Talk Elections

Hello, I am new to this website. I hope it will be of help.

I am doing a study on ways to redo the current American system of living. I've done a thorough search, but am unable to find the results from the 2010 Census. If someone knows where I can find this information, and direct me there, it would be much appreciated. Thank you and good luck.

-TheVeritas

It hasn't been released yet. I think the first batches of data will come out in mid-December.

The state apportionments will be released before the end of this year. The redistricting data will be released during the first three months of 2011, completed by the end of March.

I can't wait for the apportionment data !

Well, I think now it should be high time to get the apportionment figures.

not long now, but they still have until the end of the month.

It will be released in exactly 1 week:

()

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/interactivemap.php

Can anyone please sticky this ?

"Fulfilling its constitutional mandate, the U.S. Census Bureau will release the first set of 2010 Census data at a news conference Tuesday, Dec. 21 at 11 a.m. EST at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

The 2010 Census data to be released include the resident population for the nation and the states as well as the congressional apportionment totals for each state. The law requires the Census Bureau to report these results to the President by Dec. 31."

Oh, and move it to the demographics board maybe?

Please No, it gets more attention here !

Keep it please here for at least 1 month, then move it.

What information will be released in the 2010 census that was not released in the 2000 census and visa versa?

Hey, that's an awesome birthday present for them to give me! ;D

Here are the calculated April 1, 2010 benchmark numbers for comparison purposes:

Column 1 = April 1, 2010 population
Column 2 =  July 1, 2009 population
Column 3 =  July 1, 2008 population
Column 4 = Population growth between July 2008 and July 2009
Column 5 = Percentage growth between July 2008 and July 2009
Column 6 = Population growth between 2008 and 2009 * 0.75 to project April 1, 2000 population
Column 7 = 2000 Census Count
Column 8 = Population growth between 2000 Census and projected 2010 Census count

()

Do you think there will be big errors relative to Mid-2009 estimates ?

Here's a quick overview of CB estimate errors in the 2000 Census:

Percentage Error (Estimates vs. Census Count by state):

()

Numerical Error (Estimates vs. Census Count by state):

()

I guess the county and city data will be released sometime next year ?

The census bureau will release (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/) the apportionment data on Dec 21. The press conference (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/cb10-cn92.html) will be at 11 am EST.

At round about what pop. figure would RI lose/MT regain its second seat?

assuming 309 mil. total population of 50 states, divided by 435 seats would mean 1 seat per approx. 760 K, so I would guess 1.04 mil would be the threshold for rounding up or down.

For 309M an average seat is 710K, not 760K.  Cutoff line between 1 and 2 seats using the current method is approximately √2 of a seat or 1004K.  However, because people living in the territories and DC, as well as some people overseas don't count in the apportionment population, the apportionment population will be less than the overall population by several millions, so the cutoff will be around 990K instead.

So RI is not in danger (yet) and MT will likely lose out fairly narrowly for the third time in a row?

 Headline:  New Population Count May Complicate Obama 2012 Bid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101219/ap_on_el_ge/us_census_redistricting)

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Charles Babington, Associated Press – Sun Dec 19, 11:21 am ET

WASHINGTON – The 2010 census report coming out Tuesday will include a boatload of good political news for Republicans and grim data for Democrats hoping to re-elect President Barack Obama and rebound from last month's devastating elections.

It will be released February 2010.

Tomorrow... :D

Redistricting data, ie data from the full census at the block level, must be released by Mar 31, 2011. Historically, the Census rolls out the data state-by-state over the spans of a few weeks before the deadline. Currently they show that as happening from Feb-Mar 2011. County and city data are built up from the block data.

Should this be moved to Muon's newly upgraded board?

Well, there will probably be something surprising.

So H-5:15 ?

Absolutely.

I think there might be a few surprising results.

I wrote a congressional apportionment program, which stands ready to plug in the final numbers when made available.

By my own population estimates, here are the final 10 seats:

Seat #426:   Texas (35)               Priority:   732,184
Seat #427:   Alabama (7)             Priority:   731,513
Seat #428:   California (52)          Priority:   724,203
Seat #429:   Pennsylvania (18)    Priority:   722,748
Seat #430:   South Carolina (7)   Priority:   714,149
Seat #431:   Arizona (10)             Priority:   714,054
Seat #432:   New York (28)          Priority:   712,863
Seat #433:   Washington (10)     Priority:   712,175
Seat #434:   Texas (36)               Priority:   711,554
Seat #435:   Missouri (9)              Priority:   710,867

...and here are the first 10 that don't make the cut:

Seat #436:   California (53)        Priority:   710,408
Seat #437:   Florida (27)              Priority:   710,227
Seat #438:   Minnesota (8 )         Priority:   708,831
Seat #439:   North Carolina (14)  Priority:   707,359
Seat #440:   Oregon (6)               Priority:   707,156
Seat #441:   Illinois (19)               Priority:   701,047
Seat #442:   Ohio (17)                  Priority:   701,021
Seat #443:   New Jersey (13)       Priority:   699,490
Seat #444:   Massachusetts (10) Priority:   697,903
Seat #445:   California (54)          Priority:   697,128


Stay tuned...

Love,
Your friendly neighborhood Beef.

its almost time!

Wow, they are milking the nation's attention for all it is worth. Locke is lashing out at people who predicted budget overruns and failure by boasting of what a good job they did.

I'll post numbers as he says them.

Blah blah we are so awesome at censusing blah blah

im watching it now too... shut up and give us the numbers

...attentive silence...

and we wait..... and wait..

He just thanked all of us. You're welcome!

Data geeks all over the country are going Showtime at the Apollo on Gary Locke. "Boooo... get off the stage!!"

So ?

I'll post info as soon as they release it. So far it is all congratulations, thanks, and Why the Census Matters.

So why does it matter?

...
Do you have a link in which I can see it live ?

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/

Did you all really expect a release at 11:00 AM?

Yes, Sam, you're very smart.

These people really like talking.

308,745,538

9.7% growth

U.S. population as of April 1, 2000: 281,421,906
U.S. population as of April 1, 2010: 308,745,538 (+9.7%)

(claps for breeding, unnecessary pause)

Not really - rather bureaucrats are rather predictable.  :)

How does this compare with estimates?

Marginally below estimates.

NV: 35.1% growth.
MI: decline of 0.6%

Funny how I twice came up against "new reply" thingies, but the second asked the question I was going to answer anyways.

Regions. NY. 2.1%. MN 7.8%! 8 seats I assume.

This isn't wikileaks. They don't just dump their data. Enjoy the suspense.

AZ 1
FL 2
GA 1
NV 1
SC 1
TX 4
UT 1
WA 1

Thanks. :D

If only this damn like could load... :(

IL 1
IA 1
LA 1
MA 1
MI 1
MI 1
NJ 1
NY 2 !!!!!
OH 2
PA 1

House apportionment:

AZ +1
FL +2
GA +1
NV +1
SC +1
TX +4
UT +1
WA +1

Losing (-1 unless noted): IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, MO, NJ, NY (-2), OH, PA

Texas +4 ?! Holy sh*t. :(

Ok, turning off the tv.

First time ever California didn't gain.

It all depends on how CA, FL, MO, and TX do.  My numbers have those four, plus MN, duking it out for the final two seats.

NC and OR and also in the running.  We'll see when we get actual numbers.

OH -1 or -2? I thought it was -2.

Now I want the total figures per state.

Wait... AZ+1 only, and FL+2 ?

And how the hell did Ohio lose only one seat !!!

NYC area reps are not gonna be happy tomorrow.  Missouri lost a seat?  Everything else looks about as expected.  Ohio was supposed to lose 2, what's the story there?

They were lucky not to lose a seat.

I think it's two.

Yeah, AZ+1 is the most obviously surprising thing here.

I'll have the actual apportionment once I get real numbers.  I can also tell you how many more people each state needed to gain/keep a seat.

...simply because the totals don't add up otherwise.

Memo to census guy: alaska wasn't a state in 1910.

I've been trying to post "OH -2"* for several minutes but people keep posting first :P

Yay Minnesota!  You can hang in there! :D

Not that surprising to me.  By my estimated population numbers I had the LAST FIVE seats going as follows:


Arizona           10th    +2
New York        28th   -1
Washington    10th  +1
Texas              36th  +4
Missouri          9th  

The NEXT FIVE were as such:

California           53rd
Florida               27th +2
Minnesota         8th
North Carolina   14th +1
Oregon              6th +1

So three "errors" (AZ, NY, MO vs CA, FL, MN) but all in the top five, or is anything else wrong? Still makes Arizona the most surprising.

So Ohio lost 1 or 2 ? ???

OK, does anyone have the exact figures ?

It depends on a lot of factors, like how much population movement there was in the past year, how much of it was unexpected, and so forth.  Also, my numbers were based solely on estimates, whereas the final results are an actual headcount (or as close to a headcount as we can come).

The estimates for Arizona and New York were obviously high.

Once I have solid numbers, I will let you know how many people each state needed for its next seat.  Between those last few seats, it will be really close.  A few thousand people, or maybe even under a thousand.

In 2000, UT was only a few hundred people away from getting the last seat, which went to NC instead.

Go on there website its there

Check out the data: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

Illinois had a BETTER chance of keeping ALL its seats than Ohio had of losing only one.  My numbers had them getting seat #442 to go -1.

Brutal!

Gotta get lunch, then I'll try to get some apportionment order and other info for y'all.

Are you seeing 2010 data there? It still looks like it hasn't been loaded.

North Carolina grew faster then GA, that is shocking

Click any of the "View as html" links.

EV totals (when someone gets makes a pretty map).  House reps = -2, except for DC

AK 3
AL 9
AR 6
AZ 11 (+1)
CA 55
CO 9
CT 7
DC 3
DE 3
FL 29 (+2)
GA 16 (+1)
HI 4
IA 6 (-1)
ID 4
IL 20 (-1)
IN 11
KS 6
KY 8
LA 8 (-1)
MA 11 (-1)
MD 10
ME 4
MI 16 (-1)
MN 10
MO 10 (-1)
MS 6
MT 3
NC 15
ND 3
NE 5
NH 4
NJ 14 (-1)
NM 5
NV 6 (+1)
NY 29 (-2)
OH 18 (-2)
OK 7
OR 7
PA 20 (-1)
RI 4
SC 9 (+1)
SD 3
TN 11
TX 38 (+4)
UT 6 (+1)
VA 13
VT 3
WA 12 (+1)
WI 10
WV 5
WY 3

Still not updated.

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-data-text.php

North Carolina was the next in line to gain seat

Whoa, Mass. still has more people than Arizona. I think AZ had passed Mass. or come close to it in estimates recently.

North Carolina was the 6th fasting growing state.

So that's :
- TX +4
- FL +2
- AZ, GA, NV, SC, UT, WA +1
- IA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MO, NJ, PA -1
- NY, OH -2

Just click on the links under "view as HTML" or "download as CSV".  All the data is there.

Surprises are :
- Texas (should have gained 3)
- Florida (should have gained 1)
- Arizona (should have gained 2)
- Minnesota (should have lost 1)
- New York (should have lost 1)
- Missouri (should have stayed the same)

Pennsylvania has lost seats in every reapportionment.

()

This is the new map

LAST TEN SEATS:
Seat #426: Texas 35 (+3)              Priority: 728,933
Seat #427: Pennsylvania 18 (-1)   Priority: 726,147
Seat #428: California 52 (-1)         Priority: 723,412
Seat #429: Georgia 14 (+1)           Priority: 718,097
Seat #430: South Carolina 7 (+1)  Priority: 713,709
Seat #431: California 53 (nc)         Priority: 709,631
Seat #432: Florida 27 (+2)            Priority: 709,610
Seat #433: Washington 10 (+1)   Priority: 708,829
Seat #434: Minnesota 8 (nc)         Priority: 708,767
Seat #435: Texas 36 (+4)             Priority: 708,396

NEXT TEN SEATS
Seat #436: North Carolina 14 (+1)  Priority: 706,817
Seat #437: Missouri 9 (nc)               Priority: 705,802
Seat #438: New York 28 (-1)           Priority: 704,775
Seat #439: New Jersey 13 (nc)       Priority: 703,915
Seat #440: Montana 2 (+1)             Priority: 699,622
Seat #441: Louisiana 7 (nc)            Priority: 699,514
Seat #442: Ohio 17 (-1)                  Priority: 699,503
Seat #443: Oregon 6 (+1)              Priority: 699,455
Seat #444: Virginia 12 (+1)            Priority: 696,400
Seat #445: California 54 (+1)         Priority: 696,366

With a tied Popular vote, Obama leads McCain 272/266.

Here's the total apportionment run:


Seat #51: California 2
Seat #52: Texas 2
Seat #53: California 3
Seat #54: New York 2
Seat #55: Florida 2
Seat #56: California 4
Seat #57: Texas 3
Seat #58: Illinois 2
Seat #59: Pennsylvania 2
Seat #60: California 5
Seat #61: Ohio 2
Seat #62: New York 3
Seat #63: Florida 3
Seat #64: Texas 4
Seat #65: Michigan 2
Seat #66: Georgia 2
Seat #67: California 6
Seat #68: North Carolina 2
Seat #69: New Jersey 2
Seat #70: California 7
Seat #71: Virginia 2
Seat #72: Texas 5
Seat #73: New York 4
Seat #74: Florida 4
Seat #75: Illinois 3
Seat #76: Pennsylvania 3
Seat #77: California 8
Seat #78: Washington 2
Seat #79: Ohio 3
Seat #80: Massachusetts 2
Seat #81: Texas 6
Seat #82: Indiana 2
Seat #83: Arizona 2
Seat #84: Tennessee 2
Seat #85: California 9
Seat #86: New York 5
Seat #87: Missouri 2
Seat #88: Florida 5
Seat #89: Maryland 2
Seat #90: Michigan 3
Seat #91: Wisconsin 2
Seat #92: Georgia 3
Seat #93: California 10
Seat #94: North Carolina 3
Seat #95: Texas 7
Seat #96: Minnesota 2
Seat #97: Illinois 4
Seat #98: Pennsylvania 4
Seat #99: New Jersey 3
Seat #100: Colorado 2
Seat #101: California 11
Seat #102: New York 6
Seat #103: Florida 6
Seat #104: Alabama 2
Seat #105: Texas 8
Seat #106: Ohio 4
Seat #107: South Carolina 2
Seat #108: Virginia 3
Seat #109: California 12
Seat #110: Louisiana 2
Seat #111: Kentucky 2
Seat #112: New York 7
Seat #113: California 13
Seat #114: Texas 9
Seat #115: Florida 7
Seat #116: Illinois 5
Seat #117: Michigan 4
Seat #118: Pennsylvania 5
Seat #119: Georgia 4
Seat #120: California 14
Seat #121: North Carolina 4
Seat #122: Washington 3
Seat #123: Oregon 2
Seat #124: Massachusetts 3
Seat #125: Oklahoma 2
Seat #126: Texas 10
Seat #127: Indiana 3
Seat #128: Arizona 3
Seat #129: Tennessee 3
Seat #130: New York 8
Seat #131: Ohio 5
Seat #132: California 15
Seat #133: New Jersey 4
Seat #134: Connecticut 2
Seat #135: Florida 8
Seat #136: Missouri 3
Seat #137: California 16
Seat #138: Texas 11
Seat #139: Maryland 3
Seat #140: Illinois 6
Seat #141: Wisconsin 3
Seat #142: Pennsylvania 6
Seat #143: Virginia 4
Seat #144: New York 9
Seat #145: California 17
Seat #146: Florida 9
Seat #147: Michigan 5
Seat #148: Texas 12
Seat #149: Georgia 5
Seat #150: Minnesota 3
Seat #151: Iowa 2
Seat #152: North Carolina 5
Seat #153: California 18
Seat #154: Ohio 6
Seat #155: Mississippi 2
Seat #156: Arkansas 2
Seat #157: Colorado 3
Seat #158: New York 10
Seat #159: Kansas 2
Seat #160: California 19
Seat #161: Texas 13
Seat #162: Florida 10
Seat #163: Illinois 7
Seat #164: New Jersey 5
Seat #165: Pennsylvania 7
Seat #166: Utah 2
Seat #167: Alabama 3
Seat #168: Washington 4
Seat #169: California 20
Seat #170: Nevada 2
Seat #171: Massachusetts 4
Seat #172: South Carolina 3
Seat #173: Indiana 4
Seat #174: Texas 14
Seat #175: Louisiana 3
Seat #176: New York 11
Seat #177: Arizona 4
Seat #178: Tennessee 4
Seat #179: California 21
Seat #180: Michigan 6
Seat #181: Florida 11
Seat #182: Virginia 5
Seat #183: Ohio 7
Seat #184: Kentucky 3
Seat #185: Georgia 6
Seat #186: North Carolina 6
Seat #187: Texas 15
Seat #188: California 22
Seat #189: Missouri 4
Seat #190: Illinois 8
Seat #191: Pennsylvania 8
Seat #192: New York 12
Seat #193: Maryland 4
Seat #194: California 23
Seat #195: Wisconsin 4
Seat #196: Florida 12
Seat #197: Texas 16
Seat #198: New Jersey 6
Seat #199: California 24
Seat #200: Oregon 3
Seat #201: New York 13
Seat #202: Ohio 8
Seat #203: Oklahoma 3
Seat #204: Minnesota 4
Seat #205: Michigan 7
Seat #206: Texas 17
Seat #207: California 25
Seat #208: Illinois 9
Seat #209: Florida 13
Seat #210: Washington 5
Seat #211: Pennsylvania 9
Seat #212: Georgia 7
Seat #213: North Carolina 7
Seat #214: Massachusetts 5
Seat #215: California 26
Seat #216: Virginia 6
Seat #217: Connecticut 3
Seat #218: New Mexico 2
Seat #219: Colorado 4
Seat #220: Indiana 5
Seat #221: Texas 18
Seat #222: New York 14
Seat #223: Arizona 5
Seat #224: Tennessee 5
Seat #225: California 27
Seat #226: Florida 14
Seat #227: Alabama 4
Seat #228: Texas 19
Seat #229: Ohio 9
Seat #230: New Jersey 7
Seat #231: California 28
Seat #232: Illinois 10
Seat #233: Missouri 5
Seat #234: Pennsylvania 10
Seat #235: New York 15
Seat #236: South Carolina 4
Seat #237: Michigan 8
Seat #238: West Virginia 2
Seat #239: Louisiana 4
Seat #240: California 29
Seat #241: Florida 15
Seat #242: Georgia 8
Seat #243: Nebraska 2
Seat #244: Maryland 5
Seat #245: Texas 20
Seat #246: North Carolina 8
Seat #247: Wisconsin 5
Seat #248: California 30
Seat #249: Kentucky 4
Seat #250: New York 16
Seat #251: Iowa 3
Seat #252: Virginia 7
Seat #253: Washington 6
Seat #254: Texas 21
Seat #255: Illinois 11
Seat #256: California 31
Seat #257: Ohio 10
Seat #258: Florida 16
Seat #259: Mississippi 3
Seat #260: Pennsylvania 11
Seat #261: Massachusetts 6
Seat #262: Arkansas 3
Seat #263: Minnesota 5
Seat #264: Indiana 6
Seat #265: California 32
Seat #266: New York 17
Seat #267: New Jersey 8
Seat #268: Texas 22
Seat #269: Arizona 6
Seat #270: Michigan 9
Seat #271: Kansas 3
Seat #272: Tennessee 6
Seat #273: California 33
Seat #274: Georgia 9
Seat #275: Florida 17
Seat #276: Utah 3
Seat #277: Colorado 5
Seat #278: North Carolina 9
Seat #279: Texas 23
Seat #280: Illinois 12
Seat #281: California 34
Seat #282: Idaho 2
Seat #283: New York 18
Seat #284: Oregon 4
Seat #285: Pennsylvania 12
Seat #286: Nevada 3
Seat #287: Ohio 11
Seat #288: Missouri 6
Seat #289: Oklahoma 4
Seat #290: California 35
Seat #291: Florida 18
Seat #292: Texas 24
Seat #293: Virginia 8
Seat #294: Alabama 5
Seat #295: Maryland 6
Seat #296: California 36
Seat #297: New York 19
Seat #298: Michigan 10
Seat #299: Wisconsin 6
Seat #300: Washington 7
Seat #301: New Jersey 9
Seat #302: South Carolina 5
Seat #303: Connecticut 4
Seat #304: Illinois 13
Seat #305: Texas 25
Seat #306: Georgia 10
Seat #307: California 37
Seat #308: Pennsylvania 13
Seat #309: Florida 19
Seat #310: Louisiana 5
Seat #311: Massachusetts 7
Seat #312: North Carolina 10
Seat #313: Ohio 12
Seat #314: Indiana 7
Seat #315: New York 20
Seat #316: California 38
Seat #317: Arizona 7
Seat #318: Texas 26
Seat #319: Tennessee 7
Seat #320: Kentucky 5
Seat #321: Minnesota 6
Seat #322: California 39
Seat #323: Florida 20
Seat #324: Hawaii 2
Seat #325: Illinois 14
Seat #326: Texas 27
Seat #327: New York 21
Seat #328: California 40
Seat #329: Virginia 9
Seat #330: Michigan 11
Seat #331: Pennsylvania 14
Seat #332: Maine 2
Seat #333: New Hampshire 2
Seat #334: New Jersey 10
Seat #335: Missouri 7
Seat #336: Georgia 11
Seat #337: Ohio 13
Seat #338: California 41
Seat #339: Colorado 6
Seat #340: Florida 21
Seat #341: Texas 28
Seat #342: North Carolina 11
Seat #343: New York 22
Seat #344: Washington 8
Seat #345: California 42
Seat #346: Maryland 7
Seat #347: Illinois 15
Seat #348: Texas 29
Seat #349: Iowa 4 (-1)
Seat #350: Wisconsin 7
Seat #351: California 43
Seat #352: Pennsylvania 15
Seat #353: Massachusetts 8
Seat #354: Florida 22
Seat #355: Alabama 6
Seat #356: Indiana 8
Seat #357: New York 23
Seat #358: Michigan 12
Seat #359: Oregon 5
Seat #360: Mississippi 4
Seat #361: California 44
Seat #362: Ohio 14
Seat #363: Arizona 8
Seat #364: Texas 30
Seat #365: Tennessee 8
Seat #366: South Carolina 6
Seat #367: Virginia 10
Seat #368: Georgia 12
Seat #369: Arkansas 4
Seat #370: New Mexico 3
Seat #371: Oklahoma 5
Seat #372: New Jersey 11
Seat #373: California 45
Seat #374: Florida 23
Seat #375: North Carolina 12
Seat #376: Illinois 16
Seat #377: Louisiana 6 (-1)
Seat #378: New York 24
Seat #379: Texas 31
Seat #380: Kansas 4
Seat #381: Pennsylvania 16
Seat #382: California 46
Seat #383: Minnesota 7
Seat #384: California 47
Seat #385: Missouri 8 (-1)
Seat #386: Florida 24
Seat #387: Connecticut 5
Seat #388: Texas 32
Seat #389: Utah 4 (+1)
Seat #390: Ohio 15
Seat #391: Washington 9
Seat #392: Kentucky 6
Seat #393: Michigan 13
Seat #394: New York 25
Seat #395: California 48
Seat #396: Nevada 4 (+1)
Seat #397: Illinois 17
Seat #398: Colorado 7
Seat #399: Georgia 13
Seat #400: Texas 33 (+1)
Seat #401: Massachusetts 9 (-1)
Seat #402: Maryland 8
Seat #403: Pennsylvania 17
Seat #404: California 49
Seat #405: Florida 25
Seat #406: New Jersey 12 (-1)
Seat #407: Indiana 9
Seat #408: North Carolina 13
Seat #409: Virginia 11
Seat #410: New York 26
Seat #411: Wisconsin 8
Seat #412: West Virginia 3
Seat #413: Arizona 9 (+1)
Seat #414: California 50
Seat #415: Texas 34 (+2)
Seat #416: Tennessee 9
Seat #417: Nebraska 3
Seat #418: Ohio 16 (-2)
Seat #419: Rhode Island 2
Seat #420: California 51
Seat #421: Alabama 7
Seat #422: Florida 26 (+1)
Seat #423: Illinois 18 (-1)
Seat #424: Michigan 14 (-1)
Seat #425: New York 27 (-2)
Seat #426: Texas 35 (+3)
Seat #427: Pennsylvania 18 (-1)
Seat #428: California 52
Seat #429: Georgia 14 (+1)
Seat #430: South Carolina 7 (+1)
Seat #431: California 53
Seat #432: Florida 27 (+2)
Seat #433: Washington 10 (+1)
Seat #434: Minnesota 8
Seat #435: Texas 36 (+4)

