2010 U.S. Census thread

[xcellntbuy]

Just to clarify, Alexander Hamilton was born on Nevis.

[J N Winkler]

He was, and he was also eligible to run for President under a clause, now long spent, in Article II of the Constitution which allowed people who had been in the US at the time of adoption to run for President.  He therefore should not be used as an example of someone disqualified under the "natural-born" provision but he continues to be so used by high-school US History teachers, including mine.

[Scott5114]

I don't see how it's unfair that states that aren't growing as quickly lose House seats. If they're growing slower than other states their percentage of the population is still declining. Moving around House seats like we're doing now is functionally exactly the same as if we were giving the fast-growing states new House seats–the faster growing states gain representation, the slower-and-declining-growth states lose representation. (Even if you keep your seats and new ones are added, then it is in fact the same–the power of your X number of representatives is diluted because there are more of them in the chamber.) Adding more House seats just increases the cost of doing business by adding more reps and their staffers, all of whom have to be paid and their offices housed.

[SP Cook]

IMHO,

It is perfectly fair and right (not to mention required by the Constitution) to reapportion the seats among the states, and to further redraw the districts within states, based on population.  Especially considering the unrepresenative nature of the Senate.

The 435 number was the number when the Congress decided enough was enough.  Its as good as any other number.

The USA should be asshamed of the way we draw districts.  Take a look at the maps, either the current ones or the new ones to come out, and see the crazy districts drawn for partisan or racial reasons.  IMHO, if the US had districts based on simple geographic units (central city, smaller city and its suburbs, the suburbs of a central city, the rural parts of a state, etc) the politics of the country would be better.

[mightyace]

^^^

Agreed.  One district in TN that I used to live in included both part of Nashville Metro and the Memphis suburbs.  This was a partisan play as the area in Davidson count (Nashville) was one of the few predominantly Republican areas in the city.  At some point, the district is only 3-5 miles wide and I don't think there would be a way to drive from one end of the district to the other without leaving it.

I picked that simply because it was familiar.  Both major parties do this and the offending party (pun intended) is whatever one holds the balance of power in that state's legislature.

Now that the Republicans control the state government here, I unfortunately expect to see new districts drawn to the other extreme.

Also, another common tactic is redrawing the lines to make sure two of the opposing party are now in the same district.  This is easier, though not limited to, states that lose seats.

[J N Winkler]

I don't see how it's unfair that states that aren't growing as quickly lose House seats. If they're growing slower than other states their percentage of the population is still declining. Moving around House seats like we're doing now is functionally exactly the same as if we were giving the fast-growing states new House seats–the faster growing states gain representation, the slower-and-declining-growth states lose representation. (Even if you keep your seats and new ones are added, then it is in fact the same–the power of your X number of representatives is diluted because there are more of them in the chamber.) Adding more House seats just increases the cost of doing business by adding more reps and their staffers, all of whom have to be paid and their offices housed.

Yup, this is a valid point.  The strongest argument for increasing the number of representatives relates to retail politics:  the ability of the individual citizen to meet his or her member of Congress and have his or her concerns heard and acted upon.  However, as I said upthread, I think it would take at least an order-of-magnitude increase in order for change to be perceptible in this aspect of things.

The problem of declining relative population bites different states differently.  Low-population Rocky Mountain states like Wyoming and Montana still retain enormous influence through their senatorial delegations (which tend to lean Republican).  The states which really lose out through declining relative population are Great Lakes/rustbelt states like Michigan (which are urbanized and tend to lean Democratic).

Agreed.  One district in TN that I used to live in included both part of Nashville Metro and the Memphis suburbs.  This was a partisan play as the area in Davidson count (Nashville) was one of the few predominantly Republican areas in the city.  At some point, the district is only 3-5 miles wide and I don't think there would be a way to drive from one end of the district to the other without leaving it.

I have heard of at least one district (in metropolitan Chicago, I think) which essentially consists of two noncontiguous chunks connected by a highway corridor.  That means part of the district is no wider than a highway ROW.

These redistricting plans are the result of logrolling between the two parties, subject to constraints imposed by past judicial precedent, and are developed in full expectation of court review.  For example, the doctrine of one person one vote is construed as a soft guarantee of proportional representation for minority groups, although this is typically cast in negative terms--e.g., you are not allowed to create districts which dilute black votes to the extent that black voters cannot elect a black Congressperson (or at any rate a Congressperson who will function as a recognized advocate for "black" issues).  As your example shows, party affiliation (either declared or based on past election returns) can also be a factor in redistricting.

