Population Trends in Selected Districts of the North Carolina General Assembly by Professor Alfred W. Stuart
Public Court Documents
January 6, 1998

9 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Population Trends in Selected Districts of the North Carolina General Assembly by Professor Alfred W. Stuart, 1998. ba949787-d90e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8715bef6-2d0e-4c9f-8cf1-72f6b39b9352/population-trends-in-selected-districts-of-the-north-carolina-general-assembly-by-professor-alfred-w-stuart. Accessed May 12, 2025.
Copied!
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.