Google Ads


Site Stats

New Re-Apportionment Study: NY to Lose Only One Seat

by: DavidNYC

Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 8:28 PM EST


Election Data Services has updated its projections (PDF) for Congressional re-apportionment after the 2010 census, taking into account population changes over the past year. (You can find a summary of EDS's 2007 findings here.) The news is good in particular for the state of New York.

This time, EDS offers five different models for projecting every state's population two years hence. The column headers indicate the range of time used to come up with each projection.

State 2000-2008 2004-2008 2005-2008 2006-2008 2007-2008
Arizona 2 2 2 2 2
California 0 -1 -1 -1 0
Florida 2 2 1 1 1
Georgia 1 1 1 1 1
Illinois -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Iowa -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Louisiana -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Massachusetts -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Michigan -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Minnesota -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Missouri -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Nevada 1 1 1 1 1
New Jersey -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
New York -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
North Carolina 0 0 1 1 0
Ohio -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
Oregon 0 1 1 1 1
Pennsylvania -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
South Carolina 1 1 1 1 1
Texas 4 4 4 4 4
Utah 1 1 1 1 1

As you can see, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the models. Only four states aren't uniform across the board: California, Florida, North Carolina, and Oregon. CA & OR apparently have seen a recent uptick in relative growth while FL and NC have experienced the opposite.

The bigger deal, though, are the changes compared to last year's survey. The previous version of this study used three models rather than five, but all of them showed NY losing two seats. Now, all five EDS projections show NY losing just one seat. This might hardly seem like something to cheer about for a state which had 45 House seats just half a century ago, but I for one am glad.

So where does this seat probably come from? As it happens, it's a state known for its sizable ex-New Yorker population. Three of the five current models (and all of them the shortest-term) show Florida dropping a seat while only one of three did in 2007. Meanwhile, Minnesota now looks pretty certain to lose a seat while South Carolina appears set to gain one.

Things could of course still change over the next two years. As EDS notes, the economic crisis has already reduced migration rates to their lowest level since the 1940s (when the government first started tracking this information). A worsening recession could cause even more people to stay put, changing these numbers yet again. We'll just have to wait and see.

DavidNYC :: New Re-Apportionment Study: NY to Lose Only One Seat
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Phew!
California won't be losing a seat after all! What a relief. I was so worried that state growth wasn't keeping up with national growth. I guess it looks like Cali will grow just enough to avoid NY's fate. ;-)

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)


Not necessarily
The short and long-term models both have Cali holding steady, but the three "mid-term" ones don't. In other words, the state is on the bubble -- and a lot will depend on the rate of growth over the next couple of years.

[ Parent ]
True...
I guess growth could suffer again in the next 24 months. Hopefully, it won't. It's really too bad that the current budget crisis & the Prop H8 legal battle don't help. ;-)

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)


[ Parent ]
Well, then encourage...
gay couples to move to California to help us make sure gay marriage is legal in 2010, when it will surely be on the ballot again in some form.

[ Parent ]
I hope to increase the California population by 1
or 2 if I can move my BF with me sometime in early 2010 hopefully before the census forms go out!

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
And yay for Nevada!
Hopefully, this means another blue seat for this new Blue State. ;-)

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)


what would
the 2008 election look like under this reapportionment?  

Not much different (eom)


[ Parent ]
358-180
Some quick arithmetic shows that if every state votes the same in 2012, the new electoral score is 358 to 180, or Republican plus seven.  Obama's got quite a cushion, and I'm not particularly worried about his re-election, but I just thought I'd note that the growth is in Republican territory.

It still sucks...
That apparently Blue State electoral power is still shrinking. Well, let's hope we turn another Red State or 3 blue in 2012! :-)

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)


[ Parent ]
Not all bad news
Most of Texas' growth is in Latinos.  Same with Arizona, though retirees have something to do with that, as well.  Without this growth, we wouldn't have a prayer in TX.  Now, it seems inevitable that the Lone Star State will be blue.

