Sometimes geometric compactness has nothing to do with voters with similar interests.
For example, here is the Phoenix valley, across the northwest are a dozen or so planned senior communities. It is obvious they should all be in the same district, but their layout is linear and stretched out.
“For example, here is the Phoenix valley, across the northwest are a dozen or so planned senior communities. It is obvious they should all be in the same district, but their layout is linear and stretched out.”
That isn’t obvious to me! You’re simply lining up a different group of special interests, retire people, as opposed to political or ethnic division.
Just for argument’s sake-
Why should communities of similar interest- or any kind of similarities - be a consideration for the drawing of a district? If seniors, or Hispanics, or whomever are split between districts, so what? Maybe even districts should be drawn to be as close to evenly split and as diverse as possible, completely the opposite. that way EVERY district could go any way; that could force politicians to pay attention to every group.
I see nothing in the Constitution that even hints that any particular demographic group should be consolidated - or even considered; if every congressman had seniors, blacks, whites, rich, poor, young families in their district, rather than safely representing ‘rich republicans’, ‘university liberals’, ‘farmers’, or such it might be a good thing. No politician should EVER be even slightly safe, not the ones I hate, not the ones I like.
So, just for discussion, I challenge the underlying assumption that similarity of interests is in any way a good thing :-)