LARIOS v. COX

Full title: SARA LARIOS, et al., Plaintiffs, versus CATHY COX, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Georgia

Date published: Mar 15, 2004

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03-CV-693-CAP (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2004)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03-CV-693-CAP

March 15, 2004

MARCUS, Circuit Judge, PANNELL and O'KELLEY, District Judges

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER

CHARLES A. PANNELL, JR., District Judge

On March 1, 2004, the three-judge court consisting of Judge Stanley Marcus, United States Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr., United States District Judge of the Northern District of Georgia, and Judge William C. O'Kelley, Senior United States District Judge of the Northern District of Georgia (the "Court"), issued an order appointing a Special Master in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. The order directed the Special Master to prepare and submit to the Court a Report and Recommendation, including proposed redistricting plans for the House and the Senate of the state of Georgia.

The following is the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master. Appendix Tabs 1 through 4 show the plans for the Georgia Senate and House, with Tabs 1 and 3 showing the statewide plans and Tabs 2 and 4 showing enlargements of certain metropolitan areas. Full-size originals of the statewide maps and the Atlanta metropolitan area have been filed with the Clerk of Court.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural History

After the 2000 Census, the state of Georgia enacted redistricting plans for Georgia's Congressional delegation and General Assembly. In 2001, the General Assembly enacted the first set of redistricting plans. Because Georgia is a jurisdiction subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, 28 C.F.R. § 51 (Appendix), it is required to seek preclearance of redistricting plans from either the United States Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ("D.C. District Court"). 42 U.S.C. § 1973b 1973c. Accordingly, Georgia sought preclearance through a declaratory judgment action in the D.C. District Court. The three-judge court empaneled to adjudicate that action precleared the 2001 Congressional and House plans, but denied preclearance to the 2001 Senate plan. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp.2d 25, 31(D.D.C. 2002), vacated, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 2498 (2003).

In early 2002, Georgia enacted a new redistricting plan for the Senate. On June 3, 2002, the D.C. District Court precleared the new Senate plan. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 204 F. Supp.2d 4, 16 (D.D.C. 2002). Thus, as of June 3, 2002, the Congressional and House redistricting plans enacted in 2001 and the Senate redistricting plan enacted in 2002 had been precleared. In this Report and Recommendation, the redistricting plan enacted in 2001 for the House is referred to as the "Enjoined House Plan" and the redistricting plan enacted in 2002 for the Senate is referred to as the "Enjoined Senate Plan."¹ The Enjoined House Plan, with enlargements of certain metropolitan areas, is attached at Appendix Tab 5; the Enjoined Senate Plan, also with enlargements of certain metropolitan areas, is attached at Appendix Tab 6.

1 The appellation "enjoined" reflects the fact that these are the plans the Court has enjoined Georgia from using and distinguishes these plans from previously — enacted plans, as well as the Special Master's Plans, all of which are discussed below.

On March 13, 2003, a group of Georgia voters filed a complaint against four Georgia state officers in their official capacities — the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Secretary of State and Chair of the State Election Board — challenging the "current state redistricting plans" as violative of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Complaint [Doc. # 1] at ¶¶ 1-41.² Concurrently with the Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a request for a three-judge court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). [Doc. #2]. With the exception of the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and opposed the request for a three-judge court.

2 The phrase "current state redistricting plans" covered the three redistricting plans enacted in 2001 as well as the Senate plan enacted in 2002 as a consequence of the D.C. District Court's denial of preclearance of the Senate plan enacted in 2001.

On June 19, 2003, the district court ruled that a three-judge court was necessary to adjudicate the plaintiffs' claims and deferred all remaining substantive issues to the three-judge court. [Doc.# 38]. The following day, the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals designated the members of the panel. [Doc.# 39].

On August 6, 2003, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint, reiterating their claims in further detail and adding the claims that race was the predominant factor in the creation of the Enjoined Senate Plan and that the Congressional plan violated Article I, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. [Doc. # 54]. Again with the exception of the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the defendants moved to dismiss.

On August 29, 2003, the Court ruled on the pending issues — i.e., all issues other than the new claims in the amended complaint — and realigned the President Pro Tem of the Senate as a plaintiff. The Court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' claims and ordered that the case proceed on the plaintiffs' claims against the Congressional Plan and the Enjoined House Plan on "one person, one vote" and partisan gerrymandering grounds. [Doc.# 60]. The Court stayed consideration of the challenge to the 2002Senate plan because the Enjoined Senate Plan had been enacted in 2002 with the caveat that it was only to be effective unless and until the D.C. District Court granted preclearance to the 2001 Senate plan; as the D.C. District Court continued to address preclearance issues with respect to the 2001 Senate plan, the Court determined that a stay was warranted. See id. at 21-23.

Upon the parties' agreement, the Court dismissed the Governor and the Speaker of the House as defendants, leaving the Secretary of State and Chair of the State Election Board (defendant Cox) as the sole defendant. [Doc.# 64]. On October 15, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss directed to the new claims in the amended complaint. [Doc. # 79].

On November 7, 2003, defendant and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment. Defendant's motion was as to the entirety of the plaintiffs' claims; the plaintiffs' motion only sought summary judgment on their "one person, one vote" claims. See Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 83]; Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.# 85], On December 9, 2003, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendant's motion as to the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claim, the plaintiffs' First Amendment freedom of speech and association claim and the plaintiffs' claim that Georgia exceeded its constitutional authority under Article I, § 2, to regulate congressional elections. See Order [Doc.# 118] at 1-2.³

3 The Court's order reflects that the prior stay with respect to the plaintiffs' challenge to the 2002 Senate Plan — i.e., the Enjoined Senate Plan — had been lifted: "Because it is unclear whether or not the 2001 plan will ultimately be precleared and reinstated, this court considers the plaintiffs' claims only with respect to the 2002 state Senate plan now in effect, as well as with respect to the congressional and state House plans enacted during the 2001 special sessions." Id. at 3.

As a result of these rulings, the only claim remaining for trial was the plaintiffs' "one person, one vote" challenge to the redistricting plans for Georgia's Congressional, Senate and House districts.⁴ The trial of this remaining claim began on January 6, 2004, and concluded on January 9, 2004.

4 In addition to the "one person, one vote" claim, plaintiffs racial gerrymandering challenge survived summary judgment; however, the Court stayed adjudication of that claim "pending further development of the preclearance proceedings in the [D.C. District Court]." Id. at 2.

On February 10, 2004, the Court issued a per curiam opinion ("Opinion") upholding the Congressional Plan and finding the Enjoined Senate and House Plans unconstitutional because they "plainly violate the one person, one vote principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause because each deviates from population equality by a total of 9.98% of the ideal district population and there are no legitimate, consistently applied state policies which justify these population deviations." Opinion [Doc.# 170] at 3. A copy of the Opinion is attached as Appendix Tab 7. The Court enjoined any further use of the plans in future elections and set a deadline of March 1, 2004, for the General Assembly to submit new (constitutional) plans to the Court. Id. at 86-87.

Concurrently with the Opinion, the Court issued its Judgment [Doc.# 171] striking the Enjoined Senate and House Plans; in addition, the Court stayed consideration of the plaintiffs' challenge to the 2001 Senate plan, pending the D.C. District Court's decision on that plan. Id. at 2. On February 20, 2004, the D.C. District Court dismissed the Section 5 action, without prejudice, in part due to the ruling of the Court in this action as well as the parties' concession that in no event would preclearance of the 2001 Senate plan be sought for purposes of use in the November 2004 election. See Order, Civil Action No. 01-2111 (D.DC. Feb. 20, 2004), at 1-2 (attached at Appendix Tab 8). Therefore, for purposes of this Report and Recommendation, the 2001 Senate plan is a nullity, as it was neither precleared nor considered in this action.

As of the March 1, 2004, deadline, the General Assembly had not passed new plans for either the Senate or the House. As a result, and given the indisputable requirement that constitutional plans be drawn in time for orderly conduct of the November 2004 elections, the Court issued the order appointing the Special Master. [Doc.# 189]. A copy of the order is attached at Appendix Tab 9. The Court directed the Special Master to draw constitutional plans and submit to the Court a report and recommendation with the plans on or before March 15, 2004. Id. at 2.

Throughout these proceedings, the Court has repeatedly reiterated its desire that the General Assembly formulate its own constitutional plans. See, e.g., id. at 3. The General Assembly has not passed any new plans.

B. Applicable Legal Principles

1. General Principles

A federal court faced with the "`unwelcome obligation'" of drafting a remedial reapportionment plan, Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540 (1978) (quoting Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 415 (1977)), is required to act "circumspectly, and in a manner `free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination,'" Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 415 (quoting Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 710 (1964)). To ensure that a court-drafted remedial plan appropriately reflects this role, federal courts have followed five general principles in drafting reapportionment plans.

First, a court-drawn plan should be limited to those changes "necessary to cure any constitutional or statutory defect." Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 43 (1982). Here, however, the constitutional violation permeated the Enjoined Senate and House Plans; therefore, this first principle applies with less force than if the violation had been limited to a distinct region. The "constitutional violation here affects [the entirety] of the state; any remedy of necessity must affect almost every district." Abrams, 521 U.S. at 86. Therefore, the comprehensive violation of the "one person, one vote" requirement required wholesale adjustment of district boundaries.

Second, "[a] court-ordered plan should `ordinarily achieve the goal of population equality with little more than de minimis variation.'" Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 98 (1997) (quoting Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 26-27 (1975)). Of course, given that the core constitutional violation in this action was the failure to comply with the "one person, one vote" requirement, this principle becomes particularly important.

Third, the federal court should "defer to legislative judgments on reapportionment as much as possible," but only to the extent that such legislative judgments are unrelated to the constitutional violation the Court found. Upham, 456 U.S. at 39, 42-43; see also Abrams, 521 U.S. at 85 (" Upham called on courts to correct — not follow — constitutional defects in districting plans."). This principle, too, weighs less heavily in this case, as the Court found that

there are no legitimate, consistently applied state policies which justify the population deviations. Instead, the plans arbitrarily and discriminatorily dilute and debase the weight of certain citizens' votes by intentionally and systematically underpopulating districts in rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta, correspondingly overpopulating the districts in suburban areas surrounding Atlanta, and by underpopulating the districts held by incumbent Democrats.

Opinion at 3. Moreover, the Court specifically found that Georgia's traditional redistricting criteria were not followed in drafting the plans: "Incumbent protection" was selectively applied to benefit Democratic incumbents, id. at 19-24, and "[t]he other policies were not causes of the population deviations . . . nor indeed, were they priorities at all in drafting the plans," id. at 25, Accordingly, little in the way of valid "legislative judgments" exists to provide guidance in drafting new redistricting plans.

Fourth, even though not strictly applicable to the federal courts, a court-drawn plan should strive to ensure compliance with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "On its face, § 2 does not apply to a court-ordered remedial redistricting plan, but we will assume courts should comply with the section when exercising their equitable powers to redistrict." Abrams, 521 U.S. at 90. Similarly, § 5 "is a reasonable standard, at the very least as an equitable factor to take into account, if not as a statutory mandate." Id. at 96.

Finally, once the constitutional and statutory requirements are met, the federal court should consider traditional state redistricting principles, while avoiding any "purely political considerations." Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury, 635 F.2d 1151, 1160 (5th Cir. 1981).

2. Single vs. Multi-Member Districts

Because the Enjoined House Plan chose to use multi-member districts, additional guidance must be gleaned from the Supreme Court decisions addressing the propriety of such districts in court-drawn plans."[W]hen district courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a general matter." Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 692 (1971). Significantly, in Connor, the Supreme Court instructed the District Court, "absent insurmountable difficulties, to devise and put into effect a single-member district plan. . . ." Id.

Although most of the cases addressing this question involve — as does this case — violations of the "one person, one vote" requirement, "the same considerations . . . compel a similar rule with regard to court-imposed reapportionments designed to cure the dilution of the voting strength of racial minorities resulting from unconstitutional racial discrimination." Wise, 437 U.S. at 541 n. 5. Therefore, any choice to use multi-member districts requires identification of special circumstances" that outweigh the general preference for single-member districts. East Carroll Parish Sch. Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 639 (1976).

C. Georgia v. Ashcroft

In addition, the Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft provides guidance in this particular action, as the plan reviewed in that § 5 proceeding was the 2001 Senate plan. Id., 123 S.Ct. at 2506-07. The Enjoined Senate Plan struck down in this action resulted from modifications to the 2001 Senate plan deemed necessary for compliance with § 5. Opinion at 8. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court noted in Ashcroft, the plan enacted in 2002 — the Enjoined Senate Plan — gained preclearance and no party challenged the propriety of that preclearance. Id. at 2509 (citing Georgia v. Ashcroft, 204 F. Supp.2d 4 (D.D.C. 2002)).

As the Supreme Court noted, "a plan that merely preserves `current minority voting strength' is entitled to § 5 preclearance." Id. at 2510 (quoting City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U.S. 125, 134 n. 10 (1983)). The key parameters for the analysis are that "the inquiry must encompass the entire statewide plan as a whole" and that "any assessment of the retrogression of a minority groups' effective exercise of the electoral franchise depends on an examination of all the relevant circumstances" Id. at 2511. Significantly, "`[n]o single statistic provides courts with a shortcut to determine whether' a voting change retrogresses from the benchmark." Id. (quoting Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512U.S. 997, 1020-21 (1994)).

D. Court Guidelines

On February 26, 2004, the Court ordered the parties to file briefs suggesting guidelines to be used in the event the Court had to draw redistricting plans. [Doc.# 186]. On March 2, 2004, the Court issued guidelines "to which the Special Master shall adhere in preparing reapportionment maps for the House of Representatives and the Senate of the General Assembly of Georgia." March 2, 2004, order [Doc.# 193] at 2. A copy of this order (the "Guidelines") is attached as Appendix Tab 10.

The Guidelines underscore the legal principles identified above, providing focus and context with respect to the particular redistricting tasks at hand. The Guidelines establish "three principal criteria" for drafting new Senate and House plans: "the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the neutral principles of redistricting." Id. at 4. Of the three, the first two are predominant because, "[p]lainly, the requirements of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act take precedence over any traditional redistricting principles." Id.

Moreover, "[b]ecause the constitutional wrong to be remedied in this case is a violation of the Fourteen Amendment's one person, one vote principle, equality of population is a paramount concern in redrawing the maps." Id. With respect to the Voting Rights Act, the Guidelines require "full compliance" with its provisions, both "the racial-fairness mandates of § 2 of the Act, as well as the purpose-or-effect standards of § 5 of the Act." Id. at 5.

The third set of criteria is "secondary to ensuring compliance with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act." Id. at 6 (emphasis in original). In the area of neutral redistricting principles, the Court "direct[ed] the Special Master to apply Georgia's traditional redistricting principles of compactness, contiguity, minimizing the splits of counties, municipalities, and precincts, and recognizing communities of interest." Id. (emphasis omitted). In addition, the Court instructed the Special Master that "`many factors, such as the protection of incumbents, that are appropriate in the legislative development of an apportionment plan have no place in a plan formulated by the courts.'" Id. at 7 (quoting Wyche, 769 F.2d at 268) (emphasis added).

Finally, the Court addressed in detail the appropriateness of single-member districts versus multi-member districts. The baseline principle is that court-drawn redistrictingplans — and, therefore, the Special Master'splans — "`shouldprefer single member districts over multimember districts, absent persuasive justification to the contrary.'" Id. at 7 (quoting Wise, 437 U.S. at 540). In addition, "the Georgia Constitution prohibits the use of multi-member districts in the state Senate. Art III, § II, ¶ I(a)." Id. at 8. As for the House, while recognizing that the Enjoined House Plan contained multi-member districts, the Court noted that although "a court should defer to a state legislature's judgment that multimember districts are appropriate, in this instance, there is no clear indication that the use of such districts is an established state policy." Id. (citations omitted). Furthermore, "the existing multi-member districts substantially contributed to the constitutional infirmity embodied in the House plan." Id. Accordingly, the Court concluded:

[W]e direct the Special Master to adhere generally to the redistricting principle, traditionally followed by the Georgia General Assembly, of creating only single-member districts. While the existence of multi-member districts in the original [House] plan might constitute a justification for maintaining such districts, the Special Master may only do so where the multi-member districts are not tainted by the factors which rendered the previous plans unconstitutional, and only so long as their inclusion does not undermine the other guidelines we have already enumerated.

Id. at 9 (citation omitted).

The above, therefore, are the principles and guidelines that guided the Special Master in this task. As will be seen, reconciling these various requirements proved exceedingly complicated.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW SENATE AND HOUSE PLANS

A. Personnel Assisting the Special Master

Given the speed the Court's schedule required, the Special Master determined that experts and assistants familiar with the process of redistricting would need to be retained immediately. With the Court's guidance, the Special Master retained Dr. Nathaniel Persily, a nationally-recognized expert in developing redistricting maps. Dr. Persily was ably assisted by Patrick J. Egan. Their curricula vitae are attached at Appendix Tabs 11 and 12, respectively. The Special Master and Dr. Persily also consulted with Dr. Bernard Grofman, a nationally-recognized expert on voting rights issues, whose curriculum vitae is attached at Appendix Tab 13.

To assist the Special Master in his overall task, the Special Master retained Christopher S. Carver, Esq., known to the Special Master as being well versed in redistricting matters. In addition to Mr. Carver, Richard A. Perez, Esq., aided the Special Master.⁵

5 The Special Master and all persons assisting in this task, including experts, have been subject to a March 2, 2004, order [Doc.# (pending)] "requiring the strictest confidentiality with respect to the issues and information being considered by the Special Master. . . ." Id. at 1.

B. Record of the Proceedings and Factual Background

In developing the redistricting plans for the Senate and the House, the Special Master and his assistants had available to them the record of the proceedings in this litigation. While the parties' characterization of the "facts" and the "law" were not relied upon, the record was useful in identifying the central legal issues and providing the necessary factual background, which was gleaned from either the Court's findings or from the Parties' Stipulation of Facts [Doc.# 116] and the Parties' Refined Stipulation of Facts [Doc.# 128].

In addition, Georgia has been party to many cases addressing redistricting and related issues, including Ashcroft and Abrams (both cited above), as well as Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994), Johnson v. Hamrick, 296 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2002), Clark v. Putnam County, 293 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2002), DeJulio v. Georgia, 290 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 948 (2002), and Johnson v. Hamrick, 196 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 1999). These appellate cases were often preceded and succeeded by several district court cases, including Smith v. Cobb County Bd. of Elections and Registrations, 230 F. Supp.2d 1313 (N.D. Ga. 2002), Johnson v. Hamrick, 155 F. Supp.2d 1355 (N.D. Ga. 2001), aff'd, 296 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2002), Johnson v. Hamrick, 1998 W1 476186 (N.D. Ga. June 10, 1998), rev'd, 196 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 1999), Johnson v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1354 (S.D. Ga. 1994), aff'd, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), Johnson v. Milter, 922 F. Supp. 1552 (S.D. Ga. 1995), aff'd sub nom. Abrams v. Johnson, 517 US. 1207 (1996), and Johnson v. Miller, 922 F. Supp. 1556 (S.D. Ga. 1995), aff'd sub nom. Abrams v. Johnson, 517 US. 1207 (1996). To the extent those opinions contained factual determinations and background information, they provided additional source material.

Finally, in an order dated March 2, 2004, the parties were directed to file jointly the record in the Georgia v. Ashcroft proceedings in the D.C. District Court. [Doc.# 194]. On March 8, 2004, the parties jointly submitted to the Court the materials they deemed appropriate and offered to provide additional information.

C. Political Data and Information

In performing the duties of the Special Master, the Court strictly prohibited the Special Master and his experts and assistants from reviewing or analyzing political data and information, including, but not limited to, prior districts' voting performance, incumbent residency, political party registration and past election results. Accordingly, such factors were not considered. In addition, where such information appeared in materials otherwise reviewed or provided to the Special Master, it was not considered.

D. Georgia Legislative Reapportionment Office

The Special Master and his experts received substantial assistance from personnel at the Georgia Legislative Reapportionment Office. The order appointing the Special Master respectfully directed that office

to provide to the Special Master immediate and unrestricted access to its computer facilities and programs for use in developing the plans and to cooperate with the Special Master and his staff by providing them access, support, and staffing on a confidential basis, together with any additional assistance that will facilitate and expedite the work of the Special Master.

March 1, 2004, order at 3 (emphasis omitted). The staff of the Legislative Reapportionment Office fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of this command and the Special Master greatly appreciates their assistance.

The new Senate and House Plans were developed through the computers at the Legislative Redistricting Office. The primary computer program used in generating the plans was "Maptitude for Redistricting" ("Maptitude"). Maptitude is widely used for legislative redistricting throughout the country and is the program currently employed for redistricting purposes by the General Assembly.

III. OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S PLANS

A. Plan Principles

The redistricting plans the Special Master developed for the Senate (the "Special Master's Senate Plan") and for the House (the "Special Master's House Plan") represent the Special Master's resolution of the multiple — and sometimes contradictory — demands associated with developing redistricting plans. While each plan is explained in detail in the Affidavit of Nathaniel Persily, J.D., Ph.D. (Appendix Tab 16),⁶ the overall governing principles may be summarized as follows.

6 Given the volume of Dr. Persily's affidavit with its attachments, it is presented as a separate volume of the Appendix. Therefore, it is numbered out of sequence.

1. "One Person, One Vote"

The core violation the Court found was the failure of the Enjoined Senate and House Plans to adhere to the "one person, one vote" requirement of the Equal Protection Clause. The Special Master's Senate Plan and the Special Master's House Plan substantially resolve the deviations from the ideal size for districts based on the 2000 Census. The ideal size for a Senate district is 146, 187 persons. Opinion at 13. The ideal size for a House district is 45,480. Id. at 11.

The Special Master's Senate Plan has a total population deviation range of 1.91% and an average deviation of 0.55%. The Special Master's Senate districts deviate from the ideal equal population by a range of+0.96% to -0.95%, with the largest district having 147,589 persons and the smallest district having 144,802 persons. In contrast, the Enjoined Senate Plan contained "a total population deviation range of 9.98% and an average deviation of 3.78%. The Senate districts deviate from ideal equal population by a range of +4.99% to -4.99%, with the largest district having 153,489 persons and the smallest district having 138,894 persons." Id. at 14.

The Special Master's House Plan has a total population deviation range of 1.95% and an average deviation of 0.46%. The Special Master's House districts deviate from the ideal equal population by a range of+0.970% to -0.985%, with the largest district having 45,921 persons and the smallest district having 45,032 persons. In contrast, the Enjoined House Plan contained "a total population deviation range of 9.98% and an average deviation of 3.47%. The House districts deviate from ideal equal population by a range of + 4.99% to -4.99%, with the largest district having 176,939 persons (in a four-member district) and the smallest district having 43,209 persons." Id. at 12.

Significantly, whereas in the Enjoined Senate and House Plans, "the most underpopulated areas are located almost exclusively in rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta, and the most over populated areas are located almost exclusively in the areas of north Georgia that encircle Atlanta," id. at 19, the +/-1% deviations in the Special Master's Senate and House Plans are randomly scattered across Georgia.

In Smith v. Cobb County Bd. of Elections and Registrations, 230 F. Supp.2d 1313 (N.D. Ga. 2002), the district court adopted a remedial plan for Cobb County Commission districts in which the deviations ranged from +1.64% to -1.26% from the ideal population. Id. at 1328. However, the court concluded,

[t]o the extent that there are small deviations in each plan from the ideal population figure, these deviations have been necessary to comply with other principles applicable to the drafting of a remedial plan. The Court concludes that any deviations are de minimis and justified by the need to comply with the other dictates applicable to this endeavor.

Id. at 1315. Similarly, the Special Master has determined that the lesser deviations exhibited by the Special Master's Senate and House Plans are "justified by the need to comply with the other dictates applicable to this endeavor."

2. Satisfaction of the Mandates of the Voting Rights Act

The Special Master's Senate and House Plans fulfil the mandates of the Voting Rights Act. As the Enjoined Senate and House Plans were found unconstitutional, they could not serve as "benchmark" plans. See, e.g., Abrams, 521 U.S. at 97 ("Nor can the 1992 plan, constitutional defects and all, be the benchmark. Section 5 cannot be used to freeze in place the very aspects of a plan found unconstitutional."). The violation the Court found was "intentional and systematic," Opinion at 3; therefore, "[u]sing the[se Plans] would validate the very maneuvers that were a major cause of the unconstitutional redistricting." Abrams, 521 U.S. at 86.

Accordingly, the last valid plans in effect and used for the 2000 elections (the "Senate Benchmark Plan" and "House Benchmark Plan") were used as the benchmark plans for purposes of analysis under the Voting Rights Act.⁷ Copies of these two plans, with enlargements of metropolitan areas, are attached at Appendix Tabs 12 and 13, respectively.

7 The House Benchmark Plan was in effect in 1998; the Senate Benchmark Plan was in effect in 2000. Therefore, the maps shown in Appendix reflect those dates.

As compared to the Benchmark Plans and the Enjoined Senate and House Plans, the Special Master's Senate and House Plans meet or exceed the requirements of § 2 and of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Although neither dilution (§ 2's focus) nor retrogression (§ 5's focus) are properly measured from an unconstitutional plan, it is notable that the Special Master's Senate and House Plans compare favorably on all accounts with both the Enjoined Senate Plan and the Enjoined House Plan, as well as with the Benchmark Plans.

The following chart shows the comparison of the Special Master's Senate Plan with the Enjoined Senate Plan and the Senate Benchmark Plan:

Percentage of African- Number of Districts American Registered Voters Special Master's Senate Plan Enjoined Senate Plan Senate Benchmark Plan 70% or more 0 0 5 50% to 69% 13 13 8 30% to 49% 10 11 8 Less than 30% 33 32 35 Similarly, the following chart shows the comparison of the Special Master's

House Plan with the Enjoined House Plan and the House Benchmark Plan:⁸

8 Multi-member district calculations are weighted by number of members per district.

Percentage of African- Number of Districts American Registered Voters Special Master's House Plan Enjoined House Plan House Benchmark Plan 70% or more 3 5 25 50% to 69% 41 33 14 30% to 49% 22 35 26 Less than 30% 114 107 115

Measured by 2000 voting age population, African-Americans comprise 26.72% of Georgia's population; measured by 2000 registered voters, African-Americans comprise 25.62% of Georgia's population.⁹ In the Special Master's Senate Plan, 23.20% of the districts are majority-minority; in the Special Master's House Plan, 24.44% of the districts are majority-minority. Accordingly, "no violation of § 2 can be found here, where . . . minority voters form effective voting majorities in a number of districts roughly proportional to the minority voter's respective shares in the voting-age population." Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1000 (1994).

9 There are a number of sources for these percentages, including U.S.Ex. 115, "Voting Age Population According to 2000 Census, and November 2000 Voter Registration Statistics as Provided by the State of Georgia for Georgia Counties," filed in the Ashcroft litigation.

As for Section 5, the Special Master's Senate and House plans substantially exceed the number of minority-majority districts created in the Benchmark Plans, and, in addition, equal or exceed the number of minority-majority districts created in the Enjoined Plans. Thus, no retrogression exists from either the Benchmark Plans or the Enjoined Senate and House Plans. Although the Special Master's House Plan has fewer minority population districts in the 25-49% range than reflected in the Enjoined House Plan, "regardless of any potential retrogression in some districts, § 5 permits Georgia to offset the decline in those districts with an increase in the black voting age population in other districts." Ashcroft, 123 S.Ct. at 2515-16. Moreover, the House Benchmark Plan has only seventy-six such districts. Therefore, the Special Master's House Plan comports with the requirements of § 5.

3. Traditional Restricting Principles

Within the constraints arising from resolving the "one person, one vote" flaw of the Enjoined Senate and House Plans and from the Voting Rights Act, the Special Master's Senate and House Plans adhere to the traditional redistricting criteria of compactness and contiguity. The Special Master also sought to follow the traditions of recognizing communities of interest and minimizing county and municipality splits.

a. Avoidance of County Splits

The Special Master's Senate and House Plans attempt to keep counties contained in single districts wherever possible. "Georgia has an unusually high number of counties: 159, the greatest number of any State in the Union apart from the much larger Texas. These small counties represent communities of interest to a much greater degree than is common. . . ." Abrams, 521 U.S. at 100. In addition, avoiding county splits is also important because

[e]ach county, municipality, or other jurisdiction has a local delegation and any legislator whose district encompasses territory within a specific city or county is a member of the local delegation for that entity. The local delegations make recommendations to the House and Senate standing committees, which then recommend local legislation to the entire body. A local bill must receive the requisite majority from the local delegation to be reported favorably out of the standing committees with a "do pass" recommendation.

DeJulio, 290 F.3d at 1293 (footnote omitted). Furthermore, "[i]f local legislation has received the requisite number of signatures of representatives or senators whose districts lie partially or wholly within the locality which the legislation affects, it is ordinarily passed on an uncontested basis as a matter of local courtesy." Id. at 1293-94. Thus, having a district intrude across county (or municipality) lines gives a legislator whose district predominately lies outside that county (or municipality) a vote on issues that may well not directly affect the majority of the legislator's constituents.

The Special Master's Senate Plan keeps 119 counties entirely within a single district and splits forty counties into 100 parts, thirty-four of which are only divided between two districts.¹⁰ This provides a sharp contrast with the Enjoined Senate Plan: "in the 2002 Senate Plan, eighty-one counties are split into 219 parts." Opinion at 29.

10 Of the remainder, two counties are each divided among three districts, one county is divided among five districts and three counties are each divided among seven districts. The majority of such divisions are an inevitable result of the population concentration in the Atlanta metropolitan area.

Although lower ideal population size for a House district as compared to the ideal population size of a Senate district necessarily results in a greater number of county splits, the Special Master's House Plan substantially reduces the number of county splits. In contrast to the Enjoined House Plan, which "actually splits eighty of the state's 159 counties into 266 parts," Opinion at 28, the Special Master's House Plan keeps eighty-two counties entirely within a district and splits seventy-seven counties into 278 parts, of which fifty-nine are split either between two districts or among three districts.¹¹ The comparative numbers, however, do not tell the full story. The difference is much greater than it appears because the Special Master's House Plan — because it uses no multi-member districts — has thirty-three more districts than the Enjoined House Plan and fifty-six smaller districts, as a result of dividing larger multi-member districts into smaller single-member districts.¹²

11 Of the remainder, seven counties are each divided among four districts, four counties are each divided among five districts, two counties are each divided among six districts and the remaining five counties are divided among seven or more districts. As with the county splits in the Special Master's Senate Plan, the majority of such divisions are an inevitable result of the population concentration in the Atlanta metropolitan area.

12 The Enjoined House Plan had 147 districts, with 124 districts containing a single member, fifteen two-member districts, six three-member districts and two four-member districts. Parties' Refined Stipulation of Facts No. 67.

Moreover, the lower number of county splits in both Special Master's Plans was achieved under the primary constraint of population equality. Relaxing that constraint would inevitably have reduced the number of splits. Accordingly, given that the Special Master's districts achieve population deviations of below +/-1%-whereas the Enjoined Plans' deviations were approximately +1-5%-the reduction of county splits Special Master's Plans is even more significant.

b. Avoidance of Municipality Splits

A second key traditional redistricting criterion reflected in the Special Master's Senate and House Plans is attempting to keep municipalities contained within districts. This proved particularly difficult, as many municipalities cross county lines; for example, Braselton (on the border of Gwinnett and Barrow counties), Maysville (on the border of Banks and Jackson counties), Waycross (on the border of Ware and Pierce counties) and Villa Rica (on the border of Carroll and Douglas counties) cross county boundaries. Even more complicating was the fact that the annexation patterns of a number of municipalities have resulted in non-contiguous municipalities; for example, Byron, Calhoun, Cartersville, LaGrange and Warner Robins have noncontiguous portions.

As a general rule, where the principles of avoiding county splits and avoiding municipality splits conflicted, the choice was often made to avoid municipality splits. Accordingly, for example, the Floyd County splits are a result of keeping Rome together in Special Master House district 13 A.

c. Compactness and Contiguity

By striving to preserve county and municipality lines, the Special Master's Senate and House Plans generally satisfy compactness and contiguity criteria because both are facilitated by using counties and municipalities as district building blocks. Compactness : Use of county and municipalities as building blocks where possible naturally enhances compactness. In addition, compactness was one of the several goals in developing the Special Master's Senate and House Plans, although subservient to the primary goal of population equality. The data bear out the success of the efforts in this area, particularly in comparison with the prior plans. Compared with both the Enjoined Plans and the Benchmark Plans, the Special Master's Plans equal or exceed the prior plans' performance, whether using smallest-circle or perimeter-to-area compactness measures.¹³

13 The "smallest-circle" measure compares a district's area to that of the smallest circle that could encompass the entire district; the "perimeter-to-area" measure is the ratio of the district's area to the area of a circle with the same perimeter. Under both measures, the figure for the "perfect" district would be 1.00.

Under the smallest-circle measure, the Special Master's Senate Plan's .43 level exceeds the .42 level attained by the Senate Benchmark Plan and the .35 level of the Enjoined Senate Plan. Under the perimeter-to-area measure, the Special Master's Senate Plan's .28 level matches the level attained in the Senate Benchmark Plan and substantially exceeds the .16 level of the Enjoined Senate Plan.

Comparing the House plans under the smallest-circle measure, the Special Master's House Plan's .41 level matches the level attained in the House Benchmark Plan and exceeds the .38 level of the Enjoined House Plan. Under the perimeter-to-area measure, the Special Master's House Plan's .30 level exceeds the .29 level attained in the House Benchmark Plan and the .24 level of the Enjoined House Plan.

In addition, the Special Master's Plans achieved these compactness scores along with population deviations below +/-1%, in distinct contrast to the substantially higher population deviations of the four comparison plans.

Contiguity: Similarly, the degree of contiguity reflected in the Special Master's Senate and House Plans sharply contrasts with the Enjoined Senate and House Plans. The Court found that

district contiguity was not a real concern among plan drafters and legislators. . . . While all of the districts are technically contiguous (as required by state law), many districts achieve that designation through the use of water contiguity, which is predicated on the assumption of line-of-sight across a lake or other body of water, or touch-point contiguity, which is predicated on facing coiners in a checker-board like fashion.

Opinion at 27 (emphasis omitted). Unlike the Enjoined Senate and House Plans, the districts in the Special Master's Senate and House Plans are fully contiguous, except where contiguity is impossible.¹⁴ Moreover, none of the districts in the Special Master's Senate and House Plans exhibit touch-point contiguity, except where such contiguity is an existing feature of a county.¹⁵

d. Communities of Interest and Preservation of Cores of Prior Districts

14 For example, the districts encompassing the coastal counties of Eastern Chatham, Bryan, Liberty, Mclntosh, Glynn and Camden cannot be fully contiguous because portions of those districts are islands.

15 For example, portions of Lee, Peach and Rockdale counties are touch-point contiguous with the main bodies of those counties; therefore, the districts encompassing those counties similarly may reflect touch-point contiguity.

The "one person, one vote" violation the Court found reflected "intentionally and systematically underpopulating districts in rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta, corresponding overpopulating the districts in suburban areas surrounding Atlanta. . . ." Opinion at 3. Moreover, "[t]o the extent that the cores of prior districts were preserved at all, it was done in a thoroughly disparate and partisan manner. . . . Quite simply, the population deviations in the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan did not result from a neutral, consistently applied concern for retaining incumbent cores." Opinion at 72.

Because the Enjoined Senate and House Plans do not demonstrate an intent to preserve the cores of prior districts, the question arises of what "cores" exist to be preserved. To the extent possible within the constraints of the Guidelines, however, the Special Master's Senate and House Plans were drawn with recognition of the cores of districts shown in either the Enjoined Senate and House Plans or the Benchmark Plans, under the theory that the prior districts should reflect communities of interest.

B. Single-Member Districts in the Special Master's House Plan

Much of the Special Master's and his experts' focus was on the issue of single-member versus multi-member districts in the Special Master's House Plan. The Guidelines were quite clear that single-member districts were preferable; the Special Master was only to draw multi-member districts "where the multi-member districts are not tainted by the factors which rendered the previous plans unconstitutional, and only so long as their inclusion does not undermine the other guidelines we have already enumerated." Guidelines at 9.

The Guidelines, of course, follow the Supreme Court's instructions on this matter. Thus, "absent insurmountable difficulties," Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. at 692, a court-drawn plan should not make use of multi-member districts. The Special Master recognizes that "in the absence of any finding of a constitutional or statutory violation with respect to those districts, a court must defer to the legislative judgments the plans reflect," Upham, 456 U.S. at 40-41; however, "the existing multi-member districts substantially contributed to the constitutional infirmity embodied in the House plan." Guidelines at 8. In addition, the Court found that the use of multi-member districts did not exhibit "an established state policy." Id. Accordingly,

IV. CONCLUSION

The Special Master's Senate and House Plans satisfy the applicable principles of the United States Constitution, the Georgia Constitution, the Voting Rights Act and the Guidelines the Court established. Based on the foregoing, the Special Master respectfully recommends that the Court adopt the Special Master's Senate Plan and Special Master's House Plan for use in the November 2004 election and, thereafter, until the Georgia Assembly issues new plans that comply with the above principles.

Exhibit/Attachment 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

SARA LARIOS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION

versus NO. 1:03-CV-693-CAP

CATHY COX,

Defendant

Before MARCUS, Circuit Judge, PANNELL and O'KELLEY, District Judges

PER CURIAM:

This case presents several challenges to the congressional and state legislative reapportionment plans enacted by the Georgia General Assembly in 2001 and 2002. Specifically, in their First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs contend that these plans violate a number of constitutional and statutory provisions, including (1) the First Amendment, (2) 2 U.S.C. § 2c, (3) Article I, § 2, based on violation of the one person, one vote principle and transgression of the state's authority to dictate the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, and (4) the Equal Protection Clause, based on partisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering, violation of the one person, one vote principle, and the use of a combination of single — and multi-member districcs in the state House of Representatives.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), a three-judge court, consisting of Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, District Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr., and Senior District Judge William C. O'Kelley, was convened. In orders dated August 29, 2003, and October 15, 2003, we ruled on the defendant's motions to dismiss, ultimately dismissing the plaintiffs' 2 U.S.C. § 2 claim and the plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim challenging the combination of single — and multi-memberdistricts in the state House, while allowing the remaining claims to go forward. Subsequently, in an order dated December 9, 2003, we granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs' claims of partisan gerrymandering, violation of the First Amendment, and violation of Article I, § 2 by exceeding the state's authority to dictate the times, places, and manner of congressional elections; however, we denied both parties' motions for summary judgment with respect to the one person, one vote claims. In that same order, we stayed consideration of the plaintiffs' racial gerrymandering claim, which relates only to the 2001 and 2002 Senate plans, pending further development of the preclearance proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Georgia v. Ashcroft, Civil Action No. 01-2111.

Accordingly, this three-judge district court conducted a bench trial on January 6-9, 2004, concerning only the plaintiffs' one person, one vote challenges to Georgia's congressional and state legislative plans. We have now considered the evidence presented at trial, as well as the parties' deposition designations, stipulated facts, and proposed statements of fact and conclusions of law. Based upon a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude:

(1) Georgia's state legislative reapportionment plans plainly violate the one person, one vote principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause because each deviates from population equality by a total of 9.98% of the ideal district population and there are no legitimate, consistently applied state policies which justify these population deviations. Instead, the plans arbitrarily and discriminatorily dilute and debase the weight of certain citizens' votes by intentionally and systematically underpopulating districts in rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta, correspondingly overpopulating the districts in suburban areas surrounding Atlanta, and by underpopulating the districts held by incumbent Democrats.

(2) Georgia's congressional reapportionment plan, though it deviates from population equality by a maximum of seventy-two persons, does not violate Article I, § 2 because the very small population deviations are supported by legitimate state interests in avoiding additional precinct — splitting and in ensuring that those precincts that are divided are split along easily recognizable boundaries wherever possible.

1. Findings of Fact

A. The Reapportionment Process in General

The 2000 Decennial Census reported that the total population of the State of Georgia was 8, 186, 453 persons. From 1990 to 2000, the population of north Georgia, which is largely comprised of the urban and suburban areas surrounding Atlanta, grew at a much faster rate than the population of south Georgia, which is primarily rural.^1a This population trend has remained consistent for the last several decades. In that same time period, the Republican party has also gained substantial strength in Georgia. In fact, the fastest-growing counties in the state over the past decade are Republican-leaning.

1a Although the parties agree about this general population trend, (he various witnesses had different ways of defining the boundary between north and south Georgia. Plaintiffs' Expert Ronald Keith Gaddie spoke of the "fall line," or "gnat line," in generic terms, as the line "where the foothills below Appalachia [meet] the fertile, rolling lowlands that eventually [give] way to the expanses of the Sawgrass country in the southeastern comer of the state, or continue toward the Gulf Coast to the southwest and the Wiregrass country of Alabama." Report of Plaintiffs' Expert Ronald Keith Gaddie, Plaintiffs' Ex. 205, at 5. Others indicated that the line between north and south Georgia generally runs along Interstate 20. Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 619; Test, of Linda Meggers, Tr at 728-29, 849-50. However. Linda Meggers testified that a more accurate fall line, and the one she uses in drafting maps, is one that runs along 1-20 through Augusta, then comes down to the southwest above Jasper County, and continues into Troup County. Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 849, 907.

Based on its substantial population growth over the previous decade, the state was entitled to two additional congressional seats pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 2a. Because of the addition of these new congressional seats and the substantial shifts in population around the state, it became necessary for Georgia to redraw its congressional districts.See U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; 2 U.S.C. § 2a. Likewise, the state's population growth had created population disparities in the state House and Senate districts, which needed to be corrected pursuant to Article Ill, § 2, ¶ 2 of the Georgia Constitution.

The Georgia General Assembly, therefore, met in two special sessions during August and September of 2001 for the purposes of redistricting the state's congressional seats and the state House and Senate seats. Prior to the 2001 special sessions, the House and Senate Reapportionment Committees had met both formally and informally on several occasions to prepare for the reapportionment process and to discuss various proposed plans. The committees also adopted guidelines for the reapportionment of congressional and legislative districts. These guidelines stated that the population of each state House and Senate district should be within 5% of the "ideal" district, so that the total deviation did not exceed 10%. Plaintiffs' Ex. 58. The guidelines also differed significantly from those adopted for the 1991 and 1981 redistrictings.^2a

2a The 1981 guidelines specifically required keening counties together wherever possible. Plaintiffs' Ex. 58. The 1991 guidelines disallowed districts that were kept contiguous by "points of adjoining corners." Plaintiffs' Ex. 59. The 2001 guidelines contained neither of these requirements.

The first special session of the General Assembly began on August 1 and ended on August 17, 2001. During the first special session, the General Assembly enacted a bill providing for the reapportionment of the state Senate ("the 2001 Senate Plan"). Then-Governor Roy Barnes signed the bill into law on August 24, 2001. During the first special session, the General Assembly also enacted a bill providing for the reapportionment of the state House of Representatives; however, that bill was subsequently vetoed by Governor Barnes.

The second special session of the General Assembly began on August 22 and ended on September 28, 2001. During this second special session, the General Assembly enacted a second bill providing for the reapportionment of the state House of Representatives ("the House Plan"), as well as a bill providing for the reapportionment of the state's congressional districts ("the Congressional Plan"). Governor Barnes signed both bills into law on October 1, 2001.

Both houses of the General Assembly used Maptitude software to draw their redistricting plans. With the available technology and the use of this software, redistriding plans in 2001 could have been created with a deviation of 0 to 1 persons. The combination of technology and political data available to legislators and plan drafters also allowed for sophisticated analyses of political performance, so that maps could be drawn, and then immediately analyzed politically. Thus, in drafting and considering their proposed maps, members of both houses relied on political performance projections, indicating the percentage of Votes Democrats and Republicans would likely receive in future elections based upon an assessment of past election results.

Republicans attempted to influence the redistricting in several ways, with little success. They drew up alternative redistricring guidelines that required adherence to traditional redistricting criteria, such as district compactness and contiguity. Plaintiffs' Ex. 59. These guidelines were rejected by both the House and Senate Reapportionment Committees. Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 366-68; Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 662. During the special sessions, Republican legislators participated in the redistricting process by drawing up proposed plans and working with some Democratic legislators to reach compromise plans. None of these Republican — sponsored plans was passed. Test. of Sen. Johnson, Tr. at 456; Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 367-68, 374-75. During the special sessions, Republicans were not consulted by Democratic legislators regarding the redistricting plans. Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 401-02; Test. of Sen. Lee, Tr. at 511; Test. of Sen. Johnson, Tr. at 440; Test. of Bryan Tyson, Tr. at 976.

Because Georgia is a jurisdiction covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, it was necessary for the slate to have its reapportionment plans precieared by the federal government. To that end, the state filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on October 10, 2001, seeking a declaration that the plans enacted during the 2001 special sessions did not have the purpose or would not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. In an order dated April 5, 2002, the three-judge district court presiding over that action precleared the Congressional Plan and the House Plan, but refused to preclear the 2001 Senate Plan. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2002), vacated, 123 S. C t. 2498 (2003).

At the request of the State of Georgia, the three-judge district court retained jurisdiction of the case to permit the submission of a revised Senate redistricting plan that would satisfy the requirements of Section 5. Subsequently, the General Assembly enacted a bill providing such a revised plan ("the 2002 Senate Plan"). Governor Barnes signed the bill into law on April 11, 2002, and the district court precleared the new Senate Plan on June 3, 2002. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 204 F. Supp.2d 4, 15-16 (D.D.C. 2002). The 2002 Senate Plan is not substantially different from the 2001 Senate Plan, but it does make adjustments to several districts in order to remedy the perceived violations of Section 5. Its enacting legislation specifically provides that it does "not repeal or amend the provisions of the [2001 Senate Plan]; and those provisions are merely suspended pending a final determination of their enforceability under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended."

Meanwhile, the State of Georgia appealed the decision of the three-judge district court denying preclearance of the 2001 Senate Plan. On June 26, 2003, the United States Supreme Court vacated the district court's decision, holding that the district court's initial preclearance inquiry was overly narrow, and it remanded the case for further proceedings in light of its opinion. Georgia v. Ashcroft, 123 S.Ct. 2498 (2003). The district court has not yet issued a final decision on remand. Thus, because it is unclear whether the 2001 Senate Plan will ultimately be precleared and reinstated, the trial in this action considered only the 2002 Senate Plan now in effect, as well as the Congressional Plan and the House Plan already approved by the three-judge district court in the District of Columbia. See generally Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1016 (1998) (noting the Supreme Court's long-standing disapproval of advisory opinions); Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48, 90 S.Ct. 200, 201-02 (1969) (same).

B. The Individual Plans

1. The State Legislative Plans

The redistricting guidelines adopted by the House and Senate Reapportionment commitrees indicated that "[t]he population deviation of [each] plan should not. exceed an overall deviation of 10%." Plaintiffs' Ex. 58, at 3. Based largely on these guidelines and on the instructions given in previous redistricting cycles, legislators and plan drawers for both houses believed there was a "safe harbor" of ± 5% in the reapportionment of state legislative districts and, therefore, that population deviations not rising to that level did not have to be supported by any legitimate state interest. Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 369-70, 409; Test. of Sen. Johnson, Tr. at 441-42; Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 665-66; Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 856-57.

The creators of the state plans did not consider such traditional redistricting criteria as district compactness, contiguity, protecting communities of interest, and keeping counties intact. Dep. of Joe Stanton at 21, 24; Test, of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 775-76, 871-76, 718-20; Test. of Sen Brown, Tr. at 633, 637, 664-65. Rather, they had two expressly enumerated objectives: the protection of rural Georgia and inner-city Atlanta against a relative decline in their populations compared with that of the rest of the state and the protection of Democratic incumbents.

a. The House Plan

The House Plan consists of 180 members allocated to 147 districts, with 124 one-member districts, fifteen two-member districts, six three-member districts, and two four-member districts. In the redistricting plan immediately preceding the current plan, the House was comprised of 180 single-member districts. Based on the state's total population according to the 2000 Census, the ideal size of a single-member House district for one person, one vote purposes is 45,480 persons.

During the 2001 special sessions, the House Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Committee, charged with coming up with a new electoral map for the House, had twenty-nine members; eighteen Democrats, including its chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary, and eleven Republicans. The chairman appointed a subcommittee, consisting entirely of Democrats, to draw the House Plan. Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 367. In response, the Republicans created their own subcommittee, the House Republican Subcommittee on Congressional and Legislative Reapportionment and Redistricting, and adopted the substantive redistricting guidelines that the Republicans had unsuccessfully proposed for the House to use. Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 367-68.

The legislative reapportiomnent staff, and particularly Linda Meggers, worked with individual House members to draft the House Plan. In drawing the districts, Ms. Meggers took into account the political desires of various Democratic incumbents in order to achieve the ninety-one votes required to pass a plan. This was particularly difficult in south Georgia and urban Atlanta, as the districts in those areas were vastly underpopulated at the beginning of the redisiricting process and the incumbents in those districts struggled to maintain as many seats as possible. Additionally, incumbents in all areas of the state sought to limit the expansion of their districts to what was considered legally necessary, i.e., a population deviation of ± 5%. Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 738-40. At no time did the drafters of the plans nurture the ambition of drawing maps as close to equal in population as was reasonably practicable. In the end, many south Georgia incumbents who had seniority over other House members used their political influence to preserve the representation of rural interests as much as possible, resulting in greater negative population deviations in these areas and, consequently, greater positive population deviations in other areas. Nonetheless, south Georgia still lost seven House districts in the reapportionment plan that ultimately passed.

The resulting House Plan has a total population deviation range of 9.98% and an average deviation of 3.47%. The House districts deviate from ideal equal population by a range of + 4.99% to -4.99%, with the largest district having 176, 939 persons (in a four-member district) and the smallest district having 43, 209 persons. Notably, ninety of the 180 House seats (50.00%) are in districts with population deviations greater than ± 4%. Sixty seats (33.33%) are in districts with deviations greater than ± 4.5%, and twenty seats (11.11%) are in districts with deviations greater than ± 4.9%. The most underpopulated districts are primarily Democractic-leaning, and the most overpopulated districts are primarily Republican-leaning. Moreover, most of the districts with negative deviations of 4% or greater are located either in south Georgia or within inner-city Atlanta. Plainly, redistricling plans could have been easily drawn with smaller population deviations; in fact, some such plans were offered for consideration but were summarily rejected.

The House Plan splits eighty counties into 266 parts. The plan paired forty-two incumbents, including thirty-seven of the seventy-four incumbent Republicans (50% of the Republican caucus), but only nine of the 105 incumbent Democrats (less than 9% of the Democratic caucus). In the 2002 general election, the first general election following enactment of the plan, the composition of the House went from 105 Democrats, 74 Republicans, and 1 Independent to 107 Democrats, 72 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

b. The Senate Plan

The Georgia Senate consists of fifty-six members. The Georgia Constitution requires that the state senate be composed of single-member districts. Therefore, based on the state's total population, the ideal size of a Senate district for one person, one vote purposes according to the 2000 Census is 146,187 persons.

The Senate Reapportionment Committee, chaired by Senator Tim Golden, was responsible for coming up with a new electoral map in 2001. The committee was made up of twenty-four members: twenty Democrats and four Republicans. Test. of Sen. Lee, Tr. at 494. Senator Eric Johnson, the Senate's Republican minority leader, requested a position on the committee but was denied. Test. of Sen. Johnson, Tr. at 439. Senator Golden appointed a five-member subcommittee, entirely Democratic and chaired by Senator Robert Brown, to devise a redistricting plan. Slip. Fact 28.

To create a plan, Senator Brown worked with Joseph Stanton and other staff of the legislative reapportionment office, who offered technical assistance. Senator Brown focused his redistricting efforts on five primary goals: (1) drawing districts with population deviations of no greater than ± 5%; (2) ensuring that the districts did not retrogress in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; (3) protecting or enhancing opportunities for Democrats to be elected; (4) allowing rural southern Georgia to hold on to as many seats as possible; and (5) obtaining the twenty-nine votes required to pass a plan.

The resulting 2002 Senate Plan has a total population deviation of 9.98% and an average deviation of 3.78%, The Senate districts deviate from ideal equal population by a range of + 4.99% to -4.99%, with the largest district having 153,489 persons and the smallest district having 138, 894 persons. Thirty-seven of the fifty-six districts (66.07%) have population deviations greater than ± 4%. Thirty-one districts (55.36%) have deviations greater than ± 4.5%, and sixteen districts (28.57%) have deviations greater than ± 4.9%. Not surprisingly, the most underpopulated districts are primarily Democratic-leaning, and the most overpopulated districts are primarily Republican-leaning. Moreover, all of the districts with negative deviations of more than 4% are situated either in south Georgia or within inner-city Atlanta. As in the House, redistricting plans with smaller population deviations were offered for consideration, but were summarily rejected.

The 2002 Senate Plan splits eighty-one counties into 219 parts. The plan also paired twelve incumbents, including ten of the twenty-four incumbent Republicans (42% of the caucus) but only two of the thirty-two incumbent Democrats (6% of the caucus). In the 2002 general election, the first general election following enactment of the plan, the composition of the Senate went from thirty-two Democrats and twenty-four Republicans to thirty Democrats and twenty-six Republicans. Following the election, four Democrats switched allegiance to the Republican Party, giving the Republicans control of the Senate by a margin of 30-26.

c. The favoring of rural and inner-city interests

Both the explicit admissions of witnesses for the defendant and the circumstantial evidence of the plans themselves leave no doubt that a deliberate and systematic policy of favoring rural and inner-city interests at the expense of suburban areas north, east, and west of Atlanta led to a substantial portion of the 9.98% population deviations in both of the plans. Much of the testimony at trial centered around the distinction between "the two Georgias": namely, the predominantly rural areas of south Georgia and the urban and suburban areas surrounding Atlanta in north Georgia. The historic struggle between these two areas of the state, with their differing views on water usage, education, transportation, economic development, and other issues, has affected Georgia politics for the last several decades and cuts across party lines. See Plaintiffs' Ex, 205, Report of Expert Ronald Gaddie ("Gaddie Report") at 5-7; Test. of Plaintiffs' Expert Ronald Keith Gaddie, Tr. at 123-25; Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 411-12; Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 621-23; Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 749-51. At the same time, the population of north Georgia has increased at a significantly faster rate than that of south Georgia. Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 621; Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 729, 848-50. As a consequence, the rural areas of south Georgia have been slowly but continuously losing their political influence, particularly in the state legislature, because of their proportional loss of seats. Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 621; Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 729; Test. of Bryan Tyson, Tr. at 958.

In an unambiguous attempt to hold onto as much of that political power as they could, and aided by what they perceived to be a 10% safe harbor, the plans' drafters intentionally drew the state legislative plans in such a way as to minimize the loss of districts in the southern part of the state.See, e.g., Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 619 ("[W]hen I looked at the southern part of the state, there was one paramount concern, and that was that we not lose any more districts than would absolutely be necessary."); id. at 652 ("[Y]ou had the desire on the part of the rural senators to have as many rural senators as possible."); Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 739 ("[T]hey didn't want to lose anymore representation out of rural south Georgia than they had to.");id. at 743 ("[The negative deviations] are in south Georgia because those folks wanted to minimize their loss of power."). In other words, the drafters redrew the majority of south Georgia's districts, which were generally very underpopulated going into the reapportionment process, by taking on only as much area as was needed to get within a -5% population deviation. Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 651 ("[O]nce they would come within that range as far as the population is concerned, that would be as far as they would need to go. And when you consider that if you take up even more population, that means that you are constricting the number of districts that you are going to have in the south Georgia area."); Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 730 ("I took all of south Georgia and lassoed it in as if it were one big district, and we had the population, and the deviation, and how many seats. So I knew how many seats I could draw and be within five percent.").

By doing this, the plans' drafters managed to contain the loss of seats in southern Georgia to seven seats in the House and two seats in the Senate. Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 729 ("[W]ith the numbers we had, we knew that [at] a minimum they were going to lose seven seats, and my job was to keep from doing that. . . . They wanted me to help them see if they could draw a plan that held it to seven, if at all possible.");id. at 752-54 (noting that seven House seats were lost in the southern part of the state); Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 619 ("When I initially looked at it, I thought we were going to probably lose somewhere in the range of maybe three to four districts, and it turned out we did not lose that many."); id. at 658 (noting that only two Senate seats were lost in the southern part of the state).^3a

3a To a lesser but discernible extent, the plans' drafters also attempted to prevent the loss of seats — particularly in an effort to protect incumbents — in inner-city Atlanta, which is also lagging behind other areas of the state in terms of population growth. Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 630-31. Creating population deviations of more than 4% in these districts was not necessary to prevent retrogression in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The Republican Senate leadership proposed plans that did not reduce the number of majority-minority districts and still contained maximum deviations far below 9.98%. See Plaintiffs' exs. 68-72; Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 453-56. Moreover, the defendant has never claimed that the population deviations were necessary to achieve compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

A study of the patterns of deviation further illustrates how the population deviations were created. What is most striking is a comparison of the districts that were the most underpopulated and overpopulated coming into the reapportionment process and those that were the most underpopulated and overpopulated in the plans that ultimately passed. The same pattern exists in all of the charts: the most underpopulated areas are located almost exclusively in rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta, and the most overpopulated areas are located almost exclusively in the areas of north Georgia that encircle Atlanta. See Plaintiffs' Exs. 3 (pre-redislricting Senate figures), 6 (2002 Senate Plan figures), 77 (pre-redistricting House figures), 83 (House Plan figures).

Thus, it is clear that rather than using the reapportionment process to equalize districts throughout the state, legislators and plan drafters sought to shift only as much population to the state's underpopulated districts as they thought necessary to stay within a total population deviation of 10%. And if the population trend that has transformed the state over the last several years continues, the vote dilution suffered by individuals living in significantly overpopulated districts is likely to compound over the course of this decade.

d. Incumbent Protection

An examination of the entire record also leads us to find that the other major cause of the deviations in both plans was an intentional effort to allow incumbent Democrats to maintain or increase their delegation, primarily by systematically underpopulating the districts held by incumbent Democrats, by over-populating those of Republicans, and by deliberately pairing numerous Republican incumbents against one another. Substantial circumstantial evidence leads us to this conclusion. See, e.g., Test. of Plaintiffs' Expert Ronald Keith Gaddie, Tr. at 46, 48-49, 81 (concluding, based on a study of the maps, that the population deviations in the state legislative plans were used for political purposes); Test. of Plaintiffs' Expert Clark Bensen, Tr. at 239-41 (same).

While Democratic incumbents who supported the plans were generally protected, Republican incumbents were regularly pitted against one another in an obviously purposeful attempt to unseat as many of them as possible. In the House Plan, forty-seven incumbents were paired, including thirty-seven Republicans, which was 50% of the Republican caucus, but only nine Democrats, comprising less than 9% of that caucus (as well as one Independent).^4a Gaddie Report at 26, Table 8.2; Bensen Report at House App. Tab 12. Because six of the twenty-one districts involved were multi-member districts, the end result was that a maximum of twenty-eight of the paired incumbents could be re-elected, and the remaining nineteen would be unseated. Gaddie Report at 26. Similarly, the 2002 Senate Plan included six incumbent pairings: four Republican — Republican pairings and two Republican-Democrat pairings. Id. at Table 8.1; Bensen Report at 2002 Senate Plan Section p. 6, 2002 Senate Plan App. Tab 12. In the 2002 general election, eighteen Republican incumbents in the House and four Republican incumbents in the Senate lost their seats due to the pairings, while only three Democratic incumbents in the House and no Democratic incumbents in the Senate lost seats this way. Gaddie Report at 26-27.^5a

4a We note that former Representative Collins is listed as an Independent in Dr Gaddie's report and as an Independent Republican in Dr. Bensen's report. Gaddie Report at Table 8.2, Bensen Report at House App. Tab 12. However, for purposes of this opinion, former Representative Collins is considered a Republican.

5a One Independent member of the House also lost a seat due to the pairings. Id.

The numbers largely speak for themselves, but the shapes of many of these districts and the resulting pairings further indicate that there was an intent not only to aid Democratic incumbents in getting re-elected but also to oust many of their Republican incumbent counterparts. For example, one Republican senator (Senator Cable) was drawn into a district with a Democratic incumbent who ultimately won the 2002 general election, while an open district was drawn within two blocks of her residence. Test. of Sen. Johnson, Tr. at 444. Additionally, two of the most senior Republican senators, Senators Burton and Ladd, were drawn into the same district, id. at 444-45; and a Republican House member, Representative Kaye, who was generally disliked by several of the Democratic incumbents, was paired with another representative in an attempt to unseat him, Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 900-01. Finally, many of the districts that paired Republicans are not only oddly shaped but also overpopulated (for example, House Districts 3, 30, 46, 85, 127, and 137, which have positive deviations of 4.74%, 4.57%, 4.24%, 4.30%, 4.80%, and 4.45%, respectively, and Senate Districts 17, 40, 49, and 56, which have positive deviations of 4.97%, 4.84%, 4.61%, and 4.97%, respectively), thus also suggesting that the districts were drawn to force Republican incumbents to run against each other and to draw in as many Republican voters as possible in the process.^6a

6a Almost all of these districts border at least one underpopulated district. Several of the districts with Republican-Republican pairings easily could have been less overpopulated (and some pairings eliminated) had the plan drafters transferred some of the population from those districts into neighboring districts.

Most of the political design in the map drawing occurred at a more basic level, with individual Democratic incumbents negotiating with the plans' drafters to draw them the safest possible districts, i.e., districts that retained many of their previous supporters and that took on as few new constituents as was perceived to be legally necessary. Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 622-26, 642, 647-50; Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 711-12, 732, 735-40, 759-65. In fact, the evidence indicates not only that Democratic incumbents attempted to draw districts that would enhance their own prospects at re-election and further their other political ends (such as building up a support base for a future run for Congress,see, e.g., Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 757, 759, 761, 764-66), but also that they targeted particular Republicans to prevent their re-election.

Perhaps the most striking example of the manipulation of population deviations at the district level, however, may be what occurred in House District 137, which drew in two Republican incumbents. This district has a positive deviation of 4.45%, although it is located in the southern part of the state, where the vast majority of districts are underpopulated. It borders Districts 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, and 144, which have population deviations of — 4.78%, -4.63%, -4.60%, -4.68%, +3.10%, -3.11%, -4.77%, -4.94%, and +2.21%, respectively.^7a

7a While the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claim has been dismissed, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs regarding an intent to gerrymander districts — for example, the comparisons of core retention figures and of incumbent pairings for Republican and Democratic representatives — also indicates an intent to use population deviations to further advance the same goals.

These efforts at selective incumbent protection through the use of population deviations and creative district shapes led to a significant overall partisan advantage for Democrats in the electoral maps. Republican-leaning districts are vastly more overpopulated as a whole than Democratic-leaning districts. Indeed, by one measure, the House Plan contains fifty overpopulated and thirteen underpopulated Republican-leaning districts, compared to only twenty-two overpopulated and fifty-nine underpopulated Democratic-leaning districts, and the 2002 Senate Plan contains nineteen overpopulated and seven underpopulated Republican-leaning districts, compared to only eight overpopulated and twenty-two underpopulated Democratic-leaning districts. Bensen Report at House App. Tab 8, 2002 Senate App. Tab 8. Moreover, as we have noted, the large positive deviations often occurred in districts that paired Republican incumbents (such as House Districts 3, 30, 46, 85, 127, and 137 and Senate Districts 17, 40, 49, and 56).

e. Traditional Redistricting Criteria

The Supreme Court has specifically detailed a number of state policies that, when applied in a consistent and nondiscriminatory manner, can justify some level of population deviation. In Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 103 S.Ct. 2653 (1983), discussing population deviations, the Court indicated the kind of policies that might permit some deviation from perfect population equality: "Any number of consistently applied legislative policies might justify some variance, including, for instance, making districts compact, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbent Representatives." Id. at 740, 103 So. Ct. at 2663. The last of these, incumbent protection, has already been discussed at length. The other policies were not causes of the population deviations in the House Plan and 2002 Senate Plan; nor indeed, were they priorities at all in drafting the plans. In fact, the defendant has never claimed that they were.

First, the population deviations in the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan did not result from any attempt to create compact districts. One can discern that just by looking at the maps themselves — in particular, at districts such as House Districts 13, 47, 87, 127, and 137 and Senate Districts 16, 17, 24, 28, and 51. Additionally, a simple comparison of these districts to the population data reveals that many of the most oddly — shaped districts in the plans have the largest positive deviations. For example, considering only the ten districts just mentioned, House Districts 13, 47, 87, 127, and 137 have positive deviations of 3.99%, 2.22%, 4.93%, 4.80%, and 4.45%, respectively; and Senate Districts 16, 17, 24, 28, and 51 have positive deviations of 4.97%, 4.97%, 4.25%, 4.97%, and 4.99%, respectively.

A more sophisticated analysis of district compactness, calculated by comparing the relative length of the perimeter of a district to its area ("the Perimeter-to-Area measure") or by measuring the space occupied by a district as a proportion of the space of the smallest encompassing circle ("the Smallest Circle score"), also demostrates that the level of compactness is significantly Smaller in the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan than in 1996 plans studied by plaintiffs' expert Dr. Gaddie. Gaddie Report at 13-14. For either method of calculating compactness, a value of one indicates perfect compactness and is achieved where a district is a circle. Id. at 14. In this instance, the average Perimeter-to-Area measure for districts in the House Plan is .24, as compared to .28 in the 1996 plan; and the average Smallest Circle score for districts in the House Plan is .38, as compared to .40 in the 1996 plan. Id. at Table 4.1. An even starker contrast exists in the 2002 Senate Plan, which has an average Perimeter-to-Area measure of .16, down from .27 in the 1996 plan, and an average Smallest Circle score of .35, down from .42 in the 1996 plan. Id.

The defendant does not argue that compactness was a consideration in the reapportionment process. Senator Brown, a principal architect of the 2001 and 2002 Senate Plans, never mentioned compactness as a factor in drawing districts; and Linda Meggers, the principal drafter of the House Plan, testified that redistricting decisions in Georgia are not guided by measures of compactness. Test, of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 775-76, 875-76. Other witnesses similarly testified that compactness was not considered in drawing the maps. See, e.g., Dep. of John G. Kirincich, Jr. at 76, 216; Dep. of Douglas M. Moore at 30; Dep. of Joe Stanton at 24, 50-51, 93, 99, 106-07. Nor was compactness specifically mentioned in the guidelines for redistricting adopted by the House and Senate Reapportionment Committees. Plaintiffs' Ex. 58.

Second, district contiguity was not a real concern among plan drafters and legislators. See, e.g., Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 664-65 (stating that he was "never quite sure" what contiguity meant); Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 871-73 (indicating that the definition of "contiguous" was relaxed prior to the 2001 reapportionment process, thus allowing for the use of point contiguity). It is also clear that any regard plan drafters may have had for contiguity could not explain the 9.98% population deviations in the plans. While all of the districts are technically contiguous (as required by state law), many districts achieve that designation through the use of water contiguity, which is predicated on the assumption of line-of-sight across a lake or other body of water, or touch-point contiguity, which is predicated on facing corners in a checker-board like fashion. Water contiguity was necessary to keep together six districts in the House Plan (specifically, Districts 77, 127, 128, 129, 141, and 146) and seventeen districts in the 2002 Senate Plan (specifically, Districts 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 45, 49, 51, and 54). Touch-point contiguity is found in five districts in the House Plan (specifically, Districts 3, 72, 96, 114, and 120) and in one district in the 2002 Senate Plan (specifically, District 18). Gaddie Report at 15-16, Tables 5.1, 5.2; Report of Plaintiffs' Expert Clark Bensen, Plaintiffs' Ex. 204 ("Bensen Report"), at 3-5. Furthermore, the majority of the districts that are contiguous only by reason of water or touch-point contiguity are overpopulated: sixteen of the twenty-three districts with water contiguity have deviations of more than ± 4%, and two of the six districts with touch-point contiguity have deviations of more than ± 4.5%. Gaddie Report at 16.^8a

8a In some cases, water and touch-point contiguity may have been used to keep counties or precincts whole while attempting to satisfy the political wishes of individual legislators. Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 759, 763-64.

Third, it is also clear that the drafters of the plans were almost entirely unconcerned about keeping counties whole, and that the 9.98% total population deviations cannot be explained by efforts to keep counties together. Both Senator Brown and Linda Meggers testified that as the state has become more diverse and more mobile, county lines have become less and less relevant on a statewide level. Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 633 ("Georgia is a much more mobile state. The old county unit system that once existed has less relevance to state policy, state governmental interests than it once did."); id. at 637 (stating that "I do not share [the] opinion" that splitting counties negatively impacts local interests); Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 718-20 (stating that counties are becoming less important as political and social units than they used to be).

A study of the maps also reveals that their drafters were not concerned about splitting counties. The House Plan actually splits eighty of the state's 159 counties into 266 parts. In contrast, the 1996 plan split only seventy-two counties, even though that plan contained 180 districts and the current plan contains only 147 (due to the use of multi-member districts). Moreover, in the 2002 Senate Plan, eighty-one counties are split into 219 parts, whereas the 1996 plan split only forty-three counties. In fact, some counties are split into multiple parts, such as Cobb County (thirteen parts in the House Plan and six parts in the 2002 Senate Plan), DeKalb County (twelve parts in the House Plan and seven parts in the 2002 Senate Plan), Fulton County (sixteen parts in the House Plan and eight parts in the 2002 Senate Plan), and Gwinnett County (nine parts in the House Plan and seven parts in the 2002 Senate Plan). Though part of this division is a result of highly populated counties that cannot be entirely encompassed within a single district, some counties are split into multiple parts even in the more rural areas of the state. For example, Bartow County, which has 75,000 residents, is split into three House Districts and four Senate Districts; and Bryan County, which has just 23, 417 residents, is split into five House Districts and three Senate Districts. Gaddie Report at 19, 20, Tables 6.2, 6.3. Additionally, forty-two of the counties split in the House Plan, and sixty-eight of counties split in the 2002 Senate Plan, have populations smaller than the ideal district size.Id. at 19.^9a

9a The current plans also split more cities than the previous plans. The House Plan splits 82 cities into l84 parts, whereas the benchmark (1998) plan split 49 cities into 109 parts. The 2002 Senate Plan splits 102 cities into 254 parts, whereas the benchmark plan split 78 cities into 208 parts. Test. of Plaintiffs' Expert Clark Bensen, Tr. at 237-38.
The population deviations also did not result from an interest in not splitting precincts. Indeed, the House Plan splits about 270 precincts and the Senate Plan splits 159 precincts. Test. of Bryan Tyson, Tr at 932 While preservation of precinct lines may have been a marginal concern in drawing the state legislative plans, it cannot explain the plans' 9.98% deviation. And the defendant does not argue otherwise.

There is no correlation between county splits and attempts to reduce population disparities, as sixty-five of the counties split in the House Plan and seventy-one of the counties split in the 2002 Senate Plan contain at least one district with a population deviation of ± 4% or greater. Id. Moreover, many of these high-deviation districts are located adjacent to other districts whose populations could be transferred so as to reduce the deviations in both districts and, in some cases, to eliminate the county split at the same time.Id.; Test. of Plaintiffs' Expert Ronald Keith Gaddie, Tr. at 70-71.

Finally, preserving the cores of prior districts was not mentioned in the guidelines for redistricting adopted by the House and Senate Reapportionment Committees. Plaintiffs' Ex. 58. To the extent that the preservation of district cores may have been a goal of the drafters of the House and Senate Plans, they tried only to maintain the cores of Democratic-leaning districts. The plan drafters drew districts for Democratic incumbents who supported the plans, allowing them to retain as much of their base as they wanted and to take on as little new territory as possible, and simply gave Republican incumbents what was left, i.e., "remnant districts." Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 623-26, 634, 647-49; Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 712, 740, 760, 905-06.

The plans' core retention figures, which represent the extent to which constituencies are maintained or disrupted by a new map, amply demonstrate that core retention was not a concern in the redistricting process. Core retention can be viewed in one of two ways: (1) in terms of the largest core of a prior district that is included in a successor district, or (2) in terms of the district core of each incumbent located in a district. Gaddie Report at 22-23. In the House Plan, the average largest district core is 70.84% for single-member districts, 42.97% for two-member districts, 28.27% for three-member districts, and 23.80% for four-member districts; and the average incumbent core is 65.88% for single-member districts, 32.18% for two-member districts, 22.32% for three-member districts, and 23.72% for four-member districts.Id. at 23-24, Table 7.3.^10a In the 2002 Senate Plan, the average largest core is 63.39%, and the average incumbent core is 58.22%.Id. at 23, Table 7.2.

10a Core retention in the House Plan is largest in single-member districts. This is the opposite of what one might expect in a neutral plan. Because two-, three-, and four-member districts generally encompass more territory, they should, in a neutral plan, retain larger district cores. Similarly, incumbents in such districts should hold onto larger cores of their prior districts.

To the extent that the map drawers had any concern for retaining the cores of prior districts, a comparison of Republican versus Democrat core retention reveals the extremely inconsistent manner in which this factor was applied. Despite the fact that Republican areas of the state have grown at a faster rate than have Democratic areas (so that in a neutral plan Republican incumbents would be expected to take on fewer new constituents), core retention figures were significantly lower-especially in terms of incumbent cores — for Republican than for Democratic incumbents. In the House, Republicans in single-, two-, and three-member districts retained an average of 56.73%, 28.36%, and 17.95% of their core districts, respectively, whereas Democrats retained 73.93%, 38.48%, and 27.56%, respectively.^11a Id. at 24, Table 7.3. Similarly, in the Senate, Republicans retained an average of 45.67% of their core districts, while Democrats retained 66.60%. Id. at 23, Table 7.2.

11a No Republican incumbents were placed in four-member districts. Democratic incumbents placed in four-member districts retained an average of 23.72% of their core districts. Gaddie Report at Table 7.3.

After thorough review of the entire record in this case, we cannot escape the conclusion that the population deviations were designed to allow Democrats to maintain or increase their representation in the House and Senate through the underpopulation of districts in Democratic-leaning rural and inner-city areas of the state and through the protection of Democratic incumbents and the impairment of the Republican incumbents' reelection prospects. The twin goals of regional favoritism and protection of Democratic incumbents led to the underpopulation and overpopulation of certain districts. Rural and inner-city Atlanta districts tended also to be Democratic-leaning and to be represented by Democrats, so the negative population deviations in these districts were ultimately the result of design. Likewise, suburban districts in northern Georgia tended to be Republican-leaning and to have Republican representation in the General Assembly, and so these districts were overpopulated.

2. The Congressional Plan

Prior to the 2000 census, the State of Georgia had eleven congressional districts. Those districts were drawn in 1995 by a three-judge court in the Southern District of Georgia after the Georgia General Assembly was unable to fashion a constitutional plan. Johnson v. Miller, 922 F. Supp. 1556 (S.D. Ga. 1995) (three-judge court), aff'd sub nom. Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 117 S.Ct. 1925(1997). The range in population deviation for the court-drawn plan was from -0.23% in District 2 to +0.12% in District 3, for an overall deviation of 0.35% and an average deviation of 0.11%. The 2000 census figures indicated that the state had gained more than 1.7 million people in the preceding ten years, resulting in the allocation of two additional congressional seats. With a population of 8,186,453 people, Georgia was entitled to thirteen congressional districts, each with an ideal population of 629,727 persons.

Congressional redistricting in Georgia is a collaborative effort between the state House of Representatives and the state Senate. The House and Senate each passed a redistricting plan, both of which were referred to a conference committee composed of six members, three each from the House and Senate. There were no Republican representatives on the conference committee. On the final day of the special session, the conference committee sent a compromise redistricting plan back to the House and Senate. Each chamber passed the plan, and it was signed by the governor.

The new Congressional Plan resulted in a total population deviation of seventy-two people, approximately 0.01% of the population of an ideal congressional district. The most overpopulated district, District 9, has thirty-five more people than the perfectly apportioned district, and the most underpopulated district, District 4, has thirty-seven fewer people than the perfectly apportioned district. The only district that is within one person of the ideal number is District 5, with a population deviation of zero. The average district's absolute deviation was seventeen people, or 0.003% of an ideal district. Senator Brown testified that deviations, and their correlation with political advantage, were not considered when the congressional maps were created. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how deviations this small could amount to a significant advantage for any party. After the 2002 elections, the first held under the new plan, Republicans controlled eight of the congressional seats compared to the Democrats' five seats.

The deviations that exist in the Congressional Plan could have been reduced or eliminated all together. Linda Meggers, who was directly involved with drafting both the House plan that was sent to the conference committee and the final plan that emerged from the conference committee, testified that it would be possible to draw a congressional map for the State of Georgia with a population deviation of plus or minus one person. Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 881. In fact, such a map could have been created in one day, even while ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Id. at 881-82. Ms. Meggers further testified that she could create such a plan that split fewer counties than the present plan, is more compact than the present plan, and divides fewer voting precincts than the present plan. Id. at 882-83.

It is clear that politics and the individual concerns of various legislators had an impact on the congressional redistricting process. Ms. Meggers testified that former Senate Majority Leader Walker insisted on a district in east Georgia that he hoped would lead to a successful congressional campaign for his son. Id. at 781-83. The resulting district, District 12, runs from Clarke County down the eastern border of the state to Bryan County. Id. at 783.

Ms. Meggers also testified about the political battles that led to the creation of District 13, an irregular-shaped district that touches parts of eleven counties surrounding the city of Atlanta. District 13 resulted from Senator Hecht's desire to create a district from which he felt he could mount a successful congressional campaign. Id. at 782-87. As more senators realized that Senator Hecht was attempting to create such a district, they too began to assert influence on the proposed District 13, drawing in different areas they felt would be advantageous in the event they attempted to launch their own congressional careers.Id. at 784-87. These considerations drove not only the shape of District 13 but also the shape of the entire map. Id. As each vote in the Senate would be of critical importance, the drafters could not afford to alienate any one senator by disregarding his or her personal desires. Id.

Ms. Meggers further testified that representatives from both the House and the Senate wanted a "middle Georgia" congressional district, designed to protect the interests of groups from that area of the state.Id. at 782-88. That district ended up being District 3, which runs across the middle of the state, from Marion County in the west to Evans County in the east. Id. at 788. Former Speaker of the House Murphy, who was represented by Congressman Barr in the former District 7, wanted a new district drawn in that area that would be more competitive for Democrats and more challenging for Congressman Barr. Id. at 789-90.

Senator Eric Johnson, a Republican, similarly testified that passing a congressional plan is an extraordinarily political process because so many legislators have aspirations of being elected to Congress and, therefore, have an interest in crafting a district they consider politically desirable. Test. of Sen. Johnson, Tr. at 463. Senator Johnson stated that during the redistricting process, nobody mentioned a desire to avoid splitting counties or precincts; there was no real effort to keep communities of interest together; there was no discussion of making compact districts; nobody discussed having district or precinct lines follow natural or man-made boundaries; and there was no effort to protect incumbents. Id. at 464-65. Senator Johnson gave testimony substantially similar to that of Ms. Meggers regarding Senator Walker's desire to craft a congressional district from which his son might pursue a campaign and Speaker Murphy's desire to draw himself out of Congressman Barr's district. U. at 468, 470.

After the politicians crafted a version of the congressional map, Ms. Meggers and her staff were left to work out the details. The State of Georgia did not reduce the population deviations to zero because to do so would have required either splitting more precincts or further splitting existing split precincts along something other than an easily recognizable boundary — Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 804-07. In constructing the final map, when Ms. Meggers had to split a voting precinct, she tried to do so along only an obvious natural or man-made boundary. Id. For example, she would try to split the precinct along a major road as opposed to a neighborhood street. This was done for several reasons. First, having precinct lines correspond with major natural or man-made boundaries made it easier for election officials who are responsible for maintaining an accurate list of voters. Id. at 805. Second, it is easier for voters to determine what district they are in when easily recognizable boundaries are used. Id. Finally, she testified to a concern regarding ballot secrecy. Id. at 805-06. The secrecy issue relates to the fact that precincts are split for a variety of different districts, including congressional districts, Senate districts, House districts, school board districts, county commission districts, etc. Ms. Meggers expressed a concern about creating ballot combinations belonging to such a small number of people that one could determine a voter's identity simply by knowing the different districts within which that person voted. Id.

Ms. Meggers explained in detail what she would have had to do to reduce each district to a population deviation of plus or minus one person. For example, she testified that District 2, which is located in southwest Georgia, had only three split precincts, all in the Columbus area of Muscogee County. It had a population deviation of plus eight people. In order to reduce the deviation to zero, she would need to find a census block in one of those three precincts that bordered neighboring District 11 and that had exactly eight people. While one such voting block existed, as depicted in Defendant's Exhibit 6E, it would have required deviating from the major boundary, Edgewood Road, that was used to divide the precinct. However, even if she made such a change, that would have resulted in a change in the deviation in the adjoining District 11. Ms. Meggers explained that the only way to correct the deviation in District 11 was to deviate from a major boundary in an already split precinct; and even if that were done, it would cause a deviation that would need to be corrected in District 8. Ms. Meggers continued with the explanations, demonstrating how each deviation correction in each district could be accomplished only by departing from a major boundary and even then would serve only to create a deviation fluctuation in an adjoining district.

II. Conclusions of Law

The Constitution of the United States requires that congressional and state legislative seats be apportioned equally, so as to ensure that the constitutionally guaranteed right of suffrage is not denied by debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 1385 (1964): Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. I, 7-8, 84 S.Ct. 526, 530 (1964). As the Supreme Court expressed more than forty years ago in a challenge to one of Georgia's previous state legislative reapportionment schemes:

Once the geographical unit for which a representative is to be chosen is designated, all who participate in the election are to have an equal vote — whatever their race, whatever their sex, whatever their occupation, whatever their income, and wherever their home may be in that geographical unit. This is required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The concept of "we the people" under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions.

Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379-80, 83 S.Ct. 801, 808 (1963).

While the Court has allowed some flexibility in state legislative reapportionment and, to a lesser extent, in congressional reapportionment, the central and invariable objective in both instances remains "equal representation for equal numbers of people."Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 18, 84 S. C t. at 535; see also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 579, 84 S.Ct. at 1390. Thus, deviations from exact population equality may be allowed in some instances in order to further legitimate state interests such as making districts compact and contiguous, respecting political subdivisions, maintaining the cores of prior districts, and avoiding incumbent pairings. See Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 740-41, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 2663 (1983) (holding that State failed to meet its burden of proving deviations were necessary to achieve legitimate, nondiscriminatory legislative policy); Reynolds. 377 U.S. at 578-79, 84 S.Ct. at 1390-91. However, where population deviations are not supported by such legitimate interests but, rather, are tainted by arbitrariness or discrimination, they cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. See Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 710, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 1458 (1964).

The population deviations in the Georgia House and Senate Plans are not the result of an effort to further any legitimate, consistently applied state policy. Rather, we have found that the deviations were systematically and intentionally created (1) to allow rural southern Georgia and inner-city Atlanta to maintain their legislative influence even as their rate of population growth lags behind that of the rest of the state; and (2) to protect Democratic incumbents. Neither of these explanations withstands Equal Protection scrutiny. First, forty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence have established that the creation of deviations for the purpose of allowing the people of certain geographic regions of a state to hold legislative power to a degree disproportionate to their population is plainly unconstitutional. Moreover, the protection of incumbents is a permissible cause of population deviationsonly when it is limited to the avoidance of contests between incumbents and is applied in a consistent and nondiscriminatory manner. The incumbency protection in the Georgia state legislative plans meets neither criterion. Therefore, that interest cannot save the plans from constitutional infirmity. Quite simply, the Georgia plans violate the Equal Protection Clause. "Full and effective participation by all citizens in state government requires . . . that each citizen have an equally effective voice in the election of members of his state legislature. Modern and viable state government needs, and the Constitution demands, no less." Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 565, 84 S.Ct. at 1383.

By contrast, we are satisfied that Georgia's congressional redistricting plan passes constitutional muster, as its minimal seventy-two person deviation appears to us to have been caused by legitimate efforts to limit the number of precinct splits and to contain any necessary precinct splits to easily recognizable boundaries.

We are in no way unmindful that in striking down two redistricting plans, we are necessarily interfering with the legislative process of reapportionment. The Supreme Court has recognized that the goal of fair and effective representation is not furthered "by making the standards of reapportionment so difficult to satisfy that the reapportionment task is recurringly removed from legislative hands and performed by federal courts." Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 749, 93 S. C t. 2321, 2329 (1973): see also Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900. 915. 115 S.Ct. 2475, 2488 (1995) ("Federal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions. It is well settled that `reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.'" (quoting Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 27, 95 So. Ct. 751, 766 (1975))). However, where a state's reapportionment intrudes upon the fundamental right to vote for what can be characterized only as discriminatory and arbitrary reasons, it is our duty to step in. As theReynolds Court advised:

We are told that the matter of apportioning representation in a state legislature is a complex and many-faceted one. We are advised that States can rationally consider factors other than population in apportioning legislative representation. We are admonished not to restrict the power of the States to impose differing views as to political philosophy on their citizens. We are cautioned about the dangers of entering into political thickets and mathematical quagmires. Our answer is this: a denial of constitutionally protected rights demands judicial protection; our oath and our office require no less of us. . . ." When a State exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right."

377 U.S. at 566, 84 S.Ct. at 1384 (quoting Gomillion v. Light foot, 364 U.S. 339, 347, 81 S.Ct. 125, 130 (1960)). This court will not ignore that duty.

A. The Plaintiffs' One Person, One Vote Challenge to the State Legislative Plans

1. General Principles

The Supreme Court has long held that a claim asserted under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, challenging the constitutionality of a state legislative apportionment scheme on the ground that a citizen's right to vote has been impaired through vote dilution, presents a justiciable controversy. See. e.g.,Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 556, 84 S.Ct. at 1378: Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 207-08, 82 S.Ct. 691, 705 (1962). Each state is, therefore, required to "make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable." Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 577, 84 S.Ct. at 1390. This Equal Protection guarantee, commonly known as the one person, one vote principle, commands that "the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis." Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 568, 84 S.Ct. at 1385.

However, the Supreme Court has recognized both that mathematical precision is not a workable constitutional requirement and that it is practically impossible to construct state legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of citizens. See id. at 577, 84 S.Ct. at 1390. Thus, the Court has allowed the states to exercise "[s]omewhat more flexibility" in state legislative redistricting than in congressional redistricting. Id. at 577-78, 84 S.Ct. at 1390. The Supreme Court has directed:

So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bicameral state legislature.

Id. at 579, 84 S.Ct. at 1391. These deviations from perfect equality "may occur in recognizing certain factors that are free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination." Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. at 710, 84 S.Ct. at 1458.

In reviewing one person, one vote challenges to state legislative plans, the Supreme Court has adopted a so-called "ten percent rule" for allocating the burden of proof. In Gaffney, the Supreme Court observed that "minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to require justification by the State." 412 U.S. at 745, 93 S.Ct. at 2327. After a series of cases further distinguishing minor population deviations from larger deviations requiring justification, see, e.g., Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 418, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 1835 (1977); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 764, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 2338 (1973), the Court eventually stated in more precise terms that, as a general matter, "an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10% falls within this category of minor deviations" that are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 2696 (1983) (emphasis added). In contrast, a plan with a higher maximum deviation "creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State."Id. at 842-43, 103 S.Ct. at 2696. In considering legitimate justifications, courts must consider "[t]he consistency of application and the neutrality of effect of the nonpopulation criteria" in order to determine whether a state legislative reapportionment plan violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 845-46, 103 S.Ct. at 2697-98.

Most lower courts presented with challenges to plans with population deviations of less than 10% have concluded that such plans are not automatically immune from constitutional attack. Thus, for example, the Fourth Circuit has held that the 10% threshold "does not completely insulate a state's districting plan from attack of any type" but, rather, "serves as the determining point for allocating the burden of proof in a one person, one vote case." Daly v. Hunt, 93 F.3d 1212, 1220 (4th Cir. 1996). That court summarized the rule in these terms:

[I]f the maximum [population] deviation is less than 10%, the population disparity is considered de minimis and the plaintiff cannot rely on it alone to prove invidious discrimination or arbitrariness. To survive summary judgment, the plaintiff would have to produce further evidence to show that the apportionment process had a "taint of arbitrariness or discrimination." Romany. Sincock, 377 U.S. at 710, 84 S.Ct. at 1458. In other words, for deviations below 10%, the state is entitled to a presumption that the apportionment plan was the result of an "honest and good faith effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal population as is practicable." Reynolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. at 577, 84 So. Ct. at 1390. However, this is a rebuttable presumption.

Id.; see also Cecere v. County of Nassau, 274 F. Supp.2d 308, 311-12 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (holding that deviations under 10% create a rebuttable presumption of constitutionality): Montiel v. Davis, 215 F. Supp.2d 1279, 1285-86 (S.D. Ala. 2002) (three-judge court) (same); Hulme v. Madison County, 188 F. Supp.2d 1041, 1047 (S.D. Ill. 2001) (same); Abate v. Rockland County Legislature, 964 F. Supp. 817, 819 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (same);Marylanders for Fair Representation v. Schaefer, 849 F. Supp. 1022, 1032 (D. Md. 1994) (three-judge court) (same).^12a

12a But see Wright v. City of Albany, No. 1:03-CV-148, slip op. at 5 n. 5, 11 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 24, 2003) (stating that a safe harbor exists for plans with population deviations of less than 10%);Colleton County Council v. McConnell, 201 F. Supp.2d 618. 611 (D.S.C. 2002) (three-judge court) (same); Fund for Accurate and Informed Representation, Inc. v. Weprin, 796 F. Supp. 662, 668 (N.D.N.Y. 1992) (three-judge court) (holding that plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination if a plan has a maximum population deviation of less than 10%).

