The Census Bureau recently released all of its data from the 2008 American Community Survey estimates, which is like Christmas Day in the Crisitunity household. I’ll be looking at the data divvied up by congressional district in several different ways in the coming week; today, I’m starting with the most basic element: population change. This doesn’t tell us much about how the composition of each district is changing, but it tells us a lot about what direction different districts are heading as we approach 2010 redistricting.
Let’s start with the 25 districts that have experience the greatest population change over the period from the 2000 census to the 2008 estimate, in terms of raw numbers. These are the districts that will be shedding population in 2010, in some cases into newly-created districts:
District | Rep. | 2000 | 2008 | Change |
---|---|---|---|---|
AZ-02 | Franks (R) | 641,435 | 991,439 | 350,004 |
AZ-06 | Flake (R) | 641,360 | 957,920 | 316,560 |
TX-10 | McCaul (R) | 651,523 | 955,363 | 303,840 |
NV-03 | Titus (D) | 665,345 | 966,577 | 301,232 |
FL-05 | Brown-Waite (R) | 639,719 | 920,242 | 280,523 |
GA-07 | Linder (R) | 630,511 | 901,363 | 270,852 |
UT-03 | Chaffetz (R) | 744,545 | 974,639 | 230,094 |
NC-09 | Myrick (R) | 619,705 | 847,888 | 228,183 |
TX-26 | Burgess (R) | 651,858 | 875,556 | 223,698 |
TX-22 | Olson (R) | 651,657 | 873,878 | 222,221 |
CA-45 | Bono Mack (R) | 638,553 | 860,052 | 221,499 |
GA-06 | T. Price (R) | 630,613 | 834,530 | 203,917 |
AZ-07 | Grijalva (D) | 640,996 | 840,106 | 199,110 |
TX-03 | S. Johnson (R) | 651,782 | 845,481 | 193,699 |
CA-44 | Calvert (R) | 639,008 | 831,454 | 192,446 |
FL-14 | Mack (R) | 639,298 | 830,717 | 191,419 |
TX-31 | Carter (R) | 651,868 | 841,984 | 190,116 |
CA-25 | McKeon (R) | 638,768 | 819,973 | 181,205 |
CO-06 | Coffman (R) | 614,491 | 794,480 | 179,989 |
TX-21 | L. Smith (R) | 651,930 | 828,925 | 176,995 |
NC-04 | D. Price (D) | 619,432 | 794,794 | 175,362 |
FL-25 | M. Diaz-Balart (R) | 638,315 | 812,082 | 173,767 |
GA-09 | Deal (R) | 629,678 | 803,245 | 173,567 |
IL-14 | Foster (D) | 654,031 | 823,661 | 169,630 |
FL-06 | Stearns (R) | 638,952 | 807,026 | 168,074 |
You may recall that we looked at this same project a year ago, using 2007 data. Compared with last year’s list of the top 20 gainers, there’s a lot of stability. AZ-02 moves up from #3 to the top spot, with AZ-06 falling to second place. Entrants to the list are TX-31, CA-25, TX-21, NC-04, and FL-06, while GA-03, ID-01, FL-08, VA-10, and WA-08 fall off.
Much more over the flip…
And here are the districts that have lost the most population in the period from 2000 to 2008. These ones will need to absorb the most surrounding territory (or simply be eliminated and dispersed into their neighboring districts):
District | Rep. | 2000 | 2008 | Change |
---|---|---|---|---|
LA-02 | Cao (R) | 639,048 | 469,262 | – 169,786 |
MI-13 | Kilpatrick (D) | 662,844 | 558,280 | – 104,564 |
OH-11 | Fudge (D) | 630,668 | 548,080 | -82,588 |
PA-14 | Doyle (D) | 645,809 | 574,861 | – 70,948 |
MI-14 | Conyers (D) | 662,468 | 591,652 | – 70,816 |
PA-02 | Fattah (D) | 647,350 | 586,216 | – 61,134 |
NY-28 | Slaughter (D) | 654,464 | 598,124 | – 56,340 |
TN-09 | Cohen (D) | 631,740 | 586,190 | – 45,550 |
AL-07 | A. Davis (D) | 635,631 | 591,670 | – 43,961 |
MI-12 | Levin (D) | 662,559 | 621,619 | – 40,940 |
MS-02 | B. Thompson (D) | 710,996 | 670,638 | – 40,358 |
PA-01 | Brady (D) | 645,422 | 606,632 | – 38,790 |
OH-10 | Kucinich (D) | 631,003 | 593,065 | – 37,938 |
IL-04 | Gutierrez (D) | 653,654 | 618,313 | – 35,341 |
IL-01 | Rush (D) | 654,203 | 620,843 | – 33,360 |
PA-12 | Murtha (D) | 646,419 | 617,797 | – 28,622 |
NY-27 | Higgins (D) | 654,200 | 627,105 | – 27,095 |
MO-01 | Clay (D) | 621,497 | 594,535 | – 26,962 |
MI-05 | Kildee (D) | 662,584 | 636,803 | – 25,781 |
OH-17 | Ryan (D) | 630,316 | 604,607 | – 25,709 |
IN-07 | Carson (D) | 675,804 | 650,746 | – 25,058 |
IL-07 | D. Davis (D) | 653,521 | 629,923 | – 23,598 |
MN-05 | Ellison (D) | 614,874 | 591,467 | – 23,407 |
IL-02 | J. Jackson (D) | 654,078 | 630,933 | – 23,145 |
IL-17 | Hare (D) | 653,531 | 630,745 | – 22,786 |
No surprise here in terms of change: the Katrina-ravaged LA-02 is still the biggest loser of population (although it’s currently a very fast growing district, as it gradually repopulates). Detroit and Cleveland, though, are depopulating as a result of their own disasters (economic in this case), and MI-13 and OH-11 both nose ahead of the former #2, Pittsburgh’s PA-14. Near the bottom of the list, the dwindling IL-01, PA-12, MI-05, IN-07, and IL-02 move on, while CA-09, KS-01, PA-05, CA-53, and MA-08 arrest their decline a bit and move off the list.
