Population in North Carolina Congressional Districts by Professor Alfred W. Stuart

    *® REMEFER 13 1998 
12/16/97 

POPULATION IN NORTH CAROLINA 
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 

by 
Alfred W. Stuart 

Professor of Geography 
UNC Charlotte 

I. STATE LEVEL CHANGE 

Overview 

North Carolina, with about 7.4 million residents in 1997, is the nation’s eleventh 

most populous state and it is one of the fastest growing. Population increased by 800,000 
people between 1990 and 1997, for example. In addition to growth, significant change is 
occurring in the ethnic diversity, age structure and geographic distribution of population. 
All of these changes bring into serious question the wisdom of modifying electoral districts 
that were drawn originally by using data from the 1990 Census. 

Growth Trends 

Probably the single most striking aspect of North Carolina’s recent demography is 
its simple growth. Between 1980 and 1990 the state added 750 thousand people to its 

. population, an increase of 12.7 percent, faster growth than the national increase of 9.8 
percent. The previously noted addition of 800 thousand people during the 1990-97 period 
represented a 12.2 percent rate of growth, well ahead of the overall US increase rate of 7.3 
percent. This suggested that not only is North Carolina growing faster than the nation as a 
whole but also that the difference in growth rates is accelerating. 

This status is the result of relatively strong growth in recent decades, with the state 
rank moving up from 14th in 1920 and 12th as recently as 1970. Projections prepared by 
the North Carolina Office of State Planning call for the statewide total to surpass 9.3 
million people by the year 2020. The U.S. Census has identified eight states as growth 

 



  

® » 12/16/97 

centers that will account for 60 percent of net population growth for the entire nation 
between 1990 and 2020. These eight include Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina. This 
represents quite a change from just a few decades ago when more people were leaving the 
state than moving in. 

In addition to growth, the state's population has become older, more urban, more 
female and ethnically more diverse. However, perhaps the most distinctive aspect of 
population in North Carolina is its long-standing tendency to be widely dispersed, in rural 
areas, small towns and in cities of modest size. It was only in 1990 that the U.S. Census 
classified a bare majority of the state's population as living in urban places. This pattern is 
the basis for the perception that this is a small town/rural state even though it also is one of 
the nation's most populous and one of the most highly industrialized. However, this 
perception is rapidly becoming dated. The state is in the midst of an historic transition in 
which this broad dispersion is giving way to a seemingly inexorable concentration of 
growth in metropolitan areas, especially the larger ones. Of equally compelling significance 
is the tendency for the great majority of recent and projected future growth to be due to the 
migration into the state of hundreds of thousands of people. That is, most of the state’s 
growth is coming from people moving in from other states and from overseas rather than 
from increases in the native population. 

Migration 

For most of the first half of the 20th Century, more people moved out of 
North Carolina than moved in as thousands of rural blacks and whites left in search of 
better economic opportunities elsewhere. This process is referred as Net Out-Migration. 
As a result, between 1940 and 1970, North Carolina grew more slowly than did the nation 

as a whole. Overall growth occurred at all only because of high fertility rates among 
women in North Carolina’s predominantly rural population. Natural Increase, growth due 
to births exceeding the number of deaths, was large enough to offset losses due to out- 
migration. Beginning in the 1960's this trend began to change as the state experienced a 
modest Net In-Migration of whites while African Americans were still leaving by the 
hundreds of thousands. At this point, the economy of the state was expanding vigorously 

2 

 



  

® ® 12/16/97 

along with the rest of the South, especially in its urban areas, but many of these Jobs 
initially were not available to blacks. This began to change with the dismantling of Jim 
Crow laws and blacks also began to move into the state. Total out-migration slowed 
between 1960 and 1970, just as birth rates were falling in line with national averages. A 

sharp turnaround in migration flows occurred between 1970 and 1980 when North 
Carolina had a net in-migration of over 278,000 people, including a modest number of 
blacks, their first net gain through migration in modern history. 

In the 1980-90 decade, in-migration swelled to over 374,000 people, 
including 31,090 non-whites. As a result, since 1970, North Carolina has grown faster 

than the nation. In-migration surged further between 1990 and 1996, with new residents 

outnumbering those who left by a record-breaking total of 436,724 during the six year 
period. These in-migrants accounted for no less than 63 percent of the state's net 
population growth during that period. As Figure 1 shows, in-migration has replaced 
natural increase as the principal driver of growth and this is expected to be the case well 

into the next century. 

Ethnic Composition 

In the early part of this century nearly one-third of North Carolina’s 
population was composed of African Americans. The proportion that was white increased 
to a high of almost 77 percent by 1970, reflecting the massive out-migration of blacks. In 
the last two decades, the white proportion of the population remained at about 76 percent. 
Meanwhile, the black proportion has fallen to about 22 percent. 

The recent growth in the non-white population other than by African Americans is a 
measure of North Carolina’s increasing ethnic diversity (Figure 2). This is reflected in 
more languages heard on the street, restaurants specializing in different cuisines and bi- 
lingual programs in schools. Once almost entirely a bi-racial population dominated by 
African Americans and whites, the state has experienced a dramatic rise in other population 
groups. Between 1980 and 1995 both the black and the white populations grew at rates, 
20.8 and 20.7 percent, respectively, that were slower than the overall state increase of 

 



  

Figure 1. Components of North Carolina Population Change, 1940 - 2020 

      

  

   

  

1,000,000 — 

800,000 
Natural 

Increase IN 
600,000 / No 

S 400,000 | f= -~ 

© ~ 
2 oT —— 
$200,000 

Net 

Migration 
  

ey
 5 

ul
 

- 200,000   - 400,000 
1940- . 1950- 1960-' 1970- 1980- -1900-: 2000-  2010- 
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 

Year 

 



 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 
  
 

 
 

  

 
 

 
 

  

           

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Tp} 
® (e)) 

o 

ce 
3 

Q 

©
 

Z
z
 

humend) 

g
 

Ss 
7 

I 
g 

2
 

f
o
)
 

—
—
—
 

5B 
"
=
 

C 
al 

re 

oo 
12 

5 

c 
Q 

i 
o 
 
p
e
—
 

- 
op) 

i
a
 

Li 
L 

oO 
S
T
 

R
T
T
 

Sl 
a 

Th 

~~ 
2 

8 
B
8
5
 

8 
& 

& 
8 

fos 
i
a
 

B 
g
i
r
 

& 
&
.
:
&
 

2
:
0
 

< 
i
e
 

©
 

S
c
"
 

O
c
 

go 
G
g
.
 

