district 7 region, only one Senator, Ray Cleary, has not been elected to
the Senate as a Democrat. While in the Senate seventh district, of the 9 senators, 6 are
Republicans: Mike Rose, Larry Grooms, Paul Campbell, Chip Campsen, Glenn McConnell and
Tom Davis and 3 are Democrats. Furthermore, one area of concern is the concentration of
Republican voters in the House seventh, they are substantially located in one county (Horry), with
all other counties either regularly voting Democrat or unreliably voting Republican. While in the
Senate seventh, Dorchester, Berkeley and Beaufort counties make up a reliable and consistent
block of Republican voters.

What is the likelihood that this seat will become more Republican over time?
To answer this question you have to determine how the districts will change over time. What has
been a fairly accurate indicator has been growth. The counties with the highest growth rates were
also the counties with the highest growth in Republican voter percentage. Consequently counties

with stagnant or negative growth have trended more Democrat. This was fairly easy to calculate
from census data:
Population (State avg =15.3%)
Population 2000
Population 2010
Population Change
Population Percentage Change

House Seventh
570,473
660,766
90,293
16%

Senate Seventh
542,984
660,766
117,782
22%

In this case the edge clearly goes to the Senate plan it grew by a 37% faster growth rate than the
House for a total of 27,489 more residents. While Horry county has seen tremendous growth, it
was the only county in the House seventh to see any net growth, all others were either negative or
well below the state average growth of 15.33%. The Senate seventh on the other hand had four
counties with growth above the state average, Beaufort, Dorchester, Berkeley and Jasper with the
first 3 seeing substantial results over the state average.

What is the likelihood that the individual plans surviving Department of Justice
scrutiny, avoiding lawsuits and 3 Obama appointed judges draw new plans?
In order to predict successful preclearance of the overall congressional redistricting plan under
article 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 you have to look at what criteria the Department of
Justice has used in the past to determine compliance and minority voters are not being
disenfranchised. This will play a much more significant role during this redistricting process than
it did ten years ago as by all indications you will have an activist staffed Department of Justice
and court. Here are some of the criteria they have used in the past and how it may affect the two
competing plans:

Deviation
The Census population count sets an ideal Benchmark number of people in each congressional
district. In this case the benchmark is 660,766 people. Any number of persons in a particular
district below or above the benchmark is called deviation. Under the One Man, One Vote
principal, the Department of Justice likes to keep deviation to a minimum and have generally
liked to keep the deviation between the district with the highest population and the district with
the lowest population below 10%. Both the House and the Senate plans are well within this
threshold with the House plan deviation being 6 people and Senate being 2 people.

Packing
The practice of concentrating minority voters into a single congressional district to reduce their
influence in other districts is called packing. The issue of packing in South Carolina is primarily
focused on district 6, the seat currently held by Congressman James Clyburn. In 2002 the court
agreed that a BVAP for district 6 of 53.75%was acceptable and rejected a plan by the General
Assembly and two plans submitted by Senator Hugh Leatherman that tried to raise the BVAP to
54.1%, 56.57% and 58.37% respectively, presumably because of packing concerns. Keep in
mind that decision was based on South Carolina having only six congressional districts at the
time and the reality that carving out 2 majority-minority was near impossible. You can assume
with the addition of the seventh congressional district the court will be loath to accept a BVAP
higher than 53.75% and will probably try to get that number lower in order to affect minority
influence in other districts, particularly the new district 7. The high BVAP of 55.01% in the
House plan may be viewed as retrogression by the DOJ as it resulted in a BVAP 27.6 in district 7
and may result in the plans rejection on that basis alone. The Senate plans mix of 50.49% in
district 6 and 29.75 is clearly more palatable. Regarding district 7, when you combine the total
minority percentages, the house plan equals 31.79% vs. the Senates 38.32%, clearly the Senate

plan would be the more attractive plan based on any DOJ minority protection concerns. Keep in
mind that the Senate 7 achieved a higher minority percentage without sacrificing the likelihood of
electing a Republican in the district (see above analysis).

