Executive Solution Overview
**files (1)** – ## Turnitin.docx **## Turnitin.docx** Turnitin™ This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™. Instructions **Purpose** Legislative districts are redrawn following each decennial census to reflect changes in population. This process, known as **redistricting**, can significantly inf…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
**files (1)**
– ## Turnitin.docx
**## Turnitin.docx**
Turnitin™
This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™.
Instructions
**Purpose**
Legislative districts are redrawn following each decennial census to reflect changes in population. This process, known as
**redistricting**, can significantly influence political representation. One issue frequently discussed in relation to redistricting is
**gerrymandering**, the practice of drawing district boundaries in ways that may advantage or disadvantage particular groups or political interests.
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze the boundaries of your assigned
**Texas House District** and
**Texas Senate District** and determine whether their designs
**suggest the possibility of gerrymandering**. Rather than deciding whether a district is legally gerrymandered, you will evaluate each map using objective criteria and support your conclusions with evidence.
**Important:** An unusually shaped district is
**not automatically gerrymandered**, and a compact district is
**not automatically fair**. Your conclusions should be based on the overall evidence you observe.
**Learning Objectives**
Upon successful completion of this assignment, you will be able to:
Explain the purpose of legislative redistricting in Texas.
Define gerrymandering and distinguish it from routine redistricting.
Analyze the geographic shape of Texas House and Senate districts.
Compare district boundaries using objective geographic characteristics.
Support conclusions using credible academic and government sources.
**Instructions**
Using the official
**Texas House District Map** and
**Texas Senate District Map** and the information you gathered for your first assignment, analyze
**both** of your assigned legislative districts. Answer the following questions
**for each district separately.**
[https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/House/2/PLANH2316](https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/House/2/PLANH2316)
[https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/Senate/2/PLANS2168](https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/Senate/2/PLANS2168)
**1. Compactness**
Does the district appear reasonably compact?
Or is it unusually long, narrow, or irregularly shaped?
**2. County or City Splits**
Does the district divide counties or cities?
If so, do the boundaries appear reasonable or excessive?
**3. Communities of Interest**
A
**community of interest** is a group of people who share common geographic, social, cultural, or economic characteristics.
Does the district appear to keep neighboring communities together?
Or does it combine communities that are geographically distant or have little in common?
**4. Overall Shape**
Does the district contain unusual extensions, narrow corridors, or winding boundaries?
Do any of these features raise questions about how the district was drawn?
**5. Conclusion**
Based on your analysis,
**do the district's boundaries suggest the possibility of gerrymandering?**
Support your conclusion using evidence from your observations.
**Comparison**
After analyzing both districts, compare your findings.
Which district appears
**more likely** to raise questions about possible gerrymandering; the Texas House District or the Texas Senate District?
What similarities and differences did you observe between the two districts?
Which evaluation criteria had the greatest influence on your conclusion (compactness, county or city splits, communities of interest, or overall shape)? Explain your reasoning.
**Submission Requirements**
Analyze
**both** your Texas House District and your Texas Senate District.
Answer each question in complete paragraphs.
Support your conclusions with specific observations from each district map.
Organize your work using clear headings for each district and the comparison section.
**Reminder**
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze evidence, not to prove that a district is legally gerrymandered. Your grade will be based on the quality of your analysis, the evidence you present, and the reasoning you use to support your conclusions.
**Academic Integrity and Source Requirements**
This assignment is designed to evaluate your ability to analyze your Texas House and Texas Senate district maps using the course materials provided.
You must use
**only the articles, videos, and links provided within this assignment** to complete your work.
**Do not use any outside or external sources,** including websites, books, journal articles, blogs, videos, or other reference materials that are not specifically assigned.
Additionally
**, you may not use artificial intelligence (AI) tools**, including ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, or similar AI programs, to generate, draft, rewrite, or edit any portion of your essay. Your submission must reflect
**your own original observations, analysis, and writing**.
Failure to follow these requirements may result in a grade of zero for the assignment and may be addressed in accordance with the Dallas College Academic Integrity Policy.
