Wisconsin is pushing ahead with a Republican-drawn legislative redistricting plan, after a ruling Friday by the state Supreme Court held the GOP maps were the most race-neutral option.

The state high court previously chose Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' legislative maps, but the decision was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held the state court did not provide enough justification a new Black-majority assembly district called for in Evers' plan was necessary.

Mel Barnes, staff attorney for the legal firm Law Forward, argued in a discussion hosted by the Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition Monday the Republican maps violate the Voting Rights Act, opening them up to further potential litigation.

"The purpose of legislation like this, that grew out of the civil rights movement and was a triumph that people around this country organized for and pushed for, was to make sure that we weren't drawing districts in a way that diluted these votes," Barnes asserted.

Under the GOP plan, Milwaukee County will now have five Assembly districts with a majority of Black voters, down from the current six and Evers' planned seven. The U.S. Supreme Court left in place the governor's congressional redistricting plan. Evers issued a statement Friday, writing the ruling was outrageous and "an unconscionable miscarriage of justice."

Republicans would have kept their majorities in the Senate and Assembly under Evers' maps, although to a lesser degree than in the new GOP-drawn maps, which put them a few assembly seats shy of a veto-proof legislative majority.

Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project, pointed out Evers' maps were already based on lines drawn by Republicans in 2011, as a previous state Supreme Court ruling held new voting maps should be based as much as possible on the current ones.

"So that meant that every option was going to be a gerrymandered map," Chheda contended. "It was just how gerrymandered was it going to be?"

Voting-rights advocates argue Wisconsin's 2011 maps were among the most gerrymandered in the nation. The plan was also challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court, which tossed out the case in 2019 in 2019, arguing it did not have the authority to consider partisan gerrymandering claims. Barring future legal challenges, the new maps will be in place until 2031.

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.