[ Parent ]
But when?
It seems like it may take a while before TX turns blue. However, you're right about AZ. Obama should be able to win AZ in 2012.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)


[ Parent ]
2016 - Swing State Texas
My models are showing Texas move 1 point a year right now, lots of the growth is in D/FW metroplex and Dallas is hard blue now.

I doubt White or Sharp can win Hutch's Senate seat, but someone is going to sneak in prob during the 2014 mid terms.

Key thing for the present in Texas, convince Bexar county (San Antonio) folks to vote straight ticket instead of person by person.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26


[ Parent ]
The Nation
Bob Moser wrote a nice article this year about the blue-ing of Texas.  If we build it, victory will come to the Texas Democratic Party.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...


[ Parent ]
The problem with Texas
is that the whites there vote like southerners, by and large. If latinos were as Democratic as blacks, I'd be rubbing my hands together at the potential. But as it stands, whites are too Republican, and latinos not quite Democratic enough.

We can make up for this by getting many more latinos to vote, but that's going to take time, and of course not all of them are allowed to vote. (Liberalizing our citizenship laws would help, IMO).


[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's what concerns me.
Outside Austin (and perhaps Dallas city), Texas whites vote heavily GOP. We must make up more ground with white voters and/or turn out Latinos en masse in order to win statewide.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)


[ Parent ]
Yup
The travis white liberals aren't enough. Whites in the in Tarrant and Harris need to become more Democratic, or we're not going anywhere fast.  

[ Parent ]
Where does it say Texas
is gaining a seat because of latinos? I know a lot of latinos are increasing in number here but there is a lot of in-state migration of non-latinos from other parts of the U.S, especially the NY, NJ, CA and the Midwest.

I really don't see TX going national blue for a very long time. There are a lot of non-citizen latinos and the latinos that are citizens and vote are not one-party bloc voters so it makes it hard to get a critical voting bloc for one party or the other.

As for redistricting, I expect the GOP to go all out for 5-6 seats. If an Obama justice department doesn't block them, Lloyd Doggett will be the only white TX Democrat in 2012. Chet Edwards is prime target numero uno: having seen him beat back the GOP in a crimson red district they will break up TX-17 into 2 or 3 districts (like Frost 2002) and force Edwards to run against an incumbent Republican, most likely Joe Barton in which case Edwards will retire. The GOP will make Gene Green's district much more heavily hispanic that he'll be too inviting a target not to primary (see Chris Bell) by a Hispanic politician. The other seats will be 2 GOP-heavy distrits in the Dallas suburbs (north Colin, Denton and Tarrant Counties) and 2 GOP-lean in the Houston area. The other 1 or 2 will be in Central TX and maybe north Austin or the San Antonio suburbs. This of course means that some GOPs will be weaker (Sessions, Marchant, Carter, Smith and possibly Poe) but knowing how hard it is to knock off an incumbent, I don't think the TX GOP is too worried (yes...Tom DeLay's allies still control redistricting in TX).  

Indepedent/Lean D. Dude.
All 5s (now TX-5; frmly VA-5 and CA-5)  


[ Parent ]
Grabbing the Texas House next year
would be good, but I think they TX Reps may dummymander. . .

[ Parent ]
Already Dummy-mandered
It's called Dallas' state House map. In 2 election cycles went 6D-10R to 10D-6R and should be 11D-5R (with an outside shot at 12D-4R) by the end of 2010.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
Won't work
TX-24, TX-32, and TX-3 are close to flipping dem. If the Texas Republicans have any brains they're going to recreate Martin Frost's old district and move EB Johnson's a little to the west so as to protect all of their incumbents. The Democratic growth is the area on the line between Dallas and Tarrant County.

TX-24 becomes North Tarrant County, TX-26 is Denton and Cooke only, TX-32 moves west as TX-3 retreats only into Collin County and TX-4 retreats out of Collin.

