Census results: Red states make gains
December 21st, 2010
11:45 AM ET
11 years ago

Census results: Red states make gains

(CNN) - The U.S. Census Bureau numbers are out and the news is good for red states when it comes to adding new seats in the House of Representatives.

The U.S. Constitution mandates that a census be conducted every 10 years to reflect the population shifts in the country accurately. The new numbers spell out congressional reapportionment as the states divvy up the 435 seats in the House.

In a press conference Tuesday, the findings showed a growing population in western and southern states - areas where Republicans tend to do well in elections.

The figures:

–A shift of 12 seats affecting 18 different states

–8 states will gain seats, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.

–Those losing states include Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

–Thirty-two states saw no gains in seats

Filed under: U.S. Census
soundoff (94 Responses)
  1. Silence Dogood

    @Skeptical1: You 1) Fail at constitutional law and 2) Didn't read the article. It's the population of the US divided by 435 because they can't fit more into the House. 435 is a static number and always will be. That's why if one state goes up in % total population and one goes down, the representative goes away from the decreased and is added to the increased. It's all about percentage. If PR ever decides on statehood, we would have to reapportion again for the 435 but the number in the Senate would increase to 102 (51 states x 2 representatives).

    If we ever decided to apportion by total citizens' weight, God help the Northerners since obesity is rampant in the South. Palin's dis on MOboma about the government being concerned about schoolkids' weight strikes home in the South. "Don't tell me what to feed my kids! We have a right to that whole bucket of fried chicken!"

    December 21, 2010 01:31 pm at 1:31 pm |
  2. Terri

    And two years earlier Florida went blue. It goes back and forth.

    December 21, 2010 01:31 pm at 1:31 pm |
  3. GI Joe

    As an Independent, doesn't matter if state is red or blue – I'm still independent.

    If dems are moving into red states, they are still dems - if reps are moving into blue states, they are still reps.

    WE'RE ALL PURPLE – ha ha ha ha ha ha

    December 21, 2010 01:42 pm at 1:42 pm |
  4. Logical

    Is it really a mystery that the more religious areas are gaining in population? Serisouly, Utah with the Mormans and the 10 children households when the man only has one wife, what about all the men with 4 wives and 30 some kids. Let's be realistic and look at some basics on population growth. The mid-west may not be bible belt of America, but at least they have some logic when it comes to family planning.

    December 21, 2010 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  5. Don

    So red states got more voters? Anyone bother to notice that they are probably younger and more liberal than their parents and right wing neighbors? I can see red states turning blue over the next 10 years just by the fact that the old bigots are dying off.

    December 21, 2010 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  6. Independent's Day Nov 2 2010

    To all of the Democrats who are getting oh so excited over the "watering down" of the red states....

    Sorry to burst your bubble but all of these demographic changes happened BEFORE the 2010 elections, and last I heard, the Republicans smashed you to pieces just a few months ago, making huge solid gains in all of the traditional red states as well as some in the blue states. So much for your demographic changes having an effect on election trends. You might as well face it; the red states are going to stay solidly red for a LONG time to come, and in the meantime the blue states are going to continue to lose their power and significance as population levels continue to decrease. Happy voting.

    December 21, 2010 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  7. Dustinsc

    There's a lot of conversation going on here that's missing the point. The people that are in these red states were already there this year; the census just now recognizes them. So you have roughly the same people voting in the 2012 elections as voted in the 2010 elections. That means more gains for the red states, and maybe a dilution factor that MIGHT come into play in another 10 years.

    And to Pennsylvania: even with increasing federal involvement in local budgets, states are still responsible for their own budgets primarily from their own revenues.

    December 21, 2010 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  8. calbb

    These figures are really misleading. Considering that 1) the birth rate among whites have declined while minority birth rates have remained constant/increase, 2) higher areas of population density generally reflect higher populations of minorities, and 3) minorities have historically voted for Democratic candidates, these Red states can actually be turning into Blue states. Unless the intent is for Republicans to redistrict these states to divide the minority votes and to favor more white voters, this can actually be viewed as evening out the playing field to provide greater representation of minority candidates.

