I think you should be careful

To distinguish between "population loss" and "population growth at a slower rate than the national or state average resulting in a depopulated congressional district."  The red  numbers only imply the latter, not necessarily the former, right?

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:26:39 PM UTC

Looking at wiki

It looks like the 1st and 2nd have lost, in absolute terms, about 70,000 and 48,000 people respectively.

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:28:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Massive Closures of Chicago Housing Projects Since 2000

Probably over 10,000 housing units were leveled since then.

---

by: Dana Houle @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:30:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd have left Rush's district too....

After that god-awful speech he made in support of Roland Burris.  Its one of the few political actions of all time that still makes me seethe and yet also want to vomit in horror.

---

by: rdw72777 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:17:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That makes you seethe?

I mean out of everything that has happened in our history and just in the last decade. That of all things.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:20:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup

---

by: rdw72777 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:34:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm only in IL-01 for college

and am getting the hell out of there after I graduate. too many issues--weather, politics, crime, etc.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 12:10:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Red numbers

mean the amount a district will need to lose in the redistricting process in order to correspond with the state's average population-per-district. It's not a loss in raw numbers of people. (Sorry for not stating that, but that was explained in the first post of this series.)

---

by: Crisitunity @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Make that

"gain," not "lose," in the first sentence.

---

by: Crisitunity @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:57:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

P.S.

After redistricting in 2000, the average Illinois district was 654K, so you can calculate actual loss/gain over the decade using that number as your starting point.

---

by: Crisitunity @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:45:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is going to have to be some serious redistricting in the Chicago area

As noted, those population shortfalls in all the Chicago-based districts (especially in IL-1, IL-2, and IL-4) are going to require a lot of creative line drawing -- hopefully in a way that takes out a currently Republican suburban district and divides it up between a series of safe Democratic seats.

In addition to improving the Democrats' partisan position, I also hope/imagine that it will cause enough significant change to Dan Lipinski's district (IL-3) that it makes him seriously vulnerable in a primary for a safe Democratic district. No excuse for someone that conservative representing a solid Democratic urban/suburban constituency.

---

by: terje @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:36:13 PM UTC

IL has a little bit of

surprise in 2010 numbers.  The 2010 numbers were about 90K lower then 2009 estimates and the entire amount of missed or population loss was in Chicago.

I need to look at some numbers and let others plug them as well.  The final numbers show a deeper hole in the city for the democrats.  

I hope to see a map or two in the next few days based on these numbers

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:52:33 PM UTC

reapportionment

Just a question:  How does the government actually set the number of congresional seats for each state?  In other words, what is the formula? Do they take out the first 50 seats, one for each state and then divide up the rest, or what?  There is more than one mathematical way.  Just curious.

---

by: gerard @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:31:46 PM UTC

Official Census Bureau explanation

located here.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

---

by: borodino21 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:35:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

also: United States congressional apportionment, Apportionment methods

at Wikipedia has a nice explanation, and there are several footnotes with links to other more detailed sources and isues about the method. And alternate suggestions for other methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

---

by: homerun @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:42:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There has been

a great deal of discussion as to whether the current method and the decision to stop at 435 helps or hurts a particular party.  I don't want to restart that discussion  but the number 435 was a politcal decision as was the method of allocation.  

Suffice it to say state that does not get the next seat is always a loser was the one that gets the last seat is a winner.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:54:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Woooo-whooo!!!

Minnesota's a winner!

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:05:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But we all lose

if it turns out that saved Michele Bachmann's CD from elimination from redistricting.
(just kidding. kind of.)

---

by: homerun @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:29:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes Minnesota won

their congressional seat but who won the Super Bowl??

On a slightly strange note.  Minnesota and Maryland have been tied at 8 seats since 1962. (I think Maryland has always had 8 seats).  

I think these two states which 8 seats or roughly two % of the total number of seats have more or less matched the national growth rate for 50 years.  

So Minnesota needs to pick up the pace a bit if they are going to keep its seat in 2020.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:29:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

.

Maryland has never had less than 5 or more than 9.

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.

---

by: wmayes @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 09:59:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Big grow in the exburbs surrounding Chicago

Looking at the color-coded Census page for IL of Percent Pop Change by County: http://2010.census.gov/2010cen...

