Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26

[cinyc]

Why are Illinois and New Mexico losing people? Especially Illinois? I know growth slowed, but with immigration it should be growing?

There is about three times more domestic outmigration (-95,000)  from Illinois as foreign immigration (32,000), and the natural birth/death increase (54,000) doesn't make up the gap.  In other words, three times more U.S. residents are leaving than foreigners coming in, and there are not enough new babies to make up the gap.  People are moving from high-tax, high-cost, cold states like Illinois to the Sun Belt.

Illinois would be in an even worse position without the Chicagoland collar counties (i.e. suburbs and exurbs).  Cook County itself (Chicago) lost 179 residents.

New Mexico hasn't typically been a fast-growing state.  It is too cold to be truly sunbelt, and its main city isn't a regional hub like Denver.  Residents are moving out (-14,200), while very few foreigners are moving in (2,700), and net births/deaths (10,000) don't fully make up the difference.   What little growth there is has been largely due to oil workers in the counties around Carlsbad in the Southeast, and slow growth in the Albuquerque-Santa Fe corridor.

[jimrtex]

Here's the top 10 fastest-growing counties by percentage increase from 2013 to 2014 in counties with an estimated population of 10,000 or more as of July 1, 2014, the principal city/region and likely reason for the increase:

And the bottom 5:
2) Hale, TX -3.0% (Plainview; Rural, in between Lubbock and Amarillo, but not close enough to either for sprawl)

Cargill closed a meatpacking plant in January 2013 that employed 2200 persons.  The unemployment rate went from 5.4% to 13.1% by July, and had dropped down to 11.4% in November, 2013.  At that time, the unemployment rate was 4.5% in Lubbock and 2.9% in Midland.

[Brittain33]

Loving County, Texas population crashes 17% from 2013 after booming 24% the year before.

[jimrtex]

Loving County, Texas population crashes 17% from 2013 after booming 24% the year before.

The Smiths moved back to Pecos.  The long bus ride to Wink was hard on the kids, so they decided it was better for Joe to commute back and forth.

[muon2]

As an exercise I took the 2014 estimates for IL and projected those growth rates to 2020. Then I assumed that IL would have 17 CDs and divided the state accordingly.

I permitted a variance of 5% of a CD and preserved UCCs, which accounts for the district that wraps around the western exurbs of Chicago. That district plus Lake county (light green) are equal to two CDs if Lake takes up about 20% of McHenry. Kane and DuPage (gold and orange) are together just under 2 CDs with Kane needing about 25% of DuPage to balance the population. Cook county is just under 7 CDs in population.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Beautiful map Nix!
Obscure note: I'm a bit surprised by how low Georgia's growth is. I wasn't expecting massive growth in the non-coastal southern part of the state since it's not an extremely desirable place to move to, but I wasn't expecting it to exactly shrink either. I'm curious if that's downstaters moving to Atlanta (or across the border to Florida? Is north Florida considered better?)

I was also expecting the Atlanta growth to look a bit higher - like all the suburbs would look like the Carolina coast. I didn't expect it to develop as a retirement area as much as Florida (traditional idea, no tax, beaches), Texas (no tax, predictably hot climate with robust cities) or Arizona (warm and natural  beauty), but I figured the weather would be enough to offer it up as a cheaper option for northeasterners and Midwesterners looking to get out of the cold. Is it just that it's a city that's not all that exciting and not near the coast so the growth is more from younger professionals alone? Housing demand has been quite strong in the area for a couple years now so I just expected more. I suppose I'd choose the Carolinas too if I was staying in the east.

[Sbane]

Here is a corrected version of the county map that I posted earlier:

Los Angeles and Riverside County look wrong....

[muon2]

Here's a map showing the county estimates projected to 2020 for MI then divided into 13 CDs. Except around Detroit they each represent the population of one CD within 5% of the quota. I split the Detroit area into a purple region with 2 CDs and a pink region with 4 CDs to illustrate the relative population.

[muon2]

Here's OH divided into 15 CDs using the projections of the county data out to 2020. Districts preserve UCC covering rules. All districts are within 5% except suburban Cincinnati which is slightly over and is balanced by the adjacent southern OH district. The Columbus and Cleveland areas each contain two districts.

[Gass3268]

Good work Muon, looking forward to more of these!

[Torie]

As an exercise I took the 2014 estimates for IL and projected those growth rates to 2020. Then I assumed that IL would have 17 CDs and divided the state accordingly.

