Census Estimates for 2007 -> 2010 Apportionment

[muon2]

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2007. As in past years I have used that data to project the April 1, 2010 apportionment populations. This requires finding the population growth in the resident population for each state, then applying that to the apportionment population.

One special circumstance is to account for the effect of hurricane Katrina. LA saw an estimated drop of 250 K in the 10 months following the hurricane. If I used the normal methodology, that would project a continued decline through 2010. Instead, for LA I took the percentage growth through July 1, 2005, then applied that to the new estimate for July 1, 2007. This gives some projected growth over the next 2 3/4 years.

Based on this projection, the following adjustments would be required to reapportion the seats in 2010:

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of two seats from CA and NJ to MN and OR. The last states awarded seats were AZ 10 (431), PA 18 (432), TX 36 (433), MN 8 (434) and OR 6 (435). These seats are on the bubble and most at risk to fluctuations in growth in the next two years. TX 36 is particularly at risk since part of the population growth is due to Katrina relocation.

The next five seats would go to WA 10 (436), NY 28 (437), MO 9 (438), SC 7 (439), and IL 19 (440). Seat 436 is important if Congress passes the DC representation act since that seat could be real in 2010. Last year I noted the appearance of WA and OR on the bubble list,  suggesting that the Census Bureau is seeing a new growth spurt in those states. Note that OR did indeed move up to 435.

[muon2]

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.

Yes, but GA's growth rate is higher on average over the decade. They are estimated to have about 500 K more this year than NC, and that shouldn't change substantially in a little over two years when the census is taken. That is enough to get a seat for GA, but not for NC.

[muon2]

interesting to see SC on the bubble list.  I don't recall them being so close last year.  Could they be the surprise gainer of 2010?

I was surprised to see this as well. In 2005 they were estimated to be growing at a pace of 1.1% per year, just above the national average. Now the estimate has them growing at 1.3% over the decade, which is a substantial increase in the last two years. If the increase in rate holds up SC could get back the seat they lost in 1930.

[muon2]

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.

Yes, but GA's growth rate is higher on average over the decade. They are estimated to have about 500 K more this year than NC, and that shouldn't change substantially in a little over two years when the census is taken. That is enough to get a seat for GA, but not for NC.

You may be right, but it will be fun to see how thing turn out over the next two years. I'm not to sure about GA, but I know the NC poulation is growing due to the movement of people form NY,NJ and MI. We need to keep an eye on this small fight for this seat.

It will be a close count. Even though NC is not in the next five on my list, it would only need another 60 K beyond my projection to get a seat.

[muon2]

This is what I think will happen

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1
WA -1

I believe that NC will take a seat away from WA giving WA 10 and NC 16.

WA will definitely not be one to lose. They are on the bubble to go to 12 EV. More likely OR will stay even, MN will lose, or TX will only get 3.

[muon2]

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.

Yes, but GA's growth rate is higher on average over the decade. They are estimated to have about 500 K more this year than NC, and that shouldn't change substantially in a little over two years when the census is taken. That is enough to get a seat for GA, but not for NC.

You may be right, but it will be fun to see how thing turn out over the next two years. I'm not to sure about GA, but I know the NC poulation is growing due to the movement of people form NY,NJ and MI. We need to keep an eye on this small fight for this seat.

It will be a close count. Even though NC is not in the next five on my list, it would only need another 60 K beyond my projection to get a seat.

At what list spot are GA-16 and NC-16?

GA CD 14 is at 410, NC CD 14 is at 442. They aren't that close together.

[muon2]

It'll be interesting to see if WA gets another congressional district... Odd to think that WA and Arizona have roughly comparable populations now.

The current estimate is that WA has about 130 K more people than AZ. However, at current growth rates, I project that AZ will leap ahead and be 160 K larger in 2010.

[muon2]

How do you give out EV to the states? Is there a program online I could use?

I use the same method to apportion congressional seats as does the Census Bureau. I've written the formulas into a spreadsheet so that I can enter new values and determine winners and losers. I don't know if there is an online version of a program, but the Census does have a description.

[muon2]

How do you give out EV to the states? Is there a program online I could use?

I use the same method to apportion congressional seats as does the Census Bureau. I've written the formulas into a spreadsheet so that I can enter new values and determine winners and losers. I don't know if there is an online version of a program, but the Census does have a description.

