Population Trends in Selected Districts of the North Carolina General Assembly by Professor Alfred W. Stuart

    LIFES 1 3 1999 ® 2) 

POPULATION TRENDS 

IN SELECTED DISTRICTS OF THE 
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

Introduction 

The North Carolina General Assembly includes 50 senators and 120 members of the House 
of Representatives. Senators represent 42 districts with two senators each being elected from eight 
of those districts. House members represent 98 districts, with two each being elected from 12 
districts, and five other districts elect three representatives apiece. In 1990 each senator 
represented an average of 132,573 people while each House member represented an average of 
55,239 persons. 

The future population of these districts will be affected by two interrelated trends: (1)the 
continued strong growth of the North Carolina population, from 6.6 million in 1990, to 7.5 million 
in 1997 and 8.1 million in 2005 and (2) the tendency for growth to be strongest in the state’s larger 
metropolitan areas. As shown below, this will cause the population of many districts to fall 
relative to the statewide district average despite absolute growth. 

Contested Districts 

Under the Daly 2nd Amendment Complaint, seven Senate and ei ght House districts are 
being contested. Table 1 and Fi gures 1 and 2 summarize 1990 and projected future population 
trends in these districts. The population represented by each Senator is projected to reach 162,775 
people by 2005 and the average for each House member is expected to be 67,823. Based on those 
and the averages for intervening years, most of the districts in both houses are expected to increase 
more slowly than the statewide per member average. The major exception will be Senate district 4 
and House district 98, both of which draw the majority of their populations from the rapidly 

~ growing area in and around Wilmington. Senate district 23 (Davidson, Iredell, Rowan Counties) 
shows a 0.5 percent excess over the 2005 average but that district actually declined relatively since 
in 1990 it started out 0.9 percent above the statewide mean. 

Otherwise, all of the other districts, both House and Senate, are projected to fall further 
behind the state average. The bi ggest decline among the Senate districts will be in district 6, 
including portions of Edgecombe Martin, Pitt, Washington and Wilson Counties. That district's 

 



  

Figure 1. Population Trends in State Senate Districts Contested 
Under the Daly Second Ammendment 

200000 Gh in dn 
  

      

— 7 — Districts 

  

State Average 

pmb 150000 JP 
  

      
  

  

  100000 Lar al aT 

1990 1997 

  
2000 | 2005 

Source: Derived from NC Office of State Planning Projections, July, 1996. 

 



  

Figure 2. Population Trends in State House Districts Contested 
Under the Daly Second Ammendment 
  

    

    
  
    
      

80000 f=~-. 

sind! Ras Districts 

= State Average 

70000 

Agim 

8 hes TO yp 60000 
[I  [ —— 

>a 
97 

50000 
oo 1990 1997 2000 2005 

Source: Derived from NC Office of State Planning Projections, July, 1996. 

 



  

® ® 1/6/98 

share of the state average is projected to fall from -1.4 percent below it to -13.3 percent below even 
though the total will rise from 130,713 people in 1990 to 141,156 in 2005. Similarly, House 
District 7, made up of parts of Edgecombe,Halifax, Martin and Nash Counties, is projected to fall 
from -0.5 percent to -11.3 percent below the statewide mean between 1990 and 2005. 

Other Districts 

The tendency for districts to decline relative to the statewide average despite actual 
population growth reflects the fact that the hi ghest growth rates are occurring mainly in 
metropolitan areas, especially Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte. For example, Senate District 14, 
which elects two senators from Wake County, is projected to grow by 60 percent between 1990 
and 2005, an increase of 82.000 people per Senator. Consequently, the number of people 
represented by each senator from that district will rise from 2.3 percent above the average in 1990 
to 33.8 percent higher in 2005. Similarly, Senate district 35, in Mecklenburg County, will rise 
from 1.0 percent above the state average in 1990 to 12.6 above it by 2005, on a gain of almost 
50,000 people. 

The same pattern occurs among House districts. For example, House district 15, in Wake 
County, is expected to grow by 32,000 people and go from 3.5 percent below the state average in 
1990 to 26.4 above it in 2005. House district 54, in Mecklenburg County, will add 20,000 people 
and go from 3.1 percent below the average in 1990 to 8.3 percent above it by 20085. 

A selection of other districts shows the tendency to decline relative to the average despite 
absolute growth. Examples of House districts and their percentages above or below the state 
average in 1990 and 2005 include district 1 (Pasquotank, Currituck, others), -2.0 to -4.7 percent; 
district 40 (northwestern counties, Stokes to Watauga), 1.2 percent above to -4.5: district 51 
(Buncombe County), -4.6 to -6.9 percent; district 83 (Rowan County), despite adding over 11,000 
people, will fall from 3.1 percent above the average to 1.1 percent above. 

Senate districts include district 2 (Halifax, Hertford, Northampton, other counties), -5.6 
percent to -20.3 in spite of a net gain of nearly 5,000 people; district 28 (Buncombe, Burke, 
McDowell, other counties), -1.6 to -6.2 percent; district 38 (Davidson, Davie, Rowan, other 
counties), 2.4 percent above to -0.7 percent below. District 38 is projected to grow by 16,000 
people despite its declining share. 

