The Demographics of Congressional Redistricting in Connecticut

The Demographics of Congressional Redistricting in Connecticut 108th U.S. Congress — January 2003

1 5

2 3

4

Occasional Paper Number: OP 2002-001 October 2002

Connecticut State Data Center

University of Connecticut 341 Mansfield Road, Room 401 Unit 1221 Storrs, CT 06269-1221 (860) 486-9269, (860) 486-9270 fax

Table of Contents Discussion Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Reapportionment and Redistricting ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 The New Congressional Districts ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Deconstructing the Old Districts ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Split Towns .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Who Went Where ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Racial Composition of Old and New Districts ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Voters by Race, Gender, and Party Affiliation ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Income and Higher Education .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figures Figure 1: Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives for the 108th Congress ...................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Old and New Congressional Districts.................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Deconstructing the Old Districts............................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4: Towns Split by Old Congressional Districts ........................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 5: Towns Split by New Congressional Districts ....................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 6: Towns with their Corresponding Old and New Congressional Districts - and the Redistricted Population ......................... 11 Figure 7: Old and New Congressional Districts by Race.................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8: Population from Old Districts 1, 2, & 6 Combined to Create New District 1 - by Race ....................................................... 13 Figure 9: Population from Old Districts 1, 2, 3, & 6 Combined to Create New District 2 - by Race ................................................... 14 Figure 10: Population from Old Districts 2, 3, & 5 Combined to Create New District 3 - by Race ..................................................... 15 Figure 11: Population from Old Districts 4 & 5 Combined to Create New District 4 - by Race .......................................................... 16 Figure 12: Population from Old Districts 5 & 6 Combined to Create New District 5 - by Race .......................................................... 17 Figure 13: Old and New Congressional Districts by Race and Potentially Eligible Voters (Age 18 & Over)........................................ 18 Figure 14: Old and New Congressional Districts by Race and Future Voters (Age 0 to 17) ............................................................... 19 Figure 15: Old and New Congressional Districts by Gender and Age 18 & Over ............................................................................... 20 Figure 16: Old and New Congressional Districts with Voter Registration by Political Party ................................................................ 21 Figure 17: Old and New Congressional Districts Presidential Election 2000 by Political Party........................................................... 22 Figure 18: Old and New Congressional Districts Senate Election 2000 by Political Party .................................................................. 23 Figure 19: Income and Higher Education in Connecticut .................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 20: Income and Higher Education in New District 1 ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 21: Income and Higher Education in New District 2 ................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 22: Income and Higher Education in New District 3 ................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 23: Income and Higher Education in New District 4 ................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 24: Income and Higher Education in New District 5 ................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 25: Consolidating Census 2000 Racial Groups - Total Connecticut Population .................................................................... 32

i

Methodology Credits ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Voter Registration and Election Results ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Maps .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Corrections......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Consolidating Census 2000 Race Categories .................................................................................................................................... 31 Software............................................................................................................................................................................................. 31

Suggested citation: Rodriguez, Orlando, Don Levy, and Wayne Villemez. 2002. The Demographics of Congressional Redistricting in Connecticut, 108th U.S. Congress - January 2003. Storrs, Connecticut: University of Connecticut, Connecticut State Data Center, Series, no. OP 2002-01.

ii

Introduction As a result of nationwide population numbers, as determined by Census 2000, the State of Connecticut has lost one seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Rather than having six congressional districts and six congressmen, Connecticut will now have five districts and will be represented by five congressmen. Connecticut’s loss of one congressional seat was determined through the reapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives that follows each decennial (10-year) census. A bipartisan reapportionment commission in Connecticut redistricted the state into five new congressional districts. The first elections for U.S. Representatives for the new districts will be held in November of 2002. The new districts will become effective when the 108th U.S. Congress convenes in January 2003. In this report, demographic information is drawn from the 2000 U.S. Census, the Connecticut Secretary of the State, and the Registrars of Voters of Connecticut towns. This information is used to show the composition of the previous districts, the new districts, and the demographic makeup of the people who transitioned from one district to another. The report focuses on race, gender, political party affiliation, higher education, and income.

