Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26

[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.

[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.

[jimrtex]

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.

I'm not sure, but C-shaped districts seem to be particularly odious to the good government crowd. The distaste for that shape even colors the IA constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They bypass a population, and you end up traveling through another district.

[jimrtex]

Is that an orange earmuff I see there?

What do you see in this picture?

[jimrtex]

You're also not following the nesting rules for the Columbus UCC.  Seriously, I find that a most important metric myself, more than the coverage metric, which I am willing to fudge if it makes the map work much better. But two CD's need to be contained wholly within Franklin, Delaware, Licking, or Fairfield Counties in my view. You sprawl down to Pickaway, so thus the nesting metric is not followed.

I disagree.

If you eliminate the coverage rule, then if a UCC was just short of a whole number of CDs, you will be able to chop up 100s of thousands of persons in the UCC.   I could perhaps see a milder nesting rule such as: floor(population/quota - 0.5).

By "sprawling" down to Pickaway, Muon2's map puts more of the UCC into the third district.

The Columbus Urbanized Area reaches into Madison, Union, and Pickaway, and there is a potential for these counties to be added to the UCC, particularly if the Columbus Urbanized Area links up urban clusters in the adjacent counties.  Madison and Union probably have a better possibility based on the highway connections.   I-71 (Columbus to Cincinnati) just nicks the corner of Pickaway.

[jimrtex]

Madison, Union, and Pickaway and not growing much in population, so they are not "urbanizing" at the moment.

Union is the 7th fastest growing county in the state, and presumably all the growth is occurring adjacent to Dublin and in the Columbus Urbanized Area.  If the Columbus UA were to link up with the Marysville Urban Cluster, Union would easily qualify for the UCC.

Pickaway is the 10th fastest growing county.

[jimrtex]

The Columbus UA extends into Pickaway County? What is the definition of an urban cluster?  Anyway, when I look at the precincts, the territory along the Franklin County line, looks like it is not very densely populated at all. Only the precinct north of Commercial Point seems to have more urban like density, which precinct while large in area, has 4,700 people. Whatever. Nobody but us will be paying attention to these definitions anyway in all probability.

An urban area is an area of relatively dense settlement (1000 or 500 persons per square mile or greater).   An urban area must have a population of 2500 or more with 1500 persons living outside institutional group quarters (this provision is to keep prisons from qualifying as urban areas).  Note that 2500 is the historical threshold for defining a town's population as being urban or rural.

Urban Areas are classified as urbanized areas or urban clusters based on whether they have 50,000 or more persons or not.

When the census bureau first started classifying the population as urban and rural, the urban population resided in towns and cities of 2500 or more in population.  After WWII, it was noted that increasing numbers of persons were living in unincorporated areas adjacent to cities.  Since they didn't live in the city limits, they were classified as rural.  The census bureau defined urbanized areas for cities with more than 50,000 population.  This was originally done by hand.  The population inside urbanized areas was considered urban.  Metropolitan statistical areas were based on urbanized areas.  An MSA included the counties that contained the urbanized area, and adjacent counties with strong economic links.  The original definition included the number of phone calls between the counties, but it has generally been based on commuting.

Beginning in 2000, the census bureau began defining urban areas based solely on population density, without regard to city boundaries.  This was facilitated by the use of census blocks for the entire country in 1990.  With census blocks, you can define population density on a finer basis.   To maintain consistency with past classification, urban areas were required to have a population of 2500, but don't necessarily correspond to towns.  Urban area was a new term.  The existing term of urbanized areas was redefined to be an urban area with more than 50,000 persons.  This for the most part prevented 1990s urbanized areas from losing that status, as well as triggering a loss of metropolitan status.  Urban areas with less than 50,000 persons were designated as urban clusters.

Micropolitan statistical areas were defined in a manner equivalent to metropolitan statistical areas, but are based on urban clusters with more than 10,000 persons.

Because they are defined based on population density, urbanized areas can be quite extensive, and potentially link areas that are quite distant.  For example, there could be one urbanized area stretching from Wilmington, DE to Springfield, MA; and another from Providence, RI and Worcester, MA to Portsmouth, NH.  So in 2010, the census bureau split urbanized areas near to the boundary between 1990 metropolitan areas.