Could you tell me the formulas you enter into your Spreadsheet? I am trying to make one for myself.

The simplest spreadsheet includes a row for each state and a total at top or bottom. Then create columns for the state name (A), population (B), number of representatives (C), and the priority value D = B/sqrt(C*(C+1)). In the total row you have sums for the representatives (C) and the max of the priority values (D). Start by filling all the representatives to 1, then add one in turn to each state marked as the maximum priority value. Stop when the total number reaches 435 representatives.

[muon2]

Just about any way you crack it up, this should mean one more republican Congressman for Oregon.  Though looking at the present state of politics in Oregon combined with an utterly incompetent country club state GOP, odds are they could lose the new "sure thing" congressional district as well.

A tenth WA district would probably be Republican, too. It would ruin the perfect East-West balance in districts we've had for a while, meaning the tenth district would have to have large portions of both Western and Eastern Washington. The most logical place for a district to crossover would be in the southernmost part of the state, containing parts of suburban Portland (Vancouver area) and into South Central Washington to the Yakima area. I would expect the GOP to have the advantage here, but, as you point out, the GOP in the NW is in a pretty sorry state as of late, so who knows (WA-3 is a lean R district that voted for Bush in SW Washington that is held by a Democrat who has been easily winning re-election). I doubt the GOP will be able to keep WA-8 too much longer, especially if a tenth district is added (changing the rest of the districts significantly). With 10 districts in Washington, 7 held by Democrats and 3 by Republicans seems the most likely.

If there is a 10th district then I would predict 2.2 seats east of the Cascades, whereas with nine seats it should be an almost perfect 7-2 split. I have a question to the WA experts: if 2/10 of a seat come from the east to attach to the west will it be 1) attach Okanagan, Chelas, and Kittigas to NW WA; 2) attach Richland, Kennewick or part of Yakima to suburban Portland; or 3) attach Okanagan and Chelas to NW WA, and only attach Klickitat to Clark Co.

[muon2]

Just about any way you crack it up, this should mean one more republican Congressman for Oregon.  Though looking at the present state of politics in Oregon combined with an utterly incompetent country club state GOP, odds are they could lose the new "sure thing" congressional district as well.

A tenth WA district would probably be Republican, too. It would ruin the perfect East-West balance in districts we've had for a while, meaning the tenth district would have to have large portions of both Western and Eastern Washington. The most logical place for a district to crossover would be in the southernmost part of the state, containing parts of suburban Portland (Vancouver area) and into South Central Washington to the Yakima area. I would expect the GOP to have the advantage here, but, as you point out, the GOP in the NW is in a pretty sorry state as of late, so who knows (WA-3 is a lean R district that voted for Bush in SW Washington that is held by a Democrat who has been easily winning re-election). I doubt the GOP will be able to keep WA-8 too much longer, especially if a tenth district is added (changing the rest of the districts significantly). With 10 districts in Washington, 7 held by Democrats and 3 by Republicans seems the most likely.

Based on county projections from July 2006 estimates, here's how a 10th district might be placed in WA. District 1 moves up into Snohomish county and takes up most of the county. District 2 stays west of the cascades, but now links Bellingham to Bremerton across the islands. District 3 has to move west along the Columbia and would stretch from Vancouver up to Kennewick. District 4 links Yakima and Walla Walla, which district 5 gives up to keep to the new smaller sized districts. District 6 remains in Tacoma but only extends to the near suburbs like Lakewood and Puyallup. District 7 and 8 are much the same being Seattle and Bellevue/eastern King/eastern Pierce respectively. District 9 could be entirely in King stretching from Renton to Federal Way. And then the new district 10 is formed from Olympia and the Olympic peninsula all the way down the Pacific coast.

I'll leave it to locals to determine the likely partisan makeup of those districts.

[muon2]

I'd be able to tell you more if I could see a mapped version of muon2's districts, because I'm not sure I totally understand from the text descriptions.

Here's a version of the map with 9 and with 10 districts based on county projections for 2010. I've used my usual rules to minimize county splits.

[muon2]

Thanks for making maps. I'm a visual person.

