Texas Population Change Since 000 for Redistricting Texas Legislative Council April 00
Texas Population Change Since 000 for Redistricting Prepared by the Research Division of the Texas Legislative Council Published by the Texas Legislative Council P.O. Box 8 Austin, Texas 787-8 Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, Joint Chair Speaker Joe Straus, Joint Chair April 00
The mission of the Texas Legislative Council is to provide professional, nonpartisan service and support to the Texas Legislature and legislative agencies. In every area of responsibility, we strive for quality and effi ciency. Copies of this publication have been distributed in compliance with the state depository law (Subchapter G, Chapter 44, Government Code) and are available for public use through the Texas State Publications Depository Program at the Texas State Library and other state depository libraries. An online version of this publication can be found at http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/publications.html. Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from House Document Distribution: In person: Room B.34, Robert E. Johnson, Sr., Legislative Office Building 50 N. Congress Avenue By mail: P.O. Box 8, Austin, TX 787-8 By phone: (5) 463-44 By fax: (5) 463-90 By e-mail: house.documentdistribution@tlc.state.tx.us By online request form (legislative offices only): http://billreq/house.aspx ii
Table of Contents Introduction... Data Sources... Effect of Overall Population Change on the Number and Size of Districts... 3 Congressional Districts... 3 State Senate and House of Representatives and State Board of Education Districts... 3 Patterns of Population Change and Their Effect on Districts... 5 Total Population Change by County and Geographical Location... 5 Population Change by Race/Ethnicity... List of Figures Figure - Estimated Change in Population by Region 000-009... Figure - Estimated 000-008 Population Change by Texas Congressional District... 4 Figure 3 - Estimated Change in County Population Relative to the State Rate 000-009 with Senate Districts... 6 Figure 4 - Estimated Change in County Population Relative to the State Rate 000-009 with House Districts... 7 Figure 5 - Estimated Change in County Population Relative to the State Rate 000-009 with State Board of Education Districts... 8 Figure 6 - Estimated County Population and Change in County Population 000-009 with the I-35 Corridor Area... 0 Figure 7 - Race/Ethnic Composition of the Texas Population, 000 and 008... Figure 8 - Estimated Change in Race/Ethnic Population by County 000-008... 4 List of Tables Table - Ideal Size and Range of Deviation of Senate, House, and SBOE Districts... 5 Table - Differences in Number of House Districts in Large Counties Based on 009 Census Population Estimates and 00 State Data Center Population Projections... Table 3 - Proportion of County Population by Race/Ethnicity 000 Census and 008 Census Estimates... 3 iii
Introduction The State of Texas has experienced rapid population growth since the 000 Census, when the Texas population count was almost million. The U.S. Census Bureau (CB) estimates that the 009 Texas population was almost 4.8 million, an increase of 8.8 percent. In comparison, the population of the United States is estimated to have grown by 9. percent over the same period. In spite of the state's total increase in population, the population growth, as shown in Figure, has not been uniform across the state, with current estimates suggesting that 57 percent of that growth occurred in the I-35 corridor, 39 percent occurred in the eastern region of the state, and 4 percent occurred in the western region of the state. DALLAM HARTLEY OLDHAM DEAF SMITH TITUS THROCK- JACK YOAKUM WISE DENTON COLLIN TERRY LYNN HOPKINSFRANKLIN GARZA KENT HASKELL MORRIS STONEWALL MORTON YOUNG HUNT CASS CAMP ROCKWALL RAINS MARION WOOD SHACKEL- GAINES PARKER TARRANT DALLAS UPSHUR DAWSON BORDEN SCURRY FISHER JONES FORD STEPHENS PALO PINTO KAUFMANVAN ZANDT HARRISON GREGG NOLAN HOOD SMITH JOHNSON ANDREWS ELLIS MARTIN HOWARD MITCHELL TAYLOR CALLAHAN EASTLAND PANOLA ERATH SOMERVELL HENDERSON RUSK NAVARRO HILL COMANCHE CHEROKEE LOVING ECTOR BOSQUE SHELBY WINKLER MIDLAND GLASSCOCK ANDERSON STERLING RUNNELS COLEMAN BROWN FREESTONE HAMILTON NACOGDOCHES MCLENNAN LIMESTONE WARD MILLS AUGUSTINE CRANE UPTON REEVES REAGAN TOM GREEN CORYELL HOUSTON LEON ANGELINA SABINE IRION CONCHO FALLS MCCULLOCH SABA LAMPASAS TRINITY NEWTON BELL ROBERTSON MADISON JASPER SCHLEICHER MENARD POLK TYLER PECOS BURNET MILAM WALKER CROCKETT MASON LLANO WILLIAMSON BRAZOS JACINTO GRIMES SUTTON KIMBLE BURLESON MONTGOMERY HARDIN GILLESPIE TRAVIS LEE BLANCO TERRELL WASHINGTON LIBERTY ORANGE BASTROP KERR WALLER EDWARDS JEFFERSON KENDALL AUSTIN VAL VERDE FAYETTE BREWSTER REAL COMAL CALDWELL CHAMBERS BANDERA COLORADO GUADALUPE FORT BEND BEXAR GONZALES GALVESTON LAVACA KINNEY UVALDE MEDINA WHARTON BRAZORIA WILSON DE WITT JACKSON ZAVALA FRIO ATASCOSA KARNES VICTORIA MATAGORDA MAVERICK GOLIAD SHERMAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB MOORE HUTCHINSON ROBERTS HEMPHILL POTTER CARSON GRAY WHEELER COLLINGS- RANDALL ARMSTRONG DONLEY WORTH Figure Estimated Change in Population by Region 000-009 PARMER CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL CHILDRESS HARDEMAN BAILEY LAMB HALE FLOYD MOTLEY COTTLE FOARD WILBARGER WICHITA COCHRAN HOCKLEY LUBBOCK CROSBY DICKENS KING KNOX BAYLOR ARCHER CLAY MONTAGUE COOKE GRAYSON FANNIN LAMAR DELTA RED RIVER BOWIE EL PASO HUDSPETH CULBERSON JEFF DAVIS PRESIDIO - West of I-35 Corridor (4%) - I-35 Corridor (57%) 3 - East of I-35 Corridor (39%) COKE The Census Bureau estimates that Texas grew by more than 3.9 million people since the 000 Census. Of the estimated growth, 57% (about.3 million people) was in the I-35 corridor counties, 39% (about.53 million people) was in the counties east of the I-35 corridor area, and 4% (about 70,000 people) was in the counties west of the I-35 corridor area. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 009 Estimates, released March 00 DIMMIT LA SALLE WEBB ZAPATA MCMULLEN LIVE OAK STARR DUVAL JIM HOGG HAYS JIM WELLS BROOKS HIDALGO BEE PATRICIO NUECES KLEBERG KENEDY WILLACY CAMERON REFUGIO ARANSAS CALHOUN 3HARRIS U.S. Census Bureau, 009 County Population Estimates, relea sed March 00 and Census 000.
