W3vina.COM Free Wordpress Themes Joomla Templates Best Wordpress Themes Premium Wordpress Themes Top Best Wordpress Themes 2012

Home » american community survey » Recent Articles:

2008-12 CVAP Majority Map of DFW Metroplex

February 5, 2014 Politics-2014 No Comments

As below, so above. This time, I’ve mapped out the Citizen Voting Age Population majorities in the Metroplex area. For the sake of Google’s API restrictions, the embedded map only shows Dallas and Tarrant counties. But the Google Earth file will have Collin and Denton thrown in.

As always, the color coding is as follows:
- Red – Anglo majority
- Black – African-American majority
- Brown – Hispanic majority
- Green – Asian majority
- Yellow – Multicultural (no majority)


full pageGoogle Earth file

And below are the individual county counts from the American Community Survey. Of primary interest to me in this is the change from the 2005-09 ACS to the more recent 2008-12 ACS. I’m guessing I might have missed the tipping point by not looking at Dallas County’s 2006-10 or 2007-11 counts. But for what it’s worth, Dallas County is currently a majority-minority CVAP county. Shifts like that are generally more telling in terms of the political impact than the more publicly notable instances of Total Population shifting to majority-minority. And it’s worth noting that Dallas County’s functional shift to a fully Democratic county predates the CVAP shift by a few years.

Anyways, numbers and whatnot …

Dallas County:
» 0.8% Growth in Total Pop (2010 Census vs 2008-12 ACS)
» 1.8% Growth in CVAP (2005-09 ACS vs 2008-12 ACS)

             TOTAL                VAP         |   CVAP-12            CVAP-09
----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------
Total    2,379,215          1,723,795         | 1,360,390          1,336,305
----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------
Anglo      792,215 (33.3%)    663,395 (38.5%) |   649,060 (47.7%)    686,654 (51.4%)
Hispanic   908,200 (38.2%)    572,035 (33.2%) |   277,395 (20.4%)    256,185 (19.2%)
Afr-Am     516,670 (21.7%)    369,820 (21.5%) |   356,115 (26.2%)    327,939 (24.5%)
Asian      122,965  (5.2%)     93,980  (5.5%) |    54,010  (4.0%)     44,992  (3.4%)

Tarrant County:
» 0.3% Growth in Total Pop (2010 Census vs 2008-12 ACS)
» 2.5% Growth in CVAP (2005-09 ACS vs 2008-12 ACS)

             TOTAL                VAP         |   CVAP-12            CVAP-09
----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------
Total    1,814,665          1,308,680         | 1,141,750          1,063,145
----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------
Anglo      942,305 (51.9%)    741,275 (56.6%) |   730,125 (63.9%)    712,000 (67.0%)
Hispanic   484,240 (26.7%)    300,040 (22.9%) |   176,280 (15.4%)    148,758 (14.0%)
Afr-Am     266,170 (14.7%)    183,160 (14.0%) |   173,510 (15.2%)    151,795 (14.3%)
Asian       84,485  (4.7%)     63,000  (4.8%) |    42,105  (3.7%)     33,474  (3.2%)

Collin County:
» 0.8% Growth in Total Pop (2010 Census vs 2008-12 ACS)
» 3.3% Growth in CVAP (2005-09 ACS vs 2008-12 ACS)

             TOTAL                VAP         |   CVAP-12            CVAP-09
----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------
Total      788,580            564,330         |   496,230            459,505
----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------
Anglo      498,480 (63.2%)    372,840 (66.1%) |   363,715 (73.3%)    352,265 (76.7%)
Hispanic   116,000 (14.7%)     73,215 (13.0%) |    43,580  (8.8%)     36,880  (8.0%)
Afr-Am      65,390  (8.3%)     45,500  (8.1%) |    41,225  (8.3%)     33,595  (7.3%)
Asian       90,110 (11.4%)     63,425 (11.2%) |    39,225  (7.9%)     29,675  (6.5%)

Denton County:
» 0.8% Growth in Total Pop (2010 Census vs 2008-12 ACS)
» 4.0% Growth in CVAP (2005-09 ACS vs 2008-12 ACS)

             TOTAL                VAP         |   CVAP-12            CVAP-09
----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------
Total      667,935            485,050         |   433,850            397,320
----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------
Anglo      431,120 (64.5%)    327,450 (67.5%) |   321,885 (74.2%)    309,500 (77.9%)
Hispanic   121,560 (18.2%)     76,700 (15.8%) |    46,205 (10.6%)     36,715  (9.2%)
Afr-Am      53,410  (8.0%)     38,765  (8.0%) |    36,925  (8.5%)     30,280  (7.6%)
Asian       44,050  (6.6%)     32,195  (6.6%) |    19,180  (4.4%)     13,325  (3.4%)

I also added a calculation to track the percentage change in Total Population and CVAP. It’s worth noting that these numbers aren’t expected to be comparable to the CVAP change mentioned above. In the case of the Total Pop change, it’s comparing the full 2010 Census to the current 2008-12 ACS.

One important factor to consider for the Total Pop change is that this year’s ACS has 2010 as it’s midpoint. So, if you assume (as I do not) that the ACS were to have a straightline average over 5 years and you also assume (as I again, do not) that the ACS is a near-perfect estimation process, then the ACS Total Pop counts would be frighteningly similar to the actual Census number. The numbers are close, as expected. But they seem to be within a range of what I’d expect to see with some of the imperfect estimation process built into the ACS data.

The ACS CVAP comparison number is a bit more interesting to me since it reflects a purer four years worth of change and might even begin to color some expectation of what the next decade population growth counts might look like. There’s obviously a long way to go, but I think the 20% growth we saw over the last decade’s Census counts is going to be out of reach given the current pace of CVAP growth. Of course, I’m also factoring in the idea that non-citizen immigration isn’t hollowing out the Total Population counts as much as it did last decade. But who among us isn’t doing the same!

2008-12 Citizen Voting Age Population Update

December 24, 2013 Census Stuff No Comments

I’m gradually wading back into the annual update of Census numbers via the American Community Survey that just came out. For the sake of maintaining the bookmark I’m keeping on Harris County Population trends, here are the latest 5-year estimates covering 2008-2012 shown in contest of previous ACS releases:

         Tot. Pop. '10 (%)    Tot. Pop. '11 (%)    Tot. Pop. '12 (%) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL      4,092,459           4,025,409            4,101,752
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo      1,349,646 (33.0%)   1,353,868 (33.6%)    1,354,869 (33.0%)
Hispanic   1,671,540 (40.8%)   1,621,065 (40.3%)    1,671,262 (40.7%)
Afr.-Am.     754,258 (18.4%)     747,398 (18.6%)      775,085 (18.9%)
Asian        249,853  (6.1%)     246,924  (6.1%)      257,467  (6.3%)
Other         67,162  (1.6%)      56,154  (1.4%)       43,069  (1.1%)


         18+ Pop. '10 (%)     18+ Pop. '11 (%)     18+ Pop. '12 (%) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
TOTAL       2,944,624          2,893,717            2,956,297
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo       1,085,630 (36.9%)  1,085,427 (37.5%)    1,090,375 (36.9%)
Hispanic    1,082,570 (36.7%)  1,049,076 (36.3%)    1,084,712 (36.7%)
Afr.-Am.      541,108 (18.4%)    540,203 (18.7%)      553,966 (18.7%)
Asian         194,956  (6.6%)    193,555  (6.7%)      200,401  (6.8%)
Other          40,360  (1.4%)     25,456  (0.9%)       26,843  (0.9%)