We agree that state legislative plans with population deviations of less than 10% may be challenged based on alleged violation of the one person, one vote principle. Indeed, the very fact that the Supreme Court has described the ten percent rule in terms of "prima facie constitutional validity" unmistakably indicates that 10% is not a safe harbor. See Connor, 431 U.S. at 418, 97 S.Ct. at 1835. Had the Court intended to foreclose all one person, one vote challenges to plans with population deviations not rising to the 10% level, the Court would undoubtedly have said as much, rather than expressing that such plans are merely "prima facie" — in other words, rebuttably — constitutional. And in this case, because the population deviations in both the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan are 9.98%, the ten percent rule applies (albeit barely). In short, the legislative plans are presumptively constitutional, and the burden lies on the plaintiffs to rebut that presumption.

The Supreme Court explained in Roman that "the proper judicial approach" to a one person, one vote claim is "to ascertain whether, under the particular circumstances existing in the individual State whose legislative apportionment is at issue, there has been a faithful adherence to a plan of population-based representation, with such minor deviations only as may occur in recognizing certain factors that are free from the taint of arbitrariness or discrimination." 377 U.S. at 710, 84 S.Ct. at 1458 (involving major deviations). The Supreme Court reiterated this sentiment in Brown, indicating that the "ultimate inquiry" is "whether the legislature's plan may reasonably be said to advance [a] rational state policy and, if so, whether the population disparities among the districts that have resulted from the pursuit of this plan exceed constitutional limits." 462 U.S. at 843, 103 S.Ct. at 2696 (citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (involving major deviations).

In the redistricting of the Georgia state House and Senate, the drafters of the new electoral maps made no effort to make the districts as nearly of equal population as was practicable. In fact, it is quite apparent on this record that legislators and plan drafters made a concerted effort to contain population deviations to ± 5%, and no further, as they operated on the belief that there was a safe harbor of ± 5%. See Test. of Rep. Westmoreland, Tr. at 369-70, 409; Test. of Sen. Johnson, Tr. at 441; Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 665-66; Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 856-57. It is also apparent that any efforts to minimize population deviations ceased once the ± 5% level was reached, even though perfect equality was certainly attainable given current technology. See Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 624, 651; Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 730, 738, 740.

Such use of a 10% population window as a safe harbor may well violate the fundamental one person, one vote command of Reynolds, requiring that states "make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal population as practicable" and deviate from this principle only where "divergences. . . are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy." 377 U.S. at 577, 579, 84 S.Ct. at 1390, 1391. The use of a 10% safe harbor may also conflict with the Roman Court's observation that "the constitutionally permissible bounds of discretion in deviating from apportionment according to population" cannot be stated in a uniform mathemalical formula, as it assumes that 10% is such a mathematical formula. 377 U.S. at 710, 84 S.Ct. at 1458.

We need not decide, however, whether the mere use of a 10% population window renders Georgia's state legislative plans unconstitutional, because the policies the population window was used to promote in this case were not "free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination."Roman, 377 U.S. at 710, 84 S.Ct. at 1458. The record makes abundantly clear that the population deviations in the Georgia House and Senate were not driven by any traditional redistricting criteria such as compactness, contiguity, and preserving county lines. Instead, the defense has put forth two basic explanations for the population deviations. First, witnesses for the defendant have repeatedly asserted — and a look at the redistricting maps does nothing to dispel the notion — that a powerful cause of the deviations in both plans was the concerted effort to allow rural and inner-city Atlanta regions of the state to hold on to their legislative influence (at the expense of suburban Atlanta), even as the rate of population growth in those areas was substantially lower than that of other parts of the state. Second, the deviations were created to protect incumbents in a wholly inconsistent and discriminatory way. On this record, neither explanation can convert a baldly unconstitutional scheme into a lawful one.

2. Regionalism

As we have found, regionalism — namely, a desire by rural and inner-city Atlanta legislators to retain their legislative influence even as the population of these areas has languished in comparison to the high-growth areas of north Georgia — was a major cause of the population deviations in the Georgia House and Senate Plans. Linda Meggers, the principal drafter of the House Plan, unambiguously said that an effort to allow rural south Georgia to keep as many seats as possible was a basic cause of the population deviations in the House. Meggers testified, "We knew that at a minimum [rural Georgia was] going to lose seven seats, and my job was to keep from doing that." Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 729; see also id. at 730 (describing how she intentionally took all of southern Georgia, "lassoed it in as if it were one big district," and created a series of districts with negative population deviations in the region); Id. at 739 ("[T]hey didn't want to lose any more representation out of rural south Georgia than they had to"); id. at 743 ("[The negative deviations] are in south Georgia because those folks wanted to minimize their loss of power."). Senator Brown said the same thing with respect to the population deviations in the Senate. Test. of Sen. Brown, Tr. at 619 ("[W]hen I looked at the southern part of the state, there was one paramount concern, and that was that we not lose any more districts than would absolutely be necessary.");id. at 652 ("[Y]ou had the desire on the pan of the rural senators to have as many rural senators as possible.").

A look at the actual plans also makes it abundantly clear that regional favoritism substantially drove the population deviations, as districts in rural southern Georgia and inner-city Atlanta tended to be substantially underpopulated, while those in other parts of the state were correspondingly overpopulated. In the Senate, every single district that was underpopulated by at least 4% was located either in rural Georgia south of 1-20 or in inner-city Atlanta. The correspondingly overpopulated districts were in the more suburban parts of the state, Bensen Report at Senate 2002 App. Tab 7. The vast majority of the House districts fit the same pattern, with underpopulated districts in the rural south and inner city and overpopulated ones in suburban areas. Bensen Report at House App. Tab 7.

The House and Senate Plans must be struck down on this basis alone, because the Supreme Court has long and repeatedly held that favoring certain geographic regions of a state over other regions is unconstitutional. Discrimination against certain voters based on the fonuty of where in the state they live cannot be reconciled with the command of Reynolds:

The fact that an individual lives here or there is not a legitimate reason for overweighting or diluting the efficacy of his vote. . . .[T]he basic principle of representative government remains, and must remain, unchanged-the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. . . . A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. This is an essential part of the concept of a government of laws and not men. This is at the heart of Lincoln's vision of "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." The Equal Protection Clause demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.

377 U.S. at 567-68, 84 S.Ct. at 1384-85.

In that landmark one person, one vote case, the Supreme Court struck down a reapportionment plan in Alabama in which rural citizens were given vastly greater voting power than citizens in the state's more urban counties. Id. at 568-69, 84 S.Ct. at 1385. The Court ultimately found the plan to violate the basic Equal Protection principle that "an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State." Id. at 568, 84 S.Ct. at 1385. The Court included strong language concerning the policy of giving some citizens more or less of a vote in an attempt to further geographic interests:

[A]ll voters, as citizens of a State, stand in the same relation regardless of where they live. Any suggested criteria for the differentiation of citizens are insufficient to justify any discrimination, as to the weight of their votes, unless relevant to the permissible purposes of legislative reapportionment. . . . Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race or economic status.

377 U.S. at 565-66, 84 S.Ct. at 1383-84 (citations omitted).

The Reynolds Court thus articulated this basic principle of constitutional jurisprudence: states cannot seek to protect certain geographic interests by allotting them more seats in the state legislature, and thus more legislative influence, than their population would otherwise allow. As the Court said, "Our constitutional system amply provides for the protection of minorities by means other than giving them majority control of state legislatures." Id. at 566, 84 S.Ct. at 1384. Thus, regional interests must be promoted by other means-means that do not dilute or otherwise impair the vote of individuals living in particular regions of the state.

The Court also noted:

Although legislative apportionment controversies are generally viewed as involving urban-rural conflicts, much evidence indicates that presently it is the fast-growing suburban areas which are probably the most seriously underrepresented in many of our state legislatures. . . . Malapportionment can, and has historically, run in various directions. However and whenever it does, it is unconstitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause.

Id. at 567 n. 43, 84 S.Ct. at 1384 n. 43. Quite simply, the dilution of votes based on mere acreage or even upon larger regional interests is both arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Reynolds court clearly expressed that, while some deviations from the equal-population principle are permitted in state legislative reapportionment when they are based on "legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy," id at 579, 84 S.Ct. at 1391, geographic interests do not fall within this category of legitimate considerations, id at 579-80, 84 So. Ct. at 1391.

The defendant argues, nonetheless, that the population deviations in this case are permissible because the one person, one vote principle has been relaxed since Reynolds, particularly in those cases that have expressed and applied the ten percent rule. We disagree. While the Supreme Court and the lower courts have allowed the states some flexibility in the pursuit of legitimate state interests, the Court has never retreated from the firm command in Reynolds that "[d] iluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race or economic status." Id. at 566, 84 S.Ct. at 1384 (citations omitted). Thus, for example, in Hadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metropolitan Kansas City, the Court struck down a voting scheme for the trustees of a junior college district, using the same general one person, one vote standards that apply in congressional and state legislative reapportionment, because that scheme resulted in "a systematic discrimination against voters in the more populous school districts." 397 U.S. 50, 57, 90 S.Ct. 791, 795-96 (1970). And, in Abate v. Mundt, the Court upheld a plan for a county board of supervisors that had a total population deviation of 11.9% because the deviation was supported by the state's long history of having the same individuals hold the governing positions in a county and its towns and because there was no indication that the plan "was designed to favor particular groups." 403 U.S. at 186, 91 S.Ct. at 1907.

In explaining its decision, the Abate Court reiterated the lessons of Reynolds and Hadley:

[T]his Court has never suggested that certain geographic areas or political interests are entitled to disproportionate representation. Rather, our statements have reflected the view that the particular circumstances and needs of a local community as a whole may sometimes justify departures from strict equality. Accordingly, we have underscored the danger of apportionment structures that contain a built-in bias tending to favor particular geographic areas or political interests. . . .

Id. at 185-86, 91 S.Ct. at 1907. See also Brown, 462 U.S. at 844, 103 S.Ct. at 2697 (upholding a state legislative reapportionment scheme in Wyoming because its 89% maximum population deviation was Caused by consistent and nondiscriminatory application of the state's long-held policy of using counties as representative districts and because there was "no indication that the larger cities or towns [were] being discriminated against" and "no preference for the cattle-raising or agricultural areas as such") (citations and quotation marks omitted); Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542, 546, 89 So. Ct. 1234, 1237 (1969) (striking down a congressional reapportionment plan that divided the State of New York into seven regions of differing population and then further divided each of those regions into districts of equal population, thereby yielding a maximum statewide population deviation of 13.10%, and commenting that "[t] o accept a scheme such as New York's would permit groups of districts with defined interest orientations to be overrepresented at the expense of districts with different interest orientations"); Marshall v. Hare, 378 U.S. 561, 84 S.Ct. 1912 (1964) (reversing and remanding a case in which a three-judge district court had found that the assurance of adequate representation to a sparsely populated and impoverished region justified population deviations exceeding a ratio of 2 to 1); Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678, 692, 84 S.Ct. 1441, 1448 (1964) (rejecting the argument that a plan with a maximum population-variance ratio of 2.65 to 1 was "sustainable as involving an attempt to balance urban and rural power in the legislature"); WMCA. Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 653-54, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 1428-29 (1964) (stating that "[h]owever complicated or sophisticated an apportionment scheme might be, it cannot, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, result in a significant undervaluation of the weight of the votes of certain of a State's citizens merely because of where they happen to reside" and, thereby, rejecting a plan that had an average population-variance ratio of 1.5 to 1 between less-populated and more-populated counties, which the Court found to signify "a built-in bias against voters living in the State's more populous counties").

Moreover, the lower federal courts considering this issue have generally agreed that voting schemes may not create population deviations to favor the interests of one region at the expense of another. See, e.g., Hulme, 188 F. Supp.2d at 1051-52 (striking down reapportionment scheme with maximum population deviation of 9.3% because, inter alia, legislative committee chairman "clearly pursued, and ultimately accomplished, his intent to maintain four districts for Alton Township, even though population shifts did not justify it");Roxbury Taxpayers Alliance v, Delaware County Bd. of Supervisors, 886 F. Supp. 242, 254 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (upholding plan for the election of county board of supervisors in which each town representative cast weighted number of votes that was directly proportional to his or her town's portion of the county's total population, in part because there was no suggestion that plan "contain[ed] any built-in bias favoring a particular political interest, race or geographic area"); Mary landers, 849 F. Supp. at 1035 (holding that plaintiffs failed to establish that population deviations were caused by desire to maximize legislative representation of the City of Baltimore and stating in dicta that regional considerations in drawing of district lines were likely permissible so long as they did not result in substantial vote dilution).

Rural and inner-city Atlanta voters in Georgia make up a smaller proportion of the population now than they did in the past, primarily because the suburban communities surrounding Atlanta have been growing at a faster rate. Manipulating the legislative districting map to allow rural Georgia and inner-city Atlanta to maintain the number of seats those areas used to have is tantamount to saying that the interests of rural and inner-city voters are simply more important than those of other citizens. Democratic governments are designed for the benefit of the people who live in the state now, not for the benefit of the people who lived there thirty or forty years ago. There are many ways to ensure that the views and desires of the citizens of rural Georgia are heard, but giving them more legislative influence than their population fairly warrants is a kind of electoral dead-hand control: it allows a minority to maintain political power more commensurate with the numbers it used to have than with the numbers it has today.

The defendant argues, nevertheless, that because the Supreme Court has recognized redistricting along county lines as a justification for population deviations, see, e.g., Brown, 462 U.S. at 844, 103 S.Ct. at 2696-97; Mahan, 410 U.S. at 329, 93 S.Ct. at 987, we must also recognize redistricting to serve regional ends as a similar justification, because regional interests are more pronounced in this modern age than are county interests. This argument misses the point of permitting deviations in order to "rnaintain the integrity of political subdivision lines."Mahan, 410 U.S. at 329, 93 S.Ct. at 987. An interest in preserving discrete local political boundaries was deemed rational precisely because it recognized both the function that smaller governmental units (such as counties) serve in state politics and the long-standing tradition of some states to divide political power equally among their various subdivisions. See Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 580-81, 84 S.Ct. at 1391-92; see also Brown, 462 U.S. at 843-44, 103 S.Ct. at 2696-97; Mahan, 410 U.S. at 325-26, 93 So. Ct. at 985. In Reynolds, the Court explained:

A consideration that appears to be of more substance in justifying some deviations from population-based representation in state legislatures is that of insuring some voice to political subdivisions, as political subdivisions. Several factors make more than insubstantial claims that a State can rationally consider according political subdivisions some independent representation in at least one body of the state legislature, as long as the basic standard of equality of population among districts is maintained. Local governmental entities are frequently charged with various responsibilities incident to the operation of state government. In many States much of the legislature's activity involves the enactment of so-called local legislation, directed only to the concerns of particular political subdivisions. And a State may legitimately desire to construct districts along political subdivision lines to deter the possibilities of gerrymandering.

377 U.S. at 580-81, 84 S.Ct. at 1391. This logic cannot be applied to whole regions of the state (such as all districts beneath 1-20, the fall line in Georgia), which do not represent separate political entities. The governmental units of cities and counties contain the election offices responsible for such important governmental functions as the development of voter registration lists, the preparation of ballots, and the holding of elections. Thus, following those boundaries in the drawing of district lines provides the additional benefit of creating less confusion and fewer mistakes on election day.

Moreover, when district boundaries are drawn along a county or precinct line, the purpose of such line-drawing is not actually to enhance the legislative power of residents of the county or to make up for lost population but, rather, simply to avoid voter confusion and to unify residents of the same county by giving them all the same elected representation. By contrast, a concerted effort to enhance the rural power of the whole state by systematically underpopulating rural districts and overpopulating urban or suburban ones is not concerned with unifying the interests of rural voters — indeed, in this instance, many district lines are drawn within the rural areas, separating the voters in these areas from one another. Rather, the goal of rural district underpopulation is plainly to overweight the votes of the region's residents and thereby increase the power of rural voters at the demonstrable expense of voters in other parts of the state — an objective that the Supreme Court quite sensibly has held to violate the Constitution.

Indeed, in those cases in which the Supreme Court has approved a state's apportionment of state legislative seats along county or city lines, the Court expressly observed that the plans, while offering some counties or cities more representation than others, did not contain any "built-in bias tending to favor particular political interests or geographic areas." Abate, 403 U.S. at 187, 91 So. Ct. at 1907-08; see also Brown, 462 U.S. at 844, 103 S.Ct. at 2697 (quoting Abate, 403 U.S. at 187, 91 S.Ct. at 1907-08). The plans at issue in this case do just that; and it is that discriminatory bias which makes them unconstitutional.

Simply slated, a state legislative reapportionment plan that systematically and intentionally creates population deviations among districts in order to favor one geographic region of a state over another violates the one person, one vote principle firmly rooted in the Equal Protection Clause. A state cannot dilute or debase the vote of certain citizens based merely on the fortuity of where in the state they reside any more than it can dilute citizens' votes based upon their race, gender, or economic status. While states may employ minor population deviations in redistricting in order to pursue legitimate state interests, such as drawing compact and contiguous districts or preserving the boundaries of the state's political subdivisions, enhancing the political power of large swaths of geography is not such an interest. Thus, in this instance, if the southern and inner-city Atlanta areas of the State of Georgia are in need of some political protection in order to ensure that their economic and other interests are recognized on a statewide basis, that need must be met in some way that does not dilute or debase the fundamental right to vote of citizens living in other parts of the stale. In short, the deliberate regional favoritism built into the Georgia House and Senate Plans created more than a taint of arbitrariness and discrimination, violating Equal Protection by diluting the votes of citizens of the suburban and exurban parts of northern Georgia and overweighting the votes of citizens in rural Georgia and inner-city Atlanta.

3. Incumbency Protection

On this record, the creation of population deviations to protect incumbents in the Georgia House and Senate also does not qualify as a legitimate state policy. The incumbency protection in the plans was not consistently applied and went far beyond anything the Supreme Court has ever allowed. Although the plans' drafters were concerned about incumbent protection, insofar as they sought to create "safe districts" for those Democratic incumbents who supported the plans, they plainly did not apply this interest in a manner that is even remotely consistent with the principles set forth in Reynolds, Karcher, and their progeny.

First, the policy of protecting incumbents was not applied in a consistent and neutral way. See Brown, 462 U.S. at 845-46, 103 S.Ct. at 2697-98. On the contrary, it was applied in a blatantly partisan and discriminatory manner, taking pains to protect only Democratic incumbents. The vast majority of districts with negative population deviations were held by Democratic incumbents, while the majority of overpopulated districts were held by Republican incumbents. Moreover, both the House and Senate Plans actually pitted numerous Republican incumbents against one another, while generally protecting their Democratic colleagues.

Far from consistently protecting incumbents, the plans destroyed the reelection hopes of dozens of incumbents. The House Plan created contests between a total of forty-seven incumbents, almost all Republicans. Because six of the affected twenty-one districts were multi-member districts, the end result was that a maximum of twenty-eight of the paired incumbents could be re-elected, while at least nineteen incumbents would be unseated. Likewise, the Senate Plan had six incumbent contests, all involving Republican incumbents facing either other Republican incumbents or, in two instances, Democratic incumbents. These results occured despite the fact that Republican-leaning areas of the state had a higher rate of population growth, which would suggest that Democrat-Democrat pairings should have been more common than Republican-Republican pairings.

Moreover, many of the districts that created contests between Republican incumbents were not only oddly shaped but also vastly overpopulated. Almost all of these districts bordered at least one underpopulated district, meaning that the deviations could have been avoided if the drafters had simply transferred some of the population from those districts into neighboring districts. Senate District 17, to take one example, had a population deviation of +4.97%, and yet it bordered District 10, which was at -4.96%, and District 43, which was at -4.79%. House District 85, with a deviation of + 4.30%, bordered District 59, which was at -4.24%, District 60, at -4.66%, and District 92, at -4.60%. This was the very embodiment of a state policy applied in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner. See Vieth v. Pennsylvania, 195 F. Supp.2d 672, 678 (M.D. Pa. 2002) (three-judge court) (rejecting the state's argument that population deviations in a congressional reapportionment plan were justified by a concern for core retention because "[t]o the extent that [the plan] retains the cores of prior districts, it does so only for districts containing Republican incumbents").

A second reason why the protection of incumbents cannot justify the deviations in the state legislative plans is that the protection was overexpansive. The Supreme Court has said only that an interest in avoiding contests between incumbents may justify deviations from exact population equality, not that general protection of incumbents may also justify deviations. See, e.g., Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 964, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 1954 (1996) (recognizing "incumbency protection, at least in the limited form of avoiding contests between incumbents," as a legitimate state interest in defending against a racial gerrymandering claim (citations and quotation marks omitted)); Karcher, 462 U.S. at 740, 103 So. Ct. at 2663 (including "avoiding contests between incumbent Representatives" in a non-inclusive list of legislative policies that might justify minor population deviations in congressional reapportionment plans); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73. 89 n. 16, 86 S.Ct. 128,. 1295 n. 16 (1966) (stating as a general matter, without respect to population deviations, "[t]he fact that district boundaries may have been drawn in a way that minimizes the number of contests between present incumbents does not in and of itself establish invidiousness").^13a

13a The more general interest of protection of incumbents has, in fact, been criticized by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg in the campaign-contribution context: "Where a legislature has significantly greater institutional expertise, as, for example, in the field of election regulation, the Court in practice defers to empirical legislative judgments-at least where that deference does not risksuch constitutional evils as. say, permitting incumbents to insulate themselves from effective electoral challenge." Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 402, 120 S.Ct. 897, 912 (2000) (Breyer, J., concurring) (emphasis added).

In general, the lower courts have similarly listed only the prevention of contests between incumbents, rather than some broader notion of incumbency protection, as a legitimate state goal supporting population deviations. See, e.g., Mary landers, 849 F. Supp. at 1036 (listing "avoiding contests between incumbent representatives" as one of several legitimate state policies that supported the minor population deviations at issue);Gonzalez v. Monterey County, 808 F. Supp. 727, 735 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (noting that "[t]he Supreme Court regards state policies favoring the avoidance of contests between incumbent legislators as a legitimate justification for minor population deviations, provided the state does not have a discriminatory purpose in preserving incumbency"); Wesch v. Hunt, 785 F. Supp. 1491, 1499 (S.D. Ala. 1992) (three-judge court) (modifying Alabama's congressional redistricting plan so that two incumbent congressmen would not be in the same district), aff'd without opinion. Camp v. Wesch, 504 U.S. 902, 112 S.Ct. 1926 (1992). But see Anne Arundel County Republican Cent. Comm. v. State Admin. Bd. of Election Laws, 781 F. Supp. 394, 398 (D. Md. 1991) (three-judge court) (upholding a congressional redistricting plan in which the state justified population deviations by showing that the plan drafters aimed to give an incumbent congressman a safe seat and, at the same time, provide a majority black population in that area a chance to choose a representative without requiring someone to run against a strong incumbent).

In mis case, it is clear that. many of the incumbent-protecting population deviations were caused not by the legitimate slate interest in avoiding contests between incumbents, but, rather by the more aggressive goal of allowing incumbents to avoid taking on more new constituents than was absolutely necessary to stay within 5% of the ideal district size. The defendant has not attempted to present any evidence that any of the population deviations were truly necessary to avoid pairing two incumbents. In short, in this case, the interest of incumbent protection was not applied in a reasonably consistent and nondiscriminatory way and cannot be used to justify the population deviations.

4. Traditional Redistricting Principles

Moreover, there is no evidence that the population deviations in the plans were driven by the neutral and consistent application of any traditional redistricting principles.

The Reynolds Court held that states may deviate from population equality in state legislative reapportionment plans for the purpose of constructing districts that are compact and contiguous or that respect the boundaries of the state's various political subdivisions. 377 U.S. at 578-79, 84 S.Ct. at 1390. Moreover, in the congressional one person, one vote context, the Supreme Court has said that certain legislative policies, such as making districts compact, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbents, may justify population deviations, so long as these policies are nondiscriminatory and consistently applied.Karcher, 462 U.S. at 740, 103 S.Ct. at 2663.^14a Finally, inAbrams, the SupremeCourt noted that considerations which were unique to Georgia and which supported the population deviations in the state's former congressional reapportionment plan included a "strong historical preference" for not splitting counties outside the Atlanta area and not splitting precincts, maintenance of core districts, and recognition of communities of interest (which in that case were defined as the state's "unusually high number of counties"). 521 U.S. at 99-100, 117 S.Ct. at 1940.

14a Karcher further suggested that an interest in "preserving the voting strength of racial minority groups" might also justify deviations from the equal population principle. 462 U.S. at 742, 103 S.Ct. at 2664. However, there is no indication that such an interest explains the population deviations in this case.

The plaintiffs argue that none of these considerations can account for the 9,98% population deviations in either the House Plan or the 2002 Senate Plan, and the defendant does not contradict this assertion. Indeed, the defendant has not attempted to justify the population deviations because of compactness, contiguity, respecting the boundaries of political subdivisions, or preserving the cores of prior districts. And the record evidence squarely forecloses the idea that any of these legitimate reasons could account for the deviations.

First, in considering the interest in compactness, there is not even the slightest suggestion that the population deviations in the House Plan or the 2002 Senate Plan resulted from an attempt to create compact districts. As we have already noted, one can easily discern that just by looking at the maps themselves — in particular at districts such as House Districts 13, 47, 87, 127, and 137, and Senate Districts 16, 17, 24, 28, and 51. Moreover, as we have noted, a more sophisticated analysis of district compactness, calculated by the perimeter-to-area measure or the smallest circle measure, also establishes that compactness was not a factor here. Indeed, quite a few of the districts have shapes that defy Euclidean geometry. The drafters of the House and Senate Plans made no effort to keep districts compact and certainly did not create deviations for the purpose of improving compactness. Linda Meggers and Senator Brown acknowledged that compactness was not a priority in the redislricting process. Finally, we observe that many of the most bizarrely shaped districts are also the ones with the largest population deviations. Clearly, the population deviations in the House and Senate Plans were not caused by a desire to keep districts compact.

Likewise, there is no indication in this record that a regard forcontiguity caused the population deviations in the plans. Numerous districts in the House and Senate were kept contiguous only by having them cross bodies of water or by having touch point contiguity. Many of these marginally contiguous districts also had significant population deviations. Notably, the defendant has not attempted to justify the deviations on this basis either. Accordingly, we conclude that the population deviations in the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan did not result from an interest in contiguity.

Nor are the population deviations in the plans the result of any attempt to respect the boundaries of the state's various political subdivisions. The Supreme Court noted just seven years ago that Georgia had a "strong historical preference" for not splitting counties outside the Atlanta area. Abrams, 521 U.S. at 99, 117 S.Ct. at 1940. Moreover, county delegations hold significant sway over local legislation. Gaddie Report at 17. Nonetheless, both Ms. Meggers and Senator Brown testified that avoiding county splits was not an important factor in the creation of the plans. We add that the defendant has not urged this as a ground to explain the deviations either. And nothing in the testimonial or circumstantial record indicates that the population deviations in the plans were driven by an effort to keep counties (or other political entities) together. The House Plan split 80 of the state's 159 counties, and the 2002 Senate Plan split 81. Both numbers were significantly higher than they had been in the previous redistricting. Therefore, we readily conclude that population deviations in the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan did not result from an interest in respecting the boundaries of the state's various political subdivisions.

The population deviations in the state legislative plans were also not motivated by a desire to preserve the cores of all prior districts. To the extent that the cores of prior districts were preserved at all, it was done in a thoroughly disparate and partisan manner, heavily favoring Democratic incumbents while creating new districts for Republican incumbents whose constituency was composed of only a small fraction of their old voters. This was the exact opposite of what one would expect from the rates of population increase in the state, because the populations in Republican-leaning areas have grown at a significantly faster pace than those of Democratic-leaning districts, meaning that Republicans would, in a neutral plan, have to take on fewer new constituents. Moreover, this was not among the factors specifically mentioned in the guidelines for redistricting adopted by the House and Senate reapportionment committees, and it was not offered by the defendant as a justification for the population deviations. Quite simply, the population deviations in the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan did not result from a neutral, consistently applied concern for retaining incumbent cores. See also Vieth, 195 F. Supp.2d at 678 (rejecting the state's argument that population deviations in a congressional reapportionment plan were justified by a concern for core retention because "[t]o the extent that [the plan] retains the cores of prior districts, it does so only for districts containing Republican incumbents").

Finally, it is unnecessary in this case to decide whether partisan advantage alone would have been enough to justify minor population deviations, although the Supreme Court has never sanctioned partisan advantage as a legitimate justification for population deviations.^15a It is true that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the "reality . . . that districting inevitably has and is intended to have substantial political consequences." Gaffney, 412 U.S. at 753, 93 S.Ct. at 2331. Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that "the goal of fair and effective representation [is not] furthered by making the standards of reapportionment so difficult to satisfy that the reapportionment task is recurringly removed from legislative hands and performed by federal courts." Id. at 749, 93 S, Ct. at 2329 (recognizing that minor deviations are insufficient to make outprima facie claim). And it is clear that, according to the strict standard set by Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 106 So. Ct. 2797 (1986), the plaintiffs could not establish a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, Id. at 127, 139, 93 S.Ct. at 2808, 2814 (requiring proof of "both intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group and an actual discriminatory effect on that group," such that the plaintiffs have "essentially been shut out of the political process").

15a Indeed, there is some suggestion that the Supreme Court would reject such political apportioning. See Abate, 403 U.S. at 187, 91 S.Ct. at 1908 ("We emphasize that our decision [to approve the plan at issue] is based [in pan] on the fact that the plan before us doesnot contain a built-in bias tending to favor particularpolitical interests or geographic areas." (emphasis added),quoted by Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 843-44, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 2696-97, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983)).

However, the Supreme Court's recognition of the politics inherent in districting arose in the context of political gerrymandering. See Gaffney, 412 U.S. at 751-52, 93 S.Ct. at 2330-31. Today, we have no occasion to consider the limits of partisan gerrymandering, but rather the very different set of considerations invoked by a claim that the one person, one vote principle has been violated. The value at issue today is an individualized and personal one, and therefore the offense to Equal Protection that occurred in this case is more readily apparent than in a claim involving gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has recognized the difference by placing greater restrictions on deviations from one person, one vote than on gerrymandering. "Simply stated, an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State." Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 568, S.Ct. at 1384. By sharp contrast, in Bandemer, the Court held that "the mere fact that a particular apportionment scheme makes it more difficult for a particular group in a particular district to elect the representatives of its choice does not render that scheme costitituonally infirm." 478 U.S. at 131, 106 S.Ct. at 2810.

We need not resolve the issue of whether or when partisan advantage alone may justify deviations in population, because here the redistricting plans are plainly unlawful. In the state legislative plans at issue in this case, partisan interests are bound up inextricably with the interests of regionalism and incumbent protection. It is simply not possible to draw out and isolate the political goals in these plans from the plainly unlawful objective of regional protection or from the inconsistently applied objective of incumbent protection.

Ultimately, "[t]he showing required to justify population deviations is flexible, depending on the size of the deviations, the importance of the State's interests, the consistency with which the plan as a whole reflects those interests, and the availability of alternatives that might substantially vindicate those interests yet approximate population equality more closely." Karcher, 462 U.S. at 74), 103 S.Ct. at 2664. In no way do the Georgia plans make such a showing. First, while a 9.98% total deviation is not presumptively unconstitutional, the plans'drafters pushed the deviation as close to the 10% line as they thought they could get away with, conceding the absence of an "honest and good faith effort" to construct equal districts. See Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 577, 84 S.Ct. at 1390. The 9.98% total deviations are most assuredly not the result of only a small number of outliers; in fact, dozens of districts come close to the 5% line, and the average deviation is well above 3% in both the House and the Senate. Second, each population deviation requires at least some plausible and consistently applied state interest to justify it; yet not one of the legitimate state interests listed by the Karcher Court applies in this case, and the defendant's two proffered justifications are plainly impermissible. Third, the record shows not only that the creators of the plans had the technical capability to create maps with substantially smaller population deviations than the plans that were eventually passed but also that the legislators were actually presented with a number of proposed maps with smaller deviations and systematically rejected them. Ft is readily apparent that alternative plans could have been easily constructed that did not stretch the limits of the one person, one vote principle so far, all the while achieving the state's legitimate interests.

In short, the plaintiffs have shown that the state legislative reapportionment plans enacted by the Georgia Legislature do not represent an "effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal population as is practicable." Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 577, 84 S.Ct. at 1390.¹⁶ They have also shown that the 9.98% population deviations in those plans are not supported by any legitimate, consistently-applied state interests but, rather, resulted from the arbitrary and discriminatory objective of increasing the political power of southern Georgia and inner-city Atlanta at the expense of voters living in other parts of the state, and from the systematic favoring of Democratic incumbents and the corresponding attempts to eliminate as many Republican incumbents as possible. This represents far more than a "taint of arbitrariness or discrimination." Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. at 710, 84 S.Ct. at 1458.

16 While state officials may have acted in good faith in relying on faulty legal advice, i.e., that 10% is a safe harbor for population deviations and that this ± 5% spread may be used for any purpose, a mistaken interpretation of the law does not remedy the constitutional infirmity in these plans. See Raske v. Martinez, 876 F.2d 1496, 1502 (11th Cir. 1989) ("The federal courts recognize no doctrine of `constitutional mistake' that can absolve a legislature from the consequences of a misapprehension concerning a statute's constitutionality.").

We therefore conclude that the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan violate the Equal Protection Clause by failing to represent "an honest and good faith effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal population as is practicable" and by failing to contain only those "divergences from a strict population standard [that] are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational slate policy." Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 577, 579, 84 S.Ct. at 1390, 1391.

B. The Plaintiffs" One Person, One Vote Challenge to the Congressional Plan

The Constitution provides that congressional representatives "shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers." U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Those representatives are to be chosen "by the People,"id. at cl, 1, "mean[ing] that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is TO be worth as much as another's." Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 7-8, 84 S.Ct. at 530. The Supreme Court was aware of the difficulty inherent in any system that requires such a minute level of detail; "[w]hile it may not be possible to draw congressional districts with mathematical precision, that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitution's plain objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives." Id., at 18, 84 S.Ct. at 535. Recognizing that a zero deviation will not always be possible, the Supreme Court has given the following instructions for evaluating a plan that varies from the ideal:

First, the court must consider whether the population differences among districts could have been reduced or eliminated altogether by a good-faith effort to draw districts of equal population. Parties challenging apportionment legislation must bear the burden of proof on this issue, and if they fail to show that the differences could have been avoided the apportionment scheme must be upheld. If, however, the plaintiffs can establish that the population differences were not the result of a good-faith effort to achieve equality, the State must bear the burden of proving that each significant variance between districts was necessary to achieve some legitimate goal.

Karcher, 462 U.S. at 730-31, 103 S.Ct. at 2658. Lest there be any doubt, the Supreme Court specifically stated that "there are no deminimis population variations, which could practicably be avoided, but which nonetheless meet the standard of Art. 1, § 2, without justification." Id. at 734, 103 S.Ct. at 2660.

Should the plaintiffs establish their initial burden of showing that the Congressional Plan was not a good faith effort to achieve a zero deviation, the defendant must then show that the plan is justified by a consistently applied legislative policy that is within constitutional norms. Id. at 740, 103 S.Ct. at 2663.

However, while legitimate state concerns may justify slight deviations, "[p]roblems created by partisan politics cannot justify an apportionment which does not otherwise pass constitutional muster." Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 533. 89 S.Ct. 1225, 1230 (1969). In other words, the rule is one of practicability, rather than one of politicalpracticality. Id. Likewise, variances based on history, economics, or group interests will not justify deviations; `"[c]itizens, not history or economic interests, cast votes.'" Id. (quoting Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 580, 84 S.Ct. at 1391).

It is abundantly clear to us that the population deviations in this case could have been eliminated had the state engaged in a good faith effort to craft districts of equal population. As previously noted, the total population deviation for the final Congressional Plan was only seventy-two people. Ms. Meggers testified that it would be possible to draw a congressional map for the State of Georgia with a population deviation of plus or minus one person that (1) complied with the Voting Rights Act; (2) split fewer counties than the present plan; (3) is more compact than the present plan; and (4) divides fewer voting precincts than the present plan. Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 881-83. The fact that such a plan could have been produced all but invalidates any argument that the state made a good faith effort to achieve a zero deviation. See Karcher, 462 U.S. at 736, 103 S.Ct. at 2662; Hasten v. State Bd. of Elections, 777 F. Supp. 634, 644 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (three-judge court). Accordingly, the plaintiffs have met their burden, and the defendant must now put forth a consistently applied legislative policy that justifies the deviation.

The defendant, through arguments articulated in her briefs and through testimony presented at trial, has consistently made the court aware of how political the process was, in essence arguing that this is the best plan that could be created that would actually have a chance of passing both houses of the General Assembly. Test. of Linda Meggers, Tr. at 786; Def.'s Br. in Supp. of her Mot. for Summ. J. [83-1] at 72-73. However, that argument, at least to the extent it is offered as an explanation for the population deviation, simply misses the mark. A legislature is not free to put forth an unconstitutional map, asserting that it did the best it could given the political constraints imposed by its members. See Kirkpatrick, 394 U.S. at 533, 89 S.Ct. at 1230.

While politics alone may not serve to justify deviations in a congressional plan, a redistricting process need not be free of politics in order to be constitutional.

Politics and political considerations are, after all, "inseparable from districting and apportionment." Gaffney, 412 U.S. at 753, 93 So. Ct. at 2331. As long as the population deviations are supported by a legitimate state interest, the court will not strike down a plan simply because political considerations played a role in its creation. Accordingly, we proceed to consider the additional explanations put forth by the State of Georgia,

The state contends that it did not further reduce the population deviation because to do so would have required either splitting more precincts or further splitting, existing split precincts along something other than an easily recognizable boundary. Georgia has a historical tradition of splitting as few precincts as possible. Abrams, 521 U.S. at 99, 11 7 S.Ct. at 1940 (citing Johnson, 922 F. Supp. at 1562). Additionally, the state has an interest in splitting precincts along only easily recognizable boundaries. When small residential roads are used as district lines, it is hard for both voters and election officials to accurately ascertain the voting district within which one resides. This problem is exacerbated when other voting districts, such as those used by the state legislature or local school officials, do not create districts along those same small roads. See Johnson v. Miller, 922 F. Supp. at 1562 n. 7 (explaining the; ballot secrecy concerns that arise when small blocks are drawn out of a precinct). We are satisfied that the State of Georgia had a legitimate interest in avoiding further precinct splits and in avoiding precinct splits along something other than an easily recognizable boundary.

The plaintiffs presented the testimony of Bryan Tyson, who was of the opinion that Ms. Meggers could have further reduced the population deviations in some of the congressional districts, even while avoiding precinct splits across something other than an easily recognized boundary. Test. of Bryan Tyson, Tr. at 948-49. His testimony, however, does nothing to discredit Ms. Meggers' statements. Mr. Tyson attempted to show the court that there was an alternate way of correcting the population deviation in District 2. He testified to a census block of thirty people that could have been "traded" for a neighboring block to correct the plus eight deviation in District 2. Although he did not so testify, Mr. Tyson was presumably referring to a block of twenty-two people in District 11. However, he did not alert the court as to whether such a block actually existed, whether it could be "traded" without splitting a precinct along something other than an easily recognizable boundary, or how he would have solved the corresponding population deviation that would inevitably be created in the neighboring District 11 were such a trade possible. Mr. Tyson's testimony does nothing to cast doubt upon what the court heard from Ms. Meggers, someone who has been recognized as "probably the single most knowledgeable person available on the subject of Georgian redistricung." Johnson v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1354, 1361 (S.D.Ga. 1994)(three-judge court). Accordingly, the court finds that the state's legitimate interests were consistently applied. Given the relatively small total deviation of only seventy-two people and the importance of the state's interest in avoiding voter confusion, we find that the congressional districts do not violate plaintiffs' rights under the one-person, one-vote principles of Art. I, § 2.

Moreover, it is immaterial that a "better" plan might have been possible. See Karcher, 462 U.S. at 739 n.l0, 103 S, Ct. at 2663 n. 10 (rejecting the argument that a plan cannot represent a good faith effort whenever the court could conceive of minor improvements). If that were the determining factor, the court's analysis would necessarily end after deciding that the plaintiffs satisfied their burden of showing the plan was not the result of a good faith effort to create a plan with a zero deviation. However, that is not the proper standard. Id. at 730-31, 103 S.Ct. at 2658-59 (explaining that in such a scenario, the court must examine the defendant's reasons for the deviation). Given the flexible nature of the analysis used to evaluate defendant's explanations for the deviation, see id. at 741, 103 S.Ct. at 2664;Anne Arundel County Republican Cent. Comm. v. State Admin. Bd. of Election Laws, 781 F. Supp. 394, 397 (D. Md.1 991) (three-judge court) ("[T]he amount and degree of justification which the State must establish is roughly equatable to the deviation itself."), we reject the plaintiffs" one person, one vote challenge to the Congressional Plan.

We should add that the congressional districts produced by the State of Georgia, though constitutional under the standards espoused inKarcher, reveal a process dominated by the personal interests of individual legislators and not by the traditionally recognized redistricting criteria. For example, one need cast only a passing glance upon Georgia's congressional districts to realize that something other than a simple desire to create compact districts motivated the final product.¹⁷ As we have noted, compactness is one factor the Supreme Court has recognized as a potential justification for a population deviation. Karcher, 462 U.S. at 740, 103 S.Ct. at 2663. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Keith Gaddie testified that the Congressional Plan is not compact and is considerably less compact than the plan used in the 1990's. Gaddie Report ac 13-14, Table 4.1. Indeed, the final map reveals an oddly shaped district with "fingers" that appear to extend from one central point; a district that is relatively wide, narrows, and then widens again; and several districts which simply defy explanation.

17 In Karcher, the Court recognized that the one-person, one-vote jurisprudence does little to prevent the effects associated with political gerrymandering. 462 U.S. at 734 n. 6, 103 S.Ct. at 2660 n. 6. Although this court found that the drafters' conduct did not rise to the level of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, it is likewise clear that there was at least some degree of gerrymandering in the Congressional Plan.

It is further evident that the state had little desire to continue its previous practice of not splitting counties except when absolutely necessary. The plan at issue in this case splits thirty-four counties, only six of which had been split by the state in past congressional plans. Not surprisingly, the worst offending districts are also the ones that are the least compact. District 8 encompasses portions of nineteen counties, only three of which are whole. District 11 touches seventeen counties, seven of which are whole. District 13 touches eleven counties, none of which is whole. Only the personal desires of individual legislators could explain the contours of those districts. Furthermore, the General Assembly made no consistent effort to protect incumbents. Although the number of districts increased from eleven to thirteen, four of the eight existing Republican representatives were paired in districts such that they would have to run against each other. No Democrat was paired against another.

In the end, though, we are left with a congressional plan that has a total deviation of only seventy-two people out of a total population of 8,186,453 and an average district population of 629, 727. As the Supreme Court has held, the showing required to justify population deviations is proportional to the size of the deviations. See Karcher, 462 U.S. at 741, 103 S.Ct. at 2664. The deviation in the Georgia Congressional Plan is very small indeed. This deviation was supported by the rational state interest of wanting to avoid further precinct spills along anything other than easily recognizable boundaries. The parties agreed that those seventy-two people did not result in any partisan advantage for either Democrats or Republicans, and the size of the deviations, which are minuscule compared to the populations of the districts, can lead to no other conclusion. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim that the Congressional Plan violates the one person, one vote standard of the United States Constitution fails.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we find in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim that the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause based on the one person, one vole principle, and we find in favor of the defendant on the plaintiffs' claim that the Congressional Plan violates Article I, § 2 based on the one person, one vote principle.

Because we have determined that the House Plan and the 2002 Senate Plan violate the Equal Protection Clause, we enjoin the defendant from any further use of those plans in any future elections. We retain jurisdiction of this action, however, in order to permit the Georgia General Assembly to submit to the court, by no later than March l, 2004, enacted plans for reapportionment of the stave, House and Senate that are acceptable to the legislature and consistent with this opinion. We urge the General Assembly to use this opportunity to adopt new plans. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the business of "redistricting and reapportioning legislative bodies is a legislative function which the federal courts should make every effort not to preempt." Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 539, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 2497 (1978). "When a federal court declares an existing apportionment scheme unconstitutional, it is therefore, appropriate, whenever practicable, to afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise and order into effect its own plan." Id. at 540, 98 S.Ct. at 2497. "Absent evidence that these state branches will fail timely to perform that duty, a federal court must neither affirmatively obstruct state reapportionment nor permit federal litigation to be used to impede it," Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 34, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 1081 (1993); see also Ramos v. Koebig, 638 F.2d 838, 844 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that absent "the imminence of . . . elections, or some other exigency," district court should give the legislature opportunity to enact a valid reapportionment).

We also urge the General Assembly to simultaneously submit those plans to the Attorney General for expedited administrative preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. If new state legislative plans have not been adopted by March 1, 2004, or if the Attorney General indicates that preclearance will not be completed in time for candidate qualifications, the plaintiffs may petition this court to draw an interim plan for use in the upcoming election cycle. See Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585-87, 84 S.Ct. at 1393-94 (approving the district court's decision to first give legislature opportunity to adopt plan, and then, when legislature failed to act effectively in remedying constitutional deficiencies, to implement interim court-ordered plan).

SO ORDERED, this 10th day of February, 2004.

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE STATE OF GEORGIA,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 01-2111 (EGS v. HTE LFO)

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., THREE-JUDGE COURT Defendants

Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, SULLIVAN, District Judge, and OBERDORFER, Senior District Judge.

ORDER

Pending before this Court is a Joint Motion for a Stay of the Proceedings for Ninety Days. The parties state, inter alia,

A declaratory judgment regarding the 2001 Senate plan may not be necessary, depending upon the resolution of the motions for stay, the current redistricting attempts in the Georgia General Assembly, and the pending appeal in Larios. In such circumstances, the parties further agree that to continue litigating this matter at full speed under the present circumstances would not be in the interest of judicial economy and would be a waste of time and resources of the Court and the parties.

Further, the parties state

. . . regardless of the outcome of the motions for a stay and appeal in Larios, Plaintiff and all parties (and their counsel) state that under no circumstances will there be any effort on behalf of Plaintiff, or any of the parties, to seek a decision by this Court on the validity of the 2001 Senate plan under Section 5 in time for its use in the November, 2004 general election.

(emphasis in original).

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT 9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

SARA LARIOS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION

versus NO. 1:03-CV-693-CAP

CATHY COX,

Defendant.

In an order dated February 10, 2004, this three-judge court found in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim that the existing reapportionment schemes for the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate violated the one person, one vote principle firmly rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The court therefore enjoined the defendant from further use of those plans in any future elections, and it gave the Georgia General Assembly until March 1, 2004, to submit to the court enacted reapportionment plans that are acceptable to the legislature and conform to the Constitution and this court's opinion. The Georgia General Assembly having been unable to meet this deadline, it now falls to this court to draw interim reapportionment plans for use in the upcoming election cycle. See Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 2497 (1978); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585-87, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1393-94 (1964). Preparing such plans in a timely manner,

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

SARA LARIOS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION

NO. 1:03-CV-693-CAP

versus

CATHY COX,

Defendant

Before MARCUS, Circuit Judge, O'KELLEY and PANNELL, District Judges

In an order dated February 10, 2004, this three-judge court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim that the existing reapportionment schemes for the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate violated the one person, one vote principle firmly rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. We therefore enjoined the defendant from further use of those plans in any future elections, and we gave the Georgia General Assembly until March 1, 2004, to submit to the court enacted reapportionment plans that are acceptable to the legislature and conform to the Constitution and this court's opinion. The Georgia General Assembly having been unable to meet this deadline, it now falls to this court to draw interim reapportionment plans for use in the upcoming election cycle. See Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 2497 (1978);Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585-87, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1393-94 (1964).

By order dated March 1, 2004, we appointed Mr. Joseph Hatchett to serve as Special Master pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We now adopt the following guidelines to which the Special Master shall adhere in preparing reapportionment maps for the House of Representatives and Senate of the General Assembly of Georgia. Preparing reapportionment plans in a timely manner, while reconciling the demands of the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the redistricting principles traditionally recognized by the State of Georgia, presents a substantial undertaking.

As we have noted, the reapportionment of legislative bodies is "a legislative task which the federal courts should make every effort not to pre-empt." Wise, 437 U.S. at 539, 98 S.Ct. at 2497. However, where a federal court has declared an existing apportionment scheme unconstitutional and the legislature, after being afforded a reasonable opportunity, fails to adopt a substitute plan, "it becomes the `unwelcome obligation' . . . of the federal court to devise and impose a reapportionment plan pending later legislative action."^1b Id. at 540,98 S.Ct. at 2497 (quoting Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 415, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 1834(1977)).

1b We continue to encourage the enactment of reapportionment maps by the General Assembly of Georgia, which is now in session. We are aware that members have been working on and considering such legislation. Nothing in this order or any previous order of this court is intended to prevent or forestall the General Assembly and the Governor from considering and enacting reapportionment plans after March 1,2004, resolving the issues in this case. Nor should this court's orders be construed in any way as discouraging such a resolution of this matter.

In performing the reapportionment task, a court must keep in mind that court-drawn plans are held to stricter standards than are legislative plans in terms of population equality and racial fairness. Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 39, 102 S.Ct. 1518,1520 (1982);Wise, 437 U.S. at 540,98 S.Ct. at 2497; Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 414, 97 S.Ct. at 1833. Moreover, the court's reapportionment "must be accomplished circumspectly, and in a manner `free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination.'" Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 415, 97 S.Ct. at 1834 (quoting Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695. 710. 84 S.Ct. 1449, 1458(1964)).

We add that because reapportionment is primarily a legislative task, even when it becomes the court's obligation to draw a redistricting plan, it must "defer to legislative judgments on reapportionment as much as possible." Upham, 456 U.S. at 39, 102 S.Ct. at 1520. Nonetheless, "it is forbidden to do so when the legislative plan would not meet the special standards of population equality and racial fairness that are applicable to court-ordered plans." Id. See also Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 79, 117 S.Ct. 1925, 1930 (1997) ("When faced with the necessity of drawing district lines by judicial order, a court, as a general rule, should be guided by the legislative policies underlying the existing plan, to the extent those policies do not lead to violations of the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.").

In this case, the court and its Special Master must consider three principal criteria in drafting the reapportionment plans: the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the neutral principles of redistricting. Plainly, the requirements of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act take precedence over any traditional redistricting principles. Arizonians for Fair Representation v. Symington, 828 F. Supp. 684,687 (D. Ariz. 1992) (three-judge panel). See also Good v. Austin, 800 F. Supp. 551, 554 (E.D. Mich, and W.D. Mich. 1992).

Because the constitutional wrong to be remedied in this case is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's one person, one vote principle, equality of population is a paramount concern in redrawing the maps.See Colleton County Council v. Hodges, 201 F. Supp.2d 618, 627 (D.S.C. 2002) (three-judge panel). The Equal Protection Clause requires that "the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 568, 84 S.Ct. at 1385. "[T]he overriding objective must be substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State." Id. at 579,84 S.Ct. at 1390. In short, the strength of a citizen's vote may not depend on the fortuity of where he resides.

The next major priority for the court in drafting the plans is to ensure full compliance with the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. While the preclearance requirement of Section 5 does not apply to reapportionment plans prepared and adopted by federal courts to remedy constitutional violations, Abrams, 521 U.S. at 95, 117$. Ct. at 1938: Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690. 691-92. 91 S.Ct. 1760, 1762 (1971), the court should nonetheless comply with the racial-fairness mandates of § 2 of the Act, as well as the purpose-or-effect standards of § 5 of the Act. See Abrams, 521 U.S. at 90, 96, 117S.Ct.at 1935, 1938: see also Colleton, 201 F. Supp.2d at 628 (expressing a similar rule); Smith v. Clark, 189 F. Supp.2d 529, 539-40 (S.D. Miss. 2002)(three-judge panel) (same). Accordingly, the court and its Special Master must ensure that the plans neitherdilute voting strength on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986), nor lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities, Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 140, 96 S.Ct. 1357, 1363 (1976) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The next set of guidelines is secondary to ensuring compliance with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. In court-adopted plans, district courts have frequently considered policies such as compactness, contiguity, minimizing the splits of counties and municipalities, recognizing communities of interest, maintaining the cores of existing districts, and using well-defined boundaries as district lines, insofar as those policies did not conflict with the primary considerations of compliance with the one person, one vote principle and the Voting Rights Act. See, e.g., Colleton County, 201 F. Supp.2d at 646-49; Smith, 189 F. Supp.2d at 540-46; Dillard, 956 F. Supp. 1576,1578 (M.D.Ala. 1997). Based on our thorough review of past legislative guidelines and relevant case law, we recognize and direct the Special Master to apply Georgia's traditional redistricting principles of compactness,contiguity, minimizing the splits of counties, municipalities, and precincts, and recognizing communities of interest. See Abrams, 521 U.S. at 84, 117 S.Ct. at 1932-33 (affirmingJohnson v. Miller, 922 F. Supp. 1556 (S.D. Ga. 1995) (three-judge court)); see also 1991 Guidelines; 2001 Guidelines.

We also recognize that in the process of adopting reapportionment plans, the courts are "forbidden to take into account the purely political considerations that might be appropriate for legislative bodies." Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury, 635 F.2d 1151,1160 (5th Cir. 1981).^2b Thus, "many factors, such as the protection of incumbents, that are appropriate in the legislative development of an apportionment plan have no place in a plan formulated by the courts." Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury, 769 F.2d 265, 268 (5th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

2b In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)(en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 12, 1981.

Finally, we observe that "a court-drawn plan should prefer single-member districts over multimember districts, absent persuasive justification to the contrary." Wise, 437 U.S. at 540, 98 So. Ct. at 2497; see also East Carroll Parish Sch. Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 639, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 1085 (1976); Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. at 692, 91 S.Ct. at 1762. Courts may use multimember districts only if "important and significant state considerations rationally mandate departure" from this principle.Chapman, 420 U.S. at 27, 95 S.Ct. at 766. This preference for single-member districts recognizes that "the practice of multimember districting can contribute to voter confusion, make legislative representatives more remote from their constituents, and tend to submerge electoral minorities and over-represent electoral majorities."Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 415,97 S.Ct. at 1834. See also Chapman, 420 U.S. at 15-16, 20, 95 S.Ct. at 760-61, 762-63 (expressing similar concerns).

While it is true that a court should defer to a state legislature's judgment that multi-member districts are appropriate, Upham, 456 U.S. at 42-43, 102 S.Ct. at 1521-22; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 161,91 S.Ct. 386-87(1971), in this instance, there is no clear indication that the use of such districts is an established state policy. Indeed, the Georgia Constitution prohibits the use of multi-member districts in the state Senate. An. III, § II, ¶ I(a) ("The Senate shall consist of not more than 56 Senators, each of whom shall be elected from single-member districts."). Additionally, while the 2001 reapportionment committee guidelines do not mention multi-member districts, the guidelines from the previous reapportionment explicitly prohibited the use of such districts, even in the state House. 1991 Guidelines, at § III(A)(4) ("All legislative and congressional districts shall be single-member districts."). The 1981 guidelines permitted the consideration of multimember districts, but subjected such proposals to close scrutiny and approved them only if they had neither the purpose nor the effect of diluting minority voting strength.

Second, the existing multi-member districts substantially contributed to the constitutional infirmity embodied in the House plan. As we indicated in our order striking down the House plan, several of the multi-member districts had discernible and intentionally constructed population deviations which appeared to us to have been drawn to protect or injure particular incumbents or improperly advance regional interests. We are convinced that maintaining these multi-member districts as a basis for a remedy would "validate the very maneuvers that were a major cause of the unconstitutional districting."Abrams, 521 U.S. at 79,117 S.Ct. at 1930 (upholding the district court's plan, which made substantial changes to the existing plan, in part because deference was not owed to decisions made on unconstitutional bases, and in part because the remedy of constitutional defects in that case required substantial changes). Therefore, we direct the Special Master to adhere generally to the redistricting principle, traditionally followed by the Georgia General Assembly, of creating only single-member districts. While the existence of multi-member districts in the original plan might constitute a justification for maintaining such districts, the Special Master may only do so where the multi-member districts are not tainted by the factors which rendered the previous plans unconstitutional, and only so long as their inclusion does not undermine the other guidelines we have already enumerated. See Abrams, 521 U.S. at 79, 117 S.Ct. at 1930.

Accordingly, pursuant to the order entered on March 1, 2004, it is further ORDERED that Special Master Joseph Hatchett shall take notice of and abide by the above statements and conclusions of law in fashioning reapportionment plans for the State of Georgia.

SO ORDERED, this 2 day of March, 2004

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT 11 NATHANIEL PERSILY University of Pennsylvania Law School 3400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 office (215) 898-0167, fax (215) 573-2025 npersily@law.upenn.edu http://persily.pennlaw.net/ ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL 2001 — Present ASSISTANT PROFESSOR Philadelphia, PA

• Secondary Appointment: Department of Political Science (2003 — Present).

• Courses: Law and the Political Process; Contemporary Issues in Law and Politics; Constitutional Law.

• Service: Committee on Academic Standing; Advisor to Journal of Constitutional Law; Coordinator of Legal Studies Workshop.

• Wrote Supreme Court amicus brief for the prevailing party in Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002), with the help of First Year Constitutional Law students.

• Supervisor to student seminar on state constitutional law.

• Coordinated three symposia on: campaign finance reform, the "Law of Democracy," and "Homeland Security and Civil Liberties."

COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL Spring 2001 ADJUNCT PROFESSOR New York, N.Y.

• Taught "Advanced Constitutional Law: The Political Process."

OTHER WORK EXPERIENCE

EXPERT WITNESS California State Senate 2002-2003 Redistricting Litigation Sacramento, CA Served as an expert to evaluate the 2002 California Senate and Congressional redistricting plans concerning those plans' compliance with state constitutional provisions requiring respect for political subdivisions and geographic regions.

COURT APPOINTED EXPERT Redistricting of Maryland State June 2002 Legislative Districts Annapolis, MD Appointed by Maryland Court of Appeals to draw Court plan, currently in effect, for 2002 state legislative districts. • Thesis Committee: Nelson Polsby, Bruce Cain, Raymond Wolfinger, Robert Post.

HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM, 1992-1993 Raoul Wallenberg Rotary Scholar.

YALE UNIVERSITY B.A. M.A. in Political Science, 1992

Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude, Distinction in the Major, Recipient of the Haas Prize, Richard Sewall Cup and Frank M. Patterson Prize for the finest senior project in American Politics.

PUBLICATIONS AND WORKS IN PROGRESS

Ideology and Expertise in McConnell v. FEC: Why Facts no Longer Matter in Campaign Finance Litigation, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY (forthcoming 2004).

Forty Years in the Political nickel: Evaluating the Role of Courts as Redistricting Referees, in Thomas Mann Bruce E. Cain eds., Title TBA (Brookings Institution Institute of Governmental Studies Press, forthcoming 2005).

The Law of the Census: How to Count, Whom to Count, and Wliere to Count Them, in Title TBA (Russell Sage Press, forthcoming 2004).

Soft Parties, Strong Money, and Hard, Weak Predictions, 4 ELECTION LAW JOURNAL (forthcoming March 2004).

Perceptions of Corruption and Campaign Finance: When Public Opinion Determines Constitutional Law, 153 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW (forthcoming December 2004) (with Kelli Lammie).

Contested Concepts in Campaign Finance, 6 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 118 (2003).

The Search for Comprehensive Descriptions and Prescriptions in Election Law, 35 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW 1511 (2003).

Suing the Government in Hopes of Controlling It: The Evolving Justifications for Judicial Involvement in Politics, 5 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 607 (2003).

In Defense of Foxes Guarding Henhouses: The Case for Judicial Acquiescence to Incumbent-Protecting Gerrymanders, 115 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 593 (2002).

Soft Money and Slippery Slopes, 1 ELECTION LAW JOURNAL 401 (2002).

The Legal Implications of a Multiracial Census, in Joel Perlmann Mary Waters, THE NEW RACE QUESTION (Russell Sage Press, 2002).

The Complicated Impact of One Person One Vote on Political Competition and Representation, 80 NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW 1299 (2002) (with Thad Kousser and Patrick Egan).

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT 12 PATRICK J. EGAN Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California 111 Moses Hall, Berkeley CA 94720 phone: (510) 642-1474 * fax: (510) 642-3020 pjegan@socrates.berkeley.edu EDUCATION University of California, Berkeley, CA

Ph.D. candidate, Department of Political Science. Master of Political Science, 2001. Fields: American politics, political behavior, and methodology.

Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton, N.J. Master of Public Affairs, 2000. Field: Domestic Policy.

Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA Bachelor of Arts, 1992. Major: Sociology Anthropology.

RESEARCH and TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Redistricting Consultant

Central Labor Council of Contra Costa County, Martinez CA (Summer 2003)

GIS consultant to coalition exploring a campaign to institute district elections for the City Council of Richmond, CA. Drew up proposed maps using Maptitude for Redistricting software and developed scenarios for consideration by coalition members.

City and County of San Francisco, CA (Spring 2002)

GIS consultant to city commission redrawing Board of Supervisors districts to reflect 2000 Census. Worked with commission members and community representatives to produce maps using Maptitude for Redistricting software. Designed public outreach materials.

City of San Diego, CA (Summer 2001)

GIS consultant to city commission redrawing City Council districts to reflect 2000 Census. Worked with commission members to produce maps using Maptitude for Redistricting software. Served as technical consultant to

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT 13

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES UC-Irvine

VITA

BERNARD NORMAN GROFMAN, Professor

EDUCATION

B.S. University of Chicago, Mathematics (1966) M.A. University of Chicago, Political Science (1968) Ph.D. University of Chicago, Political Science (1972)

ACADEMIC POSITIONS HELD

1980- Professor of Political Science and Social Psychology, University of California, Irvine.

2001- Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of California, Irvine.

1976-80 Associate Professor of Political Science and Social Psychology, University of California, Irvine.

1971-76 Assistant Professor, Political Science, SUMY at Stony Brook. 1970-71 Instructor, Political Science, SUNY at Stony Brook.

2003 Caspar de Portola Scholar-in-Residence, Department of Economics, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona (May-June)

2002 Scholar-in-Residence, Berlin Science Center (Wissenschaft Zentrum) (July)

2001 Fellow, University Institute of Advanced Study and Scholar-in-Residence, Department of Political Science, University of Bologna, Italy (April-June)

1990 Scholar-in-Residence, Institute for Legal Studies, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan (June/July)

1989 Visiting Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan (Fall Semester).

1985-96 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford

1985 College Visiting Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Washington, Seattle (Spring Quarter).

1984 Guest Scholar (Sabbatical), Governmental Studies Program, Brookings Institution (Winter Quarter). 1975-76 Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine (Winter and Spring Quarters).

1975 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Applied Mathematics, SUNY at Stony Brook (Spring Semester).

1973 Visiting Lecturer (Gastdozent), Lehrstuhl fuer Politische Wissenschaft, University of Mannheim (Summer Semester).

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

American Political Science Association Public Choice Society Law and Society Association American Institute of Parliamentarians

EDITORIAL BOARDS

1980-83 American Journal of Political Science

1983-85 Law and Society Review

1986-88 Society for Orwellian Studies

1987-89 American Politics Quarterly

1989-91 Political Analysis

1991- Public Choice

1996- Electoral Studies

1997-01 Journal of Politics

1999-01 Member, Advisory Board, Encyclopedia of Public Choice

2001- Election Law Journal

2001-03 Member, Advisory Board, Riyista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche (University of Bologna)

PUBLICATIONS Books (published)

(P1) Grofman, Bernard, Lisa Handley and Richard Niemi. Minority Representation and the Quest for Voting Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

(P2) Merrill, Samuel III and Bernard Grofman. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Books (forthcorning)

(P3) Adams, James, Samuel Merrill and Bernard Grofman. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming, 2004.

(P4) Regenwetter, Michel, Bernard Grofinan, Anthony Marley and Ilia Tsetlin. Behavioral Social Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming, 2005. Edited Books (published)

(E1) Grofman, Bernard N., Arend Lijphart, Robert McKay and Howard Scarrow (Eds.), Representation and Redistricting Issues. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982.

(E2) Lijphart, Arend and Bernard Grofman (Eds.), Choosing an Electoral System. New York: Praeger, 1984.

(E3) Grofman, Bernard N. and Arend Lijphart (Eds.), Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press, 1986.

(E4) Grofiman, Bernard N. and Guillermo Owen (Eds.), Information Pooling and Group Decision Making. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986.

(E5) Grofman, Bernard N. and Donald Wittman (Eds.), The "Federalist Papers" and the New Institutionalism. New York: Agathon Press, 1989.

(E6) Grofman, Bernard N. (Ed.), Political Gerrymandering and the Courts. New York: Agathon Press, 1990.

(E7) Grofman, Bernard and Chandler Davidson (Eds.), Controversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1992.

(E8) Grofman, Bernard N. (Ed.), Information. Participation and Choice: An `Economic Theory of Democracy' in Perspective. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1993.

(E9) Davidson, Chandler and Bernard Grofman (Eds.), Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act. 1965-1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.

(E10) Grofman. Bernard (Ed.) Legislative Term Limits; Public Choice Perspectives. Boston, MA: Kluwer, 1996.

(E11) Grofman, Bernard (Ed.) Race and Redistricting in the 1990s. New York: Agathon Press, 1998.

(E12) Grofman, Bernard, Sung-Chull Lee, Edwin Winckler, and Brian Woodall (Eds.) Elections in Japan, Korea and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999.

(E13) Grofman. Bernard (Ed.) Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000.

(E14) Bowler, Shaun and Bernard Grofman (Eds.) Elections in Australia. Ireland and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.

Edited Books (published) (cont.)

(E15) Grofman, Bernard (Ed.). Political Science as Puzzle Solving. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

(E16) Grofman, Bernard and Arend Lijphart (Eds.) The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries. New York: Agathon Press, 2002.

MAJOR RESEARCH GRANTS

1998-01 National Science Foundation Program in Methodology Measurement and Statistics, "Collaborative Research on Probabilistic Models of Social Choice," (NSF# SBR-97-30578, 5213,000 with Anthony Marley, Co-PI)

1994-95 Electoral Laws, Electoral Lists and Campaigning in the First Non-Racial South African General Election, National Science Foundation, National Science Foundation (NSF# SBR-93- 21864, $39,512, with Arend Lijphart).

1991-93 The Impact of Redistricting on the Representation of Racial Racial and Ethnic Minorities, The Ford Foundation (#446740-47007, 5166,000).

1988-92 Collaborative Research on the Voting Rights Act: Implementation, Effects, and Implications for Law and Society. National Science Foundation Law and Social Sciences Program (NSF SES #88-09392, $231,000, with Chandler Davidson); Supplementary Grant for Collaborative Research on the Voting Rights Act: The Effects of Changing Electoral Systems on the Election of Women. National Science Foundation Law and Social Sciences Program (NSF SES 88-09392, $8,500, with Chandler Davidson and Susan Welch).

1987-89 Ethnic Voting Patterns in Metropolitan Toronto (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, $14,480, with Janet Landa and Michael Copeland).

1985-87 The Dynamics of Spatial Voting Games and Games on Graphs, National Science Foundation, Decision and Management Sciences Program (NSF SES #85-06376, 599,300, with Guillermo Owen).

1985-86 The Impact of Laws Relating to Elections and Representation, National Science Foundation, Political Science Program (NSF SES #85-15468,

$23,200).

1983-84 Analysis of the Multnomah Jury Archive, National Science Foundation, Law and Social Sciences Program (NSF SES #82-18588, $35,000).

1981-83 Reapportionment and Representation. National Science Foundation, Political Science Program (NSF #SES 81-07554, $49,970 with Guillermo Owen)

1980-82 Applications of Game Theory to the Study of Political Institutions. National Science Foundation, Political Science Program (NSF #SES 80-07915, $31,300 with Guillermo Owen)

1978-79 Modeling Jury Decision Processes: The Multnomah Jury Archive, National Science Foundation, Law and Social Sciences Program (NSF SOC 77-24702, $73,800). $8,000 funding provided by the American Bar Association).

1978-79 Electoral System: What Difference Does it Make? National Science Foundation, Political Science Program (NSF SOC 77-24474, $35,800, with Howard Scarrow).

1976-77 Modeling Jury Decision Processes, National Science Foundation, Law and Social Sciences Program (NSF SOC 75-14091, $68,200).

HONORS AND AWARDS

2003 Co-recipient (with Timothy Brazill) of the Duncan Black Prize of the Public Choice Society for best paper published in Public Choice in 2002, ("Identifying the Median Justice on the Supreme Court through Multi-Dimensional Scaling: Analysis of the `Natural Courts' 1953-1991")

2001 — Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2000-02 President, Public Choice Society

2001 Co-recipient (with Arend Lijphart) of the George Hallert Prize of the Representation and Electoral Systems Section of the American Political Science Association for books with a lasting contribution to the study of electoral systems (Lijphart and Grofman (Eds.) Choosing an Electoral System, 1984; Grofman and Lijphart (Eds.) Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, 1986)

2001 Lauds and Laurels Award for Faculty Achievement. UCI Alumni Association.

1997 The campus-wide winner, Award for Teaching Innovation and Excellence: UCI Dean for Undergraduate Education.

1996 The School of Social Sciences winner, Award for Teaching Innovation and Excellence: UCI Dean for Undergraduate Education.

1995 Lauds and Laurels Award for Professional Achievement. UCI Alumni Association.

1995 Co-recipient for (with Chandler Davidson) of the Richard Fenno Prize of the Legislative Studies Section of the American Political Science Association for the best book published in 1994 in the field of legislative studies (Quiet Revolution in the South).

1992 Designation by the Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Human Rights in North America of Controversies in Minority Voting as one of the outstanding books on intolerance published in North America.

1991-93 Chair, Section on Representation and Electoral Systems, American Political Science Association.

1985 Co-recipient (with Philip Straffin) of the Carl B. Allendoerfer Award, Mathematical Association of America, for exposition in mathematical writing for undergraduates.

1982-85 Co-Chair, Conference Group on Representation and Electoral Systems, American Political Science Association.

1979 Pi Sigma Alpha Award, Best Paper, Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

LISTINGS

Who's Who in the World, Providence, NJ: Marquis, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001

Who's Who in America (West), Providence, NJ: Marquis, 1999

American Political Scientists: A Dictionary. Glenn H. Utter and Charles Lockhart (Eds.) Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002, pp. 138-140

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print)

(1) Grofman, Bernard N., and Edward Muller. 1973. The strange case of relative gratification and potential for political violence: The V-curve. American Political Science Review, 67:514-539.

(2) Grofman, Bernard N., and Gerald Hyman. 1973. Probability and logic in belief systems. Theory and Decision, 4:179-195.

(3) Grofman, Bernard N, 1974. Helping behavior and group size, some exploratory stochastic models. Behavioral Science, 19:219-224.

(4) Grofman, Bernard N., and Gerald Hyman. 1974. The logical foundations of ideology. Behavioral Science, 19:225-237.

(5) Grofman, Bernard N. 1975. The prisoner's dilemma game: Paradox reconsidered. In Gordon Tullock (Ed.), Frontiers of Economics, Vol. 1, 101-119.

(6) Mackelprang, A. J., Bernard N. Grofman. and N. Keith Thomas. Electoral change and stability: Some new perspectives. 1975. American Politics Quarterly. 3 (3):315-339.

(7) Grofman, Bernard N. 1975. A review of macro-election systems. In Rudolph Wildenmann (Ed.), German Political Yearbook (Sozialwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch far Politik), Vol. 4, Munich Germany: Gunter Olzog Verlag, 303-352.

(8) Grofman, Bernard N., and Jonathan Pool. 1975. Bayesian models for iterated prisoner's dilemma games. General Systems. 20:185-194.

(9) Grofman, Bernard N. 1976. Not necessarily twelve and not necessarily unanimous: Evaluating the impact of Williams v. Florida and Johnson v. Louisiana. In Gordon Bermant, Charlan Nemeth and Neil Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the Law: Research Frontiers. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 149- 168.

(10) Grofman, Bernard N. 1977. Jury decision-making models. In Stuart Nagel(Ed-), Modeling the Criminal Justice System. Sage Criminal Justice Systems Annuals, Vol. 7, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 191-203.

(11) Grofman, Bernard N., and Jonathan Pool. 1977. How to make cooperation the optimizing strategy in a two-person game. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 5 (2):173-186.

(12) Grofman, Bernard N. 1978. Judgmental competence of individuals and groups in a dichotomous choice situation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 6(1):47-60.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(13) Grofman, Bernard N., and Howard Scarrow. 1979. Iannucci and its aftermath: The application of the Banzhaf Criterion to weighted voting in the State of New York. In Steven Brams, Andrew Schotter and Gerhard Schwodiauer (Eds.), Applied Game Theory. Vienna: Physica-Verlag, 168-183.

(14) Grofman, Bernard N. 1980. A preliminary model of jury decision making. In Gordon Tullock (Ed.), Frontiers of Economics, Vol. 3, 98-110.

(15) Grofman, Bernard N. 1980. Jury decision-making models and the Supreme Court: The jury cases from Williams v. Florida to Ballew v. Georgia, Policy Studies Journal, 8(5):749-772.

(16) Grofman, Bernard N. 1980. The slippery slope: Jury size and jury verdict requirements-legal and social science approaches. Law and Politics Quarterly. 2 (3):285-304.

(17) Grofman, Bernard N., and Howard Scarrow. 1980. Mathematics, social science and the law. In Michael J. Saks and Charles H. Baron (Eds.), The Use/Nonuse/Misuse of Applied Social Research in the Courts. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 117-127.

(18) Grofman, Bernard N. 1981. Mathematical models of juror and jury decision making: the state of the art. In Bruce D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in Law and Psychology. Volume II: The Trial Processes. NY: Plenum, 305-351.

(19) Grofman, Bernard N. 1981. The theory of committees and elections: The legacy of Duncan Black. In Gordon Tullock (Ed.), Toward a Science of Polotics: Essays in Honor of Duncan Black. Blacksburg, VA: Public Choice Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 11-57.

(20) Weisberg, Herbert and Bernard N. Grofman. 1981. Candidate evaluations and turnout. American Politics Quarterly, 9(2): 197-219.

(21) Grofman, Bernard N. and Howard Scarrow. 1981. Weighted voting in New York. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 6(2):287-304.

(22) Grofman, Bernard N. 1981. Alternatives to single-member plurality districts: Legal and empirical issues. Policy Studies Journal. 9(3): 875-898. (Reprinted in Bernard Grofman, Arend Lijphart, Robert McKay and Howard Scarrow (Eds.), Representation and Redistricting Issues. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982, 107-128.

(23) Taagepera, Rein and Bernard N. Grofman. 1981. Effective size and number of components. Sociological Methods and Research, 10:63-81.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(24) Landa, Janet, and Bernard N. Grofman. 1981. Games of breach and the role of contract law in protecting the expectation interest. Research in Law and Economics Annual, 3:67-90.

(25) Grofman, Bernard N. 1982. A dynamic model of protocoalition formation in ideological n-space. Behavioral Science, 27:77-90.

(26) Grofman, Bernard N., Scott Feld, and Guillermo Owen. 1982. Evaluating the competence of experts, pooling individual judgements into a collective choice, and delegating decision responsibility to subgroups. In Felix Geyer and Hans van der Zouwen (Eds.), Dependence and Inequality. NY: Pergamon Press, 221-238.

(27) Grofman, Bernard N. 1982. Reformers, politicians and the courts: A preliminary look at U.S. redistricting in the 1980s. Political Geography Quarterly, 1(4):303- 316.

(28) Grofman, Bernard N. and Howard Scarrow. 1982. Current issues in reapportionment. Law and Policy Quarterly, 4(4): 435-474.

(29) Grofman, Bernard N. and Guillermo Owen. 1982. A game theoretic approach to measuring degree of centrality in social networks. Social Networks. 4:213-224.

(30) Grofman, Bernard N., Guillermo Owen and Scott L. Feld. 1983. Thirteen theorems in search of the truth. Theory and Decision, 15:261-278.

(31) Grofman, Bernard N. 1983. Measures of bias and proportionality in seats-votes relationships. Political Methodology, 9:295-327.

(32) Grofman, Bernard N. and Janet Landa. 1983. The development of trading networks among spatially separated traders as a process of proto-coalition formation: the Kula trade. Social Networks, 5:347-365.

(33) Owen, Guillermo and Bernard N. Grofman. 1984. Coalitions and power in political situations. In Manfred Holler (Ed.), Coalitions and Collective Action, Wuerzburg: Physica-Verlag, 137-143.

(34) Grofman, Bernard N. 1984. The general irrelevance of the zero sum assumption in the legislative context. In Manfred Holler (Ed.), Coalitions and Collective Action. Wuerzburg: Physica-Verlag, 100-112.

(35) Glazer, Amihai, Deborah Glazer, and Bernard N. Grofman. 1984. Cumulative voting in corporate elections: Introducing strategy into the equations. South Carolina Law Review, 35(2):295-309.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(36) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard N. Grofman. 1984. The accuracy of group majority decisions in groups with added members. Public Choice, 42: 273-285.

(37) Owen, Guillermo and Bernard N. Grofman. 1984. To vote or not to vote: The paradox of nonvoting. Public Choice, 42:311-325.

(38) Shapley, Lloyd S. and Bernard N. Grofman. 1984. Optimizing group judgmental accuracy in the presence of interdependencies. Public Choice. 43(3):329-343.

(39) Grofman, Bernard N., Michael Migalski, and Nicholas Noviello. 1985. The `totality of circumstances' test in Section 2 of the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act: A social science perspective. Law and Policy, 7(2):209-223.

(40) Grofman, Bernard N. Criteria for districting: A social science perspective. 1985. UCLA Law Review. 33(1):77-184.

(41) Grofman, Bernard and Carole Uhlaner. 1985. Metapreferences and reasons for stability in social choice: Thoughts on broadening and clarifying the debate. Theory and Decision, 19:31-50.

(42) Taagepera, Rein and Bernard Grofman. 1985. Rethinking Duverger's Law: Predicting the effective number of parties in plurality and PR systems-parties minus issues equals one. European Journal of Political Research. 13:341-352. (Reprinted in J. Paul Johnston and Harvey E. Pasis (Eds.). Representation and Electoral Systems: Canadian Perspectives. Englewood City, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1988.)

(43) Niemi, Richard, Jeffrey Hill and Bernard Grofman. 1985. The impact of multimember districts on party representation in U.S. state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10(4):441-455.

(44) Uhlaner, Carole and Bernard Grofman. 1986. The race may be close but my horse is going to win: Wish fulfillment in the 1980 Presidential election. Political Behavior, 8(2): 101-129.

(45) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1986. On the possibility of faithfully representative committees. American Political Science Review. 80(3):863-879.

(46) Brace, Kimball, Bernard Grofman and Lisa Handley. 1987. Does redistricting aimed to help blacks necessarily help Republicans? Journal of Politics, 49:143- 156. (Reprinted in Ann M. Bowman and R.C. Kearney, State and Local Government. Boston, MA: Houghton Miflin, 1990.)

(47) Grofman, Bernard, Guillermo Owen, Nicholas Noviello and Amihai Glazer. 1987. Stability and centrality of legislative choice in the spatial context. American Political Science Review. 81(2):539-553.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(48) Grofman, Bernard N. Models of voting. 1987. In Samuel Long (Ed.), Micropolitics Annual, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 31-61.

(49) Glazer, Amihai, Bernard Grofman and Marc Robbins. 1987. Partisan and incumbency effects of 1970s congressional redistricting. American Journal of Political Science. 30(3):680-701. (Reprinted in Susan A. McManus (Ed.), Reapportionment and Representation in Florida. Lake Geneva, Wisconsin: Paladin House, 1991.)

(50) Feld, Scott L., Bernard Grofman, Richard Hartley, Mark O. Kilgour and Nicholas Miller. 1987. The uncovered set in spatial voting games. Theory and Decision, 23:129-156.

(51) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1987. Necessary and sufficient conditions for a majority winner in n-dimensional spatial voting games: An intuitive geometric approach. American Journal of Political Science, 32(4):709-728.

(52) Owen, Guillermo and Bernard N. Grofman. 1988. Optimal partisan gerrymandering. Political Geography Quarterly. 7(1):5-22.

(53) Schofield, Norman, Bernard Grofman and Scott L. Feld. 1988. The core and the stability of group choice in spatial voting games. American Political Science Review, 82)(1): 195-211.

(54) Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld. 1988. Rousseau's general will: A Condorcetian perspective. American Political Science Review, 82(2):567-576. (Reprinted in J. Paul Johnston and Harvey Pasis (Eds.), Representation and Electoral Systems: Canadian Perspectives. NJ: Prentice Hall of Canada, 1990. Translated and reprinted in abridged form as La volonte generate de Rousseau: perspective Condorceene. In P. Crepel and C. Gilain (Eds.), des Actes du Collogue International Condorcet. Paris: Editions Minerve, 1989.) (Reprinted in Literature Criticism, Vol. 104, Warren, MI: Gale Group).

(55) Brace, Kimball, Bernard Grofman, Lisa Handley, and Richard Niemi. 1988. Minority voting equality: The 65 percent rule in theory and practice. Law and Policy. 10(1):43-62.

(56) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1988. Ideological consistency as a collective phenomenon. American Political Science Review. 82(3):64-75.

(57) Grofman, Bernard and Michael Migalski. 1988. Estimating the extent of racially polarized voting in multicandidate elections. Sociological Methods and Research, 16(4):427-454.

(58) Grofman, Bernard, Scott L. Feld and Guillermo Owen. 1989. Finagle's law and the Finagle point, a new solution concept for two-candidate competition in spatial voting games. American Journal of Political Science, 33(2):348-375.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(59) Grofman, Bernard and Lisa Handley. 1989. Black representation: Making sense of electoral geography at different levels of government. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 14(2):265-279.

(60) Feld, Scott L., Bernard Grofman and Nicholas Miller. 1989. Limits on agenda control in spatial voting games. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 12 (4/5):405-416. (Reprinted in Paul E. Johnson (Ed.), Mathematical Modelling in Political Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989.)

(61) Erfle, Stephen, Henry McMillan and Bernard Grofman. 1989. Testing the regulatory threat hypothesis: Media coverage of the energy crisis and petroleum pricing in the late 1970s. American Politics Quarterly, 17(2): 132- 152.

(62) Miller, Nicholas, Bernard Grofman and Scott L. Feld. 1989. The geometry of majority rule. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(4):379-406.

(63) Grofman, Bernard and Barbara Norrander. 1990. Efficient use of reference group cues in a single dimension. Public Choice, 64:213-227.

(64) Grofman, Bernard N. 1990. Toward a coherent theory of gerrymandering: Bandemer and Thornburg. In Bernard Grofman (Ed.), Political Gerrymandering and the Courts. New York: Agathon Press, 29-63.

(65) Erfle, Stephen, Henry McMillan and Bernard Grofman. 1990. Regulation via threats: politics, media coverage and oil pricing decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly. 54(1):48-63.

(66) Niemi, Richard G., Bernard Grofman, Carl Carlucci and Thomas Hofeller. 1990. Measuring compactness and the role of a competent standard in a test for partisan and racial gerrymandering. Journal of Politics, 52(4): 1155-1181.

(67) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1990. Collectivities as actors, Rationality and Society, 2(4):429-448.

(68) Hall, Richard L. and Bernard Grofman. 1990. The committee assignment process and the conditional nature of committee bias. American Political Science Review, 84(4): 1149-1166.

(69) Grofman, Bernard, and Lisa Handley. 1991. The impact of the Voting Rights Act on black representation in southern state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 16(1): 111-127.

(70) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1991. Incumbency advantage, voter loyalty and the benefit of the doubt. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 3(2):115-137.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(71) Grofman, Bernard. 1991. Statistics without substance: A critique of Freedman et al. and Clark and Morrison. Evaluation Review, 15(6): 746-769.

(72) Grofman, Bernard and Lisa Handley. 1992. Identifying and remedying racial gerrymandering. Journal of Law and Politics, 8(2):345-404.

(73) Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld. 1992. Group decision making over multidimensional objects of choice, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 52:39-63.

(74) Grofman, Bernard. 1992. Expert witness testimony and the evolution of voting right case law. In Bernard Grofman and Chandler Davidson (Eds.), Controversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 197-229.

(75) Grofman, Bernard. 1992. What happens after one person-one vote: Implications of the U.S. experience for Canada" in John Courtney and David Smith (Eds.), Drawing Boundaries, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Fifth House Publishers, 156-178; translated into French, Que se passe-t-il apres "une personne, une voix"? L'experience Americaine, for Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Elections Canada.). An earlier and shorter version appeared as "An expert witness perspective on continuing and emerging voting rights controversies: From one person, one vote to political gerrymandering." Stetson University Law Review, 1992,21(3):783-818

(76) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. Would Vince Lombard! have been right if he had said, `When it comes to redistricting, race isn't everything, it's the only thing'? Cardozo Law Review. 14(5):1237-1276.

(77) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. Toward an institution rich theory of political competition, with a supply-side component. In Bernard Grofman (Ed.), Information, participation, and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy' in Perspective. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 179-193.

(78) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. The use of ecological regression to estimate racial bloc voting. University of San Francisco Law Review, 27(3): 593-625.

(79) Grofman, Bernard, 1993. Public choice, civic republicanism, and American politics: Perspectives of a `reasonable choice' modeler. Texas Law Review, 71 (7):1541-1587.

(80) Brischetto, Robert, David R. Richards, Chandler Davidson, and Bernard Grofman. 1994. Texas. In Davidson, Chandler and Bernard Grofman (Eds.), Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act. 1965-1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 233-257.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cent.)

(81) Grofman, Bernard and Chandler Davidson. 1994. The effect of municipal election structure on black representation in eight Southern states. In Davidson, Chandler and Bernard Grofman (Eds.), Quiet Revolution in the Souti: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 1965-1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 301-334.

(82) Handley, Lisa and Bernard Grofman. 1994. The Impact of the Voting Rights Act on Minoriuy Representation: Black Officeholding in Southern State Legislatures and Congressional Delegations. In Davidson, Chandler and Bernard Grofman (Eds.), Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 1965-1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 335-350.

(83) Glazer, Amihai, Robert Griffin, Bernard Grofman and Martin Wattenberg. 1995. Strategic vote delay in the U.S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(1):37-45.

(84) Skaperdas, Stergios and Bernard Grofman. 1995. Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review. 89(I):49-61.

(85) Grofman, Bernard. 1995. New methods for valid ecological inference. In Monroe Eagles (Ed.), Spatial and Contextual Models in Political Research. London: Taylor and Francis, 127-149.

(86) Grofman, Bernard and Peter van Roozendaal. 1995. Toward a theoretical explanation of premature cabinet termination: With application to post-war cabinets in the Netherlands, European Journal of Political Research. 26:155-170.

(87) Landa, Janet, Michael Copeland and Bernard Grofman. 1995. Ethnic voting patterns: a case study of metropolitan Toronto. Political Geography, 14(5):435- 449.

(88) Grofman, Bernard and Lisa Handley. 1995. 1990s Issues in voting rights. University of Mississippi Law Journal, 65(2):205-270.

(89) Grofman, Bernard. 1996. Extending a dynamic model of protocoalition formation. In Norman Schofield (Ed.), Collective Decision Making: Social Choice and Political Economy. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 265-280.

(90) Grofman, Bernard, Phillip Straffin and Nicholas Noviello. 1996. The sequential dynamics of cabinet formation, stochastic error, and a test of competing models. In Norman Schofield (Ed.) Collective Decision Making: Choice and Political. Economy. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 281-293.

(91) Grofman, Bernard. 1996. Political Economy: Downsian Perspectives. In Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (Eds.) New Handbook of Political Science. New York and London: Oxford University Press, 691-701.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cent.)

(92) Grofman, Bernard. 1997. The Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act, and minority representation. In Anthony Peacock (Ed.), Affirmative Action and Representation: Shaw v. Reno and the future of Voting Rights. Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press, 173-199.

(93) Merrill, Samuel and Bernard Grofman. 1997. Directional and proximity models of voter utility and choice: a new synthesis and an illustrative test of competing models. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 9(1):25-48

(94) Grofman, Bernard and Peter van Roozendaal. 1997. Modelling cabinet durability/cabinet termination: A synthetic literature review and critique. British Journal of Political Science. 27:419-451.

(95) Anderson, Richard and Bernard Grofman. 1997. Rhetoric and rationality. A study of democratization in the Soviet Union. Public Choice, 93:287-314

(96) Merrill III, Samuel and Bernard Grofman. 1997. Modeling large electorates with Fourier series: With applications to Nash equilibria in proximity and directional models of spatial competition. Social Choice and Welfare. 14(4):545-562.

(97) Falmagne, Jean-Claude, Michel Regenwetter and Bernard Grofman. 1997. A stochastic model for the evolution of preferences. In Anthony J. Marley (ed.) Decision and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 111-129.

(98) Owen, Guillermo and Bernard Grofman, 1997. Estimating the likelihood of fallacious ecological inference: Linear ecological regression in the presence of context effects. Political Geography. 16(8):657-690.

(99) Grofman, Bernard, Thomas Brunell, Janet Campagna. 1997. Distinguishing between the effects of swing ratio and bias on outcomes in the U.S. electoral college, 1990-1992. Electoral Studies, l6(4):471-487.

(100) Grofman, Bernard, William Koetzlc, Thomas Brunell. 1997. An integrated perspective on the three potential sources of partisan bias: Malapportionment, turnout differences, and the geographic distribution of party vote shares. Electoral Studies, 16(4):457-470

(101) Regenwetter, Michel and Bernard Grofman. 1998. Choosing subsets: A size- independent probabilistic model and the quest for a social welfare ordering. Social Choice and Welfare. 15(3):423-443.

