2020 census

[jimrtex]

Mark as many as you think,  tell how many each will have and where it would come from

We can calculate the representative share as a fraction.  In 2010, Alabama was entitled to 6.747 representatives, but this was rounded to 7.   Alabama lost 0.137 representatives between 2000 and 2010.  If this continues for another 20 years, Alabama would be just below 6.5 and possibly lose a representative.  Rounding is not done independently, and it is possible for a state with a fractional entitlement less than 0.5 to still be awarded an extra seat (see California).  It is also possible for a state with a fractional entitlement greater than 0.5 to not get the extra seat - though not in the same decade.  The last two censuses have been favorable to states getting a rounding upward.  When this happens it is biased towards larger states.  When rounding is unfavorable it is biased against larger states.

So assuming similar growth in the future.


Alabama                6.747 -0.137  7  Perhaps lose seat in 2030/
Alaska                 1.128  0.038  1  Long time before it gets second. 
Arizona                8.998  1.070  9  Likely will gain another. 
Arkansas               4.130 -0.025  4  Four-ever.
California            52.317  0.090 53  Could gain population share and lose a representative.
Colorado               7.085  0.430  7  Should be right on the cusp in 2020.
Connecticut            5.043 -0.229  5  Lose in 2040.
Delaware               1.358  0.050  1  Gain in 2040.
Florida               26.484  1.808 27  Favorable rounding in 2010, so +1 in 2020.
Georgia               13.637  0.995 14  Another in 2020, but could just miss.
Hawaii                 1.979  0.041  2  2 for long time.
Idaho                  2.260  0.202  2  Possible in 2020.  Could pass WV, so at least one will change.
Illinois              18.029 -1.123 18  Lose another in 2020.
Indiana                9.122 -0.266  9  Lose another in 2030 or 2040.
Iowa                   4.307 -0.233  4  Lose another in 2050.
Kansas                 4.043 -0.133  4  Lose another in 2050.
Kentucky               6.116 -0.137  6  Lose another in 2060.
Louisiana              6.399 -0.514  6  Some of loss due to Katrina, so should be good for 6 in 2020.
Maine                  1.933 -0.096  2  Lose in 2050 or 2060.
Maryland               8.127 -0.058  8  Should be at 8 until gets 9th shared with DC.
Massachusetts          9.203 -0.592  9  Possible loss in 2020, 2030 more likely.
Michigan              13.895 -1.437 14  Will lose 1 or 2 in 2020.
Minnesota              7.463 -0.135  8  Will lose 1 in 2020, Minneapolis-St.Paul district is coming.
Mississippi            4.202 -0.217  4  Good until 2050.
Missouri               8.437 -0.207  8  Lose another in 2060.
Montana                1.480  0.000  1  Oh so close for oh so long.
Nebraska               2.615 -0.073  3  Probably OK for 2020.  WV will drop first.
Nevada                 3.829  0.707  4  Maybe a gain in 2020.
New Hampshire          1.918 -0.053  2  Maine is losing faster.
New Jersey            12.349 -0.627 12  OK until 2030.
New Mexico             2.939  0.088  3  No increase for long time.
New York              27.213 -2.043 27  Lose another 2 in 2020.
North Carolina        13.411  0.983 13  Just missed in 2010.  Could get 2 in 2020, 1 is certain.
North Dakota           1.071 -0.039  1  Can't lose any more.
Ohio                  16.215 -1.300 16  Lose another in 2020.
Oklahoma               5.298 -0.049  5  Five for a while.
Oregon                 5.415  0.114  5  Probably will finally get 6 in 2020.
Pennsylvania          17.848 -1.091 18  Lose another in 2020.
Rhode Island           1.561 -0.131  2  Great risk of loss in 2020.  Will be just above DE.
South Carolina         6.528  0.313  7  Solidifies 7th, which was a bit of a surprise.
South Dakota           1.253 -0.015  1  Can't drop.
Tennessee              8.946  0.158  9  2050 for 10th.
Texas                 35.404  3.225 36  Got lucky rounding, so should be +3, including Reynosa-Waco
Utah                   3.914  0.435  4  5th in 2030.
Vermont                1.015 -0.049  1  Can't lose.
Virginia              11.272  0.331 11  Could get 12 in 2020.
Washington             9.474  0.366 10  2040 before 11th in range.
West Virginia          2.653 -0.182  3  Real risk of losing.
Wisconsin              7.999 -0.284  8  Perhaps a drop in 2030.
Wyoming                0.940  0.028  1  Could pass Vermont by 2020.

[jimrtex]

The Minneapolis-Saint Paul district is dead as a concept. Not even Republicans want that anymore, simply because creating it flips the two southern suburban districts now.

The court plan seems pretty much drawn under the assumption that Paulson's district will be the one to go irrespective of who decides the details.

If the court reasons like it did in 2001, when it switched from 4:4 to 5:3, then when it switches to 4:3 it will make it 3 suburban districts, Hennepin-West, North, and South, and one in the center.

If you try to maintain the 3 east-west districts, you end up trying to create a super doughnut, or you force the central districts way north (500,000 persons many).

Remember that districts will have to pick up 100,000 to make up for the loss of the district.  St. Cloud has to go.   It is needed to get up to 5/8 (62.5%).  When you only need 4/7 (57.1%) you give up St.Cloud and everything south of Dakota-Scott.  St.Cloud goes to MN-7.  The area east of the Mississippi goes to MN-8 as you try to keep it out of the Twin Cities, but it probably starts to peel off the northern tier of Anoka.

So where do you get the 200,000 for MN-1 and MN-2?   After you take South St.Paul and the the rest of the tiny remnant of Dakota, where do you go?  Washington.  But that is taking some more of MN-4.   So where does MN-4 get 300,000 people from.   Do you think that St.Paul and North Branch in the same district makes any more sense than St.Paul and Minneapolis?

It is a myth that there is a St.Paul district and a Minneapolis district.  St.Paul has about the same population as it had in 1940, Minneapolis has the same as it had in 1920.  Together, they are short by 80,000 which comes from the inner St.Paul suburbs.

Hennepin and Ramsey together only have a surplus above 2 districts of 190,000.  They can't support 3.

So you have Minneapolis-St Paul; Hennepin; Anoka-Ramsey North-Wright-Carver; and Dakota-Washington-Scott.

[jimrtex]

Minnesota lawmakers and/or judges will certainly find a way to draw a map with one district including Minneapolis and another district including St. Paul, even if it does not provide every rural resident with the shared representation they would have chosen for themselves.

If it goes to the courts, then they will combine Minneapolis and St.Paul in a single district.

They are quite unlikely to issue a ruling that says: "In 2001, we decided that the districts must represent the actual distribution of the State's population when we went from 4:4 to 5:3.  In 2011, we decided that you can't carve up Anoka County to maintain the Minneapolis and St.Paul seats.  Today, faced with the loss of a congressional district, we have decided to ignore our past precedents, and engage in wistful sentimentality and coarse political gerrymandering."

[jimrtex]

The MN-07 I drew was 53.1-44.5 McCain. I figure, at the least, the district is easily Republican without Peterson (unless Bachmann were to jump there). She'd have nowhere else to realistically run unless she were to steal the nomination in MN-03 and seriously defy gravity there. Obviously, she'd be DOA in that MN-04, which I'm pretty sure is where she lives now.

(I generally try to keep county splits low and deviations no more than 500.)

You've split Moorhead and East Grand Forks, and Wright and Sherburne are Twin Cities suburban.  Sherburne is kind of mixed because almost all of the population is in the western tip or the southeastern corner, where you have an interstate to commute into the Twin Cities.