              CVAP-09 (%)         CVAP-10 (%)         CVAP-11 (%)         CVAP-12 (%) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
TOTAL       2,195,535           2,230,550           2,276,903           2,328,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Anglo       1,090,624 (49.7%)   1,051,265 (47.1%)   1,048,230 (46.0%)   1,051,533 (45.2%)
Hispanic      494,695 (22.5%)     530,490 (23.8%)     560,416 (24.6%)     590,282 (25.4%)
Afr.-Am.      481,492 (21.9%)     506,150 (22.7%)     519,122 (22.8%)     531,518 (22.8%)
Asian         106,547  (4.9%)     120,660  (5.4%)     125,733  (5.5%)     130,291  (5.6%)
Other          22,177  (1.0%)      21,985  (1.0%)      23,402  (1.0%)      24,376  (1.0%)

A lot of the obvious trends are still in motion – growing Hispanic and declining Anglo population shares key among them. But here are a few other tidbits that jump out to me:

» If you look at the Under-18 data (or simply subtract VAP from Total Pop), I come up with a group that is majority Hispanic (51.2%), with Anglo (23.1%) and Afr-Am (19.3%) populations jostling for 2nd place. Even better, 91% of those Hispanics are citizen. This suggests a lot about what the peak potential is for each demographic. If we assume the numbers are static and evenly applied (neither of which I’d do in real life), that means the high-water mark for population generation among Hispanics is clocking in at about 46% CVAP (51.2% x 91%). Barring other changes, that means you would never see a CVAP Hispanic majority in Harris County.

» Fortunately, things do change. The 18+ group of Hispanics show signs of citizenship increase, going from 45.7% citizen in the 06-10 ACS, to 50.6% in the 06-11 release, to today’s 54.4% share today. That’s a far faster increase than you’d get from 17 year olds turning one year older. Simply put, this is among the most encouraging numbers I think you’ll find here. I’m not sure how sustainable that is or what factors drive that the most. But as long as Hispanic population is growing and the rate of citizenship is growing, that’s nothing but good.

» The Asian population doesn’t have much room for growth. At least not in Harris County. The Under-18 share of population is at 5.0% and the 18+ share is at 6.8%. That has all the earmarks of a ceiling that’s been hit. Don’t say you weren’t warned. There’s still ample room for growth in faster-growing suburbs and other areas with a low starting point for Asian population. But in Harris County … not likely. That makes Houston a very odd place to read about the growing Asian population meme, if nothing else.

Fair warning: there will be more maps and data with some excellent health insurance and educational data included in the release.

2007-11 Citizen Voting Age Population Update

December 31, 2012 Census Stuff, feature No Comments

I missed out on commenting on the Chronicle’s coverage of the recent update on Census data. This comes from the American Community Survey’s annual rolling update to their population counts.

I’ve only scratched the surface and updated some of my counts on how the total population translates down to citizen voting age population. Here are the topline numbers now. I owe it to myself to double-check these for accuracy, but there are some interesting notes for what turns up here. These are all taken from the 5-year ACS summary.

          Tot. Pop. '10 (%)   Tot. Pop. '11 (%)
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL     4,092,459           4,025,409
-----------------------------------------------
Anglo     1,349,646 (33.0%)   1,353,868 (33.6%)
Hispanic  1,671,540 (40.8%)   1,621,065 (40.3%)
Afr.-Am.    754,258 (18.4%)     747,398 (18.6%)
Asian       249,853  (6.1%)     246,924  (6.1%)
Other        67,162  (1.6%)      56,154  (1.4%)
            18+ Pop. '10 (%)    18+ Pop. '11 (%)
-------------------------------------------------
TOTAL      2,944,624            2,893,717
-------------------------------------------------
Anglo      1,085,630 (36.9%)    1,085,427 (37.5%)
Hispanic   1,082,570 (36.7%)    1,049,076 (36.3%)
Afr.-Am.     541,108 (18.4%)      540,203 (18.7%)
Asian        194,956  (6.6%)      193,555  (6.7%)
Other         40,360  (1.4%)       25,456  (0.9%)
           CVAP-09 (%)        CVAP-10 (%)         CVAP-11  (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL     2,195,535          2,230,550          2,276,903
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo     1,090,624 (49.7%)  1,051,265 (47.1%)  1,048,230 (46.0%)
Hispanic    494,695 (22.5%)    530,490 (23.8%)    560,416 (24.6%)
Afr.-Am.    481,492 (21.9%)    506,150 (22.7%)    519,122 (22.8%)
Asian       106,547  (4.9%)    120,660  (5.4%)    125,733  (5.5%)
Other        22,177  (1.0%)     21,985  (1.0%)     23,402  (1.0%)

Did you notice that the raw number and percentage of total and 18+ Hispanic population decreased from the ’10 counts to the ’11 counts? Keep in mind that the ACS data isn’t the same as the Census. The methodology for counts isn’t the same. But it’s still interesting to see a drop in population share. Even more interesting is that they come as the Citizen Voting Age Population rose for Hispanics in both the overall estimate and the share of the county’s population.

At some point during football games tomorrow, I’ll get around to both mapping this out, double-checking my math and digging into more granular detail. My hunch for now is that much of the change seen here may be due to methodology changes as much as actual numerical growth patterns. I’ll update as time and findings permit. Here’s the full update I did from the 2010 results, if you’re up for some comparison.

Is New Math the Future of the Census?

August 6, 2012 Census Stuff No Comments

» Washington Post: Census chief Robert Groves: We’ve got to stop counting like this

Robert Groves, on his way out the door at the Census …

“Because of the constitution, the country will always have a census,” he said in an interview Friday at his office in the bureau’s Suitland headquarters, already stripped of his personal belongings. “But how we do the census and surveys will have to change.”

Cost is a big reason. Even though it came in $1.9 billion under budget, the last census cost $13 billion, about $42 a head. The pricetag has doubled every decade since 1970.

So there’s talk of relying more and more on private databases. At the basic level, there’s something to be said for that. But once you get beyond household utilities and tax records, I’m curious where that trend leads to.

Election-Eve Aggreposting

May 27, 2012 Politics-2012 1 Comment

A random assortment of election coverage as I take care of my own State Rep district. I’ll be back in action Tuesday night.

» KHOU: Allegations of dirty politics arise in civil court judge race
I’ve been in campaigns for judges who were under attack from a lawyer scorned. It’s rarely fun. But it also makes me more sympathetic for Judge Kirkland over the lady with fake supporters.

» Chron: Crowded field vies to succeed Ron Paul in US House
Nearly a dozen candidates crammed into a brief overview. It is what it is. But this’ll be phase two of my year. It’d be easier reading if people got over the fact that this district has very little in common with the district Ron Paul has been representing since 2005.

» New Yorker: Cory Booker: The Dilemma of the New Black Politician
» National Journal: The Emerging Democratic Divide
Two articles that really deserve to be read alongside of each other. The strain of belief within the Democratic Party that believe in things like free markets, entrepreneurship, and liberalized trade isn’t dead. Its just not on the Sunday talk shows and is increasingly hard to find in DC. The voters are still there, though. Knock on a door or two in a any Democratic district and you’ll find them easily enough. That said, there are a lot of electeds who need to drop the DC-centric talking points and reflect their district a little more. Kudos to Cory Booker for letting that happen … on a Sunday talk show, no less.

» New Yorker: Do We Still Need the Voting Rights Act? (Jeffrey Toobin)
There’s room for improvement in a nation where multicultural areas are proliferating. It would also be a good thing to see greater protections afforded to Asian populations (spoken as one who is campaigning in one such area that has been fractured into no less than 5 different State Rep districts!). But the short answer is … yes. Until there’s any reasonable discourse allowed on the topic from the far right, the middle ground will just be a continuation of the same 60′s era solution applied for as long as SCOTUS allows.

» Chron: Census count stirs up debate (Jeannie Kever)
The Chron follows up with some Texas reactions toward the single biggest issue known to mankind the brouhaha over the American Community Survey. There’s also an update that Houston will get an answer to their appeal on undercounting in the city in a couple of weeks.

» Texas Observer: House District 26: As Fort Bend Goes

Fort Bend has been called a bellwether county so often that it’s easy to become skeptical about the use of the term ….

I’m too overworked to have enough patience to dig through the archives for where I might have first made mention of this. I’m fairly certain I had to have been part of the early crowd, though. But the article is more of a snapshot of the HD26 contest. Unfortunately, the court didn’t maintain a more competitive district in this instance.

» 538: Swing Voters and Elastic States
After doing my own round of number-crunching of historical voting patterns in HD137 as well as the daily ritual with the Early Vote rosters provided by the County, its actually very soothing to read someone else’s work with election data for a change.

Last Week of Early Voting Aggrepost

May 21, 2012 Uncategorized No Comments

A few quick thoughts while the dayjob occupies me 24/7 …

» Off the Kuff: Early voting after one full week
I’m obviously less interested in the overall, final turnout for the Dem Primary since I’m working in one small slice of the county. The big question with only guesstimates for answers is “What % of the vote comes early and what % comes on the day after a holiday?” I’m not going to engage in too much thought on it, other than optimistically hope that its somewhere around the 50/50 ballpark. If that’s the case, then my little corner of the county could see a relatively healthy showing in terms of turnout. Of course, I should add that “relatively” is the operative term here. More on this after the votes are counted.

» Chron: Early voters have hot-button issues on their minds
This is a generic, catch-all newser on the mood around Early Voting in Harris County. One tidbit of interest is that it picks up on a GOTV rally that happened at Bayland Park Community Center (which is where I also spent my Saturday getting sunburn).

» TX Tribune: UT/TT Poll: Runoffs Loom in U.S. Senate Race
I’m not one to put a great deal of stock in the UT/Trib polls, but it seems to be fitting in the pattern that’s out there: a runoff between Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. If only the extra bloodletting were a boost for a Dem candidate.

» Wash. Post: Can Obama win Iowa?
It seems like forever since I’ve been able to give much attention to Presidential politics. But the swing state mood still piques my interest and how this year compares in places like Iowa compared to the 2008 returns will be a topic of serious study after the votes are counted in November. The brief video segment for this serves as a teaser for now.

» NY Times: The Beginning of the End of the Census?
I’m as shocked as you are that the American Community Survey is to 2012 what flourescent light bulb was to 2010. And you’ve just got to admire the statistical incoherence of a comment like this:

“… in the end this is not a scientific survey. It’s a random survey.”

» A trio of follow-up items on the recent Stryper show.

Back to electioneering. See you on the other side!

2006-10 Citizen Voting Age Population Update

February 11, 2012 Census Stuff, feature No Comments

Time for some new data from the Census Bureau. As stated a couple of dozen times before, the counts for citizen, voting age population (CVAP) are no rolled out on an annual basis as part of the Bureau’s American Community Survey. It’s been a little while since this came out, but I seem to be stuck in work mode for a couple of clients waiting on a district to be finalized and approved for running in. Priorities and whatnot.

Anyways, here’s the Harris County view, with the 2005-09 CVAP counts left in and the 2006-10 CVAP counts tacked on for easy comparison.

          Total Pop. (%)     18+ Pop. (%)       CVAP-09 (%)        CVAP-10 (%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL     4,092,459          2,944,624          2,195,535          2,230,550
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo     1,349,646 (33.0%)  1,085,630 (36.9%)  1,090,624 (49.7%)  1,051,265 (47.1%)
Hispanic  1,671,540 (40.8%)  1,082,570 (36.7%)    494,695 (22.5%)    530,490 (23.8%)
Afr.-Am.    754,258 (18.4%)    541,108 (18.4%)    481,492 (21.9%)    506,150 (22.7%)
Asian       249,853  (6.1%)    194,956  (6.6%)    106,547  (4.9%)    120,660  (5.4%)
Other        67,162  (1.6%)     40,360  (1.4%)     22,177  (1.0%)     21,985  (1.0%)

If those seem like huge changes for one year on the two CVAP counts, there are a few things worth keeping in mind:

1. Some of this is obviously affected by natural demographic changes from the five-year period initially calculated to the new five-year period. I’m not inclined to accept that the majority of the change from the 2009 to 2010 CVAP counts is a result of true population changes.

2. An issue noted from the 2005-09 data is still relevant to keep in mind: there are datapoints from as far back as 2006 incorporated into the estimates. This post gives a fair snapshot of it. Basically, what CVAP captures something of a midpoint of the change from the 2000 Census numbers to the 2010 Census numbers. I doubt this has a huge impact on the year-to-year changes, outside of losing the 2005 datapoints in the 2005-09 CVAP data. But it’s definitely something worth checking before anyone gets too excited or too depressed over any particular change for any given column or row above.

3. The Census Bureau itself does a little bit of updating in how they calculate these estimates, so there’s bound to be a little bit of correction built into these numbers. I’m not sure how much of an impact this has on year-to-year changes. But the Bureau’s reporting of CVAP data has been an issue even beyond redistricting. I’ve not read any updates on specific changes, but I think it’s worth chalking up a not-insignificant share of the change to changing methodology.

With that, here’s the map of Harris County by Block Group, color-coded to reflect which demographic group has a majority within the block group. Standard coloring applies: red is for Anglo majority; black is for African-American majority; brown is for Hispanic majority; green is for Asian majority (this is actually a fairly new wrinkle for those keeping track at home). Yellow is for no majority, aka – multicultural.

Numbers and whatnot are included in the info window for those who want to poke, zoom, and click. Knock yourself out.


full pageGoogle Earth file for all of Southeast Texas

There’s definitely some interesting finds here. One really nice change from last year is that the data is collected with 2010 block group boundary definitions instead of those from 2000. That might not mean much for those just using a visual overview of the map below. But the change makes it easy to stack this data up against 2010 Census data.

A cursory look at some CVAP Conversion ratios shows that 52.5% of adult Hispanics in Harris County are citizen. For Asians, the countywide ratio is 64.4%. Anglos and African-Americans are 96.6% and 96.2% respectively. That’s taken straight from the ACS survey data’s count of 18+ and CVAP. Interestingly, if you look at the combined Census Tract 4214 in Gulfton (bordered by Hillcroft, Gulfton, Renwick, and Bellaire), the 2010 Census counts 6,718 18+ Hispanics and the ACS counts 1,180 Citizen and Voting Age. That’s a conversion rate of 17.6%. Welcome to Gulton, ya’ll.