I permitted a variance of 5% of a CD and preserved UCCs, which accounts for the district that wraps around the western exurbs of Chicago. That district plus Lake county (light green) are equal to two CDs if Lake takes up about 20% of McHenry. Kane and DuPage (gold and orange) are together just under 2 CDs with Kane needing about 25% of DuPage to balance the population. Cook county is just under 7 CDs in population.

With Illinois losing one CD, what percentage of that lost CD is from 1) the City of Chicago, 2)suburban Cook, 3) the balance of the Chicago UCC ex Cook, and 4) downstate?

[muon2]

As an exercise I took the 2014 estimates for IL and projected those growth rates to 2020. Then I assumed that IL would have 17 CDs and divided the state accordingly.

I permitted a variance of 5% of a CD and preserved UCCs, which accounts for the district that wraps around the western exurbs of Chicago. That district plus Lake county (light green) are equal to two CDs if Lake takes up about 20% of McHenry. Kane and DuPage (gold and orange) are together just under 2 CDs with Kane needing about 25% of DuPage to balance the population. Cook county is just under 7 CDs in population.

With Illinois losing one CD, what percentage of that lost CD is from 1) the City of Chicago, 2)suburban Cook, 3) the balance of the Chicago UCC ex Cook, and 4) downstate?

The Chicago numbers for 2014 aren't out yet, but I can look at the other three divisions.

Cook: 2010 - 7.29 CDs, 2020 - 6.98 CDs, net loss 0.31 CDs.
Chicago UCC less Cook: 2010 - 4.69 CDs, 2020 - 4.52 CDs, net loss 0.17 CDs.
Downstate: 2010 - 6.02 CDs, 2020 - 5.50 CDs, net loss 0.52 CDs.

There is likely to be at least one CD with substantial population in both the suburbs and downstate area.

[muon2]

IN isn't likely to change in 2020 from 9 CDs and the existing plan largely keeps counties intact. I used that starting point and the projection based on 2014 estimates projected to 2020 to construct this plan. Districts are all within 5% of the quota and preserve the UCC covers. Beyond the UCC, borders follow the existing districts. The Indianapolis area (light gray) has 2 CDs.

[muon2]

Rounding out the Great Lakes states is WI which also is not expected to change from 8 CDs. That's a net loss of 3 from that region (IL, MI, OH).

As with the other states WI is based on projections to 2020 using the 2014 estimates. UCC covers are preserved, meaning that each UCC has no more than the minimum number of districts. The Milwaukee area (gray) has 2 CDs. The map works out very nicely despite the high population counties so that the districts are within 2% of the quota, though I don't expect that to hold up as the decade progresses. The Green Bay district (pink) is nearly identical to the current WI-08 showing that area is growing at about the same rate as the state overall.

[Torie]

As an exercise I took the 2014 estimates for IL and projected those growth rates to 2020. Then I assumed that IL would have 17 CDs and divided the state accordingly.

I permitted a variance of 5% of a CD and preserved UCCs, which accounts for the district that wraps around the western exurbs of Chicago. That district plus Lake county (light green) are equal to two CDs if Lake takes up about 20% of McHenry. Kane and DuPage (gold and orange) are together just under 2 CDs with Kane needing about 25% of DuPage to balance the population. Cook county is just under 7 CDs in population.

With Illinois losing one CD, what percentage of that lost CD is from 1) the City of Chicago, 2)suburban Cook, 3) the balance of the Chicago UCC ex Cook, and 4) downstate?

The Chicago numbers for 2014 aren't out yet, but I can look at the other three divisions.

Cook: 2010 - 7.29 CDs, 2020 - 6.98 CDs, net loss 0.31 CDs.
Chicago UCC less Cook: 2010 - 4.69 CDs, 2020 - 4.52 CDs, net loss 0.17 CDs.
Downstate: 2010 - 6.02 CDs, 2020 - 5.50 CDs, net loss 0.52 CDs.

There is likely to be at least one CD with substantial population in both the suburbs and downstate area.

With the Chicago area draining African Americans, the VRA is going to be tough to nest 7 CD's in Cook County. Southwest suburban Cook has too many whites I suspect for an African American CD to take all of that territory, with the landscape their trapped by the Hispanic CD to the north. It looks like a map drawn to your metrics might end up being an even more natural Pub gerrymander than the 2010 numbers dictate (which suit the Pubs quite well). And all of the Downstate CD's you drew look like what would be the marginal CD's based on a draw using the 2010 numbers all move towards reasonably safe Pub CD's, along with the Will County CD moving substantially in the Pub direction.

