Census population estimates 2011-2019

[jimrtex]

Why ?

They can assess data quality on what has been processed so far ...

Processing the data and quality checks take 5 months after completing the Census.

They were only ready in October this time, instead of the summer.

They have faster computers, and are reducing weekend down time. More of the data is digital rather than digitized from paper forms stained with jelly and coffee and unidentified substances. They can also defer some processing, and didn't have to do the resurvey, where they essentially go back and do a census of a sample of households.

True.

But they have other problems that were not the case in 2000 or 2010, slowing down the publication of the numbers:

* ongoing sabotage attempts by Trump
* a pandemic, which cuts staff and work hours due to quarantine of staff, protection measures
* Christmas, New Year and other holidays in the fall

Processing census data in 2000 and 2010 started in the summer of those years, there were hardly any holidays.

Because data collection ended in late October this year, we can still expect 4 months of data processing despite better IT systems because of the factors above.

Mid-February to End-March looks most likely for the release.

There was no ongoing sabotage by Trump. The program to identify illegal aliens is by a different part of the Census Bureau than that conducting the Census.

As you may know, the counting of overseas federal affiliated persons and their dependents is not actually an enumeration, and is done under an executive order rather than statute. The Census Bureau simply receives the numbers from federal agencies (the overwhelming majority are DOD, with a minority of State Department employees, and smattering of other agencies). There is probably some processing to avoid duplicates (e.g. The wife of a soldier stationed in Germany, may have remained stateside, and included her husband when she filled out her census form).

Enumeration ended in mid-October. They have added weekend processing which more than makes up for any losses due to holidays. I suspect they were running their computers on Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day.

They are way past the need for huge numbers of temporary workers in call centers and paper forms processing that were slowed because of COVID-19 mitigation.

Three-1/2 months would be the end of January.

[StateBoiler]

Fresh 2020 Census Count numbers would be out today, by law, usually.

But not this year.

The Bureau said yesterday that the deadline will not be met and while not mentioning a date of release, the new numbers will likely be out between February and April.

Just talking for my state, there's a big problem with that.

State legislature shuts up shop for business in April, meaning if the Census doesn't release data until April, you'd have to wait until the 2022 session for the legislature to pass a bill with the new districts for federal and state. But people are required to file for primaries in January and February.

That’s really not the Census Bureau’s problem .... (They had enough on their own).

It’s Indiana’s problem.

IN and it’s legislature could also work in September, right ? Other people have to work the whole year as well and not stop in April.

Well how it always worked in the past is the Census was released on time and they released new districts in a year that ends in 1, all complete by April.

They could have a special session later in the year to do it, but that means the state has to spend extra money not previously earmarked because the federal government bureaucrats can't meet a date of release. It's okay, we can just send the Census Bureau a bill for the costs, right?

State politics journalist Abdul Hakim-Shabazz on Rob Kendall's Statehouse Happenings podcast at wibc.com says either they'll have to do a special session later this year or will wait until the 2022 session to redraw districts (which strikes me as creating problems when you file for races in January).

[jimrtex]

Normally the Census would be releasing the actual 2020 Census apportionment data next week, and not the Jul 1, 2020 estimates. Due to the expected delay in the release of the apportionment data, we can look at these estimates that do not include any 2020 Census data. It will be interesting to compare this to the actual Census population when they are released.

So, here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used these July 2020 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This accounts for a 10 and a quarter year period between the 2010 Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

AL and NY have switched seats compared to last year, so that AL would have no change and NY would lose 2 seats. I tested the possibility that inclusion of the Covid-19 fatalities in NY between April 1 and July 1 would affect the result. I added the July 1 NY fatality count to my April 1 projection, and it made NY closer to AL but did not change the overall projection.

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, CA-52, FL-29, TX-39, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-26, OH-16, MN-8, CA-53, and VA-12.

I used 3/4 of the difference between the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 estimates. The growth assumption in your method assumes that the 2020 is reliable for calculating the annual growth rate, but that the 2019 estimate was not accurate and should be ignored.

I think the federal overseas population will be about 1/2 of what it was in 2010, but I did not include it.

432 MT 1.005
433 FL 1.003
434 TX 1.002
435 NY 1.002
-------------
436 AL 1.001
437 MN 0.996
438 OH 0.995
439 RI 0.985

The bolded states can be considered bubble states. NY is at risk of losing a second seat, while FL would be limited to +1, and TX would be limited to +2, while AL would stay at 7.

