Census Estimates for 2006 -> 2010 Apportionment

[muon2]

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2006. As in past years I have used that data to project the April 1, 2010 apportionment populations. This requires finding the population growth in the resident population for each state, then applying that to the apportionment population.

One unusual event in the year between estimates was hurricane Katrina. LA saw a drop of 220 K in the 12 months following the hurricane. If I used the normal methodology, that would project a continued decline through 2010. Instead, for LA I took the percentage growth through July 1, 2005, then applied that to the new estimate for July 1, 2006. This gives some projected growth over the next 3 3/4 years.

Based on this projection, the following adjustments would be required to reapportion the seats in 2010:

AZ +2
CA +1
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NY -2
OH -2
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of one seat from FL to TX. The last states awarded seats were AL 7 (431), PA 18 (432), NJ 13 (433), CA 54 (434) and TX 36 (435). The fourth new TX seat is clearly on the bubble and benefitted from the Katrina migration.

The next five seats would go to MN 8 (436), FL 28 (437), NY 28 (438), WA 10 (439), and OR 6 (440). Seat 436 is important if Congress passes the DC representation act since that seat could be real in 2010. The appearance of WA and OR on the bubble list is new this year, and perhaps suggests that the Census Bureau is seeing a new growth spurt in those states. If it's sustained those two states may move up in the next three years.

[Deano963]

California gain of an electoral vote suprises me.

Why?

People are constantly migrating to Southern California by the droves from other parts of the U.S. I'd be surprised if it didn't gain at least one seat.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

In a few decades with global warming living in the south won't be so viable because it will be full lbown tropical there. That and the warmth will improve the weather up north. So after 2050 or so I'd expect dixie to start losing bigtime.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

In a few decades with global warming living in the south won't be so viable because it will be full lbown tropical there. That and the warmth will improve the weather up north. So after 2050 or so I'd expect dixie to start losing bigtime.

Now that I agree with you fully about.

BTW, I will discuss this issue later, but I believe some good things can come from Global Warming.

Yup. I like the idea of the northeast having a more pleasant climate so global warming isn't that bad.

[muon2]

Well obviously, everyone is using different proportion formulas.

This guy says that Washington and Oregon would gain a seat each!! FINALLY A BLUE STATE GAINING A SEAT!! YAY!

http://www.polidata.org/census/st006nca.pdf

It's important to distinguish between the method used by polidata and my analysis. Polidata only looks at the estimates from the last two years, averages the percentage increases, and applies the average times four years to the estimate base. This method overweights any accidental fluctuations in the Census estimate, and overly favors any recent upward bump in the data.

In my analysis, I take the estimate data back to the base of April 1, 2000 and determine an annual increase with correct compounding of the percentages and the three month offset between the Census day and the estimate date of July 1. This avoids adding an extra three months of growth in 2010. Also, I apply that increase not to the estimate base from 2000, but instead to the apportionment base. This is the value that includes overseas population and is only used for apportionment purposes, not redistricting or estimates. This will pick up differences between states that have different fractions of their population overseas.

It may be that the uptick in growth rates in the Pac NW are real. If so, I'll catch that as subsequent years' estimates come from the census. I did move WA and OR to the bubble with seat priority 439 and 440. I don't think the statistics warrant moving them down to 435 or less.

[muon2]

Thanks.

Is it assured that Texas gains a 4th seat? I kinda doubt it somehow. And I do believe that Florida's expolsive growth rate wont last forever, lol.  Florida has a lot of geography problems. I do believe Texas will one day be the nation's largest state, I gaurentee that!

I am glad Arizona is gaining two seats! I hope we can make it a DEM Stronghold! Well maybe not a dem stronghold, but to make it more Democratic. I hope these census numbers show the democrats that WE HAVE TO make inroads in the upper south and mountainwest.

California gain of an electoral vote suprises me.

James

I would agree that the TX seat is not at all a sure thing. There was a big bump due to Katrina emigrants, and that is not likely to repeat before the end of the decade. However, the Census release for 2006 also included an upward estimate for TX on 7/1/05 of about 68 K, and that predates Katrina.

AZ has been pretty steady to pick up two seats with every estimate released this decade. It's possible that they would only get one, but that should be a surprise if it happens.

CA is on the bubble with the projection of a 54th seat. It shouldn't surprise any demographers if they get it or not. It will surprise the media if they don't get one as they have become used to seeing CA get seats with every reapportionment.

[Alcon]

I'm not familiar with how Census estimates work, and I know this is kind of a vague question, but can you expand on the uptick in the Pacific Northwest?  Last time I checked, I think that Oregon was considered a longshot in gaining a seat, while Washington wasn't even much in the consideration.  What happened, and any idea why the Census is seeing a bigger-than-expected gain?

[AkSaber]

How come Georgia is only gaining one seat? I thought they were growing faster than that.

[muon2]

I'm not familiar with how Census estimates work, and I know this is kind of a vague question, but can you expand on the uptick in the Pacific Northwest?  Last time I checked, I think that Oregon was considered a longshot in gaining a seat, while Washington wasn't even much in the consideration.  What happened, and any idea why the Census is seeing a bigger-than-expected gain?

The Census gives a faily detailed explanation of their methodology. The change in annual percentage growth in WA and OR over the decade only went from 1.2% to 1.3% as I compare last year's estimates to this year's. With compounding that was enough to put both states on the radar.

Both WA and OR had above average CD populations after the 2001 redistricting. Both are also growing at slightly above the national average. Those factors point to an eventual seat each, but most forecasters would have placed their gains in 2020, not 2010.

You asked why the change. The real answer to your question lies in the estimates of county population since they are used to build the state estimates. That data won't be released until Mar, so we'll have to wait until then.

[Tender Branson]

I do believe Texas will one day be the nation's largest state, I gaurentee that!

Nope. At least not in the next 30-50 years... Texas may grow 2% annually while California may stagnate at the current 37,5 Mio. until 2030 and Texas would still have fewer/about the same inhabitants than California. (Not to mention that California grows with over 1% each year)

[Deano963]

California gain of an electoral vote suprises me.

Why?

People are constantly migrating to Southern California by the droves from other parts of the U.S. I'd be surprised if it didn't gain at least one seat.

I was basically surprised because of the large amount of migrants out of that state.

What large amount of migrants out of California? More people move to California than move away from it.

In my opinion I do not believe illegal immigrants should be counted in reapportionment.

Neither do I. For some reason you seem to think California's and Florida's growth is due to illegal immigrants but you don't realize that the same can be said of Texas.

In fact, it is much, much more likely that Texas' population is increasing due to illegal immigration than either California's or Florda's.

But Florida and California's consistent gain of votes wont last forever, imho

As long as retirees continue to move to Florida and as long as San Diego/LA continue to enjoy the best year-round weather in the country, those population trends will continue. But yes, obviously nothing lasts forever.

[Padfoot]

In my opinion I do not believe illegal immigrants should be counted in reapportionment.

Neither do I. For some reason you seem to think California's and Florida's growth is due to illegal immigrants but you don't realize that the same can be said of Texas.

In fact, it is much, much more likely that Texas' population is increasing due to illegal immigration than either California's or Florda's.

According to an article that ran last year in the Columbus Dispatch, if illegal immigrants were removed from the official apportionment population of the states California would lose a whopping 6 House seats.  New York, Texas, and Florida would each lose one.  As I recall the article did not mention where those 9 seats would end up.  These stats were included in an article about a proposed ammendment to the Constitution that would have eliminated non-citizens from the official apportionment population.

[jimrtex]

This is an alternate presentation, showing the number of seats that each state would have if non-integer number representatives could be apportioned.  A state that had a population that an exact multiple of one of the divisors  sqrt( (i+1)*i ) * (USpopulation/435), would have i+0.5 representatives.

The table shows the projected 2010 entitlement, and the change since 2010.  California and Texas are above the line, because among states that aren't quite half-way to the next seat, their average population per district is less below the needed population than other smaller states.   In general, when there are more states short of half way, larger populations states will claim the seats.  When there are more states past half way, it will be the large states that don't get the extra seat.

If current trends repeat, West Virginia, Alabama, and New Jersey would lose a seat by 2020, and Nebraska and Rhode Island would be in real danger.  Oregon and Washington would likely gain a seat.

For 2010 Utah will go from being right in between 3 and 4, to a solid 4.  Louisiana will actually be closer to 5 seats than 7 seats.  Pennsylvania has gone from a very solid 19, to a weak 18.  If they don't lose 2 this time, they will in 2020.

California doesn't quite have the growth for a full seat, but they get a high relative ranking (just like they had in 2000).  Texas has growth for just over 3 new seats, but like California, they get a lucky relative ranking.

Ohio has gone from a very weak 18th, to a solid 16.  If the census had been a few months later in 2000, they would have lost the 18th seat then. 

Georgia will probably gain two seats next time.  North Carolina will gain a seat in 2010, while South Carolina and Virginia should be close by then.

New Hampshire        1.977   -0.002
Maine                1.957   -0.080
Hawaii               1.932   -0.010
New Mexico           2.903    0.041
Kansas               3.969   -0.225
Utah                 3.901    0.406
Louisiana            5.882   -1.058
Rhode Island         1.593   -0.106
Wisconsin            7.968   -0.355
West Virginia        2.605   -0.240
Tennessee            8.784   -0.042
Nebraska             2.576   -0.121
Arizona              9.660    1.698
Alabama              6.594   -0.313
Pennsylvania        17.574   -1.455
New Jersey          12.503   -0.540
California          53.389    0.925
Texas               35.398    3.097
-----------------------------------
Minnesota            7.473   -0.163
New York            27.336   -2.061
Florida             27.306    2.546
Oregon               5.458    0.135
Washington           9.425    0.282
Illinois            18.342   -0.901
Missouri             8.415   -0.268
Michigan            14.288   -1.114
Ohio                16.196   -1.396
Georgia             14.230    1.540
South Carolina       6.350    0.117
Virginia            11.224    0.248
North Carolina      13.154    0.681
Montana              1.450   -0.035
Maryland             8.165   -0.054
Massachusetts        9.108   -0.739
Indiana              9.062   -0.369
Iowa                 4.255   -0.305
Colorado             7.089    0.407
Oklahoma             5.151   -0.217
Kentucky             6.056   -0.225
Mississippi          4.165   -0.270
Connecticut          5.021   -0.277
Arkansas             4.089   -0.081
Idaho                2.271    0.205
Nevada               4.026    0.891
Delaware             1.354    0.042
South Dakota         1.226   -0.046
Alaska               1.098    0.005
Vermont              1.018   -0.049
North Dakota         1.017   -0.096
Wyoming              0.893   -0.021

[jimrtex]

Another fun fact: with AZ-08 and TX-23 having flipped blue, every district touching the border is Democratic save NM-02.