Cracking
The practice of spreading out minority voters among two or more districts in order to deny them a
sufficiently large voting bloc in any particular district is called cracking. The only possible
example of cracking I can detect in both plans occurs in the House plan regarding district 5 and
the new district 7 where district 5 is anchored by highly populated majority white York County in
the west and district 7 is anchored by a highly populated majority white Horry County in the east
and they divide the mostly minority counties in between them. Its a marginal cracking at best
but with an activist DOJ it may be pursued.

Protecting Communities of Interest, County, Municipal and Precinct Boundaries

Districts should be structured so they do not carve up neighborhoods or separate groups of people
living in an area that have similar interests. Similar interests are especially important for groups
that have always been represented together because of their close geography, social and economic
interests such as transportation, culture, or jobs. These also include municipalities, counties and
voting precincts. Racial Gerrymandering is often the cause of splitting communities of interest,
where municipalities, for example, are divided into different districts based on the racial makeup
of one neighborhood to the next. While race can be used as a factor in redistricting, the courts
have ruled in Shaw vs. Reno that race cannot be used as the predominant factor. The ability to
keep a county whole in a single district or as much of a county whole as possible is a good
measure of how effective a plan is at protecting communities of interest. A county kept whole
will not have any broken precincts or school district plus many services are usually county based.
Furthermore a vast majority of municipalities in South Carolina reside in the boundaries of a
single county. Based on the information in the table below, the Senate plan does a better job
protecting communities of interest.
Communities of Interest
Counties Split
Municipalities Split
Precincts Split

House Seventh
10
NA
51

Senate Seventh
8
NA
28

Compactness
The desire to keep the size and shape of a district geographically compact is often cited by courts
in redistricting challenges. In concept it makes sense but in practice since there is no concrete
definition of compact, it tends to fall under the realm of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewarts
definition of pornography Ill know it, when I see it. Like the practice of splitting communities
of interest, lack of district compactness is sometimes used in combination with racial
gerrymandering. District 6 in the House plan may violate these tenants as the vast amoeba shaped
district goes from downtown Charleston to downtown Columbia with no real purpose to its size
or shape other than to snatch pockets of African American voters. The Senate district 6 while
also oddly shaped is much smaller in size and the shape is dictated primarily by existing county
boundaries.

Attempt to maintain constituent consistency

Keeping as much of the population in their existing congressional district, being served by their
existing congressman is also a consideration. However, with one additional congressional district
in the state, there will be at least 660,766 people in a different district. I have not been able to
obtain this information from either Senate or the House.

Minority, Bipartisan and Broad Geographic Support

The court can also look at the coalitions that supported the plans to get an indication as to whether
or not minority, political or geographic concerns were represented when the plans were drafted in
the statehouse. For example if only white representatives from the majority party from one or
two geographic regions of the state voted for a particular plan, that plan would not be viewed
upon as favorably as a plan that got bipartisan support from representatives of different ethnicities
and from all four corners of the state. While the House did get 19 of 48 Democrats, including 9
African Americans covering fairly vast geography to vote for its plan, the Senate has a coalition
supporting the plan of both Democrats and Republicans, including every Senate member of the
legislative black caucus with a group representing 44 of the 46 counties.

Conclusion
The point of this research was not to reach a conclusion for the reader or to favor one plan over
another but to present the facts and data and let the reader reach their own conclusion.
Source Data:
Us Census Bureau: Census 2000 and 2010
South Carolina State Election Commission Election Data November 2008 and November 2010
National Election Pool (NEP) Edison Research Post Election Exit Polling November 2008 and
November 2010
Colleton County Council v. McConnell: March 20, 2002

South Carolina Congressional District 1

Senate Plan
County
Charleston
Georgetown
Horry
Totals

2010
Haley
Sheheen Total R+ D
48905
51917
100822
9380
6745
16125
45001
23778
68779
103286
82440
185726

GOP %
2010 WVAP%
48.50627839
65.14
58.17054264
72.03
65.42840111
80.32
55.61203063
71.78

Deviation
16.63372161
13.85945736
14.89159889
16.16796937

2008
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D
25.53534174
69822
82698
152520
19.24122916
10831
9740
20571
18.54033726
64609
38879
103488
22.52433738 145262 131317
276579

