Census Estimates for 2008 -> 2010 Apportionment

[muon2]

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2008. 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 special circumstance is to account for the effect of hurricane Katrina. LA saw an estimated drop of 250 K in the 10 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 from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008 then applied that to the estimate for July 1, 2008. To this I added the difference between the resident and apportionment populations in 2000 to reach a projected apportionment population for 2010.

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

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

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of two seats from MN and OR to NY and SC. The last states awarded seats were FL 27 (431), NY 28 (432), CA 53 (433), SC 7 (434) and TX 36 (435). These seats are on the bubble and most at risk to fluctuations in growth in the next two years. TX 36 is particularly at risk since part of the population growth is due to Katrina relocation and dropped from seat 433 in last year's projection.

The next five seats would go to OR 6 (436), WA 10 (437), MN 8 (438), MO 9 (439), and NC 14 (440). Seat 436 is important if the new Congress passes a DC representation act like the one offered in Congress last year, since that seat could be real in 2010. OR and MN have been bouncing back and forth from this waiting list to the real list on the last couple of estimates, so they really could go either way in 2010.

[muon2]

Beat you by 10 minutes.

Our order of the border line seats is different, but we have the same estimate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90215.0

Yeah, I was driving all day, so I didn't reach my computer until about 9:30 pm EST.

Your method must differ slightly, since your priority values are different and slightly lower than mine. Do you account for the difference between apportionment and resident populations? The apportionment has additional military and other federal overseas population.

[muon2]

I wonder if you used a slightly different methodology than me. I had a geometric extrapolation from the April 1, 2000 census figures and the July 1, 2008 estimate. I did not bother to take into account that the quarters are slightly different length. I didn't do anything special with Louisiana, but that doesn't affect seats 431-440, anyways.

Our posts passed each other. I do account for the difference between April 1 census and July 1 estimates, and I find that it does shift a couple of positions in priority. As I mention I also correct for non-resident population included in the apportionment.

[muon2]

New York only loses a single seat! That would be quite surprising.

NY moved from 437 last year to 432 this year for the 28th seat. One major factor is that the Census moved the state's estimates for the last few years upward. For instance last year the July 1, 2007 estimate was 19,297,729. Now the July 1, 2007 estimate is 19,429,316. That's enough to shift them on the bubble.

[muon2]

Our order of the border line seats is different, but we have the same estimate.

Your method must differ slightly, since your priority values are different and slightly lower than mine. Do you account for the difference between apportionment and resident populations? The apportionment has additional military and other federal overseas population.

I match Jfern's numbers, so he must not be including the federal overseas population.

The Census Bureau includes federal overseas employees, military and civilian, and their dependents, in the apportionment populations of their respective home states.  This can typically shift a state or two, since there is some variation in the relative share of State population that is employed by the federal government.

There is nothing particularly special about the federal government employees being counted, and other US citizens residing overseas not being counted.  Federal courts have ruled that it is within the discretion of Congress to interpret "according to their respective numbers" of the 14th Amendment.

The reason the Census Bureau counts federal employees and not others, is because it is easier, and it is more consistent with their domestic methodology.   In the US, the Census Bureau attempts to contact every dwelling unit.  Contrast this with voter registration where it is generally the responsibility of the voter to contact the government (The Motor Voter Law simply encourages registration when the person has contact with the government for other purposes).

The Census Bureau can get lists of overseas employees of the government agencies and the military, and can probably enlist the agencies in getting the census forms completed.  It could probably get lists from some employers, and not others, which might introduce bias.  For example, Utah might benefit if the Mormon Church (LDS) provided a list, and smaller religious sects did not.  It would be more difficult to count persons who have established overseas residency indefinitely, such as retirees who are living in Mexico, who may at a later age return to the United States.  And there are persons who were born in the US to non-citizens who then returned to their country, and have minimal contact with the United States.

Or there would be persons such as Barack Obama, his mother, and his step-father Mr. Sotero, when they were living in Indonesia.  When they were living in the US, they would have been counted in the Hawaii apportionment population.  But why should a foreign citizen living in his home country count for the US census, even if his wife, step-son, and daughter were?

The adjustment that Muon makes is to assume that the ratio of the overseas population to the domestic population remains constant between 2000 and 2010.  So if the resident population of State X increases by 10.3%, it is assumed that the federal overseas population associated with State X also increases by 10.3%.

Utah believed that it would have given them the 435th seat had the Census counted the LDS overseas like they do federal employees. The sued the Census, but were denied by the Federal Court and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

[muon2]

I was for sure since NC growth since 2000 is about 1.3 million we would gain a seat, but this number and states gainning and losing seat can change between now and then. What is the likelyhood of NC getting another seat?

At present I estimate that their apportionment population will be 9.514 M. If all other states matched my projections, NC would need 9.578 M. That is an additional 68,000 people beyond the current projection.

[muon2]

It appears that Oklahoma is the 19th fastest growing state in the country and gaining just under 35,000 people from July 1, 2007-July 1, 2008.  We've increased our ranking every year since 2000 (although we did go from 18 in 2007 to 19 in 2008), but we were around 42 in 2001.  People are starting to take note of my great state.  I really have nothing bad to say about my state.  The main thing we need to improve on is our road maintenance.

