Loading map...
Cong 132 rev
Plan Type: Private Draft
Date: November 7th, 2011
Download this map:  ESRI Shapefile   DOJ Text File   GeoJSON   (What are these?)


NO
Contiguous?
10
Democrat
-
 
17
Republican
YES
Complete?


0.37
Compactness:
Reock
0.25
Compactness:
Polsby-Popper
25
Split
Counties
98
Split
Cities




District Stats
Click on a row to highlight district in map
District Population Population Devation % Black
Age 18+
% Hispanic
Age 18+
Compactness
Reock
Compactness
Polsby-Popper
Obama 2008 % Sink 2010 %
1 696,344 -0.00% 13.2% 4.5% 0.35 0.35 32.4% 32.2%
10 704,745 1.21% 28.5% 25.1% 0.19 0.10 71.2% 68.2%
11 735,854 5.67% 8.7% 15.2% 0.29 0.14 46.8% 46.3%
12 681,314 -2.16% 11.9% 13.5% 0.53 0.25 45.3% 43.2%
13 630,443 -9.46% 3.2% 6.7% 0.55 0.38 46.9% 45.0%
14 696,345 0.00% 6.6% 14.6% 0.53 0.60 43.7% 37.9%
15 807,479 15.96% 8.6% 9.8% 0.42 0.21 46.5% 44.1%
16 696,345 0.00% 7.4% 12.1% 0.28 0.27 49.6% 47.0%
17 696,345 0.00% 58.3% 32.4% 0.27 0.14 86.4% 85.7%
18 696,345 0.00% 6.5% 67.7% 0.15 0.13 46.5% 47.0%
19 696,345 0.00% 11.6% 23.1% 0.47 0.33 61.8% 60.6%
2 696,344 -0.00% 23.8% 4.7% 0.46 0.42 47.5% 53.6%
20 696,345 0.00% 9.5% 32.9% 0.23 0.17 60.7% 58.8%
21 696,345 0.00% 6.3% 84.7% 0.15 0.12 45.8% 44.1%
22 696,345 0.00% 12.1% 19.0% 0.41 0.38 63.5% 62.8%
23 696,345 0.00% 52.5% 18.1% 0.36 0.14 82.6% 81.2%
24 664,437 -4.58% 8.6% 15.6% 0.30 0.20 48.3% 47.6%
25 696,345 0.00% 9.2% 57.8% 0.48 0.38 47.6% 43.5%
26 642,475 -7.74% 10.0% 14.0% 0.48 0.35 44.9% 42.0%
27 694,054 -0.33% 13.5% 43.0% 0.35 0.17 63.7% 58.1%
3 703,329 1.00% 50.1% 9.3% 0.13 0.05 70.4% 66.6%
4 704,751 1.21% 14.9% 6.4% 0.26 0.11 37.1% 38.3%
5 699,306 0.43% 4.0% 8.5% 0.56 0.39 47.1% 44.9%
6 683,410 -1.86% 11.2% 8.1% 0.55 0.26 40.9% 42.0%
7 697,261 0.13% 9.5% 6.2% 0.37 0.21 44.6% 42.1%
8 705,172 1.27% 9.8% 10.5% 0.45 0.30 43.1% 41.2%
9 691,142 -0.75% 5.1% 7.9% 0.44 0.29 50.3% 50.1%


Similar Maps
Calculated by uniquely pairing each district between two maps to maximize the population that falls in the overlapping regions. The reported figure is the percentage of the state population in the overlap. Only complete, 27-district maps are included for this analysis.

Cong 132 rev2: 98.9%
Cong 132 rev3: 98.9%
Cong 132 rev4: 97.9%
Cong 132 rev5: 97.9%
Cong 132 rev6: 97.8%
Cong 132 rev7: 97.6%
cong1: 93.2%
MarcR2: 92.7%
frank cong plan hills revised: 91.6%
Cong 132 rev8: 90.9%
HPUBC0133: 90.8%
Cong 132 rev9: 90.6%
Cong 132 rev10: 90.6%
frank cong plan revised3: 90.3%
HPUBC0132: 90.1%
Cong 132 rev12: 89.8%
Cong 132 rev11: 89.3%
Cong 132 rev13: 88.4%
Cong 132 rev13 rev cent hisp: 88.3%
forMarc: 80.8%



Similar Districts
Districts in other maps that match closely to districts in this map, judged by the percentage of overlapping population.