0 

=
 

on) 
/
 

$2 
© 

NN 
©
 

mn 
<r 

™m 
(QV 

. ou 

— 

-_— 
ec 

K 
a|doad 

Jo 
JequinN 

@ 

{Badd 
2 

fo) 
(72) 

o 
5 

Z 
S 

: 
S 

oO 
2 

Ce 
15 

& 
2 

© 
5 

od 
8 

gy 
§ 

l
p
 

C 
© 

a. 
2 

© 
mf 

18 
i 

o
p
m
’
 

-
 

O
 

~
—
 

p
—
 

o> 
y
e
n
 

C
c
 

uo 
= 

Q 
S 

2 
ii 

- 
fo) 

fo 
i 

1
 

81%) 
| 

2 
a 

—
 

EC 
O
C
.
 
o
e
s
 

g
e
 

CO 
2 
E
E
E
 

S
e
s
 

S
D
 

foe 

E 
o
S
a
8
 
8
.
0
0
0
0
 

io 
ee 

-
 

ae 
C
i
g
 

i
g
n
g
 

igh 
a 

og 
o 

o£ 

oO 
SC 

Cer 
Oo 

CS 
o
 

Oo 
co 

J
 

a 
& 

T
E
E
S
 

0 
W
e
.
 

O 
o)) 

=
 

(00) 
N~ 

© 
wn 

<r 
m 

aN 
wv 

Ci 
1 

. 
<
 

(| 
a|doad 

jo 
J8quinN 

= 
oO 

w 
Qo 

& 
= 

- 
— 

Ll 

=) 
o m— 

o 
be 

3 
5
B
 

o 
O 

    

  

       

 
 

180,000 — 

150,000 

120,000 ~ 

90,000 |= 

60,000 

30,000 

s|doad 
jo 

Joaquin 

 



% » 12/16/97 

22.5 percent. This was because higher growth rates were recorded by several other ethnic 

groups. Although Native Americans have been relatively insignificant numerically at a state 

level (1.2 percent of the state population in 1995), their total rose by 39 percent between 

1980 and 1995. They tend to be concentrated primarily in southeastern part of the state, 

especially Robeson County, which alone contains over half of North Carolina's Native 

American population. 

Asians increased even more dramatically, by nearly 350 percent, between 1980 and 

1995 and totaled 88,000 persons in 1995. Hispanics, of all races, grew by 75 percent 

between 1980 and 1995, to over 100,000 persons and constituted nearly 1.4 percent of the 

North Carolina total. One analyst estimated that by 1996 the Hispanic population may have 

reached 300,000. All of these other ethnic groups, unlike Native Americans, are found 

predominantly in urban areas. 

This trend toward ethnic diversity is expected to continue into the future. U.S. 

Census projections call for the Asian population to rise to over 260,000 by the year 2020 

and Hispanics are projected to make up another 216,000. Whites will still be in the great 

majority but their share of the state total is expected to decline to just over 72 percent and 

blacks will increase their share to 23.5 percent. 

Age 

Like the rest of the nation, the population of North Carolina is getting progressively 

older. The median age in the state, for example, has risen from 26.5 years in 1970 to 33 in 

1990 and by the year 2020 it expected to reach about 39 years. The recent and future 

projected increases are slightly higher than those for the nation as a whole. This increase in 

age reflects greater life expectancies for older people, smaller families and the tendency for 

more of population growth to be by people moving into the state and many of these 

migrants are retirees. 

Figure 3 shows how the age mix of the population grew between 1980 and 1997 

and how it is projected to shift out to the year 2020. All age groups will increase  



  

Figure 3. Population of North Carolina Age Groups 

2,500 
25 - 44 — 

~~ 

2,000 

1,500 

(i
n 

th
ou
sa
nd
s 

1,000 

  

  

Po
pu
la
ti
on
 

  

1980 1990 1997 2010 2020 

Age Groups 

«mee 65 and above 

am 45 - 64 

5 - 44 

—10 2A 

» 

am 5-18 

ams ( - 4 

gource: U.S. Census 1980 and 1990; 1997 estimates and 

projections from the N.C. Office of State Planning. 

 



  

® » 12/16/97 

substantially throughout the entire period but there have been some significant variations in 

this. While the pre-school ages (0-4 years) have and are expected to continue to increase in 

number, those of school age (5-18 years) have been less consistent. They actually declined 

between 1980 and 1990 and the estimated total for 1997 is only slightly above that recorded 

in 1980. However, a sharp increase is projected between 1997 and the year 2010. These 

fluctuations have major implications for school systems across the state. The college/early 

working age group (19 to 24 years) declined even more sharply between 1980 and 1997, - 

being over 50,000 lower in 1997 than in 1980. However, by early in the next century 

these numbers will rise sharply as the school-age population comes of age. 

The older groups have had different trends. The younger working age group (25- 

44 years) has grown steadily through 1997 but its total is expected to decline slightly the 

early 21st century before slowly rising again by 2020. It is this age group that, in great 

measure, has supplied the employees for the state’s robust economy but its expected 

decline or slow growth raises serious questions about future labor supplies. 

All of the aforementioned age groups have declined markedly in their shares of the 

state’s population. and this is expected to continue into the future. The 5-18 years and 19- 

24 years groups together fell from 35 percent of the total in 1980 to 27.5 percent in 1997 

and they are expected to fall to 25 percent by 2020. The younger working age group, 12 

percent of the statewide total in 1980, is expected to barely exceed eight percent by 2020. 

The reason for the falling relative shares of younger people has been the strong 

increase in the older population and these groups are expected to grow even faster in the 

future. The older working age group, 45 to 64 years, has grown steadily in number even 

though its statewide share declined slightly between 1980 and 1990, from 19.6 to 19.3 

percent. However, the numbers in this group are projected to nearly double between 1990 

and 2020 and its share of the state total rise to almost 26 percent. 

The fastest growing group in the population is the elderly, 65 years and older. 

Rising numbers caused its share of the state total to rise from 10.2 to 12.7 percent between 

1980 and 1997 and this is expected to reach 17.7 percent by 2020. The number of people 

 



  

® » 12/16/97 

65 or older is expected to double between 1990 and 2020. In 1980 there were twice as 
many people aged 5 to 18 years as there were 65 or older. By 2020 the elderly will 
outnumber that younger group by 50,000 people. The implications of this growth of the 
elderly have enormous implications for health care, Medicare/Medicaid, other support 
services, housing and many other sectors of life. 

A primary reason for the rapid growth of the elderly population is that North 
Carolina in recent years has become a major destination for retirees. In 1990 some 65,000 
people who were 60 or older between 1985 and 1990 moved to North Carolina. This 
ranked the state fifth highest in the nation, trailing only Florida, California, Arizona, and 
Texas. In 1960 it ranked 27th, 17th in 1970 and 7th in 1980 in this measure. This sharp 
rise led American Demographics magazine (November, 1994) to designate North Carolina 
as "the rising star" among those states that have become more popular destinations for the 
elderly. A major source of these retirees has been the state of New York. Some 222,000 
people aged 65 or more left New York between 1985 and 1990 and nearly 9,000 of them 

came to North Carolina. 

