Census population estimates 2011-2019

[Kevinstat]

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 and a quarter year period between the 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. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

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

There a number of changes since my projections last year. AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-3.

Do you mean MT-2 here?  Or WV-3?

[Kevinstat]

State               2010    2020  Change Apportion  More   Change  Proj.   Needed
Alabama            6.737   6.438  -0.299   6  -1      20     152   0.31%   0.40%
Florida           26.435  28.245   1.810  28  +1      73    2896   1.44%   1.51%
Minnesota          7.472   7.388  -0.085   7  -1      54     359   0.66%   0.86%
Montana            1.478   1.485   0.007   1   =       7      85   0.82%   0.95%
New York          27.244  26.271  -0.973  26  -1      62     803   0.41%   0.47%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      21       7   0.07%   0.48%
Virginia          11.258  11.392   0.134  11   =      34     743   0.89%   0.97%
West Virginia      2.652   2.441  -0.211   2  -1      35     -17  -0.09%   0.31%
Arizona            8.999   9.447   0.448  10  +1     -22     856   1.26%   1.20%
California        52.369  53.283   0.914  54  +1    -189    3684   0.95%   0.85%
Oregon             5.408   5.511   0.103   6  +1     -45     386   0.96%   0.74%
Texas             35.350  38.730   3.381  39  +3    -433    4610   1.70%   1.38%

Based on your table, which I've altered to get rid of the states you didn't have in red, change red to green for the states that might end up better than your predicting (as opposed to worse, although maybe California could (by your mathematical standard) also be within range of gaining a 2nd seat (doing 1 better than your projection) or losing a seat (doing 2 worse than your projection)), and to put all the states in red after all those in green, you have 12 states competing for 4 seats, although as you pointed out some of the states I just put in green really don't have much chance of having a result other than your projected one.

[Kevinstat]

So, California might lose a congressional district?

It's kind of on the bubble for both gaining and losing a seat I guess.  A fairly small difference in growth rate can be the difference between x+1 seats and x-1 seats in a state with as many current seats (x) as California.

[Kevinstat]

In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?

Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)

I didn't get what you were saying in that last paragraph, about having kids "in place" as opposed to attracting immigrants.  I'm admitting to it as from your overall post, I imagine it will be something worth "getting", once I do.

[Kevinstat]

Is there any set date when the county estimates come out?

They come out in March, I don't know if there's a public date yet.

It appears to be March 23, with an embargoed release on March 21.

Living in New England, it's the May release of county subdivision and place (like municipality) data that I'm anxiously awaiting.  In terms of what legislative districts might look like, the county projections are most useful indicators at the ends of the state and less so in the middle (population-wise), which is pretty much where I am.

[Kevinstat]

In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?

Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)

I didn't get what you were saying in that last paragraph, about having kids "in place" as opposed to attracting immigrants.  I'm admitting to it as from your overall post, I imagine it will be something worth "getting", once I do.

These areas don't attract immigrants or domestic migrants because there are not jobs available and they might be seeking nicer climes.

But if people started having more children, which can happen for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with the economy, it would increase demand for products and services which would push up demand for productivity from the parents, increasing job security.  The aggregate effect is a more vibrant economy and community.

Reinforcing this would be that families with children try to avoid picking up and moving far away.  A baby boom would likely decrease mobility and there would be a desire for companies to invest where they were rather than somewhere that immigrants or domestic migrants want to go.

At this point, we are so far along in the aging and deindustrialization process, that this would likely not fix the situation... but it would slow the decline.

New England has a top heavy age structure because fertility there is low.  In 15 years the largest cohorts of people will be in their early 70s and without a major change in migration, the population will be declining quickly.  And the problem is that unlike with growth, which can be directed into neat, new subdivisions one at a time... shrinkage is piecemeal... one older couple dies out down the street, another across the street... now you have two empty houses with no chance of being filled again... and the lawns become overgrown, etc.  Empty lots slowly replace the once bustling, tidy neighborhood... this drives the remaining people out... to places like Florida.

Thanks.  Your explanation was definitely worth asking for, as I expected.

[Kevinstat]

In the 2010 census, the State House "quotas" of Maine's largest municipalities (those over 0.9/151 of Maine's population in any one of the three following tables, plus Old Town which would meet that criteria if you added in the Penobscot Reservation where the part where people live is right next to Old Town (they basically make up a State House district now)), were as follows (with instances where the "Estimates Base" (EB) yields a different quota than the official census numbers noted in parentheses):

=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5245 (State Senate quota* 1.7441, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.1596 (EB 4.1595) (State Senate quota* 0.9641, between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark)
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.7557 (EB 3.7554)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
South Portland city 2.8421
Auburn city 2.6208 (EB 2.6204)
Biddeford city 2.4186
Sanford city 2.3642 (EB 2.3640)
Brunswick town 2.3051
Augusta city 2.1753 (EB 2.1748)
Scarborough town 2.1506
Saco city 2.1009 (EB 2.1030)
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
=2.0 mark=
Westbrook city 1.9886
Windham town 1.9326 (EB 1.9321)
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Gorham town 1.8621 (EB 1.8620)
Waterville city 1.7872
York town 1.4242 (EB 1.4231)
Falmouth town 1.2714
Kennebunk town 1.2275 (EB 1.2274)
Orono town 1.1779 (EB 1.1772)
Standish town 1.1224 (EB 1.1222)
Presque Isle city 1.1017
Wells town 1.0900
Kittery town 1.0788
Brewer city 1.0779
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0248
Lisbon town 1.0241 (EB 1.0242)
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9985
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9803 (EB 0.9793)
Skowhegan town 0.9763 (EB 0.9766)
Bath city 0.9678
[Old Town city (0.8912 (EB 0.8919)) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0693)] 0.9605 (EB 0.9612)
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Yarmouth town 0.9491
Caribou city 0.9309
Buxton town 0.9133 (EB 0.9129)
Freeport town 0.8956
...
Gray town 0.8822
...
Ellsworth city 0.8799
...
Cumberland town 0.8197 (EB 0.8187)

The largest municipalities as and according to the 2016 estimates and their State House "quotas" are as follows:

=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5912 (State Senate quota* 1.7595, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0986 (State Senate quota* 0.949996, 0.14 people below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.6273
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9006
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6025
Biddeford city 2.4226
Sanford city 2.3745
Brunswick town 2.3413
Scarborough town 2.2708
Saco city 2.1789
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0974
Westbrook city 2.0869
Windham town 2.0417
=2.0 mark=
Gorham town 1.9711
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.8606
York town 1.4683
Falmouth town 1.3725
Kennebunk town 1.2838
Orono town 1.2749
Wells town 1.1549
Standish town 1.1538
Kittery town 1.0937
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0580
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Brewer city 1.0328
Presque Isle city 1.0327
Lisbon town 1.0032
=1.0 mark=
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9990
Topsham town 0.9964
Yarmouth town 0.9705
Freeport town 0.9555
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Bath city 0.9416
Skowhegan town 0.9415
Buxton town 0.9294
Gray town 0.9203
[Old Town city (0.8526) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0673)] 0.9199
Ellsworth city 0.8972
Cumberland town 0.8895
...
Caribou city 0.8773

Taking the "Estimates base" from April 1, 2010 (usually within a few people of the official numbers) shown in the same Census Bureau tables showing the above estimates, and adding to it the population gains (negative for losses) from that base to July 1, 2016 multiplied by 10/6.25 (I use a linear progression rather than exponential as it has the benefit of municipal projections being the same as county projections), the following are the projected 2020 State House "quotas" for all municipalities (in descending order) with projected (or 2010) quotas above 0.9000:

=8.0 mark=
Portland city 7.6310 (State Senate quota* 1.7688, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0621 (State Senate quota* 0.9415, below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.5508
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9356
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.5918
Biddeford city 2.4250
Sanford city 2.3809
Brunswick town 2.3630
Scarborough town 2.3426
Saco city 2.2243
Westbrook city 2.1457
Windham town 2.1072
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0511
Gorham town 2.0364
=2.0 mark=
Waterville city 1.9044
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
York town 1.4953
Falmouth town 1.4328
Orono town 1.3333
Kennebunk town 1.3174
Wells town 1.1938
Standish town 1.1727
Kittery town 1.1026
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0778
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0108
Brewer city 1.0059
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9951
Presque Isle city 0.9914
Freeport town 0.9912
Lisbon town 0.9907
Yarmouth town 0.9834
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Gray town 0.9431
Buxton town 0.9392
Cumberland town 0.9318
Bath city 0.9260
Skowhegan town 0.9206
Ellsworth city 0.9075
[Old Town city (0.8291) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0660)] 0.8951
...
Caribou city 0.8453

*assuming 35 Senators.  With 33 or 31, Lewiston would be too small for a Senate district even under the 2010 Census figures.  Portland would still be comfortably between 1.05 and 1.9 State Senate quotas.