If you want to look around more of the data for Harris County and see some side-by-side comparisons, the combo map page is updated with the new map. As noted, the Google Earth file includes not just Harris County, but also Fort Bend, Brazoria, Galveston, Chambers, Jefferson, and Montgomery counties. It’s fun for the entire family.

Addendum from an 80-20 PAC Presentation

October 23, 2011 Politics-2011 No Comments

To those of you who might have witnessed a presentation given at the Houston 80-20 PAC dinner Sunday night, the links below should help send you deeper down the rabbit hole of maps and demographics. It’s always a pleasure to hang with one of my favorite local political groups and the interest in demographics by several of the folks at 80-20 events is always a relief. Enjoy the further reading and if there are other areas of interest that you’d like me to look into, I’m usually game for learning a little more about my favorite part of the world.

- This post on Asian population by Houston-area neighborhood is the basis for the neighborhood-by-neighborhood number crunching. For some further reading on how Alief’s population (Asian and otherwise) is expected to change over the years, this may be some interesting reading. For some further reading on a part of the state that ranks 5th in terms of Asian population share, here’s an intro to Moore County, which is north of Amarillo.

- The big spaghetti-mess of an image that I talked about is the one below (click to enlarge). Its a block-level view of the maps done here (and the interactive/comparison views here) at the block group level. This update just takes things to a more granular level and reveals some interesting differences in southwest Houston and Alief from other parts of the county. I’ll talk about this more tomorrow in a separate blog post. For now … enjoy the sneak peak.

The color-coding is as follows: red represents an Anglo majority within the block; brown, a Hispanic majority; black, an African-American majority; green, an Asian majority; and yellow means that there is no majority. I’ve made a few tweaks to the code that generates this, so a few quirks are being ironed out and I may have something for more interactive viewing tomorrow.

- It occurs to me that I never bothered to break out the full Asian nationality breakdown here on the blog, so here’s that:

Harris County

Total Asian Population - 256,862
Vietnamese      87,693  (34.1%)
Indian          48,184  (18.8%)
Chinese         42,244  (16.4%)
Filipino        17,045  ( 6.6%)
Pakistani       16,821  ( 6.5%)
Korean          12,829  ( 5.0%)
Cambodian        4,118  ( 1.6%)
Japanese         4,022  ( 1.6%)
Taiwanese        3,715  ( 1.4%)
Bangladeshi      3,038  ( 1.2%)
Thai             2,865  ( 1.1%)
Laotian          1,846  ( 0.7%)
Indonesian         597  ( 0.2%)
Malaysian          587  ( 0.2%)
Sri Lankan         500  ( 0.2%)
Other Asian     10,758  ( 4.2%)

Fort Bend County

Total Asian Population - 101,213
Indian          37,318 (36.9%)
Chinese         22,481 (22.2%)
Vietnamese      15,517 (15.3%)
Filipino         9,218 ( 9.1%)
Pakistani        7,219 ( 7.1%)
Korean           3,179 ( 3.1%)
Japanese           779 ( 0.8%)
Malaysian          722 ( 0.7%)
Taiwanese          676 ( 0.7%)
Thai               252 ( 0.2%)
Indonesian         243 ( 0.2%)
Bangladeshi        190 ( 0.2%)
Cambodian          111 ( 0.1%)
Other            3,308 ( 3.3%)

The Demographics of Cook County (IL)

September 30, 2011 Census Stuff No Comments

I had intended to merely post this for the sake of artistry if nothing else, but a little bit of number-crunching proves that Cook County Illinois (ie – Chicago, home of Jake & Elwood, da Bears, etc) is another case in point where a majority-minority area becomes majority-Anglo when you look at it in terms of Citizen Voting Age Population and the likely electorate. And yes, I’m well aware that “Anglo” is wildly mislabeled when talking about the ethnic pool that is Chicago. Anyways, the CVAP-majority map is below. Click it to big it, if you’re that curious …


Legend: red = Anglo/caucasian majority; brown = Hispanic majority; black = African-American majority; green = Asian majority; yellow = no majority

The math is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
            COOK COUNTY              VAP               CVAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ..... 5,194,675           3,962,395           3,415,340
Anglo ..... 2,278,358 (43.9%)   1,906,502 (48.1%)   1,840,731 (53.9%)
Hispanic .. 1,244,762 (24.0%)     822,242 (20.8%)     456,386 (13.4%)
Afr-Am .... 1,265,778 (24.4%)     923,363 (23.3%)     938,180 (27.5%)
Asian .....   318,869 ( 6.1%)     256,892 ( 6.5%)     151,352 ( 4.4%)

Interestingly, the African-American population grows in overall raw numbers from the Census Bureau’s VAP counts to the ACS’s CVAP counts.

Given the Dem-friendly tilt to the county, there’s obviously a substantial share of Anglo Dems presnet in the county. I think those of us who have read up on the old-school Daley machine can figure out a few differences here as opposed to the Anglo Dem areas in, say, Houston, Denver, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles, which have less ethnic diversity among the caucasian population. I haven’t gotten around to mapping any election results to compare and contrast, but my hunch is that the Jewish, GLBT & multi-degreed folk share of that segment might be a minority within the full “Anglo Dem” reach of the county.

In poking around through some election results, I did find it interesting that Dick Durbin outpolled Barack Obama in 2008 in the county (72.6% to 66.6%). Just glancing around for the most solidly-white areas of the county that I could find, Orland Park went 48.7% for Obama (with McCain winning the township) and 61.2% for Durbin. That was the most extreme case of Obama losing and Durbin winning that I could find. If I get my hands on some precinct results, there’s no telling what I’ll end up doing with Cook and a few surrounding counties.

For now, take it for whatever it’s worth to you. What I find striking is that the pattern of growth in what I label as “multicultural” areas, while substantial, doesn’t seem as striking in several other locations with sizable population shares among three or more demographic groups. Maybe that’s a homer bias on my part, maybe it’s because I haven’t gone through the trouble of mapping out the previous Census results to track the growth. But at first glance, it looks as if Houston, Los Angeles and New York represent the high end of the population share living in such a region. If I had an army of demographers, database geeks, and researchers, I’d probably do something like calculate out the Top 20 or so counties to see how each looks. I’m not quite putting that on my weekend to-do list, but it’s obviously something that’s going to gnaw away at me for a while until it does make the list.

ADD-ON: One of the more interesting redistricting doodles of the past couple of decades has been Illinois’ 4th Congressional District. It’s a challenge aimed at finding a way to draw a viable Hispanic district with the Hispanic population split geographically (not entirely dissimilar to how Houston’s 18th and 29th have to find some tight points of connection). So, for the sake of understanding, here’s why the new CD4 is drawn the way it is:

A Preview of Demographics in LA/Orange County

September 26, 2011 Census Stuff No Comments

So, I’m slowly getting around to my list of other areas to map out and see what the demographics look like outside of Texas in some areas of interest. And while I’m neither as far along in looking around Denver’s Anglo Dem situation or in mapping the view of Los Angeles & Orange County that you see below. But what I do have below is the CVAP majority map by block group for both counties. I wanted to post this view of the two California counties since it’s an interesting view due to the multiple pockets of Hispanic and Asian populations in the region. But feel free to click and view it for your own interest and see what gets piqued for you …

In mapping out LA/Orange, I decided it was time to update the color-coding with a majority-Asian coding (green). So I’ll probably go back and map out Texas’ Fort Bend County to highlight the few areas where there are majorities there as well. In Harris County, there aren’t any majorities, but there are some solid mid-forties in a handful of block groups.