[muon2]

As an exercise I took the 2014 estimates for IL and projected those growth rates to 2020. Then I assumed that IL would have 17 CDs and divided the state accordingly.

I permitted a variance of 5% of a CD and preserved UCCs, which accounts for the district that wraps around the western exurbs of Chicago. That district plus Lake county (light green) are equal to two CDs if Lake takes up about 20% of McHenry. Kane and DuPage (gold and orange) are together just under 2 CDs with Kane needing about 25% of DuPage to balance the population. Cook county is just under 7 CDs in population.

With Illinois losing one CD, what percentage of that lost CD is from 1) the City of Chicago, 2)suburban Cook, 3) the balance of the Chicago UCC ex Cook, and 4) downstate?

The Chicago numbers for 2014 aren't out yet, but I can look at the other three divisions.

Cook: 2010 - 7.29 CDs, 2020 - 6.98 CDs, net loss 0.31 CDs.
Chicago UCC less Cook: 2010 - 4.69 CDs, 2020 - 4.52 CDs, net loss 0.17 CDs.
Downstate: 2010 - 6.02 CDs, 2020 - 5.50 CDs, net loss 0.52 CDs.

There is likely to be at least one CD with substantial population in both the suburbs and downstate area.

With the Chicago area draining African Americans, the VRA is going to be tough to nest 7 CD's in Cook County. Southwest suburban Cook has too many whites I suspect for an African American CD to take all of that territory, with the landscape their trapped by the Hispanic CD to the north. It looks like a map drawn to your metrics might end up being an even more natural Pub gerrymander than the 2010 numbers dictate (which suit the Pubs quite well). And all of the Downstate CD's you drew look like what would be the marginal CD's based on a draw using the 2010 numbers all move towards reasonably safe Pub CD's, along with the Will County CD moving substantially in the Pub direction.

Losing a CD makes all the existing districts larger. The problem for the Dems downstate is they don't have a lot of population centers, and to get the 2011 map they had to do a lot of chopping. Making the districts larger makes their problem that much greater. Since this plan preserves UCCs it does about as well as they could hope by linking Rockford and Rock Island in a CD as well as by keeping Metro East intact and not trying to use it in two separate CDs, which didn't work so well in 2014.

It will be hard if not impossible to preserve 3 BVAP-majority CDs in 2020. I assume that there will be only two covered by the VRA. Similarly the case wasn't made for 2 CHVAP-majority CDs in IL in 2011, so I don't see it happening with larger districts in 2020. I'm reasonably confident that 2 black and 1 Latino CD could be nested in Cook in 2020 to comply with the VRA.

[Torie]

As an exercise I took the 2014 estimates for IL and projected those growth rates to 2020. Then I assumed that IL would have 17 CDs and divided the state accordingly.

I permitted a variance of 5% of a CD and preserved UCCs, which accounts for the district that wraps around the western exurbs of Chicago. That district plus Lake county (light green) are equal to two CDs if Lake takes up about 20% of McHenry. Kane and DuPage (gold and orange) are together just under 2 CDs with Kane needing about 25% of DuPage to balance the population. Cook county is just under 7 CDs in population.

With Illinois losing one CD, what percentage of that lost CD is from 1) the City of Chicago, 2)suburban Cook, 3) the balance of the Chicago UCC ex Cook, and 4) downstate?

The Chicago numbers for 2014 aren't out yet, but I can look at the other three divisions.

Cook: 2010 - 7.29 CDs, 2020 - 6.98 CDs, net loss 0.31 CDs.
Chicago UCC less Cook: 2010 - 4.69 CDs, 2020 - 4.52 CDs, net loss 0.17 CDs.
Downstate: 2010 - 6.02 CDs, 2020 - 5.50 CDs, net loss 0.52 CDs.

There is likely to be at least one CD with substantial population in both the suburbs and downstate area.

With the Chicago area draining African Americans, the VRA is going to be tough to nest 7 CD's in Cook County. Southwest suburban Cook has too many whites I suspect for an African American CD to take all of that territory, with the landscape their trapped by the Hispanic CD to the north. It looks like a map drawn to your metrics might end up being an even more natural Pub gerrymander than the 2010 numbers dictate (which suit the Pubs quite well). And all of the Downstate CD's you drew look like what would be the marginal CD's based on a draw using the 2010 numbers all move towards reasonably safe Pub CD's, along with the Will County CD moving substantially in the Pub direction.

