For the first time in its 171-year history, California is experiencing a slight decrease in its national political influence. The U.S. Census Bureau, after a period of delay, has released the latest population estimates for each state, revealing that California will lose one of its 53 House seats, reducing its representation to 52.
This shift has significant implications for the Golden State. Beyond just one less representative in the House of Representatives, it translates to one less vote in the Electoral College, which plays a crucial role in presidential elections. Furthermore, California will receive a proportionally smaller share of the approximately $1.5 trillion in federal funds distributed annually based on population.
While California’s national stature is subtly diminishing, states experiencing faster growth, such as Texas (gaining two seats) and Florida (gaining one), are seeing their influence expand. In total, seven House seats are shifting across 13 states, marking the smallest redistribution since 1941.
Every ten years, the federal government conducts a census, a crucial count that determines the allocation of the 435 congressional districts across the nation, aiming for roughly equal populations in each district.
“It’s a fixed pie, and California did not grow as fast as the rest of the nation,” explained Hans Johnson, a demographer at the Public Policy Institute of California, during a UC Riverside webinar discussing the new census data.
Between 2010 and 2020, the national population saw a 7.4% increase, reaching 331.4 million, according to the Census Bureau’s latest figures. This growth rate is the second-slowest in the 24 decades since the census began. California’s population growth lagged even further behind, at just 5.9%, increasing from 37.3 million to 39.5 million residents.
Census officials have indicated that while California’s births outnumbered deaths and the state welcomed international residents, a significant number of people moved to other states. Another potential factor influencing these numbers was the debate surrounding the 2020 census and the inclusion of a question about immigration status. Although the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately prevented the Trump administration from adding this question, activists and Democratic leaders argued that the highly publicized effort might have deterred undocumented immigrants from participating, potentially leading to an undercount in states like California with large immigrant populations.
Image alt text: Demonstrators advocate for fair census practices and immigrant rights near the US Capitol, highlighting concerns about census undercounts.
The loss of a congressional seat is also likely to reinforce a narrative, often promoted by conservatives, suggesting that Californians are leaving the state due to its high cost of living and regulatory environment, seeking more affordable and less regulated states.
Kevin Faulconer, former San Diego Mayor and a challenger to Governor Gavin Newsom in the upcoming recall election, was quick to criticize the governor following the Census Bureau’s announcement. “Gavin Newsom’s policies have been an assault on affordability and livability for families across this state. Californians are being forced to leave their home state in droves,” Faulconer stated in a campaign press release, seizing on the news to bolster his political platform.
While the slowdown in California’s population growth has been a trend for decades, an analysis by the Public Policy Institute of California (analysis) points to increasing net migration from California to other states as a significant factor “dragging down the state’s overall population growth.” This suggests that more people are moving out of California than moving in domestically.
However, an analysis of the new census data by the state Department of Finance, as shared by spokesperson H.D. Palmer, challenges the idea that domestic out-migration is solely responsible for California’s seat loss. Instead, the analysis emphasizes the impact of former President Trump’s immigration policies.
“Domestic flows out to other states were more than offset by international migrants,” the state analysis indicated. “However, federal immigration policy decisions in the last half of the decade, accompanied and perhaps exacerbated by an officially pronounced federal view of immigration overall, slowed California’s migration-related growth.” This perspective suggests that restrictive immigration policies may have played a more significant role in slowing California’s population growth and contributing to the loss of a House seat.
Image alt text: US map illustrating congressional seat changes post-2020 Census, showing California losing a seat while other states gain.
A substantial portion of federal funding allocated to states is determined by census data. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, highway construction, and affordable housing vouchers are distributed based on per-person calculations. California will now receive a slightly reduced share of these vital funds, impacting various state services and initiatives.
Furthermore, the loss of a congressional seat adds complexity to the already challenging task of the state’s independent redistricting commission. This commission is responsible for redrawing congressional district boundaries and must now do so with one fewer district. This reduction in districts will dilute the political representation for hundreds of thousands of voters within the state and could potentially jeopardize the seat of a current incumbent representative.
The redistricting process is anticipated to be highly contentious as the commission grapples with these new constraints. “The highly debated question regarding where we will lose a congressional seat remains unanswered,” the commission stated. “The commission will use the census data in conjunction with input from communities on the ground to create a full assessment of the representational needs of the state.”
The shift in House seats also has broader national political implications. States gaining seats tend to lean more Republican, while states losing seats, like California, are typically Democratic strongholds. This redistribution raises questions about the future control of the House of Representatives. Currently, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco holds the Speaker’s gavel, while Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield aims to become Speaker. The changing political landscape due to reapportionment could impact this power dynamic.
While census officials have indicated that redistricting data will be available to states by August 16, election officials across California have expressed concerns that the delayed data release will significantly complicate the redistricting commission’s ability to finalize new electoral maps in time for the 2022 midterm elections.
Even if the commission manages to complete its work within the compressed timeline, the rushed schedule could compromise “the ability of the public to participate in the process,” noted John Dobard of Advancement Project California, a racial justice advocacy group, during the webinar. Public input and community engagement are crucial aspects of fair redistricting, and time constraints could limit effective participation.
Today’s announcement also eliminates a potential contingency plan if the redistricting commission faces delays. According to political consultant Matt Rexroad, with California losing a seat, “there is no legal remedy to just run the old seats. You don’t have that off-ramp anymore.” The loss of a seat necessitates the creation of new maps, adding pressure to an already complex and time-sensitive process.
In conclusion, California’s loss of a congressional seat and electoral vote is a multifaceted issue stemming from slower population growth compared to the rest of the nation. This slower growth is influenced by factors such as domestic out-migration, potentially restrictive federal immigration policies, and concerns about census undercounts. The consequences are far-reaching, impacting California’s political influence, federal funding allocation, and the intricate redistricting process, with potential ramifications for both state and national politics.