Because Livingston County, MI was in the Ann Arbor metropolitan area it has an urbanized area that is separate from Detroit (South Lyon-Howell).   This UA is physically separate from the Ann Arbor UA.  So initially, Livingston County would have been identified as a central county of a MSA separate from Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, and Lansing.  It was captured based on commuting patterns as an outlying county of the Detroit MSA, but its urbanized area is now locked in.

Urban clusters are not protected in that way, and so urbanized areas can extend outward along highways and capture them.  The city of Delaware shows how this can happen.  The Columbus Urbanized Area sprawled across the Franklin-Delaware county line and has linked up with the dense settlement around the city of Delaware.  Marysville is not too much further from the center of Columbus than Delaware city.

[jimrtex]

The Columbus UA extends into Pickaway County? What is the definition of an urban cluster?  Anyway, when I look at the precincts, the territory along the Franklin County line, looks like it is not very densely populated at all. Only the precinct north of Commercial Point seems to have more urban like density, which precinct while large in area, has 4,700 people. Whatever. Nobody but us will be paying attention to these definitions anyway in all probability.

The Columbus UA does extend into Madison County.  But also notice the long tendril of West Jefferson which is along the old old highway (National Pike) and the old highway (US 40) about a mile south of the new highway (I-70).

[jimrtex]

Madison, Union, and Pickaway and not growing much in population, so they are not "urbanizing" at the moment.

I think that jimtex's point is that all three counties already have enough urban population to qualify, except that most of the population is in satellite urban clusters, not in the main urbanized area. It would not take a lot of growth for a tendril of Columbus to link to one of those clusters. Then at the 2020 Census the urban cluster would count as urbanized area and the county would meet the UCC criteria.

Actually, my point was that I think that coverage was most important, and I would not be concerned if 1, 2, or 3 districts all extended outside the UCC (though this would likely be impossible given the population of Franklin County.

Placing Pickaway with Franklin is really a quite minimal extension of the 2nd district outside the UCC, but I would be indifferent if it also included Ross (Chillicothe) or extended to Portsmouth.  I'd object if you had tried to include Ashland or Huntington.

[jimrtex]

I don't understand why you ignored the pack rule, but whatever. You can't sever Wyandotte from Johnson County.

It is not needed.

[jimrtex]

It's easy to divide ID into two CDs using whole counties. The challenge is that one cannot both preserve UCCs and maintain state highway connectivity. The first plan preserves the Boise UCC, but requires connections using local roads into and through Boise county to connect the north and east parts of the state. The second plan preserves major connections, but must split the two counties of the UCC. In both plans the projected deviation is within 1000 persons.

The fastest connection between southern and northern Idaho may be via Washington or Montana.

Couer d'Alene to Pocatello is way faster through Missoula and Butte.  Couer d'Alene to Boise is almost as fast through Spokane and the Tri-Cities as the intra-Idaho alternative.

Option 1, also greatly reduces the risk of zero or two representatives from the Boise area.

[jimrtex]

CO is projected to add a CD in 2020 bringing it to 8. That can potentially create some interesting shifts. Most of the growth is around Denver and the UCC would be projected to have just over 4 CDs. Without Broomfield it would be very close to 4 CDs, with Denver having one and the suburban counties taking the other three. Growth in Boulder/Larimer at a 1.5% to 2% annual pace causes CD 2 to contract and it should be able to fit entirely on the eastern slope of the Rockies. El Paso will be large enough for a single CD, and Pueblo would shift to the eastern CD.

It's like deja vu all over again.  Colorado did not redistrict after gaining a 3rd representative in 1900, nor immediately after gaining the 4th in 1910.   It did create four districts for the 1916 election.

Denver was the 1st district, and the western slope was the 4th district.

The 4th district was much more purely a Western Slope district, with only Lake and Chaffee in the Upper Arkansas east of the Continental Divide.  Even at its origin, the district was underpopulated, which might have been justified by the physical separation at that date.



In 1922 a small adjustment was made, swapping Jefferson and El Paso counties.



These districts would remain fixed (other than annexations by Denver) until Wesberry v Sanders.  At that time, the 4th district was the 2nd least populous district in the country.

In 1966 these districts were used.



When the 5th district was added in the 1970s, the Western Slope was split north/south, and then was later connected to Pueblo.  But now, 100 years later, it is beginning to look like it did when it had its own district.  And Denver still has its own district.

[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 plant.