GOP % 2010 WVAP%

45.77891
65.14
52.65179
72.03
62.43139
80.32
52.52098
71.78

Deviation
WDVAP %
19.36108576 29.72226859
19.37820864 26.9029691
17.88860699 22.27167205
19.25902046 26.83062198

Population
2000 pop 2010 pop Pop Change
% Change
310099
350209
40110 12.93457896
38250
41266
3016 7.88496732
196660
269291
72631 36.93226889
545009
660766
115757 21.23946577

Only includes population in Georgetown in District

House Plan
County
Total

Comparison
Plan
Senate Plan
House Plan

2010
Haley
Sheheen Total

GOP %

BVAP
Deviation ONWVAP DVAP
21.06
16.17
7
18.58
18.14
5

2008
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama
57.38
75.52
18.14 24.02012712

44.23
41.72

Acronyms
WVAP - White Voting Age Population
Deviation - White Democrat Voting Age Population as percentage of entire voting age population
WDVAP% - White Democrat Voting Age Population as a perentage of WVAP
BVAP - Black Voting Age Population
ONWVAP - Other Non White Voting Age Population
DVAP - Democrat Voting Age Population

Total R+D GOP %

2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
58.24
75.52
17.28 22.88135593

Population
2000 pop

2010 pop Pop Change % Change

South Carolina Congressional District 2

Senate Plan
County
Aiken
Calhoun
Edgefield
Lexington
Orangeburg
Richland
Saluda
Total

2010
2008
Population
Haley
Sheheen Total R+ D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
30268
17874
48142
62.872336
70.64 7.76766399 10.9961268
42849 26101
68950 62.14503263
70.64 8.49496737 12.0257182
160099
786
432
1218 64.5320197
77.66 13.1279803 16.9044299
1065
424
1489 71.5245131
77.66
6.1354869
7.9004467
3811
4447
3623
8070 55.1053284
56.78 1.67467162 2.94940406
6334
5075
11409 55.51757385
56.78 1.26242615 2.22336413
26985
50167
31787
81954 61.2136076
79.53 18.3163924 23.0307964
74960 33303
108263 69.23879811
79.53 10.2912019
12.940025
262391
2320
3284
5604 41.3990007
51.25 9.85099929
19.221462
3540
3977
7517 47.09325529
51.25 4.15674471 8.11072139
20574
21694
29162
50856 42.6577002
66.65 23.9922998 35.9974491
32768 30639
63407 51.67883672
66.65 14.9711633 22.4623605
167031
3268
2909
6177 52.9059414
61.44
8.5340586 13.8900693
5191
3323
8514 60.97016678
61.44 0.46983322
0.7647025
19875
112950
89071
202021 55.9100292
71.72 15.8099708 22.0440196 166707 102842
269549 61.84664013
71.72 9.87335987 13.7665364
660766

Includes population of Cahoun, Orangeburg and Richland in District

House Plan
County
Total

Comparison
Plan
Senate Plan
House Plan

2010
Haley
Sheheen

Total

GOP %

2008
Population
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
53.2
72.95
19.75 27.0733379
60.98
72.95
11.97
16.408499

BVAP
Deviation ONWVAP DVAP
20.85
15.81
7.43
44.09
21.51
19.75
5.54
46.8

Acronyms
WVAP - White Voting Age Population
Deviation - White Democrat Voting Age Population as percentage of entire voting age population
WDVAP% - White Democrat Voting Age Population as a perentage of WVAP
BVAP - Black Voting Age Population
ONWVAP - Other Non White Voting Age Population
DVAP - Democrat Voting Age Population