The city and close suburbs have a loss or minimal growth
Cook = loss
DuPage 0-5% growth

A fair growth in outer suburbs:
Lake, Kankakee 5-15% growth

But big growth for the outer suburbs and exurbs and even further betond:
McHenry, DeKalb  15-25% growth
Will, Grundy, Kendall, Kane, Boone all 25%+ growth!

Holy cow. There needs to be a new word coined for what comes beyond the exburbs

(I'd have made a screen grab of the Census's color map, but can't right now, but the picture is worth a 1000 words)

---

by: homerun @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:33:30 PM UTC

I like the terminology of "rings" of suburbia

I.e. first-ring suburb, second-ring suburb, etc. For example here in NoVA, Arlington and Alexandria are first-ring suburbs (generally called inner or streetcar suburbs), Fairfax is second-ring (typical definition of suburbs), Loudoun and Prince William Counties are third-ring (exurbs), areas like Stafford, Fredericksburg, or Fauquier are fourth-ring (far exurbs), and places like Winchester or Culpepper are fifth-ring (peripheral areas only slightly connected to the main city).

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:49:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Would not call Kankakee suburbs

and wouldn't really call Lake outer suburbs, either. I'm sure plenty of people from Lake Forest, Buffalo Grove, and Waukegan commute to the North Side.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 12:28:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Illinois

I think this makes it tougher for the Dems to make up a lot of ground here. Many were talking about picking up 4 or 5 districts I think 1 or 2 is more likely.  Republicans obviously will suffer the lost 19th seat.  It probably comes from downstate since urban Dem pols dominate in the legislature.  But downstate hasn't had as great of loss as Cook Co seats. Davis, Jackson, Rush and Guitierrez will want the majority minority nature of their seats preserved as best as possible but Jackson and Rush will have to push out into Biggert's and Kinzinger's districts. Lipinski too will have to push west.  Quigley and Schawkowsky will have to push north and west and Davis will need some territory from fellow Dems.  Walsh probably gets pushed out of Cook Co but that only helps him.  

---

by: hawkeye77 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:33:33 PM UTC

Have the areas surrounding

the urban centers grown because people from the cities have moved? If so, wouldn't that make holding the districts possibly easier?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:40:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes and no

Some of the movement has been from city to suburb and much has been new residents entirely particularly Latinos.  But the question is how many are able to vote, registered if they can and vote if they are registered.  I don't think any Cook Co Dems are in trouble but all will have to push out into the suburbs. These suburbs closest to Chicago are the most Dem trending so it won't hurt the incumbents but it only strengthens the Republican districts left.  Roskam, Biggert, Kinzinger, Walsh will all lose their worst GOP performing areas to the Dem Chicago incumbents.

---

by: hawkeye77 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:52:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes and no

Some of the movement has been from city to suburb and much has been new residents entirely particularly Latinos.  But the question is how many are able to vote, registered if they can and vote if they are registered.  I don't think any Cook Co Dems are in trouble but all will have to push out into the suburbs. These suburbs closest to Chicago are the most Dem trending so it won't hurt the incumbents but it only strengthens the Republican districts left.  Roskam, Biggert, Kinzinger, Walsh will all lose their worst GOP performing areas to the Dem Chicago incumbents.

---

by: hawkeye77 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:53:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see it as a negative for Democrats

They can maneuver pretty well with what his here, the growth in the suburbs includes minorities, which is good news. As I see it, Democrats can swing a few seats to their column with creative mapping.  

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:48:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not a positive

Democrats control the process now they will be scrambling to add population to all their Cook Co districts without making any marginal and keeping the minority majority nature of 1,2,4 & 7 intact. Once this is done there won't be a lot of Dem leaning territory to make the suburban districts swingy. If anything they will be strengthened. The minority growth in the suburbs won't pay off for the Dems right away.  

---

by: hawkeye77 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:03:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But just how much

territory does each district have to lose before it becomes even remotely threatened? In other words, can't they each be altered while still being very safe for the incumbents?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:46:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes you are correct

The Chicago Dem districts can add much suburban territory without jeopardizing them...but my point is by doing this they simply shore up existing districts and do not make gains. That is why the heavy loss of population in Chicago is bad. There really is no way to add heavy Dem territory to Roskam, Walsh, Biggert etc because everylast Dem leaning area is needed to keep all existing Cook Co based districts in Dem column.