(102) Regenwetter, Michel and Bernard Grofman. 1998. Approval voting, Borda winners and Condorcet winners: Evidence from seven elections. Management Science, 44(4):520-533.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(103) Handley, Lisa, Bernard Grofman, and Wayne Arden. 1998. Electing minority- preferred candidates to legislative office: The relationship between minority percentages in districts and the election of minority-preferred candidates. In Bernard Grofman (Ed.) Race and Redistricting; in the 1990s. New York: Agathon Press, 13-39. (An earlier and shorter version of this appeared as Wayne Arden, Bernard Grofman and Lisa Handley. The impact of redistricting on African- American representation in the U.S. Congress and State Legislatures in the 1990s. In Georgia Persons (ed.) Race and Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.)

(104) Grofman, Bernard, and Lisa Handley. 1998. Estimating the impact of voting- rights-act-related districting on Democratic strength in the U.S. House of Representatives. In Bernard Grofman (Ed.) Race and Redistricting in the 1990s. New York: Agathon Press, 51-67.

(105) Glazer, Amihai, Bernard Grofman, and Guillermo Owen. 1998. A neo-Downsian model of group-oriented voting and racial backlash. Public Choice. 97:23-34.

(106) Grofman, Bernard. 1999. SNTV, STV, and single-member district systems: theoretical comparisons and contrasts. In Bernard Grofman, Sung-Chull Lee, Edwin Winckler, and Brian Woodall (Eds.) Elections in Japan, Korea and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 317-333.

(107) Grofman, Bernard. 1999. SNTV: An inventory of theoretically derived propositions and a brief review of the evidence from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Alabama. In Bernard Grofman, Sung-Chull Lee, Edwin Winckler, and Brian Woodall (Eds.) Elections in Japan, Korea and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 375-416.

(108) Merrill, Sam, Bernard Grofman, and Scott Feld. 1999. Nash equilibrium strategies in directional models of two-candidate spatial competition. Public Choice, 98:369-383.

(109) Brians, Craig L. and Bernard Grofman. 1999. When registration barriers fall, who votes? An empirical test of a rational choice model. Public Choice, 99:161- 176.

(110) Grofman, Bernard, Guillermo Owen and Christian Collet. 1999. Rethinking the Partisan Effects of Higher Turnout: So What's the Question? Public Choice. 99:357-376.

(111) Merrill, Samuel, Bernard Grofman, Thomas Brunell and William Koetzlc. 1999. The power of ideologically concentrated minorities. Journal of Theoretical Politics. ll(1):57-74.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(112) Regenwetter, Michel, Jean-Claude Faknagne, Bernard Grofman. 1999. A Stochastic Model of Preference Change and its Application to 1992 Presidential Election Panel Data. Psychological Review, 106(2):362-384.

(113) Grofman, Bernard and Heathcote W. Wales. 1999. Modeling Jury Bias. Legal Theory, 5:221-234.

(114) Grofman, Bernard. 2000. Lijphart and the new institutionalism. In Markus L. Crepaz, Thomas Koelble and David Wilsford (eds.) Democracy and Institutions: The Life Work of Arend Lijphart. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 43- 73.

(115) Grofman, Bernard, William Koetzlc, Michael McDonald, and Thomas Brunell. 2000. A new look at split ticket voting for House and President: The comparative midpoints model, Journal of Politics. 62(1):34-50.

(116) Grofman, Bernard and Andrew Reynolds. 2001. Electoral Systems and the art of Constitutional Engineering: An Inventory of the Main Findings. In Ram Mudambi, Pietro Navarra and Giuseppe Sobbrio (eds.) Rules and Reason: Perspectives of Constitutional political Economy. New York and London: Cambridge University Press, 125-163.

(117) Brians, Craig and Bernard Grofman. 2001, Election day registration's effect on US voter turnout. Social Science Quarterly. 82:170-183.

(118) Grofman, Bernard and Thomas Brunell. 2001. Explaining the ideological differences between the two U.S. senators elected from the same state: An institutional effects model. In Peter Galderisi (ed.) Congressional Primaries in the Politics of Representation. New York: Rowman and Littleiield Publishers, Inc., 132-142.

(119) Grofman, Bernard, Lisa Handley and David Lublin. 2001. Drawing effective minority districts: A conceptual framework and some empirical evidence. North Carolina Law Review, 79:1383-1430.

(120) Merrill, Samuel, Bernard Grofman, and James Adams. 2001. Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: Evidence from Norway, France, and the U.S. European Journal of Political Research, 40:199-221.

(121) Grofman, Bernard, William Koetzlc, A. J. McGann. 2002. Congressional leadership 1965-1996: A new look at the extremism versus centrality debate." Legislative Studies Quarterly, 27(1):87-100.

(122) McGann, Anthony, William Koetzlc and Bernard Grofman. 2002. How an ideologically concentrated minority can trump a dispersed majority: Non-median voter results plurality, run-off and sequential elimination elections" American Journal of Political Science. 46(1): 134-148.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(123) Grofman, Bernard and Timothy Brazill. 2002. Identifying the median justice on the Supreme Court through multidimensional scaling: Analysis of `natural courts' 1953-1991. Public Choice. 112:55-79.

(124) Brazill, Timothy and Bernard Grofman. 2002. Factor analysis versus multidimensional scaling: Binary choice roll-call voting and the U.S. Supreme Court. Social Networks, 24:201-229.

(125) McGann, Anthony. Bernard Grofman and William Koetzlc. 2002. Why party leaders are more extreme than their members: Modeling sequential elimination elections in the US House of Representatives" Public Choice, 113:337-356.

(126) Regenwetter, Michel, James Adams, and Bernard Grofman. 2002. On the Condorcet efficiency of majority rule: An alternative view of majority cycles and social homogeneity. Theory and Decision. 53:153-186.

(127) Grofman, Bernard and Robert Stockwell. 2003. Institutional design in plural societies: Mitigating ethnic conflict and fostering stable democracy." In Ram Mudambi, Pietro Navarra and Guiseppe Sobbrio (eds.), Economic Welfare, International Business and Global Institutional Change. New York: Edward Elgar, Publishers, 102-137.

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES (forthcoming)

(128) Tsetlin, Ilia, Michel Regenwetter, Bernard Grofman. The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles." Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming.

(129) Regenwetter, Michel, Anthony Marley and Bernard Grofman. The general concept of majority rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, forthcoming.

(130) Regenwetter, Michel, A. A. A. Marley, and Bernard Grofman. 2003. General concepts of value restriction and preference majority." Social Choice and Welfare, 21(1): 149-173.

(131) Taagepera, Rein and Bernard Grofman. 2003. Mapping the indices of seats-votes disproportionality and inter-election volatility." Party Politics, 9(6):659-677.

(132) Grofman, Bernard. Race and redistricting in the 21st century. In Gary M. Segura, and Shaun Bowler (eds) Diversity in Democracy: Minority Representation in the United States. Charlottesville; University of Virginia Press, forthcoming

(133) Grofman, Bernard and Samuel Merrill III. Ecological regression and ecological inference. In Gary King, On Rosen and Martin Tanner (eds.) Ecological Inference: New Methodological Strategies. Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.

(134) Grofman, Bernard and Samuel Merrill III. Lottery-based affirmative action in education: Anticipating likely consequences. Social Science Quarterly. forthcoming.

(135) Grofman, Bernard, Alessandro Chiaramonte, Roberto D'Alimonte and Scott Feld. Comparing and contrasting the uses of two graphical tools for displaying patterns of multi-party competition: Nagayama diagrams and simplex representations. Party Politics, forthcoming.

(136) Grofman, Bernard. Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science, forthcoming.

(137) Ray, Leonard, Scott L. Feld and Bernard Grofman. Implications of Expansion of the European Union for Decisions Within the EU Council. Riyjsta Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche. forthcoming.

(138) Grofman, Bernard. Reflections on Public Choice. Public Choice, forthcoming.

(139) Grofman, Bernard and Tom Brunell. The art of the Dummymander: The Impact of Recent Redistrictingsw on the Partisan Makeup of Southern House Seats. In Galderisi, Peter (Ed.) Redistricting in the New Millennium, forthcoming.

(140) Fraenkel, Jon and Bernard Grofman. A Neo-Downsian model of the alternate vote as a mechanism for mitigating ethnic conflict in plural societies. Public Choice, forthcoming.

(141) O'Leary, Brendan, Bernard Grofman and Jorgen Elklit. "Divisor methods for sequential portfolio allocation in multi-party executive bodies: evidence from Northern Ireland and Denmark." American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (in print)

(R1) Grofman, Bernard N. 1969. Some notes on voting schemes and the will of the majority. Public Choice, 7:65-80.

(R2) Grofman, Bernard N. 1972. The 1971 American Political Science Association election. PS (commissioned for Summer 1972), 278-289.

(R3) Pool, Jonathan and Bernard N. Grofman. 1975. Computer programs as a means of efficiency and control in cross-cultural experimental games. Experimental Study of Politics, 4(2):27-57.

(R4) Grofman, Bernard N. and Scott L. Feld. 1976. A note on clique avoidance in repeated jury selection from among a fixed pool of jurors: Comparisons of manpower savings in six- and twelve-member juries. Public Choice, 26:145-150.

(R5) Feld, Scott and Bernard N. Grofman. 1977. Variation in class size, the class size paradox, and some consequences for students. Research in Higher Education, 6(3):215-222.

(R6) Grofman, Bernard N. 1979, A pilot study of individual behavior as mediated by the group context: three-and five-member mock juries. Experimental Study of Politics. 7:41-54.

(R7) Grofman, Bernard N. 1979. Abstention in two-candidate and three-candidate elections when voters use mixed strategies. Public Choice, 334(2): 189-200.

(R8) Feld, Scott and Bernard N. Grofman. Conflict of interest between faculty, students and administrators: Consequences of the class size paradox. In Gordon Tullock (Ed.), Frontiers of Economics. Vol. 3 1980, 111-116.

(R9) Grofman, Bernard N. 1981. Fair apportionment and the Banzhaf index. American Mathematical Monthly, 88(1):1-5.

(R10) Grofman, Bernard N. and Howard Scarrow. 1980/1981. Introduction to `Special Issue on Reapportionment.' Policy Studies Journal. Special Issue 3(9) and 9(6):817-825.

(R11) Grofman, Bernard N. 1981. Fair and equal representation. Ethics. 91:477-485.

(R12) Grofman, Bernard N. For single-member districts, random is not equal. In Bernard Grofman, Arend Lijphart, Robert McKay and Howard Scarrow (Eds.), Representation and Redistricting Issues. Lexington Books, 1982, 55-58.

(R13) Brody, Richard and Bernard N. Grofman. 1982. Stimulus differentiation vs. stimulus complexity as factors affecting turnout in two-candidate and multi-candidate races. Political Behavior. 4(1):83-92.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(R14) Grofman, Bernard R, Guillermo Owen and Scott L. Feld. 1982. Average competence, variability in individual competence, and the accuracy of statistically pooled group decisions. Psychological Reports. 50:683-688.

(R15) Grofman, Bernard N. and Scott L. Feld. 1984. Group size and the performance of a composite group majority: Statistical truths and empirical results. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33:350-359.

(R16) Lijphart, Arend and Bernard Grofman. Introduction. In Arend Lijphart and Bernard Grofman (Eds.), Choosing an Electoral System. NY: Praeger, 1984, 3-12.

(R17) Grofman, Bernard N. 1985. The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting. Journal of Politics, 47:231-237.

(R18) Grofman, Bernard N. and Nicholas Noviello. 1985. Jai-Alai outcomes as a function of player position and player skill level. Simulation and Games. 16(2):211-223.

(R19) Grofman, Bernard N. 1985. The accuracy of group majorities for disjunctive and conjunctive decision tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 35:119-123.

(R20) Grofman, Bernard N. 1985. The effect of restricted and unrestricted verdict options on juror choice. Social Science Research. 14:195-204.

(R21) Grofman, Bernard N. and Arend Lijphart. Introduction. In Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart (Eds.), Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. NY: Agathon, 1986, 1-15.

(R22) Grofman, Bernard, Michael Migalski and Nicholas Noviello. 1986. Effects of multimember districts on black representation in state legislatures. Review of Black Political Economy. 14(4):65-78.

(R23) Grofman, Bernard N. and Guillermo Owen. Condorcet models: Avenues for future research. In Bernard Grofman and Guillermo Owen (Eds.), Information Pooling and Group Decision Making. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986, 93-102.

(R24) Grofman, Bernard N. and Scott L. Feld. Determining optimal weights for expert judgment. In Bernard Grofman and Guillermo Owen (Eds.), Information Pooling and Group Decision Making. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986, 167-172.

(R25) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1986. Partial single-peakedness: an extension and clarification. Public Choice, 51:71-80.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(R26) Glazer, Amihai and Bernard Grofman. 1987. Two plus two plus two equals six: Term lengths of representatives and senators. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 12 (4):555-563.

(R27) Glazer, Amihai and Bernard Grofman. 1988. Limitations of the spatial model. Public Choice, 58:161-167.

(R28) Feld, Scott L., Bernard Grofman and Nicholas Miller. 1988. Centripetal forces in spatial voting: On the size of the yolk. Public Choice. 59:37-50.

(R29) Norrander, Barbara and Bernard Grofman. 1988. A rational choice model of citizen participation in high and low commitment electoral activities. Public Choice, 57:187-192.

(R30) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1988. Majority rule outcomes and the structure of debate in one-issue-at-a-time decision making. Public Choice, 59:239-252.

(R31) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1988. The Borda count in n-dimensional issue space. Public Choice. 59:167-176.

(R32) Owen, Guillermo and Bernard Grofman. 1987. A theorem on the optimal allocation of effort. Revista Colombiana de Matematicas, Vol. 21 (1987) 201-212.

(R33) Grofman, Bernard. 1989. Richard Nixon as Pinocchio, Richard n, and Santa Claus. Journal of Politics. 5(1): 165-173.

(R34) Glazer, Amihai and Bernard Grofman. 1989. Why representatives are ideologists though voters are not. Public Choice, 61:29-39.

(R35) Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld. Toward a sociometric theory of representation. In Manfred Kochen (Ed.), The Small World. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1988, 100-107.

(R36) Owen, Guillermo, Bernard Grofman and Scott L. Feld. 1989. Proving a distribution-free generalization of the Condorcet jury theorem. Mathematical Social Sciences, 17:1-6.

(R37) Grofman, Bernard. 1989. The comparative analysis of coalition formation and duration: Distinguishing between-country and within-country effects. British Journal of Political Science. 19:291-302.

(R38) Grofman, Bernard. Introduction. In Bernard Grofman and Donald Wittman (Eds.), The `Federalist Papers' and the New Institutionalism. NY: Agathon Press, 1989, 7-9.

(R39) Glazer, Amihai, Bernard Grofman and Guillermo Owen. 1989. A model of candidate convergence under uncertainty about voter preferences. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 12(4/5):437-450, reprinted in Paul E. Johnson (Ed.), Mathematical Modelling in Political Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(R40) Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Bernard Grofman and Janet Campagna. 1989. The Political Science 400: Citations by Ph.D. Cohort and by Ph.D.- Granting Institution. PS:258-270.

(R41) Glazer, Amihai and Bernard Grofman. 1989. Must liberals always vote for liberals, and need the more competent candidate always be preferred? British Journal of Political Science. 19:154-159.

(R42) Grofman, Bernard and Lisa Handley. 1989. Minority population proportion and Black and Hispanic congressional success in the 1970s and 1980s. American Politics Quarterly, 17(4):436-445; reprinted in revised and updated form under the title "Preconditions for Black and Hispanic congressional success," in Wilma Rule and Joseph Zimmerman (Eds.) United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities. New York. Greenwood Press, 1992.

(R43) Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld. 1989. Democratic theory and the public interest: Condorcet and Rousseau revisited. American Political Science Review. 83(4): 1328-1340.

(R44) Grofman, Bernard, Robert Griffin and Amihai Glazer. 1990. Identical geography, different party: A natural experiment on the magnitude of party differences in the U.S. Senate, 1960-84. In Johnston, R.J., P.M. Shelley and P.J. Taylor (Eds.), Developments in Electoral Geography. London: Routledge, 207-217.

(R45) Miller, Nicholas, Bernard Grofman and Scott L. Feld. 1990. Cycle avoiding trajectories, strategic agendas, and the duality of memory and foresight: An informal exposition. Public Choice. 64:265-277.

(R46) Grofman, Bernard N. Introduction. In Bernard Grofman (ed.), Political Gerrymandering and the Courts. NY: Agathon Press, 1990, 3-9.

(R47) Grofman, Bernard. 1990. Investing in knowledge production: Should political scientists be paid to think? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(2):231-236.

(R48) Campagna, Janet and Bernard Grofman. 1990. Party control and partisan bias in 1980s congressional redistricting. Journal of Politics, 52(4): 1242-1257.

(R49) Miller, Nicholas, Bernard Grofman and Scott L. Feld. 1990. The structure of the Banks set. Public Choice, 66:243-251.

(R50) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1991. The half-win set and the geometry of spatial voting. Public Choice, 70:245-250.

(R51) Grofman, Bernard, Robert Griffin and Amihai Glazer. 1991. Is the Senate more liberal than the House?: Another look. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 16(2):281-295.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(R52) Brady, David and Bernard Grofman. 1991. Sectional differences in partisan bias and electoral responsiveness in U.S. House elections, 1850-1980. British Journal of Political Science. 21 (Part 2):247-256.

(R53) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1991. Voting in one's head as a source of nearly transitive preferences over multi-dimensional issues. Annals of Operations Research, 23:257-263.

(R54) Grofman, Bernard. Multivariate methods and the analysis of racially polarized voting: Pitfalls in the use of social science by the courts. 1991. Social Science Quarterly. 72(4):826-833.

(R55) Brady, David W. and Bernard Grofman. Modeling the determinants of swing ratio and bias in U.S. House elections, 1850-1980. 1991. Political Geography Quarterly, 10(3):254-262.

(R56) Glazer, Amihai and Bernard Grofman. 1992. A positive relationship between turnout and plurality does not refute the rational voter model. Quality and Quantity, 26: 85-93.

(R57) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1992. Who's afraid of the big bad cycle? Journal of Theoretical Politics. 4(2):231-237.

(R58) Thomas, Scott J. and Bernard Grofman. 1992. Determinants of legislative success in House committees, Public Choice, 74:233-243.

(R59) Grofman, Bernard and Chandler Davidson. Postscript: What is the best route to a color-blind society? In Bernard Grofman and Chandler Davidson (Eds.), Controversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1992, 300-317.

(R60) Grofman, Bernard, Robert Griffin and Amihai Glazer. 1992. The effect of black population on electing Democrats and liberals to The House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 17(3):365-379.

(R61) Thomas, Scott J. and Bernard Grofman. 1992. The effects of congressional rules about bill co-sponsorship on duplicate bills: Changing incentives for credit claiming. Public Choice. 75:93-98.

(R62) Grofman, Bernard. Meeting Dynamics. In Gregory Phifer (ed.), Readings in Parliamentary Law. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1992, 53-58; reprinted from 1977 Parliamentary Journal. 18.

(R63) Grofman, Bernard. Editor's Introduction. In Bernard Grofman (ed.) Information, Participation and Choice: "An Economic Theory of Democracy" in Perspective. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1993, 1-13.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(R64) Grofman, Bernard and Julie Withers. Information pooling models of electoral competition. In Bernard Grofman (ed.), Information. Participation and Choice: "An Economic Theory of Democracy" in Perspective. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1993, 55-64.

(R65) Wattenberg, Martin P. and Bernard Grofman. A rational choice model of the President and Vice-President as a package deal. In Bernard Grofman (ed.), Information, Participation and Choice: "An Economic Theory of Democracy" in Perspective. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1993, 173-177.

(R66) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. Voting rights in a multi-ethnic world. Chicano-Latino Law Review, 13(15):15-37.

(R67) Davidson, Chandler and Bernard Grofman. Editors' Introduction. In Chandler Davidson, and Bernard Grofman (eds.), Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act. 1965-1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994, 3-17.

(R68) Davidson, Chandler and Bernard Grofman. The Voting Rights Act and the Second Reconstruction. In Chandler Davidson and Bernard Grofman (eds.), Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act. 1965-1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994, 378-387.

(R69) Grofman, Bernard and Lisa Handley. Racial context, the 1968 Wallace vote, and Southern presidential dealignment: Evidence from North Carolina and elsewhere. In Munroe Eagles (Ed.), Spatial and Contextual Models in Political Research. London: Taylor and Francis, 1995, 151-162.

(R70) Grofman, Bernard, Robert Griffin and Gregory Berry. 1995. House members who become senators: Learning from a "natural experiment" in representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 20(4):513-529.

(R71) Grofman, Bernard and Neil Sutherland. The effect of term limits when competition is endogenized: A preliminary model. In Bernard Grofman (ed.), Legislative Term Limits: Public Choice Perspectives. Boston: Kluwer, 1996, 175-182.

(R72) Grofman, Bernard and Neil Sutherland. Gubernatorial term limits and term lengths in historical perspective, 1790-1990. In B. Grofman (Ed.) Legislative Term Limits: Public Choice Perspectives. Boston: Kluwer, 1996,279-287.

(R73) Grofman, Bernard and Andrew Reynolds. 1996. Modeling the dropoff between minority population share and the size of the minority electorate in situations of differential voter eligibility across groups. Electoral Studies, 15(2):255-261.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(R74) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1996. Stability induced by no quibbling. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5:283-294.

(R75) Grofman, Bernard. Seven durable axes of cleavage in political science, In Kristen Monroe (Ed.), Contemporary Empirical Political Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

(R76) Hanks, Christopher and Bernard Grofman. 1998. Turnout in gubernatorial and senatorial primary and general elections in the South, 1922-90: A rational choice model of the effects of short-run and long-run electoral competition on turnout. Public Choice, 94:407-421.

(R77) Grofman, Bernard, Thomas L. Brunell, and William Koetzlc. 1998. Why is there sometimes midterm gain in the Senate but (almost) always midterm loss in. the house? Legislative Studies Quarterly 23(11:79-89.

(R78) Brunell, Thomas, and Bernard Grofman. 1998. Explaining Divided U.S. Senate Delegations, 1788-1994. American Political Science Review 92(21:1-9.

(R79) Grofman, Bernard and Lisa Handley. Voting Rights in the 1990s: An Overview. In Bernard Grofman (Ed.) Race and Redistricting in the 1990s. New York: Agathon Press, 1998. (An earlier and shorter version of this appeared as Bernard Grofman, The 1990s round of redistricting: A schematic outline of some key features. In Georgia Persons (ed.) Race and Representation. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers).

(R80) Merrill, Samuel and Bernard Grofman. 1998. Conceptualizing voter choice for directional and discounting models of two-candidate spatial competition in terms of shadow candidates. Public Choice. 95: 219-231.

(R81) Grofman, Bernard, Robert Griffin and Christian Collet. 1998. Analyzing the turnout-competition link with aggregate cross-sectional data. Public Choice. 95: 233-246.

(R82) Grofman, Bernard. Preface: Methodological steps toward the study of embedded institutions. In Bernard Grofman, Sung-Chull Lee, Edwin Winckler, and Brian Woodail (Eds.) Elections in Japan, Korea and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The ComparativeStudy of an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999.

(R83) Grofman, Bernard, Samuel Merrill, Thomas L. Brunell, and William Koetzlc. 1999. The Potential Electoral Disadvantages of a Catch-All Party: Ideological Variance Among Republicans and Democrats in the 50 U.S. States. Party Politics 5(2): 99-210.

(R84) Arlington, Theodore S. and Bernard Grofman. 1999. Party registration choices as a function of the geographic distribution of partisanship: A model of "hidden partisanship" and an illustrative test. Political Geography. 18(2): 173-185.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (in print) (cont.)

(R85) Brunell, Thomas, William Koetzlc, John DiNardo, Bernard Grofman, and Scott Feld. 1999. The R2=.93: Where Then Do They Differ? Comparing liberal and conservative interest group ratings. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14:87-101.

(R86) Grofman, Bernard, Evald Mikkel, and Rein Taagepera. 1999. Electoral systems change in Estonia, 1989-1993. The Journal of Baltic Studies. 30(3):227-249.

(R87) Grofman, Bernard, Evald Mikkel, and Rein Taagepera. 2000. Fission and fusion of parties in Estonia, 1987-1999. Journal of Baltic Studies. 31(4): 329-357.

(R88) Grofman, Bernard. 2000. Civil rights, the Constitution, common decency and common sense. In Bernard Grofman (ed.), Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 219-230.

(R89) Grofman, Bernard, William Koetzlc, Samuel Merrill, and Thomas Brunell. 2001. Changes in the Location of the Median Voter in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1963-1996. Public Choice. 106(3-4):221-232.

RESEARCH NOTES AND MINOR ARTICLES (forthcoming)

(R90) Regenwetter, Michel, Bernard Grofman and Anthony Marley. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data." Mathematical Social Sciences, forthcoming.

(R91) Grofman, Bernard and Scott Feld. If you like the alternative vote (a.k.a. the instant runoff) then you ought to know about the Coombs Rule. Electoral Studies, forthcoming.

PREPARED TESTIMONY AND PHOTO-OFFSET CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

(T1) Mathematics and politics: Mathematical reasoning and optimal jury decision processes. Plus, Reply. In Max Black (Ed.), Problems of Choice and Decision: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in Aspen, Colorado. June 24-July 6.1974. Cornell University Program on Science, Technology, and Society and Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies: Photo-offset, 1975, 331-337; 544-547.

(T2) A comment on Black's `rationality and cultural relativism.' In Max Black (Ed.), Problems of Choice and Decision: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in Aspen. Colorado, June 24-July 6,1974. Cornell University Program on Science, Technology, and Society and Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies: Photo-offset, 1975,161-190.

(T3) Grofman, Bernard, Scott L. Feld and Guillermo Owen. Synopsis: A Bayesian approach to optimal decision making. In J. L. Elohim (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Systems and Cybernetics. Mexico City. August 13-17. 1981. photo-offset. 1981.

(T4) Comment on H.R. 2349, a bill on standards for congressional redistricting. Prepared for the staff of the Wednesday Study Group, U.S. House of Representatives, April 1981.

(T5) Report on the constitutionality of Hawaii Reapportionment Commission's proposed state legislative redistricting. Prepared testimony in Travis v. King, U.S. District Court for the State of Hawaii, March 23-24, 1982, photo-offset.

(T6) Report to the Special Master on methodology used to insure compliance with standards of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Flateau v. Anderson, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, June 7, 1982, photo-offset.

(T7) The disadvantageous effects of at-large elections on the success of minority candidates for the Charlotte and Raleigh City Councils. Prepared testimony in Gingles v. Edmisten, U.S. District Court for the State of North Carolina, August 1983, photo-offset.

(T8) Effects of multimember districts in state legislative elections in eight North Carolina counties, 1978-1982. Prepared testimony in Gingles v. Edmisten, U.S. District Court for the State of North Carolina, August 1983, photo-offset. (Also see R22.)

(T9) Report on prima facie evidence of political gerrymandering in the 1983 California Congressional redistricting plan, plus Rejoinder. Prepared testimony in Badham v. Eu, U.S. District Court for the State of California, December 1983, photo-offset.

(T10) Report on the effects of the proposed redistricting plan for the South Carolina Senate. Prepared testimony in South Carolina v. U.S., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, photo-offset, July 1984.

PREPARED TESTIMONY AND PHOTO-OFFSET CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS (cont.)

(T11) Affidavits in Haskins v. Wilson County, U.S. District Court for the State of North Carolina, photo-offset, 1985-86.

(T12) Affidavit in Jackson v. Nash County, U.S. District Court for the State of North Carolina, April 1986.

(T13) Affidavits in U.S. v. City Council of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court for the State of California, July 1986.

(T14) Declarations in Gomez v. City of Watsonville, U.S. District Court for the State of California, August and October 1986.

(T15) Declarations in McGhee et al. v. Granville County of North Carolina, U.S. District Court for the State of North Carolina, 1987.

(T16) Declarations in Badillo et al. v. City of Stockton, U.S. District Court for the State of California, December 1987 and February 1988.

(T17) Affidavits in Republican National Committee of North Carolina v. James G. Martin, U.S. District Court for the State of North Carolina, July, August 1988.

(T18) Report in Chisom v. Roemer, Civil Action No. 86-4075 in the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 1988, revised March 1989.

(T19) Affidavits regarding minority representation in the 1988 Republican National Convention, August 5, 1988, and August 8, 1988.

(T20) Report in Garza v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, U.S. District Court for the State of California, April 1989; Declaration, October 26, 1989.

(T21) Report for the Alaska Districting Commission on racially polarized voting in elections to the Alaska legislature, May 1991.

(T22) Report in Republican State Party of Massachusetts v. Connolly, U.S. District Court for the State of Massachusetts, December 1991.

(T23) Declaration in Pope et al. v. Blue et al., U.S. District Court, Western District, Charlotte, North Carolina Division, March 5, 1992.

(T24) Declaration in Prosser v. State of Wisconsin Board of Elections, U.S. District Court for the State of Wisconsin, April 1992.

(T25) Reports for State of Alaska on the 1992 legislative districts, November 1993, January 1994.

PREPARED TESTIMONY AND PHOTO-OFFSET CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

(T26) Declaration in Republican Party of North Carolina v. James B. Hunt Governor of North Carolina, April 1994.

(T27) Expert witness declaration in Bush, v Vera, U.S. District Court, Texas, July 18, 1996.

(T28) Expert witness declaration in Shaw v. Hunt, U.S. District Court, North Carolina, July 24, 1996.

(T29) Expert witness declaration in Garcia v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court, California, November 20, 1996.

(T30) Expert witness reports in Arrington et al. v. Elections Bd., 173 F. Supp.2d 856 U.S. District Court, Eastern Division, Wisconsin, January, February and March, 2002.

(T31) Expert witness affidavit in Rodriguez et al. v. Pataki. et al., Case No. 02 Civ. 618, 01 Civ. 3843, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, May 11, 2002.

(T32) Report on Election Rules for Determining Representation on New York City Community District Education Councils. Prepared for NYC Dept of Education, October, 2003.

BOOK NOTES. REVIEWS AND COMMUNICATIONS (in print)

(B1) Book note: Robert's Rules of Order (New, Revised). 1970. American Political Science Review. 64:1288-1290.

(B2) A note on "A caveat to the 1970 APS A election." 1972. PS, (Summer): 278-290.

(B3) A note on some generalizations of the paradox of cyclical majorities. 1972. Public Choice, 12:113-114.

(B4) Book note: John Sohnquist. Multivariate Model Building. 1974. American Political Science Review, 69:1749.

(B5) Rational choice models and self-fulfilling and self-defeating prophecies. In W. Leinfellner and E. Kohler (Eds.), Developments in the Methodology of Social Science, Boston: Reidel, 1974, 381-383.

(B6) A comment on "Democratic theory: A preliminary mathematical model." 1975. Public Choice, 21:100-103.

(B7) Book note: William H. Riker and Peter C. Ordeshook, An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. 1976. Theory and Decision, 231-234.

(B8) A comment on "Single-peakedness and Guttman scales: Concept and measurement." 1976. Public Choice, 28:107-111.

(B9) Communication: Sloppy sampling — a comment on "six-member juries in the Federal Courts." 1977. Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 4(2):4-5.

(B10) Communication: `Differential effects of jury size. . .' revisited. 1977. Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 4(2):7-11.

(B11) Monopoly, the state of the art: A review of The Monopoly Book and 1000 Ways to Win Monopoly Games. 1978. Simulation and Games, 9:245-251.

(B12) Monopoly is a capitalist plot. 1978. Simulation and Games, 9(2): 252-254. (Reprinted in 1979, Puzzles and Games, 70).

(B13) Book note: Keith M. Baker, Condorcet: From Natural Philosophyjo Social Mathematics. 1978. American Political Science Review, 72(1): 212-213.

(B14) Book note: Oliver Thomson. Mass Persuasion in History. 1978. Journal of Communication, (Autumn):204-205.

(B15) A comment on Dye and McManus' use of discriminant function analysis. 1978. Political Methodology, 5:241-248.

(B16) Book note: Michael Saks, Jury Verdicts. 1979. Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 5(1):9-11.

(B17) Book note: Michael Tracey. The Production of Political Television. 1979. Journal of Communication, 29(4):211-212.

(B18) A note on Abraham Lincoln in probabilityland. 1979. Theory and Decision, 11:453-455.

(B19) The case for majority jury verdicts. 1979. Trial Magazine, 18(12): 23-25, 29, 47-48.

(B20) Book review: Michael Taylor. Anarchy and Cooperation. 1980. Theory and Decision, 12:107-114.

(B21) Book note: Susan Hensley, Body Politics: Power. Sex, and Nonverbal Communication. American Political Science Review, Vol. 74 (March 1980), 166-167.

(B22) Book note: Howard D. Hamilton, Electing the Cincinnati City Council: An Examination of Alternative Electoral-Representation Systems. 1981. American Political Science Review, 75:771-772.

(B23) Comment: Should representatives be `typical' of their constituents? In B. Grofman, A. Lijphart, R. McKay, and H. Scarrow (Eds.), Representation and Redistricting Issues, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982, 97-99.

(B24) Book note: Bruce J. West (Ed.), Mathematical Models as a Tool for the Social Sciences. 1982. Social Sciences Quarterly, 63:610-611.

(B25) Book review: Political geography. 1982. American Political Science Review, 76(4):883-885.

(B26) Abstract: Measuring the political consequences of electoral laws. 1983. Mathematical Social Sciences, 4(2): 184-186.

(B27) Comment: Models of voter turnout: A brief idiosyncratic review. 1983. Public Choice, 41: 55-61.

(B28) Advice to the expert witness in court. 1984. PS (Winter): 60-61.

(B29) Should you brush your teeth on November 6, 1984? 1984. PS (Summer): 577-580.

(B30) Introduction to minisymposium: Political gerrymandering: Badham v. Eu, Political science goes to court. 1985. PS (Summer): 538-543.

(B31) Grofman Declarations in Badham v. Eu (excerpts). 1985. PS (Summer 544-549, 573-574.

BOOK NOTES. REVIEWS AND COMMUNICATIONS (in print)

(B32) Expert vs. expert: Lessons from Badham v. Eu. 1985. PS (Summer): 576-581.

(B33) Book review: Reasonable methods for aggregating preferences, a review of Steven J. Brams and Peter C. Fishbum Approval Voting. 1985. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29: 128-132.

(B34) Reflections on academia. 1986. PS (Winter): 57-61.

(B35) Everything you always wanted to know about parliamentary procedure in an academic senate and were afraid to ask. 1986. PS (1986): 661-668.

(B36) Book note: Gunnar Boalt, The Political Process. 1986. Contemporary Sociology, 15(3):469.

(B37) Book review: Michael Dummett, Voting Procedures. 1986. Contemporary Sociology, 15(4):637-638.

(B38) Biographical entry: Duncan Black. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987). New York: Stockton Press, 250-251.

(B39) Biographical entry: Lewis Carroll. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987). New York: Stockton Press, 371-372.

(B40) Book review: Schmuel Nitzan and Jacob Paroush, Collective Decision-Making: An Economic Outlook. 1987. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 168-170.

(B41) Grofman, Bernard and Michael Migalski. 1988. The return of the native: The supply elasticity of the American Indian population, 1950-1980. Public Choice, 57: 85-88.

(B42) The minimax blame rule for voter choice: Help for the undecided voter on Novembers, 1988. 1988. PS (Summer):639-640.

(B43) Book note: Manfred Holler (Ed.), The logic of multi-party systems, 1988. Political Geography Quarterly, 7(3):300-301.

(B44) Book note: Michael Hechter, Principles of Group Solidarity, 1989. American Political Science Review 83(2):323-324.

(B45) Pool, Jonathan and Bernard Grofman. 1989. Linguistic artificiality and cognitive competence. In Klaus Schubert (ed.), Intelinguistics: Aspects of the Science of Planned Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 145-156.

(B46) Advice to the advanced graduate student. 1989. PS (December): 838-839.

BOOK NOTES, REVIEWS AND COMMUNICATIONS (in print)

(B47) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 1990. A theorem connecting Shapley-Owen power scores and the radius of the yolk in two dimensions. Social Choice and Welfare, 7:71-74.

(B48) Hofeller, Thomas and Bernard Grofman. 1990. Comparing the compactness of California congressional districts under three different plans, 1980, 1982 and 1984. In Bernard Grofman (ed.). Political Gerrymandering and the Courts, NY: Agathon Press, 281-288.

(B49) Kernell, Samuel and Bernard Grofman. 1990. Determining the predictability of partisan voting patterns in California elections, 1978-1984. In Bernard Grofman (ed.), Political Gerrymandering and the Courts. NY: Agathon Press, 289-295.

(B50) Book review: Edward Carmines and James Stimson. Issue Evolution, 1990. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(2):185-190.

(B51) Rejoinder: Straw men and stray bullets, a reply to Bullock. 1991. Social Science Quarterly, 72(4):840-843.

(B52) Grofman, Bernard. 1991. Questions of Electoral Fairness (translated into Japanese by Kyoji Wakata) in Nomp No. 2, Kansai University Institute of Legal Studies, Osaka, Japan, 19-24.

(B53) Grofman, Bernard and Chandler Davidson. 1992. Editors' Introduction: Issues and controversies in voting rights. In Bernard Grofman and Chandler Davidson (eds.), Controversies in Minority Voting: A 25 Year Perspective on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Washington, D.C. The Brookings Institution, 1-3.

(B54) Grofman, Bernard and Davidson, Chandler. Comment on "The study of race, history, and politics." CLIO (Newsletter, American Political Science Association Section on Politics History), Fall/Winter, 1992/1993, 4-5.

(B55) Zimmerman, Joseph F. and Bernard Grofman. 1992. In Memoriam: Leon Weaver. PS, 25(1):97.

(B56) Grofman, Bernard. 1992. A corollary to the third axiom of general semantics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4(2):238-240.

(B57) Grofman, Bernard. 1992. Book note: Laver and Schofield. Coalitions Social, Choice and Welfare, 265-266.

(B58) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. Is turnout the paradox that ate rational choice theory? In Bernard Grofman (ed.), Information, Participation and Choice: `An Economic Theory of Democracy' in Perspective. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 93-103.

BOOK NOTES. REVIEWS AND COMMUNICATIONS (in print) (cont.)

(B59) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. On the gentle art of rational choice bashing. In Bernard Grofman (ed.) Information, Participation and Choice: `An Economic Theory of Democracy' in Perspective. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 239-242.

(B60) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. Advice to the Assistant Professor, PS (March):89-90.

(B61) Grofman, Bernard. The political economy of the automobile — Four approaches. Journal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 5, No 3, (July, 1993): 409-412.

(B62) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. Throwing darts at double regression and missing the target. Social Science Quarterly, 74(3):478-487.

(B63) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. Lessons of Athenian democracy: Editor's Introduction, The 2500th Anniversary of Democracy. PS, (September): 471-474.

(B64) Grofman, Bernard. 1994. Book review. John Craven, Social Choice: A Framework for Collective Decisions and Individual Judgements Ethics, 104(2):430-431.

(B65) Grofman, Bernard. 1994. Book note: Geoffrey Brennan and Loren Lomansky, Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral preference. American Political Science Review, 88(2):439-440.

(B66) Grofman, Bernard. 1995. Anthony Downs. In S.M. Lipset et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Democracy, Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Books, 378-380.

(B67) Grofman, Bernard. 1995. Districting. In S.M. Lipset et al. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Democracy, Washington D. C: Congressional Quarterly Books, 367-372.

(B68) Grofman, Bernard. 1995. Shaw v. Reno and the Future of Voting Rights PS (March): 27-36.

(B69) Davidson, Chandler and Bernard Grofman. 1996. Letter lo the Editor in rebuttal to Carol Swain. Chronicle of Higher Education, (November): 10.

(B70) Grofman, Bernard. 1996. Introduction to the Term Limits Debate: Hypotheses in Search of Data. In Bernard Grofman (Ed.) Legislative Term Limits : Public Choice Perspectives. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1-18.

(B71) Grofman, Bernard and Christian Collet. 1997. Why Democrats shouldn't vote (with acknowledgments to Robert Erikson). Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1):137-140.

(B72) Brunell, Thomas, Bernard Grofman. 1997. The 1992 and 1996 presidential elections: Whatever happened to the Republican electoral college lock? Presidential Studies Quarterly. 27(1):134-138.

BOOK NOTES. REVIEWS AND COMMUNICATIONS (in print)

(B73) Merrill, Samuel and Bernard Grofman. 1997. Response to Macdonald and Rabinowitz. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9(1):57-60.

(B74) Grofman, Bernard, Thomas Brunell and William Koetzlc. 1997. Death, where is thy sting? The Senate as a Ponce (de Leon) scheme. PS, 1:58-59. (Reprinted in Journal of Irreproducible Results, 1999, 44(5): 25-26.

(B75) Grofman, Bernard and Shaun Bowler. 1997. STV in the family of electoral systems. Representation, 34(1):43-47.

(B76) Grofman, Bernard. 1997. Book Note: Duncan Black. "Formal contributions to the theory of public choice." Public Choice, 7:1-3.

(B77) Grofman, Bernard. 1998. Rebuttal to Wuffle and Collet's supposedly irrefutable evidence that higher turnout benefits Republicans. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(2):25l-255

(B78) Grofman, Bernard Sung-Chull Lee, Edwin Winckler, and Brian Woodall. 1999. Introduction. In Bernard Grofman, Sung-Chull Lee, Edwin Winckler, and Brian Woodall, eds. Elections in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

(B79) Grofman, Bernard. 1999. Credo of a "reasonable choice" modeler. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(2): 203-206.

(B80) Grofinan, Bernard. 2000. Editor's Introduction. In Bernard Grofman (ed.) Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1-6.

(B81) Grofinan, Bernard. 2000. Electoral districting. In Leonard W. Levy, Kenneth L. Karst and Adam Winkler (eds.) Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

(B82) Grofman, Bernard. 2000. Miller v. Johnson. In Leonard W. Levy, Kenneth L. Karst and Adam Winkler (eds.) Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

(B83) Grofinan, Bernard. 2000. Shaw v. Reno and its progeny. In Leonard W. Levy, Kenneth L. Karst and Adam Winkler (eds.) Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

(B84) Grofman. Bernard. The Downsian model of elections. 2000. In Richard Rose (ed.) International Eneyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 70-72.

BOOK NOTES. REVIEWS AND COMMUNICATIONS (in print)

(B85) Grofman, Bernard. Apportionment, political; gerrymander; reapportionment. In Nelson Polsby (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, forthcoming.

(B86) Book Review: David T. Canon. 2000. Race, Redistricting and Representation. The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts, by David T. Canon. Public Choice, 105:201-205.

(B87) Grofinan, Bernard. 2001. A note of caution in interpreting the threshold of exclusion. Electoral Studies, 20:299-303.

(B88) Grofman, Bernard. 2003. Electoral laws, parties, and public policy. In Yukio Adachi and Tosimasa Moriwaki (eds) Public Policy: A Festschrift for Katsumi Yamakawa, Koyoto, Japan: Shobo, Ltd. 299-311.

BOOK NOTES. REVIEWS AND COMMUNICATIONS (forthcoming)

(B89) Grofman, Bernard. Comparisons among electoral systems: Distinguishing between localism and candidate-centered politics. Electoral Studies, forthcoming.

(B90) Grofman, Bernard. 2004. Alternative voting methods. In Charles Rowley and Friedrich Schneider (eds.), Encyclopedia of Public Choice, 9-12.

(B91) Grofman, Bernard. Arrow's impossibility theorem. In Charles Rowley and Friedrich Schneider (eds.), Encyclopedia of Public Choice, 25-27.

(B92) Grofman, Bernard. Black's single-peakedness condition. In Charles Rowley and Friedrich Schneider (eds.), Encyclopedia of Public Choice, 43-45.

(B93) Grofman, Bernard. Comment on Gordon Tullock's "A curmudgeon's view of the EMU." In Guiseppe Eusepi and Friedrich Schneider (eds.) Changing Institutions in the European Union: A Public Choice Perspective, New York: Edward Elgar, forthcoming.

(B94) Grofman, Bernard. The prospects of electoral reform (foreword). In Josep Colomer (ed.), Handbook of Electoral System Design, New York: Palgrave, forthcoming.

SEMIPROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS (in print)

(S1) Grofman, Bernard. 1971. Voting tactics: A neglected study, parts I, II. Parliamentary Journal, 12(3):3-15; 12(4):19-26.

(S2) Grofman, Bernad and Howard Scarrow. 1977. Who knows the score on the board of supervisors? 1977. Opinion-Editorial Page, Newsday, March 6, 1977.

(S3) Grofman, Bernard. 1979. My years as parliamentarian to the United States National Student Association. Parliamentary Journal, 20:18-21.

(S4) Grofman, Bernard and Howard Scarrow. 1981. The riddle of apportionment: Equality of what? National Civic Review, 70(5):242-254.

(S5) Grofman, Bernard. 1984. The Democratic party is alive and well. Society, 18-21.

(S6) Baker, Gordon E. and Bernard Grofman. 1986. Court should plunge deeper into gerrymandering thicket. Opinion-Editorial Page, Los Angeles Times, July 15.

(S7) Baker, Gordon E. and Bernard Grofman. 1986. California's gerrymander and the U.S. Supreme Court. Opinion-Editorial Page, The Sacramento Bee, July 30.

(S8) Grofman, Bernard. 1987. Should city councils be elected by district? PRO. Western Cities Magazine, 4:30-31.

(S9) Baker, Gordon E. and Bernard Grofman. 1988. What now for gerrymandering? Opinion-Editorial Page, The San Diego Union, November 18.

(S10) Loewen, James W. and Bernard Grofman. 1989. Comment: Recent developments in methods used in voting rights litigation. Urban Lawyer 21(3):589-604.

(S11) Grofman, Bernard. 1991. Voting rights, voting wrongs: The legacy of Baker v. Carr. A report of the Twentieth Century Fund. New York: Priority Press (distributed through the Brookings Institution), 1991.

(S12) Grofman, Bernard. 1991. Voting rights may be an issue in Santa Ana. Opinion-Editorial Page, Los Angeles Times (Orange County Edition), August 5.

(S13) Grofman, Bernard. 1991. Race and redistricting: No one is using the Voting Rights Act to "whiten" majority districts. Opinion-Editorial Page, Washington Post, October 21.

(S14) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. High court ruling won't doom racial gerrymandering. Opinion-Editorial Page, Chicago Tribune, July 9.

SEMIPROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS (in print) (cont.)

(S15) Grofman, Bernard. 1993. The Denny beating trial: justice in the balance. Opinion-Editorial Page, Chicago Tribune, November 3.

(S16) Reynolds, Andrew S. and Bernard N. Grofman. 1994. Everyone loses in South Africa boycott. Opinion-Editorial Page, Chicago Tribune, March 28.

(S17) Grofman, Bernard. 1994. An introduction to racial bloc voting analysis. With an annotated select bibliography on racial bloc voting and related topics. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Council.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

(O1) Chicago. In David Glazier (Ed.), Student Travel in America. New York: Pyramid Publication, 1968. (Under pseudonym.)

(O2) Chicago: Hyde Park and the University of Chicago, the Loop and Near-North. In Where the Fun is: East of the Mississippi. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1969. (Under pseudonym.)

SOCIAL SCIENCES WORKING PAPERS AND RESEARCH REPORTS

(W1) Note: Confessions of a mad modeler, Research Report R6, School of Social Sciences, University of California, June 1978.

(W2) Note: The paradox of voting in a faculty appointment decision (with Steven Brown). Research Report R6, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, June 1978.

WEBSITE POSTINGS

(W1) A Comment on Lowi and Calise. Posted in June, 1999, on the website of the IPSA Research Committee on Conceptual and Terminological Analysis: http://www2.hawaii.edu/%7Efredr/grofman.htm

(W2) "Questions and Answers about Motor Voter: An Important Reform That Is Not Just for Democrats" Posted in 1995, on the website of the Center for Voting and Democracy http://www.Jairyote.ore/reports/1995/chp6/gromian.html

CURRENT RESEARCH

Much of my current research is in behavioral social choice, dealing with mathematical models of group and individual decision making, with a focus on electoral behavior and voter choice and issues connected with representation and redistricting, political parties and coalitions. I also have strong side interests in individual and group information processing; political propaganda, particularly political cartooning and satire; in law and social science, particularly in the domain of civil rights; in using computers as a teaching aid; and in statistical training for citizen literacy.

CONFERENCE GRANTS

1979 A Conference on Voter Turnout. National Science Foundation, Political Science Program (NSF SOC 78-19433, 514,400, with Richard Brody and Herbert Weisberg).

1980 A Conference on Representation and Apportionment Issues in the

1980s. National Science Foundation, Political Science Program (NSF #SES 79-26813, $20,200, with Arend Lijphart, Robert McKay, and Howard Scarrow; additional $8000 funding provided by the American Bar Association).

1982 A Conference on Information Pooling. National Science Foundation, Political Science Program (NSF #SES 82-09109, $26,300, with Guillermo Owen and Scott Feld).

1988 A Conference on "The Calculus of Consent": A Twenty-five Year Perspective (Liberty Fund, with Donald Wittman).

1989-90 A Conference on the Voting Rights Act: A Twenty-five Year Perspective (Rockefeller Foundation, $50,000, with Thomas Mann and Chandler Davidson, under the auspices of The Brookings Institution).

1991-92 Workshops on Politics and the Democratization Process, (National Science Foundation, Political Science Program SES# 91-13984 ($42,000, with Russell Dalton and Harry Eckstein).

1991-92 Planning grant on Japanese, Korean and U.S. Election Practices in Comparative Perspective (UC Pacific RimResearch Program, with Sung Chull Lee, Rein Taagepera and Brian Woodall, $14,700).

1994-95 A Conference on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Thirty Year Perspective. Joyce Foundation (#446740-49317, $18,500 with additional funding by the Federal Judicial Center).

1996 A Conference on Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote (UCI Center for the Study of Democracy, $11,000, with Shaun Bowler).

1997 A Conference on Electoral and Party Systems in Scandinavia: Origins and Evolution (UCI Center for the Study of Democracy, $ 11,000, with Arend Lijphart).

1998 A Conference on Mixed Electoral Systems that Emulate the German Model (UC Center for the German and European Studies, $10,000, and $5000 supplemental funding from the UCI Center for the Study of Democracy, with Matthew Shugart and Martin Wattenberg)

2000-01 A Conference on Comparative Redistricting (National Science Foundation Program in Political Science, $22,000, with $5,000 supplemental funding from the UCI Center for the Study of Democracy, the UCI Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, and the School of Social Sciences; with Lisa Handley).

RECENT CONFERENCE PAPERS (unpublished)

(C34) Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. Distinguishing between ideological and judgmental bases of transitive majority choice. Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, August 1992; presented in revised form at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Long Beach, California, March 24-26,1995.

(C37) Grofman, Bernard. What is a constitution? Presented at U.C. Irvine conference on "Constitutional Design," June 1993.

(C38) Reynolds, Andrew S. and Bernard Grofman. Choosing an electoral system for the new South Africa: the main proposals. Presented at the Conference on Electoral Reform and Democratization, Columbia Institute for Western European Studies, Columbia University, April 18-19, 1994.

(C42) Grofman, Bernard. Are voting rights special? Presented at the Conference on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Perspective, Washington D.C. Federal Judicial Center, November 11-12, 1994.

(C43) Grofman, Bernard, Christian Collet and Robert Griffin. Does a rising tide lift all challengers? Rethinking the partisan implications of higher turnout. Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Long Beach, California, March 24-26, 1995.

(C44) Owen, Guillermo, and Bernard Grofman. Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests: Persistent divergence of party positions with and without expressive voting. Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Long Beach, California, March 24-26, 1995. (A revised version presented at the Conference on Strategy and Politics, Center for the Study of Collective Choice, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, April 12, 1996.)

(C49) Grofman, Bernard and H. W. Wales. Ideal of the impartial jury. Prepared for delivery at the Conference of the Role of the Jury in a Democratic society. Georgetown University Law Center, October 29, 1995.

(C51) Grofman, Bernard, Michael McDonald, William Koetzlc, and Thomas Brunell. Strategic policy balancing. Presented at the Conference on Strategy and Politics, Center for the Study of Collective Choice, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, April 12, 1996.

RECENT CONFERENCE PAPERS (unpublished) (cont.)

(C54) Grofman, Bernard, William Koetzlc and Thomas Brunell. Rethinking the link between district diversity and electoral competitiveness. Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D. C, August 29-September 1, 1997.

(C55) Caul, Miki, Rein Taagepera, Bernard Grofman. Determining the number of parties in stable democracies: Social heterogeneity and electoral institutions. Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Los Angeles, CA, March 9-21, 1998.

(C58) McDonald, Michael and Bernard Grofman. Redistricting and the polarization of the House of Representatives. Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, April 15-16. (A previous version of this paper was presented at the 1999 Western Political Science Association Conference, Seattle, March 25-27, 1999.)

(C59) Commisso, Ellen and Bernard Grofman. Liberty, equality, fraternity: Tripolarity, cycles and the dynamics of party competition in post-socialist Eastern Europe. Presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

(C60) Adams, James, Bernard Grofman and Samual Merrill, III. The behavioral theory of parties and optimal party policy strategies: Do vote-seeking, office-seeking, and policy-seeking parties behave similarly? A spatial model with applications to historical elections in France, Norway and Sweden. Presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

(C63) Grofman, Bernard. Census 2000 racial categories. Presented at a conference co-organized by the University of California, Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and the Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law on "Legal Issues and California Redistricting." UC Berkeley, March 20, 2000. (An earlier version was presented at the Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights Voting Rights Conference, American University Law School, Washington D.C., November 19-20, 1999).

(C64) Grofman, Bernard. Rein Taagepera's approach to electoral systems: Ten methodological and theoretical precepts. Prepared for delivery at the 18^th World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Quebec City, Canada, August 1-5, 2000.

(C65) Feld, Scott and Bernard Grofman. "Issue salience and electoral success: The paradox of nonmonotonicity." Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, March 9-11, 2001, San Antonio, TX.

(C66) O'Leary, Brendan, Bernard Grofman and Jorgen Elklit. "Divisor methods to facilitate and sequence portfolio-allocation in a multi-party cabinet coalition: Evidence from Northern Ireland. Prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the European Public Choice Society, Paris, April 18-21, 2001. (Also presented at the University of Bologna Conference on Coalitions, May 24-25, 2001.)

(C67) Gray, Mark and Bernard Grofman. Several (likely to be contentious) claims about the nature and prerequisites of democracy." Prepared for delivery at the Second London School of Economics Workshop on "Freedom and Democracy," London, June 15, 2001.

(C68) Grofman, Bernard. The impact of electoral systems on party polarization." Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research, September 6-9, 2001, University of Kent, Canterbury, England.

(C69) Grofman, Bernard. Why did the democrats lose so many Southern House seats from 1992 to 2000? A lifeboat model. Paper presented at the Comparative Redistricting Conference, December 9-11, 2001, Irvine CA.

(C70) Fraenkel, Jon and Bernard Grofman. Evaluating the impact of electoral reform on inter-ethnic accommodation: The alternative vote in Fiji. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the European Public Choice Society, March, 2002, Belgirate, Italy.

(C71) Feld, Scott L., and Bernard Grofman. Theoretical and empirical findings concerning candidates' optimal choices of issue dimensions: Implications for U.S. presidential elections. Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, March 22-24, 2002, San Diego, CA.

(C72) Grofman, Bernard and Samuel Merrill. What is a "solution" to the problem of ecological inference. Paper presented at the Conference on New Advances in Ecological Inference, June 17-18, 2002, Cambridge MA.

(C73) Feld, Scott, Bernard Grofman and Leonard Ray. The market value of weighted votes: An alternative approach to voting power. Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, March 21-23, 2003, Nashville, TN. (Earlier versions were presented at the London School of Economics Workshop on Voting Power Analysis, August 9-11, 2002, and at the Japanese-American Conference on Mathematical Sociology, Vancouver, May 24, 2002.)

(C74) Feld, Scott and Bernard Grofman. Stuck in space: The neglected importance of issue salience for political competition. Paper presented at the European Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, April 25-28, 2003, Aarhus, Denmark.

(C75) Grofman, Bernard. Rein Taagepera's approach to the study of electoral systems. Paper presented at the Festschrift Conference Celebrating Rein Taagepera's 70^th Birthday, Tartu University, September 5-6, 2003.

(C76) Fraenkel, Jon and Bernard Grofman. Preferential voting and the promotion of moderation: Exploring the theory and practice. Paper presented at the Development Research Symposium in Pacific States: Re-Assessing Roles and Remedies, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji, September 30, 2003.

OTHER CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION

Invited speaker, Federal Judicial Center Conference for Federal Judges of the 6th and 8th Circuits, Orlando, Florida, January 13, 1992.

Chair, panel on "Issues and Controversies in Legislative and Congressional Redistricting." Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Francisco, March 19-21, 1992.

Participant, National Endowment for Humanities Workshop on Athenian Democracy, UC Santa Cruz, June 21-July 30, 1992.

Chair, "Roundtable on Ethnic and Linguistic Conflict and the Art of Constitutional Design." Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 3-6, 1992.

Invited speaker, Southern Regional Council "Conference on Voting Rights." Atlanta, October 1-3, 1992.

Invited panelist, "Roundtable on Uses of Operations Research in the Social Sciences." Annual Meeting of ORSA-TIMS, San Francisco, November 2-4, 1992.

Chair, panel on "Social Contract Theory," Conference on Democracy, Rationality and the Social Contract. Focused Research Project in Public Choice, University of California, Irvine, December 11-12, 1992.

Organizer, Conference on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Perspective, Washington D.C. Federal Judicial Center, November 11-12, 1994.

Discussant, panel on "Jury Decision-making." Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Long Beach, California, March 24-26, 1995.

Invited participant. IGCC Conferences on "Ethnic Conflict," University of California, San Diego, May 11-12, 1994; Palm Springs, California, December 12, 1995.

Invited panelist. National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting, Panel on "Redistricting Decisions of the Supreme Court." St. Louis, Missouri, July 29-31, 1996.

Invited speaker. National Conference of State Legislatures. Special session on "Redistricting Issues." Seattle, Washington, April 3-5, 1998.

Invited panelist. National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting, Panel on "Redistricting Issues," Chicago, July 14-17, 2000.

Roundtable participant. "The Changing Role of the Department of Justice in Redistricting" at the University of Houston Lanier Center for Public Policy Conference on "Census 200," December 8, 2000.

OTHER CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION (cont.)

Invited participant, University of Rome (La Sapienza) Conference on the Political Economy of the European Union, May 15-17, 2001.

Invited speaker, National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting, Special Session on Redistricting, San Antonio, August 13, 2001.

Invited speaker. National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting, Special Session on redistricting, Denver, Colorado, July 24, 2002.

INVITED COLLOQUIA

May 4, 1990 Program in Law and Economics, Columbia University Law School May 6, 1990 Program in Ethics and Public Policy, University of Chicago. June 13, 1990 Department of Political Science, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan. June 16, 1990 Institute of Legal Studies, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan June 25, 1990 Department of Social Psychology, Tokyo University, Japan. Nov 7, 1991 Department of Political Science, University of Alberta, Canada Nov 13, 1991 Department of Political Science, University of Calgary, Canada April 17, 1992 Department of Government, Harvard University Sept 12-17, Landsdowne Guest Speaker, Department of Political Science, University of 1992 Victoria, Canada July 27, 1994 Department of Economics, Fem Universitet Hagen, Germany October, 1995 Department of Government, Georgetown University October, 1995 Department of Political Science, University of Houston May 3, 2000 Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego Nov. 29, 2000 Department of Political Science, Duke University Dec. 6, 2000 Department of Political Science, University of Houston June 2, 2001 Department of Political Science, European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy June 14, 2001 Department of Political Science, Nuffield College, Oxford University Oct. 15, 2001 Department of Government, Harvard University July 2, 2002 University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany July 9, 2002 Berlin Science Center (Wissenschaft Zentrum) Sept. 13, 2002 Royal Military College of the Netherlands, Breda 2002 Sept. 17-20, Invited to prepare a series of lectures 2002 on Public Choice at the 2002 Universit of Tilburg, sponsored by the Dutch National Research Group on Social Science Theory Sept. 18,2002 Department of Philosophy, University of Tilburg Sept. 20, 2002 Department of Economics, University of Tilburg Nov. 10, 2002 Guest Professor, Course on Voting Rights at the New York University Law School April 15, 2003 Program in Decision Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University May 2, 2003 Department of Political Science, University of Southern Denmark May 22, 2003 Department of Economics, Autonomous University of Barcelona May 26-27, 2003 Department of Economics, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona May 28, 2003 Department of Political Science, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona GRANTS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT. COMPUTER LABS. AND GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP SUPPORT 1992-93 Grant from UCI Committee on Instructional Development to develop a new course:"Introduction to Computer Use in the Social Sciences" ($15,500) 1992 Small grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities to attend the NEH Summer Institute on "Athenian Democracy." (53,250) 1992-94 Grant for graduate student support in Public Choice (Sarah Scaife Foundation, $50,000, with Amihai Glazer) 1993 Grant from the UC Center for German and European Studies, University of California, to develop a new course to be co-taught with Professor Pertti Pesonen (Finnish Academy)on comparative political participation ($10,000) 1994 Grant from the National Science Foundation to develop a computer lab for the technology enhanced teaching of under-graduate statistics ($55,497, with Judith Treas). 1995-99 Grant from the UC President's Office (IAPIF) to develop a long-distance learning course "The United States in Comparative Perspective." ($17,174, with Arend Lijphart. 1997 Grant from Instructional Improvement Fund (UCI Division of Undergraduate Education) to develop "Computer-Based Tutorials, and Self-Grading Homework Assignments for SS10A, Introduction to Statistics" ($5,000) 1999-00 Seed grant from UC Center for German and European Studies for graduate research support ($3,000) 2000 Grant from UCI Division of Undergraduate Education (Hewlett Foundation) for Problem-Based Learning materials for Economics 10C statistics course ($4,500) 2000-01 Seed grant from the UC Center for German and European Studies, University of California, for graduate research support ($3,000) CURRICULAR MATERIALS (in print)

(CM1) Grofman, Bernard N. 1979. Note: Mo Fiorina's advice to children and other subordinates. Mathematics Magazine 52(5): 292-297.

(CM2) Grofman, Bernard N. 1982. Modeling jury verdicts. University Modules in Applied Mathematics.

(CM3) Grofman, Bernard N. 1982. The pure theory of elevators. Mathematics Magazine, 55(1): 30-37.

(CM4) Straffin, Philip and Bernard Grofman. 1984. Parliamentary coalitions: A tour of models. Mathematics Magazine 57(5): 259-274.

(CM5) Grofman, Bernard. 1990. Pig and proletariat: Animal Farm as history, San Jose Studies, 5-39.

(CM6) Grofman, Bernard and Craig Brians. 1998. Class notes and exercises: computer-based research methods for the social sciences. New York: Longmans.

(CM7) Grofman, Bernard. 2000. A primer on racial bloc voting analysis. In Nathaniel Persily (ed.) The Real Y2K Problem: Census 2000 Data and Redistricting Technology. New York: The Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, 2000.

COURSES TAUGHT

Elections and Voter Choice

Computer-Based Research Methods in the Social Sciences (SS3A)

Introduction to Public Choice, I and II

The United States in Comparative Perspective

Representation and Redistricting

Elementary Statistics (S10A)

Statistics for Citizen Literacy (SS10B)

Statistics for Public Policy Analysis (SS10C)

The Federalist Papers and the Art of Constitutional Design

Law and Social Science

Models of Collective Decision Making

Introduction to Decision Analysis

Introduction to Research Design

Game Theory Applications in the Social Sciences

Small Group Behavior

Introduction to Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences

Coalition Theory

Political Propaganda and Satire

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Chair, 1982-83, Lippincott Prize Committee for book-length work in political theory, American Political Science Association.

Section Program Organizer, Panels on "Positive Theory," Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August 1984.

Member, 1985-86, Working Group on Collective Choice Institutions, appointed by the Committee on Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council.

Member, Executive Committee, 1986-89, Section on Representation and Electoral Systems, American Political Science Association.

Chair, 1988-92, George Hallett Book Prize Award Committee, Section on Representation and Electoral Systems, American Political Science Association.

Section Program Co-organizer, Panels on "Political Organizations," Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Sept. 1990.

Member, 1990-91, Lasswell Prize Committee, International Society of Political Psychology.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE (cont.)

Member, 1995-96, Carey McWilliam Award for Journalists Committee, American Political Science Association.

Chair, 1995-96, Richard Fenno Prize Committee, Legislative Studies Section, American Political Science Association.

Member, 1998, Luebbert Book Award Committee, Comparative Politics Section, American Political Science Association.

Member, 2000-2001, Advisory Board, UCLA Center for Governance.

Member, 2001-2002, Comparative Politics Prize Committee, Sage Award for best paper in comparative politics at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting.

Member, 2002, International Political Science Association Longley Prize Committee, Longley Award for best article published on Representation and Electoral Systems.

External Reviewer, Ten-year review, Department of Political Science, University of Bologna, November 27-29, 2003.

REFEREEING American Journal of Political Science; Theory and Decision: Public Choice. Political Methodology; Journal of the American Statistical Association; Social Science Research). Psychological Review; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; European Journal of Social Psychology; Journal of Mathematical Sociology. Social Networks: Law and Policy Quarterly; American Political Science Review Journal of Conflict Resolution; Legislative Studies Quarterly. American Mathematical Monthly. Decision Sciences Economic Inquiry. Research; Western Political Quarterly Political Research Quarterly), Journal of Politics, Political Geography Quarterly Political Geography). Review of Economic Studies. British Journal of Political Science. Journal of Political Economy. Comparative Political Studies. Social Choice and Welfare, Political Analysis. Polity. European Journal of Political Research. Electoral Studies Comparative Politics; Urban Affairs Quarterly Southeastern Political Review. Social Science History

1972-82 Manuscript Review Board: Behavioral Science. 1975- Occasional referee: 1976- Occasional referee: National Science Foundation, Political Science Program. 1977- Occasional referee; 1978- Occasional referee: National Science Foundation, Law and Social Sciences Program; 1979- Occasional referee: National Science Foundation, Applied Mathematics Program. 1980- Occasional referee: National Institute of Mental Health; , National Science Foundation, Sociology Program; National Science Foundation, Economics Program; 1981- Occasional referee: , 1982- Occasional referee: Social Science Quarterly;Sociological Methods and (now Guggenheim Foundation; National Science Foundation, Developmental and Social Psychology Program; National Science Foundation, Decision, Risk and Management Science Program. 1983- Occasional referee: (now 1984- Occasional referee: National Science Foundation, Information Systems Program; National Science Foundation, Program in Social Measurement and Analysis. 1986- Occasional referee: 1987- Occasional referee: 1988- Occasional referee: 1989- Occasional referee: National Science Foundation, Program in History and Philosophy of Science. 1991- Occasional referee: Demography. 1992- Occasional referee: 1993- Occasional referee: 1994- Occasional referee: Cambridge University Press 1994- Occasional referee: 1996- Occasional referee: Canadian Journal of Political Science 1997- Occasional referee: National Science Foundation, Program in Geography 1998- Occasional referee: 1999- Occasional referee: European Journal of Political Economy 2003- Occasional reviewer, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) UNIVERSITY SERVICE, UCI 1977-79 Member, University Committee on Lectures 1977-79 Faculty Advisor, UCI Chapter, Student Model United Nations 1983-84 Member, University Library Committee 1987-89 Member, University Privilege and Tenure Committee Hearing Panel 1988-89 Member, Tierney Chair Search Committee 1988-91 Member, University Committee on Rules and Jurisdictions 1991-92 Acting Chair, Focused Research Program in Public Choice 1994-96 Member, University Committee on Rules and Jurisdictions 1995-96 Member, Chancellor's Taskforce on Use of Educational Technology 1999-00 Co-Coordinator, MBS Colloquium Series 1999-02 Member, Executive Committee, Irvine Institute of Mathematical Behavioral Sciences., ORU 2000-01 Reviewer, UC Systemwide Multicampus Research Incentive Fund (MRIF) 2002- Member, Executive Committee, Center for Decision Analysis SERVICE TO THE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES. UCI 1978-79 Chair, Program in Politics and Society. 1979-89 Organizer, Program in Politics and Society Colloquium Series (one quarter per year). 1980-81 Special Schoolwide Selection Committee: Distinguished Student Scholars Program. 1981-82 Chair, School of Social Sciences Faculty. 1982-83 Acting Co-Chair, Program in Politics and Society (Spring Quarter). 1983-84 Political Science Graduate Student Adviser. 1988-89 1988-89 Chair, Recruitment Committee in Mathematical Political Science. 1988-91 Member, Recruitment Committee in Public Law. 1991-92 Chair, Committee for the Interdisciplinary Graduate Concentration in Public Choice. 1991-93 Member, Joint Recruitment Committee in African-American Studies and Political Science 1992-98 Member, Political Science Graduate Committee 1992-00 Member, Committee for the Interdisciplinary Graduate Concentration in Public Choice 1996-02 Member, Executive Committee, UCI Center for the Study of Democracy 1996-97 Chair, Recruitment Committee for Pacific Rim FTE in Political Science 1997-98 Coordinator, Political Science Graduate Admissions 1998-99 Member, Easton Prize Committee, Department of Political Science 1998-00 Member, Colloquium Committee, Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Science 1998-00 Member, Interdisciplinary Search Committee for positions in Mathematical Behavioral Sciences 1999-01 Member, Search Committee for position in Chicano/Latino Studies 1999-00 Coordinator, Political Science Graduate Admissions 1999-01 Member, School of Social Sciences Executive Committee 2001- Member, UCI Center for the Study of Democracy Leadership Council 2001- Member, Executive Committee, Center for the Study of Democracy ORU 2001-02 Member, Interdisciplinary Search Committee for positions in Democratization and Democratic Transitionns 2001-02 Member, School of Social Sciences Search Committee for new Dean 2001-02 Member, Interdisciplinary Search Committee for positions in Mathematical Behavioral Science Major Redistricting Cases in which Bernard Grofman Has Participated as an Expert Witness or Court-Appointed Consultant

Consultant to Case Name Type

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

SARA LARIOS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION

versus NO. 1:03-CV-693-CAP

CATHY COX,

Defendant

APPENDIX TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER Volume II Part I of II

Table 16 Affidavit of Nathaniel Persily, J.D., Ph.D. (tabs A-Z)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT 16 AFFIDAVIT OF NATHANIEL PERSILY, J.D., PH.D.

Nathaniel Persily, first being duly sworn, deposes and says the following:

1. I am a citizen and resident of the State of Pennsylvania. I am an expert in reapportionment and districting matters. My curriculum vitae, which lists the cases in which I have been appointed by courts as an expert, is attached at Tab 11 to the Special Master's Report.

BACKGROUND

2. On March 1, 2004 the Three-Judge Panel (the "Court") composed of: the Honorable Stanley Marcus, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Honorable Charles A. Pannell, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, and the Honorable William C. O'Kelley, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, entered an Order appointing Joseph Hatchett, former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, as Special Master to advise and assist the Court in the preparation and recommendation of redistricting plans for both houses of the Georgia General Assembly.

3. I have reviewed the Order of the Court appointing the Special Master and have prepared this affidavit in accordance with the Order's instructions and the instructions I received from the Special Master.

4. The purposes of this affidavit are to inform the Court of the principles used in the preparation of the Special Master's Plans and to present a description and analysis of the plans that may aid the Court in evaluating them.

5. The data relied upon and analyzed here are of the kind usually relied upon by experts in this field to render opinions on the nature of redistricting of legislative districts.

6. In assisting the Special Master in the preparation of the Plan setting forth districts for both houses of the Georgia General Assembly, I consulted and worked closely with Patrick Egan, a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at the University of California at Berkeley who has extensive experience in crafting redistricting plans. (See Tab 12 to the Special Master's Report — Resume of Patrick Egan.)

7. I also consulted frequently with Professor Bernard Grofman, the nation's leading social scientist concerning redistricting issues relevant to Section Two and Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. (See Tab 13 to Special Master's Report — Resume of Bernard Grofman.)

8. In fashioning the Plan, the Special Master drew upon Mr. Egan's and my backgrounds and experience. In connection with the Plan's preparation, we reviewed various materials relating to the geography of Georgia and relied upon our combined prior redistricting experience to assist the Special Master.

9. I, along with Mr. Egan, relied upon the data and materials collected and made available to us by the Reapportionment Services Office of the Georgia General Assembly. We are particularly indebted to Blake Ussery, who produced no fewer than one hundred maps that aided us in the construction and presentation of our plans. Staff members Gina Shelton, Joe Stanton, and Rob Strangia provided much needed assistance in the production of the data and maps we used to construct the Special Master's Plan, as well as technical assistance with the computers, printers, plotters and various other machinery required to create a redistricting plan.

10. In the preparation of the Special Master's Plan, two desktop computers loaded with the software program "Maptitude for Redistricting" and the necessary data were made available to us in a conference room in the state Legislative Office Building. The GIS (Geographic Information System) database contained integrated polygon coverages of census geography, including county boundaries, many city boundaries, Voting Districts (VTDs), and various census categories of geography, such as tracts and blocks.

PRINCIPLES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S PLAN

11. In aiding the Special Master in the preparation of the Plan, we prepared the Plan with strict adherence to the applicable law. Specifically, the Principles involved in the analysis included adherence to:

a. Constitutional requirements including the Fourteenth Amendment's one person, one vote requirement and its prohibition on racial gerrymandering; and

b. Sections Two and Five of the Voting Rights Act.

12. After consulting with the Special Master, Mr. Egan and I endeavored to prepare single-member district plans for the Georgia House and Senate in which no district deviated from the ideal district size, according to 2000 Census figures, by more than one percent.

13. In assisting the Special Master with the preparation of the Plan, we attempted to adhere to several traditional redistricting principles as explained in the Court's Order, including the need for population equality across districts, the

compactness and contiguity of districts, and respect for the integrity of political subdivisions and communities of interest.

14. Most significant, however, was the Court's prohibition on our viewing any political data whatsoever, including the location of incumbents' residences. We did not and still do not know what impact the drawing of any particular district or the plans as a whole will have on individual incumbents or on the partisan composition of the General Assembly.

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

One Person, One Vote Requirement

15. The population of Georgia according to the 2000 Census was 8,186,453.

16. There are 56 members of the Georgia Senate and 180 members of the Georgia House of Representatives, Therefore, in a single-member district plan for the Georgia General Assembly based on 2000 Census figures the ideal district size for a Senate district is 146,186.6 and the ideal district size for a House district is 45,480.3.

17. For a plan with no district having a greater than one percent deviation from the ideal population, no Senate district should contain more than 147,648 people or fewer than 144,724 people, and no House District should contain more than 45,935 people or fewer than 45,025 people, according to 2000 Census figures.

18. Mr. Egan and I conducted an initial review of the 2000 Census figures and the configuration of the existing and immediately preceding House and Senate districts. (I will refer to the plans struck down as unconstitutional by the Court in Larios v. Cox as the 2002 Plans and the plans immediately preceding the unconstitutional plans as the 2000 Plan in the Senate and the 1998 Plan in the House.) This analysis demonstrated that:

a. Only five out of fifty-six districts in the 2002 Senate Plan and only one out of fifty-six districts in the 2000 Senate Plan (as overlayed onto 2000 Census data) contained population within one percent of the ideal population of a Senate district.

b. Only eighteen of 180 members in the 2002 House Plan and only eleven of 180 members in the 1998 House Plan (as overlayed onto 2000 Census data) would represent districts within one percent of the ideal population of a House district. (Here, I refer to members instead of districts because 23 districts in the 2002 House Plan were multimember. The ideal district size for each of the 15 two-member House districts in the 2002 Plan was 90,960.6; for each of the six three-member House districts the ideal district size was 136,440.9; and for each of the two four-member districts the ideal district size was 181,921,2.)

c. Moreover, in the opinion of the Court in Larios, the deviations exhibited a distinct regional pattern, with South Georgia and inner city Atlanta districts tending to be underpopulated and with North Georgia districts and districts surrounding Atlanta tending to be overpopulated.

Prohibition on Racial Gerrymandering

19. The Special Master's Plan was also to avoid any violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibitions on certain types of racial gerrymandering as enunciated in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), and its progeny and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) and its progeny.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT

Section Two

20. Pursuant to the Court's Order and applicable law, the Special Master's Plan was to comply with the prohibition on minority vote dilution contained in Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Such vote dilution can occur through excessive concentration ("packing") of minority voters as well as excessive dispersion ("cracking") of minority voters.

Section Five

21. Although maps drawn by federal courts need not be precleared according to Section Five of the VRA, we endeavored to create a plan that satisfied the retrogression requirement of Section Five and the applicable caselaw.

COMPACTNESS

22. Pursuant to the Court's Order and Special Master's direction, we were to construct a plan comprised of districts that were relatively compact. While recognizing that district compactness would often be subordinated to requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act, as well as to the requirement that we respect often noncompact political subdivisions, the Special Master's Plan attempts to create districts which do not appear visually noncompact. In addition, we evaluated our plans and compared them to their predecessors according to certain mathematical measures of compactness: in particular, the "smallest circle" test (also known as the "Roeck Test"), which compares the district's area to that of the smallest circumscribing circle, and the "perimeter to area" test (also known as the "Polsby-Popper Test") which computes the ratio of the district's area to the area of a circle with the same perimeter as the district.

CONTIGUITY

23. Contiguity of districts is a state constitutional requirement. In constructing the Special Master's Plan, we were to avoid any noncontiguous districts. However, because of the nature of Georgia topography contiguity by water was sometimes unavoidable, and because of the shape of some of Georgia's counties and cities some districts drawn on county or city lines were only point contiguous.

RESPECT FOR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST

24. Pursuant to the Court's Order and the Special Master's instruction, we were to construct a plan that respected political subdivisions and the communities comprised within them. Therefore, we attempted to avoid splitting counties and cities while recognizing that the legal and other requirements on the plan — which were often more stringent than those governing the 2002 and 1998/2000 Plans — would require the splitting of many political subdivisions.

25. While many of Georgia's cities are perfect circles, many are also bizarrely shaped and noncontiguous due to a series of annexations. See Exhibit D (maps of the towns of Alpharetta, Marietta, and Warner Robins). Some also cross county lines. Therefore, the requirement of respecting political subdivisions often conflicted with the other requirements placed on the plan.

KEY FEATURES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S SENATE PLAN

26. Maps of the Special Master's Senate Plan are attached as Exhibit A. A detailed narrative describing the Special Master's Senate Plan is attached as Exhibit E. A report indicating the counties and cities assigned to each Senate district is attached as Exhibit F.

One Person, One Vote

27. The Special Master's Plan complies with the constitutional standard of one person, one vote.

28. No district in the Special Master's Senate Plan deviates from the ideal Senate District population of 146,186.6 by more than one percent. See Exhibit O.

29. A table indicating the relevant population figures from the Special Master's Plan and the 2000 and 2002 Plans (as overlayed onto 2000 Census data) is presented below. In addition, a histogram comparing the district deviations in the Special Master's Senate Plan and the 2002 Plan, and a histogram depicting the deviations in the 2000 Plan, are included below. The largest district in the Special Master's Senate Plan has a population of 147,589. It deviates from the ideal district size by 0.959% (representing 1,402 people). The smallest district in the Special Master's Senate Plan has a population of 144,802. It deviates from the ideal district size by -0.947% (representing 1,385 people). The average deviation in the Special Master's Senate Plan is 0.55%, and the total deviation is 1.91%.

Population Statistics of Senate Plans (Ideal District Population: 146,186.6)

Special Master's 2002 Plan 2000 Plan Plan Average District Deviation from Ideal Population 0.55% 3.78% 14.3% Total Deviation 1.91% 9.98% 141.7% Population of Largest District 147,589 153,489 311,367 (Difference from Ideal Population) (1,402) (7,302) (165,180) Population of Smallest District 144,802 138,894 104,303 (Difference fromIdeal Population) (-1,385) (-7,293) (-41,884)

30. By way of comparison, the largest district in the 2002 Senate Plan had a population of 153,489 and a deviation of 4.99% (or 7,302 people). The smallest district had a population of 138,894 and a deviation of — 4.99% (or 7,302 people). The total deviation was 9.98% and the average deviation was 3.78%.

31. In addition, the Special Master's Plan avoids regional patterns in its deviations by placing every underpopulated district next to at least one overpopulated district. See Exhibits G and H.

Racial Gerrymandering

32. All of the districts in the Special Master's Senate Plan and the plan as a whole abide by the prohibitions on racial gerrymandering set forth in Mobile v. Bolden and Shaw v. Reno and their progeny.

Voting Rights Act

33. The distribution of the African-American population by district for the Special Master's Senate Plan, the 2002 Senate Plan and the 2000 Senate Plan are presented in Exhibit Q. Maps of the three plans color-themed by the African-American population in each district are presented in Exhibits M, N, S, T, U and V.

34. We concentrate here on the data concerning the 2002 African-American registered voter population (BREG), but similar data broken down by African-American voting age population (BVAP) are presented in Exhibit Q. The distribution of the African-American population among districts as revealed by the two statistics is comparable, and we paid attention to both statistics as we constructed our plans.

35. Evaluating districts based on registration data has several advantages over focusing on voting age population data. First, the BREG data are ore recent than the BVAP data, which are now almost four years old. Second, the BVAP data include many people, such as prisoners, parolees, non-residents and non-citizens, who are prohibited from voting. For example, of the 80,863 Georgia residents of correctional institutions who are over the age of 18 counted in the 2000 Census, 49,905 were African American (a figure exceeding that needed for an entire House district). Using the BVAP statistic would therefore overcount and misrepresent the relative size of the African-American population that could participate in an election. Finally and perhaps most obvious, registered voters are more likely to vote than those who are merely age eligible, so therefore the BREG statistic is a more reliable predictor of the likely African-American turnout in a given election.

36. As in the 2002 Plan, the Special Master's Plan contains thirteen districts in which the majority of registered voters are African American: four that are between 60% and 69% African American and nine that are between 50 and 59% African American. Maintaining the same number of majority-African American districts was quite difficult given that all of the majority-African American districts were underpopulated in the 2002 Plan — and that some of these were the most underpopulated in the state.

37. The Special Master's Plan increases the number of districts in the 40% to 49% range from one under the 2002 Plan to two under the Special Master's Plan. It also drops the number of districts in the 30% to 39% range from ten under the 2002 Plan to eight. Therefore, the Special Master's Plan contains a total of twenty-three districts with an African-American registered voter population exceeding 30%, while the 2002 Plan contains twenty-four such districts. However, it should be noted that many of the 30% to 39% districts in the 2002 Plan are the most underpopulated and the most bizarrely shaped in the state. See Exhibit I. Histograms depicting the distribution of the African-American population in the Special Master's Plan and the 2000 and 2002 Plans are presented below.

The Special Master's Plan also continues to preserve a number of districts in which Hispanics constitute more than 10% of the voting age population (VAP). Like the 2002 Plan, it contains one district with a Hispanic VAP exceeding 20% and five with a Hispanic VAP between 10% and 20%. Here we refer to voting age population, rather than Hispanic voter registration, because Georgia has only recently begun to collect data on voter registration for Hispanics. See Exhibit Y.

Compactness

38. The Special Master's Senate Plan respects the value of compactness in the construction of districts.

39. With respect to compactness, the Special Master's Senate Plan is far superior to the 2002 Plan, which created several wildly shaped districts in the middle of the state. See Exhibit Z. The plan is also at least as respectful of compactness as the 2000 Plan even though the Special Master's Plan abided by a stricter standard of population equality, which naturally will cause districts to be somewhat less compact.

40. A comparison of the three plans according to the two compactness measures described earlier is presented below. Maptitude output indicating scores for each district in the three plans is found in Exhibit R. (In this Exhibit, smallest circle scores are labeled "Roeck" and perimeter to area scores are labeled "Polsby-Popper.") According to the smallest circle measure of compactness, the districts in the Special Master's Plan receive a mean score of 0.43 with a standard deviation of 0.11. The range of the districts' scores is 0.55, with the most compact district receiving a score of 0.69 and the least compact district receiving a score of 0.14.

41. In contrast, the mean of the 2002 Plan according to the smallest circle measure of compactness was 0.35 with a standard deviation of 0.12. The range of the districts' scores is 0.43, with the most compact district receiving a score of 0.54 and the least compact district receiving a score of 0.11.

42. The mean of the 2000 Plan was 0.42 with a standard deviation of 0.10. The range of scores in that plan is 0.46, with the most compact district receiving a score of 0.64 and the least compact district receiving a score of 0.18.

43. According to the perimeter to area measure of compactness the Special Master's Plan performs equally well. Its mean score under this measure is 0.28 with a standard deviation of 0.08 and a range of 0.45. Its most compact district receives a score of 0.55 and its least compact district receives a score of 0.10.

44. According to the perimeter to area measure of compactness the 2002 Plan, in contrast, has a mean score of 0.16 with a standard deviation of 0.08 and a range of 0.31. Its most compact district receives a score of 0.34 and its least compact district receives a score of 0.03.

45. According to the perimeter to area measure, the Special Master's Plan has a quite similar level of compactness to the 2000 Plan. The 2000 Plan has a mean score of 0.28 with a standard deviation of 0.09 and a range of 0.40. Its most compact district receives a score of 0.51 and its least compact district receives a score of 0.11.

Measures of Compactness in Senate Plans

Measures of Compactness Special Master's 2002 Plan 2000 Plan Plan Smallest Circle measure Mean .43 .35 .42 (SD) (.11) (.12) (.10) Min .14 .11 .18 Max .69 .54 .64 Range .55 .43 .46 Perimeter to Area measure Mean .28 .16 .28 (SD) (.08) (.08) (.09) Min .10 .03 .11 Max .55 .34 .51 Range .45 .31 .40 Contiguity

46. All of the districts in the Special Master's Senate Plan are contiguous as the criterion was defined above.

Respect for Political Subdivisions

47. As with compactness, the constraints placed on the Special Master's Plan (such as a limit of a one percent deviation) that did not exist for the 2000 and 2002 Plans required the Special Master's Plan to split some political subdivisions that otherwise could have been kept whole or split by fewer districts were those constraints not in place. A comparison of the three plans with respect to preservation of county boundaries is presented below. See Exhibit R. (These calculations concerning all three plans were performed by Maptitude. We note here that Maptitude's calculations have produced some discrepancies with the figures on county splits cited in the Court's Opinion in Larios v. Cox. In order to maintain consistency, we thought it advisable to subject all three plans to the same computer test.)

48. The Special Master's Plan is far superior to the 2002 Plan with respect to county splits. Whereas the 2002 Plan split eighty-two counties, the Special Master's Plan splits only forty. Of those counties that the Special Master's Plan splits, thirty-four are split by two districts, two are split by three districts, zero are split by four districts, and four are split by five or more districts.

49. In contrast, the 2002 Plan splits 82 counties: forty-eight are split by two districts, twenty-three are split by three districts, six are split by four districts, five are split by five or more districts.

50. The Special Master's Plan fares less well against the 2000 Plan, which split only thirty counties, but this is due in large part, as mentioned above, to the more severe requirement of equipopulosity imposed on the Special Master's Plan. Under the 2000 Plan, twenty-three are split by two districts, two are split by three districts, zero are split by four districts, four are split by five or more districts.

Splits of Counties in Senate Plans

Special Master's 2002 Plan 2000 Plan Plan Split counties 40 82 30 (25.2%) (51.6%) (18.9%) Cases where a county is split among 2 districts 34 48 23 Cases where a county is split among 3 districts 2 23 2 Cases where a county is split among 4 districts 0 6 0 Cases where a county is split among 5 or more districts 4 5 4

51. As described in Exhibit E, the Special Master's Plan paid considerable attention to city and town boundaries as well, a difficult task given the strange shape of many of Georgia's cities and towns. A total of 55 incorporated areas throughout Georgia (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) are split in the Special Master's Plan; of these, 12 are splits that do not affect any population. See Exhibit F. This is a substantial improvement over the 2002 Plan, where 106 incorporated areas are split, 12 of which do not affect any population. Disregarding zero-population splits, the Special Master's Plan reduces splits of Georgia's cities and towns by 54 percent compared to the 2002 Plan.

KEY FEATURES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S HOUSE PLAN

52. Maps of the Special Master's House Plan are attached as Exhibit AA. A detailed description of the Special Master's House Plan is attached as Exhibit CC.

One Person. One Vote

53. The Special Master's House Plan complies with the constitutional standard of one person, one vote.

54. No district in the Special Master's House Plan is more than one percent over or under the ideal Senate district population of 45,480.3. See Exhibit DD.

55. A table indicating relevant population figures from the Special Master's Plan and the 2000 and 2002 Plans is presented below. In addition, a histogram comparing the district deviations in the Special Master's House Plan and the 2002 Plan, as well as a histogram depicting the deviations in the 2000 House Plan, are presented below. The largest district in the Special Master's House Plan has a population of 45,921 according to 2000 Census figures. It deviates from the ideal district population by 0.970% (representing 441 people). The smallest district has a population of 45,032. It deviates from the ideal district population by -0.985% (representing 448 people). The total deviation in the Special Master's House Plan is 1.95%, and the average deviation is 0.46%.

56. By way of comparison, the largest district in the 2002 House Plan (once district population is adjusted by number of legislators to account for multi-member districts) has a population of 47,750. It has a deviation of 4.99% (or 2,270 people) and the smallest district has a deviation of -4.99% (or 2,271 people). The total deviation is 9.98% and the average deviation is 3.47%.

57. In addition, the Special Master's Plan avoids regional patterns in its deviations by placing almost every underpopulated district next to at least one overpopulated district. See Exhibits GG and HH.