South Carolina Congressional District 3

Senate Plan
2010
2008
Population
County
Haley
Sheheen Total R+ D
GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change
Abbeville
3359
3807
7166 46.8741278
70.32 23.4458722
33.341684
6264
4593
10857
57.695496
70.32
12.624504 17.9529352
26167
25417
-750
Anderson
28682
19954
48636 58.9727774
80.82 21.8472226 27.0319508
48690 24132
72822 66.8616627
80.82 13.9583373
17.270895
165743
187126
21383
Greenville
5899
4954
10853 54.3536349
67.92 13.5663651 19.9740357
7728
5688
13416 57.6028623
67.92 10.3171377 15.1901321
35189
41827
6638
Greenwood
10221
9521
19742
51.77287
64.24
12.46713 19.4071139
16995 12348
29343 57.9184133
64.24 6.32158675 9.84057713
66272
69661
3389
Laurens
9260
7872
17132 54.0508989
71.31 17.2591011 24.2029184
15334 10578
25912 59.1772152
71.31 12.1327848 17.0141422
69553
66537
-3016
McCormick
1995
1933
3928 50.7892057
51.55
0.7607943 1.47583763
2437
2755
5192 46.9375963
51.55
4.6124037 8.94743685
9958
10233
275
Newberry
6237
5705
11942 52.2274326
63.65 11.4225674 17.9459032
9616
6708
16324 58.9071306
63.65 4.74286939 7.45148373
36004
37508
1504
Oconee
12361
8072
20433 60.4952772
88.05 27.5547228
31.294404
21164
9481
30645 69.0618372
88.05 18.9881628 21.5652048
66215
74273
8058
Pickens
19435
10033
29468 65.9528981
88.28 22.3271019 25.2912346
32552 11691
44243 73.5754809
88.28 14.7045191 16.6566823
110757
119224
8467
Union
4014
4659
8673 46.2815635
68.23 21.9484365
32.168308
7449
5935
13384 55.6560072
68.23 12.5739928 18.4288331
29884
28961
-923
Total
101463
76510
177973
57.010333
77.14
20.129667 26.0949792 168229 93909
262138 64.1757395
77.14 12.9642605 16.8061453
615742
660767
45025

% Change
-2.86620553
12.901299
18.8638495
5.11377354
-4.33626156
2.76159871
4.17731363
12.169448
7.64466354
-3.08860929
7.31231587

Includes Greenville population in District

House Plan
County
Total

2010
Haley
Sheheen

Total

GOP %

2008
Population
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
57.32
78.69
21.37 27.1571991
66.46
78.69
12.23 15.5420003

Comparison
Plan
BVAP
Deviation ONWVAP
DVAP
Senate Plan
18.22
20
4.64
42.86
House Plan
17.52
21.37
3.79
42.68

Acronyms
WVAP - White Voting Age Population
Deviation - White Democrat Voting Age Population as percentage of entire voting age population
WDVAP% - White Democrat Voting Age Population as a perentage of WVAP
BVAP - Black Voting Age Population
ONWVAP - Other Non White Voting Age Population
DVAP - Democrat Voting Age Population

South Carolina Congressional District 4

Senate Plan
County
Greenville
Spartanburg
Total

2010
2008
Population
Haley Sheheen Total R+ D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
66174
42908
109082 60.6644543
73.4 12.7355457 17.3508797
99156 53759
152915 64.8438675
73.4 8.55613249 11.6568563
409398
31115
24932
56047 55.5159063
70.6 15.0840937 21.3655718
49684 31576
81260 61.1420133
70.6 9.45798671 13.3965817
251369
97289
67840
165129 58.9169679
72.34 13.4230321
18.555477 148840 85335
234175 63.5593039
72.34 8.78069606 12.1380924
660767

Includes only populations of each county in district

House Plan
County
Total

Comparison
Plan
Senate Plan
House Plan

2010
Haley Sheheen

Total

GOP %

2008
Population
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
57.71
74.95
17.24 23.0020013
57.52
74.95
17.43 23.2555037

BVAP Deviation ONWVAP DVAP

18.4
13.42
9.26
41.08
18.56
17.24
6.49
42.29

Acronyms
WVAP - White Voting Age Population
Deviation - White Democrat Voting Age Population as percentage of entire voting age population
WDVAP% - White Democrat Voting Age Population as a perentage of WVAP
BVAP - Black Voting Age Population
ONWVAP - Other Non White Voting Age Population
DVAP - Democrat Voting Age Population