[jimrtex]

a) giving the Eastern Shore to VA-2 instead, since it only has road connections to VA Beach, and/or

You need to do it the way I did to get the black percentage up in  VA-03 and VA-4. VA-02 needs to stay south of the bridge to suck up all the heavily white precincts down there, to keep them out of the two black CD's.  I suspect this approach will unite the Pubs and blacks in the next redistricting round.

VA-1 has historically crossed the Chesapeake. It is a modernist viewpoint that there is not a community of interest. Williamsburg is still living in the 18th Century. Cornwallis surrendered because the French fleet denied him access to the bay, not because the Chesapeake was not a viable transportation link.

[jimrtex]

I will deal with the number crunching later in due course. What on God's Green Earth causes you to believe a commission under tight Muon2 metrics will be drawing the map in VA after the next census?

Absent that most miraculous development, the thing is, the Pubs keep their seats but one with my map, assuming Forbes survives the redraw until then, which is a big assumption, and the blacks get another seat, while the new seat is tilt Dem, but doing that makes the 4th Nova CD safe Pub, while at the moment, absent the talented incumbent Pub, it's under risk. That is the kind of map the politicians like and understand, presents not much risk, keeps the incumbents happy, and for the new seat, it is close to a fair fight. That is what in my world is called a saleable compromise map. If the Court follows the Muon2 map, you suddenly have a host of marginal CD's, inconveniencing and terrifying a host of politicians, and I doubt either party will be pleased with that. They would rather divide the spoils in a more predictable manner.

Incidentally, the district court has ordered the parties to hold a conference call to talk about appointing a special master, and suggesting possible experts. Maybe Mike will be made the expert.

It is an odd situation with the parties. The Commonwealth as represented by McAuliffe and a Democratic AG probably want a whole new map. I think McAuliffe may have engineered the senate's adjournment. The Republican's congressmen are intervenors - but it is to been how much deference a court will give to their interests. Do they have a 4th Amendment right to their seats?

BTW, the federal court in Alabama has ordered the plaintiffs to prepare a map that complies with the standards used by the legislature, in particular the 1% maximum deviation.

[jimrtex]

You may have detected me cringing when I wrote about the use of the ferry in my VA map. I only relented in an apples to apples comparison with your work and jimrtex's comments. I'll be happy to return to the stricter rules for connectivity.

It would be reasonable to apportion districts among larger UCC's, and smaller UCC's and non-UCC's, and not require contiguity, but merely proximity.

[jimrtex]

     I am not sure I understand Jimtex's comment. What does proximity versus contiguity mean? How is proximity defined if you can spread outside the UCC within a proximate zone with penalty, if that is the drift here?

Based on 2010 numbers the:

NOVA UCC is equivalent to 3.53 districts.
Hampton Roads UCC 2.14
Richmond 1.46
remainder of state 3.86

So we draw 4 districts outside the UCC. Two districts in Hampton Roads, 3 in NOVA, 1 in Richmond, and a district have in NOVA and half in Richmond.  If we want a bit better population equality we trim
a small part off Hampton Roads and add it to the remainder of the state.

The Delmarva Peninsula is not contiguous with the rest of the state, so we use proximity to jump across Chesapeake Bay.

[jimrtex]

MN was a state on the bubble to lose a seat in 2010, but they dodged a bullet and kept 8. The forecast for 2020 is that MN will lose a seat, though they are still on the bubble. I'll assume they drop to 7 as I use the 2014 data to project county totals in 2020.

The Twin Cities UCC will have about 4 1/4 seats in a seven seat map. This plan preserves the cover count of that UCC and keeps deviations within 5%. The Minneapolis area (orange) has 2 districts.

How close to the cusp vis a vis the population projections is the map below in play as between the blue and teal CD's, which has less erosity I wonder. In both maps, MN-01 moves discernibly more Pub, but it moves more in that direction in the map below.

Your line is definitely better on the erosity measure by 2 (6 vs 8 on the CD1-CD6 line). I drew it that way to better spread the inequality. My projections for CD1+CD6 are that they are about 20K short of the quota. My split left CD1 under by 7K and CD6 under by 13K. Your split puts CD1 over by 9K and CD6 under by 30K. However CD3+5 is over by 33K so you could just chop into Anoka or Hennepin to reduce inequality. Similarly CD4 is 21K to high and CD2 is 24K too low, so a chop into Washington would be required.

Is it possible to get all of the Red River into a single district?