Population Statistics of House Plans (Ideal District Population: 45,480.3)

^_ Special Master's 2002 Plan 1998 Plan Plan Average District Deviation from Ideal Population 0.46% 3.47% 15.4% Total Deviation 1.95% 9.98% 168.1% Population of Largest District 45,921 47,750 107,426 (Difference from Ideal Population) (441) (2,270) (61,946) Population of Smallest District 45,032 43,209 30,962 (Difference from Ideal Population) (-448) (-2,271) (-14,518)

Racial Gerrymandering

58. All of the districts in the Special Master's House Plan and the plan as a whole abide by the prohibitions on racial gerrymandering set forth in Mobile v. Bolden and Shaw v. Reno and their progeny.

Voting Rights Act

59. The distribution of the African-American population by district for the Special Master's House Plan, the 2002 Plan and the 1998 Plan are presented in Exhibit MM. Maps of the three plans color themed by district African-American population are presented in Exhibits OO, PP, SS, TT, UU, and W. As with the Senate Plan, we concentrate here on the data concerning the African-American registered voter population (BREG), but similar data broken down by African-American voting age population (BVAP) are presented in Exhibit NN.

60. The Special Master's House Plan, like the 1998 Plan but unlike the 2002 Plan, is constituted entirely of single-member districts. In comparing the plans, we focus on the number of members that would be elected from districts of a given racial percentage, rather than on the number of districts. For example, we consider District 48 in the 2002 Plan, a four-member district, as comparable to four districts, each with a Black registered voter percentage of 60.2% and a Black voting age population percentage of 61.1 %. See Exhibits MM, YY and ZZ.

61. The Special Master's House Plan contains forty-four districts in which the majority of registered voters are African American: one in which the percent of African-American registrants exceeds 80%, two in which the percent of African-American registrants is between 70% and 79%, twenty in which the percent of African-American registrants is between 60% and 69% and twenty-one in which the percent of African-American registrants is between fifty and fifty-nine percent. In contrast to the forty-four districts in the Special Master's Plan that had a majority of registered voters who are African American, the 2002 Plan had only 38 members elected from majority-African American districts and the 1998 Plan had only 39 such districts.

62. Indeed, the Special Master's Plan was able to achieve this despite the fact that most of the majority-African American districts in the 2002 Plan were severely underpopulated.

63. As depicted in the histograms, both the 2002 and 1998 Plans have more members elected from districts in the 30% to 49% range than does the Special Master's Plan. Whereas the Special Master's Plan has seven districts between 40% and 49% BREG, the 2002 Plan had eleven and the 1998 Plan had nine in that category. Whereas the Special Master's Plan has fifteen districts which are between 30% and 39% BREG, the 2002 Plan had twenty-four and the 1998 Plan had seventeen. Once again, however, the districts in the 30% to 49% range under the 2002 Plan were some of the most severely underpopulated in the state.

64. The Special Master's Plan also continues to preserve a number of districts in which Hispanics constitute a substantial percentage of the population. It contains one district with Hispanic voting age population (HVAP) exceeding 40%, two with HVAP between 30 and 39%, two with HVAP between 20 and 29% and ten with HVAP between 10% and 20%. This compares to the 2002 Plan, which has two members elected from districts with HVAP between 30 and 39%, four members from districts with HVAP between 20 and 29%, and twelve members elected from districts with HVAP between 10 and 19%. Here again we refer to voting age population rather than Hispanic voter registration because Georgia has only recently begun to collect data on voter registration for Hispanics. See Exhibit WW.

Compactness

65. The Special Master's House Plan respects the value of compactness in the construction of districts.

66. Despite the fact that the Special Master's Plan contains thirty-three more districts than the 2002 Plan and abides by a stricter standard of population equality, it nevertheless receives higher scores than the 2002 Plan according to the traditional measures of compactness. A comparison of the three plans according to the two compactness measures described previously is presented below. Maptitude output indicating scores for each district in the three plans is found in Exhibit XX. (In this Exhibit, smallest circle scores are labeled "Roeck" and perimeter to area scores are labeled "Polsby-Popper.") According to the smallest circle measure of compactness, the districts in the Special Master's Plan receive a mean score of 0.41 with a standard deviation of 0.11. The range is 0.46 with the most compact district receiving a score of 0.65 and the least compact district receiving a score of 0.19.

67. In contrast, the mean of the 2002 Plan according to the smallest circle measure of compactness was 0.38 with a standard deviation of 0.12. Its most compact district received a score of 0.60 and its least compact district received a score of 0.17, producing a range of 0.43. The mean of the 1998 Plan was 0.41 with a standard deviation of 0.10. The 1998 Plan's most compact district received a score of 0.67 and its least compact district received a score of 0.14, producing a range of 0.53.

68. According to the perimeter to area measure of compactness the Special Master's Plan performs equally well. Its mean under that score is 0.30 with a standard deviation of 0.10 and a range of 0.53. Its most compact district receives a score of 0.62 and its least compact district receives a score of 0.09.

69. According to the perimeter to area measure of compactness the 2002 Plan, in contrast, has a mean score of 0.24 with a standard deviation of 0.10 and a range of 0.55. Its most compact district receives a score of 0.63 and its least compact district receives a score of 0.08.

70. According to the perimeter to area measure of compactness the 1998 Plan is quite similar to the Special Master's Plan. It has a mean score of 0.29 with a standard deviation of 0.10 and a range of 0.53. Its most compact district receives a score of 0.58 and its least compact district receives a score of 0.05.

Measures of Compactness in House Plans

Measures of Compactness Special Master's 2002 Plan 1998 Plan Plan Smallest Circle measure Mean .41 .38 .41 (SD) (.11) (-12) (.10) Min .19 .17 .14 Max .65 .60 .67 Range .46 .43 .53 Perimeter to Area measure Mean .30 .24 .29 (SD) (.10) (.10) (.10) Min .09 .08 .05 Max .62 .63 .58 Range .53 .55 .53 Contiguity

71. All of the districts in the Special Master's House Plan are contiguous as the criterion was defined above.

Respect for Politicai Subdivisions

72. As with the Senate Plan, the constraints placed on the Special Master's House Plan, such as a limit of a one percent deviation, that did not exist for the 2000 and 2002 Plans required the plan to split some political subdivisions that otherwise could be kept whole or split by fewer districts were those restraints not in place. Also, the thirty-three additional districts in the Special Master's Plan, as compared to the 2002 Plan, made it more difficult to reduce the number of county splits. A comparison of the three plans with respect to preservation of county boundaries is presented below. A report disaggregating the districts by county is presented as Exhibit BB.

Split Counties in House Plans

Special Master's 2002 Plan 1998 Plan Plan Split counties 77 80 64 (48.4%) (50.3%) (40.3%) Cases where a county is split among 2 districts 36 39 37 Cases where a county is split among 3 districts 23 21 13 Cases where a county is split among 4 districts 7 7 5 Cases where a county is split among 5 or more districts 11 13 9 73. The Special Master's Plan splits seventy-seven counties. Of those counties that the Special Master's Plan splits, thirty-six are split by two districts, twenty-three are split by three districts, seven are split by four districts, eleven are split by five or more districts.

74. In contrast, under the 2002 Plan, eighty counties are split. Thirty-nine are split by two districts, twenty-one are split by three districts, seven are split by four districts, and thirteen are split by five or more districts.

75. The Special Master's Plan fares less well against the 1998 Plan, which split 64 counties, but this is due in large part, as mentioned above, to the more severe requirement of equipopulosity imposed on the Special Master's Plan and the desire in the Special Master's Plan to reduce the number of split cities and towns. The 1998 Plan split sixty-four counties: thirty-seven are split by two districts, thirteen are split by three districts, five are split by four districts, and nine are split by five or more districts.

76. As described in Exhibit CC, the Special Master's Plan also paid considerable attention to city and town boundaries as well, a difficult task given the strange shape of many of Georgia's cities and towns. A total of 89 incorporated areas (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) are split in the Special Master's Plan; of these, 18 are splits that do not affect any population. This is a substantial improvement over the 2002 Plan, where 133 incorporated areas are split, 12 of which do not affect any population. Disregarding zero-population splits, the Special Master's Plan reduces splits of Georgia's cities and towns by 41 percent compared to the 2002 Plan. See Exhibit BB.

CONCLUSION

77. In my professional opinion: The Special Master's Plan adheres to all constitutional and statutory requirements and abides by the principles laid down in the Court's March 1, 2004 Order. The Special Master's Plan satisfies the need for population equality across districts, respects the compactness and contiguity of districts, and respects the integrity of political subdivisions.

Further affiant sayeth not. Nathaniel Persily.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this

15 ^th day of March, 2004.

Notary Public

My commission expires: Nov 12, 2004

I, Patrick Egan, having read the foregoing Affidavit of Nathaniel Persily, do hereby swear and affirm that the affidavit accurately sets forth the actions taken and conclusions adopted by me in conjunction with the work I performed at the behest of the Special Master.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this

15 ^th day of March, 2004.

Notary Public

My commission expires: Nov. 12, 2004

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT A Federal Court Special Master's Plan for Georgia Senate

% % BLACK TOTAL %TOTAL HISP.OR DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION BLACK BLACK COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO %HISP. 001 146,990 803 0.55% 34,240 23.29% 695 34,935 23.77% 3,936 2.68% VAP 106,037 22,551 21.27% 243 22,794 21.50% 2,554 2.41% 002 144,839 -1,348 -0.92% 84,625 58.43% 963 85,588 59.09% 3,643 2.52% VAP 107,237 57,435 53.56% 491 57,926 54.02% 2,642 2.46% 003 147,326 1,139 0.78% 27,247 18.49% 1,013 28,260 19.18% 5,132 3.48% VAP 108,780 18,146 16.68% 355 18.501 17.01% 3,379 3.11% 004 147,497 1,310 0.90% 37,638 25.52% 419 38,057 25.80% 4,770 3.23% VAP 109,255 25,912 23.72% 190 26,102 23.89% 3,303 3.02% 005 147,097 910 0.62% 39.205 26.65% 1,598 40,803 27.74% 37,083 25.21% VAP 109,582 27,142 24.77% 847 27,989 25.54% 26,283 23.98% 006 147,527 1,340 0.92% 49,213 33.36% 1,503 50,716 34.38% 19,325 13.10% VAP 116,383 34,815 29.91% 844 35,659 30.64% 13,698 11.77% 007 145,391 -796 -0.54% 30,913 21.26% 410 31,323 21.54% 6,680 4.59% VAP 306,114 20,811 19.61% 159 20,970 19.76% 4,197 3.96% 008 147,456 1,269 0.87% 55,150 37.40% 647 55,797 37.84% 3,730 2.53% VAP 108,142 37,003 34.22% 307 37,310 34.50% 2,520 2.33% 009 145,454 -733 -0.50% 13,360 9.19% 664 14,024 9.64% 8,952 6.15% VAP 102,558 8,709 8.49% 258 8,967 8.74% 5,902 5.75% 010 144,802 -1,385 -0.95% 92.247 63.71% 997 93.244 64.39% 2,473 1.71% VAP 101,927 63,587 62.38% 529 64,116 62.90% 1,589 1.56% 011 146,522 335 0.23% 46,609 31.81% 407 47,016 32.09% 7,733 5.28% VAP 105.970 30,071 28.38% 184 30,255 28.55% 5,068 4.78% 012 145,221 -966 -0.66% 85,661 58.99% 537 86,198 59.36% 2,138 1.47% VAP 105,736 57,932 54.79% 265 58,197 55.04% 1,435 1.36% 013 146,116 -71 -0.05% 43,087 29.49% 360 43.447 29.73% 5,145 3.52% VAP 104,407 27,701 26.53% 147 27,848 26.67% 3,409 3.27% 014 146,388 201 0.14% 65,776 44.93% 440 66.216 45.23% 4,081 2.79% VAP 107,397 45,635 42.49% 209 45.844 42.69% 2,719 2.53% 015 147,292 1,105 0.76% 79,341 53.87% 1,640 80,981 54.98% 8,171 5.55% VAP 106,884 53,544 50.10% 664 54,208 50.72% 5,670 5.30% 016 144,807 -1,380 -0.94% 31,527 21.77% 475 32,002 22.10% 3.055 2.11% VAP 103,788 21,323 20.54% 197 21,520 20.73% 2,027 1.95% 017 145,477 -710 -0.49% 20,551 14.13% 416 20,967 14.41% 2,420 1.66% VAP 104,142 13,749 13.20% 117 13,866 13.31% 1,555 1.49% 018 147,589 1,402 0.96% 25,626 17.36% 569 26,195 17.75% 3,144 2.13% VAP 107,789 17,646 16.37% 196 17,842 16.55% 2,133 1.98% 019 144,864 -1,323 -0.91% 40,447 27.92% 818 41,265 28.49% 9,129 6.30% VAP 104,098 7,400 26.32% 268 27,668 26.58% 5.800 5.57%

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT B State of Georgia Senate Districts

% % BLACK TOTAL %TOTAL HISP.OR DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION BLACK BLACK COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO %HISP. 001 148,220 2.033 1.39% 15,378 10.38% 538 15,916 10.74% 3,240 2.19% VAP 111,963 10,277 9.18% 200 10,477 9.36% 2,121 1.89% 002 141,625 -4.562 -3.12% 83,289 58.81% 932 84.221 59.47% 3,509 2.48% VAP 104,668 56,556 54.03% 483 57,039 54.50% 2,548 2.43% 003 149,694 3,507 2.40% 53,691 35.87% 1,510 55,201 36.88% 8,660 5.79% VAP 105,473 35,076 33.26% 497 35,573 33.73% 5,650 5.36% 004 146,340 153 0 10% 39,252 26.82% 410 39,662 27.10% 4,427 3.03% VAP 108,881 27,961 25.68% 185 28,146 25.85% 2,998 2.75% 005 150,878 4,691 3.21% 39,764 26.36% 1,632 41,396 27.44% 37,581 24.91% VAP 112,467 27,555 24.50% 866 28,421 25.27% 26,620 23.67% 006 138.894 -7,293 -4.99% 43,088 31.02% 1,454 44,542 32.07% 20,068 14.45% VAP 109,666 30,392 27.71% 809 31,201 28.45% 14,296 13.04% 007 139,647 -6,540 -4.47% 35,467 25.40% 540 36,007 25.78% 4,954 3.55% VAP 99,839 23,524 23.56% 194 23,718 23.76% 3,122 3.13% 008 140,221 -5,966 -4.08% 52,466 37.42% 624 53,090 37.86% 3,694 2.63% VAP 102,603 35,255 34.36% 298 35,553 34.65% 2,477 2.41% 009 153,471 7,284 4.98% 14,098 9.19% 674 14,772 9.63% 9,359 6.10% VAP 107,166 9,264 8.64% 255 9,519 8.88% 6,119 5.71% 010 138,931 -7,256 -4.96% 90,293 64.99% 946 91,239 65.67% 2,320 1.67% VAP 97,753 62,194 63.62% 505 62,699 64.14% 1,484 1.52% 011 140,910 -5,277 -3.61% 47,670 33.83% 412 48,082 34.12% 4,918 3.49% VAP 102,061 30,762 30.13% 191 30,953 30.32% 3,149 3.08% 012 140,124 -6,063 -4.15% 81,696 58.30% 494 82,190 58.66% 2,076 1.48% VAP 101,307 55,516 54.80% 247 55,763 55.04% 1,401 1.38% 013 139,312 -6,875 -4.70% 41,347 29.68% 337 41,684 29.92% 6,694 4.81% VAP 101,820 27,034 26.55% 137 27,171 26.69% 4,551 4.47% 014 140,316 -5,871 -4.02% 54,992 39.19% 717 55,709 39.70% 5,044 3.59% VAP 103,408 37,598 36.36% 340 37,938 36.69% 3,565 3.45% 015 139,366 -6,821 -4.67% 75,002 53.82% 1,397 76,399 54.82% 6,338 4.55% VAP 100,216 50,430 50.32% 545 50,975 50.87% 4,227 4.22% 016 153,456 7,269 4.97% 18,609 12.13% 495 19,104 12.45% 3,339 2.18% VAP 112,494 12,800 11.38% 158 12,958 11.52% 2,222 1.98% 017 153,451 7,264 4.97% 12,860 8.38% 377 13,237 8.63% 2,697 1.76% VAP 110,552 8,579 7.76% 113 8,692 7.86% 1,710 1.55% 018 146,068 -119 -0.08% 47,570 32.57% 469 48,039 32.89% 3,407 2.33% VAP 108,424 33,548 30.94% 195 33,743 31.12% 2,349 2.17% 019 139,123 -7,064 -4.83% 31,658 22.76% 353 32,011 23.01% 8,092 5.82% VAP 100,940 21,384 21.18% 139 21,523 21.32% 5,087 5.04% % % BLACK TOTAL %TOTAL HISP.OR DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION BLACK BLACK COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO %HISP. 020 139,005 -7,182 -4.91% 49,097 35.32% 320 49,417 35.55% 2,544 1 83% VAP 101,996 33,154 32.51% 142 33,296 32.64% 1,692 1,66% 021 153,466 7,279 4.98% 7,916 5.16% 530 8,446 5.50% 7,189 4.68% VAP 109,243 5,321 4.87% 219 5,540 5.07% 4,831 4.42% 022 139,090 -7,097 -4.85% 76,123 54.73% 1,330 77,453 55.69% 3,305 2.33% VAP 99,502 50,711 50.96% 538 51,249 51.51% 2,154 2.16% 023 139,083 -7,104 -4.86% 57,747 41.52% 864 58,611 42.14% 4,322 3.11% VAP 102,170 38,614 37.79% 362 38,976 38.15% 3,065 3.00% 024 152,396 6,209 4.25% 20.961 13.75% 526 21,487 14.10% 2,910 1.91% VAP 110,060 14,742 13.39% 168 14,910 13.55% 1,865 1.70% 025 147,330 1,143 0.78% 59,174 40.16% 575 59,749 40 55% 2,601 1.77% VAP 110,172 41,339 37.52% 252 41,591 37.75% 1,763 1.60% 026 139,764 -6,423 -4.39% 83,545 59.78% 765 84,310 60.32% 2,350 1.68% VAP 101,010 55,685 55 13% 328 56,013 55.45% 1,600 1.58% 027 152,891 6,704 4.59% 5,425 3.55% 396 5,821 3.81% 6,090 3.98% VAP 105,320 3,630 3.45% 165 3,795 3 60% 4,116 3.91% 028 153,459 7,272 4.97% 15,842 10.32% 409 16,251 10.59% 4,130 2.69% VAP 108,985 10,458 9.60% 135 10,593 9.72% 2,854 2.62% 029 144,766 -1,421 -0.97% 56,889 39.30% 524 57,413 39.66% 2,624 1.81% VAP 104,105 38,175 36.67% 201 38,376 36.86% 1.886 1.81% 030 153,363 7,176 4.91% 16,155 10.53% 589 16,744 10.92% 2,613 1.70% VAP 109,366 10,481 9.58% 176 10,657 9.74% 1,676 1.53% 031 144,176 -2,011 -1.38% 19,820 13.75% 571 20.391 14.14% 6.351 4.41% VAP 106,872 13,785 12.90% 148 13,933 13.04% 4,239 3.97% 032 153,292 7,105 4.86% 8,584 5.60% 523 9,107 5.94% 5,218 3.40% VAP 116,205 6,251 5.38% 256 6,507 5.60% 3,712 3.19% 033 138,915 -7,272 -4.97% 48,188 34.69% 1,240 49,428 35.58% 15,113 10.88% VAP 101,319 31,864 31.45% 539 32,403 31.98% 10,071 9.94% 034 143,538 -2,649 -1.81% 76,124 53.03% 1,578 77,702 54.13% 5,560 3.87% VAP 100,130 49,814 49.75% 795 50,609 50.54% 3,560 3.56% 035 143,613 -2,574 -1.76% 90,178 62.79% 1,333 91,511 63.72% 7,141 4.97% VAP 102.621 61,584 60.01% 696 62,280 60.69% 4,677 4.56% 036 139,270 -6,917 -4.73% 86,537 62.14% 1,115 87,652 62.94% 10,459 7.51% VAP 105,218 59,194 56.26% 720 59,914 56.94% 8.071 7.67% 037 151,057 4,870 3.33% 12,882 8.53% 583 13,465 8.91% 5,448 3.61% VAP 106,260 8,593 8.09% 255 8,848 8.33% 3,602 3 39% 038 139,233 -6,954 -4.76% 88,861 63.82% 863 89,724 64.44% 7,963 5.72% VAP 104,463 62,389 59.72% 591 62,980 60.29% 6,042 5.78% 039 138,909 -7,278 -4.98% 83.621 60.20% 973 84,594 60.90% 4.569 3.29% VAP 113,462 63,469 55.94% 680 64,149 56.54% 3,573 3.15% % % BLACK TOTAL %TOTAL HISP.OR DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION BLACK BLACK COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO %HISP. 040 153,269 7,082 4.84% 48,484 31.63% 1,174 49,658 32.40% 21,271 13.88% VAP 120,669 35,087 29.08% 724 35,811 29.68% 15,974 13.24% 041 150,406 4,219 2.89% 60,797 40.42% 1,869 62,666 41.66% 9,686 6.44% VAP 112,282 41,295 36.78% 980 42,275 37.65% 6,691 5.96% 042 152,967 6,780 4.64% 20,025 13.09% 1,087 21,112 13.80% 24,103 15.76% VAP 128,002 15,433 12.06% 746 16,179 12.64% 18,506 14.46% 043 139,178 -7,009 -4.79% 90,440 64.98% 1,319 91,759 65.93% 5,276 3.79% VAP 98,010 60,680 61.91% 703 61,383 62.63% 3,702 3.78% 044 149,248 3,061 2.09% 57,107 38.26% 1,398 58,505 39.20% 13,859 9.29% VAP 106,379 36,341 34.16% 586 36,927 34.71% 9,372 8.81% 045 153,446 7,259 4.97% 7,295 4.75% 422 7,717 5.03% 6,156 4.01% VAP 108,990 5,047 4.63% 123 5.170 4.74% 4,044 3.71% 046 144,159 -2,028 -1.39% 32,448 22.51% 652 33,100 22.96% 7,917 5.49% VAP 113,573 22,471 19.79% 306 22,777 20.05% 5,481 4.83% 047 145,582 -605 -0.41% 36,156 24.84% 378 36,534 25 10% 2,636 1.81% VAP 108,686 25,325 23.30% 124 25,449 23.42% 1,717 1.58% 048 153,195 7,008 4.79% 11,509 7.51% 618 12,127 7.92% 10,861 7.09% VAP 110,094 7,926 7.20% 252 8,178 7.43% 7,492 6.81% 049 152,919 6,732 4.61% 4,937 3.23% 280 5,217 3.41% 11,170 7.30% VAP 112,545 3,435 3.05% 77 3,512 3.12% 7,081 6.29% 050 142,999 -3,188 -2.18% 11,547 8.07% 357 11,904 8.32% 20,445 14.30% VAP 108,455 8,191 7.55% 134 8,325 7.68% 13,216 12.19% 051 153,489 7,302 4.99% 2,938 1.91% 230 3,168 2.06% 6,776 4.41% VAP 116,117 2,013 1.73% 83 2,096 1.80% 4,561 3.93% 052 150,070 3,883 2.66% 17,413 11.60% 510 17,923 11.94% 12,389 8.26% VAP 112,820 12,413 11.00% 125 12,538 11.11% 7,971 7.07% 053 153,459 7,272 4.97% 3,303 2.15% 361 3,664 2.39% 6,380 4.16% VAP 114,267 2,284 2.00% 77 2,361 2.07% 4,022 3.52% 054 153,033 6,846 4.68% 5,083 3.32% 378 5,461 3.57% 12,783 8.35% VAP 110,785 3,507 3.17% 92 3,599 3.25% 8,111 7.32% 055 138,924 -7,263 -4.97% 86,109 61.98% 2,225 88,334 63.58% 4,657 3.35% VAP 97,091 57,626 59.35% 1,251 58,877 60.64% 3,156 3.25% 056 153,447 7,260 4.97% 12,092 7.88% 707 12,799 8.34% 9,945 6.48% VAP 118,234 8,953 7.57% 387 9,340 7.90% 7,413 6.27% Total Population: 8,186,453 Ideal Value: 146,187 Summary Statistics Population Range: 138,894 to 153,489 Absolute Range: -7,293 to 7,302 Absolute Overall Range: 14,595 Relative Range: -4.99% to 499% Relative Overall Range: 9.98%

CITY POPULATION AS COMPONENT OF GEORGIA SENATE DISTRICTS

SENATE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 001 3283 Blackshear 1678 51.1 1.1 001 2665 Bloomingdale 2435 91.4 1.6 001 11289 Garden City 12 0.1 0.0 001 627 Patterson 331 52.8 0.2 001 6239 Pooler 3814 61.1 2.6 001 6959 Richmond Hill 6592 94.7 4.4 001 131510 Savannah 19765 15.0 13.3 001 13761 St. Marys 1144 8.3 0.8 001 3392 Tybee Island 3392 100.0 2.3 001 138 Vernonburg 138 100.0 0.1 002 2665 Bloomingdale 230 8.6 0.2 002 11289 Garden City 11277 99.9 8.0 002 6239 Pooler 2425 38-9 1.7 002 3276 Port Wentworth 3276 100.0 2.3 002 131510 Savannah 111745 85.0 78.9 002 2340 Thunderbolt 2340 100.0 1.7 003 788 Allenhurst 788 100.0 0.5 003 4150 Baxley 0 0.0 0.0 003 15600 Brunswick 15600 100.0 10.4 003 1719 Darien 1719 100.0 1.1 003 369 Flemington 369 100.0 0.2 003 273 Gumbranch 273 100.0 0.2 003 30392 Hinesville 30392 100.0 20.3 003 9279 Jesup 9279 100.0 6.2 003 1440 Ludowici 1440 100.0 1.0 003 1100 Midway 1100 100.0 0.7 003 414 Odum 414 100.0 0.3 003 736 Riceboro 736 100.0 0.5 003 6959 Richmond Hill 367 5.3 0.2 003 4030 Walthourville 4030 100.0 2.7 004 130 Bellville 130 100.0 0.1 SENATE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 007 10506 Kingsland 10506 100.0 7.5 007 2730 Lakeland 2730 100.0 2.0 007 889 Lenox 889 100.0 0.6 007 4697 Nashville 4697 100.0 3.4 007 1340 Omega 1339 99.9 1.0 007 746 Ray City 746 100.0 0.5 007 13761 St. Marys 12617 91.7 9.0 007 15060 Tifton 3813 25.3 2.7 007 15333 Waycross 15333 100.0 11.0 007 1218 Woodbine 1218 100.0 0.9 008 5307 Adel 5307 100.0 3.8 008 444 Barwick 444 100.0 0.3 008 1417 Boston 1417 100.0 1.0 008 265 Cecil 265 100.0 0.2 008 552 Coolidge 552 100.0 0.4 008 834 Dasher 834 100.0 0.6 008 1626 Hahira 1626 100.0 1.2 008 549 Lake Park 549 100.0 0.4 008 634 Morven 634 100.0 0.5 008 711 Pavo 711 100.0 0.5 008 4638 Quitman 4638 100.0 3.3 008 847 Remerton 847 100.0 0.6 008 1755 Sparks 1755 100.0 1.3 008 18162 Thomasville 9109 50.2 6.5 008 43724 Valdosta 43724 100.0 31.2 009 3848 Dacula 1536 39.9 1.0 009 22397 Lawrenceville 18269 81.6 11.9 009 11307 Lilbum 1244 11.0 0.8 009 15351 Snellville 10215 66.5 6.7 009 8725 Suwanee 17 0.2 0.0 010 416474 Atlanta 3897 0.9 2.8 010 8493 McDonough 5976 70.4 4.3 011 1602 Arlington 441 27.5 0.3 011 492 Attapulgus 492 100.0 0.3 012 851 Newton 851 100.0 0.6 012 156 Parrott 156 100.0 0.1 012 393 Sasser 393 100.0 0.3 012 1166 Shellman 1166 100.0 0.8 013 2298 Abbeville 1663 72.4 1.2 013 76939 Albany 0 0.0 0.0 013 456 Arabi 456 100.0 0.3 013 4419 Ashbum 4419 100.0 3.2 013 595 Berlin 595 100.0 0.4 013 415 Byromville 415 100.0 0.3 013 11608 Cordele 11608 100.0 8.3 013 163 Dooling 163 100.0 0.1 013 336 Ellenton 336 100.0 0.2 013 8758 Fitzgerald 5144 58.7 3.7 013 221 Lilly 221 100.0 0.2 013 14387 Moultrie 1468 10.2 1.1 013 649 Norman Park 849 100.0 0.6 013 3270 Ocilla 3270 100.0 2.3 013 1340 Omega 1 0.1 0.0 013 307 Pinehurst 307 100.0 0.2 013 532 Pineview 532 100.0 0.4 013 308 Pills 308 100.0 0.2 013 946 Poulan 946 100.0 0.7 013 246 Rebecca 246 100.0 0.2 013 1415 Rochelle 1415 100.0 1.0 013 309 Sumner 309 100.0 0.2 013 496 Sycamore 496 100.0 0.4 013 5990 Sylvester 5990 100.0 4.3 013 15060 Tifton 11247 74.7 8.1 013 716 Ty Ty 716 100.0 0.5 013 2772 Unadilla 2772 100.0 2.0 013 2973 Vienna 2973 100.0 2.1 013 430 Warwick 430 100.0 0.3 014 76939 Albany 3132 4.1 2.2 016 4278 Centerville 2662 62.2 1.7 016 185781 Columbus city (bal 33489 18.0 21.8 016 3776 Forsyth 0 0.0 0.0 016 97255 Macon 7260 7.5 4.7 016 192 Meansville 192 100.0 0.1 016 522 Milner 522 100.0 0.3 016 9602 Perry 3 0.0 0.0 016 48804 Warner Robins 9053 18.5 5.9 017 146 Between 148 100.0 0.1 017 6764 Eatonton 7 0.1 0.0 017 11148 Fayetteville 0 0.0 0.0 017 3857 Hampton 3857 100.0 2.5 017 163 Jersey 45 27.6 0.0 017 2322 Locust Grove 28 1.2 0.0 017 5435 Loganville 4150 76.4 2.7 017 392 Mansfield 392 100.0 0.3 017 8493 McDonough 2517 29.6 1.6 017 520 Newborn 520 100.0 0.3 017 1281 Porterdale 32 2.5 0.0 017 242 Shady Dale 242 100.0 0.2 017 142 Sunny Side 142 100.0 0.1 017 1241 Walnut Grove 1241 100.0 0.8 017 175 Woolsey 175 100.0 0.1 018 287 Allentown 0 0.0 0.0 018 5972 Barnesville 3705 62.0 2.5 018 4278 Centerville 1616 37.8 1.1 016 4455 Cochran 4455 100.0 3.0 018 223 Culloden 223 100.0 0.2 018 3776 Forsyth 3776 100.0 2.6 018 8005 Fort Valley 8005 100.0 5.5 018 3280 Hawkinsville 3280 100.0 2.2 018 97255 Macon 0 0.0 0.0 018 9602 Perry 9599 100.0 6.6 018 808 Roberta 808 100.0 0.6 019 1434 Willacoochee 1434 100.0 1.0 020 579 Adrian 579 100.0 0.4 020 394 Alley 394 100.0 0.3 020 1943 Alamo 1943 100.0 1.4 020 287 Allentown 208 72.5 0.1 020 159 Alston 159 100.0 0.1 020 329 Cadwell 329 100.0 0.2 020 305 Chester 305 100.0 0.2 020 373 Danville 24 6.4 0.0 020 1544 Davisboro 1544 100.0 1.1 020 132 Deepstep 132 100.0 0.1 020 509 Dexter 509 100.0 0.4 020 15857 Dublin 15857 100.0 11.4 020 447 Dudley 447 100.0 0.3 020 2484 East Dublin 2484 100.0 1.8 020 5440 Eastman 5440 100.0 3.9 020 884 Glenwood 884 100.0 0.6 020 2152 Gordon 2152 100.0 1.5 020 509 Harrison 509 100.0 0.4 020 2307 Helena 0 0.0 0.0 020 316 Higgston 316 100.0 0.2 020 1100 Ivey 1078 98.0 0.8 020 241 Kite 241 100.0 0.2 020 1012 Milan 434 42.9 0.3 020 154 Montrose 154 100.0 0.1 020 2082 Mount Vernon 2032 100.0 1.5 020 131 Nunez 131 100.0 0.1 020 366 Oak Park 366 100.0 0.3 020 280 Oconee 280 100.0 0.2 020 304 Rentz 304 100.0 0.2 020 124 Riddlevilie 124 100.0 0.1 020 6144 Sandersville 6144 100.0 4.4 020 300 Scotland 43 14.3 0.0 020 2824 Soperton 2824 100.0 2.0 023 112 Vidette 112 100.0 0.1 023 2088 Wadley 2088 100.0 1.5 023 5813 Waynesboro 5813 100.0 4.2 023 2314 Wrens 2314 100.0 1.7 024 441 Dearing 441 100.0 0.3 024 30 Edge Hill 30 100.0 0.0 024 694 Gibson 694 100.0 0.5 024 1811 Gray 1311 100.0 1.2 024 23451 Griffin 5668 24.2 3.7 024 6089 Grovetown 6089 100.0 4.0 024 1314 Harlem 860 47.4 0.6 024 1100 Ivey 22 2.0 0.0 024 1595 Lincolnton 408 25.6 0.3 024 173 Mitchell 173 100.0 0.1 024 230 Orchard Hill 230 100.0 0.2 024 6828 Thomson 2428 35.6 1.6 024 4295 Washington 444 10.3 0.3 025 322 Bostwick 322 100.0 0.2 025 205 Buckhead 205 100.0 0.1 025 11547 Covington 11547 100.0 7.8 025 6764 Eatonton 6757 99.9 4.6 025 3238 Greensboro 3238 100.0 2.2 025 163 Jersey 118 72.4 0.1 025 3636 Madison 3636 100.0 2.5 025 18757 Milledgeville 18757 100.0 12.7 025 11407 Monroe 11407 100.0 7.7 025 1892 Oxford 1892 100.0 1.3 025 1281 Porterdale 1249 97.5 0.8 025 707 Rutledge 707 100.0 0.5 025 331 Siloam 331 100.0 0.2 025 3379 Social Circle 3379 100.0 2.3 025 1522 Sparta 1522 100.0 1.0 025 283 While Plains 283 100.0 0.2 026 287 Allentown 79 27.5 0.1 029 946 Greenville 946 100.0 0.7 029 23451 Griffin 12721 54.2 8.8 029 307 Hamilton 307 100.0 0.2 029 144 Haralson 144 100.0 0.1 029 2774 Hogansville 2774 100.0 1.9 029 3934 Jackson 3934 100.0 2.7 029 203 Jenkins burg 203 100.0 0.1 029 25998 La Grange 20521 78.9 14.2 029 2322 Locust Grove 2294 98.8 1.6 029 104 Lone Oak 104 100.0 0.1 029 783 Luthersville 783 100.0 0.5 029 475 Molena 475 100.0 0.3 029 2428 Monticello 2428 100.0 1.7 029 16242 Newman 9359 57.6 6.5 029 1141 Pine Mountain 1141 100.0 0.8 029 177 Roopville 177 100.0 0.1 029 3362 West Point 3382 100.0 2.3 029 1184 Woodbury 1184 100.0 0.8 029 1181 Zebulon 1181 100.0 0.8 030 4579 Bremen 6 0.1 0.0 030 19843 Carrollton 3744 18.9 2.4 030 5056 Dallas 404 8.0 0.3 030 20065 Douglasville 8665 43.2 5.6 030 1361 Hiram 1361 100.0 0.9 030 1275 Mount Zion 981 76.9 0.6 030 16242 Newman 0 0.0 0.0 030 2383 Temple 2383 100.0 1.6 030 4134 Villa Rica 3947 95.5 2.6 030 596 Whitesburg 596 100.0 0.4 031 1039 Aragon 1039 100.0 0.7 031 1959 Bowdon 1959 100.0 1.4 031 80 Braswell 60 100.0 0.1 031 4579 Bremen 4573 99.9 3.2 031 941 Buchanan 941 100.0 0.7 035 2072 Lithia Springs 950 45.8 0.7 035 3400 Palmetto 3073 90.4 2.1 035 11621 Union City 11621 100.0 8.1 036 416474 Atlanta 139270 33.4 100.0 037 13422 Acworth 13422 100.0 8.9 037 15925 Cartersville 0 0.0 0.0 037 5056 Dallas 202 4.0 0.1 037 1092 Emerson 1092 100.0 0.7 037 1361 Hiram 0 0.0 0.0 037 21675 Kennesaw 20379 94.0 13.5 037 58748 Marietta 8626 14.7 5.7 037 12481 Powder Springs 568 4.6 0.4 038 416474 Atlanta 128093 30.8 92.0 039 416474 Atlanta 111026 26.7 79.9 039 39595 East Point 27870 70.4 20,1 040 416474 Atlanta 16806 4.0 11.0 040 2609 Avondale Estates 19 0.7 0.0 040 18147 Decatur 10 0.1 0.0 040 9862 Doraville 9862 100.0 6.4 040 79334 Roswell 7051 8.9 4.6 041 2609 Avondale Estates 2590 99.3 1.7 041 11307 Lilbum 10058 89.0 6.7 041 621 Pine Lake 621 100.0 0.4 041 7145 Stone Mountain 7145 100.0 4.8 042 416474 Atlanta 9072 2.2 5.9 042 9552 Chamblee 9552 100.0 6.2 042 18147 Decatur 18137 99.9 11.9 043 10669 Conyers 10689 100.0 7.7 043 2187 Lithonia 2187 100.0 1.6 044 21447 Forest Park 21447 100.0 14.4 044 3829 Jonesboro 3326 86.9 2.2 044 2886 Lake City 2886 100.0 1.9 044 2495 Lovejoy 2495 100.0 1.7 044 4882 Morrow 4882 100.0 3.3 047 233 Carlton 233 100.0 0.2 047 488 Colbert 488 100.0 0.3 047 1052 Comer 1052 100.0 0.7 047 5292 Commerce 5292 100.0 3.6 047 307 Crawford 807 100.0 0.6 047 572 Crawfordville 572 100.0 0.4 047 457 Danielsville 457 100.0 0.3 047 4743 Elberton 4743 100.0 3.3 047 762 Franklin Springs 762 100.0 0.5 047 195 Gillsville 195 100.0 0.1 047 4188 Hartwell 4188 100.0 2.9 047 950 Homer 950 100.0 0.7 047 328 Ila 0 0.0 0.0 047 1827 Lavonia 0 0.0 0.0 047 239 Lexington 239 100.0 0.2 047 1595 Lincolnton 1187 74.4 0.8 047 1438 Lula 84 5.8 0.1 047 210 Maxeys 210 100.0 0.1 047 1247 Maysville 1247 100.0 0.9 047 299 Norwood 299 100.0 0.2 047 139 Rayle 139 100.0 0.1 047 2493 Royston 2493 100.0 1.7 047 105 Sharon 105 100.0 0.1 047 6828 Thomson 4400 64.4 3.0 047 653 Tignall 653 100.0 0.4 047 1669 Union Point 1669 100.0 1.1 047 2013 Warrenton 2013 100.0 1.4 047 4295 Washington 3851 89.7 2.6 047 400 Woodville 400 100.0 0.3 048 1695 Berkeley Lake 1695 100.0 1.1 048 10668 Buford 4881 45.8 3.2 048 4220 Cumming 4053 96.0 2.6 048 22122 Duluth 22122 100.0 14.4 048 22397 Lawrenceville 0 0.0 0.0 050 604 Mount Airy 9 1.5 0.0 050 2689 Oakwood 41 1.5 0.0 050 9323 Toccoa 3383 36.3 2.4 050 604 Young Harris 604 100.0 0.4 051 730 Ball Ground 730 100.0 0.5 051 1210 Blue Ridge 1210 100.0 0.8 051 7709 Canton 7132 92.5 4.6 051 1246 Clarkesville 1248 100.0 0.8 051 2019 Clayton 2019 100.0 1.3 051 3674 Cornelia 169 4.6 0.1 051 1465 Demorest 1465 100.0 1.0 051 198 Dillard 198 100.0 0.1 051 707 East Ellijay 707 100.0 0.5 051 1584 Ellijay 1584 100.0 1.0 051 3195 Holly Springs 3195 100.0 2.1 051 2167 Jasper 2167 100.0 1.4 051 1071 McCaysville 1071 100.0 0.7 051 299 Morganton 299 100.0 0.2 051 604 Mount Airy 595 98.5 0.4 051 829 Mountain City 829 100.0 0.5 051 626 Nelson 626 100.0 0.4 051 221 Sky Valley 221 100.0 0.1 051 49 Talking Rock 49 100.0 0.0 051 164 Tallulah Falls 164 100.0 0.1 051 316 Tiger 316 100.0 0.2 051 9323 Toccoa 5940 63.7 3.9 051 10050 Woodstock 17 0.2 0.0 052 975 Cave Spring 975 100.0 0.6 052 27912 Dalton 10005 35.8 6.7 052 659 Kingston 659 100.0 0.4 052 6702 La Fayette 6702 100.0 4.5 052 48 Lyerly 488 100.0 0.3 052 485 Menlo 485 100.0 0.3 052 349 Rome 34980 100.0 23.3 CITY POPULATION AS COMPONENT OF GEORGIA SENATE DISTRICTS City Name Total City SENATE District # City Population in Percent of City in Percent of Population District District District in City Abbeville 2298 013 1663 72.4 1.2 Abbeville 2298 019 635 27.6 0.5 Acworth 13422 037 13422 100.0 8.9 Adairsville 2542 054 2542 100.0 1.7 Adel 5307 008 5307 100.0 3.8 Adrian 579 020 579 100.0 0.4 Alley 394 020 394 100.0 0.3 Alamo 1943 020 1943 100.0 1.4 Alapana 682 007 682 100.0 0.5 Albany 76939 012 73807 95.9 52.7 Albany 76939 013 0 0.0 0.0 Albany 76939 014 3132 4.1 2.2 Aldora 98 016 96 100.0 0.1 Allen hurst 788 003 788 100.0 0.5 Allentown 287 018 0 0.0 0.0 Allentown 287 020 208 72.5 0.1 Allentown 287 026 79 27.5 0.1 Alma 3236 019 3236 100.0 2.3 Alpharetta 34854 027 10478 30.1 6.9 Alpharetta 34854 056 24376 69.9 15.9 Alston 159 020 159 100.0 0.1 Alto 876 047 876 100.0 0.6 Ambrose 320 019 320 100.0 0.2 Americus 17013 014 17013 100.0 12.1 Andersonville 331 014 331 100.0 0.2 Arabi 456 013 456 100.0 0.3 Aragon 1039 031 1039 100.0 0.7 Arcade 1643 046 461 28.1 0.3 Arcade 1843 049 1182 71.9 0.8 Argyle 151 007 151 100.0 0.1 Arlington 1602 011 441 27.5 0.3 Berlin 595 013 595 100.0 0.4 Bethlehem 716 046 716 100.0 0.5 Between 148 017 148 100.0 0.1 Bibb City 510 015 510 100.0 0.4 Bishop 146 046 146 100.0 0.1 Black shear 3283 001 1678 51.1 1.1 Blackshear 3283 019 1605 48.9 1.2 Blairsville 659 050 659 100.0 0.5 Blakely 5696 011 5696 100.0 4.0 Bloomingdale 2665 001 2435 91.4 1.6 Bloomingdale 2665 002 230 8.6 0.2 Blue Ridge 1210 051 1210 100.0 0.8 Bluffton 118 012 118 100.0 0.1 Blythe 718 023 718 100.0 0.5 Bogart 1049 046 1086 103.5 0.8 Boston 1417 008 1417 100.0 1.0 Bostwick 322 025 322 100.0 0.2 Bowdon 1959 031 1959 100.0 1.4 Bowersville 334 047 334 100.0 0.2 Bowman 898 047 898 100.0 0.6 Braselton 1206 045 505 41.9 0.3 Braselton 1206 049 701 58.1 0.5 Braswell 80 031 80 100.0 0.1 Bremen 4579 030 6 0.1 0.0 Bremen 4579 031 4573 99.9 3.2 Brinson 225 011 225 100.0 0.2 Bronwood 513 012 513 100.0 0.4 Brooklet 1113 004 1113 100.0 0.8 Brooks 553 028 553 100.0 0.4 Broxton 1428 019 1428 100.0 1.0 Brunswick 15600 003 15600 100.0 10.4 Buchanan 941 031 941 100.0 0.7 Buckhead 205 025 205 100.0 0.1 Buena Vista 1664 014 1664 100.0 1.2 Clarkston 7231 055 7231 100.0 5.2 Claxton 2276 004 2276 100.0 1.6 Clayton 2019 051 2019 100.0 1.3 Clermont 419 049 419 100.0 0.3 Cleveland 1907 050 1907 100.0 1.3 Climax 297 011 297 100.0 0.2 Cobbtown 311 004 311 100.0 0.2 Cochran 4455 018 4455 100.0 3.0 Cohutta 582 053 582 100.0 0.4 Colbert 488 047 488 100.0 0.3 Coleman 149 012 149 100.0 0.1 College Park 20382 034 1572 7.7 1.1 College Park 20382 035 18810 92.3 13.1 Collins 528 004 528 100.0 0.4 Colquitt 1939 011 1939 100.0 1.4 Columbus city (bal 185781 014 13436 7.2 9.6 Columbus city (bal 185781 015 138856 74.7 99.6 Columbus city (bal 185781 016 33489 18.0 21.8 Comer 1052 047 1052 100.0 0.7 Commerce 5292 047 5292 100.0 3.6 Concord 336 029 336 100.0 0.2 Conyers 10689 043 10689 100.0 7.7 Coolidge 552 008 552 100.0 0.4 Cordele 11608 013 11608 100.0 8.3 Corinth 213 028 13 6.1 0.0 Corinth 213 029 200 93.9 0.1 Cornelia 3674 050 3505 95.4 2.5 Cornelia 3674 051 169 4.6 0.1 Covington 11547 025 11547 100.0 7.8 Crawford 807 047 807 100.0 0.6 Crawfordville 572 047 572 100.0 0.4 Culloden 223 018 223 100.0 0.2 Cumming 4220 048 4053 96.0 2.6 Cumming 4220 049 167 4.0 0.1 Doraville 9862 040 9862 100.0 6.4 Douglas 10639 019 10639 100.0 7.6 Douglasville 20065 030 8665 43.2 5.6 Douglasville 20065 033 512 2.6 0.4 Douglasville 20065 035 10888 54.3 7.6 Du Pont 139 007 139 100.0 0.1 Dublin 15857 020 15857 100.0 11.4 Dudley 447 020 447 100.0 0.3 Duluth 22122 048 22122 100.0 14.4 East Dublin 2484 020 2484 100.0 1.8 East Ellijay 707 051 707 100.0 0.5 East Point 39595 035 11725 29.6 8.2 East Point 39595 039 27870 70.4 20.1 Eastman 5440 020 5440 100.0 3.9 Eatonton 6764 017 7 0.1 0.0 Eatonton 6764 025 6757 99.9 4.6 Edge Hill 30 024 30 100.0 0.0 Edison 1340 012 1340 100.0 1.0 Elberton 4743 047 4743 100.0 3.3 Ellaville 1609 014 1609 100.0 1.1 Ellenton 336 013 336 100.0 0.2 Ellijay 1584 051 1584 100.0 1.0 Emerson 1092 031 0 0.0 0.0 Emerson 1092 037 1092 100.0 0.7 Enigma 869 007 869 100.0 0.6 Ephesus 388 029 388 100.0 0.3 Eton 319 054 319 100.0 0.2 Euharlee 3208 031 535 16.7 0.4 Euharlee 3208 054 2673 83.3 1.7 Fairbum 5464 035 5464 100.0 3.8 Fairmount 745 054 745 100.0 0.5 Fargo 380 007 380 100.0 0.3 Fayetteville 11148 017 0 0.0 0.0 Fayetteville 11148 028 648 5.8 0.4 Gray 1811 024 1811 100.0 1.2 Gray 1811 029 0 0.0 0.0 Grayson 765 045 765 100.0 0.5 Greensboro 3238 025 3236 100.0 2.2 Greenville 946 029 946 100.0 0.7 Griffin 23451 024 5668 24.2 3.7 Griffin 23451 028 5062 21.6 3.3 Griffin 23451 029 12721 54.2 8.8 Grovetown 6089 024 8089 100.0 4.0 Gumbranch 273 003 273 100.0 0.2 Guyton 917 004 917 100.0 0.6 Hagan 895 004 898 100.0 O.8 Hahira 1626 008 1626 100.0 1.2 Hamilton 307 029 307 100.0 0.2 Hampton 3657 017 3857 100.0 2.5 Hapeville 6180 035 6180 100.0 4.3 Haralson 144 029 144 100.0 0.1 Harlem 1314 023 954 52.6 0.7 Harlem 1814 024 660 47.4 0.6 Harrison 509 020 509 100.0 0.4 Hartwell 4188 047 4188 100.0 2.9 Howkinsville 3280 018 3280 100.0 2.2 Hazlehurst 3787 019 3787 100.0 2.7 Helen 430 050 430 100.0 0.3 Helena 2307 019 2307 100.0 1.7 Helena 2307 020 0 0.0 0.0 Hephzibah 3880 022 3880 100.0 2.8 Hiawassee 808 050 808 100.0 0.6 Higgston 316 020 316 100.0 0.2 Hiltonia 421 004 421 100.0 0.3 Hinesville 30392 003 30392 100.0 20.3 Hiram 1361 030 1361 100.0 0.9 Hiram 1361 037 0 0.0 0.0 Hoboken 463 019 463 100.0 0.3 La Fayette 6702 052 6702 100.0 4.5 LaGrange 25998 028 5477 21.1 3.6 LaGrange 25998 029 20521 76.9 14.2 Lake City 2886 044 2886 100.0 1.9 Lake Park 549 008 549 100.0 0.4 Lakeland 2730 007 2730 100.0 2.0 Lavonia 1827 047 0 0.0 0.0 Lavonia 1827 050 1827 100.0 1.3 Lawrenceville 22397 005 3336 14.9 2.2 Lawrenceville 22397 009 18269 81.6 11.9 Lawrenceville 22397 045 792 3.5 0.5 Lawrenceville 22397 048 0 0.0 0.0 Leary 666 012 666 100.0 0.5 Leesburg 2633 012 2633 100.0 1.9 Lenox 889 007 889 100.0 0.6 Leslie 455 014 455 100.0 0.3 Lexington 239 047 239 100.0 0.2 Lilbum 11307 005 5 0.0 0.0 Lilbum 11307 009 1244 11.0 0.8 Lilbum 11307 041 10058 89.0 8.7 Lilly 221 013 221 100.0 0.2 Lincolnton 1595 024 408 25.6 0.3 Lincolnton 1595 047 1167 74.4 0.8 Lithia Springs 2072 033 1122 54.2 0.8 Lilhia Springs 2072 035 950 45.8 0.7 Lithonia 2187 043 2187 100.0 1.6 Locust Grove 2322 017 28 1.2 0.0 Locust Grove 2322 029 2294 98.8 1.6 Loganville 5435 017 4150 76.4 2.7 Loganville 5435 045 1285 23.6 0.8 Lone OaK 104 029 104 100.0 0.1 Lookout Mountain 1617 053 1617 100.0 1.1 Louisville 2712 023 2712 100.0 1.9 Lovejoy 2495 044 2495 100.0 1.7 Midway 1100 003 1100 100.0 0.7 Milan 1012 019 578 57.1 0.4 Milan 1012 020 434 42.9 0.3 Milledgeville 18757 025 18757 100.0 12.7 Millen 3492 004 3492 100.0 2.4 Milner 522 016 522 100.0 0.3 Mitchell 173 024 173 100.0 0.1 Molena 475 029 475 100.0 0.3 Monroe 11407 025 11407 100.0 7.7 Montezuma 3999 014 3999 100.0 2.8 Monti cello 2428 029 2428 100.0 1.7 Montrose 154 020 154 100.0 0.1 Moreland 393 028 393 100.0 0.3 Morgan 1464 012 1464 100.0 1.0 Morganton 299 051 299 100.0 0.2 Morrow 4862 044 4882 100.0 3.3 Morven 634 008 634 100.0 0.5 Moultrie 14387 011 12919 89.8 9.2 Moultrie 14387 013 1468 10.2 1.1 Mount Airy 604 050 9 1.5 0.0 Mount Airy 604 051 595 98.5 0.4 Mount Vernon 2082 020 2082 100.0 1.5 Mount Zion 1275 030 981 76.9 0.6 Mount Zion 1275 031 294 23.1 0.2 Mountain City 829 051 829 100.0 0.5 Mountain Park 506 021 10 2.0 0.0 Mountain Park 506 056 496 98.0 0.3 Nahunta 930 019 930 100.0 0.7 Nashville 4697 007 4697 100.0 3.4 Nelson 626 051 626 100.0 0.4 Newborn 520 017 520 100.0 0.3 Newington 322 004 322 100.0 0.2 Newnan 16242 028 6883 42.4 4.5 Newnan 16242 029 9359 57.6 6.5 Pelham 4126 011 4126 100.0 2.9 Pembroke 2379 004 2379 100.0 1.6 Pendergrass 431 049 431 100.0 0.3 Perry 9602 016 3 0.0 0.0 Perry 9602 018 9599 100.0 6.6 Pine Lake 621 041 621 100.0 0.4 Pine Lake 621 055 0 0.0 0.0 Pine Mountain 1141 029 1141 100.0 0.8 Pinehurst 307 013 307 100.0 0.2 Pine view 532 013 532 100.0 0.4 Pitts 308 013 308 100.0 0.2 Plains 637 014 637 100.0 0.5 Plainville 257 054 257 100.0 0.2 Pooler 6239 001 3814 61.1 2.6 Pooler 6239 002 2425 38.9 1.7 Port Wentworth 3276 002 3276 100.0 2.3 Portal 597 023 597 100.0 0.4 Porterdale 1281 017 32 2.5 0.0 Porterdale 1281 025 1249 97.5 0.8 Poulan 946 013 946 100.0 0.7 Powder Springs 12461 033 11913 95.4 8.6 Powder Springs 12481 037 568 4.6 0.4 Preston 453 014 453 100.0 0.3 Pulaski 261 023 261 100.0 0.2 Quitman 4638 008 4638 100.0 3.3 Ranger 85 054 85 100.0 0.1 Ray City 746 007 746 100.0 0.5 Rayle 139 047 139 100.0 0.1 Rebecca 246 013 246 100.0 0.2 Register 164 004 164 100.0 0.1 Reidsville 2235 004 2235 100.0 1.5 Remerton 847 008 847 100.0 0.6 Rentz 304 020 304 100.0 0.2 Resaca 815 054 815 100.0 0.5 Scotland 300 020 43 14.3 0.0 Screven 702 019 702 100.0 0.5 Senoia 1738 028 1738 100.0 1.1 Shady Dale 242 017 242 100.0 0.2 Sharon 105 047 105 100.0 0.1 Sharpsburg 316 028 316 100.0 0.2 Shellman 1166 012 1166 100.0 0.8 Shiloh 423 014 423 100.0 0.3 Siloam 331 025 331 100.0 0.2 Sky Valley 221 051 221 100.0 0.1 Smithville 774 014 774 100.0 0.6 Smyrna 40999 006 40705 99.3 29.3 Smyrna 40999 032 1 0.0 0.0 Smyrna 40999 033 293 0.7 0.2 Snellville 15351 009 10215 66.5 6.7 Snellville 15351 045 4572 29.8 3.0 Snellville 15351 055 564 3.7 0.4 Social Circle 3379 025 3379 100.0 2.3 Soperton 2824 020 2624 100.0 2.0 Sparks 1755 008 1755 100.0 1.3 Sparta 1522 025 1522 100.0 1.0 Springfield 1821 004 1621 100.0 1.2 St. Marys 13761 001 1144 8.3 0.8 St. Marys 13761 007 12617 91.7 9.0 Stapleton 318 023 318 100.0 0.2 Statesboro 22698 004 17608 77.6 12.0 Statesboro 22698 023 5090 22.4 3.7 Slatham 2040 046 2040 100.0 1.4 Stillmore 730 020 730 100.0 0.5 Stockbridge 9853 044 9853 100.0 6.8 Stone Mountain 7145 041 7145 100.0 4.8 Sugar Hill 11399 045 16 0.1 0.0 Sugar Hill 11399 048 11383 99.9 7.4 Summertown 140 023 140 100.0 0.1 Toomsboro 622 020 622 100.0 0.4 Trenton 1942 053 1942 100.0 1.3 Trion 1993 052 1993 100.0 1.3 Tunnel Hill 1209 053 1209 100.0 0.8 Turin 165 028 165 100.0 0.1 Twin City 1752 023 1752 100.0 1.3 Ty Ty 716 013 716 100.0 0.5 Tybee Island 3392 001 3392 100.0 2.3 Tyrone 3916 028 2592 66.2 1.7 Tyrone 3916 034 1324 33.S 0.9 Unadilla 2772 013 2772 100.0 2.0 Union City 11621 035 11621 100.0 8.1 Union Point 1669 047 1669 100.0 1.1 Uvalda 530 020 530 100.0 0.4 Valdosta 43724 008 43724 100.0 31.2 Vamell 1491 053 1491 100.0 1.0 Vernonburg 138 001 138 100.0 0.1 Vidalia 10491 019 129 1.2 0.1 Vidalia 10491 020 10362 98.8 7.5 Vidette 112 023 112 100.0 0.1 Vienna 2973 013 2973 100.0 2.1 Villa Rica 4134 030 3947 95.5 2.6 Villa Rica 4134 031 187 4.5 0.1 Waco 469 031 469 100.0 0.3 Wadley 2088 023 2088 100.0 1.5 Waleska 616 021 616 100.0 0.4 Walnut Grove 1241 017 1241 100.0 0.8 Walthourville 4030 003 4030 100.0 2.7 Warm Springs 485 014 485 100.0 0.3 Warner Robins 48804 016 9053 16.5 5.9 Warner Robins 46604 018 25242 51.7 17.3 Warner Robins 48804 026 14509 29.7 10.4 Warrenton 2013 047 2013 100.0 1.4 Warwick 430 013 430 100.0 0.3

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT C

Georgia Senate Districts: 2000 Client: State Plan: S2000 Type: Senate

DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION % DEVIATION BLACK % BLACK BLACK TOTAL %TOTAL HISP.OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO %HISP. 001 135,998 -10,189 -6.97% 23,811 17.51% 677 24,488 18.01% 3,430 2.52% VAP 102,781 15,999 15.57% 271 16,270 15.83% 2,328 2.27% 002 110,558 -35,629 -24.37% 71,704 64.86% 666 72,370 65.46% 2,353 2.13% VAP 81,038 48,728 60.13% 366 49,094 60.58% 1,723 2.13% 003 127,078 -19,109 -13.07% 50,375 39.64% 1,461 51,836 40.79% 7,610 5.99% VAP 88,494 32,569 36.80% 477 33,046 37.34% 4,902 5.54% 004 150,267 4,060 2.79% 41,883 27.87% 425 42,308 28.16% 4,525 3.01% VAP 111,827 29,566 26.44% 195 29,761 26.61% 3,091 2.76% 005 141,032 -5,155 -3.53% 23,531 16.68% 1,138 24,669 17.49% 19,669 l3.95% VAP 107,639 16,312 15. 15% 571 16,883 15.68% 13,927 12.94% 006 140,746 -5,441 -3.72% 21,801 15.49% 319 22,120 15.72% 5,380 3.82% VAP 103,992 14,782 14.21% 122 14,904 14.33% 3,438 3.31% 007 139,308 -6,879 -4.71% 32,318 23.20% 571 32,889 23.61% 4,142 2.97% VAP 99,970 21,467 21.47% 202 21,669 21.68% 2,608 2.61% 008 139,978 -6,209 -4.25% 46,311 33.08% 601 46,912 33.51% 3,543 2 53% VAP 103,139 31,102 30.16% 290 31,392 30.44% 2,398 2.33% 009 176,454 30,267 20.70% 23,980 13.59% 1,120 25,100 14.22% 12,672 7.18% VAP 125,004 15,517 12.41% 480 15,997 12.80% 8,365 6.69% 010 114,874 -31,313 -21.42% 84,662 73.70% 962 85,624 74.54% 2,765 2.41% VAP 84,776 59,335 69.99% 570 59,905 70.66% 1,991 2.35% 011 131,749 -14,438 -9.88% 54,620 41.46% 401 55,021 41.76% 4,284 3.25% VAP 95,024 35,997 37.88% 192 36,189 38.08% 2,721 2.86% 012 120,205 -25,982 -17.77% 71,526 59.50% 454 71,980 59.88% 1,729 1.44% VAP 87,505 48,287 55.18% 221 48,508 55.43% 1,176 1.34% 013 137,559 -8,628 -5.90% 43,735 31.79% 359 44,094 32.05% 8,060 5.86% VAP 99,871 28,534 28.57% 130 28,664 28.70% 5,375 5.38% 014 126,892 -19,295 -13.20% 55,167 43.48% 367 55,534 43.76% 3,086 2.43% VAP 91,525 37,907 41.42% 186 38,093 41.62% 2,027 2.21% 015 106,802 -39,385 -26.94% 68,792 64.41% 1,422 70,214 65.74% 6,803 6.37% VAP 75,931 46,533 61.28% 580 47,113 62.05% 4,741 6.24% 016 131,708 -14,479 -9.90% 28,199 21.41% 609 28,808 21.87% 3,875 2.94% VAP 98,691 19,454 19.71% 255 19,709 19.97% 2,615 2.65% 017 194,813 48,626 33.26% 30,203 15.50% 726 30,929 15.88% 3,984 2.05% VAP 139,273 20,498 14.72% 251 20,749 14.90% 2,512 1.80% 018 139,764 -6,423 -4.39% 35,459 25.37% 706 36,165 25.88% 3,905 2.79% VAP 101,129 23,655 23.39% 234 23,889 23.62% 2,609 2.58% 019 126,189 -19,998 -13.68% 33,129 26.25% 319 33,448 26.51% 6,298 4.99% VAP 91,896 22,281 24.25% 126 22,407 24.38% 4,053 4.41%

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT D

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT E

Special Master's Senate Plan: Narrative Description

1. Commencing in the northwest corner of the State of Georgia, District 53 contains Dade, Walker and Chattooga counties and a portion of Catoosa County. The District extends into Catoosa County to equalize the population of the District. The extension of the District into Catoosa County was done so as to respect the boundaries of the City of Ringgold by including the city in District 53. District 53 generally reflects the 2000 Senate Plan, but avoids splitting the cities of Dalton and Ringgold by dividing Catoosa County instead of Whitfield County.

2. District 51 includes the remainder of Catoosa County not in District 53, the entirety of Whitfield and Murray counties, and a portion of Gordon County. The decision to include portions of Gordon County in District 51 was governed by the need to equalize population; the boundaries are explained by the decision to respect the city boundaries of Resaca and Calhoun, which are both contained in their entirety in District 52, consistent with the treatment of those cities in the 2002 Senate Plan and the 2000 Senate Plan. The District enjoys a dramatic improvement in compactness over the former District 51, which stretched from Cherokee County all the way to the northeastern corner of the state.

3. District 52 contains the remainder of Gordon County not included in District 51, including the entirety of the cities of Resaca and Calhoun, all of Floyd County, and roughly one-half of Bartow County. The extension of the distinct into Bartow County was done to equalize population; the Bartow County boundaries are governed by the decision to respect the city boundaries of Cartersville and Emerson, which are both contained whole in District 31. District 52 sprawled across six counties in the 2002 Plan; it now is contained in only three.

4. District 49 lies on Georgia's northern boundary east of District 51. The district contains the entirety of Union, Fannin, Gilmer, Pickens, Dawson, and Lumpkin counties. The district also contains the majority of White County, except for a portion needed to bring District 50 (to the east) to ideal population size. As a result of the inclusion of a portion of White County in District 50, a small incursion into Forsyth County was necessary to bring District 49 within one percent deviation from the ideal district population.

5. District 50 contains the entirety of Towns, Rabun, Habersham, Stephens, Banks, Franklin, and Hart counties, forming nearly a perfect six county, ideally sized district. As mentioned in the description of District 49, a small incursion into White County was necessary to bring the population of District 50 to population equality. In terms of traditional districting principles, it is a dramatic improvement over District 50 in the 2002 Plan, which featured narrow protrusions into Hall and Lumpkin Counties, and a narrow land bridge through Habersham County.

6. District 46 contains all of Hall County, consistent with its treatment in the 2000 Senate Plan, and a sufficient portion of Jackson County to equalize the District's population. The district boundary line in Jackson County was designed to keep all of Talmo in District 46 and to keep together the Jackson County cities of Pendergrass, Jefferson, and Hoschton within adjacent District 47. District 46 is more compact than its predecessor, which stretched across eight counties and split the city of Gainesville.

7. District 47 contains the remainder of Jackson County not included in District 46, including the entireties of Pendergrass, Jefferson, and Hoschton cities. The district also includes all of Barrow County and most of Madison County. The exclusion of one voting district of Madison County was necessary to bring District 45 to equal population. To capture sufficient population to reach the ideal district size, District 47 includes portions of Walton and Elbert counties. District 47's boundary in Walton and Elbert Counties is governed primarily by the decision to respect the boundaries of the cities of Between, Monroe, and Good Hope (in Walton County) and the city of Bowman (in Elbert County) all of which are contained in the district in their entireties.

8. District 45 contains all of Oconee, Oglethorpe, and Clarke counties, and includes a small portion of Madison County necessary to bring it to equal population size. This District respects the consistent decision of the state legislature, as reflected in the 2000 and 2002 Senate Plans, to join Clarke and Oconee counties in one district.

9. District 24 runs along the eastern boundary of Georgia and contains the remainder of Elbert County not in District 47, including the entirety of the City of Elberton, and then moves south to include the entirety of Wilkes, Lincoln, Columbia, McDuffie, and Glascock counties. For contiguity purposes. District 24 also contains, as did the 2002 Senate Plan, a voting district of Warren County that forms most of the appendage that juts out to the southeast of the main body of Warren County and separates Glascock from McDuffie county. District 24 contains four of the five counties contained in former District 24 in the 2000 Senate Plan.

10. District 25 contains all of Taliaferro, Greene, Hancock, Baldwin, Putnam, Morgan, Jasper and Butts counties, the entirety of Warren County (except for the single voting district contained in District 24), and one-half of Jones County. The portion of Jones County included in District 25 is necessary for the district to approach ideal population. The Jones County boundary line is drawn to enable the small city of Gray to be entirely contained in District 18 to the south. The compactness and respect for county boundaries of District 25 in the present Plan stands in marked contrast to that of the 2002 Plan's District 25, which split five different counties in a spiral-like fashion.

11. District 22 contains the central Augusta area. Its border with District 23 is determined, in part, by the decision — reflected in both the 2002 Senate Plan and the 2000 Senate Plan — to have District 23 encircle Augusta to the South Carolina border.

12. District 23 contains the entirety of Richmond County not contained in District 22. The Richmond County boundary follows the general boundaries of the two prior districts; however, District 23 removes the intrusion into Columbia County found in the 2002 Senate Plan. The district also contains all of Washington, Jefferson, Burke, Jenkins, and Screven counties. In Emanuel County, the district takes territory up to, but does not include, Swainsboro, so as to keep Swainsboro entirely in District 4 and not split it, as was done by the 2002 Senate Plan. As a result, in order to approach equal population, District 23 contains a small portion of Wilkinson County, including the entirety of Ivey, but the boundary is drawn to locate Mclntyre and Gordon entirely in District 26.

13. District 4 contains the remainder of Emanuel County not in District 23, including all of Swainsboro, which was split in the 2002 Plan, and Twin City. The district includes all of Treutlen, Candler, Bulloch, Effingham, and Evans counties. In order to equalize population, the district extends south into Tatmall County. The Tattnall County boundary is drawn to keep Reidsville entirely within the district.

14. District 2 contains much of the city of Savannah and generally follows the boundaries of the comparable district in the 2002 Senate Plan and 2000 Senate Plan.

15. District 3 contains the remainder of Chatham County not in District 2, and contains all of Bryan County and most of Liberty County. In order to avoid entering any of the other surrounding counties (which are kept whole in this Plan), District 3 shares two cities in western Liberty County — Hinesville and Walthourville — with District 19.

16. District 1 in the southeast corner of the state contains five complete counties: McIntosh, Glynn, Camden, Brantley, and Charlton. By themselves, these five counties enable the district to attain a deviation of less than one percent. Of these counties, only Charlton was not split in the 2002 Senate Plan by District 1, which employed water contiguity to stretch across eight counties.

17. District 19 contains all of Long, Wayne, Appling, Jeff Davis, Wheeler, Montgomery, and Toombs counties, and includes portions of Tattnall and Liberty counties. The boundary through Tattnall County is drawn to keep the town of Glennville intact within District 19. The intrusions into Tattnall and Liberty counties result from the need to minimize population deviations in Districts 4 and 3 to the north and east, and also to provide sufficient population for District 19.

18. District 7 contains all of Coffee, Bacon, Pierce, Berrien, Atkinson, Ware, Lanier, Clinch, and Echols Counties, and divides Cook County with District 8 to approach the ideal population in the two districts. The Cook County boundary line is drawn to contain Sparks and Adel entirely in District 8, as was true in the 2002 Plan.

19. District 8 contains the remainder of Cook County not in District 7, including Sparks and Adel, all of Lowndes and Brooks counties, and a portion of Thomas County. The district conforms to the basic contours of the 2002 Senate Plan and 2000 Senate Plan by uniting Lowndes and Brooks counties; however, unlike the prior plans, Thomasville is contained within a single district by including it entirely in District 8.

20. District 11 contains all of Early, Miller, Seminole, Decatur, Grady, and Colquitt counties, the portion of Thomas County not contained in District 8, and divides Mitchell County with District 12. District 8 generally follows the boundaries of the 2002 Senate Plan, except with respect to containing all of Colquitt County for population purposes. In order to equalize the population of the district, it was necessary to include all of Colquitt County in the district. Unlike the two prior plans, the district avoids splitting Thomasville by excluding Thomasville from District 11.

21. District 13 contains all of Lee, Crisp, Worth, Turner, Ben Hill, Tift, and Irwin counties and a portion of Wilcox County. The District contains a portion of Wilcox County. Its boundary with District 20 in Wilcox County is drawn to keep Pitts, Rochelle, and Abbeville within District 20.

22. District 12 contains all of Quitman, Randolph, Terrell, Clay, Calhoun, Dougherty, and Baker counties, and the portion of Mitchell County not contained in District 11. The district remains generally the same as in the 2002 Senate Plan, but avoids splitting Lee County by including Quitman County for population purposes; Quitman County was similarly included in this district in the 2000 Senate Plan.

23. District 14 contains the entirety of Stewart, Webster, Marion, Talbot, Upson, Taylor, Schley, Sumter, Macon, Peach, and Dooly counties, and a portion of Crawford County to equalize population. The Crawford County boundary line with District 18 is drawn to keep Roberta entirely within District 8.

24. District 18 responds to the pressures from the choices made in the surrounding districts, including the decisions: (i) in Crawford County, to contain Roberta entirely in District 18; (ii) in Monroe County, to contain Forsyth entirely in District 16; (iii) in Jones County, to contain Gray entirely in District 18; (iv) in Bibb county, to contain Macon and Payne entirely in District 26; and (v) in Houston County, to contain Centerville and most of Warner Robins in District 18. As in the 2002 Senate Plan, Houston County is split into three districts. The strange configuration of Distinct 18, which is substantially more compact than the comparable district in the 2002 Senate Plan, is also produced by voting rights constraints relevant to the minority populations in Districts 14 and 26.

25. District 20 incorporates all of Pulaski, Bleckley, Laurens, Johnson, Dodge, and Telfair counties, the portion of Wilcox County not in District 13, and the portion of Houston not contained in Districts 18 or 26. The Houston County boundary line is drawn to contain the Houston portion of Perry entirely within District 20, while excluding Warner Robins to the extent possible given the city's unusual boundaries.

26. District 26 contains all of Twiggs County, most of Wilkinson County and reaches into Bibb County to include Macon. Similar to the 2002 Senate Plan, District 26 crosses into Houston County. In addition, the Wilkinson County boundary with District 23 is drawn to contain Gordon and Mclntyre entirely in District 26.

27. District 16 contains all of Pike and Lamar counties and portions of Fayette, Spalding, and Monroe counties. In Fayette County, the boundary line with District 34 is drawn to contain Fayetteville entirely within District 34 and Tyrone and Peachtree City within District 16. In Spalding County, the boundary line with District 17 is drawn to contain Griffin entirely within District 16. In Monroe County, the boundary line with District 18 is drawn to contain Forsyth entirely within District 16. The district is substantially more compact than in the 2002 Senate Plan, in which the district included no entire counties and portions of ten counties. As in the 2002 Senate Plan, Spalding County is split; however, unlike the 2002 Senate Plan, District 16 contains all of Griffin, which was split three ways in the 2002 Senate Plan. The location and configuration of District 16 is also a product of voting rights considerations in Districts 14, 25, and 34.

28. District 15 contains all of Chattahoochee County and incorporates as much of Muscogee County as necessary to approach ideal population. District 15 remains majority African American despite the fact that it was underpopulated by 4.6 percentage points under the 2002 Plan.

29. District 29 contains all of Harris and Meriwether counties, the remainder of Muscogee County not in District 15, and the southern portion of Troup County. The Troup County boundary with District 28 is drawn to contain LaGrange almost entirely in District 29 with the exception of the small portion of LaGrange located on the northern shore of West Point Lake. The present District 29 is a substantial improvement in compactness over District 29 in the 2002 Plan, which employed narrow land bridges and point contiguity to split twelve counties.

30. District 28 contains all of Heard and Coweta counties, the portion of Troup County not in District 29, and a portion of Carroll County. The Carroll County boundary line with District 30 is drawn to contain Carrollton entirely within District 28 and to contain Bowdon, Mount Zion, and Whitesburg entirely within District 30.

31. District 30 contains portions of Carroll, Douglas, and Paulding counties. In Carroll County, the boundary line with District 28 is drawn to contain Carroll ton entirely in District 28. In Douglas County, the boundary line with District 35 divides Douglasville to approach equal population and to respect the voting rights constraints in District 35. In Paulding County, the boundary line with District 31 is drawn to keep Hiram in District 30 and most of Dallas in District 31. Joining the western half of Carroll County with the eastern half of Douglas County allows Villa Rica to be contained in a single district, as was done in the 2000 Senate Plan but not in the 2002 Senate Plan.

32. District 31 contains all of Haralson and Polk counties, the portion of Paulding County not contained in District 30, and the southwest portion of Bartow County. The Paulding County boundary line with District 31 is drawn to contain Dallas in District 31 and Hiram in District 30. The Bartow County boundary line with District 52 is drawn to contain Cartersville and Emerson entirely within District 31 and to contain Euharlee entirely within District 52. District 31 is substantially more compact than in the 2002 Plan, in which the district also included portions of Carroll and Douglas counties and divided Paulding and Bartow counties with a third district (District 37).

METROPOLITAN ATLANTA DISTRICTS

33. The districts in Fulton and DeKalb Counties and those adjacent to them should be viewed as a whole. We attempt to respect the general pattern of districting as evidenced by the 2002 Senate Plan and the 2000 Senate Plan, while correcting for the general under-population of the districts in southern Atlanta. Commencing at the center, Districts 36, 38, and 39 retain an orientation and configuration present in the 2002 Senate Plan and the 2000 Senate Plan, Each is fully contained in Fulton County and each runs north to south. The new districts are substantially more compact by correcting for some of the touchpoint contiguity present in the 2002 Senate Plan and the intrusion of District 38 over the Cobb County line is removed. All these retain their status as majority-African American districts despite the fact that all were under-populated by nearly five percentage points in the 2002 Plan.

34. District 35 contains the southwestern section of Fulton County and the northeastern portion of Douglas County. In Fulton County, District 35 contains the portions of Fulton County south of Districts 36, 38, and 39, and entirely contains Union City and Fairburn, and almost the entire city of Palmetto; however, the city of Palmetto is split slightly because it crosses the Coweta/Fulton county line. As in the 2002 Senate Plan, the district includes the northeastern portion of Douglas County; however, unlike the 2002 Senate Plan, the district is more compact in its intrusion into Douglas County. In Douglas County, the boundary line with District 30 divides Douglasville to approach equal population.

35. Districts 40 and 42 have been modified to make them more compact, an effort that reflects the districts in the 2000 Senate Plan. District 40 is a relatively compact district on the eastern portion of DeKalb County, taking in much of the City of Atlanta. District 42 contains most of the northern portion of DeKalb County, but makes an intrusion into western Gwinnett County, which is similar to the east/west orientation of the 2000 Senate Plan. The 2002 Senate Plan created a north/south orientation for Districts 40 and 42, with District 42 reaching as far north as the outskirts of the town of Alpharetta and stretching south of Decatur.

36. District 10 contains the southwest corner of DeKalb County and extends southeast into Henry County, including McDonough. This configuration substantially reflects the 2002 Senate Plan, except that the district now does not split the city of McDonough.

37. Districts 34 and 44 are left relatively unmodified from the 2002 Senate Plan. District 34 includes portions of Fayette and Clayton Counties. District 34's boundary with District 16 respects the border of Fayette County (contained entirely in District 34) and those of Peachtree City and Tyrone (contained entirely within District 16). District 44 lies primarily in Clayton County but enters Henry County to take in most of Stockbridge.

38. Districts 6, 33, and 37 are all contained within Cobb County and follow the historic districting patterns of this area, as reflected by the 2002 Senate Plan and the 2000 Senate Plan. An effort was made to make each of the districts more compact and to respect county and city boundaries; thus, District 37 does not extend into Bartow and Paulding counties, as in the 2002 Senate Plan. The configurations of the districts within Cobb County are governed by the decision to keep Smyrna, which is one of the more strangely shaped cities in the state, together in District 6, a boundary that had generally been respected both in the 2002 Senate Plan and the 2000 Senate Plan.

39. District 32 is almost entirely contained in Cobb County, but crosses the Cobb-Fulton County border to the southeast, providing the northern boundary for District 38 and District 39. This configuration is similar to that in the 2002 Senate Plan; however, the boundary lines between these districts are redrawn to make them more compact.

40. District 54 contains the southern portion of Cherokee County and the northeast portion of Cobb County. The boundary line with District 27 is drawn to contain Woodstock within District 54 and Holly Springs within District 27. Although it retains the core of District 21 of the 2002 Senate Plan, District 54 is now substantially more compact and results in Cherokee County being contained in two districts, as opposed to three in the 2002 Senate Plan.

41. District 27 includes the northern portion of Cherokee County not contained in District 54 and almost all of Forsyth County, except for a small portion required by District 49 to approach ideal population size.

42. Districts 21 and 56 divide the entirety of the northeastern bulb of Fulton County. District 21 contains Roswell and Mountain Park, and adheres to the Fulton County border. District 56 contains most of Alpharetta and all of Duluth and Berkeley Lake.

43. District 48 is contained entirely within Gwinnett County, filling the northern and eastern portions of the county. The boundary line with District 56 is drawn to keep Suwanee entirely within District 48 and Duluth entirely in District 56. The boundary line with District 9 is drawn to keep Dacula and Grayson entirely in District 48 and Lawrenceville entirely in District 9.

44. Districts 5 and 9 are both contained entirely within Gwinnett County. The boundary line between the two districts is drawn to keep Lawrenceville entirely in District 9. The districts are made substantially more compact by removing the long tail found in District 5 in the 2002 Senate Plan, which bisected Lawrenceville. The boundary line between District 9 and District 48 is drawn to keep Lawrenceville entirely in District 9 and Dacula and Grayson entirely in District 48.

45. Districts 41 and 55 are similar in location and configuration to the same districts in the 2002 Senate Plan, except the southwesterly intrusion of District 41 is eliminated to make it more compact. As in the 2002 Senate Plan, the districts break the DeKalb and Gwinnett County border, together joining the center of DeKalb County with the southwestern portion of Gwinnett County. The districts respect the boundaries of Clarkston, Stone Mountain, and Pine Lake, which are all contained in District 41.

46. District 43 contains the southeastern portion of DeKalb County and the almost the entirety of Rockdale County, except for the small portion contained in District 17. District 43 substantially retains the configuration of the 2002 Senate Plan and continues to keep Conyers whole.

47. District 17 contains all of Newton County, the small portion of Rockdale County not contained in District 43, the southwestern portion of Walton County not contained in District 47, the southern portion of Henry County excluding McDonough, and the northwestern quarter of Spalding County not contained in District 16. The boundary with District 47 respects the borders of Loganville (to the Walton-Gwinnett county border), Between, Monroe, and Good Hope in District 47, and Walnut Grove, Jersey and Social Circle in District 17. The boundary line with District 10 respects the borders of McDonough. The boundary with District 16 respects the border with Griffin.