Reapportionment and Redistricting Figure 1 shows the results of the nationwide reapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives. The total number of Representatives remains fixed at 435. However, due to population shifts since the 1990 census, the numbers of Representatives per state have been redistributed, that is, reapportioned. The formula for reapportionment awards each state at least one congressional seat. Additional seats are determined through a clear and precise mathematical formula based upon population.

Connecticut was not the only state to lose a seat. New York and Pennsylvania each lost two seats, while Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin joined Connecticut in losing one seat each. Those seats were reapportioned to the states that had the greatest gains in population with Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas each gaining two seats and California, Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina each gaining one seat. In total, twelve congressional seats were reapportioned. In losing one congressional seat, Connecticut went from having six congressional seats to having five. All states underwent a redistricting process similar to the one that Connecticut went through. All states had to redraw their congressional district boundaries, that is, to redistrict. Even states that saw no change in their number of congressional seats had to redistrict in order to create districts with approximately equal populations.

The New Congressional Districts The 2000 U.S. Census found that Connecticut’s population, at the time of the census, was 3,405,565. Each of the five new districts has an equal population of 681,113 and each is home to exactly one-fifth of the total population of the State of Connecticut. It is a difficult task to divide the population of the state into five equal districts while retaining the geographic integrity of the former districts and at the same time keeping districts comprised of whole rather than split towns. This report illustrates how the new districts are constructed and which towns were moved to a different district. This report also reviews towns that were split between different districts so as to have all five new districts with equal populations. Figure 2 shows a map of the state of Connecticut divided into both the six old congressional districts and the five new districts. At first glance the new boundaries may appear to be quite similar. However, as we begin to study each individual district or locate specific towns the changes are more evident. No old district was retained without some change. For example, old

1

The 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are reapportioned after every 10-year census. The total population of the U.S. grew 13.2% from 1990 to 2000. The total population of Connecticut grew only 3.6% from 1990 to 2000. Nationwide, new congressional districts have an average population of 646,952. Each new congressional district in Connecticut has an equal population of 681,113 based upon Census 2000. The average population of the six old congressional districts in Connecticut was 567,594.

district 1 forms the basis of new district 1. However, four full towns, and one partial town, that were in old district 1 are not in new district 1. One town, Glastonbury, has been split between new district 1 and new district 2. Also, ten full towns and a partial town that were formerly in old district 6 are now in new district 1.

Deconstructing the Old Districts It is possible to look at the change from six to five congressional districts from different perspectives. Figure 3 shows how the six old districts were deconstructed. It shows the number of residents from each old district that were assigned to each new district— where people are going. Later, Figures 8-12 provide more depth on the construction of each of the new districts. These figures focus on where people came from. Readers interested in the demographics, from either perspective, can find that information in Figures 8-12. Figure 3 includes complementary maps of redistricting in Connecticut. The upper map, “Before January 2003”, depicts the old district areas with the boundaries of the new districts in red. The lower map, “Starting January 2003”, depicts the new district areas with the old district boundaries in red. Adjacent to the state maps, pie charts show the redistribution of population from the six old districts to the five new districts. Old districts 1, 2, and 3 each contributed over 90% of their residents to new districts 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Although these large groups of people (ranging from 506,621 to 524,840) form the numerical core of these new districts, an average of nearly 164,000 people were added to new districts 1, 2, and 3 from other districts. For example, new district 2 also received 69,181 from old district 6, 45,506 from old district 1, and 41,586 from old district 3. Old districts 5 and 6 were the most radically affected. Old district 6 contributed 333,016 to form new district 5. New district 5 was constructed solely from old districts 5 and 6. However, upon inspection we see that an additional 233,844

former residents of old district 5 are now included in either new districts 3 or 4. Also, a similar number of former residents from old district 6 are now included in either new districts 1 or 2. Only old district 4 had an entire population that was not partially redistributed to a new district. One-hundred percent of the residents from old district 4 are now in new district 4. Still, it is incorrect to say that new district 4 is the same as old district 4. New district 4 now also includes 107,050 people who were previously included in old district 5. Figure 3, and the subsequent analysis, demonstrates that, in reality, no district has remained the same. Each new district is truly a new collection of people.