 



Conclusions 

Based on the trends that are evident with both the contested districts and a selection of other 
districts, it is apparent that differential growth patterns within the state are substantially modifying 
the demographic balance among both House and Senate districts of the North Carolina General 
Assembly. These trends are based on projections that are not a sufficient basis for reali gning the 
district boundaries but they strongly suggest that redrawing them using 1990 Census data would 
only increase inequities in the population balance among the districts. 

Alfred W. Stuart 

Professor of Geography 

UNC Charlotte 

 



TABLE 1 

POPULATION TRENDS IN 
GENERAL ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS 
CONTESTED UNDER THE DALY 

SECOND AMENDMENT COMPLAINT 

I. State Senate 

District (Leading County) 1990 

(a) Total Population 

1997 2000 2005   

4 (New Hanover) 

6 (Edgecombe) 

7 (Onslow) 

3 (Davidson, Iredell, Rowan) 

31 (Guilford) 

38 (Davidson) 

39 (Gaston, Iredell) 

State Average 

135,806 

130,713 

128,831 

133,714 

123,693 

135,918 

135,155 

132,573 

159,431 

136,355 

139,553 

147,869 

136,486 

149,808 

146,810 

148,734 

167,735 

138,403 

144,711 

155314 

140,605 

154,670 

150,793 

154,268 

(b) Percentage Departure From State Average 

+2.4 

-1.4 

-2.8 

+0.9 

-6.7 

+7.2 

-8.3 

-6.2 

-0.6 

-8.2 

+0,7 

-1.3 

+8.7 

-10.3 

-6.2 

+0.7 

-8.9 

181,465 

141,156 

155,278 

163,569 

146,103 

161,697 

156,643 

162,775 

+11.5 

-13.3 

-4.6 

 



® 
» 

1/5/98 

  

II. State House 

(a) Total Population 

  

District (Leading County) 1990 1997 2000 2005 

7 (Halifax) 54,987 58,172 59,165 60,170 
8 (Pitt) 53,131 58,413 60,257 63,186 
28 (Guilford) 54,119 59,809 61,613 64,023 
37 (Davidson) 52,566 58,167 60,094 62,837 

79 (Craven) 54,264 47.313 58,281 59,706 
87 (Robeson) 52,798 57,794 59,378 61,397 
97 (Wayne) 52,498 57,167 58,463 59,927 
98 (New Hanover) 52,638 61,689 64,422 68,131 
State Average 55730 “g1973 64,278 67,823 

(b) Percentage Departure From the State Average 

7 -0.5 -6.1 -8.0 -11.3 
8 -3.8 -5.7 -6.3 -6.8 
28 -2.0 -3.5 -4.1 -3.6 
37 -4.8 -6.1 -6.5 -7.4 
79 -1.8 -7.7 -9.3 -12.0 
87 -4.4 -6.7 -7.6 -9.5 
97 -5.0 -7.8 -9.0 -11.6 
G8 -4.7 -0.5 +0.2 +0.5 

Note: The “Leading County” is the one that has the largest share of population within a district. Several are listed in those cases where one county is not clearly dominant. 
Source: Population projections derive Jrom projections prepared by the NC Office of State 
each district in 1990 will remai 

 



% 
» 1/6/98 

A SAMPLE OF OTHER NC SENATE DISTRICTS 

  

(a)Total Population 

  

District 1990 1997 2000 2005 

2 (Halifax,Hertford) 125,155 128,756 129,674 129,692 

14 (Wake) 135,686 178,380 192,793 217,715 

28 (Buncombe) 130,449 143,608 147,668 152,683 
35 (Mecklenburg) 133,835 158,868 167,764 183,208 

38 (Rowan) 135,718 149,808 154,670 161,697 
State Average 132.573 148,734 154,268 162,775 

(b) Percentage Departure From the State Average 

2 -5.6 -13.4 -15.9 -20.3 

14 +2.3 +19.9 +25.0 +33.8 

28 -1.6 -3.4 -4.3 -6.2 

35 +1.0 +6.8 +8.7 +12.6 

38 +2.4 +0.7 +0.3 -0.7 

Note: The values shown are per Senator. Districts 14 and 28 each have two Senators. Therefore, the total populations for those two districts would be doubled. 

 



® ® 7 
A SAMPLE OF OTHER NC HOUSE DISTRICTS 

  

(a) Total Population 

  

District 1990 1997 2000 2005 

1 (Pasquotank) 54,147 50.323 61,498 64,657 
15 (Wake) 53.331 70,181 "75,883 85,759 
40 (Stokes to Watauga) 55,893 61,247 62,852 64,796 
51 (Buncombe) 52,689 58,623 60,541 63,138 
4 (Mecklenburg) 53,508 63,669 67,234 73,423 

83 (Rowan) 56,925 63,262 65,332 68,536 
State Average 55,239 61,972 64,278 67,823 

(b) Percentage Departure From the State Average 

1 -2.0 -4.3 -4.4 -4.7 
15 -3.5 +13.2 +18.0 +26.4 
40 +1.2 =1.2 -2.3 -4.5 

51 -4.6 -5.4 -5.9 -6.9 
54 -3.1 +2.7 +4.5 +8.3 
83 +3.1 +2.1 +1.6 +1.1 
Note: Values shown are per House member. Districts 40 and 51 each have three seats. Therefore, the total populations for those two districts would be tripled.