Wow, I wouldn't have done this if I didn't enjoy the result of having done it, but that took some work, even though I created the spreadsheet by copying and modifying an existing one and did the same thing with this post.

[Kevinstat]

Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

Column A(2:51): State Names
Column B(2:51): Populations (leave out DC and PR, unless you want to experiment)
A52: Cell with number of representatives, set to 435, but you can vary.
B52: Quota =SUM(B2:B51)/A52
Column C(2:51): Estimate. =B2/$B$52, etc.
Column D(2:51): Minimum number of seats. =MAX(INT(C2),1), etc, ensures all states get one representative, and avoids division by zero.
D52: Minimum seats = SUM(D2:D51)
Column E(2:51): Divisor for next seat:

Huntington-Hill: =SQRT(D2*(D2+1)), etc. (Geometric mean of n and n+1)
Webster's = D2 + 0.5 (Arithmetic mean of n and n+1)
Dean's = D2*(D2+1)*2/(D2+D2+1)  (Harmonic mean)
Jefferson's = D2+1
Adams's = D2

Webster's is same as St.Lague, Jefferson's the same ad D'Hondt

Column F(2:F51): Quotient = B2/E2, etc. May also use C2/E2, etc.
Column G(2:G51): Quotient Rank = RANK(F2,F$2:F$51), etc.
G52 extra seats to apportion A52-D52

Column H(2:H51):= D2 + IF(G2 <= $G$52, 1, 0), etc. add one for largest quotients.
H52 total apportionment = SUM(H2:H51), should match A52

I just lost a whole lot of what I had composed here online, but your method caps the number of seats each state has between its integer "floor" and its integer "ceiling" (or just the "ceiling" for a state with a fractional quota of less than 1, which is correct of course), while these methods, when interpreted as divisor methods rather than fixed ratio methods some of them started out as, don't.  I was starting to explain the virtues of each when my web browser closed down for me for some reason.

[Kevinstat]

Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

Column A(2:51): State Names
Column B(2:51): Populations (leave out DC and PR, unless you want to experiment)
A52: Cell with number of representatives, set to 435, but you can vary.
B52: Quota =SUM(B2:B51)/A52
Column C(2:51): Estimate. =B2/$B$52, etc.
Column D(2:51): Minimum number of seats. =MAX(INT(C2),1), etc, ensures all states get one representative, and avoids division by zero.
D52: Minimum seats = SUM(D2:D51)
Column E(2:51): Divisor for next seat:

Huntington-Hill: =SQRT(D2*(D2+1)), etc. (Geometric mean of n and n+1)
Webster's = D2 + 0.5 (Arithmetic mean of n and n+1)
Dean's = D2*(D2+1)*2/(D2+D2+1)  (Harmonic mean)
Jefferson's = D2+1
Adams's = D2

Webster's is same as St.Lague, Jefferson's the same ad D'Hondt

Column F(2:F51): Quotient = B2/E2, etc. May also use C2/E2, etc.
Column G(2:G51): Quotient Rank = RANK(F2,F$2:F$51), etc.
G52 extra seats to apportion A52-D52

Column H(2:H51):= D2 + IF(G2 <= $G$52, 1, 0), etc. add one for largest quotients.
H52 total apportionment = SUM(H2:H51), should match A52

I just lost a whole lot of what I had composed here online, but your method caps the number of seats each state has between its integer "floor" and its integer "ceiling" (or just the "ceiling" for a state with a fractional quota of less than 1, which is correct of course), while these methods, when interpreted as divisor methods rather than fixed ratio methods some of them started out as, don't.  I was starting to explain the virtues of each when my web browser closed down for me for some reason.

I forgot a caveat and a limitation.

The short cut I used assumes there will not be quota violations, where a state would not be apportioned either n or n+1 districts when:

n/435 <= P_state / P_USA < (n+1)/435

This is estimated to be about a 1/1600 occurrence for the USA (the probability is based on the distribution of state populations, that is effectively random, and can only be simulated). For other uses, such as the apportionment of the British Parliament it is quite likely.

While the shortcut could be regarded as a defect in my implementation, the fact that a quota violation could occur, should be considered a defect of the divisor methods.

The limitation of my method is that it does not identify all the seats near the 435th seat. California should be apportioned roughly every 8th seat. While its quotients will be quite regular and periodic, other states will have different periods, so the rankings will not be periodic. My method will identify the ranking for California's 53rd seat, but not its 54th or 52nd, etc. And some of the rankings of other states will be in error because of this (but not, barring quota violations, whether or not they will be apportioned a particular number of seats).

