| Of the states rolled out in this week's Census 2010 releases, North Carolina is by far the most interesting one. North Carolina narrowly missed out on a 14th seat, so it's staying at 13; its target is 733,499, up from about 619K in 2000. Unsurprisingly, the big gains come in the Charlotte and Raleigh metropolitan areas, with NC-09 in Charlotte's suburbs and NC-04 in Durham and Chapel Hill both well past the 800K mark. (The 9th is represented by GOPer Sue Myrick, although the state's district that shifted the sharpest to the left from Kerry to Obama, while the 4th belongs to Dem David Price and is the bluest white-majority district in the state.) NC-01 on the coastal plain, one of the nation's few truly rural African-American-majority seats, gained the least, followed by the three mostly-rural Appalachian-flavored seats (NC-05, NC-10, and NC-11).
How this shakes out for redistricting is complicated, because Republicans control the process for the first time ever and will want to undo a pretty Dem-friendly map from 2000... but without getting too greedy. What may be their first task, shoring up newly-elected Renee Elmers in what's currently a swing district, may be made easier by the fact the mostly-suburban/exurban 2nd will probably need to give a lot of its African-American population in Raleigh proper to the next-door 1st in order to preserve the dwindling 1st's black-majority VRA status. But since the 2nd didn't grow that fast, it'll then need to look elsewhere to grab some enough white votes to replace them... and since the GOP probably won't want those to be liberal transplants in the Research Triangle area, they may need to reach south into the 3rd or 7th instead.
I could see that in turn pushing Dem Mike McIntyre's 7th further west into Fayetteville and south central rural counties, keeping his district swingy, while also pushing Larry Kissell's 8th further west too, probably giving him a heaping helping of dark-red Charlotte suburbs and making him the likeliest Dem to get targeted for extinction. But the GOP has many, many ways to play this (see the Aaron Blake article linked above), and this isn't the only scenario.
| District |
Population |
Deviation |
| NC-01 |
635,936 |
(97,563) |
| NC-02 |
741,576 |
8,077 |
| NC-03 |
735,979 |
2,480 |
| NC-04 |
826,878 |
93,379 |
| NC-05 |
693,414 |
(40,085) |
| NC-06 |
714,412 |
(19,087) |
| NC-07 |
742,938 |
9,439 |
| NC-08 |
709,449 |
(24,050) |
| NC-09 |
852,377 |
118,878 |
| NC-10 |
689,468 |
(44,031) |
| NC-11 |
703,606 |
(29,893) |
| NC-12 |
736,346 |
2,847 |
| NC-13 |
753,104 |
19,605 |
| Total: |
9,535,483 |
|
The other two multi-district states are much more clear cut and present similar profiles: in both Nebraska and Kansas, the big empty western districts need to expand greatly, and the urban/suburban districts need to shed population. The GOP controls the processes in both states; the only real intrigue might be whether they try to get fancy and crack the only-slightly-red Omaha-area NE-02 and Kansas City-area KS-03 to make them safer Republican seats. The target in Nebraska is 608,780, up from 570K in 2000. (Notice how low that is... Nebraska seems right at the top of the list for a lost seat in 2020.) In Kansas, the target is 713,280, up from 672K in 2000.
| District |
Population |
Deviation |
| NE-01 |
626,092 |
17,312 |
| NE-02 |
638,871 |
30,091 |
| NE-03 |
561,378 |
(47,402) |
| Total: |
1,826,341 |
|
| District |
Population |
Deviation |
| KS-01 |
655,310 |
(57,970) |
| KS-02 |
710,047 |
(3,233) |
| KS-03 |
767,569 |
54,289 |
| KS-04 |
720,192 |
6,912 |
| Total: |
2,853,118 |
|
|
