Results of the 2010 Census

[Joe Biden 2020]

After the 2010 Census, when will we know the results?  When will the new Congressional Districts be effective?

[Alcon]

It is released on April 1st.  Of course, we can never be certain that this isn't the April Fools' Census, so I'd wait until April 2nd before using any of the numbers.

[Joe Biden 2020]

It is released on April 1st.  Of course, we can never be certain that this isn't the April Fools' Census, so I'd wait until April 2nd before using any of the numbers.

April 1, 2010 or April 1, 2011?  The reason I ask is April 1, 2010 is just 3 months into 2010 and that wouldn't be much time to distribute the census, fill out the census forms, collect the filled-out forms, and tabulate the results, unless they are either really quick about things, or they start distributing the forms in late 2009.

Plus, the 2000 Census, if it was released on April 1, 2000 wouldn't take effect until January 2001 since the 2000 Presidential Election were the same EV's as 1992 and 1996.

[Padfoot]

New congressional districts (and thus EVs) won't go into effect until the 2012 election.  I have no idea when the actual data will be released though.

[Ban my account ffs!]

They release it on April 1st, but do an updated estimate which is "supposed" to be more accurate on July 1st, and then the estimations are effective July 1st of each year afterward.

[minionofmidas]

The Census figures reflect April 1st, 2010. They release the state-wide totals and a couple other figures very soon after that, then go on pouring out all the lower-level data over the next couple of years.
The new districts take effect with the 2012 election, except in Maine where it's 2014 because due to the early filing deadline and the short state house session and the release date for lower-level population data, the time window for passing a map for 2012 would be just a couple of days.

[jimrtex]

After the 2010 Census, when will we know the results?  When will the new Congressional Districts be effective?

The State apportionment population totals were delivered to the President on December 28, 2000.

The data necessary to do redistricting, which included population counts by race and Hispanicity down to the block level was delivered to the States during March 2001.  The mapping data had been delivered earlier.   Generally, an attempt was made to deliver the data to States that had earlier deadlines, but all data was distributed over a roughly 3-week period. Census 2000 Archive of Product Release Dates

In Texas, the legislature only meets in odd years and has a limited session length that only extends into May.  Further, the filing period begins in December with the deadline in early January, so it was toward the beginning of the list, even though it is a more populous State.

The first lawsuits were filed in December 2000 after the apportionment numbers were released, alleging that Texas did not have 32 congressional districts, that the existing districts did not have 1/32 of the population, and that they were based on 1990 census data.  The legislature did not pass any districting plans, and the Legislative Redistricting Board drew the legislative districts during the summer of 2001.  Because the Democrats were intent on having the congressional districts drawn by the courts, no special sessions were called, and the district court drew the districts in late 2001 in time for representatives to file.

[Joe Biden 2020]

So, let me see if I have this correct?

The results will start coming in on April 1, 2010 with state numbers coming in April, May, and June with the new CD's and EV's being effective for the 2012 Presidential Cycle.

So, I guess I should see my Census form in the mail in early January 2010, correct?

[jimrtex]

So, let me see if I have this correct?

The results will start coming in on April 1, 2010 with state numbers coming in April, May, and June with the new CD's and EV's being effective for the 2012 Presidential Cycle.

So, I guess I should see my Census form in the mail in early January 2010, correct?

No.  The Census is based on April 1, 2010.

In 2000, census forms were mailed starting on March 13.  Some early operations in the Alaska interior started as early as January.

The Census bureau reported that 61% of households had sent their completed form in by April 11.  Ultimately this would reach 66%,  Near the end of April, census workers started contacting the 42 million households that had not been heard from.  This stage was reported as completed at the end of June.  They then begin on their quality control, which could include followups on forms that made no sense.

The State counts and apportionment were issued at the very end of 2000.  No breakdowns on individual counties, cities, blocks, etc. were released until March 2001, at which time legislatures could begin redistricting.

Legally, any redistricting that was not done in time for 2010 could be legally challenged as a violation of one man/one vote.  Conceivably there could be challenges in States like Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Virginia that hold odd year legislative elections in 2011.  But they could probably argue that they didn't have time to redistrict in time for the districts to be reviewed by the DOJ, the courts, voting precincts adjusted, candidates filing, and primaries.  So they will probably won't be in effect until 2013.  In other states, and congressional districts will be for 2012.  But Maine waits until 2014.

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

What's worse is you have to wait 70 years to get full details of the census. (Names, occupations, etc)

[Cubby]

The Census Day is April 1, 2010

The National and State Populations and Electoral Vote Changes will be reported in the last week of December 2010.