We're not in any position to gain our seat back in 2010 or even 2020, but if this growth continues and this trend continues, I think it is conceivable we could gain it back in 2030 or 2040.  Although we'll stay with 5 seats in 2010, we're nowhere near losing another seat.

The growth will have to pick up quite a bit. For this decade the average has only been 0.7%, though it has been close to the national average of 1% per year in the last couple of years. In order to get the seat back, OK will have to pick up even more and get to a growth rate of 1.5% to 2% per year.

I drove through OK for the first time in almost 20 years this summer. I stopped in OKC to see the memorial, and there seemed to be good growth in the area. Perhaps it will spread to enough other areas to create the needed growth.

[muon2]

Question for Muon:

If the California Dept. of Finance estimates turn out to be more accurate than the CB estimates, is CA likely to get a 56th EV ?

If I use the estimate of 38,049,462 for Jan 1, 2008, then CA easily gets a 54th seat. In fact if all other states match the Census estimates then CA with their own estimate would just barely get a 55th seat as well. Compared to the other western states internal estimates, CA seems much higher with respect to the Census estimate. Any idea why there is such a discrepancy?

[muon2]

At present I estimate that their apportionment population will be 9.514 M. If all other states matched my projections, NC would need 9.578 M. That is an additional 68,000 people beyond the current projection.

Wow, that not that much more needed. If the economy start to get better NC could see that growth. I guess we will have to see.

The method that muon is using for his population projections for 2010 assumes that a State will have a growth rate in the remaining 1.75 years of the decade that it averaged over the previous 8.25 years.  In the case of North Carolina, this is not consistent with Census Bureau estimates that the growth rate has increased over the decade:

2008 2.0%
2007 2.2%
2006 2.1%
2005 1.6%
2004 1.4%
2003 1.2%
2002 1.4%
2001 1.5%
2000* 1.6% (one quarter annualized)

On the other hand, as we approach the census, the base estimate used for projection does include this later growth, and we are only projecting an additional 1.75 years.

The Census Bureau also retrospectively changes its estimates.  For example, the estimated July 2007 population for North Carolina released in December 2008, is 20,000 less than its estimate released in December 2008.

I agree that in the last couple of years of the decade my projection fails to take a decade-long trend up or down into account. For most states I find that the trends are as likely to be statistical noise as real changes. NC may well be real, but every method has its weaknesses, and that one is mine.

[muon2]

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2008. 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 special circumstance is to account for the effect of hurricane Katrina. LA saw an estimated drop of 250 K in the 10 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 from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008 then applied that to the estimate for July 1, 2008. To this I added the difference between the resident and apportionment populations in 2000 to reach a projected apportionment population for 2010.

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

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

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of two seats from MN and OR to NY and SC. The last states awarded seats were FL 27 (431), NY 28 (432), CA 53 (433), SC 7 (434) and TX 36 (435). These seats are on the bubble and most at risk to fluctuations in growth in the next two years. TX 36 is particularly at risk since part of the population growth is due to Katrina relocation and dropped from seat 433 in last year's projection.

The next five seats would go to OR 6 (436), WA 10 (437), MN 8 (438), MO 9 (439), and NC 14 (440). Seat 436 is important if the new Congress passes a DC representation act like the one offered in Congress last year, since that seat could be real in 2010. OR and MN have been bouncing back and forth from this waiting list to the real list on the last couple of estimates, so they really could go either way in 2010.

It looks like the congress may pass it, so does that mean number increase to 436 or 437? And does it stay that way or go back to 435?

The bill to add a DC seat would increase the number of seats from the states to 436.

[muon2]

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2008. 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 special circumstance is to account for the effect of hurricane Katrina. LA saw an estimated drop of 250 K in the 10 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 from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008 then applied that to the estimate for July 1, 2008. To this I added the difference between the resident and apportionment populations in 2000 to reach a projected apportionment population for 2010.

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

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

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of two seats from MN and OR to NY and SC. The last states awarded seats were FL 27 (431), NY 28 (432), CA 53 (433), SC 7 (434) and TX 36 (435). These seats are on the bubble and most at risk to fluctuations in growth in the next two years. TX 36 is particularly at risk since part of the population growth is due to Katrina relocation and dropped from seat 433 in last year's projection.

The next five seats would go to OR 6 (436), WA 10 (437), MN 8 (438), MO 9 (439), and NC 14 (440). Seat 436 is important if the new Congress passes a DC representation act like the one offered in Congress last year, since that seat could be real in 2010. OR and MN have been bouncing back and forth from this waiting list to the real list on the last couple of estimates, so they really could go either way in 2010.

It looks like the congress may pass it, so does that mean number increase to 436 or 437? And does it stay that way or go back to 435?

The bill to add a DC seat would increase the number of seats from the states to 436.

Where does RI 2 rank on the list?

My current projections place RI-2 at #419.