CA shot off the table making it certain that it will lose a seat, and for 2030 we may be looking at loss of multiple seats. CA gained +300K every year for the first five years, but has gone +245K, +188K, +100K, 0K, -69K for the last 5.

NY started of +100K in 2011, but gradually lost steam and has been (increasingly negative for the last five years). The loss of -127K for 2020 was almost equal to the combined loss of 130K for 2018+2019. The loss for 2020 also put NY negative for the decade.

AL had a "U" shape pattern, with perhaps enough to hold on to the 7th seat. It could be a state that benefits by inclusion the federal overseas population is overwhelmingly military and dependents, compared to NY.

[Brittain33]

The idea of California shedding multiple seats to other states is quite a paradigm shift but I can see how it could happen. Especially since it’s one of the first states to start to suffer significantly from climate change.

[Torie]

Normally the Census would be releasing the actual 2020 Census apportionment data next week, and not the Jul 1, 2020 estimates. Due to the expected delay in the release of the apportionment data, we can look at these estimates that do not include any 2020 Census data. It will be interesting to compare this to the actual Census population when they are released.

So, here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used these July 2020 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This accounts for a 10 and a quarter year period between the 2010 Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

AL and NY have switched seats compared to last year, so that AL would have no change and NY would lose 2 seats. I tested the possibility that inclusion of the Covid-19 fatalities in NY between April 1 and July 1 would affect the result. I added the July 1 NY fatality count to my April 1 projection, and it made NY closer to AL but did not change the overall projection.

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, CA-52, FL-29, TX-39, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-26, OH-16, MN-8, CA-53, and VA-12.

I used 3/4 of the difference between the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 estimates. The growth assumption in your method assumes that the 2020 is reliable for calculating the annual growth rate, but that the 2019 estimate was not accurate and should be ignored.

I think the federal overseas population will be about 1/2 of what it was in 2010, but I did not include it.

432 MT 1.005
433 FL 1.003
434 TX 1.002
435 NY 1.002
-------------
436 AL 1.001
437 MN 0.996
438 OH 0.995
439 RI 0.985

The bolded states can be considered bubble states. NY is at risk of losing a second seat, while FL would be limited to +1, and TX would be limited to +2, while AL would stay at 7.

CA shot off the table making it certain that it will lose a seat, and for 2030 we may be looking at loss of multiple seats. CA gained +300K every year for the first five years, but has gone +245K, +188K, +100K, 0K, -69K for the last 5.

NY started of +100K in 2011, but gradually lost steam and has been (increasingly negative for the last five years). The loss of -127K for 2020 was almost equal to the combined loss of 130K for 2018+2019. The loss for 2020 also put NY negative for the decade.

AL had a "U" shape pattern, with perhaps enough to hold on to the 7th seat. It could be a state that benefits by inclusion the federal overseas population is overwhelmingly military and dependents, compared to NY.

"I used 3/4 of the difference between the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 estimates. The growth assumption in your method assumes that the 2020 is reliable for calculating the annual growth rate, but that the 2019 estimate was not accurate and should be ignored."

If the July, 2019 estimate is bad, why are you apparently also using it?

I myself was hesitant on projecting forward from a rate that was over a period of close to a decade, when more recent trends may have been quite different. But then covid hit, and what had happened recently before might not be very useful at all as a rate line.

[jimrtex]

Normally the Census would be releasing the actual 2020 Census apportionment data next week, and not the Jul 1, 2020 estimates. Due to the expected delay in the release of the apportionment data, we can look at these estimates that do not include any 2020 Census data. It will be interesting to compare this to the actual Census population when they are released.

So, here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used these July 2020 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This accounts for a 10 and a quarter year period between the 2010 Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

AL and NY have switched seats compared to last year, so that AL would have no change and NY would lose 2 seats. I tested the possibility that inclusion of the Covid-19 fatalities in NY between April 1 and July 1 would affect the result. I added the July 1 NY fatality count to my April 1 projection, and it made NY closer to AL but did not change the overall projection.

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, CA-52, FL-29, TX-39, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-26, OH-16, MN-8, CA-53, and VA-12.

I used 3/4 of the difference between the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 estimates. The growth assumption in your method assumes that the 2020 is reliable for calculating the annual growth rate, but that the 2019 estimate was not accurate and should be ignored.