District 1 District 1, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 1, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 1, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 1, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 1, cong1: 100.0%
District 1, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 1, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 1, forMarc: 100.0%
District 1, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 1, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 2 District 2, forMarc: 100.0%
District 2, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 2, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 2, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 2, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 2, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 2, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 2, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 2, cong1: 100.0%
District 2, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 3 District 3, cong1: 100.0%
District 3, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 3, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 3, Cong 132 rev2: 99.4%
District 3, Cong 132 rev3: 98.8%
District 3, Cong 132 rev9: 98.1%
District 3, Cong 132 rev11: 98.1%
District 3, Cong 132 rev12: 98.1%
District 3, Cong 132 rev13: 98.1%
District 3, Cong 132 rev10: 98.1%
District 4 District 4, cong1: 100.0%
District 4, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 4, Cong 132 rev3: 99.3%
District 4, Cong 132 rev7: 99.3%
District 4, Cong 132 rev6: 99.3%
District 4, Cong 132 rev4: 99.3%
District 4, Cong 132 rev5: 99.3%
District 4, frank cong plan hills revised: 99.2%
District 4, MarcR2: 99.2%
District 4, HPUBC0133: 86.7%
District 5 District 5, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 5, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 5, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 5, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 5, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 5, Cong 132 rev7: 99.8%
District 5, MarcR2: 98.8%
District 5, frank cong plan revised3: 96.1%
District 5, frank cong plan hills revised: 96.1%
District 5, Cong 132 rev8: 96.1%
District 6 District 6, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 6, cong1: 100.0%
District 6, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 6, Cong 132 rev4: 88.7%
District 6, Cong 132 rev7: 88.6%
District 6, Cong 132 rev5: 88.6%
District 6, Cong 132 rev6: 88.6%
District 6, frank cong plan hills revised: 88.6%
District 6, MarcR2: 88.6%
District 6, HPUBC0133: 86.8%
District 7 District 7, cong1: 100.0%
District 7, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 7, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 7, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 7, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 7, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 7, MarcR2: 99.5%
District 7, frank cong plan hills revised: 99.5%
District 7, Cong 132 rev8: 99.5%
District 7, Cong 132 rev10: 99.5%
District 8 District 8, cong1: 100.0%
District 8, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 8, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 8, forMarc: 96.4%
District 6, Congressional 2revised1: 91.3%
District 6, Congressional 2revised2: 91.3%
District 6, Congressional 2revised3: 91.2%
District 6, Congressional 2revised4: 91.1%
District 8, Congress2: 89.8%
District 8, Cong 132 rev4: 89.5%
District 9 District 9, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 9, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 9, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 9, Cong 132 rev5: 99.1%
District 9, Cong 132 rev6: 99.1%
District 9, Cong 132 rev7: 99.1%
District 10, Cong 132 rev13 rev cent hisp: 94.9%
District 10, Cong 132 rev12: 94.9%
District 10, Cong 132 rev10: 94.9%
District 10, Cong 132 rev11: 94.9%
District 10 District 10, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 10, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 10, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 10, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 10, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 10, Cong 132 rev7: 99.4%
District 11, Cong 132 rev12: 96.2%
District 11, Cong 132 rev11: 96.2%
District 11, Cong 132 rev13 rev cent hisp: 96.2%
District 11, frank cong plan hills revised: 96.2%
District 11 District 11, Cong 132 rev4: 98.5%
District 11, Cong 132 rev2: 98.5%
District 11, Cong 132 rev3: 98.5%
District 11, Cong 132 rev5: 97.6%
District 11, Cong 132 rev6: 96.3%
District 11, Cong 132 rev7: 96.3%
District 9, HPUBC0133: 84.4%
District 9, MarcR2: 82.5%
District 9, Cong 132 rev8: 79.9%
District 14, FLSenate_CongressionalMap: 79.0%
District 12 District 12, Cong 132 rev5: 98.4%
District 12, Cong 132 rev3: 98.4%
District 12, Cong 132 rev2: 98.4%
District 12, Cong 132 rev4: 98.4%
District 12, Cong 132 rev6: 97.1%
District 12, Cong 132 rev7: 96.9%
District 12, MarcR2: 90.6%
District 13, HPUBC0046: 87.5%
District 11, HPUBC0005: 85.0%
District 15, HPUBC0183: 84.0%
District 13 District 13, Cong 132 rev5: 95.8%
District 13, Cong 132 rev6: 95.8%
District 13, Cong 132 rev3: 95.8%
District 13, Cong 132 rev4: 95.8%
District 13, Cong 132 rev2: 95.8%
District 13, Cong 132 rev7: 95.2%
District 16, AlexAmendment_1to9043Alternativ: 95.0%
District 13, MarcR2: 95.0%
District 13, Cong 132 rev13 rev cent hisp: 95.0%
District 13, Cong 132 rev13: 95.0%
District 14 District 14, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 14, MarcR2: 100.0%
District 14, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 14, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 14, forMarc: 100.0%
District 14, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 14, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 14, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 14, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 14, Cong 132 rev8: 100.0%