And after seeing how this view of LA/Orange looked in terms of CVAP, I’ll obviously get around to looking at it in Total Pop, Voting Age Pop, and also a Total Pop timeline view from 1980 through 2010. It should be pretty interesting to see how that area has changed over time, for much the same reason that the Houston changes have been interesting to see mapped out.

Harris County’s 2010 ACS Population Count

September 23, 2011 Census Stuff No Comments

The city’s population estimate from the ACS data stands at 2,107,208.

Harris County counts are as follows. For the record, I had to calculate out the CVAP by manually backing out the “Not a Citizen” counts with a good old-fashioned calculator as I was drafting this post. I’ll be double-checking my math after breakfast and with a spreadsheet first thing when I get to the office.

American Community Survey 2010 1-yr Population Counts

----------------------------------------------------------------------
              HARRIS COUNTY            VAP                 CVAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total  ....     4,110,771          2,959,708          2,315,362
Anglo .....    1,347,895 (32.8%)  1,085,631 (36.7%)  1,045,360 (45.1%)
Hispanic ..    1,685,575 (41.0%)  1,092,302 (36.9%)    591,194 (25.5%)
Afr-Am ....      763,140 (18.6%)    555,276 (18.8%)    532,585 (23.0%)
Asian .....      254,078 ( 6.2%)    199,263 ( 6.7%)    123,235 ( 5.3%)

The 25.5% CVAP mark for Hispanic population should jump out as the DOJ considers the Harris County Commissioners map that somehow doesn’t find a way to build a CVAP majority Hispanic district out of the four commissioner precincts. The overall counts place the Harris County Hispanic CVAP Conversion rate at 54%. That’s substantially higher than the 2005-09 count of 45.7%.

You can compare these results to the 2010 Census results here. It’s worth noting that the CVAP counts (which are derived from the 2005-09 ACS data) are a few points higher than the previous counts. In large part, this seems due to the fact that the 1-yr ACS counts for 2010 don’t incorporate the older data points, which the 2005-09 ACS data does. Comparisons to the Census data aren’t perfect, but close enough. In other words, I wouldn’t get excited about a lot of 1-2 point moves.

That obviously makes this a bit of a bananas-to-plantains comparison, but it’s helpful to understand how the 1-yr, 3-yr and 5-yr counts move with each update since each has their own level of specificity and currency to factor in. The 1-yr, for instance, doesn’t offer enough granularity for me to map out things by Census Tract or Block Group. But it’s recent and the samples are sufficient enough for seeing how mid- to large cities look. The longer period data sets allow for more specificity down to a Census Tract or Block Group level. When the 5-yr datasets are released in December, I think we all know how I’ll be spending the holidays.

I’ll update with City of Houston, Baytown, Fort Bend County and Sugar Land numbers later today. And if time permits, I’ll see if I can do some comparisons to the 1-yr 2009 ACS data to see how these numbers have changed against that.

UPDATE: Slight correction on the Harris County numbers, as well as the fuller Houston-area cities included. I’m a bit surprised at some of the gaps in ACS data. For instance, Baytown Hispanics are measured, but not Baytown Anglos. Just as well, here’s the data. It’s been officially crunched with both spreadsheet and caffeine.

Harris County

----------------------------------------------------------------
           Total Pop             VAP              CVAP   
Total    4,110,771          2,959,708          2,315,362   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo    1,347,895 (32.8%)  1,085,631 (36.7%)  1,045,360 (45.1%)
Hispanic 1,685,575 (41.0%)  1,092,302 (36.9%)    591,194 (25.5%)
Afr-Am     777,377 (18.9%)    555,276 (18.8%)    532,587 (23.0%)
Asian      256,862 ( 6.2%)    199,263 ( 6.7%)    123,235 ( 5.3%)

Ft. Bend County

----------------------------------------------------------------
           Total Pop             VAP                CVAP
Total      590,350            415,273            354,528   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo      212,358 (36.0%)    159,649 (38.4%)    158,371 (44.7%)
Hispanic   140,885 (23.9%)     90,585 (21.8%)     60,356 (17.0%)
Afr-Am     129,339 (21.9%)     88,040 (21.2%)     84,611 (23.9%)
Asian      101,213 (17.1%)     72,582 (17.5%)     51,311 (14.5%)

Houston

----------------------------------------------------------------
           Total Pop            VAP                CVAP   
Total    2,107,208          1,564,915          1,160,654   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo      541,525 (25.7%)    461,096 (29.5%)    436,501 (37.6%)
Hispanic   917,993 (43.6%)    617,601 (39.5%)    304,800 (26.3%)
Afr-Am     500,359 (23.7%)    369,857 (23.6%)    353,634 (30.5%)
Asian      131,075 ( 6.2%)    104,880 ( 6.7%)     56,799 ( 4.9%)

Sugar Land

----------------------------------------------------------------
           Total Pop            VAP                CVAP   
Total       79,472             60,755             52,217   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo       35,235 (44.3%)     28,935 (47.6%)     27,657 (53.0%)
Hispanic     ***                ***                ***   
Afr-Am       ***                ***                ***   
Asian       28,597 (36.0%)     21,242 (35.0%)     15,743 (30.1%)

Pasadena

----------------------------------------------------------------
           Total Pop            VAP                CVAP   
Total      149,722            103,519             77,459   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo       46,557 (31.1%)     39,329 (38.0%)     38,465 (49.7%)
Hispanic    93,763 (62.6%)     58,159 (56.2%)     33,684 (43.5%)
Afr-Am       ***                ***                ***   
Asian        3,539 ( 2.4%)      2,712 ( 2.6%)      2,130 ( 2.7%)

Baytown

----------------------------------------------------------------
           Total Pop            VAP                CVAP   
Total       72,418             53,056             45,878   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo        ***                ***                ***   
Hispanic    31,381 (43.3%)     21,000 (39.6%)     14,211 (31.0%)
Afr-Am       ***                ***                ***   
Asian        ***                ***                ***   

New ACS Data Coming This Week

September 19, 2011 Census Stuff No Comments

» Chron: Census data still fascinate agency’s veteran leader (Jeannie Kever)

One newsie followup from Friday’s Lanier Public Policy Conference as the Chron’s Jeannie Kever catches up with the keynoter from the event, U.S. Census Bureau, Deputy Director Thomas Mesenbourg …

Q: This week the bureau released economic data showing poverty levels are up and many Americans are still hurting from the recession. How might policy makers use that information?

A: I’m sure there were hundreds, maybe thousands of stories on that. We view that as being one piece of the puzzle that policy makers will be dealing with. We’ll be putting out another crunch of data on (Thursday), when we release the 2010 American Community Survey. Typically, we put out the facts and let others draw the conclusions.

The one-year ACS releases will be interesting to see how Citizen Voting Age Population figures stack up to the 2005-09 data. Unfortunately for me, the one-year data isn’t detailed enough to be released at the Census Tract or blockgroup level. It’ll be available at the city and county level, though. And those totals are certainly useful.