South Carolina Congressional District 5

Senate Plan
2010
2008
Population
County
Haley Sheheen Total R+ D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
Cherokee
8066
5931
13997 57.6266343
76.44 18.8133657 24.6119384
13305
7215
20520 64.8391813
76.44 11.6008187 15.1763719
55342
Chester
4007
5231
9238 43.3751894
61.98 18.6048106
30.017442
6318
7478
13796 45.7958829
61.98 16.1841171 26.1118379
33140
Chesterfield
4797
6232
11029 43.4944238
64.14 20.6455762 32.1883009
8325
7842
16167 51.4937836
64.14 12.6462164
19.716583
46734
Dillon
3127
4621
7748 40.3588023
50.82 10.4611977 20.5848047
5874
7408
13282 44.2252673
50.82 6.59473272 12.9766484
32062
Fairfield
2752
5931
8683 31.6941149
41.38 9.68588506 23.4071654
3912
7591
11503 34.0085195
41.38 7.37148048 17.8141143
23956
Kershaw
1985
4532
6517 30.4588001
71.49 41.0311999 57.3943208
16466
11226
27692 59.4612162
71.49 12.0287838 16.8258271
61697
Lancaster
11650
10358
22008 52.9352963
72.17 19.2347037 26.6519381
16441
12139
28580 57.5262421
72.17 14.6437579 20.2906441
76652
Lee
1985
4532
6517 30.4588001
35.54 5.08119994 14.2971298
3074
5960
9034 34.0270091
35.54 1.51299092 4.25714947
19220
Marlboro
2269
4833
7102 31.9487468
41.92 9.97125317 23.7863864
3996
6794
10790
37.034291
41.92 4.88570899 11.6548401
28933
Startanburg
7131
3336
10467 68.1284036
88.27 20.1415964 22.8181675
9289
2839
12128 76.5913588
88.27 11.6786412 13.2305893
32938
Sumter
2515
3147
5662 44.4189332
52.73 8.31106676 15.7615527
3611
3748
7359
49.069167
52.73 3.66083299 6.94260003
24018
York
41465
25855
67320
61.59388
74.97
13.37612 17.8419635
54500
37918
92418 58.9711961
74.97 15.9988039 21.3402747
226073
Total
91749
84539
176288 52.0449492
67.79 15.7450508 23.2262145 145111 118158
263269 55.1189088
67.76 12.6410912 18.6556836
660765
Includes only population of Spartanburg and Sumter county that is in District
House Plan
County
Total

2010
Haley Sheheen

Total

GOP %

2008
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama
51.47
69.63
18.16 26.0807123

Comparison
Plan
BVAP Deviation ONWVAP DVAP
Senate Plan
26.85
15.74
5.36
47.95
House Plan
26.47
18.16
3.9
48.53

Acronyms
WVAP - White Voting Age Population
Deviation - White Democrat Voting Age Population as percentage of entire voting age population
WDVAP% - White Democrat Voting Age Population as a perentage of WVAP
BVAP - Black Voting Age Population
ONWVAP - Other Non White Voting Age Population
DVAP - Democrat Voting Age Population

Total R+D GOP %

Population
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
57.52
69.63
12.11 17.3919288