District 15 District 15, Cong 132 rev3: 93.1%
District 15, Cong 132 rev2: 93.1%
District 15, Cong 132 rev9: 92.2%
District 15, Cong 132 rev10: 92.2%
District 15, frank cong plan hills revised: 92.2%
District 15, frank cong plan revised3: 92.2%
District 15, MarcR2: 92.2%
District 15, Cong 132 rev8: 92.2%
District 15, Cong 132 rev4: 91.6%
District 15, Cong 132 rev5: 91.6%
District 16 District 16, MarcR2: 100.0%
District 16, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 16, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 16, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 16, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 16, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 16, frank cong plan hills revised: 100.0%
District 16, forMarc: 100.0%
District 16, Cong 132 rev8: 100.0%
District 16, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 17 District 17, cong1: 100.0%
District 17, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 17, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 17, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 17, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 17, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 17, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 17, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 17, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 17, Cong 132 rev10: 100.0%
District 18 District 18, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 18, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 18, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 18, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 18, cong1: 100.0%
District 18, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 18, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 18, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 18, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 18, Cong 132 rev11: 89.7%
District 19 District 19, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 19, cong1: 100.0%
District 19, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 19, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 19, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 19, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 19, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 19, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 19, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 19, MarcR2: 100.0%
District 20 District 20, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 20, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 20, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 20, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 20, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 20, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 20, cong1: 100.0%
District 20, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 20, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 20, Cong 132 rev8: 100.0%
District 21 District 21, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 21, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 21, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 21, cong1: 100.0%
District 21, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 21, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 21, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 21, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 21, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 24, HPUBC0070: 56.6%
District 22 District 22, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 22, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 22, cong1: 100.0%
District 22, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 22, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 22, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 22, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 22, frank cong plan revised3: 100.0%
District 22, MarcR2: 100.0%
District 22, frank cong plan hills revised: 100.0%
District 23 District 23, Cong 132 rev9: 100.0%
District 23, Cong 132 rev10: 100.0%
District 23, Cong 132 rev11: 100.0%
District 23, Cong 132 rev12: 100.0%
District 23, Cong 132 rev13: 100.0%
District 23, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 23, frank cong plan revised3: 100.0%
District 23, frank cong plan hills revised: 100.0%
District 23, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 23, Cong 132 rev13 rev cent hisp: 100.0%
District 24 District 24, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 24, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 24, cong1: 100.0%
District 24, Cong 132 rev2: 98.4%
District 24, Cong 132 rev3: 98.4%
District 24, Cong 132 rev6: 98.4%
District 24, Cong 132 rev5: 98.4%
District 24, Cong 132 rev4: 98.4%
District 24, Cong 132 rev7: 98.4%
District 24, forMarc: 97.7%
District 25 District 25, Cong 132 rev6: 100.0%
District 25, HPUBC0133: 100.0%
District 25, Cong 132 rev7: 100.0%
District 25, Cong 132 rev5: 100.0%
District 25, HPUBC0132: 100.0%
District 25, Cong 132 rev3: 100.0%
District 25, Cong 132 rev2: 100.0%
District 25, Cong 132 rev4: 100.0%
District 25, cong1: 100.0%
District 21, Romo 2012 Alternative Plan: 64.6%
District 26 District 26, Cong 132 rev2: 88.0%
District 26, Cong 132 rev3: 88.0%
District 26, Cong 132 rev4: 86.7%
District 26, Cong 132 rev7: 86.7%
District 26, Cong 132 rev6: 86.7%
District 26, Cong 132 rev5: 86.7%
District 26, Cong 132 rev9: 85.9%
District 26, frank cong plan revised3: 85.9%
District 26, frank cong plan hills revised: 85.9%
District 26, Cong 132 rev10: 85.9%
District 27 District 27, cong1: 99.0%
District 27, Cong 132 rev5: 99.0%
District 27, Cong 132 rev4: 99.0%
District 27, Cong 132 rev3: 99.0%
District 27, Cong 132 rev2: 99.0%
District 27, Cong 132 rev7: 99.0%
District 27, Cong 132 rev6: 99.0%
District 27, HPUBC0133: 97.9%
District 27, HPUBC0132: 97.9%
District 27, forMarc: 97.9%