Oo

I made this list for the 2000 census and it took me a couple of weeks !

So who is the biggest loser of today's numbers?  I nominate Russ Carnahan. 

I code for a living :).

Never used the POI spreadsheet library in Java before.  That took the most time.  But now I know something new :D.

Losers in 2020:

AL, IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA,

Possible:

NE, NJ, PA(2), RI, WV, WI

The small losers would be ranked WV, RI, NE in terms of likelihood of losing seats.

Gainers in 2020:

AZ, CO, FL, GA, NC, OR, TX(3)

Possible:

ID, UT, VA

It could end up based on whether ID surpasses NE in population (this is a necessary condition for ID to gain a seat, and NE to lose a seat, but it is not a sufficient condition).

State closest to gaining a another seat

1. Montana (needed 12,409 more people)
2. North Carolina (21,301 short)
3. Missouri (22,012 short)
4. Oregon (48,971 short)
5. New Jersey (about 56,000)
6. Louisiana (about 58,000)
7. New York (almost 100,000 short)

I believe all other states would need population pickups of more than 100,000.

Some NYC area Dem rep is also royally f-ed today.  Which one do you think it will be?  Most likely Ackerman, Maloney or Crowley, based on previous talk.

Yes; my vote's on Ackerman.

Long time no see Beef :)

The closest margin any state had in earning a seat was Minnesota.  By my calculation, they were 14,977 people above the threshold needed to keep their 8th seat.  Otherwise they would have lost that seat to North Carolina.

There's nothing in these results that will be challenged, I think.  Pretty clear cut.  It's not like in 2000 when we had a razor-thin margin between UT and NC for the last seat.

So Michigan lost population and Rhode Island almost did (+0.4%).  DC gained population for the first time since the 1950 census.  And Texas gained as many residents in the last decade as live in a state like Louisiana or Kentucky.


From a map drawing aesthetics perspective, it should be Engel in NY-17.  His district is the ugliest (other than Velasquez' NY-12, which won't be axed due to racial reasons).  There's no reason at all why the Bronx should share a district with Rockland County.

Obviously, the other dead district is going to have to come from Upstate.  NY-23 is probably most vulnerable to being carved up due to likely population loss and the sheer size of it.

Yo, yo, still keepin' it real in tha hoosier state.

It looks like a net six vote loss to Obama in the Electoral College over 2008.

Yes. Also true with a tied popular vote.

I had a slightly difference sequence from you. Did you use resident or apportionment population? Apportionment population is larger and includes overseas military and government personnel.

#431 FL 27 (713.4 K)
#432 WA 10 (711.9 K)
#433 TX 36 (711.9 K)
#434 CA 53 (711.3 K)
#435 MN 8 (710.2)

#436 NC 14 (709.1 K)
#437 MO 9 (708.5 K)
#438 NY 28 (706.3 K)
#439 NJ 13 (705.2 K)
#440 MT 2 (703.2 K)

Just saw the results, but don't have a lot of time for analysis because I´m off to work:

()

The green states had larger numerical gains this decade than in the 90s.

Obama loses a net 6 EV in 2012.

I´m really surprised that the overall figure is not higher, maybe the 2000 Census was a slight overcount.

It also looks like states who had high (or higher compared with 2000) mail-in participation have better growth than other states (see North Carolina or Texas).

More later.

This just makes me sick.

Bizarre fun fact:
In 2000, Gore states lost eight seats, gained one; Bush states lost four seats, gained nine; contested Florida gained two seats.
(CT, 2 NY, 2 PA, IL, MI, WI; CA vs OH, IN, MS, OK; NC, 2 GA, 2 TX, CO, 2 AZ, NV)
In 2010, Gore states lost eight seats, gained one; Bush states lost four seats, gained nine; contested Florida gained two seats.
(MA, 2 NY, NJ, PA, IL, MI, IA; WA vs 2 OH, MO, LA; SC, GA, 4 TX, AZ, UT, NV)

LOL indeed. ;D

For the first time since just about ever, the west was not the fastest-growing region in the US, being overtaken by the south.
Also for the first time since just about ever (if not literally for the first time ever?), the smallest state in the union, which is still Wyoming, won't be the smallest congressional district, as it now has more than half the population of the smallest multi-member state (Rhode Island). It's three EV's are still the cheapest though, of course.

What would the 2020 gains and loses look like if the 00-10 growth numbers are the same for 10-20?

Somewhat of a regional pattern to the states with higher growth in the 2000s than in the 1990s, in fact 5 consecutive states from SC, NC, VA, WV, and PA. Not sure if this is coinidence or not.

Can anyone make a % gain map?

Strong showing by the income tax free states. 

Difficult to declare whether it is a symptom or a cause though.

Comparing  these estimates


to the census results... + means the census found more people. Rounding error possible (I rounded both rows before comparing). Sorted into four groups - major errors and minor errors (defined as over app. 1%) in either direction. Sorted geographically within groups.

Connecticut +44k
North Dakota +22k
Nebraska +18k
West Virginia +30k
Alabama +48k
Wyoming +11k
New Mexico +32k
Nevada +37k
Hawaii +59k

Maine +11k
Vermont +4k
New Jersey +51k
Pennsylvania +68k
Indiana +35k
Wisconsin +12k
Minnesota +11k
Iowa +28k
Kansas +18k
Delaware +6k
Maryland +44k
Virginia +53k
North Carolina +54k
South Carolina +20k
Florida +177k
Kentucky +5k
Tennessee +8k
Mississippi +6k
Arkansas +10k
Louisiana +11k
Oklahoma +32k
Texas +5k
Montana +9k
Idaho +8k
California +6k
Alaska +4k

Rhode Island nailed

New Hampshire -11k
Ohio -17k
Michigan -61k
Missouri -22k
South Dakota -4k
District of Columbia -5k
Washington -13k
Oregon -27k

Massachusetts -83k
New York -219k
Illinois -130k
Georgia -240k
Colorado -63k
Arizona -276k
Utah -63k

though listing Florida's almost 1% underestimate in the same category as the really, really remarkably accurate Texan and Californian estimates feels wrong. There's little rhyme or reason to the list, except for the whopping overestimates. These all come either from stagnant or high growth states, while the solid healthy middling growth type of state was fairly likely to be underestimated.
There are, of course, similarly patterned states without similar problems (cough Texas). Estimates are based on state-provided input, and I suppose the list is mostly an argument for inaccuracy of record-keeping in these states rather than census error.

This is extremely disappointing.  We had the possibility of California increasing its population share while losing representational share, and the snuck through in 434th again.

Lucky Minnestota ! :P

So, the Kerry states+Ohio can no longer win for the Democrats.

True, but that's hardly such a significant combination given that Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado are all equally or more likely to go Democrat than Ohio nowadays (maybe even Virginia could join that list...).

This is the lowest 10-year growth of the US population since the 1930-1940 period and this was with a depression and much lower immigration than now.
It's also the lowest population growth of California, ever.

For example here's the 2008 map with a 3% swing from Democrat to Republican, with the new apportionment:

()

Obama still wins, though frightfully narrowly, but without Ohio.

Actually, he wins even without Virginia.

Virginia and Colorado are more relevant as true swing states these days, while Ohio seems to have drifted right. Also New Mexico is lean Dem even with a tied pv in 2012.

Wonder what the D's and R's bare minimum win is now.

I presume that D's is Kerry + OH + NM/IA.

R's not so sure.

Here are the maps:

()

()

()

I just found out that the US population actually grew by 500.000 more than what was said in the official release.

Why ?

U.S. military and federal civilian employees and their dependents living with them overseas.

This number was much smaller in 2000 than it was in 2010, because the US was not engaged in 2 wars in 2000 like it is now.

Just take a look at this table here, which gives apportionment data for 2010 and 2000:

http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/apport2010_table1.xls

Apportionment population for 2010 was: 309.183.463

Then you have to add D.C. for a total population of 309.785.186

As you can see, in 2010 there were about 1.040.000 Americans overseas in the military.

For 2000, the number was just 574.000 (Apportionment population: 281.424.177+DC, for a total population of 281.996.236)

This means that roughly 500.000 Americans who were counted in the 2000 Census as "residents" where not counted this year because they have migrated overseas for military service.

Assuming growth rates are the same in the next 10 years as they were in the last 10 (big assumption, of course) I calculate:

Gains, in order of priority: NC, AZ, FL, NV, GA, TX (+3), VA, CO.  
possible gains: OR, NC+2, FL +2, ID, MT.  

Losses, in order of certainty: MI, PA, IL, RI, OH, MN, WV, NY (-2), CA.  
possible losses: MI (-2), AL, NE, MA, PA(-2).  

The apportionment population does not include any of D.C.'s data it seems, that's why I have to add the overseas population of D.C. to and then it sums up really well:

2010 Resident Population (incl. DC): 308.745.538
2010 Overseas Population (incl. DC): 1.042.523
2010 Total Population: 309.788.061

2010 Overseas population by state: http://2010.census.gov/news/pdf/apport2010_table3.pdf

2000 Resident Population (incl. DC): 281.421.906
2000 Overseas Population (incl. DC): 576.367
2000 Total Population: 281.998.273

2000 Overseas population by state: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab03.pdf

...

Conclusion: A total of 466.156 people were counted in the 2000 Census that have not been counted this year because they went overseas for the Military.

Also: Texas has overtaken California as the state with most people overseas in the military.

I wrote a really long reply which was lost but it is not literally the first time ever, or even just about ever.

You may recall that the USA used D'Hondt apportionment under the original Jefferson-manders, which meant that the smallest states tended to have the largest population per representative.  

There were a few instances where a new state had the least population based on the previous census, but by the time of their accession they most likely would not have been the least populous state, and generally by their first census after statehood, they would have among the largest population/representative prior to the apportionment based on that senate,

It appears that the first post-census apportionment where a state had the smallest population per representative was 1860 when Oregon had been a state for one year.

1860: Oregon 52K vs Minnesota 86K/2

Nevada which was admitted in 1864 after the Comstock Lode soon dropped in population.  With it's extraordinary low population it assured that it would also have the least population/representative.  In one census it had 1/7 of the population of the largest state with a single representative.

1870: Nevada 42K, Oregon 90K vs Florida 93K/2
1880: Nevada 62K vs Florida 135K/2

In the 1872 reapportionment bill, there was a section specifying that no new state could be admitted with less population than the average population per representative.  This was ignored when Congress decided to add the 3 mountains states when Dakota and Washington became states.  Dakota was split in part for the same reason which was to bring in 6 Republican states.

1890: Nevada 47K, Wyoming 62K, Idaho 88K, Montana 142K vs. Oregon 158K/2

Wyoming joined Nevada as a lagging state.

1900: Nevada 42K, Wyoming 92K vs North Dakota 160K/2
1910: Nevada 81K, Wyoming 145K vs Idaho 163K/2
1920: Nevada 77K vs Vermont 176K/2 (1910 apportionment, 1920 population)
1930: Nevada 91K vs Idaho 222K/2
1940: Nevada 110K vs New Hampshire 246K/2

Completion of Boulder Dam during WWII, growth of California and interstate highway system, air conditioning and jet travel sparked growth of Las Vegas which finally meant that Nevada would no long be a laggard.  But noticed that in almost trebling in population between 1940 and 1960 it was still extremely underpopulated.

1950: Nevada 160K vs. New Hampshire 267K/2

Alaska accedes to Union to provide new ultra-small state.

1960: Alaska 226K, Nevada 285K vs New Hampshire 303K/2

Had North Dakota not dropped to 1 representative in 1970, Wyoming would have had more population per representative than North Dakota.

1970: Alaska 302K, Wyoming 332K vs South Dakota 333K/2

Healthy growth in Alaska and energy boom in Wyoming, mean that Montana has the fewest persons per representative as it slides towards loss of its 2nd representative.

1980: Alaska 402K, Wyoming 470K vs. Montana 393K/2

Slippage in Wyoming and loss of 2nd representative mean that Wyoming for the first time ever has the least population per representative.

1990: Wyoming 453K vs. Rhode Island 500K/2
2000: Wyoming 494K vs. Rhode Island 524K/2

Strong growth and stagnation in Rhode Island result in Wyoming no longer having the least population per representative.

2010: Wyoming 568K vs. Rhode Island 528K/2

In 1960 there were 10 states with 2 representatives.  Nevada and Utah have grown at a healthy rate, and will in 2020 or 2030 be joined by Idaho.  3 have lost their 2nd represantive, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, and Rhode Island may join them in 2020.  This would leave only 3, 2-representative states, Maine, New Hampshire, and Hawaii, at least until Nebraska and West Virginia.  The last state to lose its 3rd representative was Maine in 1960.

If Rhode Island were to lose its 2nd seat in 2020, then Wyoming might once again become the smallest congressional district; since the gap to the next smallest 2-representative states, of New Hampshire and Maine is about 25%.

In fact a very notable anomaly is that Nebraska and West Virginia now have the smallest districts other than Rhode Island and Wyoming.  It is quite possible that in 2020 one of these two will have the smallest congressional districts.

Numerically, you're correct on Kerry +OH+IA and Kerry IA+VA+NM works for exactly 270 for the D's.  Kerry +OH+NM is a tie.  Getting exactly 270 for the R's is more challenging and most plausible scenario I found was Bush 2004 +PA-FL-VA 

The closest possible wins going off of 2008 margins are Kerry  +NV+CO+IA+NM for a 272-266 D win and flip CO for a 275-263 R win with Bush 2004 -NM-NV-IA.

Does the lame duck House or the new House elect the new president if there is an EC tie?

The slowest growing income tax free states were the fastest growing states in their respective regions.   Slow growth states should consider dumping the income tax to attract growth and investment.

Massachusetts's economy is among the strongest in the country. We just don't have the land, or the willingness to build with density on that land, to accommodate population growth.

Yes, in that sense Mass was "smart." It has effectively forced out of the state the bulk of its working class, and become a rather upscale state in its Social Economic Status (SES).

Moreover, the state had, and may still have for all I know, high quality secondary educational institutions (particularly the Catholic schools), not to mention its host of splendid higher educational ones, so it was able to effect a substantial amount of upward mobility of its population, putting on steroids as it were the desire (attended by hard work and discipline, without which desire is a fantasy novel) of so many of those "ethnics" up there "better" themselves, and certainly their kids, in any event. Congrats to all.

A couple of interesting tidbits:

Maine remained ahead of New Hampshire in population, though estimates had shown it slipping behind.

Puerto Rico lost population?  Young people moving to the mainland?

Here´s a chart I made of the overseas military population and their family members in the 2000 and 2010 Census and percentage growth:

()

Using 04 as your base its a gain of 6 seats for the ones Bush won, loss of 6 for Kerry so its 292-246 instead of 286-252.

R's is Bush 04 - CO,-  NV - IA - NM + NH, which would give them 270 (
Bush 04 - CO - IA - NV, would be 271
Bush 04-  CO - NM -IA/NV would be 272

Dems would be Kerry + OH, + NV/IA  which would be 270  (NM instead of NV or IA would be 269 but with NE-02 added you would have 270
Kerry 04 + NC + CO would also be 270
Kerry 04 + VA +NM +IA/NV also 270
Kerry 04 + VA  + IA + NV would be 271
Kerry 04 + FL would be 273

Ah, nice one.

Jim - yeah, I was thinking of "since 1870 on account of Nevada, if not before". So apparently 1980 wrecks my claim. :(

Where can I find a document with the official population numbers ? I didn't find it on the census website.

On this page:

 http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/apportionment/apport.html (http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/apportionment/apport.html)

I'm not sure if anyone here has pointed it out yet, but if the major fractions method (which was used after the 1910 and 1930 censuses) was still used today, Rhode Island would lose it's second U.S. House seat and North Carolina would gain a 14th U.S. House seat.

After the 1920 snafu, Congress under prodding from President Hoover agreed to automate the process, and specified that the president (or the census bureau on his behalf) would calculate the apportionment under both major fractions and equal proportions.  In 1930, both methods gave the same result.  In 1940, they gave different results, with equal proportions favoring Arkansas, and major fractions favoring Michigan.  The decision to use equal proportions was made on a party line vote, with all Democrats except from Michigan voting for equal proportions.

So if the decision were being made now, would the vote be for North Carolina a swing state in presidential elections, and where there is a reasonable chance of a Republican seat being drawn to avoid pushing a marginals into the Republican column, or for Rhode Island which is a certain Democratic presidential vote and representatives?

Would Speaker Pelosi tried to ram the bill through in the lame duck session?  Or would there be an effort to include representation for DC and RI (this assumes that Rhode Island is 436 in priority) while switching to major fractions.

Hmm? What is the major fractions method? I did a few calculations this morning, actually, though with rounded figures because I didn't have access to the internet, and I got Hare-Niemeyer and the US method agreeing this year. Sainte-Lague shifts two seats to larger states; I forget which but Rhode Island wasn't one IIRC. I also did D'Hondt (single seat not just for RI but for ME and NH as well... HI narrowly double-member. About ten or so seat transfers. Oh, and you have to amend it to include an exception so every state gets at least one seat), and the method used by Turkey (one seat per state automatic, remaining seats distributed by D'Hondt with that one seat not taken into account, which in Turkey has the nice effect of making every province/constitutency at least double-member. Similar number of seat transfers but in the other direction this time. SD the smallest double-member state).

Major franctions is the same as Sainte-Lagüe.

Differences are relative to Huntington Hill

Jefferson's method

+ CA(2), IL, NJ, NY, NC, OH, TX
- ME, MN, NE, NH, RI, SC, WA, WV

Adams' method

+ DE, ID, IA, LA, MO, MT, OK, OR, SD
- CA(3), FL, GA, NY, PA, TX(2)

Webster's method

+ NC
- RI

Dean's method

+ MT
- CA

One to add:

Hamilton's method (a.k.a. largest remainders with the Hare Quota (1 Hare Quota = total votes (or total apportionment population here)/total number of seats) a.k.a. Hare-Niemeyer

No difference (from Huntington-Hill a.k.a. the method of equal proportions)

Jefferson's method is also known as the method of greatest divisiors or (typically as a seat allocation method in proportional representation systems) the d'Hondt method.

Adams' method is also known as the method of smallest divisors.

Webster's method is also known as the method of major fractions or (typically as a seat allocation method in proportional representation systems) the Sainte-Lagüe method.

Dean's method is also known as the method of the harmonic mean.

This is the 2010 apportionment, based on each state's share of the total population. but assuming that share is the geometric mean of  x+1/2 and x-1/2, where x is the actual number of seats that a state is entitled to.

So for example, we divide Alabama's apportionment population of 4,802,982 by 710,767 which is the US apportionment population of 710,767, which gives a quotient of 6.757.  IOW, Alabama has 6.757 / 435 of the US population.

6.757 is the geometric mean of x+1/2 and x-1/2 or sqrt( (x+1/2)(x -1/2) ).

Solving for x = sqrt (6.757^2 +1/4) = 6.776 which would be Alabama's apportionment based on its share of the US population.
 
But if he add all these up, we find that we have apportioned a total of 436.838 seats.  So we adjust our original divisor upward to 713,769 which gives us an apportionment of 435.015, with Alabama being apportioned 6.748 seats.  Repeat another iteration using a divisor of  713,794, gives a total apportionment of 435.000 seats, and Alabama's apportionment of 6.747.

We could use independent rounding (rounding fractions greater than 1/2 upward) and each state would have it correct apportionment based on its relative share of the US population.

But in the case of 2010, this would leave us 5 seats short, as FL, WA, TX, CA, and MN would lose a seat.  The extra 5 seats are apportioned on the basis of the conventional ranking method (not shown here), which illustrates an interesting effect.  When there are extra seats to be apportioned, the ranking favors larger states, and disfavors smaller states.  The reason is that large states can spread their shortfall among a large number of districts.  So in this case California and Texas are favored, even though they are somewhat short of the population needed for 52.5 or 35.5 seats.  Montana is close, but if it did receive a 2nd seat they would be quit small.

It is happenstance that extra seats have to apportioned.  It could be the other way around and more than 435 seats apportioned based on independent rounding.  In that case large states would be disfavored.  We could take a district from them and the other districts would have fairly small increases.

In the following table, the first column is the 2010 fractional apportionment.  The second column is the change from 2000.  We can use this to make a rough projection to 2020 as to which states will gain and lose:

Winners:  AZ, CO(?maybe), FL, GA, ID(?), NV(?), OR(?), TX(+3), VA(1)

Losers: CA(?), IL, MI(1, 2?), MN, NE(?), OH, PA, RI, WV(?)

The 3rd column is the 2010 apportionment.  The 4th is the 2000-2010 relative increase or decrease in population.

The 5th and 6th column shows either the relative increase and absolute increase (in 1000s) for a state to take Minnesota's 8th representative, or relative decrease and absolute decrease for a state to forfeit a seat to North Carolina (Minnesota received the 435th seat, while North Carolina would have received a 436th were the House expanded).

The previous column can be combined.  So for example if Texas had grown at 20.5% rather than 20.9% it would have only gained 3 seats.  It also shows that it is now necessary for a state to have more than a million population before it gains a second seat (Montana has 994K and would need to gain 10K).


Alabama               6.747   -0.137   7    7.7%  -4.3%  -208
Alaska                1.128    0.038   1   14.7%  39.2%   283
Arizona               8.998    1.070   9   24.7%  -6.2%  -396
Arkansas              4.130   -0.025   4    9.2%   8.5%   250
California           52.317    0.090  53   10.1%  -0.3%  -118
Colorado              7.085    0.430   7   17.0%   5.4%   270
Connecticut           5.043   -0.229   5    5.0%   8.6%   308
Delaware              1.358    0.050   1   14.8%  11.5%   104
Florida              26.484    1.808  27   17.9%  -0.6%  -114
Georgia              13.637    0.995  14   18.5%  -1.7%  -162
Hawaii                1.979    0.041   2   12.3% -26.6%  -364
Idaho                 2.260    0.202   2   21.3%  10.6%   166
Illinois             18.029   -1.123  18    3.4%   2.1%   270
Indiana               9.122   -0.266   9    6.7%   3.6%   236
Iowa                  4.307   -0.233   4    4.2%   4.0%   122
Kansas                4.043   -0.133   4    6.3%  10.9%   312
Kentucky              6.116   -0.137   6    7.4%   5.8%   252
Louisiana             6.399   -0.514   6    1.6%   1.1%    49
Maine                 1.933   -0.096   2    4.3% -24.8%  -330
Maryland              8.127   -0.058   8    9.1%   4.1%   237
Massachusetts         9.203   -0.592   9    3.2%   2.7%   178
Michigan             13.895   -1.437  14   -0.4%  -3.5%  -346
Minnesota             7.463   -0.135   8    7.9%  -0.2%    -9
Mississippi           4.202   -0.217   4    4.4%   6.6%   198
Missouri              8.437   -0.207   8    7.2%   0.2%    15
Montana               1.480   -0.000   1    9.8%   1.0%    10
Nebraska              2.615   -0.073   3    6.8%  -5.2%   -95
Nevada                3.829    0.707   4   35.3%  -9.3%  -253
New Hampshire         1.918   -0.053   2    6.7% -24.1%  -319
New Jersey           12.349   -0.627  12    4.5%   0.7%    63
New Mexico            2.939    0.088   3   13.3% -16.0%  -330
New York             27.213   -2.043  27    2.2%   0.6%   107
North Carolina       13.411    0.983  13   18.6%   0.2%    16
North Dakota          1.071   -0.039   1    5.0%  48.6%   329
Ohio                 16.215   -1.300  16    1.7%   1.3%   145
Oklahoma              5.298   -0.049   5    8.8%   3.3%   125
Oregon                5.415    0.114   5   12.3%   1.1%    41
Pennsylvania         17.848   -1.091  18    3.5%  -2.6%  -331
Rhode Island          1.561   -0.131   2    0.5%  -5.0%   -52
South Carolina        6.528    0.313   7   15.4%  -1.1%   -51
South Dakota          1.253   -0.015   1    8.3%  22.5%   185
Tennessee             8.946    0.158   9   11.8%  -5.6%  -359
Texas                35.404    3.225  36   20.9%  -0.4%   -99
Utah                  3.914    0.435   4   23.9% -11.4%  -314
Vermont               1.015   -0.049   1    3.4%  59.3%   374
Virginia             11.272    0.331  11   13.2%   1.5%   122
Washington            9.474    0.366  10   14.3%  -0.4%   -27
West Virginia         2.653   -0.182   3    2.6%  -6.6%  -123
Wisconsin             7.999   -0.284   8    6.1%  -6.9%  -392
Wyoming               0.940    0.028   1   14.7%  76.7%   436

Yeah, RI was one of my two Sainte Lague losers after all; I've checked. The other one (Minnesota; though who was the other gainer? New York probably but I'm not sure right now) may be a rounding issue.
The rounding made no difference to the Huntington/Hill method - it so happens that the gap between 435th and 436th was something of a mini natural break this year.

Biggest gap in the 431 to 439 run. (Much larger gaps just beyond, though.)

RI is the only one.

The difference between Webster's method and Huntington-Hill are pretty minor except for the smallest states.  The square root of  5 * 6 is 5.47, vs the average of 5 and 6 which is 5.5.  But more important is the relative difference between the divisors.

sqrt (9 * 10 ) / sqrt (5 * 6) = 1.732
9.5 / 5.5 = 1.727

The ratio of the two numbers is 1.0027.  Which means that the two methods would make a difference in the relative ranking of an Washington-sized state and an Oregon-sized state only if the quotients were within 0.27% of each other.  And it would make a different in apportionment if they happened to just be at the cutoff line for the membership of the House.

If we use only the quotients that determine whether a state has N or N+1 seats in a 435-member House, while Rhode Island drops 12 places, the 12 states that followed it for the most part simply move up one position in the ranking.

The exceptions are that AL and MI move up two, but that is because NE, a small state, also drops down a couple of places; and TX and CA, the two largest states, move up two place past WA.

The quotient for the State that receives the Nth representative, should be very close to 1/Nth of the total population (the national average representatives/population).  So the expected difference is 1630, vs. the observed difference between NC and MO for Webster's method is slightly closer than expected.

Great list Jim. :) Would you like to sort it by the percent change necessary to win/lose a seat, please ?

Anybody know?

The 2000 census included only the short form which asked the following questions:

Number Persons in Household
Housing: Owned; Mortgaged; Rented; Squatting.

For each person:

Family relationship to person filling out form
Sex
Age
Hispanicity
Race

The information that was formerly collected by the long form, is now collected in the American Community Survey.

Housing: Type (house, apartment, cave, boat, etc.), age, length of tenancy, acreage, farm income, business use, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, running water, flush toilet, bathtub or shower, sink with faucet, stove or range, refrigerator, telephone, number of vehicles, heating fuel, cost of electricity, gas, water&sewer, and other fuel; food stamps, condominium (and fee), rent (and whether board included), value, taxes, insurance, mortgage payments,

Population: Citizenship, and basis thereof; entry into USA, attending school and level, highest level of education completed,  ancestry, language spoken at home, residence location 1 year earlier, health insurance, deaf, blind, physical disabilities, marital status, recent motherhood, caring for grandchildren, military service, employment, commuting, laid off, productive or government worker, income, social security.

The long form was distributed to a large sample of households (10% to 20%) and was intended to ask all the annoying questions that would have made census participation plummet if asked of everyone.  It was intended to be a large enough sample to provide statistically reliable information for small areas (down to the block group, which has around 1000 persons).

The American Community Survey is administered on an ongoing basis, with a much smaller sample each month, but which when aggregated over 5 years produces a comparable sample size and accuracy to the long form.  The Census Bureau earlier this month released the ACS data for 2005 to 2009.   The Census Bureau also releases ACS data on 3-year and 1-year basis for larger areas (3-year data is statistically reliable for areas with population greater than 20,000; and the 1-year data for areas with population greater than 65,000).

Because the data is collected on a continuing basis, next year the ACS will be released for 2006 to 2010, with the oldest year of the sample being dropped and a new year added in.  So the ACS will be better for trends, while the long form census data, while clearer and more concise because it all is for a single data, won't show changes between decades, and because of unlucky timing might even be misleading (a 2010 long form would show higher levels of unemployment, and more persons in their mid-20s living with their parents).

Was the official list of priority values released ?

The Census Director is scheduled to hold a press conference (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/cb11-cn01.html) at 1PM on Wednesday, January 12 to "brief the media on next 2010 Census data releases, including state redistricting data."  Will we get some lower-level data tomorrow afternoon?

I'd be really surprised, since it isn't expected until February for the earliest states.  The new version of American Fact Finder is supposed to go on line.  They have just released the 3-year (2007-2009) data from ACS for area with population more than 20,000, and have been rolling out the geography for the 2010 census (they have 32 states plus DC, done so far).

We might get some more info on the exact timeline, though. That would be very welcome.

I tuned in to late for the press conference.  It says it is being archived.  Anyone catch it?

I didn't catch it, but there doesn't seem to be much of interest in the press kit (http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/operational-press-briefing/january-12-2011.html) for the press conference.  There's some internal migration data for Texas, California and Michigan - but that may or may not have been previously released.

Yes, in a few places, internal migration could move the numbers by a discernible amount, and I try to factor that in, in my maps, when I am cutting it close to what I think is the point, where the odds of the seat being at risk in a semi wave, start to go up exponentially. I don't draw for a wave quite as strong as 2008. I don't think the odds are high that it will be replicated soon. And even then, the maps I draw should enable competent incumbents to survive. My sense of it is, is that a competent incumbent who is not a partisan attack dog, or becomes demonized by the opposition, can generate about 3 PVI points in his or her favor, over what would otherwise happen; with a superstar, like Gerlach in PA, or Ryan in WI, that is worth perhaps about 5 PVI points, in all cases assuming competent and reasonably funded opposition.

Just to be clear, Torie, by internal migration, I meant raw statistics regarding people already in the US moving in or out of the state.  I don't think the analysis was strictly based on Census 2010 data, and like I said, it might have been previously released.

Oh sorry, cinyc, I did indeed misunderstand. When I am drawing my maps, I am obsessed with intra county migrations, which can matter a lot in bigger, and politically variegated counties. I don't want my maps to hit the dumpster because I didn't try to anticipate for that.

The press conference transcript is here (http://2010.census.gov/news/pdf/transcript_1-12-11.pdf).  There's not much there there.  As we knew, the state redistricting data will trickle out by state starting the first week of February.  Census will tell us which states will be released next about a week ahead of time - so we'll start knowing by the end of January.  The release schedule is sensitive to state redistricting needs - so I'd imagine those with 2011 elections might come first, if they have to redistrict beforehand.   State officials will get the data before the rest of us, but we will get it at the same time as the press.

New Tiger shapefiles will be put up on Census' website soon.

There's going to be a webinar on the new American Factfinder on January 18 and on redistricting on January 24.


Yeah, my initial phrasing was misleading.  While it certainly wasn't clear from just the handouts, from the transcript, it sounds like the Census Bureau was using Pew and Heritage inter-state migration estimates, among other things, to try to judge the accuracy of the 2010 Census, which was in line with the mid-level population estimates.  Obviously, not everyone responds to the census, and in some cases, census workers had to ask proxies like neighbors or building management.   It also sounds like the full accuracy analysis won't be ready until 2012.  The final accuracy analysis for the 2000 census indicated a slight overcount.

New shapefiles are up for most states now.  It was something like 38 states a couple of days ago.

The first part of the conference was the census director explaining their preliminary evaluation of the 2010 Census.

The mail back rate was slightly higher in 2010 (74%) but that was because everyone got the short form.  The mail back rate for the short form in 2000 was also 74%, with the long form response rate dragging down the overall rate.  I'd guess that the long form took too much effort to complete, and some people would have decided it was too prying.

Of their effort to contact the remaining 26%, 22% was by contact with a building manager or neighbor (so 5.7% overall). vs. 17% in 2000.  But I'd speculate that this might not be too much worse than in 2000, because of the long form.  Some of the people who didn't turn in the long form, did so for other reasons than unwillingness to be contacted, moving, or working 3 jobs.  It was just too much hassle.  But it was easy to find them.

Overall contact rate, by mail, or followup with the household or a proxy was 99.60%, up from 99.57% in 2000.

They then compared the actual count with estimates.  One was based on birth and death data, and guesses about immigration.  They were within a couple 100,000 of the middle estimate, but off by 3 to 4 million on the outer estimates.  So that could just be luck.

The other was to compare their estimates, which are based on the 2000 census, then updated based on births, deaths, migration data.  They were within a few 100,000 on that as well.  Which could say that they are no worse than 2000.  If they had missed 5 million in 2000, their estimate for 2010 would also be off by 5 million or so, and if there count was as (in)accurate they would miss 5 million.

The 3rd party slides were really pretty goofy.  They were based on the ACS data, which includes information on previous residence (perhaps in the PUMS).  They showed a lot more people leaving Michigan than moving in, and the Census showed a population decline.  Texas showed a lot more people moving in than moving out, and the Census showed a 20% gain, plus 4 new seats.  And California showed more people moving out than moving in but not in the ratio of Michigan, and California showed a growth rate about the same as the US and no congressional seats.  There wasn't any analysis of whether the net migration was of the correct magnitude to match the census population.

Washington Post gets the award for most inane questions (plural).  One was whether the redistricting data would include data counts on same sex couples.  And the second was whether in light of the shooting in Tucson, the Census Bureau had beefed up its security.

Amusing moment was when the census director Robert Groves said that the 3-year (2007-9) ACS data would be released later this month.  Someone interjected, "yesterday".  Groves then said that the 3-year (2007-9) ACS data had been released earlier this month.

Most of the press questions were about when would they be able to write an article with little research and little substance about the population in their area with a few quotes of reaction from a government official or demographer at the local university, and would the press get to see the data before the public.  Groves said that the data would be released to the public (and press) via American Factfinder.

Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release Local 2010 Census Data for Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn05.html)

Odd choice of states.

It will even out

You think? Sure they won't end up releasing New Jersey twice and Texas not at all?

Illinois will probably be next.

Not really, those are the states that have state legislative elections this year, so they need to redistrict ASAP.

Ah, gotcha.

The Census Bureau has tried to prioritize the data releases in terms of when states will need to have districts in place for the next election. Obviously the states with elections in Nov 2011 have the most pressing need. That's also why IL is likely to be early. The petitions for 2012 begin circulation in Sep 2011, and filing is in Dec. The Dems will want to have an approved map by May 31 in order to use their majority to get the map they want.

I seem to dimly recall they went in alphabetical order last time.

No, because Texas had a March state primary in 2002, with a filing deadline in very early January, which meant the district boundaries had to be in place rather early.  Another consideration is when the legislature or other redistricting body meets.  For example, in Texas, if the legislature fails to redistrict the legislature, the task transfers to the Legislative Redistricting Board.  So if there is no legislative map by early May, there won't be a map drawn by the legislature.

For congressional districts, there is some flexibility since it would be possible to call a special session (though it is not particularly desirable for federal bureaucrats to be forcing legislative meetings).  In 2001, the federal court determined the date when district boundaries had to be established, and how long it would take them to draw districts, and took jurisdiction based on that.

I figured your odd choice of words meant that you knew which states had odd-year legislative elections.  In the case of Louisiana and Mississippi, the legislature is elected for (coincident) 4-year terms, so if they don't redistrict now, the new boundaries would not go into effect until 2015, more than half way through the census decade.  In 2001, they might not have had a similar priority, since their legislative elections were in 2003.  And because Louisiana didn't have a congressional primary at that time, it might have had the very latest filing deadline of any state.

Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, and Maryland will be released next week.

It probably takes more effort to do larger states, and perhaps there are not tasks than can easily be done in parallel (eg. you could have one team do one medium sized state and then another, while another toils away on Illinois or Texas).

Also the Census Bureau has released its 2010 estimates for state populations based on the 2000 census.

Data was shipped to the legislative leaders in Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia.  As soon as they acknowledge receipt (probably tomorrow) the census bureau will release summary tables:

Top 20 counties and cities by population.

Racial breakdown for state (all persons and over 18)

Hispanic + racial breakdown for non-Hispanics (all person and over 18)

Racial breakdown for persons reporting two races

Hispanic + racial breakdown for non-Hispanics for 20 most populous counties and cities.

So you will see these in newspapers on Friday.

FTP release will also happen tomorrow, and data will be available on American Fact Finder, the day after.  PS if you have not used the new American Fact Finder, click on help and watch a couple of tutorials - otherwise it is pretty unexplicable.

The Mississippi Constitution (http://www.sos.state.ms.us/ed_pubs/constitution/constitution.asp) (Article 13, Section 254) only mandates Legislative redistricting "in the second year following the 1980 decennial census and every ten (10) years thereafter," but allows it "at any other time, by joint resolution, by majority vote of all members of each house."  I'm not sure if that means that the Legislature will have to re-adopt the plan adopted this year (assuming they adopt one as seems to be expected - it only didn't happen in 1991 because of a lawsuit alleging VRA violations and Department of Justice non-preclearance, and when a plan was enacted in 1992 a federal district court commuted the existing Legislative terms and ordered elections for a three-year term coinciding with the 1992 Presidential Election; more info in the first two case summaries here (http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/redist/redsum/MSSUM.HTM)) in 2012 (or make changes to that plan if they so desire), or if that particular wording of Mississippi's constitution (the constitutional amendment establishing this schedule was adopted in 1979, and in the 1980s the first non-special Legislative elections would have been in 1983) is interpreted to include years ending in 1, at least in those decades when the Legislature is up for election in years ending in 1.

This is a comparison of the 2010 Census Population to census bureau estimates of the 2010 population based on the 2000 Census adjusted for births, deaths, and migration.

I based the estimate on a linear interpolation of the July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010 estimates, to April 1, 2010.  The Census Bureau also produced an April 1, 2010 estimate, but the differences are negligible.

They really missed on Hawaii, which seems kind of odd, since you would think they would have a better handle on migration.  North Dakota and Wyoming are both off considerably.  This may be due the late-decade oil boomlet which may not show up as migration yet since it is based on tax returns.


State                  Census    Error    Estimate
Alabama              4,779,736   1.012   4,724,116
Alaska                 710,231   1.007     705,319
Arizona              6,392,017   0.961   6,654,384
Arkansas             2,915,918   1.004   2,904,510
California          37,253,956   1.002  37,171,854
Colorado             5,029,196   0.991   5,075,271
Connecticut          3,574,097   1.014   3,523,909
Delaware               897,934   1.009     889,629
District of Columbia   601,723   0.990     607,936
Florida             18,801,310   1.009  18,636,021
Georgia              9,687,653   0.980   9,884,665
Hawaii               1,360,301   1.049   1,297,136
Idaho                1,567,582   1.007   1,555,963
Illinois            12,830,632   0.992  12,931,627
Indiana              6,483,802   1.007   6,438,290
Iowa                 3,046,355   1.009   3,019,394
Kansas               2,853,118   1.006   2,835,198
Kentucky             4,339,367   1.002   4,332,643
Louisiana            4,533,372   1.003   4,519,442
Maine                1,328,361   1.011   1,313,677
Maryland             5,773,552   1.008   5,725,055
Massachusetts        6,547,629   0.989   6,621,511
Michigan             9,883,640   0.995   9,937,241
Minnesota            5,303,925   1.004   5,283,541
Mississippi          2,967,297   1.003   2,957,836
Missouri             5,988,927   0.997   6,004,364
Montana                989,415   1.011     978,655
Nebraska             1,826,341   1.011   1,807,017
Nevada               2,700,551   1.019   2,650,710
New Hampshire        1,316,470   0.995   1,323,194
New Jersey           8,791,894   1.008   8,723,039
New Mexico           2,059,179   1.016   2,027,235
New York            19,378,102   0.991  19,563,951
North Carolina       9,535,483   1.011   9,433,443
North Dakota           672,591   1.032     651,809
Ohio                11,536,504   1.000  11,532,048
Oklahoma             3,751,351   1.010   3,714,745
Oregon               3,831,074   0.996   3,847,417
Pennsylvania        12,702,379   1.006  12,625,113
Rhode Island         1,052,567   0.996   1,057,015
South Carolina       4,625,364   1.009   4,586,283
South Dakota           814,180   0.996     817,761
Tennessee            6,346,105   1.003   6,326,389
Texas               25,145,561   1.002  25,102,747
Utah                 2,763,885   0.981   2,818,283
Vermont                625,741   1.006     622,184
Virginia             8,001,024   1.009   7,929,709
Washington           6,724,540   1.000   6,727,549
West Virginia        1,852,994   1.016   1,824,457
Wisconsin            5,686,986   1.004   5,664,077
Wyoming                563,626   1.031     546,826

Add Vermont to this list for week of February 7 to 11.

The numbers for the first 4 states are out, but, of course they released the data in some horrible format I couldn't figure out how to use, so I'm looking here: http://twitter.com/Redistrict (http://twitter.com/Redistrict) for important news. Some interesting stuff so far.

2010 Census News (http://2010.census.gov/news/)

If you click on a news release for a state, it includes links to thematic maps for population and population change per county, and an Excel file with some highlight data, including top 20 counties and cities.

Louisiana: NOLA lost 29% of its population.

Mississippi: Southaven is now 3rd most populous city in Mississippi.

New Jersey: All counties in New Jersey, except Essex and Cape May gained population.  Asians now make up 8.2% of the population, up from 5.7% in 2000.

Virginia: High growth area extends from just past Fairfax to Charlottesville and Richmond.  Hispanics make up 7.9% of population, up from 4.7% in 2000, with 20% in Prince William County, and 31% in Manassas (Corrida de Toros).


The FTP files are ASCII text files, but they are huge - one record per geographic unit, which goes down to the block level, and include 63 racial combinations.

So, Loudon grew by 84%! And next 10 years won't be much worse: the metro's coming :)

I think Virginia's stuff is getting posted here (http://dlsgis.state.va.us/2010_Redistricting/2010_PL94-171/2010_PL94-171.htm) as it becomes available.

Also, in Mississippi (http://m.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110203/NEWS/110203024/-1/WAP&template=wapart), the black population grew eight times more than the white population.

Ìntra Hampton Roads population shifts are interesting.

Hampton declining, Portsmouth declining, Newport News flat, Chesapeake and Suffolk growing fast but Virginia Beach has more or less stopped growing and Norfolk is rebounding, growing marginally faster than VB.

7.5 times as much, or 6.5 times more than. While the nonhispanic black population grew by minus 11.5 times as much as the nonhispanic white population, as that actually fell.

Which really just teaches to not use such comparisons for low-growth phenomena at all. Never, ever.

Thanks, I was stuck with those FTP's.

Lakewood really sticks out, all the other 20 biggest cities and townships grow between -8% to +8% while Lakewood grew 53.8%.

Mmm, maps:

http://www.vpap.org/updates/show/672


Chesapeake and Suffolk (and Isle of Wight and York Counties) have experienced a lot of development in the past decade. Development has virtually stopped in Virginia Beach (there's land still available, but it's protected by a "green line"), and the other cities don't have any land left to develop on, except for the occasional redevelopment or small condo project.

I was a little surprised that VA-11 came in so overpopulated; I thought it was expected to be about even.

Lakewood is an Orthodox Jewish stronghold.

The Star-Ledger credits a lot of the growth to new senior communities, plus the Hispanic population has increased a great deal. Natural increase among Hasidic Jews may be part of it but no population reproduces that quickly from such a high base.

The Star-Ledger is just wrong. (Maybe there is substantial Hispanic growth, too; that I could see, although not accounting for more than 10% of overall growth.) It's not just (or even primarily) reproduction; older Orthodox communities in NYC are leaving for the lower prices in Lakewood. Over half the population, and nearly all of the growth, is Orthodox Jewish.

Data are on factfinder now.

Since Va. CDs have already been linked to, here's the other three states.

Louisiana CD1 687k, CD2 493k, CD3 637k, CD4 667k, CD5 644k, CD6 727k, CD7 677k
Mississippi CD1 788k, CD2 668k, CD3 757k, CD4 754k
Jersey CD1 669k, CD2 692k, CD3 680k, CD4 725k, CD5 667k, CD6 669k, CD7 673k, CD8 660k, CD9 661k, CD10 634k, CD11 674k, CD12 702k, CD13 685k

Speaking of Lakewood, the census Bureau did a horrible job of estimating it. It had its population growth from 60k in 2000 to 71k in 2009, and now the the census numbers a year later show 92k.

The population of Mississippi outside of DeSoto (suburban Memphis), Rankin, Madison (suburban Jackson), Lamar (suburban Hattiesburg) and any number of random fifth county that grew by a couple of thousand people say Lafayette, fifth largest growth among top 20 counties anyhow (centred on the town of Oxford), actually fell.

Maps of New Jersey:
 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/04/nyregion/20100204-jersey.html?ref=nyregion (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/04/nyregion/20100204-jersey.html?ref=nyregion)

Did Oklahoma gain or lose population?

It gained, but at a slower rate than the country as a whole.

Oh. Better then nothing :) Welcome to OK, new Okies!

Wish that map were interactive :/

The universal declines in the Shore towns are striking. Is that Hoboken or Jersey City with the big increase in white population in Hudson County? It's hard to tell. Either way, Jersey City has to be indisputably the most diverse city in the country now.

County Growth 2010 Census (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/)

Definitely Hoboken.  The non-Hispanic White population of Jersey City declined from 56,736 to 53,236.  Hoboken's increased from 27,196 to 36,607.   The percentage of non-Hispanic Whites in Hoboken increased by a little under 3 points from 70.5% to 73.2%.  

Jersey City's numbers moved slightly in the opposite direction, from 23.6% to 21.5%.  The fastest growing group there was Asians.  Even the percentage of Hispanics and African Americans declined from 2000 (the total number of African Americans, too).

Edited to add: Jersey City is now 27.6% Hispanic, 23.9% African American, 23.5% Asian and 21.5% White.  Its politicians are still 100% crooked.

Walpack township, New Jersey...

1970   384      54.8%
1980   150      −60.9%
1990   67      −55.3%
2000   41      −38.8%
Est. 2006   40      −2.4%
2010         16

Okay, this requires an explanation. The wiki article doesn't even begin to give one. It grew until 1970. Mining?
Meanwhile, some magazine named it the 18th best place to live in NJ in 2008. Seems the residents don't agree. ^-^

Not mining, It looks like It's the  Army Corps of Engineers fault. (http://home.comcast.net/~tecsite/WalpackCenter/WalpackStory.html) They wanted to turn the place into a lake so they forced a bunch of people out and afterwards abandoned the project was critical of how they kicked people out of their homes.

There are a few things on that page that make me think it's a hoax. Lake the size of Lake Michigan? Made national news by appearing in Playboy magazine? Uh...

The real reason seems to be that it is entirely within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Residents at the time of designation were grandfathered in, but no one is allowed to move there (the federal government gets first option to buy any land that comes up for sale), so the population is in steady decline (and will probably reach zero in a decade or so).

Well I don't know about that site but the dam story is  legit. (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/04/nyregion/instead-of-a-dam-a-delaware-river-ghost-town.html?scp=3&sq=walpack&st=cse)

It seems the National Recreational Area is what the gov't decided to do with the land after they abandoned the dam project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocks_Island

Data for Maryland is out, Baltimore city shrank while all the counties grew.

...though Allegheny did so by 0.2%

Hispanic share almost doubled - Hispanic population more than doubled. Black share also rose. State is now down to 55% Anglo.

The Prince George's County exurban outmigration continues.  The African-American population in neighboring Charles County nearly doubled, while the white population dropped by almost 10,000.  African-Americans make up about 41% of the county's population.   Whites are now barely a majority there, with 50.3%.   Whites continue to leave Prince George's County, too.

Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota ship next week.

District-level numbers from SSP:

District    Population    Deviation
MD-01    744,275    22,581
MD-02    700,893    (20,801)
MD-03    719,856    (1,838)
MD-04    714,316    (7,378)
MD-05    767,369    45,675
MD-06    738,943    17,249
MD-07    659,776    (61,918)
MD-08    728,124    6,430
Total:    5,773,552    

I'm ready and waiting. ;)

Any comments on Indiana, Iowa and Vermont?

Sucks to be Iowa, really. Looks like the only places that grew were the Des Moines, Iowa City, and Cedar Rapids areas.

I wonder if this reflects the "syndrome" that whites don't want to live with blacks when their percentage in the hood gets "too high," or whether it is more due to differential hood housing demand, with blacks paying a premium to live in high percentage black neighborhoods that are safe and middle class, with decent schools. Does anyone know? Is this more about "racism" or economics is my question. And I have no idea, at least in this neck of the woods (in the deep South I just might assume racism frankly), what the answer is.

Yes, the Quad cities, with about 450,000 people or something, to me seems like the biggest small town in America. It has the population, but not the amenities one would expect from that large a population. I am not surprised that little or no new blood wants to migrate to such a dreary place.

Dubuque grew a little bit, too. As did Council Bluffs.

But, yeah, looking at the historical data for the rural Iowa counties... It's been a long ride down.

Part of it is that whites are leaving Maryland (and much of the Northeast, I suspect) for other areas of the country.  Maryland's non-Hispanic white population dropped by about 32,000 in the last 10 years.  Part is people moving from suburban Prince George's to new exurban developments in Charles County.  Since the overwhelming majority of Prince George's residents are black, it usually logically follows that those moving in to new developments up the road would be of the same race.  And a good part of it is probably simple white flight to other areas of Maryland.  The white population of Charles County's neighbors, St. Mary's and Calvert counties, both rose by over 10,000.

I wonder if gays moving will give Iowa a boost. A woman at work was talking about her lesbian sister who is planning on moving with her girlfriend to Iowa a few weeks ago.

There's not a heck of a lot to say about Vermont.  It didn't grow by much (under 3%), and what little growth there was appears to be in the Burlington and Montpelier areas.   Population growth in Southern Vermont was pretty much flat, with Rutland and Windsor Counties losing population.  Essex County on the Canadian border also lost population.

Vermont is still overwhelmingly white - 94.3%, down from 96.2%.  The Hispanic population nearly doubled - but that's not saying much - it's still under 10,000 and less than 2% of the total population.  So did the black population, but that's still under 6,000.

Arkansas is also up; it looks like bad news for the Democrats, since all of the counties along the Mississippi and the southern part of the state lost population, while the Walmartistan and the ring of Republican counties around Little Rock gained quite a bit.

Here are the CD numbers for Arkansas, Indiana, and Iowa:


Arkansas

Mean - 728,979

AR-01 - 687,694 (-41,285)
AR-02 - 751,377 (+22,398)
AR-03 - 822,564 (+93,585)
AR-04 - 654,283 (-74,696)

Indiana

Mean - 720,422

IN-01 - 705,600 (-14,822)
IN-02 - 679,254 (-41,168)
IN-03 - 723,633 (+3,211)
IN-04 - 789,835 (+69,413)
IN-05 - 809,107 (+88,685)
IN-06 - 676,548 (-43,874)
IN-07 - 676,351 (-44,071)
IN-08 - 694,398 (-26,024)
IN-09 - 729,076 (+8,654)

Iowa

Mean (5 districts) - 609,271

IA-01 - 596,443 (-12,828)
IA-02 - 620,856 (+11,585)
IA-03 - 642,116 (+32,845)
IA-04 - 609,487 (+216)
IA-05 - 577,453 (-31,818)

I've also been looking at the state legislative data for Louisiana to see just how screwed the Dems are. Looks like New Orleans will be losing a State Senate seat, while Baton Rouge will be gaining one. The Republicans will probably also be able to squeeze at least an extra half a seat out of the territory east of Baton Rouge.

One thing to note about Indiana is that Fort Wayne's population growth is overstated.  The city grew by 23.3% from 2000 - by far, the most of the top 5 cities in the state.  But that's skewed because Fort Wayne also annexed some neighboring towns in 2006.

Of the other top 5 cities, Indianapolis grew by just under 5%.  Evansville (-3%), South Bend (-6%) and Hammond (-3%) all lost population.

With a rather substantial shift from inner Indianapolis (the old city, rather than the new city, which is all of Marion County), to the now defunct suburbs of Indianapolis in now outer Indianapolis. In other words, just about all the growth was in the outer portion of Marion County.

The counties surrounding Marion also experienced rapid growth, particularly Hendricks (+40%)  to the west and Hamilton (+50%) to the north.  The population of Carmel and Fishers in Hamilton County both more than doubled; Noblesville in that county grew by more than 80%.

Gary lost 22% of its population.   Jeffersonville, a Louisville suburb, grew by 64%.

The congressional districts that appear to have lost population are (within state ordered from most declining):

AL-7
AR-4
CA-31, 53, 38, 47
FL-10
IL-4, 1, 2, 17, 7, 9, 6
IN-7, 6
IA-5
KS-1
LA-2, 3, 5
MI-14, 13, 5, 12, 1, 9, 15, 11
MN-4, 7
MS-2
MO-1
NE-3
NJ-10, 8
NY-28, 27, 24, 25, 26, 29
NC-1
OH-11, 10, 6, 17, 5, 1, 4
PA-14, 12, 5, 4, 2, 3
RI-1
SC-6
TN-9
VA-2
WV-3, 1

Most of which are self-explanatory (inner cities, black belt, plains, rust belt), but I was somewhat surprised at IL-6, VA-2, and FL-10.

There's no way NY-23 didn't lose population, too.  Perhaps NY-22, as well - though that depends on whether more people left the Binghamton area than moved into the Orange, Ulster and Dutchess portion of the district.

I used jimrtex's list from this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89799.30) though that may be the 2009 ACS estimates, and I used the census 2000 100% summary for the 2000s CD's. That has NY-23 up 3,882 or 0.59% and NY-22 up 13,587 or 2.08%.

FL-10 is completely built out and densely populated. There's no room for expansion.

I wouldn't doubt NY-22, due to growth in the NYC exurbs.  But how the heck did NY-23 pick up population?  Border towns like Massena and Ogdensburg are morribund.   Plattsburgh should be losing population, too - and likely Watertown (though that's more dependent on how much Fort Drum grew or shrank in the past decade).  The only thing I can think of is that it might be offset by some growth in suburban Syracuse (Madison and Oswego counties).  Or perhaps there are more folks ending up in the prisons within the district.

Looks like Iowa won't be able to draw a congressional district entirely in the 3x3 block of counties centered on Polk County (Des Moines), unless the tradition (and seeming state requirement) of not splitting counties is broken.  The closest you can get without going outside of the "Des Moines 9" or splitting a county is the Des Moines 9 minus Boone County (the second smallest county in the group) which is 2,568.75 people short of the ideal Iowa congressional district population (most people round the ideal district population to the nearest integer, but I'm not most people even though I don't support chopping people into fractional portions).  That's only 0.34% of the ideal district population, but probably too much to pass muster for a congressional district.  The Des Moines 9 minus Madison County (the smallest county in the group) would be 8,058.25 people (1.06%) too large.  :(

Is there data yet for which states had a net loss of whites?

So everything will still be covered, just in different format or different times? I had heard a while back that there would not be ancestry asked this decade. Yes or no?

You'll have to wait until all states are out. Or just go by the estimates. :P

The suburbs that make up IL-6 are essentially built out. There was a lot of housing built a generation ago, and the children have moved lot reducing the population. The growth areas occur when old properties have been removed for higher-density housing, but that is not a large factor in the last decade.

Correct.
 
Of the states with released 2010 redistricting files so far, the total non-Hispanic white population fell from 2000 figures in Louisiana (-1.5%), Maryland (-2.6%) and New Jersey (-5.9%).  

It increased in Arkansas (+4.1%), Indiana (+2.0%), Iowa (+0.2%), Mississippi (+0.2%), Vermont (+1.3%) and Virginia (+5.6%).

Not going to check all the others, but Mississippi's certainly fell (by 0.3). I noticed it at the time and doublechecked just right now.

Only in the ACS (and it appears that they need the 5-year estimate to get sufficient data for ancestry).  For the 2005-2009 ACS, the top 50 congressional districts by percentage of Irish first ancestry.

Massachusetts 10    26.4%
Massachusetts 9     25.8%
Pennsylvania 7      22.3%
Massachusetts 6     19.3%
Pennsylvania 13     18.8%
Pennsylvania 8      18.4%
Massachusetts 7     17.3%
New York 1          16.8%
New York 3          16.8%
Massachusetts 5     16.1%
New York 19         15.8%
Massachusetts 3     15.7%
New York 20         15.5%
New Jersey 3        15.3%
New Jersey 1        15.3%
New Hampshire 1     15.2%
New York 21         14.7%
New Jersey 5        14.2%
Massachusetts 1     13.9%
Rhode Island 2      13.9%
New Jersey 4        13.9%
New Hampshire 2     13.7%
New York 25         13.7%
Massachusetts 4     13.4%
Connecticut 2       13.3%
Pennsylvania 11     13.3%
Massachusetts 2     13.1%
New York 22         12.9%
New Jersey 2        12.9%
New York 29         12.9%
New Jersey 11       12.8%
New York 24         12.8%
Maryland 1          12.5%
Delaware AL         12.5%
Pennsylvania 6      12.5%
New York 23         12.3%
Maine 1             12.3%
Ohio 10             12.1%
Pennsylvania 18     12.1%
Illinois 3          12.0%
Rhode Island 1      11.8%
New York 27         11.8%
Vermont AL          11.7%
Connecticut 5       11.7%
New York 2          11.7%
Connecticut 3       11.4%
Illinois 13         11.3%
Pennsylvania 10     11.3%
Missouri 2          11.2%
Kentucky 4          11.1%

Top Irish CD by State:

Alabama 4            9.9%
Alaska AL            7.6%
Arizona 8            8.3%
Arkansas 3           9.1%
California 6         9.4%
Colorado 6           9.2%
Connecticut 2       13.3%
Delaware AL         12.5%
Florida 10          10.9%
Georgia 9            9.0%
Hawaii 2             3.6%
Idaho 1              7.3%
Illinois 3          12.0%
Indiana 5            8.8%
Iowa 2               9.4%
Kansas 3             9.4%
Kentucky 4          11.1%
Louisiana 1          7.4%
Maine 1             12.3%
Maryland 1          12.5%
Massachusetts 10    26.4%
Michigan 8           8.7%
Minnesota 4          8.2%
Mississippi 1        9.3%
Missouri 2          11.2%
Montana AL          10.0%
Nebraska 2           9.9%
Nevada 2             7.9%
New Hampshire 1     15.2%
New Jersey 3        15.3%
New Mexico 1         5.2%
New York 1          16.8%
North Carolina 11    9.0%
North Dakota AL      3.9%
Ohio 10             12.1%
Oklahoma 3           8.7%
Oregon 4             8.3%
Pennsylvania 7      22.3%
Rhode Island 2      13.9%
South Carolina 3     7.8%
South Dakota AL      5.9%
Tennessee 7          8.9%
Texas 4              8.5%
Utah 2               4.4%
Vermont AL          11.7%
Virginia 10          8.4%
Washington 5         8.9%
West Virginia 3     10.5%
Wisconsin 2          7.6%
Wyoming AL           8.8%

What are you looking at?  

I'm getting my data from Table 3 in the custom tables release by the Census bureau titled "Hispanic or Latino and Race Alone or in Combination - All Ages".  Mississippi's tables are available here (http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/st28-final_Mississippi.xls), in Excel format.  That shows a gain of 4,149 non-Hispanic whites from 2000 to 2010, or 0.2%.  Those charts counts people who listed two races as members of both races, which probably explains the discrepancy.

Iowa (-0.3%) would flip to the negative growth side if you exclude those of two or more races, too.

Yes, I was looking at the more standard Hispanic Origin and Race table (table 2). I suggest you do too. -_-

Is there a schedule anywhere? I want Washington data! :(

http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html

Oooh, South Dakota. Native figures will be interesting.

That doesn't seem terribly informative. :-\

Damnit, Gary! What's the point of having you in charge if you don't put WA first? :(

It is largely tied to when the states need the data.  The first states were those that have odd-year elections for their legislatures and so need to complete legislative redistricting real soon (before the primaries).  Illinois and Texas have early primaries next year, so they need to be completed before the filing deadline.  Texas redistricting is done by the legislature so it has to be finished by May if it is done in the regular session.  Washington has an August primary, and a commission to do the redistricting, so they could be among the last.  It also takes longer for larger states, so Washington might lag a bit there.

The Census Bureau is required to provide all states results within 1 year of the census, so March 31st at the latest.

  So I take a look at the data for Illinois released today:

  Big shocker:  Non Hispanic population -.8%
                       Hispanic population +32.5%

  If it weren't for Hispanics, our state's population wuold have been sunk.

Ill Ind

Cook shrinks a bit, older inner suburbs grow slightly, outer suburbs grow a lot (Kendall county more than doubled!), and the rest of the state looks like Iowa (cities grow a bit while rural counties shrink).

Not massively to the advantage of one party or another, since each party's strongest base area is shrinking.

Yes.  Illinois' non-Hispanic white (-3%) and black (-1.3%) population both fell.  Asians and Hispanics grew.

Chicago shrunk by almost 7%, at just under 2.7 million.  That's about 150,000 less than  2.85 million 2009 census estimate.  If Houston's population has been grossly understimated, the Second City might be our fourth largest... but I doubt it.

Far west suburban Aurora (+38%) is now the second largest city in the state, passing Rockford (+2%).  Far southwest suburban Joliet (+39%) rocketed from seventh to fourth.   Naperville's population was up by 10.5% - but fell from fourth to fifth.

Like Chicago, Cook County lost population (-3.4%).  DuPage tread water (+1.4%).  The far-out Chicago suburban collar counties grew the most, particularly Kendall (+110%), Will (+35%), Kane (+27%) and McHenry (+19%).

Oklahoma was also released today.  The state grew by 8.7%, but the non-Hispanic white population only grew by 0.7%.   The Hispanic population is up by 85.2%; the non-Hispanic Native American population grew by 16.0%.

Oklahoma City grew (+14.6%); Tulsa shrunk (-0.3%) - though their respective counties both grew (Oklahoma County +8.8%; Tulsa County +7.1%).  The more rapid growth was in counties bordering those two - Canadian County, west of OKC, grew by 32%; Cleveland County, south of OKC, grew by 23%; Wagoner County, southeast of Tulsa, grew by 27%; Rogers to Tulsa's east, was up by 23%.

South Dakota will be next.  Legislative officials were sent the files today.

Self-redesignation as American Indian continues apace in Oklahoma, I see. (One will have to wait until the release of the individual tribes count in a couple of years to see if there's also a population explosion among the more genuinely Indian population.)

The data released so far doesn't match the sometimes trumpeted theme that people are moving away from the suburbs back into the cities.  Many of the cities we've seen that have grown thus far are those that include areas that very suburban to begin with, like Indianapolis and Oklahoma City, smaller towns, or exurban edge cities like Aurora, Illinois.  Old, dense cities like Chicago and Baltimore continue to lose population.  And suburban growth continues, especially in exurban areas further flung from the central city.

Of course, there will be exceptions to this (Washington D.C., for sure, likely New York City, too) - but it is a trend we should continue to watch.

The problem with this assumption was always that the trend is limited to a fairly small area of cities, the yuppie urban core. In DC and New York, that area is quite large, but most elsewhere (save the West Coast cities) it is still fairly small. Somewhere like Chicago, the yuppie core probably did see a lot of growth, but it was offset by continued black middle class migration to the suburbs and dying off of the elderly working class whites. (Both of those are mitigated somewhat by Hispanic and Asian immigration, but those tend to be a little bit slower than the factors causing decline. Not always, though.)

Still, a few cities really turned it around this cycle. Newark saw population growth (even while Essex County as a whole declined).

You can use the ACS for that.

It appears that you need 2005-9 to get a complete picture.

2007-9 for selected states: WA to TX + CO + OK + MO + WI + FL

2009: CA and TX

Just to add on to Verily and Cinyc's comments, another issue is that areas can often decrease in population when they become gentrified and "hip". The reason is that upper-middle class people, especially those without kids who predominate in such areas, use more square feet per person than low-income people, especially minority families. If a bunch of minority families with kids are leaving an area while childless professionals who like to take up their own apartment or live just with one or two roommates are entering, the number of people per existing residential unit will likely decline. But the fluffier sections of the newspaper will include a lot of articles suggesting that "people" are moving in to the area because the journalists and intended readers know more of the people moving in than out, and it intuitively seems to the new middle class residents that they're living densely, because they are, in fact, living more densely than the white suburbanites they compare themselves to.

This can be offset sometimes if the total number of occupied residential spaces is increasing, either because there was a lot of vacant blight to start with, or because industrial spaces are converted into condos.

We'll have to see when the block results come out, but I suspect we'll find certain areas where this process is at its strongest, like the border areas between white brownstone Brooklyn and Bed Stuy/Crown Heights or the areas moving from Hispanic to liberal middle-class white in northwest Chicago, are either shrinking or at least increasing much less quickly than one might think.

You can see how in Chicago the population changed in this map (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0216-census-gfx.eps-20110215,0,7750399.graphic).
Basically central Chicago grew while most of the rest lost population.

I'm thinking of all the careful effort people put into drawing three 50% African-American districts for IL-1, IL-2, and IL-7, and how that didn't survive contact with real data.

Vermont's black population grew 105%? Interesting...

SD is out. Black population is up by 117%, but it is still only 1.3% :)))) Hispanics also more than doubled - about 2.7% now and American Indian is up15.3% to 8.8%. Whites only up 4.5% but still it is quite white out there.

Populations of Shannon and Todd didn't rise all that much. Mind you, grow they did. Most rural white counties' populations fell. Some of the smaller rez counties too - Buffalo, Corson, Dewey. Dewey fell by more than 10 while Ziebach grew by as much - what's going on here, intrarez urbanization? (Estimates say that's happening in Navajoland, hence my guess.)
Native share of Rapid City was 10% in 2000 IIRC, over 12 now.

Pretty much exactly what I predicted, then. Except that Hispanic growth seems to have halted (and that seems to be the main difference in terms of trends from 2000); I wonder why that is? Anyone from the Chicago area know?

Two or three precincts in downtown LA must have gone through the roof, as office buildings were converted into housing, or new housing towers built, in a rather massive way. I suspect we are talking about say 15,000 new residents here, at the cost of next to zero being displaced. And I bet about 70%-80% of them are Asian. :)

Without Chicago, Cook gained about 18K in population.

It looks like the Hispanic growth was enough to have IL not lose a 2nd CD this decade.

Ziebach County and urbanization aren't two words that I'd expect in the same sentence.  It's simply not that large.   The county's population population grew from 2,519 to 2,899   That's 380 new residents - fewer people than live in a large NYC apartment building. 

We'd have to look at the tract level data to figure out what happened.  Perhaps there was some spillover from Eagle Butte, which is on the border between the two counties of Cheyenne River Indian Agency Reservation, but largely in Dewey.

Areas near the Loop up to about Lincoln Park grew, as did some census tracts on the Far northwest side, near O'Hare, and southwest side near Midway.  Everything else lost population, as did the near South suburbs.

Otherwise, Cook County's growth is largely at the far fringes, especially in far Southwest areas.  That makes sense, since that's where some of the county's last available empty tracts were during the past decade.

So Chicago lost 17% of its black population? Wow. But statewide the decline was only 1%? Hmm, what suburbs did they move to? Looks like ~60,000 moved to suburban Cook, with Will County being the runner-up at a net gain of ~23k...

Wow, indeed. Just wow. What that suggests to me is that there has been considerable upward mobility in the black population in the last 10 years in Chicagoland. Am I wrong?  Or are inner city neighborhoods being gentrified, and the blacks pushed to undesirable suburbs, or back to the South? Or both?  As to the back to the South thing, there is this tendency for when Hispanics move in, the lower SES blacks move out. More should be written about that. But what happens when Hispanics are everywhere doing the grunt work?

By the way, how many Mexican restaurants did Chicago have when I arrived there in 1969 as a Freshman?  Yes you guessed it - one, way up on the northside just south of the Evanston border. Now Chicago has how many Mexicans? 700,000 or something?

Texas data is out.

Non Hispanic whites went from 52.4% to 45.3% while Hispanics went from 32% to 37.6%, if these trends continue then by the next census Texas will be Hispanic plurality.

Houston population, 2009 Census Estimate: 2,257,926
Houston population, 2010 Census Result: 2,099,451
%Difference: 7.5

Dallas population, 2009 Census Estimate: 1,299,543
Dallas population, 2010 Census Result: 1,197,816
%Difference: 8.5

These are massive overestimates.

Chicago demolished a ton of its public housing---50,000 units or something---so that probably played a large role in this... Still, 17% is hard to comprehend. Maybe Muon2 will give us an answer! :P

Houston population is 2,099,451

The Houston city charter has a provision to increase the number of district members from 9 to 11 if the population exceeds 2,100,000.  This was put in place as a sort of a compromise when district elections were imposed in response to the VRA.

A couple of years ago Houston was sued to have the two additional districts created, but the city argued that there was not accurate enough data to draw district boundaries.

But the census determined that the trigger was not reached (by 549 persons, or 0.026%).

There is also a trigger related to composition of the Metro (mass transit) board.  Currently the mayor appoints 5 of the 9 members, and has effective control of Metro.  But the trigger would switch control to members appointed by county commissioners and city councils of smaller cities.

Next week are:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• Hawaii
• Missouri
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Utah
• Washington

Hooray! ;D

Heh Im guessing the numbers will be challenged.
Looks like a big western dump of states next week which should be good. Though I of course want see Wisconsin.

I'm so excited!

Chicago demolished a ton of its public housing---50,000 units or something---so that probably played a large role in this... Still, 17% is hard to comprehend. Maybe Muon2 will give us an answer


  Chicago esentially demolished all of its high-rise public housing.  Some low-rise row house type remains, although alot of that has been or is being demolished as well.
  The residents are given vouchers to use wherever they want--places that will take them anyways.  Yes, a portion of the public housing population has left Chicago for the suburbs including the one in which I reside.

Ill_Ind

So, where in Texas was underestimated?

Is this going to make Republican gerrymandering harder or it won't have much of an effect overall?

Of the 20 largest cities, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Arlington, Plano, Brownsville and McAllen were all overestimated.  Dallas' population was the most overestimated, followed by Houston and Plano.  Brownsville and McAllen were the least overestimated, by under 2%.

The populations of Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Corpus Christi, Laredo, Lubbock, Garland, Irving, Amarillo, Grand Prairie, Pasadena, Mesquite and McKinney were underestimated: Grand Prairie was underestimated the most at about 7% (with a different fraction, depending on whether you use the estimate or actual numbers as the denominator when determining the difference), Corpus Christi the next at about 6%, followed by Irving at about 5%.  Austin and Amarillo were the least underestimated, by under 1%.

Of the top 20 counties, only Dallas (3%), Collin (1%) and Travis (0.2%) were overestimated in 2009.  The population of the other 17 counties was underestimated, some counties greatly so.  Bell County's population (Temple/Killeen) was underestimated by 8%, El Paso's by about 6%, and Nueces (Corpus Christi) and Fort Bend (SW of Houston) counties by about 5%. Denton (N of DFW) and Harris (Houston) counties were the least underestimated, at less than 1%.  The state's population was underestimated by about 1.5% - but since the last estimate I've found was as on July 1, 2009, some of that change was likely due to pure population growth since the estimate.

Texas is one state where the non-Hispanic White population increased, albeit about five times slower than the state's population as a whole. - 4.2% versus 20.6%.

That's an additional 40,000 or 50,000 voters going into the new TX-23 then, right?

There's no law saying that TX-23 has to stretch to El Paso.  If I were the TX GOP I'd append the far western part of TX-23 to the Midland district (assuming they're not trying to make that one a majority-minority district as well). 

Are you talking about now, or in the future?  It might actually make things easier now, but you need to see how the numbers hit.  As for the future, well, you're guess is as good as mine.  The numbers kind of speak for themselves.

That's about 40,000-50,000 additional El Paso County residents compared to the 2009 estimates, not necessarily that many voters.   I'd give you an exact figure, but I foolishly didn't save my worksheet.  In which congressional district(s) those residents end up is still and open question. 

Some West and North Texas counties shrunk.  Loving actually grew.  It now has a whopping 82 residents.

Right. Dumbass mistake.

For now of course, nobody knows what happens in ten years.

Also, not that Texas has become a minority-majority state, does that mean that the DOJ can ask that almost half of its districts be VRA?

Well, first consider that VAP (not total population) is 49.6% white, 33.6% Hispanic.  Then you've got to rebalance using actual citizen VAP, which will be even less Hispanic.  Under LULAC, it's either going to be VAP or citizen VAP (though I suspect it's citizen VAP) for permissible minority-majority CDs.

If it's citizen VAP (and probably even if it's VAP), then consider that you're going to need at least 60%-65% of baseline Hispanics (not VAP or citizen VAP) in a CD to get Hispanic minority-majority VAP or citizen VAP.  There's only so many districts I can draw that will reach that number because the Hispanic population is pretty spread out (too many 20%-30% Hispanic voting districts, especially in the 'burbs) outside of the inner city core, which will be required to maintain certain CDs - for example Gene Green's CD is tough to get that much higher than 70% - inclusion of even a trivial amount of whiter suburbs creates problems.  Also, keep in mind LULAC can be used as a sword too to prevent requiring ridiculous looking strip districts, as the Austin to border CD was no good to create a Hispanic CD.

You draw the districts under 60% Hispanic - the Supreme Court will yell at you for impermissible dilution and you'll get bad results, the Republicans will win far more often than you want them to, especially if there's no blacks or its not an inner city core or Austin, they'll almost always win.  Another structural problem with creating good Hispanic Democratic districts, which connects to this, is that too many blacks are locked up in east Texas where they're f-cked and you can't get to them.

The fact is that 3 more Hispanic CDs may well be required than 2000, but I suspect it won't be any more, unless patterns are changed from what I was seeing.  And apart from the Dallas CD, the GOP will attempt to use Doggett and Green for the other two, if need be.  I need to see what the voting districts look like and draw a few maps.  The voting districts won't be changed much except to split or combine, so it's very useful.

I made myself a little excel table of Native population change in South Dakota. :)

The standards for Hispanic districts will probably make up some of the key redistricting cases in this decade. One part is the VAP versus CVAP problem you alluded to. The 5th circuit used CVAP in LULAC, but the SCOTUS avoided the question and decided the case on other grounds. In Bartlett the SCOTUS noted the issue of CVAP, but again avoided the question since it was less relevant for a Black population and they could decide the case without going into CVAP. CVAP will be further complicated since the 2000-cycle of cases had citizenship on the census long form, but it is absent on the short-form only 2010 census. The statistics from the ACS are all that's available and they are much weaker statistically than the long-form numbers from 2000.

In the 7th circuit there was a rejection of plaintiff's claims for a 65% standard for Hispanic districts to account for citizenship in Gonzales v Aurora. They didn't have Bartlett yet and the case wasn't taken to the SCOTUS. There is also the question of whether it is required to create 50%+ VAP Hispanic districts where a CVAP majority isn't possible.

A second issue that will arise is the conflict between Black and Hispanic districts. SCOTUS opinions have been about the minority group's voting rights compared to the White majority. Bartlett makes clear that the only protected section 2 groups are single race majorities. There is no guidance to resolve a situation where either a Black-majority or Hispanic-majority district can be drawn, but not both.

This will be an interesting cycle for redistricting cases. :)

muon2, in the suburban/urban areas of Houston, DFW and San Antonio, in order to draw more 50% Hispanic VAP CDs, you'll have to dilute the inner Hispanic urban core, as the suburbs are filled with far too many 10%-30% Hispanic VTD.  Even then, I'll be lucky to get 2, maybe 3 more CDs.  And no one's gonna like that, as you'll marginalize the present Dem CDs and the new ones.

I fully expect a doctrine to emerge that fake Hispanic Republican districts like Sam and Kraven have been drawing for Texas (districts that meet a certain threshold for Hispanic percentage but still can be depended on to vote for their Whites' choice, thanks partly to turnout and citizenship differentials, thanks partly to the fact that Hispanics in some parts of the nation, mostly in Texas, are closer to a fifty-fifty split than Whites) are just as unprotected as fake Coalition districts (where you're adding a White Republican-leaning area and some nearby minority areas, and the result votes Democratic and is plurality White, and a White Democrat wins as a result).
Or rather, the court's will to (quite rightly) consider these things frivolous has evidently emerged already, what's lacking yet is clear legal language.

And?  Anything stick out other than the Ziebach County anomoly?  Pennington County?

Sam, I think that the best plan is first to look at how districts perform at electing candidates of choice, probably by regression analysis of voting patterns. However, once suitably performing districts are drawn then, if there is not a roughly proportional number of districts for the minority, additional majority minority districts would be drawn where possible. That would eliminate the dilution problem in the urban core, yet still provide some level of VRA protection for additional population so that the remainder is not easily cracked.

And I'm just telling you that you're going to end up coming to my conclusion.  You almost don't need regression analysis when you know most of these areas personally.  :)  But let me extrapolate.

By my maths, by VAP numbers, it says that we should aim for 12/36 Hispanic majority-minority (50%) CDs under the VRA (33.6% VAP/36 CDs).  Now, the CDs in El Paso and along the border/South Texas are just going to have more than 50% VAP by their nature, and, furthermore, you're going to require more like 55% VAP (and maybe more) to ensure in these areas that they don't vote the "wrong way" all the time (they still may anyway, if present trends continue, which is, of course, a giant if), so there's going to be some slippage based on this factor alone which is probably worth at least one CD, maybe two.

Meanwhile, in the cities I mentioned, as I'm sure you realize - in Houston, it's going to be hard enough to draw two majority-minority Hispanic CDs.  But maybe the DOJ forces it on them - Al Green won't be happy, but that's his problem.  I don't really see how you do more, because all of the rest of the big Hispanic numbers (i.e. over 40%) are locked within blacks, or impossible to get without diluting blacks (I know the f-ing geography too well) or are, surprise, surprise, voting Republican, less than the other areas, but enough to cause dilution problems.

In DFW, one Hispanic district will be drawn, and can be, but I don't see how you do another.  Just look and see how many 20%-30% Hispanic VTDs there are in the DFW area and how impossible they are to unlock without screwing up other places.

In Austin, no one's ever figured out how to unlock the Hispanics, and there's really only one answer - combine them with the other half of San Antonio Hispanics, but I already proposed that as something that may well be done.  The liberal whites will get screwed then, but they already are.  I would try to combine the other half of San Antonio Hispanics with somewhere, but I then just get another marginal Hispanic majority CD.  Ugh.

So that leaves us with 9 majority-minority CDs, one lost because of normal population inequalities and the Hispanic undervote, and at least two others lost because of the damn spread out nature of the Texas Hispanic population (do I need to mention how many Hispanics are lost in west Texas - they don't really vote the right way, so no one cares that much - and I tried unlocking them but Lewis told me it was illegal...  :().  

Maybe you can figure out a way to create an Austin Hispanic majority-minority CD without attaching it to San Antonio - that's about the only other way I can think of to get another minority-majority CD, but the surrounding areas are simply not that favorable to the task - I'll reexamine Williamson and Hays when the new numbers come out.

Native increases in Yankton and Bon Homme Counties are certainly puzzling.
Aw hell, here's the table. Despite excel always looking terrible on the forum. All counties with Native (only) population over 5% or over 500 in 2010 listed.

County   2010 pop   2010 native   2010 share   2000 pop   2000 native   2000 share   pop change   native ch   non change   
Bennett   3431   2072   60,39%   3574   1826   51,09%   -4,00%   13,47%   -22,25%   borders Pine Ridge & Rosebud
Bon Homme   7070   494   6,99%   7260   214   2,95%   -2,62%   130,84%   -6,67%   borders Yankton
Brown   36531   1078   2,95%   35460   954   2,69%   3,02%   13,00%   2,74%   Aberdeen
Brule   5255   425   8,09%   5364   436   8,13%   -2,03%   -2,52%   -1,99%   borders Crow Creek
Buffalo   1912   1575   82,37%   2032   1640   80,71%   -5,91%   -3,96%   -14,03%   includes bulk of Crow Creek
Charles Mix   9128   2830   31,00%   9350   2561   27,39%   -2,37%   10,50%   -7,23%   includes Yankton
Codington   27227   512   1,88%   25897   361   1,39%   5,14%   41,83%   4,62%   small portion of Lake Traverse
Corson   4050   2635   65,06%   4181   2471   59,10%   -3,13%   6,64%   -17,25%   SD portion of Standing Rock
Day   5710   535   9,37%   6267   456   7,28%   -8,89%   17,32%   -10,94%   includes part of Lake Traverse
Dewey   5301   3914   73,84%   5972   4390   73,51%   -11,24%   -10,84%   -12,33%   part of Cheyenne River
Fall River   7094   474   6,68%   7453   448   6,01%   -4,82%   5,80%   -5,50%   Black Hills
Gregory   4271   312   7,31%   4792   267   5,57%   -10,87%   16,85%   -12,51%   borders Rosebud
Hughes   17022   1728   10,15%   16481   1398   8,48%   3,28%   23,61%   1,40%   Pierre, part of Crow Creek
Hyde   1420   113   7,96%   1671   129   7,72%   -15,02%   -12,40%   -15,24%   part of Crow Creek
Jackson   3031   1547   51,04%   2930   1398   47,71%   3,45%   10,66%   -3,13%   includes part of Pine Ridge
Lyman   3755   1420   37,82%   3895   1292   33,17%   -3,59%   9,91%   -10,30%   includes most of Lower Brule
Marshall   4656   343   7,37%   4576   282   6,16%   1,75%   21,63%   0,44%   small portion of Lake Traverse
Meade   25434   563   2,21%   24253   475   1,96%   4,87%   18,53%   4,60%   borders Cheyenne River
Mellette   2048   1092   53,32%   2083   1068   51,27%   -1,68%   2,25%   -5,81%   borders Rosebud & Pine Ridge
Minnehaha   169468   3933   2,32%   148281   2678   1,81%   14,29%   46,86%   13,69%   Sioux Falls
Moody   6486   889   13,71%   6595   778   11,80%   -1,65%   14,27%   -3,78%   includes Flandreau
Pennington   100948   9042   8,96%   88565   6773   7,65%   13,98%   33,50%   12,37%   Rapid City
Roberts   10149   3458   34,07%   10016   2956   29,51%   1,33%   16,98%   -5,23%   includes part of Lake Traverse
Shannon   13586   12784   94,10%   12466   11608   93,12%   8,98%   10,13%   -6,53%   bulk of Pine Ridge
Stanley   2966   196   6,61%   2772   135   4,87%   7,00%   45,19%   5,04%   small portion of Lower Brule, borders Cheyenne River
Todd   9612   8297   86,32%   9050   7642   84,44%   6,21%   8,57%   -6,61%   Rosebud
Tripp   5644   769   13,63%   6430   691   10,75%   -12,22%   11,29%   -15,05%   borders Rosebud
Walworth   5438   769   14,14%   5974   690   11,55%   -8,97%   11,45%   -11,64%   borders Cheyenne River, Standing Rock
Yankton   22438   537   2,39%   21652   342   1,58%   3,63%   57,02%   2,77%   Yankton (city)
Ziebach   2801   2023   72,22%   2519   1801   71,50%   11,19%   12,33%   8,36%   part of Cheyenne River
State   814180   69476   8,53%   754844   60988   8,08%   7,86%   13,92%   7,33%   
35 counties   290298   3117   1,07%   267033   2828   1,06%   8,71%   10,22%   8,70%   

I did a sort-of-similar table for Oklahoma, too.

I think we aren't so far apart. I have no doubt that reaching 12 Hispanic CDs in TX is nigh impossible. That's the target, however, and one should make a good effort to reach that without diluting other districts so much that they cease to be opportunities.

For instance, since one is still under the goal one looks at areas like Harris Co for 2 districts rather than one. For the Latinos there it's a matter of having two opportunities, rather than zero or one. I posted that one on the TX thread back in Jan, and your comments suggest that the map may well go that way, especially as it doesn't impact the GOP districts there.

In DFW I agree that there is only one district, precisely because you can't draw two at over 50% VAP. And I too will be curious to see the actual numbers in central TX.

Unfortunately, the truth is that reaching 11 CDs is nigh impossible too because of the spread out nature of things.  Certainly if its CVAP, but almost certainly VAP. 

Which leaves us the question of whether 10 is possible - it's only possible if you can draw an Austin-centered Hispanic district while avoiding San Antonio, the new numbers will tell us on that front.  Otherwise, you have to draw the Austin-San Antonio district to get enough Hispanics by reaching into the barrio (which means you have to go through non-Hispanic areas) and you're not going to get 10 CDs (the border has not grown fast enough, Corpus Christi lost population!, as I'm sure the south side barrio in Bexar did too).  And I'm sure certain people will insist that the present situation should stay intact, as there should be just an Austin-centered district based on some other logic.

On Houston, the Hispanic district will be drawn if it makes sense (and the numbers are there - I think they will be).  But expect the blacks to complain to high heaven - knowing the Texas GOP, I would expect them to do things for the Hispanics, but who knows.  As I said before, it really doesn't make that much difference to the Republicans, vote-wise.

Lastly, I can tell you that the Hispanics outside the Houston, DFW and Austin metros are going to demand 50% CVAP - otherwise it's too easy to design districts that will vote Republican.

In the last round CVAP could be easily surmised from the long form data. That leaves only the ACS which has much less statistical reliability than the long form data. Also, the Census Bureau acknowledges that the 2009 ACS citizenship data doesn't always match up well with the new 2010 census block groups, since it used 2000 geography. The 2010 ACS with the new geography will be out probably late this year, so where does that leave states like TX and IL that have to create maps rather early?

With such poor data, I just don't think SCOTUS will sign off on CVAP (I kind of doubt they would even with good data actually). Every map would be litigated to death, over a factual issue, with whore experts on each side. It would be a nightmare. In fact, I would be kind of surprised if a SCOTUS vote tanking CVAP did not secure in excess of five votes.

But, to the extent one can avoid the legal risk, without undue partisan cost, just do it obviously.

CVAP will still be in play however due to the dilution issue, but I suspect the standard will be high to toss a map out because the minority VAP percentage is too high, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the VAP percentage was pushed up considerably beyond the percentage necessary for the minority to elect a candidate of their choice, and that was animated by partisan - or to bleach out the congressional delegation - motives.

So we' ve just uncovered why the Census Bureau implemented the thing in the first place?

The Yankton and Bon Homme increases could be people moving from and/or marrying and having kids with Native Americans from the Yankton reservation in nearby Charles Mix County.  Yankton is the closest larger-sized market town to the reservation, so it makes some sense that rural folks looking for better economic opportunities might move there.

Thanks for the chart.

Do something like  concat(a1.rept(" ",20-len(a1)))  to left justify and fill with trailing blanks.
and concat(rept(" ",8-len(b1)),b1) to right justify with leading blanks.  Set the values of 20 and 8 based on the column content.   Then concat(I1:m1) or whatever to merge all the formatted columns.  Then paste that to the forum, and surround with tt tags to get fixed pitch spacing.

Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington were shipped to state legislators today.  They will likely be released to the public tomorrow.

New states are out! :)

Colorado, Oregon and Washington were just released.

El Paso County (Colorado Springs) is now the largest county in Colorado, surpassing Denver County and Jefferson Counties.  Jefferson County grew by an anemic 1.4%, and is now in fourth, behind those two and Arapahoe.

Colorado grew by 16.9%, with the non-Hispanic White population growing by 9.9%.

In Oregon, Deschutes County (Bend) was the fastest-growing, at 36.7%.  Multnomah County (Portland) grew at about the statewide average (11.3% vs. 12.0%); Portland-suburban Washington County grew faster than that, at 18.9%.  Redmond (94%), Grant's Pass (50%),  Bend (47%) and Hillsboro (31%) were the fastest-growing cities in the state.

Oregon's non-Hispanic White population grew by 5.2%.

In Washington, Franklin County (Pasco/Tri-Cities) grew the most - by 58.4%, followed by Clark (Portland Suburbs) at 23.2%, Benton (Richland/Kennewick/Tri-Cities) at 23.0%, Mason (north of Olympia) at 22.9% and Thurston (Olympia) at 21.7%.  King and Pierce Counties grew slightly less than the state as a whole (11.2 and 13.5% vs. 14.1%).

The city of Seattle grew by 8% - far less rapidly than suburban Seattle areas like Marysville (137%),  Renton (82%) and Auburn (78%) or interior cities like Pasco (86%), Kennewick (35%) and Yakima (27%).  Spokane (7%) and Tacoma (3%) grew even slower than Seattle.

The non-Hispanic white population grew by 4.8%.

Hawaii hasn't been released yet.  It might take an additional day to get in touch with their legislative leaders, given the time difference.

------------------------------------------------------
Note that the fastest growing is of the 20 largest counties ranked by the census bureau.

Only two Washington counties lost population, both on the Oregon border - Pacific and Garfield.  Most counties in Eastern Oregon lost population, save a few on the Columbia River.  In Colorado, most counties bordering Kansas lost population, as did a few bordering New Mexico and Wyoming, as well as Lake and Clear Creek counties in the Rockies.

I'm sorry, but I find that idea hilarious. :P

Which idea is hilarious?  Marysville is the fastest-growing city in the state in percentage terms.  Granted, its 2000 base population was much lower than most - but even so, it picked up more residents than any city except Seattle and Renton.  It jumped from the state's 36th largest city to its 15th.

Snohomish County (17.7%) grew at a faster rate than King, Pierce or the state as a whole.

You can classify a city that is 35 miles away from the metro's main city along its main highway and rail line in one of its major suburban counties as whatever you like - suburban, exurban, suburban Everett or whatever.  It's in the Seattle metro.

No, no. I don’t doubt you. I’ve just lived in or near Marysville (about 15 minutes west of) for most of my life, and my dad used to work for the City of Marysville as their finance director once upon a time, and the notion that Marysville is a Seattle suburb is a strange one to me. If anything, it's a suburb (sorta, it's complicated) of Everett.

Also, on the population growth, a good chunk of that growth in Marysville was from annexations of surrounding suburban areas that were previously unincorporated. It did grow, and quite a bit, don’t get me wrong, it’s just a bit inflated.

Growth due to annexations is one thing that takes further analysis to unravel.  The census bureau does not differentiate between growth in the old city area or growth in annexed areas.

It does make sense that Marysville would have seen explosive growth in the past decade, as the Seattle-Tacoma metro area raced up the I-5 corridor.  Auburn is another area at the fringes of the highway system where one would have expected to see explosive growth, too.

I think Alabama, Missouri, Nevada and Utah shipped to legislative leaders today.  We might get those states plus Hawaii tomorrow afternoon.

Question for the northwesterners: why is Deschutes county (Bend, OR) growing so fast?

I'm not an expert on Bend, but I believe it's a combination of it being the big town near the Mt. Bachelor ski resort area and because it's seen a jump in retirees settling in.

I think you're seeing the same type of thing that partially drove growth in places like Montrose, Grand Junction and Eagle County, Colorado.  Bend is an outdoorsy lifestyle town that attracts both retirees and outdoor enthusiasts.  Tourism is its number one industry.  (Grand Junction also had a bit of an oil and gas play, though).

Also, its 2000 base population isn't as high as someplace like Portland, which makes the percentage growth higher than it would otherwise be.  But the city did have the second-highest population increase after Portland, and the county the third-highest after the two largest Portland-area counties.

That's pretty much my interpretation on the matter.

I think Bend also experienced growth the same way Las Vegas and Phoenix did--it was a low-cost housing market of a certain size convenient to some wealthy, high-cost housing markets.

Bend has a good climate. It's drier. If you want to live east of the Cascades in Oregon, Bend is by far the best game in town as to amenities, and has good airline connections to Portland and SF. My dentist decamped to there. He is deliriously happy so I'm told. He bought a nice little estate on the river, and sold his house at the top of the market in Coto de Caza for about 3 million.  That must have made him even happier. :)

Well, Bend had, at one time, one of the most overvalued housing markets in the country, according to Forbes.  But home prices were probably still lower than comparable housing in denser West Coast urban areas.

If I were to liken Bend to any southern Mountain West town, it would be St. George, Utah in Utah's Dixie - another town that we're likely to see experienced extremely high growth when Utah's numbers are released this afternoon.  It's a desert town a few hours from a major city (Las Vegas) that is near recreational opportunities in the nearby mountains.  Retirees flocked there over the past decade, and others followed.  

Alabama, Hawaii, Missouri, Nevada and Utah are now out.  The highlights, in reverse alphabetical order:

Utah
In Utah, growth was largely in the Salt Lake City area, particularly in the I-15 corridor from Salt Lake City to Provo.  The state's fastest-growing cities were Lehi (+149%),  Spanish Fork (+71%), South Jordan (+71%), Draper (+67%), Riverton (+55%), West Jordan (+52%) and St. George (+47%), all but the last of which are in that corridor.  Salt Lake City proper barely grew (+3%) and suburban Sandy lost population (-1%).

The fastest-growing counties were Wasatch (+55%), on the other side of the mountains for which it is named from Provo (perhaps exurban spillover in the Heber City area - but the population is still under 25k), Washington (+53%), on the state's southwest corner in Utah's dixie, home to the city of St. George, Tooele (+43%), immediately west of Salt Lake County, and Utah (+40%), home of Provo and BYU.   Salt Lake County grew slower than the state (14.6% vs. 23.8%), but still picked up more residents than all but Utah County - and more residents than live in all but the top 5 counties.

The state's non-Hispanic white population grew by 16.7%.

Nevada
As expected, the overwhelming majority of Nevada's growth was in Clark County (Las Vegas), which grew faster than the state as a whole (41.8% vs. 35.1%).  Only Lyon County, arguably exurban Reno, grew faster at 50.7% - but from a much lower base.  And the only other county to grow faster than the state was Nye (35.3%).  I suspect much of its growth was in the Pahrump area, arguably exurban Las Vegas.  Washoe County (Reno) grew at a respectable 24.1%, and picked up more residents than live in any other county but Clark.  Ultra-rural Lander (-0.3%), Mineral (-5.9%) and Esmeralda (-19.1%) counties lost population.  Esmeralda's population fell to just 783.

On the city level, the fastest-growers were Fernley in Lyon County (+127%), North Las Vegas (+88%), Mesquite, on I-15 at the Arizona border (+63%), Henderson (+47%) and Sparks, near Reno (+36%).  Las Vegas proper grew by 22%, but picked up more residents than any other city.  Reno proper grew by 25%, but picked up more residents than any cities but Las Vegas and North Las Vegas.   Rural West Wendover (-7%), Lovelock (-5%) and Wells (-4%) lost population.   Boulder City barely grew.

The state's non-Hispanic White population grew by 12.2%.

Missouri
St. Louis City (-8.3%) and County (-1.7%) both lost population, while Kansas City (+4.1%) and most other cities gained population.  The fastest-growing of the top-20 cities were O'Fallon (+71.8%) in St. Louis' St. Charles County suburbs, Lee's Summit (+29.2%) in the Kansas City suburbs, the college town of Columbia (+28.4%) and Joplin (+10.2%) in the southwest corner of the state.  No other of the top 20 cities grew by more than 10%.  University City (-5.5%), adjacent to St. Louis, Raytown (-2.8%), adjacent to Kansas City, and Ballwin (-2.8%) in St. Louis County lost population.

On the county level, St. Louis County's population fell below 1,000,000, while neighboring St. Charles County grew by 27%.  Other counties with rapid growth include Christian (+43%), south of Springfield,  Lincoln (+35%), north of St. Charles, Pulaski (+27%), which includes Fort Leonard Wood, Cass (+21%), Platte (+21%) and Clay (+20%), all in the Kansas City area, plus Boone County (+20%), home of Columbia.

Missouri's non-Hispanic white population grew by 3.5%, half as fast as the state as a whole (7.0%).

Hawaii
The Neighbor Islands grew faster than Oahu (+8.8%), with the big Island of Hawaii leading the way at 24.5%.  Maui County was next, growing at a 20.9% clip, followed by Kauai County at 14.8%.  Nevertheless, Honolulu County (Oahu) picked up more residents than all the other counties combined.  Kalawao County, comprising the former leper colony of Kalaupapa on the island of Molakai, lost 38.8% of its residents and is now down to 90 residents.  Loving County, Texas is still smaller, with 82 residents.

Hawaii's census geography is a bit strange because it doesn't have municipalities below the county level, and census designated place borders have changed since 2000, rendering comparisons impossible.  Of the CDPs with the same borders in 2000, the Ewa Gentry CDP, presumably on Oahu west of Pearl Harbor, grew by leaps and bounds (359%), as did Pearl City (54%).  Kahului and Kihei CDPs on Maui grew 31% and 25%, respectively.  Interior Oahu Miilani Town CDP (-3%) and Windward Oahu Kaneohe (-1.1%) lost population.

Hawaii's non-Hispanic white population grew by 11.6%, almost as fast as the state as a whole (12.3%).  Hawaii's non-Hispanic African-American population fell by 4.4%, while its non-Hispanic Asian population grew at a relatively slow 3.9%.  The non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander population grew by 18.2%.   Non-Hispanics of two or more races increased by 20.7%, while Hispanics increased by 37.8%.

Alabama
The city of Birmingham lost over 30,000 residents in the past decade, 12.6% of its population. Despite only growing by 2.1%, the state capital of Montgomery ended up only about 6,500 residents away from passing Birmingham as the state's largest city.  

Birmingham's loss was its suburbs' gain - Vestavia Hills and Hoover in Jefferson County grew by 39.0% and 30.1%;  Alabaster in Shelby County by 34.2%.   But gains in suburban Jefferson County were not enough to offset population losses in Birmingham and Bessemer (-7.5%), causing the county as a whole to lose 0.5% of its residents over the past decade.  

Other cities with rapid growth include the Huntsville suburb of Madison (+46.4%), the Montgomery suburb of Prattville (+39.7%), Enterprise (+25.4%), near Fort Rucker in the southeast corner of the state, and the college town of Auburn (+24.2%).  The cities of Mobile (-1.9%) and Gadsen (-5.4%) both lost population.

On the county level, most counties in Western Alabama lost population.  The fastest-growing counties were generally in the Huntsville area, outer areas of the Birmingham metro, and Montgomery suburbs.  Shelby County, near Birmingham, led the pack with 36% growth, followed by Baldwin County on the Redneck Riviera across Mobile Bay from Mobile at 29%, Birmingham-area St. Clair County at 29%, Limestone County near Huntsville at 26%, Lee County (Auburn) at 22% Madison County (Huntsville) at 21%, and Elmore County north of Montgomery at 20%.  Madison, Shelby and Baldwin gained the most total population.
 
Alabama's non-Hispanic white population grew by 2.5%, one-third of the state's overall 7.5% growth.  The Hispanic population more than doubled (+144.8%).  Alabama's non-Hispanic black population grew slightly faster than the overall state population (+8.2%).

When I was a kid, St. George, Utah had about 5,000 people. It was a pit stop for folks coming up from LA going on to Salt Lake, Denver or Yellowstone or whatever. I knew the town well. Sleepy little place. My Dad had his booze in the trunk. Now it has quite vast housing tracks, golf courses and the like. It is the climate of course. It is kind of an LDS Palm Springs.

Surprising is that Salt Lake City could fall by the wayside as a state capital that is also the largest city in its state, while Montgomery could reclaim its claim.

Clark County doesn't quite have enough population for 3 of Nevada's 4 CD.  It is 74,000 short.  You can either go along the Utah border to Idaho, or take the entire pointed lower pointed part of the state to get enough population.  So now the cow counties are not only overwhelmed by Reno and Las Vegas they will be divided up.

Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina and Wyoming will be released next week.

Salt Lake City's still a long way off from being dethroned as the largest city in Utah.  Its population is about 186,500.  The next largest city, West Valley City, has about 57,000 fewer residents at about 129,500.   If West Valley City continues to grow at the same pace as 2000-2010, it would probably take 3 decades to pass Salt Lake City.    Same with fast-growing West Jordan - it's about 2 to 3 decades off from passing SLC, assuming current growth rates, which probably aren't sustainable.  Plus, Salt Lake City might have some land to grow out by the airport.

Montgomery, on the other hand...


I think you almost have to put Nye with the Clark County district, given it is pretty much exurban Las Vegas now that its population is centered in Pahrump instead of Tonopah.  After that, you'd need to find another 30,200 residents - most logically first from Lincoln, Esmeralda and Mineral Counties, and then either going up to White Pine and environs or across to take in southern Lyon and Douglas.  I'd probably do the former to keep as much of the Reno/Lake Tahoe/Carson City area together as possible.

Large Missouri cities racial break downs (White/Not Hispanic, Black/Not Hispanic, Hispanic)

Kansas City: 59% W/30% B/10% H
St. Louis: 44% W/49% B/3% H
Springfield: 89% W/4% B/4% H
Independence: 86% W/6% B/8% H
Columbia: 79% W/11% B/3% H
Lee's Summit: 86% W/8% B/4% H
O'Fallon: 90% W/4% B/3% H
St. Joseph: 88% W/6% B/6% H
St. Charles: 87% W/6% B/4% H
Blue Springs: 88% W/6% B/5% H

Of 693391 African Americans in Missouri, 294700 live in KC or STL. And the 3rd largest number of African Americans in a Missouri city is University City (14535) but there's 15116 in Spanish Lake CDP.

Southwest City is now majority Hispanic. With 493 Hispanics in a 970 person town. It's on the Missouri/Arkansas/Oklahoma border. Hispanics almost have a majority in Noel, Missouri, which is east of Southwest City. Verona (SW MO, Lawrence County) and Milan (NE MO, Sullivan County) have over 40% Hispanics, while Milan's Hispanic percentage doubling in 10 years. And La Monte is 35.8% Hispanic. I think I know why Milan's Hispanic population is soaring (plants/jobs), and I think the same is true for LaMonte, where the percentage tripled in 10 years.

Would be fun to find the biggest demographic changes from 2000 to 2010 in the US though.

------------------

Also, Springdale, AR has 15332 some other race residents (21%) out of 69797 residents. Up from 11% in 2010. Partially thanks to the Marshallese population? And 5.7% classified themselves as Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. A lower number of NH/OPI (3976) than the estimate of Marshallese in 2000 (4000). So, there's a strong shot that the Marshalese make up a lot more of the SOR than Hispanic/Latino origin residents.

Arkansas has 5863 NH/OPI residents. With 4128 in Washington County and 671 in Benton County and 3967 in Springdale. So you can do the math there.

What's the nonhispanic SOR population.

Amazing. I noticed way back in 2000 that Arkansas' Pacific Islander pop. was elevated compared to what I'd expected, but I never guessed it was all in one place, and that not even Little Rock.

SOR in Springdale is 15332 and HLO is 24692. Which seems like a pretty big ratio (most ratios i've seen are 3:1 Hispanic:SOR)

I wish there were a break down for SOR too.

The SOR poulation is Springdale is almost all Hispanic.

The NHOPI population in the census is more than double what was being reported in the ACS.  Springdale is HQ of Tyson Foods, so they work in chicken processing plants.

In the 2005-9 ACS there were 1253 Other Micronesian (ie not Guamanian or Chamorro) in Arkansas.  1209 were in Washington County and 1207 were in Springdale.  

I found a story of a Marshallese who came in the 1980s and would always tell his relatives and friends of the jobs available.  Marshallese don't need visas, so they are preferred workers for low-paying unpleasant working conditions.  Supposedly, the food processing workers in Springdale have been assisted by relatives, as opposed to brought here by brokers, for employment in nursing homes and amusement parks.   The Marshall Islands opened a consulate in Springdale in 2009.

You can get the racial breakdown by Hispanics and by the total population, and take the difference to get if for Hispanics:

White: 45,185 total, 36,798 Non-Hispanic, 8,387 Hispanic = 18.6% Hispanic
Black: 1,251, 1,160, 91 7.3%
AIAN: 679, 534, 145, 21.4%
Asian 1363, 1336, 27, 2.0%
SOR 15332, 105, 15227, 99.3%
NHOPI 3976, 3967, 9, 0.2%
White-Black 252, 239, 13, 5.2%
White-AIAN: 574, 520, 54 9.4%
White-Asian: 151, 139, 12 7.9%
White-SOR: 601, 16, 585, 97.3%
Other 2+: 433, 291, 142 32.8%

It's beautiful and a paradise.  It is on the east side of the Cascades, so it is sunny with a more continental climate.  It is home to the premier ski resort in the Cascades (Mt. Bachelor) and the large Sunriver Resort.   The Deschutes River is famous for fishing and rafting.   The 10,000+ ft. tall Three Sisters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_%28Oregon%29) volcanoues and Mt. Bachelor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Bachelor) tower off in the distance.  Black Butte, Newberry Crater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newberry_Volcano), and Pilot Butte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_Butte_%28Oregon%29) (Bend's extinct volcano) show off the area's volcanism.  

Sisters, Sunriver, and Bend are all popular vacation and retirement destinations.  Quite a few former pro athletes live in the county.

 


Not at all.  Bend is isolated.  It is on the east side of the Cascade Range.  It also isn't that cheap.   I am sure it did experience growth from Californians cashing out and fleeing California, but so did everywhere else out west.

Changes! (North County, STL edition)

Bellefontaine Neighbors, MO
2000: 54% White/44% African-American (pop. 11271)
2010: 26% White/73% African-American (pop. 10860)

Riverview village, MO
2000: 58% White/40% African-American (pop. 3146)
2010: 27% White/70% African-American (pop. 2856)

Spanish Lake CDP, MO
2000: 42% White/55% African-American (pop. 21337)
2010: 20% White/77% African-American (pop. 19650)

That majority black MO-01 may be possible after all. The 2005-2009 ACS estimate for Bellefontaine Neighbors was 50.3% black, 48.4% white, so I guess the ACS did not pick up on white flight in North STL County very well. Had Riverview Village as 59.5% black, too (although was much closer for Spanish Lake, estimating 73.9% black).

It's still going to be very difficult to do.  By my math, the average Missouri CD will have about 748,000 residents.  A majority would be about 374,000.  There are about 390,000 African Americans in St. Louis city and county combined - before taking into account Hispanic status.   I doubt you'd be able to draw a district that captures 95% of St. Louis City and County's African-Americans - and that's before deciding whether black Hispanics should qualify under whatever race-based standard you are applying.

I'm not sure why creating such a district is necessary, since any district centered on St. Louis city will likely vote for the Democrat, anyway, similar to how the African-American population would vote.

It's not only about the party preferred by the black population, but by the candidates preferred by the minority group. If there is a clear difference in voting preference between blacks and whites, even in the primary, and it is possible to create a >50% VAP black district, then failure to do so can be the basis for a federal VRA challenge.

Yes.  But could a district that is at most 52% African-American still vote against the candidate the minority supposedly wants, anyway - and that's before doing whatever the VRA requires to be done with non-Hispanic blacks or even trying to figure out if a district that is majority VAP black is possible in the St. Louis area.  My guess is that it can't be drawn and even if it is, it won't matter because the incumbent black Democrat, William Clay, will win MO-01 regardless of how it is drawn as long as it includes most of St. Louis City.

This racial stuff is overrated and unnecessary in a country that has elected a black President.  I hope the Supreme Court strikes down the VRA when states overreach this cycle.

Where are you getting the tabular form for data like this? The website is hard to navigate.

If you go to this site,

http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html

Click on a state in those that have been released, and then under "Release Information" in the box in the upper right click on "Custom Tables" which is a link to Excel (.xls) spread sheets with some summary information.  Only the 20 largest cities and counties are included.

If on the above page you click on the map, you will get an interactive widget that lets you put the cursor and get a population read out for each county.

And the data is now in the American Fact Finder.  If you haven't used the new version of American Fact Finder, run some of the tutorials - or it probably won't make any sense.

What jimrtex said, plus looking at the county population change jpeg maps that come with the press release announcing the data for each state.   The press releases are usually first put here (http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html).

I've been doing the summaries shortly after the press release at about 3PM.  Additional data may or may not have been put up on American Factfinder since then.  And yes, the new American Factfinder is a bit confusing when you first try to use it.

Nebraska shipped to legislators today, and is expected to be released to the public around 3PM tomorrow.

Nebraska was just released.

The fastest-growing of the top 20 counties was Sarpy (+29.6%), in Omaha's south suburbs.  That was followed by Lancaster (+14.0%), home of the state capital of Lincoln, and Douglas (+11.5%), home of Omaha and its western suburbs.  No other of the top 20 counties grew by more than 10%, though Hall (+9.5%), Buffalo (+9.1%) and Washington (+7.7%) did grow faster than the state (+6.7%).   Hall and Buffalo are home to the market towns of Grand Island and Kearney, in central Nebraska; Washington is immediately north of Omaha.  Gage (-3.0%), Madison (-1.0%) and Dawson (-0.2%) counties lost population - as did most smaller counties in the state.  Those three counties are home to smaller market towns that also likely lost population.

Omaha is still the state's largest city, growing 4.9% since 2000.  Its population is over 400,000.  The two fastest-growing cities in the state were LaVista (+34.7%) and Papillion (+15.5%), both Omaha suburbs in Sarpy County.   Lincoln was next, growing at a 14.5% clip, followed by the Omaha suburb of Bellevue (+13.0%), Grand Island (+13.0%), Kearney (+12.2%) and South Sioux City (+12.0%).   South Sioux City is across the Missouri River from its Iowa namesake.  Alliance (-5.2%), in Western Nebraska, York (-3.9%), east of Grand Island, and Beatrice (-0.3%), in Southeast Nebraska, lost population.

Nebraska's non-Hispanic white population grew by just 0.4%.  The Hispanic population grew by 77%, non-Hispanic Asians by 47% and non-Hispanic Blacks by 20%.   Omaha has about as many Hispanics as African Americans (before taking into account whether those blacks are Hispanic or not Hispanic).  Lexington, west of Kearney on I-80, is majority Hispanic.  South Sioux City is almost half Hispanic.

Census hasn't said whether it shipped any of the 4 remaining states promised this week to legislators today.

Lexington was majority Hispanic in 2000, too. What's the percentage now?

Also, with Douglas and Sarpy Counties both growing faster than the state, what will they do with NE-02?

Delaware and (more interestingly) North Carolina shipped today.

60.4%.

Douglas plus Sarpy has about 67,000 more residents than required for one CD (about 609,000).  They are now about 11% over the population required for one district, versus about 3% over in 2000.   I'm not sure much would need to change except which portions of Sarpy are included with Douglas.  But that doesn't necessarily mean the legislature or whomever is drawing the lines might not want to do something else, like split Douglas.

For whatever reason, the 2009 census estimate for Omaha was way off - 454,731 versus an actual Census 2010 population of 408,958.  The estimate for Douglas County as a whole, though, was accurate - 510,199 versus 517,110.   About 10,000 of Omaha's 18,951 new residents were gained in the annexation of the former city of Elkhorn, per the Omaha World-Herald (http://www.omaha.com/article/20110301/NEWS01/110309991#metro-population-hits-865-350).

Majority Hispanic Cities in Nebraska

Schuyler: 65.4% (up from 45.1%)
Lexington: 60.4% (up from 51.15%)

Between 45-50%
Madison: 48.8% (up from 33.9%)
South Sioux City: 45.3% (up from 24.8%)

So Kansas and Wyoming tomorrow or just sometime this week?

Later this week.  My guess is Thursday, but we'll see.

The schedule is that they ship sometime between Monday and Thursday; are received between Tuesday and Friday; and all the data is is available on the census bureau web site between Wednesday and Saturday.

And they've usually been released around 3PM Eastern - but Delaware and North Carolina are expected to be released at 2PM Eastern tomorrow.

North Carolina and Delaware have been released.

North Carolina
Every major North Carolina county grew - but among the top 20, no county faster than Union County (+62.8%), Charlotte's southeast suburbs/exurbs.  Mecklenburg (Charlotte) is still the largest county in the state, just barely edging out Wake County (Raleigh) by under 20,000 residents.   Wake grew at a 43.5% clip, picking up more residents than live in all but the top 5 North Carolina counties.  Johnston County, Raleigh's southeast suburbs, was next fastest growing, at 38.5%, followed by Cabbarus County, in Charlotte's northeast suburbs/exurbs at 35.8%, Mecklenburg at 32.2%, Iredell, in Charlotte's northern suburbs/exurbs, at 30.0%, New Hanover (Wilmington) at 26.4% and Pitt (Greenville) at 25.7%.  

Overall, only 7 of North Carolina's 100 counties lost population - Mitchell, in the mountains, and Halifax, Martin, Washington, Hyde, Lenoir and Jones in the tidewater.

The town of Huntersville, a north Charlotte suburb, was the fastest-growing of the state's top 20 municipalities, growing by 87.4%.  Raleigh was next, growing at a 46.3% pace, followed by Cary (west of Raleigh) at 43.1%, Concord (NE of Charlotte) at 41.2%, Wilmington at 40.4%, Greenville at 39.8% and Charlotte at 35.2%.   Charlotte grew by about 190,000 residents, and has just about as many residents as will be required for one Congressional district.

North Carolina's non-Hispanic white population grew by 10.2%, less than the statewide growth of 18.5%.   North Carolina's Hispanic population more than doubled (+111.1%), and its non-Hispanic Asian population almost did (+83.8%).  Its non-Hispanic black population grew slightly lower than the state (+17.2%).

Delaware
All three of Delaware's counties grew.  Kent County (Dover) grew the fastest at 28.1%, while Sussex County (Georgetown & beach communities) picked up the most new residents.  Sussex grew at an impressive 25.9% clip.  New Castle County (Wilmington) lagged the other two counties, growing at 7.6%.  Nevertheless, New Castle County picked up a few thousand more residents than Kent County.  All three counties picked up somewhere between 35,000 to 41,000 residents.

On the municipal level, Wilmington, Delaware's largest city, lost 2.5% of its population.  New Castle County more than offset Wilmington's population loss with explosive growth in two towns south of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal - Townsend grew by 492% and  Middletown by 206%.  In northern Kent County, Clayton grew by 129% and Smyrna by 76.5%.  Other towns with very fast growth included Camden, Kent County (+65.0%), Millsboro, Sussex County (+64.3%), Milton, Sussex County (+55.5%), Bridgeville, Sussex County (+42.6%) and Milford, Sussex County (+42.0%).   Lewes, a Sussex County city on Delaware Bay with a direct ferry to New Jersey, lost 6.3% of its population.  The capital city of Dover (+12.2%) and Wilmington-suburban Newark (+10.2%), home of the University of Delaware, both grew, but more slowly than the state as a whole (+14.6%).

Delaware's non-Hispanic white population grew by 3.3%.  Its Hispanic (+96.4%) and non-Hispanic Asian (+75.7%) populations almost doubled, while its non-Hispanic black population (25.8%) grew faster than the state.  Georgetown, Sussex County, is almost half Hispanic.

Kansas and Wyoming shipped to legislators today and are expected to be released to the public at 3PM Eastern tomorrow.

Next week, we will get Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  It should be a very interesting week.

NC towns with the highest Hispanic percentages

1,000-9,999:
Robbins- 50.3% (up from 48.4%)
Siler City- 49.8% (up from 39.3%)

10,000-99,999:
Monroe- 29.4% (up from 21.4%, Jesse Helms must be thrilled)
Asheboro- 26.9% (up from 19.9%)

And Morrisville's Asian population goes from 9.06% to 27.23% in 10 years. The town has grown from 5208 to 18576 in that time. Which means the town had 472 Asians in 2000 and 5058 in 2010.

In the 2000 data, half of Morrisville's Asian population then was Indian-American.

Why are they taking so effing long to ship South Carolina?  I can understand why they didn't give us the earliest priority, but I would have thought that they would have wanted to give a leg up to the States that have a change in the number of U.S. Representatives.

next week:

Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

Sorry South Carolina!

It doesn't matter if you change the number of representatives because all the states have to change the boundaries anyway (even single district states have local elections).

Yes and no.  If you lose one or more seats, you have to decide which incumbents you want force together or encourage to retire.  If you gain one or more seats, you have to decide which districts you want to take the brunt of the dislocations,creating a new seat causes.  Those things take more time than simply shifting district boundaries around.

Not only that South Carolina is likely to have to worry about whether they will need to create one or two minority-majority districts.  The GOP will want only one, but there will inevitably be a lawsuit when it passes such a plan.  Ideally, to have time to deal with the repercussions of any lawsuits, they'd get the data in time to pass a plan this session (which ends at the beginning of June), instead of having to wait until next January.  In order for there to be no delays in South Carolina, everything need to be in place no later than March 2, 2012 (one year from today as a matter of fact).  That the first deadline on our political calendar, as the party county chairmen have to place advertisements detailing where party candidates for offices in that county may file, and which offices they may file for.  The clock is ticking here and we have just one year.

Does South Carolina have ANY regularly scheduled elections in 2011 - major county, local or whatever?  If not, Census should wait to release it last behind states who have at least some elections this year, but before those who do not require DOJ preclearance.

Depends on what you mean by "regular".  Elections for county and state offices are all held on the usual biennial dates, but municipalities and school boards get to pick their own election dates, which may or may not be the Tuesday after the first Monday of November.  Slightly under half will use the traditional election day, but there are regularly scheduled local elections every month except January and August someplace in South Carolina this year.  At least they are largely non-partisan.

For example, most of the smaller municipalities in Charleston county will hold elections on the regular election day of November 8 this year, but Charleston itself will hold its municipal election on November 1, and North Charleston on November 2.  The municipal elections in the cities of Charleston and Spartanburg and the Spartanburg County school board elections appear to be the biggest elections this November.

The only two partisan local elections (i.e., with primaries) scheduled this year according to the State Election Commission are those in the cities of Aiken and Georgetown.

As I said earlier when I complained, I can understand why South Carolina wasn't one of the first, but given the realities of when the Legislature will leave Columbia, we do need to not be one of the last.

For those who want to get an idea of the insanity of South Carolina local elections, here's a link to the schedule the State Election Commission has.

http://www.scvotes.org/files/2011-03-02%20Election%20Calendar.pdf

Even before any special elections are added to the mix, it is a total of twenty-two different election days.

Thanks.  The problem for South Carolina is that there are states left that hold major county and city elections in 2011 - and the county legislative district boundaries need to be adjusted for population shifts in the next few months.  New York is one example of this - and we haven't gotten our 2010 census data, either.  The timing for those states is much more critical than a state that just needs to have something done by this time next year.

After tomorrow, the Census will be halfway done with the 2010 census release - 26 of the 50 states will have been released.  We will be up to 33 of 50 (or 51, if DC counts) after next week.  That leaves 17 states plus DC (if it counts) to be released over the last three weeks of March.  They're on schedule.

Problem is, unless DOJ preclearance and the inevitable VRA lawsuits are taken care of more quickly than I expect, the General Assembly needs to pass a plan this session, not at the start of the next session to have things done by this time next year. This session is scheduled to end, as does every regular session, on the first Thursday of June. June 2.  There are provisions for extending the session if the budget is delayed, but non-budget matters require a 2/3 vote of each house after June 2.  The GOP is in control, but it doesn't have a 2/3 majority in either House.  A partisan redistricting plan will not pass during an extended session.

I suggest South Carolina census results be embargoed until June 2nd, then. ;D

Kansas and Wyoming have been released.

Kansas
Geary County was the fastest-growing of Kansas' top 20 counties, growing at a 23.0% clip.  It is home to part of Fort Riley, and near the university town of Manhattan.  The next-fastest growing counties were Johnson (+20.6%), home to Kansas City's southern suburbs, Miami (+15.6%), immediately south of Johnson - which is still small, but is the most logical place for further KC exurbanization as it spreads down the US 69 corridor, Riley (+13.2%), home to Manhattan and the rest of Fort Riley, Leavenworth (+11.0%), due west of KC, Douglas (+10.9%), home of the University of Kansas in Lawrence,  Butler (+10.8%), home of some eastern Wichita suburbs, and Wichita's county, Sedgwick (+10.0%).  

Six of the state's top 20 counties lost population, most notably, Wyandotte (-0.2%), which includes Kansas City, Kansas and a few small suburbs.  The other population losers of the top 20 were counties with small-to-medium-sized market towns: Finney (Garden City; -9.2%), Lyon (Emporia; -6.2%), Montgomery (Independence/Coffeyville; -2.2%), McPherson (McPherson; -1.3%) and Reno (Hutchinson; -0.4%).  And most smaller counties in the rest of the state also lost population.

On the other hand, many of Kansas' cities gained population.  Kansas City's suburbs like Olathe (+35.4%), Shawnee (+29.6%), Lenexa (+19.8%), Overland Park (+16.3%) and Leawood (+15.2%) generally grew fastest, along with the Wichita suburb of Derby (+24.4%) and Junction City (+23.7%), near Fort Riley.  Kansas City, Kansas lost about 1,000 people (-0.7%), while Manhattan (+16.6%), Wichita (+11.1%), Lawrence (+9.4%) and Topeka (+4.9%) gained population.  The mid-sized market cities of Emporia (-6.9%) and Garden City (-6.3%) were net losers, while some other similar-sized market cities like Dodge City (+8.6%), Liberal (+4.4%), Salina (+4.4%) and Hutchinson (+3.2%) gained population.  The Wichita suburb of Prairie Village (-2.8%) somehow managed to lose population, as did Leavenworth (-0.5%).

Kansas' non-Hispanic white population fell by 0.2%.  Its Hispanic population increased by almost 60% and its non-Hispanic Asian population by almost 45%.  Kansas' non-Hispanic Black population grew by 7.5%, slightly faster than the state as a whole (6.1%).

Dodge City and Liberal are majority Hispanic.  Garden City is almost majority Hispanic.  Kansas City and Wichita have more Hispanic residents than African Americans.

Wyoming
Wyoming's fastest-growing county by far was Sublette, an oil and gas boomtown in Western Wyoming.  It grew by 73.1%, but due to its small 2000 population, only picked up about 4,300 residents.  Campbell County (+36.9%) was next, picking up the most new residents - it is home to the city of Gillette and also has seen a lot of growth in the mineral extraction industry.  Sublette's neighbor, Lincoln County (+24.2%) and Campbell's neighbor, Johnson County (+21.1%) followed.  Teton County (Jackson Hole; +16.7%), Sweetwater County (Green River/Rock Springs; +16.5%) and Converse County (west of Casper; +14.8%) grew faster than the state (+14.1%).  Rural Platte (-1.6%) and Hot Springs counties lost population.

Of the state's top 20 municipalities, Gillette (+48.1%) grew the fastest and picked up the most residents.  Rock Springs (+23.1%) grew the next-fastest, followed by the very small communities of Buffalo (+17.6%), Powell (+17.5%), Douglas (+15.7%) and Newcastle (+15.2%).  The state capital of Cheyenne remained the state's largest city, growing by 12.2% and widening its lead over Casper (+11.4%) by about 750 to 4,150 residents.  The college town of Laramie grew by 13.3%.  Riverton grew by 14.0%, putting its population over 10,000 and giving the state 9 cities with a population of 10,000 or more.

Wyoming's non-Hispanic White population grew by 10.3%.  Its non-Hispanic Asian population (+60.3%) grew faster than its Hispanic population (+58.6%) - though from much smaller base.   Wyoming's non-Hispanic black population was up 24.2% and non-Hispanic American Indian population increased by 15.1%.  There are now almost as many non-Hispanic Asians as non-Hispanic blacks in Wyoming.  Both groups comprise 0.8% of the state's population.

Auburn's population growth is also due to annexation.

All of it or just some of it - and how much of that growth was in the old area of town or new area after annexation versus just caused by annexation?

Census makes it difficult to answer those questions without looking deeper at tract and block-level results.

Anyone know when new Mexico is going to come out?  I want to know how close to majority-Hispanic the State is.

They're going to release everything by April 1.

If the past is any indication, on a Tuesday-Friday between March 15 and March 31.  Possibly on a Saturday, but usually not.  It will not be this week.

California will be released around 3:30PM Eastern tomorrow.

California has been released.

