If the 2014 Population Estimates Were an Actual Census Prompting Reapportionment

[HankW501]

The U.S. Census Bureau on 23 Dec. 2014 released its July 2014 state population estimates.  A few years ago I wrote an Excel macro that follows the same algorithm for congressional apportionment that the federal government has been using since 1930, and I love getting a new set of numbers to plug into it.

If the 2014 population estimates were an actual U.S. census and the House of Representatives were reapportioned based on them, Minnesota and Pennsylvania would lose one seat each, and North Carolina and Texas would gain one seat each.

I then considered an alternate scenario:  What if statehood were granted to Puerto Rico before the reapportionment?   Assuming the total voting membership of the House is brought back down to 435 like after the 1960 Census, Puerto Rico would get five seats, and Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and California would lose one seat each.

[hurricanehink]

Interesting that Montana doesn't get a new one yet, and California could *lose* a seat if PR joined and it stayed at 435!

[HankW501]

Yes, California has never lost a House seat.  In fact, the 2011 reapportionment was the first since their statehood in 1850 that they didn't gain at least one seat.

Regarding Montana, I reran the apportionment with the 2010 Census numbers then stepped it beyond 435 to see how far down Montana was.  It didn't take long; Montana's 2nd seat was #440, just 5 beyond the "magic number" of 435.  Oddly enough, when I did the same thing with the 2014 estimates Montana was bumped down to #441, even though in 2011 or 2012 Montana At-Large became the 1st congressional district with a population of over a million!  Their 2014 estimated population was 1,023,579.

FYI:  If 440 seats had been apportioned after the 2010 Census instead of 435, the five additional seats would have been NC-14, MO-09, NY-28, NJ-13 & MT-02.

[muon2]

Based on my projection to 2020 from the 2014 estimates I put MT at #439. They need about 7K more people than the current projection to get to #435.

[HankW501]

I have Census Bureau projections of the 2020 populations, but I didn't even bother rerunning the numbers when I saw that the Census Bureau's 2012 projection of Montana's 2020 population has already been exceeded according to their 2014 estimate.