Official US 2010 Census Results

[Nhoj]

Texas data is out.

[danny]

Non Hispanic whites went from 52.4% to 45.3% while Hispanics went from 32% to 37.6%, if these trends continue then by the next census Texas will be Hispanic plurality.

[Storebought]

Houston population, 2009 Census Estimate: 2,257,926
Houston population, 2010 Census Result: 2,099,451
%Difference: 7.5

Dallas population, 2009 Census Estimate: 1,299,543
Dallas population, 2010 Census Result: 1,197,816
%Difference: 8.5

These are massive overestimates.

[bgwah]

So Chicago lost 17% of its black population? Wow. But statewide the decline was only 1%? Hmm, what suburbs did they move to? Looks like ~60,000 moved to suburban Cook, with Will County being the runner-up at a net gain of ~23k...

Wow, indeed. Just wow. What that suggests to me is that there has been considerable upward mobility in the black population in the last 10 years in Chicagoland. Am I wrong?  Or are inner city neighborhoods being gentrified, and the blacks pushed to undesirable suburbs, or back to the South? Or both?  As to the back to the South thing, there is this tendency for when Hispanics move in, the lower SES blacks move out. More should be written about that. But what happens when Hispanics are everywhere doing the grunt work?

By the way, how many Mexican restaurants did Chicago have when I arrived there in 1969 as a Freshman?  Yes you guessed it - one, way up on the northside just south of the Evanston border. Now Chicago has how many Mexicans? 700,000 or something?

Chicago demolished a ton of its public housing---50,000 units or something---so that probably played a large role in this... Still, 17% is hard to comprehend. Maybe Muon2 will give us an answer!

[jimrtex]

Texas data is out.

Houston population is 2,099,451

The Houston city charter has a provision to increase the number of district members from 9 to 11 if the population exceeds 2,100,000.  This was put in place as a sort of a compromise when district elections were imposed in response to the VRA.

A couple of years ago Houston was sued to have the two additional districts created, but the city argued that there was not accurate enough data to draw district boundaries.

But the census determined that the trigger was not reached (by 549 persons, or 0.026%).

There is also a trigger related to composition of the Metro (mass transit) board.  Currently the mayor appoints 5 of the 9 members, and has effective control of Metro.  But the trigger would switch control to members appointed by county commissioners and city councils of smaller cities.

[jimrtex]

Next week are:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• Hawaii
• Missouri
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Utah
• Washington

[RI]

Next week are:

• Washington

Hooray!

[Nhoj]

Texas data is out.

Houston population is 2,099,451

The Houston city charter has a provision to increase the number of district members from 9 to 11 if the population exceeds 2,100,000.  This was put in place as a sort of a compromise when district elections were imposed in response to the VRA.

A couple of years ago Houston was sued to have the two additional districts created, but the city argued that there was not accurate enough data to draw district boundaries.

But the census determined that the trigger was not reached (by 549 persons, or 0.026%).

There is also a trigger related to composition of the Metro (mass transit) board.  Currently the mayor appoints 5 of the 9 members, and has effective control of Metro.  But the trigger would switch control to members appointed by county commissioners and city councils of smaller cities.

Heh Im guessing the numbers will be challenged.
Looks like a big western dump of states next week which should be good. Though I of course want see Wisconsin.

[bgwah]

Next week are:

• Washington

Hooray!

I'm so excited!

[ill ind]

Chicago demolished a ton of its public housing---50,000 units or something---so that probably played a large role in this... Still, 17% is hard to comprehend. Maybe Muon2 will give us an answer


  Chicago esentially demolished all of its high-rise public housing.  Some low-rise row house type remains, although alot of that has been or is being demolished as well.
  The residents are given vouchers to use wherever they want--places that will take them anyways.  Yes, a portion of the public housing population has left Chicago for the suburbs including the one in which I reside.

Ill_Ind

[minionofmidas]

So, where in Texas was underestimated?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Non Hispanic whites went from 52.4% to 45.3% while Hispanics went from 32% to 37.6%, if these trends continue then by the next census Texas will be Hispanic plurality.

Is this going to make Republican gerrymandering harder or it won't have much of an effect overall?

[cinyc]

So, where in Texas was underestimated?

Of the 20 largest cities, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Arlington, Plano, Brownsville and McAllen were all overestimated.  Dallas' population was the most overestimated, followed by Houston and Plano.  Brownsville and McAllen were the least overestimated, by under 2%.

The populations of Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Corpus Christi, Laredo, Lubbock, Garland, Irving, Amarillo, Grand Prairie, Pasadena, Mesquite and McKinney were underestimated: Grand Prairie was underestimated the most at about 7% (with a different fraction, depending on whether you use the estimate or actual numbers as the denominator when determining the difference), Corpus Christi the next at about 6%, followed by Irving at about 5%.  Austin and Amarillo were the least underestimated, by under 1%.