South Carolina Congressional District 6

Senate Plan
2010
2008
County
Haley Sheheen Total R+ D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
Calhoun
1576
2188
3764 41.87035069
47 5.12964931 10.9141475
2047
2449
4496 45.52935943
47 1.470640569
Clarendon
4733
6383
11116 42.57826556
48.88 6.30173444 12.8922554
6758
8673
15431 43.7949582
48.88 5.085041799
Darlington
9844
11284
21128 46.59219992
58.35 11.7578001 20.1504714 14544
14505
29049 50.06712796
58.35 8.282872044
Florence
19253
20594
39847 48.31731372
56.73 8.41268628
14.829343 29861
28012
57873 51.59746341
56.73 5.132536589
Marion
3391
6822
10213 33.20278077
43.32 10.1172192
23.354615
5416
9608
15024 36.04898829
43.32 7.271011715
Orangeburg
5489
14166
19655 27.9267362
31.48
3.5532638 11.2873691
8006
18102
26108 30.66493029
31.48
0.81506971
Richland
9606
40840
50446 19.04214407
35.02 15.9778559 45.6249455 15886
53018
68904 23.0552653
35.02
11.9647347
Sumter
7913
10896
18809 42.0702855
47.98
5.9097145 12.3170373 11246
13295
24541 45.82535349
47.98
2.15464651
Williamsburg
707
1379
2086 33.89261745
45.88 11.9873826 26.1276865
546
3124
3670 14.8773842
45.88
31.0026158
Total
62512
114552
177064 35.30474857
44.45 9.14525143 20.5742439 94310 150786
245096 38.47880014
44.45 5.971199856

Population
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
3.129022488
11364
10.40311334
34971
14.19515346
68681
9.047305815
136885
16.78442224
33062
2.589166806
71927
34.16543319
217473
4.490718028
83438
67.57326897
2966
13.43352049
660767

Includes only population of Calhoun, Orangeburg, Richland, Sumter and Williamsburg located in District

House Plan
County
Total

2010
Haley Sheheen

Total

GOP %

Comparison
Plan
BVAP Deviation ONWVAP DVAP
Senate Plan
50.49
9.15
5.06
House Plan
55.01
10.4
4.65

2008
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain Obama
29.94
40.34
10.4 25.7808627

64.7
70.06

Acronyms
WVAP - White Voting Age Population
Deviation - White Democrat Voting Age Population as percentage of entire voting age population
WDVAP% - White Democrat Voting Age Population as a perentage of WVAP
BVAP - Black Voting Age Population
ONWVAP - Other Non White Voting Age Population
DVAP - Democrat Voting Age Population

Total R+D GOP %

Population
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
2000 Pop
2010 Pop Pop Change % Change
32.4
40.34
7.94 19.68269707

South Carolina Congressional District 7

Senate Plan
2010
2008
County
Haley
Sheheen Total R+ D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
WDVAP %
McCain
Obama
Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
Allendale
564
1926
2490 22.6506024
25.96 3.30939759 12.74806468
947
3029
3976 23.8179074
25.96 2.142092555
Bamberg
1661
3086
4747 34.9905203
36.76 1.76947967 4.813600847
2309
4426
6735 34.2835932
36.76 2.47640683
Barnwell
3327
3469
6796 48.9552678
54.61 5.6547322 10.3547559
4769
4931
9700 49.1649485
54.61 5.445051546
Beaufort
29958
20229
50187 59.6927491
70.42 10.7272509 15.23324465
37821
30396
68217 55.4421918
70.42 14.97780817
Berkeley
24164
17979
42143 57.3381107
66.28 8.94188928 13.4910822
36205
27755
63960 56.6056911
66.28 9.674308943
Colleton
6227
6535
12762 48.7932926
58.62 9.82670741 16.76340398
8525
8616
17141 49.7345546
58.62 8.885445423
Dorchester
20811
14395
35206 59.1120832
68.18 9.06791683 13.29996602
29929
21806
51735 57.8505847
68.18 10.32941529
Hampton
2195
4030
6225 35.2610442
43.03 7.76895582 18.05474279
3439
5816
9255 37.1582928
43.03 5.871707185
Jasper
2469
3643
6112 40.3959424
40.36 -0.03594241 -0.08905453
3365
5389
8754 38.4395705
40.36 1.920429518
Williamsburg
3142
7481
10623 29.5773322
32.27 2.6926678 8.344182821
4638
10710
15348 30.218921
32.27 2.051078968
Georgetown
1905
2916
4821 39.5146235
49.84 10.3253765 20.71704751
3038
3662
6700 45.3432836
49.84 4.496716418
Total
96423
85689
182112 52.9470875
61.68 8.73291249 14.15841844
134985
126536
261521 51.6153578
61.68 10.06464215
Williamsburg Co has been adjusted to subtract Hemmingway
Georgetown Co only includes precints that will be in plan
(Andrews, Andrews Outside, Bethel, Browns Ferry, Lambert Town, Choppee, Folly Grove, Pleasant Hill, Potato bed Ferry, Sampit, Spring Gully)

