New Population figures

[nativeomahan]

The new 2010 population figures are dribbling out from the us census bureau (http://www.census.gov).
Nebraska grew by 6.7% to 1,826,341
Iowa finally topped 3 million, with a population of 3,046,355, up 4.1%
The US grew by 9,7%, the slowest rate in 70 years.  Total US population is 308,745,538.

State data at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ ... p-text.php

[S33]

The new 2010 population figures are dribbling out from the us census bureau (http://www.census.gov).
Nebraska grew by 6.7% to 1,826,341
Iowa finally topped 3 million, with a population of 3,046,355, up 4.1%
The US grew by 9,7%, the slowest rate in 70 years.  Total US population is 308,745,538.

State data at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ ... p-text.php

Weird, they just had Nebraska as number one on a Forbes list of dying states (losing population)

[Big E]

Wasn't that in the context of out-state population?  (ie, people moving from rural to non-rural areas?)

I couldn't find it, but I thought that was the gist.  (Probably misremembering, though.)

[S33]

Don't remember, tried to find it, too.

[nativeomahan]

Nebraska hangs on one more decade before we lose our third congressional seat.  Looks like we are next in line to lose a representative.

[Coyote]

http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/06/top-st ... ide_5.html

[Big E]

There ya go.  

While the Census data certainly says that Forbes is wrong for stating we've been losing population since 2000, I didn't see anything in the Census (didn't look real hard, either) that would dispute losing population in the last year - although that would certainly be counter-intuitive.

Are there year-by-year numbers in the Census somewhere?

[Garrett]

Well the estimate of 2009 said we had 1,796,619 with a 5 percent growth rate.

[Erik]

hmmm...

We gained both by natural increase and held on to have a net in-migration for a second straight decade according drozd[1].  That said, in the earlier part of the decade our migration numbers were beginning to look dreary, but turned it around very well in the latter half of the decade to actually having more move in than out.

Remember that we are one of 7 states having a rampant rural decline.  To have two straight decades of more people moving in than out despite having 80+ counties losing 5% to 20% is kind of a remarkable stat to research.  This is boding very well for the Omaha, Lincoln and tri-cities metro areas.

[1] http://www.unomaha.com/cpr

[Erik]

A ratio of 1 means the same growth rate, less than 1 means slower than national average.

Nebraska 8.4%
United States 13.2%
Nebraska total growth ratio versus US: .636363

Nebraska 6.7%
United States 9.7%
Nebraska total growth ratio versus US: .697072

We have made a slight gain towards meeting the US average as a whole in the 2000s versus the 1990s.

[Coyote]

Census shows Nebraska will keep its 3 U.S. House seats

Nebraska’s population grew 6.7 percent during the last decade, so the state will keep all three of its U.S. House seats, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau. The census shows Nebraska’s population reached 1.83 million people in 2010.

Census: Nebraska Graduates Staying Put

Although the census numbers released today at UNO's Center for Public Affairs Research don't specifically address brain drain recent numbers do show that more educated young people are living and working in Nebraska.

David Drozd says, "Three or four years ago we had a net loss of people with bachelor degrees while in the last two years it has been on the positive side of zero the most recent period from '08 to '09 pulling in about 1,600 more people with bachelor degrees than those who left the state."

[nativeomahan]

When the county by county figures come out late winter I suspect they will show that about 100% of Nebraska's growth has occurred in Douglas, Sarpy and Lancaster counties.

[Candleshoe]

You can see that the US Census was a bit off in their projections for Nebraska, issued in 2005. They predicted slow and steady growth for Nebraska, with the 2030 projected estimate reaching  1,820,247

[Erik]

You can see that the US Census was a bit off in their projections for Nebraska, issued in 2005. They predicted slow and steady growth for Nebraska, with the 2030 projected estimate reaching  1,820,247

I can never understand their projections.  They were thinking that it would take 25 years to reach 1,820,247; only we reached 1,826,341 (6,094 more) in just five years.  When they come out with new projections, I am sure they will say that we'll reach 1,910,000 by 2040.

[Erik]

When the county by county figures come out late winter I suspect they will show that about 100% of Nebraska's growth has occurred in Douglas, Sarpy and Lancaster counties.

It's actually going to be higher than 100%.  The rural decline has really picked up steam this decade.  As a matter of fact estimates from 2009 show more growth within 'the big 3'[2] than what the state as a whole grew by[1].  Add in Adams, Hall, Buffalo[3] and a few other metro growing counties[4] and you get a very dim picture for the rest of the state[5].

The rural decline all starts with efficient farming needing less help. This help cannot find jobs and so they leave state. When these helpers leave state, there is less demand for services from the nearby communities.  When enough demand is lost, these service businesses will close and the owners have to leave.  This is a natural phenomena when dealing with agriculture and the evolution of it's technologies.  These people say they don't want to leave, but they have to.  In the long run it is a good thing.

