Indiana picked up a little more than 403,000 people since the last census in 2000 according to the 2010 census data, an increase of about 6.6%, bringing the state's total population to just under 6.5 million people. I've taken a look at the census data by congressional district, which state legislators will use as their starting point in redrawing Indiana's congressionial districts. To no one's surprise, the district which grew the most is Dan Burton's 5th District.
Based on the 2010 census data, the average population for Indiana congressional districts wil be about 720,000. Burton's district will have to shrink by 89,000 people to get down to that level. Todd Rokita's 4th district grew the second most. It will need to lose about 69,000 people. Indiana's 2nd District represented by Joe Donnelly will need to lose about 49,000 people. The 6th District represented by Mike Pence and the 7th District represented by Andre Carson will need to add 44,000 people each. Marlin Stutzman's 3rd district is the only district that will require little change in population, needing to shed only about 3,000 people. The 1st District represented by Pete Visclosky will need to add about 15,000 people, while Todd Young's 9th District will need to shed about 9,000 people. Larry Buschon's 8th District will also need to grow to add about 26,000 people.
The largest minority represented district, the 7th District, is currently comprised of about 33% African-Americans according to the new census data. Whites comprise 56% of the district's population, while Hispanics make up about 11% of the 7th District's population. The district with the largest population of Hispanics is the 1st District, which is 14% Hispanic. Hispanics represent about 8% of the 2nd District's population and 7% of the 3rd District's population.
Here are the population numbers by district. The number in parenthesis indicates the number of people the district's current population will need to add or lose to reach the 720,000 target number. Of course, the legislature could theoretically carve up these districts drastically different than the way they are currently configured, but if past is prologue, the districts will be drawn to favor at least most of the incumbents, which in this case includes 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats. It's unlikely the Republican-controlled legislature will draw districts that harm the incumbent Republicans. The 1st and 7th Districts, both Democratic-controlled, would have to be dramatically reconfigured to shift those seats safely to the Republican column. The 7th District will likely become slightly less Democratic any way it is expanded simply because it already encompasses the strongest Democratic areas of Marion County. The 2nd District could be altered enough to push it to a Republican-leaning district.
1st-705,600 (+14,222)
2nd-769,254 (-49,000)
3rd-723,633 (-3,000)
4th-789,835 (-69,000)
5th-809,107 (-89,000)
6th-676,351 (+44,000)
7th-676,351 (+44,000)
8th-694,398 (+26,000)
9th-729,076 (-9,000)
3 comments:
The Constitution provides for one Representative for each 30,000 people, and that passage has never been amended.
They are just openly ignoring the Constitution.
Article 1, Sec. 2: ...The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative...
Cato says:
"They are just openly ignoring the Constitution."
Melyssa says:
"Not for long"
It's getting increasingly more difficult for them to get away with it.
Gary, thanks for being such an awesome tattle-tail with a long memory and documentation!
You read and interpret this clause incorrectly. You'd like, and interpret the clause to mean that "every 30,000 people are entitled to a Representative." But the clause just sets a ceiling: there cannot be more than one Representative for every 30,000 people.
Therefore: assume we have about 300,000,000 people. The Constitution prevents us from having more than 10,000 Representatives. Nothing more.
Post a Comment