The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has picked a new congressional map after a monthslong battle between Republican lawmakers and Gov. Tom Wolf's administration. Good-government groups said the plan is fair and reflective of the state.

Named the "Carter Plan," the map was one of 13 presented to the state's top court during hearings this month.

Ben Geffen, staff attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, who argued before the court in favor of a different map, said the Carter Plan was chosen based on a "philosophy of least change" from the 2018 state Supreme Court-drawn maps.

"The map that we've been using for the last two elections is a very fair map," Geffen explained. "It's a map that gives candidates and voters from both parties a chance to see a victory in lots of different districts, so the districts aren't all so lopsided that the outcome is known before the votes are even cast at every election."

The new map does account for the state losing one congressional seat due to population loss in rural northwestern Pennsylvania. Barring legal challenges, the maps will be in effect for the May 17 primary election. A group of Republicans filed a federal lawsuit last week, saying the court is overstepping its authority in selecting a congressional map. Geffen noted it is unlikely the federal court will intervene.

Susan Gobreski, government policy committee chair for the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, said the polarized mapmaking process in the state highlights the need for an independent redistricting commission made up of citizens, not politicians.

"We need to look at who's drawing the maps and what rules and policies bind them and how independent they are from the political forces," Gobreski asserted. "That's going to be a priority when we enter the next phase, to look at what worked, what didn't work, and what we need to do to make sure the process is better next time."

The map gives a slight advantage to Republicans, with three seats considered highly competitive. The Department of State announced nomination petition forms are now available for congressional and statewide candidates. The last day to circulate and file petitions is March 15.

CLARIFICATION: The term "death rates" has been replaced with "number of deaths" to more accurately describe this measure. And Ms. Butler is a co-author of the report, not the sole author. (11:54 a.m. MDT, May 30, 2024)

Michigan's population has hovered around the 10 million mark for the past 20+ years, but the state's latest report outlines projections of a population roller coaster which stops at the bottom.

Michigan will have more than 230,000 more people in the next decade, and then decline by 128,000 from 2034 to 2050. Overall, the state's population is expected to drop by about 700,000 in 26 years.

Jaclyn Butler, demographer at the Michigan Center for Data and Analytics and report co-author, said in addition to people migrating out of the state and lower fertility rates, the projected number of deaths is contributing to the decline.

"In Michigan, as we have this very large birth cohort, the 'baby boomers' birth cohort," Butler explained. "The baby boom was pronounced in Michigan -- even compared to the nation, which also experienced a baby boom -- moving into older age years, high mortality years."

The report shows there are now more Michigan residents age 55 and older than residents under 25.

Butler added COVID-19 deaths played a role in Michigan's natural population decrease, but even though 2020 and 2021 saw the highest annual increases in deaths since the Spanish flu in 1918, she emphasized the pandemic cannot solely be blamed for the decline.

"Michigan was already trending closer toward natural decrease," Butler noted. "That rate of natural increase -- where you have more births than deaths -- was already slowing, even prior to the pandemic."

The report found the number of deaths in Michigan is projected to increase by over 35% through the year 2047.

Can this population decline be reversed? Butler believes it is possible.

"You know, there is a window of time," Butler stressed. "Within the next two years or the next decade where, particularly if total net migration is high enough, there might be enough total net migration to offset that natural decrease."

The report says as the natural population decrease becomes pronounced, it will become increasingly challenging for the state to maintain the annual level of net migration needed for population growth.



get more stories like this via email

A version of this report originally appeared on The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Emily Scott for Arkansas News Service for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

The 2020 U.S. Census results showed racial and ethnic diversity of rural populations, including in Arkansas, has grown nearly 20% over the last 10 years.

Researchers predict it could have big implications for resources such as schools and social services. A report from the University of New Hampshire's Carsey School of Public Policy found diversity is increasing both because minority populations are growing and because the non-Hispanic white population is diminishing.

Daniel Lichter, professor emeritus at Cornell University and one of the report's authors, said the diverse population in rural America is growing most among children younger than 18.

"Built into our age structure of rural America is a pattern of continuing racial diversity," Lichter explained. "As an older Baby Boom generation dies off, [they] are succeeded by racial minority groups that are now entering young adulthood, the period of family formation."

Rural America remains predominantly non-Hispanic white at 76% of its population, a 5% decline over the last decade. Between 2010 and 2020, Arkansas saw a 38% increase in people identifying as Hispanic or Latino.

Ken Johnson, demographer and professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire and a co-author of the report, said while new immigrant and ethnic groups potentially could serve as an economic lifeline to small towns, it also presents a challenge for local school districts and other social services in these already under-resourced communities.

"They're going to have to provide a more diverse body of teaching," Johnson pointed out. "They're going to have to make sure that material is available in languages other than English, not just for the children but for their parents who are going to have to work with them to teach them at home."

The researchers added the growth can help support a dwindling labor force in these communities and also help create a more inclusive society. The ethnic and racial diversity growth in the U.S. has not been evenly distributed nationwide. It is reflected in the fact some counties in each region of the country are becoming more diverse, while others have seen little change in diversity.

Kenneth M. Johnson and Daniel T. Lichter wrote a version of this story for The Daily Yonder.

A new report found Texas likely undercounted the number of people who actually live in the state when gathering information for the 2020 census.

The census guides where federal money -- some $1.5 trillion -- is spent based on population. Texas was one of six states showing an undercount, while eight states showed an overcount.

Thomas Wolf, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said the new data will not change the population numbers used for Congressional reapportionment or redistricting, but can have a direct effect on people's well-being.

"If your state goes undercounted, there's a risk that you'll end up with less funding than you should for things like education, health care, food assistance, highways," Wolf outlined. "Basically, the whole infrastructure of your community and state."

Before the census, advocates warned of a significant undercount in the Latino population after the Trump administration tried to add a question about citizenship to the census. Although the question eventually was excluded, experts say it could have triggered lower response rates from Latinos.

California, the most populous U.S. state, did not have a significant population undercount in the census, but Wolf noted it also spent $187 million in supplemental census outreach, while Texas declined to spend any money on outreach.

"The decision itself, regardless of the motivation, is sort of penny wise/pound-foolish," Wolf remarked. "Yes, you save money from not investing in census outreach, but what you get in return is an undercount that then deprives you of millions of federal dollars."

According to the Urban Institute, if the residents of Texas had been counted accurately in 2020, the state would have received at least $247 million more in 2021 federal Medicaid reimbursements. Other states among the top six likely undercounting their population include Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Tennessee.