I think the current redistricting process is messy and does not entirely succeed in its design aim of preventing one party from developing overweening power on a localized basis, but it is hard to imagine acceptable substitutes.  For example, the paradigm SP Cook suggests could easily lead to a situation where urban votes get diluted by rural votes as part of the process of making up the numbers.  (We have this problem in the Kansas legislature right now.  Since it is a state legislature, both House and Senate seats are apportioned according to the one-person-one-vote doctrine, but the House has 125 seats to play with while the Senate has just 40.  Before the past election, Wichita had an [almost?] all-Republican Senatorial delegation, since most Senate seats in the Wichita area are large and have significant dilution of urban votes by rural votes, while Wichita's House delegation was about half Republican and half Democrat.)

In Britain MPs' constituency boundaries are drawn up by an independent and at least nominally nonpartisan Boundary Commission.  The process is somewhat analogous to what happens in US states where redistricting has to occur under active judicial supervision.  It is not entirely free from political interference because changes to constituency boundaries have to be introduced to Parliament by a Secretary of State (i.e., elected politician), so they can be legislated in the normal way.  Plus, as si404 notes upthread, there are all sorts of odd constraints which have to be observed--e.g. Isle of Wight has to be treated on its own, Shetland and Orkney Islands each get their own MSP, so many MPs for Wales, so many MPs for Northern Ireland, City of London cannot be divided and must be in a seat which has "City of London" in the name, etc.

[corco]

I could make some sort of argument about how states with stagnating populations (eg the Rust Belt) are the ones that need representation the most, but such an argument is almost certainly unconstitutional and would require massive change in perception of government that couldn't possibly happen, so I won't.

[Scott5114]

I have heard of at least one district (in metropolitan Chicago, I think) which essentially consists of two noncontiguous chunks connected by a highway corridor.  That means part of the district is no wider than a highway ROW.

You're thinking of Illinois's 4th:

[Michael in Philly]

I don't see how it's unfair that states that aren't growing as quickly lose House seats. If they're growing slower than other states their percentage of the population is still declining. Moving around House seats like we're doing now is functionally exactly the same as if we were giving the fast-growing states new House seats–the faster growing states gain representation, the slower-and-declining-growth states lose representation. (Even if you keep your seats and new ones are added, then it is in fact the same–the power of your X number of representatives is diluted because there are more of them in the chamber.) Adding more House seats just increases the cost of doing business by adding more reps and their staffers, all of whom have to be paid and their offices housed.

On the other hand, that cost of doing business is - by definition - being shared by more people....

I think there's something to be said for a representative serving a reasonably limited number of people - I see my member of the Pennsylvania legislature in my neighborhood all the time.  In European countries that have proportional representation (where, to oversimplify a bit, every party presents a list of candidates large enough to fill the parliament, everyone in the country gets the same "ballot," with all these party lists and votes for the party of their choice, and a party getting, say, 35 percent of the vote gets 35 percent of the seats), one disadvantage, in my opinion, is that there's no one you can think of as "my" congressman.

Yet if we made the House much bigger than it is, it would become unmanageable.  I think the Chinese parliament has something like 2,000 members.  And of course it's a rubber stamp.  I wonder about India, as the world's most populated democracy.

[Michael in Philly]

I have heard of at least one district (in metropolitan Chicago, I think) which essentially consists of two noncontiguous chunks connected by a highway corridor.  That means part of the district is no wider than a highway ROW.

You're thinking of Illinois's 4th:

About 20 years ago, North Carolina created a district that consisted of mostly-black neighborhoods of every city from Durham to Gastonia, and stretches of I-85 to connect them.  The Supreme Court struck that one down, announcing a "compact and contiguous" requirement, but it seems not to be being enforced.  (If no one challenges a district like that one in the Chicago area, the courts won't deal with it.  I think - I may be wrong - that the South, because of its history particularly relating to disenfranchisement of minorities, is subject to more active supervision by the U.S. Department of Justice.)

I once lived in a New Jersey district affectionately known as the Fishhook....

[SP Cook]

The district you are refering to is NC's 12th district.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif

Pretty much it is the black parts of Charlotte, Salisbury, High Point, Lexington, Thomasville, Winston-Salem and Greenboro, joined together by the interstate (where, of course, no one lives.)

Illinois 4th, referenced above, are the two Spanish parts of Chicago, again joined by a highway.

The law you are thinking about is the "voting rights act" (which has nothing to do anymore with anyone's right to vote) which requires certain states to draw what are called "majority minority districts", which lead to the contorted things you see here.  Rather than do what, IMHO, is normal and reasonable, which is to draw the districts fairly and let the chips fall where they may.

[Michael in Philly]

The district you are refering to is NC's 12th district.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif

Pretty much it is the black parts of Charlotte, Salisbury, High Point, Lexington, Thomasville, Winston-Salem and Greenboro, joined together by the interstate (where, of course, no one lives.)

Illinois 4th, referenced above, are the two Spanish parts of Chicago, again joined by a highway.

The law you are thinking about is the "voting rights act" (which has nothing to do anymore with anyone's right to vote) which requires certain states to draw what are called "majority minority districts", which lead to the contorted things you see here.  Rather than do what, IMHO, is normal and reasonable, which is to draw the districts fairly and let the chips fall where they may.

^^I don't think that's it:  this was a good 20 years ago, so the apportionment coming out of the 1980 census (maybe 1990).  And the Supreme Court threw it out - that I'm certain of.  Googling the expression "compact and contiguous" reveals that the term goes back much farther than I thought:  it's in statutes going back to (at least) the 1920s and the Supreme Court addressed it in 1932.  So, a research project I don't have time for now.

The last time this came up, and I wanted a map of New Jersey's Fishhook, I couldn't find historical district boundaries anywhere.

All of that said, the concept of majority-minority districts could be seen as detrimental to minorities, rather than beneficial, if you gather all the African-Americans in a given state into as few districts as possible.  Because the remaining districts come out whiter.  All of which sounds a bit old-fashioned now, since we're past the point where blacks or whites are monolithic or where there's no one else in the population.

But, as I said, no time now.  To be continued, perhaps....

[vdeane]

I just want to point out that making districts based on race was ruled unconstitutional.  Can still do it by party though.

[mightyace]

Agreed.  One district in TN that I used to live in included both part of Nashville Metro and the Memphis suburbs.

This district is Tennessee's 7th Congressional District:


and the 3rd is a bit funky, too.

[berberry]

The 435 number was the number when the Congress decided enough was enough.  Its as good as any other number.

You make some good points, but I disagree with this one.  I don't know what they have to do to expand the House, but they really need to do it.  I don't think a rep can be as responsive to constituent issues as he or she needs to be when they're representing such a huge group of people as some of them do now.  Maximum district size, in population, should be no more than 700k, in my opinion.  500k is even better.

If it means tightening up on the floorspace afforded each lawmaker, or even remodeling of the Capitol building, it needs to happen.  We're getting farther and farther away from true representative govt; we need to take a step back the other way.

[J N Winkler]

I think - I may be wrong - that the South, because of its history particularly relating to disenfranchisement of minorities, is subject to more active supervision by the U.S. Department of Justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Preclearance

But in fact the states subject to preclearance are not all in the South or the former Confederacy--Arizona and Alaska are subject to it too.

Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting.  It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.

[golden eagle]

Wow, this reapportionment deal really took off here!

But to change the subject a bit, while we wait for other census numbers to come in, what are you expecting to happen to your area's population compared to 2000? I expect Jackson and Hinds County to drop, with the metropolitan area as a whole increasing in population. Jackson recently annexed four square miles land near the newly-incorporated Byram area as a compromise of sorts since Jackson wanted to annex all of what is now Byram. Even with the annexation, I expect the population of Jackson to be near 180K. Recent estimates had it around 175K. That would still put it below the 2000 figure of over 184K.

[Landshark]

Here is my attempt to redistrict and add a seat to Washington.  It is not entirely accurate as I do not have the 2010 data. 





Close-up of Western Washington:




Changes:

1st:  becomes an entirely east sound district.  Trades Shoreline, Bainbridge, and North Kitsap, for Bellevue and Everett.

2nd: The state's NW district needs to shrink due to strong growth.  It loses South Everett and Skykomish.

3rd:  The state's SW district sheds Olympia and gains Klickitat County and the Westport Peninsula. 

4th: Due to strong growth, the district sheds Chelan, Kittitas, Klickitat, and western Adams County.  Adds Walla Walla and Columbia.

5th: Sheds Walla Walla and Columbia.  Gains Adams panhandle. 

6th: Unites the entire Olympic Peninsula by adding North Kitsap, Bainbridge, and Olympia.  Sheds Lakewood, western Tacoma, and Westport.

7th:  Trades Vashon Island and Lake Forest Park for Shoreline.

8th:  Loses downtown Bellevue, Points Cities, and portions of Pierce and South King.  Adds Woodinville, more Renton, Kittitas, and Chelan.

9th:  Loses Olympia, Lacey, Yelm, and Spanaway.  Adds Vashon Island and portion of the old 8th in Pierce and South King County. 

10th:  the new district includes Tacoma, Lakewood, Lacey, Yelm, and rural Pierce County.


Comments:

- Inslee lives on Bainbridge and would have to move under the above scenario (or retire to run for Governor as has been rumored)

- Not sure exactly where in Auburn Dave Reichert lives, so I may have chopped him out.  It would be easy to get him back in by trading away another piece to the 9th.

- All others are secure in their district.

- A possibility to represent the new 10th would be former Congressman and current Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler.  I don't see the GOP with a shot there.

