(Bumped – promoted by DavidNYC)
We’ve got three more states’ worth of Census data dump to look at today, and instead of a random collection today, it’s thematically consistent: the three medium-size light-blue states of the west. First off the bat is Colorado, which stays at seven seats; its target population is 718,457, up from an average of about 615K in 2000. (Remember, the “deviation” is how many seats the district will need to gain or shed in order to conform, not a raw number reflecting loss or gain. You can calculate raw gain/loss by working off the 2000 target, if you’re curious.)
| District | Population | Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| CO-01 | 662,039 | (56,418) |
| CO-02 | 733,805 | 15,348 |
| CO-03 | 706,186 | (12,271) |
| CO-04 | 725,041 | 6,584 |
| CO-05 | 725,902 | 7,445 |
| CO-06 | 797,813 | 79,356 |
| CO-07 | 678,410 | (40,047) |
| Total: | 5,029,196 |
The redistricting solution here seems pretty simple: CO-01 (Denver proper) and CO-07 (Denver’s northern suburbs) will need to shift southward to accommodate the large growth in CO-06 (Denver’s southern suburbs), while the rest of the state stayed pretty stable. Interestingly, despite CO-07 lagging the state growth-wise, the state’s strongest Hispanic growth was in CO-07, which since 2000 went from 20% to 28% Hispanic.
Oregon stays at five seats, having just barely missed the cut for #6. Its target population is a beefy 766,215, up from about 684K in 2000.
| District | Population | Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| OR-01 | 802,570 | 36,355 |
| OR-02 | 769,987 | 3,772 |
| OR-03 | 762,155 | (4,060) |
| OR-04 | 739,234 | (26,981) |
| OR-05 | 757,128 | (9,087) |
| Total: | 3,831,074 |
Several Oregon districts are going to have to shift north, where the state’s growth was centered in Portland’s western suburbs in OR-01. The smallest gains happened in OR-04, which is Eugene and the economically-hard-hit timber country to its south. OR-05, which is sandwiched between the 1st and 4th in the mid-Valley also needs to pick up population; the 5th is the state’s most Hispanic district, going from 10% to 15% Hispanic since 2000.
Finally, here’s Washington, which barely made the cut, and got its tenth seat. Its target is 672,454, up from 655K in 2010. (Interestingly, if you divided Washington by 9, you’d wind up with a lower target than Oregon, at 747,171. There’s a lot more to the reapportionment formula than that sort of purely mechanical calculation, of course, but that ought to raise a few eyebrows in Oregon.)
| District | Population | Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| WA-01 | 739,455 | 67,001 |
| WA-02 | 760,041 | 87,587 |
| WA-03 | 779,348 | 106,894 |
| WA-04 | 774,409 | 101,955 |
| WA-05 | 723,609 | 51,155 |
| WA-06 | 709,570 | 37,116 |
| WA-07 | 704,225 | 31,771 |
| WA-08 | 810,754 | 138,300 |
| WA-09 | 723,129 | 50,675 |
| Total: | 6,724,540 |
The two main nodes of growth in Washington are WA-08 (Seattle’s eastern suburbs) and WA-03 (Vancouver, which is really Portland’s northern suburbs). However, there was almost as much growth in WA-04, east of the Cascades, which means that any new configuration is going to have two-and-a-half districts east of the Cascades, with (unlike now) one district traversing the mountains. The 4th is also by far the most Hispanic district in the state, growing from 27% to 34% Hispanic since 2000. One other interesting tidbit: in three of the state’s nine districts (1st, 7th, and 8th, all in the Seattle area) the largest non-white group isn’t African-Americans or Hispanics, but rather Asians.
More over the flip…
Finally, did you know that Census 2010 data, via American FactFinder, is available not only at the congressional district level, but also the legislative district level? Because a) I’m a Washingtonian, and b) I’m a nerd (and c), it’s not that big a project, since Washington doesn’t have separate Senate and House districts), I thought I’d also include Washington broken down by LD, in case you want a finer-grained sort on the state’s population gain. The number of districts will stay at 49, so the new target is 137,236.