To generate a full ranking with a spreadsheet requires more of a brute force approach. For example, one could generate, say the first 63 divisors, and calculate the quotients for all 50 states for each divisor. This would produce the top 500 or so rankings.

500/435 * 53 = 60.92 is an estimate of California's representation in a 500 member House. 63 is a fudge of 60.92, to make sure that California's rankings in the top 500 are generated. This method would also produce a lot of extraneous results quotients (e.g that for Wyoming's 63rd seat).

California, with 52.53/435 of the United States's apportionment population as of and according to the 2010 census, would have had 55 seats under Jefferson's method and 50 seats under Adams's.  Texas and New York must also have had quota violations in one or both of those methods as the difference in the apportionment between the them is 3 for Texas and 2 for New York (it would be 2 for Florida if not for the guarantee of 1 seat for each state, which gives Vermont and Wyoming seats that would otherwise go to Florida and Washington).

[Kevinstat]

Does anyone know when this month the City and Town (incorporated places and I believe all census-designated "county subdivisions", which are generally the same thing in New England) estimates for July 1, 2017 will be released?

[Kevinstat]

In practice these are the minor civil divisions in 20 of the 21 states in the Northeast and Midwest divisions (all except Iowa). These are the areas where minor civil divisions (towns and townships) typically have functioning governments.

There are another eight states where there are minor civil divisions recognized by the Census Bureau (and delineated by the state). In some cases, these are used because there are advantages when applying for federal grants.

In another 20 states, the Census Bureau has defined Census County Divisions, which permits the census bureau to present some data at a level equivalent to MCD in other states. Through 1950, the Census Bureau treated all counties as having MCD, though these were often temporary such as election precincts, or electoral districts. CCD are a way to provide statistical consistency from decade to decade, but in practical terms are useless.

In Alaska, the Census Bureau has defined Census Areas and Census Subareas in areas of the state with no local government (the Unorganized Borough). These serve as county equivalents and county subdivisions.

20 + 8 + 20 + 1 (Alaska) = 49.  Is Iowa in with the 8 or the 20, and if so was it included in your tally?

[Kevinstat]

Any press release yet on what date this month the 2018 city and town (or "county subdivision") estimates will be released (with likely two days of embargoed media access - they'll list both dates in the press release)?

[Kevinstat]

In the 2010 census, the State House "quotas" of Maine's largest municipalities** (those over 0.9/151 of Maine's population in any one of the three following tables), were as follows (with instances where the "Estimates Base" (EB) yields a different quota than the official census numbers noted in parentheses):

=7.6 (8*0.95) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5245 (EB 7.5244) (State Senate quota* 1.7441, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.1596 (EB 4.1595) (State Senate quota* 0.9641, between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark)
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.7557 (EB 3.7539)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
South Portland city 2.8421 (EB 2.8423)
Auburn city 2.6208 (EB 2.6211)
Biddeford city 2.4186 (EB 2.4185)
Sanford city 2.3642 (EB 2.3634)
Brunswick town 2.3051 (EB 2.3052)
Augusta city 2.1753 (EB 2.1755)
Scarborough town 2.1506 (EB 2.1496)
Saco city 2.1009 (EB 2.1031)
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
=2.0 mark=
Westbrook city 1.9886 (EB 1.9910)
Windham town 1.9326 (EB 1.9321)
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Gorham town 1.8621 (EB 1.8609)
Waterville city 1.7872 (EB 1.7873)
York town 1.4242 (EB 1.4228)
Falmouth town 1.2714 (EB 1.2709)
Kennebunk town 1.2275 (EB 1.2269)
Orono town 1.1779 (EB 1.1775)
Standish town 1.1224 (EB 1.1222)
Presque Isle city 1.1017
Wells town 1.0900
Kittery town 1.0788 (EB 1.0792)
Brewer city 1.0779 (EB 1.0782)
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0248 (EB 1.0245)
Lisbon town 1.0241 (EB 1.0250)
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9985 (EB 0.9988)
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9803 (EB 0.9791)
Skowhegan town 0.9763 (EB 0.9758)
Bath city 0.9678
[Old Town city (0.8912 (EB 0.8919)) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0693)] 0.9605 (EB 0.9612)
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Yarmouth town 0.9491 (EB 0.9492)
Caribou city 0.9309
Buxton town 0.9133 (EB 0.9134)
Freeport town 0.8956 (EB 0.8955)
...
Gray town 0.8822 (EB 0.8824)
...
Ellsworth city 0.8799
...
Cumberland town 0.8197 (EB 0.8188)