San Diego County jumped Orange to become the second-largest in the state.  The fastest-growing of the top 20 counties was Riverside (+41.7%), followed by Kern (Bakersfield) (+26.9%), San Joaquin (Stockton/Tracy) (+21.6%) and Tulare (Visalia) (+20.2%).  Basically, Inland Empire and Central Valley counties.  Riverside picked up the most new residents - over 640,000, followed by San Bernadino (+19.1%; 325,000), Los Angeles (+3.1%; almost 300,000) and San Diego (+10.0%; 280,000).   Orange County grew by 5.8%, Santa Clara by 5.9%, Alameda by 4.6%, Sacramento by 16.0%, Contra Costa by 10.6%, San Francisco by 3.7% and San Mateo by a paltry 1.6%.

Los Angeles remains by far the largest city in the state with almost 3.8 million residents (+2.6%).  San Diego (+6.9%) cracked 1.3 million.  The fastest-growing of the top 20 cities in the state is Fontana (+52.1%) in San Bernadino County.  Irvine, Orange County was next (+48.4%), followed by Bakersfield (+40.6%), Chula Vista, San Diego County (+40.5%), Stockton (+19.7%) and Riverside (+19.1%).  Santa Ana (-4.0%) and Oakland (-2.2%) lost population.  Long Beach barely grew (+0.2%).

California grew by 10.0%.  Its non-Hispanic White population fell by 5.4% from 2000.  Non-Hispanic whites now comprise 40.1% of California's population, Latinos 37.6%, non-Hispanic Asians 12.8% and non-Hispanic blacks 5.8%.  California's non-Hispanic Black (-0.8%) and non-Hispanic American Indian (-9.3%) also fell from 2000.

Its Indian population fell? Lol. What's going on here?

California has a huge number of reservations but most of them are tiny. It also has a lot of people of (often part) native Californian descent who are not members of any recognized sovereign nation and who usually pass as Chicanos for most of their daily lives - a lot of them identify as Native American on Census records though, or at least did in 2000. Actually, quite a few offrez-residing recognized California natives do the same thing.
And needless to say, it has huge numbers of whites with a part Indian great-grandparent, or Whites with an Indian grandparent who're actually registered members of an Indian nation, or Whites with a false family tradition of Indian ancestry somewhere deep in the recesses of the 19th or 18th century. A lot of whom report as Native or more commonly as White and Native. But if those reporting practices were changing, we would have seen that in stats for other states as well, wouldn't we?

I think you answered your own question.  California's NON-HISPANIC American Indian population fell.  Its overall American Indian population rose by 8.8%.  So did its overall White population (+6.4%) for that matter.  

When Hispanicness matters more than Nativeness in the racial classifications of the day, that's the result you end up getting.

I should have made the non-Hispanic part clearer in my original post.  I've since edited it.

The only counties that lost population were Alpine, Sierra and Plumas.  Placer County near Sacramento isn't among the top 20 largest counties of the state, but grew by more than 25%.

Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Ohio were shipped today.  They are expected to be released around 2PM Eastern tomorrow.

Alpine lost population? It has only 1200 people... and that's after some reasonably robust growth in the last few decades. It also has utterly bizarre demographics - it's, like, half Mormon and quarter Peyotist. With no other established place of worship existing in the county (any practicing mainstream Christians probably drive elsewhere.)

Alpine's population fell from 1,208 to 1,175 (-2.7%).  At least that was better than the 2009 estimate - 1,041.  Sierra fell from 3,555 to 3,240 (-8.9%).  That was better than the 2009 estimate - 3,174.   Plumas fell from to 20,824 to 20,007 (-3.9%).  Its 2009 estimate was fairly accurate, but off on the high side - 20,122.

FWIW, Placer County grew by 40.3%, slightly slower than Riverside.  It picked up just over 100,000 new residents.

That rate of growth means LA County loses almost an entire district. (From 14.9 to 14.0.)

---

Looking at the California racial table, I realize that the detailed count of tribal identifications from the 2000 Census did not include any Hispanic data - that is, people who identified as Indian only on the race question, wrote in one of the relevant California tribal groupings (Chumash, Diegueno, what have you), and also checked Hispanic Origin would have been undistinguishable in that table from those who did not identify as Hispanic. Given the large numbers of Cherokee, Sioux, Blackfeet (why is Blackfeet such a popular identity with fake Indians? That would be worth a study...) in the state, and the fact that half its Indian population also identifies as Hispanic makes you wonder if most of the California Natives of that class that I described above weren't already being counted as Hispanic. Though maybe it was most before and almost all now, who knows. One would have to take a very close look at community-level figures to find out. (of course, a lot of those Native Hispanic repliers are Mexican Indigenas. Interesting factoid: Mexicans living near Indian reservations are somewhat more likely to identify as Indian - perhaps the presence of Natives in the vicinity raises self-awareness of Native ancestry?)

The non-hispanic Native alone or in combination population also rose, just barely. So 17,000 new part-Indian identifiers, despite the Anglo population also falling. Hmmm... :)

The drop from 14.9 to 14 has to mean that a Dem loses a district, right? I don't know if the Republicans living in LA County can be drawn out so easily

No, no it doesn't. Not necessarily, anyways. Dreier's district hugging the hills is a gerrymandered monstrosity and quite marginal even as is - though congressional patterns in that kind of area lag presidential ones. And Rohrabacher's strange appendage into LA County won't survive the new redistricting law, he'll go back to OC where he belongs. Which also loses a quarter district.

Various numbers!

California is 40.1% Non Hispanic White and 37.6% Hispanic. With 12.8% being non-Hispanic Asian (0.2% is Hispanic Asian).

Alameda County is 26% Asian, Contra Costa is 14.4% Asian, Los Angeles County is 13.7% Asian, Orange County is 17.9% Asian, Sacramento is 14% Asian, San Francisco is 33.3% Asian, San Mateo is 24.8% Asian, Santa Clara is 32% Asian. (Other 10%+ Asian counties are San Diego, San Joaquin, Solano, Sutter, and Yolo Counties)

Hispanic majority counties: Colusa, Fresno, Imperial (80%), Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, and Tulare

10%+ African American Counties: Alameda, Sacramento, Solano

FWIW - and probably not much, given that the California redistricting panel will be drawing completely new lines - best I can tell from trying to import the data into Excel (which caused an error):

CA-3, 4, 11, 21, 22, 25, 41, 44, 45 and 49 are significantly overpopulated (by 70,000 or more residents).  CA-25 (Santa Clarita, Antelope and part of Victor Valleys), 44 and 45 (Inland Empire) are the most over, by 140,000+ residents.  (CA-25 is 211,000 over.)  All three are held by Republicans.  

CA-31 in Los Angeles County is the most under, needing over 91,500 new residents.  CA-7, 9, 12, 14, 29, 32, 33, 38, 46, 47 all need more than 40,000 new residents.

CA-1, 2, 5 and 23 are within 7,500 residents of ideal, CA-1 the most ideal (+1107).

I'd bet a lot of those were Okies, where it has become less clear what the relationship was over time.  The summary lumps everyone who reports two or more races into one group.

In 2010 in California, a majority (55%) of those who report they are AIAN alone are Hispanic.

The non-Hispanic White+AIAN population is up 4.4% from 134K to 140K
Non-Hispanic AIAN is down from 179K to 162K
NH Black+AIAN up 15.8% from 22K to 26K
NH W+B+AIAN up 49.8% from 16K to 24K

It also votes for Democrats, against parental notification for abortions, and for legalized pot. The fact that they're losing population might mean that it'll be a while before they get a black.

There was some significant white-flight from Alameda county, it lost 8% of whites. But what was even bigger was black-flight, which was 12%. Despite all of this, Alameda county grew by 5% thanks to gains in other races, including Asians increasing by 34% to 26% of the county population.

In the category of self redefinition

Lost Hills CDP, California
2000: 71.83% Some Other Race, 96.75% Hispanic
2010: 92.54% Some Other Race, 97.6% Hispanic

SORs are Hispanic in 99% of instances, but the SOR percentage is 45% of the Hispanic percentage in most instances.

Hispanics in California are 46.37% White, 44.47% Some Other Race, 6.04% Two+ Races, 1.43% American Indian, 0.97% Black, 0.61% Asian, and 0.11% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

The only other CDPs to have over 70% Some Other Race were Oasis (71.51%) and Yettem (70.14%).

On the reverse of that. Cowan CDP had 50.6% Hispanic, but 10.06% Some Other Race and 86% White.

Other low SOR Majority-Hispanic areas are Kings Beach CDP, Volta CDP, Poplar-Cotton Center CDP. All Under 15% SOR. Amongst Cities, Atwater is 52.57% Hispanic, and 18.82% Some Other Race.

Also, quite a few of the Majority Asian cities saw their Asian percentage go up by over 15%

Reasonably robust growth? Alpine grew by at most a few dozen people 1980-2000.

It's called "misremembering". Basically my brain plotted its 1970-2000 growth as evenly distributed. :P

True, it exploded in population in 1970. No idea why, but maybe you know.

Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Ohio are out.

Connecticut
At a macro level, there isn't a ton of change to report about the counties or top 20 cities/towns of Connecticut.  The top 10 cities remain the same.  Bridgeport is the largest municipality, growing by 3.4%.  New Haven (+5.0%) and Hartford (+2.6%) are next, followed by Stamford (+4.7%) and Waterbury (+2.9%).  All of those 5 cities but New Haven have more Hispanic residents than African-Americans (even before taking into account Hispanic status) - I'm not sure whether this was also true in 2000. Among the top 20 municipalities, only Middletown (+10.4%), Danbury (+8.1%) and Hamden (+7.1%) experienced anything close to rapid growth - and that's being charitable.  West Hartford lost 0.7% of its population.  Greenwich (+0.1%), Bristol (+0.7%) and Milford (+0.9%) barely grew.  By comparison, the state grew 4.9%.

Connecticut's counties don't matter much, as there is no county government.  Nevertheless, Tolland, east of Hartford, grew the fastest (+12.0%), followed by Windham in the quiet (northeast) corner (+8.6%) and central Middlesex (+6.5%) and southeast coastal New London (+5.8%).  Growth in the other four counties was less than the statewide average (3.9% to 4.7%).

Connecticut's non-Hispanic white population fell by 3.5%.  It's Hispanic population grew by 49.6%, its non-Hispanic Asian population by 64.4% and its non-Hispanic African American population by 13.4%

Pennsylvania
Synopsis: Philly is flat; Pittsburgh (-8.6%) and Western PA lose big time; Lehigh Valley, Amish Country, Harrisburg area and some Philly Suburbs grow.  Tiny Forest County grows the fastest in the state; NYC exurbs in Pike and Monroe Counties grow next fastest, but not in top 20 list.  2.2% of Non-Hispanic whites flee the state.

Ohio
Synopsis: All of the top 10 cities other than Columbus (+10.6%) lose population, Youngstown (-18.3%) Cleveland (-17.1%) and Dayton (-14.8%) and Cincinnati (-10.4%) by double digits.   Columbus-area counties grow the most, especially Delaware (+58.4%).  Hamilton County (Cincy) loses population (-5.1%), but some neighboring counties like Warren (+34.3%) grow.  Northeast Ohio... Yikes!  1.9% of Non-Hispanic whites flee Ohio.

More to come.

Is Forest County, PA a typo or did the population really double while every county around it lost population?

I don't think it's a typo.  Four words: Marcellus Natural Gas Shale.  It might have been where the most drilling interest was last April.  That, plus the fact that it was the smallest county in the state with a population of less than 5,000 makes it easy for a small number of new residents to cause a big swing that isn't quite as big in real numbers.

Here's a national gain/loss map so far.

()

I seem to remember something about a big prison complex opening in Forest County. Estimates have had it growing rapidly since at least 2007 (when I made a map of growth estimates by county, and I remember Forest County being estimated to be growing anomalously fast then, too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marienville,_Pennsylvania

Yeah, that would do it, especially when the county was very small to begin with.

Sheliak5 - Thanks for the map.  Northeast Ohio doesn't look that bad compared to say, central South Dakota or Western Kansas.  But Cuyahoga County probably lost more residents (about 110,000) than live in those areas.

Arizona, Idaho and Wisconsin will be released around 3PM tomorrow.

Nice work, Sheilak5! I was wondering whether someone would work on a map like that.

Is that keyed relative to 2000 or to the average gain from 2000 to 2010?

A simple keyed to 2000 map. I'm working on the other as we speak though, it will take a bit longer of course.

More random numbers

for those wondering about Forest County.. 18% of the population is now African-American with 1243 of 1389 African Americans in Marienville. The Jenks Township population went from 1261 to 3629.

In case there was any doubt about the prison altering things there

Reading went from 37% Hispanic to 58% Hispanic.

Do you have just California?

Some Connecticut town maps, since I've done them in the past and have kept some 2000 data.  All use the Atlas swing color scale (Redder is an increase; Bluer is a decrease.  Something close to 0 usually ends up light blue).

First, overall town population change from 2000:
()

Winners: much of the Naugatuck Valley and parts of Eastern CT.  Losers: Towns on the New York State Line, especially in Northeastern CT.

Next, what I call white flight - I didn't due this in absolute population gain or loss yet because I'd have to re-do my 2000 spreadsheets.  Instead, I calculated percent change in the non-Hispanic White population - i.e. (town non-Hispanic White percentage in 2010) minus (town non-Hispanic White percentage in 2000):

()

As I said, the light blue towns were generally flat.  The biggest decreases were in some of the larger cities and their suburbs, especially areas of suburban Hartford.

A lot of the change, naturally, was due to an influx of Hispanics, as you can see here:
()

Though, some was due to an increase in the relative percentage of non-Hispanic African-Americans, too, especially in the Hartford area:
()

Asians, for the heck of it.  
()
Most relative percent increases were tiny - less than 5 points - except in Norwich and Rocky Hill.  I'm sure this map would be more impressive in percentage increase terms.

Arizona, Idaho and Wisconsin have been released:

Arizona
Arizona experienced rapid growth last decade (+24.6%).  In percentage terms, no county grew faster than Pinal (SW Phoenix Exburbs/maybe a few N Tucson exuburbs), whose population more than doubled (+109.1%).  In absolute terms, Maricopa County (Phoenix) picked up almost 745,000 new residents, growing almost as fast as the state as a whole (+24.2%).  59% of the state's new residents were in Maracopa.  Other big gainers were Mohave, home to cities like Kingman, Bullhead City and Lake Havasu City near or on the California/Nevada border (+29.1%), Yavapai County, north of Maricopa (Prescott; +26.0%), Santa Cruz County, a Mexican border county south of Tucson's county of Pima (Nogales +23.6%) and Yuma County (+22.3%).  Pima (Tucson) picked up the third-most residents, but only grew by 16.2%.  Tiny Greenlee County on the New Mexico border lost 1.3% of its residents.

Some of the city growth numbers are phenomenal.  The city of Maricopa, a Phoenix exurb nestled between two Indian reservations in Pinal County, grew by 4,081.0%.  No, that's not a typo.  Bristol Palin is in good company.   By comparison, the west valley town of Buckeye, Maricopa County "only" grew by 678.3%.  Other west-suburban Phoenix stragglers like Surprise (+281.0%), Goodyear (+245.2%) and Avondale (+112.5%) also experienced triple-digit growth.  Casa Grande, Pinal County (+92.6%) and Gilbert in Southeast Maricopa (+90.0%) were other fast-growers.  Gilbert picked up more residents (almost 99,000) than all Arizona cities but Phoenix (+9.4%; almost 125,000 new residents).  Tucson grew by 6.9%.  

One caveat - without further analysis, we can't tell how much of any growth was due to annexation versus gains in the municipality as it existed in 2000.

Arizona's non-Hispanic White population grew by 12.9%.  Its Hispanic population increased by 46.3%.  Hispanics now make up 29.6% of the state's population, up from 25.3%.

Idaho
Idaho grew by 21.1%.  Most of the growth was in the Boise area and near Idaho Falls, with some additional growth in counties near or including Twin Falls and Spokane, Washington.  The fastest-growing county was Teton (+69.5%), on the other side of Teton Pass from Jackson, Wyoming - but its still not one of the state's top 20 counties.  Among the top 20, Canyon (+43.7%), west of Boise, grew fastest, followed by Madison (+36.7%) and Jefferson (+36.5%), both North of Idaho Falls; +36.7%),  Ada (Boise; +30.4%), Kootenai (Spokane suburbs/Coeur d'Alene; +27.4%), and Bonneville (Idaho Falls; +26.3%).  Jerome (+22.0%) and Twin Falls Counties (+20.1%), both in the Twin Falls area, grew at around the same rate as the state.  Among the top 20 counties, Elmore, immediately east of Ada (Mountain Home; -7.2%) and Minidoka, in between Twin Falls and Pocatello (-0.5%) lost population.

On the municipal level, many of the biggest percentage gainers were Boise suburbs - Kuna (+182.6%) and Meridian's (+115.0%) population doubled, while Caldwell (+78.1%) and  Nampa (+57.2%) also posted impressive gains.  In the Idaho Falls area, Ammon's population more than doubled (+123.3%), and Rexburg, Madison County posted a 47.7% gain.  Post Falls (+59.9%), Hayden (+45.1%) and Coeur d'Alene (27.9%) in the Spokane/Coeur d'Alene area also grew.   And the Pocatello suburb of Chubbuck (+43.5%) grew faster than the state.   Meriden picked up the most new residents (just over 40,000), followed by Nampa (almost 30,000), Caldwell (just over 20,000) and Boise (just under 20,000; +10.7%).

Idaho's non-Hispanic White population grew by 15.5%.  Its non-Hispanic plack population almost doubled (+81.5%) - though there are still fewer non-Hispanic blacks in Idaho than Hispanics, non-Hispanic Asians or non-Hispanic American Indians.  Idaho's Hispanic population grew by 73.0%, non-Hispanic Asians by 59.2% and non-Hispanic American Indians by 11.2%.  

Wisconsin
Wisconsin grew by 6.0% - far less rapidly than Arizona or Idaho.  Fast-growth was the exception, not the norm.  In percentage terms, St. Croix, a growing exurban county in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, grew fastest of the top 20 counties (+33.6%).  Nothing else came close.  Dane (Madison) grew by 14.4%, picking up the most new residents (around 65,500).  Three suburban/exurban Milwaukee-area counties came next - Jefferson (+13.1%), Washington (+12.3%) and Kenosha (+11.3%).  No other major county grew by more than 10%.  In absolute terms, Milwaukee-suburban Waukesha County (+8.1%) picked up nearly 30,000 new residents, while St. Croix County and Green Bay's Brown County (+9.4%) picked up over 21,000.  Milwaukee County only grew by 0.8%, gaining just over 7,500 new residents.  Unlike some more sparsely-populated counties primarily in northeastern Wisconsin, none of Wisconsin's top 20 counties lost population.

Among the top-20 cities, only Madison (+12.1%) experienced a double-digit gain.  Kenosha (+9.8%) and Waukesha (+9.1%) in the Milwaukee area, Janesville (+6.9%) in southern Wisconsin and Eau Claire (+6.9%) in western Wisconsin grew faster than the state as whole.  The city of Milwaukee lost 0.4% of its population.  Other losers include Milwaukee-area Racine (-3.7%), the lake Michigan city of Sheboygan (-3.0%), Milwaukee County-suburban Brookfield (-1.9%), Wauwatosa (-1.9%) and West Allis (-1.4%) and  La Crosse (-1.0%) on the Minnesota border in the southeastern part of the state.

Wisconsin's non-Hispanic white population increased by 1.2%.  Its Hispanic population exploded by 74.2% - but Hispanics still remain under 6% of the state's population.  Wisconsin's non-Hispanic Asian population increased by 45.5%, non-Hispanic blacks by 16.9% and non-Hispanic American Indians by 10.3%.

You can see the development of Maricopa, AZ (the town) in Google Satellite views by backing out or in of zoom, one step at a time. At some point the image changes and you either gain or lose most of the housing.

Next week: Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Tennessee.

Wisconsin seems to be holding people rather better than similar areas in neighbouring states, both comparing the rural southwest to rural Iowa and Illinois, and Milwaukee to other Great Lakes industrial cities.

Milwaukee lost a little bit of its population, but, yes, it was no Cleveland.   Of the Great Lakes states, Wisconsin might be the least dependent on manufacturing - that's my sense of the state, though I don't know if there's data to actually back up my impression.

I can't wait to see how much population Detroit lost.  But it appears that we will have to wait yet another week for Michigan, New York, West Virginia, South Carolina and four New England states (Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island).  Those 8 states will be all that is left after next week's releases.  Every state west of or on the Mississippi River will have been released.  I think we might get DC and Puerto Rico at some point before April 1, too, most likely last.

Actually Wisconsin is second in the nation (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-errMsg=&-_useSS=N&-_dBy=040&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=&-tm_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_M00670&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=5309|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.9557697048764706E7|dh=1.4455689123E7|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368|g=01000US|ds=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_|sb=49|tud=false|db=050|mn=0|mx=79.7|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Percent|pr=1|th=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_M00670|sf=N|sg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-geo_id=01000US&-_pageX=&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-_pan=&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identify#?366,200) by % of adults employed in manufacturing. But Milwaukee's flagship industry is less vulnerable to the replacement of workers by machines because, well, it is the replacement of workers by machines. (http://www.rockwellautomation.com/)

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRG!

Yeah, maybe not.  I would have expected Ohio to rank higher.  For whatever reason, traveling through Wisconsin doesn't seem to give the same depressing feeling you get traveling through Upstate New York, Northern Ohio or Michigan.

That's because they have beer to dull the pain.