Posted on 03/25/2007 11:00:27 AM PDT by LdSentinal
Michigan is likely to lose one of its 15 seats in Congress after the 2010 U.S. census - meaning the possibility of a little less clout in Washington, a little less attention from presidential candidates and the smallest delegation from Michigan in about 100 years, based on census numbers released today.
Even though the state's population grew by 1.6% over the last six years, it did so a lot more slowly than in states like Texas (13%), Arizona (20%) and Nevada (25%). That means reapportionment of the 435-member U.S. House will send seats from slow-growing or backsliding Northeast and Midwest states to the South and West.
"I don't think there's any chance of a turnaround, given the magnitude," Clark Bensen, whose Virginia-based firm Polidata researches population numbers for political clients, said Wednesday. "Unless Toyota moves into Detroit and takes over, you're going down."
Based on Bensen's projections for 2010, Michigan will be among a handful of states likely to lose a seat - Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota among them. New York and Ohio stand to lose two, he said.
His projections show Texas gaining four seats and Florida and Arizona two apiece.
Bensen noted that if reapportionment occurred today, Michigan would keep its 15 seats. But if the trends nationwide continue, it's unlikely after the next census.
It would then be up to the state Legislature to carve out districts among 14 seats.
Michigan has lost at least one representative after each of the last four censuses, from a peak of 19 after the 1960 census. The number determines how many Electoral College votes a state gets for president, with one for every Congress member and each of two senators.
Problem is, we hold a majority of the MI House seats. This may very well cost us a seat, not the rodents.
It's almost impossible to say "possibly two," that's not how it works. I see this on Massachusetts threads, too. Moving from a loss of one to a loss of two seats in any state smaller than New York is not a knife-edge thing, you'd need a Katrina effect on TOP of the normal economic hemorrhaging.
Slow growth (1%) means Massachusetts is losing a seat in 2012. (Good.) To lose two seats, we wouldn't have to decline a few thousand a year as we've been doing recently, we'd need to lose 12% or more of our population. That simply doesn't happen in America today. And Michigan is not going to lose an extra 600,000 people above forecasts, even with the economy in the toilet.
Domestic migration to Texas has dropped substantially, so +4 is unlikely. Almost all the new residents there are international plus the Katrina refugees. What this means is that the exurbs are still growing like crazy with people from Michigan, New Jersey, and Alabama, but the inner suburbs are turning over just as fast and will become more Democrat.
You'll have another suburban district in the Metroplex and another one in the Austin/San Antonio area, and that's it.
The 2002 map was the most effective Republican redistricting in the country. This means we won't be able to hold all of our seats in 2012 if MIchigan loses one.
As I see it, the population is still there for two Wayne County-based Democrat seats, an Ann Arbor-based moonbat seat, and Sander Levin's industrial south Oakland and Macomb district. They're going to poach some downscaling suburbs from McCotter and Knollenberg who will have to move their territory further out into exurbia to stay viable.
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th districts are going to hang around based on geography and the political powers involved. Candace Miller is the incumbent in the 10th and has a lot of influence in the state and Washington, so she stays. You can't get rid of Flint and Saginaw so the 5th will endure, too.
My guess is that the 7th or the 4th district, both represented by Republicans now, will be carved up to allow for other districts to get larger.
On the plus side, if either Knollenberg (9th) or Walberg (7th) loses to a 'RAT between now and 2012, either district would jump to the front of the line for suicide.
I don't see Walberg losing, but Knollenberg looks to be the one with the biggest target on his back. Unless we take back the Governorship in 2010 along with the House, the rodents are going to look to screw us royally.
Re: Ann Arbor. The moonbats there are not happy being represented by Dingell, they regard him as old Rightist Establishment (!) Many are still pissed that Dingell was redistricted in with and beat ultraliberal moonbat Lynn Nancy Rivers.
Exactly, it would be impossible for Michigan to lose two seats in the 2010 Census. In fact, they have even odds of not even losing a seat.
"Problem is, we hold a majority of the MI House seats. This may very well cost us a seat, not the rodents."
The problem is that AZ, TX, and NV are trending more and more Dem.
See my post #26. While the GOP redistricting in MI has proven to be the most effective for us of the 2000 Census, it was far from optimal, leaving vulnerable districts in MI-04, 07, 08, 09 and 11 (and arguably 10). Pontiac and eastern West Bloomfield should have been placed in Levin's MI-12, the Grosse Pointes and more of SE Macomn should have been in Miller's MI-10, and at least part of Monroe should have been in the MI-07. I would have also stretched the MI-05 from Bay City-Saginaw-Flint all the way to Lansing-East Lansing (cutting throush Shiawanassee County (sp?)) and left Tuscola and other GOP or marginal areas for GOP districts. It will be more challenging to draw 5 GOP districts surrounding 3 Dem districts in 2010 than it was to draw the 2000 map, but it can be done.
Oops, meant post #27.
I think there are state laws about respecting county lines which explain why the Grosse Pointes aren't already in the 10th district and also why Sander Levin's district has never dipped south of 8 Mile Road. I'd have to look it up to be certain but I think that constrains aggressive mapping.
Believe me, the state legislature had no desire to put the Grosse Pointes in a Detroit district.
Good proposal, since it's likely that the exodus from Detroit is a large part of the population drain.
I'm expecting unprecedented shenanigans with the next census if the dims are in power. They will pull stunts like trying to count illegals, submitting fake census forms and figures, you name it to keep power in the blue states.
The state constitution limits the extent to which the legislature can divide counties when creating state representative and senate districts, but it is silent regarding congressional districts. I'm not sure if there are any laws that so limit the state legislature, but (i) such laws could have been amended and (ii) even if they were in existence, they would be unconstitutional if they limited the ability of the state legislature to comply with the Voting Rights Act when drawing districts. For example, if in order to create two 65%-black congressional districts legislators attached the Ypsilantis (which are in Washtenaw County and like 30% black) to Kilpatrick's black Detroit CDs, or to attach black parts of south Oakland County to Conyers's black Detroit CD, a state law (or even a state constitutional provision) would not be able to prohibit that.
In practice, MI legislators have not been forced to keep together counties such as Barry (split among 3 CDs, I believe) or the countless other counties with below 600,000 residents that were nonetheless split. I think that the reasons why the Grosse Pointes were kept in a Detroit CD were (i) they had always been there, (ii) they didn't want to split counties too much for fear of voter backlash, and (iii) to connect the Grosse Pointes to the 10th CD they would also need to add St. Clair Shores (33,000 residents, only 46% for Bush in 2000, and part of Bonior's bailiwick) in the 10th CD. I think it was a huge mistake, and one that should not be repeated in 2010 if the GOP controls redistricting again (although there are a couple of precincts in Grosse Pointe Park that should be kept in a Detroit CD).
That's a good thing.
Am I one of the few that believes the most recent 2006 Census Bureau estimates for some of these cities, namely Detroit and DC, are "cooking the books" and not reflecting the actual declines ? Some of the numbers just don't pass the smell test. I don't buy the "levelling off" or even small growth (!) claims that the numbers give rise to. Even the estimates for NOLA (which showed the substantial drop from post-Katrina) seemed awfully high (perhaps by 25% or more).
Ironically, in my own city of Nashville, the CB has been substantially undercounting our population growth (currently by between 30-40k, which is around 7-8% undercount). They were pulling that stunt in the '90s when they were claiming "only" 10k-15k growth was estimated by 2000, when it turned out that we had our highest influx of residents in decades and was between 4 and 5 TIMES that number. There definitely seems to be some shenanigans going on at the CB with padding figures for non-White urban areas. Either it's stupidity or it's a political agenda, and I think we can guess which.
Detroit, maybe, but there's a been a ton of gentrification and building activity in D.C. so I wouldn't be surprised if the population leveled off.
I think the Census estimates are based in part of income tax returns which makes you wonder how many people don't show up in that system, either as having lived there or having left.
I'm seeing references to a 1999 law passed by the State Legislature. Of course, as you said, the legislature can take it away if it wants to, but that would probably require unified government or a veto override.
Wayne County has 840,000 African-Americans so they won't have any trouble keeping 2 VRA districts within county lines. If a legislature tried to override the law this way they'd face a lawsuit alleging packing from the Democrats.
Did you see the results from the 7th district last year? The Democrat was a true fourth-rater, not even a local elected official, but an organic farmer who raised no money. She took 46% in an open seat race against a state senator. I'm trusting the environment will be better next time but this is not a district in which we can pack Democrat-leaning areas like Monroe County and hope to keep an excellent conservative like Tim Walberg in office.
In 2001, the GOP controlled both houses of the legislature and the governorship, which is why the party could push through its partisan redistricting plan. It wouldn't have taken too much additional pushing to also repeal the 1998 law that you mention and make the plan even better for the GOP.
The two black-majority CDs were around 69%-70% black back in 2000, so had the legislature drawn them to be over 65% black (as opposed to 61% black, as they are today) it would have been arguably required by the VRA. Remember, the VRA prohibits retrogression (or whatever it is that they call reducing the ability of minorities to elect the representative of their choice), and it has long been argued that due to lower turnout among minorities that having a majority-minority district is not enough.
If MI loses a seat in 2010, its congressional districts will have around 736,000 persons. It will be impossible to draw two 60%-black CDs entirely within Wayne County. If the GOP combines the heaviest Democrat parts of the Detroit area to draw two urban-suburban CDs that are 55% black and a third urban-suburban CD that is, say, 35% black, I seriously doubt that the DOJ or a court will strike down such a plan.
As for Walberg's 7th CD, I know that his 3rd-tier opponent got 46%. The district gave President Bush 51% in 2000 and 54% in 2004, so it's not exactly Ottawa County there, and there was some lingering animosity from Schwarz and his RINO backers for having been defeated in the primary, not to mention the fact that DeVos's candidacy tanked at the end. Of course, it was also a terrible election for the GOP just about nationwide, and socially conservative, economically populist areas such as the ones in the MI-07 were exactly the places where many who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 turned their backs on the GOP in 2006 (see also the PA-04, KS-02, PA-10, NC-11, IN-02, IN-08, IN-09, IA-01, MN-01, OH-18, etc.). The Democrats have got to be kicking themselves for not running a good candidate in the district (there were several Dem state senators and state reps, some of them social conservatives, who probably would have won under the circumstances), but 2008 will be a lot tougher election for the Democrats to win that seat, since turnout should favor conservatives in that district in a presidential year (unless a RINO like Rudy gets the GOP nomination, in which case we may see low turnout among conservatives.
Oh, I forgot to mention your comment re: Monroe County. The MI-07 gave President Bush 51% in 2000 and 54% in 2004. If the MI-07 is redrawn in 2010 to exclude Calhoun County (give it to Upton, from whom I would take Kalamazoo away and give it to Ehlers) and the city of Jackson (give it to Rogers, who would have Lansing and East Lansing carved out), and to include all of Monroe County plus Gibraltar, Huron, Grosse Ile, Trenton, and maybe a couple of additional marginal townships in southern Wayne County, it would have given President Bush around 52% in 2000 and 55%+ in 2004. I think Tim Walberg would be very tough to beat in such a district.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.