The current 5:3 split requires inclusion of St. Cloud into the metro area. In a 4:3 split, St. Cloud goes back to the outstate districts, and logically goes to the western district, which will have to make up population to the southern district.

[jimrtex]

Even if SKEW and POLARIZATION were used to contrast against EROSITY, I don't think it would do much good in states like RI and MA. INEQUALITY is the only game left in town.

Yes, of course, and it turned out to be that way in NH, using standardized metrics, rather than custom metrics developed by your creative little mind. RI is losing a seat, so the map there should be really easy to draw in any event.

Mass counties seem to have functions too by the way. I came across that trying to check on the demographics of Lincoln in connection with how rich places vote.

Most counties in Massachusetts have been abolished, except in the southeast. Middlesex is no more. Barnstable has a county government and weighted voting. There are some residual functions such as courts organized on a county basis. Legislative districts include the name of the old counties.

The census bureau likes to make everything consistent. That is why there are CCD in areas of the country that have no governmental purpose or local recognition. They continue to use the old Massachusetts counties, so that it might appear that Lincoln is among the wealthier towns of "Middlesex County".

Historically, census-defined metropolitan areas in New England were based on towns. For statistical purposes they defined the equivalent of MSAs in in New England based on county units.

In 2000 when they changed the definition of metropolitan areas to be based on urban areas, they decided to make MSA's the standard throughout the country, while retaining the town-based areas in New England as an alternative.

NECTA have the same problem as MSA in that the underlying urban areas are chopped on old delineations. As you know census urban areas are based on continuous dense settlement. If you used that definiition, you could end up with the Bosnywash Urban Area. In New England, it appears they chopped urban areas based on pre-2000 metropolitan areas.

In some areas, these are simply wrong. The boundary between Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT is well south of the state line, while commuting patterns are almost identical to the state line. I think there is one town in Massachusetts that has dominant commuting to the north.

I started working on a commuter-based definition for Connecticut but never finished.

[jimrtex]

His speech was brilliant, well crafted, district specific, and politically smart - small farms, home health care for a population losing area filled with seniors (10 years older than the average for the nation), internet broad band, bipartisan, working with Republicans on issues where it was realistic to get stuff passed, and so forth. He was happy to see me. I suggested on the broad band issue, that he get in touch with some incumbent Congressmen for both parties, to get an idea of what the obstacles are, and why this has not been pushed by rural Pub Congresspersons, so he can get more specific, and show by his actions, that he can actually make his approach work. It's a big issue, because the economics of the region, and higher paying jobs, are all about using the internet, and working from home, or a small business. And the service sucks, and is driving folks crazy. My cousin is really frustrated, and has found all three currently available options unsatisfactory.

The last Labor government in Australia was a coalition government, that needed to pick up a few extra MPs. They got a few Independent Nationalist, or perhaps even Independent Country MPs on the issue of broadband for the Outback.

I also chatted with the former Hudson Common Council President about the weighted voting issue, and laid out my strategy, and what needs to be done when, to whom. He thought it a good approach.  

They really ought to fix the current weights. The current weights are clearly in violation of equal protection, and probably due process.

The county ought to junk the adjusted weighting, and go with simple weighting, with two supervisors elected from Kinderhook and Hudson.

[jimrtex]

The Home Rule Law does not allow the weights to be corrected except by referendum. The county can for supervisors, but the city cannot for aldermen. It's a gap in the law, because the law was not written contemplating cities having weighted voting. So the weighed votes cannot be changed by a mere Council vote. When they did that in 2013, it was illegal. Much of what Hudson does is illegal. That era is now coming to an end. That's what happens when pushy lawyers with too much time on their hands come to town.

MHR § 10.1.a.(13)(c) applies generally.

A change in weighting does not count under the once-in-a-decade rule.

The change to the board of supervisors will count since it remove several of the supervisors from Hudson.

[jimrtex]

The Home Rule Law does not allow the weights to be corrected except by referendum. The county can for supervisors, but the city cannot for aldermen. It's a gap in the law, because the law was not written contemplating cities having weighted voting. So the weighed votes cannot be changed by a mere Council vote. When they did that in 2013, it was illegal. Much of what Hudson does is illegal. That era is now coming to an end. That's what happens when pushy lawyers with too much time on their hands come to town.

MHR § 10.1.a.(13)(c) applies generally.

A change in weighting does not count under the once-in-a-decade rule.