One of the nicer things to look forward to is that this now creates a fairly rich pool of data to come out of the Census Bureau every year, as the ACS plans on releasing individual year updates and rolling that into the three-year and five-year datasets. That sure beats waiting ten years for a lot of the data that’s now included in the ACS. It should also lead to better population projections between Census releases, as several jurisdictions – not just Houston – had quite a shock in the disparity of their 2008/09 projections and the 2010 Census returns.

The one-year release is the precursor for adding to the rolling three-year and five-year data release, which will have an update come out in December. That should allow for a 2006-2010 version of the CVAP maps to be updated. Yeah, I know … I’m already planning Christmas and High School playoff football around it.

COH Redistricting: CVAP By Council District

Below are the Citizen Voting Age Population totals for each Houston City Council District.

A note on my methodology is in order before that, though. There are better ways to arrive at these numbers than the method I’ve done. My method is simply one that allows for a relatively quick means of determining the percentages for demographic groups listed below. I can’t overstate enough that I’m doing this as a one-man show, without benefit of interns, students, or other minions willing to do work for me. Peer review is a good thing and if anyone else wants to take a crack at it, I’d love to see the numbers that result from that effort.

The 2005-09 CVAP counts are offered at the Census Block Group level at it’s most granular data point. My means of listing which block groups are counted is obtained visually by overlaying the council district map on top of the CVAP by block group map. I then de-select and transcribe each individual block group for each district and then dump those lists into a database where a custom script does the counting.

The code has been checked and re-checked. The CVAP numbers, as previously noted, have several issues that should be kept in mind – they are estimates, they have a margin of error, they are based on smaller samples than in previous years, and there are return rate issues since they come from the American Community Survey rather than the Census forms. Many of those issues get massaged in putting together the estimates. But I don’t pretend to offer the sum totals below as authoritative. The percentages that follow from those numbers, however, I argue are much more reliable.

In the process of visually determining which block groups should be counted, there are inevitably a few judgment calls that result. Block groups that straddle a council district are generally counted as follows: if the district being counted is drawn to favor a demographic group for VRA purposes, I tend to include block groups that have a majority of that demographic group and not count Anglo block groups that are split in order to determine what the best possible showing for that demographic group may be. In some cases, block groups are split fairly close to 50-50 by a border. In most cases, I alternate whether or not to count a block group on that basis. In cases where a block group only covers Limited Purpose Annexation, I err on the side of not counting that block group even though there may be a small amount of population within the LPA portion of the block group.

In many of the cases where there are splits, we’re typically talking about 5 or so block groups out of 100 or more where a judgment call is needed. A significantly higher number were split in areas with a lot of LPA turf like District A and B. District E also contained a larger than normal number of judgment calls. In each case, there is no mistaking that District B is at or near the 70.8% African-American share listed below. Likewise, District E is unmistakable in its proximity to the 69.6% Anglo population listed below. District A, however, might be worth a closer look to see if it is precisely above or below 50% Anglo. It might be worth suggesting that District K could use a closer look to determine if the African-American population there is over 50% based on a more precise analysis. But given the lower number of judgment calls made on split block groups in the district, I’m a lot more confident in standing by the fact that District K is slightly over 50% African-American.

For a comparison, here are the totals that the Census Bureau provides for the entire City of Houston along with two of the most relevant counts from the report below.

Totals (Census Bureau)
Total CVAP … 1,206,360
Hispanic CVAP … 281,235

Totals (Greg’s Count)
Total CVAP … 1,139,280
Hispanic CVAP … 263,684

That means my counts are 5.56% short of the total CVAP count and 6.24% short on the Hispanic CVAP count when compared to the definitive count done by the Census Bureau. In general, the shares for each demographic group don’t change terribly much. If I get an opening in time sometime soon, as well as a block assignment file for the city, I may work with that to get a more refined count. But I’d argue that the percentages you see below are informative enough to draw any conclusions with.

Dist   CVAP   Anglo    Hisp  Afr-Am   Asian
  -----------------------------------------
A    85,005  41,584  21,480  17,160   4,084
              48.9%   25.3%   20.2%    4.8%
  -----------------------------------------
B    97,105   9,089  17,649  68,735   1,120
               9.4%   18.2%   70.8%    1.2%
  -----------------------------------------
C   153,105 108,295  24,838  11,896   6,398
              70.7%   16.2%    7.8%    4.2%
  -----------------------------------------
D   117,505  19,637  16,996  76,385   3,928
              16.7%   14.5%   65.0%    3.3%
  -----------------------------------------
E   128,970  88,330  24,445   8,170   6,600
              69.6%   19.3%    6.4%    5.2%
  -----------------------------------------
F    85,490  24,860  18,310  28,720  12,745
              29.1%   21.4%   33.6%   14.9%
  -----------------------------------------
G   140,945 106,770  13,688  11,930   7,250
              78.4%   10.1%    8.8%    5.3%
  -----------------------------------------
H    91,360  23,630  47,655  18,923     784
              25.9%   52.2%   20.7%    0.9%
  -----------------------------------------
I    77,235  13,985  45,914  14,970   1,813
              18.1%   59.4%   19.4%    2.3%
  -----------------------------------------
J    55,150  16,995  13,939  18,545   5,245
              30.8%   25.3%   33.6%    9.5%
  -----------------------------------------
K   107,410  28,165  18,770  54,860   4,655
              26.2%   17.5%   51.1%    4.3%

 

CVAP Conversion by City

May 10, 2011 Census Stuff 1 Comment

Another take on the CVAP Conversion Rate here. This time, I’m looking at entire cities and the counts provided straight off of the American Community Survey estimates. The chart below shows the 25 biggest cities in Texas (ranked by overall population). The chart shows Hispanic counts at the level of Total Population, 18+ Population, Total Citizen Population, and Citizen Voting Age Population. As a reminder, the conversion rate is just dividing CVAP by the 18+ counts for Hispanic population.

Interesting differences among the major cities, to be sure. What’s even more interesting is applying a bit of algebra to the numbers provided, which show that Houston’s <18 population is 87.3% citizen. The trend is replicated throughout the state, with the statewide number for all cities being 92% for <18 Hispanics.

---------

Top 25 Texas Cities, as measured by 2005-09 American Community Survey population estimates. CVAP Conversion is a measurement of Citizen Voting-Age Population (CVAP) divided by the total 18+ Hispanic Population.
CityTotal Hisp. Pop.18+ Hisp. Pop.Hisp. Citizen Pop.CVAPCVAP Conversion
Houston907,975594,185555,120281,23547.3%
San Antonio807,195552,100711,235467,14084.6%
Dallas537,500345,560310,075142,71041.3%
Austin259,135176,855174,780103,25058.4%
Fort Worth224,835140,125151,11075,21053.7%
El Paso482,185323,355399,425247,46076.5%
Arlington95,71559,13062,67029,81550.4%
Corpus Christi164,590112,845154,485104,01092.2%
Plano36,34024,17522,52512,09050.0%
Lubbock67,48544,86562,97040,90091.2%
Garland80,54050,91547,04520,83040.9%
Laredo203,385126,225161,77088,97070.5%
Irving80,08051,40546,94021,62542.1%
Amarillo50,59031,28042,08023,61575.5%
Brownsville157,42097,365123,52567,01568.8%
Grand Prairie65,19039,57549,07025,40564.2%
Pasadena84,70552,04058,43028,88055.5%
Mesquite36,40022,32525,23012,47555.9%
McAllen103,17069,09582,49051,05073.9%
Carrollton34,79522,39522,15011,27050.3%
Waco34,2652144525,,84514,25566.5%
Abilene26,54017,,77024,86016,16090.9%
Denton22,21015,10014,5258,58056.8%
McKinney20,07012,97013,7707,32056.4%
Killeen23,94014,91021,81513,00087.2%

 

A point of comparison to other large cities on their CVAP conversion rate:

Los Angeles … 48.6%
New York City … 67.5%
Chicago … 60.0%
Philadelphia … 83.8%

Rich County, Poor County

Since much of the line-drawing for redistricting is momentarily cooling down, I thought I’d go back to some of the data taken from the American Community Survey 5-yr sample and see what more there is to tell about the Houston area. Income is always a fairly complicated measure to gauge.