Of the top 20 counties, only Dallas (3%), Collin (1%) and Travis (0.2%) were overestimated in 2009.  The population of the other 17 counties was underestimated, some counties greatly so.  Bell County's population (Temple/Killeen) was underestimated by 8%, El Paso's by about 6%, and Nueces (Corpus Christi) and Fort Bend (SW of Houston) counties by about 5%. Denton (N of DFW) and Harris (Houston) counties were the least underestimated, at less than 1%.  The state's population was underestimated by about 1.5% - but since the last estimate I've found was as on July 1, 2009, some of that change was likely due to pure population growth since the estimate.

Texas is one state where the non-Hispanic White population increased, albeit about five times slower than the state's population as a whole. - 4.2% versus 20.6%.

[Brittain33]

El Paso's by about 6%,

That's an additional 40,000 or 50,000 voters going into the new TX-23 then, right?

[dpmapper]

El Paso's by about 6%,

That's an additional 40,000 or 50,000 voters going into the new TX-23 then, right?

There's no law saying that TX-23 has to stretch to El Paso.  If I were the TX GOP I'd append the far western part of TX-23 to the Midland district (assuming they're not trying to make that one a majority-minority district as well). 

[Sam Spade]

Non Hispanic whites went from 52.4% to 45.3% while Hispanics went from 32% to 37.6%, if these trends continue then by the next census Texas will be Hispanic plurality.

Is this going to make Republican gerrymandering harder or it won't have much of an effect overall?

Are you talking about now, or in the future?  It might actually make things easier now, but you need to see how the numbers hit.  As for the future, well, you're guess is as good as mine.  The numbers kind of speak for themselves.

[cinyc]

El Paso's by about 6%,

That's an additional 40,000 or 50,000 voters going into the new TX-23 then, right?

That's about 40,000-50,000 additional El Paso County residents compared to the 2009 estimates, not necessarily that many voters.   I'd give you an exact figure, but I foolishly didn't save my worksheet.  In which congressional district(s) those residents end up is still and open question. 

Some West and North Texas counties shrunk.  Loving actually grew.  It now has a whopping 82 residents.

[Brittain33]

That's about 40,000-50,000 additional El Paso County residents compared to the 2009 estimates, not necessarily that many voters. 

Right. Dumbass mistake.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Non Hispanic whites went from 52.4% to 45.3% while Hispanics went from 32% to 37.6%, if these trends continue then by the next census Texas will be Hispanic plurality.

Is this going to make Republican gerrymandering harder or it won't have much of an effect overall?

Are you talking about now, or in the future?  It might actually make things easier now, but you need to see how the numbers hit.  As for the future, well, you're guess is as good as mine.  The numbers kind of speak for themselves.

For now of course, nobody knows what happens in ten years.

Also, not that Texas has become a minority-majority state, does that mean that the DOJ can ask that almost half of its districts be VRA?

[Sam Spade]

Non Hispanic whites went from 52.4% to 45.3% while Hispanics went from 32% to 37.6%, if these trends continue then by the next census Texas will be Hispanic plurality.

Is this going to make Republican gerrymandering harder or it won't have much of an effect overall?

Are you talking about now, or in the future?  It might actually make things easier now, but you need to see how the numbers hit.  As for the future, well, you're guess is as good as mine.  The numbers kind of speak for themselves.

For now of course, nobody knows what happens in ten years.

Also, not that Texas has become a minority-majority state, does that mean that the DOJ can ask that almost half of its districts be VRA?

Well, first consider that VAP (not total population) is 49.6% white, 33.6% Hispanic.  Then you've got to rebalance using actual citizen VAP, which will be even less Hispanic.  Under LULAC, it's either going to be VAP or citizen VAP (though I suspect it's citizen VAP) for permissible minority-majority CDs.

If it's citizen VAP (and probably even if it's VAP), then consider that you're going to need at least 60%-65% of baseline Hispanics (not VAP or citizen VAP) in a CD to get Hispanic minority-majority VAP or citizen VAP.  There's only so many districts I can draw that will reach that number because the Hispanic population is pretty spread out (too many 20%-30% Hispanic voting districts, especially in the 'burbs) outside of the inner city core, which will be required to maintain certain CDs - for example Gene Green's CD is tough to get that much higher than 70% - inclusion of even a trivial amount of whiter suburbs creates problems.  Also, keep in mind LULAC can be used as a sword too to prevent requiring ridiculous looking strip districts, as the Austin to border CD was no good to create a Hispanic CD.

You draw the districts under 60% Hispanic - the Supreme Court will yell at you for impermissible dilution and you'll get bad results, the Republicans will win far more often than you want them to, especially if there's no blacks or its not an inner city core or Austin, they'll almost always win.  Another structural problem with creating good Hispanic Democratic districts, which connects to this, is that too many blacks are locked up in east Texas where they're f-cked and you can't get to them.

The fact is that 3 more Hispanic CDs may well be required than 2000, but I suspect it won't be any more, unless patterns are changed from what I was seeing.  And apart from the Dallas CD, the GOP will attempt to use Doggett and Green for the other two, if need be.  I need to see what the voting districts look like and draw a few maps.  The voting districts won't be changed much except to split or combine, so it's very useful.