I think Le Sueur is considered part of the Mankato metropolitan area.   So you have a political gerrymander to go after Bachmann, and also a demographic gerrymander where the northern outstate districts are infringing on the Twin Cities, and have split the Red River Valley.  Even with a DFL majority, you might get enough votes peeled off to defeat it in the legislature.

Better to keep the current basic outstate configuration.   The southern district can come up just south of Dakota and Scott.  The western district takes St.Cloud, and the northeastern district comes down into the exurbs more.

[jimrtex]

That map wasn't meant to be a gerrymander in any sense. I don't think a DFL Majority would be as merciful as I was in that map. I've played around with creating a DFL gerrymander and the easiest way is to create a Central MN district that functions as a Republican vote sink. A gerrymander would almost certainly be a 5-2 DFL map, not the probable 4-3 DFL map I made. MN-06 is the odd man out when it comes to a 7-seat map. Bachmann would need a Republican gerrymander to stay in the House.

I did play around some more and made some alterations. I kept the two MSP districts and MN-03 the same as before since I think they work quite nicely. Once MN-02 is drawn, there is some excess in the metro that I gave to MN-01 (which is now more of a Southeast MN district). The main reason I split Scott was to avoid a tri-chop of Dakota, though it doesn't really matter where the excess goes. As before, I renumbered MN-08 as MN-06. I found it easier to add St. Cloud to the Iron Range district than with MN-07. (I kept St. Cloud whole, which forced a split of Sherburne County.) MN-07 keeps the entire Red River Valley and extends all the way south to the Iowa border, which has the effect of keeping it more balanced politically than my previous map.

It does seem like the main debate point is where to extend the current MN-08. You can either go down into the Twin Cities metro, the Red River Valley, or St. Cloud. After you decide that, the map should pretty much draw itself. The caveat with all of this is that this is all based on 2010 Census numbers.

As you say, MN-8 is problematic.  Duluth and the Iron Range is a very distinct region, but has far from enough population for a district.

MN-1 is a SE Iowa district which just happens to go all the way to SD.   The SW part of Minnesota drains towards the Missouri, and Sioux Falls is the closest city, so it fits better with the Red River.  There is an interstate along the entire border - it doesn't matter that it is in the Dakotas.

So that really limits your choices to St. Cloud or the MSP metro.

By 2020, you will be having to come further into the metro area.   It makes the most sense to shift the counties in this order: 1,2. Isanti and Chisago, already dropped.  3. Sherburne because it is part of St.Cloud.  4. Wright because it is the most remote.   5. Because the population is extremely concentrated in the Chaska area in the notch in Hennepin.

How about splitting Washington between MN-8 (Iron Range-Duluth-St Croix) and MN-2 (Metro South).   Then create (Minneapolis-St. Paul), (Metro West-Hennepin) and a (Metro North-St Cloud) district from Anoka and northern Ramsey up to St. Cloud.

(East Dakota) and (Southeast Minnesota) stay pretty much as they are.

[jimrtex]

As you say, MN-8 is problematic.  Duluth and the Iron Range is a very distinct region, but has far from enough population for a district.

MN-1 is a SE Iowa district which just happens to go all the way to SD.   The SW part of Minnesota drains towards the Missouri, and Sioux Falls is the closest city, so it fits better with the Red River.  There is an interstate along the entire border - it doesn't matter that it is in the Dakotas.

So that really limits your choices to St. Cloud or the MSP metro.

By 2020, you will be having to come further into the metro area.   It makes the most sense to shift the counties in this order: 1,2. Isanti and Chisago, already dropped.  3. Sherburne because it is part of St.Cloud.  4. Wright because it is the most remote.   5. Because the population is extremely concentrated in the Chaska area in the notch in Hennepin.

How about splitting Washington between MN-8 (Iron Range-Duluth-St Croix) and MN-2 (Metro South).   Then create (Minneapolis-St. Paul), (Metro West-Hennepin) and a (Metro North-St Cloud) district from Anoka and northern Ramsey up to St. Cloud.

