Census Estimates for 2005 -> 2010 apportionment

[muon2]

Nice muon.  Thanks.  Just FYI, here are some estimates of the numbers of Katrina evacuees who still remain in various states (most come from LA):

TX 177000
MS 73000
GA 40000
FL 23000
AL 22000
... and about 20 other states have between 1 and 5000.

Source:  American Red Cross.

Hard to say how many of these will remain till the next decennial census, though.

I'm hoping that the Census will note relocations in their estimates for next year. The estimate is for July 1, and there should be a noticeable shift for those states heavily affected by evacuees.

[jerusalemcar5]

New York is losing another 2 seats!  I can't believe it!  New York has set a record for fastest drop in electoral votes.  We've lost 16 votes and our drop only started in 1950!  This is definitely a disappointment, but I guess I expected it.

[muon2]

New York is losing another 2 seats!  I can't believe it!  New York has set a record for fastest drop in electoral votes.  We've lost 16 votes and our drop only started in 1950!  This is definitely a disappointment, but I guess I expected it.

The Census Bureau just released estimates of domestic migration. The numbers explain NY's problem. The state has lost an average of 183,000 people per year since 2000 to other states. That is due to losses in the NYC metro area with an annual outmigration of 211,000 per year to other states. Birth rates and foreign immigration can't make up for this and provide the extra growth needed to mtach the national averages.

[WMS]

Mountain West: still the top rate! 6.9% W00T!

[jerusalemcar5]

Now I have a question.  Who in their right mind is moving to Utah.  They are picking up a vote?  Is this migration or birth?

[muon2]

Now I have a question.  Who in their right mind is moving to Utah.  They are picking up a vote?  Is this migration or birth?

UT has a net outmigration of about 10 K / year. It also has the highest birthrate in the nation, which more than makes up for any outmigration. It is interesting to note that UT was a net inmigration state in the 90's, but like the mountain west as a whole saw its domestic migration numbers drop in this decade.

[Cubby]

Now I have a question.  Who in their right mind is moving to Utah.  They are picking up a vote?  Is this migration or birth?

They have people moving there, as do all Mountain West states. And they have the Birth Rate of a Third World Country (thats true, not sarcastic).

But the reason Utah is gaining a seat is because it barely missed gaining one in 2000. The seat ended up going to North Carolina. There was a big court case about it, because if all the overseas Mormon missionaries had been counted, the seat would have gone to them instead of NC. Since Utah has growth above the national average this decade, it will get its seat in 2010. If I recall correctly, Utah lost the court case and people out of the country at the time of the Census will not be included in any state's population.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Census Bureau released its estimates of the populations in each state for July 1, 2005. A press release and excel file contain the official info.

As in previous years I have used this data to project the House apportionment for 2010. My methodology and projections follow.

The Census provides an apportionment population and base residential population for April 1, 2000. The apportionment population includes residents out of state such as overseas military personnel. An annual rate is calculated from the base population and the new estimate (July 1, 2005) using a period of 5.25 years. The annual rate is applied to the base population for a period of 10 years, and the difference between the 2000 apportionment population and base population is added. This results in a projected apportionment population for each state.

The House seats are apportioned on the priority method used for past decennial reapportionments. Each state is assigned one seat. An average number of residents per seat is calulated each state with the current seat assignment and for an assignment of one additional seat. The priority is calculated for each state by taking the geometric mean of those two averages. The state with the highest priority is given the next seat, and its next priority is calculated. The process continues until 435 seats are assigned.

The 2010 projections would result in these changes:

AZ +2
CA +1
FL +3
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NY -2
OH -2
PA -1
TX +3
UT +1

The following states were the last to get seats: 431 AL-7, 432 PA-18, 433 CA-54, 434 AZ-10, 435 FL-28.

These states would be next in line to get seats: 436 MN-8, 437 MI-15, 438 NY-36, 439 IL-19, 440 LA-7.

Compared to the 2004 estimates this is one additional seat for AZ and FL, and one less for MI and MN.