[minionofmidas]

I made myself a little excel table of Native population change in South Dakota.

[muon2]

Non Hispanic whites went from 52.4% to 45.3% while Hispanics went from 32% to 37.6%, if these trends continue then by the next census Texas will be Hispanic plurality.

Is this going to make Republican gerrymandering harder or it won't have much of an effect overall?

Are you talking about now, or in the future?  It might actually make things easier now, but you need to see how the numbers hit.  As for the future, well, you're guess is as good as mine.  The numbers kind of speak for themselves.

For now of course, nobody knows what happens in ten years.

Also, not that Texas has become a minority-majority state, does that mean that the DOJ can ask that almost half of its districts be VRA?

Well, first consider that VAP (not total population) is 49.6% white, 33.6% Hispanic.  Then you've got to rebalance using actual citizen VAP, which will be even less Hispanic.  Under LULAC, it's either going to be VAP or citizen VAP (though I suspect it's citizen VAP) for permissible minority-majority CDs.

If it's citizen VAP (and probably even if it's VAP), then consider that you're going to need at least 60%-65% of baseline Hispanics (not VAP or citizen VAP) in a CD to get Hispanic minority-majority VAP or citizen VAP.  There's only so many districts I can draw that will reach that number because the Hispanic population is pretty spread out (too many 20%-30% Hispanic voting districts, especially in the 'burbs) outside of the inner city core, which will be required to maintain certain CDs - for example Gene Green's CD is tough to get that much higher than 70% - inclusion of even a trivial amount of whiter suburbs creates problems.  Also, keep in mind LULAC can be used as a sword too to prevent requiring ridiculous looking strip districts, as the Austin to border CD was no good to create a Hispanic CD.

You draw the districts under 60% Hispanic - the Supreme Court will yell at you for impermissible dilution and you'll get bad results, the Republicans will win far more often than you want them to, especially if there's no blacks or its not an inner city core or Austin, they'll almost always win.  Another structural problem with creating good Hispanic Democratic districts, which connects to this, is that too many blacks are locked up in east Texas where they're f-cked and you can't get to them.

The fact is that 3 more Hispanic CDs may well be required than 2000, but I suspect it won't be any more, unless patterns are changed from what I was seeing.  And apart from the Dallas CD, the GOP will attempt to use Doggett and Green for the other two, if need be.  I need to see what the voting districts look like and draw a few maps.  The voting districts won't be changed much except to split or combine, so it's very useful.

The standards for Hispanic districts will probably make up some of the key redistricting cases in this decade. One part is the VAP versus CVAP problem you alluded to. The 5th circuit used CVAP in LULAC, but the SCOTUS avoided the question and decided the case on other grounds. In Bartlett the SCOTUS noted the issue of CVAP, but again avoided the question since it was less relevant for a Black population and they could decide the case without going into CVAP. CVAP will be further complicated since the 2000-cycle of cases had citizenship on the census long form, but it is absent on the short-form only 2010 census. The statistics from the ACS are all that's available and they are much weaker statistically than the long-form numbers from 2000.

In the 7th circuit there was a rejection of plaintiff's claims for a 65% standard for Hispanic districts to account for citizenship in Gonzales v Aurora. They didn't have Bartlett yet and the case wasn't taken to the SCOTUS. There is also the question of whether it is required to create 50%+ VAP Hispanic districts where a CVAP majority isn't possible.

A second issue that will arise is the conflict between Black and Hispanic districts. SCOTUS opinions have been about the minority group's voting rights compared to the White majority. Bartlett makes clear that the only protected section 2 groups are single race majorities. There is no guidance to resolve a situation where either a Black-majority or Hispanic-majority district can be drawn, but not both.

This will be an interesting cycle for redistricting cases.

[Sam Spade]

muon2, in the suburban/urban areas of Houston, DFW and San Antonio, in order to draw more 50% Hispanic VAP CDs, you'll have to dilute the inner Hispanic urban core, as the suburbs are filled with far too many 10%-30% Hispanic VTD.  Even then, I'll be lucky to get 2, maybe 3 more CDs.  And no one's gonna like that, as you'll marginalize the present Dem CDs and the new ones.

[minionofmidas]

I fully expect a doctrine to emerge that fake Hispanic Republican districts like Sam and Kraven have been drawing for Texas (districts that meet a certain threshold for Hispanic percentage but still can be depended on to vote for their Whites' choice, thanks partly to turnout and citizenship differentials, thanks partly to the fact that Hispanics in some parts of the nation, mostly in Texas, are closer to a fifty-fifty split than Whites) are just as unprotected as fake Coalition districts (where you're adding a White Republican-leaning area and some nearby minority areas, and the result votes Democratic and is plurality White, and a White Democrat wins as a result).
Or rather, the court's will to (quite rightly) consider these things frivolous has evidently emerged already, what's lacking yet is clear legal language.

[cinyc]

I made myself a little excel table of Native population change in South Dakota.

And?  Anything stick out other than the Ziebach County anomoly?  Pennington County?