| District | Population | Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| LD-01 | 147,265 | 10,029 |
| LD-02 | 163,707 | 26,471 |
| LD-03 | 120,601 | (16,635) |
| LD-04 | 141,254 | 4,018 |
| LD-05 | 161,403 | 24,167 |
| LD-06 | 141,123 | 3,887 |
| LD-07 | 130,475 | (6,761) |
| LD-08 | 149,474 | 12,238 |
| LD-09 | 136,166 | (1,070) |
| LD-10 | 134,117 | (3,119) |
| LD-11 | 134,027 | (3,209) |
| LD-12 | 132,531 | (4,705) |
| LD-13 | 143,750 | 6,514 |
| LD-14 | 130,478 | (6,758) |
| LD-15 | 132,788 | (4,448) |
| LD-16 | 154,830 | 17,594 |
| LD-17 | 150,727 | 13,491 |
| LD-18 | 160,083 | 22,847 |
| LD-19 | 126,904 | (10,332) |
| LD-20 | 141,029 | 3,793 |
| LD-21 | 133,156 | (4,080) |
| LD-22 | 141,695 | 4,459 |
| LD-23 | 130,119 | (7,117) |
| LD-24 | 132,679 | (4,557) |
| LD-25 | 145,035 | 7,799 |
| LD-26 | 133,755 | (3,481) |
| LD-27 | 123,857 | (13,379) |
| LD-28 | 119,494 | (17,742) |
| LD-29 | 127,259 | (9,977) |
| LD-30 | 129,998 | (7,238) |
| LD-31 | 137,685 | 449 |
| LD-32 | 122,038 | (15,198) |
| LD-33 | 129,246 | (7,990) |
| LD-34 | 125,055 | (12,181) |
| LD-35 | 138,142 | 906 |
| LD-36 | 133,901 | (3,335) |
| LD-37 | 127,546 | (9,690) |
| LD-38 | 129,624 | (7,612) |
| LD-39 | 143,154 | 5,918 |
| LD-40 | 138,925 | 1,689 |
| LD-41 | 142,722 | 5,486 |
| LD-42 | 146,619 | 9,383 |
| LD-43 | 133,976 | (3,260) |
| LD-44 | 156,499 | 19,263 |
| LD-45 | 136,432 | (804) |
| LD-46 | 127,849 | (9,387) |
| LD-47 | 140,146 | 2,910 |
| LD-48 | 130,423 | (6,813) |
| LD-49 | 134,779 | (2,457) |
| Total: | 6,724,540 |
What’s that you say? You don’t have the Washington legislative district map committed to memory? And yet you call yourself a Swingnut? Well, here it is. The largest growth came in LDs 2 (eastern Pierce Co.) and 5 (eastern King Co.), which are the most exurban parts of WA-08, as well as 44 (eastern Snohomish Co.: exurban WA-02), and 18 (northern Clark Co.: exurban WA-03). The slowest growth was in LDs 3 (downtown Spokane), 28 (Lakewood and Fort Lewis, south of Tacoma), 32 (Shoreline and Edmonds, north of Seattle), 27 (downtown Tacoma), and 34 (West Seattle). (If you’re wondering what the lean of these districts is, we’ve got that, too.)
I’ll do a diary on state legislative districts when the data comes out!
At least that’s what I heard yesterday. I can’t wait to FINALLY have some real numbers to work with!
How do you always make nerdy data so fun and interesting. And on top of that, crack jokes? You are awesome.
Anyway, no surprised Denver didnt keep up and and has to expand south. People seem to think this ‘central city districts having to gain population’ thing is bad. But, I think it gives us a chance to unpack these heavily Dem areas and send them in to suck up suburban R voters
I knew the Hispanic population in this country was young and growing rapidly but the numbers really are stunning (as a percentage of the overall population in that age group)
Colorado
Hispanics under 18 – 30.5%
Hispanics 18 and over- 17.5%
Oregon
Hispanics under 18 – 20.8%%
Hispanics 18 and over – 9.1%
Washington
Hispanics under 18 – 18.9%
Hispanics 18 and over – 8.9%
It’s fairly easy to create one such district, taking the Hispanic parts of Yakima and Grant counties. It’s possible to create two district, though second district is a rather ridiculous snake touching every other Hispanic community in Eastern Washington.
I know there have been a few complaints about the way OR-03 is drawn.
It actually strikes me that it would be quite possible to adjudicate the situation with Rep. Wu through some canny line-drawing. It’s also worth considering that Suzanne Bonamici, who is in charge of the Oregon Senate’s redistricting effort, is considered one of two likely candidates to succeed Wu in case of a resignation or retirement (and she’s friends with the other likely candidate, Commissioner Avakian, to whom Secy. Brown [likely to play a decisive role in redistricting] owes a favor in that Avakian abandoned a bid for the secretary of state’s office to take the less prestigious job of labor commissioner three years ago).
If the Oregon Democratic Party concludes that Wu should be discouraged from seeking reelection in 2012, Portland could conceivably be redrawn to leave Wu’s Multnomah County home (along with perhaps all of OR-01’s awkward nub into Multnomah County) in Rep. Blumenauer’s OR-03. Meanwhile, to counterbalance the overcompensation for OR-03’s population discrepancy, Blumenauer’s district would lose its Clackamas County precincts to Rep. Schrader’s OR-05, which needs some additional population. Redraw a few more lines around either the coast or the central part of the Willamette Valley (perhaps reconfiguring the Salem-Dallas-Albany-Corvallis quadrangle somewhat) and the districts are balanced.
senate districts are blue and how many are “RED”. In other words which seats are democratic and we are republican right now?
No big surprises in WA, OR or CO other hispanic counts are up a bit more then expected. A real trend there as other states were that way.
In CO it would be easy to give 56K in hispanic voters in Adams county to CO7 and then have CO7 gain 96K from CD6’s Jefferson county area. I am not sure thats how it works out but it could be done that way.
LD 28 contains Dupont, Steilacoom, Tillicum, about half of Lakewood and a quarter of University Place. The remainder of Lakewood is in LD 29. At one time all of Lakewood was in LD 28 but that changed after the 2000 census.
There is an issue about undercounting of active duty military in Lakewood, Parkland, Spanaway, Dupont, Yelm because of deployments. Local press reports that the undercount could involve as many as 18,000 active duty who claim Washington as their home.
With all respect to Chrisunity:
“the three medium-size light-blue states of the west.”
Not true. Statistically incorrect.
WA is one of only two states on the west coast to go 6 for 6 for the Democratic party from 1988-2008, and WA went 13 for 20 in the last 78 years. WA is to the west coast as MN is to the mid-west:
2008: Obama +17.08% (largest landslide for any candidate since 1964, surpassing Reagan 1984)
2004: Kerry +7.18%
2000: Gore +5.58%
1996: Clinton +12.54%
1992: Clinton +11.44%
1988: Dukakis +1.59%
Interpreted, this means 3 landslides (2008, 1996, 1992), one solid win (2004), one lean win (2000) and one narrow win (1988) for the democratic party over 20 years.
IN 2010, Patty Murray, in her re-election bid, won a much better percentage and margin in than the polls predicted. She won by +4.73%, +1% was predicted. And she won in spite of a massive GOP wave in 2010, one that was also heavily financed in WA. WA is a solid blue state, there is nothing “light” blue about it, and Obama is practically guaranteed to win it in 2012. If statistical probability holds out, then Obama wins WA in 2012 with over 59.8% of the vote and a +20% margin.
———————————–
Just like WA, OR has gone for the Democratic party 6 of the last 6 cycles, but with less impressive margins:
2008: Obama +16.35% (again, the largest landslide for any candidate since 1964, surpassing Reagan 1984 and one of only 5 double digit margins in the nuclear age)
2004: Kerry +4.16%
2000: Gore +0.44%
1996: Clinton +8.09%
1992: Clinton +9.95%
1988: Dukakis +4.67%
Two of these margins are landslide margins: 2008 and 1992.
One is a near landslide margin: 1996
Two are lean margins: 2004 and 1988.
Only 2000 was a true speaker margin.
WA is considered “bluer” than OR, but interestingly enough, Dukakis did better in OR than in WA in 1988.
IN 2010, Ron Wyden won a hands-down lansdlide re-election with +17.98%. In spite of a massive GOP wave in 2010, the republicans did not even attempt to compete here.
If statistical probability holds, then Obama will win OR with 58.9% of the vote in 2012 and around a +17.6% margin.
———————————–
CO, on the other hand, is really neither blue nor red, but joins the eternal battleground category, tendency light blue.
The Democratic party has won this state only 4 times in the nuclear age: 1948, 1964, 1992 and 2008.
Obamas’s +8.95% margin in CO (near landslide, the best showing for any candidate since 1984 and the best showing for a democrat since 1964) surpassed the polling averages, which showed him at roughly +3%. Clearly, the hispanic component of the polling was underpolled, as it will also be in 2012.
Whereas I am pretty certain that Obama will nail NV in 2012, I am not sure about CO, with it’s large military population. I want to see more polling data first. CO vascillates so much that it could actually become a squeaker election even in the event of an Obama landslide in 2012. But my gut tells me that he wins CO 55-44 in 2012.
In all three of these states, the partisan shift toward the democratic party was LARGER than the national partisan shift of +9.72%:
WA: Partisan shift +9.90% blue
OR: Partisan shift +12.19% blue
CO: Partisan shift +13.62% blue
The number are very clear and tell a very clear story going into 2012.
Can you include the incumbent or at least color in the district number red or blue in your list to make partisan comparisons easier.