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT F

Plan Name: SENATE MARCH 12 Plan Type:

Administrator: User: Patrick Egan

Plan Components with Population Detail Report Saturday, March 13, 2004 2:15 PM

Total Population

District 001 County : Brantley County : Camden County : Charlton County : Glynn County : MeIntosh District 001 Subtotal District 002 County : Chatham (part) District 002 Subtotal District 003 County : Bryan County : Chatham (part) County : Liberty (part) District 003 Subtotal District 004 County : Bulloch County : Candler County : Effingham County : Emanuel (part) County : Evans Couaty : Tattoall (part) County : Treutlen District 004 Subtotal District 005 County : DeKalb (part) County : Gwinnett (part) District 005 Subtotal District 006 County : Cobb (part) District 006 Subtotal District 007 County : Atkinson County : Bacon County : Berrien District 007 County : Clinch County : Coffe County : Cook (part) County : Echols County : Lanier County : Pierce County : Ware District 007 Subtotal District 008 County : Brooks County : Cook (part) County : Lowndes County : Thomas (part) District 008 Subtotal District 009 County : Gwinnett (part) District 009 Subtotal District 010 County : DeKalb (part) County : Henry (part) District 010 Subtotal District 011 County : Colquitt County : Decatur County : Early County : Grady County : Miller County : Mitchell (part) County : Seminole County : Thomas (part) District 011 Subtotal District 012 County : Baker County : Calhoun County : Clay County : Dougherty County : Mitchell (part) County : Quitman County : Randolph County : Terrell District 012 Subtotal District 013 County : Ben Hill County : Crisp County : Irwin County : Lee County : Tift County : Turner County : Wilcox (part) County : Worth District 013 Subtotal District 014 County : Crawford (part) County : Dooly County : Macon County: Marion County : Peach County : Schley County : Stewart County : Sumter County : Talbot County : Taylor County : Upson County : Webster District 014 Subtotal District 015 County : Chattahoochee County : Muscogee (part) District 015 Subtotal District 016 County : Fayette (part) County : Lamar County : Monroe (part) County : Pike County : Spalding (part) District 016 Subtotal District 017 County : Henry (part) County : Newton County : Rockdale (part) County : Spalding (part) County : Walton (part) District 017 Subtotal District 018 County : Bibb (part) County : Crawford (part) County : Houston (part) County : Jones (part) County : Monroe (part) District 018 Subtotal District 019 County : Appling County : Jeff Davis County : Liberty (part) County : Long County : Montgomery County : Taftnall (part) County : Toombs County : Wayne County : Wheeler District 019 Subtotal District 020 County : Bleckley County : Dodge County : Houston (part) County : Johnson County : Laurens County : Pulaski County : Tetfair County : Wilcox (part) District 020 Subtotal County : Fulton (part) District 021 Subtotal District 012 County : Richmond (part) District 022 Subtotal District 023 County : Burke County : Emanuel (part) County : Jefferson County : Jenkins County : Richmond (part) County : Screven County : Washington County : Wilkinson (part) District 023 Subtotal District 024 County : Columbia County : Elbert (part) County : Glascock County : Lincoln County : McDuffie County : Warren (part) County : Wilkes District 024 Subtotal District 025 County : Baldwin County : Butts County : Greene County : Hancock County : Jasper County : Jones (part) County : Morgan County : Putnam County : Taliaferro County : Warren (part) District 025 Subtotal District 026 County : Bibb (part) County : Houston (part) County : Twiggs County : Wilkinson (part) District 026 Subtotal District 027 County : Cherokee (part) County : Forsyth (part) District 027 Subtotal District 028 County : Carroll (part) County : Coweta County : Heard County : Troup (part) District 028 Subtotal District 029 County : Harris County : Meriwether County : Muscogee (part) County : Troup (part) District 029 Subtotal District 030 County : Carroll (part) County : Douglas (part) County : Paulding (part) District 030 Subtotal District 031 County : Bartow (part) County : Haralson County : Paulding (part) County : Polk District 031 Subtotal District 032 County : Cobb (part) County : Fulton (part) District 032 Subtotal District 033 County : Cobb (part) District 033 Subtotal District 034 County : Clayton (part) County : Fayette (part) District 034 Subtotal District 035 County : Douglas (part) County : Fulton (part) District 035 Subtotal District 036 County : Fulton (part) District 036 Subtotal District 037 County : Cobb (part) District 037 Subtotal District 038 County : Fulton (part) District 038 Subtotal District 039 County : Fulton (part) District 039 Subtotal District 040 Couoty : DeKalb(part) District 040 Subtotal District 041 County : DeKalb (part) County : Gwin nett (part) District 041 Subtotal District 042 County : DeKalb (part) County : Gwinnett (part) District 042 Subtotal District 043 County : DeKalb (part) County : Rockdale (part) District 043 Subtotal District 044 County : Clayton (part) County : Henry (part) District 044 Subtotal District 045 County : Clarke County : Madison (part) County : Oconee County : Oglethorpe District 045 Subtotal District 040 County : Hall County : Jackson (part) District 046 Subtotal District 047 County : Barrow County : Elbert (part) County : Jackson (part) County : Madison (part) County : Walton (part) District 047 Subtotal District 048 County : Gwin nett (part) District 048 Subtotal District 049 County : Dawson County : Fannin County : Forsyth (part) County : Gilmer County : Lutnpkin County : Pickens County : Union County : White (part) District 049 Subtotal District 050 County : Banks County : Franklin County : Habersham County : Hart County : Rabun County : Stephens County : Towns County: White (part) District 050 Subtotal District 051 County : Catoosa (part) County : Cordon (part) County : Murray County : Whitfield District 051 Subtotal District 052 County : Bartow (part) County : Floyd County : Gordon (part) District 052 Subtotal County : Catoosa (part) County : Chattooga County : Dade County : Walker District 053 Subtotal District 054 County : Cherokee (part) County : Cobb (part) District 054 Subtotal County : DeKalb (part) County : Gwinnctt (part) District 055 Subtotal District 056 County : Fulton (part) County : Gwionett (part) District 056 Subtotal Total: 14,629 Voting Age: 10,484 Total: 43,664 Voting Age: 29,832 Total: 10,282 Voting Age: 7,456 Total: 67,568 Voting Age: 50,460 Total: 10,847 Voting Age: 7,805 Total: 146,990 Voting Age: 106,037 Total: 144,839 Voting Age: 107,237 Total: 144,839 Voting Age: 107,237 Total: 23,417 Voting Age: 16,128 Total: 87,209 Voting Age: 66,728 Total: 36,700 Voting Age: 25,924 Total: 147,326 Voting Age: 108,780 Total: 55,983 Voting Age: 43,503 Total: 9,577 Voting Age: 7,009 Total; 37,535 Voting Age: 26,301 Total: 17,214 Voting Age: 12,561 Total: 10,495 Voting Age: 7,611 Total: 9,839 Voting Age: 7,197 Total: 6,854 Voting Age: 5,073 Total: 147,497 Voting Age: 109,255 Total: 7,242 Voting Age: 5,717 Total: 139,855 Voting Age: 103,865 Total: 147,097 Voting Age: 109,582 Total: 147,527 Voting Age: 116,383 Total: 147,527 Voting Age: 116,383 Total: 7,609 Voting Age: 5,301 Total: 10,103 Voting Age: 7,455 Total: 16,235 Voting Age: 11,811 Total: 6,878 Voting Age: 4,962 Total: 37,413 Voting Age: 26,831 Total: 5,039 Voting Age: 3,696 Total: 3,754 Voting Age: 2,654 Total: 7,241 Voting Age: 5,258 Total: 15,636 Voting Age: 11,467 Total: 35,483 Voting Age: 26,679 Total: 145,391 Voting Age: 106,114 Total: 16,450 Voting Age: 12,025 Total: 10,732 Voting Age: 7,622 Total: 92,115 Voting Age: 67,981 Total: 28,159 Voting Age: 20,514 Total: 147,456 Voting Age: 108,142 Total: 145,454 Voting Age: 102,558 Total: 145,454 Voting Age: 102,558 Total: 89,062 Voting Age: 62,471 Total: 55,740 Voting Age: 39,456 — Total: 144,802 Voting Age: 101,927 Total: 42,053 Voting Age: 30,510 Total: 28,240 Voting Age: 20,178 Total: 12,354 Voting Age: 8,813 Total: 23,659 Voting Age: 17,206 Total: 6,383 Voting Age: 4,705 Total: 9,886 Voting Age: 7,017 Total: 9,369 Voting Age: 6,919 Total: 14,578 Voting Age: 10,622 Total: 146,522 Voting Age: 105,970 Total: 4,074 Voting Age: 2,961 Total: 6,320 Voting Age: 4,925 Total: 3,357 Voting Age: 2,493 Total: 96,065 Voting Age: 69,489 Total: 14,046 Voting Age: 10,375 Total: 2,598 Voting Age; 1,975 Total: 7,791 Voting Age: 5,662 Total: 10,970 Voting Age: 7,856 Total: 145,221 Voting Age: 105,736 Total: 17,484 Voting Age: 12,675 Total: 21,996 Voting Age: 15,618 Total: 9,931 Voting Age: 7,071 Total: 24,757 Voting Age: 17,168 Total: 38,407 Voting Age: 27,948 Total: 9,504 Voting Age: 6,707 Total: 2,070 Voting Age: 1,537 Total: 21,967 Voting Age: 15,683 Total: 146,116 Voting Age: 104,407 Total: 2,459 Voting Age: 1,707 Total: 11,525 Voting Age: 8,577 Total: 14,074 Voting Age: 10,187 Total: 7,144 Voting Age: 5,119 Total: 23,668 Voting Age: 17,505 Total: 3,766 Voting Age: 2,663 Total: 5,252 Voting Age: 3,945 Total: 33,200 Voting Age: 23,968 Total: 6,498 Voting Age: 4,928 Total: 8,815 Voting Age: 6,446 Total: 27,597 Voting Age: 20,565 Total: 2,390 Voting Age: 1,787 Total: 146,388 Voting Age: 107,397 Total: 14,882 Voting Age: 10,656 Total: 132,410 Voting Age: 96,228 Total: 147,292 Voting Age: 106,884 Total: 56,027 Voting Age: 38,735 Total: 15,912 Voting Age: 12,013 Total: 8,115 Voting Age: 6,041 Total: 13,688 Voting Age: 9,909 Total: 51,065 Voting Age: 37,090 Total: 144,807 Voting Age: 103,788 Total: 44,049 Voting Age: 31,002 Total: 62,001 Voting Age: 44,844 Total: 12,400 Voting Age: 8,766 Total: 7,352 Voting Age: 5,395 Total: 19,675 Voting Age: 14,135 Total: 145,477 Voting Age: 104,142 Total: 42,943 Voting Age: 32,008 Total: 10,036 Voting Age: 7,340 Total: 61,629 Voting Age: 44,380 Total: 19,339 Voting Age: 14,058 Total: 13,642 Voting Age: 10,003 Total: 147,589 Voting Age: 107,789 Total: 17,419 Voting Age: 12,690 Total: 12,684 Voting Age: 9,230 Total: 24,910 Voting Age: 15,992 Total: 10,304 Voting Age: 6,893 Total: 8,270 Voting Age: 6,199 Total: 12,466 Voting Age: 10,000 Total: 26,067 Voting Age: 18,624 Total: 26,565 Voting Age: 19,674 Total: 6,179 Voting Age: 4,796 Total: 144,864 Voting Age: 104,098 Total: 11,666 Voting Age: 8,565 Total: 19,171 Voting Age: 14,192 Total: 32,728 Voting Age: 23,654 Total: 8,560 Voting Age: 5,981 Total: 44,874 Voting Age: 32,829 Total: 9,588 Voting Age: 7,372 Total: 11,794 Voting Age: 9,141 Total: 6,507 Voting Age: 5,087 Total: 144,888 Voting Age: 106,821 Total: 145,253 Voting Age: 110,874 Total: 145,253 Voting Age: 110,874 Total: 145,646 Voting Age: 105,315 Total: 145,646 Voting Age: 105,315 Total: 22,243 Voting Age: 15,289 Total: 4,623 Voting Age: 3,201 Total: 17,266 Voting Age: 12,363 Total: 8,575 Voting Age: 6,132 Total: 54,129 Voting Age: 40,852 Total: 15,374 Voting Age: 11,083 Total: 21,176 Voting Age: 15,472 Total: 2,084 Voting Age: 1,529 Total: 145,470 Voting Age: 105,921 Total: 89,288 Voting Age: 62,858 Total: 15,091 Voting Age: 11,170 Total: 2,556 Voting Age: 1,947 Total: 8,348 Voting Age: 6,311 Total: 21,231 Voting Age: 15,315 Total: 203 Voting Age: 158 Total: 10,687 Voting Age: 8,126 Total: 147,404 Voting Age: 105,885 Total: 44,700 Voting Age: 34,979 Total: 19,522 Voting Age: 14,823 Total: 14,406 Voting Age: 10,792 Total: 10,076 Voting Age: 7,651 Total: 11,426 Voting Age: 8,317 Total: 4,300 Voting Age: 3,170 Total: 15,457 Voting Age: 11,351 Total: 18,812 Voting Age: 14,444 Total: 2,077 Voting Age: 1,577 Total: 6,133 Voting Age: 4,508 Total: 146,909 Voting Age: 111,612 Total: 110,944 Voting Age: 80,999 Total: 16,408 Voting Age: 11,515 Total: 10,590 Voting Age: 7,731 Total: 8,136 Voting Age: 5,908 Total: 146,078 Voting Age: 106,153 Total: 53,387 Voting Age: 39,385 Total: 91,469 Voting Age: 65,727 Total: 144,856 Voting Age: 105,112 Total: 34,922 Voting Age: 26,808 Total: 89,215 Voting Age: 63,573 Total: 11,012 Voting Age: 7,848 Total: 12,427 Voting Age: 8,956 Total: 147,576 Voting Age: 107,185 Total: 23,695 Voting Age: 17,630 Total: 22,534 Voting Age: 16,536 Total: 53,881 Voting Age: 40,061 Total: 46,352 Voting Age: 33,450 Total: 146,462 Voting Age: 107,677 Total: 52,346 Voting Age: 37,830 Total: 46,954 Voting Age: 33,880 Total: 46,145 Voting Age: 31,567 Total: 145,445 Voting Age: 103,277 Total: 48,124 Voting Age: 35,098 Total: 25,690 Voting Age: 18,992 Total: 35,533 Voting Age: 25,032 Total: 38,127 Voting Age: 28,190 Total: 147,474 Voting Age: 107,312 Total: 110,166 Voting Age: 82,197 Total: 34,924 Voting Age: 29,055 Total: 145,090 Voting Age: 111,252 Total: 147,449 Voting Age: 108,424 Total: 147,449 Voting Age: 108,424 Total: 109,673 Voting Age: 75,234 Total: 35,236 Voting Age: 25,974 Total: 144,909 Voting Age: 101,208 Total: 45,220 Voting Age: 32,859 Total: 101,528 Voting Age: 72,868 Total: 146,748 Voting Age: 105,727 Total: 146,788 Voting Age: 111,867 Total: 146,788 Voting Age: 111,867 Total: 144,905 Voting Age: 102,289 Total: 144,905 Voting Age: 102,289 Total: 146,608 Voting Age: 108,335 Total: 146,608 Voting Age: 108,335 Total: 145,567 Voting Age: 118,713 Total: 145,567 Voting Age: 118,713 Total: 146,262 Voting Age: 118,416 Total: 146,262 Voting Age: 118,416 Total: 107,667 Voting Age: 81,028 Total: 38,336 Voting Age: 28,831 Total: 146,003 Voting Age: 109,859 Total: 126,462 Voting Age: 102,272 Total: 20,231 Voting Age: 14,517 Total: 146,693 Voting Age: 116,789 Total: 88,731 Voting Age: 61,293 Total: 57,711 Voting Age: 42,057 Total: 146,442 Voting Age: 103,350 Total: 126,844 Voting Age: 90,362 Total: 19,552 Voting Age: 14,022 Total: 146,396 Voting Age: 104,384 Total: 101,489 Voting Age: 83,381 Total: 5,127 Voting Age: 3,741 Total: 26,225 Votbg Age: 18,294 Total: 12,635 Voting Age: 9,377 Total: 145,476 Voting Age: 114,793 Total: 139,277 Voting Age: 101,760 Total: 7,639 Voting Age: 5,450 Total: 146,916 Voting Age: 107,210 Total: 46,144 Voting Age: 33,019 Total: 5,420 Voting Age: 4,039 Total: 33,950 Voting Age: 25,068 Total: 20,603 Voting Age: 15,225 Total: 41,012 Voting Age: 29,329 Total: 147,129 Voting Age: 106,680 Total: 147,443 Voting Age: 101,970 Total: 147,443 Voting Age: 101,970 Total: 15,999 Voting Age: 11,991 Total: 19,798 Voting Age: 15,654 Total: 6,938 Voting Age: 5,214 Total: 23,456 Voting Age: 17,753 Total: 21,016 Voting Age: 15,914 Total: 22,983 Voting Age: 17,570 Total: 17,289 Voting Age: 13,830 Total: 17,850 Voting Age: 13,674 Total : 145,329 Voting Age: 111,600 Total: 14,422 Voting Age: 10,646 Total: 20,285 Voting Age: 15,431 Total: 35,902 Voting Age: 27,471 Total: 22,997 Voting Age: 17,595 Total: 15,050 Voting Age: 11,764 Total: 25,435 Voting Age: 19,468 Total: 9,319 Voting Age: 7,802 Total: 2,094 Voting Age: 1,648 Total: 145,504 Voting Age: 111,825 Total: 8,625 Voting Age: 6,309 Total: 17,416 Voting Age: 12,609 Total: 36,506 Voting Age: 26,302 Total: 83,525 Voting Age: 60,691 Total: 146,072 Voting Age: 105,911 Total: 27,895 Voting Age: 19,722 Total: 90,565 Voting Age: 68,329 Total: 26,688 Voting Age: 19,997 Total: 145,148 Voting Age: 108,048 Total: 44,657 Voting Age: 33,217 Total: 25,470 Voting Age: 19,636 Total: 15,154 Voting Age: 11,541 Total: 61,053 Voting Age: 45,937 Total: 146,334 Voting Age: 110,331 Total: 88,516 Voting Age: 62,408 Total: 57,704 Voting Age: 40,052 Total: 146,220 Voting Age: 102,460 Total: 100,439 Voting Age: 70,690 Total: 45,481 Voting Age: 32,302 Total: 145,920 Voting Age: 102,992 Total: 95,338 Voting Age: 65,004 Total: 51,648 Voting Age: 38,412 Total: 146,986 Voting Age: 103,416

CITY POPULATION AS COMPONENT OF GEORGIA SENATE DISTRICTS

SENATE Total City City Name City Population in Percent of City in Percent of District # Population District District District in City 001 15600 Brunswick 15600 100.0 10.6 001 1719 Darien 1719 100.0 1.2 001 2178 Folkston 2178 100.0 1.5 001 463 Hoboken 463 100.0 0.3 001 765 Homeland 765 100.0 0.5 001 10506 Kingsland 10506 100.0 7.1 001 930 Nahunta 930 100.0 0.6 001 13761 St. Marys 13761 100.0 9.4 001 1216 Woodbine 1218 100.0 0.8 002 11289 Garden City 11277 99.9 7.8 002 6239 Pooler 117 1.9 0.1 002 3276 Port Wentworth 3276 100.0 2.3 002 131510 Savannah 117512 89.4 81.1 002 2340 Thunderbolt 2340 100.0 1.6 003 2665 Bloomingdale 2665 100.0 1.8 003 369 Flemington 369 100.0 0.3 003 11289 Garden City 12 0.1 0.0 003 30392 Hinesville 13301 43.8 9.0 003 1100 Midway 1100 100.0 0.7 003 2379 Pembroke 2379 100.0 1.6 003 6239 Pooler 6122 98.1 4.2 003 736 Riceboro 736 100.0 0.5 003 6959 Richmond Hill 6959 100.0 4.7 003 131510 Savannah 13998 10.6 9.5 003 3392 Tybee Island 3392 100.0 2.3 003 138 Vernonburg 138 100.0 0.1 003 4030 Walthourville 5 0.1 0.0 004 579 Adrian 267 46.1 0.2 004 130 Bellville 130 100.0 0.1 004 1113 Brooklet 1113 100.0 0.8 004 2276 Claxton 2276 100.0 1.5 004 311 Cobbtown 311 100.0 0.2 004 528 Collins 528 100.0 0.4 004 126 Daisy 126 100.0 0.1 004 917 Guyton 917 100.0 0.6 004 898 Hagan 898 100.0 0.6 004 100 Manassas 100 100.0 0.1 004 3879 Metter 3879 100.0 2.6 004 131 Nunez 131 100.0 0.1 004 366 Oak Park 366 100.0 0.2 004 597 Portal 597 100.0 0.4 004 261 Pulaski 261 100.0 0.2 004 164 Register 164 100.0 0.1 004 2235 Reidsville 2235 100.0 1.5 004 4376 Rincon 4376 100.0 3.0 004 2824 Soperton 2824 100.0 1.9 004 1821 Springfield 1821 100.0 1.2 004 22698 Statesboro 22698 100.0 15.4 004 730 Stillmore 730 100.0 0.5 004 6943 Swainsboro 6943 100.0 4.7 004 1752 Twin City 1752 100.0 1.2 005 11307 Lilburn 5 0.0 0.0 005 8410 Norcross 8406 100.0 5.7 006 58748 Marietta 15962 27.2 10.8 006 40999 Smyrna 40999 100.0 27.8 007 5307 Adel 0 0.0 0.0 007 682 Alaparta 682 100.0 0.5 007 3236 Alma 3236 100.0 2.2 007 320 Ambrose 320 100.0 0.2 007 151 Argyle 151 100.0 0.1 007 3283 Blackshear 3283 100.0 2.3 007 1428 Broxton 1428 100.0 1.0 007 10639 Douglas 10639 100.0 7.3 007 139 Du Pont 139 100.0 0.1 007 869 Enigma 869 100.0 0.6 007 380 Fargo 380 100.0 0.3 007 2803 Homerville 2803 100.0 1.9 007 2730 Lakeland 2730 100.0 1.9 007 889 Lenox 889 100.0 0.6 007 4697 Nashville 4697 100.0 3.2 007 1008 Nicholls 1008 100.0 0.7 007 403 Offerman 403 100.0 0.3 007 627 Patterson 627 100.0 0.4 007 1805 Pearson 1805 100.0 1.2 007 746 Ray City 746 100.0 0.5 007 1755 Sparks 4 0.2 0.0 007 15333 Waycross 15333 100.0 10.5 007 1434 WilIacoochea 1434 100.0 1.0 008 5307 Adel 5307 100.0 3.6 008 444 Barwick 444 100.0 0.3 008 1417 Boston 1417 100.0 1.0 008 265 Cecil 265 100.0 0.2 008 834 Dasher 834 100.0 0.6 008 1626 Hahira 1626 100.0 1.1 008 549 Lake Park 549 100.0 0.4 008 634 Morven 634 100.0 0.4 008 711 Pavo 293 41.2 0.2 008 4638 Quitman 4638 100.0 3.1 008 847 Remerton 847 100.0 0.6 008 1755 Sparks 1751 99.8 1.2 008 18162 Thomasvilie 18162 100.0 12.3 008 43724 Valdosta 43724 100.0 29.7 009 765 Grayson 765 100.0 0.5 009 22397 Lawrenceville 22397 100.0 15.4 009 11307 Lilbum 0 0.0 0.0 009 5435 Loganville 1285 23.6 0.9 009 15351 Snellville 15351 100.0 10.6 010 416474 Atlanta 3957 1.0 2.7 010 8493 McDonough 8493 100.0 5.9 010 9853 Stockbridge 195 2.0 0.1 011 1602 Arlington 441 27.5 0.3 011 492 Attapulgus 492 100.0 0.3 011 11722 Bainbridgs 11722 100.0 8.0 011 595 Berlin 595 100.0 0.4 011 5696 Blakely 5696 100.0 3.9 011 225 Brinson 225 100.0 0.2 011 9239 Cairo 9239 100.0 6.3 011 297 Climax 297 100.0 0.2 011 1939 Colquitt 1939 100.0 1.3 011 552 Coolidge 552 100.0 0.4 011 277 Damascus 277 100.0 0.2 011 828 Doerun 828 100.0 0.6 011 2796 Donalsonville 2796 100.0 1.9 011 336 Ellenton 336 100.0 0.2 011 426 Funston 426 100.0 0.3 011 321 Iron City 321 100.0 0.2 011 157 Jakin 157 100.0 0.1 011 1090 Meigs 1090 100.0 0.7 011 14387 Moultrie 14387 100.0 9.8 011 849 Norman Park 849 100.0 0.6 011 605 Ochlocknea 605 100.0 0.4 011 1340 Omega 1 0.1 0.0 011 711 Pavo 418 58.8 0.3 011 4126 Pelham 4126 100.0 2.8 011 57 Riverside 57 100.0 0.0 011 319 Sale City 319 100.0 0.2 011 631 Whigham 631 100.0 0.4 012 76939 Albany 76939 100.0 53.0 012 1602 Arlington 1161 72.5 0.8 012 804 Baconton 804 100.0 0.6 012 118 Bluffton 118 100.0 0.1 012 513 Bronwood 513 100.0 0.4 012 5669 Camilla 5669 100.0 3.9 012 149 Coleman 149 100.0 0.1 012 3731 Cuthbert 3731 100.0 2.6 012 5058 Dawson 5058 100.0 3.5 012 1340 Edison 1340 100.0 0.9 012 1110 Fort Gaines 1110 100.0 0.8 012 973 Georgetown 973 100.0 0.7 012 666 Leary 666 100.0 0.5 012 1464 Morgan 1464 100.0 1.0 012 851 Newton 851 100.0 0.6 012 156 Parrott 156 100.0 0.1 012 393 Sasser 393 100.0 0.3 012 1166 Shellman 1166 100.0 0.8 013 456 Arabi 456 100.0 0.3 013 4419 Ashbum 4419 100.0 3.0 013 11608 Cordele 11608 100.0 7.9 013 8758 Fitzgerald 8758 100.0 6.0 013 2633 Leesburg 2633 100.0 1.8 013 3270 Ocilla 3270 100.0 2.2 013 1340 Omega 1339 99.9 0.9 013 946 Poulan 946 100.0 0.6 013 246 Rebecca 246 100.0 0.2 013 1415 Rochelle 14 1.0 0.0 013 774 Smithville 774 100.0 0.5 013 309 Sumner 309 100.0 0.2 013 496 Sycamore 496 100.0 0.3 013 5990 Sylvester 5990 100.0 4.1 013 15060 Tifton 15060 100.0 10.3 013 716 Ty Ty 716 100.0 0.5 013 430 Warwick 430 100.0 0.3 014 17013 Americus 17013 100.0 11.6 014 331 Andersonville 331 100.0 0.2 014 1664 Buena Vista 1664 100.0 1.1 014 1907 Butler 1907 100.0 1.3 014 415 Byromville 415 100.0 0.3 014 2887 Byron 2887 100.0 2.0 014 214 De Solo 214 100.0 0.1 014 163 Pooling 163 100.0 0.1 014 1609 Ellaville 1609 100.0 1.1 014 8005 Fort Valley 8005 100.0 5.5 014 114 Geneva 114 100.0 0.1 014 518 Ideal 518 100.0 0.4 014 179 Junction City 179 100.0 0.1 014 455 Leslie 455 100.0 0.3 014 221 Lilly 221 100.0 0.2 014 1369 Lumpkin 1369 100.0 0.9 014 3988 Manchester 93 2.3 0.1 014 1335 Marshallville 1335 100.0 0.9 014 3999 Montezuma 3999 100.0 2.7 014 1200 Oglethorpe 1200 100.0 0.8 014 9602 Perry 3 0.0 0.0 014 307 Pinehurst 307 100.0 0.2 014 637 Plains 637 100.0 0.4 014 453 Preston 453 100.0 0.3 014 1036 Reynolds 1036 100.0 0.7 014 1794 Richland 1794 100.0 1.2 014 1019 Talbotton 1019 100.0 0.7 014 9411 Thomaston 9411 100.0 6.4 014 2772 Unadilla 2772 100.0 1.9 014 2973 Vienna 2973 100.0 2.0 014 48804 Warner Robins 17 0.0 0.0 014 75 Weston 75 100.0 0.1 014 432 Woodland 432 100.0 0.3 014 408 Yatesville 408 100.0 0.3 015 510 Bibb City 510 100.0 0.3 015 185781 Columbus city (bal 131900 71.0 89.6 015 1196 Cusseta 1196 100.0 0.8 016 98 Aldora 98 100.0 0.1 016 5972 Bamesville 5972 100.0 4.1 016 553 Brooks 553 100.0 0.4 016 336 Concord 336 100.0 0.2 016 3776 Forsyth 3776 100.0 2.6 016 23451 Griffin 23451 100.0 16.2 016 192 Meansville 192 100.0 0.1 016 522 Milnar 522 100.0 0.4 016 475 Molena 475 100.0 0.3 016 230 Orchard Hill 230 100.0 0.2 016 31580 Peachtree City 31580 100.0 21.8 016 142 Sunny Side 142 100.0 0.1 016 3916 Tyrone 3916 100.0 2.7 016 297 Williamson 297 100.0 0.2 016 175 Woolsey 175 100.0 0.1 016 1181 Zebulon 1181 100.0 0.8 017 11547 Covington 11547 100.0 7.9 017 3857 Hampton 3857 100.0 2.7 017 163 Jersey 163 100.0 0.1 017 2322 Locust Grove 2322 100.0 1.6 017 392 Mansfield 392 100.0 0.3 017 520 Newborn 520 100.0 0.4 017 1892 Oxford 1892 100.0 1.3 017 1281 Porterdale 1281 100.0 0.9 017 3379 Social Circle 3379 100.0 2.3 017 1241 Walnut Grove 1241 100.0 0.9 018 4273 Canterville 4278 100.0 2.9 018 223 Culloden 223 100.0 0.2 018 3776 Forsyth 0 0.0 0.0 018 1611 Gray 1811 100.0 1.2 018 97255 Macon 479 0.5 0.3 018 808 Roberta 808 100.0 0.5 018 48804 Warner Robins 36476 74.7 24.7 019 394 Ailey 394 100.0 0.3 019 1943 Alamo 1943 100.0 1.3 019 788 Allenhurst 788 100.0 0.5 019 159 Alston 159 100.0 0.1 019 4150 Baxley 4150 100.0 2.9 019 269 Denton 269 100.0 0.2 019 3641 Glennville 3641 100.0 2.5 019 884 Glen wood 884 100.0 0.6 019 312 Graham 312 100.0 0.2 019 273 Gumbranch 273 100.0 0.2 019 3787 Hazlehurst 3787 100.0 2.6 019 2307 Helena 0 0.0 0.0 019 316 Higgston 316 100.0 0.2 019 30392 Hinesvills 17091 56.2 11.8 019 9279 Jesup 9279 100.0 6.4 019 1440 Ludowici 1440 100.0 1.0 019 4169 Lyons 4169 100.0 2.9 019 2062 Mount Vernon 2082 100.0 1.4 019 414 Odum 414 100.0 0.3 019 237 Santa Claus 237 100.0 0.2 019 300 Scotland 43 14.3 0.0 019 702 Screven 702 100.0 0.5 019 237 Surrency 237 100.0 0.2 019 100 Tarrytown 100 100.0 0.1 019 530 Uvalda 530 100.0 0.4 019 10491 Vidalia 10491 100.0 7.2 019 4030 Walthourville 4025 99.9 2.8 020 2298 Abbeville 2293 100.0 1.6 020 579 Adrian 312 53.9 0.2 020 287 Allentown 3 1.0 0.0 020 329 Cadwell 329 100.0 0.2 020 295 Chauncey 295 100.0 0.2 020 305 Chester 305 100.0 0.2 020 4455 Cochran 4455 100.0 3.1 020 509 Dexter 509 100.0 0.4 020 15857 Dublin 15857 100.0 10.9 020 447 Dudley 447 100.0 0.3 020 2484 East Dublin 2484 100.0 1.7 020 5440 Eastman 5440 100.0 3.8 020 3280 Hawkinsville 3280 100.0 2.3 020 2307 Helena 2307 100.0 1.6 020 118 Jacksonville 118 100.0 0.1 020 241 Kite 241 100.0 0.2 020 1247 Lumber City 1247 100.0 0.9 020 2682 McRae 2682 100.0 1.9 020 1012 Milan 1012 100.0 0.7 020 154 Montrose 154 100.0 0.1 020 9602 Perry 9599 100.0 6.6 020 532 Pineview 532 100.0 0.4 020 308 Pitts 308 100.0 0.2 020 304 Rentz 304 100.0 0.2 020 422 Rhine 422 100.0 0.3 020 1415 Rochelle 1401 99.0 1.0 020 300 Scotland 257 65.7 0.2 020 48804 Warner Robins 771 1.6 0.5 020 2223 Wrightsville 2223 100.0 1.5 021 34854 Alpharetta 10231 29.4 7.0 021 506 Mountain Park 496 96.0 0.3 021 79334 Roswell 79334 100.0 54.6 022 195182 Augusta-Richmon 145646 74.6 100.0 023 195182 Augusta-Richmon 49536 25.4 34.1 023 217 Avara 217 100.0 0.1 023 223 Bartow 223 100.0 0.2 023 718 Blythe 718 100.0 0.5 023 1544 Davisboro 1544 100.0 1.1 023 132 Deepstep 132 100.0 0.1 023 152 Garfield 152 100.0 0.1 023 227 Girard 227 100.0 0.2 023 509 Harrison 509 100.0 0.3 023 3880 Hephzibah 3880 100.0 2.7 023 421 Hiltonia 421 100.0 0.3 023 1100 Ivey 1100 100.0 0.8 023 180 Keysville 180 100.0 0.1 023 2712 Louisville 2712 100.0 1.9 023 457 Midville 457 100.0 0.3 023 3492 Millen 3492 100.0 2.4 023 322 Newington 322 100.0 0.2 023 280 Oconee 280 100.0 0.2 023 253 Oliver 253 100.0 0.2 023 124 Riddleville 124 100.0 0.1 023 186 Rocky Ford 186 100.0 0.1 023 6144 Sandersville 6144 100.0 4.2 023 1171 Sardis 1171 100.0 0.8 023 318 Stapleton 318 100.0 0.2 023 140 Summertown 140 100.0 0.1 023 2675 Sylvania 2675 100.0 1.8 023 1505 Tennille 1505 100.0 1.0 023 112 Videtta 112 100.0 0.1 023 2088 Wadley 2088 100.0 1.4 023 5813 Waynesboro 5813 100.0 4.0 023 2314 Wrens 2314 100.0 1.6 024 441 Dearing 441 100.0 0.3 024 30 Edge Hill 30 100.0 0.0 024 4743 Elberton 4743 100.0 3.2 024 694 Gibson 694 100.0 0.5 024 6089 Grovetown 6089 100.0 4.1 024 1814 Harlem 1814 100.0 1.2 024 1595 Lincolnton 1595 100.0 1.1 024 173 Mitchell 173 100.0 0.1 024 139 Rayle 139 100.0 0.1 024 6828 Thomson 6828 100.0 4.6 024 653 Tignall 653 100.0 0.4 024 4295 Washington 4295 100.0 2.9 025 322 Bostwick 322 100.0 0.2 025 205 Buckhead 205 100.0 0.1 025 165 Camak 165 100.0 0.1 025 572 Crawfordvllle 572 100.0 0.4 025 6764 Eatonton 6764 100.0 4.6 025 652 Flovilla 652 100.0 0.4 025 1811 Gray 0 0.0 0.0 025 3238 Greensboro 3238 100.0 2.2 025 3934 Jackson 3934 100.0 2.7 025 203 Jenkinsburg 203 100.0 0.1 025 3636 Madison 3636 100.0 2.5 025 18757 Milledgeville 18757 100.0 12.8 025 2426 Monticello 2428 100.0 1.7 025 299 Norwood 299 100.0 0.2 025 707 Rutledge 707 100.0 0.5 025 242 Shady Dale 242 100.0 0.2 025 105 Sharon 105 100.0 0.1 025 331 Siloam 331 100.0 0.2 025 1522 Sparta 1522 100.0 1.0 025 1669 Union Point 1669 100.0 1.1 025 2013 Warrenton 2013 100.0 1.4 025 283 White Plains 283 100.0 0.2 025 400 Woodville 400 100.0 0.3 026 287 Allentown 284 99.0 0.2 026 373 Danville 373 100.0 0.3 026 2152 Gordon 2152 100.0 1.5 026 587 Irwinton 587 100.0 0.4 026 1209 Jeffersonville 1209 100.0 0.8 026 97255 Macon 96776 99.5 66.2 026 718 Mclntyre 718 100.0 0.5 026 178 Payne 178 100.0 0.1 026 622 Toomsboro 622 100.0 0.4 026 48804 Warner Robins 11540 23.6 7.9 027 730 Ball Ground 730 100.0 0.5 027 7709 Canton 7709 100.0 5.3 027 4220 dimming 4220 100.0 2.9 027 3195 Holly Springs 3195 100.0 2.2 027 626 Nelson 287 45.8 0.2 027 616 Waleska 616 100.0 0.4 028 19843 Carrollton 19843 100.0 13.4 028 383 Centralhatchee 383 100.0 0.3 028 213 Corinth 213 100.0 0.1 028 388 Ephesus 388 100.0 0.3 028 902 Franklin 902 100.0 0.6 028 1309 Grantville 1309 100.0 0.9 028 144 Haralson 144 100.0 0.1 028 2774 Hogansville 2774 100.0 1.9 028 25998 LaGrange 140 0.5 0.1 028 393 Moreland 393 100.0 0.3 028 16242 Newnan 16242 100.0 11.0 028 3400 Palmetto 327 9.6 0.2 028 177 Roopville 177 100.0 0.1 028 1738 Senoia 1738 100.0 1.2 028 316 Sharpsburg 316 100.0 0.2 028 165 Turin 165 100.0 0.1 029 185781 Columbus city (bal 53881 29.0 36.8 029 149 Gay 149 100.0 0.1 029 946 Greenville 946 100.0 0.6 029 307 Hamilton 307 100.0 0.2 029 144 Haralson 0 0.0 0.0 029 25998 LaGrange 25858 99.5 17.7 029 104 Lone Oak 104 100.0 0.1 029 783 Luthersville 783 100.0 0.5 029 3988 Manchester 3895 97.7 2.7 029 1141 Pine Mountain 1141 100.0 0.8 029 423 Shiloh 423 100.0 0.3 029 485 Warm Springs 485 100.0 0.3 029 709 Waverly Hall 709 100.0 0.5 029 3382 West Point 3382 100.0 2.3 029 1184 Woodbury 1184 100.0 0.8 030 1959 Bowdon 1959 100.0 1.3 030 4579 Bremen 27 0.6 0.0 030 19843 Carrollton 0 0.0 0.0 030 5056 Dallas 7 0.1 0.0 030 20065 Douglasville 7306 36.4 5.0 030 1361 Hiram 1361 100.0 0.9 030 1275 Mount Zion 1275 100.0 0.9 030 2383 Temple 2383 100.0 1.6 030 4134 Villa Rica 4134 100.0 2.8 030 596 Whites burg 596 100.0 0.4 031 1039 Aragon 1039 100.0 0.7 031 80 Braswell 80 100.0 0.1 031 4579 Bremen 4552 99.4 3.1 031 941 Buchanan 941 100.0 0.6 031 15925 Cartersville 15925 100.0 10.8 031 9470 Cedartown 9470 100.0 6.4 031 5056 Dallas 5049 99.9 3.4 031 1092 Emerson 1092 100.0 0.7 031 3870 Rockmart 3870 100.0 2.6 031 2789 Tallapoosa 2789 100.0 1.9 031 229 Taylorsvllle 44 19.2 0.0 031 2383 Temple 0 0.0 0.0 031 469 Waco 469 100.0 0.3 032 58748 Marietta 0 0.0 0.0 033 5359 Austell 5230 97.6 3.5 033 58748 Marietta 38844 66.1 26.3 033 12481 Powder Springs 12481 100.0 8.5 034 20382 College Park 1572 7.7 1.1 034 11148 Fayetteville 11148 100.0 7.7 034 12478 Riverdale 12478 100.0 8.6 035 416474 Atlanta 2063 0.5 1.4 035 5359 Austell 129 2.4 0.1 035 20382 College Park 18810 92.3 12.8 035 20065 Douglasville 12759 63.6 8.7 035 39595 East Point 6130 15.5 4.2 035 5464 Fairbum 5464 100.0 3.7 035 6180 Hapeville 6180 100.0 4.2 035 2072 Lithia Springs 2072 100.0 1.4 035 3400 Palmetto 3073 90.4 2.1 035 11621 Union City 11621 100.0 7.9 036 416474 Atlanta 146788 35.2 100.0 036 39595 East Point 0 0.0 0.0 037 13422 Acworth 13422 100.0 9.3 037 21675 Kennesaw 21675 100.0 15.0 037 58748 Marietta 3942 6.7 2.7 038 416474 Atlanta 125759 30.2 85.8 039 416474 Atlanta 112089 26.9 77.0 039 20382 College Park 0 0.0 0.0 039 39595 East Point 33465 84.5 23.0 040 416474 Atlanta 25818 6.2 17.7 040 2609 Avondate Estates 0 0.0 0.0 040 18147 Decatur 18147 100.0 12.4 041 7231 Clarkston 7231 100.0 5.0 041 11307 Lilbum 11302 100.0 7.7 041 621 Pine Lake 621 100.0 0.4 041 7145 Stone Mountain 7145 100.0 4.9 042 9552 Chamblee 9552 100.0 6.5 042 9862 Doraville 9862 100.0 6.7 043 10689 Conyers 10689 100.0 7.3 043 2187 Lithonia 2187 100.0 1.5 044 21447 Forest Park 21447 100.0 14.6 044 3829 Jonesboro 3829 100.0 2.6 044 2886 Lake City 2886 100.0 2.0 044 2495 Lovejoy 2495 100.0 1.7 044 4882 Morrow 4882 100.0 3.3 044 9853 Stockbridge 9658 98.0 6.6 045 312 Amoldsville 312 100.0 0.2 045 100266 Athens-Clarke Co 100266 100.0 68.9 045 146 Bishop 146 100.0 0.1 045 1049 Bogart 1086 103.5 0.7 045 807 Crawford 807 100.0 0.6 045 160 Hull 160 100.0 0.1 045 239 Lexington 239 100.0 0.2 045 210 Maxeys 210 100.0 0.1 045 439 North High Shoals 439 100.0 0.3 045 2097 Watkinsville 2097 100.0 1.4 045 1068 Winterville 1068 100.0 0.7 046 1206 Braselton 23 1.9 0.0 046 10668 Buford 102 1.0 0.1 046 419 Clermont 419 100.0 0.3 046 1806 Flowery Branch 1806 100.0 1.2 046 25578 Gainesville 25578 100.0 17.4 046 195 Gillsville 167 85.6 0.1 046 1438 Lula 1354 94.2 0.9 046 1247 Maysville 575 46.1 0.4 046 2689 Oakwood 2689 100.0 1.8 046 151 Rest Haven 38 25.2 0.0 046 477 Talmo 477 100.0 0.3 047 1643 Arcade 1643 100.0 1.1 047 6904 Auburn 6610 95.7 4.5 047 716 Bethlehem 716 100.0 0.5 047 148 Between 148 100.0 0.1 047 898 Bowman 898 100.0 0.6 047 1206 Braselton 943 78.2 0.6 047 205 Carl 205 100.0 0.1 047 233 Carlton 233 100.0 0.2 047 488 Colbert 488 100.0 0.3 047 1052 Comer 1052 100.0 0.7 047 5292 Commerce 5292 100.0 3.6 047 457 Danielsville 457 100.0 0.3 047 210 Good Hope 210 100.0 0.1 047 1070 Hoschton 1070 100.0 0.7 047 328 Ha 328 100.0 0.2 047 3825 Jefferson 3825 100.0 2.6 047 5435 Loganville 4150 76.4 2.8 047 11407 Monroe 11407 100.0 7.8 047 1247 Nicholson 1247 100.0 0.8 047 431 Pendergrass 431 100.0 0.3 047 2493 Royston 0 0.0 0.0 047 2040 Statham 2040 100.0 1.4 047 10201 Winder 10201 100.0 6.9 048 6904 Auburn 294 4.3 0.2 048 1206 Braselton 240 19.9 0.2 048 10668 Buford 10566 99.0 7.2 048 3848 Dacula 3848 100.0 2.6 048 22397 Lawrenceville 0 0.0 0.0 048 151 Rest Haven 113 74.8 0.1 048 11399 Sugar Hill 11399 100.0 7.7 048 8725 Suwanee 8725 100.0 5.9 049 659 Blairsville 659 100.0 0.5 049 1210 Blue Ridge 1210 100.0 0.8 049 1907 Cleveland 1907 100.0 1.3 049 3638 Dahlonega 3638 100.0 2.5 049 619 Dawsonville 619 100.0 0.4 049 707 East Ellijay 707 100.0 0.5 049 1584 Ellijay 1584 100.0 1.1 049 430 Helen 430 100.0 0.3 049 2167 Jasper 2167 100.0 1.5 049 1071 McCaysville 1071 100.0 0.7 049 299 Morganton 299 100.0 0.2 049 626 Nelson 339 54.2 0.2 049 49 Talking Rock 49 100.0 0.0 050 876 Alto 876 100.0 0.6 050 278 Avalon 278 100.0 0.2 050 2425 Baldwin 2425 100.0 1.7 050 334 Bowersville 334 100.0 0.2 050 755 Canon 755 100.0 0.5 050 541 Camesville 541 100.0 0.4 050 1248 Clarkesville 1248 100.0 0.9 050 2019 Clayton 2019 100.0 1.4 050 3674 Cornelia 3674 100.0 2.5 050 1465 Demorest 1465 100.0 1.0 050 198 Dillard 198 100.0 0.1 050 762 Franklin Springs 762 100.0 0.5 050 195 Gillsville 28 14.4 0.0 050 4188 Hartwetl 4188 100.0 2.9 050 808 Hiawassee 808 100.0 0.6 050 950 Homer 950 100.0 0.7 050 1827 Lavonia 1827 100.0 1.3 050 1438 Lula 84 5.8 0.1 050 311 Martin 311 100.0 0.2 050 1247 Maysville 672 53.9 0.5 050 604 Mount Airy 604 100.0 0.4 050 829 Mountain City 829 100.0 0.6 050 2493 Royston 2493 100.0 1.7 050 221 Sky Valley 221 100.0 0.2 050 164 Tallulah Falls 164 100.0 0.1 050 316 Tiger 316 100.0 0.2 050 9323 Toccoa 9323 100.0 6.4 050 604 Young Harris 604 100.0 0.4 051 3531 Chats worth 3531 100.0 2.4 051 582 Cohutta 582 100.0 0.4 051 27912 Dalton 27912 100.0 19.1 051 319 Eton 319 100.0 0.2 051 745 Fairmount 745 100.0 0.5 051 85 Ranger 85 100.0 0.1 051 2422 Ringgold 2 0.1 0.0 051 1209 Tunnel Hill 1209 100.0 0.8 051 1491 Varnell 1491 100.0 1.0 052 2542 Adairsville 2542 100.0 1.8 SENATE Total City City Name City Population Percent of City Percent of District # Population in District in District District in City 052 10667 Calhoun 10667 100.0 7.3 052 975 Cave Spring 975 100.0 0.7 052 3208 Euharlee 3208 100.0 2.2 052 659 Kingston 659 100.0 0.5 052 257 Plainville 257 100.0 0.2 052 815 Resaca 815 100.0 0.6 052 34980 Rome 34980 100.0 24.1 052 229 Taylorsville 185 80.8 0.1 052 693 White 693 100.0 0.5 053 2245 Chickamauga 2245 100.0 1.5 053 6940 Fort Oglethorpe 6940 100.0 4.7 053 6702 La Fayette 6702 100.0 4.6 053 1617 Lookout Mountain 1617 100.0 1.1 053 488 Lyerly 488 100.0 0.3 053 485 Mento 485 100.0 0.3 053 2422 Ringgold 2420 99.9 1.7 053 3511 Rossville 3511 100.0 2.4 053 4556 Summerville 4556 100.0 3.1 053 1942 Trenton 1942 100.0 1.3 053 1993 Trion 1993 100.0 1.4 054 3195 Holly Springs 0 0.0 0.0 054 506 Mountain Park 10 2.0 0.0 054 10050 Woodstock 10050 100.0 6.9 055 2609 Avondale Estates 2609 100.0 1.8 055 621 Pine Lake 0 0.0 0.0 056 34854 Alpharetta 24623 70.6 16.8 056 1695 Berkeley Lake 1695 100.0 1.2 056 22122 Duluth 22122 100.0 15.1 056 8410 Norcross 4 0.0 0.0 CITY POPULATION AS COMPONENT OF GEORGIA SENATE DISTRICTS City Name Total City SENATE City Population Percent of City Percent of Population District # in District in District District in City Abbeville 2298 020 2298 100.0 1.6 Acworth 13422 037 13422 100.0 9.3 Adairsville 2542 052 2542 100.0 1.8 Adel 5307 007 0 0.0 0.0 Adel 5307 008 5307 100.0 3.6 Adrian 579 004 267 46.1 0.2 Adrian 579 020 312 53.9 0.2 Ailey 394 019 394 100.0 0.3 Alamo 1943 019 1943 100.0 1.3 Alapaha 682 007 682 100.0 0.5 Albany 76939 012 76939 100.0 53.0 Aldora 98 016 98 100.0 0.1 Allenhurst 788 019 788 100.0 0.5 Allentown 287 020 3 1.0 0.0 Allentown 287 026 284 99.0 0.2 Alma 3236 007 3236 100.0 2.2 Alpharetta 34854 021 10231 29.4 7.0 Alpharetta 34854 056 24623 70.6 16.8 Alston 159 019 159 100.0 0.1 Alto 876 050 876 100.0 0.6 Ambrose 320 007 320 100.0 0.2 Americus 17013 014 17013 100.0 11.6 Andersonville 331 014 331 100.0 0.2 Arabi 456 013 456 100.0 0.3 Aragon 1039 031 1039 100.0 0.7 Arcade 1643 047 1643 100.0 1.1 Argyle 151 007 151 100.0 0.1 Arlington 1602 011 441 27.5 0.3 Arlington 1602 012 1161 72.5 0.8 Arnoldsville 312 045 312 100.0 0.2 Ashburn 4419 013 4419 100.0 3.0 Athens-Clarke Co 100266 045 100266 100.0 68.9 Atlanta 416474 010 3957 1.0 2.7 Atlanta 416474 035 2063 0.5 1.4 Atlanta 416474 036 146788 35.2 100.0 Atlanta 416474 038 125759 30.2 85.8 Atlanta 416474 039 112089 26.9 77.0 Atlanta 416474 040 25818 6.2 17.7 Attapulgus 492 011 492 100.0 0.3 Auburn 6904 047 6610 95.7 4.5 Auburn 6904 048 294 4.3 0.2 Augusta-Richmon 195182 022 145646 74.6 100.0 Augusta-Richmon 195182 023 49536 25.4 34.1 Austell 5359 033 5230 97.6 3.5 Austell 5359 035 129 2.4 0.1 Avalon 278 050 278 100.0 0.2 Avera 217 023 217 100.0 0.1 Avondale Estates 2609 040 0 0.0 0.0 Avondale Estates 2609 055 2609 100.0 1.8 Baconton 804 012 804 100.0 0.6 Bainbridge 11722 011 11722 100.0 8.0 Baldwin 2425 050 2425 100.0 1.7 Ball Ground 730 027 730 100.0 0.5 Bamesville 5972 016 5972 100.0 4.1 Bartow 223 023 223 100.0 0.2 Barwick 444 008 444 100.0 0.3 Baxley 4150 019 4150 100.0 2.9 Bellville 130 004 130 100.0 0.1 Berkeley Lake 1695 056 1695 100.0 1.2 Berlin 595 011 595 100.0 0.4 Bethlehem 716 047 716 100.0 0.5 Between 148 047 148 100.0 0.1 Bibb City 510 015 510 100.0 0.3 Bishop 146 045 146 100.0 0.1 Blacks hear 3283 007 3283 100.0 2.3 Blairsville 659 049 659 100.0 0.5 Blakely 5696 011 5696 100.0 3.9 Bloomingdale 2665 003 2665 100.0 1.8 Blue Ridge 1210 049 1210 100.0 0.8 Bluffton 118 012 118 100.0 0.1 Blythe 718 023 718 100.0 0.5 Bogart 1049 045 1086 103.5 0.7 Boston 1417 008 1417 100.0 1.0 Bostwick 322 025 322 100.0 0.2 Bowdon 1959 030 1959 100.0 1.3 Bowersville 334 050 334 100.0 0.2 Bowman 898 047 898 100.0 0.6 Braselton 1206 046 23 1.9 0.0 Braselton 1206 047 943 78.2 0.6 Braselton 1206 048 240 19.9 0.2 Braswell 80 031 80 100.0 0.1 Bremen 4579 030 27 0.6 0.0 Bremen 4579 031 4552 99.4 3.1 Brinson 225 011 225 100.0 0.2 Bronwood 513 012 513 100.0 0.4 Brooklet 1113 004 1113 100.0 0.8 Brooks 553 016 553 100.0 0.4 Broxton 1428 007 1428 100.0 1.0 Brunswick 15600 001 15600 100.0 10.6 Buchanan 941 031 941 100.0 0.6 Buckhead 205 025 205 100.0 0.1 Buena Vista 1664 014 1664 100.0 1.1 Buford 10668 046 102 1.0 0.1 Buford 10668 048 10566 99.0 7.2 Butler 1907 014 1907 100.0 1.3 Byromville 415 014 415 100.0 0.3 Byron 2887 014 2887 100.0 2.0 Cadwell 329 020 329 100.0 0.2 Cairo 9239 011 9239 100.0 6.3 Calhoun 10667 052 10667 100.0 7.3 Camak 165 025 165 100.0 0.1 Camilla 5669 012 5669 100.0 3.9 Canon 755 050 755 100.0 0.5 Canton 7709 027 7709 100.0 5.3 Carl 205 047 205 100.0 0.1 Carlton 233 047 233 100.0 0.2 Camesville 541 050 541 100.0 0.4 Carrollton 19843 028 19843 100.0 13.4 Carrollton 19843 030 0 0.0 0.0 Cartersvilla 15925 031 15925 100.0 10.8 Cave Spring 975 052 975 100.0 0.7 Cecil 265 008 265 100.0 0.2 Cedartown 9470 031 9470 100.0 6.4 Centerville 4278 018 4278 100.0 2.9 Centralhatchee 383 028 383 100.0 0.3 Chamblee 9552 042 9552 100.0 6.5 Chatsworth 3531 051 3531 100.0 2.4 Chauncey 295 020 295 100.0 0.2 Chester 305 020 305 100.0 0.2 Chickamauga 2245 053 2245 100.0 1.5 Clarkesville 1248 050 1248 100.0 0.9 Clarkston 7231 041 7231 100.0 5.0 Claxton 2276 004 2276 100.0 1.5 Clayton 2019 050 2019 100.0 1.4 Clenmont 419 046 419 100.0 0.3 Cleveland 1907 049 1907 100.0 1.3 Climax 297 011 297 100.0 0.2 Cobbtown 311 004 311 100.0 0.2 Cochran 4455 020 4455 100.0 3.1 Cohutta 582 051 532 100.0 0.4 Colbert 488 047 488 100.0 0.3 Coleman 149 012 149 100.0 0.1 College Park 20382 034 1572 7.7 1.1 College Park 20382 035 18810 92.3 12.8 College Park 20382 039 0 0.0 0.0 Collins 528 004 528 100.0 0.4 Colquitt 1939 011 1939 100.0 1.3 Columbus city (bal 185781 015 131900 71.0 89.6 Columbus city (bal 185781 029 53881 29.0 36.8 Comer 1052 047 1052 100.0 0.7 Commerce 5292 047 5292 100.0 3.6 Concord 336 016 336 100.0 0.2 Conyers 10689 043 10689 100.0 7.3 Coolidge 552 011 552 100.0 0.4 Cordele 11608 013 11608 100.0 7.9 Corinth 213 028 213 100.0 0.1 Cornelia 3674 050 3674 100.0 2.5 Covington 11547 017 11547 100.0 7.9 Crawford 807 045 807 100.0 0.6 Crawford villa 572 025 572 100.0 0.4 Culloden 223 018 223 100.0 0.2 Cumming 4220 027 4220 100.0 2.9 Cusseta 1196 015 1196 100.0 0.8 Cuthbert 3731 012 3731 100.0 2.6 Dacula 3848 048 3848 100.0 2.6 Dahlonega 3638 049 3638 100.0 2.5 Daisy 126 004 126 100.0 0.1 Dallas 5056 030 7 0.1 0.0 Dallas 5056 031 5049 99.9 3.4 Dalton 27912 051 27912 100.0 19.1 Damascus 277 011 277 100.0 0.2 Danielsville 457 047 457 100.0 0.3 Danville 373 026 373 100.0 0.3 Darien 1719 001 1719 100.0 1.2 Dasher 834 008 834 100.0 0.6 Davisboro 1544 023 1544 100.0 1.1 Dawson 5058 012 5058 100.0 3.5 Dawsonville 619 049 619 100.0 0.4 De Soto 214 014 214 100.0 0.1 Dearing 441 024 441 100.0 0.3 Decatur 18147 040 18147 100.0 12.4 Deepstep 132 023 132 100.0 0.1 Demorest 1465 050 1465 100.0 1.0 Denton 269 019 269 100.0 0.2 Dexter 509 020 509 100.0 0.4 Dillard 198 050 198 100.0 0.1 Doerun 828 011 828 100.0 0.6 Donalsonville 2796 011 2796 100.0 1.9 Dooling 163 014 163 100.0 0.1 Doraville 9662 042 9862 100.0 6.7 Douglas 10639 007 10639 100.0 7.3 Douglas ville 20065 030 7306 36.4 5.0 Douglasville 20065 035 12759 63.6 8.7 Du Pont 139 007 139 100.0 0.1 Dublin 15857 020 15857 100.0 10.9 Dudley 447 020 447 100.0 0.3 Duluth 22122 056 22122 100.0 15.1 East Dublin 2484 020 2484 100.0 1.7 East Ellijay 707 049 707 100.0 0.5 East Point 39595 035 6130 15.5 4.2 East Point 39595 036 0 0.0 0.0 East Point 39595 039 33465 84.5 23.0 Eastman 5440 020 5440 100.0 3.8 Eatonton 6764 025 6764 100.0 4.6 Edge Hill 30 024 30 100.0 0.0 Edison 1340 012 1340 100.0 0.9 Elberton 4743 024 4743 100.0 3.2 Ellaviile 1609 014 1609 100.0 1.1 Ellenton 336 011 336 100.0 0.2 Ellijay 1584 049 1584 100.0 1.1 Emerson 1092 031 1092 100.0 0.7 Enigma 869 007 869 100.0 0.6 Ephesus 388 028 388 100.0 0.3 Eton 319 051 319 100.0 0.2 Euharlee 3208 052 3208 100.0 2.2 Fairbum 5464 035 5464 100.0 3.7 Fairmount 745 051 745 100.0 0.5 Fargo 380 007 380 100.0 0.3 Fayetteville 11148 034 11148 100.0 7.7 Fitzgerald 8758 013 8758 100.0 6.0 Flemington 369 003 369 100.0 0.3 Flovilla 652 025 652 100.0 0.4 Flowery Branch 1806 046 1806 100.0 1.2 Folks ton 2178 001 2178 100.0 1.5 Forest Park 21447 044 21447 100.0 14.6 Forsyth 3776 016 3776 100.0 2.6 Forsyth 3776 018 0 0.0 0.0 Fort Gaines 1110 012 1110 100.0 0.8 Fort Oglethorpe 6940 053 6940 100.0 4.7 Fort Valley 8005 014 8005 100.0 5.5 Franklin 902 028 902 100.0 0.6 Franklin Springs 762 050 762 100.0 0.5 Funston 426 011 426 100.0 0.3 Gainesville 25578 046 25578 100.0 17.4 Garden City 11289 002 11277 99.9 7.8 Garden City 11289 003 12 0.1 0.0 Garfield 152 023 152 100.0 0.1 Gay 149 029 149 100.0 0.1 Geneva 114 014 114 100.0 0.1 Georgetown 973 012 973 100.0 0.7 Gibson 694 024 694 100.0 0.5 Gillsville 195 046 167 85.6 0.1 Gillsville 195 050 28 14.4 0.0 Girard 227 023 227 100.0 0.2 Glennville 3641 019 3641 100.0 2.5 Glenwood 884 019 884 100.0 0.6 Good Hope 210 047 210 100.0 0.1 Gordon 2152 026 2152 100.0 1.5 Graham 312 019 312 100.0 0.2 Grantville 1309 028 1309 100.0 0.9 Gray 1811 018 1811 100.0 1.2 Gray 1811 025 0 0.0 0.0 Grayson 765 009 765 100.0 0.5 Greensboro 3238 025 3238 100.0 2.2 Greenville 946 029 946 100.0 0.6 Griffin 23451 016 23451 100.0 16.2 Grovetown 6089 024 6089 100.0 4.1 Gumbranch 273 019 273 100.0 0.2 Guyton 917 004 917 100.0 0.6 Hagan 898 004 898 100.0 0.6 Hahira 1626 008 1626 100.0 1.1 Hamilton 307 029 307 100.0 0.2 Hampton 3857 017 3857 100.0 2.7 Hapeville 6180 035 6180 100.0 4.2 Haralson 144 026 144 100.0 0.1 Haralson 144 029 0 0.0 0.0 Harlem 1814 024 1814 100.0 1.2 Harrison 509 023 509 100.0 0.3 Hartwell 4188 050 4188 100.0 2.9 Hawkinsville 3280 020 3280 100.0 2.3 Hazlehurst 3787 019 3787 100.0 2.6 Helen 430 049 430 100.0 0.3 Helena 2307 019 0 0.0 0.0 Helena 2307 020 2307 100.0 1.6 Hephzibah 3880 023 3880 100.0 2.7 Hiawassee 808 050 808 100.0 0.6 Higgston 316 019 316 100.0 0.2 Hiltonia 421 023 421 100.0 0.3 Hinesville 30392 003 13301 43.8 9.0 Hinesville 30392 019 17091 56.2 11.8 Hiram 1361 030 1361 100.0 0.9 Hoboken 463 001 463 100.0 0.3 Hogansville 2774 028 2774 100.0 1.9 Holly Springs 3195 027 3195 100.0 2.2 Holly Springs 3195 054 0 0.0 0.0 Homeland 765 001 765 100.0 0.5 Homer 950 050 950 100.0 0.7 Homerville 2803 007 2803 100.0 1.9 Hoschton 1070 047 1070 100.0 0.7 Hull 160 045 160 100.0 0.1 Ideal 518 014 518 100.0 0.4 lla 328 047 328 100.0 0.2 Iron City 321 011 321 100.0 0.2 Irwinton 587 026 587 100.0 0.4 Ivey 1100 023 1100 100.0 0.8 Jackson 3934 025 3934 100.0 2.7 Jacksonvllle 118 020 118 100.0 0.1 Jakin 157 011 157 100.0 0.1 Jasper 2167 049 2167 100.0 1.5 Jefferson 3825 047 3825 100.0 2.6 Jeffereonville 1209 026 1209 100.0 0.8 Jenkinsburg 203 025 203 100.0 0.1 Jersey 163 017 163 100.0 0.1 Jesup 9279 019 9279 100.0 6.4 Jonesboro 3829 044 3829 100.0 2.6 Junction City 179 014 179 100.0 0.1 Kennesaw 21675 037 21675 100.0 15.0 Keysville 180 023 180 100.0 0.1 Kingsland 10506 001 10506 100.0 7.1 Kingston 659 052 659 100.0 0.5 Kite 241 020 241 100.0 0.2 La Fayette 6702 053 6702 100.0 4.6 LaG range 25998 028 140 0.5 0.1 La Grange 25998 029 25858 99.5 17.7 Lake City 2866 044 2886 100.0 2.0 Lake Park 549 008 549 100.0 0.4 Lakeland 2730 007 2730 100.0 1.9 Lavonia 1827 050 1827 100.0 1.3 Lawrenceville 22397 009 22397 100.0 15.4 Lawrenceville 22397 048 0 0.0 0.0 Leary 666 012 666 100.0 0.5 Leesburg 2633 013 2633 100.0 1.8 Lenox 889 007 889 100.0 0.6 Leslie 455 014 455 100.0 0.3 Lexington 239 045 239 100.0 0.2 Lilbum 11307 005 5 0.0 0.0 Lilbum 11307 009 0 0.0 0.0 Lilbum 11307 041 11302 100.0 7.7 Lilly 221 014 221 100.0 0.2 Lincolnton 1595 024 1595 100.0 1.1 Lithia Springs 2072 035 2072 100.0 1.4 Lithonia 2187 043 2187 100.0 1.5 Locust Grove 2322 017 2322 100.0 1.6 Loganville 5435 009 1285 23.6 0.9 Loganville 5435 047 4150 76.4 2.8 Lone Oak 104 029 104 100.0 0.1 Lookout Mountain 1617 053 1617 100.0 1.1 Louisville 2712 023 2712 100.0 1.9 Lovejoy 2495 044 2495 100.0 1.7 Ludowici 1440 019 1440 100.0 1.0 Lula 1438 046 1354 94.2 0.9 Lula 1438 050 84 5.8 0.1 Lumber City 1247 020 1247 100.0 0.9 Lumpkin 1369 014 1369 100.0 0.9 Luthersville 783 029 783 100.0 0.5 Lyerly 488 053 488 100.0 0.3 Lyons 4169 019 4169 100.0 2.9 Macon 97255 018 479 0.5 0.3 Macon 97255 026 96776 99.5 66.2 Madison 3636 025 3636 100.0 2.5 Manassas 100 004 100 100.0 0.1 Manchester 3988 014 93 2.3 0.1 Manchester 3988 029 3895 97.7 2.7 Mansfield 392 017 392 100.0 0.3 Marietta 58748 006 15962 27.2 10.8 Marietta 58748 032 0 0.0 0.0 Marietta 58748 033 38844 66.1 26.3 Marietta 58748 037 3942 6.7 2.7 Marshallville 1335 014 1335 100.0 0.9 Martin 311 050 311 100.0 0.2 Maxeys 210 045 210 100.0 0.1 Maysville 1247 046 575 46.1 0.4 Maysville 1247 050 672 53.9 0.5 McCaysville 1071 049 1071 100.0 0.7 McDonough 8493 010 8493 100.0 5.9 Mclntyre 718 026 718 100.0 0.5 McRae 2682 020 2682 100.0 1.9 Meansville 192 016 192 100.0 0.1 Meigs 1090 011 1090 100.0 0.7 Menlo 485 053 485 100.0 0.3 Metter 3879 004 3879 100.0 2.6 Midvilla 457 023 457 100.0 0.3 Midway 1100 003 1100 100.0 0.7 Milan 1012 020 1012 100.0 0.7 Milledgeville 18757 025 18757 100.0 12.8 Millen 3492 023 3492 100.0 2.4 Milner 522 016 522 100.0 0.4 Mitchell 173 024 173 100.0 0.1 Molena 475 016 475 100.0 0.3 Monroe 11407 047 11407 100.0 7.8 Montezuma 3999 014 3999 100.0 2.7 Monticello 2428 025 2428 100.0 1.7 Montrose 154 020 154 100.0 0.1 Moreland 393 028 393 100.0 0.3 Morgan 1464 012 1464 100.0 1.0 Morganton 299 049 299 100.0 0.2 Morrow 4882 044 4882 100.0 3.3 Morven 634 008 634 100.0 0.4 Moultrie 14387 011 14387 100.0 9.8 Mount Airy 604 050 604 100.0 0.4 Mount Vemon 2082 019 2082 100.0 1.4 Mount Zion 1275 030 1275 100.0 0.9 Mountain City 829 050 829 100.0 0.6 Mountain Park 506 021 496 98.0 0.3 Mountain Park 506 054 10 2.0 0.0 Nahunta 930 001 930 100.0 0.6 Nashville 4697 007 4697 100.0 3.2 Nelson 626 027 287 45.8 0.2 Nelson 626 049 339 54.2 0.2 Newborn 520 017 520 100.0 0.4 Newington 322 023 322 100.0 0.2 Newnan 16242 028 16242 100.0 11.0 Newton 851 012 851 100.0 0.6 Nicholls 1008 007 1008 100.0 0.7 Nicholson 1247 047 1247 100.0 0.8 Norcross 8410 005 8406 100.0 5.7 Norcross 8410 056 4 0.0 0.0 Norman Park 849 011 849 100.0 0.6 North High Shoals 439 045 439 100.0 0.3 Norwood 299 025 299 100.0 0.2 Nunez 131 004 131 100.0 0.1 Oak Park 366 004 366 100.0 0.2 Oakwood 2689 046 2689 100.0 1.8 Ochlocknee 605 011 605 100.0 0.4 Ocilla 3270 013 3270 100.0 2.2 Oconee 280 023 280 100.0 0.2 Odum 414 019 414 100.0 0.3 Offerman 403 007 403 100.0 0.3 Oglethorpe 1200 014 1200 100.0 0.8 Oliver 253 023 253 100.0 0.2 Omega 1340 011 1 0.1 0.0 Omega 1340 013 1339 99.9 0.9 Orchard Hill 230 016 230 100.0 0.2 Oxford 1892 017 1892 100.0 1.3 Palmetto 3400 028 327 9.6 0.2 Palmetto 3400 035 3073 90.4 2.1 Parrott 156 012 156 100.0 0.1 Patterson 627 007 627 100.0 0.4 Pavo 711 008 293 41.2 0.2 Pavo 711 011 418 58.B 0.3 Payne 178 026 178 100.0 0.1 Peachtree City 31580 016 31580 100.0 21.8 Pearson 1805 007 1805 100.0 1.2 Pelham 4126 011 4128 100.0 2.8 Pembroke 2379 003 2379 100.0 1.6 Pendergrass 431 047 431 100.0 0.3 Perry 9602 014 3 0.0 0.0 Perry 9602 020 9599 100.0 6.6 Pine Lake 621 041 621 100.0 0.4 Pine Lake 621 055 0 0.0 0.0 Pine Mountain 1141 029 1141 100.0 0.8 Pinehurst 307 014 307 100.0 0.2 Pineview 532 020 532 100.0 0.4 Pitts 308 020 308 100.0 0.2 Plains 637 014 637 100.0 0.4 Plainville 257 052 257 100.0 0.2 Pooler 6239 002 117 1.9 0.1 Pooler 6239 003 6122 98.1 4.2 Port Wentworth 3276 002 3276 100.0 2.3 Portal 597 004 597 100.0 0.4 Porterdale 1281 017 1281 100.0 0.9 Poulan 946 013 946 100.0 0.6 Powder Springs 12481 033 12481 100.0 8.5 Preston 453 014 453 100.0 0.3 Pulaski 261 004 261 100.0 0.2 Quitman 4638 008 4638 100.0 3.1 Ranger 85 051 85 100.0 0.1 Ray City 746 007 746 100.0 0.5 Rayle 139 024 139 100.0 0.1 Rebecca 246 013 246 100.0 0.2 Register 164 004 164 100.0 0.1 Reidsville 2235 004 2235 100.0 1.5 Remerton 847 008 847 100.0 0.6 Rentz 304 020 304 100.0 0.2 Resaca 815 052 815 100.0 0.6 Rest Haven 151 046 38 25.2 0.0 Rest Haven 151 048 113 74.8 0.1 Reynolds 1036 014 1036 100.0 0.7 Rhine 422 020 422 100.0 0.3 Riceboro 736 003 736 100.0 0.5 Richland 1794 014 1794 100.0 1.2 Richmond Hill 6959 003 6959 100.0 4.7 Riddleville 124 023 124 100.0 0.1 Rincon 4376 004 4376 100.0 3.0 Ringgold 2422 051 2 0.1 0.0 Ringgold 2422 053 2420 99.9 1.7 Riverdale 12478 034 12478 100.0 8.6 Riverside 57 011 57 100.0 0.0 Roberta 808 018 808 100.0 0.5 Rochelle 1415 013 14 1.0 0.0 Rochelle 1415 020 1401 99.0 1.0 Rockmart 3870 031 3870 100.0 2.6 Rocky Ford 186 023 186 100.0 0.1 Rome 34980 052 34980 100.0 24.1 Roopville 177 028 177 100.0 0.1 Rossville 3511 053 3511 100.0 2.4 Roswell 79334 021 79334 100.0 54.6 Roys ton 2493 047 0 0.0 0.0 Royston 2493 050 2493 100.0 1.7 Rutledge 707 025 707 100.0 0.5 Sale City 319 011 319 100.0 0.2 Sandersville 6144 023 6144 100.0 4.2 Santa Claus 237 019 237 100.0 0.2 Sard is 1171 023 1171 100.0 0.8 Sasser 393 012 393 100.0 0.3 Savannah 131510 002 117512 89.4 81.1 Savannah 131510 003 13998 10.6 9.5 Scotland 300 019 43 14.3 0.0 Scotland 300 020 257 85.7 0.2 Screven 702 019 702 100.0 0.5 Senoia 1738 028 1738 100.0 1.2 Shady Dale 242 025 242 100.0 0.2 Sharon 105 025 105 100.0 0.1 Sharpsburg 316 028 316 100.0 0.2 Shellman 1166 012 1166 100.0 0.8 Shiloh 423 029 423 100.0 0.3 Siloam 331 025 331 100.0 0.2 Sky Valley 221 050 221 100.0 0.2 Smithville 774 013 774 100.0 0.5 Smyrna 40999 006 40999 100.0 27.8 Snellville 15351 009 15351 100.0 10.6 Social Circle 3379 017 3379 100.0 2.3 Soperton 2824 004 2824 100.0 1.9 Sparks 1755 007 4 0.2 0.0 Sparks 1755 008 1751 99.8 1.2 Sparta 1522 025 1522 100.0 1.0 Springfield 1821 004 1821 100.0 1.2 St. Marys 13761 001 13761 100.0 9.4 Stapleton 318 023 318 100.0 0.2 Statesboro 22698 004 22698 100.0 15.4 Statham 2040 047 2040 100.0 1.4 Stillmore 730 004 730 100.0 0.5 Stockbridge 9853 010 195 2.0 0.1 Stockbridge 9853 044 9658 98.0 6.6 Stone Mountain 7145 041 7145 100.0 4.9 Sugar Mill 11399 048 11399 100.0 7.7 Summertown 140 023 140 100.0 0.1 Summerville 4556 053 4556 100.0 3.1 Sumner 309 013 309 100.0 0.2 Sunny Side 142 016 142 100.0 0.1 Surrency 237 019 237 100.0 0.2 Suwanee 8725 048 8725 100.0 5.9 Swainsboro 6943 004 6943 100.0 4.7 Sycamore 496 013 496 100.0 0.3 Sylvania 2675 023 2675 100.0 1.8 Sylvester 5990 013 5990 100.0 4.1 Talbotton 1019 014 1019 100.0 0.7 Talking Rock 49 049 49 100.0 0.0 Tallapoosa 2789 031 2789 100.0 1.9 Tallulah Falls 164 050 164 100.0 0.1 Talmo 477 046 477 100.0 0.3 Tarrytown 100 019 100 100.0 0.1 Taylorsville 229 031 44 19.2 0.0 Taylorsville 229 052 185 80.8 0.1 Temple 2383 030 2383 100.0 1.6 Temple 2383 031 0 0.0 0.0 Tennille 1505 023 1505 100.0 1.0 Thomaston 9411 014 9411 100.0 6.4 Thomasville 18162 008 18162 100.0 12.3 Thomson 6828 024 6828 100.0 4.6 Thunderbolt 2340 002 2340 100.0 1.6 Tifton 15060 013 15060 100.0 10.3 Tiger 316 050 316 100.0 0.2 Tignall 653 024 653 100.0 0.4 Toccoa 9323 050 9323 100.0 6.4 Toomsboro 622 026 622 100.0 0.4 Trenton 1942 053 1942 100.0 1.3 Trion 1993 053 1993 100.0 1.4 Tunnel Hill 1209 051 1209 100.0 0.8 Turin 165 028 165 100.0 0.1 Twin City 1752 004 1752 100.0 1.2 Ty Ty 716 013 716 100.0 0.5 Tybee Island 3392 003 3392 100.0 2.3 Tyrone 3916 016 3916 100.0 2.7 Unadilla 2772 014 2772 100.0 1.9 Union City 11621 035 11621 100.0 7.9 Union Point 1669 025 1669 100.0 1.1 Uvalda 530 019 530 100.0 0.4 Valdosta 43724 008 43724 100.0 29.7 Vamell 1491 051 1491 100.0 1.0 Vernonburg 138 003 138 100.0 0.1 Vidalia 10491 019 10491 100.0 7.2 Vidette 112 023 112 100.0 0.1 Vienna 2973 014 2973 100.0 2.0 Villa Rica 4134 030 4134 100.0 2.8 Waco 469 031 469 100.0 0.3 Wadley 2088 023 2088 100.0 1.4 Waleska 616 027 616 100.0 0.4 Walnut Grove 1241 017 1241 100.0 0.9 Walthourville 4030 003 5 0.1 0.0 Walthourvilla 4030 019 4025 99.9 2.8 Warm Springs 485 029 485 100.0 0.3 Warner Robins 48804 014 17 0.0 0.0 Warner Robins 48804 018 36476 74.7 24.7 Warner Robins 48804 020 771 1.6 0.5 Warner Robins 48804 026 11540 23.6 7.9 Warrenton 2013 025 2013 100.0 1.4 Warwick 430 013 430 100.0 0.3 Washington 4295 024 4295 100.0 2.9 Watkinsville 2097 045 2097 100.0 1.4 Waverly Hall 709 029 709 100.0 0.5 Waycross 15333 007 15333 100.0 10.5 Waynesboro 5813 023 5813 100.0 4.0 West Point 3382 029 3382 100.0 2.3 Weston 75 014 75 100.0 0.1 Whigham 631 011 631 100.0 0.4 White 693 052 693 100.0 0.5 White Plains 283 025 283 100.0 0.2 Whitesburg 596 030 596 100.0 0.4 Willacoochee 1434 007 1434 100.0 1.0 Williamson 297 016 297 100.0 0.2 Winder 10201 047 10201 100.0 6.9 Winterville 1068 045 1068 100.0 0.7 Woodbine 1218 001 1218 100.0 0.8 Woodbury 1184 029 1184 100.0 0.8 Woodland 432 014 432 100.0 0.3 Woodstock 10050 054 10050 100.0 6.9 Woodville 400 025 400 100.0 0.3 Woolsey 175 016 175 100.0 0.1 Wrens 2314 023 2314 100.0 1.6 Wrightsville 2223 020 2223 100.0 1.5 Yatesville 408 014 408 100.0 0.3 Young Harris 604 050 604 100.0 0.4 Zebulon 1181 016 1181 100.0 0.8

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT G

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Federal Court Special Master's Plan for Georgia Senate by Deviation

All Districts Within 1% Deviation

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT H

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Federal Court Special Master's Plan for Georgia Senate by Deviation

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT I

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia Senate Districts by % Deviation

EXHIBIT / attachment J

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia Senate Districts by % Deviation

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT K

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia Senate Districts (2000) by % Deviation

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT L

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia nate Districts (2000) by % Deviation

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT M

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Federal Court Special Master's Plan for Geo Ja Senate:

Districts by % Black Registered Voters 2002

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT N

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Federal Court Special Master's Plan for Geotgia Senate: Districts by % Black Registered Voters 2002

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT O

(To be scanned in place of lab)

Comparative Analysis of Georgia Senate Plans

Comparative Analysis of Georgia Senate Plans

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT P

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Comparative Analysis of Georgia Senate Plans

Comparative Analysis of Georgia Senate Plans

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT Q

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Comparative Analysis of Georgia Senate Plans

Comparative Analysts of Georgia Senate Plans

Comparative Analysis of Georgia Senate Plans

Comparative Analysis of Georgia Senate Plans

Distribution of African-American Voting Age Population (VAP) in Senate Plans

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT R

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Plan Name: SENATE MARCH 12 Plan Type: Date: 3/13/2004 Time: 12:59:12PM

Administrator: User: Patrick Egan

Measures of Compactness

3/13/2004

Plan Name: SENATE MARCH 12 Administrator:

Plan Type: User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck

048 0.44 0.32 049 0.62 0.35 050 0.34 0.24 051 0.56 0.36 052 0.49 0.29 053 0.45 0.48 054 0.39 0.23 055 0.32 0.22 056 0.33 0.23 Sum N/A N/A Min 0.14 0.10 Max 0.69 0.55 Mean 0.43 0.28 Std. Dev. 0.11 0.08

Plan Name: Senate02-sa Plan Type: Date: 3/13/2004 Time: l:56:39PM

Administrator User: Patrick Egan

Measures of Compactness

3/13/2004

Plan Name: S2000 Plan Type: Senate

Date: 3/13/2004 Time: l:59:20PM

Administrator: State User: Patrick Egan

Measures of Compactness

3/13/2004

DISTRICT Roeck

001 0.53 0.26 002 0.34 0.17 003 0.41 0.28 004 0.44 0.25 005 0.35 0.33 006 0.27 0.17 007 0.32 0.18 008 0.41 0.43 009 0.55 0.42 010 0.24 0.23 011 0.47 0.29 012 0.40 0.28 013 0.41 0.28 014 0.43 0.24 015 0.64 0.46 016 0.38 0.30 017 0.52 0.24 018 0.41 0.21 019 0.47 0.25 020 0.51 0.31 021 0.46 0.30 022 0.45 0.21 023 0.37 0.21 024 0.37 0.40 025 0.62 0.41 026 0.54 0.26 027 0.63 0.38 028 0.32 0.23 029 0.43 0.35 030 0.45 0.51 031 0.53 0.49 032 0.29 0.14 033 0.35 0.11 034 0.27 0.11 035 0.51 0.32 036 0.35 0.32 037 0.41 0.26 038 0.32 0.17 039 0.18 0.13 040 0.25 0.20 041 0.37 0.21 042 0.31 0.25 043 0.49 0.35 044 0.50 0.23 045 0.44 0.28 046 0.42 0.30 047 0.43 0.41 048 0.44 0.32 049 0.47 0.41 050 0.41 0.31 051 0.46 0.25 052 0.45 0.28 053 0.45 0.34 054 0.44 0.29 055 0.46 0.31 056 0.40 0.17 Sum N/A N/A Min 0.18 0.11 Max 0.64 0.51 Mean 0.42 0.28 Std. Dev. 0.10 0.09

SENATE MARCH 12 Plan Name: Plan Type: Administrator User: Patrick Egan

Political Subdivisions Split Between Districts Saturday March 13, 2004 Number of subdivisions not split: County 119

Number of subdivisions split into more than one district: County 40 Number of subdivision splits which affect no population: County 0

Split Counts County

Cases where a County is split among 2 Districts: 34 Cases where a County is split among 3 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among 5 Districts; 1 Cases where a County is split among 7 Districts: 3

Number of times a County has been split into more than one district: 60 Total of County splits: 100 County District Population Split Counties:

Bartow 031 48,124 Bartow 052 27,895 Bibb 018 42,943 Bibb 026 110,944 Carroll 028 34,922 Carroll 030 52,346 Catoosa 051 8,625 Catoosa 053 44,657 Chatham 002 144,839 Chatham 003 87,209 Cherokee 027 53,387 Cherokee 054 88,516 Clayton 034 109,673 Clayton 044 126,844 Cobb 006 147,527 Cobb 032 110,166 Cobb 033 147,449 Cobb 037 144,905 Cobb 054 57,704 Cook 007 5,039 Cook 008 10,732 Crawford 014 2,459 Crawford 018 10,036 DeKalb 005 7,242 DeKalb 010 89,062 DeKalb 040 146,262 DeKalb 041 107,667 DeKalb 042 126,462 DeKalb 043 88,731 DeKalb 055 100,439 Douglas 030 46,954 Douglas 035 45,220 Elbert 024 15,091 Elbert 047 5,420 Emanuel 004 17,214 Emanuel 023 4,623 Fayette 016 56,027 Fayette 034 35,236 Forsyth 027 91,469 Forsyth 049 6,938 Fulton 021 145,253 Fulton 032 34,924 Fulton 035 101,528 Fulton 036 146,788 Fulton 038 146,608 Fulton 039 145,567 Fulton 056 95,338 Gordon 051 17,416 Gordon 052 26,688 Gwinnett 005 139,855 Gwinnett 009 145,454 Gwinnett 041 38,336 Gwinnett 042 20,231 Gwinnett 048 147,443 Gwinnett 055 45,481 Gwinnett 056 51,648 Henry 010 55,740 Henry 017 44,049 Henry 044 19,552 Houston 018 61,629 Houston 020 32,728 Houston 026 16,408 Jackson 046 7,639 Jackson 047 33,950 Jones 018 19,339 Jones 025 4,300 Liberty 003 36,700 Liberty 019 24,910 Madison 045 5,127 Madison 047 20,603 Mitchell on 9,886 Mitchell 012 14,046 Monroe 016 8,115 Monroe 018 13,642 Muscogee 015 132,410 Muscogee 029 53,881 Paulding 030 46,145 Paulding 031 35,533 Richmond 022 145,646 Richmond 023 54,129 Rockdale 017 12,400 Rockdale 043 57,711 Spalding 016 51,065 Spalding 017 7,352 Tattnall 004 9,839 Tattnall 019 12,466 Thomas 008 28,159 Thomas on 14,578 Troup 028 12,427 Troup 029 46,352 Walton 017 19,675 Walton 047 41,012 Warren 024 203 Warren 025 6,133 White 049 17,850 White 050 2,094 Wilcox 013 2,070 Wilcox 020 6,507 Wilkinson 023 2,084 Wilkinson 026 8,136

Page 3 Plan Name: Senate02-sa Plan Type: Administrator: User: Patrick Egan

Political Subdivisions Split Between Districts

Saturday March 13, 2004

Number of subdivisions not split: County 77

Number of subdivisions split into more than one district: County 82

Number of subdivision splits which affect no population: County 3

Split Counts County

Cases where a County is split among 2 Districts: 48 Cases where a County is split among 3 Districts: 23 Cases where a County is split among 4 Districts: 6 Cases where a County is split among 5 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 6 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 7 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among 8 Districts: 1

Number of times a County has been split into more than one district: 140 Total of County splits: 222 County District Population Split Counties:

Appling 003 4,036 Appling 019 13,383 Barrow 045 33,333 Barrow 046 12,811 Bartow 031 25,301 Bartow 037 3,815 Bartow 052 3,129 Bartow 054 43,774 Ben Hill 013 9,720 Ben Hill 019 7,764 Bibb 016 46,732 Bibb 018 1,237 Bibb 026 105,918 Brantley 001 4,232 Brantley 019 10,397 Bryan 001 12,517 Bryan 003 1,991 Bryan 004 8,909 Bulloch 004 42,504 Bulloch 023 13,479 Butts 017 5,155 Butts 024 4,911 Butts 029 9,456 Camden 001 4,584 Camden 007 39,080 Carroll 029 3,970 Carroll 030 55,413 Carroll 031 27,885 Chatham 001 90,423 Chatham 002 141,625 Cherokee 021 74,098 Cherokee 027 25,163 Cherokee 051 42,642 Clayton 034 104,933 Clayton 044 131,584 Cobb 006 138,894 Cobb 021 79,368 Cobb 032 127,828 Cobb 033 132,165 Cobb 037 129,468 Cobb 038 28 Colquitt 011 24,103 Colquitt 013 17,950 Columbia 023 1,580 Columbia 024 87,708 Cook 007 1,889 Cook 008 13,882 Coweta 028 63,288 Coweta 029 16,614 Coweta 030 9,313 Crawford 016 0 Crawford 018 12,495 DeKalb 005 7,242 DeKalb 010 87,362 DeKalb 040 125,671 DeKalb 041 103,100 DeKalb 042 152,967 DeKalb 043 87,831 DeKalb 055 101,692 Dodge 019 2,086 Dodge 020 17,085 Dougherty 012 83,756 Dougherty 013 8,692 Dougherty 014 3,617 Douglas 030 48,021 Douglas 031 3,885 Douglas 033 6,750 Douglas 035 33,518 Emanuel 020 7,584 Emanuel 023 14,253 Fayette 017 6,436 Fayette 028 46,222 Fayette 034 38,605 Forsyth 027 42,704 Forsyth 045 13,306 Forsyth 048 27,678 Forsyth 049 14,719 Franklin 047 8,649 Franklin 050 11,636 Fulton 027 85,024 Fulton 032 25,464 Fulton 035 110,095 Fulton 036 139,270 Fulton 038 139,205 Fulton 039 138,909 Fulton 040 24,592 Fulton 056 153,447 Gilmer 049 1,571 Gilmer 051 21,885 Glynn 001 29,671 Glynn 003 37,897 Gordon 052 1,456 Gordon 054 42,648 Greene 025 11,067 Greene 047 3,339 Gwinnett 005 143,636 Gwinnett 009 153,471 Gwinnett 040 3,006 Gwinnett 041 47,306 Gwinnett 045 78,280 Gwinnett 048 125,517 Gwinnett 055 37,232 Habersham 047 4,453 Habersham 050 8,994 Habersham 051 22,455 Hall 045 15,493 Hall 047 1,480 Hall 049 70,309 Hall 050 51,995 Harris 014 3,599 Harris 016 6,900 Harris 029 13,196 Henry 010 51,569 Henry 017 45,431 Henry 029 4,677 Henry 044 17,664 Houston 016 35,581 Houston 018 55,807 Houston 026 19,377 Jackson 046 5,765 Jackson 047 9,503 Jackson 049 26,321 Jasper 017 6,324 Jasper 029 5,102 Jones 017 0 Jones 024 18,861 Jones 025 2,309 Jones 026 478 Jones 029 1,991 La mar 016 8,773 La mar 018 7,139 Lee 012 11,763 Lee 013 552 Lee 014 12,442 Liberty 001 0 Liberty 003 61,610 Lincoln 024 4,939 Lincoln 047 3,409 Lumpkin 049 8,815 Lumpkin 050 12,201 Madison 047 15,683 Madison 049 10,047 McDuffie 024 11,678 McDuffie 047 9,553 McIntosh 001 130 McIntosh 003 10,717 Meriwether 014 7,296 Meriwether 016 1,181 Meriwether 029 14,057 Mitchell 011 11,839 Mitchell 012 12,093 Monroe 016 4,868 Monroe 018 11,370 Monroe 024 5,519 Muscogee 014 13,436 Muscogee 015 139,366 Muscogee 016 33,489 Newton 017 33,260 Newton 025 28,741 Oconee 046 24,094 Oconee 047 2,131 Paulding 030 40,616 Paulding 031 23,288 Paulding 037 17,774 Peach 016 9,793 Peach 018 13,875 Pickens 049 5,138 Pickens 051 17,845 Pierce 001 6,663 Pierce 019 8,973 Pike 016 2,740 Pike 028 4,562 Pike 029 6,386 Putnam 017 9,046 Putnam 025 9,766 Richmond 022 139,090 Richmond 023 60,685 Rockdale 017 18,764 Rockdale 043 51,347 Spalding 017 6,596 Spalding 024 12,908 Spalding 028 12,986 Spalding 029 25,927 Stephens 050 17,126 Stephens 051 8,309 Thomas 008 17,774 Thomas 011 24,963 Tift 007 18,805 Tift 013 19,602 Toombs 004 643 Toombs 019 12,787 Toombs 020 12,637 Towns 050 5,155 Towns 051 4,164 Troup 028 26,401 Troup 029 32,378 Union 050 15,948 Union 051 1,341 Upson 014 1,307 Upson 016 3,399 Upson 018 22,891 Walker 052 17,563 Walker 053 43,490 Walton 017 22,439 Walton 025 25,214 Walton 045 13,034 Warren 024 624 Warren 047 5,712 Washington 020 20,722 Washington 024 454 Wayne 003 23,139 Wayne 019 3,426 Whitfield 052 11,887 Whitfield 053 41,533 Whitfield 054 30,105 Wilcox 013 7,873 Wilcox 019 704 Wilkes 024 1,659 Wilkes 047 9,028 Wilkinson 020 6,240 Wilkinson 024 579 Wilkinson 026 3,401

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT S (To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia Sena Districts by % Black Register Voters: 2002

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT T

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia Sen Districts by % Black Registee Voters: 2002

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT U

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia Senate Districts by % Black Registered Voters: 2002

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT V

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia Senata Districts by % Black Registered Voters: 2002

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT W

(To be scanned in place of tab)

2002 % Black Regestered Voters By VTD With Fedctsen04 Overlay

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT X

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Metro Area 2002% Black Registered Voters by VTD With FedctsenO4 Overlay

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT Y

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP) in Senate Plans

Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP) in Senate Plans

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT Z

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Georgia Senate Districts: Middle Georgia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION APPENDIX TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER Volume II Part II of II

Tab 16 Affidavit of Nathaniel Persily, J.D., Ph.D. (tabs AA — ZZ)

EXHIBIT / ATTACHMENT AA

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Federal Court Special Master's Plan for Georgia House

