The Census Bureau has released its annual population estimates, so that means the usual players are in the field with their reapportionment projections. First up is Election Data Services. (You can check out their prior studies as well: 2007 | 2008.)
EDS now offers six different projection models. The column headers indicate the range of time used to calculate each projection.
| State | 2000-2009 | 2004-2009 | 2005-2009 | 2006-2009 | 2007-2009 | 2008-2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| California | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Georgia | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Illinois | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Iowa | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Louisiana | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Massachusetts | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Michigan | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Minnesota | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Nevada | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| New Jersey | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| New York | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Ohio | -2 | -2 | -2 | -2 | -2 | -2 |
| Pennsylvania | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| South Carolina | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Texas | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Utah | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Washington | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
The biggest losers in this new batch of projections are, not too surprisingly, the sun-belt states of Arizona and Florida. Last year, Arizona was expected to gain two seats under every single projection model. Now, in a stark demonstration of how southern migration has slowed in the midst of the Great Recession, the three nearest-term projections all show it picking up just one seat. Meanwhile, Florida, which still looked to gain two seats according to longer-term projections in 2008, now grabs just one new seat under all models.
Other losers include Oregon, which was slated to grab a new district under four of five models last year – it’s off the list entirely this time. North Carolina was in a much more marginal situation in 2008 (gaining a seat under two of five models), and it too drops from the list. Texas shows a teeny bit of wobble, as the longest-term projection now shows it picking up three rather than four seats, but it seems like the odds still favor four. California, on the other hand, stabilizes some more, with four of six models (including all the nearer-term ones) indicating it won’t lose any seats (last time, only two of five did).
The biggest gainers? That would be Missouri, which isn’t on this list at all – and for the Show Me State, that’s a good thing. In 2008, all five models projected a one-seat loss, and in fact, in 2007, all three models did as well. Now EDS thinks Missouri won’t lose any seats. Meanwhile, Washington state is brand-new to the list, gaining a tenth district acoss the board.
Polidata also has an analysis out. They only do one projection, based on the most recent year’s numbers, which matches EDS’s 2008-2009 projection in all respects. They also offer a list of which states barely hang on to their final seats and which states are oh-so-close to nabbing one more:
| Rank | State | Makes/ Misses By |
|---|---|---|
| 431 | South Carolina | 20,000 |
| 432 | Washington | 30,000 |
| 433 | California | 120,000 |
| 434 | Texas | 40,000 |
| 435 | Missouri | 10,000 |
| 436 | Minnesota | 10,000 |
| 437 | Oregon | 20,000 |
| 438 | Arizona | 50,000 |
| 439 | Florida | 150,000 |
| 440 | North Carolina | 75,000 |
| 441 | Illinois | 140,000 |
| 442 | Ohio | 130,000 |
| 443 | New Jersey | 110,000 |
| 444 | Massachusetts | 90,000 |
| 445 | Louisiana | 70,000 |
EDS has a similar chart with “last six/next six” on the final page of their PDF, with different iterations for each of their models. The bottom line is that right now, Missouri looks very lucky and Minnesota looks very unlucky. But given the small numbers involved and the fact that we’re dealing with estimates rather than actuals counts, I would not be surprised at all if things changed by the time we get final numbers in from the 2010 Census.
P.S. Check out Dave’s diary for some more discussion of these new studies.
blue states to red states (a gain of 7 EV for Republicans from 2008 election), what of these blue states loses will result in probable loss of Republican congressional seats (presumably on that list is Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, one of Ohio, Louisiana). On the same note, how many of these states which gain seats will result in Democratic seats (presumably 2 of Texas’, maybe Washington?).
Anyone do the net math on this? From a quick glance, it seems like it won’t do much damage to Democratic numbers, might it even help?
Losing a seat guarantees Bachmann being a goner. The way the districts would need to expand and where Bachmann lives makes her existence in a 7 seat map only possible if Minneapolis and St Paul are combined into one district, which would only happen if the GOP get the trifecta and that is a tall order with 87/47 and 46/21 minorities in the state house and senate respectively.
Now Im inspired and am going to see what that’d look like on Dave’s.
I forgot to add in something to my above that is a whole other topic so I’ll be a d and do a double comment in a row.
How can Florida miss another district by a larger population margin than other seats yet be higher on the list to getting another seat?
According to Minnesota state demographer Tom Gillaspy (who knew we had a state demographer) The difference among California, Texas, Missouri and Minnesota for the last three seats is about 2,200 people, which is well within the potential estimating error.
http://www.twincities.com/ci_1…
Just a guess on my part but I think California could be the state that comes up short. The economy is in worse shape than the other states and with a large number of non citizens it could be tougher to get an accurate count.
BTW A Dem controlled redistricting in Minnesota can get rid of Bachmann almost as easily if Minnesota keeps 8 seats as if it loses one.
I’d rather Missouri lose a seat than Minasota. MN is much more likely to elect a dem pres than Missouri is. Plus, with Jay Nixon not up until 2012 he’ll be able to veto anything too crazy. Plus once Ike Skelton is gone we are only going to have 3 pretty solidly democratic seats. So getting rid of one of the repub seats in Missouri would be nice. Plus, Obama’s worst district in Missouri is 45 whereas his worst in Missouri was 35. We could probably turn one or two of Minasota’s red seats blue whereas an incumbent protection minus one republican in Missouri. That’d be the best of both worlds.
Whether Texas gets 3 or 4 seats I don’t see how the GOP could redistrict it so they could get 3 GOP/1 Dem or 2 GOP/1 Dem.
They gotta protect Sessions in TX-32 and Marchant in TX-24 and they will also further solidify the GOP incumbents in TX-6,12 and 26 in the process, all they’ll have to do is use a new district to rope in the minority vote from the southern part of TX-32, grab some out of TX-24, travel thinly through Arlington and rope in the central and southern part of Fort Worth.
Of course a new Dem seat in Harris County is possible, and TX-23 may be used to avoid the possibility of a new Hispanic seat in South Texas. They may move it out of Bexar County entirely.