Population
WDVAP %
2000 population 2010 population Population Change
8.251512155
11211
10419
-792
6.736688874
16658
15987
-671
9.970795727
23478
22621
-857
21.2692533
120948
162233
41285
14.59612092
142548
177843
35295
15.15770287
38264
38892
628
15.1502131
96327
136555
40228
13.64561279
21382
21090
-292
4.758249549
20671
24777
4106
6.355993083
34014
31457
-2557
9.022304209
17483
18892
1409
16.31751322
542984
660766
117782

% Change
-7.06449023
-4.02809461
-3.65022574
34.1345041
24.7600808
1.64122935
41.7619151
-1.36563465
19.863577
-7.5174928
8.05925756
21.6916152

House Plan
2010
County
Haley
Sheheen Total
GOP %
2010 WVAP%
Chesterfield
4797
6232
11029 43.4944238
64.14
Darlington
9844
11284
21128 46.5921999
58.35
Dillon
3127
4621
7748 40.3588023
50.82
Florence
19253
20594
39847 48.3173137
56.73
Georgetown
11285
9661
20946 53.8766352
65.41
Horry
45001
23778
68779 65.4284011
80.32
Marion
3391
6822
10213 33.2027808
43.32
Marlboro
2269
4833
7102 31.9487468
41.92
Total
98967
87825
186792 52.9824618
68.21
Florence County only includes population that is in plan

2008
WDVAP %
McCain
Obama
Total R+D GOP %
2010 WVAP% Deviation
32.18830092
8325
7842
16167 51.4937836
64.14 12.64621637
20.15047142
14544
14505
29049 50.067128
58.35 8.282872044
20.58480466
5874
7408
13282 44.2252673
50.82 6.594732721
14.82934298
26580
24934
51514 51.5976239
56.73 5.132376053
17.63241835
15790
14199
29989 52.6526393
65.41 12.7573607
18.54033726
64609
38879
103488 62.431393
80.32 17.88860699
23.35461503
5416
9608
15024 36.0489883
43.32 7.271011715
23.78638637
3996
6794
10790 37.034291
41.92 4.88570899
22.32449527
145134
124169
269303 53.8924557
68.21 14.31754429

Population
WDVAP %
2000 population 2010 population Population Change
19.71658305
42768
46734
3966
14.19515346
67394
68681
1287
12.97664841
30722
32062
1340
9.047022833
112883
121845
8962
19.50368552
55762
60158
4396
22.27167205
196660
269291
72631
16.78442224
35466
33062
-2404
11.65484015
28818
28933
115
20.99038893
570473
660766
90293

% Change
9.27328844
1.90966555
4.3616952
7.93919368
7.8835049
36.9322689
-6.7783229
0.39905615
15.8277429

GOP Criteria
BVAP
WDVAP
DVAP Worst
DVAP Best
Pop Growth
Voting H/S
Voting M/O

Senate 7

Deviation
20.6455762
11.7578001
10.4611977
8.41268628
11.5333648
14.8915989
10.1172192
9.97125317
15.2275382

Comparison
Congressional Plan BVAP
Deviation ONWVAP DVAP
House 7 Haley
27.6
15.23
4
46.83
Senate 7 Haley
29.75
8.73
8
46.48
House 7 McCain
27.6
14
4
45.6
Senate 7 McCain
29.75
10.06
8
47.81
House Cong 2008
27.6
23
4
54.6
Senate Cong 2008
29.75
13
8
50.75
House Cong 2010
27.6
10
4
41.6
Senate Cong 2010
29.75
5
8
42.75
House Congress
County
Chesterfield
Darlington
Dillon
Florence
Georgetown
Horry
Marion
Marlboro
Total
Senate Congress
County
Allendale
Bamberg
Barnwell
Beaufort
Berkeley
Colleton
Dorchester
Hampton
Jasper
Williamsburg
Georgetown
Total