That said, the rural decline is bound to slow down soon as it has been going on from the pre-onslaught of the dust bowl. And our ratio of growth to the national average should only continue to climb (barring any horrific city of OMaha and Lincoln problems seen from the mid 1970s to the lat 1980s).

[Official 2010 Census count: 1,826,341
Unofficial 2009 Estimate: 1,796,619
Difference: +29,722
[1]state census 2010 growth from 2010 – 115,078 (Nebraska 1,826,341 - 1,711,263)
[1A]state estimate 2009 growth from 2000 - 85,356 (Nebraska 1,796,619 - 1,711,263)
[2]Big 3 estimate 2009 growth from 2000 - 108,763 (945,234 - 836,471 - 108,763 )[EX2]
[3]Tri-city estimate 2009 growth from 2000 - 9,681 (136,625 - 126,944 - 9,681)[EX3]
[4]Omaha outer metro 2009 growth from  2000 - 2,316 (65,260 - 62,944 - 2,316)[EX4]

[5][REF:F3]State without big three, tri-cities and Omaha metro counties - 35,404 decline at 5.05% loss  (non big-three, tri-city Nebraska population - 649,500)

[EX2]Big three - 945,234 - 836,471 + 108,763
Douglas County 510,199 - 463,585 + 46,614
Lancaster County 281,531 - 250,291 + 31,240
Sarpy County 153,504 - 122,595 + 30,909

Add in a few other mid-sized, growing counties and the picture gets uglier for our state's rural areas.
[EX3]Tri-cities: - 136,625 - 126,944 + 9,681
Adams County - 33,324 - 31,151 + 2,173
Hall County - 57,487 - 53,534 + 3,953
Buffalo County- 45,814 - 42,259 + 3,555

[EX4]Omaha metro: 65,260 - 62,944 + 2,316
Washington County - 19,718 - 18,780 + 938
Cass County - 25,485 - 24,334 + 1,151
Saunders County - 20,057 - 19,830 + 227

[F1] State without big three - 23,407 decline at 2.75% loss (non big-three Nebraska population - 851,385)
[F2] State without big three and tri-cities - 33,088 decline at 4.63% (non big-three, tri-city Nebraska population - 714,760)
[F3] State without big three, tri-cities and Omaha metro counties - 35,404 decline at 5.05% loss  (non big-three, tri-city Nebraska population - 649,500)

Census overstated impacts of out-migration in Florida, Nevada and California, but understated the out-migration in Michigan.  Michigan was more long-term and was more trendy due to a 9 year recession. As a whole, the US population was overstated in the 2009 estimates slightly.

Census overstated 2009 estimate population in: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia ---- Overstate as in enough overstatement of 2009 estimates, but could have a bigger 2010 census result than 2009.

Census under-stated growth in: Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia Wyoming.

Close to target for: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, DC, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin --- growth rate between 2009 est and 2010 census close to the recent rates as estimated by the US census.

My hunch:
This one is very hard to reach as there are many factors that lead to over-estimating and underestimating the census data.  With the exception of Colorado, Minnesota (on target), Missouri and South Dakota; the midlands area appears to have been understated more significantly (Nebraska and surrounding states) along with several northeastern states.  Several other Midwestern and Northeastern states were significantly overstated as well, however.  States that are on/near target appear to be spotty all over the country.

In the understated column, it seems to indicate an overstatement in rural decline as well as rapid urban growth.  States with a mix of moderate/rapid/slow growing cities seem to have been understated.  Couple this with recognition of by economists and demographers of overstating migration patterns this decade; and it paints the picture that less people are leaving states as well as less arriving.

My hunch (only a hunch based on what I see) for this decade would be that Omaha is near target, Lincoln and tri-cities as near target or understated and the rest of Nebraska as well understated.  The Nebraska estimates indicated a strong outward migration from rural Nebraska and if indications of overstating migration are correct then most of the 20,000 understatement will go to these areas.

[nativeomahan]

You did your homework, Eirik.  A+

It will be interesting to see what the Hispanic immigrant numbers show.  I seem to recall a census report a year or two ago that said Nebraska had a net increase of 46,000+ Hispanic residents during the past 8 or 9 years.  Imagine the picture if that had not occurred.  One less congressional seat, to start with.  How supremely ironic.

When congressional redistricting is done Metro Omaha will have all of one and a good chunk of a second congressional seat, sharing it with Lincoln.  Most of the remaining 85+ counties will be in the huge third district, which in another 10 years will disappear to Texas, Colorado or Florida.

[Big E]

When congressional redistricting...

I can't wait to see the gerrymandering jircle that happens in the state leg.