These two trends significant population increase and uneven distribution of that increase throughout the state make it likely that in the 0 redistricting process current districts will be redrawn throughout the state. Even districts that have grown at the same rate as the state's population likely will change because changes in neighboring districts will create a "ripple effect" throughout a region. Data from the 00 Census are not expected to be available until after the beginning of the 8nd Regular Session, when redistricting plans must be redrawn, but a general understanding of population trends over the past decade and their implications for redistricting can be obtained from population estimates or projections. This analysis provides some indication of the likely size and distribution of the population at the time of the Decennial Census in 00 and discusses possible implications for the redistricting process. The purpose of this report is not to predict actual population counts, but to provide a general look at how the pattern of population change will differentially affect counties and regions of the state in the redistricting process. The report begins with a discussion of the effects of population change on the number of congressional districts and on the size of legislative and State Board of Education (SBOE) districts. Next, using county-level data, it examines the distribution of the population change across the state and its likely effect on the distribution of districts, including the effect on large counties that contain one or more house districts. Finally, estimated racial and ethnic population change throughout the state is discussed. With the exception of congressional districts, for which estimates are compiled by the CB, the report examines population change at the county level rather than by political district. The smallest area for which reliable population estimates are available to us is a county, and since numerous districts contain a part of a county, it is not possible to reliably make district-level estimates. However, the report provides maps that superimpose current district boundaries on the pattern of county population change to suggest the extent to which districts might need to be realigned to accommodate the population changes. Data Sources Currently, two sources of county-level data are available that could be used to analyze population change for the purpose of this report: estimates of the July, 009, population produced by the CB and projections of the likely 00 population based on data provided by the Texas State Data Center (SDC). The CB provides state-level projections for 00 but does not provide county-level data. Since estimates and projections employ different assumptions and are used for different purposes, the numbers produced by an estimate will be somewhat different from the numbers resulting from a projection. One number is not more "real" or "accurate" than the other, but one set of assumptions can be more useful and appropriate for certain contexts and purposes. For the purposes of this report, the discussion will be based on the CB's 009 county population estimates. Because projections are produced less frequently than estimates, the 009 estimates are likely to be a more reliable indication of the actual 00 population count than 00 projections made earlier in the decade. There is no set of numbers that would be sufficiently reliable to form the basis of a redistricting plan at this early date. Two additional sources of data are used in this report: county-level race/ethnicity data as of July, 008, released by the CB in May 009; and estimates of the 008 populations of each of the current congressional districts, published by the CB in its fall 009 American Community Survey (ACS) data release. ACS data is not available for state legislative districts. To clarify when numbers other than March 009 estimates are being used, the maps use a different color scheme.
Effect of Overall Population Change on the Number and Size of Districts Congressional Districts Based on the CB estimates, population growth in Texas since the 000 Census compared to the growth nationwide could result in a gain of three or four additional congressional seats, increasing Texas' total number of seats from 3 to either 35 or 36. Two political consultants that produced apportionment calculations for the recent CB state and national estimates both calculated that if the apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives seats was based on those estimates, Texas would gain three additional congressional districts. When these organizations projected these estimates forward nine months to census day, April, 00, POLIDATA showed that Texas could gain an additional fourth seat, and Election Data Services, in five of its six trend