Federal Court Special Master's Plan for Georgia House

Federal Court Special Master's Plan for Georgai House Columbus Area

Macon Area

Federal Court SpeciaI Master's Plan for Georgia House

Augusta Area

Savannah Area

Plan Name: fedcthse04 Plan Type: House

User: staff Administrator: FEDCOURT

DISTRICT #MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION % DEV. BLACK % BLACK TOTAL %TOTAL HISP. OR BLACK COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 001 1 45,615 135 0.30% 1,689 3.70% 119 1,808 396% 382 0.84% VAP 34,790 1,200 3.45% 19 1.219 3.50% 244 0.70% 002 1 45,530 50 0.11% 962 211% 80 1,042 229% 470 1.03% VAP 34.200 698 2.04% 14 712 2.08% 301 0.88% 003A 1 45,590 110 0.24% 542 1.19% 64 606 1.33% 946 2.08% VAP 33,305 368 1.10% 12 380 1.14% 580 1.74% 003B 1 45,524 44 0.10% 743 l.63% 101 844 1.85% 3,454 7.59% VAP 33,009 522 1.58% 20 542 1.64% 2,069 6.27% 004 1 45,777 297 065% 2,452 5.36% 212 2,664 5.82% 15,198 33.20% VAP 33,251 1,726 5.19% 71 1,797 5.40% 9,476 28.50% 005 1 45,601 121 0.27% 1,173 2.57% 117 1,290 2.83% 4,065 8.91% VAP 33,467 803 2.40% 34 837 2.50% 2,789 8.33% 006 I 45,560 80 0.18% 88 0.19% 26 114 025% 1,953 4.29% VAP 35321 56 0. i 6% ii 67 0.19% 1,295 3.67% 007 1 45,457 -23 -0.05% 1,857 4.09% 123 1,980 4.36% 2,858 6.29% VAP 34,758 1,516 4.36% 55 1,571 4.52% 1.777 5.11% 008 1 45,685 205 0.45% 353 0.77% 46 399 0.87% 951 2.08% VAP 36,645 265 0.72% 16 281 0.77% 672 1.83% 009 1 45,877 397 0.87% 325 0.71% 56 381 0.83% 1,306 2.85% VAP 34,332 248 0.72% 18 266 0.77% 846 2.46% 010 1 45,254 -226 -0.50% 795 1.76% 53 848 1.87% 1,000 2.21% VAP 33,822 577 1.71% 12 589 1.74% 652 1.93% 011 1 45,066 -414 -0.91% 3.416 7.58% 136 3,552 7.88% 1,069 2.37% VAP 34,328 2,744 7.99% 31 2,775 8.08% 743 2.16% 012 1 45,905 425 0.93% 4,592 10.00% 145 4,737 10.32% 1,897 4.13% VAP 33.560 3,151 9.39% 36 3,187 9.50% 1,237 3.69% 013A 1 45,622 142 0.31% 10,430 22.86% 219 10,649 23.34% 4,072 8.93% VAP 34,843 7,084 20.33% 53 7,137 2048% 2,720 7.81% 013B 1 45,487 7 0.02% 2,814 6.19% 116 2,930 6.44% 889 1.95% VAP 32,755 1,913 5.84% 23 1,936 5.91% 557 1.70% 014A 1 45,410 -70 -0.15% 229 0.50% 34 263 0.58% 2,525 5.56% VAP 33,386 169 0.51% 16 185 0.55% 1,776 5.32% 014B 1 45.053 -427 -0.94% 940 2.09% 89 1,029 2.28% 2,897 6.43% VAP 33,171 655 1.97% 29 684 206% 2,070 6.24% 015 1 45,736 256 0.56% 1,340 2.93% 132 1,472 3.22% 2,709 5.92% VAP 31,989 867 2.71% 45 912 2.85% 1,821 5.69% 016 1 45.836 356 0.78% 1,223 2.67% 101 1,324 2.89% 1,986 4.33% VAP 32,666 833 2.55% 40 873 2.67% 1,324 4.05% 017 1 142 031% 2,573 5.64% 140 2,70 5 95% 1,597 3 50% 45,622 VAP 31,816 1,710 5 37% 52 1.762 5 54% 1,056 3 32% 018 1 274 060% 8,190 17 90% 214 8.404 18.37% 1.568 3 43% 45,754 VAP 34,762 5,827 16 76% 54 5.881 16.92% 1,181 3 40% 019 1 337 0 74% 5,318 1161% 132 5,450 11.90% 3,006 6 56% 45,817 VAP 33,818 3,652 10 80% 35 3,687 10 90% 1,905 5 63% 020 1 191 0 42% 588 1 29% 71 659 1 44% 2.421 5 30% 45,671 VAP 33,633 385 1 14% 23 408 1 21% 1.500 4 46% 021 1 -82 -0.18% 6,558 1445% 139 6,697 14.75% 17,785 39 18% 45,398 VAP 33,604 4.600 13 69% 73 4,673 13.91% 11,594 34.50% 022 1 -242 -0.53% 3,784 8 36% 116 3,900 8.62% 799 1.77% 45,238 VAP 34,221 2.650 7.74% 30 2,680 7.83% 511 1 49% 023 1 160 0 35% 6,111 13 39% 108 6,219 13.63% 445 0.98% 45,640 VAP 34,702 4,294 12.37% 27 4,321 12.45% 300 0.86% 024 1 -203 -0.45% 2,638 5 83% 115 2,753 6.08% 1,627 3 59% 45,277 VAP 31.590 1,938 6 13% 40 1,978 6.26% 1,047 I 25 1 373 0 82% 4,060 8 85% 142 4,202 9.16% 3.588 7.83% 45,853 VAP 33,289 2,941 8.83% 31 2,972 8.93% 2,161 6.49% 026 1 24 0 05% 3,268 7 18% 132 3.400 747% 821 1 80% 45,504 VAP 31,319 2,096 669% 43 2,139 6.83% 515 1.64% 027 1 53 0.12% 2,874 6 31% 154 3,028 6.65% 624 1.37% 45,533 VAP 32,238 1,871 5 80% 42 1,913 5.93% 363 1 13% 1 178 0 39% 2,866 628% 105 2,971 651% 1,059 2 32% 45,658 VAP 30,789 1,847 6.00% 45 1.892 6.15% 637 2 07% 029 1 239 0 53% 3,109 6.80% 212 3,321 7.26% 1,618 3.54% 45.719 VAP 33,800 2.108 6.24% 96 2,204 6.52% 1,121 3.32% 030 1 -102 -0.22% 1,334 2.94% 115 1,449 3.19% 987 2 18% 45,378 VAP 31,924 946 2.96% 46 992 3 11% 634 1 99% 031 1 -411 -0.90% 7,508 16.66% 315 7,823 17.36% 2,400 5.33% 45,069 VAP 36.343 5,597 15 40% 192 5,789 15 93% 1,780 4.90% 032 1 -129 -0 28% 3.678 811% 194 3,872 8.54% 2,307 5 09% 45.351 VAP 33,208 2,587 7 79% 95 2,682 8 08% 1,575 4.74% 033A 1 24 005% 12.600 27.69% 388 12,988 28 54% 6,869 15.10% 45,504 VAP 34,812 8.599 24.70% 176 8.775 25.21% 4,948 14 21% 033B 1 -33 -0.07% 12,965 28.53% 408 13,373 29.43% 5,096 11.21% 45.447 VAP 32.141 8,111 25.24% 159 8,270 25.73% 3,234 10 06% 033C 1 -338 -0.74% 13,772 30 51% 346 14,118 31 27% 2,213 4 90% 45,142 VAP 31,962 8,785 27 49% 139 8,924 27.92% 1,413 4 42% 034A 1 270 059% 15,788 3451% 560 16,348 35.73% 10,007 21.87% 45,750 VAP 36.638 11,779 32.15% 319 12,098 33.02% 7,263 19 82% 034B VAP 1 45,798 35,888 318 0.70% 11,538 25.19% 427 223 11,965 26.13% 5,646 3,930 12.33% 7,881 21.96% 8,104 22.58% 10.95% 034C VAP 1 45,569 33,120 89 020% 18,139 39.81% 416 201 18,555 40.72% 4,374 2,861 9.60% 11,854 35.79% 12,055 36.40% 8.64% 035 VAP 1 45,835 32,803 355 0.78% 5,410 11.80% 298 131 5.708 12.45% 2,354 5.14% 3,575 10.90% 3,706 11.30% 1,552 4.73% 036 VAP 1 45,897 29,716 417 0.92% 2,637 5.75% 197 74 2,834 6.17% 1,630 1,050 3.55 1,720 5.79% 1,794 6.04% % 3.53% 037 VAP 1 45,854 33,528 374 0.82% 3,543 7.73% 234 124 3,777 8.24% 7.94% 4,922 3,723 10.73 2,539 7.57% 2,663 % 11.10 % 038 VAP 1 45,830 32,295 350 0.77% 458 311 1.00% 46 30 504 341 1.10% 1.06% 2.690 1.834 5.87% 0.96% 5.68% 039 VAP 1 45,318 32,577 -162 -0 36% 1,731 3.82% 93 39 1,824 4.02% 3.72% 1,087 719 2.40 1,173 3.60% 1,212 % 2.21% 040 VAP 1 45,339 33,864 -141 -0.31% 4,192 9.25% 270 148 4,462 9.84% 4,139 9.13% 2,927 8.64% 3.075 9.08% 3,081 9.10% VAP 1 45,475 37,334 -5 -0.01% 7.085 15.58% 363 230 7,448 16.38% 4,172 3, 9.17 5,400 14.46% 5,630 15.08% 146 % 8.43% 42 A VAP 1 45,340 40,404 -140 -0.31% 3,730 8.23% 285 214 4,015 8.86% 8.52% 4.769 3,920 10.529. 3,230 7.99% 3,444 9.70% 042B VAP 1 45.489 37.202 9 0.02% 3,827 8.41% 210 138 4,037 8.87% 8.42% 5,204 3, 11.44 2,996 8.05% 3,134 891 % 10.46 % VAP 1 45,530 38,326 50 0.11% 2.172 4.77% 131 92 2,303 5.06% 5.24% 2,402 1,971 5.28% 1.917 5.00% 2,009 514% 042D VAP 1 45,164 34,452 -316 -0.69% 30,262 67.00% 432 244 30,694 67.96% 971 761 2.15% 21,751 63.13% 21,995 63.84% 2.21% 043A VAP 1 45,915 37.625 435 0.96% 31.442 68.48% 317 222 31,759 69.17% 953 789 2.08 24,833 66.00% 25,055 66.59% % 2.10% 043B VAP 1 45.248 33,654 -232 -0.51% 30,617 67.66% 320 227 30,937 68.37% 1,599 1, 3.53% 21,749 64.63% 21,976 65.30% 120 3.33% 044 VAP 1 45,465 33,469 -15 -0.03% 30,110 66.23% 243 169 30,353 66.76% 1,992 1, 4.38 19,881 59.40% 20,050 59.91% 537 % 4.59% 045 VAP 1 45,277 33,414 -203 -0.45% 25,587 56.51% 280 152 25,867 57.13% 1,102 703 2.43% 18.663 55.85% 18,815 56.31% 2.10% 046 VAP 1 45,136 32,703 -344 -0.76% 8,331 18.46% 331 96 8,662 19.19% 1,228 775 2.72% 5,374 16.43% 5,470 16.73% 2.37% 047 VAP 1 45,228 32,945 -252 -0.55% 27,052 59.81% 281 166 27,333 60.43% 589 391 1.30% 19,709 59.82% 19,875 60.33% 1.19% 048A VAP 1 45.339 31.762 -141 -0.31% 30,717 67.75% 427 216 31,144 68.69% 2,058 4.54% 20,326 63.99% 20,542 64.67% 1,312 4.13% 048B 1 45,873 393 0.86% 33,855 73.80% 426 34,281 74.73% 3,931 8.57% VAP 32,657 23,093 70.71% 220 23,313 71.39% 2,776 8.50% 048C 1 45.235 -245 -0.54% 33.944 75.04% 403 34.347 75.93% 4,278 946% VAP 32.840 23.863 72.66% 240 24.103 73.40% 2,941 896% 048D 1 45.708 228 0.50% 29.185 63.85% 420 29,605 64.77% 1,255 2.75% VAP 32,826 20.335 61.95% 261 20,596 62.74% 839 2.56% 049 1 45,508 28 0.06% 24.789 54.47% 337 25,126 55.21% 1,220 2.68% VAP 38,778 19,178 49.46% 269 19,447 50.15% 1,118 2.88% 050 1 45,607 127 0.28% 26.403 5789% 424 26,827 58.82% 4,675 10.259 VAP 31,647 16,717 52.82% 175 16,892 53.38% 3,219 10.17% 051 1 45,272 -208 -0.46% 31,379 69.31% 335 31,714 70.05% 1,970 4.35% VAP 33,588 21,008 62.55% 233 21,241 63.24% 1,486 4.42% 052 1 45,099 -381 -0.84% 4,734 10.50% 225 4,959 11.00% 4,044 8.97% VAP 36.44) 3,655 10.03% 155 3,810 10.46% 3,173 8.71% 053 1 45.869 389 0.86% 5,704 12.44% 426 6,130 13.36% 20,383 44.44% VAP 36,290 4,174 11.50% 271 4,445 064 i 45,032 -448 0.99% 6,797 15.09% 347 7,144 15.86% 9,332 20.72% VAP 38,194 5,464 14.31% 269 5.733 15.01% 7,157 18.74% OS 5 1 45,692 212 0.47% 31,020 67.89% 709 31,729 69.44% 3,000 6.57% VAP 32,691 20,830 63.72% 369 21,199 64.85% 2,105 6.44% 056A 1 45,204 -276 -0.61% 3,170 7.01% 148 3,318 7.34% 1,440 3.19% VAP 38,931 2,639 6.78% 86 2,725 7.00% 1,134 2.91% 056B 1 45,886 406 0.89% 7,656 16.68% 362 8,018 17.47% 5,230 11.40% VAP 37,016 5,632 15.22% 209 5,841 15.78% 3,949 10.67% 057 1 45,213 -267 -0.59% 28,234 62.45% 1,543 29,777 65.86% 1,791 3.96% VAP 32,438 19,286 59.45% 915 20,201 62.28% 1,248 3.85% 058 1 45,121 -359 -0.79% 33,354 73.92% 362 33,716 74.72% 904 2.00% VAP 33,262 23,317 70.10% 220 23,537 70.76% 600 1.80% 059A 1 45,542 62 0.14% 33,583 73.74% 388 33,971 74.59% 2,819 6.19% VAP 33.544 23.275 69.39% 243 23,518 70.11% 2,054 6.12% 059B 1 45,677 197 0.43% 27,997 61.29% 334 28,331 62.02% 866 1.90% VAP 31,972 19,095 59.72% 167 19.262 60.25% 548 1.71% 059C 1 45,160 -320 -0.70% 6.904 15.29% 153 7,057 15.63% 1,153 2.55% VAP 32,109 4,712 14.68% 52 4,764 14.84% 750 2.34% 060A 1 45,284 -196 -0.43% 38,596 85.23% 602 39,198 86.56% 1,348 2.98% VAP 32,079 26,483 82.56% 375 26,858 83.72% 988 3.08% 060B 1 45,346 -134 -0.29% 25,186 55 54% 321 25,507 56.25% 638 1.41% VAP 32,000 17,331 54.16% 167 17,498 54.68% 398 1.24% 060C 1 45,159 -321 -0.71% 27.277 60.40% 321 27,598 61.11% 562 1.24% VAP 31,816 18,728 58.86% 167 18,895 59.39% 359 1.13% 061A 1 45,767 287 0.63% 28,935 63.22% 485 29,420 64.28% 885 1.93% VAP 31,712 19,265 60.75% 249 19,514 61.54% 601 1.90% 061B 1 45,392 -88 — 0.19% 28,713 63.26% 568 29,281 6451% 1,031 2.27% VAP 32,277 18,792 5822% 282 19,074 5909% 696 2.16% 061C 1 45,387 -93 — 0.20% 3.834 8.45% 278 4,112 9.06% 2,034 4.48% VAP 32,109 2,424 7.55% 115 2,539 7.91% 1,344 4.19% 062 1 45,353 -127 — 0.28% 25,283 55.75% 436 25,719 56.71% 3,820 8.42% VAP 32,064 16,410 51.18% 216 16,626 51.85% 2,740 8.55% 063 1 45,567 87 0.19% 8,384 18.40% 240 8,624 18.93% 1.379 3.03% VAP 32,730 5,328 16.28% 95 5,423 16.57% 885 2.70% 064 1 45.414 -66 -0.15% 3,698 8.14% 193 3,891 8.57% 2,574 567% VAP 32,667 2,609 7.99% 80 2,689 8.23% 1,762 539% 065 1 45,214 -266 -0.58% 4.557 10.08% 253 4,810 10.64% 3,550 7.85% VAP 33,468 3,200 9.56% 118 3.318 9.91% 2.546 7.61% 066 1 45.713 233 0.51% 11,621 25.42% 488 12,109 26.49% 13,710 29.99% VAP 34,589 8,132 23. 51% 272 8,404 9,95 i 26.77% 067A 1 45,281 -199 -0.44% 3,051 6.74% 145 3,196 7.06% 3,639 8.04% VAP 32,159 2.111 6.56% 50 2,161 6.72% 2,410 7.49% 067B 1 45,245 -235 -0.52% 1,976 4.37% 114 2,090 4.62% 4,666 10.31% VAP 32,889 1,313 3.99% 26 1,339 4.07% 2,943 8.95% 068 1 45,520 40 0.09% 5,023 11.03% 216 5.239 11.51% 3,010 6.61% VAP 31,681 3,222 10.17% 84 3,306 10.44% 1,908 6.02% 069A 1 45,193 -287 -0.63% 10,882 24.08% 471 11,353 25.12% 7,392 16.36% VAP 33,254 7,297 21.94% 237 7,534 22.66% 5,009 15.06% 069B 1 45,186 -294 -0.65% 11,965 26.48% 484 12,449 27.55% 14.229 31.499 VAP 33,330 8,274 24.82% 260 8,534 25.60% 10,027 30.08% 070A 1 45,678 198 0.44% 5,898 12.91% 233 6,131 13.42% 4,248 9.30% VAP 32.705 3,964 12.12% 84 4,048 12.38% 2,895 885% 070B 1 45,528 48 0.11% 4,797 10.54% 270 5,067 11.13% 3.892 8.55% VAP 33,849 3,242 9.58% 125 3,367 9.95% 2,593 7.66% 070C 1 45,606 126 0.28% 4,662 10.22% 215 4,877 10.69% 2,585 5.67% VAP 30,326 2,993 9.87% 73 3.066 10.11% 1,650 5.44% 071A 1 45,145 -335 -0.74% 2,032 4.50% 116 2,148 4.76% 1,418 3.14% VAP 31.362 1,332 425% 42 1,374 4.38% 873 2.78% 07 IB 1 45,874 394 0.87% 8,463 18.45% 122 8,585 18.71% 726 1.58% VAP 33,091 5,528 16.71% 34 5,562 16.81% 496 1.50% 072 1 45,336 -144 -0.32% 5,751 12.69% 130 5,881 12.97% 671 1.48% VAP 32,428 3,984 12.29% 36 4,020 12.40% 416 1.28% 073 1 45,764 284 0.62% 12,793 27.95% 171 12.964 28.33% 837 1.83% VAP 33,402 8,679 25.98% 55 8,734 26.15% 551 1.65% 074 1 45,272 -208 -0.46% 6,648 14.68% 186 6,834 15.10% 1,267 2.80% VAP 40.154 4.957 12.34% 121 5.078 12.65% 995 2.48% 075 1 45,530 50 0.11% 18.940 41.60% 285 19,225 42.22% 4836 1062% VAP 34,988 12,852 36.73% 123 12,975 37.08% 3.300 9.43% 076 1 45,241 -239 -0.53% 5,099 11.27% 128 5,227 11.55% 1,255 2.77% VAP 32,713 3,440 10.52% 54 3,494 10.68% 810 2.48% 077 1 45.127 -353 -0.78% 17,776 39.39% 175 17,951 39.78% 1.081 2.40% VAP 33,917 12,281 36.21% 79 12.360 36.44% 740 218% 078 1 45,063 -417 — 0.92% 8.668 1924% 90 8.758 19.44% 1,097 2.43% VAP 33,110 5,921 17.88% 25 5,946 17,96% 752 2.27% 079 1 45,696 216 0.47% 8,731 19.11% 187 8.918 19.52% 1,214 2.66% VAP 32,884 6,126 18.63% 47 6,173 18.77% 796 2.42% 080 1 45,794 314 0.69% 4,268 9.32% 173 4.441 9.70% 1,058 2.31% VAP 31,926 2,854 8.94% 46 2.900 9.08% 642 2.01% 081 1 45,757 277 061% 26,753 58.47% 512 27,265 59.59% 1,668 3.65% VAP 32,617 17,962 55.07% 286 3.26% 082 ! 45.600 120 0.26% 20,272 44.46% 442 20,714 45.43% 2,297 5.04% VAP 32,397 13,010 40.16% 178 13,188 40.71% 1,462 4.51% 083 1 45,337 -143 -0.31% 23,957 52.84% 546 24,503 54.05% 2,825 6.23% VAP 30,850 14,866 48.19% 261 15,127 49.03% 1,794 5.82% 084A 1 45.780 300 0.66% 25,614 55.95% 556 26,170 57.16% 4,659 10.18% VAP 32,207 16,713 51.89% 284 16,997 52.77% 3,190 990% 084B 1 45,722 242 0.53% 16,327 35.71% 367 16,694 36.51% 1.399 3.06% VAP 32,220 10,463 32.47% 150 10,613 32.94% 910 2.82% 085A 1 45,813 333 0.73% 5.564 12.15% 74 5,638 12.31% 609 1.33% VAP 33.038 3,795 11.49% 28 3.823 11.57% 381 1.15% 085B 1 45,743 263 0.58% 3,626 7.93% 144 3,770 8.24% 1,581 3.46% VAP 31,726 2.354 7.42% 48 2.402 7.57% 1,057 3.33% 086 1 45,419 -61 -0.13% 3.904 8.60% 115 4,019 8.85% 1,409 3.10% VAP 31,988 2.608 8.15% 40 2,648 8.28% 1,029 3.22% 087 1 45,359 -121 -027% 12.207 26.91% 144 12,351 27.23% 1,401 3.09% VAP 32,686 8,023 24.55% 40 8,063 24.67% 1,051 3.22% 088A 1 45,321 -159 -0.35% 5.354 11.81% 176 5.530 12.20% 548 1.21% VAP 32,687 3,556 10.88% 45 3,601 11.02% 371 1.14% 088B 1 45,301 -179 -0.39% 5,928 13.09% 146 6,074 13.41% 689 1.52% VAP 33.108 3,988 12.05% 29 4,017 12.13% 444 1.34% 089 1 45,921 44) 0.97% 4,483 9.76% 192 4,675 10.18% 1,460 3.18% VAP 32,836 3,065 9.33% 50 3,115 9.49% 961 2.93% 090 1 45,676 196 0.43% 21,446 46.95% 124 21,570 47.22% 618 1.35% VAP 32,793 14,268 43.51% 40 14,308 43.63% 429 1.31% 091 1 45,597 117 026% 9.954 21.83% 89 10,043 2203% 543 1.19% VAP 33,947 7,077 20.85% 39 7,116 2096% 362 1.07% 092 1 45,838 358 0.79% 18.464 40.28% 219 18,683 40.76% 827 1.80% VAP 33,578 12.400 36.93% 104 12,504 37 24% 572 1.70% 093 1 45,245 -235 -0.52% 14.008 30.96% 123 14,131 31 23% 657 1.45% VAP 33,174 9,941 29.97% 52 9,993 30.12% 423 1.28% 094 1 45,443 -37 -0.08% 19,440 42.78% 182 19,622 43.18% 607 1.34% VAP 35,590 14,283 40.13% 91 14,374 40.39% 430 1.21% 095 1 45,796 316 0.69% 21,147 46.18% 133 21,280 46.47% 471 1.03% VAP 34,022 14,680 43.15% 50 14,730 43.30% 294 0.86% 096 1 45,746 266 0.58% 8.338 18.23% 272 8,610 18.82% 1.049 2.29% VAP 35,860 6.099 17.01% 100 6,199 17.29% 728 2.03% 097 1 45,395 -85 -0.19% 26,718 58.86% 438 27,156 59.82% 1,151 2.54% VAP 33,613 18,231 54.24% 185 18,416 54.79% 796 237% 098 1 45,289 191 -0.42% 28,270 62.42% 408 28,678 63.32% 773 1.71% VAP 33.363 19,528 58.53% 195 19,723 59.12% 540 1.62% 099 1 45,429 -51 -0.11% 22,716 50.00% 471 23,187 51.04% 1,293 2.85% VAP 30.845 14,394 46.67% 162 14,556 47.19% 777 2.52% 100 1 45,597 117 0.26% 23,762 52.11% 440 24.202 53.08% 1,722 378% VAP 31,774 15,305 48.17% 190 15,495 48.77% 1,235 3.89% 101 1 45,304 -176 -0.39% 15,707 34.67% 119 15,826 34.93% 760 1.68% VAP 32,256 10,278 31.86% 58 10,336 32.04% 519 1.61% 102 1 45,337 -143 -0.31% 15,044 33.18% 121 15.165 33.45% 1,715 3.78% VAP 33,440 10,145 30.34% 56 10,201 30.51% 1,208 3.61% 103 1 45,282 -198 -0.44% 24,570 54.26% 106 24,676 54.49% 459 1.01% VAP 32.467 16.480 50.76% 57 16,537 50.93% 318 0.98% 104 1 45,089 -391 -0.86% 14,011 31.07% 113 14,124 31.32% 493 1.09% VAP 33,012 9,680 29.32% 49 9,729 29.47% 353 1.07% 105 1 45,668 188 0.41% 31,740 69.50% 225 31,965 69.99% 544 1.19% VAP 33,731 21,731 64.42% 117 21,848 64.77% 372 1.10% 106 1 45,643 163 0.36% 6,401 14.02% 100 6,501 14.24% 580 1.27% VAP 34,960 4,657 13.32% 37 4,694 13.43% 410 1.17% 107 1 45,312 -168 -0.37% 31,302 69.08% 227 31,529 69.58% 590 1.30% VAP 31,478 20,098 63.85% 98 20,196 64.16% 389 1.24% 103 I 45,546 66 0.15% 8,405 18.45% 135 8,540 18.75% 977 2.15% VAP 32.965 5,840 17.72% 44 5.884 17.85% 696 2.11% 109 1 45.225 -255 -0.56% 6,617 14.63% 179 6,796 15.03% 1.473 3.26% VAP 34,182 4,753 13.90% 76 4,829 14.13% 976 2.86% 110 1 45,073 -407 -0.89% 8.190 18.17% 123 8,313 18.44% 673 1.49% VAP 33,235 5,822 17.52% 51 5,873 17.67% 458 1.38% 111 1 -343 -0.75% 26.938 59.68% 477 27,415 60.74% 1,550 3.43% 45,137 VAP 33,146 18,624 56.19% 212 18,836 56.83% 1,065 3.21% 112 1 -230 -0.51% 27,570 60.93% 446 28,0l6 61.91% 2,536 5.60% 45,250 VAP 31,953 18,160 56.83% 169 18,329 57.36% 1,746 5.46% 113 1 -279 -0.61% 20.984 46.42% 548 21,532 47.64% 2,639 5.84% 45,201 VAP 33,065 14,118 42.70% 211 14,329 43.34% 1,882 5.69% 114 1 -215 -0.47% 26,844 59.30% 152 26,996 59.64% 1,564 3.46% 45,265 VAP 33,579 19.284 57.43% 77 19,361 57.66% 1,039 3.09% 115 1 155 0.34% 8,510 18.65% 182 8,692 19.05% 1,179 2.58% 45,635 VAP 32,562 5,844 17.95% 59 5,903 18.13% 801 2.46% 116 1 136 0.30% 20,690 45.36% 139 20,829 45.66% 1,409 3.09% 45.616 VAP 32,889 13,701 41.66% 65 13,766 41.86% 959 2.92% 117 1 136 0.30% 15,414 33.79% 396 15,810 34.66% 1,749 3.83% 45,616 VAP 33,138 9,937 29.99% 140 10.077 30.41% 1,176 3.55% 118 1 -203 -0.45% 14,264 31.50% 104 14,368 31.73% 1,392 3.07% 45,277 VAP 31,570 9,933 29.53% 54 9,967 2969% 983 2 93% 119 1 -108 -0.24% 15,509 34.18% 125 15,634 34.46% 530 1.17% 45,372 VAP 33,220 10,403 31.32% 55 10,458 31.48% 335 1.01% 120 1 -166 -0.36% 11,548 2548% 94 11,642 25.69% 2,974 6.56% 45,314 VAP 33,005 7.708 23.35% 39 7,747 23.47% 1,854 5.62% 121A 1 198 0.44% 15,188 33.25% 337 15,525 33.99% 4,063 8.89% 45,678 VAP 33,586 10,811 32.19% 121 10,932 32.55% 2,683 7.99% 121B 1 -69 -0.15% 7,326 16.13% 113 7,439 16.38% 1,817 4.00% 45,411 VAP 32,956 4,714 14.30% 37 4,751 14.42% 1,197 3.63% 122 1 392 0.86% 11,230 24.48% 168 11,398 24.85% 734 1 60% 45,872 VAP 35,476 8,229 23.20% 75 8,304 23.41% 571 1.61% 123 1 164 0.36% 8,576 18.79% 270 8,846 19.38% 1,406 3.08% 45.644 VAP 33,318 5,778 17.34% 112 5,890 17.68% 914 2,74% 124A 1 109 0.24% 27,191 59.64% 347 27.538 60.40% 1,574 3.45% 45.589 VAP 34.346 18,728 54.53% 169 18,897 55 02% 1,190 3.46% 124B 1 9 0.02% 28,198 61.99% 278 28.476 62.60% 542 1.19% 45,489 VAP 32,565 18,223 55.96% 141 18,364 56.39% 361 1.11% 125 1 -202 -0.44% 25,508 56.34% 259 25,767 56.91% 1,127 2.49% 45,278 VAP 34,175 17,900 52.38% 141 18,041 52.79% 842 2.46% 126 1 -90 -0.20% 3,087 6.80% 99 3,186 7.02% 614 1.35% 45,390 VAP 35,344 2,201 6.23% 48 2,249 6.36% 406 1.15% 127 1 406 0.89% 5,021 10.94% 161 5,182 11.29% 941 2.05% 45,886 VAP 32.947 3,247 9.86% 44 3,291 9.99% 594 1.80% 128 1 -125 -0.27% 21,391 47.16% 809 22,200 48.95% 3,417 7.53% 45.355 VAP 30,570 13,672 44.72% 264 13,936 45.59% 2.120 6.93% 129A 1 45,543 63 0.14% 8,796 19.31% 188 8,984 19.73% 1,469 3.23% VAP 32,716 5.709 17.45% 56 5,765 17.62% 900 2.75% 129B 1 45,109 -371 -0.82% 6,780 15.03% 109 6.889 15.27% 1,246 2.76% VAP 33.278 4,833 14.52% 43 4,876 14.65% 886 2.66% 130 1 45,799 319 0.70% 11,236 24.53% 136 11,372 24.83% 3,869 8.45% VAP 32,701 7,522 23.00% 46 7,568 23.14% 2,373 7.26% 131 1 45,268 -212 -0.47% 13.254 29.28% 95 13,349 29.49% 612 1.35% VAP 33,935 9,304 27.42% 36 9,340 27.52% 420 1.24% 132 1 45,217 -263 -0.58% 17.350 38.37% 126 17,476 38.65% 1,050 2.32% VAP 32,384 11,195 34.57% 61 11,256 34.76% 678 2.09% 133 1 45,425 -55 -0.12% 19,552 43.04% 338 19,890 43.79% 1,949 4.29% VAP 32,725 13.355 40.81% 155 13,510 41.28% 1,292 3.95% 134 1 45,574 94 0.21% 21,532 47.25% 112 21.644 47.49% 856 1.88% VAP 33.517 14,428 43.05% 59 14,487 43.22% 567 1.69% 135 1 45,879 399 0.88% 27,937 60.89% 209 28,146 61.35% 702 1.53% VAP 33.298 18,570 55.77% 98 18.668 56 06% 473 1.42% 136 1 45,135 -345 -0.76% 28.385 62.89% 153 28.538 63.23% 479 1.06% VAP 32,623 19,322 59.23% 80 19,402 59.47% 325 1.00% 137 1 45,748 268 0.59% 10,635 23.25% 109 10,744 23.49% 700 1.53% VAP 32,306 6,715 20.79% 41 6,756 20.91% 418 1.29% 138 1 45.442 -38 -0.08% 14,481 31.87% 126 14,607 32.14% 3.145 6.92% VAP 32,859 9,313 28.34% 39 9,352 28.46% 2,079 633% 139 1 45.653 173 0.38% 8,177 17.91% 122 8,299 18.18% 3,885 8.51% VAP 33,105 5,240 15.83% 39 5.279 15.95% 2,577 7.78% 140 1 45,561 81 0.18% 19,098 41.92% 145 19,243 4224% 1,865 4.09% VAP 32.980 12,668 38.41% 59 12,727 38.59% 1,171 3.55% 141A 1 45,352 -128 -0.28% 15,389 33.93% 152 15,541 34.27% 1,025 2.26% VAP 33,097 10,328 31.21% 79 10.407 31.44% 659 1.99% 141B 1 45,266 -214 -0.47% 17,675 39.05% 132 17.807 39.34% 1.751 3.87% VAP 32,566 11,556 35.48% 65 11,621 35.68% 1,154 3.54% 142 1 45,656 176 0.39% 20,644 45.22% 232 20,876 45.72% 993 2.17% VAP 34,299 13,804 40.25% 117 13,921 40 59% 681 1.99% 143 1 45,077 -403 -0.89% 10,883 24.14% 214 11,097 24.62% 1.096 2.43% VAP 32,477 7,338 22.59% 87 7.425 22.86% 748 2.30% 144 1 45,071 -409 -0.90% 12,583 27.92% 137 12,720 28.22% 1,969 4.37% VAP 32,871 8,555 26.03% 69 8,624 26.24% 1,322 4.02% 145 1 45,765 285 0.63% 12.947 28.29% 142 13,089 28.60% 769 1.68% VAP 34,135 9.016 26.41% 63 9,079 26.60% 493 1.44% 146 1 45.273 -207 -0.46% 15.501 34.24% 223 15,724 34.73% 1.632 3.60% VAP 34,003 10,231 30.09% 85 10,316 30.34% 1,141 3.36% 147 1 45,433 -47 -0.10% 9.141% 20.12% 304 9,445 20.79% 1,600 3.52% VAP 31,098 5,823 18.72% 94 5,917 19.03% 984 3.16% Total Number of Members: 180

Total Population: 8,186,453 Ideal Value: 45.480

Summary Statistics Population Range: 45,032 10 45,921 Absolute Range: -448 to 441 Absolute Overall Range: 889 Relative Range: -0.99% to 0.97% Relative Overall Range: 1.95%

NOTE: Because some districts may be multi-member districts, Deviation = Total Deviation / # of members in district.

DATA SOURCE: 2000 US Census PL94-171 Population Counts

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT BB

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Plan: HOUSE MARCH 12 Plan Type

Administrated User: Patrick Egan

Plan Components Report Saturday, March 13, 2004

CITY POPULATION AS COMPONENT OF GEORGIA HOUSE DISTRICTS

City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Abbeville 2298 131 2298 100.0 5.1 Acworth 13422 028 0 0.0 0.0 Acworth 13422 035 13422 100.0 29.3 Adairsville 2542 0138 2542 100.0 5.6 Adel 5307 139 5307 100.0 11.6 Adrian 579 102 312 53.9 0.7 Adrian 579 120 267 46.1 0.6 Alley 394 120 394 100.0 0.9 Alamo 1943 118 1943 100.0 4.3 Alapaha 682 139 682 100.0 1.5 Albany 76939 135 42022 54.6 91.6 Albany 76939 136 34917 45.4 77.4 Albany 76939 137 0 0.0 0.0 Aldora 98 091 0 0.0 0.0 Aldora 98 093 98 100.0 0.2 Allenhurst 788 128 788 100.0 1.7 Allentown 287 104 284 99.0 0.6 Allentown 287 119 3 1.0 0.0 Allentown 287 131 0 0.0 0.0 Alma 3236 121B 3236 100.0 7.1 Alpharetta 34854 037 33441 95.9 72.9 Alpharetta 34854 039 1413 4.1 3.1 Alston 159 120 159 100.0 0.4 Alto 876 007 519 59.2 1.1 Alto 876 022 357 40.8 0.8 Ambrose 320 130 320 100.0 0.7 Americus 17013 116 17013 100.0 37.3 Andersonville 331 116 331 100.0 0.7 Arabi 456 132 456 100.0 1.0 Aragon 1039 019 1039 100.0 2.3 Arcade 1643 025 1643 100.0 3.6 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Argyle 151 143 151 100.0 0.3 Arlington 1602 134 1602 100.0 3.5 Arnoldsville 312 076 312 100.0 0.7 Ashburn 4419 138 4419 100.0 9.7 Athens-Clarke Co 100266 074 45272 45.2 100.0 Athens-Clarke Co 100266 075 45530 45.4 100.0 Athens-Clarke Co 100266 076 9464 9.4 20.9 Atlanta 416474 042A 33987 8.2 75.0 Atlanta 416474 042C 39233 9.4 86.2 Atlanta 416474 042d 16437 3.9 36.4 Atlanta 416474 043A 45915 11.0 100.0 Atlanta 416474 043B 45248 10.9 100.0 Atlanta 416474 044 29556 7.1 65.0 Atlanta 416474 045 11841 2.8 26.2 Atlanta 416474 047 20091 4.8 44.4 Atlanta 416474 048A 3209 0.8 7.1 Atlanta 416474 048B 28152 6.8 61.4 Atlanta 416474 048C 6252 1.5 13.8 Atlanta 416474 049 45508 10.9 100.0 Atlanta 416474 050 15438 3.7 33.9 Atlanta 416474 051 45272 10.9 100.0 Atlanta 416474 059A 30335 7.3 66.6 Attapulgus 492 141B 492 100.0 1.1 Auburn 6904 024 294 4.3 0.6 Auburn 6904 089 6610 95.7 14.4 Augusta-Richmon 195182 096 37902 19.4 82.9 Augusta-Richmon 195182 097 45395 23.3 100.0 Augusta-Richmon 195182 098 45289 23.2 100.0 Augusta-Richmon 195182 099 41549 21.3 91.5 Augusta-Richmon 195182 100 25047 12.8 54.9 Austell 5359 033C 5230 97.6 11.6 Austell 5359 045 129 2.4 0.3 Avalon 278 022 278 100.0 0.6 Avera 217 103 217 100.0 0.5 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Avondale Estates 2609 058 2609 100.0 5.8 Baconton 804 140 804 100.0 1.8 Bainbridge 11722 141B 11722 100.0 25.9 Baldwin 2425 007 1993 82.2 4.4 Baldwin 2425 022 432 17.8 1.0 Ball Ground 730 014B 730 100.0 1.6 Barnesville 5972 091 1980 33.2 4.3 Barnesville 5972 093 3992 66.8 8.8 Bartow 223 103 223 100.0 0.5 Barwick 444 144 444 100.0 1.0 Baxley 4150 121B 4150 100.0 9.1 Bellville 130 121A 130 100.0 0.3 Berkeley Lake 1695 064 1695 100.0 3.7 Berlin 595 139 595 100.0 1.3 Bethlehem 716 089 716 100.0 1.6 Between 148 071B 148 100.0 0.3 Bibb City 510 112 510 100.0 1.1 Bishop 146 076 146 100.0 0.3 Blackshear 3283 129B 3283 100.0 7.3 Blairsville 659 008 659 100.0 1.4 Blakely 5696 134 5696 100.0 12.5 Bloomingdale 2665 127 2665 100.0 5.8 Blue Ridge 1210 006 1210 100.0 2.7 Bluffton 118 134 118 100.0 0.3 Blythe 718 100 718 100.0 1.6 Bogart 1049 076 1086 103.5 2.4 Boston 1417 144 1417 100.0 3.1 Bostwick 322 076 322 100.0 0.7 Bowdon 1959 088B 1959 100.0 4.3 Bowersville 334 023 334 100.0 0.7 Bowman 898 078 898 100.0 2.0 Braselton 1206 024 240 19.9 0.5 Braselton 1206 025 914 75.8 2.0 Braselton 1206 067B 23 1.9 0.1 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Braselton 1206 089 29 2.4 0.1 Braswell 80 019 42 52.5 0.1 Bras well 80 027 38 47.5 0.1 Bremen 4579 018 4579 100.0 10.0 Brinson 225 141B 225 100.0 0.5 Bronwood 513 133 513 100.0 1.1 Brooklet 1113 122 1113 100.0 2.4 Brooks 553 085A 553 100.0 1.2 Broxton 1428 130 1428 100.0 3.1 Brunswick 15600 146 15600 100.0 34.5 Buchanan 941 027 941 100.0 2.1 Buckheact 205 073 205 100.0 0.4 Buena Vista 1664 116 1664. 100.0 3.6 Buford 10668 067A 10566 99.0 23.3 Buford 10668 067B 102 1.0 0.2 Butler 1907 114 1907 100.0 4.2 Byromville 415 114 415 100.0 0.9 Byron 2887 108 2887 100.0 6.3 Cadwell 329 119 329 100.0 0.7 Cairo 9239 141A 0 0.0 0.0 Cairo 9239 141B 9239 100.0 20.4 Calhoun 10667 005 10667 100.0 23.4 Camak 165 095 165 100.0 0.4 Camilla 5669 140 5669 100.0 12.4 Canon 755 023 755 100.0 1.7 Canton 7709 014B 7127 92.5 15.8 Canton 7709 016 582 7.5 1.3 Carl 205 089 205 100.0 0.4 Carlton 233 078 233 100.0 0.5 Camesville 541 023 541 100.0 1.2 Carrollton 19843 018 19843 100.0 43.4 Cartersville 15925 012 15925 100.0 34.7 Cave Spring 975 011 49 5.0 0.1 Cave Spring 975 019 926 95.0 2.0 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Cecil 265 139 265 100.0 0.6 Cedartown 9470 019 9470 100.0 20.7 Centerville 4278 108 3119 72.9 6.8 Centerville 4278 117 1159 27.1 2.5 Centralhatchee 383 088B 383 100.0 0.8 Chamblee 9552 053 9552 100.0 20.8 Chatsworth 3531 005 3531 100.0 7.7 Chauncey 295 131 295 100.0 0.7 Chester 305 131 305 100.0 0.7 Chickamauga 2245 001 2245 100.0 4.9 Clarkesville 1248 007 1248 100.0 2.7 Clarkston 7231 057 7231 100.0 16.0 Claxton 2276 121A 2276 100.0 5.0 Clayton 2019 008 2019 100.0 4.4 Clermont 419 020 419 100.0 0.9 Cleveland 1907 007 1907 100.0 4.2 Climax 297 141B 297 100.0 0.7 Cobbtown 311 121A 311 100.0 0.7 Cochran 4455 131 4455 100.0 9.8 Cohutta 582 003B 582 100.0 1.3 Colbert 488 078 488 100.0 1.1 Coleman 149 134 149 100.0 0.3 Collage Park 20382 048C 10686 52.4 23.6 College Park 20382 048D 9696 47.6 21.2 College Park 20382 081 0 0.0 0.0 Collins 528 121A 528 100.0 1.2 Colquitt 1939 134 1939 100.0 4.3 Columbus city (bal 185781 109 40629 21.9 89.8 Columbus city (bal 185781 110 10074 5.4 22.4 Columbus city (bal 185781 111 45137 24.3 100.0 Columbus city (bal 185781 112 44740 24.1 98.9 Columbus city (bal 185781 113 45201 24.3 100.0 Comer 1052 078 1052 100.0 2.3 Commerce 5292 025 5292 100.0 11.5 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Concord 336 091 336 100.0 0.7 Conyers 10689 062 10689 100.0 23.6 Conyers 10669 063 0 0.0 0.0 Coolidge 552 141A 552 100.0 1.2 Cordele 11608 132 11608 100.0 25.7 Corinth 213 087 13 6.1 0.0 Corinth 213 088B 200 93.9 0.4 Cornelia 3674 007 3674 100.0 8.1 Covington 11547 073 11547 100.0 25.2 Crawford 807 076 807 100.0 1.8 Crawfordville 572 095 572 100.0 1.2 Culloden 223 108 223 100.0 0.5 Cumming 4220 014A 4220 100.0 9.3 Cusseta 1196 133 1196 100.0 2.6 Cuthbert 3731 134 3731 100.0 8.2 Dacula 3848 024 3848 100.0 8.5 Dahlonega 3638 009 3638 100.0 7.9 Daisy 126 121A 126 100.0 0.3 Dallas 5056 026 606 12.0 1.3 Dallas 5056 027 4450 88.0 9.8 Dalton 27912 003B 42 0.2 0.1 Dalton 27912 004 27870 99.8 60.9 Damascus 277 134 277 100.0 0.6 Danielsville 457 078 457 100.0 1.0 Danville 373 104 373 100.0 0.8 Darien 1719 129A 1719 100.0 3.8 Dasher 834 144 834 100.0 1.9 Davisboro 1544 103 1544 100.0 3.4 Dawson 5058 133 5058 100.0 11.1 Dawsonville 619 009 619 100.0 1.3 De Soto 214 116 214 100.0 0.5 Dearing 441 095 441 100.0 1.0 Decatur 18147 042d 7023 38.7 15.5 Decatur 18147 056A 7885 43.5 17.4 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Decatur 18147 058 3239 17.8 7.2 Deepstep 132 103 132 100.0 0.3 Demorest 1465 007 1465 100.0 3.2 Denton 269 130 269 100.0 0.6 Dexter 509 119 509 100.0 1.1 Dillard 198 008 198 100.0 0.4 Doerun 828 140 828 100.0 1.8 Donalsonville 2796 134 2796 100.0 6.1 Dooling 163 114 163 100.0 0.4 Doraville 9862 053 9862 100.0 21.5 Douglas 10639 130 10639 100.0 23.2 Douglasville 20065 045 1210 6.0 2.7 Douglasville 20065 046 17104 85.2 37.9 Douglasville 20065 047 1751 8.7 3.9 Du Pont 139 143 139 100.0 0.3 Dublin 15857 119 15857 100.0 34.9 Dudley 447 119 447 100.0 1.0 Duluth 22122 064 0 0.0 0.0 Duluth 22122 065 22122 100.0 48.9 East Dublin 2484 119 2484 100.0 5.5 East Ellijay 707 006 707 100.0 1.6 East Point 39595 048A 6130 15.5 13.5 East Point 39595 048B 11541 29.1 25.2 East Point 39595 048C 21924 55.4 48.5 Eastman 5440 131 5440 100.0 12.0 Eatonton 6764 077 6764 100.0 15.0 Edge Hill 30 095 30 100.0 0.1 Edison 1340 134 1340 100.0 2.9 Elberton 4743 078 4743 100.0 10.5 Ellaville 1609 116 1609 100.0 3.5 Ellenton 336 139 336 100.0 0.7 Ellijay 1584 006 1584 100.0 3.5 Emerson 1092 012 1092 100.0 2.4 Enigma 869 139 869 100.0 1.9 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Ephesus 388 088B 388 100.0 0.9 Eton 319 005 319 100.0 0.7 Euharlee 3208 013B 3208 100.0 7.1 Fairbum 5464 048A 5464 100.0 12.1 Fairmount 745 010 745 100.0 1.6 Fargo 380 143 380 100.0 0.8 Fayetteville 11148 081 2779 24.9 6.1 Fayetteville 11148 083 2233 20.0 4.9 Fayetteville 11148 085B 6136 55.0 13.4 Fitzgerald 8758 118 8758 100.0 19.3 Flemington 369 128 369 100.0 0.8 Flovilla 652 072 0 0.0 0.0 Flovilla 652 092 652 100.0 1.4 Flowery Branch 1806 067B 1806 100.0 4.0 Folkston 2178 145 2178 100.0 4.8 Forest Park 21447 048C 3920 18.3 8.7 Forest Park 21447 050 12983 60.5 28.5 Forest Park 21447 082 1339 6.2 2.9 Forest Park 21447 084A 3205 14.9 7.0 Forsyth 3776 093 3776 100.0 8.3 Fort Gaines 1110 134 1110 100.0 2.4 Fort Oglethorpe 6940 001 6940 100.0 15.2 Fort Valley 8005 114 8005 100.0 17.7 Franklin 902 088B 902 100.0 2.0 Franklin Springs 762 023 762 100.0 1.7 Funston 426 140 426 100.0 0.9 Gainesville 25578 020 1101 4.3 2.4 Gainesville 25578 021 23139 90.5 51.0 Gainesville 25578 025 0 0.0 0.0 Gainesville 25578 067B 1338 5.2 3.0 Garden City 11289 124A 11277 99.9 24.7 Garden City 11289 127 12 0.1 0.0 Garfield 152 102 152 100.0 0.3 Gay 149 090 149 100.0 0.3 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Geneva 114 109 114 100.0 0.3 Georgetown 973 133 973 100.0 2.1 Gibson 694 095 694 100.0 1.5 Gillsville 195 022 28 14.4 0.1 Gillsville 195 025 167 85.6 0.4 Girard 227 100 227 100.0 0.5 Glennville 3641 121A 3641 100.0 8.0 Glen wood 884 120 884 100.0 2.0 Good Hope 210 071B 210 100.0 0.5 Gordon 2152 104 2152 100.0 4.8 Graham 312 121B 312 100.0 0.7 Grantville 1309 087 1309 100.0 2.9 Gray 1811 093 1811 100.0 4.0 Grayson 765 071A 765 100.0 1.7 Greensboro 3238 077 3238 100.0 7.2 Greenville 946 090 946 100.0 2.1 Griffin 23451 085A 44 0.2 0.1 Griffin 23451 092 23407 99.8 51.1 Grovetown 6089 079 6089 100.0 13.3 Gumbranch 273 128 273 100.0 0.6 Guyton 917 101 917 100.0 2.0 Hagan 898 121A 898 100.0 2.0 Hahira 1626 143 1626 100.0 3.6 Hamilton 307 110 307 100.0 0.7 Hampton 3857 085A 3857 100.0 8.4 Hapeville 6180 048B 6180 100.0 13.5 Haralson 144 086 144 100.0 0.3 Haralson 144 090 0 0.0 0.0 Harlem 1814 079 1814 100.0 4.0 Harrison 509 103 509 100.0 1.1 Hartwell 4188 023 4188 100.0 S.2 Hawkinsville 3280 131 0 0.0 0.0 Hawkinsville 3280 132 3280 100.0 7.3 Hazlehurst 3787 118 0 0.0 0.0 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Hazlehurst 3787 121B 3787 100.0 8.3 Helen 430 008 430 100.0 0.9 Helena 2307 118 2307 100.0 5.1 Hephzibah 3880 099 3880 100.0 8.5 Hiawassee 808 008 808 100.0 1.8 Higgston 316 120 316 100.0 0.7 Hiltonia 421 101 421 100.0 0.9 Hinesville 30392 128 30392 100.0 67.0 Hiram 1361 026 1361 100.0 3.0 Hoboken 463 129B 463 100.0 1.0 Hogansville 2774 090 2774 100.0 6.1 Holly Springs 3195 016 3195 100.0 7.0 Homeland 765 145 765 100.0 1.7 Homer 950 022 950 100.0 2.1 Homerville 2803 143 2803 100.0 6.2 Hoschton 1070 025 1070 100.0 2.3 Hull 160 078 160 100.0 0.4 Ideal 518 114 518 100.0 1.1 IIa 328 023 328 100.0 0.7 Iron City 321 134 321 100.0 0.7 Irwinton 587 104 587 100.0 1.3 Ivey 1100 104 1100 100.0 2.4 Jackson 3934 072 0 0.0 0.0 Jackson 3934 092 3934 100.0 8.6 Jacksonville 118 118 118 100.0 0.3 Jakin 157 134 157 100.0 0.3 Jasper 2167 010 2167 100.0 4.8 Jefferson 3825 025 3825 100.0 8.3 Jeffersonville 1209 104 1209 100.0 2.7 Jenkinsburg 203 072 203 100.0 0.4 Jersey 163 071B 163 100.0 0.4 Jesup 9279 129B 9279 100.0 20.6 Jonesboro 3829 082 785 20.5 1.7 Jonesboro 3829 083 1198 31.3 2.6 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Jonesboro 3829 084A 400 10.4 0.9 Jonesboro 3829 084B 1446 37.8 3.2 Junction City 179 116 179 100.0 0.4 Kennesaw 21675 032 1640 7.6 3.6 Kennesaw 21675 035 20035 92.4 43.7 Keysville 180 100 170 94.4 0.4 Keysville 180 103 10 5.6 0.0 Kingsland 10506 147 10506 100.0 23.1 Kingston 659 013B 659 100.0 1.4 Kite 241 102 241 100.0 0.5 La Fayette 6702 001 6702 100.0 14.7 LaGrange 25998 088B 10815 41.6 23.9 LaGrange 25998 090 14823 57.0 32.5 LaGrange 25998 110 360 1.4 0.8 Lake City 2886 050 2797 96.9 6.1 Lake City 2886 062 89 3.1 0.2 Lake Park 549 144 549 100.0 1.2 Lakeland 2730 143 2730 100.0 6.1 Lavonia 1827 022 0 0.0 0.0 Lavonia 1827 023 1827 100.0 4.0 Lawrenceville 22397 070A 22397 100.0 49.0 Lawrenceville 22397 070C 0 0.0 0.0 Leary 666 134 666 100.0 1.5 Leesburg 2633 133 2633 100.0 5.8 Lenox 889 139 889 100.0 1.9 Leslie 455 116 455 100.0 1.0 Lexington 239 077 239 100.0 0.5 Lilbum 11307 069B 5 0.0 0.0 Lilbum 11307 070B 11302 100.0 24.8 Lilly 221 132 221 100.0 0.5 Lincolnton 1595 079 1595 100.0 3.5 Lithia Springs 2072 045 2072 100.0 4.6 Lithonia 2187 062 2187 100.0 4.8 Locust Grove 2322 072 1996 86.0 4.4 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Locust Grove 2322 085A 326 14.0 0.7 Loganville 5435 071A 5435 100.0 12.0 Lone Oak 104 090 104 100.0 0.2 Lookout Mountain1617 002 1617 100.0 3.6 Louisville 2712 103 2712 100.0 6.0 Lovejoy 2495 084B 2495 100.0 5.5 Ludowici 1440 129A 1440 100.0 3.2 Lula 1438 020 1354 94.2 3.0 Lula 1438 022 84 5.8 0.2 Lumber City 1247 118 1247 100.0 2.8 Lumpkin 1369 133 1369 100.0 3.0 Luthersville 783 090 783 100.0 1.7 Lyerly 488 011 488 100.0 1.1 Lyons 4169 120 4169 100.0 9.2 Macon 97255 093 0 0.0 0.0 Macon 97255 104 478 0.5 1.1 Macon 97255 105 43328 44.6 94.9 Macon 97255 106 15477 15.9 33.9 Macon 97255 107 37972 39.0 83.8 Madison 3636 073 3636 100.0 7.9 Manassas 100 121A 100 100.0 0.2 Manchester 3988 090 3895 97.7 8.5 Manchester 3988 114 93 2.3 0.2 Mansfield 392 073 392 100.0 0.9 Marietta 58748 031 4817 8.2 10.7 Marietta 58748 032 6695 11.4 14.8 Marietta 58748 033A 29232 49.8 64.2 Marietta 58748 034A 18004 30.6 39.4 Marshallville 1335 114 1335 100.0 2.9 Martin 311 022 311 100.0 0.7 Maxeys 210 077 210 100.0 0.5 Maysville 1247 022 672 53.9 1.5 Maysville 1247 025 575 46.1 1.3 McCaysville 1071 006 1071 100.0 2.4 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City McDonough 8493 059C 8493 100.0 18.8 Mclntyre 718 104 718 100.0 1.6 McRae 2682 118 2682 100.0 5.9 Meansville 192 091 192 100.0 0.4 Meigs 1090 140 29 2.7 0.1 Meigs 1090 141A 1061 97.3 2.3 Menlo 485 011 485 100.0 1.1 Metter 3879 102 3879 100.0 8.6 Midville 457 103 457 100.0 1.0 Midway 1100 123 0 0.0 0.0 Midway 1100 128 1100 100.0 2.4 Milan 1012 118 578 57.1 1.3 Milan 1012 131 434 42.9 1.0 Milledgeville 18757 094 18757 100.0 41.3 Millen 3492 101 3492 100.0 7.7 Milner 522 091 35 6.7 0.1 Milner 522 092 487 93.3 1.1 Mitchell 173 095 173 100.0 0.4 Molena 475 091 475 100.0 1.0 Monroe 11407 071B 11407 100.0 24.9 Montezuma 3999 114 3999 100.0 8.8 Monticello 2428 093 2428 100.0 5.4 Montrose 154 119 154 100.0 0.3 Moraland 393 086 393 100.0 0.9 Morgan 1464 134 1464 100.0 3.2 Morganton 299 006 299 100.0 0.7 Morrow 4882 050 4028 82.5 8.8 Morrow 4882 082 3 0.1 0.0 Morrow 4882 084A 851 17.4 1.9 Morven 634 144 634 100.0 1.4 Moultrie 14387 139 1468 10.2 3.2 Moultrie 14397 140 12919 89.8 28.4 Mount Airy 604 007 604 100.0 1.3 Mount Vernon 2082 120 2082 100.0 4.6 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City MountZion 1275 018 1275 100.0 2.8 Mountain City 829 008 829 100.0 1.8 Mountain Park 506 016 10 2.0 0.0 Mountain Park 506 039 496 98.0 1.1 Nahunta 930 129B 930 100.0 2.1 Nashville 4697 139 4696 100.0 10.3 Nashville 4697 143 1 0.0 0.0 Nelson 626 010 339 54.2 0.7 Nelson 626 014B 287 45.8 0.6 Newborn 520 073 520 100.0 1.1 Newington 322 101 322 100.0 0.7 Newnan 16242 087 16242 100.0 35.8 Newton 851 136 851 100.0 1.9 Nicholls 1008 130 1008 100.0 2.2 Nicholson 1247 078 1247 100.0 2.8 Norcross 8410 064 4 0.0 0.0 Norcross 8410 066 8406 100.0 18.4 Norcross 8410 069B 0 0.0 0.0 Norman Park 849 139 849 100.0 1.9 North High Shoals439 076 439 100.0 1.0 Norwood 299 095 299 100.0 0.7 Nunez 131 102 131 100.0 0.3 Oak Park 366 102 366 100.0 0.8 Oak Park 366 120 0 0.0 0.0 Oakwood 2689 021 41 1.5 0.1 Oakwood 2689 067B 2648 98.5 5.9 Ochlocknee 605 141A 605 100.0 1.3 Ocilla 3270 118 3270 100.0 7.2 Oconee 280 103 280 100.0 0.6 Odum 414 129B 414 100.0 0.9 Offerman 403 129B 403 100.0 0.9 Oglethorpe 1200 114 1200 100.0 2.7 Oliver 253 101 253 100.0 0.6 Omega 1340 138 1339 99.9 2.9 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Omega 1340 139 1 0.1 0.0 Orchard Hill 230 092 230 100.0 0.5 Oxford 1892 073 1892 100.0 4.1 Palmetto 3400 048A 3073 90.4 6.8 Palmetto 3400 086 327 9.6 0.7 Parrott 156 133 156 100.0 0.3 Patterson 627 129B 627 100.0 1.4 Pavo 711 141A 418 58.8 0.9 Pavo 711 144 293 41.2 0.7 Payne 178 106 178 100.0 0.4 Peachtree City 31580 048D 3193 10.1 7.0 Peachtree City 31580 085B 28387 89.9 62.1 Pearson 1805 130 1805 100.0 3.9 Pelham 4126 140 4126 100.0 9.1 Pembroke 2379 122 2379 100.0 5.2 Pendergrass 431 025 431 100.0 0.9 Perry 9602 108 3 0.0 0.0 Perry 9602 115 9570 99.7 21.0 Perry 9602 132 29 0.3 0.1 Pine Lake 621 055 621 100.0 1.4 Pine Mountain 1141 090 23 2.0 0.1 Pine Mountain 1141 110 1118 98.0 2.5 Pinehurst 307 132 307 100.0 0.7 Pineview 532 131 532 100.0 1.2 Pitts 308 131 308 100.0 0.7 Plains 637 116 637 100.0 1.4 Plainville 257 010 257 100.0 0.6 Pooler 6239 127 6239 100.0 13.6 PortWentworth 3276 127 3276 100.0 7.1 Portal 597 101 597 100.0 1.3 Porterdale 1281 072 4 0.3 0.0 Porterdale 1281 073 1277 99.7 2.8 Poulan 946 137 946 100.0 2.1 Powder Springs 12481 033C 12481 100.0 27.6 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Preston 453 133 453 100.0 1.0 Pulaski 261 102 261 100.0 0.6 Quitman 4638 144 4638 100.0 10.3 Ranger 85 010 85 100.0 0.2 Ray City 746 143 746 100.0 1.7 Rayle 139 077 139 100.0 0.3 Rebecca 246 138 246 100.0 0.5 Register 164 102 164 100.0 0.4 Reidsville 2235 121A 2235 100.0 4.9 Remerton 847 142 847 100.0 1.9 Rentz 304 119 304 100.0 0.7 Resaca 815 005 815 100.0 1.8 Rest Haven 151 067A 113 74.8 0.2 Rest Haven 151 067B 38 25.2 0.1 Reynolds 1036 114 1036 100.0 2.3 Rhine 422 131 422 100.0 0.9 Riceboro 736 128 736 100.0 1.6 Richland 1794 133 1794 100.0 3.9 Richmond Hill 6959 123 6959 100.0 15.2 Riddleville 124 103 124 100.0 0.3 Rincon 4376 127 4376 100.0 9.5 Ringgold 2422 003A 2422 100.0 5.3 Riverdale 12478 081 4030 32.3 8.8 Riverdale 12478 083 4595 36.8 10.1 Riverdale 12478 084A 3853 30.9 8.4 Riverside 57 140 57 100.0 0.1 Roberta 808 108 808 100.0 1.8 Rochelle 1415 131 1415 100.0 3.1 Rockmart 3870 019 3870 100.0 8.4 Rocky Ford 186 101 186 100.0 0.4 Rome 34980 011 15 0.0 0.0 Rome 34980 013A 34965 100.0 76.6 Rome 34980 013B 0 0.0 0.0 Roopville 177 088B 177 100.0 0.4 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Rossville 3511 002 3511 100.0 7.7 Roswell 79334 037 6074 7.7 13.2 Roswell 79334 039 24509 30.9 54.1 Roswell 79334 040 32098 40.5 70.B Roswell 79334 041 16653 21.0 36.6 Royston 2493 023 2493 100.0 5.5 Rutledge 707 073 707 100.0 1.5 Sale City 319 140 319 100.0 0.7 Sandersville 6144 103 6144 100.0 13.6 Santa Claus 237 120 237 100.0 0.5 Sardis 1171 101 1171 100.0 2.6 Sasser 393 133 393 100.0 0.9 Savannah 131510 123 16310 12.4 35.7 Savannah 131510 124A 30399 23.1 66.7 Savannah 131510 124B 39517 30.0 86.9 Savannah 131510 125 45265 34.4 100.0 Savannah 131510 127 19 0.0 0.0 Scotland 300 118 300 100.0 0.7 Screven 702 129B 702 100.0 1.6 Senoia 1738 086 1738 100.0 3.8 Shady Dale 242 093 242 100.0 0.5 Sharon 105 095 105 100.0 0.2 Sharpsburg 316 086 316 100.0 0.7 Shellman 1166 134 1166 100.0 2.6 Shiloh 423 110 423 100.0 0.9 Siloam 331 077 331 100.0 0.7 Sky Valley 221 008 221 100.0 0.5 Smithville 774 133 774 100.0 1.7 Smyrna 40999 034A 14475 35.3 31.6 Smyrna 40999 034B 26524 64.7 57.9 Snellville 15351 061C 15338 99.9 33.8 Snellville 15351 068 13 0.1 0.0 Social Circle 3379 071B 3379 100.0 7.4 Social Circle 3379 073 0 0.0 0.0 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Soperton 2824 120 2824 100.0 6.2 Sparks 1755 139 1755 100.0 3.8 Sparta 1522 095 1522 100.0 3.3 Springfield 1821 101 1821 100.0 4.0 St. Marys 13761 147 13761 100.0 30.3 Stapleton 318 103 318 100.0 0.7 Statesboro 22698 102 5076 22.4 11.2 Statesboro 22698 122 17622 77.6 38.4 Stalham 2040 089 2040 100.0 4.4 Stillmore 730 102 730 100.0 1.6 Stockbridge 9853 059B 6621 67.2 14.5 Stockbridge 9853 059C 2556 25.9 5.7 Stockbridge 9853 060B 234 2.4 0.5 Stockbridge 9853 084B 442 4.5 1.0 Stone Mountain 7145 055 7145 100.0 15.6 Sugar Hill 11399 067A 11399 100.0 25.2 Summertown 140 102 140 100.0 0.3 Summerville 4556 011 4556 100.0 10.1 Sumner 309 137 309 100.0 0.7 Sunny Side 142 085A 142 100.0 0.3 Surrency 237 121B 237 100.0 0.5 Suwanee 8725 024 3 0.0 0.0 Suwanee 8725 065 2705 31.0 6.0 Suwanee 8725 067A 5844 67.0 12.9 Suwanee 8725 070C 173 2.0 0.4 Swainsboro 6943 102 6943 100.0 15.3 Sycamore 496 138 496 100.0 1.1 Sylvania 2675 101 2675 100.0 5.9 Sylvester 5990 137 5990 100.0 13.1 Talbotton 1019 114 1019 100.0 2.3 Talking Rock 49 010 49 100.0 0.1 Tallapoosa 2789 018 2789 100.0 6.1 Tallulah Falls 164 007 61 37.2 0.1 Tallulah Falls 164 008 103 62.8 0.2 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Talmo 477 025 477 100.0 1.0 Tarrytown 100 120 100 100.0 0.2 Taylorsville 229 013B 165 80.B 0.4 Taylorsville 229 019 44 19.2 0.1 Temple 2383 027 0 0.0 0.0 Temple 2383 088A 2363 100.0 5.3 Tennille 1505 103 1505 100.0 3.3 Thomaston 9411 091 9411 100.0 20.6 Thomasville 18162 141A 18162 100.0 40.0 Thomson 6828 095 6828 100.0 14.9 Thunderbolt 2340 126 2340 100.0 5.2 Tifton 15060 138 15060 100.0 33.1 Tiger 316 008 316 100.0 0.7 Tignall 653 077 653 100.0 1.4 Toccoa 9323 022 9323 100.0 20.6 Toomsboro 622 104 622 100.0 1.4 Trenton 1942 002 1942 100.0 4.3 Trion 1993 011 1993 100.0 4.4 Tunnel Hill 1209 003B 1209 100.0 2.7 Turin 165 086 165 100.0 0.4 Twin City 1752 102 1752 100.0 3.9 Ty Ty 716 138 716 100.0 1.6 Tybee Island 3392 126 3392 100.0 7.5 Tyrone 3916 048D 3916 100.0 8.6 Unadilla 2772 114 2772 100.0 6.1 Unadilla 2772 132 0 0.0 0.0 Union City 11621 048A 9268 79.8 20.4 Union City 11621 048D 2353 20.2 5.1 Union Point 1669 077 1669 100.0 3.7 Uvalda 530 120 530 100.0 1.2 Valdosta 43724 142 41207 94.2 90.3 Valdosta 43724 143 2378 5.4 5.3 Valdosta 43724 144 139 0.3 0.3 Vamell 1491 003B 1491 100.0 3.3 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Vernonburg 138 123 138 100.0 0.3 Vidalia 10491 120 10491 100.0 23.2 Vidette 112 100 112 100.0 0.2 Vienna 2973 132 2973 100.0 6.6 Villa Rica 4134 046 263 6.4 0.6 Villa Rica 4134 088A 3871 93.6 8.5 Waco 469 018 469 100.0 1.0 Wadley 2088 103 2088 100.0 4.6 Waleska 616 014B 616 100.0 1.4 Walnut Grove 1241 071 B 1241 100.0 2.7 Walthourville 4030 128 4030 100.0 8.9 Warm Springs 465 090 485 100.0 1.1 Warner Robins 48804 108 1823 3.7 4.0 Warner Robins 48804 115 9665 19.8 21.2 Warner Robins 48804 117 37316 76.5 81.8 Warrenton 2013 095 2013 100.0 4.4 Warwick 430 132 430 100.0 1.0 Washington 4295 077 4295 100.0 9.5 Watkinsville 2097 076 2097 100.0 4.6 Waverly Hall 709 109 709 100.0 1.6 Waverly Hall 709 110 0 0.0 0.0 Waycross 15333 129B 0 0.0 0.0 Waycross 15333 145 15333 100.0 33.5 Waynesboro 5813 100 5813 100.0 12.7 West Point 3382 110 3382 100.0 7.5 Weston 75 133 75 100.0 0.2 Whigham 631 141B 631 100.0 1.4 White 693 012 693 100.0 1.5 White Plains 283 077 283 100.0 0.6 Whitesburg 596 088A 596 100.0 1.3 Willacoochee 1434 130 1434 100.0 3.1 Williamson 297 091 297 100.0 0.7 Winder 10201 089 10201 100.0 22.2 Winterville 1068 076 1068 100.0 2.4 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Woodbine 1218 147 1218 100.0 2.7 Woodbury 1184 090 1184 100.0 2.6 Woodland 432 114 432 100.0 1.0 Woodstock 10050 015 27 0.3 0.1 Woodstock 10050 016 10023 99.7 21.9 Woodville 400 077 400 100.0 0.9 Woolsey 175 085A 175 100.0 0.4 Wrens 2314 103 2314 100.0 5.1 Wrightsville 2223 103 2223 100.0 4.9 Yatesville 408 091 408 100.0 0.9 Young Harris 604 008 604 100.0 1.3 Zebulon 1181 091 1181 100.0 2.6

CITY POPULATION AS COMPONENT OF GEORGIA HOUSE DISTRICTS

HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 001 2245 Chickamauga 2245 100.0 4.9 001 6940 Fort Oglethorpe 6940 100.0 15.2 001 6702 La Fayette 6702 100.0 14.7 002 1617 Lookout Mountain 1617 100.0 3.6 002 3511 Rossville 3511 100.0 7.7 002 1942 Trenton 1942 100.0 4.3 003A 2422 Ringgold 2422 100.0 5.3 003B 582 Cohutta 582 100.0 1.3 003B 27912 Dalton 42 0.2 0.1 003B 1209 Tunnel Hill 1209 100.0 2.7 003B 1491 Vamell 1491 100.0 3.3 004 27912 Dalton 27870 99.8 60.9 005 10667 Calhoun 10667 100.0 23.4 005 3531 Chatsworth 3531 100.0 7.7 005 319 Eton 319 100.0 0.7 005 815 Resaca 815 100.0 1.8 006 1210 Blue Ridge 1210 100.0 2.7 006 707 East Ellijay 707 100.0 1.6 006 1584 Ellijay 1584 100.0 3.5 006 1071 McCaysville 1071 100.0 2.4 006 299 Morganton 299 100.0 0.7 007 676 Alto 519 59.2 1.1 007 2425 Baldwin 1993 82.2 4.4 007 1248 Clarkesville 1248 100.0 2.7 007 1907 Cleveland 1907 100.0 4.2 007 3674 Cornelia 3674 100.0 8.1 007 1465 Demorest 1465 100.0 3.2 007 604 Mount Airy 604 100.0 1.3 007 164 Tallulah Falls 61 37.2 0.1 008 659 Blairsville 659 100.0 1.4 008 2019 Clayton 2019 100.0 4.4 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 008 198 Dillard 198 100.0 0.4 008 430 Helen 430 100.0 0.9 008 808 Hiawassee 808 100.0 1.8 008 829 Mountain City 829 100.0 1.8 008 221 Sky Valley 221 100.0 0.5 008 164 Tallulah Falls 103 62.8 0.2 008 316 Tiger 316 100.0 0.7 008 604 Young Harris 604 100.0 1.3 009 3638 Dahlonega 3638 100.0 7.9 009 619 Dawsonville 619 100.0 1.3 010 745 Fairmount 745 100.0 1.6 010 2167 Jasper 2167 100.0 4.8 010 626 Nelson 339 54.2 0.7 010 257 Plainville 257 100.0 0.6 010 85 Ranger 85 100.0 0.2 010 49 Talking Rock 49 100.0 0.1 011 975 Cave Spring 49 5.0 0.1 011 488 Lyerty 488 100.0 1.1 011 485 Menlo 485 100.0 1.1 011 34980 Rome 15 0.0 0.0 011 4556 Summerville 4556 100.0 10.1 011 1993 Trion 1993 100.0 4.4 012 15925 Cartersville 15925 100.0 34.7 012 1092 Emerson 1092 100.0 2.4 012 693 White 693 100.0 1.5 013A 34980 Rome 34965 100.0 76.6 013B 2542 Adairsville 2542 100.0 5.6 013B 3208 Euharlee 3208 100.0 7.1 013B 659 Kingston 659 100.0 1.4 013B 34980 Rome 0 0.0 0.0 013B 229 Taylorsville 185 80.8 0.4 014A 4220 Cumming 4220 100.0 9.3 014B 730 Ball Ground 730 100.0 1.6 014B 7709 Canton 7127 92.5 15.8 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 014B 626 Nelson 287 45.8 0.6 014B 616 Waleska 616 100.0 1.4 015 10050 Woodstock 27 0.3 0.1 016 7709 Canton 582 7.5 1.3 016 3195 Holly Springs 3195 100.0 7.0 016 506 Mountain Park 10 2.0 0.0 016 10050 Woodstock 10023 99.7 21.9 018 4579 Bremen 4579 100.0 10.0 018 19843 CarrolIton 19843 100.0 43.4 018 1275 Mount Zion 1275 100.0 2.8 018 2789 Tallapoosa 2789 100.0 6.1 018 469 Waco 469 100.0 1.0 019 1039 Aragon 1039 100.0 2.3 019 80 Braswell 42 52.5 0.1 019 975 Cave Spring 926 95.0 2.0 019 9470 Cedartown 9470 100.0 20.7 019 3870 Rockmart 3870 100.0 8.4 019 229 Taylorsville 44 19.2 0.1 020 419 Clermont 419 100.0 0.9 020 25578 Gainesville 1101 4.3 2.4 020 1438 Lula 1354 94.2 3.0 021 25578 Gainesville 23139 90.5 51.0 021 2689 Oakwood 41 1.5 0.1 022 876 Alto 357 40.8 0.8 022 278 Avalon 278 100.0 0.6 022 2425 Baldwin 432 17.8 1.0 022 195 Gillsville 28 14.4 0.1 022 950 Homer 950 100.0 2.1 022 1827 Lavonia 0 0.0 0.0 022 1438 Lula 84 5.8 0.2 022 311 Martin 311 100.0 0.7 022 1247 Maysville 672 53.9 1.5 022 9323 Toccoa 9323 100.0 20.6 023 334 Bowersville 334 100.0 0.7 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 023 755 Canon 755 100.0 1.7 023 541 Carnesville 541 100.0 1.2 023 762 Franklin Springs 762 100.0 1.7 023 4188 Hartwell 4188 100.0 9.2 023 328 lla 328 100.0 0.7 023 1827 Lavonia 1827 100.0 4.0 023 2493 Royston 2493 100.0 5.5 024 6904 Auburn 294 4.3 0.6 024 1206 Braselton 240 19.9 0.5 024 3848 Dacula 3848 100.0 8.5 024 8725 Suwanee 3 0.0 0.0 025 1643 Arcade 1643 100.0 3.6 025 1206 Braselton 914 75.8 2.0 025 5292 Commerce 5292 100.0 11.5 025 25578 Gainesville 0 0.0 0.0 025 195 Gillsville 167 85.6 0.4 025 1070 Hoschton 1070 100.0 2.3 025 3825 Jefferson 3825 100.0 8.3 025 1247 Maysville 575 46.1 1.3 025 431 Pendergrass 431 100.0 0.9 025 477 Talmo 477 100.0 1.0 026 5056 Dallas 606 12.0 1.3 026 1361 Hiram 1361 100.0 3.0 027 80 Braswell 38 47.5 0.1 027 941 Buchanan 941 100.0 2.1 027 5056 Dallas 4450 88.0 9.8 027 2383 Temple 0 0.0 0.0 028 13422 Acwortn 0 0.0 0.0 031 58748 Marietta 4817 8.2 10.7 032 21675 Kennesaw 1640 7.6 3.6 032 58748 Marietta 6695 11.4 14.8 033A 58748 Marietta 29232 49.8 64.2 033C 5359 Austell 5230 97.6 11.6 033C 12481 Powder Springs 12481 100.0 27.6 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 034A 58748 Marietta 18004 30.6 39.4 034A 40999 Smyma 14475 35.3 31.6 034B 40999 Smyrna 26524 64.7 57.9 035 13422 Ac worth 13422 100.0 29.3 035 21675 Kennesaw 20035 92.4 43.7 037 34854 Alpharetta 33441 95.9 72.9 037 79334 Roswell 6074 7.7 13.2 039 34854 Alpharetta 1413 4.1 3.1 039 506 Mountain Park 496 98.0 1.1 039 79334 Roswell 24509 30.9 54.1 040 79334 Roswell 32098 40.5 70.8 041 79334 Roswell 16653 21.0 36.6 042A 416474 Atlanta 33987 8.2 75.0 042C 416474 Atlanta 39233 9.4 86.2 042d 416474 Atlanta 16437 3.9 36.4 042d 18147 Decatur 7023 38.7 15.5 043A 416474 Atlanta 45915 11.0 100.0 0438 416474 Atlanta 45248 10.9 100.0 044 416474 Atlanta 29556 7.1 65.0 045 416474 Atlanta 11841 2.8 26.2 045 5359 Austell 129 2.4 0.3 045 20065 Douglasville 1210 6.0 2.7 045 2072 Lithia Springs 2072 100.0 4.6 046 20065 Douglasville 17104 85.2 37.9 046 4134 Villa Rica 263 6.4 0.6 047 416474 Atlanta 20091 4.8 44.4 047 20065 Douglasville 1751 8.7 3.9 048A 416474 Atlanta 3209 0.8 7.1 048A 39595 East Point 6130 15.5 13.5 048A 5464 Fairbum 5464 100.0 12.1 048A 3400 Palmetto 3073 90.4 6.8 048A 11621 Union City 9268 79.8 20.4 048B 416474 Atlanta 28152 6.8 61.4 048B 39595 East Point 11541 29.1 25.2 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 048B 6180 Hapeville 6180 100.0 13.5 048C 416474 Atlanta 6252 1.5 13.8 048C 20382 College Park 10686 52.4 23.6 048C 39595 East Point 21924 55.4 48.5 048C 21447 Forest Park 3920 18.3 8.7 048D 20382 College Park 9696 47.6 21.2 048D 31580 Peachtree City 3193 10.1 7.0 048D 3916 Tyrone 3916 100.0 8.6 048D 11621 Union City 2353 20.2 5.1 049 416474 Atlanta 45508 10.9 100.0 050 416474 Atlanta 15438 3.7 33.9 050 21447 Forest Park 12983 60.5 28.5 050 2886 Lake City 2797 96.9 6.1 050 4882 Morrow 4028 82.5 8.8 051 416474 Atlanta 45272 10.9 100.0 053 9552 Chamblee 9552 100.0 20.8 053 9862 Doraville 9862 100.0 21.5 055 621 Pine Lake 621 100.0 1.4 055 7145 Stone Mountain 7145 100.0 15.6 056A 18147 Decatur 7885 43.5 17.4 057 7231 Clarkston 7231 100.0 16.0 058 2609 Avondale Estates 2609 100.0 5.8 058 18147 Decatur 3239 17.8 7.2 059A 416474 Atlanta 30335 7.3 66.6 059B 9853 Stockbridge 6621 67.2 14.5 059C 8493 McDonough 8493 100.0 18.8 059C 9853 Stockbridge 2556 25.9 5.7 060B 9853 Stockbridge 234 2.4 0.5 061C 15351 Snellville 15338 99.9 33.8 062 10689 Conyers 10689 100.0 23.6 062 2187 Lithonia 2187 100.0 4.8 063 10689 Conyers 0 0.0 0.0 064 1695 Berkeley Lake 1695 100.0 3.7 064 22122 Duluth 0 0.0 0.0 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 064 8410 Norcross 4 0.0 0.0 065 22122 Duluth 22122 100.0 48.9 065 8725 Suwanee 2705 31.0 6.0 066 8410 Norcross 8406 100.0 18.4 067A 10668 Buford 10566 99.0 23.3 067A 151 Rest Haven 113 74.8 0.2 067A 11399 Sugar Hill 11399 100.0 25.2 067A 8725 Suwanee 5844 67.0 12.9 067B 1206 Braselton 23 1.9 0.1 067B 10668 Buford 102 1.0 0.2 067B 1806 Flowery Branch 1806 100.0 4.0 067B 25578 Gainesville 1338 5.2 3.0 067B 2689 Oakwood 2648 98.5 5.9 067B 151 Rest Haven 38 25.2 0.1 068 15351 Snellville 13 0.1 0.0 069B 11307 Lilbum 5 0.0 0.0 069B 8410 Norcross 0 0.0 0.0 070A 22397 Lawrenceville 22397 100.0 49.0 070B 11307 Lilbum 11302 100.0 24.8 070C 22397 Lawrenceville 0 0.0 0.0 070C 8725 Suwanee 173 2.0 0.4 071A 765 Grayson 765 100.0 1.7 071A 5435 Loganville 5435 100.0 12.0 071B 148 Between 148 100.0 0.3 071B 210 Good Hope 210 100.0 0.5 071B 163 Jersey 163 100.0 0.4 071B 11407 Monroe 11407 100.0 24.9 071B 3379 Social Circle 3379 100.0 7.4 071B 1241 Walnut Grove 1241 100.0 2.7 072 652 Flovilla 0 0.0 0.0 072 3934 Jackson 0 0.0 0.0 072 203 Jenkinsburg 203 100.0 0.4 072 2322 Locust Grove 1996 86.0 4.4 072 1281 Porterdale 4 0.3 0.0 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 073 205 Buckhead 205 100.0 0.4 073 11547 Covington 11547 100.0 25.2 073 3636 Madison 3636 100.0 7.9 073 392 Mansfield 392 100.0 0.9 073 520 Newborn 520 100.0 1.1 073 1892 Oxford 1892 100.0 4.1 073 1281 Porterdale 1277 99.7 2.8 073 707 Rutledge 707 100.0 1.5 073 3379 Social Circle 0 0.0 0.0 074 100266 Athens-Clarke Co 45272 45.2 100.0 075 100266 Athens-Clarke Co 45530 45.4 100.0 076 312 Arnoldsville 312 100.0 0.7 076 100266 Athens-Clarke Co 9464 9.4 20.9 076 146 Bishop 146 100.0 0.3 076 1049 Bogart 1086 103.5 2.4 076 322 Bostwick 322 100.0 0.7 076 807 Crawford 807 100.0 1.8 076 439 North High Shoals 439 100.0 1.0 076 2097 Watkinsville 2097 100.0 4.6 076 1068 Winterville 1068 100.0 2.4 077 6764 Eatonton 6764 100.0 15.0 077 3238 Greensboro 3238 100.0 7.2 077 239 Lexington 239 100.0 0.5 077 210 Maxeys 210 100.0 0.5 077 139 Rayle 139 100.0 0.3 077 331 Siloam 331 100.0 0.7 077 653 Tignall 653 100.0 1.4 077 1669 Union Point 1669 100.0 3.7 077 4295 Washington 4295 100.0 9.5 077 283 White Plains 283 100.0 0.6 077 400 Woodville 400 100.0 0.9 078 898 Bowman 898 100.0 2.0 078 233 Carlton 233 100.0 0.5 078 488 Colbert 488 100.0 1.1 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 078 1052 Comer 1052 100.0 2.3 078 457 Danielsville 457 100.0 1.0 078 4743 Elberton 4743 100.0 10.5 078 160 Hull 160 100.0 0.4 078 1247 Nicholson 1247 100.0 2.8 079 6089 Grovetown 6089 100.0 13.3 079 1814 Harlem 1814 100.0 4.0 079 1595 Lincolnton 1595 100.0 3.5 081 20382 College Park 0 0.0 0.0 081 11148 Fayetteville 2779 24.9 6.1 081 12478 Riverdale 4030 32.3 8.8 082 21447 Forest Park 1339 6.2 2.9 082 3829 Jonesboro 785 20.5 1.7 082 2886 Lake City 89 3.1 0.2 082 4882 Morrow 3 0.1 0.0 083 11148 Fayetteville 2233 20.0 4.9 083 3829 Jonesboro 1198 31.3 2.6 083 12478 Riverdale 4595 36.8 10.1 084A 21447 Forest Park 3205 14.9 7.0 084A 3829 Jonesboro 400 10.4 0.9 084A 4882 Morrow 851 17.4 1.9 084A 12478 Riverdale 3853 30.9 8.4 084B 3829 Jonesboro 1446 37.8 3.2 084B 2495 Lovejoy 2495 100.0 5.5 084B 9853 Stockbridge 442 4.5 1.0 085A 553 Brooks 553 100.0 1.2 085A 23451 Griffin 44 0.2 0.1 085A 3857 Hampton 3857 100.0 8.4 085A 2322 Locust Grove 326 14.0 0.7 085A 142 Sunny Side 142 100.0 0.3 085A 175 Woolsey 175 100.0 0.4 085B 11148 Fayetteville 6136 55.0 13.4 085B 31580 Peachtree City 28387 89.9 62.1 086 144 Haralson 144 100.0 0.3 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 086 393 Moreland 393 100.0 0.9 086 3400 Palmetto 327 9.6 0.7 086 1738 Senoia 1738 100.0 3.8 086 316 Sharpsburg 316 100.0 0.7 086 165 Turin 165 100.0 0.4 087 213 Corinth 13 6.1 0.0 087 1309 Grantville 1309 100.0 2.9 087 16242 Newnan 16242 100.0 35.8 088A 2383 Temple 2383 100.0 5.3 088A 4134 Villa Rica 3871 93.6 8.5 088A 596 Whitesburg 596 100.0 1.3 088B 1959 Bowdon 1959 100.0 4.3 08BB 363 Centralhatchee 383 100.0 0.8 088B 213 Corinth 200 93.9 0.4 088B 388 Ephesus 388 100.0 0.9 088B 902 Franklin 902 100.0 2.0 088B 25993 LaGrange 10815 41.6 23.9 088B 177 Roopville 177 100.0 0.4 089 6904 Auburn 6610 95.7 14.4 089 716 Bethlehem 716 100.0 1.6 089 1206 Braselton 29 2.4 0.1 089 205 Carl 205 100.0 0.4 089 2040 Statham 2040 100.0 4.4 089 10201 Winder 10201 100.0 22.2 090 149 Gay 149 100.0 0.3 090 946 Greenville 946 100.0 2.1 090 144 Haralson 0 0.0 0.0 090 2774 Hogansville 2774 100.0 6.1 090 25998 LaGrange 14623 57.0 32.5 090 104 Lone Oak 104 100.0 0.2 090 783 Luthersville 783 100.0 1.7 090 3988 Manchester 3895 97.7 8.5 090 1141 Pine Mountain 23 2.0 0.1 090 485 Warm Springs 485 100.0 1.1 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 090 1164 Woodbury 1164 100.0 2.6 091 98 Aldora 0 0.0 0.0 091 5972 Barnesville 1980 33.2 4.3 091 336 Concord 336 100.0 0.7 091 192 Meansville 192 100.0 0.4 091 522 Milner 35 6.7 0.1 091 475 Molena 475 100.0 1.0 091 9411 Thomaston 9411 100.0 20.6 091 297 Williamson 297 100.0 0.7 091 408 Yatesville 408 100.0 0.9 091 1161 Zebulon 1181 100.0 2.6 092 652 Flovilla 652 100.0 1.4 092 23451 Griffin 23407 99.8 51.1 092 3934 Jackson 3934 100.0 8.6 092 522 Milner 487 93.3 1.1 092 230 Orchard Hill 230 100.0 0.5 093 98 Aldora 98 100.0 0.2 093 5972 Barnesville 3992 66.8 8.8 093 3776 Forsyth 3776 100.0 6.3 093 1811 Gray 1811 100.0 4.0 093 97255 Macon 0 0.0 0.0 093 2428 Monticello 2428 100.0 5.4 093 242 Shady Dale 242 100.0 0.5 094 18757 Milledgeville 18757 100.0 41.3 095 165 Camak 165 100.0 0.4 095 572 Crawfordville 572 100.0 1.2 095 441 Dearing 441 100.0 1.0 095 30 Edge Hill 30 100.0 0.1 095 694 Gibson 694 100.0 1.5 095 173 Mitchell 173 100.0 0.4 095 299 Norwood 299 100.0 0.7 095 105 Sharon 105 100.0 0.2 095 1522 Sparta 1522 100.0 3.3 095 6828 Thomson 6828 100.0 14.9 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 095 2013 Warrenton 2013 100.0 4.4 096 195182 Augusta-Richmon 37902 19.4 82.9 097 195182 Augusta-Richmon 45395 23.3 100.0 098 195182 Augusta-Richmon 45289 23.2 100.0 099 195182 Augusta-Richmon 41549 21.3 91.5 099 3880 Hephzibah 3880 100.0 8.5 100 195182 Augusta-Richmon 25047 12.8 54.9 100 718 Blythe 718 100.0 1.6 100 227 Girard 227 100.0 0.5 100 180 Keysville 170 94.4 0.4 100 112 Vidette 112 100.0 0.2 100 5813 Waynesboro 5813 100.0 12.7 101 917 Guyton 917 100.0 2.0 101 421 Hiltonia 421 100.0 0.9 101 3492 Millen 3492 100.0 7.7 101 322 Newington 322 100.0 0.7 101 253 Oliver 253 100.0 0.6 101 597 Portal 597 100.0 1.3 101 186 Rocky Ford 186 100.0 0.4 101 1171 Sard is 1171 100.0 2.6 101 1621 Springfield 1821 100.0 4.0 101 2675 Sylvania 2675 100.0 5.9 102 579 Adrian 312 53.9 0.7 102 152 Garfield 152 100.0 0.3 102 241 Kite 241 100.0 0.5 102 3879 Metter 3879 100.0 8.6 102 131 Nunez 131 100.0 0.3 102 366 Oak Park 366 100.0 0.8 102 261 Pulaski 261 100.0 0.6 102 164 Register 164 100.0 0.4 102 22698 Statesboro 5076 22.4 11.2 102 730 Stillmore 730 100.0 1.6 102 140 Summertown 140 100.0 0.3 102 6943 Swainsboro 6943 100.0 15.3 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 102 1752 Twin City 1752 100.0 3.9 103 217 Avera 217 100.0 0.5 103 223 Barlow 223 100.0 0.5 103 1544 Davisboro 1544 100.0 3.4 103 132 Deepstep 132 100.0 0.3 103 509 Harrison 509 100.0 1.1 103 180 Keysville 10 5.6 0.0 103 2712 Louisville 2712 100.0 6.0 103 457 Midville 457 100.0 1.0 103 280 Oconee 280 100.0 0.6 103 124 Riddleville 124 100.0 0.3 103 6144 Sandersville 6144 100.0 13.6 103 318 Stapleton 318 100.0 0.7 103 1505 Tennille 1505 100.0 3.3 103 2088 Wadley 2088 100.0 4.6 103 2314 Wrens 2314 100.0 5.1 103 2223 Wrightsville 2223 100.0 4.9 104 287 Allentown 284 99.0 0.6 104 373 Danville 373 100.0 0.8 104 2152 Gordon 2152 100.0 4.8 104 587 Irwinton 587 100.0 1.3 104 1100 Ivey 1100 100.0 2.4 104 1209 Jetfersonville 1209 100.0 2.7 104 97255 Macon 478 0.5 1.1 104 718 Mclntyre 718 100.0 1.6 104 622 Toomsboro 622 100.0 1.4 105 97255 Macon 43328 44.6 94.9 106 97255 Macon 15477 15.9 33.9 106 178 Payne 178 100.0 0.4 107 97255 Macon 37972 39.0 83.8 108 2887 Byron 2887 100.0 6.3 108 4278 Centerville 3119 72.9 6.8 108 223 Culloden 223 100.0 0.5 108 9602 Perry 3 0.0 0.0 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 108 808 Roberta 808 100.0 1.8 108 48804 Warner Robins 1823 3.7 4.0 109 185781 Columbus city (bal 40629 21.9 89.8 109 114 Geneva 114 100.0 0.3 109 709 Waverly Hall 709 100.0 1.6 110 185781 Columbus city (bal 10074 5.4 22.4 110 307 Hamilton 307 100.0 0.7 110 25998 LaGrange 360 1.4 0.8 110 1141 Pine Mountain 1118 98.0 2.5 110 423 Shiloh 423 100.0 0.9 110 709 Waverly Hall 0 0.0 0.0 110 3382 West Point 3382 100.0 7.5 111 185781 Columbus city (bal 45137 24.3 100.0 112 510 Bibb City 510 100.0 1.1 112 185781 Columbus city (bal 44740 24.1 98.9 113 185781 Columbus city (bal 45201 24.3 100.0 114 1907 Butler 1907 100.0 4.2 114 415 Byromville 415 100.0 0.9 114 163 Dooling 163 100.0 0.4 114 8005 Fort Valley 8005 100.0 17.7 114 518 Ideal 518 100.0 1.1 114 3988 Manchester 93 2.3 0.2 114 1335 Marshallville 1335 100.0 2.9 114 3999 Montezuma 3999 100.0 8.8 114 1200 Oglethorpe 1200 100.0 2.7 114 1036 Reynolds 1036 100.0 2.3 114 1019 Talbotton 1019 100.0 2.3 114 2772 Unadilla 2772 100.0 6.1 114 432 Woodland 432 100.0 1.0 115 9602 Perry 9570 99.7 21.0 115 48804 Warner Robins 9665 19.8 21.2 116 17013 Americus 17013 100.0 37.3 116 331 Andersonville 331 100.0 0.7 116 1664 Buena Vista 1664 100.0 3.6 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 116 214 De Soto 214 100.0 0.5 116 1609 Ellaville 1609 100.0 3.5 116 179 Junction City 179 100.0 0.4 116 455 Leslie 455 100.0 1.0 116 637 Plains 637 100.0 1.4 117 4278 Centerville 1159 27.1 2.5 117 48804 Warner Robins 37316 76.5 81.8 118 1943 Alamo 1943 100.0 4.3 118 8758 Fitzgerald 8758 100.0 19.3 118 3787 Hazlehurst 0 0.0 0.0 118 2307 Helena 2307 100.0 5.1 118 118 Jacksonville 118 100.0 0.3 118 1247 Lumber City 1247 100.0 2.8 118 2682 McRae 2682 100.0 5.9 118 1012 Milan 578 57.1 1.3 118 3270 Ocilla 3270 100.0 7.2 118 300 Scotland 300 100.0 0.7 119 287 Allentown 3 1.0 0.0 119 329 Cadwell 329 100.0 0.7 119 509 Dexter 509 100.0 1.1 119 15857 Dublin 15857 100.0 34.9 119 447 Dudley 447 100.0 1.0 119 2484 East Dublin 2484 100.0 5.5 119 154 Montrose 154 100.0 0.3 119 304 Rentz 304 100.0 0.7 120 579 Adrian 267 46.1 0.6 120 394 Ailey 394 100.0 0.9 120 159 Alston 159 100.0 0.4 120 884 Glenwood 884 100.0 2.0 120 316 Higgston 316 100.0 0.7 120 4169 Lyons 4169 100.0 9.2 120 2082 Mount Vernon 2082 100.0 4.6 120 366 Oak Park 0 0.0 0.0 120 237 Santa Claus 237 100.0 0.5 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 120 2824 So pert on 2824 100.0 6.2 120 100 Tarrytown 100 100.0 0.2 120 530 Uvalda 530 100.0 1.2 120 10491 Vidalia 10491 100.0 23.2 121A 130 Bellville 130 100.0 0.3 121A 2276 Claxton 2276 100.0 5.0 121A 311 Cobbtown 311 100.0 0.7 121A 528 Collins 528 100.0 1.2 121A 126 Daisy 126 100.0 0.3 121A 3641 Glennville 3641 100.0 8.0 121A 898 Hagan 898 100.0 2.0 121A 100 Manassas 100 100.0 0.2 121A 2235 Reidsville 2235 100.0 4.9 121B 3236 Alma 3236 100.0 7.1 121B 4150 Baxley 4150 100.0 9.1 121B 312 Graham 312 100.0 0.7 121B 3787 Haztehurst 3787 100.0 8.3 121B 237 Surrency 237 100.0 0.5 122 1113 Brooklet 1113 100.0 2.4 122 2379 Pembroke 2379 100.0 5.2 122 22698 Statesboro 17622 77.6 38.4 123 1100 Midway 0 0.0 0.0 123 6959 Richmond Hill 6959 100.0 15.2 123 131510 Savannah 16310 12.4 35.7 123 138 Vernonburg 138 100.0 0.3 124A 11289 Garden City 11277 99.9 24.7 124A 131510 Savannah 30399 23.1 66.7 124B 131510 Savannah 39517 30.0 86.9 125 131510 Savannah 45265 34.4 100.0 126 2340 Thunderbolt 2340 100.0 5.2 126 3392 Tybee Island 3392 100.0 7.5 127 2665 Bloomingdale 2665 100.0 5.8 127 11289 Garden City 12 0.1 0.0 127 6239 Pooler 6239 100.0 13.6 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 127 3276 Port Wentworth 3276 100.0 7.1 127 4376 Rincon 4376 100.0 9.5 127 131510 Savannah 19 0.0 0.0 128 788 Allenhurst 788 100.0 1.7 128 369 Flemington 369 100.0 0.8 128 273 Gumbranch 273 100.0 0.6 128 30392 Hinesville 30392 100.0 67.0 128 1100 Midway 1100 100.0 2.4 128 736 Riceboro 736 100.0 1.6 128 4030 Walthourville 4030 100.0 8.9 129A 1719 Darien 1719 100.0 3.8 129A 1440 Ludowici 1440 100.0 3.2 129B 3283 Blackshear 3283 100.0 7.3 129B 463 Hoboken 463 100.0 1.0 129B 9279 Jesup 9279 100.0 20.6 129B 930 Nahunta 930 100.0 2.1 129B 414 Odum 414 100.0 0.9 129B 403 Offerman 403 100.0 0.9 129B 627 Patterson 627 100.0 1.4 129B 702 Screven 702 100.0 1.6 129B 15333 Waycross 0 0.0 0.0 130 320 Ambrose 320 100.0 0.7 130 1428 Broxton 1428 100.0 3.1 130 269 Denton 269 100.0 0.6 130 10639 Douglas 10639 100.0 23.2 130 1008 Nicholls 1008 100.0 2.2 130 1805 Pearson 1805 100.0 3.9 130 1434 Willacoochee 1434 100.0 3.1 131 2298 Abbeville 2298 100.0 5.1 131 287 Allentown 0 0.0 0.0 131 295 Chauncey 295 100.0 0.7 131 305 Chester 305 100.0 0.7 131 4455 Cochran 4455 100.0 9.8 131 5440 Eastman 5440 100.0 12.0 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 131 3280 Hawkinsville 0 0.0 0.0 131 1012 Milan 434 42.9 1.0 131 532 Pineview 532 100.0 1.2 131 308 Pitts 308 100.0 0.7 131 422 Rhine 422 100.0 0.9 131 1415 Rochelle 1415 100.0 3.1 132 456 Arabi 456 100.0 1.0 132 11608 Cordele 11608 100.0 25.7 132 3280 Hawkinsville 3280 100.0 7.3 132 221 Lilly 221 100.0 0.5 132 9602 Perry 29 0.3 0.1 132 307 Pinehurst 307 100.0 0.7 132 2772 Unadilla 0 0.0 0.0 132 2973 Vienna 2973 100.0 6.6 132 430 Warwick 430 100.0 1.0 133 513 Bronwood 513 100.0 1.1 133 1196 Cusseta 1196 100.0 2.6 133 5058 Dawson 5058 100.0 11.1 133 973 Georgetown 973 100.0 2.1 133 2633 Leesburg 2633 100.0 5.8 133 1369 Lumpkin 1369 100.0 3.0 133 156 Parrott 156 100.0 0.3 133 453 Preston 453 100.0 1.0 133 1794 Richland 1794 100.0 3.9 133 393 Sasser 393 100.0 0.9 133 774 Smith ville 774 100.0 1.7 133 75 Weston 75 100.0 0.2 134 1602 Arlington 1602 100.0 3.5 134 5696 Blakely 5696 100.0 12.5 134 118 Bluffton 118 100.0 0.3 134 149 Coleman 149 100.0 0.3 134 1939 Colquitt 1939 100.0 4.3 134 3731 Cuthbert 3731 100.0 8.2 134 277 Damascus 277 100.0 0.6 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 134 2796 Donalsonville 2796 100.0 6.1 134 1340 Edison 1340 100.0 2.9 134 1110 Fort Gaines 1110 100.0 2.4 134 321 Iron City 321 100.0 0.7 134 157 Jakin 157 100.0 0.3 134 666 Leary 666 100.0 1.5 134 1464 Morgan 1464 100.0 3.2 134 1166 Shellman 1166 100.0 2.6 135 76939 Albany 42022 54.6 91.6 136 76939 Albany 34917 45.4 77.4 136 851 Newton 851 100.0 1.9 137 76939 Albany 0 0.0 0.0 137 946 Poulan 946 100.0 2.1 137 309 Sumner 309 100.0 0.7 137 5990 Sylvester 5990 100.0 13.1 138 4419 Ashbum 4419 100.0 9.7 136 1340 Omega 1339 99.9 2.9 13B 246 Rebecca 246 100.0 0.5 138 496 Sycamore 496 100.0 1.1 138 15060 Tifton 15060 100.0 33.1 138 716 Ty Ty 716 100.0 1.6 139 5307 Adel 5307 100.0 11.6 139 682 Alapaha 682 100.0 1.5 139 595 Berlin 595 100.0 1.3 139 265 Cecil 265 100.0 0.6 139 336 Ellenton 336 100.0 0.7 139 869 Enigma 869 100.0 1.9 139 889 Lenox 889 100.0 1.9 139 14387 Moultrie 1468 10.2 3.2 139 4697 Nashville 4696 100.0 10.3 139 849 Norman Park 849 100.0 1.9 139 1340 Omega 1 0.1 0.0 139 1755 Sparks 1755 100.0 3.8 140 804 Baconton 804 100.0 1.8 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 140 5669 Camilla 5669 100.0 12.4 140 828 Doerun 828 100.0 1.8 140 426 Funston 426 100.0 0.9 140 1090 Meigs 29 2.7 0.1 140 14387 Moultrie 12919 89.8 28.4 140 4126 Pelham 4126 100.0 9.1 140 57 Riverside 57 100.0 0.1 140 319 Sale City 319 100.0 0.7 141A 9239 Cairo 0 0.0 0.0 141A 552 Coolidge 552 100.0 1.2 141A 1090 Meigs 1061 97.3 2.3 141A 605 Ochlocknee 605 100.0 1.3 141A 711 Pavo 418 58.8 0.9 141A 18162 Thomasville 18162 100.0 40.0 141B 492 Attapulgus 492 100.0 1.1 141B 11722 Bainbridge 11722 100.0 25.9 141B 225 Brinson 225 100.0 0.5 141B 9239 Cairo 9239 100.0 20.4 141B 297 Climax 297 100.0 0.7 141B 631 Whigham 631 100.0 1.4 142 847 Remerton 847 100.0 1.9 142 43724 Valdosta 41207 94.2 90.3 143 151 Argyle 151 100.0 0.3 143 139 Du Pont 139 100.0 0.3 143 380 Fargo 380 100.0 0.8 143 1626 Hahira 1626 100.0 3.6 143 2803 Homerville 2803 100.0 6.2 143 2730 Lakeland 2730 100.0 6.1 143 4697 Nashville 1 0.0 0.0 143 746 Ray City 746 100.0 1.7 143 43724 Valdosta 2378 5.4 5.3 144 444 Barwick 444 100.0 1.0 144 1417 Boston 1417 100.0 3.1 144 834 Dasher 834 100.0 1.9 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 144 549 Lake Park 549 100.0 1.2 144 634 Morven 634 100.0 1.4 144 711 Pavo 293 41.2 0.7 144 4638 Quitman 4638 100.0 10.3 144 43724 Valdosta 139 0.3 0.3 145 2178 Folkston 2178 100.0 4.8 145 765 Homeland 765 100.0 1.7 145 15333 Waycross 15333 100.0 33.5 146 15600 Brunswick 15600 100.0 34.5 147 10506 Kingsland 10506 100.0 23.1 147 13761 St. Marys 13761 100.0 30.3 147 1218 Woodbine 1218 100.0 2.7

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT

CC

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Special Master's House Plan: Narrative Description

1. Beginning in the southeastern corner of the state, District 147 is almost completely located within Camden County, but extends to a small area of Glynn County to bring the district close to ideal population.

2. District 146 is located entirely within the southern half of Glynn County and contains the city of Brunswick, a city divided by three districts in the 2002 House Plan.

3. District 129A includes the northern half of Glynn County, the eastern half of Wayne County and all of McIntosh and Long County, both of which were split under the 2002 Plan. The border of District 129A in Wayne County is determined by a desire to keep the city of Jesup unsplit and fully contained in District 129B.

4. District 128 is entirely contained within Liberty County and contains all of the cities of Allenhurst, Walthourville, Hinesville and Flemington. It is a compact district with a majority-African American registered voter population.

5. District 129B contains Brantley County and Pierce County in their entirety. District 129B also includes portions of Wayne County in order to bring itself to within one percent deviation. Its northern border is determined by a desire to keep the towns of Jesup and Odum whole.

6. District 123 unites the towns of Richmond Hill and Vernonburg, which were split in the 2002 Plan. The district contains southeastern Bryan County, portions of Liberty County and Chatham County, and exists as a compact district along the coast.

7. District 126 is entirely contained in Chatham County and is quite similar to its configuration in the 1998 House Plan.

8. Districts 124A, 124B and 125 encompass the city of Savannah and are all contained within Chatham County. The districts generally follow the boundaries of the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan. All three districts are majority-African American districts.

9. District 127 contains the northern portion of Chatham County outside of the city of Savannah. The District moves into the southern portion of Effingham County to equalize the population of the District and to limit the number of splits of cities in the Savannah area as compared to the 2002 House Plan.

10. District 145 is an ideal-sized two county district located in Charlton County and Ware County. This District is substantially similar to, but more compact than, District 145 in the 2002 House Plan.

11. District 143 contains all of Clinch and Lanier Counties, as was true in the 1998 House Plan, and portions of Berrien and Lowndes Counties. The District's border in Lowndes County is determined principally by the decision, consistent with the treatment of this area in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan, to center District 142 in the city of Valdosta.

12. As in the 2002 Plan, District 144 includes all of Brooks County and Echols County, the southern portion of Lowndes County, and the southern portion of Thomas County. The district's configuration is similar to its configuration under the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan with changes made in order to equalize the population of the district.

13. District 141A unites the city of Thomasville, which was split in the 2002 and 1998 House plans. It is a compact district containing the northern two thirds of Thomas County and the eastern section of Grady County. The border of the district in Grady County is dictated by the decision to keep the city of Cairo undivided in District 141 B.

14. District 141 B includes all of Decatur County and most of Grady County. Grady County is divided to meet the population needs of both this District and District 141A, but the split of Grady County, as noted above, respects the borders of the city of Cairo. Unlike the 2002 House Plan, the Special Master's Plan does not divide the city of Bainbridge, which is left whole in District 141B.

15. District 134 is an ideal-sized six county district, including Seminole, Miller, Early, Calhoun, Clay and Randolph Counties. The district is drawn to reflect the north-south orientation of the district evident in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

16. District 136 contains all of Baker County and most of Dougherty County, including part of the city of Albany. District 136 is a majority-African American district with a black registered voter population of 55.2 percent. The District retains the same general configuration and orientation as was true in the 1998 House Plan and the 2002 House Plan.

17. District 135, which contains the eastern portion of the city of Albany, is a majority-African American district with a black registered voter population of 54.7 percent. The district retains the general configuration and orientation of District 162 in the 1998 House Plan and District 135 in the 2002 House Plan.

18. District 137 is drawn to include the remaining portions of Dougherty County not in District 135 or District 136, and portions of Worth and Lee Counties. Although in the Special Master's Plan District 137 contains portions of four counties, it is now far more compact than its predecessor. Its intrusion into Lee County respects the border of Leesburg; its intrusion into Colquitt County respects the border of Norman Park; and its intrusion into Dougherty respects the boundaries of Albany.

19. District 140 contains all of Mitchell County and, to equalize population, the District includes part of Colquitt County, including almost all of the city of Riverside. Colquitt County, which under the 2002 Senate Plan suffered four splits, is now split by three districts. This district retains substantially similar boundaries to the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

20. District 139 contains the eastern half of Colquitt County and includes all of Cook County, as well as portions of Berrien County. The district's border in Berrien County is determined by the decision not to divide the city of Nashville, as was true in both the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

21. District 130 is an almost ideal-sized two county district located in Coffee County and Atkinson County. The District reaches into Irwin County to take all of the city of Denton to achieve population equality, otherwise the District is identical to the 2002 House Plan the 1998 House Plan.

22. District 121 B contains all of Bacon and Appling Counties and its border within Jeff Davis County is dictated by the decision to keep Hazlehurst unsplit and within District 121 B. The district achieves population equality by including a portion of Wayne County up to the border with, but not including, the cities of Jesup and Odum.

23. District 121 A contains all of Tattnall County and Evans County and a portion of Liberty County. In Liberty County, the district respects the city boundaries of Flemington and Hinesville, cities that were split by the 2002 House Plan.

24. District 122 contains portions of Bryan and Bulloch Counties and splits Statesboro by following the lines of voting districts there.

25. District 101 contains all of Effingham County not in District 127, all of Screven and Jenkins Counties, and, in order to equalize the population of the district, a portion of northern Bulloch County and southern Burke County. Its border in Burke County is governed by a desire to keep Sardis unsplit and its border in Bulloch County goes far enough to contain the town of Portal.

26. District 102 contains all of Candler County, a portion of Bulloch and Johnson Counties, and almost all of Emanuel County (except for two small areas required to equalize the population of District 120). The borders of the district respond to the population pressures of the surrounding districts, but are drawn so as to maintain compactness and minimize the split of surrounding cities, including maintaining all of Oak Park in District 102. Johnson County is split by three districts, which results from the decision to center District 102 in Candler County, District 103 in Jefferson County and Washington County, and District 119 in Lauren County. Lauren County contains nearly sufficient population to form one ideal-sized district and 119 reaches into Johnson County just enough to approach ideal population.

27. District 120 contains all of Toombs, Montgomery, and Truetlen Counties and portions of Emanuel and Wheeler Counties. The district is substantially similar in configuration and orientation to the 2002 House Plan.

28. District 118 contains all of Telfair County and Irwin County, includes portions of Jeff Davis County, and roughly half of Ben Hill County, including almost the entire town of Fitzgerald.

29. District 131 contains all of Bleckley, Wilcox, and Dodge Counties, and portions of Pulaski County and Ben Hill County. In Pulaski County, the district respects the border with Hawkinsville.

30. District 138 contains most of Tift County and all of Turner County. The district's border with District 118 is governed by the decision to not divide the town of Tifton, which is contained entirely in District 138.

31. District 132 contains all of Crisp County and portions of Dooly, Houston, Pulaski and Worth Counties. The boundary of each district is governed by the decision to keep cities together. For example, in Dooly County, the district includes the small town of Pinehurst, but does not include the small town of Unadilla. In Houston County, the district docs not split the town of Perry and includes the entire town of Hawkinsville.

32. District 133 contains all of Chattahoochee, Stewart, Quitman, Webster and Terrell Counties and the portion of Lee County not in District 137, including the entire town of Leesburg, which is consistent with the treatment of Leesburg in the 2002 House Plan.

33. District 116 contains all of Sumter, Schley, and Marion Counties and a portion of Talbot County. The intrusion into Talbot County was done in a manner to keep Junction City whole, but to avoid splitting the small town of Geneva. The district is substantially similar to the 2002 House Plan, but shifts north to equalize the population of the district.

34. District 114 contains all of Macon and Taylor Counties, and portions of Dooly, Peach and Talbot Counties. The district's borders in the split counties are established so as to minimize the split of cities within the district and within the surrounding districts.

35. District 109 contains southern Talbot County, southeastern Harris County, including all of the city of Waverly Hall, and the northeastern portion of Muscogee County. Its configuration is due in part to the voting rights-related pressures of adjoining districts.

36. Districts 111, 112, and 113 share the city of Columbus and are wholly contained in Muscogee County. Districts 111, 112 and 113 are majority-African American districts based on black registered voter population. The districts exhibit a similar orientation to the 2002 House Plan; however, these districts now form three majority-African American districts in place of the two majority-African American districts in the 2002 House Plan.

37. District 110 contains almost all of Harris County, a small portion of Muscogee County, and the southern portion of Troup County. The contours of the district are similar to those of the 2002 and 1998 House Plans.

38. District 90 contains Meriwether County and a portion of Troup County. Its registered voters are 41% African-American. The district is very similar in configuration to the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

39. District 91 contains all of Pike County and a portion of Upson and Lamar Counties in a configuration almost identical to the 2002 House Plan.

40. District 115 and 117 share the city of Warner Robins. District 117 includes the northeast portion of Warner Robins, and District 115 takes in the southwest portion of Warner Robins and all of the city of Perry in Houston County, which is similar to the treatment of this area in the 1998 House Plan.

41. Districts 105, 106 and 107 are all located in Bibb County. Districts 105 and 107 arc majority African-American districts that share the city of Macon. The general configurations of the districts respect the historical pattern of redistricting in the area.

42. District 108 continues to be based in Crawford County as under the 2002 Plan. It also continues to enter many other counties. Its borders are produced by pressures from the voting rights districts in Bibb County and other surrounding districts. It also intrudes into the surrounding counties in order to bring itself within permissible deviation while avoiding splits of cities in these counties.

43. District 104 contains all of Wilkinson and Twiggs Counties and that portion of Bibb County not in Districts 105, 106 and 107. The district also includes part of southern Jones County in order to achieve equal population. This configuration is substantially similar to the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

44. District 94 contains all of Baldwin County and a small portion of Putnam County, needed to equalize the population of the district.

45. District 119 contains all of Laurens County and intrudes into Johnson County just enough to bring it to equal population.

46. District 103 contains all of Washington and Jefferson Counties, and portions of Johnson, Emanuei and Burke Counties to equalize population. This district is consistent with the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan in that it keeps together Washington and Jefferson Counties. 47.3% of the registered voters in this district are African American.

47. District 100 contains almost all of Burke County, except for one voting district needed to equalize the population of District 101, and portions of Richmond County that are not in the heavily incorporated areas of Augusta. This District is similar to the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

48. Districts 96, 97, 98 and 99 include almost the entirety of Richmond County. District 97, 98, 99 and 100 are all majority-African American districts with black registered voter populations of over 50 percent. The districts generally follow the contours of the comparable districts in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan. District 96 crosses the border into Columbia County to achieve sufficient population.

49. District 80 is entirely contained in Columbia County and shifts from its configuration in the 2002 House Plan just enough to allow District 96 to achieve equal population.

50. District 79 contains the remainder of Columbia County, all of Lincoln County, and a portion of Wilkes County needed to equalize the population of the District, while respecting the borders of Tignall and Washington Counties.

51. District 95 contains all of McDuffie, Warren, Glascock, Taliaferro, and Hancock Counties, and a small portion of Putnam County required to bring the district up to equal population. This is generally the same configuration of this District in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

52. District 77 contains all of Greene County, most of Putnam County, almost all of Oglethorpe County and Wilkes County, including the entire towns of Washington, Tignall and Rayle. This District reflects the historic districting pattern for this area, joining Oglethorpe, Greene and Putnam Counties, as reflected by the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan. Putnam and Oglethorpe Counties are split in response to the need to equalize the populations of Districts 94, 95, and 76.

53. District 76 contains the remainder of Oglethorpe County not in District 77. The District contains portions of Clarke County, all of Oconee County, and the northern portion of Morgan County. The District is forced to split Clarke, Oglethorpe, and Morgan Counties by the decision to keep Athens primarily together in Districts 74 and 75, and the decision to keep together Oconee County whole as in the 1998 House Plan. Districts 74 and 75 share the city of Athens, as was done under the 2002 Plan.

54. District 73 is shaped somewhat like a bow tie, as were its predecessor districts. It contains most of Morgan County, including the entire town of Madison, and much of Newton County, including the entire towns of Oxford and Covington. The District splits Morgan County to accommodate the population needs of District 76 and splits Newton because of the need to shift District 72 north, as a result of the decision to keep the city of Jackson almost whole in District 92. Both counties were split in the 2002 Plan.

55. District 93 contains the entirety Jasper County, and portions of Monroe County, Jones County and Lamar County. The configuration is similar to that of District 110 in the 1998 House Plan.

56. District 92 is a relatively compact district that splits three counties: Lamar, Butts, and Spalding. The district splits counties to keep almost the entire city of Jackson in one district, almost the entire city of Griffin in one district, and keeping Milner whole. This district is similar, but more compact, than District 92 in the 2002 House Plan.

57. District 71B contains almost the entire County of Walton. The District's northwest border is governed by the decision not to split the city of Loganville, which remained unsplit in both the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

58. District 89 contains almost the entirety of Barrow County, except for a small portion near Braselton necessary to bring District 25 up to equal population. This district reflects the treatment of Barrow County in the 1998 House Plan.

59. District 25 contains almost the entire County of Jackson. The District's eastern boundary is determined by the decision not to split the cities of Nicholson and Commerce, each of which is kept whole in Districts 78 and 25, respectively. Its western border is governed by the boundary of Gainesville.

60. District 78 contains all of Elbert County, the southern portion of Madison County, and the eastern portion of Jackson County. The district keeps from splitting the cities of Nicholson, Danielsville, Comer, Bomer, and Elberton.

61. District 23 contains all of Hart County, and most of Franklin and Madison Counties. The configuration of the district is generally consistent with the treatment of this area in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan. 62. District 22 contains all of Banks and Stephens Counties, and a portion of Franklin County in the north, which is generally consistent with the configuration of the comparable district in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

63. District 7 contains all of Habersham County and a portion of White County that keeps the town of Cleveland whole. The configuration of the District is generally consistent with the configuration of the comparable district in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

64. District 8 contains all of Rabun, Towns, and Union Counties and the northern portion of White County. The configuration of the district is generally consistent with the configuration of the comparable district in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

65. District 20 contains the remainder of White County not in District 7 or 8 and the northern portion of Hall County. Similar to the 2002 House Plan, the town of Dahlonega remains together with the rest of Lumpkin County; therefore, instead of extending deeper into Lumpkin County as in the 2002 House Plan, District 7 moves north into White County. Its southern border is governed by a desire to keep Gainesville as intact as possible.

66. District 21 contains almost the entire city of Gainesville. The city is more united than it was in either of two previous plans.

67. District 67B contains the remainder of Hall County and does not split any county lines. The District contains almost all of Oakwood and all of Flowery Branch. This District is very similar to the comparable district in the 2002 House Plan, except for the changes necessary to convert District 67 in the 2002 House plan from a multi-member district to single-member districts.

68. District 9 contains almost all of Lumpkin County, except for a small portion necessary to equalize the population of District 20. It also contains the southern portion of Dawson County and the northeastern section of Forsyth County (including the whole of the city of Dawsonville). The shift of District 9 south is needed to redistribute population from District 14 in the 2002 House Plan, a substantially over-populated district.

69. District 6 contains all of Fannin and Gilmer Counties and then the northwestern section of Dawson County to achieve equal population.

70. District 10 contains all of Pickens County and portions of Gordon County and Bartow County. The boundaries in Gordon County are dictated by the decision not to split the town of Calhoun, which remained unsplit in the 2002 House Plan and the 1998 House Plan.

71. District 4 contains almost 100 percent of the city of Dalton and the decision to keep Dalton in one district explains the configuration and orientation of the surrounding districts.

72. District 5 is governed by the decision to keep whole the town of Calhoun and to avoid splitting the town of Chatsworth. The district, therefore, stretches from the western section of Gordon County to the southeastern section of Murray County.

73. District 3B contains the northern portions of Murray County, Whitfield County, and the northeastern portion of Catoosa County. The District wraps around the city of Dalton and keeps from splitting a number of cities that have all remained whole in prior plans.

74. District 3A contains the middle of Catoosa County and the southwestern section of Whitfield County. The district avoids splitting Dalton and keeps nearly the entire town of Ringgold within District 3A.

75. District 1 is governed by the decision to avoid splitting the towns of Fort Oglethorpe, Chickamauga, and LaFayette and thus creates a compact district in the northwestern section of the State.

76. District 2 contains all of Dade County and the remainder of Walker County not in District 1. Each of Districts 1 and 2 are substantially similar, with respect to the location of their population centers, as Districts 1 and 2 in the 2002 House Plan.

77. District 11 contains all of Chattooga County and much of Floyd County. The District's border is governed by the decision not to split Rome, which is contained almost 100 percent whole within District 13A. The configuration of the district is generally consistent with the configuration of the comparable district the 2002 House Plan.

78. District 13B contains the eastern section of Floyd County and the western section of Bartow County. The District's configuration is governed by pressures from the decision to keep from splitting Cartersville in District 12 and the decision to keep from splitting Rome in District 13A. District 13A and 13B are substantially more compact than District 13, a multi-member district in the 2002 House Plan.

79. District 19 contains all of Polk County and the southern section of Floyd County, including nearly the entire city of Cave Springs.

80. District 27 contains most of Paulding County and the northeastern section of Haralson County. Its borders are governed by a decision not to split cities in these two counties.

81. District 26 located in Paulding County was over populated in the 2002 House Plan. In the Special Master's House Plan, the district shrinks and becomes more compact than in the 2002 House Plan. The district, however, continues to respect the border with Cobb County.

82. District 12 is entirely contained within Bartow County and lies at its southeastern corner. Its borders are drawn so to contain the cities of Camersville and Emerson in their entirety in District 12.

83. District 18 responds to the shift in District 27 by moving north into Haralson, County. Its boundaries are governed by the decision to keep whole in District 27 the cities of Tallapoosa, Bremen, and Mt. Zion, and to keep Carrollton largely unbroken by district lines.

84. District 88A is located primarily in eastern Carroll County, and the District's borders are primarily determined by the decision to keep whole the city of Carrollton in District 27.

85. District 88B contains almost all of Heard County, portions of southern Carroll County, and northern Troup County. It sheds the arms of former District 88 to become a compact district along the eastern side of the state.

86. District 87 contains the western half of Coweta County, including the entire city of Newnan, which was split three ways in the 2002 House Plan. District 87 also includes the remainder of Heard County not in District 88B and shares Coweta County with District 86. The border between Districts 86 and 87 is governed largely by the desire not to split cities.

87. District 86, which is located in eastern Coweta County, is similar to District 86 in the 2002 House Plan, except that the district is now more compact and respects the boundaries of Fayette and Newton Counties.

88. District 72 is governed by the decision to respect the Jasper County border with Butts County, and the decision not to split the city of Jackson, which is contained in whole in District 92.

METROPOLITAN ATLANTA DISTRICTS

89. Districts 45, 46 and 47 are similar to the comparable districts in the 2002 House Plan except that the arm that stretched from the former District 47 into District 48 has been removed, making District 47 more compact. Districts 45 and 47 remain majority-African American districts.

90. Districts 48A, 48B, 48C and 48D are created largely from the four-member District 48 in the 2002 House Plan. The districts stretch from Fayette County to central Fulton County. The new districts generally follow the configuration of the multimember district, except that District 48C crosses the Fulton-Clayton border to equalize population and retain majority-African American status. Districts 48A and 48D were drawn to generally respect the traditional boundary of the districts in this area running along Interstate-85. The city of Fairburn is kept united in District 48A.

91. Districts 34A, 34B, and 34C are created largely from the three-member District 34 in the 2002 House Plan centered around the cities of Smyrna and Marietta. The multi-member district was substantially under-populated. The new single-member districts generally respect the boundaries of the multi-member district. Districts 34A and 34B share Smyrna, and District 34C, located in the southernmost corner of Cobb County, respects the borders of Smyrna and Austell.

92. Districts 33A, 33B and 33C are created largely from the three-member District 33 in the 2002 House Plan. District 33A runs along the borders of Marietta. District 33B respects the borders of Marietta and Powder Springs, and exists as a compact district between them. District 33C contains Powder Springs and Austell.

93. Districts 17, 29, 30, and 31 occupy the northeastern section of Cobb County. Their borders are governed by the Cobb County border and the borders of Smyrna and Marietta.

94. District 32, as in the 2002 House Plan, weaves between Kennesaw and Marietta in an attempt to keep these cities primarily in the adjacent districts.

95. District 35 respects the Cobb-Cherokee county border and contains Acworth and Kennesaw in the northwest part of Cobb County.

96. District 28 frames Cobb County on the northwest and retains the general configuration of the 2002 House Plan, except that the district now pushes north to eliminate the intrusion of District 26 into Cobb County present in the 2002 House Plan.

97. Districts 14A and 14B were created largely from the territory encompassed by District 14 — a two-member district — in the 2002 Plan. Unlike that district, however, Districts 14A and 14B respect the northern borders of Cherokee and Forsyth Counties.

98. District 15 occupies the southwestern corner of Cherokee County. It now extends north — rather than east under the 2002 Plan — to allow District 16 to take in most of the towns of Holly Springs and Woodstock located on Interstate 575. District 16's northern boundary is drawn to keep the town of Canton whole in District 14B.

99. District 44, as in the 2002 House Plan, breaks the Cobb-Fulton county line, but this district is now the only district to do so. The District is a majority-African American district, running from north to south with a similar orientation and configuration to the comparable district in the 2002 House Plan but the district is now more compact.

100. Districts 43A and 43B are drawn largely from the two-member District 43 in the 2002 House Plan. The districts are located in central Fulton County and generally follow the boundaries of the 2002 House Plan, except the former two-member district is split vertically to form two majority-African American districts.

101. As under the 2002 Plan, Districts 49 and 51 arc Atlanta-based, majority-African American districts running north-south parallel to 43A and 43B and the DeKalb-Fulton county border.

102. Districts 36, 37, 39, 40 and 41 cover almost the entirety of the northern portion of Fulton County (with the exception of the intrusion by District 64 into Fulton County). The districts generally follow the boundaries of the comparable districts in the 2002 House Plan. However because the Fulton County border with Cherokee and Forsyth Counties is largely respected, District 39 contains Mountain Park, while District 37 contains 96% of Alpharetta. Roswell is shared primarily between Districts 40 and 41.

103. District 38 makes up the southern portion of Forsyth County. Unlike its predecessor, it respects the Forsyth-Fulton county border. Its northern border is drawn so to keep the town of Cumming whole within District 14A.

104. Districts 64 and 66 contain substantially the same configuration as under the 2002 House Plan. However, Berkeley Lake lies entirely in District 64 and Norcross lies almost entirely in District 66. The southern border of District 66 follows Interstate 85 as it did under the 2002 Plan.

105. District 65 remains largely the same as in the 2002 House Plan; however, the district is now more compact and located only in Gwinnett County. District 65 in the 2002 House Plan broke the Gwinnett-Fulton county border. Its border is largely determined by a decision to keep Duluth whole in District 65.

106. Districts 69A and 69B run parallel to District 66 and on the south side of Interstate 85. The boundaries of these districts remain largely unchanged from the 2002 House Plan, except as necessary to address the under-population of the comparable districts in the 2002 House Plan.

107. District 67A occupies the northern corner of Gwinnett County and unites Buford, Sugar Hill and most of Suwanee.

108. District 24 occupies the eastern corner of Gwinnett County and contains all of Dacula. Its western border is governed by a desire to keep Lawrenceville whole and in District 7OA, and to keep Buford and Sugar Hill whole and District 67A.

109. Districts 7OA, 7OB and 7OC are drawn largely from the three-member District 70 in central Gwinnett County in the 2002 Plan. District 7OA contains all of Lawrenceville and District 7OB contains all of Lilburn. District 70C, as in the 2002 House Plan, runs parallel to Interstate 85.

110. The boundaries of District 68 are drawn largely to accomplish goals previously stated — to keep Lawrenceville whole in District 70A, Snellville whole in District 61C, Lilburn in District 70B, and to allow District 69A to follow the border of Interstate 85.

111. District 71A straddles the Gwinnett-Fulton county border, taking in the entire city of Loganville and all of Grayson. This district and District 71B are similar to District 71, a two-member district in the 2002 House Plan.

112. Districts 42A, 42B, 42C, and 42D are single-member districts replacing the four member, multi-member district located in north-central Fulton County in the 2002 Plan. Much of the territory covered by these four districts was contained in the former four-member district. However, now District 42D extends southeast into DeKalb County and has a majority African-American population.

113. Districts 52, 53, 54, 55, 56A, 56B, 57, 58, and 60A are all located entirely within DeKalb County. District 52 occupies the Dunwoody area of northern DeKalb County and lies along the border with Fulton and Gwinnett Counties. District 53 contains Doraville and Chamblee whole, and its southern border is Interstate 85. It contains a substantial Hispanic population. District 54 hugs the Fulton County border. District 55 is more centrally located and compact than it was under the 2002 Plan, but it keeps Stone Mountain and Pine Lake together and whole. Districts 56A and 56B make Interstate 85 their northern border and occupy the same general area as the two-member District 56 in the 2002 Plan but are more compact. District 57 is quite similar in shape to its predecessor in the 2002 Plan. It contains all of Clarkston. District 58 contains most of the territory of its predecessor district in the 2002 Plan, but extends northward into Avondale Estates to achieve population equality. District 6OA is located in central DeKalb County and is the most heavily African-American district in the Special Master's Plan, with African Americans constituting 85.4% of its registered voters.

114. Districts 59A, 59B, and 59C replace the three-member District 59 located in southern DeKalb and portions of Henry County under the 2002 Plan. The new districts maintain the general configuration and alignment of the multi-member district in the 2002 House Plan, except that District 59A breaks the DeKalb-Fulton county border and District 59C unites the city of McDonough, which was split under the previous plan. Unlike its parent district, District 59B now respects the Clayton-Henry county border.

115. District 50, the state's most under-populated district in the 2002 Plan, shifts east and south to achieve population equality as a result of pressures from districts to its west.

116. District 84A and 84B replace District 84, a two-member district in the 2002 House Plan. District 84A is a majority-African American district contain wholly in Clayton County. It occupies much of the northern half of the territory covered by its parent district. District 84b likewise occupies most of the southern half of the former District 84.

117. Districts 81 and 83 cross from Fayette County into Clayton County. Because of the breakup of the former multimember District 48, they are forced to move southeast — both to gain equal population and to prevent dilution of African — American voting strength. Both continue to be majority-African American districts.

118. District 82 is contained entirely within Clayton County and occupies most of the territory that it did in the 2002 Plan. It moves north to the DeKalb County line to bring it to equal population. A majority of its registered voters are African American.

119. District 63, in contrast to its comparable district in the 2002 House Plan, shifts north into Gwinnett County from Rockdale County in response to pressure from District 73, which now includes all of the cities of Covington and Oxford. As a result, Districts 61 A, 61B, and 61C, which replace the three-member District 61 in southern DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties, cover substantially altered territory. District 61C now encompasses all of the city of Snellville, and District 61B runs along the DeKalb-Gwinnett county border wrapping around to the south and east of Stone Mountain. District 61A remains generally within the northern half of the former multi-member district's territory, but its eastern border is governed by the borders with Conyers and Lithonia-both kept whole and entirely in District 62.

120. Districts 60B and 60C retain much of the area of their parent district. District 60B occupies the DeKalb-Henry portion of former District 60, while District 60C occupies the DeKalb-Rockdale portion of former District 60. The districts are split by the Rockdale-Henry county border.

121. Districts 85A and 85B contain most of the territory of their parent district, the two-member District 85 in the 2002 Plan. District 85B contains 95% of Peachtree City and the southern half of Fayetteville. District 85A contains southern Fayette County, eastern and northern Spalding County, and southern Henry County as did District 85 under the 2002 Plan. However, District 85A now contains the entire town of Hampton. Its border in Spalding County is governed by a desire to keep Griffin whole and in District 92. Its border in Fayette County is governed by a desire to keep Peachtree City in District 85B. And its border in Henry County derives from an effort to keep the city of McDonough whole and entirely within District 59C.

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT

DD

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT

EE

(To be scanned in place of tab)

% % DISTRICT # MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION DEV. BLACK BLACK BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 001 1 43,994 -1,486 -3.27% 1,969 4.48% 114 2,083 4.73% 389 0.88% VAP 33,197 1,422 4.28% 18 1,440 4.34% 254 0.77% 002 1 46,960 1,480 3.25% 534 1.14% 61 595 1.27% 478 1.02% VAP 35,466 381 1.07% 13 394 1.11% 315 0.89% 003 2 95,270 2,155 4.74% 1,119 1.17% 146 1,265 1.33% 2,875 3.02% VAP 70,779 756 1.07% 29 785 1.11% 1,781 2.52% 004 1 47,717 2,237 4.92% 1,473 3.09% 162 1,635 3.43% 10,503 22.01% VAP 35,058 1,009 2.88% 49 1,058 3.02% 6,525 18.61% 005 1 46,330 850 1.87% 1,485 3.21% 149 1,634 3.53% 8,875 19.16% VAP 33,122 1,069 3.23% 47 1,116 3.37% 5,498 16.60% 006 1 47,209 1,729 3.80% 355 0.75% 39 394 0.83% 1,228 2.60% VAP 36,169 249 0.69% 13 262 0.72% 810 2.24% 007 1 47,366 1,886 4.15% 1,058 2 23% 108 1,166 2.46% 2,807 5 93% VAP 36,080 804 2.23% 44 848 2.35% 1,758 4.87% 008 1 45,685 205 0.45% 353 0.77% 46 399 0.87% 951 2.08% VAP 36,645 265 0.72% 16 281 0.77% 672 1.83% 009 1 47,698 2,218 4.88% 1,914 4.01% 103 2,017 4.23% 3,858 8.09% VAP 35,536 1,451 4.08% 33 1,484 4.18% 2,452 6.90% 010 1 44,104 -1,376 -3.03% 1,527 3.46% 106 1,633 3.70% 3,268 7.41% VAP 32,606 1,077 3.30% 27 1,104 3.39% 2,318 7.11% 011 1 45,402 -78 -0.17% 3,602 7.93% 138 3,740 8.24% 1,148 2.53% VAP 34,609 2,831 8.18% 30 2,861 8.27% 798 2.31% 012 1 47,360 1,880 4.13% 2,680 5.66% 125 2,805 5.92% 1,070 2 26% VAP 34,169 1,856 5.43% 26 1,882 5.51% 681 1.99% 013 2 94,588 1,814 3.99% 14,805 15.65% 350 15,155 16.02% 5,772 6.10% VAP 70,733 10,090 14.26% 85 10,175 14.39% 3,794 5.36% 014 2 95,034 2,037 4.48% 527 0.55% 77 604 0.64% 4,384 4.61% VAP 69,793 369 0.53% 35 404 0.58% 3,044 4.36% 015 1 47,248 1,768 3.89% 1,422 3.01% 137 1,559 3.30% 2,732 5.78% VAP 32,807 919 2.80% 45 964 2.94% 1,836 5.60% 016 1 47,654 2,174 4.78% 1,105 2.32% 93 1,198 2.51% 3,213 6.74% VAP 34,691 757 2.18% 30 787 2.27% 2,265 6.53% 017 1 47,674 2,194 4.82% 1,561 3.27% 123 1,684 3.53% 1,859 3.90% VAP 33,797 1,071 3.17% 50 1,121 3.30% 1,248 3.70% 018 1 43,482 -1,998 -4.39% 2,196 5.05% 101 2,297 5.28% 382 0.88% VAP 31,820 1,523 4.79% 32 1.555 4.89% 243 0.76% 019 1 43,307 -2.173 -4.78% 5,396 12.46% 134 5,530 12.77% 2,950 6.81% VAP 31,849 3,700 11.62% 36 3,736 11.73% 1,888 5.93% NOTE: Because some districts may be multi-member districts. Deviation = Total Deviation/# of members in district. % % DISTRICT # MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION DEV. BLACK BLACK BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 020 1 47,642 2,162 4.75% 6,886 14.45% 160 7,046 14.79% 17,414 36.55% VAP 34,893 4,804 13.77% 78 4,882 13.99% 11,220 32.16% 021 1 47,412 1,932 4.25% 1,946 4 10% 110 2,056 4.34% 6,094 12.85% VAP 35,108 1,352 3.85% 36 1,388 3.95% 3,850 10.97% 022 1 43,324 -2,156 -4.74% 3,743 8 64% 115 3,858 8.90% 787 1.82% VAP 32,785 2,619 7.99% 30 2,649 8.08% 504 1.54% 023 1 44,230 -1,250 -2.75% 6,094 13.78% 106 6,200 14.02% 417 0.94% VAP 33,632 4,281 12.73% 26 4,307 12.81% 281 0.84% 024 1 44,498 -982 -2.16% 2,159 4.85% 120 2,279 5.12% 1,498 3.37% VAP 31,917 1,475 4.62% 33 1,508 4.72% 987 3.09% 025 1 43,235 -2,245 -4.94% 5,558 12.86% 194 5,752 13.30% 1,211 2 80% VAP 31,620 3,989 12.62% 41 4.030 12.75% 767 2.43% 026 1 47,741 2,261 4.97% 3,288 6.89% 129 3,417 7.16% 1,002 2 10% VAP 33,180 2,128 6.41% 40 2,168 6.53% 630 1.90% 027 1 46,907 1,427 3.14% 7,840 16.71% 335 8,175 17.43% 1,215 2.59% VAP 32,621 5,016 15.38% 82 5,098 15.63% 717 2.20% 028 1 47,745 2,265 4.98% 2,431 509% 107 2,538 5.32% 1,015 2.13% VAP 31,985 1,558 4.87% 41 1,599 5.00% 621 1.94% 029 1 47,615 2,135 4.69% 3,407 7.16% 235 3,642 7.65% 2,018 4.24% VAP 34,125 2,248 6.59% 103 2,351 6.89% 1,320 3.87% 030 1 47,558 2,078 4.57% 1,618 3.40% 119 1,737 3.65% 1,069 2.25% VAP 33,756 1,138 3.37% 51 1.189 3.52% 702 2.08% 031 1 47,458 1,978 4.35% 2,938 6.19% 172 3,110 6.55% 1,493 3.15% VAP 36,173 2,074 573% 80 2,154 5.95% 1,081 2.99% 032 1 47,646 2,166 4.76% 5,201 10.92% 198 5,399 11.33% 3,077 6.46% VAP 35,872 3,622 10.10% 109 3,731 10.40% 2,232 6.22% 033 3 136,143 -99 -0.22% 43,369 31.86% 1,279 44,648 32.79% 17,679 12.99% VAP 100,365 28,508 28.40% 550 29,058 28.95% 11,979 11.94% 034 3 130,408 -2,011 -4.42% 42,713 32.75% 1,400 44,113 33.83% 16,814 12.89% VAP 102,768 30,009 29 20% 784 30,793 29.96% 11,919 11.60% 035 1 47,747 2,267 4.98% 5,471 11.46% 298 5,769 12.08% 2,368 4.96% VAP 33,664 3,610 10.72% 125 3,735 11.09% 1,544 4.59% 036 1 46,854 1,374 3.02% 2,831 6.04% 218 3,049 6.51% 1,562 3.33% VAP 31,285 1,865 5.96% 92 1,957 6.26% 1,029 3.29% 037 1 47,471 1,991 4.38% 3,557 7.49% 231 3.788 7.98% 5,017 10.57% VAP 34,343 2,548 7.42% 120 2,668 7.77% 3,772 10.98% 038 1 47,447 1,967 4.32% 886 1.87% 55 941 1.98% 1,985 4.18% VAP 32,977 626 1.90% 26 652 1.98% 1,356 4.11% 039 1 47,549 2,069 4.55% 2,608 5.48% 164 2,772 5.83% 2,695 5.67% VAP 35,495 1,816 5.12% 80 1,896 5.34% 1,951 5.50% NOTE: Because some districts may be multi-member districts. Deviation = Total Deviation/# of members in district. % % DISTRICT # MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION DEV. BLACK BLACK BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 040 1 47,378 1,898 4.17% 4,231 8.93% 278 4,509 9.52% 4,183 8.83% VAP 35,439 2,952 8.33% 154 3,106 8.76% 3,114 8.79% 041 1 47,726 2,246 4.94% 7,075 14.82% 346 7,421 15.55% 2,962 6.21% VAP 38,856 5,418 13.94% 225 5,643 14.52% 2,214 5.70% 042 4 175,212 -1,677 -3.69% 20,058 11.45% 898 20.956 11.96% 17,634 10.06% VAP 153,771 17,101 11.12% 680 I7,7S1 11.56% 14,041 9.13% 043 2 95,322 2,181 4.80% 63,574 66.69% 634 64,208 67.36% 2,465 2.59% VAP 72,978 47,135 64.59% 435 47,570 65.18% 1,822 2.50% 044 1 45,173 -307 -0.68% 28,953 64.09% 233 29,186 64.61% 1,990 4.41% VAP 33,002 19,375 58.71% 155 19,530 59.18% 1,507 4.57% 045 1 46,102 622 1.37% 29,793 64.62% 287 30,080 65.25% 903 1.96% VAP 34,199 21,909 64.06% 166 22,075 64.55% 579 1.69% 046 1 47,407 1,927 4.24% 6,410 13.52% 218 6,628 13.98% 1,111 2 34% VAP 34,123 4,074 11.94% 80 4,154 12.17% 724 2.12% 047 1 46,491 1,011 2.22% 27,936 60.09% 322 28,258 60.78% 975 2.10% VAP 33,511 19,954 59.54% 192 20,146 60.12% 641 1.91% 048 4 176,939 -1,245 -2.74% 111,811 63 19% 1,492 113,303 64.04% 8,095 4.58% VAP 126,761 76,659 60.48% 833 77,492 61.13% 5,293 4.18% 049 1 43,209 -2,271 -4.99% 35,649 82.50% 406 36,055 83.44% 2,136 4.94% VAP 31,599 25,306 80.08% 251 25,557 80.88% 1,643 5.20% 050 1 43,211 -2,269 -4.99% 30,085 69.62% 346 30,431 70.42% 4,354 10.08% VAP 28,469 18,450 64.81% 164 18,614 65.38% 3,015 10.59% 651 1 43,675 -1.805 -3.97% 24,806 56.80% 356 25,162 57.61% 3,196 7.32% VAP 34,793 17,862 51.34% 256 18,118 52.07% 2,428 6.98% 052 1 46,391 911 2.00% 3,776 8.14% 191 3,967 8.55% 1,571 3.39% VAP 37,608 2,892 7.69% 144 3,036 8.07% 1,230 3.27% 053 1 45,658 178 0.39% 9,682 21.21% 419 10,101 22.12% 12,014 26.31% VAP 36,985 7,210 19.49% 243 7,453 20.15% 8,982 24.29% 054 1 45,406 -74 -0.16% 7,221 15.90% 481 7,702 16.96% 18,737 41 27% VAP 36,076 5,590 15.50% 339 5,929 16.43% 14,244 39.48% 055 1 43,458 -2,022 -4.45% 28,488 65.55% 634 29,122 67.01% 2,259 5.20% VAP 31,590 19,341 61.23% 340 19,681 62.30% 1,586 5.02% 056 2 86,447 -2,257 -4.96% 11,729 13.57% 494 12,223 14.14% 4,434 5.13% VAP 71,669 8,458 11.80% 259 8,717 12.16% 3,381 4.72% 057 1 43,253 -2,227 -4.90% 25,992 60.09% 1,518 27,510 63.60% 1,704 3.94% VAP 31,029 17,589 56.69% 900 18,489 59.59% 1,181 3.81% 058 1 43,458 -2,022 -4.45% 35,179 80.95% 406 35.585 81.88% 1,023 2.35% VAP 31,254 24,355 77.93% 235 24,590 78.68% 699 2.24% 059 3 130,785 -1,885 -4.14% 82,123 62.79% 927 83,050 63.50% 2,984 2.28% VAP 93,169 57,141 61.33% 492 57,633 61.86% 2,024 2.17% NOTE: Because some districts may be multi-member districts. Deviation = Total Deviation/# of members in district. DATA SOURCE: 2000 US Census PL94-171 Population Counts % % DISTRICT # MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION DEV. BLACK BLACK BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 060 3 130,085 -2,118 -4 66% 78,534 60.37% 1,033 79,567 61.17% 2,398 1.84% VAP 92,148 54,267 58.89% 574 54,841 59.51% 1,599 1.74% 061 3 135,426 -338 -0.74% 81,597 60.25% 1,557 83,154 61.40% 4,189 3.09% VAP 93,829 53,919 57.47% 811 54,730 58.33% 2,761 2.94% 062 1 47,594 2,114 4.65% 26,174 54.99% 453 26,627 55.95% 3,694 7.76% VAP 33,807 17,020 50.34% 229 17,249 51.02% 2,626 7.77% 063 1 46,032 552 1.21% 6,475 14.07% 180 6,655 14.46% 1,084 2.35% VAP 33,447 4,153 12.42% 65 4,218 12.61% 747 2.23% 064 1 46,804 1,324 2.91% 4,837 10.33% 269 5,106 10.91% 4,090 8.74% VAP 34,860 3,439 9.87% 131 3,570 10.24% 2,901 8.32% 065 1 45,135 -345 -0.76% 3,464 7.67% 181 3,645 8.08% 1,985 4.40% VAP 31,616 2,370 7.50% 70 2,440 7.72% 1,343 4.25% 066 1 45,846 366 0.80% 11,655 25.42% 484 12,139 26.48% 13,843 30.19% VAP 34,745 8,179 23.54% 266 8,445 24.31% 10,059 28.95% 067 2 95,464 2,252 4.95% 6,607 6.92% 302 6,909 7.24% 5,882 6.16% VAP 67,061 4,749 7.08% 106 4,855 7.24% 3,848 5. 74% 068 1 43,338 -2,142 -4.71% 7,028 16.22% 344 7,372 17.01% 5,448 12.57% VAP 31,846 4,644 14.58% 150 4,794 15.05% 3,567 11.20% 069 2 88,495 -1,233 -2.71% 22,611 25.55% 947 23,558 26.62% 21,511 24.31% VAP 65,192 15,423 23.66% 494 15,917 24.42% 14,954 22.94% 070 3 140,596 1,385 3.05% 12,018 8.55% 601 12,619 8.98% 7,379 5.25% VAP 98,219 7,759 7.90% 202 7,961 8.11% 4,844 4.93% 071 2 92,618 829 1.82% 4,724 5.10% 235 4,959 5.35% 3,157 3.41% VAP 65,247 3,130 4.80% 76 3,206 4.91% 2,047 3.14% 072 1 43,406 -2,074 -4.56% 16,131 37.16% 184 16,315 37.59% 858 1.98% VAP 31,311 10,566 33.75% 61 10,627 33.94% 581 1.86% 073 1 45,550 70 0.15% 5,377 11.80% 146 5,523 12.13% 767 1.68% VAP 32,978 3,730 11.31% 49 3,779 11.46% 453 1.37% 074 1 47,617 2,137 4.70% 7,706 16.18% 180 7,886 16.56% 1,633 3.43% VAP 40,887 5,505 13.46% 95 5,600 13.70% 1,208 2.95% 075 1 44,796 -684 -1.50% 18,647 41.63% 295 18,942 42.29% 4,500 10.05% VAP 35,450 12,791 36.08% 155 12,946 36.52% 3,111 8.78% 076 1 44,818 -662 -1.46% 4,291 9.57% 91 4,382 9.78% 1,394 3.11% VAP 32,396 2,902 8.96% 25 2,927 9.04% 895 2.76% 077 1 47,673 2,193 4.82% 16,943 35.54% 188 17,131 35.93% 1,044 2.19% VAP 35,684 11,565 32.41% 82 11,647 32.64% 690 1.93% 078 1 47,204 1,724 3.79% 14,498 30.71% 101 14,599 30.93% 888 1.88% VAP 35,312 10,261 29.06% 43 10,304 29.18% 654 1.85% 079 1 44,772 -708 -1.56% 6,300 14.07% 215 6,515 14.55% 1,344 3.00% VAP 31,431 4,320 13.74% 49 4,369 13.90% 868 2.76% NOTE: Because some districts may be multi-member districts. Deviation = Total Deviation/# of members in district.

DATA SOURCE: 2000 US Census PL94-171 Population Counts

% % DISTRICT # MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION DEV. BLACK BLACK BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 080 1 44,516 -964 -2.12% 3,711 8.34% 149 3,860 8.67% 969 2.18% VAP 31,427 2,473 7.87% 44 2,517 8.01% 595 1.89% 081 1 44.362 -1,118 -2.46% 33,912 76.44% 627 34,539 77.86% 2,134 4.81% VAP 31,295 23,178 74.06% 348 23,526 75.17% 1,436 4.59% 082 1 43,458 -2,022 -4.45% 18,382 42.30% 441 18,823 43.31% 2,219 5.11% VAP 30,774 11,672 37.93% 183 11,855 38.52% 1,412 4.59% 083 1 44,520 -960 -2.11% 26,447 59.40% 549 26,996 60.64% 2,848 6.40% VAP 29,687 16,248 54.73% 269 16,517 55.64% 1,795 6.05% 084 2 93.506 1,273 2.80% 34,034 36.40% 852 34,886 37.31% 8,131 8.70% VAP 66,555 21,650 32.53% 364 22,014 33.08% 5,597 8.41% 085 2 94,869 1,955 4.30% 6,182 6.52% 189 6,371 6.72% 1,878 1.98% VAP 67,643 4,164 6.16% 64 4,228 6.25% 1,234 1.82% 086 1 47,681 2,201 4.84% 3,712 7.79% 146 3,858 8.09% 1,247 2.62% VAP 33,226 2,434 7.33% 46 2,480 7.46% 809 2.43% 087 1 47,720 2,240 4.93% 5,947 12.46% 133 6,080 12.74% 917 1.92% VAP 34,694 3,946 11.37% 31 3,977 11.46% 633 1.82% 088 2 88,53 -1,404 -3.09% 20,523 23.28% 421 20,944 23.76% 2,707 3.07% VAP 64,936 13,965 21.51% 104 14,069 21.67% 2,017 3.11% 089 1 45,107 -373 -0.82% 7,974 17.68% 109 8,083 17.92% 1,073 2.38% VAP 32,863 5,381 16.37% 30 5,411 16.47% 815 2.48% 090 1 43,477 -2,003 -4.40% 21,284 48.95% 142 21,426 49.28% 678 1 56% VAP 33,216 14,130 45.27% 46 14,176 45.41% 486 1.56% 091 1 45,597 117 0.26% 9,954 21.83% 89 10,043 22.03% 543 1.19% VAP 33,947 7,077 20.85% 39 7,116 20.96% 362 1.07% 092 1 43,387 -2,093 -4.60% 19,064 43.94% 226 19,290 44.46% 821 1.89% VAP 31,583 12,784 40.48% 107 12,891 40.82% 565 1.79% 093 1 44,343 -1,137 -2.50% 15,677 35.35% 125 15,802 35.64% 623 1.40% VAP 32,449 11,087 34.17% 45 11,132 34.31% 427 1.32% 094 1 43,527 -1,953 -4.29% 18,361 42.18% 162 18,523 42.56% 609 1.40% VAP 34,085 13,568 39.81% 81 13,649 40.04% 430 1.26% 095 1 44,590 -890 -1.96% 21,491 48.20% 141 21,632 48.51% 397 0.89% VAP 33,210 14,926 44.94% 53 14,979 45.10% 250 0.75% 096 1 46,835 1,355 2.98% 18,105 38.66% 381 18,486 39.47% 1,155 2.47% VAP 35,885 12,474 34.76% 156 12,630 35.20% 807 2 25% 097 1 43,531 -1,949 -4.29% 24,834 57.05% 401 25,235 57.97% 1,198 2.75% VAP 31,919 16,820 52.70% 174 16,994 53.24% 806 2.53% 098 1 44,196 -1,284 -2.82% 27,107 61.33% 395 27,502 62.23% 751 1.70% VAP 33,044 18,858 57.07% 186 19,044 57.63% 524 1.59% 099 1 43,263 -2,217 -4.87% 16,887 39.03% 413 17,300 39.99% 1,210 2.80% VAP 29,853 10,764 36.06% 132 10,896 36.50% 749 2.51% NOTE: Because some districts may be multi-member districts. Deviation = Total Deviation/# of members in district.

DATA SOURCE: 2000 US Census PL94-171 Population Counts

% % DISTRICT # MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION DEV. BLACK BLACK BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 100 1 44,193 -1.287 -2.83% 23,801 53 86% 425 24,226 54.82% 1,547 3.50% VAP 30,755 15,217 49.48% 177 15,394 50.05% 1,104 3.59% 101 1 47,733 2,253 4.95% 18,346 38.43% 179 18,525 38.81% 715 1.50% VAP 37,499 13,324 35.53% 96 13,420 35.79% 577 1.54% 102 1 46,812 1,332 2.93% 16,445 35.13% 88 16,533 35.32% 1,462 3.12% VAP 33,477 10,435 31.17% 34 10,469 31.27% 1,055 3.15% 103 1 43,813 -1,667 -3.67% 22,148 50.55% 116 22.264 50.82% 509 1.16% VAP 31,723 15,096 47.59% 63 15,159 47.79% 339 1.07% 104 1 45,537 57 0.13% 13,620 29.91% 128 13,748 30.19% 468 1.03% VAP 33,283 9,525 28.62% 63 9,588 28.81% 321 0.96% 105 1 47,008 1,528 3.36% 29,625 63.02% 211 29,836 63.47% 473 1 01% VAP 34,612 20,214 58.40% 108 20,322 58.71% 336 0.97% 106 1 47,513 2,033 4.47% 9,172 19.30% 126 9,298 19.57% 687 1.45% VAP 35,706 6,060 16.97% 53 6.113 17.12% 478 1.34% 107 1 47,542 2,062 4.53% 32,507 68.38% 222 32,729 68.84% 668 1.41% VAP 33,479 21,200 6.3.32% 93 21,293 63.60% 445 1 33% 108 1 46,736 1,256 2.76% 14,123 30.22% 267 14,390 30.79% 1,478 3 16% VAP 34,504 9,998 28.98% 108 10,106 29.29% 1,021 2.96% 109 1 44,376 -1,104 -2.43% 14,617 32.94% 261 14,878 33.53% 1,354 3.05% VAP 33,248 10,597 31.87% 120 10,717 32.23% 908 2.73% 110 1 45,737 257 0.57% 6,726 14.71% 119 6,845 14.97% 772 1.69% VAP 34,113 4,901 14.37% 50 4,951 14.51% 508 1.49% 111 1 43,443 -2,037 -4.48% 25,509 58.72% 523 26,032 59.92% 2,475 5.70% VAP 31,122 17,279 55.52% 199 17,478 56.16% 1,651 5.30% 112 1 43,853 -1,627 -3.58% 18,751 42.76% 229 18,980 43.28% 1,710 3.90% VAP 32,617 12,489 38.29% 105 12,594 38.61% 1,245 3.82% 113 1 43,806 -1,674 -3.68% 25,213 57.56% 630 25,843 58.99% 2,440 5.57% VAP 31,305 16,734 53.45% 251 16,985 54.26% 1,730 5.53% 114 1 44,773 -707 -1.55% 24,556 54.85% 138 24,694 55.15% 1,455 3 25% VAP 32,647 17,263 52.88% 64 17,327 53.07% 966 2.96% 115 1 44,351 -1,129 -2.48% 13,344 30.09% 221 13,565 30.59% 1,332 3.00% VAP 32,070 8,708 27.15% 73 8,781 27.38% 908 2.83% 116 1 44,110 -1,370 -3.01% 19,888 45.09% 130 20,018 45.38% 1,393 3.16% VAP 31,750 13,107 41.28% 62 13,169 41.48% 946 2.98% 117 1 47,750 2,270 4.99% 7,312 15.31% 231 7,543 15.80% 1,419 2.97% VAP 33,803 4,849 14.34% 64 4,913 14.53% 928 2.75% 118 1 43,713 -1,767 -3.89% 13,287 30.40% 87 13,374 30.60% 620 1.42% VAP 32,949 9,410 28.56% 31 9,441 28.65% 453 1.37% 119 1 43,904 -1,576 -3.47% 15,269 34.78% 121 15,390 35.05% 509 1.16% VAP 32,045 10,210 31.86% 53 10,263 32.03% 323 1.01% NOTE: Because some districts may be multi-member districts. Deviation = Total Deviation/# of members in district.

DATA SOURCE: 2000 US Census PL94-171 Population Counts

% % DISTRICT # MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION DEV. BLACK BLACK BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 120 1 46,731 1,251 2.75% 12,721 27.22% 115 12,836 27.47% 3,047 6.52% VAP 33,993 8,505 25.02% 55 8,560 25.18% 1,886 5.55% 121 2 94,840 1,940 4.27% 26,788 78 25% 501 27,259 28.77% 6,490 6.84% VAP 69,119 18,501 26.77% 182 18,683 27.03% 4,276 6.19% 122 1 46,286 806 1.77% 15.530 33.55% 244 15,774 34.08% 1,143 2.47% VAP 33,195 10,409 31.36% 116 10,525 31.71% 800 2.41% 123 1 47,747 2,267 4.98% 6,765 14.17% 222 6,987 14.63% 1,302 2.73% VAP 34,582 4,384 12.68% 73 4,457 12.89% 855 2.47% 124 2 86,779 -2,091 -4.60% 51,044 58.82% 556 51,600 59.46% 2,099 2.42% VAP 64,295 34,531 53.71% 280 34,811 54.14% 1,514 2.35% 125 1 44,644 -836 -1.84% 22,198 49.72% 275 22,473 50.34% 775 1.74% VAP 33,869 15,260 45.06% 138 15,398 45.46% 559 1.65% 126 1 47,657 2,177 4.79% 3,842 8.06% 111 3,953 8.29% 705 1.48% VAP 36,771 2,636 7.17% 49 2,685 7.30% 465 1.26% 127 1 47,662 2,182 4.80% 10,692 22.43% 422 11,114 23.32% 1,933 4.06% VAP 33,755 6,892 20.42% 133 7,025 20.81% 1,222 3.62% 128 1 44,652 -828 -1.82% 22,297 49.94% 493 22,790 51.04% 1,880 4.21% VAP 31,303 14,677 46.89% 175 14,852 47.45% 1,222 3.90% 129 2 95,060 2,050 4.51% 21,966 23.11% 439 22,405 23.57% 3,608 3.80% VAP 68,111 14,366 21.09% 145 14,511 21.30% 2,360 3.46% 130 1 45,022 -458 -l.01% 11,176 24.82% 136 11,312 25.13% 3,840 8.53% VAP 32,132 7,478 23.27% 46 7,524 23.42% 2,359 7.34% 131 1 46,341 861 1.89% 12,243 26.42% 108 12,351 26.65% 1,531 3.30% VAP 34,227 8,255 24.12% 45 8,300 24.25% 1,037 3.03% 132 1 43,304 -2,176 -4.78% 15,992 36.93% 130 16,122 37.23% 803 1.85% VAP 31,817 10,684 33.58% 63 10,747 33.78% 535 1.68% 133 1 43,375 -2,105 -4.63% 19,705 45.43% 334 20,039 46.20% 2,072 4.78% VAP 31,561 13,719 43.47% 158 13,877 43.97% 1,403 4.45% 134 1 43,239 -2,241 -4.93% 20,234 46.80% 110 20,344 47.05% 534 1.23% VAP 31,533 13,357 42.36% 54 13,411 42.53% 314 1.00% 135 1 43,390 -2,090 -4.60% 28,384 65.42% 205 28,589 65.89% 684 1.58% VAP 31,050 18,803 60.56% 94 18,897 60.86% 456 1.47% 136 1 43,351 -2,129 -4.68% 28,364 65.43% 163 28,527 65.80% 495 1.14% VAP 31,163 19,118 61.35% 86 19,204 61.62% 326 1.05% 137 1 47,504 2,024 4.45% 6,975 14.68% 111 7,086 14.92% 2,367 4.98% VAP 34,376 4,687 13.63% 49 4,736 13.78% 1,497 4.35% 138 1 46,891 1,411 3.10% 16,703 35.62% 98 16,801 35.83% 3,480 7.42% VAP 33,348 10,756 32.25% 33 10,789 32.35% 2,428 7.28% 139 1 44,064 -1,416 -3.11% 8,908 20.22% 123 9,031 20.50% 1,786 4.05% VAP 32,035 5,589 17.45% 43 5,632 17.58% 1,100 3 43% % % DISTRICT # MEMB. POPULATION DEVIATION DEV. BLACK BLACK BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO HISP. 140 1 43,309 -2,171 -4.77% 18,790 43.39% 142 18,932 43.71% 1,813 4.19% VAP 31,243 12,468 39.91% 58 12.526 40.09% 1,134 3.63% 141 2 86,466 -2.247 -4.94% 31,697 36.66% 263 31,960 30.96% 2,797 3.23% VAP 62,666 20,873 33.31% 132 21,005 33.52% 1,848 2.95% 142 1 43,318 -2,162 -4.75% 17,235 39.79% 208 17.443 40.27% 899 2.08% VAP 32,483 11,409 35.12% 110 11,519 35.46% 623 1.92% 143 1 43,255 -2,225 -4.89% 13,435 31.06% 229 13.664 31.59% 1,135 2.62% VAP 31,454 9,275 29.49% 85 9,360 29.76% 775 2.46% 144 1 46,486 1,006 2.21% 14,379 30.93% 148 14,527 31.25% 1,950 4.19% VAP 33,820 9,721 28.74% 78 9,799 28.97% 1,304 3.86% 145 1 43,725 -1,755 -3.86% 11,375 26.01% 129 11,504 26.31% 742 1.70% VAP 32,752 7,992 24.40% 56 8,048 24.57% 475 1.45% 146 1 47,668 2,188 4.81% 3,661 7.68% 102 3,763 7.89% 1,148 2.41% VAP 35,929 2.511 6.99% 38 2,549 7.09% 773 2.15% 147 1 43,664 -1,816 -3.99% 8,783 20.11% 294 9,077 20.79% 1,585 3.63% VAP 29,832 5,566 18.66% 89 5,655 18.96% 975 3.27%

Total Number of Members: 180 Total Population: 8,186,453 Ideal Value: 45,480

Summary Statistics

Population Range: 43,209 to 176,939 Absolute Range: -2,271 to 2,270 Absolute Overall Range: 4,541 Relative Range: -4.99% to 4.99% Relative Overall Range: 9.98%

NOTE: Because some districts may be multi-member districts. Deviation = Total Deviation/# of members in district.

DATA SOURCE: 2000 US Census PL94-171 Population Counts

CITY POPULATION AS COMPONENT OF GEORGIA HOUSE DISTRICTS

Reapportionment Services Unit, Georgia General

Assembly

011 1993 Trion 1993 100.0 4.4 012 15925 Cartersville 7955 50.0 16.8 012 1092 Emerson 1092 100.0 2.3 012 3208 Euharlee 3208 100.0 6.8 012 693 While 693 100.0 1.5 013 2542 Adairsville 2542 100.0 2.7 013 15925 Cartersville 7970 50.0 8.4 013 975 Cave Spring 926 95.0 1.0 013 34980 Rome 33334 95-3 35.2 014 730 Ball Ground 730 100.0 0.8 014 4220 Cumming 4220 100.0 4.4 014 626 Nelson 287 45.8 0.3 015 10050 Woodstock 29 0.3 0.1 016 7709 Canton 7709 100.0 16.2 016 3195 Holly Springs 3195 100.0 6.7 016 616 Waleska 616 100,0 1.3 016 10050 Woodstock 17 0.2 0.0 017 506 Mountain Park 10 2-0 0.0 017 10050 Woodstock 10004 99.5 21.0 018 80 Braswell 38 47.5 0.1 018 4579 Bremen 4552 99.4 10.5 018 941 Buchanan 941 100.0 2.2 018 5056 Dallas 13 0.3 0.0 018 2789 Tallapoosa 2789 100.0 6.4 018 2383 Temple 0 0.0 0.0 018 469 Waco 469 100.0 1.1 019 1039 Aragon 1039 100.0 2.4 019 BO Braswell 42 52.5 0.1 019 9470 Cedartown 9470 100.0 21.9 019 659 Kingston 659 100.0 1.5 019 3870 Rockmart 3870 100.0 8.9 019 229 Taylorsville 229 100.0 0.5 020 25578 Gainesville 20415 79.8 42.9 020 2689 Oakwood 41 1.5 0.1 025 3825 Jefferson 3825 100.0 8.8 025 1247 Maysville 575 46.1 1.3 025 1247 Nicholson 1247 100.0 2.9 025 431 Pendergrass 99 23.0 0.2 025 2040 Statham 2040 100.0 4.7 025 477 Talmo 444 93.1 1.0 025 10201 Winder 2516 24.7 5.8 026 13422 Acworth 3666 27.3 7.7 026 5056 Dallas 606 12.0 1.3 026 1361 Hiram 1077 79.1 2.3 027 5056 Dallas 4437 87.8 9.5 027 20065 Douglasville 11221 55.9 23.9 027 1361 Hiram 284 20.9 0.6 027 4134 Villa Rica 219 5.3 0.5 032 21675 Kennesaw 4720 21.8 9.9 032 58748 Marietta 14732 25.1 30.9 033 5359 Austell 5359 100.0 3.9 033 2072 Lilthia Springs 677 32.7 0.5 033 58748 Marietta 25311 43.1 18.6 033 12481 Powder Springs 6985 56.0 5.1 033 40999 Smyrna 3243 7.9 2.4 034 58748 Marietta 18705 31.8 14.3 034 40999 Smyrna 35776 87.3 27.4 035 13422 Acworth 9756 72.7 20.4 035 21675 Kennesaw 16955 78.2 35.5 036 34854 Alpharetta 378 1.1 0.8 037 34854 Alpharetta 30280 86.9 63.8 037 79334 Roswell 5369 6.8 11.3 038 34854 Alpharetta 2822 8.1 5.9 039 34854 Alpharetta 1374 3.9 2.9 039 506 Mountain Park 496 98.0 1.0 039 79334 Roswell 41867 52.8 88.1 040 79334 Roswell 32098 40.5 67.7 041 79334 Roswell 0 0.0 0.0 057 7231 Clarkston 7231 100.0 16.7 058 18147 Decatur 3737 20.6 8.6 059 416474 Atlanta 20703 5.0 15.8 059 18147 Decatur 230 1.3 0.2 059 21447 Forest Park 0 0.0 0.0 059 8493 McDonough 5571 65.6 4.3 059 9853 Stockbridge 8534 86.6 6.5 060 8493 McDonough 2922 34,4 2.2 060 9853 Stock bridge 1319 13.4 1.0 061 15351 Snellville 3126 20.4 2.3 061 7145 Stone Mountain 4402 61.6 3.3 062 10689 Conyers 9971 93.3 21.0 062 2187 Lithonia 2187 100.0 4.6 063 10689 Conyers 718 6.7 1.6 064 1695 Berkeley Lake 1695 100.0 3.6 064 22122 Duluth 6620 29.9 14.1 064 8410 Norcross 2261 26.9 4.8 065 22122 Duluth 15502 70.1 34.3 065 11399 Sugar Hill 303 2.7 0.7 065 8725 Suwanee 6565 75.2 14.5 066 8410 Norcross 6149 73.1 13.4 067 1206 Braselton 263 21.8 0.3 067 10668 Buford 10572 99.1 11.1 067 1806 Flowery Branch 53 2.9 0.1 067 22397 Lawrenceville 1171 5.2 1.2 067 151 Rest Haven 113 74.8 0.1 067 11399 Sugar Hill 11096 97.3 11.6 067 8725 Suwanee 1987 22.8 2.1 069 22397 Lawrenceville 135 0.6 0.3 068 11307 Lilbum 7728 68.3 17.8 069 11307 Lilbum 5 0.0 0.0 069 8410 Norcross 0 0.0 0.0 070 22397 Lawrenceville 16137 72.0 11.5 070 11307 Lilbum 3574 31.6 2.5 076 328 lIa 328 100.0 0.7 076 439 North High Shoals 439 100.0 1.0 076 2097 Walkinsville 2097 100.0 4.7 076 1068 Winterville 1068 100.0 2.4 077 312 Amoldsville 312 100.0 0.7 077 807 Crawford 807 100.0 1.7 077 6764 Eatonton 6764 100.0 14.2 077 3238 Greensboro 3238 100.0 6.8 077 239 Lexington 239 100.0 0.5 077 3536 Madison 3636 100.0 7.6 077 210 Maxeys 210 100.0 0.4 077 331 Si loam 331 100.0 0.7 077 1669 Union Point 1669 100.0 3.5 077 283 White Plains 283 100.0 0.6 077 400 Woodville 400 100.0 0.8 078 898 Bowman 898 100.0 1.9 078 233 Carlton 233 100.0 0.5 078 1052 Comer 1052 100.0 2.2 078 457 Danielsville 457 100.0 1.0 078 4743 Elberton 4743 100.0 10.0 078 1595 Lincolnton 1595 100.0 3.4 078 139 Rayle 139 100.0 0.3 078 653 Tignall 653 100.0 1.4 078 4295 Washington 4295 100.0 9.1 079 6089 Grovetown 6089 100.0 13.6 079 1814 Harlem 1814 100.0 4.1 081 20382 College Park 1572 7.7 3.5 081 12478 Riverdale 4788 38.4 10.5 082 3829 Jonesboro 785 20.5 1.8 082 2886 Lake City 1547 53.6 3.6 082 4882 Morrow 1014 20.8 2.3 083 3829 Jonesboro 458 12.0 1.0 083 12478 Riverdale 7690 61.6 17.3 084 21447 Forest Park 17379 81.0 18.6 088 2383 Temple 2383 100.0 2.7 086 4134 Villa Rica 3570 86.4 4.0 088 596 Whitesburg 596 100.0 0.7 089 1309 Granlville 1309 100.0 2.9 089 144 Haralson 144 100.0 0.3 089 2774 Hogansville 2774 100.0 6.1 089 25998 LaGrange 7867 30.3 17.4 089 393 Moreland 393 100.0 0.9 089 316 Sharpsburg 0 0.0 0.0 089 165 Turin 165 100.0 0.4 089 3382 West Point 2674 79.1 5.9 090 149 Gay 149 100.0 0.3 090 946 Greenville 946 100.0 2.2 090 144 Haralson 0 0.0 0.0 090 25998 LaGrange 18131 69.7 41.7 090 104 Lone Oak 104 100.0 0.2 090 783 Luthersville 783 100.0 1.8 090 3988 Manchester 3895 97.7 9.0 090 1141 Pine Mountain 23 2.0 0.1 090 485 Warm Springs 485 100.0 1.1 090 1184 Wood bury 1184 100.0 2.7 091 98 Aldora 0 0.0 0.0 091 5972 Barnesville 1980 33.2 4.3 091 336 Concord 336 100.0 0.7 091 192 Meansville 192 100.0 0.4 091 522 Milner 35 6.7 0.1 091 475 Molena 475 100.0 1,0 091 9411 Thomas ton 9411 100.0 20.6 091 297 Williamson 297 100.0 0.7 091 408 Yatesville 408 100.0 0.9 091 1181 Zebu Ion 1181 100.0 2.6 092 652 Flo villa 0 0.0 0.0 092 23451 Griffin 17783 75.8 41.0 092 3934 Jackson 1605 40.8 3.7 101 421 Hiltonia 421 100.0 0.9 101 322 Newington 322 100.0 0.7 101 253 Oliver 253 100.0 0.5 101 186 Rocky Ford 186 100.0 0.4 101 22698 Statesboro 22618 99.6 47.4 101 2675 Sylvania 2675 100.0 5.6 102 579 Adrian 579 100.0 1.2 102 152 Garfield 152 100.0 0.3 102 241 Kite 241 100.0 0.5 102 3879 Metter 1995 51.4 4.3 102 3492 Millen 3492 100.0 7.5 102 131 Nunez 131 100.0 0.3 102 366 Oak Park 366 100.0 0.8 102 597 Portal 597 100.0 1.3 102 22693 Statesboro 80 0.4 0.2 102 730 Stillmore 730 100.0 1.6 102 140 Summertown 140 100.0 0.3 102 6943 Swainsboro 6943 100.0 14.8 102 1752 Twin City 1752 100.0 3.7 102 2223 Wrightsville 2223 100.0 4.7 103 217 Avera 217 100.0 0.5 103 223 Bartow 223 100.0 0.5 103 1544 Davisboro 1544 100.0 3.5 103 441 Dearing 441 100.0 1.0 103 132 Deepstep 132 100.0 0.3 103 509 Harrison 509 100.0 1.2 103 180 Keysville 10 5.6 0.0 103 2712 Louisville 2712 100.0 6.2 103 280 Oconee 280 100.0 0.6 103 124 Riddleville 124 100.0 0.3 103 6144 Sandersville 6144 100.0 14.0 103 318 Stapleton 313 100.0 0.7 103 1505 Tennille 1505 100.0 3.4 103 2088 Wadley 2088 100.0 4.8 112 185781 Columbus city (bal 43343 23.3 98.8 113 185781 Columbus city (bal 43806 23.6 100.0 114 1907 Butler 1907 100.0 4.3 114 415 Byromville 415 100.0 0.9 114 2687 Byron 213 7.4 0.5 114 163 Dooling 163 100.0 0.4 114 8005 Fort Valley 4894 61.1 10.9 114 518 Ideal 518 100.0 1.2 114 221 Lilly 221 100.0 0.5 114 1335 Marshallville 1335 100.0 3.0 114 3999 Monlezuma 3999 100.0 8.9 114 1200 Oglethorpe 1200 100.0 2.7 114 9602 Perry 3 0.0 0.0 114 307 Pinehurst 307 100.0 0.7 114 1036 Reynolds 1036 100.0 2.3 114 2772 Unadilla 973 35.1 2.2 114 2973 Vienna 2973 100.0 6.6 114 48804 Warner Robins 0 0.0 0.0 115 9602 Perry 9578 99.8 21.6 115 48804 Wamer Robins 23182 47.5 52.3 116 17013 Americus 17013 100.0 38.6 116 331 Andersonville 331 100.0 0.8 116 1664 Buena Vista 1664 100.0 3.8 116 214 De Soto 214 100.0 0.5 116 1609 Ellaville 1609 100.0 3.6 116 455 Leslie 455 100.0 1.0 116 637 Plains 637 100.0 1.4 117 4278 Centerville 4120 96.3 8.6 117 9602 Perry 21 0.2 0.0 117 48804 Wamer Robins 14721 30.2 30.8 118 1943 Alamo 1013 52.1 2.3 118 287 Allentown 0 0.0 0.0 118 329 Cadwell 329 100.0 0.8 118 295 Chauncey 295 100.0 0.7 121 269 Denton 269 100.0 0.3 121 3641 Glennville 3641 100.0 3.8 121 312 Graham 312 100.0 0.3 121 898 Hagan 898 100.0 0.9 121 3787 Hazlehurst 3787 100.0 4.0 121 30392 Hinesville 3634 12.0 3.8 121 118 Jacksonville 118 100.0 0.1 121 1247 Lumber City 1247 100.0 1.3 121 100 Manassas 100 100.0 0.1 121 2379 Pembroke 2379 100.0 2.5 121 261 Pulaski 261 100.0 0.3 121 164 Register 164 100.0 0.2 121 2235 Reidsville 2235 100.0 2.4 121 300 Scotland 257 85.7 0.3 121 237 Surrency 237 100.0 0.2 122 11289 Garden City 7378 65.4 15.9 122 917 Guyton 917 100.0 2.0 122 3276 Port Wentworth 1494 45.6 3.2 122 4376 Rincon 4376 100.0 9.5 122 131510 Savannah 8570 6.5 18.5 122 1821 Springfield 1821 100.0 3.9 123 2665 Bloom ing dale 2665 100.0 5.6 123 11289 Garden City 2698 23.9 5.7 123 6239 Pooler 6239 100.0 13.1 123 3276 Port Wentworth 1782 54.4 3.7 123 6959 Richmond Hill 2022 29.1 4.2 123 131510 Savannah 2555 1.9 5.4 124 11289 Garten City 1213 10.7 1.4 124 131510 Savannah 74362 56.5 85.7 124 2340 Thunderbott 2340 100.0 2.7 124 3392 Tybee Island 1111 32.8 1.3 125 131510 Savannah 42487 32.3 95.2 126 131510 Savannah 3536 2.7 7.4 126 3392 Tybee Island 2281 67.2 4.8 130 10639 Douglas 10639 100.0 23.6 130 1008 Nicholls 1008 100.0 2.2 130 1805 Pearson 1805 100.0 4.0 130 1434 Willacoochee 1434 100.0 3.2 131 2298 Abbeville 2298 100.0 5.0 131 8758 Fitzgerald 8758 100.0 18-9 131 3270 Ocilla 3270 100.0 7.1 131 532 Pineview 532 100.0 1.1 131 308 Pitts 308 100.0 0.7 131 1415 Rochelle 1415 100.0 3.1 131 15060 Tifton 3433 22.8 7.4 132 456 Arabi 456 100.0 1.1 132 11608 Cordele 11608 100.0 26.8 132 3280 Hawkinsville 3280 100.0 7.6 132 2772 Unadilla 1799 64.9 4.2 132 430 Warwick 430 100.0 1.0 133 1602 Arlington 977 61.0 2.3 133 513 Bronwood 513 100.0 1.2 133 1196 Cusseta 1196 100.0 2.8 133 5058 Dawson 5058 100.0 11.7 133 1340 Edison 1136 84.8 2.6 133 666 Leary 666 100.0 1.5 133 2633 Lees burg 2633 100.0 6.1 133 1464 Morgan 1464 100.0 3.4 133 156 Parrott 156 100.0 0.4 133 453 Preston 453 100.0 1.0 133 1794 Richland 1784 99.4 4,1 133 393 Sasser 393 100.0 0.9 133 774 Smithville 774 100.0 1.8 133 75 Weston 75 100.0 0.2 134 1602 Arlington 625 39.0 1.4 134 11722 Bainbridge 4721 40.3 10.9 134 5696 Blakely 5696 100.0 13.2 134 118 Blurfton 118 100.0 0.3 139 4697 Nashville 4697 100.0 10.7 139 746 Ray City 746 100.0 1.7 139 1755 Sparks 1755 100.0 4.0 139 15060 Tifton 6366 42.3 14.4 140 804 Baconton 804 100.0 1.9 140 5669 Camilla 5669 100.0 13.1 140 828 Doerun 828 100.0 1.9 140 426 Funston 426 100.0 1.0 140 1090 Meigs 29 2.7 0.1 140 14387 Moullrie 10842 75.4 25.0 140 4126 Pelham 4126 100.0 9.5 140 57 Riverside 57 100.0 0.1 140 319 Sale City 319 100.0 0.7 141 492 Attapulgus 492 100.0 0.6 141 11722 Bainbridge 7001 59.7 8.1 141 444 Barwick 328 73.9 0.4 141 225 Brinson 225 100.0 0.3 141 9239 Cairo 9239 100.0 10.7 141 297 Climax 297 100.0 0.3 141 552 Coolidge 552 100.0 0.6 141 2796 Donalsonville 2796 100.0 3.2 141 321 Iron City 321 100.0 0.4. 141 605 Ochlocknee 605 100.0 0.7 141 711 Pavo 418 58.8 0.5 141 18162 Thomasville 14424 79.4 16.7 141 631 Whigham 631 100.0 0.7 142 847 Remerton 847 100.0 2.0 142 43724 Valdosta 35954 82-2 83.0 143 139 Du Pont 139 100.0 0.3 143 380 Fargo 380 100.0 0.9 143 1626 Hahira 1626 100.0 3.8 143 2803 Homerville 2803 100.0 6.5 143 2730 Lakeland 2730 100.0 6.3 143 43724 Vaidosta 6679 15.3 15.4 HOUSE Total City City Percent Percent District City Name Population of City of District # Population in District in District in City 001 2245 Chickamauga 2245 100.0 5.1 001 6940 Fort Oglethorpe 185 2.7 0.4 001 6702 La Fayette 6702 100.0 15.2 001 3511 Rossville 2620 74.6 6-0 002 6940 Fort Oglethorpe 946 13.6 2.0 002 1617 Lookout Mountain 1617 100.0 3.4 002 3511 Rossville 891 25.4 1.9 002 1942 Trenton 1942 100.0 4.1 003 1210 Blue Ridge 1 0.1 0.0 003 582 Cohutta 582 100.0 0.6 003 27912 Dalton 576 2.1 0.6 003 707 East Ellijay 0 0.0 0.0 003 1584 Ellijay 1472 92.9 1.5 003 6940 Fort Oglethorpe 5809 83.7 6.1 003 1071 McCaysville 1071 100.0 1.1 003 299 Morganton 299 100.0 0.3 003 2422 Ringgold 2422 100.0 2.5 003 1209 Tunnel Hill 1209 100.0 1.3 003 1491 Vamell 1491 100.0 1.6 004 27912 Dalton 17840 63.9 37.4 005 3531 Chatsworth 3531 100.0 7.6 005 27912 Dalton 9496 34.0 20.5 005 319 Eton 319 100.0 0.7 006 1210 Blue Ridge 1209 99.9 2.6 006 3638 Dahlonega 8 0.2 0.0 006 619 Dawsonville 619 100.0 1.3 006 707 East Ellijay 707 100.0 1.5 006 1584 Ellijay 112 7.1 0.2 006 2167 Jasper 2167 100.0 4.6 006 626 Nelson 339 54.2 0.7 006 49 Talking Rock 49 100.0 0.1