House 7

2010
GOP

Total
5366
10770
4483
19105
8128
17448
6606
4818
76724

11156
21277
7870
40170
20175
65096
10309
7202
183255

GOP%
WVAP
51.9003227
49.3819617
43.0368488
52.4396316
59.7125155
73.1965098
35.9200698
33.1019161
58.1326567

WDVAP
12.2396773
8.96803826
7.78315121
4.29036843
5.69748451
7.12349023
7.39993016
8.81808387
10.0773433

GOP

64.14
58.35
50.82
56.73
65.41
80.32
43.32
41.92
68.21

Result
H+
S++
S+
S+
S++
Tie
H+

DOJ Criteria House 7

BVAP
ONWVAP
Compactness
COI

28
4

Result
30 S
8 S

GOP

25.96
36.76
54.61
70.42
66.28
58.62
68.18
43.03
40.36
32.27
49.84
61.68

WDVAP
0.30575734
2.34373507
3.81913884
11.4632478
1.76442064
6.03997686
1.14393192
6.7746403
-8.21262804
2.19848421
12.8587144
5.43302504

2006
Dem

5094
10521
2400
26327
14377
58136
4618
1824
123297

2010

10658
17831
9523
30827
15306
44349
10086
8634
147214

Total
15752
28352
11923
57154
29683
102485
14704
10458
270511

GOP%
WVAP
WDVAP
32.3387506
64.14 31.80124937
37.1084932
58.35 21.24150677
20.1291621
50.82 30.69083788
46.0632677
56.73 10.66673234
48.4351312
65.41 16.97486878
56.7263502
80.32 23.5936498
31.40642
43.32 11.91357998
17.4411933
41.92 24.47880666
45.5792925
68.21 22.63070748

2008
Dem

647
1642
3468
29364
26503
6817
22805
2283
3471
3448
1818
102266

30
14
46
42
22
53
52

2008
Dem

5790
10507
3387
21065
12047
47648
3703
2384
106531

GOP

Senate 7
28
22
47
45
16
53
54

Total
1875
3129
3360
20442
14577
6148
11214
4014
3675
8018
3098
79550

2522
4771
6828
49806
41080
12965
34019
6297
7146
11466
4916
181816

GOP%
WVAP
25.6542427
34.4162649
50.7908612
58.9567522
64.5155794
52.5800231
67.0360681
36.2553597
48.572628
30.0715158
36.9812856
56.246975

Dem
1000
2039
4779
38279
33406
7865
26849
3200
3174
4239
2674
127504

2819
4554
4737
28685
29932
9082
24399
5706
5414
11688
4993
132009

Total
3819
6593
9516
66964
63338
16947
51248
8906
8588
15927
7667
259513

GOP%
WVAP
WDVAP
26.1848651
25.96 -0.224865148
30.9267405
36.76 5.833259518
50.220681
54.61 4.389319042
57.1635506
70.42 13.25644944
52.7424295
66.28 13.53757049
46.409394
58.62 12.21060601
52.3903372
68.18 15.78966282
35.9308331
43.03 7.099166854
36.9585468
40.36 3.40145319
26.6151818
32.27 5.654818233
34.8767445
49.84 14.96325551
49.1320281
61.68 12.54797193

Sanford

2004
Moore

605
1221
2474
24120
20422
5134
18635
2028
1531
2622
1505
80297

Bush
1726
2685
3367
15374
13025
4700
9863
3970
2673
5605
2337
65325

2331
3906
5841
39494
33447
9834
28498
5998
4204
8227
3842
145622

Kerry
985
2138
4606
33331
32104
7264
26006
3097
2933
4439
2558
119461

2565
3841
3982
21505
20142
6699
14733
4832
3840
8588
3152
93879

3550
5979
8588
54836
52246
13963
40739
7929
6773
13027
5710
213340