The County level data (going by what happened back in 2001) will be released sometime in March 2011 (3 months later). Racial Data may also be released at this time.

I don't remember when town and minor civil division (i.e. New England towns) data came out in 2001. Usually the Census Bureau releases the estimates in May or June, so maybe those months in 2011.

[Хahar 🤔]

What's worse is you have to wait 70 years to get full details of the census. (Names, occupations, etc)

No, that's a very good thing.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

What's worse is you have to wait 70 years to get full details of the census. (Names, occupations, etc)

No, that's a very good thing.

Why is that a good thing?

[Хahar 🤔]

What's worse is you have to wait 70 years to get full details of the census. (Names, occupations, etc)

No, that's a very good thing.

Why is that a good thing?

Right to privacy.

[Kevinstat]

The new districts take effect with the 2012 election, except in Maine where it's 2014 because due to the early filing deadline and the short state house session and the release date for lower-level population data, the time window for passing a map for 2012 would be just a couple of days.

The Statutory adjournment date of the odd-year regular session of the Maine Legislature is now the third Wednesday in June.  How much later than that do odd-year regular sessions adjourn in most states?

We do have an Apportionment Commission which currently under Maine's Constitution has at least 117 days (depending on when all the members are named) to submit apportionment plans for the State House, State Senate and Congress to the Clerk of the House which the Legislature has, well, the language is somewhat confliting as there are numbers of days based on both the submission of the commission's plan and the appointment of the commission, and one would think that would mean whichever is earlier by the language but I recall the State House plan being enacted after at least one of those deadlines but still taking effect, ... anyway it has until however long it has to pass the commission's plan or one of its own (and there were Democratic and Republican plans for State Senate and Congressional districts in 2003, with no majority Senate district plan but with the one Independent member of the Apportionement Commission supporting the Democrats Congressional district plan making it the majority plan) before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (our Supreme Court with a middle name to distinguish it) takes over (as they did for State Senate and Congressional redistricting in 2003), upsetting the Democrats with their preliminary plans (they had put Knox County Michaud's district - not a good fit for him - instead of the Waterville area and put two Democratic State Senators in the same district) but pleasing them and mildly disappointing the Republicans with their final plans (undoing the changes described above but not accepting a Republican-proposed major reshuffle of the State Senate districts in York County with minor related changes extending beyond the county; they seemed to frown on changes to their preliminary plan  that did not have every changed district part of a two-district conglomerate with an unchanged perimeter).

I'm planning on trying to get someone in the Legislature to propose a constitutional amendment to provide for reapportionment (or redistricting) effective for the 2012 elections and elections every ten years thereafter.  I'd be willing to accept the responsibility for redistricting rested solely with the Supreme Judicial Court, where the adjournment date of Maine's Legislature wouldn't pose a problem, as they often have to make some or all of the plans anyway (1983 was the last time they didn't, and even then one of the plans was challenged in court).  The redistricting couldn't be done in the "2" year as long as we allow candidates to circulate and file nominating petitions and qualifying contributions (which only registered voters in the candidate's districts can sign and give) for public funding on January 1st of the year the candidates are seeking election.  Taking away the Legislature's redistricting perogative would likely be a non-starter in the Legislature, however, and a lot of Legislators will be predisposed to oppose any change once the complicated logistics become apparent.

[jimrtex]

My understanding is that Maine's late re-districting is more a tradition, and that if anyone wanted to challenge it in court they would win.  Any challenge would be based on equal protection grounds, which would override anything in the State constitution or law.

[Kevinstat]

It's a tradition that only began in the 1970s for the State House - after the bulk of the earth-shattering "Apportionment Decisions" had been handed down - and in the 1980s for the State Senate.

Has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled (for Congress, the Legislature, or both) that redistricting has to be done by the first election after the numbers from the latest census come in, rather than merely once every decade (which they might have assumed states would understand to mean right after the census)?  If so I'd like to hear what the case or cases are that established that rule.  That could be useful in getting Legislative action on moving our redistricting ahead (earlier) two years next year (the last sensible time to try to get that done for the next post-census redistricting, as there would be hardly enough time to redistrict in 2012 after the necessary Constitutional amendment referendum was passed in 2011 - although a state Constitutional amendment wouldn't be necessary to change our congressional redistricting cycle which is in statute only).