Note that this does not include the affects of relocations due to Katrina which occurred after the date of the estimates. To test the effects I moved 300K from LA in 2010 and assigned 150K to TX, 50K to GA and 20K to each of AR, CA, NC, SC, and TN. That amount of movement had no effect on the reapportionment, though MO would be at priority 440 instead of LA.

An interesting sidelight is that one of the two seats in the House that Arizona is projected to get is based on illegal immigrants.

Fortunately the people (over the objections of Gov. Napolitano) enacted a law to prevent non-citizens from voting.

[Q]

Fortunately the people (over the objections of Gov. Napolitano) enacted a law to prevent non-citizens from voting.

Could you provide more information on this?

[CARLHAYDEN]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7255409/

[jimrtex]

What happens when seats are taken away from a state? Is the congressman just booted out? or what?

In most cases, the legislature looks for a victim, sometimes the district of a minority party in a state, other times, the district of a representative who is retiring.  In Ohio, I think it was Trafficant's suit that was eliminated.

Let's say a state has 10 districts with 600,000 people, and must redistrict to 9 districts of 666,000.  So District 1 might add 66,000 from District 2.  District 2, might then have to add 132,000 from District 3 (to make up the 66,000 additional people due to the loss of the seat, plus what it lost from District 1), and so on.

So you choose a victim.  Each of 4 surrounding districts takes up 150,000 of the eliminated district, and then loses 84,000 to other districts further away.  The representative who lost his district, then is faced with running in one of the other districts, where he must face an incumbent who represented 516,000 of the residents, while he only has represented 150,000 of them.  If the redistricters are clever, the 150,000 don't include anyone from the victim's town except his immediate street.

There is a risk of this tipping a district.  If one of the surrounding districts was narrowly Demolican, then adding 150,000 voters from a Repubcratic district could tip it.

So an alternative would be to take two adjacenct Repubcratic districts and include 333,000 residents of each district, including the home areas of the Repubcratic incumbents, who must face off in a primary if they want to continue in office.  The excess area that is trimmed off the two districts can be selected so that the Demolicans are competitive and is less likely to tip the surrounding Demolican districts.

[jimrtex]

West Virginia's eastern tip is growing quite a bit. It's the outer DC suburbs, and is considerably cheaper than the hideously expensive property further in. The MARC commuter rail has a line that runs from Martinsburg, West Virginia, all the way to Union Station in DC.

That explains part of it I guess, but thats only 3 counties, they'd have to be booming like Loudoun County (fastest in the nation ) to reverse the entire state trend. Most of the rest of West Virginia hasn't grown since the 1940's. 

From 2000-5.

Berkeley 39.4%
Jefferson 29.2%
Hampshire 16.4%
Morgan 13.3%

These 3 are in the eastern panhandle, plus 1 beyond.  Even Hardy was up 9.1%.

Putnam 10.3%

Does Charleston have exurbs?  This is the county west of Kanawha.

Downers:

McDowell  -22.6% deep in S WV coal mining country.  1/5th the population in 5 years.

Tucker  -10.1% at the western tip of Maryland.

Most counties with cities lost:

Kanawha (Charleston) -6.3%.
Cabell (Huntington) -5.%
Ohio (Wheeling) -9.6%
Wood (Parkersburg) -2.0%
Harrison (Clarksburg) -0.8%

The exception was

Monongalia (Morganton & WVU): 5.8%.

Overall, the state had a negative rate of natural growth, -0.3%, as those in their 20s head elsewhere before having families.  The high growth areas of the far east had positive natural growth rate, reflecting young families moving into the area (and a relatively low share of older people who have lived there all their life).

[muon2]

What happens when seats are taken away from a state? Is the congressman just booted out? or what?

So you choose a victim.  Each of 4 surrounding districts takes up 150,000 of the eliminated district, and then loses 84,000 to other districts further away.  The representative who lost his district, then is faced with running in one of the other districts, where he must face an incumbent who represented 516,000 of the residents, while he only has represented 150,000 of them.  If the redistricters are clever, the 150,000 don't include anyone from the victim's town except his immediate street.