    December 21, 2010 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  9. Daws

    "Most of the Red states are states that do not need continual handouts.
    Most of the Blue states are states that Need continual handouts. "

    Amazing how people can see the very opposite of reality... It's been long known that percapita blue states generally give more in federal taxes (bigger economies, bigger populations), yet red states receive more. We're not the ones getting the "handouts".

    Trouble is, large economies lead to expensive housing, probably one of the main motives for migrations.

    December 21, 2010 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  10. Orlando Patriot

    This should be a wake-up call to the Democrats (of course it won't be – Democrats cannot think logically). When people are getting frustrated with their city/state governments initiate programs and agendas that punish those who work hard and redistribute to those that don't eventually the hard working individual will have had enough and move to the cities/states that actually promote economic growth. The response by a liberal would then be that the FEDERAL government must become more liberal/socialist so these hard working individuals will STILL have to support the lazy regardless of where they live.

    There is one problem with that argument: You make the assumption that the hard working then will have no choice – nothing is further from the truth. The reaction will be for some to simply sell/close their business and live off their assets. "Enough is enough" is what they say and if the government is only going to TAKE (i.e. STEAL) more of my income then I will simply significantly REDUCE my income (or will relocate their business overseas). Or a hard working individual who works two (or three!!) jobs finally realizes that the extra income is becoming so insignificant that it is not worth it. Therefore THEIR income will reduce as well. End result is under the examples above tell me again how INCREASING the tax rate will INCREASE tax revenues? You lazy liberals who want to feed off the "rich" are like ticks sucking the blood out of the possible economic growth in this country. You liberals are literally DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY!!

    December 21, 2010 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  11. sonicbreaker

    i think the analyst got too excited for no good reason. because i think the change is rather minimal for either party for reasons noted below:
    1. they said this data is that of April 1st, 2010, which is only ~ 18 months after the Nov 08 election. so, assuming linear changes, chances are that this "new population" is what got Obama to White House but using 2000 census statistics.
    2. now, if we redo the 08 election numbers (electoral college votes) using the new ones, it goes from Obama by 365-173 (actual 08 result) to 359-179 (net decrease of 6 votes).
    therefore, the only way for the Red party to regain WH in 2012 will be to go look for a good "national" candidate. else, 2012 will be a repeat of 2008, maybe with the scorline looking a little better for the Red party.

    December 21, 2010 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |
  12. Tony1018

    Keep taxing the Northeast and you will continue to lose population

    December 21, 2010 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  13. anon


    Please review the use of the word "include". "Are" would serve you better here. Also, inclusion of the number of seats lost or gained would have been helpful.

    December 21, 2010 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  14. a in austin

    We are the United States. Since 9/11 happened and media ratings went down after weeks of full time coverage, CNN and other media starting labeling "red" state, "blue" state, conservative this, liberal that.....it's all about the ratings folks.

    December 21, 2010 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  15. ScottK

    How about a compromise, people on the right get their God out of our government and womens wombs and the people on the left drop most of the entitlements. Everybody wins.

    December 21, 2010 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  16. JoBleaux

    I got news for the "Red" states. The people moving in are liberals. We're going to take over your states! HA HA HA HA.

    December 21, 2010 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  17. ScottK

    How about a compromise, people on the right get their God out of our government and womens wombs and the people on the left drop most of the enti tlements. Everybody wins.

    December 21, 2010 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  18. ScottK

    How about a com promise, people on the right get their G o d out of our government and womens wo mbs and the people on the left drop most of the ent i tlements. Everybody wins.

    December 21, 2010 02:40 pm at 2:40 pm |
  19. JT

    Peace on Earth, good will toward man. If we could get rid of closed primaries and gerrymandering, we'd have a better government. Most of these comments read like a college sports message board.

    December 21, 2010 02:41 pm at 2:41 pm |
1 2 3 4