When People Stop Moving, So Do Congressional Seats

[question everything]

When People Stop Moving, So Do Congressional Seats
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
WSJ - 2/6/09

Here's something else that's likely to be affected by the recession: voting power on Capitol Hill. Just a year or two ago, New York seemed set to lose two seats in the House of Representatives after the 2010 census as its retirees fled south. Fast-growing Florida was expected to pick them up, giving each state 27 representatives. And North Carolina, the focus of massive Hispanic immigration, looked poised to add a seat. But the spreading recession and foreclosure turmoil could change those plans, along with so much else.

Suddenly, Americans are less willing and able to move, and that's likely to have an impact on the Congressional map -- and on the political muscle that some states will have in electing the next three presidents, angling for federal dollars and setting the national agenda. A single vote isn't an insignificant margin. The House passed the 2003 prescription drug plan by just one vote.

Now, swing-state Florida is likely to gain just one seat and reliably Democratic New York will lose just one.. That will help the Democrats retain their House majority, but New York's Congressional delegation also will have a bigger voice than Florida's in deciding how Congress divides up billions of dollars in economic stimulus funds. Texas, a reliably Republican state, now will get four new seats, including the seat that North Carolina, another swing state, was expecting. And solidly Democratic California, which was on track to lose a seat for the first time ever, may hold onto it after all.

(snip)

Nevada's growth rate fell by more than one third between July 2007 and July 2008, and Florida's and Arizona's were down by one-fifth. New York, which added 15,000 people between July 2006 and July 2007, grew by four times that many a year later. The same number of babies were born, the same number of people died, but 63,000 fewer New Yorkers moved away. Many demographers say that Census Day is too soon for those trends to change very much. The population count on April 1, 2010, will be used to apportion the 435 House seats for the next decade and most of the votes in the Electoral College through the 2020 presidential election. Those allocations won't change until after the 2020 census, even if the economy and immigration quickly pick up steam and Americans resume their wanderlust. That would leave residents of fast-growing states under-represented in the House and those in slow-growth states with an unfair share.

(snip)

Cash-strapped states, including California, have dropped get-out-the-count efforts that helped census takers find poor, immigrant and transient households in the past, said Terri Ann Lowenthal, who publishes a newsletter on the census. Record foreclosures and job losses also could leave people uncounted, she added. In a census trial run last year, some people who were behind on their mortgages or were living in foreclosed homes wouldn't open their doors. "They were afraid it was the sheriff," said Ms. Lowenthal.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123387838509154625.html (subscription)

[Still Sensible]

1. Looks pretty much like a wash to me

maybe an ever so slight edge on the democratic side. Arizona may finally go blue, for example. If it wasn't McCain on the ballot I think Obama would have won that state. Now with their new reactionary governor in place (replacing Napolitano) she'll have a few years to really screw things up and set it up for the democrats.

Those four Texas seats should be blue. The growth there has been in the metro areas (Dallas, San Antonio, Austin) which are blue islands in the state. And I think the more people that move to Florida, the bluer it will get.

The losses in Ohio, Missouri and Louisiana, however, favor the conservatives.

[question everything]

2. I certainly hope so

I think that one reason why we lost in the mid 90s and then in the '00 was the migration of workers from the north to the south. From stable jobs to unstable situations with losing jobs, being self employed and under employed, where a government did appear to be the problem.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Arizona has been purple for quite some time I feel like

Clinton won in '96 and polls showed Bush and Kerry very close there in 2004 until the last month when they broke in Bush's favor. It seems to me that Democrats can't get their shit together in Arizona, largely because they can't get over the Goldwater stigma of the state.

[Still Sensible]

5. As a person that grew up in Goldwater's Arizona

but in Mo Udall's district, I think you are largely correct. I think the final hurdle is also being complicated greatly in the state by the illegal immigration issue. Many otherwise rational people that tend a little left of center in Arizona can't embrace the more progressive position on that issue IMO.

[Zodiak]

4. In agree, that is the fallacy of the author's argument

The writer assumes that once a person moves to an area, his political affiliation switches to that area. This is not true at all.

[Still Sensible]

6. Very good point

the writer is correct to anticipate there will be some meaning to the migration then makes faulty assumptions.