S p l i t To w n s Figures 4 and 5 show the towns that were split by the six old congressional districts (Figure 4) and those split by the five new congressional districts (Figure 5). The populations of Bolton, Woodbridge, Monroe and Southbury were previously divided between different congressional districts. This most recent redistricting process has reunited these towns within single congressional districts. Bolton is now entirely in new district 2, Woodbridge is now entirely in new district 3, Monroe is now entirely in new district 4, and Southbury is now entirely in new district 5. However, six other towns, Durham, Glastonbury, Middletown, Shelton, Torrington and Waterbury were split between new congressional districts. In each case the division of towns followed census block boundaries in order to facilitate the accurate calculation of district populations. Splitting towns between two congressional districts makes possible the construction of congressional districts with equal populations based upon the 2000 census. The result is that people who vote for the same mayor, selectmen, or school board will vote for different congressmen in these split towns. For example, two citizens of Torrington could live only minutes apart but be in different congressional districts. They would vote for the same town officers but different U.S. congressional slates.

2

As a result of redistricting, approximately 27.4% of Connecticut’s population was moved to a different congressional district. Redistricting has resulted in six towns that are split between different congressional districts. In broad terms, districts 1 and 4 saw the most change in their demographics. Historically, the maximum number of U.S. Representatives apportioned to Connecticut was seven (1790 through 1820). Only old district 4 had an entire population that was not partially redistributed to a new district.

W h o We n t W h e r e Figure 6 is list of all the towns in the State of Connecticut. It itemizes their old and new congressional district as well as the number of people who, as a product of redistricting, moved to a different district. Before describing the demographic characteristics of the new districts, as well as those characteristics of the people that changed districts, we will briefly outline how six districts were consolidated into five. Referring to Figures 2, 4, and 5, old district 1 gave a portion of Glastonbury, the portion of Bolton previously in old district 1, and the towns of Andover, Hebron, Marlborough, and East Hampton to new district 2. New district 1 absorbed a portion of Middletown from old district 2 and a portion of Torrington from old district 6. In addition, new district 1 absorbed the complete towns of Colebrook, Winchester, Hartland, Barkhamsted, New Hartford, Granby, East Granby, Windsor Locks, Bristol, and Southington from old district 6. New district 2 also added the towns of Suffield, Enfield, and Somers and from old district 6, in addition to the towns added from old district 1 as previously mentioned. New district 2 also absorbed the towns of Clinton, Killingworth, Madison, and a portion of Durham, from old district 3. District 3, in addition to the loss to district 2 mentioned above, absorbed a portion of Middletown from old district 2, and portions of Shelton and Waterbury as well as the complete towns of Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Derby, Naugatuck, Prospect, and Seymour from old district 5. All of old district 4 is in new district 4. In addition, the portion of Monroe that had previously been included in old district 5, a portion of Shelton, and the complete towns of Easton, Oxford, Redding, Ridgefield, Weston, and Wilton were added to new district 4 from old district 5. The remaining towns, and partial towns, of old districts 5 and 6 then comprise the entirety of new district 5. In total, 931,954 people, or 27.4% of Connecticut’s population, are now in a different congressional district after redistricting. This figure may overstate the degree of change because old district 6 was eliminated. Consequently, all residents of old district 6, or 567,851 people, had to be assigned to a new

district. Still, an additional 364,103 people above and beyond the former district 6 residents are now in a different congressional district. The national process of reapportionment led to Connecticut being reduced from six to five congressional districts. The redistricting process redrew the lines within the state so that each of the five new districts would have the same population of 681,113. The core population of districts 1-4 was retained but in each case between 16% and 26% of the residents of the new district came from a different district. The majority of both old districts 5 and 6 were then combined to create new district 5. The population of each district has increased creating new geographical and political entities that may have different issues, needs, and voting patterns from previous districts.

