Could Trump affect the 2020 reapportionment? (house seat, voters, Congress, Democrats)

[KellyXY]

Talk is going around how Democrats are pinning hopes on gains in 2018 and 2020 so they'll be in charge of the redistricting after the 2020 census. In the meantime, there is a way that Trump could affect the House and Electoral College of the 2020s: If he manages to block and/or deport enough immigrants or would-be immigrants, then it could affect which states that are now "on the bubble" for House seats end up getting them. This is especially true given what this article (as of last December) is predicting.

Here are their projections for seats 431-440 (the last five seats apportioned and the five narrowly missed seats):
431. Illinois #16 (2nd defending)
432. California #53 (defending)
433. Texas #39 (3rd gain)
434. Arizona #10 (gain)
435. Florida #29 (2nd gain)
-------------------------------------
436. Montana #2 (gain)
437. Alabama #7 (defending)
438. California #54 (gain)
439. Minnesota #8 (defending)
440. Virginia #12 (gain)

Notice how the top half of that list (the states they're projecting to get the last seats) all have higher-than-average foreign-born populations, while the majority of the bottom half of the list (the states right below their projected bubble) are states with lower foreign-born populations. A Trump clamp-down on immigration could give Montana the second seat it lost in 1990 back and have Alabama (and perhaps Minnesota) hold onto the seats they have a chance at losing. Arizona's projected gain and Texas's 3rd gain (the first two are essentially safe with the high inward domestic migration), and possibly California's last seat it has now, are likely to be the most vulnerable (since the dominant immigrant groups in Florida are largely not on Trump's target list I feel that FL's 2nd gain is not as likely to be usurped by Trump's policy, although since it is #435 it's numerically the most vulnerable).

What do you think? I'm not looking to start a discussion on your opinions of Trump's immigration policies, but rather looking at it from a fact-based perspective on how it could affect the next census.

[woxyroxme]

I don't know how other states do it but in Ohio the overwhelmingly republican state legislators draw the congressional district map. I live in one of the most gerrymandered districts in Ohio which was drawn in a way to make sure Steve Chabot never lost his seat again. It's no accident that Ohio sends a lot of republicans to Washington.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by KellyXY

Talk is going around how Democrats are pinning hopes on gains in 2018 and 2020 so they'll be in charge of the redistricting after the 2020 census. In the meantime, there is a way that Trump could affect the House and Electoral College of the 2020s: If he manages to block and/or deport enough immigrants or would-be immigrants, then it could affect which states that are now "on the bubble" for House seats end up getting them. This is especially true given what this article (as of last December) is predicting.

Here are their projections for seats 431-440 (the last five seats apportioned and the five narrowly missed seats):
431. Illinois #16 (2nd defending)
432. California #53 (defending)
433. Texas #39 (3rd gain)
434. Arizona #10 (gain)
435. Florida #29 (2nd gain)
-------------------------------------
436. Montana #2 (gain)
437. Alabama #7 (defending)
438. California #54 (gain)
439. Minnesota #8 (defending)
440. Virginia #12 (gain)

Notice how the top half of that list (the states they're projecting to get the last seats) all have higher-than-average foreign-born populations, while the majority of the bottom half of the list (the states right below their projected bubble) are states with lower foreign-born populations. A Trump clamp-down on immigration could give Montana the second seat it lost in 1990 back and have Alabama (and perhaps Minnesota) hold onto the seats they have a chance at losing. Arizona's projected gain and Texas's 3rd gain (the first two are essentially safe with the high inward domestic migration), and possibly California's last seat it has now, are likely to be the most vulnerable (since the dominant immigrant groups in Florida are largely not on Trump's target list I feel that FL's 2nd gain is not as likely to be usurped by Trump's policy, although since it is #435 it's numerically the most vulnerable).

What do you think? I'm not looking to start a discussion on your opinions of Trump's immigration policies, but rather looking at it from a fact-based perspective on how it could affect the next census.

did you read the rest of the article ?

Alabama: -1 (to 6)
Arizona: +1 (to 10)
Colorado: +1 (to 8)
Florida: +2 (to 29)
Illinois: -1 (to 17)
Michigan: -1 (to 13)
Minnesota: -1 (to 7)
New York: -1 (to 26)
North Carolina: +1 (to 14)
Ohio: -1 (to 15)
Oregon: +1 (to 6)
Pennsylvania: -1 (to 17)
Rhode Island: -1 (to 1)
Texas: +3 (to 39)
West Virginia: -1 (to 2).............

Overall, this represents very little change in the Electoral College. While the apportionment shifts are to states controlled by Republican legislatures (for now), it would probably benefit Democrats overall, as it is pretty difficult to eliminate any more Democratic seats in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, while states like Texas and Florida would probably have to draw at least some Democratic-leaning districts.

I see this as about right.

it would be pretty hard to draw a second congressional district in Montana that was solidly republican. it would at least be close if not slightly leaning left.

Same is true with Alabama losing a seat, the city of Montgomery and its suburbs are divided into 2 congressional districts with one of those districts connecting the black belt and Birmingham. Taking away a seat is either going to force republicans to create a second completely safe Democratic seat around Montgomery, or the possibility of 1 safe seat and 2 toss up seats. I dont think Republicans are going to want that.

