Election Data Services Releases New Re-Apportionment Study

A company called Election Data Services has published a new study (PDF) of Congressional re-apportionment, based on newly-released Census data. EDS used three different models to project likely re-apportionment figures, which they explain as follows:

First, there is a “long-term” trend model that reflects the overall change that has occurred so far this decade; that is from 2000 to 2007, and projects it to 2010. Second, a “midterm” trend model uses the population change that has occurred from 2005 to 2007. Finally, a “short-term” trend model incorporates the change that has occurred in just the past year, from 2006 to 2007, and carries that rate of change forward to 2010.

The results:

State Long-Term Mid-Term Short-Term
Arizona 2 2 2
California 0 -1 0
Florida 2 2 1
Georgia 1 1 1
Illinois -1 -1 -1
Iowa -1 -1 -1
Louisiana -1 -1 -1
Massachusetts -1 -1 -1
Michigan -1 -1 -1
Minnesota 0 -1 -1
Missouri -1 -1 -1
Nevada 1 1 1
New Jersey -1 -1 -1
New York -2 -2 -2
North Carolina 0 1 1
Ohio -2 -2 -2
Oregon 1 1 1
Pennsylvania -1 -1 -1
South Carolina 0 1 1
Texas 4 4 4
Utah 1 1 1

When it comes to matters of re-apportionment and re-districting, I know that Swing State readers don’t need any commentary from me about what this all might mean. So have at it!

28 thoughts on “Election Data Services Releases New Re-Apportionment Study”

  1. Ed Rendell might let Republicans take back the state House in Pennsylvania in 2008.  This would be a huge mistake since this is a critical redistricting state in 2012.  If we can keep the House in the state, we are likely to get an incumbent protection plan which is good for us since we have more incumbents than Republicans in the state.  If Republicans take the House, they will try and draw the lines so we go from 11 seats down to only 5 or 6. 

  2. We've been growing pretty fast, and when I took a class on Congress last spring my professor speculated that we might get an extra two seats after the census. Any info on that?

  3. I know for a fact that the growth rate in NH is at least twice that of most other states, but it’s not even on here. Ever wonder where that -1 seat for MA is going? Also omitted, and I think surprisingly, is Washington state, which is growing at least as fast as Oregon thanks to the combination of the Sea-Tac/Olympia area on one side and Spokane on the other. Idaho is also growing extremely quickly, but possibly not enough for an extra seat by 2010, as its population wasn’t that large to begin with. I’d also think that with the majority of migration in this country being towards the Sun Belt that Tennessee and New Mexico would be listed.

    CT will probably also lose another seat at some point, but they just lost one c. 2000, so it probably won’t happen until c. 2020.

  4. Can anyone describe the actual formula(e) used for apportionment, in enough detail to allow the analysis in this PDF to be reproduced accurately?

    I'd like to have a live spreadsheet in front of me to play with the numbers, 'what ifs' based on different growth rates, etc.

  5. I performed a series of hand calculations using the 2006-2007 data projecting forward to 2010 and achieved the same results as the Election Data Services “short term” trend model, with one exception.  The projected 2010 Population of 309.8 million (Wash DC is subtracted) divided by 435 gives 0.712 million per Congressional Seat.  The range for each seat is + or – 0.356 million.  Therefore, the range for 2 congressional seats is from 1.068 to 1.78 million.   The 2007 estimate for Rhode Island population is 1.058 million.  Rhode Island was one of two states to lose population between 2006-2007.  If Rhode Island continues to lose population (to 1.046 million) it will not be able to reach the 1.068 million threshold for two Congressional seats.

    California – it will be a miracle if the Golden State if able to achieve zero change in Congressional seats by 2010.  Factors working against California are (1) the home mortgage crash, slow down in home sales and new home construction (2) a shaky economy teetering on a recession (3) the Census undercount error is more significant due to California’s larger population.  Consolation prize for team blue is if California loses a Congressional seat in 2010 – it will be a Republican seat.

    Florida – Surprise!  Down tick in population growth estimate to only 193,735 between 2006-2007 projects in “short term” trend to an increase of only one Congressional seat, instead of two.  I wonder if getting tough with the immigrants/migrant workers had something to do with this?   The home mortgage crash and associated home construction slow down is also impacting Florida.

    Rhode Island – it would be a disaster for team blue for Rhode Island to lose a seat, on top of the loss of a seat in neighboring Massachusetts.  I hope I am missing something in my calculation above.  Is Providence a sanctuary city?  Better yet, Rhode Island should be sanctuary state!

    South Carolina – a vigorous crack down on the immigrants/migrant workers could leave South Carolina short in the 2010 Census population to add a Congressional seat.   Could we see a shadowy group running adds berating the South Carolinians for doing a poor job on immigrants/migrant workers?  

    Texas – will Texas maintain its vigorous population growth of 0.5 million per year for the next three years?  A down tick to a growth rate of 0.4 to 0.45 million per year would likely leave Texas with an increase of only three Congressional seats.

    Washington – a relatively small up tick in population growth (10 thousand per year for three years) on top of the current projected growth would move Washington into a good position to gain a Congressional seat.   According to the LA Times, Washington (and Oregon) does not require drivers to prove legal status in order to obtain a license.   The 2008 population estimate will be very interesting for Washington.

  6. I had been clinging to hope against hope that we would only lose one seat instead of two in Ohio. And of course, this changes the stupid electoral college.

Comments are closed.