(East Dakota) and (Southeast Minnesota) stay pretty much as they are.

I think this is basically what you're proposing:



It certainly does seem like a plausible map, but I have to say that I'm partial to keeping separate Minneapolis and St. Paul districts. If you extend the current MN-08 down into the Twin Cities metro, I think you're forced to have a combined MSP district. It does preserve something resembling MN-06. Bachmann could run there, though she'd probably have considerable trouble considering McCain only won it by 2%. Republicans also probably wouldn't like MN-03 (which is entirely contained within Hennepin). That voted 55-43 for Obama in 2008. The Outstate districts change only very marginally politically. The only real safe district would be the new MN-04. Overall, it's a reasonable map, though I would prefer the other that leaves MSP separate and combines the Iron Range with St. Cloud.

By 2020, you may need to shift St. Cloud into MN-7 (it will have to pick up the slack for both MN-1 and MN-7, since MN-1 can't come further north.

You can't really rationalize MN-4.5 without having MN-3 being the rest of Hennepin.    At some point, MN-4.5 might have to start including more of the inner suburbs, and extending MN-3 into Wright or Carver, but I'd be inclined to add more of Ramsey, simply to help out on the balance between Minneapolis and St.Paul.

If St.Louis continues to come out like it did in 2012, it doesn't matter what you add on the south end.  Nolan ran up a 30K lead in St.Louis, and held Cravaack to about 2K in his best counties (Morrison, Isanti, Chisago).  Nolan had a larger margin than that in Itasca.   A curiosity is that Nolan ran 3 to 4% ahead of Obama in the Republican areas, but behind Obama in St.Louis.

In 2010, Oberstar only managed 15K in St.Louis, and Cravaack was getting 3K and 4K out of his counties.  Itasca was almost even.  And Cravaack still barely won.

So you would have 2 solid D districts: MN-4.5 and MN-8, two R districts MN-2 and MN-6, and 3 competitive seats, MN-1, MN-3, and MN-7.

[jimrtex]

How on earth do you get a 23-2 map in New York in a neutral election?

Upstate and downstate ~60% McCain vote sinks with the remainder of the state being like 66% Obama.  You can distribute that evenly enough so that every other seat is 2-time 60% Obama or safer.  Of course NYC would look like O'Malley's Baltimore x10, but I don't think a D trifecta would give a darn after being out of a House majority for 12 years.

With a loss of one seat, 1/2 is from upstate and 1/2 from NYC.   So you basically start with slicing NY-16 in half and start making major shifts down the Hudson. NY-17, NY-18, NY-19.   The upstate districs that are anchored by Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo will be hard to change dramatically, but will just expand outward a bit.   So the districts like NY-22 and NY-23 will get shoved around.  No one who has a large city, will want to have it sliced up to distribute Democrats to these other districts, they grudgingly accept as few Republicans as possible.

At most you will have some personal considerations, and you may be able to pair a couple of upstate representatives if they live in the wrong place.  For example, if the incumbent is NY-22 lives in Binghampton, and the map drawers don't like him, he might end up living in NY-23, and NY-22 will take more of the Mohawk Valley and areas SW of Albany.

In NYC there is a lot more flexibility, since you have 3 Bronx districts that can move north.  You could nibble some (150,000) for each district, or you could rip NY-14 out of Queens.   This would open up moving NY-3 into Queens in a major way, and letting the LI districts rotate counterclockwise, with NY-5 shifting into Nassau (instead of 4 Long Island districts, make it 3 and 2 halves).

[jimrtex]

People really didn't anticipate Montana, did they?

Montana has an excess of about 5000 people.

Ever since it lost its second seat, it has been close to gaining it back.

It gained 136K during the decade, for an average of 13.6K per year.  But four years were below that. If that been true a few more years, then Montana would not regain the seat.