**II. How does Gerrymandering impact elections and representation?**
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained
https://www.whqr.org/local/2016-12-01/coastline-a-new-way-to-approach-congressional-redistricting
https://www.keranews.org/politics/2021-10-07/with-redistricting-underway-heres-how-partisan-gerrymandering-impacts-texans
https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/where-are-the-lines-drawn/
https://redistricting.lls.edu/
https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/what-is-redistricting-and-why-should-we-care
[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/11/an-algorithm-to-detect-gerrymandering/](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/11/an-algorithm-to-detect-gerrymandering/)
[https://www.whqr.org/local/2016-12-01/coastline-a-new-way-to-approach-congressional-redistricting](https://www.whqr.org/local/2016-12-01/coastline-a-new-way-to-approach-congressional-redistricting)
[https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=recL5EF85h0ILukMA](https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=recL5EF85h0ILukMA)
[https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/politics/explainer-understanding-mid-decade-redistricting-push-texas?utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_source=hkslinkedin](https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/politics/explainer-understanding-mid-decade-redistricting-push-texas?utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_source=hkslinkedin)
Video Link
[https://youtu.be/bGLRJ12uqmk?si=xS-8vVDEsUUtxZJ6](https://youtu.be/bGLRJ12uqmk?si=xS-8vVDEsUUtxZJ6)
[https://youtu.be/MnhFm5QVVTo?si=_1h16fSIK1rwYcDK](https://youtu.be/MnhFm5QVVTo?si=_1h16fSIK1rwYcDK)
[https://youtu.be/WfxBuwMGTts?si=wP5PVQ43DoPvUsZ9](https://youtu.be/WfxBuwMGTts?si=wP5PVQ43DoPvUsZ9)
[https://youtu.be/arzUUuvdePM](https://youtu.be/arzUUuvdePM)
Hide Rubrics
Rubric Name: Assignment Rubrics
Criteria
Level 1: Poor
Level 2: Fair
Level 3: Good
Level 4: Excellent
Criterion 1 Structure
No clear thesis. Body paragraphs are oversized or skimpy. Facts not arranged logically in paragraphs. Did not follow assignment properly.
Thesis not well defined. Paragraphs are too few or are widely disproportionate in size. Some facts are not arranged logically in paragraphs. Did not follow assignment well.
Thesis could be defined better or presented earlier. Paragraphing good but could use some improvement. A few key facts are not logically placed. Some variances from assignment instructions.
Clear thesis. Body paragraphs are balanced in size and content. Facts are arranged in clear logical fashion under strong topic sentences. Executed assignment exactly as directed.
Criterion 2 Content
Thesis is insupportable or wrong. Very few facts presented. Poor representation of required research. Too opinionated w/o factual backup.
Thesis is not supported by facts. Weak on facts; some are presented, but not enough to prove the thesis. Insufficient research. Too opinionated w/o factual back up.
Good thesis but not the best choice of supportive facts. Many good facts, but some key facts left out. Adequate research for the assignment, but not outstanding. Too opinionated in places
Strong thesis amply supported by facts. Many strong, specific, and important facts support the author’s points. Excellent research is evident. Paper rests on facts, not opinions alone.
Criterion 3 Writing Style
Poor writing. Sentences are structurally inadequate. Lacks flow; wooden and /or awkward statements. Several instances of tenses changing inappropriately or disagreement between subject and verbs. Too much informal language used in a formal piece of writing.
Overall writing is disappointing. Sentences are mixed: some are good; some need work. Transitions and flow need much improvement; reader can’t follow author’s argument. Style errors like wrong tense changes. Use of informal language or slang.
Good, basic writing. Sentences lack excellent syntax. Lacks excellent flow—transition words, ordering of phrases. Style causes some confusion, tense changes. Instances of informal language or slang.
Excellent writing. Great sentence structure throughout. Variety of sentence structures clarifies the author’s message. Good tense use, subject/verb agreement. Formal language appropriate to the essay is used throughout.
Criterion 4 Mechanics
Messy paper; inattention to neatness or improper formatting. Punctuation/capitalization is well below ability. Spelling is well below ability. Student did not spend adequate time on this assignment.
Not as neat as the student is capable of. Punctuation/capitalization is below ability. Spelling is below ability. Paper appears to be a rush job; not well done.
Neat, but some formatting. Improvements are necessary. Several errors in punctuation/capitalization.
Footnoting/citation errors. Spelling errors. Generally hurried; not as good as could be.
Very neat; clean copy; properly formatted. Almost perfect obedience to the rules of punctuation/capitalization. Almost all citations are proper. Spelling is done well. Careful work, excellently done.
Overall Score
Level 1: Poor
Level 2: Fair
Level 3: Good
Level 4: Excellent
**## Turnitin.docx**
Turnitin™
This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™.
Instructions
**Purpose**
Legislative districts are redrawn following each decennial census to reflect changes in population. This process, known as
**redistricting**, can significantly influence political representation. One issue frequently discussed in relation to redistricting is
**gerrymandering**, the practice of drawing district boundaries in ways that may advantage or disadvantage particular groups or political interests.
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze the boundaries of your assigned
**Texas House District** and
**Texas Senate District** and determine whether their designs
**suggest the possibility of gerrymandering**. Rather than deciding whether a district is legally gerrymandered, you will evaluate each map using objective criteria and support your conclusions with evidence.
**Important:** An unusually shaped district is
**not automatically gerrymandered**, and a compact district is
**not automatically fair**. Your conclusions should be based on the overall evidence you observe.
**Learning Objectives**
Upon successful completion of this assignment, you will be able to:
Explain the purpose of legislative redistricting in Texas.
Define gerrymandering and distinguish it from routine redistricting.
Analyze the geographic shape of Texas House and Senate districts.
Compare district boundaries using objective geographic characteristics.
Support conclusions using credible academic and government sources.
**Instructions**
Using the official
**Texas House District Map** and
**Texas Senate District Map** and the information you gathered for your first assignment, analyze
**both** of your assigned legislative districts. Answer the following questions
**for each district separately.**
[https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/House/2/PLANH2316](https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/House/2/PLANH2316)
[https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/Senate/2/PLANS2168](https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/Senate/2/PLANS2168)
**1. Compactness**
Does the district appear reasonably compact?
Or is it unusually long, narrow, or irregularly shaped?
**2. County or City Splits**
Does the district divide counties or cities?
If so, do the boundaries appear reasonable or excessive?
**3. Communities of Interest**
A
**community of interest** is a group of people who share common geographic, social, cultural, or economic characteristics.
Does the district appear to keep neighboring communities together?
Or does it combine communities that are geographically distant or have little in common?
**4. Overall Shape**
Does the district contain unusual extensions, narrow corridors, or winding boundaries?
Do any of these features raise questions about how the district was drawn?
**5. Conclusion**
Based on your analysis,
**do the district's boundaries suggest the possibility of gerrymandering?**
Support your conclusion using evidence from your observations.
**Comparison**
After analyzing both districts, compare your findings.
Which district appears
**more likely** to raise questions about possible gerrymandering; the Texas House District or the Texas Senate District?
What similarities and differences did you observe between the two districts?
Which evaluation criteria had the greatest influence on your conclusion (compactness, county or city splits, communities of interest, or overall shape)? Explain your reasoning.
**Submission Requirements**
Analyze
**both** your Texas House District and your Texas Senate District.
Answer each question in complete paragraphs.
Support your conclusions with specific observations from each district map.
Organize your work using clear headings for each district and the comparison section.
**Reminder**
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze evidence, not to prove that a district is legally gerrymandered. Your grade will be based on the quality of your analysis, the evidence you present, and the reasoning you use to support your conclusions.
**Academic Integrity and Source Requirements**
This assignment is designed to evaluate your ability to analyze your Texas House and Texas Senate district maps using the course materials provided.
You must use
**only the articles, videos, and links provided within this assignment** to complete your work.
**Do not use any outside or external sources,** including websites, books, journal articles, blogs, videos, or other reference materials that are not specifically assigned.
Additionally
**, you may not use artificial intelligence (AI) tools**, including ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, or similar AI programs, to generate, draft, rewrite, or edit any portion of your essay. Your submission must reflect
**your own original observations, analysis, and writing**.
Failure to follow these requirements may result in a grade of zero for the assignment and may be addressed in accordance with the Dallas College Academic Integrity Policy.
**II. How does Gerrymandering impact elections and representation?**
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained
https://www.whqr.org/local/2016-12-01/coastline-a-new-way-to-approach-congressional-redistricting
https://www.keranews.org/politics/2021-10-07/with-redistricting-underway-heres-how-partisan-gerrymandering-impacts-texans
https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/where-are-the-lines-drawn/
https://redistricting.lls.edu/
https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/what-is-redistricting-and-why-should-we-care
[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/11/an-algorithm-to-detect-gerrymandering/](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/11/an-algorithm-to-detect-gerrymandering/)
[https://www.whqr.org/local/2016-12-01/coastline-a-new-way-to-approach-congressional-redistricting](https://www.whqr.org/local/2016-12-01/coastline-a-new-way-to-approach-congressional-redistricting)
[https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=recL5EF85h0ILukMA](https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=recL5EF85h0ILukMA)
[https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/politics/explainer-understanding-mid-decade-redistricting-push-texas?utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_source=hkslinkedin](https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/politics/explainer-understanding-mid-decade-redistricting-push-texas?utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_source=hkslinkedin)
Video Link
[https://youtu.be/bGLRJ12uqmk?si=xS-8vVDEsUUtxZJ6](https://youtu.be/bGLRJ12uqmk?si=xS-8vVDEsUUtxZJ6)
[https://youtu.be/MnhFm5QVVTo?si=_1h16fSIK1rwYcDK](https://youtu.be/MnhFm5QVVTo?si=_1h16fSIK1rwYcDK)
[https://youtu.be/WfxBuwMGTts?si=wP5PVQ43DoPvUsZ9](https://youtu.be/WfxBuwMGTts?si=wP5PVQ43DoPvUsZ9)
[https://youtu.be/arzUUuvdePM](https://youtu.be/arzUUuvdePM)
Hide Rubrics
Rubric Name: Assignment Rubrics
Criteria
Level 1: Poor
Level 2: Fair
Level 3: Good
Level 4: Excellent
Criterion 1 Structure
No clear thesis. Body paragraphs are oversized or skimpy. Facts not arranged logically in paragraphs. Did not follow assignment properly.
Thesis not well defined. Paragraphs are too few or are widely disproportionate in size. Some facts are not arranged logically in paragraphs. Did not follow assignment well.
Thesis could be defined better or presented earlier. Paragraphing good but could use some improvement. A few key facts are not logically placed. Some variances from assignment instructions.
Clear thesis. Body paragraphs are balanced in size and content. Facts are arranged in clear logical fashion under strong topic sentences. Executed assignment exactly as directed.
Criterion 2 Content
Thesis is insupportable or wrong. Very few facts presented. Poor representation of required research. Too opinionated w/o factual backup.
Thesis is not supported by facts. Weak on facts; some are presented, but not enough to prove the thesis. Insufficient research. Too opinionated w/o factual back up.
Good thesis but not the best choice of supportive facts. Many good facts, but some key facts left out. Adequate research for the assignment, but not outstanding. Too opinionated in places
Strong thesis amply supported by facts. Many strong, specific, and important facts support the author’s points. Excellent research is evident. Paper rests on facts, not opinions alone.
Criterion 3 Writing Style
Poor writing. Sentences are structurally inadequate. Lacks flow; wooden and /or awkward statements. Several instances of tenses changing inappropriately or disagreement between subject and verbs. Too much informal language used in a formal piece of writing.
Overall writing is disappointing. Sentences are mixed: some are good; some need work. Transitions and flow need much improvement; reader can’t follow author’s argument. Style errors like wrong tense changes. Use of informal language or slang.
Good, basic writing. Sentences lack excellent syntax. Lacks excellent flow—transition words, ordering of phrases. Style causes some confusion, tense changes. Instances of informal language or slang.
Excellent writing. Great sentence structure throughout. Variety of sentence structures clarifies the author’s message. Good tense use, subject/verb agreement. Formal language appropriate to the essay is used throughout.
Criterion 4 Mechanics
Messy paper; inattention to neatness or improper formatting. Punctuation/capitalization is well below ability. Spelling is well below ability. Student did not spend adequate time on this assignment.
Not as neat as the student is capable of. Punctuation/capitalization is below ability. Spelling is below ability. Paper appears to be a rush job; not well done.
Neat, but some formatting. Improvements are necessary. Several errors in punctuation/capitalization.
Footnoting/citation errors. Spelling errors. Generally hurried; not as good as could be.
Very neat; clean copy; properly formatted. Almost perfect obedience to the rules of punctuation/capitalization. Almost all citations are proper. Spelling is done well. Careful work, excellently done.
Overall Score
Level 1: Poor
Level 2: Fair
Level 3: Good
Level 4: Excellent