Tag Archives: 2020 Census

Trump Orders New Census

By Jim Ellis — Friday, Aug. 8, 2025

Census

The redistricting wars are heating up early in this decade, but the latest move coming from Washington could increase the political temperatures to a “white hot” level.

President Donald Trump yesterday ordered the Census Bureau to craft new state population numbers without including non-citizens. Taken to the fullest, the move could lead to transformational ramifications in many places over the course of time.

As we know, the current redistricting wars are intensifying. The Texas situation is in a current stalemate but will eventually come to fruition. The Ohio lines will be redrawn before the end of the year to comply with state law, and Florida state House Speaker Daniel Perez (R-Miami-Dade County) yesterday announced that he is appointing a special redistricting committee to begin a remap in his state with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) political blessing.

Several Democratic Governors have responded, threatening retaliation with redrawing their own states to counter what will likely be significant Republican congressional district gains in the aforementioned places.

The Trump census decision, however, will not only add fuel to the fire, but change the political dynamic in ways that are just beginning to be realized.

The heart of the census issue is, of course, whether the large US illegal non-citizen population should continue to be counted. The President specifically is directing the Commerce Department to recraft the census that would include only American citizens. Doing so would reduce the population numbers — at least for purposes of federal grants and redistricting — by at least 11.9 million people according to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Homeland Security Statistics’ calculations.

In the current census, the individuals in question are included in the state counts.

Additionally, others have pointed to potential flaws in the 2020 census, claiming certain methodological principles used to determine the population numbers are illegitimate, adding to the long-disputed practice of where incarcerated individuals and students living away from their homes should be counted. All of these issues will be addressed in any new census adjustments.

In terms of a recount, the Census Bureau would first look at the states, counties, and cities that have declared themselves as sanctuaries for illegal aliens. According to the Center for Immigration Studies organization, a dozen states — and localities in an additional 21 states, with Virginia, New Mexico, and New York having the most — declare themselves as sanctuary regions. These places will be most affected in a new census because the sanctuary declarations have drawn more such aliens.

The states with the largest projected numbers of non-citizens are California, Texas, Florida, and New York, but all states are affected. In the current census, the individuals in question are included in the state counts.

The census controversy began in the Obama Administration when the decision was made to move the citizenship question to the American Community Survey instead of the actual count. The Trump Administration eliminated the change, but the new Biden Administration reinstated it upon taking office in 2021 for purposes of conducting the 2020 census.

Once President Trump’s new order is implemented, thus adjusting the 2020 census numbers, new battles will begin.

The first issue will be whether to redistrict under the new numbers. This will likely take a Supreme Court order and would result from certain states suing others over the 2020 count.

The most likely scenario would be Idaho suing Minnesota. Idaho would claim that the counting of illegal aliens allowed Minnesota to keep its eighth seat, which is calculated to be the 435th congressional seat, and prevented Idaho from gaining a third seat. They would likely site Congress and the Census Bureau as the offending parties, thus forcing the issue directly to the Supreme Court.

A reapportionment order would have to be given for the new census methodology to be used for immediate redistricting. Otherwise, the changes would appear in the 2030 census.

Apportionment would also affect the electoral vote count for the 2028 presidential election because places like California, Illinois, and New York would clearly lose representation (California could lose as many as six seats, while Illinois and New York would lose at least two apiece) and states such as Florida, Idaho, North Carolina, and Texas (all would gain seats), for example, would significantly change the national electoral vote count used to elect a president.

Not having a new apportionment could lead to a presidential candidate challenging a state’s electoral vote number under the argument that the particular state has too many electoral votes because non-citizens remain in the count, thus creating a whole new controversy.

Additionally, where a new count would clearly reduce the number of Hispanic congressional seats, blacks would likely be the beneficiary of the new methodologies because in several states, California being the clearest example, black populations are discounted because of the addition of the non-citizens in and around certain neighborhoods and localities.

These are just a few of the action points that could develop once the Census Bureau begins the task of adjusting the 2020 final counts. Further ramifications would also undoubtedly rise to the surface, so the President’s directive yesterday will prove to be a major decision.

Census Reapportionment:
The Hidden Votes

By Jim Ellis — Thursday, March 9, 2023

President

Census Reapportionment: The Hidden Votes — Already, the 2024 presidential race has actually gotten closer. The 2020 national election was decided by a 74 electoral vote margin, a 306-232 margin for Democrat Joe Biden. Without any state changing its 2020 outcome, however, his victory spread has now decreased to 68 EVs.

Census reapportionment is the reason, and it makes a net six-vote difference in the Republicans’ favor based upon Donald Trump’s aggregate EV number from the last election. This is because reapportioning the number of US House seats throughout the country affects and changes the electoral vote count (EVC). As you know, the EVC is comprised of each state’s federal representatives, meaning two senators and the number of House members each entity possesses.

Therefore, under the new totals, Biden’s winning count over his Republican opponent would be 303-235. Understanding that the presidential winner needs 270 electoral votes, the Republican deficit is now 35 as opposed to 38. This is important because it changes the number of states that Republicans must convert in order to win the next race.

President Biden loses electoral votes in California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania, but gained two back in Colorado and Oregon. The first five lost a congressional seat apiece in reapportionment, while the latter two gained a district apiece. Conversely, the next Republican nominee would gain electoral votes in Texas (2), Florida, Montana, and North Carolina, but lose one apiece in Ohio and West Virginia. Thus, the Republicans gained an aggregate three electoral votes while the Democrats lost three, for the net swing of six.

For the next Republican nominee, he or she must again re-establish the party’s southern core. Former President Trump needed to carry the southern tier states of Arizona, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida to position himself throughout the rest of the country. He failed to do so, losing Arizona and Georgia, but the next nominee must return these two entities to the GOP column if the party is to have any chance of again winning the White House.

If the next Republican nominee fails to take these two states, for a total of 27 electoral votes (Georgia 16; Arizona 11), there is no realistic chance of cobbling together a 270-vote victory coalition. The GOP nominee will need at least one more state to convert in addition to Arizona and Georgia, with Wisconsin’s 10 votes being the simplest numerical path to an outright state coalition victory.

Continue reading →

Congress Convenes Tomorrow with 93 New Members; Early Reapportionment Projections

By Jim Ellis — Monday, Jan. 2, 2023

Congress

Montana’s Ryan Zinke (R-Whitehall) returns to the House.

New Members: Congress Convenes Tomorrow with 93 New Members — The 118th Congress is sworn into office tomorrow and like all others, this new assemblage is a unique group.

In the House, we see 85 freshmen members coming to Washington, including the dozen who won special elections during the session just ended. Additionally, one former member, Montana’s Ryan Zinke (R-Whitehall) who also served in the Trump Administration as Interior Secretary, returns to the House.

The Senate, exclusively due to retirements along with one appointed member, California Sen. Alex Padilla (D) seeking a full term, will only welcome eight new freshmen since all incumbents seeking re-election were victorious.

Of the 85 new House members, 46 are Republicans while 39 are members of the Democratic Party. Just over one-third of the incoming group will be serving in their first elected position, a total of 31. Conversely, 37 of the House freshmen have previously been elected to their respective state legislatures. The remaining 17 held other elected positions, typically at the local level as county or city officials.

In the Senate, only two of the eight incoming members have never before served in an elective office: Alabama’s Katie Britt (R) and J.D. Vance (R) of Ohio.

States

Reapportionment: Early Projections — Apparently, it is not too early to begin discussing which states may gain and lose representation in the 2030 census. The first concrete projections have been publicized based upon the country’s current growth trends since the 2020 census was completed.

No real surprises were among the first cut, as eight seats are projected to change states. In the 2020 census, only seven seats changed states. The early estimates suggest that Texas will again be the big gainer, with an additional three seats. This would increase the nation’s second largest population state to 41 seats, if the early guesstimates prove accurate. Florida could gain two seats, with Idaho, Utah, and Washington each gaining one seat.

The losing states would again be familiar, as Illinois and New York could be on a path to lose two seats apiece. Pennsylvania would again be slated to lose one. The new losing states would be Connecticut, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, all possibly losing one of their current districts. None of these projections are firm, and much will happen to change the national and regional growth rates in the coming eight years.

Census Delays: Some Ramifications

By Jim Ellis

June 1, 2021 — As we know, the Census Bureau has delayed in meeting its public reporting deadlines, which causes ramifications in the political world. As a result, the state officials responsible for redistricting could well find themselves placed behind the proverbial eight ball as the new year approaches.

Reapportionment is the term used to explain the entire decennial process. Reapportionment, as the US Supreme Court defined it in their 1999 ruling on the US Census Bureau v. House of Representatives case, is basically divided into two parts. The first, which was finally completed and released on April 26, is the allocation of congressional seats to the states. The second is the re-drawing of congressional, state, and local district boundaries most often referred to as redistricting.

To complicate matters even further, the delayed allocation proved much different – affecting six seats to be exact – than predictions. It was believed for at least two years that Texas would gain three seats in the 2020 reapportionment and Florida two, with Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon adding one seat apiece. The actual numbers found Texas gaining two, Florida one, and Arizona none. The other one-seat gaining states were correctly predicted.

Conversely, Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia were all expected to lose one seat apiece. The actual report found Alabama, Minnesota, and Rhode Island each retaining the same number of seats they held in the 2010 reapportionment, while the others did lose a single district apiece.

The Census Bureau claims that COVID is largely responsible for their delays, but the state of Alabama, in their pending lawsuit against the federal statistical entity, disagrees. Alabama claims the deadline violations occurred because of the Bureau’s attempt to impose, for the first time in history, differential privacy over the data. This means, under the argument of protecting individual privacy, data would be deliberately scrambled, and certain information not publicly released.

Differential privacy alone would make redistricting extremely difficult for state map drawers because the released census tract numbers, now by definition, wouldn’t equal the state population figures brought forth earlier in the year. The effect would cause political havoc throughout the country. A court ruling on the Alabama case is expected shortly.

Because of a successful legal challenge from Ohio, the Census Bureau has agreed to make the data necessary for redistricting available to the states by Aug. 15 instead of the Oct. 1 date indicated when allocation was announced.

Continue reading →

Apportionment Surprises


By Jim Ellis

April 28, 2021 — In virtually every 10-year apportionment announcement at least one surprise occurs, but the census unveiling Monday contained multiple blockbusters.

For example, two states had their final number of congressional districts determined by less than 90 people. Reportedly, if New York had just had 89 more people, that would have saved an Empire State congressional seat. Minnesota becomes the beneficiary allowing the state to barely hold its eighth district.

Instead of 10 seats changing states as had been forecast, only seven, affecting 13 domains, switched. Perhaps the main reason for the lower number is the decade population growth rate. According to yesterday’s final report, the nation grew at only a 7.4 percent rate, the lowest since the 1930 census’s 7.3 percent. By contrast, the population increase from the 2010 total was 9.7 percent.

Pre-census projections, for better than a year, had been predicting that Texas would gain three seats, Florida two, and Arizona one. The analysts also estimated seat losses for Alabama, Minnesota, and Rhode Island. None of these projections proved accurate.

On the other hand, prognostications for the balance of the map were accurate. Texas, and Florida did gain, but two and one, respectively, instead of three and two seats. Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each added one district apiece as expected. The one-seat losers were California, for the first time in history, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

It’s a bit too soon to determine which party will benefit the most from these numbers at the congressional level, though Republicans should be up slightly in the Electoral College for the next presidential campaign. Once we see how the population is distributed within the states will better tell us whether Democrats or Republicans will take the most advantage of the apportionment. This will depend upon how the population spreads through the cities, suburbs, and rural regions.

Continue reading →