Fastest and Slowest-Growing House Districts

49 thoughts on “Fastest and Slowest-Growing House Districts”

1. That district could be made ultra-safe for him by shedding off some heavily Republican SanJoaquin precincts to George Randovich(CA-19) and possibly extending the district towards Oakland pick up some heavily Hispanic and African American precincts.  This would likely move his seat from being 54%-45% Bush to 52%-47% Kerry. 

2. is that there is an independent redistricting commission, and they like to make the districts as balanced as possible.  Even though much of the growth is in the West Valley (AZ-02) & southeastern Maricopa County (AZ-06), we will probably get at least one more purple district out of the two Arizona is (usually) projected to be receiving in ’12.

3. Does anyone know what the predicted changes to the electoral college map will happen after 2010?  I know blue states are projected to lose some votes :-\

4. I think that is a bit of a glaring absense

5. This chart really doesn’t say all that much, without knowing exactly who is moving where. I live in Los Angeles, and I can tell you that we are while we are still growing in population, our white population is moving, many out of state. It is just constantly being replaced with increasing numbers of immigrants. These are the people that are fueling the growth of the populations of many of these districts.

   If you’ll notice that while Speaker Nancy’s district has suffered a population loss, nearby CA-11 has a huge increase. What you may be seeing is an exodus of people from the larger metropolitan areas into some of the outlying communities.

   It is my belief that this type of migration is only going to strengthen democrats across the nation. As some of these conservative areas grow larger and larger, the same thing that happened in large cities decades ago, will begin to transform these new metropolis. Bigger cites almost always tend to be more liberal than the country side that surrounds them. Its is the exodus from California that is fueling the liberalization of Colorado, Nevada and to a lesser extent, Arizona. Just as people leaving Massachusetts is changing New Hampshire, and new residents are quickly changing the demographics of Virginia and North Carolina. This will only benefit us in the long run.

6. ….but not at all surprising to anybody who tracks population growth.  I do, however, strongly challenge the notion that Keith Ellison’s MN-05 lost 4% of its population between 2000-2005.  At worst, the population of that Minneapolis-based district is stagnant, particularly with the huge rate of immigration.  I would suggest we not take these 2005 “estimates” that seriously because the mid-decade figures all-too-frequently turn out to be inaccurate when the next census figures come out.  Still, the urban enclaves of Detroit and Cleveland most likely are hemorrhaging just as bad as the figures suggest.

   As for the growth districts, the younger and perhaps less ideologically rigid demographic of voters that tend to move to these “exurban” enclaves are said to be trending slightly less Republican.  But how much of that is simply the product of Bush fatigue and Iraq fatigue?  If the Dems win back power and produce a favorable alternative outcome in Iraq, we may continue to see these voters trend our direction in the decade to come.  But if said scenario does not come to fruition, above-average income exurban voters are certain to snuggle back in with the party most likely to pander to their low-tax, high-consumption lifestyle.

   1. Here’s a district designed to be deep red. But the pop has already increased 20%. All the careful computerized tweaking down the drain. Especially since it looks like the growth has come from the Bay Area demographic pushing east into the district. With the housing bubble burst, that change could slow, but it won’t stop. I think we’ll hld it without a redraw of the map. Now if we can get McNerney to vote against Bush just a few crucial times more . . .

      1. We don’t change, we just become “more so.”

         As Oregon grows, it doesn’t change. The liberal metro area becomes more so, and the small towns more so. Very funny.

      2. The numbers are from a subscription-only House Race Hotline article.  They got the info from the 2008 edition of the Almanac of American Politics.

         1. That is likely to happen if Democrats get the state House.  Republicans will likely let the Dems protect Lampson if they can get some of the new districts or have the ones they hold protected.

7. that aren’t posted here?

   Also, to add to some of the comments above, southern Oregon is trending more conservative because of conservative Californians moving there, especially retirees, whereas northern Oregon (i.e. Portland metro area and elsewhere in the Willamette Valley) is the opposite– liberal Californians are flocking there.  California’s 35 million is about 55-45 Democrat-Republican, so there are plenty of each to swing neighboring states with a much smaller population, depending on who moves where.

   1. I don’t think anyone has got a grip on the N’awlins exodus yet. But start with one figure, pre-Katrina the city pop was about 450,000 and the last time I saw a Census estimate in the NY Times it said 250,00 there now. So 200,000 gone?

      Wanna guess how many voters were lost? Families with children had the most reason to leave and stay gone: the public schools didn’t open at all for months, still aren’t all open, never were very good. A family that landed in another place could well find their kids in better schools than ever before, and some parents found better jobs. They may be homesick and heartsick for the rest of their lives, but they probably aren’t going back.

      But let’s say 200,000 gone and 150,000 are kids, leaves 50,000 voting age, half of them voters. We could be down by all of 25,000 voters in N’awlins.