CITY POPULATION AS COMPONENT OF GEORGIA HOUSE DISTRICTS

Reapportionment Services Unit, Georgia General

Assembly

Bainbridgs 11722 134 4721 40.3 10.9 Bainbridge 11722 141 7001 59.7 8.1 Baldwin 2425 007 1734 71.5 3.7 Baldwin 2425 009 259 10.7 0.5 Baldwin 2425 022 432 17.3 1.0 Ball Ground 730 014 730 100.0 0.8 Bamesville 5972 091 1980 33.2 4.3 Bamesville 5972 093 3992 66.8 9.0 Bartow 223 103 223 100.0 0.5 Barwick 444 141 328 73.9 0.4 Barwick 444 144 116 26.1 0.2 Baxley 4150 121 4150 100.0 4.4 Bellville 130 121 130 100.0 0.1 Berkeley Lake 1695 064 1695 100.0 3.6 Berlin 595 139 595 100.0 1.4 Bethlehem 716 024 716 100.0 1.6 Between 148 071 148 100.0 0.2 Bibb City 510 112 510 100.0 1.2 Bishop 146 076 146 100.0 0.3 Blackshear 3283 129 3283 100.0 3.5 Blairsville 659 008 659 100.0 1.4 Blakely 5696 134 5696 100.0 13.2 Bloomingdale 2665 123 2665 100.0 5.6 Blue Ridge 1210 003 1 0.1 0.0 Blue Ridge 1210 006 1209 99.9 2.6 Bluffton 118 134 118 100.0 0.3 Blythe 718 100 718 100.0 1.6 Bogart 1049 073 931 88.8 2.0 Bogart 1049 074 155 14.8 0.3 Boston 1417 144 1417 100.0 3.0 Bostwick 322 073 322 100.0 0.7 Bowdon 1959 088 1959 100.0 2.2 Bowersville 334 023 334 100.0 0.8 Bowman 898 078 898 100.0 1.9 Cartersville 15325 012 7955 50.0 16.8 Cartereville 16925 013 7970 50.0 8.4 Cave Spring 975 011 49 5-0 0.1 Cave Spring 975 013 926 95.0 1.0 Cecil 265 139 265 100.0 0.6 Cedartown 9470 019 9470 100.0 21.9 Centerville 4278 108 158 3.7 0.3 Cenlerville 4278 117 4120 96.3 8.6 Centralhatchee 383 088 383 100.0 0.4 Chamblee 9552 053 2843 29.8 6.2 Chamblee 9552 054 6709 70.2 14.8 Chatsworth 3531 005 3531 100.0 7.6 Chauncey 295 118 295 100.0 0.7 Chester 305 118 305 100.0 0.7 Chickamauga 2245 001 2245 100.0 5.1 Clarkesville 1248 007 1248 100.0 2.6 Clarkston 7231 057 7231 100.0 16.7 Claxton 2276 121 2276 100.0 2.4 Clayton 2019 008 2019 100.0 4.4 Clermonl 419 009 419 100.0 0.9 Cleveland 1907 007 1907 100.0 4.0 Climax 297 141 297 100.0 0.3 Cobbtown 311 121 311 100.0 0.3 Cochran 4455 118 4455 100.0 10.2 Cohutta 582 003 582 100.0 0.6 Colbert 488 076 488 100.0 1.1 Coleman 149 134 149 100,0 0.3 College Paris 20382 048 18810 92.3 10.6 College Park 20382 081 1572 7.7 3.5 Collins 528 121 528 100.0 0.6 Colquitt 1939 134 1939 100.0 4.5 Columbus city (bal 185781 109 37878 20.4 85.4 Columbus city (bal 185781 110 17311 9.3 37.8 Columbus city (bal 185781 111 43443 23.4 100.0 Dawson 5058 133 5058 100.0 11.7 Dawsonville 619 006 619 100.0 1.3 De Soto 214 116 214 100.0 0.5 Dearing 441 103 441 100.0 1.0 Decatur 18147 056 14180 78.1 16.4 Decatur 18147 058 3737 20.6 8.6 Decatur 18147 059 230 1.3 0.2 Deepstep 132 103 132 100.0 0.3 Demorest 1465 007 1465 100.0 3.1 Denton 269 121 269 100.0 0.3 Dexter 509 119 509 100.0 1.2 Dillard 198 008 198 100.0 0.4 Doerun 828 140 828 100.0 1.9 Donalsonville 2796 141 2796 100.0 3.2 Dooling 163 114 163 100.0 0.4 Doraville 9862 053 9862 100.0 21.6 Douglas 10639 130 10639 100.0 23.6 Douglasville 20065 027 11221 55.9 23.9 Douglasville 20065 045 1210 6.0 2.6 Douglasville 20065 046 5883 29.3 12.4 Douglasville 20065 047 1751 8.7 3.8 Do Pont 139 143 139 100.0 0.3 Dublin 15857 119 15857 100.0 36.1 Dudley 447 119 447 100.0 1.0 Duluth 22122 064 6620 29.9 14.1 Duluth 22122 065 15502 70.1 34.3 East Dublin 2464 119 2434 100.0 5.7 East Ellijay 707 003 0 0.0 0.0 East Ellijay 707 006 707 100.0 1.5 East Point 39595 048 39595 100.0 22.4 Eastman 5440 118 5440 100.0 12.4 Eatonton 6764 077 6764 100.0 14.2 Edge Hill 30 095 30 100.0 0.1 Edison 1340 133 1136 84.8 2.6 Franklin 902 088 902 100.0 1.0 Franklin Springs 762 023 762 100.0 1.7 Funs ton 426 140 426 100.0 1.0 Gainesville 25578 009 2701 10.6 5.7 Gainesville 25578 020 20415 79.8 42.9 Gainesville 25578 021 2462 9.6 5.2 Garden City 11289 122 7378 65.4 15.9 Garden City 11289 123 2698 23.9 5.7 Garden City 11289 124 1213 10.7 1.4 Garfield 152 102 152 100.0 0.3 Gay 149 090 149 100.0 0.3 Geneva 114 109 114 100.0 0.3 Georgetown 973 134 973 100.0 2.3 Gibson 694 095 694 100.0 1.6 Gillsville 195 009 167 85.6 0.4 Gillsville 195 022 28 14.4 0.1 Girard 227 100 227 100.0 0.5 Glennville 3641 121 3641 100.0 3.8 Glerrwood 884 120 884 100.0 1.9 Good Hope 210 073 210 100.0 0.5 Gordon 2152 104 2152 100.0 4.7 Graham 312 121 312 100.0 0.3 Grantville 1309 089 1309 100.0 2.9 Gray 1811 104 1811 100.0 4.0 Grayson 765 071 765 100.0 0.8 Greensboro 3238 077 3238 100.0 6.8 Greenville 946 090 946 100.0 2.2 Griffin 23451 085 5668 242 6.0 Griffin 23451 092 17783 75.8 41,0 Grovetown 6089 079 6089 100.0 13.6 Gumbranch 273 127 273 100.0 0.6 Guyton 917 122 917 100.0 2.0 Hagan 898 121 898 100.0 0.9 Hahira 1626 143 1626 100.0 3.8 Iron City 321 141 321 100.0 0.4 Irwinton 587 104 587 100.0 1.3 Ivey 1100 104 1100 100.0 2.4 Jackson 3934 085 6 0.2 0.0 Jackson 3934 092 1605 40.8 3.7 Jackson 3934 093 2323 59.0 5.2 Jacksonville 118 121 118 100.0 0.1 Jakin 157 134 157 100.0 0.4 Jasper 2167 006 2167 100.0 4.6 Jefferson 3825 024 0 0.0 0.0 Jefferson 3825 025 3825 100.0 8.8 Jeffersonvine 1209 104 1209 100.0 2.7 Jenkinsburg 203 085 203 100.0 0.2 Jersey 163 071 163 100.0 0.2 Jesup 9279 129 9279 100.0 9.8 Jonesboro 3829 082 785 20.5 1.8 Jonesboro 3829 083 458 12.0 1.0 Jonesboro 3829 084 2586 67.5 2.8 Junction City 179 109 179 100.0 0.4 Kennesaw 21675 032 4720 21.8 9.9 Kennesaw 21675 035 16955 78.2 35.5 Keysville 180 100 170 94.4 0.4 Keysville 180 103 10 5.6 0.0 Klngsland 10506 147 10506 100.0 24.1 Kingston 659 019 659 100.0 1.5 Kite 241 102 241 100.0 0.5 La Fayette 6702 001 6702 100.0 15.2 LaGrange 25998 089 7867 30.3 17.4 LaGrange 25998 090 18131 69.7 41.7 Lake City 2886 082 1547 53.6 3.6 Lake City 2886 084 1339 46.4 1.4 Lake Park 549 144 549 100.0 1.2 Lakeland 2730 143 2730 100.0 6.3 Lavonia 1827 022 0 0.0 0.0 Macon 97255 106 21162 21.8 44.5 Macon 97255 107 40385 41.5 84.9 Madison 3636 073 0 0.0 0.0 Madison 3636 077 3636 100.0 7.6 Manassas 100 121 100 100.0 0.1 Manchester 3988 090 3895 97.7 9.0 Manchester 3988 109 93 2.3 0.2 Mansfield 392 073 392 100.0 0.9 Marietta 58748 032 14732 25.1 30.9 Marietta 58748 033 25311 43.1 18.6 Marietta 58748 034 18705 31.8 14.3 Marshallville 1335 114 1335 100.0 3.0 Martin 311 022 311 100.0 0.7 Maxeys 210 077 210 100.0 0.4 Maysville 1247 022 672 53.9 1.6 Maysville 1247 025 575 46.1 1.3 McCaysville 1071 003 1071 100.0 1.1 McOonough 8493 059 5571 65.6 4.3 McDonough 8493 060 2922 34.4 2.2 Mclntyre 718 104 718 100.0 1.6 McRae 2682 118 2682 100.0 6.1 Meansville 192 091 192 100.0 0.4 Meigs 1090 137 1061 97.3 2.2 Meigs 1090 140 29 2.7 0,1 Menlo 485 011 485 100.0 1,1 Metter 3879 102 1995 51.4 4.3 Metter 3879 120 1884 48.6 4.0 Midville 457 100 457 100.0 1.0 Midway 1100 127 0 0.0 0.0 Midway 1100 128 1100 100.0 2.5 Milan 1012 118 1012 100.0 2.3 MilledgevilIe 18757 094 18757 100.0 43.1 Millen 3492 102 3492 100.0 7.5 Milner 522 091 35 6.7 0.1 Norcross 8410 064 2261 26.9 4.8 Norcross 8410 066 6149 73.1 13.4 Norcross 8410 069 0 0.0 0.0 Norman Park 849 138 849 100.0 1.8 North High Shoals 439 076 439 100.0 1.0 Norwood 299 095 299 100.0 0.7 Nunez 131 102 131 100.0 0.3 Oak Park 366 102 366 100.0 0.8 Oakwood 2689 020 41 1.5 0.1 Oakwood 2689 021 2648 98.5 5.6 Ochlocknee 605 141 605 100.0 0.7 Ocilla 3270 131 3270 100.0 7.1 Oconee 280 103 280 100.0 0.6 Odum 414 129 414 100.0 0.4 Offerman 403 129 403 100.0 0.4 Oglethorpe 1200 114 1200 100.0 2.7 Oliver 253 101 253 100.0 0.5 Omega 1340 138 1340 100.0 2.9 Orchard Hill 230 065 13 5.7 0.0 Orchard Hill 230 092 217 94.3 0.5 Oxford 1892 072 1892 100.0 4.4 Palmetto 3400 048 3073 90.4 1.7 Palmetto 3400 086 327 9.6 0.7 Parrott 156 133 156 100.0 0.4 Patterson 627 129 627 100.0 0.7 Pavo 711 141 418 58.8 0.5 Pavo 711 144 293 41.2 0.6 Payne 176 106 178 100.0 0.4 Peachtree City 31580 085 20956 66.4 22.1 Peachtree City 31580 086 10624 33.6 22.3 Pearson 1805 130 1805 100.0 4.0 Pelham 4126 140 4126 100.0 9.5 Pembroke 2379 121 2379 100.0 2.5 Pendergrass 431 024 332 77.0 0.7 Rest Haven 151 087 113 74.8 0.1 Reynolds 1036 114 1036 100.0 2.3 Rhine 422 118 422 100.0 1.0 Riceboro 736 128 382 51.9 0.9 Riceboro 736 129 354 48.1 0.4 Richland 1794 133 1784 99.4 4.1 Richland 1794 134 10 0.6 0.0 Richmond Hill 6959 123 2022 29.1 4.2 Richmond Hill 6959 127 2477 35.6 5.2 Richmond Hill 6959 146 2460 35.3 5.2 Riddleville 124 103 124 100.0 0.3 Rincon 4376 122 4376 100.0 9.5 Ringgold 2422 003 2422 100.0 2.5 Riverdale 12478 081 4788 38.4 10.8 Riverdale 12478 083 7690 61.6 17.3 Riverside 57 140 57 100.0 0.1 Roberta 808 108 808 100.0 1.7 Rochelle 1415 131 1415 100.0 3.1 Rockmart 3870 019 3870 100.0 8.9 Rocky Ford 186 101 186 100.0 0.4 Rome 34980 011 1646 4.7 3.S Rome 34980 013 33334 95.3 35.2 Roopville 177 088 177 100.0 0.2 Rossville 3511 001 2620 74.6 6.0 Rossville 3511 002 891 25.4 1.9 Roswefl 79334 037 5369 6.8 11.3 Roswell 79334 039 41867 52.8 88.1 Roswefl 79334 040 32098 40.5 67.7 Roswell 79334 041 0 0.0 0.0 Roys ton 2493 023 2493 100.0 5.6 Rutledge 707 073 707 100.0 1.6 Sale City 319 140 319 100.0 0.7 Sandersville 6144 103 6144 100.0 14.0 Santa Claus 237 120 237 100.0 O.S Statesboro 22S3S 101 22618 99.6 47.4 Statesboro 22698 102 80 0.4 0.2 Statesboro 22698 127 0 0.0 0.0 Statham 2040 025 2040 100.0 4.7 Stillmore 730 102 730 100.0 1.6 Stockbridge 9853 059 8534 86.6 6.5 Stockbridge 9853 060 1319 13.4 1.0 Stone Mountain 7145 055 2743 38.4 6.3 Stone Mountain 7145 061 4402 61.6 3.3 Sugar Hill 11399 065 303 2.7 0.7 Sugar Hill 11399 067 11096 97.3 11.6 Summertown 140 102 140 100.0 0.3 Summerville 4556 011 4556 100.0 10.0 Surnner 309 138 309 100.0 0.7 Sunny Side 142 085 142 100.0 0.1 Surrency 237 121 237 100.0 0.2 Suwanee 8725 065 6565 75.2 14.5 Suwanee 8725 067 1987 22.8 2.1 Suwanee 8725 070 173 2.0 0.1 Swainsboro 6943 102 6943 100.0 14.8 Sycamore 496 138 496 100.0 1.1 Sylvanla 2675 101 2675 100.0 5.6 Sylvester 5990 138 5990 100.0 12.8 Talbotton 1019 109 1019 100.0 2.3 Talking Rock 49 006 49 100.0 0.1 Tallapoosa 2789 018 2789 100.0 6.4 Tallulah Falls 164 007 61 37.2 0.1 Tallulah Falls 164 008 103 62.8 0.2 Talmo 477 024 33 6.9 0.1 Talmo 477 025 444 93.1 1.0 Tarrytown 100 120 100 100.0 0.2 Taylorsville 229 019 229 100.0 0.5 Temple 2383 018 0 0.0 0.0 Temple 2383 OB8 2383 100.0 2.7 Vidalia 10491 120 10491 100.0 22.4 Vidette 112 100 112 100.0 0.3 Vienna 2973 114 2973 100.0 6.6 Villa Rica 4134 027 219 53 0.5 Villa Rica 4134 046 44 1.1 0.1 Villa Rica 4134 087 301 7.3 0.6 Villa Rica 4134 OB8 3570 86.4 4.0 Waco 469 018 469 100.0 1.1 Wadley 2088 103 2088 100.0 4.8 Waleska 616 016 616 100.0 1.3 Walnut Grove 1241 071 1241 100.0 1.3 Walthourville 4030 128 2715 67.4 6.1 Walthourville 4030 129 1315 32.6 1.4 Warm Springs 485 090 485 100.0 1.1 Warner Robins 48804 108 10901 22.3 23.3 Warner Robins 48804 114 0 0.0 0.0 Warner Robins 48804 115 23182 47.5 52.3 Warner Robins 48804 117 14721 30.2 30.3 Warrenton 2013 095 2013 100.0 4.5 Warwick 430 132 430 100.0 1.0 Washington 4295 078 4295 100.0 9,1 Watkinsville 2097 076 2097 100.0 4.7 Waverly Hall 709 110 709 100.0 1.6 Waycross 15333 129 0 0.0 0.0 Waycross 15333 145 15333 100.0 35.1 Waynesboro 5813 100 5813 100.0 13.2 West Point 3382 089 2674 79.1 5.9 West Point 3382 110 708 20.9 1.5 Weston 75 133 75 100.0 0.2 Whigham 631 141 631 100.0 0.7 White 693 012 693 100.0 1.5 White Plains 283 077 283 100.0 0.6 Whitesburg 596 OB7 0 0.0 0.0 Whitesburg 596 OB8 596 100.0 0.7 City Total HOUSE City Percent Percent Name City District Population of City of District Population # in District in District in City Abbeville 2298 131 2298 100.0 5.0 Acworth 13422 026 3666 27.3 7.7 Acworth 13422 035 9756 72.7 20.4 Adairsville 2542 013 2542 100.0 2.7 Adel 5307 139 5307 100.0 12.0 Adrian 579 102 579 100.0 1.2 ARey 394 120 394 100.0 0.8 Alamo 1943 118 1013 52.1 2.3 Alamo 1943 120 930 47.9 2.0 Alapaha 662 139 682 100.0 1.5 Albany 76939 135 38346 49.8 88.4 Albany 76939 136 28016 36.4 64.6 Albany 76939 137 10577 13.7 22.3 Aldora 98 091 0 0.0 0.0 Aldora 98 093 98 100.0 0.2 AJlenhurst 788 128 788 100.0 1.8 AHentown 287 104 284 99.0 0.6 Allentown 287 118 0 0.0 0.0 AHentown 287 119 3 1.0 0.0 Alma 3236 129 3236 100.0 3.4 Alpharetta 34854 036 378 1.1 0.8 Alpharetta 34854 037 30280 86.9 63.8 Alpharetta 34854 038 2822 8.1 5.9 Alpharetta 34854 039 1374 3.9 2.9 Alston 159 120 159 100.0 0.3 Alto 876 009 519 59.2 1.1 Alto 876 022 357 40.8 0.8 Ambrose 320 130 320 100.0 0.7 Americus 17013 116 17013 100.0 38.6 Andersonville 331 116 331 100.0 0.8 Arabi 456 132 456 100.0 1.1

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT FF

(To be scanned in place of tab) % % BLACK TOTAL % TOTAL HISP. OR DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION BLACK BLACK COMBO BLACK BLACK LATINO % HISP. 001 40,212 -5.268 -11.58% 734 1.83% 76 810 2.0:% 406 1.01% VAP 30,368 490 1.61% 15 505 1.66% 252 0.83% 002 39,156 -6,324 -13.91% 1,686 4.31% 89 1,775 4.53% 320 0.82% VAP 29,811 1,272 4.27% 14 1,286 4.31% 223 0.75% 003 49,043 3,563 7.83% 643 1.31% 88 731 1.49% 592 1.21% VAP 36,036 416 1.15% 17 433 1.20% 369 1.02% 004 42,934 -2,546 -5.60% 1,166 4.11% 160 1,926 4.49% 9,429 21.96% VAP 30,861 1,258 4.08% 40 1,298 4.21% 5,769 18.69% 005 40,591 -4,889 -10.75% 1,448 3.57% 130 1,578 3.89% 8,990 22.15% VAP 29,830 1,005 3.37% 42 1,047 3.51% 5,627 18.86% 006 47,815 2,335 5.13% 235 0.49% 83 318 0.67% 2,094 4.38% VAP 35,178 154 0.44% 22 176 0.50% 1,281 3.64% 007 52,961 7,481 16.45% 385 0.73% 52 437 0.83% 2,585 4.88% VAP 40,445 281 0.69% 19 300 0.74% 1,677 4.15% 008 48,448 2,968 6.53% 298 0.62% 50 348 0.72% 1,090 2.25% VAP 38,616 221 0.57% 19 240 0.62% 767 1.99% 009 49,056 3,576 7.86% 1,975 4.03% 126 2,101 4.28% 2,874 5.86% VAP 37,573 1,612 4.29% 55 1,667 4.44% 1,787 4.76% 010 44,083 -1,397 -3.07% 1,527 3.46% 106 1,633 3.70% 3,268 7.41% VAP 32,592 1,077 3.30% 27 1,104 3.39% 2,318 7.11% 011 44,346 -1,134 -2.49% 3,371 7.60% 135 3,506 7.91% 959 2.16% VAP 33,839 2,683 7.93% 29 2,712 8.01% 675 1.99% 012 39,928 -5,552 -12.21% 9.836 24.63% 204 10,040 25.15% 3,908 9.79% VAP 30,117 6,613 21.96% 48 6,661 22.12% 2,589 8.60% 013 44,643 -837 -1.84% 2,558 5.73% 94 2,652 5.94% 846 1 90% VAP 33,242 1,865 5.61% 24 1,889 5.68% 538 1 62% 014 50,406 4,926 10.83% 4,765 9.45% 169 4,934 9.79% 1,984 3.94% VAP 36,693 3,260 8.88% 39 3,299 8.99% 1,281 3.49% 015 51,229 5,749 12.64% 446 0.87% 45 491 0.96% 1,031 2.01% VAP 38,556 312 0.81% 15 327 0.85% 696 1.81% 016 51,365 5,885 12.94% 1,394 2.71% 111 1,505 2 93% 3,611 7.03% VAP 36,968 959 2.59% 40 999 2.70% 2,518 6.81% 017 62,292 16,812 36.97% 1,978 3.18% 185 2,163 3.47% 3,520 5.65% VAP 43,839 1,302 2.97% 65 1,367 3.12% 2,380 5.43% 018 42,929 -2,551 -5.61% 2,227 5.19% 115 2,342 5.46% 426 0.99% VAP 31,549 1,561 4.95% 33 1,594 5.05% 263 0.83% 019 49,671 4,191 9.22% 366 0.74% 78 444 0.89% 2,703 5.44% VAP 36,758 226 0.61% 26 252 0.69% 1,705 4.64% DATA SOURCE: 2000 US Census PL94-171 Population Counts 020 47,381 1,901 4.18% 6,499 13.72% 132 6,631 14.00% 16,679 35.20% VAP 35,067 4,519 12.89% 70 4,589 13.09% 10,923 31.15% 021 67,872 22,392 49.23% 3,234 4.76% 172 3,406 5.02% 6,952 10.24% VAP 48,484 2,194 4.53% 47 2,241 4.62% 4,304 8.88% 022 41,882 -3,598 -7.91% 3,606 8.61% 113 3,719 8.88% 774 1.85% VAP 31,729 2,543 8.01% 30 2,573 8.11% 496 1.56% 023 41,257 -4,223 -9.29% 6,155 14.92% 105 6,260 15.17% 352 0.85% VAP 31,411 4,300 13.69% 26 4,326 13.77% 247 0.79% 024 45,741 261 0.57% 5,709 12.48% 114 5,823 12.73% 1,143 2.50% VAP 35,080 3,934 11.21% 40 3,974 11.33% 765 2.18% 025 48,884 3,404 7.48% 4,024 8.23% 158 4,182 8.55% 2,896 5.92% VAP 35,550 2,942 8 28% 33 2,975 8.37% 1,758 4.95% 026 70,745 25,265 55.55% 5,169 7.31% 237 5,406 7.64% 1,258 1.78% VAP 48,696 3,296 6.77% 66 3,362 6.90% 765 1.57% 027 45,651 171 0.38% 5,750 12.60% 120 5,870 12.86% 3,130 6.86% VAP 33,233 3,903 11.74% 30 3,933 11.83% 2,010 6.05% 728 71,334 25,854 56.85% 497 0.70% 59 556 0.78% 4,682 6.56% VAP 52,036 358 0.69% 29 387 0.74% 3,231 6.21% 029 47,375 1,895 4.17% 12,356 26.08% 462 12,818 27.06% 5,215 11.01% VAP 37,019 8,575 23.16% 233 8,808 23.79% 3,619 9.78% 030 43,576 -1,904 -4.19% 9,567 21.95% 366 9,933 22.79% 3,783 8.68% VAP 37,436 7,353 19.64% 230 7,583 20.26% 2,825 7.55% 031 41,122 -4,358 -9.58% 2,599 6.32% 158 2,757 6.70% 1,130 2.75% VAP 31,626 1,934 6.12% 81 2,015 6.37% 808 2.55% 032 49,789 4,309 9.47% 14,851 29.83% 516 15,367 30.86% 9,525 19.13% VAP 38.987 10,534 27.02% 285 10,819 27.75% 6,961 17.85% 033 42,895 -2,585 -5.68% 17,515 40.83% 412 17,927 41.79% 4,272 9.96% VAP 31,124 11,461 36.82% 199 11,660 37.46% 2,836 9.11% 034 57,943 12,463 27.40% 9,378 16.18% 323 9,701 16.74% 2,681 4.63% VAP 42,306 6,518 15.41% 153 6,671 15.77% 1,835 4.34% 035 45,374 -106 -0.23% 12,982 28.61% 430 13,412 29.56% 9,617 21.19% VAP 32,997 8,284 25.11% 189 8,473 25.68% 6,498 19.69% 036 56,005 10,525 23.14% 16,018 28.60% 393 16,411 29.30% 2,281 4.07% VAP 39,334 10,220 25.98% 158 10,378 26.38% 1,418 3.61% 037 42,672 -2,808 -6.17% 2,396 5.61% 144 2,540 5.95% 1,298 3.04% VAP 30,499 1,717 5.63% 57 1,774 5.82% 903 2.96% 038 85,677 40,197 88.38% 7,454 8.70% 399 7,853 9.17% 3,433 4.01% VAP 59,425 4,916 8.27% 166 5,082 8.55% 2,205 3.71% 039 42,944 -2,536 -5.58% 2,399 5.59% 126 2,525 5.88% 1,470 3.42% VAP 30,028 1,575 5.25% 56 1,631 5.43% 975 3.25% 040 43,534 -1,946 -4.28% 3,036 6.97% 200 3,236 7.43% 1,535 3.53% VAP 31,636 2,039 6.45% 86 2,125 6.72% 1,019 3.22% 041 107,426 61.946 136.20% 6,131 5.71% 365 6,496 6 05% 4,106 3.82% VAP 73,632 4,174 5.67% 156 4,330 5.88% 2,811 3.82% 042 52,432 6,952 15.29% 3,551 6.77% 247 3,798 7.24% 4,578 8.73% VAP 39,736 2,465 6.20% 124 2,589 6.52% 3,417 8 60% 043 41,831 -3,649 -8.02% 7,420 17.74% 355 7,775 18.59% 3,170 7.58% VAP 34,655 5,704 16.46% 230 5,934 17.12% 2,386 6.89% 044 55,457 9,977 21.94% 4,873 8.79% 333 5,206 9.39% 5,433 9.80% VAP 41,106 3,490 S.49% 188 3,678 8.95% 4,087 9.94% 045 50,089 4,609 10.13% 2,642 5.27% 170 2,812 5.61% 5,310 10.60% VAP 40,583 2,164 5.33% 122 2,286 5.63% 4,000 9.86% 046 40,944 -4,536 -9.97% 2,920 7.13% 111 3,031 7.40% 1,554 3.80% VAP 35,277 2,641 7.49% 86 2,727 7.73% 1,355 3.84% 047 46,411 931 2.05% 5,149 11.09% 297 5,446 11.73% 4,640 10.00% VAP 42,389 4,602 10.86% 239 4,841 11.42% 3,847 9.08% 048 38,448 -7,032 -15.46% 26,821 69.76% 261 27,082 70.44% 1,052 2.74% VAP 24,851 18,917 63.37% 175 19,092 63.96% 887 2.97% 049 57,874 -7,606 -16.72% 30,821 81.38% 312 31,133 82.20% 619 1.63% VAP 31,186 24,532 78.66% 226 24,758 79.39% 537 1.72% 050 38,256 -7,224 -15.88% 29,686 77.60% 343 30,029 78.49% 1,744 4.56% VAP 29,098 21,725 74.66% 245 21,970 75.50% 1,230 4.23% 051 39,074 -6,406 -14.09% 31,880 81.59% 237 32,117 82.20% 1,877 4.80% VAP 26,505 20,644 77.89% 153 20,797 78.46% 1,322 4.99% 052 38,112 -7,368 -16.20% 31,786 83.40% 213 31,999 83.96% 700 1.84% VAP 28,377 23,251 81.94% 141 23,392 82.43% 515 1.81% 053 37,953 -7,527 -16.55% 35,210 92.77% 390 35,600 93.80% 7S8 2.08% VAP 26,414 24,191 91.58% 239 24,430 92.49% 564 2.14% 054 35,772 -9,708 -21.35% 33,710 94.24% 288 33,998 95.04% 374 1.05% VAP 26,378 24,632 93.38% 195 24,827 94.12% 257 0.97% 055 39,993 -5,487 -12.06% 29,479 73.71% 339 29,818 74.56% 3,618 9.05% VAP 28,412 19,998 70.39% 174 20,172 71.00% 2,401 8.45% 056 41,311 -4,169 -9.17% 24,452 59.19% 349 24,801 60.03% 3,149 7.62% VAP 32,393 17,480 53.96% 244 17.724 54.72% 2,381 7.35% 057 38,843 -6,637 -14.59% 28,838 74.24% 332 29,170 75.10% 3,918 10.09% VAP 25,612 17,947 70.07% 174 18,121 70.75% 2,817 11.00% 058 44,625 -855 -1.88% 31,969 71.64% 483 32,452 72.72% 2,150 4.82% VAP 32,040 21,951 68.51% 275 22,226 69.37% 1,355 4.23% 059 42,310 -3,170 -6.97% 7,989 18.88% 336 8,325 19.68% 6,440 15.22% VAP 33.631 5,995 17.83% 205 6,200 18.44% 4,947 14.71% 060 43,352 -2,128 -4.68% 4,886 11.27% 250 5,136 11.85% 3,218 7.42% VAP 35,783 3,734 10.44% 170 3,904 10.91% 2,446 6.84% 061 49,417 3,937 8.66% 6,366 12.88% 382 6,748 13.66% 10,936 22.13% VAP 42,652 5,263 12.34% 286 5.549 13.01% 8,370 19.62% 062 44,608 -872 -1.92% 5,360 12.02% 413 5,773 12.94% 18,311 41.05% VAP 34,925 3,882 11.12% 267 4,149 11.88% 13,784 39.47% 063 38,251 -7,229 -15.89% 3,203 8.37% 140 3,343 8.74% 2,071 5.41% VAP 31,459 2,222 7.06% 54 2,276 7.23% 1,534 4.88% 064 50,668 5,188 11.41% 33,038 65.20% 639 33,677 66.47% 2,299 4.54% VAP 36,618 22,226 60.70% 332 22,558 61.60% 1,645 4.49% O6S 41,271 -4,209 -9.25% 30,852 74.75% 742 31,594 76.55% 1,254 3.04% VAP 28,731 20,220 70.38% 397 20,617 71.76% 792 2.76% 066 43,924 -1,556 -3.42% 27,458 62.51% 1,452 28,910 65.82% 1,891 4.31% VAP 32,313 19,405 60.05% 876 20,281 62.76% 1,392 4.31% 067 39,632 -5.848 -12.86% 3,361 8.48% 206 3,567 9.00% 1,092 2.76% VAP 34,122 2,675 7.84% 122 2,797 8.20 905 2.65% 068 31,010 -14,470 -31.82% 25,471 82.14% 262 25,733 82.98% 741 2.39% VAP 22,732 17,891 78.70% 157 18,048 79.39% 564 2.48% 069 34,537 -10,943 -24.06% 27,222 78.82% 325 27,547 79.76% 529 1.53% VAP 25,050 18,941 75.61% 180 19,121 76.33% 341 1.36% 070 39,589 -5,891 -12.95% 34,241 86.49% 465 34,706 87.67% 1,129 2.85% VAP 27,798 23,380 84.11% 299 23,679 82.18% 781 2.81% 071 55,162 9,682 21.29% 50,785 92.07% 715 51,500 93.36% 948 1.72% VAP 37,409 33,953 90.76% 397 34,350 91.82% 627 1.68% 072 34,981 -10,499 -23.08% 32,097 91.76% 263 32,360 92.51% 578 1.65% VAP 24,986 22,633 90.58% 161 22,794 91.23% 398 1.59% 073 52,437 6,957 15.30% 49,046 93.53% 504 49,550 94.49% 515 0.98% VAP 36,624 33,910 92.59% 289 34,199 93.38% 328 0.90% 074 47,066 1,586 3.49% 7,173 15.24% 197 7,370 15.66% 1,096 2.33% VAP 33,846 4,663 13.78% 70 4,733 13.98% 752 2.22% 075 47,761 2,281 5.02% 25,334 53.04% 435 25,769 53.95% 3,676 7.70% VAP 34,031 16,492 48.46% 219 16,711 49.11% 2,606 7.66% 076 40,327 -5,153 -11.33% 5,604 13.90% 267 5,871 14.56% 1,756 4.35% VAP 28,537 3,538 12.40% 129 3,667 12.85% 1,117 3.91% 077 41,844 -3,636 -7.99% 3,728 8.91% 208 3,936 9.41% 3,519 8.41% VAP 31,018 2,429 7.83% 82 2,511 8.10% 2,371 7.64% 078 49,583 4,103 9.02% 12,777 25.77% 531 13,308 26.84% 14,715 29.68% VAP 36,765 8,842 24.05% 282 9,124 24.82% 10,345 28.14% 079 49,716 4,236 9.31% 10,548 21.22% 436 10,984 22.09% 11,219 22.57% VAP 36,699 7,411 20.19% 230 7,641 20.82% 8,122 22.13% 080 85,057 39,577 87.02% 10,036 11.80% 514 10,550 12.40% 7,442 8.75% VAP 62,306 7,026 11.28% 229 7,255 11.64% 5,330 8.55% 061 61,295 15,815 34.77% 13,396 21.85% 596 13,992 22.83% 10,257 16.73% VAP 44,933 8,949 19.92% 293 9,242 20.57% 6,893 15.34% 082 68,350 22,870 50.29% 8,385 12.27% 355 8,740 12.79% 4,754 6.96% VAP 46,866 5,562 11.87% 132 5,694 12.15% 3,061 6.53% 083 44,423 -1,057 -2.32% 2,611 5.88% 176 2,787 6.27% 1,670 3.76% VAP 31,052 1,630 5.25% 67 1,697 5.47% 1,075 3.46% 084 59,604 14,124 31.06% 5,395 9.05% 234 5,629 9.44% 3,637 6.10% VAP 42,160 1,499 8.30% 81 3,580 8.49% 2,451 5.81% 085 93,146 47,666 104.81% 5,004 5.37% 233 5,237 5.62% 5,345 5.74% VAP 65,819 3,580 5.44% 94 3,674 5.58% 3,577 5.43% 086 57,579 12,099 26.60% 4,889 8.49% 222 5,111 8.88% 1,802 3.13% VAP 41,034 3,332 8.12% 56 3,388 8.26% 1,179 2.87% 087 54,485 9,005 19.80% 8,564 15.72% 133 8,697 15.96% 954 1.75% VAP 39,064 5,597 14.33% 40 5,637 14.43% 645 1.65% 088 43,971 -1,509 -3.32% 8,297 18.87% 177 8,474 19.27% 2,719 6.18% VAP 37,128 5,749 15.48% 90 5,839 15.73% 1,934 5.21% 089 37,507 -7,973 -17.53% 15,826 42.19% 258 16,084 42.88% 3,081 8.21% VAP 30,139 10,992 36.47% 141 11,133 36.94% 2,137 7.09% 090 39,546 -5,934 -13.05% 13,798 34.89% 87 13,885 35.11% 782 1.98% VAP 29,646 9,765 32.94% 36 9,801 33.06% 590 1.99% 091 51,361 5,881 12.93% 6,876 13.39% 136 7,012 13.65% 1,182 2.30% VAP 36,678 4,798 13.08% 55 4,853 13.23% 743 2.03% 092 52,322 6,842 15.04% 12,988 24.82% 220 13,208 25.24% 1,056 2.02% VAP 37,811 8,589 22.72% 64 8,653 22.88% 677 1.79% 093 42,192 -3,288 -7.23% 32,463 76.94% 608 33,071 78.38% 2,033 4.82% VAP 29,841 22,269 74.63% 340 22,609 75.76% 1,375 4.61% 094 41,597 -3,883 -8.54% 16,580 39.86% 402 16,982 40.83% 6,595 15.85% VAP 29,570 10,359 35.03% 157 10,516 35.56% 4,517 15.28% 095 50,927 5,447 11.98% 21,683 42.58% 515 22,198 43.59% 2,650 5.20% VAP 36,276 13,825 38.11% 213 14,038 38.70% 1,696 4.68% 096 43,466 -2,014 -4.43% 23,047 53.02% 493 23,540 54.16% 4,412 10.15% VAP 29,624 14,240 48.07% 249 14,489 48.91% 2,932 9.90% 097 58,335 12,855 28.27% 28,154 48.26% 605 28,759 49.30% 2,038 3.49% VAP 40,285 17,909 44.46% 270 18,179 45.13% 1,303 3.23% O9S 46,700 1,220 2.68% 11,640 24.93% 387 12,027 25.75% 1,760 3.77% VAP 33,997 7,815 22.99% 126 7,941 23.36% 1,089 3.20% 099 45,474 -6 -0.01% 5,425 11.93% 201 5,626 12.37% 880 1.94% VAP 32,742 3,505 10.70% 84 3,589 10.96% 590 1.80% 100 45,530 50 0.11% 7,238 15.90% 227 7,465 16.40% 767 1.68% VAP 33,293 4,758 14.29% 44 4,802 14.42% 501 1.50% 101 41,738 -3,742 -8.23% 7,003 16.78% 179 7,182 17.21% 1,476 3.54% VAP 31,345 5,099 16.27% 51 5,150 16.43% 1,124 3.59% 102 45,388 -92 -0 20% 9,114 20.08% 130 9,244 20.37% 717 1.58% VAP 33,195 6,450 19.43% 49 6,499 19.58% 473 1.42% 103 48,580 3,100 6.82% 12,315 25.35% 146 12,461 25.65% 1,391 2.86% VAP 34,945 8,129 23.26% 43 8,172 23.39% 1,043 2.98% 104 57,415 11,935 26.24% 7,654 13.33% 262 7,916 13.79% 1,375 2.39% VAP 41,421 5,136 12.40% 108 5,244 12.66% 903 2.18% 105 59,858 14,378 31.61% 4,577 7.65% 182 4,759 7.95% 1,828 3.05% VAP 41,671 2,991 7.18% 71 3,062 7.35% 1,218 2.92% 106 48,454 2,974 6.54% 8,647 17.85% 124 8,771 18.10% 1,198 2.47% VAP 35,088 5,693 16.22% 35 5,728 16.32% 885 2.52% 107 49,149 3,669 8.07% 13,479 27.42% 160 13,639 27.75% 881 1.79% VAP 34,957 8,834 25.27% 80 8,914 25.50% 581 1.66% 108 70,337 24,857 54.65% 11,004 15.64% 333 11,337 16.12% 1,801 2.56% VAP 49,948 7,189 14.39% 123 7,312 14.64% 1,126 2.25% 109 60,536 15,056 33 10% 14,714 24.31% 214 14,928 24.66% 993 1.64% VAP 44,343 10,606 23.92% 76 10,682 24.09% 658 1.48% 110 43,293 -2,187 -4.81% 10,936 25.26% 110 11,046 25.51% 613 1.42% VAP 31,851 7,848 24.64% 44 7,892 24.78% 402 1.26% 111 45,853 373 0.82% 14,524 31.68% 161 14,685 32.03% 1,001 2.18% VAP 34,613 9,859 28.48% 70 9,929 28.69% 664 1.92% 112 49,622 4,142 9.11% 7,141 14.39% 220 7,361 14.83% 1,330 2.68% VAP 35,060 4,847 13.82% 53 4,900 13.98% 871 2.48% 113 47,762 2,282 5.02% 3,950 8.27% 165 4,115 8.62% 1,069 2.24% VAP 33,733 2,646 7.84% 49 2,695 7.99% 648 1.92% 114 39,459 -6,021 -13.24% 10,062 25.50% 293 10,355 26.24% 1,313 3.33% VAP 32,166 7,760 24.12% 138 7,898 24.55% 1,050 3.26% 115 32,566 -12,914 -28.39% 12,381 38.02% 295 12,676 38.92% 850 2.61% VAP 25,684 8,811 34.31% 116 8.927 34.76% 615 2.39% 116 39,319 -6,161 -13.55% 21,984 55.91% 358 22,342 56.82% 1,081 2.75% VAP 26,409 13,819 52.33% 128 13,947 52.81% 661 2.50% 117 34,562 -10,918 -24.01% 26,591 76.94% 354 26,945 77.96% 856 2.48% VAP 23,822 17,477 73.36% 160 17,637 74.04% 559 2.35% 118 31,444 -14,036 -30.86% 23,815 75.74% 300 24,115 76.69% 495 1.57% VAP 22,237 16,160 72.67% 150 16,310 73.35% 315 1.42% 119 44,668 -812 -1.79% 15,901 35.60% 415 16,316 36.53% 1,266 2.83% VAP 31,138 10,106 32.46% 133 10,239 32.88% 790 2.54% 120 38,424 -7,056 -15.51% 21,472 55.88% 132 21,604 56.23% 376 0.98% VAP 28,359 14,959 52.75% 48 15,007 52.92% 225 0.79% 121 38,442 -7,038 -15.47% 20,982 54.58% 99 21,081 54.84% 393 1.02% VAP 27,835 14,301 51.38% 55 14,356 51.58% 271 0.97% 122 40,456 -5,024 -11.05% 17,874 44.18% 156 18,030 44.57% 565 1.40% VAP 31,841 13,203 41.47% 79 13,282 41.71% 406 1.28% 123 38,039 -7,441 -16.36% 13,144 34.55% 101 13,245 34.82% 316 0.83% VAP 27,689 9,174 33.13% 51 9,225 33.32% 218 0.79% 124 32,318 -13,162 -28.94% 24,144 74.71% 160 24,304 75.20% 300 0.93% VAP 23,824 16,606 69.70% 89 16,695 70.08% 208 0.87% 125 45,811 331 0.73% 13,162 28.73% 148 13,310 29.05% 712 1.55% VAP 33,198 8,344 25.13% 49 8,393 25.28% 476 1.43% 126 38,612 -6,868 -15.10% 9,628 24.94% 122 9,750 25.25% 540 1.40% VAP 29,622 6,460 21.81% 54 6,514 21.99% 388 1.31% 127 32.241 -13,259 -29.11% 25,322 78.54% 152 25,474 79.01% 435 1.35% VAP 22,599 16,907 74.81% 71 16,978 75.13% 292 1.29% 128 45,120 -360 -0.79% 11,661 25.84% 181 11,842 26.25% 1,344 2.98% VAP 33,014 7,999 24.23% 75 8,074 24.46% 939 2.84% 129 41,285 -4,195 -9.22% 9,737 23.58% 76 9,813 23.77% 494 1.20% VAP 30,474 6,860 22.51% 33 6,893 22 62% 321 1.05% 130 40,097 -5,383 -11.84% 7,270 18.13% 111 7,381 18.41% 685 1.71% VAP 29,305 4,835 16.50% 25 4,860 16.58% 469 1.60% 131 37,281 -8,199 -18.03% 18,725 50.23% 109 18,834 50.52% 512 1.37% VAP 26,726 12,456 46.61% 38 12,494 46.75% 359 1.34% 132 41,495 -3,985 -8.76% 4,928 11.88% 165 5,093 12.27% 1,400 3.37% VAP 31,104 3.289 10.57% 62 3,351 10.77% 918 2.95% 133 40.103 -5,377 -11.82% 24,555 61.23% 377 24,932 62.17% 1,636 4.08% VAP 30,070 17,185 57.15% 193 17,378 57.79% 1,298 4.32% 134 30,962 -14,518 -31.92% 21,352 68.96% 553 21,905 70.75% 2,261 7.30% VAP 20,471 13,856 67.69% 186 14,042 68.59% 1,424 6.96% 135 35,404 -10,076 -22.15% 9,372 26.47% 228 9,600 27.12% 1,145 3.23% VAP 27,333 6,392 23.39% 97 6,489 23.74% 793 2.90% 136 33,717 -11,763 -25.86% 23,861 70.77% 325 24,186 71.73% 1,639 4.86% VAP 24,358 16,405 67.35% 140 16,545 67.92% 1,166 4.79% 137 44,409 -1,071 -2.35% 17,468 39.33% 116 17,584 39.60% 1,039 2.34% VAP 31,740 11,520 36.29% 57 11,577 36.47% 682 2.15% 138 41,086 -4,394 -9.66% 16,281 39.63% 129 16,410 39.94% 878 2.14% VAP 30,240 10,967 36.27% 67 11,034 36.49% 590 1.95% 139 43,196 -2,284 -5.02% 9,344 21.63% 289 9,633 22.30% 1,462 3.38% VAP 31,700 5,922 18.68% 90 6,012 18.97% 987 3.11% 140 38,615 -6,865 -15.09% 23,092 59.80% 125 23,217 60.12% 1,234 3.20% VAP 28,098 16,295 57.99% 60 16,355 58.21% 813 2.89% 141 49,817 4,337 9.54% 11,984 24.06% 236 12,220 24.53% 1,496 3.00% VAP 35,015 8,147 23.27% 72 8,219 23.47% 994 2.84% 142 40,698 -4,782 -10.51% 12,008 29.51% 81 12,089 2970% 550 1.35% VAP 30,486 8,372 27.46% 27 8,399 27.55% 396 1.30% 143 41,397 -4,083 -8.98% 15,025 36.29% 118 15,143 36.58% 481 1.16% VAP 30,179 10,046 33.29% 53 10,099 33.46% 303 1.00% 144 37,251 -8,229 -18.09% 12,700 34.09% 69 12,769 34.28% 902 2.42% VAP 26,816 8,087 30.16% 27 8,114 30.26% 674 2.51% 145 50,334 4,854 10.67% 13,350 26.52% 123 13,473 26.77% 1,931 3.84% VAP 38,062 9,486 24.92% 71 9,557 25.11% 1,374 3.61% 146 39,175 -6,305 -13.86% 15,779 40.28% 133 15,912 40.62% 437 1.12% VAP 29,665 10,938 36.87% 61 10,999 37.08% 333 1.12% 147 51,768 6,288 13.83% 7,456 14.40% 197 7,653 14.78% 817 1.58% VAP 36,069 4,814 13.35% 61 4,875 13.52% 482 1.34% 148 35,137 -10,343 -22.74% 25,495 72.56% 213 25,708 73.17% 367 1.04% VAP 24,449 16,506 67.51% 113 16,619 67.97% 234 0.96% 149 32,665 -12,815 -28.18% 22,266 68.16% 236 22,502 6889% 748 2.29% VAP 24,642 15,381 62.42% 139 15,520 62.98% 577 2.34% 150 43,730 -1,750 -3.85% 10,032 22 94% 255 10,287 23.52% 1,706 3.90% VAP 32,483 6,799 20.93% 89 6,888 21.20% 1,191 3.67% 151 34,030 -11,450 -25.18% 19,020 55.89% 179 19,199 56.42% 410 1.20% VAP 26,014 13,450 51.70% 100 13,550 52.09% 307 1.18% 152 37,227 -8,253 -18.15% 12,358 33.20% 291 12,649 33.98% 1,513 4.06% VAP 28,335 8,270 29.19% 120 8,390 29.61% 1,078 3.80% 153 49,255 3,775 8.30% 4,800 9.75% 97 4,897 9.94% 659 1.34% VAP 38,038 3,315 8.71% 46 3,361 8.84% 435 1.14% 154 45,227 -253 -0.56% 12,556 27.76% 208 12,764 28.22% 3,116 6.89% VAP 32,987 9,000 27.28% 81 9,081 27.53% 2,027 6.14% 155 40,516 -4,964 -10.91% 10,599 26.16% 90 10,689 26.38% 2,800 6.91% VAP 29,619 7,229 24.41% 39 7,268 24.54% 1,718 5.80% 156 40,692 -4,788 -10.53% 11,622 28.56% 86 11,708 28.77% 1,228 3.02% VAP 29,832 7,808 26.17% 41 7,849 26.31% 837 2.81% 157 39,235 -6,245 -13.73% 14,114 35.97% 73 14,187 36.16% 915 2.33% VAP 27,722 8,933 32.22% 25 8,958 32.31% 615 2.22% 158 33,880 -11,600 -25.51% 15,566 45.94% 315 15,881 46.87% 1,767 5.22% VAP 24,731 10,607 42.89% 136 10,743 43.44% 1,170 4.73% 159 44,138 -1,342 -2.95% 17,870 40.49% 116 17,986 40.75% 1,045 2.37% VAP 31,746 12,368 38.96% 64 12,432 39.16% 728 2.29% 160 36,793 -8,687 -19.10% 15,108 41.06% 116 15,224 41.38% 874 2.38% VAP 26,383 9,664 36.63% 57 9,721 36.85% 548 2.08% 161 34,716 -10,764 -25.61% 23,548 67.33% 95 23,643 68.10% 320 0 92% VAP 24,657 15,903 64.50% 46 15,949 64.68% 202 0.82% 162 34,013 -11,467 -25.21% 25,131 73.89% 149 25,280 74.32% 616 1.81% VAP 23,576 16,587 70.36% 79 16,666 70.69% 404 1.71% 163 37,793 -7,687 -16.90% 12,981 34.35% 160 13,141 34.77% 511 1.35% VAP 28,922 8,762 30.30% 72 8,834 30.54% 358 1.24% 164 39,695 -5,785 -12.72% 16,766 42.24% 120 16,886 42.54% 1,497 3.77% VAP 28,668 11,261 39.28% 51 11,312 39.46% 926 3.23% 165 42,119 -3,361 -7.39% 10,035 23.83% 128 10,163 24.13% 4,040 9.59% VAP 31,116 6,455 20.74% 34 6,489 20.85% 2,759 8.87% 166 42,120 -3,360 -7.39% 7,762 18.43% 112 7,874 18.69% 2,803 6.65% VAP 30,401 4,966 16.33% 40 5,006 16.47% 1,747 5.75% 167 45,022 -458 -1.01% 11,176 24.82% 136 11,312 25.13% 3,840 8.53% VAP 32,132 7,478 23.27% 46 7,524 23.42% 2,359 7.34% 168 35,483 -9,997 -21.98% 9,939 28.01% 93 10,032 28.27% 688 1.94% VAP 26,679 6,882 25.80% 40 6,922 25.95% 445 1.67% 169 43,912 -1,568 -3.45% 4,348 9.90% 119 4,467 10.17% 898 2.04% VAP 31,879 2,801 8.79% 47 2,848 8.93% 587 1 84% 170 41,281 -4,199 -9.23% 7,281 17.64% 82 7,363 17.84% 1,607 3.89% VAP 30,060 4,832 16.07% 12 4,864 16.18% 1,049 3.49% 171 41,102 -4,378 -9.63% 10,997 26.76% 312 11,309 27.51% 2,961 7.20% VAP 29,952 7,668 25.60% 107 7,775 25.96% 2,039 6.81% 172 46,870 1,390 3.06% 20,214 43.13% 810 21,024 44.86% 3,406 7.27% VAP 31,584 12,767 40.42% 255 13,022 41.23% 2,087 6.61% 173 38,809 -6,671 -14.67% 18,146 46.76% 221 18,367 47 33% 873 2.25% VAP 28,056 12,125 43.22% 92 12,217 43.55% 594 2.12% 174 41,106 -4,374 -9.62% 5,001 12.17% 107 5,108 12.43% 1.258 3.06% VAP 31,263 3,229 10.33% 33 3,262 10.43% 853 2.73% 175 50,402 4,922 10,82% 11,317 22.45% 335 11,652 23.12% 1,619 3.21% VAP 34,815 7,412 21.29% 109 7,521 21.60% 998 2.87% 176 45,977 497 1.09% 12,846 27.94% 241 13,087 28.46% 1,118 2.43% VAP 33,170 8,607 25.95% 95 8,702 26.23% 759 2.29% 177 38,701 -6,779 -14.91% 17,996 46.50% 196 18,192 47.01% 878 2.27% VAP 29,198 12,188 41.74% 101 12,289 42.09% 599 2.05% 178 41,760 -3,720 -8.18% 11,084 26 54% 129 11,213 26.85% 1,875 4.49% VAP 30,512 7,462 24.46% 66 7,528 24.67% 1,270 4.16% 179 39,818 -5,662 -12.45% 13,198 33 15% 119 13,317 33.44% 1,798 4.52% VAP 28,913 8,689 30.05% 54 8,743 30.24% 1,182 4.09% 180 39,748 -5,732 -12.60% 15,898 40.00% 125 16,023 40.31% 688 1.73% VAP 28,956 10,653 36.79% 72 10,725 37.04% 444 1.53%

Tolal Population: 8,186,453 Ideal Value: 45,480

Summary Statistics Population Range: 30,962 to 107,426 Absolute Range: -14,518 to 61,946 Absolute Overall Range: 76,464 Relative Range: -31.92% to 136.20% Relative Overall Range: 168.13%

DATA SOURCE: 2000 US Census PL94-171 Population Counts

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT GG

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT HH

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT II

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT JJ

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT KK

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT LL

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT MM

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT NN

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

Distribution of African-Amerian Voting Age Population (VAP) in House Plans Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Plans, Georgia House

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT OO

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT PP

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT QQ

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT RR

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT SS

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT TT

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT UU

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT VV

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT WW

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP) in House Plans

Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP) in House Plans

Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP) in House Plans

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT XX

(To be scanned in place of tab)

Plan Name: H1998re(y2) HOUSE: 2000 PLAN Plan Type: House Date: 3/13/2004 Time: 1:09:15PM Administrator: State User: Patrick Egan

Measures of Compactness

3/13/2004

POLSKY DISTRICT Roeck POPPER 001 0.34 0.38 002 0.47 0.23 003 0.50 0.35 004 0.30 0.22 005 0.49 0.27 006 0.29 0.23 007 0.46 0.24 008 0.31 0.19 009 0.59 0.38 010 0.56 0.46 011 0.53 0.25 012 0.39 0.08 013 0.23 0.12 014 0.48 0.45 015 0.53 0.31 016 0.45 0.18 017 0.43 0.32 018 0.37 0.25 019 0.32 0.21 020 0.25 0.18 021 0.39 0.25 022 0.42 0.31 023 0.46 0.48 024 0.43 0.25 025 0.57 0.39 026 0.38 0.38 027 0.37 0.25 028 0.48 0.37 029 0.42 0.18 030 0.20 0.20 031 0.43 0.37 032 0.40 0.23 033 0.47 0.31 034 0.31 0.16 035 0.37 0.13 036 0.58 0.49 037 0.33 0.27 038 0.43 0.44 039 0.31 0.27 040 0.35 0.26 041 0.35 0.20 042 0.36 0.24 043 0.22 0.28 044 0.45 0.25 045 0.30 0.39 046 0.27 0.28 047 0.29 0.33 Plan Name: H1998re(y2k)-SA AdnState Plan Type: House User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck 048 0 29 0.28 049 0.31 0.25 050 0.39 0.21 051 0.43 0.16 052 0.23 0.22 053 0.30 0.18 054 0.37 0.19 055 0.53 0.41 056 0.43 0.46 057 0.52 0.56 058 0.31 0.26 059 0.21 0.18 060 0.31 0.31 061 0.45 0.45 062 0.39 0.26 063 0.35 0.30 064 0.40 0.27 065 0.30 0.22 066 0.48 0.28 067 0.41 0.28 068 0.42 0.31 069 0.50 0.32 070 0.58 0.55 071 0.40 0.28 072 0.43 0.22 073 0.42 0.31 074 0.38 0.17 075 0.50 0.23 076 0.53 0.36 077 0.60 0.39 078 0.49 0.36 079 0.50 0.38 080 0.28 0.26 081 0.32 0.30 082 0.32 0.15 083 0.59 0.46 084 0.35 0.20 085 0.41 0.32 086 0.45 0.37 087 0.56 0.48 088 0.37 0.19 089 0.37 0.18 090 0.37 0.29 091 0.37 0.22 092 0.36 0.31 093 0.45 0.30 094 0.43 0.34 095 0.44 0.27 096 0.45 0.23 097 0.34 0.22 098 0.51 0.51 099 0.44 0.42 100 0.47 0.31 101 0.42 0.29 102 0.57 0.44 103 0.41 0.39 104 0.28 0.19 Plan Name: H1998re(y2k)-SA AdnState Plan Type: House User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck 105 0.56 0.28 106 0.28 0.17 107 0.37 0.28 108 0.46 0.26 109 0.46 0.24 110 0.47 0.26 111 0.31 0.29 112 0.59 0.39 113 0.57 0.63 114 0.17 0.24 115 0.28 0.24 116 0.44 0.29 117 0.25 0.19 118 0.47 0.22 119 0.41 0.31 120 0.50 0.31 121 0.54 0.42 122 0.50 0.48 123 0.48 0.27 124 0.25 0.19 125 0.37 0.16 126 0.40 0.28 127 0.43 0.28 128 0.49 0.22 129 0.47 0.44 130 0.31 0.24 131 0.48 0.37 132 0.50 0.44 133 0.34 0.27 134 0.47 0.35 135 0.17 0.19 136 0.25 0.16 137 0.44 0.29 138 0.41 0.24 139 0.35 0.26 140 0.37 0.23 141 0.27 0.17 142 0.51 0.28 143 0.60 0.51 144 0.49 0.36 145 0.39 0.29 146 0.50 0.40 147 0.43 0.22 148 0.38 0.18 149 0.39 0.17 150 0.39 0.15 151 0.50 0.44 152 0.35 0.20 153 0.53 0.44 154 0.21 0.16 155 0.55 0.44 156 0.47 0.34 157 0.54 0.38 158 0.34 0.31 159 0.31 0.17 160 0.37 0.23 161 0.33 0.28 Plan Name: H1998re(y2k)-SA AdnState Plan Type: House User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck 162 0.59 0.42 163 0.22 0.16 164 0.45 0.40 165 0.29 0.17 166 0.43 0.32 167 0.56 0.42 168 0.26 0.25 169 0.24 0.16 170 0.26 0.19 171 0.54 0.27 172 0.18 0.19 173 0.43 0.29 174 0.49 0.24 175 0.49 0.31 176 0.37 0.33 177 0.42 0.32 178 0.27 0.34 179 0.43 0.40 180 0.43 0.52 Sum N/A N/A Min 0.17 0.08 Max 0.60 0.63 Mean 0.41 0.29 Std. Dev. 0.10 0.10 Plan Name: House02 HOUSE: PLAN STRUCK DOWN BY COURT Plan Type: House Date: 3/13/2004 Time: 1:36:51PM Administrator User: Patrick Egan Measures of Compactness

3/13/2004

POLSKY DISTRICT Roeck POPPER 001 0.44 0.37 002 0.26 0.24 003 0.25 0.12 004 0.47 0.17 005 0.56 0.22 006 0.46 0.17 007 0.50 0.33 008 0.31 0.23 009 0.38 0.15 010 0.56 0.47 011 0.50 0.30 012 0.35 0.20 013 0.30 0.13 014 0.53 0.25 015 0.61 0.35 016 0.58 0.27 017 0.43 0.28 018 0.36 0.27 019 0.36 0.25 020 0.56 0.21 021 0.35 0.15 022 0.44 0.33 023 0.51 0.48 024 0.53 0.23 025 0.55 0.27 026 0.29 0.18 027 0.35 0.16 028 0.59 0.34 029 0.44 0.31 030 0.25 0.19 031 0.42 0.17 032 0.40 0.26 033 0.31 0.14 034 0.26 0.12 035 0.33 0.17 036 0.43 0.24 037 0.35 0.19 038 0.37 0.26 039 0.55 0.42 040 0.67 0.46 041 0.28 0.22 042 0.25 0.14 043 0.27 0.18 044 0.30 0.13 045 0.39 0.24 046 0.19 0.16 047 0.22 0.10 Plan Name: House02 Administrator: Plan Type: House User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck 048 0.36 0.14 049 0.28 0.32 050 0.36 0.28 051 0.37 0.43 052 0.32 0.37 053 0.24 0.21 054 0.47 0.35 055 0.42 0.24 056 0.28 0.13 057 0.41 0.35 058 0.33 0.28 059 0.18 0.13 060 0.32 0.17 061 0.42 0.18 062 0.47 0.28 063 0.43 0.23 064 0.37 0.27 065 0.39 0.23 066 0.17 0.21 067 0.49 0.35 068 0.16 0.20 069 0.21 0.30 070 0.36 0.17 071 0.49 0.29 072 0.25 0.13 073 0.33 0.10 074 0.25 0.19 075 0.43 0.28 076 0.27 0.17 077 0.31 0.20 078 0.32 0.23 079 0.61 0.53 080 0.54 0.58 081 0.47 0.33 082 0.42 0.29 083 0.41 0.51 084 0.29 0.21 085 0.30 0.11 086 0.24 0.17 087 0.34 0.10 088 0.36 0.13 089 0.24 0.18 090 0.49 0.34 091 0.64 0.37 092 0.26 0.11 093 0.35 0.17 094 0.31 0.18 095 0.47 0.25 096 0.49 0.25 097 0.23 0.13 098 0.51 0.23 099 0.41 0.27 100 0.44 0.29 101 0.48 0.39 102 0.37 0.25 103 0.46 0.30 104 0.56 0.25 Plan Name: House02 Administrator: Plan Type: House User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck 105 0.38 0.23 106 0.42 0.35 107 0.42 0.28 108 0.29 0.16 109 0.37 0.23 110 0.60 0.41 111 0.20 0.16 112 0.41 0.23 113 0.19 0.14 114 0.42 0.22 115 0.38 0.14 116 0.37 0.34 117 0.32 0.34 118 0.51 0.25 119 0.53 0.37 120 0.45 0.20 121 0.31 0.13 122 0.36 0.16 123 0.25 0.15 124 0.18 0.09 125 0.43 0.23 126 0.31 0.24 127 0.15 0.05 128 0.21 0.12 129 0.40 0.12 130 0.56 0.42 131 0.48 0.32 132 0.22 0.19 133 0.31 0.15 134 0.28 0.24 135 0.30 0.20 136 0.41 0.27 137 0.14 0.07 138 0.44 0.38 139 0.52 0.28 140 0.46 0.44 141 0.33 0.24 142 0.33 0.32 143 0.30 0.21 144 0.21 0.21 145 0.32 0.20 146 0.24 0.07 147 0.54 0.40 Sum N/A N/A Min 0.14 0.05 Max 0.67 0.58 Mean 0.38 0.24 Std. Dev. 0.12 0.10 Plan Name: HOUSE MARCH 12 Plan Type: Date: 3/13/2004 Time: 12:30:15PM Administrator: User: Patrick Egan Measures of Compactness

3/13/2004

POLSKY DISTRICT Roeck POPPER 001 0.37 0.23 002 0.36 0.27 003A 0.27 0.18 003B 0.51 0.25 004 0.40 0.27 005 0.35 0.17 006 0.56 0.45 007 0.56 0.37 008 0.31 0.23 009 0.41 0.25 010 0.27 0.18 011 0.52 0.25 012 0.58 0.44 013A 0.35 0.09 013B 0.54 0.25 014A 0.40 0.27 014B 0.48 0.30 015 0.45 0.33 016 0.40 0.27 017 0.29 0.37 018 0.33 0.23 019 0.56 0.48 020 0.51 0.23 021 0.48 0.28 022 0.48 0.37 023 0.52 0.34 024 0.39 0.29 025 0.50 0.26 026 0.28 0.34 027 0.35 0.29 028 0.34 0.28 029 0.43 0.25 030 0.55 0.40 031 0.46 0.29 032 0.46 0.17 033A 0.33 0.18 033B 0.53 0.37 033C 0.50 0.41 034A 0.49 0.25 034B 0.44 0.26 034C 0.49 0.29 035 0.50 0.22 036 0.27 0.28 037 0.45 0.23 038 0.50 0.37 039 0.42 0.31 040 0.63 0.51 Plan Name: HOUSE MARCH 12 Administrator: Plan Type: User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck 041 044 0.33 042A 0.32 0.30 042B 0.44 0.41 042C 0.57 0.31 042d 0.26 0.27 043A 0.25 0.19 043B 0.23 0.20 044 0.23 0.23 045 0.29 0.21 046 0.50 0.34 047 0.20 0.16 048A 0.35 0.36 048B 0.49 0.42 048C 0.35 0.23 048D 0.25 0.20 049 0.23 0.26 050 0.30 0.16 051 0.25 0.17 052 0.53 0.39 053 0.41 0.35 054 0.27 0.26 055 0.39 0.27 056A 0.47 0.28 056B 0.58 0.46 057 0.35 0.33 058 0.40 0.38 059A 0.62 0.41 059B 0.19 0.16 059C 0.49 0.25 060A 0.41 0.39 060B 0.24 0.20 060C 0.24 0.20 061A 0.27 0.19 061B 0.37 0.26 061C 0.52 0.25 062 0.33 0.24 063 0.27 0.18 064 0.53 0.41 065 0.50 0.62 066 0.33 0.41 067A 0.55 0.61 067B 0.40 0.35 068 0.47 0.29 069A 0.31 0.43 069B 0.45 0.50 070A 0.58 0.35 070B 0.47 0.34 070C 0.39 0.49 071A 0.44 0.26 071B 0.63 0.55 072 0.39 0.19 073 0.38 0.24 074 0.27 0.32 075 0.35 0.37 076 0.46 0.23 077 0.31 0.20 078 0.25 0.19 Plan Name: HOUSE MARCH 12 Administrator: Plan Type: User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck 079 0.36 0.31 080 0.46 0.34 081 0.23 0.26 082 0.44 0.31 083 0.34 0.32 084A 0.36 0.28 084B 0.43 0.31 085A 0.43 0.19 085B 0.37 0.25 086 0.38 0.27 087 0.60 0.34 088A 0.46 0.26 088B 0.39 0.37 089 0.55 0.49 090 0.55 0.45 091 0.64 0.37 092 0.31 0.18 093 0.48 0.29 094 0.45 0.35 095 0.50 0.30 096 0.52 0.35 097 0.24 0.24 098 0.37 0.28 099 0.40 0.17 100 0.42 0.26 101 0.46 0.26 102 0.37 0.28 103 0.59 0.34 104 0.59 0.30 105 0.51 0.34 106 0.49 0.22 107 0.49 0.28 108 0.49 0.18 109 0.32 0.19 110 0.57 0.39 111 0.34 0.20 112 0.28 0.21 113 0.22 0.19 114 0.31 0.18 115 0.29 0.20 116 0.34 0.26 117 0.54 0.29 118 0.32 0.25 119 0.65 0.62 120 0.59 0.38 121A 0.41 0.28 121B 0.49 0.32 122 0.38 0.27 123 0.44 0.44 124A 0.41 0.30 124B 0.34 0.28 125 0.28 0.22 126 0.52 0.51 127 0.45 0.28 128 0.25 0.25 129A 0.41 0.34 129B 0.59 0.36 Plan Name HOUSE MARCH 12 Administrator: Plan Type: User Patrick Egan DISTRICT Roeck 130 0.60 0.44 131 0.49 0.40 132 0.27 0.20 133 0.38 0.21 134 0.35 0.32 135 0.30 0.19 136 0.41 0.32 137 0.40 0.25 138 0.44 0.34 139 0.34 0.23 140 0.46 0.38 141A 0.57 0.47 141B 0.50 0.55 142 0.43 0.33 143 0.38 0.27 144 0.22 0.26 145 0.31 0.26 146 0.28 0.31 147 0.56 0.39 Sum N/A N/A Min 0.19 0.09 Max 0.65 0.62 Mean 0.41 0.30 Std. Dev. 0.11 0.10 Smallest Circle P.T.A. Plan Name: HOUSE MARCH 12 Plan Type: Administrator: User: Patrick Egan

Political Subdivisions Split Between Districts

Saturday March 13, 2004 1:44 PM

Number of subdivisions not split: County 82

Number of subdivisions split into more than one district: County 77

Number of subdivision splits which affect no population: County 0

Split Counts

County

Cases where a County is split among 2 Districts: 36 Cases where a County is split among 3 Districts: 23 Cases where a County is split among 4 Districts: 7 Cases where a County is split among 5 Districts: 4 Cases where a County is split among 6 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among 7 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 14 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 15 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 19 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 22 Districts: 1

Number of times a County has been split into more than one district: 201 Total of County splits: 278 Split Counties County District Population : Barrow 025 223 Barrow 089 45,921 Bartow 010 2,284 Bartow 012 45,905 Bartow 013B 27,830 Ben Hill 118 15,592 Ben Hill 131 1,892 Berrien 139 10,887 Berrien 143 5,348 Bibb 104 13,880 Bibb 105 45,668 Bibb 106 45,643 Bibb 107 45,312 Bibb 108 3,384 Bryan 122 8,909 Bryan 123 14,508 Bulloch 101 5,426 Bulloch 102 13,594 Bulloch 122 36,963 Burke 100 19,837 Burke 101 1,737 Burke 103 669 Butts 072 9,752 Butts 092 9,770 Carroll 018 29,423 Carroll 088A 42,636 Carroll 088B 15,209 Catoosa 001 14,938 Catoosa 003A 34,373 Catoosa 003B 3,971 Chatham 123 27,759 Chatham 124 A. 45,589 Chatham 124B 45,489 Chatham 125 45,278 Chatham 126 45,390 Chatham 127 22,543 Cherokee 014A 5,278 Cherokee 014B 45,053 Cherokee 015 45,736 Cherokee 016 45,836 Clarke 074 45,272 Clarke 075 45,530 Clarke 076 10,687 Clayton 048C 7,945 Clayton 050 27,788 Clayton 081 29,735 Clayton 082 45,600 Clayton 083 39,175 Clayton 084A 45,780 Clayton 084B 40,494 Cobb 017 45,622 Cobb 028 45,658 Cobb 029 45,719 Cobb 030 45,378 Cobb 031 45,069 Cobb 032 45,351 Cobb 033A 45,504 Cobb O33B 45,447 Cobb 033C 45,142 Cobb 034A 45,750 Cobb 034B 45,798 Cobb 034C 45,569 Cobb 035 45,835 Cobb 044 15,909 Colquitt 137 1,429 Colquitt 139 18,995 Colquitt 140 21,629 Columbia 079 35,650 Columbia 080 45,794 Columbia 096 7,844 Coweta 086 45,419 Coweta 087 43,796 Dawson 006 2,306 Dawson 009 13,693 DeKalb 042A 12,842 DeKaib 042d 45,164 DeKalb 050 2,381 DeKalb 052 45,099 DeKalb 053 45,869 DeKalb 054 45,032 DeKalb 055 45,692 DeKalb 056A 45,204 DeKalb 056B 45,886 DeKalb 057 45,213 DeKalb 058 45,121 DeKalb 059A 27,056 DeKalb 059B 25,262 DeKalb O6OA 45,284 DeKalb 060B 23,895 DeKalb 060C 27,820 DeKalb 061A 28,703 DeKalb 061B 41,498 DeKalb 062 22,844 Dooly 114 4,415 Dooly 132 7,110 Dougherty 135 45,879 Dougherty 136 41,061 Dougherty 137 9,125 Douglas 045 24,904 Douglas 046 45,136 Douglas 047 19,449 Douglas 088A 2,685 Effingham 101 14,192 Effingham 127 23,343 Emanuel 102 19,863 Emanuel 103 412 Emanuel 120 1,562 Fayette 048D 13,272 Fayette 081 16,022 Fayette 083 6,162 Fayette 085A 10,064 Fayette 085B 45,743 Floyd 011 19,596 Floyd 013A 45,622 Floyd 013B 17,657 Floyd 019 7,690 Forsyth 009 12,445 Forsyth 014A 40,132 Forsyth 038 45,830 Franklin 022 5,381 Franklin 023 14,904 Fulton 036 45,897 Fulton 037 45,854 Fulton 039 45,318 Fulton 040 45,339 Fulton 041 45,475 Fulton 042A 3749R Fulton 042B 45,489 Fulton 042C 45,530 Fulton 043A 45,915 Fulton 043B 45,248 Fulton 044 29,556 Fulton 045 20373 Fulton 047 25,779 Fulton 048A 45,339 Fulton 048B 45,873 Fulton 048C 37,290 Fulton 048D 32,436 Fulton 049 45,508 Fulton 050 15,438 Fulton 051 45,272 Fulton 059A 18,486 Fulton 064 12,093 Glynn 129 A. 20,526 Glynn 146 45,273 Glynn 147 1,769 Gordon 005 24,117 Gordon 010 19,987 Grady 141A 6,633 Grady 141B 17,026 Gwinnett 024 45,277 Gwinnett 061B 3,894 Gwinnett 061C 45,387 Gwinnett 063 21,318 Gwinnett 064 33,321 Gwinnett 065 45,214 Gwinnett 066 45,713 Gwinnett 067A 45,281 Gwinnett 068 45,520 Gwinnett 069A 45,193 Gwinnett 069B 45,186 Gwinnett 070A 45,678 Gwinnett 070B 45,528 Gwinnett 070C 45,606 Gwinnett 071A 30,332 Hall 020 38,032 Hall 021 45,398 Hall 025 10,602 Hall 067B 45,245 Haralson 018 16,331 Haralson 027 9,359 Harris 109 3,690 Harris 110 20,005 Heard 087 1,563 Heard 088B 9,449 Henry 059B 20,415 Henry 059C 45,160 Henry 060B 21,451 Henry 072 17,817 Henry 084B 5,228 Henry 085 A. 9,270 Houston 108 11,226 Houston 115 45,635 Houston 11? 45,616 Houston 132 8,288 Jackson 025 35,028 Jackson 078 6,561 Jeff Davis 118 1,873 Jeff Davis 121B 10,034 Jeff Davis 130 111 Johnson 102 2,303 Johnson 103 5,759 Johnson 119 498 Jones 093 13,240 Jones 104 10,399 Lamar 091 5,265 Lamer 092 4,130 Lamer 093 5,800 Lamer 108 717 Lee 133 9,333 Lee 137 15,424 Liberty 121A 12,878 Liberty 123 3,377 Liberty 128 45,355 Lowndes 142 45,656 Lowndes 143 25,610 Lowndes 144 20,849 Lumpkin 009 19,739 Lumpkin 020 1,277 Madison 023 7,739 Madison 078 17,991 Monroe 093 14,779 Monroe 108 6,978 Morgan 073 12,580 Morgan 076 2,877 Murray 003B 15,022 Murray 005 21,484 Muscogee 109 40,629 Muscogee 110 10,074 Muscogee 111 45,137 Muscogee 112 45,250 Muscogee 113 45,201 Newton 063 11,050 Newton 072 17,767 Newton 073 33,184 Oglethorpe 076 5,452 Oglethorpe 077 7,183 Paulding 026 45,504 Paulding 027 36,174 Peach 108 9,793 Peach 114 13,875 Pulaski 131 3,962 Pulaski 132 5,626 Putnam 077 14,549 Putnam 094 743 Putnam 095 3,520 Richmond 096 37,902 Richmond 097 45,395 Richmond 098 45,289 Richmond 099 45,429 Richmond 100 25,760 Rockdale 060C 17,339 Rockdale 061A 17,064 Rockdale 062 22,509 Rockdale 063 13,199 Spalding 085A 26,479 Spalding 092 31,938 Talbot 109 906 Talbot 114 4,086 Talbot 116 1,506 Thomas 141A 38,719 Thomas 144 4,058 Tift IIS 2,469 Tift 138 35,938 Troup 088B 20,643 Troup 090 23,142 Troup 110 14,994 Upson 091 26,644 Upson 108 953 Walker 001 30,677 Walker 002 30,376 Walton 071A 14,813 Walton 071B 45,874 Wayne 121B 7,855 Wayne 129 A. 3,866 Wayne 129B 14,844 Wheeler 118 3,618 Wheeler 120 2,561 White 007 9,555 White 008 4,027 White 020 6,362 Whitfield 003A 11,217 Whitfield 003B 26,531 Whitfield 004 45,777 Wilkes 077 8,989 Wilkes 079 1,698 Worth 132 2,197 Worth 137 19,770 Plan Name: H1998re(y2k)-SA HOUSE: 2000 PLAN Plan Type: House Administrator: State User: Patrick Egan

Political Subdivisions Split Between Dist ricts

Saturday March 13, 2004 1:23 PM

Number of subdivisions not split: County 95

Number of subdivisions split into more than one district: County 64

Number of subdivision splits which affect no population: County 12

Split Counts County

Cases where a County is split among 2 Districts: 37 Cases where a County is split among 3 Districts: 13 Cases where a County is split among 4 Districts: 5 Cases where a County is split among 5 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among 6 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among 7 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 12 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 13 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 17 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 19 Districts: 1

Number of limes a County has been split into more than one district: 159 Total of County splits: 223 Split Counties: County District Population Baldwin 120 4,244 Baldwin 122 40,456 Bartow 013 11,783 Bartow 014 50,406 Bartow 027 13,830 Bibb 124 32,315 Bibb 125 45,811 Bibb 126 38,612 Bibb 127 32,241 Bibb 128 4,908 Bryan 147 14,229 Bryan 154 9,188 Bulloch 145 32,182 Bulloch 146 23,801 Burke 116 22,243 Burke 119 0 Carroll 100 45,530 Carroll 101 41,738 Catoosa 002 4,239 Catoosa 003 49,043 Charlton 169 3,544 Charlton 175 6,738 Chatham 147 4 Chatham 148 35,137 Chatham 149 32,665 Chatham 150 43,730 Chatham 151 34,030 Chatham 152 37,227 Chatham 153 49,255 Cherokee 015 28,246 Cherokee 016 51,365 Cherokee 017 62,292 Clarke 024 20,011 Clarke 088 43,971 Clarke 089 37,507 Clayton 093 42,192 Clayton 094 41,597 Clayton 095 50,927 Clayton 096 43,466 Clayton 097 58,335 Cobb 029 47,375 Cobb 030 43,576 Cobb 031 41,122 Cobb 032 49,789 Cobb 033 42,895 Cobb 034 57,943 Cobb 035 45,374 Cobb 036 56,005 Cobb 037 42,672 Cobb 038 85,677 Cobb 039 42,944 Cobb 040 43,534 Cobb 051 8,845 Colquitt 164 15,763 Colquitt 165 16,176 Colquitt 166 10,114 Columbia 112 41,526 Columbia 113 47,762 Coweta 103 37,568 Coweta 104 26,010 Coweta 106 18,987 Coweta 130 6,650 Crisp 138 21,996 Crisp 157 0 Decarur 160 15,070 Decatur 179 13,170 DeKalb 059 42,310 DeKalb 060 43,352 DeKalb 061 49,417 DeKalb 062 44,608 DeKalb 063 38,251 DeKalb 064 50,668 DeKalb 065 41,271 DeKalb 066 43,924 DeKalb 067 39,632 DeKalb 068 31,010 DeKalb 069 34,537 DeKalb 070 39,589 DeKalb 071 55,162 DeKalb 072 34,981 DeKalb 073 52,437 DeKalb 075 24,716 DeKalb 076 0 Dooly 138 5,200 Dooly 140 6,325 Dougherty 161 24,259 Dougherty 162 34,013 Dougherty 163 37,793 Douglas 033 0 Douglas 098 46,700 Douglas 099 45,474 Echols 176 0 Echols 178 3,754 Fannin 006 11,309 Fannin 007 8,489 Fayette 104 31,405 Fayette 105 59,858 Floyd 011 17,798 Floyd 012 39,928 Floyd 013 32,839 Forsyth 028 71,334 Forsyth 085 27,073 Franklin 022 2,025 Franklin 023 18,260 Fulton 016 0 Fulton 041 107,426 Fulton 042 52,432 Fulton 043 41,831 Fulton 044 55,457 Fulton 045 50,089 Fulton 046 40,944 Fulton 047 46,411 Fulton 048 38,448 Fulton 049 37,874 Fulton 050 38,256 Fulton 051 30,229 Fulton 052 38,112 Fulton 053 37,953 Fulton 054 35,772 Fulton 055 39,993 Fulton 056 41,311 Fulton 057 38,843 Fulton 058 44,625 Glynn 173 26,462 Glynn 174 41,106 Gordon 010 44,083 Gordon 013 21 Gwinnett 021 16,943 Gwinnett 076 40,327 Gwinnett 077 41,844 Gwinnett 078 49,583 Gwinnett 079 49,716 Gwinnett 080 85,057 Gwinnett 081 61,295 Gwinnett 082 68,350 Gwinnett 083 44,423 Gwinnett 084 53,402 Gwinnett 085 66,073 Gwinnett 086 11,435 Hall 019 33,672 Hall 020 47,381 Hall 021 50,929 Hall 025 7,295 Heard 103 11,012 Heard 130 0 Henry 073 0 Henry 107 20,199 Henry 108 70,337 Henry 109 28,805 Houston 128 13,450 Houston 138 4,302 Houston 139 43,196 Houston 141 49,817 Jones 110 6,407 Jones 123 17,229 Jones 124 3 Lamar 109 12,209 Lamar 110 3,703 Laurens 142 3,477 Laurens 143 41,397 Lee 137 11,209 Lee 159 13,548 Liberty 154 3,239 Liberty 171 10,001 Liberty 172 46,870 Liberty 173 1,500 Lowndes 176 31,858 Lowndes 177 38,701 Lowndes 178 21,556 McDuffie 112 8,096 McDuffie 120 13,135 Monroe 110 21,757 Monroe 126 o Morgan 087 Morgan 091 15,457 Muscogee 102 11,108 Muscogee 132 Muscogee 133 41, 495 33,605 Muscogee 134 30,962 Muscogee 135 35,404 Muscogee 136 33,717 Newton 074 o Newton 091 9,679 Newton 092 52,322 Paulding 018 10,933 Paulding 026 70.745 Peach 128 14,267 Peach 140 9,401 Polk 018 6,306 Polk 027 31,821 Richmond 114 39,459 Richmond 115 32,566 Richmond 116 17,076 Richmond 117 34,562 Richmond 118 31,444 Richmond 119 44,668 Rockdale 074 47,066 Rock dale 075 23,045 Spalding 106 29,467 Spalding 107 28,950 Taylor 140 8,815 Taylor 159 0 Telfair 142 6,384 Telfair 170 5,410 Thomas 179 2,989 Thomas 180 39,748 Tift 156 4,700 Tift 157 7,764 Tift 165 25,943 Troup 102 10,585 Troup 130 33,447 Troup 131 14,747 Walker 001 25,058 Walker 002 34,917 Walker 011 1,078 Walton 084 6,202 Walton 087 54,485 Wayne 170 5,768 Wayne 171 20,797 White 008 6,790 White 009 13,154 Whitfield 004 42,934 Whitfield 005 40,591 Plane Name: House02 Plan Type: House Administrator: User: Patrick Egan

Political Subdivisions Split Between Districts

Saturday March 13, 2004 1:33 PM

Number of subdivisions not split: County 79

Number of subdivisions split into more than one district: County 80

Number of subdivision splits which affect no population: County 1

Split Counts

County Cases where a County is split among 2 Districts: 39 Cases where a County is split among 3 Districts: 21 Cases where a County is split among 4 Districts: 7 Cases where a County is split among 5 Districts: 7 Cases where a County is split among 6 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 7 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 9 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 12 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 13 Districts: 1 Cases where a County is split among 16 Districts: 1

Number of times a County has been split into more than one district: 187 Total of County splits: 267 Split Counties: County District Population Baldwin 094 40,456 Baldwin 095 4,244 Barrow 024 36,227 Barrow 025 9,917 Bartow 012 44,003 Bartow 013 23,955 Bartow 019 8,061 Bibb 093 2,953 Bibb 104 4,920 Bibb 105 46,530 Bibb 106 47,513 Bibb 107 47,542 Bibb 108 4,429 Bryan 121 3,985 Bryan 122 1,492 Bryan 123 2,038 Bryan 127 7,533 Bryan 146 8,369 Bulloch 101 32,359 Bulloch 102 4,910 Bulloch 121 5,217 Bulloch 127 13,497 Butts 085 6,619 Butts 092 8,115 Butts 093 4,788 Calhoun 133 5,239 Calhoun 134 1,081 Candler 102 2,930 Candler 120 3,509 Candler 121 1,826 Candler 127 1,312 Carroll 027 2,563 Carroll 087 19,937 Carroll 088 64,768 Catoosa 002 14,747 Catoosa 003 38,535 Charlton 129 3,942 Charlton 145 6,340 Chatham 122 17,456 Chatham 123 35,512 Chatham 124 86,779 Chatham 125 44,644 Chatham 126 47,657 Cherokee 012 736 Cherokee 014 15,293 Cherokee 015 47,248 Cherokee 016 47,654 Cherokee 017 30,972 Clarke 074 47,617 Clarke 075 44,796 Clarke 076 9,076 Clayton 048 5,330 Clayton 050 10,723 Clayton 059 4,299 Clayton 081 44,362 Clayton 082 43,458 Clayton 083 44,520 Clayton 084 83,825 Clinch 143 4,976 Clinch 145 1,902 Cobb 017 16,702 Cobb 026 7,394 Cobb 028 47,745 Cobb 029 47,615 Cobb 030 47,558 Cobb 031 47,458 Cobb 032 47,646 Cobb 033 134,260 Cobb 034 130,408 Cobb 035 47,747 Cobb 041 6,564 Cobb 044 13,857 Cobb 046 12,797 Cotquitt 137 12,966 Colquitt 138 7,102 Colquitt 139 2,608 Colquitt 140 19,377 Columbia 079 44,772 Columbia 080 44,516 Coweta 086 37,057 Cowela 087 27,783 Coweta 088 12,373 Coweta 089 12,002 Dawson 006 5,128 Dawson 014 10,871 Decatur 134 7,048 Decatur 141 21,192 DeKalb 042 43,243 DeKalb 052 46,391 DeKalb 053 45,658 DeKalb 054 45,406 DeKalb 055 43,458 DeKalb 056 86,447 DeKalb 057 43,253 DeKalb 058 43,458 DeKalb 059 77,173 DeKalb 060 80,562 DeKalb 061 85,749 DeKalb 062 25,067 Dooly 114 8,411 Dooly 132 3,114 Dougherty 135 43,390 Dougherty 136 39,277 Dougherty 137 13,398 Douglas 027 17,924 Douglas 033 1,883 Douglas 045 20,976 Douglas 046 34,610 Douglas 047 16,781 Effingham 122 27,338 Effingham 123 10,197 Fannin 003 15,430 Fannin 006 4,368 Fayette 048 42,773 Fayette 085 37,866 Fayette 086 10,624 Floyd 011 19,932 Floyd 013 70,633 Forsyth 014 68,870 Forsyth 038 29,537 Franklin 022 3,467 Franklin 023 16,818 Fulton 036 46,854 Fulton 037 47,471 Fulton 038 17,910 Fulton 039 47,549 Fulton 040 47,378 Fulton 041 41,162 Fulton 042 131,969 Fulton 043 95,322 Fulton 044 31,316 Fulton 045 25,126 Fulton 047 29,710 Fulton 048 128,836 Fulton 049 43,209 Fulton 050 32,488 Fulton 051 43,675 Fulton 065 6,031 Gilmer 003 15,321 Gilmer 006 8,135 Glynn 128 18,439 Glynn 129 9,960 Glynn 146 39,169 Gwinnett 061 49,677 Gwinnett 064 46,804 Gwinnett 065 39,104 Gwinnett 066 45,846 Gwinnett 067 82,686 Gwinnett 068 43,338 Gwinnett 069 88,495 Gwinnett 070 140,596 Gwinnett 071 51,902 Habersham 007 31,449 Habersham 009 4,453 Hall 009 31,445 Hall 020 47,642 Hall 021 47,412 Hall 067 12,778 Henry 059 49,313 Henry 060 37,238 Henry 084 9,681 Henry 085 23,109 Houston 108 18,664 Houston 115 44,351 Houston 117 47,750 Jackson 024 8,271 Jackson 025 33,318 Jasper 073 3,381 Jasper 093 8,045 Jones 093 283 Jones 094 3,071 Jones 104 19,807 Jones 105 478 Lamar 091 5,265 Lamar 092 4,130 Lamar 093 6,517 Laurens 118 2,498 Laurens 119 42,376 Lee 133 7,269 Lee 137 17,488 Liberty 121 16,873 Liberty 127 21,094 Liberty 128 17,588 Liberty 129 6,055 Liberty 146 0 Long 127 2,134 Long 129 8,170 Lowndes 142 43,318 Lowndes 143 31,038 Lowndes 144 17,759 Lumpkin 006 9,216 Lumpkin 009 11,800 Madison 023 4,415 Madison 076 13,657 Madison 078 7,658 McDuffie 095 15,860 McDuffie 103 5,371 Mclntosh 127 2,092 Mclntosh 128 8,625 Mclntosh 146 130 Morgan 073 10,196 Morgan 077 5,261 Murray 003 3,585 Murray 005 32,921 Muscogee 109 37,878 Muscogee 110 17,311 Muscogee 111 43,443 Muscogee 112 43,853 Muscogee 113 43,806 Newton 063 10,733 Newton 072 26,185 Newton 073 25,083 Oconee 073 4,140 Oconee 076 22,085 Paulding 018 14,911 Paulding 026 40,347 Paulding 027 26,420 Peach 108 10,195 Peach 114 13,473 Pickens 006 20,362 Pickens 012 2,621 Polk 018 2,881 Polk 019 35,246 Putnam 077 15,371 Putnam 095 3,441 Richmond 096 46,835 Richmond 097 43,531 Richmond 098 44,196 Richmond 099 43,263 Richmond 100 21,950 Rockdale 060 12,285 Rockdale 062 22,527 Rockdale 063 35,299 Spalding 085 27,275 Spalding 092 31,142 Stewart 133 2,625 Stewart 134 2,627 Telfair 118 7,758 Telfair 121 4.036 Thomas 137 1,968 Thomas 141 32,246 Thomas 144 8,523 Tift 131 10,349 Tift 138 18,608 Tift 139 9,450 Treutlen 119 1,528 Treutlen 120 5,326 Troup 089 33,105 Troup 090 20,943 Troup 110 4,731 Upson 091 26,644 Upson 108 953 Walker 001 43,994 Walker 002 17,059 Walton 071 40,716 Walton 072 17,221 Walton 073 2,750 Wheeler 118 2,620 Wheeler 120 3,559 White 007 15,917 White 008 4,027 Whilfield 003 22,399 Whitfleld 004 47,717 Whitfield 005 13,409 Worth 132 8,606 Worth 137 1,684 Worth 138 11,677

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT YY

(To be scanned in place of tab)

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT ZZ

(To be scanned in place of tab)