My observations remain much the same as last year: the David Brookses of the world would look at the sheer number of exurban red districts in the fast-growing column and the number of urban blue districts in the shrinking column, and point to hundreds of years of Republican dominance as urbanites are pulling away from the teat of the welfare state and moving out to the exurbs to make a fresh start as Patio Man and Realtor Mom.
Not exactly: as the suburbs start to spread outward into these districts, bringing their annoying diversity, density, and workaday problems with them, these red districts are, for the most part, becoming Democratic. Just for a few examples, consider CA-25, which went from 59-40 for Bush to 49-48 for Obama, or NC-09, which went from 63-36 for Bush to 55-45 for McCain. In addition — as we’ll see in the next installment, where we’ll focus on changes in race — immigrants are often making the suburbs their first destination, quickly changing the complexion of the outer rings around many cities.
Some of you may be wondering, “Well, wouldn’t change by percentage instead of by raw numbers be more interesting?” In this case, it barely makes a difference in terms of ranking, because we’re starting from essentially the same baseline everywhere in 2000 (generally around 660,000). The most noteworthy exception is UT-03, which is lower down the list of gainers (13th) when ordered by percentage because Utah districts started out large.
Another way of looking at this question that isn’t quite so interesting is: what are the most (and least populous) districts? Most of the lists are completely the same, but there are some oddball picks in there, districts that simply started out very big (MT-AL) or very small (WY-AL). The top 10 most populous, by 2008 numbers, are: AZ-02, UT-03, MT-AL, NV-03, AZ-06, TX-10, FL-05, GA-07, UT-01, and UT-02. The 10 least populous are: LA-02, RI-01, RI-02, WY-AL, OH-11, NE-03, MI-13, IA-05, PA-14, and WV-03. (These suggest that, come 2020, we may be looking at Rhode Island dropping to a single district and Nebraska and West Virginia dropping to two each.)
Finally, here’s one other way of slicing and dicing the numbers that’s worth a look: the population change between 2007 and 2008. I was expecting to see a lot of people fleeing the worst epicenters of economic collapse (the manufacturing problems of Detroit and Cleveland, the housing bubble-related problems of Phoenix, southern Florida, and California’s Central Valley), but I simply don’t see much of a pattern. More likely what happened is that the economic crisis really put a damper on overall mobility in the last year, as many demographers have suggested… and what we’re seeing is a lot of float within the margin of error (as, remember, the ACS is an estimate, and there’s a plus-or-minus of more than 10,000 on their population estimates).
Here are the biggest gainers over one year. As I hinted at, the fastest growing district is LA-02, although it’s still way off from its peak:
District | Rep. | 2007 | 2008 | Change |
---|---|---|---|---|
LA-02 | Cao (R) | 395,592 | 469,262 | 73,670 |
UT-03 | Chaffetz (R) | 907,472 | 974,639 | 67,167 |
TX-10 | McCaul (R) | 898,647 | 955,363 | 56,716 |
AZ-02 | Franks (R) | 939,215 | 991,439 | 52,224 |
NY-01 | T. Bishop (D) | 667,336 | 713,084 | 45,748 |
CA-08 | Pelosi (D) | 621,146 | 664,963 | 43,817 |
TX-12 | Granger (R) | 770,083 | 813,561 | 43,478 |
CA-47 | Lo. Sanchez (D) | 617,224 | 657,705 | 40,481 |
CA-50 | Bilbray (R) | 708,288 | 747,880 | 39,592 |
CA-25 | McKeon (R) | 782,014 | 819,973 | 37,959 |
And here are the biggest losers. There are a lot of southern California districts here, but they tend to be either Hispanic-majority districts or comfortable, established areas (CA-46), rather than the stereotypical instant exurbs of CA-44 and CA-45 where option ARMs got a new generation of homeowners into the balsa-wood-and-drywall duplexes of their dreams. Also, interestingly, rather than the canyons of empty condo towers along Florida’s Gold Coast, instead the leader is FL-21, a neighborhood of established middle-class Cubano suburbs west of Miami.
