2010 Census projections and Redistricting – update

In August of 2007, I posted on the State Data Center’s 2010 population projections and how population growth might affect the 2010 redistricting. The North Carolina State Data Center has lots of numbers. Of interest to the legislative community is their population projections.  Most recently updated June 18, 2008, the Population Growth 2000-2010 dataset gives some ideas about the next round of redistricting scheduled for the 2011 session.  Based on the analysis below, Wake and Mecklenburg Counties are each likely to gain two House seats, and Wake a Senate seat. Remember of course, all 2010 numbers are just projections.

Growth in an urbanizing pattern

The 2010 estimates show a total estimated population growth for the decade of 18.1%, up from last year’s projections of 17.4%. Since the number of House and Senate seats is fixed at 120 and 50 respectively, counties that grow faster than the state average gain representation, while those with less lose representation.  Just 25 of the 100 counties are projected to grow at a rate higher than the State average. Counties growing at a higher average are mostly around the Triangle, Charlotte area, and the coast.

The 25 counties that are estimated to grow at a higher rate than the State average are:

Brunswick (52%), Cabarrus (37%), Camden (53%), Chatham (27%), Clay (25%), Currituck (41%),  Davie (23%), Durham 20%, Franklin (26%), Gates (19%), Granville 19%, Harnett (23%), Henderson (21%), Hoke (40%), Iredell (32%), Johnston (41%), Lee (21%), Lincoln (21%), Mecklenburg (35%), New Hanover (26%), Pasquotank (24%), Pitt 20%, Pender (33%), Union (68%), and Wake (47%). 

Compared with the 2007 projections, Dare and Macon Counties are now growing at less than the state average, while Durham, Granville and Pitt have moved into the greater growth average.  Growth is also speeding up in the metropolitan areas.  The projected growth over the decade for Cabarrus County has increased from 35% to 37%, Mecklenburg up from 33% to 35%, Union up from 65% to 68%, and Wake up from 45% to 47%.

 

Net increase in House seats

The six counties with the biggest projected net increase in House seats are: Wake 2.26, Mecklenburg 1.46, Union 0.78, Johnston 0.35, Brunswick 0.31, and Cabarrus 0.31.  Senate gains would be in the same proportion. Remember of course, all 2010 numbers are just projections.

The Stephenson cases 

The North Carolina Supreme Court in its 2002 Stephenson I  opinion and 2003 Stephenson II opinion said that all districts must be within plus or minus 5% of population equality, and absent Voting Rights Act consideration, any county entitled to a whole number of seats (within the 5% tolerance) will have all those districts as subsets within that county. This is often referred to as  a “single-county cluster”, and simplifies the beginning part of redistricting.

Single county clusters in 2000 and 2010

In 2000 there were three single-county clusters in the Senate: Wake 4, Forsyth 2, and New Hanover 1.   In 2000 there were ten single-county clusters in the House: Alamance 2, Buncombe 3, Cabarrus 2, Guilford 6, Lincoln 1, Mecklenburg 10, Randolph 2, Rowan 2, Wake 9, Wilkes 1.  Pitt would have been a 2 seat single-county cluster except for division on account of the Voting Rights Act.  

For 2010, projections show two single-county Senate clusters, Mecklenburg and Wake each with 5 seats. In the House projected single-county clusters are: Buncombe 3, Caldwell 1, Catawba 2, Cumberland 4, Davidson 2, Guilford 6, Iredell 2, Lincoln 1, Mecklenburg 12, and Wake 11. Pitt would still be a 2-seat single county cluster were it not for the Voting Rights Act. Wilson would be a 1-seat single county cluster  Remember of course, all 2010 numbers are just projections.

Urbanization

A look at clusters of counties around the Triangle, Triad, and Charlotte area show the following changes in House seats for a region. (Senate changes would be proportional)

Triad: Alamance, Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, and Rockingham.  Drops from 18.31 to 17.37 seats. (-0.94). The 17.37 is down from 17.40 in the 2007 projections.

Triangle: Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Orange, Johnston, and Wake. Increases from 17.67 to 20.37 seats. (+2.7). The 20.37 is up from 20.12 in the 2007 projections. Interestingly from 1973 through 1982, these six counties had 13 seats. This is a 57% increase in representation for these six counties in 40 years.

Charlotte area: Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, and Union. Increases from 19.79 to 22.35 seats. (+2.42). The 22.35 is up from 22.21 in the 2007 projections. From 1973 through 1982, these six counties and Alexander (Iredell and Alexander were in a district then) had 17 seats compared with 22.83 including Alexander projected for 2010. This is a 34% increase in representation for these seven counties in 40 years.

Spreadsheet

I’ve taken the State Data Center data, added columns for changes in House and Senate seats and uploaded it as an html table to show all the numbers used above.

Population Trends Map

I’ve ppsted an image of a population trend map- below, a 567k .pdf file of the map is here [pending]. Population changes are shown in two colors, the counties that have grown faster than the State average (shown in orange) and counties that are projected to have a decline in population (shown in green – the lighter color on a black and white printer)

2008 projections

North Carolina population trends for 2010: 2008 projections

(thanks to Raleigh Myers and Dan Frey for assistance with the map and to Kelly Stallings for the html data table conversion)

Advertisements

10 Responses to 2010 Census projections and Redistricting – update

  1. JB says:

    Could you explain what these clusters you talk about are and how they affect redistricting?

  2. gercohen says:

    JB — you asked about clustering, here is an excerpt from the court case:
    http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2002/094-02-1.htm The grouping of counties mentioned below is populary called “clustering”

    In counties having a non-VRA population pool which cannot support at least one legislative district at or within plus or minus five percent of the ideal population for a legislative district or, alternatively, counties having a non-VRA population pool which, if divided into districts, would not comply with the at or within plus or minus five percent “one-person, one-vote” standard, the requirements of the WCP are met by combining or grouping the minimum number of whole, contiguous counties necessary to comply with the at or within plus or minus five percent “one-person, one-vote” standard. Within any suchcontiguous multi-county grouping, compact districts shall be formed, consistent with the at or within plus or minus five percent standard, whose boundary lines do not cross or traverse the “exterior” line of the multi-county grouping; provided, however, that the resulting interior county lines created by any such groupings may be crossed or traversed in the creation of districts within said multi-county grouping but only to the extent necessary to comply with the at or within plus or minus five percent “one-person, one-vote” standard. The intent underlying the WCP must be enforced to the maximum extent possible; thus, only the smallest number of counties necessary to comply with the at or within plus or minus five percent “one- person, one-vote” standard shall be combined, and communities of interest should be considered in the formation of compact and contiguous electoral districts.

  3. Phyllis says:

    Are illegal immigrants included in the projected population totals?

  4. There is certainly a great deal to know about this topic.
    I love all the points you made.

  5. I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but your blogs really
    nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back down the road. Cheers

  6. I got this website from my friend who told me regarding this
    web page and at the moment this time I am browsing this web page and
    reading very informative posts at this time.

  7. What a data of un-ambiguity and preserveness of valuable experience regarding unexpected emotions.

  8. There’s certainly a great deal to know about this issue.
    I love all the points you made.

  9. I am really enjoying the theme/design of your blog.
    Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility
    problems? A small number of my blog audience have complained about my
    website not working correctly in Explorer but looks great in Chrome.

    Do you have any ideas to help fix this issue?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: