This Washington
What Would a New Congressional District Look Like? And Who Decides?
We got a lot of questions after our Fizz item yesterday about the possibility that Washington state would get to add a 10th Congressional District after the U.S. census data is finalized at the end of the year.
Where's the growth in population been (we're up to 6.7 million after adding about 92,000 people since the last census)?
Does the new district correspond to where the growth has been?
Who decides?
Answers:
1) The population growth has mostly been in the 8th District (Eastside Seattle suburbs out to Snoqualmie) and in the 3rd District (Olympia down to the Columbia river and over to the Eastern edges of Skamania and Lewis county and West to the ocean). The growth in the 3rd has come at the northern end of the district.
The 8th is 60,000 over the target number for a congressional district in our state, which is 740,000. The 3rd is 40,000 over.
2) The new district would correspond to the geography of that growth only in that squishy amoeba way. You'd start around the edges of the 3rd and the 8th, fussing around with boundaries to redistribute the numbers—and conveniently enough, neighboring districts such as the 7th (Seattle) are below the target at 44,000 under, so the amoeba game would push out statewide.
The 2nd Congressional District (Northwest Washington) is 15,000 over (so would need to shrink) for example while the 5th (Eastern Washington) is 25,000 under and would need to add some more turf.
So, yes, it's likely the new district (if indeed we get one) will show up in the central Puget Sound, but boundaries are likely to shift all over the state.
3) Each caucus—Republican and Democrat— from both chambers of the state legislature appoint citizens to represent them and an academic type they all agree on. This group figures out how to carve everything up. Three of the four citizen appointed commissioners have to sign off on the proposal. The legislature then gets an up or down vote on it.
Additionally, our state legislative districts would have to be redrawn.
Where's the growth in population been (we're up to 6.7 million after adding about 92,000 people since the last census)?
Does the new district correspond to where the growth has been?
Who decides?
Answers:
1) The population growth has mostly been in the 8th District (Eastside Seattle suburbs out to Snoqualmie) and in the 3rd District (Olympia down to the Columbia river and over to the Eastern edges of Skamania and Lewis county and West to the ocean). The growth in the 3rd has come at the northern end of the district.
The 8th is 60,000 over the target number for a congressional district in our state, which is 740,000. The 3rd is 40,000 over.
2) The new district would correspond to the geography of that growth only in that squishy amoeba way. You'd start around the edges of the 3rd and the 8th, fussing around with boundaries to redistribute the numbers—and conveniently enough, neighboring districts such as the 7th (Seattle) are below the target at 44,000 under, so the amoeba game would push out statewide.
The 2nd Congressional District (Northwest Washington) is 15,000 over (so would need to shrink) for example while the 5th (Eastern Washington) is 25,000 under and would need to add some more turf.
So, yes, it's likely the new district (if indeed we get one) will show up in the central Puget Sound, but boundaries are likely to shift all over the state.
3) Each caucus—Republican and Democrat— from both chambers of the state legislature appoint citizens to represent them and an academic type they all agree on. This group figures out how to carve everything up. Three of the four citizen appointed commissioners have to sign off on the proposal. The legislature then gets an up or down vote on it.
Additionally, our state legislative districts would have to be redrawn.