I see a few problems:
First Map (9 districts)
-The yellow district isn't really connected. The biggest issue is Clallam and Kitsap. This also makes the dark green district disconnected as well because SW King County and Jefferson County do not go together (culturally).
-Other than that there are only a few minor changes you could make, but it looks like you tried really hard. The biggest problem is that some counties just have to be split up, and placed with similar counties otherwise there are geographical dissimilarities.

The yellow (Bellingham) district really is connected according to sources like Mapquest or Rand McNally. San Juan county borders Clallam and Island county borders Kitsap. The dark green (Olympia) district is physically connected through the part of Pierce on the Peninsula and Vashon Island. Cultural connection was not a factor for me, except that I disallowed maps that spanned the Cascades except along the Columbia River. Placing Jefferson with either Bellingham or Vancouver would require an additional county to be split.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With 10 districts there is either an eastern county like Okanogan or Chelan attached to a western district, or one uses the Cascade barrier rule that I used. That forces the Vancouver district east and it either takes in part of Yakima or it takes in Kennewick without Pasco. The Yakima and Columbia rivers seemed like a natural line compared to any split I could make in Yakima county to move 106 K people out of that district.

Glad you enjoy the maps.

[muon2]

Thanks for making maps. I'm a visual person.

I see a few problems:
First Map (9 districts)
-The yellow district isn't really connected. The biggest issue is Clallam and Kitsap. This also makes the dark green district disconnected as well because SW King County and Jefferson County do not go together (culturally).
-Other than that there are only a few minor changes you could make, but it looks like you tried really hard. The biggest problem is that some counties just have to be split up, and placed with similar counties otherwise there are geographical dissimilarities.

The yellow (Bellingham) district really is connected according to sources like Mapquest or Rand McNally. San Juan county borders Clallam and Island county borders Kitsap. The dark green (Olympia) district is physically connected through the part of Pierce on the Peninsula and Vashon Island. Cultural connection was not a factor for me, except that I disallowed maps that spanned the Cascades except along the Columbia River. Placing Jefferson with either Bellingham or Vancouver would require an additional county to be split.

I would side with Ottermax on this.  Across a body of water, I would require either a bridge or ferry link to establish contiguity.  If there were no such links, I would permit nearest point contiguity if necessary to establish contiguity (eg to connect all parts of county, or to connect counties that would otherwise be disconnected.

So, I would reject the Clallam-San Juan and Island-Kitsap links, since the two island counties have connections to the east.  I would also require you to change the Vashon Island link using the ferry from the south end of the island into Tacoma and then across the Narrows Bridge.

If someone were to produce a map with districts crossing the northern Cascades that split fewer counties, I might be inclined to accept that.

I'm not convinced that ferries and bridges are the only cross-water connections to allow. Distance should be given some consideration, as the ferry connection from Edmonds/Snohomish to Kingston/Kitsap is greater than the distance from Kitsap to Island at Hansville. Also I would think that an arbitrary cross-water connection where the counties officially connect is no worse than a cross-mountain connection with no pass or adjacent counties in the plains that share a short but finite border with no road.

[muon2]

I'm not convinced that ferries and bridges are the only cross-water connections to allow. Distance should be given some consideration, as the ferry connection from Edmonds/Snohomish to Kingston/Kitsap is greater than the distance from Kitsap to Island at Hansville. Also I would think that an arbitrary cross-water connection where the counties officially connect is no worse than a cross-mountain connection with no pass or adjacent counties in the plains that share a short but finite border with no road.

The Edmonds-Kingston connection is longer only because Kingston has a harbor indentation and Edmonds is slightly to the north of the headland.  There is no connection at Hansville which is completely off the highway system.  The San Juan-Clallam boundary might only exist because of Canada, which makes the Straits of Juan de Fuca an inland waterway.  If Vancouver Island did not exist, the Clallam border would at most only extend 3 miles north, and there wouldn't be the SW corner of San Juan County.

To take another example, I would permit a Richmond-New York link in New York State based on the Staten Island Ferry, while disallowing a Bronx-Nassau link based on the marine boundary.

I would also apply a rule regarding corner connections or near-corner connections: something like the boundary must be 5% of the total boundary of one of the counties, where the boundaries might be idealized:

For the total boundary, use the circumference of a circle with area equal to area of the county, (ie C = 2 sqrt (pi * area) ).  This avoids a penalty for irregularly shaped counties.  And for the shared-boundary, I would apply some sort of algorithm that would reduce kinky borders such as one that follows a meandering stream.