      But where are they now? Houston, Atlanta, Jackson. But isn’t Baton Rouge now the largest city in LA? Didn’t Shreveport and Monroe and Lafayette and Alexandria gain pop? Even little ole Jena got Karina refugees. That was part of “the problem” there, wasn’t it, that uppity blacks from the city didn’t know their place in backwoods Jena?

      So how many Democratic voters are gone from LA? I’ll make a wild guess, down by 15,000. Anybody else wanna try?

8. Judging from the fastest growing districts, it appears as if the country is getting more Republican.

   However, as several have pointed out, the key is who is moving into these districts.  If Democratic voters are moving from the cities into the suburbs, the suburbs will no longer be GOP strongholds.

   Looking at population changes by ethnicity in the US as a whole, the growth is almost entirely among non-whites.  In 48 of the 50 states, the white population growth rate lags the overall state growth rate; Hawaii and Louisiana are the only exceptions.

   http://www.usatoday….

   Here is the growth rate in the US (from 2000 to 2006) by ethnicity:
   White: +1.6%
   African-American: +6.9%
   Latino: +25.5%
   Asian: +24.4%

   And, here is the 2004 vote by ethnicity:
   White: 58 Bush, 41 Kerry
   African-American: 11 Bush, 88 Kerry
   Latino: 44 Bush, 53 Kerry
   Asian: 44 Bush, 56 Kerry

   http://www.cnn.com/E…

   So, virtually all of the growth since 2000 has come from demographic groups that favor Democrats.

9. First of all, and this is obvious (and pointed out by at least one other person on this thread), most of the districts that are shrinking are the metro areas of major cities, mostly northeastern and midwest, where crime, cost of living, and/or quality of life (and sometimes also weather) is at issue. Most of these inner city areas have seen the white population move to the suburbs, making the suburbs more conservative and leaving the city itself for the reliably Democratic minorities. Basically, the districts that are losing population are just going to stay hugely Democratic. The problem is more if enough people move out to justify eliminating one of these districts (and therefore costing the Democrats a solid seat), but that will probably not happen for decades at least.

   The districts that are growing the fastest, with few exceptions, are all in the Sun Belt. (The three that aren’t, VA-10, IL-14 and CO-06, are suburbs of major cities, and therefore attract the white, conservative 2.5 children suburban types.) Demographically, there’s a huge exodus (real and projected to continue through 2030) of 18-25 year olds and retirees from the Northern states to the Sun Belt. Retirees are the age demographic most likely to vote, but can be difficult to predict – though traditionally more conservative in the Eisenhower sense, a lot of retirees (especially WWII vets) voted for Kerry. Overall, it’s probably fair to assume a 50-50 median split in the new retiree population. 18-25 year olds, meanwhile, usually just got out of school and want some time to party before reality sinks in. Though traditionally the most liberal group, my generation also doesn’t vote, so the majority of that growth is meaningless for the purpose of political statistics. Some may vote in the future, but the number voting at any one time in the next several elections will be small for decades to come, and we can’t trust them to vote for Democrats over spoiler candidates like Nader.

   The crossroads of all of the growth in the United States is Vegas, not surprisingly high on the list. Between 2000 and 2006, the population of Nevada grew 400%, and as much of Nevada is desert and/or belongs to the military, we can assume that nearly all of that growth was in the major urban areas, particularly Clark County. The sort of person who moves to Vegas over some other city moves there to have a good time, and is unlikely to be a terribly informed voter if they vote at all. I point to Jim Gibbons as proof of this – everybody in Nevada hates him now, but nobody bothered to figure out who he was before they voted for him, and voter turnout in Nevada was terrible. Regardless of the PVI of NV-03, a lot of people who move to Vegas are there to party and gamble and get drunk and watch strippers, not be responsible citizens. (Not that there aren’t responsible people in Vegas – they’re just outnumbered by the majority.) NV-03 is the one district on this list that could get a lot more Democratic in preference, but it might not change anything in actuality if few of those polled are active voters.

   Finally, we can’t discount the Mormons. A lot of the “fastest growing” districts are represented by a Mormon and/or have a fast-growing Mormon population (AZ-06, AZ-02, NV-03, CA-25). If we assume that at least 3 in every 4 Mormons is also a reliable Republican, that helps to keep the R PVI up.

   With all that said, I’m a little surprised that AZ-06 and CA-25 are growing faster than, say, ID-02 or the Utah districts. With the population of Idaho having doubled in the last ten years in large part because of Mormon activity (who else would want to move to Idaho?), you’d think Idaho in particular would’ve been higher. Maybe the population-doubling growth is evenly split between districts?