Urban 

Although North Carolina has long been known as a relatively under- 
urbanized area, there has been a gradual increase in the proportion of the population that 
lives in urban places. In 1960, only 39.5 percent of the population was classified by the 
Bureau of the Census as living in urban places, at a time when the South had a comparable 

proportion of almost 59 percent. By 1970 the North Carolina proportion had increased to 
45 percent, and to 48 percent in 1980, while the South for those time periods was nearly 
65 and 67 percent, respectively. This divergence continued into 1990, when 
approximately 50.4 percent of the population in North Carolina was classified as urban 
while almost 68.6 percent of the South was so classified. Only five other states (Maine, 
Mississippi, South Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia) had smaller urban proportions 
than North Carolina and none are as populous. Another measure of North Carolina's 
"under-urbanization" is provided by a 1996 estimate prepared by the North Carolina Office 

 



  

R : i 12/16/97 

of State Planning which shows only 49.75 percent of the total population living within the 

bounds of one of the state's 529 incorporated municipalities. 

Somewhat paradoxically, 66.3 percent of the state's people lived within a 

federally tocosnized Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 1992, not far behind the 

South's 74.3 percent and the national mean of 79.7 percent. This indicates that while many 

North Carolinians do not live within an incorporated place, they do live close to a city, 

including the outer margins of metropolitan areas. The relatively high proportion not living 

in towns and the number living in unincorporated parts of MSA counties are measures of 

the historic tendency for the population of North Carolina to be rather dispersed, typically 

living 1n a rural setting and working in a near-by town. 

Rural 

North Carolina has long had a large rural population, a majority of its total 

throughout all but its most recent history. And even though its proportion has declined in 

recent decades, the rural component has increased in actual numbers, from 2.7 million in 

1960 to nearly 3.3 million in 1990 (Figure 4). However, these numbers mask a substantial 

restructuring within the rural population. The U.S. Census distinguishes between a rural 

"farm" and a rural "non-farm" population, based on whether or not the rural population 

actually lives on a working farm. The 1990 Census defined a farm as a place from which 

$1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold, certainly a minimal definition. Those 

people classified as non-farm thus do not live in an incorporated place of at least 2,500 

people and they sell less than $1,000 worth of agricultural products, if any. More likely, 

they live outside a town but hold a factory or urban job. They truly represent the dispersed 

population that 1s such a hallmark of North Carolina. Between 1960 and 1990 the state's 

rural population increased 19.6 percent as part of the overall increase of 45.5 percent. 

However, the rural non-farm component grew by a robust 63.2 percent whereas the rural 

farm total plummeted by nearly 86 percent during the same 30 year period. The number of 

people living on farms fell by over 690,000 and their share of the state total declined from 

17.7 to just 1.8 percent. North Carolina had the largest farm population of any state in the 

nation in 1960 but by 1990 it had fallen to fifth place. Conversely, the rural non-farm 

 



Figure 4. N.C. Urban/Rural Population, 1960 - 1990 

8 

7) 
£ 
QO 

= 
£ 
ec 
LY 
© 
3 
Q 
Oo 

4: 4 

  

1960 

Source: U.S. Census  



» 12/16/97 

segment increased its share of the North Carolina population from 42.7 to 47.9 percent 

between 1960 and 1990. 

In many cases, of course, the shift from farm to non-farm represented a 

shift in employment rather than residence. Many farmers gave up tilling the soil for a 

factory or other wage job but still lived on the original farm. Some kept a garden while 

many leased out or sold their fields to other farmers. This switch in employment was ‘made 

possible by a spread of manufacturing facilities to rural areas and led to extensive Inter- 

county commuting by these displaced farmers. Other rural non-farm residents, probably 

the great majority, were never farmers but simply chose to live in a rural setting and, like 

the ex-farmers, commute to jobs at rural factories or in town. They are found in the outer 

fringes of the metropolitan areas as well as in the more truly rural parts of the state. 

Gender 

In the last thirty years, females have continued to increase both in number 

and in their proportion of the total population. From 1960 to 1990, females increased 

from about 2.3 million to over 3.4 million. During that time the male population increased 

by about 45 percent while the female total rose by about 48 percent. As a result, the male 

per 100 females ratio declined steadily, from 97.3 in 1960 to 95.9 in 1970, 94.3 in 1980, 

and 94.1 in 1990. This tendency is not surprising because of two factors that influence 

sex ratios generally. The first is that women generally live longer than men and that women 

have higher survival rates than do men at most ages. The second factor is that net 

migration into North Carolina has not been particularly sex-specific for either males or 

females, as it has been in the past in true " boom areas," such as Alaska during the 

construction of the Alaskan pipeline by a predominantly male labor force, or in " bust 

areas," such as parts of Appalachia when mostly males left the region to find work 

elsewhere.  



  

ah » 12/16/97 

II. INTERNAL GROWTH PATTERNS 

Major Regions 

The division of North Carolina into four traditional land regions, Tidewater, 

Inner Coastal Plain, Piedmont and Mountains, is a conventional practice that derives not 
only from variations in the nature of the land but also from different patterns of occupance 
and use of the land (Figure 5). These regions are as much historical as they are 

physiographic. European settlement on the Tidewater and Inner Coastal Plain was 
predominantly from English stocks from Virginia or in from the coast. Originally these 
areas had an "Old South" culture based primarily on slave-based plantation systems of 
production. More recently, the Inner Coastal Plain became the state's agncultural heartland 
and its most rural area. Most of the region’s recent growth has been in and around its 
larger cities, especially Greenville, Fayetteville, Goldsboro, Jacksonville and Rocky 

Mount. A good part of this growth has been associated with nearby military facilities. The 
Tidewater area has grown vigorously in recent decades due to the attraction of the beaches 
especially along the Outer Banks and the southeastern coast. Historic cities such as New 
Bern and Wilmington are booming as service centers for nearby beach areas. 

The Piedmont was settled mainly by Europeans of Scots-Irish and German 

stock who migrated southward from Pennsylvania in the 18th century. Most of their farms 
have been replaced by all of North Carolina's largest cities and a highly industrialized 
countryside. Settlementin the coves and valleys of the mountains took place mostly a little 
later and these communities remained isolated until recent investments in transportation 
facilities were made. Today the scenic beauty of the region draws in thousands of tourists 
and retirees. 