District | Rep. | 2007 | 2008 | Change |
---|---|---|---|---|
FL-21 | L. Diaz-Balart (R) | 707,168 | 670,760 | – 36,408 |
CA-39 | Li. Sanchez (D) | 669,981 | 635,955 | – 34,026 |
TX-07 | Culberson (R) | 782,163 | 751,034 | – 31,129 |
MA-09 | Lynch (D) | 668,799 | 639,053 | – 29,746 |
CA-18 | Cardoza (D) | 714,167 | 686,109 | – 28,058 |
FL-03 | C. Brown (D) | 668,709 | 642,194 | – 26,515 |
CA-13 | Stark (D) | 672,300 | 647,397 | – 24,903 |
CA-38 | Napolitano (D) | 653,733 | 629,942 | – 23,791 |
CA-46 | Rohrabacher (R) | 655,857 | 632,809 | – 23,048 |
NJ-06 | Pallone (D) | 673,587 | 650,895 | – 22,692 |
I wonder if the huge disparity in district sizes would argue for redistricting that is more frequent than every decade. Conceivably there might even be a one person, one vote argument to be made. As for reapportionment, though, the Constitution is pretty clear that that only happens every ten years.
Love the BoBo Brooks line, btw.
Is my congressional district and I’m not surprised that it gained so many people. The suburbs in Wake County, espescially Cary, continue to explode in population, mostly from the thousands of transplants that arrive each week in the Triangle. The suburbs in Wake County are kind of a mixed bag in terms of Democratic/Republican performance. For instance we have two suburban Cary-area school board seats up tomorrow and they are looking very competitive. But Obama did much better in the suburbs than previous candidates, and Raleigh as a whole is very progressive. I’m still not sure if we’ll get a 14th district though, and if we did, I think it would be a heavily-GOP district designed to help shore up McIntyre, Kissell, and Etheridge. I don’t think they would dismantle Mel Watt’s district to create a Democratic Triad district as some on here have suggested. What do you guys think?
“Americans don’t want Dimmitcrats as their congressmen or (even worse), minorities are slowly (yeah…you gotta give them time) realizing that living under Demon-crat socialism welfare-ism (any other -isms out there?) ain’t that sweet a liberal gravy train, is it?”
Grandmaster Beck was right “We surround them now!”
I served as a field coordinator with the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund in CA-11 during the 2006 midterm election. CA-11 straddles the eastern edge of the Bay Area and much of San Joaquin County, which is mostly farmland. People wrote off McNerney as unable to make a dent in San Joaquin County because it was “too conservative.”
What really happened was people moving out of the cities and setting up shop in Tracy (Pombo’s hometown and base) and the surrounding areas.
Pombo ended up barely winning San Joaquin County and when word of that news got to us, we knew it was over, because we ran up the score in Alameda County (McNerney’s base county) and further south in Santa Clara County and took the moderate Contra Costa County, which include upper-middle class and higher tax brackets.
This change in population isn’t a “white flight” of years prior. It is liberal expansion into the exurbs.
Merry Christmas to the Crisitunity household…tell us more of you’re holiday calendar lol.
Looking at the list of districts that have lost the most population from 2000 to 2008, it is striking that 14 of the top 25 are minority-majority districts (and an additional 2 are white majority districts represented by African-American Congressmen — IN-7 and MN-5). And of the 10 districts that lost the most population from 2007 to 2008, an additional 5 are minority-majority districts.
This means that one of the challenges of re-districting will be the need to draw lines preserving these VRA districts. While it is certainly possible to do creative re-districting in places where Democrats control the process and add chunks of Republican territory to these districts, in most cases it will require the absorption of surrounding territory including suburbs that have become increasingly diverse in order to preserve the minority-majority status of the district. In places where Republicans control redistricting, this will offer them the opportunity to further cram minority/Democratic votes into overwhelmingly Democratic seats, allowing greater efficiency of Republican voters in remaining seats.
Especially in states that may lose seats (IL, LA, MI, OH, PA) this could present difficulties in drawing lines that preserve other white-majority Democratic seats – perhaps removing chunks of African-American or Latino voters from these districts, perhaps forcing some of those districts out into less diverse ex-urban areas. While these areas are trending Democratic, they will still make many of these seats much more marginal.
It will be interesting to see if these possible losses will be offset by possible addition of minority-majority seats, especially Latino seats in places like AZ, TX and central FL. (CA may lose seats overall, but internal population shifts probably will slightly increase the number of Latino majority seats there.)
This points out the utter importance of the gubernatorial and state legislative elections in 2010 – especially since whether we hold the governor’s office in places like OH, MI and PA will help determine the make-up of Congress for the coming decade.
I would think people would have been leaving my distrixt due to the fact that home foreclosures are so high in the Riverside portion.
What does this mean in terms of redistricting for ca-44?
I still would like to see the size of the House increased. You would think some of these states that continually see population losses or smaller ones that feel under-represented would bandy together to get more seats or keep the ones they have.
New England, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, The Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Hawaii.
I know, I know, but it’s the Senate that over represents the smaller states. I say increase both houses. I like the idea from over at FiveThirtyEight: