The 2010 Census Results and the Political Landscape

[Guardsman Bass]

It looks the Census Bureau released some of the data on how the Census Results are going to change the political landscape (and particularly the Congressional Representation) of the US.

WASHINGTON — The Census Bureau rearranged the country’s political map on Tuesday, giving more Congressional seats to the South and the West, and taking away from the Northeast and the Midwest, in largely anticipated changes that will have far reaching implications for political life cycles over the next decade.

Bureau officials declared that the United States population had grown to 308,745,538 over the last decade, an increase of about 9.7 percent, close to what the bureau had estimated but the slowest rate of growth since 1940. It was the first result from the 2010 census conducted this year, a finding that will be used to reapportion seats in Congress, based on new state population counts, and, in turn, the Electoral College.

By that new count, Texas will gain four seats, Florida will gain two, while New York and Ohio each lose two. Fourteen other states gained or lost one seat. The gainers included Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah, and the losers included Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

“This teaches us how we’ve changed as a country,” said Robert Groves, director of the Census Bureau. “The trend is for a growth in seats for western and southern states.”

The release rang the opening bell on a political season of redistricting, the process of redrawing Congressional districts that has been acrimonious ever since it began in the time of George Washington and James Madison. With a presidential election just two years away, and the Republican sweep of state legislatures in November, the stakes are high.

On the surface, the Republicans would seem to have the advantage. Most of the states winning seats trend Republican, and most of those losing them tend to elect Democrats. What is more, Republicans will be in a strong position to steer the process, with Republican governors outnumbering Democrats 29 to 20, with one independent, come January. Republicans also gained control of at least 18 legislative chambers in the midterms last month.

“Republicans are in the best position since modern redistricting began,” said Tim Storey, an expert on redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But population gains in the South and West were driven overwhelmingly by minorities, particularly Hispanics, and the new districts, according to the rules of redistricting, will need to be drawn in places where they live, opening potential advantages for Democrats, who tend to be more popular among minorities.

“Just because Texas is getting four new seats does not mean Republicans will get four new Republicans to Congress,” Mr. Storey said. “You don’t have unfettered ability to redraw new boundaries.”

It is a complex landscape of shifting advantages, and lawyers for both parties are already designing legal strategies in the event of stalemates in state legislatures, where redistricting battles play out. The last census, in 2000, set off litigation in 40 states. The real work of redrawing will begin in February, when the Census Bureau releases detailed geographic counts for each state.

“You either have a deadlock or a compromise plan, and I don’t see a lot of compromise going on these days,” said Gerald Hebert, a lawyer who represents Congressional Democrats. “Parties really prepare for war on this thing.”

The population shifts will also bring significant changes to the map for the 2012 presidential race and the makeup of the Electoral College, with electoral votes being taken away from several states that President Obama carried across the Midwest and the Northeast in 2008.

Mr. Obama won eight of the nine states that are expected to lose seats, including Illinois, New York and Ohio. And of the eight states that were expected to gain one seat or more, five were carried by the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

While Republicans will see their biggest and most lasting political gains in the House of Representatives, the landscape for the next presidential race will add another layer of complication to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. The battleground state of Florida, which he carried in 2008, will become even more critical to his efforts to win a second term and to Republican attempts to defeat him.

But the most lasting political impact for Republicans and Democrats alike is the rise in the influence of Hispanic voters, particularly across Arizona, Nevada and Texas, which underscores the urgency facing both parties in finding new ways to appeal to Hispanics. In future presidential races, Democrats believe they can make inroads into Arizona and Texas, which are traditionally carried by Republicans, particularly if voters speak out against Arizona’s tough immigration law.

The White House will carefully monitor the reapportionment, particularly the adjustments to the Electoral College. Even though the changes are not as big as in other years, given that migration within the country’s borders has slowed during the recession, the shifts in electoral votes could make a difference in a close presidential election.

Ohio, for example, was among the most competitive states in the country in recent presidential campaigns, and has long been seen as a bellwether for the mood of the country. But with the state expected to lose two seats, it remains an open question whether it will remain a critical — or simply a symbolic — swing state.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke delivered the results of the 23rd United States census to President Obama on Tuesday morning. The president and his advisers have long been anticipating the outcome, particularly with the shifts in the Electoral College, but Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, said he did not believe the census findings represented a dramatic change.

Mr. Obama, under the new apportionment, would lose six electoral votes if he carried the same states that he did in 2008.

“I don’t think that shifting some seats from one area of the country to another necessarily marks a concern that you can’t make a politically potent argument in those new places,” Mr. Gibbs told reporters, signaling the intent by the White House to try and compete in Arizona and, perhaps, Texas.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 21, 2010

In an earlier version of this article, the word "million" appeared in error after the figure for the population of the United States, 308,745,538.

This is of particular interest to me because I'm a Utahn, and we finally got the 4th congressional seat. It has the possibility to really shake up the congressional environment here, depending on how the Republican-dominated state legislature decides to gerry-mander the federal congressional districts.

[Lonestar]

I'm (mildly) surprised that Virginia didn't gain a seat. We're a purple state at the moment anyway, the trick will be turning the State legislature blue.

[SirNitram]

Still surprised WV has three, given the emigration and death stats here.

[Uraniun235]

I'd heard Oregon was close to getting another seat, but I guess we didn't quite make it.

[Broomstick]

We lost a seat here - given that my state is mostly Republican that might not seem significant if the Republicans are gaining anyway, but Indiana tends to have more sane Republicans and moderate-leaning ones than some of the fire-breathing fanatics of other areas. Indiana and Texas are both "red", but I tend to prefer the Indiana flavor of Republicans better. I mean, it was a Republican state administration that has been keeping the tattered social safety net together in my area (medical insurance to folks such as myself, which didn't exist before the current governor's term, expanding outreach programs, de-privatizing some others when it became clear the company hired to to do the job wasn't doing it properly - in other words, putting people before ideology. We need more of that sort.)

[Slacker]

New York's losing one and maybe two-in all likelihood, if it's one, it'll be one from upstate and a Republican one at that. If it's two, I still think it's going to be upstate-the population map for New York is a frigging bullseye centered on the City and Long Island, and by all rights we should probably have another Congressional seat in Nassau/Suffolk. I do hear if they have to rejigger downstate, the Dems are going to try and jerrymander Peter King's district into contention, which may prove to be interesting.

I profoundly doubt we'll lose a Dem in the New York delegation.

[Soontir C'boath]

New York's losing one and maybe two-in all likelihood, if it's one, it'll be one from upstate and a Republican one at that. If it's two, I still think it's going to be upstate-the population map for New York is a frigging bullseye centered on the City and Long Island, and by all rights we should probably have another Congressional seat in Nassau/Suffolk. I do hear if they have to rejigger downstate, the Dems are going to try and jerrymander Peter King's district into contention, which may prove to be interesting.

I profoundly doubt we'll lose a Dem in the New York delegation.

Huh, I'd like to know more about the redistricting process. I thought since the Republicans are now the majority of the state senate, they'd get the say on what to do or do the Democrats still have clout in the matter?

[Kane Starkiller]

Speaking of reapportionment why isn't the size of US lower house increasing? It still has 435 members while Germany has 622, France 577, UK 650.

[Agent Sorchus]

Kane: Limits in the size of the building. It is still a bullshit excuse, but whatever.

[Broomstick]

Originally there was one representative for every 30,000 people. If they had kept to that there would now be around 10,000 members of the House, which would probably be a bit unwieldy. Around 1911 Congress realized where increasing population growth would take them and limited the House to 435 representatives. It bumped up to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were made states to allow them to seat representatives, then bumped back down to 435 again after the 1960 Census and reapportionment.

There's no reason the number couldn't be increased or decreased, but at present there seems to be no internal pressure to do either. It is not based on the size of the building, but rather keeping the number in the House from getting so large as to make things even more difficult than they currently are.

[Kane Starkiller]

Sure 10,000 representative is a bit on the large size however if it's constitutionally guaranteed that each state has at least one seat then the number of people represented by each congressman shouldn't exceed the population of that state.
As I understand it Senate is there to uphold the principle of state sovereignty thus each state has 2 senators regardless of population while lower house is there to represent individuals therefore individuals from Wyoming shouldn't be more represented than individuals from California.
The ratio today should be no more than population of Wyoming or 1:563,000 which means lower house should have roughly 550 seats. This is still about 85% size of German or UK parliaments which seem to function just fine.

[Broomstick]

Your manner of looking at things does make some sense. I just don't think there is the impetus to change right now.