For now, I’m focusing on the county-wide visual, so much of what’s seen here should make intuitive sense. I doubt the peak areas for high- and low-income Census tracts will pique the curiosity of anyone familiar with the county as a whole. And to nobody’s surprise, rich folk live in River Oak while poor folk live in Fifth Ward, Third Ward and a few other usual suspects for neighborhoods. What I think is worth a look around each of these two maps, however, is what the second and third cutoffs show for the next richest/poorest areas in the county.

The color coding displays the following percentage of households within a Census tract:

Bracket 1 (lowest income): 40% – dark green; 25% – green; 15% – light green
… countywide, 18% of households are within this bracket

Bracket 5 (highest income): 50% – dark green; 35% – green; 15% – light green
… countywide, 14.2% of households are within this bracket

The code I’ve written for this breaks out the original 16 income brackets from the ACS data into 5 broader ranges in order to better visualize the different income stata on a map. Here are the ranges set up within the code:

Bracket 1 = $0 – $20,000
Bracket 2 = $20,001 – $40,000
Bracket 3 = $40,001 – $75,000
Bracket 4 = $75,001 – $125,000
Bracket 5 = $125,001 +

For the purpose of mapping something out that tells a fairly immediate story, here’s the lower and upper brackets, mapped by Census Tract.

Map: Bracket 1 (default) – Bracket 5
(right click and open in a new tab for full-page view of each)

Google Earth Files: Bracket 1Bracket 5

Introducting the CVAP Conversion Rate

Welcome to another round of political sabermetrics. In this episode, I’m calculating what I call the CVAP Conversion Rates for Hispanic population. This is designed to tell us how “hollow” a district is. The data is taken from the TLC’s report on citizenship data. A little calculus was added to arrive at a calculation of HCVAP/HVAP in terms of raw numbers. I don’t concern myself with the margin of error in this process, so just assume that there’s a little bit of wiggle room if any of the numbers are close. The layout of all of these lists is DISTRICT – INCUMBENT – CONVERSION RATE.

First, the big picture numbers …

Harris County Average – 45.7%
Texas State Average – 59.8%

In other words, just less than half of Harris County Hispanics are citizens, whereas the statewide average is well over half. Looking at these by House District (as they are today, not in the plan just passed by the House), here’s the best and the worst.

Ten Best HCVAP Conversions

 35 - Aliseda   - 92.14%
 32 - Hunter    - 88.73%
 33 - Torres    - 86.86%
 84 - Frullo    - 85.20%
 71 - King      - 84.69%
 30 - Morrison  - 84.23%
119 - Gutierrez - 83.99%
123 - Villareal - 82.64%
 34 - Scott     - 81.76%
124 - Menendez  - 81.64%

 

Eleven Lowest HCVAP Conversions

137 - Hochberg  - 20.49%
102 - Carter    - 31.31%
133 - Murphy    - 32.00%
  7 - Simpson   - 33.53%
 11 - Hopson    - 34.62%
  6 - Berman    - 35.18%
  5 - Hughes    - 35.22%
 16 - Creighton - 35.95%
 95 - Veasey    - 36.41%
  9 - Christian - 36.42%
  3 - Cain      - 36.77%

 

I added an extra one here to ensure that the scope of the issue is seen in rural East Texas. Those showings are probably the biggest surprise in the data. It may also explain why some of the more vocal anti-immigrant voices have come from rural districts such as these. Hopson, for instance, ran on the the issue even while he was a Democrat.

And just to get a glimpse of how the wide the disparity is even within Harris County, here’s each House District within the County …

Harris County HCVAP Conversion

126 - Harless  - 43.65%
127 - Huberty  - 52.95%
128 - Smith    - 55.29%
129 - Davis    - 60.01%
130 - Fletcher - 51.25%
131 - Allen    - 37.29%
132 - Callegari - 39.59%
133 - Murphy   - 32.00%
134 - Davis    - 73.67%
135 - Elkins   - 45.97%
136 - Woolley  - 45.69%
137 - Hochberg - 20.49%
138 - Bohac    - 39.86%
139 - Turner   - 38.33%
140 - Walle    - 46.42%
141 - Thompson - 37.14%
142 - Dutton   - 44.53%
143 - Luna     - 52.78%
144 - Legler   - 54.49%
145 - Alvarado - 55.86%
146 - Miles    - 39.12%
147 - Coleman  - 45.62%
148 - Farrar   - 57.05%
149 - Vo       - 45.87%
150 - Riddle   - 47.05%

 

Where Voter Registration Is Needed … and Isn’t Needed

April 23, 2011 Census Stuff No Comments

Interesting story here about 2 counties in the Quad Cities portion of Illinois have more Registered Voters than CVAP population. The possibility is made available due to a variety of reasons. But the biggest seem to be that in order to be removed, either the registration has to be updated by the voter or the voter has to be inactive for two federal elections.

The voter rolls in Texas have gone through enough changes in the past 15-20 years to make voter turnout data a bit difficult to compare over time. But since the latest CVAP and RV data is made available by House District, I thought I’d do a little comparison to see where the highest and lowest ratios are for non-Suspense Registered Voters to voter-eligible population. There are still likely differences in how counties update their voter rolls, but the Top 15 list of districts that seem to have the highest share of CVAP on their non-suspense list seems to have two types of areas: fast-growth suburban and South Texas districts. On the lower end of the spectrum seem to be a mix of slower-growth urban minority districts as well as rural districts (presumably slow-growth as well).

As can be seen, a number of districts hit over 100% for total registered voters compared to CVAP. But no district hits over 100% when viewing the non-suspense list. Those districts on the low end of the spectrum would seem to be good targets for voter registration drives.

Top Fifteen State House Districts
Dist   VAP      CVAP  Reg. Voters NonSusp  RV/CVAP nSRV/CVAP RV/nSRV  Incumbent
31   105,843   68,295   74,513    67,517   109.10%   98.86%   90.61%  Guillen
28   184,037  128,055  143,824   124,079   112.31%   96.90%   86.27%  Zerwas
76    95,879   72,295   73,162    69,847   101.20%   96.61%   95.47%  Gonzalez
42   114,513   76,105   78,391    70,883   103.00%   93.14%   90.42%  Raymond
89   177,033  135,975  140,075   125,854   103.02%   92.56%   89.85%  Laubenberg
80   106,312   84,180   85,402    77,572   101.45%   92.15%   90.83%  King
78   121,002   91,045   89,347    83,467    98.13%   91.68%   93.42%  Margo
36   132,605   76,745   80,329    70,225   104.67%   91.50%   87.42%  Munoz
39   112,944   71,395   73,244    64,791   102.59%   90.75%   88.46%  Martinez
75   145,050   89,045   84,298    80,523    94.67%   90.43%   95.52%  Quintanilla
63   152,440  128,010  132,584   115,698   103.57%   90.38%   87.26%  Parker
132  180,076  113,610  116,404   102,178   102.46%   89.94%   87.78%  Callegari
37    95,102   62,650   62,972    56,341   100.51%   89.93%   89.47%  Oliviera
130  174,682  133,615  133,858   119,983   100.18%   89.80%   89.63%  Fletcher
24   132,275  111,160  113,543    98,150   102.14%   88.30%   86.44%  Taylor

Bottom Fifteen State House Districts
Dist  VAP       CVAP Reg. Voters  NonSusp   RV/CVAP nSRV/CVAP RV/nSRV  Incumbent
144  118,877   93,620   72,063    61,884    76.97%   66.10%   85.87%   Legler
145   91,293   61,280   45,454    40,297    74.17%   65.76%   88.65%   Alvarado
92   119,772  106,520   87,643    69,964    82.28%   65.68%   79.83%   Smith
54   140,523  119,080   99,710    77,743    83.73%   65.29%   77.97%   Aycock
133  115,077   81,600   66,716    53,189    81.76%   65.18%   79.72%   Murphy
105  122,815   78,625   66,753    51,134    84.90%   65.04%   76.60%   Harper-Brown
90    97,594   62,045   47,355    39,949    76.32%   64.39%   84.36%   Burnam
59   111,103  103,705   82,208    65,515    79.27%   63.17%   79.69%   Miller
123  101,693   87,780   66,948    55,178    76.27%   62.86%   82.42%   Villareal
100  106,781   81,125   60,809    50,618    74.96%   62.40%   83.24%   Hodge
87   109,038   95,260   68,452    57,339    71.86%   60.19%   83.77%   Swinford
14   146,016  114,535   83,127    65,739    72.58%   57.40%   79.08%   Brown
137   99,552   47,650   34,864    27,327    73.17%   57.35%   78.38%   Hochberg
84   120,159  111,165   78,088    63,581    70.25%   57.20%   81.42%   Frullo
116  109,129   94,455   69,155    52,788    73.21%   55.89%   76.33%   Fischer

County Averages
             CVAP    Reg. Voters    NonSusp    RV/CVAP nSRV/SCAP RV/nSRV
Hidalgo     489,480      450,442    397,089    92.02%   81.12%   88.16% 
Travis      606,085      557,625    480,079    92.00%   79.21%   86.09% 
Denton      318,725      283,322    245,538    88.89%   77.04%   86.66% 
Coll/Rckwl  426,985      387,143    324,409    90.67%   75.98%   83.80% 
El Paso     492,700      430,342    369,884    87.34%   75.07%   85.95% 
Tarrant     949,110      809,926    689,707    85.34%   72.67%   85.16% 
Dallas    1,473,335    1,228,205  1,035,709    83.36%   70.30%   84.33% 
Bexar       890,980      731,988    609,712    82.16%   68.43%   83.30% 
Harris    2,174,605    1,698,770  1,393,937    78.12%   64.10%   82.06% 

State Average
             CVAP    Reg. Voters    NonSusp    RV/CVAP nSRV/SCAP RV/nSRV
Texas    14,893,029   13,262,756 11,364,522    89.05%   76.31%   85.69%

 

Addressing the Rock

April 16, 2011 Houston/Harris No Comments

» Chron: Planting seeds: Houston’s redistricting plan will require time to grow Hispanic representation. (Editorial)

At first glance, the draft redistricting plan for Houston City Council formulated by Mayor Annise Parker’s administration seemingly contradicts its purpose. Although the creation of two new district seats results from a voting-rights suit settlement more than three decades ago to expand Hispanic representation as the city’s population grew, the proposed new Districts J and K would almost certainly elect Anglo and African-American representatives in November.

As a result, a coalition of Houston Latino groups is demanding changes that would guarantee at least one more Hispanic-dominated district to send a representative to serve on council with Ed Gonzalez of District H and James Rodriguez of District I. They cite fresh census statistics showing that an increase in the number of Latinos accounts for most of the city’s population growth over the last decade.

It’s not that simple, however. Mayor Parker summarizes the demographic conundrum this way: “The problem is 44 percent of our population is Latino but 16 percent of the vote is Latino.” According to the mayor, the proposed map doubles the number of districts with Hispanic voting-age majorities, but “the rock we run aground on is citizenship.”

The biggest problem with this analysis – and the city’s redistricting approach – is that it ignores the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data on Citizenship Voting Age Population. By ignoring it (it was called “murky” during the Wednesday council hearing on the proposed redistricting plan), the city isn’t properly accounting for the very problem they note.

As noted yesterday, the Texas Legislative Council’s David Hanna is on record suggesting the data be used. On page 18 of the presentation made to the NCSL last year, he offered two methods for dealing with the different geographic definitions used in both the 2010 Census and the earlier ACS data collection:

- count only those block groups wholly within a district
- assume uniformity of split block groups and assign a ratio of the geography covered within the district.

If I can do this as a one-man show, it’s not clear to me why anyone else can’t. Had this information been used, it would be more readily apparent that a map can be produced with at least three districts that are over 65% Hispanic, with two districts over 50% CVAP and one within reach this decade. By not using it, the decisions for where you look for the opportunity get … well … murky. And if the best result is two districts where there are no voters to be found (as has been suggested), then I’d suggest that not enough has been done to locate a true opportunity. If you don’t believe me, then feel free to check the side-by-side view of Harris County in any combination of Total Population, Voting Age Population, or CVAP at either a Census Tract or Block Group level.

Spanish surname registered voters are a guide, but they are a far more conservative baseline for measurement. Furthermore, since you’re not accounting for voter-eligible, non-registered citizens, the problem of “Hispanics not voting” is etched in stone and preserved for at least a decade. I don’t have a quarrel with using as many datapoints as possible, but it was a mistake to not use CVAP at all.

On a strict CVAP count, Houston Hispanics would account for 2.56 seats on council, whereas the full population would warrant 4.7. Locating an opportunity to build on that .56 opportunity in order to more fully reflect the city’s population is no doubt a challenge. I don’t pretend to offer my suggested map as a conclusive solution that is guaranteed to elect an Hispanic. But I also know of no Hispanic leader afraid of the challenge to win in that environment.

Build it … and let’s see who gets elected.

Search This Site:

Categories

Featured Content:

In Session

January 5, 2013

Today, I’m off to settle into a new workspace and a temporary residence in order to work with my new State Representative, Gene Wu, in Austin. Before anyone thinks to call, comment, or text about how exciting any of that is, you should be reminded that I was raised to loathe all things Austin. While […]

2007-11 Citizen Voting Age Population Update

December 31, 2012

I missed out on commenting on the Chronicle’s coverage of the recent update on Census data. This comes from the American Community Survey’s annual rolling update to their population counts. I’ve only scratched the surface and updated some of my counts on how the total population translates down to citizen voting age population. Here are […]

The Year Ahead

December 18, 2012

Up till now, I’ve generally subscribed to Jim Carville’s maxim that “I wouldn’t want to work for any government that would be willing to hire me.” But this is Texas … we seem to need a bit of help. So, starting in January, I’ll be working in the legislature for Gene Wu. He won the […]

Archives

Blogroll (apolitical)

Newsroll (Int'l)