[Kevinstat]

I believe Mississippi, which elects its Legislature (along with its Governor) to four-year terms the year before the President is elected), doesn't have its legislative redistricting (done in the "2" year) go into effect until the "5" year elections in decades when their state government elections are in "1", "5" and "9" years.  So they are the worst state half the time (after the 1990 census and after the 2010 census if I understand the law correctly and it doesn't change before their elections in 2011) as far as timely legislative redistricting is concerned, while Maine, Montana, and any state legislative chamber that is elected in Presidential election years only are tied for the last election their redistricting goes into effect the other half of the time, such as after the 1980, 2000 and 2020 censuses if things don't change before then.   (Inaugaration dates are probably different in those states - Maine's is in early December for our Legislature so we probably beat out Montana in when Legislators are inagarated who serve new districts; does anyone know when their Legislature is inaugarated?).

Montana doesn't have multiple congressional districts and Mississippi's congressional redistricting goes into effect for the "2" year elections so we're the worst state as far as timely congressional redistricting is concerned.  The best state legislative chambers as far as timely legislative redistricting is concerned are both of New Jersey's chambers,  the Virginia House (and the Virginia Senate with its four-year terms half the time - they are elected midway between gubernatorial elections or one year before the President so in 2003 rather than 2001 but in 2011), and both of Louisiana chambers half the time (see the Virginia Senate except that Louisiana's Governor is also elected on that cycle), all of which are redistricted in time for the "1" year elections in those states when they are held.  New Jersey has two-year terms for its State House and a 2-4-4 cycle of terms for its State Senators beginning with the "1" year elections when the new districts are first used.  It's probably not very often that someone says New Jersey's politics are the best in any category but in timely legislative redistricting it is.

[jimrtex]

It's a tradition that only began in the 1970s for the State House - after the bulk of the earth-shattering "Apportionment Decisions" had been handed down - and in the 1980s for the State Senate.

Has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled (for Congress, the Legislature, or both) that redistricting has to be done by the first election after the numbers from the latest census come in, rather than merely once every decade (which they might have assumed states would understand to mean right after the census)?  If so I'd like to hear what the case or cases are that established that rule.  That could be useful in getting Legislative action on moving our redistricting ahead (earlier) two years next year (the last sensible time to try to get that done for the next post-census redistricting, as there would be hardly enough time to redistrict in 2012 after the necessary Constitutional amendment referendum was passed in 2011 - although a state Constitutional amendment wouldn't be necessary to change our congressional redistricting cycle which is in statute only).

I'd start with the US Code mandating election from districts.  It supersedes 2 USC §2a (c), which has a grandfather provision for States that have had no change in representation, permitting them to continue to use existing districts until redistricting was done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since Congress changed the existing law, it is clear that their intent was that the districts be established subsequent to the census, even when there was no change in representation.  While popularly known as a "reapportionment", the apportionment of representatives is done without regard to any previous apportionment.  Maine is apportioned 2 representatives on the basis of the 2000 Census.  That it previously had 2 representatives based on the 1990 Census is of no significance.

In cases dealing with population equality, the Supreme Court has developed a standard that districts have population as equal as "practicable", which it has then interpreted as being able put into practice.  Given block-level census data and computer-aided districting software, it is practicable to have a deviation of 1 person between districts. 

Maine could probably avoid having to split towns as long as it chose towns along the boundary that would provide the best equality, even if this made the boundary more irregular.  Maine could argue that this simplified administration of elections, reduced voter confusion etc., and had no material inequality effect.  But it doubtful that a court would accept district boundaries for use in 2012, that were based on the 2002 Census. 

In the Supreme Court case dealing with the 2003 redistricting of Texas congressional districts, LULAC v Perry, one challenge was on the basis that the legislature had used population data from the 2000 Census.  It is understood that the use of census data is a legal fiction - that everyone knows that the data wasn't accurate to begin with, and that it had changed since the time of the census - yet it is still valid for determining population equality and compliance with the 14th Amendment.  And further, when the courts or a legislature have redrawn district boundaries to comply with Voting Rights Act, or other legal requirement, they have used census data, even if it were 8 years out of date.  Because the courts or the legislature had to draw a lawful plan, they were forced to use the only data available to them. 

But then the argument continued, that when a legislature voluntarily redistricted, that they could no longer rely on census data.  If a legislature redistricted in 2003, they would have to demonstrate that in 2003 that the districts had equal population.  If this meant the legislature conducting its own census, so be it.  The Supreme Court rejected this argument, but this does not mean that a State could continue to use districts based on a previous census, once a new census had been conducted.

If the congressional district boundaries in Maine were challenged, it would not be on the basis that the legislature had not redistricted - but rather that Maine was going to use districts in 2012 that were demonstrably not equal in population, and despite the availability of better data on which to base them on, and to comply with federal law.  An argument that it was impracticable, because of a provision in State law isn't going go hold water. 

New districts in Maine will not go into effect until 2015.  If there is a special election up until January 3, 2015, it would be conducted using the current boundaries.  So Maine would have to justify using 15-year old data, when 5-year old data was available.  At the time of 2000 Census, its two districts were off by 4.6% from the average, over 9% between the two.  If we assume a continued linear shift, the difference was almost 15% by the time new 2000-based districts came into effect, and the new districts may already have been different by almost 5% when they were first used in 2005.

Maine could argue that they wanted stable district boundaries, and if they changed districts for the 2012 election, it would be after only 4 elections with the old boundaries.  But that is a superficial difference, and is a one-time transition.

Their best argument would probably be that they want to make the legislative and congressional districts at the same time to avoid administrative and voter confusion.  But it is unlikely that changing the congressional district boundaries would impose any burden other than a few town clerks having to prepare the ballot for a different congressional district than they had the previous election.  While changes for the legislative districts are more extensive, changing the congressional district of perhaps 5% of the people is not going to add or subtract from the confusion resulting from all the legislative district boundaries.  Because of the small size of the House districts, there is probably going to be wholesale reshuffling.  It is simply not feasible to make small changes when varying growth rates throughout the state will mean complete elimination of districts in some areas, and creation of new districts in other areas.

[Kevinstat]

What about Legislative districts?  How sure a winner would a suit against the current existing State House and State Senate being used in 2012 be (assuming there is more than a 10% deviation between those districts as of the 2010 census, which there will be)?  You may have tried to answer that question but it got lost by me among everything else.  (I'm sure many people experience that with my posts. ) If the districts were thrown out in 2012 on population grounds (a suit lauched too soon before that might be determined to be not ripe for review), coming up with a practicable solution that would abide by Maine's Constitution as much as possible while passing federal muster would be very difficult, much moreso than for Congress where you could extend the filing deadline if necessary for the first district candidates to collect more signatures from the smaller district depending on when the ruling went down (a suitable map could probably be drawn that would only shift territory from the first district to the second).

[Kevinstat]

I'd start with the US Code mandating election from districts.  It supersedes 2 USC §2a (c), which has a grandfather provision for States that have had no change in representation, permitting them to continue to use existing districts until redistricting was done.

How can anything other than a constitutional amendment (or a new or previously unrevealed Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution including its amendments) supersede the U.S. Constitution?  Perhaps you didn't mean what you wrote above exactly the way you wrote it.  Or perhaps 2 USC §2a (c) merely makes it clear that there is not a Constitutional requirement for states to redraw congressional districts when there is no change in representation, but doesn't make it unconstitutional for federal law (which trumps state constitutions and laws) to require such a redrawing of congressional districts.  That would make sense.

[Cubby]

West Virginia will be right on the edge between 2 and 3 seats, although it will likely stay at 3 if the present state and national estimates are right.

But remember what happened in 2000. The Census Bureau's estimates were short by 7 MILLION people, so I don't trust their numbers as much anymore. They said Connecticut was declining throughout the 90's yet we grew almost 4%. So I think the National population will be more like 316 million than the 309 that they currently predicting.

So if West Virginia ends up with 2 seats, how will they be split? The only one that sounds good is combining the 1st and third by way of Putnam and Roane counties, and making Kanawha, Central VA and the Eastern panhandle the 2nd district.

As Jefferson (Harpers Ferry) and Berkeley (Martinsburg) suburbanize and become more like Loudoun next door, will there be any kind of tension between them and the rest of WV? They have nothing in common with McDowell or Wheeling, they are part of the DC metro area.

[12th Doctor]

The release of a new census really isn't that big of a deal anymore.  There are tons of comanies that utilize sophisticated means to track population trends between censuses that give you a pretty good idea of population trends.

[12th Doctor]

Personally, with current data needs being what they are, in a world like ours where changes occur more quickly, I don't think it would be a bad idea to go to a 5 year census, or something along those lines.

[jimrtex]

I'd start with the US Code mandating election from districts.  It supersedes 2 USC §2a (c), which has a grandfather provision for States that have had no change in representation, permitting them to continue to use existing districts until redistricting was done.

How can anything other than a constitutional amendment (or a new or previously unrevealed Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution including its amendments) supersede the U.S. Constitution?  Perhaps you didn't mean what you wrote above exactly the way you wrote it.  Or perhaps 2 USC §2a (c) merely makes it clear that there is not a Constitutional requirement for states to redraw congressional districts when there is no change in representation, but doesn't make it unconstitutional for federal law (which trumps state constitutions and laws) to require such a redrawing of congressional districts.  That would make sense.

I'm saying that one section of US Code, 2 USC §2c,  takes precedence over another section of US Code, 2 USC §2a (c).

Both 2 USC §2c  and 2 USC §2a (c) require election from congressional districts.   But the two sections are in conflict.  Since 2 USC §2c was added after 2 USC §2a (c), it should be presumed to take precedence, and reflect the intent of Congress to establish a more restrictive process.   In addition, 2 USC §2c was added a few years after Wesberry v Sanders, which established, under Article I of the Constitution, that the population of congressional districts be as equal as practicable (Wesberry is not based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.).

Let's first look at what 2 USC §2a (c) says.  It says that a State should elect representatives from districts that are established after an apportionment.  But it provides a number of exceptions, including:

• If a State gains representatives, it shall continue to elect its representatives from the previously established districts, and elect the added representatives at large.  Note that this does not permit a State to switch to a combination of district and at large representatives, or to change the district boundaries while also electing other representatives are elected at large.  It is just a stop gap until the State redistricted.  However States sometimes went several elections or even censuses under this provision, or similar earlier versions.
• If a State loses representatives, it shall elect all of its representatives at large, until it manages to draw new districts.
• If a State loses representative, but there are the correct number of districts, then it shall elect the representatives from the old districts.  This might happen if a State gained a representative at one census, then never bothered to redistrict, but rather simply elected the additional representative at large, and then lost a representative in a subsequent census.
• If there is no change in representation, a State shall continue to elect its representatives from existing districts.

There is nothing optional about 2 USC §2a (c).  It is Congress directing the States in the manner of electing representatives after a new apportionment.  The only option that a State had was to not bother with updating its districts.

Georgia lost 2 representatives (from 12 to 10) following the 1930 census.  It drew 10 districts in 1931.  After the 1960 census, it still had 10 districts, and was still using the district boundaries drawn in 1931.   By that time, a district comprised of Fulton, DeKalb, and Rockdale counties had 3 times the population of the least populous district, and twice the population of the average district.  In Wesberry v Sanders, the Supreme Court ruled that the district boundaries violated the US Constitution, even though Georgia had fully complied with the manner regulations provided by Congress in  2 USC §2a (c), and similar earlier provisions in US law.

Georgia's districts were unconstitutional not because Georgia had not drawn new districts in 30 years, but rather because the districts were not as equal in population as practicable.  Georgia could have drawn new district boundaries in 1960, that were not equal enough.  Following the 1980 census, New Jersey drew new congressional district boundaries, that were thrown out by Supreme Court because they were not equal enough.

Wesberry was decided in 1964.  A few years later, Congress enacted 2 USC §2c.  It says that following an apportionment, that a State shall elect its representatives from districts established on the basis of the apportionment.  It does not say anything about equality, but that can be presumed, on the basis of Wesberry.  Since 2 USC §2c provides none of the exceptions of 2 USC §2a (c), it means the conflicting exceptions no longer exist.  The one exception in 2 USC §2c applied only to the 1968 election, and permitted Hawaii and New Mexico to elect their 2 representatives each at large for one final election.  New Mexico actually used districts in 1968, though not required to do so.  Hawaii elected its two representatives at large in 1968, and then used two districts in 1970.

Under 2 USC §2c the sequence of events is:

(1) Census.

(2) Apportionment.

(3) State creates new districts.  These must comply with equal population standards, the Voting Rights Act, etc.

(4) State elects number of representatives apportioned to it on the basis of the latest census.

If Maine elects 2 representatives in 2012, it will be because it was apportioned 2 representatives on the basis of the 2010 census - not because it was apportioned 2 representatives in 2000, or because it had district maps left over from the previous decade.  Congress has dictated the manner in which Maine will conduct its election of representatives in 2012.  They shall be elected from districts established subsequent to the apportionment following the census. 

If Maine uses the old district boundaries in 2012, it will be in violation of 2 USC §2c.  Congress carefully and deliberately rewrote the exception under 2 USC §2a (c), to eliminate the exception that Georgia had used to avoid redistricting from 1931 to 1965.  But it also meant that Maine can not use the same districts drawn for the 2004 election, for the 2012 election.

Under US code, Maine need not draw two equal population districts.  It must draw two districts subsequent to the census.  But any court will require the districts to be equal in population based on Wesberry and subsequent decisions.