models, also predicted that Texas could gain an additional fourth seat. POLIDATA said that "the apportionment formula is very sensitive to small shifts in persons" and that Texas could receive the fourth seat with about 40,000 persons to spare. Election Data Services said that a "review of the last 5 seats / next 5 seats calculations demonstrates the extreme closeness and volatility inherent in the 00 population projections." In the CB s 008 population estimates of each of the current congressional districts, as shown in Figure, 0 of the 3 districts are estimated to have population growth near or above the state's rate of growth. These are the areas that likely will incorporate the new congressional districts that may be apportioned to the state. State Senate and House of Representatives and State Board of Education Districts Because the number of senate, house, and SBOE districts is fixed by state law, the number of these districts will remain the same while the ideal population of each type of district will increase. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in White v. Regester, 4 U.S. 755, that state legislative districts could deviate from the ideal district population within an overall range of as much as 0 percent. Generally, deviations within this range do not require a justification by the state. This ruling does not require that each district be within ±5 percent of the ideal size, but rather that the difference between the smallest and largest district be no greater than 0 percent. For example, a range between -4 percent and +6 percent could be allowed. For purposes of this analysis, we will use ±5 percent to illustrate how population may need to be added to or removed from districts to achieve an allowable population size. A comparison of the 00 ideal district sizes and maximum and minimum deviations with ideal district sizes and allowable deviations based on 009 estimates is presented in Table. POLIDATA Political Data Analysis, Press Release, Mid-Recession Migration: Apportionment in 00, Population Trends for the 000s; the 009 Estimates, December 3, 009, Clark Bensen; Election Data Services, New Population Estimates Show Additional Changes for 009 Congressional Apportionment, With Many States Sitting Close to the Edge for 00, December 3, 009, Kimball Brace. 3
Figure Estimated 000-008 Population Change by Texas Congressional District DALLAM HARTLEY OLDHAM SHERMAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB MOORE HUTCHINSON ROBERTS HEMPHILL POTTER CARSON GRAY WHEELER 6 6 4 3 30 3 5 4 DEAF SMITH RANDALL ARMSTRONG DONLEY THROCK- MORTON COLLINGS- WORTH PARMER BAILEY CASTRO LAMB SWISHER BRISCOE HALL HALE FLOYD MOTLEY CHILDRESS 3 HARDEMAN COTTLE WILBARGER FOARD WICHITA Dallas - Tarrant County Area 6 EL PASO HUDSPETH CULBERSON JEFF DAVIS PRESIDIO Harris County Area 4 0 7 8 LOVING REEVES 8 WINKLER WARD 3 BREWSTER 9 Estimated District Change (rate) 9 YOAKUM Slower than State Rate (<.7) Near State Rate (.7 to.7) Faster than State Rate (>.7) COCHRAN GAINES ANDREWS PECOS ECTOR CRANE HOCKLEY TERRY UPTON TERRELL LYNN DAWSON MARTIN MIDLAND LUBBOCK 9 8 4 REAGAN CROSBY GARZA BORDEN HOWARD GLASSCOCK CROCKETT VAL VERDE IRION DICKENS KENT SCURRY MITCHELL STERLING NOLAN COKE SUTTON KING FISHER TOM GREEN SCHLEICHER STONEWALL EDWARDS KINNEY MAVERICK JONES KNOX TAYLOR RUNNELS HASKELL CONCHO MENARD KIMBLE REAL UVALDE ZAVALA DIMMIT COLEMAN BAYLOR SHACKEL- FORD CALLAHAN MCCULLOCH MASON BANDERA MEDINA WEBB BROWN FRIO LA SALLE ZAPATA ARCHER YOUNG STEPHENS EASTLAND MILLS SABA GILLESPIE COMANCHE LLANO KENDALL STARR BEXAR ATASCOSA MCMULLEN DUVAL JIM HOGG CLAY JACK PALO PINTO ERATH BLANCO HAMILTON LAMPASAS BURNET COMAL HAYS WILSON LIVE OAK BROOKS HIDALGO MONTAGUE WISE PARKER HOOD SOMERVELL BOSQUE CORYELL TRAVIS GUADALUPE KARNES JIM WELLS BEE BELL NUECES KLEBERG KENEDY COOKE DENTON TARRANT JOHNSON WILLIAMSON GONZALES GOLIAD HILL MCLENNAN BASTROP WILLACY DE WITT PATRICIO The number of congressional districts in Texas is expected to increase from 3 to either 35 or 36. The Census Bureau estimates the state's population grew by 6.7 percent between the 000 Census and July, 008. KERR 8 0 CALDWELL 5 7 6 7 3 CAMERON DALLAS FALLS MILAM REFUGIO GRAYSON ELLIS LEE FAYETTE 5 LAVACA VICTORIA ARANSAS COLLIN NAVARRO JACKSON CALHOUN FANNIN HUNT KAUFMAN LIMESTONE ROBERTSON BURLESON ROCKWALL 6 AUSTIN COLORADO FREESTONE BRAZOS 0 WASHINGTON LEON GRIMES WHARTON LAMAR DELTA RAINS HOPKINS VAN ZANDT HENDERSON HARRIS MATAGORDA WOOD SMITH HOUSTON WALKER RED RIVER ANDERSON CHEROKEE MADISON WALLER 4 5 4 FRANKLIN MONTGOMERY FORT BEND BRAZORIA TITUS CAMP UPSHUR TRINITY MORRIS GREGG RUSK POLK JACINTO LIBERTY BOWIE CASS HARRISON PANOLA TYLER SHELBY NACOGDOCHES AUGUSTINE SABINE ANGELINA HARDIN CHAMBERS GALVESTON MARION 8 JASPER JEFFERSON NEWTON ORANGE Source: PLAN 0440C; U.S. Census Bureau, 008 American Community Survey, -Year Data, released September 009 4