This is what will happen in places like Michigan.

[KellyXY]

Yes, I did read the whole article. (I only posted the information that was directly relevant to the discussion though.)

[ottomobeale]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

I don't know how other states do it but in Ohio the overwhelmingly republican state legislators draw the congressional district map. I live in one of the most gerrymandered districts in Ohio which was drawn in a way to make sure Steve Chabot never lost his seat again. It's no accident that Ohio sends a lot of republicans to Washington.

Im so sick of gerrymandering by both parties. How it is not taken as unconstitutional is beyond me.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by KellyXY

Yes, I did read the whole article. (I only posted the information that was directly relevant to the discussion though.)

Again, a second Montana seat would likely be a toss up seat, not red, so it hurts Trump and Republicans as it would come from a state that would likely lose a Republican seat like Michigan, you can only "crack and pack" so many Democrats.

Less seats in Michigan means less packing of Democrats in districts.


Ill go into more detail. there are the 14 Districts in Michigan

These are Cook Politics numbers based on registered voters
1st = +4 Republican
2nd =+7 Republican
3rd = +5 Republican
4th = +4 Republican
6th = +1 Republican
7th = +3 Republican
8th =+2 Republican
10th = +5 Republican
11th = +4 Republican

12th = +14 Democratic
13th =+34 Democratic
14th = +27 Democratic
5th = +10 Democratic
9th = +5 Democratic

[EricPost]

Originally Posted by ottomobeale

Im so sick of gerrymandering by both parties. How it is not taken as unconstitutional is beyond me.

Because the Supreme Court allows it. It says since blacks have been historically disenfranchised, it's OK now to draw weird boundaries to allow blacks and other minorities districts so they can elect one of their own.

In other words, the people living now have to pay for the past sins of their fathers. This is just one of the many tragic Supreme Court decisions that make no sense.

Discrimination is wrong or it isn't. People now should not have to pay because 100 years ago, their relatives were racist, or in my case in Europe.

It's the height of arrogance for the Supreme Court to say I as a white man, or other whites, will refuse to vote for a black candidate, especially now that we've had a black president.

[Mr. Mon]

Originally Posted by EricPost

Because the Supreme Court allows it. It says since blacks have been historically disenfranchised, it's OK now to draw weird boundaries to allow blacks and other minorities districts so they can elect one of their own.

In other words, the people living now have to pay for the past sins of their fathers. This is just one of the many tragic Supreme Court decisions that make no sense.

Discrimination is wrong or it isn't. People now should not have to pay because 100 years ago, their relatives were racist, or in my case in Europe.

It's the height of arrogance for the Supreme Court to say I as a white man, or other whites, will refuse to vote for a black candidate, especially now that we've had a black president.

Kind of but not really. Gerrymandering had been done to completely dilute black votes, so creating districts that gave minorities an opportunity for representation was okay under the voting rights act which required redistricting review in certain states. Once that was thrown out Republican controlled states created minority super-majority districts that resulted in more republican districts at the expense of competitive mixed districts. North Carolina recently got smacked down for doing that.

In my state, which has a large white urban population, the legislature has created districts where one in a city is minority majority and then urban/suburban white vote is cleaved off into multiple districts were they are overwhelmed by massive rural area votes.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by KellyXY

Talk is going around how Democrats are pinning hopes on gains in 2018 and 2020 so they'll be in charge of the redistricting after the 2020 census. In the meantime, there is a way that Trump could affect the House and Electoral College of the 2020s: If he manages to block and/or deport enough immigrants or would-be immigrants, then it could affect which states that are now "on the bubble" for House seats end up getting them. This is especially true given what this article (as of last December) is predicting.

Here are their projections for seats 431-440 (the last five seats apportioned and the five narrowly missed seats):
431. Illinois #16 (2nd defending)
432. California #53 (defending)
433. Texas #39 (3rd gain)
434. Arizona #10 (gain)
435. Florida #29 (2nd gain)
-------------------------------------
436. Montana #2 (gain)
437. Alabama #7 (defending)
438. California #54 (gain)
439. Minnesota #8 (defending)
440. Virginia #12 (gain)

Notice how the top half of that list (the states they're projecting to get the last seats) all have higher-than-average foreign-born populations, while the majority of the bottom half of the list (the states right below their projected bubble) are states with lower foreign-born populations. A Trump clamp-down on immigration could give Montana the second seat it lost in 1990 back and have Alabama (and perhaps Minnesota) hold onto the seats they have a chance at losing. Arizona's projected gain and Texas's 3rd gain (the first two are essentially safe with the high inward domestic migration), and possibly California's last seat it has now, are likely to be the most vulnerable (since the dominant immigrant groups in Florida are largely not on Trump's target list I feel that FL's 2nd gain is not as likely to be usurped by Trump's policy, although since it is #435 it's numerically the most vulnerable).

What do you think? I'm not looking to start a discussion on your opinions of Trump's immigration policies, but rather looking at it from a fact-based perspective on how it could affect the next census.

But foreigners can't vote.

[mrpeatie]

No. There are simply not enough immigrants to tip the voting population of states. California and New York tend to be the two biggest gateway states and they have both lost seats in the last reallocation.