Losing a CD makes all the existing districts larger. The problem for the Dems downstate is they don't have a lot of population centers, and to get the 2011 map they had to do a lot of chopping. Making the districts larger makes their problem that much greater. Since this plan preserves UCCs it does about as well as they could hope by linking Rockford and Rock Island in a CD as well as by keeping Metro East intact and not trying to use it in two separate CDs, which didn't work so well in 2014.

It will be hard if not impossible to preserve 3 BVAP-majority CDs in 2020. I assume that there will be only two covered by the VRA. Similarly the case wasn't made for 2 CHVAP-majority CDs in IL in 2011, so I don't see it happening with larger districts in 2020. I'm reasonably confident that 2 black and 1 Latino CD could be nested in Cook in 2020 to comply with the VRA.

Yes, I see now. The Hispanic CD had some low percentage Hispanic precincts that it can lose to pick up others in the other Hispanic salient in Chicago farther north. The Cook County CD's might look like the below. I did not redraw anything else other than make Lake County one CD for the moment. IL-07 moves sharply Dem of course in the redraw - the one benefit to the Dems from a new "good government" map. The north shore doesn't change much.

[muon2]

Your Cook plan is very similar to what I had in mind. I left the Beverly neighborhood of Chicago with the SW suburbs, which is where it usually is placed. My CD 4 is designed to pick up areas that are anticipated to have additional Hispanic growth by 2020 (58.3% HVAP in 2010, but probably over 60% by 2020) and that leaves CD 5 as an opportunity district (37.2% HVAP in 2010, but probably well over 40% by 2020).

I'll probably do a more detailed analysis at the township level when that data comes out in the summer. I wish the Census provided data based on Chicago community areas.

[JerryArkansas]

Muon, what is the partisan breakdown of those districts by 2008 numbers.  Just wondering.

[muon2]

Muon, what is the partisan breakdown of those districts by 2008 numbers.  Just wondering.

1 & 2 are 91% Obama
3 is 60% Obama
4, 5 & 7 are 75% Obama
6 is 59% Obama

[Torie]

Your Cook plan is very similar to what I had in mind. I left the Beverly neighborhood of Chicago with the SW suburbs, which is where it usually is placed. My CD 4 is designed to pick up areas that are anticipated to have additional Hispanic growth by 2020 (58.3% HVAP in 2010, but probably over 60% by 2020) and that leaves CD 5 as an opportunity district (37.2% HVAP in 2010, but probably well over 40% by 2020).

I'll probably do a more detailed analysis at the township level when that data comes out in the summer. I wish the Census provided data based on Chicago community areas.

But doing that with Beverly is an extra chop, no?  And you lose points for erosity by creating an opportunity CD. I am not sure how much of an opportunity it is with Hispanics at 40% HVAP anyway. You are using different metrics. You also seem to be assuming similar population changes, which I suspect will not be the case. The black south side must be draining population.

[muon2]

You are correct I didn't approach it with a view to a score. The underlying map is only at 5% variance since it is so early in the decade. As for the split, I looked at it the way a commission might after hearing public testimony. I really wanted to avoid a connection to the north side Hispanics for CD 4, and I think that by 2020 there's a decent chance that the north side Latinos may well be able to control a primary. As I said earlier, I expect I'll revisit this when I have better data at the township and neighborhood level.

[Torie]

Ah, local Illinois politics trumps your set of metrics. I understand.   Myself, I would just say no, but I'm a hardass.

Just out of curiosity, what is your genesis of your squeamishness about linking the two Hispanic nodes?

[muon2]

Ah, local Illinois politics trumps your set of metrics. I understand.   Myself, I would just say no, but I'm a hardass.

Just out of curiosity, what is your genesis of your squeamishness about linking the two Hispanic nodes?

I have rarely sat through a panel that didn't decry the "earmuff" IL-4. I went to great lengths in 2010-11 to show that the earmuff wasn't necessary to meet the VRA standard established by the 7th Circuit. To the extent possible I hope to show that it isn't necessary for 2020 either, even with larger districts.

[Torie]

Not to beat the drum until it has no sound, but why was the "earmuff" so unpopular? I mean, your Hispanic CD is itself butt ugly erose, in fact to my "artistic" eyes more ugly than my little modest earmuff.