   It’s also worth noting that a lot of other major East Coast and Midwestern cities are posting net population losses and seeing the same trends, but probably won’t be affected by redistricting thanks to their districts encompassing a larger area. (CT-01 and NY-28 are two good examples of this). In a few more years, it’s also likely that some fast-growing areas not listed, such as Seattle and Portland, will be turning bluer, and pushing that blue outward to neighboring areas. (WA-01, 03, 07, and 09 and OR-03 will get even bluer, and WA-08 and OR-01 will probably see a moderate net increase in blue as well as their suburban swing vote gets diluted.)

   Finally, how much of these growth statistics are simply more people being born? Especially in the suburbs, a lot of the growth percentage is simply the existing conservative population liberally having babies, who won’t be eligible to vote for 18 years, and at least 2/3s of whom will probably continue their parents’ preferences when they vote at all?

   Also, notice how much of the current House leadership is from districts that are shrinking. Perhaps they think they can get away with doing whatever they want because they don’t have a majority of informed, independent-minded constituents left to represent? I doubt that Pelosi or Emanuel is going to catch the heat that Peter Welch is catching in Vermont for waffling on the war, and Conyers’ constituents will probably cheer him up and down and clap him on the back if it means more business for General Motors.

   Basically, any area that’s conservative now will remain so, and any area that’s liberal now is likely to also remain so, unless so many people leave that it ends up costing us a seat (potentially offset by seats added elsewhere). In the long run, neither R nor D really stands to benefit from these patterns – with a few exceptions on either side,
   it’ll just help to reinforce the red/blue divide even further as more people move to areas that are more like them. The one exception is rural areas, which are continuing to see a slow decline in population because nobody is moving there and the 18-25 demographic mostly moves away to the cities. Rural areas especially vote depending on local issues, and may (in large numbers) become the new, non-minority swing voters as the urban/suburban split becomes ever more predictable. Independent voters will become a lot more diluted across the country, making the rural vote necessary for victory. With the traditionally blue states likely to lose seats (and electoral votes) in the coming decades, the D’s need to rediscover how to appeal to blue-collar and rural voters – maybe at the congressional level depending on redistricting, but definitely at the presidential level.

   1. Taylor only won Hood and Johnson counties in the extreme northern part of the district outside of Fort Worth. Taylor only won Johnson County (Burleson, Cleburne), the third most populated county in the district, but 8 votes.

      Edwards won everything else in the district, including McClellan County (Waco and Crawford), the largest county in the district, with 65% of the vote. He also wn Brazos County (College Station), the second largest county, witih 57%.

      You take out Hood and Johnson Counties, and maybe add a county or two heading toward Austin, and he’s pretty solid.

10. Being from New York City, I’m pretty surprised she’s on the list and not NY-10 or NY-16 in the Brooklyna and the Bronx.

    Velasquez’s district includes Williamsburg, Bushwick, Red Hook and the Lower East Side, where alot of young folk are moving into.

    I can’t imagine growth would be less there than in other parts of the city.

11. I see I live in the slowest growing district in the country. However, because of the way lines are drawn, it’s unlikely that it would be “eliminated,” more likely expanded to take in more suburban territory which currently (in District 13 and 14) wiggles like a snake all over the region. 13 (Betty Sutton) is totally ridiculous, swooping  from Lorain County on the lake to our west down along the southern exurbs and all the way into Akron on our southeast. 6 (Charlie Wilson, formerly the district of our governor Ted Strickland) is also a long skinny district circumventing  a third of the state. Strickland once said he could drive to DC in less time than it took him to drive from one end of his district to the other.

    But when Ohio loses those two seats, the composition of the apportionment board is going to become critical. Luckily the entire state is becoming so much less Republican that we may be in the majority in our delegation after next year DESPITE gerrymandering. We are well positioned with Gov. Strickland and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner popular and doing a good job. But this is one reason why the bandying of Strickland’s name as Hillary’s VIP should she be the nominee would be disastrous for Ohio. Not that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher would be a bad governor; he’s a smart, progressive man who had held and run for statewide office before and is fully qualified. However, we didn’t elect Lee Fisher, a fact that the GOP here would exploit to the max, painting  Strickland’s move as an abandonment of the job he was elected to do (and frankly, has done an outstanding job). In addition, Strickland, being a rural southern Ohio guy, has a personality more suited to working with those types who populate the GOP. Lee Fisher is another urbanite from Cleveland. I’m afraid if Strickland bailed on us (and for the record, I think it’s all just speculation and gossip, something to keep ther media interested since they HATE to discuss issues), we’d see someone like Bush’s former trade advisor, Rob Portman (“Rob Portman: he sent Ohio jobs overseas” See, I’m preparing), who quit and moved back to Ohio last year, become our next governor which would essentially kill the economy of this state.

    BTW a lot of us need to tell Mr. Strickland that his pal Hillary whom he endorsed last week is not on the right side of the trade issues that have devastated this state. Sherrod Brown, call home!

Comments are closed.