Tag: Population by CD

Of the states rolled out in this week’s Census 2010 releases, North Carolina is by far the most interesting one. North Carolina narrowly missed out on a 14th seat, so it’s staying at 13; its target is 733,499, up from about 619K in 2000. Unsurprisingly, the big gains come in the Charlotte and Raleigh metropolitan areas, with NC-09 in Charlotte’s suburbs and NC-04 in Durham and Chapel Hill both well past the 800K mark. (The 9th is represented by GOPer Sue Myrick, although the state’s district that shifted the sharpest to the left from Kerry to Obama, while the 4th belongs to Dem David Price and is the bluest white-majority district in the state.) NC-01 on the coastal plain, one of the nation’s few truly rural African-American-majority seats, gained the least, followed by the three mostly-rural Appalachian-flavored seats (NC-05, NC-10, and NC-11).

How this shakes out for redistricting is complicated, because Republicans control the process for the first time ever and will want to undo a pretty Dem-friendly map from 2000… but without getting too greedy. What may be their first task, shoring up newly-elected Renee Elmers in what’s currently a swing district, may be made easier by the fact the mostly-suburban/exurban 2nd will probably need to give a lot of its African-American population in Raleigh proper to the next-door 1st in order to preserve the dwindling 1st’s black-majority VRA status. But since the 2nd didn’t grow that fast, it’ll then need to look elsewhere to grab some enough white votes to replace them… and since the GOP probably won’t want those to be liberal transplants in the Research Triangle area, they may need to reach south into the 3rd or 7th instead.

I could see that in turn pushing Dem Mike McIntyre’s 7th further west into Fayetteville and south central rural counties, keeping his district swingy, while also pushing Larry Kissell’s 8th further west too, probably giving him a heaping helping of dark-red Charlotte suburbs and making him the likeliest Dem to get targeted for extinction. But the GOP has many, many ways to play this (see the Aaron Blake article linked above), and this isn’t the only scenario.

The other two multi-district states are much more clear cut and present similar profiles: in both Nebraska and Kansas, the big empty western districts need to expand greatly, and the urban/suburban districts need to shed population. The GOP controls the processes in both states; the only real intrigue might be whether they try to get fancy and crack the only-slightly-red Omaha-area NE-02 and Kansas City-area KS-03 to make them safer Republican seats. The target in Nebraska is 608,780, up from 570K in 2000. (Notice how low that is… Nebraska seems right at the top of the list for a lost seat in 2020.) In Kansas, the target is 713,280, up from 672K in 2000.

(Bumped – promoted by DavidNYC)

The Census Bureau unleashed population data from five more states today. First off is Alabama, who remained at seven seats (although they were close to losing one). Their target for 2010 is 682,819, up from about 635K in 2000. Most of the action looks to be in the Birmingham area, where suburban AL-06 was the big gainer and urban VRA district AL-07 was the big loser. While the knee-jerk expectation would be that AL-07 would simply extend out into the suburbs to make up that deficit, it’s likelier that the newly-GOP-controlled legislature will try to extend AL-07 to Montgomery or Huntsville (or both) to incorporate the African-American populations there, in order to make it blacker and the state’s other districts safer for white Republican representatives.

Hawaii is pretty drama-free; its new target is 680,151, up from 605K in 2000. With Maui as the fastest growing part of the state, the 2nd will need to give a little population to the 1st, although the boundary movement will happen in the suburban parts of Oahu.

Missouri missed the cut, and needs to lose one of its nine seats. Based on eight seats, its new target is 748,616, up from 622K in 2000. Missouri redistricting isn’t going to go well for Dems (and for Russ Carnahan, in particular) because the three districts with the lowest population are the three districts with Democratic representatives. While MO-01 lost the most population, the VRA will probably keep this in place as a black-majority district for Lacy Clay: the city of St. Louis’s population has shrunk so much (now only 319K) that it only makes up about half a district anymore, and his district already includes the city’s black-majority northern suburbs, so it’s likely to have to move westward into the inner-ring suburbs of St. Louis County or else southward to encompass all of St. Louis city. Either way, that’s coming out of Russ Carnahan’s MO-03, which will also need to give some ground to MO-08 below it.

I think we’ve found the most populous CD in the entire nation: NV-03, with more than a million people (its main rival for that honor, UT-03, didn’t break that mark; see below). Nevada, of course, is moving to four districts, with a target of 675,138 (up only slightly from 666K in 2000, but that was a three-district map). As you might expect, the state has become significantly more Hispanic, with the 1st going from 28% Hispanic in 2000 to 37%, the 2nd from 15% to 20%, and the 3rd from 16% to 23%.

While there had been discussion of Joe Heck’s district expanding outward to take in some of the rural counties, that will barely need to happen. Clark County (where Las Vegas is) has a population of 1,951,269, which is 72.3% of the state’s population (up from 68% in 2000). In other words, with 3/4s of the state’s population in Clark Co., NV-02 can pretty much continue being all of the state except Clark County (although it’ll need to lose its current small portions in Clark Co.), while Clark Co. will be divvied up among three districts instead of two. (Although, considering how empty the cow counties are, that stray 2.7% of the state may still wind up occupying a huge geographical footprint.)

Utah, of course, is also set to gain a seat. Its new four-seat target is 690,971 (the target was 744K in 2000, when it had three seats). The biggest growth was in Salt Lake City’s southern suburbs and also in the Provo area further south, both of which are found in UT-03. Whether the GOP-controlled legislature creates a new seat confined to the SLC area or tries cracking it four ways instead of three will depend on whether they decide to target Jim Matheson (currently the Democrat with the reddest House seat) or concedes a seat to him.

(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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

Texas has always been, in my mind, the most interesting state for redistricting in 2010, partly because it grew much more than any other state (it gained four seats, while no other state gained more than two), and partly because much of that growth was Hispanic. This sets up a major conflict in the redistricting process: the Republicans, who control the trifecta here, will want to draw as many of those four new seats for themselves as possible, obviously, but the Obama administration’s Dept. of Justice, via the Voting Rights Act, will compel the creation of as many majority-minority seats as possible. Given the numbers that came out today, Texas Republicans may actually feel lucky getting away with two of the four new seats… assuming that’s what they end up with, after the conclusion of the inevitable litigation process that will result.

Texas gained a whopping 4,293,741 people between 2000 and 2010, growing from 20,851,820 to 25,145,561. Of that 4+ million, only about 10% were non-Hispanic whites. The non-Hispanic white population in 2000 was 10,933,313, and in 2010 it’s 11,397,345, a difference of 464,032. Contrast that with the growth in Hispanics, who went from 6,669,616 to 9,460,921, a gain of 2,791,305. Expressed as percentages, Texas now has only a plurality, not a majority, of non-Hispanic whites. They make up 45.3% of the population in 2010, along with 11.5% non-Hispanic blacks, 3.8% non-Hispanic Asians, and 37.6% Hispanics. (In 2000, non-Hispanic whites were 52.4%, along with 11.3% black, 2.7% Asian, and 32% Hispanic. Those don’t add up to 100 because there are also categories for Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, two or more races, and “some other” race.)

With Texas about to expand to 36 seats, that means the target average for each new congressional district will be 698,488. Here’s a chart that looks at each current congressional district, giving old and new populations, the amount gained (or lost), and the “deviation,” which is what we’re calling how many people each district will need to shed (or in a few cases, gain) in order to hit its 2010 target. (In case you’re wondering, yes, the 2000 data is for the post-2004 DeLay-mander configurations of each district.) I’m also including the 2000 and 2008 presidential election results, so you can see which direction the districts are headed (very different, when you contrast the trend in rural east Texas districts with suburbs for the major cities).

District	Rep.	2000 total	2010 total	Total change	Deviation	2000 election	2008 election
TX-01	Gohmert (R)	651,652	723,464	71,812	24,976	33/68	31/69
TX-02	Poe (R)	651,605	782,375	130,770	83,887	37/63	40/60
TX-03	Johnson, S. (R)	651,782	842,449	190,667	143,961	30/70	42/57
TX-04	Hall (R)	651,500	846,142	194,642	147,654	34/66	30/69
TX-05	Hensarling (R)	651,919	725,642	73,723	27,154	34/66	36/63
TX-06	Barton (R)	651,691	809,095	157,404	110,607	34/66	40/60
TX-07	Culberson (R)	651,682	780,611	128,929	82,123	31/69	41/58
TX-08	Brady (R)	651,755	833,770	182,015	135,282	31/69	26/74
TX-09	Green, A. (D)	651,086	733,796	82,710	35,308	69/31	77/23
TX-10	McCaul (R)	651,523	981,367	329,844	282,879	34/67	44/55
TX-11	Conaway (R)	651,590	710,682	59,092	12,194	25/75	24/76
TX-12	Granger (R)	651,770	831,100	179,330	132,612	36/64	36/63
TX-13	Thornberry (R)	651,665	672,781	21,116	(25,707)	26/74	23/77
TX-14	Paul (R)	651,837	779,704	127,867	81,216	36/64	33/66
TX-15	Hinojosa (D)	651,580	787,124	135,544	88,636	54/46	60/40
TX-16	Reyes (D)	652,363	757,427	105,064	58,939	59/41	66/34
TX-17	Flores (R)	651,509	760,042	108,533	61,554	32/68	32/67
TX-18	Jackson-Lee (D)	651,789	720,991	69,202	22,503	72/28	77/22
TX-19	Neugebauer (R)	651,610	698,137	46,527	(351)	25/75	27/72
TX-20	Gonzalez (D)	651,603	711,705	60,102	13,217	58/42	63/36
TX-21	Smith (R)	651,930	856,954	205,024	158,466	31/69	41/58
TX-22	Olson (R)	651,657	910,877	259,220	212,389	33/67	41/58
TX-23	Canseco (R)	651,149	847,651	196,502	149,163	47/54	51/48
TX-24	Marchant (R)	651,137	792,319	141,182	93,831	32/68	44/55
TX-25	Doggett (D)	651,477	814,381	162,904	115,893	47/53	59/40
TX-26	Burgess (R)	651,858	915,137	263,279	216,649	38/62	41/58
TX-27	Farenthold (R)	651,843	741,993	90,150	43,505	50/50	53/46
TX-28	Cuellar (D)	651,259	851,824	200,565	153,336	50/50	56/44
TX-29	Green, G. (D)	651,405	677,032	25,627	(21,456)	57/43	62/38
TX-30	Johnson, E. (D)	652,261	706,469	54,208	7,981	74/26	82/18
TX-31	Carter (R)	651,868	902,101	250,233	203,613	32/69	42/58
TX-32	Sessions (R)	650,555	640,419	(10,136)	(58,069)	36/64	46/53

Now let’s turn to the changes in racial composition in each district. The Hispanic population increased in all of Texas’s 32 districts, with the smallest increase being 35,816 (in TX-32 in north Dallas, the only district which lost population overall – I’m not quite sure why this district lost population, other than the fact that it’s fairly dense, and boxed in by other urban districts, so it’s unable to sprawl in any direction). Eight districts gained more than 100,000 Hispanics each, with the biggest gain in the Laredo-based TX-28, gaining 166,375. The second biggest gain was 159,747 in TX-10, the wormlike district that links Houston’s western suburbs with Austin’s eastern suburbs and which gained a whole lot of everybody of all races. TX-10 is also more remarkable in that the Hispanic share of the total population nearly went up 10%, from 19% to 29% (by contrast, in TX-28, the Hispanic share barely increased, seeing as how they’re already the vast majority there).

These two existing districts point to where two of the new VRA districts are likeliest to pop up: the Rio Grande Valley, and the Houston area. (A new Hispanic-majority Houston seat would probably be located in the downtown and western parts of town, pushing TX-07 and then TX-10 further west.) The third possibility is a Dallas area Hispanic-majority seat, which might be anchored in downtown and western Dallas but wander further west to grab areas near DFW airport and maybe even in Fort Worth. The GOP, I’m sure, would prefer to try to limit the number of VRA seats to two, but it may be a difficult balancing act; in particular, it’ll be hard to avoid having a new VRA seat pop up in the Rio Grande Valley (thanks to huge growth in TX-15 and TX-23, too) if they’re going to try to reconstruct a more Republican-favorable TX-27 in order to protect unexpected new member Blake Farenthold (maybe linking Corpus Christi with Victoria instead of Brownsville, for instance).

District	2000 white	White %	2010 white	White %	% change	2000 Hispanic	Hispanic %	2010 Hispanic	Hispanic %	% change
TX-01	485,238	74.5	514,939	71.2	-3.2	59,688	9.2	109,499	15.1	6.0
TX-02	462,830	71.0	493,830	63.1	-7.9	82,578	12.7	176,196	22.5	9.8
TX-03	467,828	71.8	539,627	64.1	-7.7	111,121	17.0	186,890	22.2	5.1
TX-04	540,477	83.0	666,802	78.8	-4.2	50,410	7.7	110,993	13.1	5.4
TX-05	505,283	77.5	523,328	72.1	-5.4	83,113	12.7	157,037	21.6	8.9
TX-06	477,168	73.2	537,602	66.4	-6.8	103,380	15.9	185,397	22.9	7.0
TX-07	505,703	77.6	529,586	67.8	-9.8	117,392	18.0	198,587	25.4	7.4
TX-08	553,472	84.9	686,659	82.4	-2.6	58,820	9.0	128,027	15.4	6.3
TX-09	213,041	32.7	240,882	32.8	1.1	213,195	32.7	310,931	42.4	9.6
TX-10	490,353	75.3	676,833	69.0	-6.3	122,894	18.9	282,641	28.8	9.9
TX-11	523,788	80.4	577,078	81.2	0.8	192,811	29.6	257,633	36.3	6.7
TX-12	505,402	77.5	635,292	76.4	-1.1	154,032	23.6	239,268	28.8	5.2
TX-13	526,737	80.8	544,719	81.0	0.2	114,488	17.6	157,732	23.4	5.9
TX-14	491,492	75.4	588,513	75.5	0.1	162,778	25.0	226,440	29.0	4.1
TX-15	504,686	77.5	674,927	85.7	8.3	506,447	77.7	649,297	82.5	4.8
TX-16	483,295	74.1	620,074	81.9	7.8	507,249	77.8	617,465	81.5	3.8
TX-17	512,489	78.7	585,982	77.1	-1.6	100,241	15.4	157,049	20.7	5.3
TX-18	240,569	36.9	281,511	39.0	2.1	231,548	35.5	313,533	43.5	8.0
TX-19	502,156	77.1	549,589	78.7	1.7	188,932	29.0	235,973	33.8	4.8
TX-20	425,519	65.3	500,530	70.3	5.0	437,800	67.2	509,208	71.5	4.4
TX-21	531,029	81.5	680,337	79.4	-2.1	138,599	21.3	240,713	28.1	6.8
TX-22	464,216	71.2	557,629	61.2	-10.0	132,379	20.3	244,900	26.9	6.6
TX-23	467,321	71.8	672,404	79.3	7.6	423,648	65.1	562,913	66.4	1.3
TX-24	476,428	73.2	488,398	61.6	-11.5	116,586	17.9	214,851	27.1	9.2
TX-25	439,574	67.5	584,962	71.8	4.3	220,942	33.9	315,776	38.8	4.9
TX-26	474,910	72.9	652,345	71.3	-1.6	93,451	14.3	193,973	21.2	6.9
TX-27	495,162	76.0	623,615	84.0	8.1	443,919	68.1	543,306	73.2	5.1
TX-28	518,245	79.6	748,669	87.9	8.3	505,754	77.7	672,129	78.9	1.2
TX-29	357,764	54.9	398,350	58.8	3.9	430,980	66.2	514,861	76.0	9.9
TX-30	238,931	36.6	256,028	36.2	-0.4	223,200	34.2	280,508	39.7	5.5
TX-31	477,328	73.2	647,694	71.8	-1.4	106,121	16.3	195,753	21.7	5.4
TX-32	439,551	67.6	422,818	66.0	-1.5	235,626	36.2	271,442	42.4	6.2

Unfortunately, for some reason, while American Factfinder has “Hispanic or Latino by Race” available for entire states, the only data it currently has available at the CD level is the less precise “Race and Hispanic or Latino.” While that seems like a minor semantic distinction, this means there’s no way to parse out non-Hispanic white (and non-Hispanic black, etc.) for CDs. Bear in mind that “Hispanic,” for Census purposes, isn’t a race unto itself, but a box that gets checked in addition to race. So, while most people who check “Some other race” are Hispanic, not all Hispanics identify as “Some other race;” in fact, more than half of Hispanics identify as “white” (with most of the rest as “some other”) instead. This makes a big difference, in making the sample look whiter than it actually is (at least if one defines “white” in the narrow non-Hispanic sense). At the state level, in 2010, Texas appears as 70.4% white, 11.8% black, and 3.8% Asian in this format, in addition to 37.6% Hispanic. (Considering that adds up to 124%, it’s very confusing. Here, it’s also confusing because it makes districts with an already-large Hispanic majority look like they got even whiter, at the same time as they gained more Hispanics.) So, I’d focus more on the Hispanic column than on the white column in this table, and maybe I’ll revisit this when we get data on non-Hispanic whites.

More data over the flip…

Finally, here are tables for the African-American and Asian populations for each congressional district. While African-American growth is fairly slow (though seemingly faster than growth in non-Hispanic whites), the Asian growth in Texas is just as fast-paced as Hispanic growth (if not faster, in certain suburban districts).

