The Losers:  Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania all are estimated to lose one seat, except Ohio, which will lose two.  After redistricting the constituents in these states — who now have 135 Representatives — will be down to 125.

Based upon the Project’s estimates, there are 10 seats in play, including an extra seat for Texas, a loss for California, Minnesota and Missouri and no pick-up for Washington and South Carolina, no loss for Illinois, a loss of only one seat for Ohio, a pick-up for Oregon, and an extra pickup for Florida.

Download Excel File – State Report

Download Excel File – All Districts

The National Picture

Nationwide, there have been extensive shifts of population both between and among states, as well as within states.  As such, a substantial percentage of seats will have to be redrawn.  A table setting forth the data for all Congressional Districts in the country is available here.

The map below vividly illustrates the extent of deviations from district-level population equality.  The greater the positive population deviation, the more intensely purple the district is drawn.  The greater the negative population deviation, the more intensely blue the district is drawn.

Download PDF Map

As the map shows, Texas districts — especially those towards the border with Mexico, and not in the inner city or rural areas — need to be substantially redrawn.

Not only do the areas of high immigration need to be accommodated, but also the areas sprawling out from the major cities.

It is no surprise that as Texas continues to grow rapidly it will add new seats.

Data from all of the districts in the US and an analysis of each can be found here.

Though California will probably not lose a seat, the map plainly shows that the seats will need to be redistributed away from the coast and the inner city areas and out to the recently growing areas inland.  This is a good illustration of the fact that just because there may be no change in the number of Congressional seats with a state, it does not mean that serious redistricting is not required in that state.

Data on all of the districts in the US and an analysis of each can be found here.

Data just released – the last release before Census 2010 – confirm that U.S. Congressional Districts will have to be massively redistricted.  Real Elections Project analysis shows that, because of 2000-09 shifts in population between states and within states, the boundaries of more than half of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will have to be redrawn.

Redistricting will necessarily include every seat in Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania will need to be redrawn.  The estimate indicates that each of these states will lose one seat, except Ohio, which will lose two.  After redistricting the constituents in these states — who now have 135 Representatives — will be down to 125.

In addition, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Washington, and Texas will gain at least 10 seats in aggregate, going from 99 Districts to 109 newly drawn seats.  Each of these states picks up at least one seat with Texas gaining three.  Congressional lines in these states will also need to be redistricted.

A table presenting all of the state estimates is available here.

Beyond these 17 states, population shifts in other states will cause large changes in many Districts, even if the overall number of seats in a state remains the same.  Congressional Districts within a state must be exactly equal in population; no deviation is allowed.  Nine years after the last Census, over 131 seats now vary from their population ideal by at least 10%, a variation representing fully 30% of the House of Representatives.

See a table that specifies the extent of population changes within each Congressional District in the country here.

Andrew Beveridge, Real Election Project’s Technical Director said, “Much of the disparity has been driven by large population shifts since 2000.  This includes large population shifts in California, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana, throughout much of the south and many other states that will force huge changes after Census 2010.”

See the map of population disparities between and among Congressional Districts here.

Based upon the Project’s estimates, there are 10 seats still in play, including a potential extra seat for Texas; a loss for California, Minnesota and Missouri and no pick-up for Washington and South Carolina; no loss for Illinois; a loss of only one seat for Ohio; a pick-up for Oregon; and an extra pickup for Florida.

Craig Gurian, the Project’s Director, noted that, “We are now just one year away from the release of official reapportionment data from Census 2010.  The large-scale redistricting that we have found to be required does not even include the redistricting that properly needs to be done to eliminate gerrymandering, nor the redistricting that will be necessary for state-level legislative seats.  In order to prevent the redistricting the follows Census 2010 to be yet another example of an incumbent-protection scheme, The Real Elections Project will jumpstart a fair redistricting process by developing model plans even before 2010 data are available and putting sophisticated but easy to use tools to assess redistricting plans in the hands of the public.”

Project goals

1. Providing early warning of where population changes will require the addition, subtraction, or substantial revision of congressional and state legislative seats.
2. Creating models plans that both follow neutral redistricting principles and preserve the voting influence of minority voters.  By taking advantage of new American Community Survey data, the Project will be able to create and distribute these plans well in advance of the release of Census 2010 data.
3. Adjusting the model plans as needed, taking into account Census 2010 data when it is released as well as feedback from the public that has been received in the interim.
4. Educating stakeholders to the significant stakes involved.
5. Making freely available on the web the Project’s own analyses and plans as well as the tools with which members of the public can create their own plans.

In contrast to the recent history of allowing unfairly drawn districts to become a fait accompli, the Real Elections Project will generate concrete best practices at the beginning of the process, empowering the public (and force the politicians) to take the Voting Rights Act seriously. 

Vindicating Voting Rights Act principles
The districts that the Project draws will avoid the common techniques of either “packing” minority voters in just a few districts or “cracking” such voters into several districts.  The Project’s focus is on how overall fairness is entirely compatible with true vindication of Voting Rights Act principles.  Unlike many others, the Project recognizes that influence can sometimes be achieved in cross-racial and cross-ethnic coalition, and that there is not a single template that can neatly fit the increasingly complex multi-group population patterns that have come to exist in more parts of the country.

The centrality of housing segregation
Throughout the life of the Project, we will highlight the important but hitherto neglected connections between the tendency of many plans to limit the effective influence of minority voters and the underlying residential housing segregation that enables such manipulation.

Project leadership
The Project is led by distinguished experts in data analysis, redistricting, voting rights, and housing segregation.

The Project’s Technical Director, Andrew Beveridge, an expert in using GIS techniques to integrate demographic materials, is the creator of Social Explorer®, the leading website for visualizing and examining demographic trends.  Beveridge is Professor of Sociology at Queens College and the Graduate School and University Center of CUNY.  Professor Beveridge has served as an expert in numerous redistricting and other civil rights cases.  Since 1993, he has consulted on demographics for The New York Times.

The Project’s Director, Craig Gurian, is Executive Director of the Anti-Discrimination Center, and has taught at Fordham Law School, where he has also been a Scholar-in-Residence at the Stein Center for Law & Ethics.  Among the articles Professor Gurian has authored is A Return to Eyes on the Prize: Litigating Under the Restored New York City Human Rights Law.”  Professor Gurian conceived of and co-counseled the landmark False Claims Act litigation against Westchester County challenging the County’s practice of fraudulently certifying that it had and would “affirmatively further fair housing.” The Court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the Anti-Discrimination Center in February 2009,  was the catalyst for an unprecedented desegregation Settlement Order entered later in the year.

The Project’s Legal Director, Randolph McLaughlin, began his legal career in 1978 at the Center for Constitutional Rights.  He is currently a Professor of Law at Pace Law School.  Professor McLaughlin is an expert in Voting Rights Act litigation.  Among his achievements is the landmark decision wherein a federal court found that the Town of Hempstead’s  town-wide method of electing the Town Council was discriminatory and ordered that the system be dismantled. More recently, he intervened on behalf of an Hispanic political activist in a Voting Rights lawsuit against the Village of Port Chester, a case resulting in a 2008 federal court ruling that the Village’s election system violated the Voting Rights Act.

Funding
Real Elections Project is funded in part by the Anti-Discrimination Center.