by Kelvin Pollard and Mark Mather
(Dec. 22, 2010) The first results from the 2010 Census are in, and the U.S. population stands at 308,745,538.
That represents 27.3 million more people than in 2000, or a 9.7 percent increase in the U.S. population. The number of people added to the population between 2000 and 2010 was lower than it was during the 1990s (32.7 million), and the percent change was the lowest since the 1930s.
Nevada Remains Fastest-Growing State
Population growth continued to shift to the South and West, which grew faster than the national average, while the Northeast and Midwest lagged far behind. Unlike the 1990s, when every state gained population, Michigan lost people between 2000 and 2010. (Puerto Rico also suffered a population loss.) The District of Columbia, which had lost population during the 1990s, grew 5 percent—the first increase since the 1940s.
Among the 50 states, Nevada had the fastest population growth rate, although its 35 percent increase was the state’s lowest in 70 years. Four other states—Arizona, Idaho, Texas and Utah—also grew by more than 20 percent between 2000 and 2010. In fact, the 24 fastest-growing states in the past decade were in the West or South. Texas alone has gained 4.3 million residents since 2000, outpacing California as the state with largest numerical growth. Texas actually gained slightly more people during the 2000s than all the states in the Northeast and Midwest combined. Besides Michigan’s and Puerto Rico’s losses between 2000 and 2010, Rhode Island, Louisiana, and Ohio all grew by less than 2 percent during the decade.
California, Texas, and New York remain the three most populous states; in fact, the top eight states all maintained their 2000 rankings in 2010. There was a change in the top 10, however, with North Carolina (up from 11th to 10th) replacing New Jersey (down from ninth to 11th). (Georgia, 10th in population size a decade ago, now ranks ninth.) Nearly half of the 50 states moved up or down in the state rankings. Arizona, one of the fastest-growing states, improved its ranking from 20th in 2000 to 16th in 2010. Meanwhile, Louisiana fell in the population rankings from 22nd to 25th.
U.S. Census Bureau Interactive Map of U.S. Population, 1910 to 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/.
Several factors could have contributed to these state patterns. Michigan has been hit by two recessions since 2000, and has the highest unemployment rate in the country (12 percent). According to the most recent Census Bureau estimates, the state lost more than three times as many people to other states between 2000 and 2010 as it gained through net immigration.1 The displacement resulting from Hurricane Katrina in 2005 likely factored in Louisiana's small population growth, as thousands of residents fled to other states. In addition, much of the state's economy has been slow to recover from the storm's aftermath. (Conversely, the displacement from Katrina might have aided part of Texas' population growth, since many of the evacuees settled there.)
While the 2000s ended with a severe economic downturn, the U.S. economy expanded during much of the decade. So the recent recession may have simply kept states such as Nevada, Arizona, and Florida (all of which were hard hit by the housing bubble) from registering even more rapid growth. Net immigration over the decade likely prevented population loss in several states. Census Bureau intercensal estimates from 2009 suggest that without international migration, seven states would have lost population in the 2000s—including such "gateway" states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. California's growth rate also would have been sharply cut.2
Texas a Big Winner, Politically
With the release of the new data, the public also learned how many seats each of the 50 states will get in the House of Representatives during the next decade—effective when the 113th Congress takes office in January 2013. As expected, southern and western states will gain seats—mostly at the expense of states in the Northeast and Midwest.
Eight states will gain seats in the new apportionment (see table). In the South, Texas will add four seats, Florida will pick up two, and Georgia and South Carolina will gain one seat each. In the West, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Washington will each pick up one seat. Congressional seats are redistributed based on population change during the decade.
Change in Seats in U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, by State
| State |
House Seats |
Change in House Seats |
| |
2000 |
2010 |
+/- |
| Arizona |
8 |
9 |
1 |
| Florida |
25 |
27 |
2 |
| Georgia |
13 |
14 |
1 |
| Illinois |
19 |
18 |
-1 |
| Iowa |
5 |
4 |
-1 |
| Louisiana |
7 |
6 |
-1 |
| Massachusetts |
10 |
9 |
-1 |
| Michigan |
15 |
14 |
-1 |
| Missouri |
9 |
8 |
-1 |
| Nevada |
3 |
4 |
1 |
| New Jersey |
13 |
12 |
-1 |
| New York |
29 |
27 |
-2 |
| Ohio |
18 |
16 |
-2 |
| Pennsylvania |
19 |
18 |
-1 |
| South Carolina |
6 |
7 |
1 |
| Texas |
32 |
36 |
4 |
| Utah |
3 |
4 |
1 |
| Washington State |
9 |
10 |
1 |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
The 12 total seats gained by these states will come at the expense of 10 other states. Louisiana is one of the states losing a seat—a consequence of people leaving New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Nine states in the Northeast and Midwest will also lose House seats: New York and Ohio will each lose two, while Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will lose one seat each. The population totals used for the new apportionment include not only the resident population of each state, but also the number of military and civilian employees of the U.S. government (plus their dependents) who are posted overseas.
Even with the expected gains for the South and West, the new apportionment numbers contained several surprises. Apportionment projections based on 2009 population estimates had indicated that Florida would pick up a single seat and Texas would gain three, but each state added one more seat than had been anticipated. In addition, New York had been projected to lose just one seat while Missouri's congressional representation had been expected to remain unchanged.3
Census Count in Line With Expectations
The national census count was almost on target with what had been expected, as it was only 232,000 lower than what the Census Bureau's most recent set of intercensal population estimates had projected. This contrasts with what had occurred during the previous census, when the actual 2000 total was 6.9 million higher than what the bureau had anticipated. Many analysts consider the 2000 Census to be one of the most accurate in history, but there still were millions of people who were not counted—and millions more who were counted twice. The Census Bureau took extra steps in 2010 to reduce the number of duplicates—for example, by adding new administrative questions to the Census 2010 form. This effort might partially explain why the count was so closely aligned with intercensal estimates.
Kelvin Pollard is a senior demographer at PRB. Mark Mather is associate vice president of Domestic Programs at PRB.
References
- U.S. Census Bureau, "Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009": table NST-EST2009-04, accessed online at www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-comp-chg.html, on Dec. 20, 2010.
- U.S. Census Bureau, "Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009."
- Election Data Services, "New Population Estimates Show Additional Changes for 2009 Congressional Apportionment, with Many States Sitting Close to the Edge for 2010," news release from Dec. 23, 2009, accessed online at www.electiondataservices.com/images/File/NR_Appor09wTables.pdf, on Dec. 21, 2010.