This was the exact situation in 2001 in IL. Rep. Phelps lost in the deal between the two party leaders in Congress in the state (Hastert and Lipinski). His district was split between three districts and most of his district went into CD 19. However, his home is in that tip extended from CD 15. He lost in 2002 when he ran in the new CD 19.

[Cubby]

Putnam 10.3%

Does Charleston have exurbs?  This is the county west of Kanawha.

No, I don't think so. Putnam seems to be growing because it has a strategic location between Charleston and Huntington, which are major cities by the standards of the area.

McDowell  -22.6% deep in S WV coal mining country.  1/5th the population in 5 years.

McDowell County's population decline is the most shocking of any county in the USA. It had 99,000 in 1950 and had 24,000 last year. The strange thing is that its largest town in 1950 (Welch) had only 6 or 7 Thousand people, which means  it must have had lots of rural villages.

John F. Kennedy mentioned McDowell County during his 1960 campaign, as an example of Appalachian poverty. It was also the setting for the 1999 movie October Sky.

[minionofmidas]

Putnam 10.3%

Does Charleston have exurbs?  This is the county west of Kanawha.

No, I don't think so. Putnam seems to be growing because it has a strategic location between Charleston and Huntington, which are major cities by the standards of the area.

McDowell  -22.6% deep in S WV coal mining country.  1/5th the population in 5 years.

McDowell County's population decline is the most shocking of any county in the USA. It had 99,000 in 1950 and had 24,000 last year. The strange thing is that its largest town in 1950 (Welch) had only 6 or 7 Thousand people, which means  it must have had lots of rural villages.

Mining villages.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As the mining industries either declines or get more mechanized, the number of jobs in the area falls a lot and, unless new jobs are created to replace them, people just leave the area to find work and generally don't come back.
There were similer (not quite so shocking, but still awful) declines in mining areas in the U.K in the early 20th century. I think the population of the Rhondda came close to halving at one point.

[??????????]

Putnam 10.3%

Does Charleston have exurbs?  This is the county west of Kanawha.

No, I don't think so. Putnam seems to be growing because it has a strategic location between Charleston and Huntington, which are major cities by the standards of the area.

McDowell  -22.6% deep in S WV coal mining country.  1/5th the population in 5 years.

McDowell County's population decline is the most shocking of any county in the USA. It had 99,000 in 1950 and had 24,000 last year. The strange thing is that its largest town in 1950 (Welch) had only 6 or 7 Thousand people, which means  it must have had lots of rural villages.

Mining villages.

My great grandfather lived in McDowell County way back when.

[jimrtex]

The ACS survey, Available under the American Fact Finder on the Census Bureau site US Census Bureau has the population for congressional districts.

The American Community Survey is a large sample survey (3 million households per year) which is intended to replace the long form of the census.  2005 was the first year of the full-scale survey, and produces statistically valid estimates for areas with population of 65,000 or more.  Three years of surveys are to be combined for areas with population of 20,000 or more, and 5 years for all areas.

In Texas, congressional districts that have an excess of 50,000 or more persons (based on 32 districts) are:

CD 3 (+98k) Collin County (Plano and other N Dallas Suburbs)
CD 10 (+97k) NW Harris County to Travis County (Houston to Austin)
CD 22 (+95k) Southern Houston suburbs.
CD 26 (+55k) Denton County (NW Dallas and N Ft Worth suburbs)

CD with deficits of 50,000 or more:

CD 19 (-75k) West Texas (Lubbock, Abilene)
CD 13 (-73k) West Texas (Amarillo, Wichita Falls)
CD 30 (-72k) South Dallas
CD 20 (-72k) Central San Antonio
CD 18 (-71K) NE and NW and SC Houston.
CD 11 (-50k) West Texas (Midland-Odessa, San Angelo)

Based on 35 CDs, there would be an additional district in the Dallas area, one in the Houston area, and one in the Austin, San Antonio and the border area, possibly all Republican.