In the colonial period and during the early decades of the Republic the 
Coastal Plain held the majority of the state's population. This began to change in favor of 
the Piedmont in the early 19th century and for some time the eastern part of the state, which 

holds 41 of its 100 counties, contained about one-third of the population. Since about 
1960 both the absolute and the relative population size of the Piedmont has increased, 

 



  

   
   

   
18 

= 
: ~~~, Northam

pton / ; 

2 
/ Hedtord 

  

       

    

  

Gr gone 

Wayne \ : A 
Johnston

 

    

       
    

  
Harnett 

> 

: inner Coastal | 
enoir 

Plain ~~. 

     
Nas 

AY 
y oe 

vi 

yo Tidewater
 

     
100 miles 

100 kilometers 

 



  

® » 12/16/97 

going from 51 percent of the state total in that year to 56 percent in 1997 (Figure 6). 

Perhaps more telling, the region accounted for nearly 64 percent of North Carolina's. net 

growth between 1960 and 1997. The Coastal Plain counties collectively declined to 30.5 

percent of the statewide total by 1997 but there was a significant shift within the region. 

While the Tidewater portion increased its share from 9.4 to 10 percent, the counties of the 

Inner Coastal Plain saw their share fall from 24.6 to 20.5 percent between 1960 and 1997. 

Meanwhile, the 24 Mountain counties experienced a fall from 14.8 to 13.5 percent of the 

statewide total. 

Despite these relative shifts, the Inner Coastal Plain's actual population rose 

from 1.309 million in 1960 to 1.523 millionin 1997. The Tidewater section had a sharper 

growth rate, going from 552 thousand to 745 thousand during the same time. The 

Mountain counties increased their total from just over 673 thousand to one million in 1997. 

The Piedmont total, 2.309 million in 1960, reached 4.167 million in 1997. In other words, 

growth occurred throughout the state but it was strongest in the most urban and industrial 

parts. 

The Piedmont also contained 52 percent of North Carolina's non-white 

population but the region remained 79 percent white in 1990. A rapidly growing share of 

the non-white population in the Piedmont’s cities is made up of Asians and some of the 

white portion is Hispanic. In the Inner Coastal Plain is found 35 percent of the state's non- 

white population and this ethnic group makes up almost 40 percent of the region's total 

population. Most of these non-whites are African Americans but the group also includes 

the large Native American population in Robeson and near-by counties. The Tidewater 

section is 24 percent non-white, contributing 10 percent to the statewide total. The 

mountain region is the state's "whitest," containing just over two percent of the total 

number of non-whites. 

10 

 



  

Figure 6. Regional Growth Trends, 1940 - 1997 

4,500 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 
(i
n 

th
ou
sa
nd
s)
 

2,000 

1,500 

e
e
 

500 

0 
1940 + 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1997 

Year 

Po
pu
la
ti
on
 

Age Groups 

ems Mountian 

ems Piedmont 

«mms [nner Coastal Plain 

se Tidewater 

Source: U.S. Census 

 



  

2 » 12/16/97 

Growth Factors 

There are three primary sets of factors that have accounted for most of the 

growth within the state. The first is the influence of the several urban centers in the state 
that have acted and continue to act as magnets to economic activities and subsequent 

population expansions. Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Greensboro/ Winston-Salem, and 

smaller metropolitan areas such as Asheville, Fayetteville, Greenville, Hickory, 

Jacksonville, Rocky Mount and Wilmington have successfully attracted economic growth 

in today's highly competitive global economy. These urban centers influence population 

dynamics in two different ways. One is that their employment opportunities tend to attract 
numbers of people both to their core counties and to adjacent counties that are under their 

influence. The other influence is on the type of people urban centers tend to attract. Net 

migration to these areas is often age-selective, in that larger numbers of young adults in 

their child-rearing ages settle in and near urban centers. This type of selectivity tends to set 

the stage for future growth through natural increase. 

The second factor influencing the patterns of change across the regions of 

North Carolina is the presence of certain amenities which also serve as magnets to in- 

migrants. In the case of the mountains, the net-mi gration flows may also be age-selective, 

in that they tend to attract proportionally higher rates of older people who seek retirement 

homes in particular areas of the mountains that are likely to have the types of services they 

need in smaller communities. Another amenity area is the coast, which also tends to be 

more age-selective in its vear-round population. Particularly important are the coastal 

beaches, the Intracoastal Waterway, or areas in the immediate vicinity. The golf courses 

that have been developed in the Southern Pines/Pinehurst area have attracted a large 

retirement community as well. 

The third factor that may influence population change at the county level is 
the presence of large institutions, such as colleges and universities, and military 

installations, that grow or decline by administrative action. There are fifteen counties 
whose age structure is significantly affected by the presence of these institutions. These 
include the university/college-impacted counties : Alamance, Durham, Guilford, Harnett, 

11 

 



% ® 12/16/97 

Jackson, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Orange, Pitt, Wake and Watauga and also the 

military-impacted counties: Craven, Cumberland, Onslow, and Wayne. These types of 

institutions differentially attract younger adults who typically do not age in place, but 

instead, are regularly replaced by other adults. Hence, they are places where population 

turnover is common. The military bases also tend to attract large civilian workforces to - 

support their missions. The university/college areas also offer some special amenities 

associated with the schools that are attractive for large numbers of new residents, especially 

retirees. Examples include collegiate sports and a host of cultural activities. 

County Growth Patterns 

Figure 7(a) shows that the decade of 1970 to 1980 was a boom time for 

many counties in North Carolina, especially those in the Piedmont. Three counties in the 

mountains grew by 30 percent or more during that decade, as did four in the Piedmont and 

four along the coast. The mountain counties of Swain ( Fontana Lake) , Henderson 

(Hendersonville ) and Watauga (Appalachian State University ) had started to become 

attractive to retirees during the late 1970's, as did Brunswick, Carteret, Dare and Currituck 

counties along the coast. In addition, Currituck and Brunswick counties benefited from 

spill-over development from the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News area and Myrtle 

Beach, South Carolina, respectively. During this time period, Orange, Durham and Wake 

counties were beginning to benefit from the attraction of high-tech research facilities to the 

Research Triangle Park . The interplay of the influence of urban centers, amenity areas and 

institutions were also evident in those counties that grew 20-29 percent during that decade. 

Lincoln and Union Counties benefited from their proximity to Charlotte, growth in 

Wilmington impacted the rest of New Hanover and adjacent Pender counties, and 

Randolph benefited from its proximity to Winston-Salem and Ashboro. Amenity factors 

influenced high rates of change for Clay and Macon counties (mountains), Burke and 

Alexander (lakes), and Moore (golf retirement communities). Nearby military institutions 

played a major role in the growth of Hoke and Pitt counties. Only three counties recorded 

population declines, Hertford and Northampton on the northeastern Inner Coastal Plain, 

and Jones County, in the central Tidewater region.  



