2020 census

[JerryArkansas]

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

[Dave from Michigan]

I voted Texas, Nevada, North Carolina. I'm not sure about others.

I'm more interested in if Michigan will lose 1 or 2 seats. 12 Seats would be sad for a state that once had 19 seats. It seems like if we lose 2 it will be really close and we won't know till around 2019.

[Gass3268]

California, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas(x3). Montana and Virginia are possibilities. The losers will be Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. Alabama is another possibility. While everyone said that the last set of redistricting hurt the Democrats. I feel like 2020 will be a wash as you have Dem leaning states (California, Colorado & Oregon) gaining seats and it will be hard for Texas & Florida to not make minority districts out of their new seats.

[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.

[Gass3268]

Unless Republicans have control of all three parts, Minnespolis and St. Paul with remain separate. My guess would be one of the suburban districts, probably Bachman's, will be the one to go with the rest expanding.

 

[minionofmidas]

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.

[krazen1211]

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.

You can surround a twin cities pack with 3 R+1 to R+3 districts. It however takes a perfect crack job.

[Skill and Chance]

There actually isn't a whole lot new to talk about gerrymandering wise if that's the apportionment.  R's are most at risk to get wiped out in NY, CO and NV and D's are most at risk in AZ and IL.  Court maps would improve D prospects drastically in OH, MI, PA or VA.  If D's somehow take control in OH or PA, expect nuclear war on a map (10 districts into Philly or Cuyahoga).

[Brittain33]

The Minneapolis-Saint Paul district is dead as a concept.

He's not going to change his mind on this one.

[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.

[BaldEagle1991]

Georgia and Florida

Everyone else will lose or stay the same.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Or it doesn't go to court next time, in which case we have 4R-3D or 5D-2R...

[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."

[Brittain33]

I don't know, I can see a Supreme Court ignoring past precedents (especially when shifting from 8 to 7) and taking into account sentimentality about anchoring different districts in each of the two twin cities, even if they are now combined smaller than one district. It just doesn't seem unthinkable to me.

[Mr.Phips]

There actually isn't a whole lot new to talk about gerrymandering wise if that's the apportionment.  R's are most at risk to get wiped out in NY, CO and NV and D's are most at risk in AZ and IL.  Court maps would improve D prospects drastically in OH, MI, PA or VA.  If D's somehow take control in OH or PA, expect nuclear war on a map (10 districts into Philly or Cuyahoga).

Democrats drew the Illionois legislature to make sure that they have two thirds majorities in both Houses pretty much all of the time, meaning they will be able to override a veto.  And figure in the fact that the governorships of OH, MI, and PA usually switch parties every eight years and will be open in 2018, leaving Democrats in great shape to pick those up.  Getting court drawn maps in those three states alone would probably cost Republicans 10-12 seats right there. 

[freepcrusher]

There actually isn't a whole lot new to talk about gerrymandering wise if that's the apportionment.  R's are most at risk to get wiped out in NY, CO and NV and D's are most at risk in AZ and IL.  Court maps would improve D prospects drastically in OH, MI, PA or VA.  If D's somehow take control in OH or PA, expect nuclear war on a map (10 districts into Philly or Cuyahoga).

Democrats drew the Illionois legislature to make sure that they have two thirds majorities in both Houses pretty much all of the time, meaning they will be able to override a veto.  And figure in the fact that the governorships of OH, MI, and PA usually switch parties every eight years and will be open in 2018, leaving Democrats in great shape to pick those up.  Getting court drawn maps in those three states alone would probably cost Republicans 10-12 seats right there. 

isn't it possible that the dems could lose some seats in SW Cook and SW Illinois? Those areas (Costello and Lipinski) seem to be trending away from the dems.

[Ban my account ffs!]

When Minnesota loses its 8th seat, I think the courts are likely to combine Mpls/St. Paul into one district while maintaining 3 rural districts and 3 suburban districts.  It seems the most logical choice.  

Such a divide would make the new rural districts more GOP friendly while making the suburban districts significantly more DFL friendly as they absorb established DFL friendly suburbs currently included in districts 4 and 5.

In such a setup, it is likely that there would no longer be a district made up like the 6th, with mostly exurban and rural areas in central Minnesota.  Instead, the 6th would be divided into the two northern rural districts and one of the suburban districts.

The NW rural district would likely shift to the GOP while the NE district would remain DFL-friendly, but less so.  The southern district would gobble up some GOP friendly areas, but as southern MN trends Dem, this probably wouldn't change anything.

One of the suburban districts would likely shift to the DFL.. resulting in a 4-3 DFL delegation instead of a 5-3 DFL delegation.  

In the end, you'd have 2 DFL friendly rural districts and one GOP district... 1 DFL lock urban district, and 1 GOP friendly suburban district with 2 swing suburban districts (one probably friendlier to the DFl than the other).. the delegation would likely switch from 4-3 DFL to 5-2 DFL and back over time.. with a 4-3 GOP edge only in wave years.

[politicallefty]

In terms of a neutral map, I found it a lot easier to draw a map where Minneapolis and St. Paul are in different districts. I had an eastern Hennepin district (Minneapolis plus some surrounding suburbs) and a Ramsey-Washington district. That left MN-03 as a Western Hennepin-Anoka district, which would have narrowly supported McCain in 2008. MN-02 would stay pretty much the same, also narrowly supporting McCain in 2008. MN-01 would remain a Southern MN district, but it would add what is now the Southern portion of MN-07.

I'll admit that I wasn't too satisfied with the remaining two districts. MN-08 (which would be renumbered as MN-06) keeps all of the Iron Range and virtually all of its current territory. It might be somewhat controversial, but I also gave it the Northern part of MN-07 that would extend the district to the ND border. The remainder became MN-07. (As you can see, MN-06 would be axed entirely.) Altogether, this map would result it in a 4-3 DFL delegation unless Peterson could survive in a considerably more Republican district.

I'd be happy to share it if anyone's interested.

[Ban my account ffs!]

In terms of a neutral map, I found it a lot easier to draw a map where Minneapolis and St. Paul are in different districts. I had an eastern Hennepin district (Minneapolis plus some surrounding suburbs) and a Ramsey-Washington district. That left MN-03 as a Western Hennepin-Anoka district, which would have narrowly supported McCain in 2008. MN-02 would stay pretty much the same, also narrowly supporting McCain in 2008. MN-01 would remain a Southern MN district, but it would add what is now the Southern portion of MN-07.

I'll admit that I wasn't too satisfied with the remaining two districts. MN-08 (which would be renumbered as MN-06) keeps all of the Iron Range and virtually all of its current territory. It might be somewhat controversial, but I also gave it the Northern part of MN-07 that would extend the district to the ND border. The remainder became MN-07. (As you can see, MN-06 would be axed entirely.) Altogether, this map would result it in a 4-3 DFL delegation unless Peterson could survive in a considerably more Republican district.

I'd be happy to share it if anyone's interested.

Peterson is a bluedog Democrat, and every Republican challenger he's had has held nearly the same positions but they'd supposedly implement them more gooder.

But I would guess he'll retire before then... and MN-7 could easily go GOP in its current form, let alone in a more GOP friendly form.

[politicallefty]

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.)

[Ban my account ffs!]

A conservative Dem could win in the 7th district you proposed above.  St. Cloud is DFL friendly and even the areas surrounding St. Cloud do elect DFLers now and then.  Also, the areas you've added to the 1st (areas along the MN River) are fairly split down the middle.

Such a map could easily be 5-2 DFL if a conservative DFLer runs in the 7th.  In fact, none of the districts would be a shoo-in for the GOP.  The 2nd and 3rd (green and purple) would favor the GOP, but the chances of a Bachmann-esque candidate winning would be nil.  The current 6th is really the only setup that favors Bachmann (exurban areas and the adjacent rural areas of central MN).

I should point out that while the current 7th favors GOP presidential candidates, DFLers do quite well on the state level, especially the northern third and the area near the Minnesota River. (which represents the bulk of the agricultural areas)

[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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Wright County is not a suburban county.  There are a few small exurbs in the fringes closest to the Mississippi and Hennepin County... but that region of Hennepin County is still undeveloped.  Rogers is still a standalone exurb, and Dayton and Corcoran are pretty much undeveloped.  You have to drive a ways into Hennepin even along I-94 before you reach the true boundary of urban growth (in Maple Grove)... which occurs just before the I-94/694/494 split.

It will be quite a long while before the continuous urban conglomeration reaches Wright County.  Certainly not by 2020 and probably not by 2030.  Also keep in mind that two of the fastest growing exurbs in Wright County, Albertville and Otsego, are included in a suburban district on his map.

The same goes for Sherburne.  While there has been rapid growth in Elk River on the very southern fringe of the county, it is unlikely that the county will see further rapid suburbanization in the next decade. And Elk River is really the only exurb in the county.  A good amount of the growth in Sherburne is taking place near St. Cloud, which is a separate "metro" not affiliated with the Twin Cities... and is the regional capital of central Minnesota.  If lefty's 7th district were to drop the western fringe along the ND/SD border and add some areas on the southwest fringes of his 6th district, it'd be a truly "Central Minnesota" district as that region is traditionally GOP-friendly and German Catholic.  The western fringe near the Dakotas is instead more agricultural (crop growing rather than dairy like central MN) and Scandinavian protestant.

You're right that the Red River Valley shouldn't be split... though a perfect "community of interest" map would lump the Minnesota river valley in with the Red River Valley as both regions have more in common than with other adjacent regions.  The current 7th district does this nicely. 

If we keep two northern districts and are going along the lines of agricultural vs. tourism/mining/timber/etc., then the new 6th would extend west of its current location to encompass all of Beltrami, Lake of the Woods, Clearwater, and Hubbard Counties while the 7th would eat into central MN and gobble up St. Cloud and areas of SW MN.

It's pretty much a done deal that eliminating the 8th seat will deprive Bachmann of her seat.  She's the one that is not like the others... as her district is largely exurban and is already the leftovers that don't fit into the other 7 districts.  Her district will be the one that will be split among the rural northern districts and an eastern suburban/urban district.

It's not about gerrymandering her out of congress.  Keeping her while losing a congressional seat would require a gerrymander of the first order.

[politicallefty]

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.