- The 7th, 9th, and 10th districts are pretty safe to ultra safe Democrat districts.  The 4th and 5th are safe GOP districts.  The 3rd and 8th lean Republican while the 1st and 6th lean Democrat.  The 2nd is pretty close to a swing district.


More detail:

[Landshark]

Here is a slightly tweaked version of the one I posted above.  I drew it up over OFM's 2000 density map to show where the people are approximately (some areas have grown/densified over the last 10 years).   I added more East Wenatchee in exchange for the Adams panhandle (Othello).  I drew the lines by hand (poorly), so it is not totally accurate, but a good representation.  

[SP Cook]

Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting.  It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.

Umm, no.  "Joe Smith" in Spanish is "Joe Smith", in French it is "Joe Smith".  In Chinese, it is "Joe Smith". 

The VRA was supposed to be a temporary deal.  It has been extended three times.   At one time one of the two major political parties was based on denying the vote to blacks.  It no longer holds to that platform, and in fact is now headed by a black.  Since that political party has joined the other's long heald (since its founding) views on race, the VRA is no longer needed, because it no longer has anything to do with the right to vote, since no one (well no one with any chance of winning anything) wants to take away anyones.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting.  It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.

Umm, no.  "Joe Smith" in Spanish is "Joe Smith", in French it is "Joe Smith".  In Chinese, it is "Joe Smith". 

The VRA was supposed to be a temporary deal.  It has been extended three times.   At one time one of the two major political parties was based on denying the vote to blacks.  It no longer holds to that platform, and in fact is now headed by a black.  Since that political party has joined the other's long heald (since its founding) views on race, the VRA is no longer needed, because it no longer has anything to do with the right to vote, since no one (well no one with any chance of winning anything) wants to take away anyones.

Said political party (known to Americans as the Republican Party) is no longer "headed" by a black man. He was voted out as RNC chair two weeks ago.
Now as to whether the Republican Party "likes blacks" as you're hinting above. As long as you're a millionaire, the Republican party likes you. Color doesn't matter, Income class does.
As to whether the VRA is needed, or not. Alot more issues need to be considered than just the chair of the RNC, or the President of the United States being men of color.

[Michael in Philly]

Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting.  It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.

Umm, no.  "Joe Smith" in Spanish is "Joe Smith", in French it is "Joe Smith".  In Chinese, it is "Joe Smith". 

The VRA was supposed to be a temporary deal.  It has been extended three times.   At one time one of the two major political parties was based on denying the vote to blacks.  It no longer holds to that platform, and in fact is now headed by a black.  Since that political party has joined the other's long heald (since its founding) views on race, the VRA is no longer needed, because it no longer has anything to do with the right to vote, since no one (well no one with any chance of winning anything) wants to take away anyones.

Said political party (known to Americans as the Republican Party) is no longer "headed" by a black man. He was voted out as RNC chair two weeks ago.
Now as to whether the Republican Party "likes blacks" as you're hinting above. As long as you're a millionaire, the Republican party likes you. Color doesn't matter, Income class does.
As to whether the VRA is needed, or not. Alot more issues need to be considered than just the chair of the RNC, or the President of the United States being men of color.

Actually, I thought he was talking about the Democrats (as the party that's in a very different place from where it was before the civil rights movement), in contrast to a party that started out anti-slavery (anti-expansion-of-slavery-outside-the-South would be more accurate).  But, can of worms....

[J N Winkler]

Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting.  It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.

Umm, no.  "Joe Smith" in Spanish is "Joe Smith", in French it is "Joe Smith".  In Chinese, it is "Joe Smith".

You are forgetting special questions, which also appear on ballots.

The VRA was supposed to be a temporary deal.  It has been extended three times.   At one time one of the two major political parties was based on denying the vote to blacks.  It no longer holds to that platform, and in fact is now headed by a black.  Since that political party has joined the other's long held (since its founding) views on race, the VRA is no longer needed, because it no longer has anything to do with the right to vote, since no one (well no one with any chance of winning anything) wants to take away anyone's.

You are forgetting segregationist Democrats, Republican poll watchers, and vote caging.  There are enough states and localities trying to pursue dubious practices with regard to voting that the DOJ still has to mind the store.  The Voting Rights Act gives them the authority to do so.

[golden eagle]

I was reading a story on the local fishwrap's website and Mississippi's census data is to be released Friday. I don't know what kind of data and if all the other states' data will be included too. Check back here on Friday for more details.

[english si]

I was reading a story on the local fishwrap's website

I thought it was a specifically British thing to wrap fish in poor newspapers.

We have our decennial census this year, including a few controversial questions about the bedroom (the religion question is also controversial, but not for "the state shouldn't be involved in this" reasons, but more "this is a irrelevant question so I'll say I'm a Jedi as it'll be funny" reasons).