---

by: hawkeye77 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 23:37:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Given how packed the Dem. districts

in Chicago are right now, I think that last sentence is simply false.

With any luck, we will all be able to experiment with this ourselves before long.  

---

by: andgarden @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 23:44:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree

I dont see big Dem gains either. My guess they will move there Dem urban districts out west and gobble up parts of Biggert and Roskams districts. Then they could add Latino areas from Hultgren's district to make that more Dem. that is where they would take away a GOP seat and turn another one into a Dem district.Warning for the Dems on district 17. A big loss of population downstate in that district. They will have too take in poopulation from sorrounding GOP area and that would bolster Schilling.

---

by: billhos @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:53:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

or

take in peoria

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

---

by: jncca @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 23:14:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's what can be done in IL

and what likely will be done.  Yes Incumbents matter and yes there are VRA concerns for retrogression.  Plus democratic control in the State legislature is not overwhelming.  Its incorrect to say that chicago democrats control the redistricting process.  There are three or perhaps four groups that must be accomdated.  

1. Downstate or outstate democrats.  There are scattered downstate democrats who either have thought about running for congress or at the very least want to run for re-election.  Regional interests will be a concern as my Bloomington democrat will want a congressman from South side of Chicago.  Maps will not get too crazy and the number of downstate  seats will likely be 6 or maybe 7 with suburban influence.

2.  Suburban democrats.   Democrats in Lake county or Will County or even suburban Cook county actually do have a mind of their own.  A plan to carve up Lake county three ways and attach different pieces to the City of Chicago would actually not fly with surburban democrats.  It might not help a Map be 15D-3R but suburbanites actually want to be in a suburban district. Local democratic suruban legislators will look after their own interests.

3. Finally hispanic and AA legislators will want to look after the iterest of the 4 minority majority seats.  They will want to avoid dilution if anyway possible in their numbers in their seats.  It might be a pipe dream but a 2nd hispanic seat might be possible as well but Lipsinski could be in the way of that. Only time and numbers will tell.  Here are the current white %'s 1st 27%, 2nd 26%, 4th 18% and 7th 27%.  Any attempt to dilute the minority vote i.e. retrogression or splitting the communities to increase the white vote is subject to court action.  I think the substanial minority bloc in Springfield will balk retrogression.  

So I see perhaps two or maybe three seats lost by the GOP and even that is up to the fickled voters of IL

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 02:38:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It can be argued that the one seat that should go should be in Chicago

And not downstate based on these figures. It's not going to happen (goodbye CD-17).

---

by: Kendall @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 01:42:36 AM UTC

Jeeze

Chicago got creamed.  I don't think anyone even predicted close to this type of loss.  The percent lost is coming up on what you'd find in neighboring big city Rustbelt towns.

---

by: MIvotee @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 03:23:39 AM UTC

If Brady won IL-Gov

The seat disappearing would definitely not be from downstate, as the only seat severely underpopulated there is IL-17, and that could be remedied by stripping the rural areas from IL-11 and IL-14, both of which are over.

Under a compromise map, you'd probably see Dold eliminated and most of his seat sucked into Schkowsky's, as all the Chicago districts pull north and Walsh gets a safer seat out in the exurbs.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 04:54:28 AM UTC

That could have better for Dems

It would have made IL-11 and IL-14 more winnable, as the population growth in IL-14, for example, occurred in the Kane County portion of the district, which voted for Bill Foster in 2010.

---

by: geoneb @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 05:01:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What do you mean "better"?

With Quinn, they can reverse the GOP's 2010 Congressional gains in IL, and could go even further to 13-5.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 05:04:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I think that would be necessary for a compromise

Even if Brady were governor, I don't think the legislature would agree to locking in a 10R-8D map. A couple of those suburban seats would have to be softened up and made winnable for Democrats down the road.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 05:17:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't they do just make one swing district?

Can't the Democrats just make 14 Democratic districts, three Republican districts, and one swing district? In other words, how many swing districts are necessary in order to cave our as many safe Democratic districts?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 16:19:57 PM UTC