  

Figure 7.a. Population Change, 1970 - 1980 

  
  

  
  

  

      

  

Percent Change 

30 and above 

10 - 19 

0-9 

oo Population Loss 

NC = 15.7% 

  

  

  

  

      

Source: U.S. Census. 

 



  

% : » 12/16/97 

From 1980 to 1990 the pattern of growth rates changed significantly (Figure 7b). 

The greatest variations appeared in the Tidewater region of the state where overall growth 

was 21 percent, well above the statewide rate of 12.6 percent. However, there was 

considerable variation among its counties. Four of the Tidewater counties (Hyde, Jones, 

Tyrrell and Washington) lost population and six (Beaufort, Camden, Chowan, Craven, 

Pamlico, Pasquotank and Perquimans) grew at rates slower than the overall state average. 

The others, in contrast, experienced strong growth. Dare County was the fastest growing - 

in the state, growing by two-thirds. Brunswick increased by over 42 percent and Currituck 

and Pender had growth rates of 23 and 29 percent, respectively. While it expanded by 

“only” 16 percent, New Hanover County had the region’s largest absolute gain of over 

16,000 people. The 23 counties on the Inner Coastal Plain, away from the beaches, are 

rural and most do not have the advantage of large institutions. Collectively, they grew at a 

slow 6.1 percent rate and ten of them actually lost population. 

In the Piedmont region, there was less vanability in rates, but there were clearly 

"winners " and " losers" in population numbers. Anson, Caswell and Richmond Counties 

lost population. At the other extreme, Wake County, even with its large population base in 

1980, grew over 40 percent and generated growth that spilled over into nearby Durham, 

Franklin, and Orange Counties. Other counties in the Piedmont that were tied to the several 

urban centers in this region grew at rates of at least 20 percent. Mecklenburg grew faster 

than any other county in its region, adding over 105,000 people at a robust 26 percent clip. 

Only Wake and Mecklenburg grew by more than 100,000 people during the decade. The 

other large Piedmont Counties, Forsyth and Guilford, expanded more modestly, 9.1 and 

9.5 percent, respectively, slower than the statewide rate. Collectively, these two counties 

added just over 52,000 people to their totals. 

In the mountains, the flurry of growth that characterized the 1970's slowed 

or disappeared. Three counties (Ashe, Graham and Swain) lost population and overall the 

region grew by only 6.3 percent between 1980 and 1990. Henderson, Macon and 

Watauga Counties were the only ones to grow by more than 16 percent. Buncombe, site of 

Asheville, the regional capital, added nearly 14,000 people to its population, on a growth 

rate of 8.6 percent. 

13 

 



  

Figure 7.b. Population Change, 1980 - 1990 

  
  

757 

, srs, 

            

    
  

  

  

Percent Change 

  

  

  

  

  

    | Population Loss 

NC = 12.8% 

  
  

Source: U.S. Census. 

  

 



  

% » ; 12/16/97 

Figure 7(c) shows that between 1990 and 1997 growth was again the 

general rule. The seven-year, statewide growth rate of 12.1 percent almost matched that of 

the previous decade. Only five counties lost population. Four (Hertford, Hyde, Tyrrell 

and Washington) are in the northeastern part of the state and the fifth (Alleghany) is in the 

mountains. Wake County accelerated its phenomenal growth, adding over 130,000 people 

in the seven-year period, at a state highest rate of almost 31 percent. Clearly, it is gaining 

on Mecklenburg County, which grew by 15.7 percent and added almost 95,000 people. 

Six other counties had growth rates of 20 percent or more and all six are suburban to one of 

the metropolitan area core counties. Two, Brunswick and Pender, are adjacent to 

Wilmington. Currituck is part of the Norfolk, Virginia area; Hoke borders Fayetteville, 

Johnston is immediately east of Raleigh and Union is suburban to Charlotte. Growth was 

above average in a number of other suburban metropolitan counties, especially Cabarrus, 

Chatham, Franklin, Harnett, Stokes and Yadkin Counties. Dare County lost its pride of 

place but still grew by almost 20 percent. Actually, the high growth rates experienced in 

the Tidewater region seemed to have peaked, with the region growing by only 11.5 

percent, less than the statewide average. 

Internal Migration Trends 

The most dynamic cause of population change is through migration, either 

net in-migration or out-migration. By definition, migration involves a change of residence. 

It can also be regarded as "people voting with their feet." It is a much more volatile factor 

than natural increase since it can change suddenly and is driven by individual decision 

making rather than by generally more predictable demographic factors. Figure 8, a map of 

net migration between 1980 and 1990, shows that the aforementioned statewide trend 

toward increasing in-migration is not evenly distributed throughout North Carolina. In 

some cases counties had net out-migration but they still managed to show a little growth 

because the loss due to migration was offset by a positive natural increase. Edgecombe 

and Lenoir, predominantly rural counties on the Coastal Plain, lost over 3,000 people due 

to migration, but produced enough babies to litle more than break even in population 

growth for that decade, for example. Many other counties in the Coastal area with 

significant concentrations of blacks and Native-Americans, who tend to have higher fertility 

het 

 



   
| § 

Figure 7.C. Population 
Chango. ‘Yasin a 

  

  
  

  

  

  
  

7) population LOSS 

w 

NC = 12.3% 

g. Censu s and N.C. Office of State Planning. 

Source: U 

 



  

% » 12/16/97 

rates than the general population, had net gains through natural increase that also were large 

enough to offset losses due to migration. Cumberland County, with its ties to the military, 

stands out in that it was a huge loser ( -12,377 ) in migration, but a big gainer from 

~ natural increase (39,783). 

In the Mountains and the Piedmont, counties that did not benefit from the 

presence of urban centers lost people in greater numbers than were attracted to those areas. 

Henderson County, a major destination for retirees, had a net growth of 10,705 people 

between 1980 and 1990, all but 643 of which was due to in-migration. The influence of 

urban centers as magnets for growth is also apparent on the map. Gains of over 10,000 

people were found in Mecklenburg (Charlotte), Durham (Durham), Guilford 

(Greensboro/High Point), Wake (Raleigh), and New Hanover (Wilmington) Counties. 

Wake (91,969) and Mecklenburg (68,835) were the only counties to record a net in- 

migration of 20,000 or more. Other counties that attracted net in-migrations of 10,000 or 

more were the coastal amenity areas adjacent to Wilmington, Brunswick County, the 

military-driven economy of Onslow County (Jacksonville) and two university counties, 

Orange (Chapel Hill) and Pitt (Greenville). Forsyth (Winston-Salem) and Buncombe 

(Asheville) Counties barely missed experiencing a net in-migration of 10,000 people. 

No fewer than 35 of North Carolina's 100 counties experienced net out- 

migration between 1980 and 1990. While a number managed to grow slightly despite this 

out-migration, the effects can still be harmful. Typically out-migration is "negatively 

selective." Thatis, itis usually the younger adults, who are more energetic, better skilled 

and ambitious, who leave. Those who remain are more likely to be older, the very young 

and the least capable. The loss becomes a downward spiral as the funds needed to correct 

the problem through investments in education, health and infrastructure, must be extracted 

from a smaller population and a declining economy. 

Of the 35 counties that had net out-migration, 12 lost 2,000 or more and 

only one, Cleveland, is not in the eastern part of the state. Similarly, most of the smaller 

net losers were in the eastern part of the state while some were in the mountains. A few of 

the more rural counties on the Piedmont had small net out-migrations also. Another way of 

15 

 



  

Figure 8. Total Net Migration, 1980 - 1990 

  

    

    

      
5,000 - 9,999 Note 

In-migration 
0-4999 od 

  

    
      

  

Net 

I 3.000 or more Out-migration 

Source: U.S. Census. 

 



  

» 12/16/97 

looking at the pattern of migration is to note that Wake and Mecklenburg Counties alone 
accounted for 43 percent of the state's total net in-mi gration. 

Figure 9 displays an estimate of migration that occurred between 1990 and 

1995. These estimates affirm the tendency for in-migration to be strong in and around 

major metropolitan areas and in recreational-retirement areas, along the coast and in the 

mountains. A possibly significant change from the previous decade is that far fewer 

counties recorded net out-migration. During the previous decade, some 35 counties, 

mostly on the Coastal Plain or in the mountains, had net out-migration but that number 

dropped to only 11 during the 1990-95 period. Significantly, three of the losers, 

Cumberland, Onslow and Wayne are eastern metropolitan counties that contain large 

military facilities. Of the remaining losers, all but one are along the coast or the Inner 

Coastal Plain. Montgomery County, on the Piedmont, was the lone exception to this 

eastern trend. All other Piedmont and mountain counties had net in-migrations. This 

apparent reversal of rural migration patterns may indicate an increased movement of retirees 
and other persons who are attracted to the environmental amenities that many rural areas 

provide. This trend also may be in line with a US Census report that in 1995-96 more 

people moved out of US metropolitan areas than moved in. This apparently indicates a 

growing preference for living in a lower density, quasi-rural setting but not too far away 

from urban services and amenities. So far there is no indication that North Carolina’s 

metropolitan areas are losing population- quite the contrary. This is due at least in part to 
the fact that the state’s metro areas still include large sparsely developed fringe areas that 
provide an ostensibly, if temporary, rural setting. It remains to be seen if this trend toward 

more rural living will increase because of a rise in telecommuting, improved highways, 

higher urban crime rates and other factors that drive people out of urban areas and permit 

them to leave. 

Key Racial and Ethnic Groups 

Another important demographic pattern is that of key racial or ethnic groups 

across the counties of North Carolina. North Carolina is 75.5 percent white, a proportion 
that has remained rather stable in recent decades. This is true also in metropolitan areas as 

16 

 



  

Figure 9a. Total Net Migration 1990 - 1995 

     

    

Number of Persons 

I 10.000 and above 

I 5.000 -9,999 

BEE 1.000-4,999 

[~~ ]o-999 
Bl Loss 

N.C. Total Migration = 305,816. 

Figure 9b. Migration Rate 1990 - 1995 

Rate of Migration 

(percent) 

I ©.2 and above 

66-91 

  

N.C. Average = 4.6 percent. 

Source: N.C. Office of State Planning. 

 



  

» 12/16/97 

well. In the 13 largest counties that are central to metropolitan areas, the white proportion 

declined very slightly between 1980 and 1990, from 75.2 to 74.2 percent. In the other 87 

counties the white proportion increased during the same time from 76.2 to 76.7 percent. In 

61 one of these 87 counties the non-white population recorded net out-migration. 

As noted earlier, the single largest minority group in North Carolina is composed 

of African Americans. The relative strength of their presence across the counties of 

Coastal Plain North Carolina is evident in Figure 10. Except in the beach amenity areas 

along the coast, they made up a third or more of these counties’ population in 1990. Many 

of those counties are poor and have limited economic opportunities. The Piedmont is very 

mixed in terms of the proportion of blacks. In the counties with larger urban centers, the 

number of blacks may be significant, but their proportions are diluted by the larger 

numbers of non-blacks there. Several parts of the Piedmont and virtually all of the 

mountain counties have less than 10 percent of their populations that are black. Within the 

municipalities that are the state's 10 largest cities the black population increased marginally 

between 1980 and 1990, from 32.4 to 32.7 percent of the population. 

The rapid increase in the number of Asians that was mentioned earlier was 

concentrated principally in the state's urban areas. About 77 percent in 1990 resided in the 

13 largest metropolitan counties, where they increased by over 157 percent between 1980 

and 1990. The rate of increase in the other 87 counties was also high (117 percent) but the 

total changed involved only 6,491 persons of Asian descent whereas the 13 metropolitan 

counties gained 24,597 persons. A similar pattern was followed by Hispanics. Their 

numbers increased by 55.5 percent in the 13 metropolitan counties and only 13 percent in 

the rest of the state. By 1990 the 13 largest metropolitan counties contained 60.7 percent of 

North Carolina's Hispanic citizens. 

17 

 



  

Figure 10. Afro-American Population, 1990 

  

  

    
100 miles 

    

50 100 kilometers 

  

      

Source: U.S. Census 

 



PB i» 12/16/97 

III. FUTURE GROWTH TRENDS 

Projected Growth 

In the past, North Carolina's population grew slowly, especially during its" 

"Rip van Winkle" stage. In recent years growth has exceeded national averages and people 

are moving in rather than leaving. The North Carolina Office of State Planning projects 

that the state will have 7,713,383 residents in the year 2000, a total to be achieved through 

a record-shattering net in-migration of 698,038 people between 1990 and 2000. The state 

planners foresee a population of over 9.3 million by 2020. The projected growth between 

1990 and 2020 includes nearly 1.8 million net in-migrants, a level that is expected to be 

exceeded only by California, Florida, Texas and Washington. These in-migrants will 

account for no less than two-thirds of North Carolina’s net growth between 1990 and 

2020. 