Table. Ideal Size and Range of Deviation of Senate, House, and SBOE Districts Current District Size (Actual 000 Population = 0,85,80) District Size (Estimated 009 Population = 4,78,30) District type Number Minimum Ideal Maximum Minimum Ideal Maximum Senate 3 639,55 67,639 704,875 759,458 799,49 839,40 (-4.9) (4.79) House 50 3,36 (-4.8) SBOE 5,383,533 (-0.47) 39,0 45,847 (4.9),390,,395,489 (0.39) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 009 Population Estimates released March 00 56,955 65,5 73,476,569,546,65,53,734,76 Patterns of Population Change and Their Effect on Districts Total Population Change by County and Geographical Location For this discussion, a county with a growth rate between 3.8 and 3.8 percent is classified as having grown at near (within ± 5 percent) the rate for the state as a whole (8.8 percent). A county with a growth rate greater than 3.8 percent is classified as having grown faster than the state rate. A county with a growth rate less than 3.8 percent is classified as having grown slower than the state rate. The CB estimates suggest that only 5 counties have grown at a rate near the growth rate of the state as a whole; counties along the I-35 corridor, in the Houston area, and in South Texas have grown at a rate that is faster than the state rate; and 08 counties in the Panhandle area, West Texas, parts of East Texas, and the Coastal Bend area have grown at a rate that is slower than the state rate. The uneven distribution of population change will require changes in current district configurations. When the current senate, house, and SBOE district boundaries are overlaid on maps of the estimated changes in county populations, the effects of the differential county growth on the districts can be seen (see Figures 3, 4, and 5). Those districts in counties that have grown more rapidly than the 8.8 percent state rate likely will have to reduce their populations to an allowable size. Those districts in counties that have grown more slowly than the state rate likely will have to add enough population to reach an allowable size. Those districts that have grown at close to the state rate may still change in configuration because of the ripple effect of changes in neighboring districts. 5
Figure 3 Estimated Change in County Population Relative to the State Rate 000-009 with Senate Districts DALLAM SHERMAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB HARTLEY MOORE HUTCHINSON HEMPHILL ROBERTS 3 OLDHAM POTTER CARSON GRAY WHEELER DEAF SMITH RANDALL ARMSTRONG DONLEY COLLINGS- WORTH PARMER CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL CHILDRESS HARDEMAN BAILEY COCHRAN LAMB HOCKLEY HALE LUBBOCK FLOYD MOTLEY COTTLE 8 YOAKUM TERRY LYNN GARZA KENT GAINES DAWSON BORDEN SCURRY CROSBY DICKENS KING KNOX STONEWALL FISHER FOARD HASKELL JONES WILBARGER BAYLOR THROCK- MORTON SHACKEL- FORD WICHITA ARCHER YOUNG STEPHENS CLAY 30 PALO PINTO JACK MONTAGUE WISE PARKER COOKE DENTON GRAYSON COLLIN 8 6 9 0 3 TARRANT DALLAS FANNIN ROCKWALL KAUFMAN HUNT RAINS VAN ZANDT LAMAR DELTA HOPKINS WOOD RED RIVER FRANKLIN TITUS CAMP UPSHUR MORRIS GREGG BOWIE CASS MARION HARRISON ANDREWS MARTIN HOWARD MITCHELL NOLAN TAYLOR CALLAHAN EASTLAND ERATH HOOD SOMERVELL JOHNSON ELLIS HENDERSON SMITH RUSK PANOLA EL PASO 9 HUDSPETH CULBERSON JEFF DAVIS PRESIDIO LOVING REEVES 9 WINKLER ECTOR MIDLAND WARD BREWSTER CRANE PECOS TERRELL UPTON GLASSCOCK REAGAN CROCKETT STERLING IRION VAL VERDE COKE TOM GREEN SCHLEICHER SUTTON EDWARDS KINNEY MAVERICK RUNNELS CONCHO MENARD KIMBLE REAL UVALDE ZAVALA COLEMAN MCCULLOCH KERR MASON BANDERA BROWN 4 MILLS SABA GILLESPIE MEDINA FRIO COMANCHE LLANO KENDALL BLANCO 5 6 BEXAR HAMILTON LAMPASAS ATASCOSA BURNET BOSQUE CORYELL HAYS COMAL 4 GUADALUPE WILSON TRAVIS BELL WILLIAMSON KARNES CALDWELL HILL MCLENNAN BASTROP GONZALES DE WITT FALLS MILAM LEE FAYETTE NAVARRO LIMESTONE ROBERTSON BURLESON 8 LAVACA VICTORIA COLORADO FREESTONE 5 BRAZOS WASHINGTON JACKSON AUSTIN LEON ANDERSON MADISON GRIMES WALLER WHARTON MATAGORDA WALKER FORT BEND CHEROKEE HOUSTON TRINITY JACINTO MONTGOMERY NACOGDOCHES POLK 7 HARRIS 5 3 6 BRAZORIA 7 SHELBY AUGUSTINE SABINE ANGELINA 3 LIBERTY 4 GALVESTON TYLER HARDIN CHAMBERS JASPER NEWTON ORANGE JEFFERSON GOLIAD DIMMIT LA SALLE MCMULLEN LIVE OAK CALHOUN BEE REFUGIO ARANSAS PATRICIO WEBB DUVAL JIM WELLS NUECES KLEBERG Estimated Change (rate) Slower than State Rate (<3.8) ZAPATA JIM HOGG STARR BROOKS 0 HIDALGO KENEDY 7 WILLACY Near State Rate (3.8 to 3.8) CAMERON Faster than State Rate (>3.8) The Census Bureau estimates the state's population grew by 8.8 percent between the 000 Census and July, 009. Source: PLAN 088S; U.S. Census Bureau 009 Estimates, released March 00 6
Figure 4 Estimated Change in County Population Relative to the State Rate 000-009 with House Districts DALLAM SHERMAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB HARTLEY MOORE HUTCHINSON HEMPHILL ROBERTS 86 87 OLDHAM POTTER CARSON GRAY WHEELER DEAF SMITH ARMSTRONG DONLEY COLLINGS- RANDALL WORTH 88 PARMER CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL CHILDRESS HARDEMAN 75-79 EL PASO HUDSPETH CULBERSON JEFF DAVIS PRESIDIO LOVING REEVES 74 COCHRAN ANDREWS HOCKLEY HALE LUBBOCK MARTIN WINKLER ECTOR MIDLAND WARD BREWSTER BAILEY CRANE LAMB YOAKUM TERRY LYNN GARZA KENT 83 GAINES DAWSON BORDEN SCURRY 8 PECOS 8 TERRELL UPTON 84 GLASSCOCK CROSBY DICKENS KING KNOX 85 HOWARD REAGAN CROCKETT FLOYD MOTLEY COTTLE MITCHELL STERLING IRION VAL VERDE COKE STONEWALL FISHER NOLAN 7 TOM GREEN SCHLEICHER SUTTON KINNEY MAVERICK 7 RUNNELS 53 EDWARDS FOARD HASKELL JONES TAYLOR CONCHO MENARD KIMBLE REAL UVALDE ZAVALA DIMMIT WILBARGER COLEMAN BAYLOR THROCK- MORTON SHACKEL- FORD CALLAHAN MCCULLOCH KERR 80 MASON BANDERA BROWN WICHITA 68 69 ARCHER YOUNG STEPHENS EASTLAND MILLS SABA GILLESPIE MEDINA FRIO LA SALLE 60 COMANCHE LLANO 73 KENDALL CLAY PALO PINTO 59 BEXAR 6-5 JACK ERATH BLANCO HAMILTON LAMPASAS BURNET COMAL ATASCOSA MCMULLEN 54 45 MONTAGUE GRAYSON DELTA DENTON 70 89 WISE HUNT HOPKINS COLLIN 66 6 63 64 65 67 ROCKWALL RAINS 90-99 WOOD PARKER TARRANT DALLAS KAUFMAN 00-5 VAN ZANDT HOOD SOMERVELL BOSQUE CORYELL 46-5 TRAVIS HAYS GUADALUPE WILSON 35 LIVE OAK COOKE JOHNSON BELL WILLIAMSON 44 KARNES 58 CALDWELL BEE HILL 56 55 MCLENNAN BASTROP GONZALES DE WITT GOLIAD LEE ELLIS 0 FALLS 0 5 MILAM 7 FAYETTE LAVACA 30 VICTORIA REFUGIO 6 FANNIN 5 RED RIVER FRANKLIN TITUS CAMP HARRIS 6-50 MORRIS UPSHUR GREGG BOWIE CASS MARION HARRISON NAVARRO ANDERSON CHEROKEE SHELBY 8 FREESTONE 9 NACOGDOCHES LIMESTONE ROBERTSON BURLESON BRAZOS WASHINGTON AUSTIN COLORADO JACKSON CALHOUN 4 57 4 HENDERSON LEON MADISON 3 GRIMES WALLER 8 WHARTON LAMAR MATAGORDA 3 7 WALKER SMITH HOUSTON TRINITY JACINTO 6 MONTGOMERY 6 FORT BEND 7 9 6 BRAZORIA 5 RUSK POLK 8 PANOLA AUGUSTINE SABINE ANGELINA LIBERTY 4 TYLER HARDIN CHAMBERS 3 GALVESTON 5 JASPER NEWTON ORANGE 9 JEFFERSON Estimated Change (rate) Slower than State Rate (<3.8) Near State Rate (3.8 to 3.8) Faster than State Rate (>3.8) 4 WEBB JIM WELLS DUVAL 3 34 NUECES 43 PATRICIO KLEBERG 33 BROOKS ZAPATA KENEDY JIM HOGG STARR HIDALGO WILLACY 40 4 CAMERON 36 39 38 37 ARANSAS 3 The Census Bureau estimates the state's population grew by 8.8 percent between the 000 Census and July, 009. Source: PLAN 0369H; U.S. Census Bureau 009 Estimates, released March 00 7
Figure 5 Estimated Change in County Population Relative to the State Rate 000-009 with State Board of Education Districts DALLAM SHERMAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB HARTLEY MOORE HUTCHINSON ROBERTS HEMPHILL OLDHAM POTTER CARSON GRAY WHEELER DEAF SMITH RANDALL ARMSTRONG DONLEY COLLINGS- WORTH PARMER CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL CHILDRESS HARDEMAN BAILEY COCHRAN LAMB HOCKLEY HALE LUBBOCK FLOYD MOTLEY COTTLE 5 FOARD CROSBY DICKENS KING KNOX WILBARGER BAYLOR WICHITA ARCHER CLAY MONTAGUE COOKE GRAYSON FANNIN LAMAR DELTA RED RIVER BOWIE YOAKUM TERRY LYNN GARZA KENT GAINES DAWSON BORDEN SCURRY STONEWALL FISHER HASKELL JONES THROCK- MORTON SHACKEL- FORD YOUNG STEPHENS PALO PINTO JACK WISE PARKER DENTON TARRANT DALLAS 3 COLLIN ROCKWALL KAUFMAN HUNT RAINS VAN ZANDT HOPKINS FRANKLIN WOOD TITUS CAMP MORRIS UPSHUR GREGG CASS MARION HARRISON EL PASO HUDSPETH CULBERSON JEFF DAVIS PRESIDIO LOVING REEVES ANDREWS MARTIN WINKLER ECTOR MIDLAND WARD BREWSTER CRANE PECOS TERRELL UPTON HOWARD GLASSCOCK REAGAN CROCKETT MITCHELL STERLING IRION VAL VERDE COKE NOLAN TOM GREEN SCHLEICHER SUTTON EDWARDS KINNEY MAVERICK TAYLOR RUNNELS CONCHO MENARD KIMBLE REAL UVALDE ZAVALA CALLAHAN COLEMAN MCCULLOCH KERR MASON BANDERA EASTLAND BROWN SABA GILLESPIE MEDINA FRIO 4 COMANCHE MILLS LLANO KENDALL ERATH BLANCO BEXAR HAMILTON LAMPASAS 3 ATASCOSA BURNET HOOD SOMERVELL BOSQUE CORYELL TRAVIS GUADALUPE JOHNSON BELL WILLIAMSON HILL MCLENNAN LEE ELLIS FALLS NAVARRO LIMESTONE ROBERTSON BURLESON COLORADO FREESTONE BRAZOS WASHINGTON HENDERSON LEON ANDERSON GRIMES WALKER SMITH BASTROP HAYS WALLER 5 AUSTIN FAYETTE HARRIS CALDWELL 6 COMAL WILSON KARNES GONZALES DE WITT GOLIAD MILAM VICTORIA 0 LAVACA JACKSON CALHOUN 9 WHARTON MADISON MATAGORDA CHEROKEE HOUSTON TRINITY JACINTO MONTGOMERY FORT BEND 4 BRAZORIA RUSK PANOLA NACOGDOCHES POLK SHELBY AUGUSTINE SABINE ANGELINA 8 LIBERTY TYLER HARDIN CHAMBERS 7 GALVESTON JASPER NEWTON ORANGE JEFFERSON DIMMIT LA SALLE MCMULLEN LIVE OAK BEE REFUGIO PATRICIO ARANSAS WEBB DUVAL JIM WELLS NUECES KLEBERG BROOKS ZAPATA JIM HOGG KENEDY Estimated Change (rate) Slower than State Rate (<3.8) STARR HIDALGO WILLACY CAMERON Near State Rate (3.8 to 3.8) Faster than State Rate (>3.8) The Census Bureau estimates the state's population grew by 8.8 percent between the 000 Census and July, 009. Source: PLAN 008E; U.S. Census Bureau 009 Estimates, released March 00 8