I think the federal overseas population will be about 1/2 of what it was in 2010, but I did not include it.

432 MT 1.005
433 FL 1.003
434 TX 1.002
435 NY 1.002
-------------
436 AL 1.001
437 MN 0.996
438 OH 0.995
439 RI 0.985

The bolded states can be considered bubble states. NY is at risk of losing a second seat, while FL would be limited to +1, and TX would be limited to +2, while AL would stay at 7.

CA shot off the table making it certain that it will lose a seat, and for 2030 we may be looking at loss of multiple seats. CA gained +300K every year for the first five years, but has gone +245K, +188K, +100K, 0K, -69K for the last 5.

NY started of +100K in 2011, but gradually lost steam and has been (increasingly negative for the last five years). The loss of -127K for 2020 was almost equal to the combined loss of 130K for 2018+2019. The loss for 2020 also put NY negative for the decade.

AL had a "U" shape pattern, with perhaps enough to hold on to the 7th seat. It could be a state that benefits by inclusion the federal overseas population is overwhelmingly military and dependents, compared to NY.

"I used 3/4 of the difference between the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 estimates. The growth assumption in your method assumes that the 2020 is reliable for calculating the annual growth rate, but that the 2019 estimate was not accurate and should be ignored."

If the July, 2019 estimate is bad, why are you apparently also using it?

I myself was hesitant on projecting forward from a rate that was over a period of close to a decade, when more recent trends may have been quite different. But then covid hit, and what had happened recently before might not be very useful at all as a rate line.

As we get closer and closer to the next census our projected population is not much different than the latest estimate. Think of having a piece of string tied to a peg at the 2010 Census, and the other end at the 2019 estimate 9.25 inches away. We pull the string out another 0.75 inches being careful not to bend at 2019 estimate. That would our projected population based on the 2019 estimate. We are not going to have much error based on not knowing the change for the last 3/4 of a year.

Now repeat using the July 2020 estimate, but back up 0.25 of an inch. The 2020 estimate was 10.25 years after the 2010 census, and 0.25 years after the 2020 Census.

Most of our estimate is not due to change in that last 0.25 years but over the entire period.

So for New York, the 2020 estimate was 19.337M, which was less than the 2010 Census Population of 19.378M, but only by 41K. That is about 4K per year, or 1K for that last quarter between April 2020 and July 2020. The estimated population would be 19.338M.

But the 2019 estimate was 19.463M. The Census Bureau says that New York lost 126K last year (July 2019-July 2020). We can estimate that 126K was evenly divided over the last year, or about 32K. So my estimate was 19.369M, just a bit more than one based on assuming constant change over the decade.

New York's yearly estimated change over the decade was:
+100K, +75K, +52K, +27K, +4K, -21K, -43K, -49K, -81K, -127K.

It was not

-4K, -4K, ..., -4K, -4K even though the net effect was the same.

It happens that my adding the extra 31K may have saved New York from losing a second seat. That is sure coincidence. If Alabama has 5K extra people after a decade increase of 138K, or New York has -20K fewer after losing 127K in the last year (and those 20K may have gone missing), then Alabama and New York flip. It could be even closer when federal overseas population is added in. Most of this is military and dependents (military and families stationed in Germany, Japan, and Korea).

In 2010, this increased Alabama's population by 0.49%; while New York's only increased by 0.22%.

COVID will be barely reflected in the estimates. Estimates for interstate migration are based on lagging indicators such as income tax records. They only had access to 2019 taxes when they made the estimate for 2020. That gives a measure of migration between 2018 and 2019 which must be projected forward. Birth and death records are more current.

[Biden his time]

Comparing the beginning of the 2010s with the end

Simple map of the United States by projected population
growth between July 01, 2010 and July 01, 2011

DARK GREEN: States which grew faster than the world average (+1.21%)
GREEN: States which grew faster than the national average (+0.73%)
ORANGE: States which grew slower than the national average (+0.73%)
RED: States which shrank in population

---

Simple map of the United States by projected population
growth between July 01, 2019 and July 01, 2020

DARK GREEN: States which grew faster than the world average (+1.05%)
GREEN: States which grew faster than the national average (+0.35%)
ORANGE: States which grew slower than the national average (+0.35%)
RED: States which shrank in population

[ProgressiveModerate]

According to my calculations

Seat 420 is NY-25
Seat 421 is NC-14
Seat 422 is TX-38
Seat 423 is AZ-10
Seat 424 is CA-51
Seat 425 is WI-8
Seat 426 is CO-8
Seat 427 is PA-17
Seat 428 is OR-6
Seat 429 is NJ-12
Seat 430 is CA-52
Seat 431 is MT-2
Seat 432 is IL-17
Seat 433 is FL-29
Seat 434 is TX-39
Seat 435 is AL-7
----------
Seat 436 is NY-26
Seat 437 is MN-8
Seat 438 is OH-16
Seat 439 is CA-53
Seat 440 is VA-12
Seat 441 is RI-2
Seat 442 is ID-3
Seat 443 is TX-40
Seat 444 is GA-15
Seat 445 is MI-14
Seat 446 is FL-30
Seat 447 is CA-54
Seat 448 is WA-11
Seat 449 is NC-15
Seat 450 is PA-18

[Biden his time]

According to my calculations

Seat 420 is NY-25
Seat 421 is NC-14
Seat 422 is TX-38
Seat 423 is AZ-10
Seat 424 is CA-51
Seat 425 is WI-8
Seat 426 is CO-8
Seat 427 is PA-17
Seat 428 is OR-6
Seat 429 is NJ-12
Seat 430 is CA-52
Seat 431 is MT-2
Seat 432 is IL-17
Seat 433 is FL-29
Seat 434 is TX-39
Seat 435 is AL-7
----------
Seat 436 is NY-26
Seat 437 is MN-8
Seat 438 is OH-16
Seat 439 is CA-53
Seat 440 is VA-12
Seat 441 is RI-2
Seat 442 is ID-3
Seat 443 is TX-40
Seat 444 is GA-15
Seat 445 is MI-14
Seat 446 is FL-30
Seat 447 is CA-54
Seat 448 is WA-11
Seat 449 is NC-15
Seat 450 is PA-18

Idaho's third district has become a virtual certainty by 2030, and it's actually shockingly close to getting one this cycle!

Only 30k people away from getting a third seat, and this is while it gained an average of 26k people every year this decade, and also gained 35k people every year during the last five years!

[ProgressiveModerate]

According to my calculations

Seat 420 is NY-25
Seat 421 is NC-14
Seat 422 is TX-38
Seat 423 is AZ-10
Seat 424 is CA-51
Seat 425 is WI-8
Seat 426 is CO-8
Seat 427 is PA-17
Seat 428 is OR-6
Seat 429 is NJ-12
Seat 430 is CA-52
Seat 431 is MT-2
Seat 432 is IL-17
Seat 433 is FL-29
Seat 434 is TX-39
Seat 435 is AL-7
----------
Seat 436 is NY-26
Seat 437 is MN-8
Seat 438 is OH-16
Seat 439 is CA-53
Seat 440 is VA-12
Seat 441 is RI-2
Seat 442 is ID-3
Seat 443 is TX-40
Seat 444 is GA-15
Seat 445 is MI-14
Seat 446 is FL-30
Seat 447 is CA-54
Seat 448 is WA-11
Seat 449 is NC-15
Seat 450 is PA-18

Idaho's third district has become a virtual certainty by 2030, and it's actually shockingly close to getting one this cycle!

Only 30k people away from getting a third seat, and this is while it gained an average of 26k people every year this decade, and also gained 35k people every year during the last five years!

I know, I was pretty shocked too when I realized how close ID had come. If somehow the estimates are way off and ID did pull an upset in 2020 and gain a 3rd seat, that would be pretty epic, though from a political standpoint, that would likely be another GOP seat. By 2030 though, a 3rd district would likely have to be Boise based.

[Biden his time]

According to my calculations

Seat 420 is NY-25
Seat 421 is NC-14
Seat 422 is TX-38
Seat 423 is AZ-10
Seat 424 is CA-51
Seat 425 is WI-8
Seat 426 is CO-8
Seat 427 is PA-17
Seat 428 is OR-6
Seat 429 is NJ-12
Seat 430 is CA-52
Seat 431 is MT-2
Seat 432 is IL-17
Seat 433 is FL-29
Seat 434 is TX-39
Seat 435 is AL-7
----------
Seat 436 is NY-26
Seat 437 is MN-8
Seat 438 is OH-16
Seat 439 is CA-53
Seat 440 is VA-12
Seat 441 is RI-2
Seat 442 is ID-3
Seat 443 is TX-40
Seat 444 is GA-15
Seat 445 is MI-14
Seat 446 is FL-30
Seat 447 is CA-54
Seat 448 is WA-11
Seat 449 is NC-15
Seat 450 is PA-18

Idaho's third district has become a virtual certainty by 2030, and it's actually shockingly close to getting one this cycle!

