Redistricting UPDATE: Texas to Hold More Than 8 of Seats Post-January 2013

A Century at 435 Members By Mike Asmus Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN Texas  My how this still-young nation of ours has grown over its relatively brief history. More than 308.75 million Americans counted up in the 2010 census. Thats a near 10 gain over the count made in 2000. Texas comes in with one of the countrys greatest growth spurts over the decade posting a 2010 count of 25.15 million people.   This 20.6 percent jump over the past decade places four more U.S. House seats in the Lone Star States congressional delegation. Coming in with a bronze medal for statewide population in 1980 and 1990 Texas has held the silver since 2000 when podium spots with New York were swapped and is now second in numbers only to California. (And of course second to none in many respects...) To look at the population shift over the last decade we find the Southeast Southwest West and Northwest attracting newcomers largely from states in the Northeast Midwest and Plains. A stretch of terribly damaging weather surely held down growth rates for Alabama Mississippi and Louisiana. (In fact many Gulf Coasters inspired to move by the ravages of Katrina and her kin became Texans.) As noted earlier California is still the nations population king but its 10 jump from the last census wasnt enough to earn an added House seat making this the first census cycle ever in which the Golden State hasnt grown its Congressional delegation since attaining statehood in 1850.

• Bucking the warmth-seeking trend in a way is North Dakota whose growth percentage this cycle more than quadrupled its 1990-2000 posting.
• That said this cycles 4.7 percent growth equates to a population of 673000 Cornhuskers making Nebraska the 3rd least populated state. 
• Michigan has the lonely distinction of being the only state to have in fact dropped in population since the 2000 count.
• Rhode Island almost kept the Great Lakes State company in posting a slim .4 percent increase.
• Nevada tops the 10-year growth list by posting an eye-opening 35 Viva!

Back a few steps to the part where Texas is set to gain those four House seats in Washington. These are not newly-created seats; the membership of the House has not expanded for a century. Rather seats are reapportioned following each decennial census from a long-frozen total to balance or come as close as possible to balancing the number of people represented within each of the nations congressional districts. This necessarily pulls seats from states with lackluster population growth (compared among all states) and puts them in the quicker gaining ones.  Eighteen of the 50 states were affected by the 2010 round of census-driven reapportionment. Joining Texas in the gainer column are:

1. Florida picking up two seats; and
2. Arizona
3. Georgia
4. Nevada
5. South Carolina
6. Utah and
7. Washington each picking up one seat.
8. (The Texas expansion by four was this rounds largest per-state seat gain.)

States shedding a (1) seat are:

1. Illinois
2. Iowa
3. Louisiana
4. Massachusetts
5. Michigan
6. Missouri
7. New Jersey
8. and Pennsylvania.
9. Also New York loses two (2) seats
10. and so does Ohio.

With a present House delegation of 18 the Buckeye State will feel the loss of a pair of seats more keenly than New York whose soon-to-be delegation of 27 will now match that of two-seat gainer Florida. Ohios Republican state lawmakers who control the state Senate and take the state House in January will have an added challenge during redistricting in seeking to stake out enough real estate to have all of the 13 Republicans sent to the U.S. House in 2010 (including one John Boehner) remain in competitive districts for 2012 when the Buckeye States congressional seat count drops to 16. Smaller-government arguments aside no state wants to lose any degree of representation in Washington; the smaller the legislative delegation the lesser the legislative influence. The same principle holds true for the electoral college. Used to decide presidential races the college is made up of electors from the 50 states.  Each states electoral delegation matches the number of their respective U.S. representatives plus their two U.S. senators. Contracting from five to four congressional districts Iowa incurs the greatest mathematical weakening in legislative influence. The Hawkeye States electoral college strength accordingly drops by one no mild irony for the perennial launching pad for presidential bids. Taken when the ink of the Constitution was still drying the 1790 census posted a count of a mere 3.93 million recently ex-colonists. Interestingly as robust as the 2000-2010 census growth of 9.7 percent appears its the lowest jump since the 1930-1940 period. This time span completely in the throes of the not-so-Great Depression booked a growth rate of just over 7 percent. Recessionary drag surely was a braking force on this current round of population growth. In any case there are nearly 100 times more Americans tromping about today than there were at the time of the first census. However sliced the nations certainly expanded; shouldnt the House roster have grown too? House membership did expand following the first 13 rounds of census taking. The Constitution ably sets out the minimum number of possible seats (50 presently) under the dictate that each state have at least one representative. It also sets a theoretical maximum (presently nearly 10000yikes...) as no representative can have a district of fewer than 30000 constituents. The House of 1793 had 105 members each representing 33000 constituents among the nations then 15 states. House size grew steadily through the 1800s as the nation grew in numbers of people and as the field of stars on the nations flag grew. The House of 1893 had 356 members each representing some 174000 souls among the nations then 44 states. The census of precisely 100 years ago counted up 92.23 million Americans. While the country would nose up over 100 million at the 1920 census and by tens of millions more with each ensuing decade the number of U.S. House seats hasnt risen beyond 435 since 1911. That year Congress set voting membership at 433 while also providing one seat each for Arizona and New Mexico upon their expected attainment of statehood.  Congress simply purposely didnt address apportionment tallies following the 1920 census (another story in itself) and officially set 435 as the set magic number by law in 1929. (The  District of Columbia and five U.S. territories each hold a non-voting seat. The voting seat count temporarily rose to 437 with the admission of Hawaii and Alaska but dropped back to 435 following 1960 re-apportionment.) Are 435 people enough to properly represent the interests of more than 300 million people? Too many? One school of thought reasonably posits that better representation could ensue if districts were smaller. We saw that a Congressman represented about 30000 fellow Americans in the opening years of the country. Today that man or happily now woman answers to about 710000 souls. But another school points out that House membership would have to be in the unreasonable thousands (nearly 10 thousand) to replicate infant nation era representation ratios. Ever watch a six-member school board function? Not for the faint of heart or the short on time. Over the nations history many mathematical apportionment proposals have been floated in an effort to find a Utopian balance between equitable representation among the states and practical administration in Washington. Some of these equations seek to remedy small state riddles like Montanas almost one million people having one representative and Rhode Islands just over a million people having two. And does the sole representative of Wyoming the nations least populace state provide markedly better representation having nearly 200000 fewer constituents than the nationwide district average? On the other end of the scale is the representational power of Montanas populace which is double that of Wyoming and some 280000 more than the national district average unfairly curbed by also having a lone member in the House? (Seven states have a single at-large representative.) Of late the courts have passed on these and other apportionment-related questions typically citing the topic as less a matter for the judiciary and more the very responsibility of the United States House of Representatives itself. For now we operate under the knowledge that:

• The U.S. House stands at 435 voting members and likely will for quite some time.
• Come January of 2013 Texas will have a delegation of more than 8 of the entire body.
• Voters will choose these delegation members in the 2012 elections.
• State lawmakers over the 2011 legislative session will shape the boundaries of the congressional districts featured in those elections.
• Texas one of several states and jurisdictions under the purview of the Voting Rights Act will submit its plan to Washington for approval.
• Republicans hold a historic majority in the Statehouse and will preside over what likely will be a historic map making session in any number of ways...

A former mayor & State Senate Communications Director Mike Asmus managed the 2010 congressional campaign of Donna Campbell who remains in the hunt for 2012.