Joe Barton is retiring, so Chet can't face him. Look at the fall in numbers this year in TX-31 (John Carter). Best thing Rs can do is move Chet's District to run from Waco into North Travis while TX-31 moves from East Williamson over to Brazos County (TX A&M) and a New District gets the rural stuff north of Bell county along with some parts of TX-6 (Barton's)

The other two seats? Withdraw TX-10 and TX-21 from Travis county and move TX-25 (Doggett) into it completely. Make a solid GOP district in the rural areas Doggett gives up along with parts of TX-10 and TX-21. The fourth? Northeast Houston maybe taking bits of TX-8 and TX-2, however Gene Green may need to expand, prob more likely to take bits of Olson in TX-22.

This works, gives Rs 3 of the 4, but by 2016 it could cause some problems for Olson (due to shifts in Fort Bend), Sessions, Marchant, Burgess, and Sam Johnson. If McCaul pulls out of Travis his district is not shifting to us, and it's likely that Culberson will move his district a little further north into much safer areas (SW Houston is the big Democratic growth areas, the SE parts that Lampson had are not moving at a significant rate, yet).

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26


[ Parent ]
I'm over half done
http://spreadsheets.google.com...

I got the crowdsourcing numbers done for Central, Rural West, D/FW, and East Texas. Almost done with Gene Green (TX-29).

Use this to check my redistricting thoughts for 2012.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the lowdown...
I can hardly wait for the full TX report!

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)


[ Parent ]
I'm sorry but
I honestly do not see any of those 3 districts close to flipping dem, and I've lived in all 3 of them.

Granted the Dems improved their margins but I won't base this on one election cycle. If the Dem margin is reliable, should'nt we have seen about the same pick up for other dems? Cornyn as generically bland a GOP do nothing senator that the is, won by exactly the same margin as he did in 2002, a solid GOP year. I think the TX GOP just wasn't really into the election like 2000 or 2004. Right now, a lot of them think the Obama wave was a one time fluke that is unlikely to be repeated in mid-term or normal cycle elections. I hesitatingly agree primarily because Obama made or so far is making, the same mistake Clinton did in 1992,i.e. he never defined what a Democratic candidate is so it would have staying power or be easily transferable when either Obama is no longer: (a) as popular as he was on election day or (b) in office.

Of those 3 seats, Sessions should be the weakest GOP seat but as long as it is centered in the uber rich country club enclaves of Highland Park and the Preston/Mockingbird axis of Dallas, it will remain a GOP stronghold. The Irving portion is heavily hispanic but I think at best they cancel out the North Dallas bloc. The Richardson Garland portion, maybe the swing area but I think there are still enough white-middle class voters resistant to the Dems. Dems have better chance in fast growing new developments like South Tarrant County, but these places are packed into seats with more estabished and reliably repubican neighborhoods.

As per Chet Edwards, I really think he is a great guy and a good model for a Congressman anywhere in the 50 states. And this, I think, is why the GOP wants him out. He's really good at what he does, but, w/o sounding like a snoop, I have it on good authrority from a TX GOP staffer in Austin that they want him out because they underestimated his staying power in 2003 and many aspiring GOP state legislators with seats that cover TX-17 worry they can't beat him becuase he is very likeable and can raise gooble amounts of money.  

TX-3 (Plano based) and TX-24 (SOuthlake, Grapevine) won't vote for a national democrat, but if TX-24 is amenable to a Dem, expect a conservative one like State Rep Kirk England, who so happens to be a former GOPer who's dad remains the long time and still GOP mayor of Grand Prairie.

I suspect Barton TX-6 is also a weak GOP lean since the bulk of his seat is in South Tarrant County, more Dem friendly than the GOP north and FOrt Worth Suburbs but so far no luck for Dems trying to knock him off.  

Indepedent/Lean D. Dude.
All 5s (now TX-5; frmly VA-5 and CA-5)  


[ Parent ]
TX-6 was surprisingly solid
Kirk England however, you picked my exact choice. Still too new to run in 2010 and state house seats are a bit more valuable for Dems. The growth in Grand Prarie/Arlington/Irving for Dems has cancelled out a lot of the Southlake numbers in TX-24. I was very surprised at Denton where Lewisville is the part that is shifting Dem (Frisco is as well, but that's TX-26).

As for why I mentioned TX-3, it's not a next cycle, or two cycles from now, it's by the time the next cycle of redistricting were to happen in 2020. Plano is moving slowly, VERY slowly, but it's happening.

As for Edwards, if they want to waste him, they're going to have to work hard to get a district worse than 70-30 for him while creating a district that doesn't come back to bite them later consisting of the areas north of Austin.

Remember, this is not about making districts for the most gain now, it's about making gains that work for the next 10 years.

As for the other statewides, no one really did worse than Obama, nor did many do much better. Obama was 43.5, Noriega was 43, and the Supreme Court candidates got in at 46%. There was an uptick.

P.S. I graduated from UNT (Denton) last May and I'm working on moving back to the area, so I got a vested interest in these races as well, I'm currently in TX-22 in Galveston County.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26


[ Parent ]
Then again
A lot of the growth in "red" states are coming from populations that lean "blue" (Texas is gaining 3 congressional seats because of the growing latino population, for example). In the short term, it's going to make it a bit harder for us on the presidential level, but long-term, it's good for Team Blue :)

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Arizona
I think Arizona would be the new North Carolina if McCain wasn't on the ticket.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Yes, but...
GA is marching solidly in the DEM column. Within 2 cycles at the latest, GA will be again a blue state, so adding the future 16 EV from GA to the DEM base practically erases any bit by bit losses in the EC through re-apportionment.

But the biggest danger for the GOP is TX. As the state bloats and more metropolises spring up, then the statistical probability is extremely high that TX trends more and more blue, and without TX, the GOP has no real chance of winning a GE.

Further, Obama's wins in CO, NM, NV, IA - red or swing states west of the Mississippi, were all landslides or near landslides, and all above his national average of +7.25. Add to that the large base he has built for the DEM party in northern VA and we are looking at a newly formed DEM base for 2012 and beyond that goes easily beyond 270 EV before even challenging the elephants for some of their territory.


[ Parent ]
Say what?
GA is marching solidly in the DEM column. Within 2 cycles at the latest, GA will be again a blue state, so adding the future 16 EV from GA to the DEM base practically erases any bit by bit losses in the EC through re-apportionment.

Can I have some of what you're smoking?  


[ Parent ]
Get 10% more of the whites
to start voting for Democrats, and we'll have something to talk about.

[ Parent ]
NY loses only one seat?
   Poof!  Chris Lee is no longer a congressman after 2012.

24, Male, GA-05

Or McHugh
NY-23 would be easier to dismantle and NY-26 is really quite winnable without primary chaos.  I was actually hoping for two, since that would give a rationale to axe Pete King's NY-03.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
Nah.
Actually, the two NY districts that have lost the most population are NY-27 and NY-28, represented by Maurice Hinchey and Louise Slaughter, respectively. Both are solidly entrenched titans in the region. Lee's district borders both of theirs, and Lee, as the lowest-ranking member of the minority party, is an easier sacrifice. Just give half of Lee's district to NY-27 and the other half to NY-28, and let him get creamed.

McHugh, by contrast, is actually popular in his district, has plenty of tenure, and represents both the least populous and least politically significant part of the state. In New York, the farther north you go, the less anyone important cares about you, Capital Region excepted.

Also, even if NY were losing two seats, the other would be a Democrat, probably Arcuri, and certainly not King. It's better that King gives us the freebie by running for Governor, otherwise he'd probably have that seat for a long time.  


[ Parent ]
Why A Dem?
I mean, I know that it's tradition, but with the State Senate (albeit narrowly) now in Democratic hands, why the hell would Silver and the new State Senate Majority Leader (Malcolm ?) do that?  Just for spite?

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
What about
Combining Arcuri and McHugh's districts?  They live pretty close to each other (Utica and Watertown respectively), and maybe a lot of the eastern part of McHugh's district can be drawn into Gillibrand and Tonko's districts.  I think it would be hard to so obliterate McHugh's district that he's certain to be defeated, but maybe we can do it in such a way as to give Arcuri a better than 50 chance (as long as he bothers to try this time), or otherwise a likely pickup once McHugh retires.  I do think that competely dismantling McHugh's district would run the risk of an overreach.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


[ Parent ]
That might be part of how we do dismantle it
The northern and eastern corners would indeed go to Gilibrand.  They're actually some of McHugh's most liberal areas and would help Kirsten's PVI drop fairly significantly.  Oswego county could join Syracuse for a slight remake of Maffei's district in the Southern Tier.  Tonko would likely get some of the thinly populated Adirondack areas to his north (and maybe some of Arcuri's north end, like Herkimer).  The rest, including McHugh's house, would indeed be placed in with Arcuri's seat.  As we know, seats are never obliterated, and McHugh would have to face someone, so you're right.  Here's just what to do with the rest of his district.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
We may not be able to write King's district
Off the map, but that doesn't mean we can't make it a lot harder for him to hold. NY-03 is surrounded by the much-more-Dem 2nd, 4th & 5th districts, and isn't all that far from the ridiculously blue 6th. Slice-n-dice a bit differently and Pete King will have a hell of a time.

I would want to be a bit careful so that we don't make Steve Israel's district much redder (he may seek higher office some day), and I'd like to shore up Tim Bishop a bit if that's possible. But in any event, I think we can put the hurt on King.


[ Parent ]
True.
I think part of the reason why he's running for Governor now is he's seen the steady fall of nearly every other NY district to the Democrats and realizes that now it's his turn. Without Fossella to draw the Democrats' fire, and with precious few upstate districts left to contest, NY Dems just might have enough money to focus exclusively on King even without redistricting him. Still, if he were to stay in the House, your plan for making his life difficult in 2012 is a good one.  

[ Parent ]
Senate
King has announced interest in a Senate bid in 2010.  

[ Parent ]
Does anyone think
If the Big 3 do collapse that we'll see a bigger than expected out-migration from Michigan?  David pointed out that the recession will probably make more people stay put, but I wonder if the sheer size of the potential job-loss in Michigan  (I've seen estimates pushing one million once you factor associated industries which would of course collapse with the Big 3) will cause a lot of people to pick-up and leave just because they literally have no other choice.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


I have mixed feelings
I hate to see my home state probably losing a seat but part of me hopes Minnesota does. It would be soooo easy to carve up MN-06 (it borders 6 of the 7 other districts) and finaly get rid of Michelle Bachmann once and for all.

Bachmann just bought a house in Woodbury which is in the far southeast corner of her district. It would be easy to throw her into either the current 2nd vs John Kline (R) or into the Dem leaning current 4th vs Betty McCollum (D). Either way she is toast.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan


Indeed
She is a goner.

Throw Washington County into CD4 with McCollum, which is a decent enough fit and will only redden the district by a smidge as Washington is 50/50'ish.

And then dismantle the rest among everyone else and the bitch doesn't have a seat to run in.

Although, her district is probably the only one that is currently growing in population.  That and CD2.  Put Anoka County CD3&5, split up the rest between CD7&8, put the Bible Belt in the northwest part of the district into CD2, put Saint Cloud in CD7 again which will REALLY help once Peterson retires and should make it only R+3-4 then, which is an easy hold then with local voting being pretty DFL.

Voila, one GOP toss-up suburban seat(CD3), 3 rural DFL (CD 1,7,8) seats, 1 uber GOP seat with burbs CD2, and then two city seats CD 4,5.  a 5/2 split with the chance of 6/1 at best.

CD2 should be shifted as much West as possible as well and put the swing parts of it (southern Dakota county, Goodhue, Rice) into CD1 thus making CD2 really Republican and impossible to win, but thus quarantining the GOP to one CD.