As shown earlier, in the past North Carolina grew only because of high birth rates 

and large families that offset out-migration. More recently, families have gotten much 

smaller as the state has become more urban and prosperous. Now the state much depend 

for its growth on attracting large numbers of new residents. Attracting such large numbers 

is generally a function of a strong economy and maintaining an attractive quality of life. If 

the economy falters or the environment deteriorates seriously it is likely that growth will 

drop sharply, perhaps abruptly. Furthermore, having to depend on in-migrants for growth 

will favor the larger metropolitan areas and selected rural, high amenity areas. For many 

other small towns and rural areas, with limited economic bases or amenity attractions, it 

will be difficult to attract new residents. 

In addition to the danger posed by depending on newcomers for growth, the recent 

floodtide of new residents is bringing major cultural change with it. There is more ethnic 

diversity, of course, but there also are more subtle changes as people from all over the 

country and indeed the world move into the state in increasing numbers. Daily newspapers 

witness this in a steady stream of letters complaining about rude “Yankees” or crude 

“Rednecks.” People from the northeast bring a love for ice hockey, an unknown sport for  



  

% ® 12/16/97 

most natives, while NASCAR races are new to the recent arrivees. Catholic churches grow 

faster than the Presbyterian churches that were founded by Scots-Irish settlers. Mexican 
and Thai restaurants stand next to Bubba’s barbecue pit. Migrants from Texas think 
barbecue should be made from beef and they totally miss the distinction between “Down 
East” and “Lexington” styles of barbecuing pork. The list goes on but the point is that both 

native North Carolinians and their new neighbors are going through a period of social and 

cultural change that is unprecedented in the state’s history. While most of the examples of 
this may seem trite, the adjustments are real and promise to simultaneously threaten and 
improve the quality of life in the state. 

Internal Variations in Growth 

Equally as significant as is the projected statewide growth is the question of 

how it will be distributed within the state between 1990 and 2020. The North Carolina 

Office of State Planning breaks its ‘projections down to the county level and they reveal 
some very significant trends (Figure 11). The state's largest metropolitan areas, those 
centering on Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham and Greensboro/Winston-Salem are increasingly 

dominating the North Carolina economy. This is true especially for Charlotte and Raleigh- 
Durham and within the counties that are proximate to them. The core of the Charlotte 

region is made up of Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Gaston and Union Counties. Mecklenburg 

will add 367,514 residents on a 72 percent growth rate. Raleigh-Durham is focused on 

Durham, Franklin, Johnston, Orange and Wake Counties. Wake County alone is expected 
~ toadd 492, 635 people to its population. Its 116 percent growth rate will be the highest in 

the state, propelling it past Mecklenburg to be the state's most populous county by 2020. 

Central to the Triad area are Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford and Randolph Counties. 

Collectively, the 13 counties in the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham and Greensboro/Winston- 

Salem areas contained 38.2 percent of the state population in 1990 but between 1990 and 

2020 they are projected to capture the majori ty (54.6 percent) of the net statewide growth of 

2,713,519 people, raising their collective share of the state total to 43 percent. 

Eight more counties (Buncombe, Catawba, Cumberland, Nash, New 

Hanover, Onslow, Pitt and Wayne) that are central to the state's other metropolitan areas 

19 

 



  

Figure 11. County Population Projections, 1990 - 2020 

  
  

  

  

  

  
40.9 - 60.9 

20.0 - 40.8 

00.0 - 19.9 

| Loss 

  

  
— |ncrease 

  

  

      
  

  

Projected Growth Rate for the Total State is 40.9%. 

Source: North Carolina Office of State Planning, 1996. 

 



  

Ww i» 12/16/97 

are projected to account for another 17.2 percent of the 1990-2020 increase, leaving just 
28.2 percent (763,173) to be divided among the remaining 79 counties. Clearly, then, 
unless some major, unexpected shifts occur, growth in this state will be dominated to an 
unprecedented extent by its metropolitan areas, especially its larger ones. The Raleigh- 

Durham cluster of counties is projected to grow by 86.9 percent between 1990 and 2020 
and the Charlotte cluster will increase by 58.3 percent. However, the seven smaller 
metropolitan counties, at 41.5 percent, are expected to grow faster than the 
Greensboro/ Winston-Salem area, which is projected to gain by just 31.1 percent, less than 
the statewide increase rate of 40.9 percent. However, all four groups of metropolitan 
counties are expected to out-perform the remaining 79 counties, those that are not central to 
one of the state’s metropolitan areas, as they will add only 28.1 percent to their 1990 totals 
in the 30-year projection period. 

Within this group of 79 counties, 10 are projected to experience absolute 
population losses between 1990 and 2020 and as many as 26 will have net out-migrations. 
These losing counties are primarily non-metropolitan and in the east, with most of the rest 
in the mountains and a few on the Piedmont. These estimates of both growth and losses 
are not law, of course, but they represent the best judgments of professional 
demographers. In essence, the projections portray a future that is substantially different 
from the past. Until recently, North Carolina was a state that, despite being the 11th most 
populous and eighth largest in manufacturing, was characterized by a relatively dispersed, 
rural/small town population and a lack of large cities. By contrast, the Raleigh-Durham and 
Charlotte areas are emerging as million-plus core urban areas and their full metropolitan 

areas will be even larger. The Triad area and the other metropolitan areas will claim yet 
more shares of the growth. The remaining 79 counties will grow less vigorously except 
for a few along the coast, in mountain recreation areas or in proximity to metropolitan 
areas. Many of the smaller ones, especially on the Inner Coastal Plain, are returning to 

classic Southern rural patterns of past decades, marked by net out-migration and the 
downward cycle that comes with it. Only those counties that are within commuting reach 

of the metropolitan jobs centers or that have significant recreational resources can hope to 

escape this negative trend. 

20 

 



  

# » 12/16/97 

Thus, it appears that the historic basis for the perception of North Carolina 
as a rural/small town state is rapidly disappearing. In its place is a new reality in which the 

state's population and economy are dominated by its metropolitan areas, especially by 

Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte. In many respects this means that the state is moving 

toward a pattern that is more typical of other states. Many may understandably mourn the 
loss of North Carolina's predominantly rural/small town character but this new reality 

provides a more accurate basis for managing the future of the state. Ironically, the best 

chance for helping the left behind rural areas is to ensure that the burgeoning metropolitan 

areas are able to function properly and compete successfully in the high tech, information 

processing, global economy of the future. If this happens because of wise business 

leadership and supportive public policies then the state may have the resources to look after 

those areas that are not getting their share of the growth. 

21 

 



  

Figure 12. Congressional Districts (1997 House & Senate Plan A) 

  

    
  

  
  

50 100 miles 
1 J 
    

  
50 100 kilometers 

  
  

  
                  

Source: NC General Assembly Legislative Services Office. 

