Pennsylvania Loses Seats 9th Census Running

pennsylvania-smilePennsylvania is Reapportionment’s version of the Biggest Loser. If projections hold, Pennsylvania will lose Congressional seats for the ninth straight Census.

Smart Politics:

Several projections have been conducted by experts during the last few years – with Texas and Arizona universally considered to be the big winners of multiple seats, with the remaining gains coming from states in the southern and western regions of the country: Nevada, Utah, Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia. (Oregon and North Carolina might also gain seats).

Most states projected to lose seats, meanwhile, are located in the Northeastern and Midwestern regions – Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri. (Louisiana is also projected to lose a seat and potentially California).

[…]

Population shifts, and the resulting reapportionment, caused by the expansion and settling of a new nation are expected, of course, but there has also been great fluctuation in the apportionment of seats to the U.S. House even after membership was (largely) stabilized at 435 voting members after the 1910 census.

Pennsylvania has suffered the largest number of lost seats over the years – losing 17 seats from their peak U.S. House delegation of 36 members after the 1910 Census to 19 seats today.

Pennsylvania has lost seats for a record eight consecutive census periods, beginning with the 15th Census in 1930 through the 22nd Census in 2000, and are expected to lose another seat after the 2010 Census.

Neighboring New York has also endured a significant drop in seats to the U.S. House. After holding steady at 45 seats after the 1930 and 1940 Censuses, the Empire State has lost seats in six consecutive census periods, shedding 16 seats in total to its current level of 29 seats today.

Two other states have lost seats by double-digit margins from their peak representation in the U.S. House – Virginia (-12) and Massachusetts (-10). However, each of these states reached their peak levels after the 1810 Census, when the country was comprised of just seventeen states. Virginia had 23 seats at that time, or 12.7 percent of the 181-seat U.S. House of Representatives, with Massachusetts at 20 seats, or 11.0 percent.

In total, 34 states currently have a U.S. House delegation that is smaller than its peak historical level.

Virginia and Massachusetts lost seats, too, because new states (West Virginia and Maine) were formed from their territory.

via Taegan Goddard

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. TangoMan says:

    It’s nice to see that the lean-Democratic states are losing seats and the lean-Republican states are picking them up.

    Let’s hope that the migration pattern doesn’t consist of liberals moving from Blue states to Red states because they are trying to escape oppressive regulation and overwhelming tax burdens only to start agitating for those same kinds of policies in their new state of residence (see recent evidence in Nevada, Colorado and Arizona who are contending with new residents recently arrived from California, after California has been run into the ground from all the policies implemented by a Democratic heavy electorate.)

  2. An Interested Party says:

    It’s nice to see that the lean-Democratic states are losing seats and the lean-Republican states are picking them up.

    It’s also nice to see that so many of these states that are picking up seats have a growing Hispanic population…stuff like what’s going on in Arizona might very well help push many of those currently lean-Republican states into the Democratic fold…

  3. Michael Reynolds says:

    I keep hearing that California has been run into the ground. And yet, when I had a choice of any of the 50 states — and with a pretty good memory for state income taxe rates — I chose CA. I have the feeling that after having hopped from state to state and even to a more limited degree from country to country, I’ll be staying here a while.

    Some reasons:

    1) The weather. I’ve sweltered in TX and FL, and frozen in ME, MA, MN and IL. You just cannot beat California weather. Freeze and sweat you poor bitches, it’s sunny and warm and dry here.

    2) Silicon Valley and Hollywood. California is intellectually alive. Laugh if you like: we have Apple, Google and a world-dominating entertainment industry. There are more forward-looking, imaginative, interesting and talented people here than in the other 49 states combined. Arizona? Alabama? Please.

    3) On average the schools suck, but a lot of CA communities have world-class systems. Irvine, for example, where I happen to live. And the State University systems are still a bargain.

    4) The Ocean. The Pacific, baybee, and lined with vast public beaches. On any given day I have a choice of about 100 miles’ worth of beach to choose from.

    5) The mountains. I don’t drive up there, but there are few prettier sights than the snow-capped peaks rising above the smog.

    6) Vegas. Technically in Nevada, but we all know that’s not a real state.

    7) Ample parking.

    8) Stuff to do with kids: Disneyland, Universal Studios, Knott’s Berry Farm, just for starters.

    9) No mosquitoes, no roaches, no black flies.

    10) No one does high speed car chases like we do high speed car chases.

    Yes, when we get our staggering California tax bill we whimper like babies. Then we ask ourselves: is it worth it? And the answer is, you bet it is.

    I’ve lived in Texas, I met my wife in Texas, and Texas? You’re no California.

  4. just me says:

    Let’s hope that the migration pattern doesn’t consist of liberals moving from Blue states to Red states because they are trying to escape oppressive regulation and overwhelming tax burdens only to start agitating for those same kinds of policies in their new state of residence

    You can add New Hampshire to the list as well.

    I am not sure that it is so much that high tax state refugees agitate for high taxes so much as they agitate for the kinds of stuff that require a lot of spending, which results in higher taxes.

    I also agree that some states it may actually be due to immigration (both legal and illegal)-especially states that have large agriculture businesses.