The largest municipalities as and according to the 2018 estimates and their State House "quotas" are as follows:

=7.6 (8*0.95) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.4932 (State Senate quota* 1.7368, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0552 (State Senate quota* 0.9400, below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.6099
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.8889
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6170
Biddeford city 2.4272
Sanford city 2.3899
Brunswick town 2.3107
Scarborough town 2.2961
Saco city 2.2280
Westbrook city 2.1407
Augusta city 2.1076
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Windham town 2.0803
=2.0 mark=
Gorham town 1.9914
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.8780
York town 1.4837
Falmouth town 1.3809
Kennebunk town 1.3007
Orono town 1.2048
Wells town 1.1896
Standish town 1.1376
Kittery town 1.1108
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0507
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Brewer city 1.0211
Presque Isle city 1.0152
Lisbon town 1.0130
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0050
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9987
Yarmouth town 0.9610
Freeport town 0.9601
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Bath city 0.9397
Buxton town 0.9375
Skowhegan town 0.9312
Gray town 0.9258
Cumberland town 0.9212
Ellsworth city 0.9080
[Old Town city (0.8415) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0660)] 0.9075
...
Caribou city 0.8590

Taking the "Estimates base" from April 1, 2010 (usually within a few people of the official numbers) shown in the same Census Bureau tables showing the above estimates, and adding to it the population gains (negative for losses) from that base to July 1, 2018 multiplied by 10/8.25 (I use a linear progression rather than exponential as it has the benefit of municipal projections being the same as county projections), the following are the projected 2020 State House "quotas" for all municipalities (in descending order) with projected (or 2010) quotas above 0.9000:

=7.6 (8*0.95) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.4867 (State Senate quota* 1.7353, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0333 (State Senate quota* 0.9349, below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.5797
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.8987
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6161
Biddeford city 2.4291
Sanford city 2.3955
Scarborough town 2.3269
Brunswick town 2.3118
Saco city 2.2542
Westbrook city 2.1721
Windham town 2.1115
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0933
Gorham town 2.0188
=2.0 mark=
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.8971
York town 1.4965
Falmouth town 1.4041
Kennebunk town 1.3162
Orono town 1.2105
Wells town 1.2105
Standish town 1.1408
Kittery town 1.1175
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0562
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Lisbon town 1.0105
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0105
Brewer city 1.0092
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9987
Presque Isle city 0.9970
Freeport town 0.9737
Yarmouth town 0.9635
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Cumberland town 0.9427
Buxton town 0.9426
Gray town 0.9349
Bath city 0.9338
Skowhegan town 0.9219
Ellsworth city 0.9139
[Old Town city (0.8309) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0653)] 0.8962
...
Caribou city 0.8439

*assuming 35 Senators.  With 33 or 31, Lewiston would be too small for a Senate district even under the 2010 Census figures.  Portland would still be comfortably between 1.05 and 1.9 State Senate quotas.

**I grouped Old Town city and the Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (big enough for a House district in 2010, although there are a couple census blocks (perhaps with no population) outside those two municipalities in that district, I think because they were entirely surrounded by the Penobscot Reservation) together, as technically Old Town doesn't belong in these tables but I thought it should be included.

[Kevinstat]

Are county population estimates still expected sometime this month, or are they expected to be delayed due to the COVID-19 outbreak?

[Kevinstat]

Does anyone know when in May the 2019 estimates at the municipal level are to come out?  Or will that even be in May as planned or will it be delayed due to COVID-19?  The March release of county-level estimates wasn't delayed, but those were likely pretty much finalized by the time things started getting crazy.

[Kevinstat]

Does anyone know when in May the 2019 estimates at the municipal level are to come out?  Or will that even be in May as planned or will it be delayed due to COVID-19?  The March release of county-level estimates wasn't delayed, but those were likely pretty much finalized by the time things started getting crazy.

It's usually right before Memorial Day

Okay, thanks.

[Kevinstat]

Does anyone know when in May the 2019 estimates at the municipal level are to come out?  Or will that even be in May as planned or will it be delayed due to COVID-19?  The March release of county-level estimates wasn't delayed, but those were likely pretty much finalized by the time things started getting crazy.

12:01 AM EDT, 21 May 2020.

Okay, thanks.