Only 30k people away from getting a third seat, and this is while it gained an average of 26k people every year this decade, and also gained 35k people every year during the last five years!

I know, I was pretty shocked too when I realized how close ID had come. If somehow the estimates are way off and ID did pull an upset in 2020 and gain a 3rd seat, that would be pretty epic, though from a political standpoint, that would likely be another GOP seat. By 2030 though, a 3rd district would likely have to be Boise based.

I agree with you in saying that it would definitely be epic. I seriously hope that it happens lol.

While a third Idaho seat likely would be an R seat, are you sure that it wouldn't be Boise-based, though? With the latest estimates, approximately 40% of Idaho's population is in the Boise Metropolitan area. That sounds like more than enough for one district,  isn't it? (If there were three).

[Tender Branson]

According to my calculations

Seat 420 is NY-25
Seat 421 is NC-14
Seat 422 is TX-38
Seat 423 is AZ-10
Seat 424 is CA-51
Seat 425 is WI-8
Seat 426 is CO-8
Seat 427 is PA-17
Seat 428 is OR-6
Seat 429 is NJ-12
Seat 430 is CA-52
Seat 431 is MT-2
Seat 432 is IL-17
Seat 433 is FL-29
Seat 434 is TX-39
Seat 435 is AL-7
----------
Seat 436 is NY-26
Seat 437 is MN-8
Seat 438 is OH-16
Seat 439 is CA-53
Seat 440 is VA-12
Seat 441 is RI-2
Seat 442 is ID-3
Seat 443 is TX-40
Seat 444 is GA-15
Seat 445 is MI-14
Seat 446 is FL-30
Seat 447 is CA-54
Seat 448 is WA-11
Seat 449 is NC-15
Seat 450 is PA-18

Idaho's third district has become a virtual certainty by 2030, and it's actually shockingly close to getting one this cycle!

Only 30k people away from getting a third seat, and this is while it gained an average of 26k people every year this decade, and also gained 35k people every year during the last five years!

I know, I was pretty shocked too when I realized how close ID had come. If somehow the estimates are way off and ID did pull an upset in 2020 and gain a 3rd seat, that would be pretty epic, though from a political standpoint, that would likely be another GOP seat. By 2030 though, a 3rd district would likely have to be Boise based.

ID had a higher self-response rate in the 2020 census than in 2010 (70% vs. 67%).

Whether this will lead to a higher counted population relative to the pre-census estimates is unknown.

If ID really gets a 3rd seat already, there should be one in and around Boise (= a Dem leaning one) because Dems regularly get 33% of the vote in ID. This would be fair.

[Stuart98]

According to my calculations

Seat 420 is NY-25
Seat 421 is NC-14
Seat 422 is TX-38
Seat 423 is AZ-10
Seat 424 is CA-51
Seat 425 is WI-8
Seat 426 is CO-8
Seat 427 is PA-17
Seat 428 is OR-6
Seat 429 is NJ-12
Seat 430 is CA-52
Seat 431 is MT-2
Seat 432 is IL-17
Seat 433 is FL-29
Seat 434 is TX-39
Seat 435 is AL-7
----------
Seat 436 is NY-26
Seat 437 is MN-8
Seat 438 is OH-16
Seat 439 is CA-53
Seat 440 is VA-12
Seat 441 is RI-2
Seat 442 is ID-3
Seat 443 is TX-40
Seat 444 is GA-15
Seat 445 is MI-14
Seat 446 is FL-30
Seat 447 is CA-54
Seat 448 is WA-11
Seat 449 is NC-15
Seat 450 is PA-18

Idaho's third district has become a virtual certainty by 2030, and it's actually shockingly close to getting one this cycle!

Only 30k people away from getting a third seat, and this is while it gained an average of 26k people every year this decade, and also gained 35k people every year during the last five years!

