jiveturkey
01-20-2007, 10:18 AM
I found this a bit interesting and then I washed me balls.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16503786.htm
Growth lag could cost Missouri a House seat
It may happen after the 2010 census because other states are adding people at a faster rate.
By DAVE HELLING
The Kansas City Star
“If you’re not growing by at least 10 percent, you’re in danger of losing a seat.” Clark Bensen, who runs Polidata, a Virginia-based political and demographic research company
Every 10 years, America plays a game of political musical chairs: The federal government, after counting everyone, yanks U.S. House seats from slow-growing states and hands them to their faster-growing neighbors.
In Missouri, the music is about to stop.
“You’ve pretty much already lost (a House seat),” said Clark Bensen, who runs Polidata, a Virginia-based political and demographic research company.
Missouri will lose one of its nine House seats after the 2010 census because it’s growing more slowly in population than states in the South and West, Bensen said. The Census Bureau predicts the state’s population will grow by a little less than 8 percent from 2000 to 2010, reaching a little more than 5.9 million people.
It won’t be good enough.
“If you’re not growing by at least 10 percent, you’re in danger of losing a seat,” Bensen said.
The loss of a House seat can mean less federal money for a state, and less influence in Washington. It can also touch off a massive political battle within a state, as legislatures and governors redraw House districts, often putting someone’s job at risk.
“It’s nasty,” said Marvin Overby, political science professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. “In the worst scenario, you have two incumbents fighting for the same seat.”
That’s what happened in Missouri in 1982, the last time the state lost a seat in the House. After a year of bitter arguments in the General Assembly and the courts, the state’s new map forced incumbent Republican Wendell Bailey into a race against incumbent Democrat Ike Skelton. Bailey lost.
Missouri would not lose its seat until 2012, at the earliest, because the official census numbers would not be available until 2011. But the 2008 election will have a major impact on redistricting because the next governor will be in office when the new map is drawn. Missouri’s governor can veto a map.
“Bingo,” Overby said. “It gives the Democrats added incentive to win next time” because they would want more Democratic legislators and a governor to protect their seats.
Currently, Republicans hold the governor’s office and the legislature. If that is still the case after the census, the state’s four House Democrats could be fighting over three seats — musical chairs.
“And you couldn’t expect a whole lot of relief from the federal courts,” Overby said, because many of the judges are Republicans.
It’s possible that a burst of population growth could save Missouri’s ninth seat.
Every state gets at least one member in the House. After that, the government allocates seats, state by state, using a complicated formula called the method of equal proportions. Under current law, the cutoff comes after the 435th seat is awarded.
Missouri’s ninth seat — the one in jeopardy — would be ranked 438th after the 2010 census, according to projections. Bensen said that meant Missouri could keep its seat if it grew by 50,000 to 100,000 people more than expected while other states maintained their projected growth rates.
“That’s a lot of people, but it’s not undoable,” he said.
He projected a net shift of 13 House seats after the 2010 census. Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey would lose one seat each. New York and Ohio, Bensen predicted, would each lose two seats.
Texas would be the biggest gainer, he said, adding four seats. Florida and Arizona would add two. Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Georgia would each add one.
Missouri’s population loss relative to other states has been a fact of life for years. If the state loses a seat after 2010, it will have half as many House seats as it held in 1922.
Missouri’s loss may also mean less of a role in presidential politics. In 2012, the state would have one less electoral vote than it does now.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16503786.htm
Growth lag could cost Missouri a House seat
It may happen after the 2010 census because other states are adding people at a faster rate.
By DAVE HELLING
The Kansas City Star
“If you’re not growing by at least 10 percent, you’re in danger of losing a seat.” Clark Bensen, who runs Polidata, a Virginia-based political and demographic research company
Every 10 years, America plays a game of political musical chairs: The federal government, after counting everyone, yanks U.S. House seats from slow-growing states and hands them to their faster-growing neighbors.
In Missouri, the music is about to stop.
“You’ve pretty much already lost (a House seat),” said Clark Bensen, who runs Polidata, a Virginia-based political and demographic research company.
Missouri will lose one of its nine House seats after the 2010 census because it’s growing more slowly in population than states in the South and West, Bensen said. The Census Bureau predicts the state’s population will grow by a little less than 8 percent from 2000 to 2010, reaching a little more than 5.9 million people.
It won’t be good enough.
“If you’re not growing by at least 10 percent, you’re in danger of losing a seat,” Bensen said.
The loss of a House seat can mean less federal money for a state, and less influence in Washington. It can also touch off a massive political battle within a state, as legislatures and governors redraw House districts, often putting someone’s job at risk.
“It’s nasty,” said Marvin Overby, political science professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. “In the worst scenario, you have two incumbents fighting for the same seat.”
That’s what happened in Missouri in 1982, the last time the state lost a seat in the House. After a year of bitter arguments in the General Assembly and the courts, the state’s new map forced incumbent Republican Wendell Bailey into a race against incumbent Democrat Ike Skelton. Bailey lost.
Missouri would not lose its seat until 2012, at the earliest, because the official census numbers would not be available until 2011. But the 2008 election will have a major impact on redistricting because the next governor will be in office when the new map is drawn. Missouri’s governor can veto a map.
“Bingo,” Overby said. “It gives the Democrats added incentive to win next time” because they would want more Democratic legislators and a governor to protect their seats.
Currently, Republicans hold the governor’s office and the legislature. If that is still the case after the census, the state’s four House Democrats could be fighting over three seats — musical chairs.
“And you couldn’t expect a whole lot of relief from the federal courts,” Overby said, because many of the judges are Republicans.
It’s possible that a burst of population growth could save Missouri’s ninth seat.
Every state gets at least one member in the House. After that, the government allocates seats, state by state, using a complicated formula called the method of equal proportions. Under current law, the cutoff comes after the 435th seat is awarded.
Missouri’s ninth seat — the one in jeopardy — would be ranked 438th after the 2010 census, according to projections. Bensen said that meant Missouri could keep its seat if it grew by 50,000 to 100,000 people more than expected while other states maintained their projected growth rates.
“That’s a lot of people, but it’s not undoable,” he said.
He projected a net shift of 13 House seats after the 2010 census. Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey would lose one seat each. New York and Ohio, Bensen predicted, would each lose two seats.
Texas would be the biggest gainer, he said, adding four seats. Florida and Arizona would add two. Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Georgia would each add one.
Missouri’s population loss relative to other states has been a fact of life for years. If the state loses a seat after 2010, it will have half as many House seats as it held in 1922.
Missouri’s loss may also mean less of a role in presidential politics. In 2012, the state would have one less electoral vote than it does now.