District	2000 black	Black %	2010 black	Black %	% change	2000 Asian	Asian %	2010 Asian	Asian %	% change
TX-01	120,705	18.5	127,714	17.7	-0.9	3,256	0.5	6,487	0.9	0.4
TX-02	124,420	19.1	168,647	21.6	2.5	16,395	2.5	26,501	3.4	0.9
TX-03	59,496	9.1	97,376	11.6	2.4	54,246	8.3	102,783	12.2	3.9
TX-04	67,155	10.3	87,583	10.4	0.1	4,300	0.7	17,420	2.1	1.4
TX-05	80,743	12.4	100,881	13.9	1.5	10,365	1.6	14,086	1.9	0.3
TX-06	83,081	12.7	134,647	16.6	3.9	21,819	3.3	32,795	4.1	0.8
TX-07	36,603	5.6	78,428	10.0	4.4	44,670	6.9	79,224	10.1	3.3
TX-08	56,930	8.7	65,401	7.8	-0.9	5,098	0.8	11,934	1.4	0.6
TX-09	244,295	37.5	262,525	35.8	-1.7	69,533	10.7	79,853	10.9	0.2
TX-10	59,420	9.1	111,799	11.4	2.3	25,383	3.9	57,124	5.8	1.9
TX-11	26,925	4.1	28,410	4.0	-0.1	3,527	0.5	5,222	0.7	0.2
TX-12	36,133	5.5	56,115	6.8	1.2	14,963	2.3	24,464	2.9	0.6
TX-13	36,690	5.6	39,620	5.9	0.3	7,762	1.2	11,586	1.7	0.5
TX-14	63,978	9.8	71,281	9.1	-0.7	10,962	1.7	27,358	3.5	1.8
TX-15	12,020	1.8	12,169	1.5	-0.3	3,588	0.6	6,854	0.9	0.3
TX-16	20,477	3.1	24,499	3.2	0.1	6,946	1.1	8,205	1.1	0.0
TX-17	67,278	10.3	74,834	9.8	-0.5	9,434	1.4	15,071	2.0	0.5
TX-18	263,106	40.4	265,109	36.8	-3.6	21,547	3.3	24,340	3.4	0.1
TX-19	35,845	5.5	39,777	5.7	0.2	5,521	0.8	8,840	1.3	0.5
TX-20	43,738	6.7	51,563	7.2	0.5	9,964	1.5	13,859	1.9	0.4
TX-21	41,027	6.3	57,403	6.7	0.4	16,805	2.6	32,375	3.8	1.2
TX-22	61,165	9.4	129,682	14.2	4.8	50,695	7.8	115,594	12.7	4.9
TX-23	18,617	2.9	29,870	3.5	0.7	6,650	1.0	16,040	1.9	0.9
TX-24	63,194	9.7	117,088	14.8	5.1	39,716	6.1	75,088	9.4	3.3
TX-25	63,750	9.8	64,042	7.9	-1.9	12,146	1.9	18,460	2.3	0.4
TX-26	100,881	15.5	122,856	13.4	-2.1	14,125	2.2	35,991	3.9	1.7
TX-27	17,084	2.6	17,385	2.3	-0.3	5,091	0.8	8,837	1.2	0.4
TX-28	8,178	1.3	13,116	1.5	0.2	3,179	0.5	6,502	0.8	0.3
TX-29	65,414	10.0	68,630	10.1	0.1	8,492	1.3	7,826	1.2	-0.1
TX-30	271,812	41.7	293,203	41.5	-0.2	8,552	1.3	8,848	1.3	0.0
TX-31	84,561	13.0	113,076	12.5	-0.5	14,275	2.2	31,047	3.4	1.2
TX-32	50,833	7.8	54,869	8.6	0.8	26,923	4.1	33,982	5.3	1.2

The four states this week for the Census 2010 data dump are Illinois, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. South Dakota has only one congressional district and Texas I’m reserving for its own special in-depth post which will look at changes in racial composition in each district over the decade (and Texas isn’t out yet today, so it’s a moot point), so here are just Illinois and Oklahoma. The Illinois target (based on the drop to 18 seats) is 712,813. (Check out the depopulation on Chicago’s South Side in IL-01 and IL-02. Bobby Rush and Jesse Jackson Jr.’s districts already include small amounts of suburbs, but they’re going to need to take on significantly more.)

In case you were wondering about population growth in the few Illinois districts where the state’s growth was concentrated, much of that growth is Hispanic. For instance, IL-08 went from 11% Hispanic in 2000 to 17% Hispanic in 2010. IL-11 went from 7% to 11% Hispanic. IL-13 went from 5% to 11% Hispanic, while IL-14 went from 18% to 25% Hispanic. (Perhaps not coincidentally, we lost seats in three of these districts, as turnout in 2010 was much whiter and older than in 2008.)

Oklahoma (which stays at 5, and where the growth has been remarkably consistent across CD boundaries) has a target of 750,270.

Four more states were released this week; again, we pick out the population by CD to see the relative standings of each district.

As devoted Swingnuts are aware by now, the Census Bureau has produced its first batch of redistricting-level data. Because Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia all have state-level elections this year, they get bumped to the head of the line. So that means we now know the current population of each congressional district as presently drawn. While the Census Bureau didn’t exactly make this data available in the most accessible format, the greasemonkeys down in the Skunkworks at SSP Labs have crunched the numbers, and here’s what they look like. Note that the “Deviation” column means how far off each current district is from the new ideal (and in the case of LA and NJ, we divided by their new seat totals of 6 and 12 respectively):