For state house districts, the I-35 corridor is a significant feature of electoral geography in Texas. As shown in the first map in Figure 6, many of the counties traversed by the highway have large populations, which have in the past served as a de facto population barrier for drawing house districts because it becomes difficult to draw east-west house districts that could both cross the corridor and satisfy constitutional requirements. Overlaying the boundaries of this corridor on the maps of population size and population change (Figure 6) shows that this corridor will continue to act as a barrier. Section 6, Article III, Texas Constitution, requires that house districts be apportioned among counties according to the federal census population and the following rules: () a county with sufficient population to be exactly one district must be formed into a single district; () a county with a population smaller than the population needed for a whole district must be kept whole and combined with other contiguous counties to form a district; (3) a county that can hold a multiple of whole districts must be divided into that number of districts, with no district extending into another county; and (4) each county with a population sufficient for one or more whole districts plus a fraction of another district must be divided into that many whole districts, with the excess population added to other adjacent counties to form an additional district. In practice, it is sometimes impossible to draw a statewide plan that completely satisfies these rules while maintaining districts with equal populations. The Texas courts have allowed a house plan to violate these rules to the extent necessary to draw a plan that complies with the one-person, one-vote requirement. Even a small difference in county population totals between the estimates used here and the actual census count may affect the number of house districts in urban counties. To demonstrate the effect that such a small difference in county population could make, this report compares the CB 009 population estimate with an SDC 00 projection. Although the total state populations for the CB 009 estimate (4,78,30) and the SDC 00 projection (4,330,646) are close, and the ideal house district populations for both sets of numbers are also close (65,5 according to the CB 009 estimate versus 6,04 according to the SDC 00 projection), the two sets provide different accounts of population growth by county. This is illustrated in Table, which compares the current, estimated, and projected number of districts in large counties. Note in particular the differences for Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Johnson, Nueces, and Tarrant Counties. The 009 CB estimate suggests a potential increase in the number of house districts in Collin, Denton, Fort Bend, Hidalgo, Johnson, Tarrant, and Williamson Counties, whereas the 00 SDC projection suggests a potential increase in the number of house districts in Collin, Denton, Hidalgo, and Williamson Counties. The 009 CB estimate suggests a potential decrease in the number of house districts in Dallas, El Paso, and Nueces Counties, whereas the 00 SDC projection suggests no potential decrease in the number of house districts in any county, with the possible exception of Harris County. Under both the estimate and projection, the number of house districts in Harris County could remain unchanged or could decrease by one. The actual number of districts each large county will receive cannot be determined until the 00 Census count has been processed. 9
Figure 6 Estimated County Population and Change in County Population 000-009 with the I-35 Corridor Area DALLAM SHERMAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB HARTLEY MOORE HUTCHINSON ROBERTS HEMPHILL OLDHAM POTTER CARSON GRAY WHEELER DEAF SMITH COLLINGS- RANDALL ARMSTRONG DONLEY WORTH PARM ER CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL CHILDRESS HARDEMAN BAILEY LAMB HALE FLOYD MOTLEY COTTLE FOARD WILBARGER WICHITA COCHRAN HOCKLEY LUBBOCK CROSBY DICKENS KING KNOX BAYLOR ARCHER CLAY LAMAR MONTAGUE RED RIVER COOKE GRAYSON FANNIN DELTA BOWIE YOAKUM TERRY LYNN GARZA THROCK- KENT STONEWALL HASKELL MORTON YOUNG JACK WISE DENTON COLLIN TITUS HOPKINS FRANKLIN MORRIS HUNT CASS CAMP Estimated 009 County Population 0-50,000 EL PASO HUDSPETH CULBERSON JEFF DAVIS GAINES DAWSON BORDEN ANDREWS MARTIN HOWARD LOVING WINKLER ECTOR MIDLAND WARD CRANE UPTON REEVES PECOS TERRELL SCURRY MITCHELL FISHER NOLANTAYLOR ROCKWALL RAINS MARION WOOD SHACKEL- PARKER TAR RAN T DALLAS UPSHUR JONES FORD STEPHENS PAL O PIN TO KAUFMANVAN ZANDT HARRISON GREGG HOOD SMITH JOHNSON ELLIS CALLAHAN EASTLAND PANOLA ERATH SOMERVELL HENDERSON