Anyone have a link to the formal process of congressional (not state) redistricting?

[nativeomahan]

When congressional redistricting...

I can't wait to see the gerrymandering jircle that happens in the state leg.

Anyone have a link to the formal process of congressional (not state) redistricting?

The census bureau is charged with conducting a census once per decade, for the purpose of determining the allocation of congressional seats.  It has now done that for 2010.  Once a state is advised that it is losing or gaining a seat, or seats, it is up to the state to determine how to redraw the districts.  If people claim foul (they always do), then the courts can get involved, in order to ensure that minority populations are not deprived of their political voices.

Even in states, like Nebraska, that are not shrinking or growing districts, the boundaries must be redrawn to endure that each district has a comparable number of residents.  In Nebraska's case, this means that about 25,000-30,000 people who were living in the Second District will likely all move to the First District, and an even greater number than that will be transferred from the First District to the gigantic Third District.

[ricko]

The 'once a decade' process is the task of the state legislatures in each state, for federal congressional districts as well as state legislative districts.  It is sometimes contentious, especially in wildly diverse and populous states with pronounced urban/rural tensions.  Nebraska's should be relatively easy and problem free.  The problems usually occur in states experiencing large population gains, like Florida and Texas.  I expect some fireworks (and federal court interventions) there.  The party in control usually has the upper hand.

[Big E]

Thanks, but I do understand all of what was stated in both posts.  I'm still looking for a link to the "official" process.

[CapitalGuy]

Big E, I have always found this website to be helpful in answering general inquiries. Of course, posting the same request on this message board in a repetitious fashion may also lead you to the answer. Although, you'll note, it has not thus far.

[Big E]

I already tried that and couldn't find anything more than the generic answers along the lines of  "the state legislature does it".  I figured there were more official guidelines somewhere.

Anyway, thanks for the help.  Is it "everybody be a d-bag week" or something?

[Omababe]

I already tried that and couldn't find anything more than the generic answers along the lines of  "the state legislature does it".  I figured there were more official guidelines somewhere.

From what I know from watching the antics in decades past, at least in the larger states, those who hold power make the rules and do it under those rules. Texas is a very good example.

Looking at Nebraska, and I'm assuming that it's a given that the "Reds" will dominate the process, and unless they do some very absurd gerrymandering, there's really no way that District 2 will not be more blue than it is now. But on the other hand, they may wish to concentrate the Blue votes in one district and try to spin off the Reddest of District 2 to try to redden District 1. I don't think they would try to split the Bluest of Omaha between two districts in order to dilute the blue vote, but I'm sure it's been thought of.

Then there's District 1. Do you think they would try to spin off (or split) Lincoln into District 3?

And then there's 2020. How many districts will Big Red Country have then?

[iamjacobm]

And then there's 2020. How many districts will Big Red Country have then?

I read it is fairly possible that Nebraska loses a seat if the states population continues to grow slower than the country as a whole.

[CapitalGuy]

Alright, Big E, I'll give you what I hope is the answer you are looking for. The Nebraska Constitution specifically charges the Legislature with the task of handling redistricting. The Executive Board of the Legislature appoints a subcommittee which is then delegated the redistricting responsibility. The committee will likely be slightly more R than D given the make up of the Legislature. Hopefully, this sufficiently answers Big E's question.

[Big E]

So does the subcommittee call it at that point, or do they come up with a proposal that goes back to the entire body for debate and voting (as a regular LB would)?

[Omababe]

I read it is fairly possible that Nebraska loses a seat if the states population continues to grow slower than the country as a whole.

That's still 10 years away and anything can happen!

Good example is Nevada, which picked up a seat due to the population bubble, most of whom are still there, but may not be for very long. Last week there was local speculation that they may very well lose that seat in 2010.

There was even speculation when I was in Californica last week that they, of all places, may lose a seat next go-round.

The economy out there is still in the dumps, and not expected to recover as quickly or as fully as other places. Here we have a comparatively stable situation.

[CapitalGuy]

Big E, you might want to read the newsletters found under this link: http://nebraskalegislature.gov/reports/ ... icting.php

If you read them all, I am pretty sure you will know more on the subject of redistricting than you ever cared to know.

[iamjacobm]

I read it is fairly possible that Nebraska loses a seat if the states population continues to grow slower than the country as a whole.

That's still 10 years away and anything can happen!

Good example is Nevada, which picked up a seat due to the population bubble, most of whom are still there, but may not be for very long. Last week there was local speculation that they may very well lose that seat in 2010.

There was even speculation when I was in Californica last week that they, of all places, may lose a seat next go-round.

The economy out there is still in the dumps, and not expected to recover as quickly or as fully as other places. Here we have a comparatively stable situation.

Yes of course things can change.  I think it was if trends don't change that would be the case, but hopefully Omaha's strong economy can continue to attract young professionals which start families and grow the population base!

It would be nice to see GI continue to grow too give the state a little more balance.

[Omababe]

From the LJS:

One of the obligations this new Legislature faces is congressional and legislative redistricting in response to population changes documented by the 2010 census. There will be partisan division in the non-partisan legislature in drawing some of the boundary lines.

But there's another political battle brewing that this Legislature need not tackle, but may choose to fight.

Nebraska is one of only two states that award some of their presidential electoral votes by congressional districts.

Two go to the statewide winner in Nebraska, one to the winner in each of the three congressional districts.

In 2008, Barack Obama won metropolitan Omaha's 2nd District electoral vote.

Nebraska Republicans did not like that, so there may be a very partisan battle in the Legislature to wipe out the congressional district electoral votes and return to the earlier system of handing all five of Nebraska's votes to the statewide winner.

To the 'Pubs I say: Be careful what you ask for, you may get it!

[iamjacobm]

Well the electoral college needs to be done away with entirely.  At least Nebraska allows the votes to be split and I will be really bummed if Nebraska changes.

[Omababe]

Well the electoral college needs to be done away with entirely.

Agree!

However, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to switch to a popular vote for President and Veep, and I'm sure it would turn into a major Red/Blue battle if it were seriously proposed.

At least Nebraska allows the votes to be split and I will be really bummed if Nebraska changes.

Again, a Red/Blue thing. Some would think that it would seal that last vote from Bad Librul District 2 into the Red camp, but I say "not so fast ...", if for some reason District 1 would just get a bit more blue-ish, not likely, but possible, all five could then go blue.

[iamjacobm]

Well not even for an advantage or anything either.  I would like to see it not change so "we the people" are somewhat accurately represented.  I think it is just as unfair for the mostly red of non-Omaha Nebraska to dictate the mostly blue Omaha as it would for the mostly blue to dictate the mostly red rest of the state.  If popular vote can't be an option then I would at least like the districts to have their own use of its vote.

[nativeomahan]

A bill has been introduced into the Unicameral that would strip Nebraskans from the right to have their electoral votes chosen by the popular vote in each Congressional district.  So much for the move toward democracy.

[ricko]

Sour grapes?

[Garrett]

Well we can start to get the idea of the metro for Iowa at least.

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

123,145 for the Iowa portion.

Pottawattamie County grew by about 6,000 and had a 5.9% increase.

[Erik]

So far (with the exception of a few cities) the counts have revealed an over-exaggeration of migration during the 2000s.

It would appear that we should be thankful for even meeting the estimates of 2009, let alone exceed it.  Even in the states where a fairly nice sized under-count existed, the cities barely met or exceeded the 2009 estimates (Oklahoma was pretty on par, yet the under-count was greater than 50,000 for the state).  Iowa was on par and the under-count was nearly 50,000 for this state too.  South Dakota cities were over-stated, most of Texas was, Mississippi cities were, Louisiana cities (save Baton Rouge) were, Indianapolis and El Paso had a small under-estimate in 2009 (being an exception to the rule).

Dallas city proper was estimated to have grown by quite a lot, but ended up gaining only 9,000 during the decade. Houston and San Antonio was overstated pretty substantially as well.  Chicago's city proper was over-estimated by 200,000 people!

From what I can tell, we should be happy if Omaha beats the 2009 estimate.  One thing is for certain, the rural decline was much less in most states than they had predicted.

[Garrett]

Well unlike other cities, we have annexation powers. Of course, i don't think we utilized that in 2009. But I think with the recession we definitely have a hope of going up.

[Erik]

Well unlike other cities, we have annexation powers. Of course, i don't think we utilized that in 2009. But I think with the recession we definitely have a hope of going up.

I'm not saying a decline.  If we surpass 440,000 that is still an increase of 50,000 in the city limit alone.  I was mainly referring to a pattern being revealed by the US census that they had exaggerated the migration patterns, is all.  We will still have grown substantially as a city and metro, but somewhere between slightly lower than expected to about right on target for the metro.  I am pretty certain our city estimate for 2009 was a result of an estimate exaggeration that has been seen all across the US so far.

[Garrett]

Well unlike other cities, we have annexation powers. Of course, i don't think we utilized that in 2009. But I think with the recession we definitely have a hope of going up.

I'm not saying a decline.  If we surpass 440,000 that is still an increase of 50,000 in the city limit alone.  I was mainly referring to a pattern being revealed by the US census that they had exaggerated the migration patterns, is all.  We will still have grown substantially as a city and metro, but somewhere between slightly lower than expected to about right on target for the metro.  I am pretty certain our city estimate for 2009 was a result of an estimate exaggeration that has been seen all across the US so far.

Oh I was referring to the estimates of 2009 to the actual census.