I know, I was pretty shocked too when I realized how close ID had come. If somehow the estimates are way off and ID did pull an upset in 2020 and gain a 3rd seat, that would be pretty epic, though from a political standpoint, that would likely be another GOP seat. By 2030 though, a 3rd district would likely have to be Boise based.

ID had a higher self-response rate in the 2020 census than in 2010 (70% vs. 67%).

Whether this will lead to a higher counted population relative to the pre-census estimates is unknown.

If ID really gets a 3rd seat already, there should be one in and around Boise (= a Dem leaning one) because Dems regularly get 33% of the vote in ID. This would be fair.

Not really; the bluest compact seat you can get in a 3 district map (which still splits four different counties) is still Trump +10 in 2016, though it voted for the Democratic Gov. and LG candidates in 2018 by 3 and 6 points respectively.

[Tender Branson]

According to my calculations

Seat 420 is NY-25
Seat 421 is NC-14
Seat 422 is TX-38
Seat 423 is AZ-10
Seat 424 is CA-51
Seat 425 is WI-8
Seat 426 is CO-8
Seat 427 is PA-17
Seat 428 is OR-6
Seat 429 is NJ-12
Seat 430 is CA-52
Seat 431 is MT-2
Seat 432 is IL-17
Seat 433 is FL-29
Seat 434 is TX-39
Seat 435 is AL-7
----------
Seat 436 is NY-26
Seat 437 is MN-8
Seat 438 is OH-16
Seat 439 is CA-53
Seat 440 is VA-12
Seat 441 is RI-2
Seat 442 is ID-3
Seat 443 is TX-40
Seat 444 is GA-15
Seat 445 is MI-14
Seat 446 is FL-30
Seat 447 is CA-54
Seat 448 is WA-11
Seat 449 is NC-15
Seat 450 is PA-18

Idaho's third district has become a virtual certainty by 2030, and it's actually shockingly close to getting one this cycle!

Only 30k people away from getting a third seat, and this is while it gained an average of 26k people every year this decade, and also gained 35k people every year during the last five years!

I know, I was pretty shocked too when I realized how close ID had come. If somehow the estimates are way off and ID did pull an upset in 2020 and gain a 3rd seat, that would be pretty epic, though from a political standpoint, that would likely be another GOP seat. By 2030 though, a 3rd district would likely have to be Boise based.

ID had a higher self-response rate in the 2020 census than in 2010 (70% vs. 67%).

Whether this will lead to a higher counted population relative to the pre-census estimates is unknown.

If ID really gets a 3rd seat already, there should be one in and around Boise (= a Dem leaning one) because Dems regularly get 33% of the vote in ID. This would be fair.

Not really; the bluest compact seat you can get in a 3 district map (which still splits four different counties) is still Trump +10 in 2016, though it voted for the Democratic Gov. and LG candidates in 2018 by 3 and 6 points respectively.

I know.

That’s what I meant with it.

Not Dem leaning in a sense that the new 3rd would be a Dem seat, but the most Dem leaning out of the 3 - giving strong Dem candidates a chance there.

[beesley]

According to my calculations

Seat 420 is NY-25
Seat 421 is NC-14
Seat 422 is TX-38
Seat 423 is AZ-10
Seat 424 is CA-51
Seat 425 is WI-8
Seat 426 is CO-8
Seat 427 is PA-17
Seat 428 is OR-6
Seat 429 is NJ-12
Seat 430 is CA-52
Seat 431 is MT-2
Seat 432 is IL-17
Seat 433 is FL-29
Seat 434 is TX-39
Seat 435 is AL-7
----------
Seat 436 is NY-26
Seat 437 is MN-8
Seat 438 is OH-16
Seat 439 is CA-53
Seat 440 is VA-12
Seat 441 is RI-2
Seat 442 is ID-3
Seat 443 is TX-40
Seat 444 is GA-15
Seat 445 is MI-14
Seat 446 is FL-30
Seat 447 is CA-54
Seat 448 is WA-11
Seat 449 is NC-15
Seat 450 is PA-18

Gosh, NY-27 doesn't even make this list. I think it's time to expand the HoR honestly, but keeping the current apportionment rules. Not sure about the logic of folks calling for the abolition of the Senate/EC and also saying 'every state should have at least 3 Reps'.

[Nyvin]

Sounds like apportionment will be announced on either the 27th or 28th this month

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1381378333561196545

[Ebsy]

THROW THEM IN THE TRASH