WOOOOO NO MORE BACHMANN!!!  It's worth losing a seat.


[ Parent ]
ps
i didnt proofread, off to the family!

[ Parent ]
If it's just one seat
then the NY Dems ought to think long and hard about potentially axing one of their own. Reducing the NY Republican delegation to 1 likely isn't sustainable. You might play games with Peter King's district, but I worry about our strength upstate.  

What About Increasing the Size of the House?
As of 2008, a member of congress on average represents about 700,000 people.  1 person representing 700,000?  Sometimes it's more; Montana has 1 person for over 950,000.

New York City has 51 city council members representing over 8,000,000 people.  A little over 150,000 per member.

Los Angeles has 15 city council members representing a little over 3.8 million.  About 250,000 per member.

Houston has 14 city council members (9 single member, 5 at-large) representing over 2,000,000 people.  About 220,000 per member.

Why not increase the size of the House.  The last time it was increased was in 1959 when Hawaii was added, but was later brought down to 435 to comply with federal law.


I think there is some merit to that idea
I like the Wyoming rule, which says that the standard divisor (average size of a House seat) can be no larger than the population of the smallest state. The problem with this is that it might create too much uncertainty for the party committees. Imagine dealing with 70 open seats in a Presidential year.  

[ Parent ]
One other option
is to expand the House so that no state loses a seat.

I would also consider expanding the House over the course of the decade, slowly reducing the standard divisor every two years, and requiring that the new seats be elected at large.  


[ Parent ]
It may increase 437 seats
I would expect another try at giving DC a voting member in the House (along with Utah which was next in line in the last census). IIRC in 2006 when this idea came up one version of the Bill increased the House to 437 permantly, another increased the size of the House only until the next census when it would go back down the 435 members.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
I would think that
time is running out for this sort of compromise.  Utah and Republicans would only get the extra seat until January 2013.  And, it seems to me that the earliest a new congressman could be put in place for Utah would be January 2010.  So, Republicans, who killed the deal last time, should have even less incentive to support it this time.

IIRC, the main reason publicly cited by Republicans was the constitutional questionableness of giving DC a congressman.  I personally think this objection has merit.  What I haven't seen proposed but think is a win-win for Democrats is to propose a constitutional amendment to give DC a Congressman.  Granted, it would take more Republican support to enact, but I cannot imagine a legitimate argument against it.  So, Republicans either support it (good politically for Democrats because we get an extra vote and it's right for DC residents to have a voting rep) or they block it and are seen as undemocratic and against black folks (good because Republicans seen as partisan hacks and against minorities).  I do wonder whether DC would support this, however, because it implicitly gives up getting two senators and perhaps lessens the case for statehood.


[ Parent ]
Agreed
I wholeheartedly endorse the idea.  It's easier to contact a State Rep than a Congressman.  Why?  A State Rep has less constituents to care for.  I think we should double the size, myself, but that's probably a bit drastic.

[ Parent ]
1 for every 30,000
I think there's a provision that says there has to be a representative at the very least for every 30,000.  Looked at through this standard, doubling isn't exactly that ambitious.  Taken to the extreme Wyoming would have about 17 Congressmen.

[ Parent ]
You're not the first person to say that
But it looks like you (and the others who have said that) have it exactly backwards.  What the constitution says is that "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand."  So one for every 30,000 is a maximum, not a minimum.  

[ Parent ]
Wow.
If we had kept House seats that size now, we'd have 10,000 representatives! California would have about 1,200 and Texas about 800.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
On the Bubble
In addition to differing projections for CA, FL, NC and OR, there are several other states on the edge.  

Based on Table J, following are states that could end up with a different number of seats than the models predict:

IL  0 (vs. -1)
MN  0 (vs. -1)
MO  0 (vs. -1)
NY 2 (vs. 1)
PA 2 (vs. 1)
SC  0 (vs. +1)
TX +3 (vs. +4)
WA +1 (vs.  0)

Of these, Washington is the most likely to break through.