The change to the board of supervisors will count since it remove several of the supervisors from Hudson.

Correct as to your first sentence, but it still needs a referendum. That's the rub. The supervisor thing has its own dynamic.

I just realized that MHR § 10.1.a.(1) forbids a city from changing the duties of city officials acting in their capacity as county officers (eg supervisors elected from Hudson).

Hudson can not change the districts from which supervisors are elected from.

When Mayor Hallenback vetoed the proposed referendum on changing the ward boundaries, he suggested that a more thorough investigation of possible reforms would be in order. The new mayor should appoint such a committee and name Moore and Hallenback as co-chairs. Ideally, the county would appoint a similar committee to act concurrently.

[jimrtex]

Much of what Hudson does is illegal. That era is now coming to an end. That's what happens when pushy lawyers with too much time on their hands come to town.

The ghost of Thomas Dewey?

[jimrtex]

"I just realized that MHR § 10.1.a.(1) forbids a city from changing the duties of city officials acting in their capacity as county officers (eg supervisors elected from Hudson).

Hudson can not change the districts from which supervisors are elected from."

Not sure why one follows from the other. In any event, assuming that the supervisors number remains at five from Hudson, as opposed to some other number, are you saying that the now illegal supervisor lines cannot be changed with County approval?

They are city officers who also have a county capacity. In their county capacity they represent their ward, and their voting weight is set accordingly. It makes no sense for Hudson to have five supervisors, and the larger Kinderhook to have but one.

[jimrtex]

"I just realized that MHR § 10.1.a.(1) forbids a city from changing the duties of city officials acting in their capacity as county officers (eg supervisors elected from Hudson).

Hudson can not change the districts from which supervisors are elected from."

Not sure why one follows from the other. In any event, assuming that the supervisors number remains at five from Hudson, as opposed to some other number, are you saying that the now illegal supervisor lines cannot be changed with County approval?

They are city officers who also have a county capacity. In their county capacity they represent their ward, and their voting weight is set accordingly. It makes no sense for Hudson to have five supervisors, and the larger Kinderhook to have but one.

Now it doesn't, but inasmuch for doing next to no work, the pay is more than 3 times that of an alderperson, that means 4 extra sinecures for Hudson politicians, and so we love it.

One thing I am wondering about, is if County approval is needed to change the number of supervisors in Hudson. I called the county counsel, and he did not know. I do know the county code says there are 23 supervisors, implying that County approval is needed. The county laws are not codified in any organized manner other than chronologically as to when adopted, in a stack sitting in the office of the county clerk, so it's basically chaos. There is a plot afoot to cut the number of wards down to three.

It is possible that the board of supervisors is organized under state law for county government, and not a "county legislative body".

Historically, the board of supervisors consisted of the town supervisors and supervisors elected from each city ward. The city charter was granted by the state legislature, and any changes to the city charter were made by the legislature. The current ward boundaries were set by the legislature, and the legislature controlled the organization of the board of supervisors. When the 5th ward was added, that in effect was a decision by the legislature to also expand the board of supervisors.

Since then, the city charter has been repatriated to cities.

But home rule authority has been granted to counties, even though they might not have charters. Counties may adopt charters, but are not required to do so. Many counties have switched to legislatures in which legislators are elected from districts. Clearly they are responsible for defining the size of the legislature and the districts.

And Columbia County has used local laws when changing voting weights, that to me look a lot like when other counties change their legislative district boundaries as far as form.

There is also the two hat provision of the MHR law. In one of the state court decisions, before Abate v Mundt switched over to federal court, Rockland County was required to elect legislators independently of their town duties, but could elect persons who were town supervisors as legislatures (ie a person could run for and be elected to two offices). The SCOTUS seemed to think that this meant that town supervisors were automatically legislators from the towns.

OK, I just read through some of the initial sections of the County Law (CNT).

There is some language about counties being able to supersede provisions of County Law, but it doesn't appear that this is required. There is also a statement that when a county adopts an alternative form of government such as county legislature, that references in the County Law that refer to the Board of Supervisors, also apply to the alternative governmental body. And it also defines the form of a board of supervisors as being the supervisors from the cities and towns of the county.

So maybe Columbia County is operating under County Law, with only the adjustment in voting weights. Some town supervisors in Columbia are elected to four-year terms, which also means that they are members of the board of supervisors for four year terms.

It just seems inverted for the city to be dictating the form of county government.