R acial Composition of Old and New Districts Figure 7 compares the six old districts to the five new districts in terms of the percentage of the population for each of six racial categories. The total population of each district, according to Census 2000, is shown for both old and new districts. The six old districts vary in total population from a low of 552,127 to a high of 581,941. The new districts have an equal population of 681,113. Figure 7 can be used to quickly compare old districts to new districts, new districts to one another, or any single new district to the overall composition of the state shown in Figure 25 (page 32 — see page 31 for an explanation). For example, new district 5 can be compared to the old districts, 5 and 6, that comprise its building blocks. In terms of racial percentages, new district 5 appears to be slightly more similar to old district 5 than to old district 6. When comparing new district 5 to the state as a whole (Figure 25, page 32 — see page 31 for an explanation), we see that new district 5 has about 2.5% more Whites, 1.6% more Hispanics, but 3.7% fewer African-Americans than the state as a whole. The reader can in the same manner quickly analyze any of the new districts. Figures 8 - 12 examine the composition of each new district — one at a time. Each figure shows the total population of the new district and considers the racial composition of that

3

The U.S. Census defines racial categories as “socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.” New congressional districts 1 & 4 have the most racial diversity. Approximately 22.5% of Connecticut’s population is non-white or of mixed race. Caution should be used when comparing percentages from Figures 7, 13, and 14 to each other because these figures cover different age segments of the population.

population. These figures also illustrate how each new district was constructed from pieces of old districts. The population and racial breakdown from each contributing district is presented. For example, Figure 8 studies new district 1. As already noted, district 1, like all new districts, has a total population of 681,113 individuals. Of those individuals, 72% are White, 11% are Hispanic, 13% are African-American, 2% are Asian, 2% are Two or More Races, and less than 1% are Other Single Race. At the same time, this figure shows that of the 681,113 individuals in new district 1, 506,621 were formerly included in old district 1, 8,838 were previously included in old district 2, and 165,654 were formerly in old district 6. Each of the contributing pieces to new district 1 are show as separate pie charts. For example, looking at Figure 8, we can see that the piece from old district 1 that went to new district 1 was 65% White, while those who came from old district 6 were 93% White, and those from old district 2 were 77% White. New district 1 is built from pieces of old districts. That is, the 506,621 people from old district 1 that went to new district 1 were only a piece of old district 1. Other pieces of old district 1 also went to new district 2 (Figures 2, 3, and 9). Figures 8-12 allow the reader to quickly see the racial composition of each new district. The new districts are a quilt of individuals, with different racial self-identifications, from different former districts. In addition, congressional Representatives, their staffs, as well as students of politics can see how the racial composition of the new districts has changed from the old districts and what the current composition truly is. With Figure 25 (page 32 — see page 31 for an explanation) the reader can see the racial composition for all of Connecticut. A comparison of any one of the new districts with the state as a whole will indicate the relative racial diversity of a new district with the entire state. For example, district 2 (Figure 9) is comprised of 89% White (11.5% above the state average), 4% Hispanic (5.4% below the state average) and 3% AfricanAmerican (5.7% below the state average). District 4 (Figure 11) is 71% White, 13% Hispanic and 11% African-American. These distributions are 6.5% below the state average, and 3.6% and 2.3% above the state average respectively. In this way the relative racial diversity of a congressional district can be quickly determined by comparing an individual district to the state.

Vo t e r s b y R a c e , G e n d e r, a n d Par ty Af filiation The standard questionnaire used by Census 2000 counted all residents of the United States regardless of citizenship. At the time of this report, the U.S. Census had not released data on citizenship. Consequently, it is impossible to determine the exact number of truly eligible voters from current census data. This report considers anyone age 18 and over, at the time of Census 2000, to be an eligible voter. We identify the group of individuals age 18 and over as “potentially eligible” voters knowing that this exaggerates the number of truly eligible voters since non-citizens, who cannot vote, are also included. Figure 13 shows the total number of potentially eligible voters by race in both new and old congressional districts. Caution should be used when comparing the percentages in Figure 13 to the percentages in Figure 7 or Figure 14. In Figure 13, the number of potentially eligible voters (age 18 and over) will vary by district because only that portion of the population that is age 18 and over is included. For example, in Figure 13, new district 3 has 519,806 potentially eligible voters while new district 4 has fewer at 504,010. However, Figure 7 includes the entire population of Connecticut and each new district has an equal population of 681,113. Continuing with Figure 13, new districts 1 and 4 show the greatest racial diversity among potential eligible voters. New district 4 has the lowest percentage of potentially eligible voters who are White. In new district 4, 73% of that portion of the population that is age 18 and over is White. Consequently, in new district 4, 27% of people ages 18 and over are non-White. Figure 14 presents future voters— those ages 0 to 17 at the time of Census 2000. Caution should be used when comparing the percentages in Figure 14 to the percentages in Figure 7 or Figure 13. In Figure 14, the number of future voters (ages 0 to 17) will vary by district because only that portion of the population that is age 0 to 17 is included. For example, new district 4 has the largest number of individuals age 0 to 17, with 177,103, while new district 3 has the lowest with 161,307. By contrast, Figure 7 includes the entire population of Connecticut