Louisiana also has a very outside chance of not losing any seats.


Should read: NY -2 (vs. -1), PA -2 (vs. -1)


[ Parent ]
Things are good for Washington State and Oregon
A lot will depend on the economy.  The Northwest has had better luck than most with their economies and with their housing market.

If the economy stays as it is, not only will Oregon definitely get one, but Washington has a better than average fighting chance.


[ Parent ]
I'm curious

about the geographical pattern of gains and losses.  Basically everywhere between the Rockies and the Appalachians south to Louisiana and Mississippi is/has been losing population share in the 2000 and 2010 censuses.

Texas has been the big exception.  But Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama have been hanging in there, and that seems something of an anomaly.

That is not to ignore all the other interesting population shifts, i.e. the growth everywhere in the West and the net migration southward along the East Coast.  But Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama...maybe it's new industries I've missed, or large families, or people there not migrating further than the nearest small city?


[ Parent ]
N.J.'s on the edge too
I believe.

[ Parent ]
Reapportionment
The thing about reapportionment is that ALL people are counted.  That means both legal citizens and illegal ones, even though large numbers cannot vote.  I say a study somewhere that showed Texas, California and Florida get something like 6 or 7 extra districts off of non-citizens alone.  All that does is give whites in places like Texas more political power than they should have in the short-term since their vote counts for more because the large number of non-citizens cannot vote.  

The same can be said for incarceration.  The massively disproportionate number of blacks and latinos in prison or out of jail but stripped of their right to vote has the same effect.


It creates situations like TX-23
and several of the other minority majority districts in TX that should probably be electing latinos, but end up sending either white Republicans or black Democrats to Congress. (The latter happens in California, too.) I think that's not gonna last.

Meanwhile, my understanding is that many of the new Latino arrivals in Florida are Puerto Ricans. And of course, they can vote right off the boat.  


[ Parent ]
Yes, Florida has a lot of legal Hispanics
A large number of Florida's Hispanics are here legally from places like Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republican and other Caribbean Islands.  I believe we still at least 1, probably 2 extra congressional districts based off the illegal population in the state.  We draw a lot of Mexican immigrants here to work in the farming (oranges, ferns, etc.) and construction industries.  Ironically with the economy tanking so badly, especially in construction, many of these people are turning around and leaving either back to their home country or to other states where the economy is more favorable.

[ Parent ]
If the downturn is still going strong
when the census is conducted, I expect that one state will receive an unexpected seat. Colorado, maybe?

[ Parent ]
It could happen
These projections seem to be based on the assumption that the population in certain states will continue to grow at the 2000-2008 rate, with some states growing at that rate in large part because of immigration.  We could definately see certain states have drastically different trends in population over the next 2 years or so.  

I still have a hard time believing states like Michigan with crazy unemployment, probably 10%+ by now aren't losing a lot of people.  If you don't believe me go to ebay and search for "Flint, MI homes."  You can literally buy a home there for less than most of us pay to buy a new car.  No wonder Michael Moore is always pissed off.


[ Parent ]
"Oh $hit, Michigan just lost 4 seats!"
That's absolutely something I could imagine.  

[ Parent ]
I've been wondering about that
And well, it's pretty unfair for those of us who dont live in CA, TX, or AZ for that matter.  MN loses a CD seat so TX can have another one to fill up with people that can't even vote?

Granted, once we properly fix the immigration problem, this will no longer be a problem in a decade.


[ Parent ]
Unless Obama gets our economy out of the shitter
Immigration won't be much of an issue.  The tide of immigration is slowing to a crawl and many illegal Mexicans are just taking their money earned in the U.S. (money that can buy a LOT in Mexico) and going home due to our poor economy.

[ Parent ]
Georgia
Georgia's new district will likely be somewhere in the metro Atlanta area.  That can either be good or bad for us depending on where it is and who's drawing the lines.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.


Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox