As we all know from the 2020 reapportionment, projections can only be taken with a grain of salt, especially when we're still early in the decade. But if population trends hold, here's what we could see in 2030:
+4Texas
+3Florida
+1Arizona
Georgia
Idaho
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Utah
-4California
-3New York
-2Illinois
-1Michigan
Minnesota
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
This would be catastrophic for Democrats. Every state that would be losing a seat is in a Biden state and every state gaining is either a Trump state or a tossup with high likelihood of a Republican legislature. I'm going to look at the nets each party would get by pairing up losing and gaining states:
In particular, all of California's losses going to Texas and all of New York's losses going to Florida would be devastating. Probably at least 3 CA seats and 2 NY seats lost would be D, and the TX and FL GOP would gerrymander to make sure at max only one new Dem sink was created in their states. Net of at least +3R out of these exchanges.
-Illinois losing 2 seats would likely be 2 lost Democratic seats. Democrats already gerrymandered the state as extreme as possible to only have 3 hyper-Republican districts and it's unlikely they can go any lower than that. Meanwhile NC and SC would gain 2 seats, and while both could plausibly be blue leaning, I have no doubt that the GOP in both states will find creative ways to not make this happen (North Carolina Republicans in particular are known for their shamelessly aggressive gerrymanders). Net of +2R.
-Oregon losing its sixth seat just 10 years after it gained it would be both embarrassing and weird - how often does something like that happen? That said, it's probably a swingy bluish seat that would go, so a slight benefit to Democrats there (it's easier to draw safer blue seats in a 5-district Oregon). Meanwhile, Idaho is a lock to gain a third one, and although a fair map would have a competitive/D leaning Boise seat, Idaho Republicans will never let that happen. Net of +1R.
-Rhode Island was grossly overcounted last time (thanks Gina
) and it's basically impossible that its luck doesn't run out in 2030 after defying the odds for two reapportionment cycles in a row. That's one lost Democratic seat, and Tennessee's new one should be a Nashville D sink, but we all know it won't be. +1R.
-Michigan's lost seat will likely be a swingy one in central Michigan - perhaps Slotkin's or Kildee's districts will get dismantled, but who knows what party will hold that district by then. On the flip side, the new Arizona seat will probably be somewhere near Phoenix and also competitive. Going to keep this exchange as +0 D/R.
-Pennsylvania's lost seat is hard to predict. It will probably be a more rural seat, perhaps in NEPA? I'll consider this slight good news for Democrats. I'll pair this with Utah, another rare piece of good news for Democrats. Although cracking Salt Lake City 4 ways was doable for the Utah GOP, I think with 5 districts they'll give in and just create a Safe D Salt Lake sink (although they'd likely face criticism for using the new seat they get to help only Democrats). Either way, +1D.
-Minnesota's lost seat is going to be a Republican one, but it also makes the outer suburban seats stretch into the rurals more and as a result they become more Republican. Still bad news for the GOP here. In Georgia, I fail to see how the new seat wouldn't be D-leaning, but who knows what the GOP could do if they control redistricting then. For now, +1D.
So overall, I'd estimate that it would be a net +5R seats if this were to happen (not to mention a significant increase of Republican advantage in the Electoral College). What do you all think?
One more thing I want to note: there's several seats that were on the cusp last time for being added in places like Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia, and other states like Alabama just barely held on. The math changes quite a bit if these changes occur instead of more seats going to places like Texas and Florida.