RUSK NAVARRO HILL COMANCHE CHEROKEE BOSQUE SHELBY GLASSCOCK ANDERSON STERLING COKE RUNNELS COLEMAN BROWN FREESTONE HAMILTON NACOGDOCHES MCLENNAN LIMESTONE MILLS AUGUSTINE REAGAN TOM GREEN CORYELL LEON HOUSTON SABINE IRION CONCHO ANGELINA FALLS MCCULLOCH LAMPASAS SABA TRINITY BELL ROBERTSON MADISON NEWTON JASPER SCHLEICHER MENARD POLK TYLER BURNET MILAM WALKER CROCKETT MASON LLANO WILLIAMSON BRAZOS JACINTO GRIMES SUTTON KIMBLE BURLESON HARDIN GILLESPIE TRAVIS LEE MONTGOMERY BLANCO WASHINGTON LIBERTY ORANGE 3 3 50,00-00,000 Greater than 00,000 West of I-35 Corridor I-35 Corridor East of I-35 Corridor PRESIDIO BREWSTER VAL VERD E BASTROP KERR HAYS WALLER EDWARDS JEFFERSON KENDALL AUSTIN FAYETTE CALDWELL REAL COMAL HARRIS CHAMBERS BANDERA COLORADO GUADALUPE FORT BEND BEXAR GONZALES GALVESTON LAVACA KINNEY UVALDE MEDINA WHARTON BRAZORIA WILSON DE WITT JACKSON ZAVALA FRIO ATASCOSA KARNES VICTORIA MATAGORDA MAVERICK GOLIAD CALHOUN DIMMIT BEE LA SALLE MCMULLEN LIVE OAK REFUGIO ARANSAS JIM WELLS PATRICIO WEBB DUVAL NUECES KLEBERG ZAPATA JIM HOGG BROOKS KENEDY STARR HIDALGO WILLACY DALLAM SHERMAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB CAMERON HARTLEY MOORE HUTCHINSON ROBERTS HEMPHILL OLDHAM POTTER CARSON GRAY WHEELER DEAF SMITH COLLINGS- RANDALL ARMSTRONG DONLEY WORTH PARMER CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL CHILDRESS HARDEMAN BAILEY LAMB HALE FLOYD MOTLEY COTTLE FOARD WILBARGER WICHITA COCHRAN HOCKLEY LUBBOCK CROSBY DICKENS KING KNOX BAYLOR ARCHER CLAY MONTAGUE COOKE LAMAR RED RIVER GRAYSON FANN IN DELTA BOWIE YOAKUM TERRY LYNN GARZA THR OCK- KENT STONEWALL HASKELL MORTON YOUNG JACK WISE DENTON COLLIN TITUS HOPKINSFRANKLIN HUNT MORRIS CASS CAMP EL PASO Estimated Change (rate) Slower than State Rate (<3.8) Near State Rate (3.8 to 3.8) Faster than State Rate (>3.8) HUDSPETH CULBERSON JEFF DAVIS PRESIDIO GAINES DAWSON ANDREWS MARTIN BORDEN SCURRY HOWARD MITCHELL FISHER NOLAN ROCKWALL RAINS MARION WOOD SHACKEL- DALLAS UPSHUR PARKER TARRANT JONES FORD STEPHENS PALO PINTO KAUFMANVAN ZANDT HARRISON GREGG HOOD SMITH JOHNSON ELLIS TAYLOR CALLAHAN EASTLAND PANOL A ERATH SOMERVELL HENDERSON RUSK NAVARRO HILL CHEROKEE COMANCHE LOVING ECTOR BOSQUE SHELBY WINKLER MIDLAND GLASSCOCK COKE ANDERSON STERLING RUNNELS COLEMAN BROWN FREESTONE HAMILTON NACOGDOCHES WARD MCLENNAN MILLS LIMESTONE AUGUSTINE CRANE UPTON REEVES REAGAN TOM GREEN CORYELL HOUSTON LEON ANGELINA SABINE IRION CONCHO FALLS MCCULLOCH LAMPASAS SABA TRINITY BELL NEWTON ROBERTSON MADISON JASPER SCHLEICHER MENARD POLK TYLER PECOS BURNET MILAM WALKER CROCKETT MASON LLANO WILLIAMSON BRAZOS GRIMES JACINTO SUTTON KIMBLE BURLESON HARDIN GILLESPIE TRAVIS LEE MONTGOMERY TERRELL BLANCO WASHINGTON LIBERTY ORANGE BASTROP KERR HAYS WALLER EDWARDS JEFFERSON KENDALL AUSTIN HARRIS VAL VERDE FAYETTE BREWSTER REAL COMAL CALDWELL CHAMBERS BANDERA COLORADO GUADALUPE FORT BEND 3 BEXAR GONZALES GALVESTON LAVACA KINNEY UVALDE MEDINA WHARTON BRAZORIA WILSON DE WITT JACKSON ZAVALA FRIO ATASCOSA KARNES VICTORIA MATAGORDA MAVERICK GOLIAD West of I-35 Corridor DIMMIT BEE LA SALLE MCMULLEN LIVE OAK REFUGIO CALHOUN 3 I-35 Corridor East of I-35 Corridor WEBB ARANSAS JIM WELLS PATRICIO NUECES DUVAL KLEBERG ZAPATA JIM HOGG BROOKS KENEDY The Census Bureau estimates the state's population grew by 8.8 percent between the 000 Census and July, 009. STARR HIDALGO WILLACY CAMERON Source: U.S. Census Bureau 009 Estimates, released March 00 0
Table. Differences in Number of House Districts in Large Counties Based on 009 Census Population Estimates and 00 State Data Center Population Projections County Census 000 Count Population Current Districts Census 009 Estimate Population Percent Change Estimated Districts Population State Data Center 00 Projection Percent Change Projected Districts Ideal District 39,0 65,5 6,04 Bell 37,974 + 85,787 0.% + 8,866 8.4% + Bexar,39,93 0,65,448 8.6% 0,56,70.% 0 Brazoria 4,767 + 309,08 7.9% + 87,68 9.0% + Brazos 5,45 + 79,99 8.% + 7,830.7% + Cameron 335,7 + 396,37 8.% + 45,304 3.9% + Collin 49,675 3+ 79,63 6.0% 5 669,40 36.% 4 Dallas,8,899 6,45,730 0.5% 5,563,695 5.5% 6 Denton 43,976 3 658,66 5.% 4 607,37 40.% 3+ El Paso 679,6 5 75,96 0.5% 4+ 804,087 8.3% 5 Fort Bend 354,45 + 556,870 57.% 3+ 45,4 7.6% + Galveston 50,58 + 86,84 4.7% + 69,89 7.6% + Harris 3,400,578 5 4,070,989 9.7% 4-5 3,947,77 6.% 4-5 Hidalgo 569,463 4 74,5 30.% 4+ 750,74 3.8% 4+ Jefferson 5,05 + 43,37-3.5% + 63,36 4.4% + Johnson 6,8 < 56,997 3.8% 5,5 0.0% < Lubbock 4,68 + 70,550.5% + 63,504 8.6% + McLennan 3,57 + 33,378 9.3% + 3,538 8.4% + Montgomery 93,768 + 447,78 5.4% + 380,953 9.7% + Nueces 33,645 + 33,046 3.0% 354,063.9% + Smith 74,706 + 04,665 7.% + 88,59 7.9% + Tarrant,446,9 0,789,900 3.8%,66,0 4.9% 0 Travis 8,80 6,06,58 6.3% 6 966,9 8.9% 6 Webb 93,7 + 4,438 5.0% + 63,77 36.6% + Williamson 49,967 + 40,686 64.3% + 344,667 37.9% + Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 000; 009 Census Population Estimates released March 00; Texas State Data Center, Population Projections (0.5 scenario) released February 009
Population Change by Race/Ethnicity A consideration of race and ethnicity data is required for the creation of districts that satisfy the requirements of Sections and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Over the past decade, the most significant change in the ethnic composition of the state population is the increasing proportion of Hispanics and the decreasing proportion of Anglos. As shown in Figure 7, the 008 population is estimated to be 36 percent Hispanic and 47 percent Anglo, whereas the population in 000 was 3 percent Hispanic and 53 percent Anglo. The changes in the Black and Other proportions of the population are small by comparison. (For the purposes of this report, "Anglo" is defined as a census response that indicated White only; "Black" is defined as a response indicating Black only; "Hispanic" is defined as a response that included "Hispanic origin" only, regardless of race; and "Other" includes all other non-hispanic population responses, which are not White or Black only.) Figure 7 Race/Ethnic Composition of the Texas Population, 000 and 008 53% 47% 3% 36% % % 4% 5% Anglo Black Hispanic Other 000 Census Count 008 Population Estimate Source: U.S. Census Bureau Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April, 000 to July, 008, released May 009 Another noteworthy pattern is a shift in the racial or ethnic composition of the populations in major metropolitan areas. As shown in Table 3, all of the larger counties had an increase in the percent of Hispanic and of Other populations and a decrease in the percent of Anglo population. With respect to the proportion of Black population, those counties were evenly divided between those having an increase and those having a decrease. County rates of change for each of the race/ethnicity groups are presented in Figure 8. To what extent the changes in the racial and ethnic composition of the state's population will result in changes in the number of minority districts will depend on the location and concentration of minority populations.
Table 3. Proportion of County Population by Race/Ethnicity 000 Census and 008 Census Estimates Anglo Black Hispanic Other County 000 008 000 008 000 008 000 008 Bell 57.6% 53.6% 0.% 9.8% 6.7% 9.7% 5.7% 6.9% Bexar 35.9% 3.8% 6.9% 6.7% 54.3% 57.9%.8% 3.6% Brazoria 65.6% 56.7% 8.4% 0.7%.8% 6.4% 3.% 6.% Brazos 66.4% 6.8% 0.6% 0.4% 7.9%.0% 5.% 5.7% Cameron 4.7%.4% 0.3% 0.4% 84.3% 86.3% 0.7% 0.9% Collin 76.4% 66.3% 4.8% 7.6% 0.3% 4.3% 8.6%.8% Dallas 44.6% 35.% 0.% 0.0% 9.9% 38.9% 5.3% 5.9% Denton 76.3% 67.5% 5.8% 7.8%.% 7.% 5.8% 7.7% El Paso 7.% 3.7%.8%.4% 78.% 8.8%.8%.% Fort Bend 46.6% 39.7% 9.8% 0.3%.% 3.9%.5% 6.% Galveston 63.4% 60.3% 5.3% 4.0% 8.0%.5% 3.3% 4.3% Harris 4.5% 36.0% 8.3% 7.9% 3.9% 39.3% 6.3% 6.7% Hidalgo 0.5% 8.8% 0.3% 0.5% 88.3% 89.6% 0.8%.% Jefferson 5.0% 47.5% 33.6% 34.0% 0.5% 4.4% 3.9% 4.0% Johnson 83.3% 77.%.4% 3.5%.% 6.6%.%.7% Lubbock 6.7% 59.7% 7.5% 7.0% 7.5% 30.6%.3%.6% McLennan 64.8% 60.9% 5.% 4.4% 7.9%.8%.%.9% Montgomery 8.6% 73.7% 3.5% 4.6%.6% 8.3%.3% 3.4% Nueces 38.0% 34.% 4.% 3.7% 55.8% 59.5%.%.5% Smith 68.0% 64.4% 9.0% 7.7%.% 5.6%.8%.3% Tarrant 6.% 54.%.7% 3.6% 9.7% 6.0% 5.3% 6.% Travis 56.8% 5.8% 9.% 8.% 8.% 3.9% 5.9% 7.% Webb 5.0% 4.6% 0.% 0.% 94.3% 94.6% 0.6% 0.6% Williamson 73.8% 66.8% 5.0% 6.% 7.%.% 4.0% 5.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April, 000 to July, 008, released May 009 Note: "Anglo" is defined as a census response that indicated White only; "Black" is defined as a response indicating Black only; "Hispanic" is defined as a response that included "Hispanic origin" only, regardless of race; and "Other" includes all other non-hispanic population responses, which are not White or Black only. 3
Figure 8 Estimated Change in Race/Ethnic Population by County 000-008 Anglo Population Change Black Population Change The Anglo population in Texas is estimated to have grown by 4.9 percent or 539,000 people between 000 and 008. The Black population in Texas is estimated to have grown by 5.6 percent or 370,000 people between 000 and 008. Slower than State Rate (<.7) Near State Rate (.7 to.7) Faster than State Rate (>.7) The Census Bureau estimates the state's population grew by 6.7 percent between the 000 Census and July, 008. Hispanic Population Change Other Population Change The Hispanic population in Texas is estimated to have grown by 33.0 percent or,0,000 people between 000 and 008. The Other population in Texas is estimated to have grown by 44.8 percent or 366,000 people between 000 and 008. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April, 000 to July, 008, released May 009 4