CA-51: Bob Filner (D)
CA-53: Susan Davis (D)
AZ-07: Raul Grijalva (D)
AZ-08: Gabrielle Giffords (D)
NM-02: Steven Pearce (R)
TX-15: Ruben Hinojosa (D)
TX-16: Silvestre Reyes (D)
TX-23: Ciro Rodriguez (D)
TX-25: Lloyd Doggett (D)
TX-27: Solomon Ortiz (D)
TX-28: Henry Cuellar (D)

Doggett doesn't have a border district.

[Padfoot]

Another fun fact: with AZ-08 and TX-23 having flipped blue, every district touching the border is Democratic save NM-02.

CA-51: Bob Filner (D)
CA-53: Susan Davis (D)
AZ-07: Raul Grijalva (D)
AZ-08: Gabrielle Giffords (D)
NM-02: Steven Pearce (R)
TX-15: Ruben Hinojosa (D)
TX-16: Silvestre Reyes (D)
TX-23: Ciro Rodriguez (D)
TX-25: Lloyd Doggett (D)
TX-27: Solomon Ortiz (D)
TX-28: Henry Cuellar (D)

Doggett doesn't have a border district.

I am disinclined to accpet the gerrymander that is CA-51 as part of the "blue border."  In reality CA-52 should be a border district as well.

[muon2]

In response to some of the questions that frequently arise, I've put together a web page with a description of my methods and the projections for each state.

[jimrtex]

NH 195; VT 101; MA 907; RI 159; CT 500; NJ 1245; DE 135; MD 813.

This is the apportionment for 2010 if states were apportioned fractional representatives (but based on the current apportionment formula), which has a slight bias towards less populous states.  Two decimal places are shown, but the decimal point is suppressed.

Ordinarily, a state with a fraction greater than 0.50 would be apportioned the next whole number of representatives, and a state with a fraction below 0.50 would drop the fraction.  But there are a disproportionate number of states with fractions under 0.50 (34:16).  When this happens, larger states tend to be favored, because they can spread the underage among more districts (If California gets a 54th district, it reduces the average size of its districts by less than 2%).  This difference explains why TX and CA are favored to get their 36th and 54th CD, over MN losing its 8th.

From the above, it can be seen that NE, WV, and RI are edging close to losing their 3rd, 3rd, or 2nd representatives, respectively, and might well do so by 2020.  Washington and Oregon are getting close to gaining an additional representative, but will likely not earn it until early in the next decade.  New Jersey is just barely holding on to its 13th representative, and Pennsylvania to its 18th (losing 1 rather than 2).

A practical implementation of this apportionment would be to distribute the number of electors/representatives over the number of votes.  For example, Iowa would be entitled to 4.24 representatives and 6.24 electors.  Each elector could cast 1.04 electoral vote; and each representative could cast 1.06 votes in roll call votes.

[Verily]

In my opinion I do not believe illegal immigrants should be counted in reapportionment.

Neither do I. For some reason you seem to think California's and Florida's growth is due to illegal immigrants but you don't realize that the same can be said of Texas.

In fact, it is much, much more likely that Texas' population is increasing due to illegal immigration than either California's or Florda's.

According to an article that ran last year in the Columbus Dispatch, if illegal immigrants were removed from the official apportionment population of the states California would lose a whopping 6 House seats.  New York, Texas, and Florida would each lose one.  As I recall the article did not mention where those 9 seats would end up.  These stats were included in an article about a proposed ammendment to the Constitution that would have eliminated non-citizens from the official apportionment population.

Does this apportionment then also apply to district sizes? Obviously, the large number of illegal immigrants would deflate the size of inner-city and agricultural districts in California. Having heavily-Democratic areas of LA and San Diego spread outward into heavily Republican suburbs and rural areas would probably help the Democrats in those areas despite the loss of seats.

(How do they count illegal immigrants in the apportionment, anyway? They're not in the Census.)

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me provide a little long term perspective on reapportionment as it impacts the Presidential election.

The jurisdictions carried by Kerry in 2004 had 252 Electoral College votes, but in 1964 they had 271 (enough to be elected) and in 2012 are projected to have 247!

[Smash255]

Let me provide a little long term perspective on reapportionment as it impacts the Presidential election.

The jurisdictions carried by Kerry in 2004 had 252 Electoral College votes, but in 1964 they had 271 (enough to be elected) and in 2012 are projected to have 247!

true, but some of the ones gaining Colorado, Virginia, Nevada are trending Democrat