 



p 12/16/97 

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 

The many and rapid changes that are occurring in North Carolina’s 
population, especially the internal distribution within the state, create a problem for those 

~ attempting to delineate electoral districts that meet the “one man, one vote” test. The state’s - 

12 US House of Representative districts were desi gned to meet this test by drawing them in 
such a way as to put almost exactly one-twelfth of the North Carolina population in each 
district. The latest set of districts were approved by the 1997 General Assembly in 
response toa US Supreme Court decision that struck down an earlier version that included 
two “Majority minority” districts. The new plan, “97 House/Senate Plan A,” divided the 
state’s 6,628,637 residents among the 12 districts, ranging from a low of 551,842 in the 
Fourth District to a high of 553,333 in the Tenth (Figure 12). An alternative plan that 
narrowed this extremely small spread even further was prepared in case the US Justice 
Department or the courts found fault with 97 Plan A. Several legal challenges to these new 
districts appear to be forthcoming and the potential exists for the courts to order a revision 
of the 97 Plan A districts during the latter part of the 1990’s. 

A major problem is thatall of the recent districts were drawn by using data 
from the 1990 Census, including the 1997 boundary revisions. Not only was this required 
by law but the decennial census is the only data source that gives detailed information on 
population totals and characteristics for small, sub-county areas that is based on actual 
counts. Other population sources are estimates based on surrogate data, such as building 
permit records, new telephone connections and the like or on data such as birth and death 
counts. Similar information is used as well to prepare projections of future growth trends 
which, by their nature, are more speculative in nature. When carefully done, these 
estimates and projections can be reasonably accurate but the fact remains that they are 
estimates rather than an actual census. Furthermore, they are rarely prepared at levels 
below that of the entire county. This is the kind of post-1990 data that was displayed 
earlier for North Carolina and its counties. 

Estimates and projections that were prepared by the NC Office of State 
Planning use the most widely accepted methodologies. Further, the professional staff has a  



  

Figure 13. Population in NC Congressional Districts (Plan 1997 A) 

800 

—  DiStrict 

  Average 

700 ® 

600 

Di
st

ri
ct

 
Po
pu
la
ti
on
 

(i
n 
th

ou
sa

nd
s)

 

  

500 
1990 1997 2000 2005 

Source: U.S. Census Population and Housing 1990; NC Office of 

State Planning, September, 1997 

 



  

é » 12/16/97 

close working knowledge of the state that enables them to base their projections on 

reasonable assumptions about the future of North Carolina. These estimates and 

projections were used to show the distribution of population that has developed or is 

expected to develop in the 97 Plan A districts. These estimates and projections were 

prepared for 1997, 2000 and 2005 and compared with the 1990 totals. Because the post- 

1990 data exist only for whole counties it was necessary to estimate the growth in portions 

of districts that are parts of counties. The 97 Plan A districts split 22 of the state’s 100 - 

counties. That proportion of the county total that was attributed to a district based on 1990 

data was calculated as a percentage of the county population. That percentage was then 

applied to the 1997 and subsequent data. Thus, if 20 percent of, say, Wayne County’s 

1990 population was assigned to a particular district under the 97 Plan A then that same 

proportion was assigned to the 1997 or later data in order to determine the new population 

for that district. The possibly exists, of course, that the effected portion of the county may 

have grown either faster or slower than the county as a whole but there is no basis for 

knowing that. This possible error is offset by the fact that 78 of the counties were not split 

in the 97 Plan A districts. 

The results of the estimates for 1997, 2000 and 2005, as expected, show a 

wide divergence among most of the districts (Figure 13). The average district should have 

619,724 residents in 1997, 642,782 in 2000 and 678,230 in the year 2005. In 1997 

Districts 6, 8 and 9 diverge from the statewide average by 0.4 percent or less but five 

districts have departures of over four percent. District 2 is more than eight percent above 

the average while district 1 is more than six percent below. The maximum spread between 

the largest and smaller districts is thus more than 14.5 percentage points, only seven years 

after the 1990 Census. The projected growth out to 2005 sees this divergence increase to 

26 percentage points and half of all the districts will be at least four percent above or below 

the statewide average. 

In absolute terms, the maximum population spread among the districts in 

1990 was 1,491 persons (Table 1). This is estimated to reach 90,960 in 1997, 123,661 in 

2000 and by 2005 it is projected to rise to 178,723. The slowest growth is anticipated in 

districts that are predominantly on the Coastal Plain (Districts 1 and 3) or in rural parts of 

 



  

» 12/16/97 

the northern Piedmont and in the mountains (Districts 5, 10 and 11). The most rapid 
growth is expected around Raleigh-Durham (Districts 2 and 4), Charlotte/Greensboro/ 
Winston-Salem (District 12) and Wilmington (District 7). The remaining three districts are 
anticipated to stay fairly close to the state average. 

By the year 2005 both Mecklenburg (699,269) and Wake (680,630) 
Counties are projected to have populations that will be well above the statewide district 
average of 678,230 people. This would qualify those two largest metropolitan counties to 
have their own Congressional districts. The three other largest counties, Cumberland, 
Forsyth and Guilford, will not qualify for single county districts although Forsyth and 
Guilford together will have enough people to qualify for a two county district. The more 
rural districts are expected to fall well below the statewide average and will need to have 
their areas enlarged, substantially in most cases. 

By law and because of the margin of error that is inherent in any estimates 
and projections of population, these statistics cannot and should not be used as a basis for 
revising the existing districts. However, they do make it clear that the 1990 Census data 
are substantially out of date and, theref ore, to revise the current districts based on 1990 data 
is highly likely to create rather great inequities in the distribution of population among the 
districts. Results of the 2000 Federal Census will be available in a few years and that data 
will provide more accurate data that would allow the delineation of districts that will be 
much more in line with how the state changed during the 1990's. 

 



% 
12/16/97 

TABLE 1 

POPULATION IN NORTH CAROLINA 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 

  

  

  

(97 Plan A) 

District 1990 1997 2000 2005 
1 552,161 580,214 589,612 599,649 

2 352.152 670,174 713,273 773.372 

3 552,622 592,000 610,653 646,785 

2 551,842 662,991 702,284 769,560 

5 552,084 305,762 609,772 626,670 

6 332.171 617,217 638,807 669,343 

7 352,382 631,269 657.122 695,091 

8 553,143 619,983 643,797 679,402 

9 5352615 617.531 640,712 678,181 

10 553.333 610,530 628,834 652,541 

11 552,089 607,573 625,205 646,898 

12 552,043 628,505 654,794 696,606 
NC Average 552,386 619,724 642 782 678,230 

NC Total 6,628,637 7,436,690 7,713,383 8,138,759 

Sources: Calculated from data in the US Census (1990) and from the NC Office of State 
Planning. Numbers for 1990 are actual, others are projections.