Requiring a highway link might be difficult to apply.  Should Washington 20 be disqualified as link between Whatcom or Skagit and Okanogan counties, but allowed as a link between the two together and Okanagan? 

In other cases, a highway might clip the corner of a 3rd county, but people would be travelling between the two counties.  For example, Colorado 82 NW from Aspen clips the corner of SW Eagle County, but it is a long ways from the Eagle and Vail areas, which would be reached by first going to Glenwood Springs in Garfield County.  The other roads out of Pitkin County are closed in winter.

The county commissioner in southern Hinsdale County, Colorado must travel through 6 other counties (5 county seats) during winter to get to the county seat of Lake City (around 250 miles).  In summer, the trip is reduced to 3 other counties.

I like the idea of requiring a highway link, but I don't know how to practically state a rule.

I understand what you are saying, but I see no political difference between boundaries drawn on water and those drawn on land. If there is no practical highway rule, why should there be a ferry rule?

Also, if there is a ferry rule, one has consider at what width does the rule apply. There are any number of lakes rivers and streams that divide counties. Would the rule prohibit a cross-river link if there is no bridge along that stretch? I think that it becomes very hard to define a clear test that isn't arbitrary.

[muon2]

I understand what you are saying, but I see no political difference between boundaries drawn on water and those drawn on land. If there is no practical highway rule, why should there be a ferry rule?

Also, if there is a ferry rule, one has consider at what width does the rule apply. There are any number of lakes rivers and streams that divide counties. Would the rule prohibit a cross-river link if there is no bridge along that stretch? I think that it becomes very hard to define a clear test that isn't arbitrary.

Maritime boundaries are sometimes fairly arbitrary, and provide no economic, transportation, or other demographic linkage.  For example, Queens and Richmond counties in New York share a border, as do Bronx and Nassau counties.  Even given the bizarre shape of some New York City CDs, no one* has considered linking these areas.  But it is quite possible that an automated process might connect those counties if it might reduce the number of cross-border districts, especially given the otherwise low connectivity of those counties.

*Though New York once had a CD that combined Rockland and Richmond counties.

Use of sea areas also increases the possibility of mischievous districts that link to land areas by a shared (unpopulated) water area.  This is already done in New York City.  In 2002, the Democrats in Texas proposed linking a part of eastern Nueces County via Corpus Christi Bay with a rural strip in western Nueces County and several smaller counties in South Texas.  Nueces County has a population equivalent to about 2.2 House seats, and under the Texas and US Constitutions must have 2 whole districts within the county, with the remnant shared with adjoining counties.  So two districts were drawn in Corpus Christi and some smaller towns in the southern and western parts of the county, and the eastern part of the city, where the incumbent lived was linked around the north side of the city via water.   During the floor debate the Representative for the area ended his speech by inflating a rubber raft.

A county must be self-contiguous, by land, if possible.  If that is not possible, the link may be bridge or ferry.  Only if that fails is a third test used, which is nearest crossing.  In the Seattle area, it is reasonable to draw district boundaries across Lake Washington using the 2 bridges.  It would be wrong, IMO, to connect Kenmore and Renton via the lake.  It would also be wrong to connect areas in south and north Seattle via the lake or via Puget Sound, even if those waters within the city limits.

If you wanted a less arbitrary rule, you could consider local opinion, perhaps as expressed by local governing bodies.  Such expression should be made before the redistricting commences.  For example, if the Clallam and San Juan county commissioners agree that the two counties are neighbors for districting purposes, they are neighbors.  If the Whatcom and Okanogan commissioners say that they are not neighbors, they are not.  There would have to be a reasonableness test applied, so that even if King and Pierce counties said they weren't neighbors it would be rejected.

I like your idea for a means for a redistricting commission to accept agreement for non-adjacency. I also would suggest that the default starting point is to use adjacency as set by the map, be it land or water. However, in my interpretation, I wouldn't arbitrarily link Richland and Rockland counties, since it would technically pass through Kings, New York, Bronx, and Westchester counties in the Hudson. That's a lot of split counties!