A map is considered contiguous is when each district is a single, uninterrupted piece: you should be able to move between any two points in a district without having to cross into another district to complete the journey. This is a requirement under the Florida Constitution.

Most of the maps that are non-contiguous here are due to small flecks of geography being misassigned, which is a surprisingly easy mistake to make in the map editing process.

Do the districts cover the entire state? Usually an incomplete map is intentional - the drawer was illustrating an arrangement for just part of the state - but sometimes drawers missed assigning all the geography by accident.

These figures are based on each district's average estimated vote in the 2008 presidential election and the 2010 gubernatorial election. These two races were picked for several reasons.

First, these estimates were made available to map drawers by the state for the initial redistricting process, so these would be actual data they were looking at.

Second, while these are congressional districts, using previous congressional election results isn't a good option: some districts were uncompetitive (or completely uncontested), meaning that the number of Democrats or Republicans being reported would be skewed in certain parts of the state. Presidential and gubernatorial races in Florida, on the other hand, are statewide, high-profile, and competitive, making them a good estimate of a district's partisanship.

Finally, 2008 was a Democratic wave year, while 2010 was a Republican wave year, so averaging the two races provides a more balanced look than just using one or the other.

The Florida Constitution bans the drawing of districts with the intent to favor a political party. Because intent is required, an imbalanced map is not unconstitutional, per se, but should be viewed with skepticism.

Compactness is the general idea that a district should be made up of an area that is all close together, rather than spread out. In practice, there are dozens of ways to measure more specific definitions of this concept, and this site presents two of them. In both measures, scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 being the best.

Reock compares the area of a district to the area of the smallest circle that can contain the entire district. A perfect score, then, is a district that is also a circle, and as the district stretches away from that ideal, the worse the score will be. Districts that are especially spread out get penalized worst.

Polsby-Popper takes advantage of the fact that the shape with the largest area given a certain perimeter length is a circle, and compares the area of the district to the area of a circle with the same perimeter. Again, the best score would be given to a circle, and like Reock, Polsby-Popper does penalize spread-out-ness, but it also picks up the smoothness of the district boundary. A district with a lot of tendrils reaching out to pick up small neighborhoods while avoiding others would have a large perimeter relative to its area, and a bad Polsby-Popper score.

Compactness is a second tier requirement under the Florida Constitution, to be followed provided it does not interfere with first tier requirements (contiguity, no racial discrimination, no drawing maps for partisan or incumbent gain).

The Florida Constitution says that districts should follow existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible as a second tier requirement, provided it does not interfere with first tier requirements (contiguity, no racial discrimination, no drawing maps for partisan or incumbent gain). Litigation surrounding the district maps have gotten at this partly by counting how many of Florida's 67 counties and 410 (as of 2010) municipalities were split across two or more districts. Due to equal population requirements, zero splits for either is impossible, but fewer splits are seen as better than more.

Maps are available in three formats for download. ESRI Shapefiles are a format developed by ESRI for their software package ArcGIS, and due to its popularity, is supported by almost all GIS software available. DOJ text files assign each census block in the state to a particular district, and notably can be imported into the State House's MyDistrictBuilder software for examination and editing. GeoJSON is another plain-text format, which sees heavy use in web-based mapping projects (such as this one).