[Tender Branson]

It will be funny to see what the next US Census shows, because in 2000 they were very wrong with their estimates. They predicted the population to be 272 million and it turned out to be 281+ mio. people. I think that Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, etc are underestimated when it comes to the 2000-2005 population estimates. Between 1990 and 2000 the annual growth rate was 1.25%, it´s hard to believe it went down to 0,9% in 2000-2010. Lets see what comes out and maybe the Census Bureau Estimates turn out better in 2010.

[Cubby]

It will be funny to see what the next US Census shows, because in 2000 they were very wrong with their estimates. They predicted the population to be 272 million and it turned out to be 281+ mio. people. I think that Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, etc are underestimated when it comes to the 2000-2005 population estimates. Between 1990 and 2000 the annual growth rate was 1.25%, it´s hard to believe it went down to 0,9% in 2000-2010. Lets see what comes out and maybe the Census Bureau Estimates turn out better in 2010.

The U.S. Census Bureau isn't a very good agency. Not only did they miss nearly 10 million people (!) as you mentioned, they also deliberately undercount cities in order to help the Republicans. Yes I know that's going out on a limb but it has to be said, its not like I'm the only one who thinks it.

And they have a strong bias against the Northeast as a whole. In 2005 they said New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts all declined in population, even though no state has done so since the 1980's, and those 3 states grew the previous 5 years and the economy isn't doing that bad. Some have said its housing prices, but Connecticut grew and we have the most expensive housing of all. Something fishy is going on at the Bureau.

On a lighter note, their website is difficult to navigate. (www.census.gov)

[jimrtex]

The U.S. Census Bureau isn't a very good agency. Not only did they miss nearly 10 million people (!) as you mentioned

Census Bureau estimate for 2000 vs. 2000 census

6.8 million.

The Census Bureau estimates were produced based on the 1990 census, adjusted by births and deaths, and net international migration.

The error could be a result of (1) undercount in 1990, (2) less undercount in 2000, (3) undercount of births, (4) overcount of deaths, or (5) undercount of international migration.

(3) and (4) are unlikely since the largest error was in the 25-34 age group.  Few if any in this age bracket were born during the 1990s, and relatively few died.  The age distribution suggests that (1), (2), and (5) are most at fault, due to underreporting of illegal international immigration -- both in the 1980s and 1990s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well golly gee whiz it must be true.  There are people other than Cubby who thinks it (Al Sharpton?).  And Cubby "had to say it", suggesting that he may find himself ground up by a cement mixer and poured into a foundation but he still speaks out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Census Bureau estimates for 1990s
This shows annual declines for Massachusetts in 1991 and 1992; for New York for 1995, 1996, and 1997; and for Rhode Island for 1994, 1996, and 1997.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(1) is pretty much considered an established truth. (2) is something the Census Bureau congratulated itself on in 2000/1, quite loudly too. (5) is certainly possible.

[Joe Biden 2020]

How likely is it for the overall size of the US House to increase from 435?  (Of course, it would have to be an odd number to prevent ties).

Also, does anybody think Oklahoma will ever get their 6th CD back, or are we just out of luck?  I know its unlikely in 2010, but 2020, maybe?  I still feel we were robbed of our 6th CD because the people on the coasts probably can't even tell you where Oklahoma is without looking at a map.

[jimrtex]

How likely is it for the overall size of the US House to increase from 435?  (Of course, it would have to be an odd number to prevent ties).

Maybe if Puerto Rico became a state, and 6 or so states were faced with losing representation at the next census.

Generally, the population distribution has been stablizing with fewer representatives changing with each census,  And if you add seats so that Oklahoma and Iowa regain a lost seat, you also have to give an extra seat to places that are growing at a faster rate such as Colorado and Arizona.

And if you increased it by perhaps 10%, any restorations would be lost in a decade or two.  The change in population has been slow enough, that representatives have become accustomed to having 500K, 600K, now almost 700K constituents.  Do you get better representation if they only represented 650K, or would you have to double the size of the House of Representatives.  And then do you really get better representation?