Type to search

2020 Census Might Offer Hope For Democrats

Politics Tribune News Service

2020 Census Might Offer Hope For Democrats

Share

By David Hawkings, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Even at the center of the Beltway’s echo chamber, the preoccupation with a presidential election almost two years away is starting to sound a bit crazy. So maybe the best antidote is to start talking about an important political occasion more than five years in the future.

It’s the next census, on April Fools’ Day 2020. Just a handful of the numbers will have a significant effect on the congressional power structure, most importantly whether Democrats gain a better shot in the next decade at controlling the House.

And unlike the race for the White House, a fundamentally human drama with the potential to take more unpredictable turns than any previous such contest, the census story is all about mathematics and the basic plotline already is pretty easy to predict.

The main reason for a nationwide headcount at the beginning of every decade, the Constitution says, is so seats in the House can be allocated among the states. This reapportionment is a vital prerequisite to redistricting, the “R” word that gets so much more attention. That’s because the political cartographers can’t draw new congressional district lines until they know how many districts they’re allowed to draw.

We’ve reached the midpoint between the last census and the next one, and three more Election Days will pass before the next national House map is in place. But population trends paint a clear big picture of the coming changes: More seats will be stripped from the colder parts of the country and assigned to the warmer regions. And states that are either politically competitive or reliably Democratic, and where the Hispanic population is already important and growing, dominate the list of likely winners.

Using population estimates the Census Bureau released at the end of the year, the first reapportionment forecasts are out from Election Data Services, a nonpartisan consulting firm specializing in political demographics with a strong track record for such predictions. EDS now expects Texas, which is growing at the rate of half a million people annually, will be awarded three more seats. California, Colorado, Florida and North Carolina can each look forward to adding a district. Arizona, Oregon and Virginia are still in the hunt for an additional seat if their population growth is on the high end of estimates.

The states on course to lose a seat, because they’re not growing as fast as the nation, are Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. New York is on the bubble.

The projections are cause for some optimism from the Democrats. Moving seats mainly to solid “blue” or “purple” states gives the party at least a shot at decent gains in 2022, though that’s far from certain given the myriad variables in redistricting — which include control of state legislatures, the makeup of the federal courts and the views of the Justice Department. (It’s way too early to predict, for example, how many new Texas districts will be drawn to elect a Hispanic Democrat from around San Antonio or Houston instead of a conservative Republican from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.)

There’s also a chance reapportionment would slightly strengthen the 2024 and 2028 Democratic presidential nominees’ hands a bit in the Electoral College, where a state’s strength equals the size of its total congressional delegation. (Keep in mind by the time reapportionment is announced in December 2020, America will have had two presidential elections.)

The reason reapportionment is a zero-sum game has nothing to do with the Constitution. The current size of the House was fixed in a law enacted in 1909. Every state is guaranteed at least one seat, and the remaining 385 are parceled out using a formula requiring advanced knowledge in statistics to explain. (It goes by the benign name “method of equal proportions.”)

If fewer than ten seats shift next time, as seems likely, it will be the smallest reapportionment since before World War II, suggesting the enormous demographic shift of the last half-century is slowing down.

After all, over the last few decades as air-conditioning ducts filled the new homes and office buildings of the South and West and assembly lines shut down across the Midwest and Northeast, millions of people picked up stakes in the Rust Belt and put down new roots in the Sun Belt. And the political clout of the states has moved accordingly.

When John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960, just 12 percent of House members were from either California or Texas. In the next decade, that share looks to crest at 21 percent. If Arizona gets a 10th seat, its House strength will have quintupled since the 1950s. Florida’s delegation has more than tripled thanks to the previous five reapportionments. Getting a 28th seat next time would cement its status as the third most populous state ahead of New York, which has seen its House strength shrink steadily from its peak of 45 seats in the 1940s to 27 today.

If Pennsylvania loses its 19th seat, its delegation will be exactly half what it was at the height of the industrial age a century ago. If the predictions hold true, Ohio’s 15 seats (17 pivotal electoral votes) will be only three more than those for Virginia, another swing state. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, Ohio had twice as many electoral votes.

The only state looking to lose population during this decade is West Virginia, so it’s sure to shrink from three House districts to two. And Rhode Island, which has been assigned a pair of seats for all but 20 years since the 1790s, is on the cusp of becoming the eighth state represented by an at-large member. That would be an all-time high.

All this will come true, of course, only if population trends hold steady and the Census Bureau’s count reflects the gains and losses accurately. And here’s where this year’s legislative politics come in. Already, demographers are fretting about reduced appropriations leading to serious census corner-cutting.

“It would be ironic,” said EDS President Kimball Brace, if “Republican-led efforts in the new Congress to cut government spending could cause Republican-leaning states like Texas to lose out in apportionment.”

Photo: ehpien via Flickr

Tags:

You Might also Like

4 Comments

  1. Nat Ional February 9, 2015

    In my opinion, there’s no material difference between today’s liberals and the socialists, marxists, and communists of yore.

    Reply
    1. kenndeb February 10, 2015

      So very true, but you won’t find a liberal or dem that will admit they are commies.

    2. ulfur February 10, 2015

      Socialism created our middle class. The G.I Bill, the Homestead Act, public education, land grant colleges, Urban Renewal, the interstate highway system, public libraries, O & C lands given to rail roads, and on, and on are all socialist creations. The middle class would not exist with out them. The middle class always does better during Democratic administrations. If you want to destroy the middle class, vote Republican. The oligarchs will thank you for the vote.

  2. exdemo55 February 12, 2015

    Notwithstanding the accident that left him blind in his right eye and with four broken ribs, Minority Leader Harry Reid labored hard to show he was still in command during his month’s forced absence from the Senate. Aides claimed he worked the phones from 6 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., making as many as 60 calls a day.

    But it is difficult to lead a demoralized legislative caucus from a Ritz Carlton condo across town from Capitol Hill. Democratic senators watched Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin and Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer jostle each other, with conference Secretary Patty Murray nearby to break up the competition if needed.

    The troika could do little but urge the caucus to vote no. Yet there were 16 roll-call votes on amendments by Jan. 22—more than the Senate considered in 2014. On Jan. 29 nine Democrats defected to pass a bill approving construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. This is evidence the upper chamber is again a functioning legislative body.

    Mr. Reid’s return to the Senate Tuesday changes little. By choosing confrontation over conciliation and posturing over legislating, President Obama has forced congressional Democrats into being obstructionists. They are fast becoming the Party of No. Only moderate Democrats willing to buck the White House and constructively legislate can change this hardening impression.

    Complicating life for Democrats is that they not only have much to oppose from Republicans, but they also have little to stand for. Mr. Obama’s State of the Union was a political, not a governing, address. The president knows his agenda has zero chance of becoming law. It was meant not to pass but instead to motivate the Democratic base for 2016 and fix the party’s problem with middle-class and blue-collar voters.

    The latter challenge could deny Democrats the White House in 2016, according to a perceptive Jan. 31 National Journal article by liberal journalist John Judis titled“The Emerging Republican Advantage.” His 2002 book with Ruy Teixeira, “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” predicted decades of Democratic dominance through a coalition of minorities and professionals with graduate degrees. This rosy scenario is now imperiled as the white working class (36% for Mr. Obama in 2012, down from 40% in 2008) and middle-class voters (46% for Mr. Obama in 2012 after winning them in 2008) move into the GOP column.

    Mr. Obama’s agenda is unlikely to fix the party’s problems. Its elements are not all that popular with voters or even congressional Democrats. It’s hard to envision Democratic candidates in swing districts running under the fiscally irresponsible banner of “Free Community College.” The president’s proposal is especially ironic as the administration attempts shutting down for-profit colleges that do a better job of retaining and graduating the kind of students Mr. Obama says he’s championing.

    The president’s pollsters certainly tested the language Mr. Obama used in his speech to Congress. But while politicians can say “middle class” all they want, it wears thin quickly without accompanying substance.

    Mr. Judis suggests middle-class voters—those making $50,000-$100,000 a year with baccalaureate degrees—“tend to be less populist than white working-class voters when it comes to blaming Wall Street and the wealthy for the economy’s ills.” They are a growing share of the electorate and unlikely to be impressed with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric or his proposals to raise taxes on the top 20% to provide more refundable tax credits to the bottom 20%. Nor are working-class voters likely to applaud such transfer payments, too easily seen as welfare.

    Mr. Obama’s new budget would grow discretionary spending at more than twice the rate of economic growth and never balance over the next decade. Instead, it increases the national debt $7 trillion, or 51%, by 2025. This is a problem for Democrats, since 71% of respondents in the Jan. 17 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll believe it is an “absolute priority” for the administration and Congress to reduce the deficit this year.

    The budget is only one of this year’s battlegrounds and neither side will emerge unscathed. Senate Democrats will score points as they deny Republicans the 60 votes needed to pass a Homeland Security funding bill that blocks Mr. Obama’s immigration executive orders. But this will be a short-term boost.

    The year’s arc is set: Led by their stubborn and ideologically rigid president, Democrats will obstruct popular Republican proposals in Congress. If this keeps pushing middle-class and working-class voters toward the GOP, it would help Republicans win their first presidential election in a dozen years.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.