4

Hispanics are the largest minority in new districts 2, 4, and 5. African-Americans are the largest minority in new districts 1 and 3. Asians have a relatively even distribution of 2-3% in all new districts. The “age 0 to 17” age group has a higher percentage of “Two or More Races” than the “age 18 and over” age group. New district 4 currently has the most racially diverse electorate. However, new district 1 has the potential to be more racially diverse in the future.

and Figure 13 includes only those ages 18 and over. Figure 14 shows us that new district 1 is the most racially diverse when looking at individuals age 0 to 17. In new district 1, only 60% of the population age 0 to 17 is White. Looking at a future electorate, approximately 40% of future voters in new district 1 could be from a racial minority. In Figure 15 the population of the old and new congressional districts are graphically shown by gender and age 18 and over. All districts, both old and new, have more women than men. In fact, each district, old or new, has either 51% or 52% women with the exception of new district 2, which is quite nearly 50/50. Also shown is the number of both men and women that are age 18 or over. This group meets the minimum age requirement necessary to register to vote, however, it includes non-citizens so the true number of eligible voters will be lower. It is interesting to note that in most of the new districts the plurality of women increases when measuring only those people that are potentially eligible to vote (age 18 and over). In every new congressional district there is at least a 1% (new district 2) to as much as a 5% (new districts 1 & 3) plurality of potentially eligible women voters relative to potentially eligible men voters. The U.S. Census does not provide information on voter registration, party affiliation, or voter participation. In order to start to tell the story of how the populations of the new districts have registered to vote, joined various political parties, or actually voted in previous elections, we present information gathered from the Connecticut Secretary of the State’s Office. Within this study it is not possible to analyze this data by race. Further research is necessary to determine how the population of each district has registered and voted along the racial groups used in this report. You can combine the total registered voters in Figure 16 with total eligible voters in Figure 13 and total population in Figure 7 to produce various summary statistics. For example, Census 2000 counted 2,563,877 potentially eligible voters (age 18 and over) in Connecticut. Of that number only 1,874,245 are registered to vote. That means that only 73% of potentially eligible voters are registered to vote. Another way of looking at this statistic is that only 55% of the entire state population is registered to vote. Voter registration in new districts, among potentially eligible voters, ranges from a low of 71.1% (new district 4) to a high of 74.9% (new district 2). In terms of voter

registrations as a percentage of the total population, the range is from a low of 52.6% (new district 4) to a high of 56.8% (new district 2). These voter statistics may be affected by large numbers of non-citizens living in a district. Looking specifically at Figure 16, only in district 1, old and new, are registered democrats the majority. In all other districts, old and new, the largest group of registered voters is Unaffiliated. The percentage of registered Unaffiliated voters in new districts range from a low of 37% in new districts 1 and 4 to a high of 45% in new district 2. Registered Democrats exceed Republicans in new districts 1, 2, 3 and 5. Only in new district 4 do registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats — and only by a slight majority. Figures 17 and 18 show the distribution of votes as cast in the 2000 Presidential and federal Senate races — both as they were cast in the old congressional districts and how they might be cast if the votes were re-aggregated per the new districts. See the discussion on methodology on page 30 for an explanation of the assumptions used to re-aggregate votes to new districts. Before redistricting, old district 6 cast the highest number of votes but new district 2 might be expected to cast the greatest number of votes in the future. Review Figures 17 and 18 for a glance at how voting patterns might be affected in the future. Looking at Figure 17, new districts 2 and 4 might have seen the difference between Democratic and Republican votes narrow by 4% in the 2000 Presidential election. A similar pattern holds for the 2000 Senate election as shown in Figure 18. The Senate race might also have seen a 4% narrowing between Democratic and Republican votes

5

At the time of this report, the U.S. Census had not released data on citizenship. Consequently, this report counts non-citizens as potential voters and this will exaggerate the true number of eligible voters.

In the 2000

Presidential election, 77.9% of registered voters in Connecticut actually voted. That number represents 56.9% of potentially eligible voters and 42.9% of the total population of Connecticut. Nationwide in the November 2000 Presidential election, 86% of registered voters actually voted. That represents 55% of potentially eligible voters and 39% of the total United States population.

Income and Higher Education

the mean household income map. In most cases, areas of high income and high educational attainment do coincide. However there are some areas of lower educational attainment that have average incomes (see areas of Plainfield or Montville).

Census 2000 releases information on both the income and educational attainment of the population. Information pertaining to both education and income is generated through the analysis of the “long form.” Unlike the “short form”, the long form is sent to a limited sample of the population. About one out of every six households (17%) receives the long form. The Census then uses the responses from the sample to statistically extrapolate the income and educational attainment of the larger population. Figures 19-24 use maps to depict information about the income and educational attainment of residents of the State of Connecticut. In order to orientate the reader, in Figure 19 the town boundaries have been superimposed upon the color coded maps and a map showing the new congressional districts is also shown. Figures 20-24 show the same information but do so for each new congressional district with the names of each town included. The maps in Figures 19-24 analyze income in three different ways. Per capita income is shown in the upper left map. Median household income is shown in the upper right map. Finally, the mean household income is shown in the map in the lower right corner. The statewide average for per capita income is $28,766. The statewide median for household income is $53,935 and the statewide mean household income is $74,196. These income measures show that the greatest concentration of high incomes is in southwestern Connecticut with other high-income areas in the suburbs of Hartford. Consequently, congressional district 4 has the greatest concentration of high-income populations. Areas with lowest income, whether per capita or household, are concentrated in the urban centers of Hartford, Waterbury, New Haven and Bridgeport. The lower left map depicts the percent of the population that has completed a Bachelors degree or higher. At first glance the correlation between educational attainment and income seems to be born-out by comparing the educational attainment map with

Per capita income is the average income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular area or group. The median divides households into two separate groups: one-half of households have incomes below the median and one-half are above the median. The term arithmetic mean denotes what most people think of as an average.

6

Map reproduced from US Census 2000 Brief titled Congressional Apportionment (C2KBR/01-7) issued July 2001.

7

Figure 2: Old and New Congressional Districts Old Congressional District Boundaries North Canaan

Hartland

Colebrook Salisbury

Suffield Granby

Norfolk

Canaan

Barkhamsted

Winchester

Canton

New Hartford

ton ng Litchfield

Plymouth Watertown

Woodbury Southbury

Naugatuck

Brookfield Oxford Newtown e nro Mo

Redding Easton Weston

Br

Wilton Fairfield

New Canaan

Trumbull idg ep ort

Cheshire

Bethany

Portland

Lebanon Franklin Colchester

Lisbon

North Haven

Sterling

Griswold

Voluntown

Norwich

Bozrah

Preston East Haddam

Haddam

Salem

North Stonington

Montville Ledyard

Hamden

r mou Wood Sey brid ge Ansonia De rb y New Sh elt on Haven Orange West Haven

Plainfield Canterbury

Sprague

ield

North Branford

Madison Guilford

Kill

Chester

ing wo rt h Clinton

Branford

Lyme

er p Riv Dee x Esse

Westbrook

Milford

Old Saybrook

East Lyme

Waterford

Old Lyme

Groton

Stonington

Town Boundaries New District 1

Westport Norwalk

Stamford

Scotland

Hebron

East Hampton

Durham

Wallingford

Windham

Columbia

w Ne ndon Lo

Bethel

Stratford

Danbury

Beacon Falls

Pros-

Mid dlef

Meriden

Brooklyn

Andover

n

Middlebury

Hampton

Bolton

Glastonbury

ow let dd Mi

idg ew at e r

ry bu

Br

Wethersfield

Manchester

Killingly

Chaplin

Mansfield

Coventry

Cromwell

Berlin

Southington

Vernon

Rocky Hill

ter Wa

Roxbury

Sherman

Wolcott

New Britain

Pomfret

Eastford

Willington

South Windsor

gh ou or

Bethlehem New Milford

Plainville

Bristol

Putnam

Ashford

Tolland

rlb Ma

Washington

to n mas Tho

Thompson

Woodstock

Ellington

East Windsor

East Hartford

Farmington

wNe gton in

Morris

Burlington

Harwinton

Union

Stafford

Hartford

West Hartford

Avon

Eas t Ha ven

Warren

Kent

Windsor

Bloomfield

rri To

Goshen

Cornwall

Ridgefield

Windsor Locks

Simsbury

Sharon

New Fairfield

East Granby

Somers

Enfield

New District 2

Darien

New District 3

Greenwich

New District 4

6

New District 5

1 5 4

New Congressional District Areas

2

3 Old Congressional District (1 to 6) Boundaries

8

Graphics By: Connecticut State Data Center University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Figure 3: Deconstructing the Old Districts

Redistributing Old District 2


ew

ew

N

N

To

To

To

To New 1

Population From Old District 1

New

2

To New 2

To New 1

To New District

“Before January 2003”

3

2


To New 3

Percent of Population From Old District 1

To New District



To New District



1

506,621

92%

2

524,840

92%

3

519,990

93%

2

45,506

8%

3

34,329

6%

2

41,586

7%

1

8,838

2%

Old Congressional District Areas

Old District 1 Old District 2 Old District 3 Old District 4 Old District 5 Old District 6

New Congressional District (1 to 5) Boundaries Town Boundaries

“Starting January 2003” Redistributing Old District 4



To New 5

To New 5 To New 3

To New 4

To New 1

To New 4

To New 2

New District 1

New Congressional District Areas

To New District



4

574,063

100%



To New District



5

348,097

60%

5

333,016

59%

3

126,794

22%

1

165,654

29%

4

107,050

18%

2

69,181

12%

To New District

9

New District 2 New District 3 New District 4 New District 5

Old Congressional District (1 to 6) Boundaries Town Boundaries


Town

6

Bolton

1

2

Southbury

3

5

Woodbridge

Monroe

Old Congressional District

Census 2000 Population

Bolton

1

4647

Bolton

2

370

Monroe

4

17065

Monroe

5

2182

Southbury

5

3457

Southbury

6

15110

Woodbridge

3

7126

Woodbridge

5

1857

Old Congressional District Boundaries—106th Congress

4

Figure 4: Towns Split by Old Congressional Districts Graphics By: Connecticut State Data Center, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Town

5

1

2 Glastonbury

Torrington Waterbury

Shelton

4

Middletown

3

Durham

New Congressional District Boundaries—108th Congress

Figure 5: Towns Split by New Congressional Districts Graphics By: Connecticut State Data Center, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

10

New Congressional District


Durham

2

4616

Durham

3

2011

Glastonbury

1

21724

Glastonbury

2

10152

Middletown

1

8838

Middletown

3

34329

Shelton

3

9909

Shelton

4

28192

Torrington

1

15000

Torrington

5

20202

Waterbury

3

18647

Waterbury

5

88624

Figure 6: Towns with their Corresponding Old and New Congressional Districts - and the Redistricted Population Town

New District

Andover Ansonia Ashford Avon Barkhamsted Beacon Falls Berlin Bethany Bethel Bethlehem Bloomfield Bolton - Old 1 Bolton - Old 2 Bozrah Branford Bridgeport Bridgewater Bristol Brookfield Brooklyn Burlington Canaan Canterbury Canton Chaplin Cheshire Chester Clinton Colchester Colebrook Columbia Cornwall Coventry Cromwell Danbury Darien Deep River Derby Durham - New 2 Durham - New 3 East Granby East Haddam East Hampton East Hartford East Haven

02 03 02 05 01 03 01 03 05 05 01 02 02 02 03 04 05 01 05 02 05 05 02 05 02 05 02 02 02 01 02 05 02 01 05 04 02 03 02 03 01 02 02 01 03

Old Pop. District Redist’d 01 05 02 06 06 05 01 05 05 06 01 01 02 02 03 04 06 06 05 02 06 06 02 06 02 05 02 03 02 06 02 06 02 01 05 04 02 05 03 03 06 02 01 01 03

3036 18554 15832 3494 5246 5040 3422 4647

1824 60062

8190 1081 8840

13094 1471 1434

12391 4616 4745 13352

Town East Lyme East Windsor Eastford Easton Ellington Enfield Essex Fairfield Farmington Franklin Glastonbury - New 1 Glastonbury - New 2 Goshen Granby Greenwich Griswold Groton Guilford Haddam Hamden Hampton Hartford Hartland Harwinton Hebron Kent Killingly Killingworth Lebanon Ledyard Lisbon Litchfield Lyme Madison Manchester Mansfield Marlborough Meriden Middlebury Middlefield Middletown - New 1 Middletown - New 3 Milford Monroe - Old 4 Monroe - Old 5

New Old Pop. District District Redist’d 02 01 02 04 02 02 02 04 05 02 01 02 05 01 04 02 02 03 02 03 02 01 01 05 02 05 02 02 02 02 02 05 02 02 01 02 02 05 05 03 01 03 03 04 04

02 01 02 05 02 06 02 04 06 02 01 01 06 06 04 02 02 03 02 03 02 01 06 06 01 06 02 03 02 02 02 06 02 03 01 02 01 05 05 03 02 02 03 04 05

7272 45212

23641

10152 2697 10347

2012 5283 8610 2858 6018

8316 17858

5709

8838 34329

2182

11

Town Montville Morris Naugatuck New Britain New Canaan New Fairfield New Hartford New Haven New London New Milford Newington Newtown Norfolk North Branford North Canaan North Haven North Stonington Norwalk Norwich Old Lyme Old Saybrook Orange Oxford Plainfield Plainville Plymouth Pomfret Portland Preston Prospect Putnam Redding Ridgefield Rocky Hill Roxbury Salem Salisbury Scotland Seymour Sharon Shelton - New 3 Shelton - New 4 Sherman Simsbury Somers

New Old Pop. District District Redist’d 02 05 03 05 04 05 01 03 02 05 01 05 05 03 05 03 02 04 02 02 02 03 04 02 05 05 02 01 02 03 02 04 04 01 05 02 05 02 03 05 03 04 05 05 02

02 06 05 06 04 05 06 03 02 06 01 05 06 03 06 03 02 04 02 02 02 03 05 02 06 06 02 01 02 05 02 05 05 01 06 02 06 02 05 06 05 05 06 06 06

2301 30989 71538

6088

27121

1660 3350

9821 17328 11634

8707 8270 23643 2136 3977 15454 2968 9909 28192 3827 23234 10417

Town South Windsor Southbury - Old 5 Southbury - Old 6 Southington Sprague Stafford Stamford Sterling Stonington Stratford Suffield Thomaston Thompson Tolland Torrington - New 1 Torrington - New 5 Trumbull Union Vernon Voluntown Wallingford Warren Washington Waterbury - New 3 Waterbury - New 5 Waterford Watertown West Hartford West Haven Westbrook Weston Westport Wethersfield Willington Wilton Winchester Windham Windsor Windsor Locks Wolcott Woodbridge - Old 3 Woodbridge - Old 5 Woodbury Woodstock

New Old Pop. District District Redist’d 01 05 05 01 02 02 04 02 02 03 02 05 02 02 01 05 04 02 02 02 03 05 05 03 05 02 05 01 03 02 04 04 01 02 04 01 02 01 01 05 03 03 05 02

01 05 06 06 02 02 04 02 02 03 06 06 02 02 06 06 04 02 02 02 03 06 06 05 05 02 06 01 03 02 05 04 01 02 05 06 02 01 06 05 03 05 06 02

15110 39728

13552 7503

15000 20202

1254 3596 18647

21661

10037

17633 10664

12043

1857 9198

New Congressional Districts by Race 681,113 681,113 681,113

681,113

Figure 7: Old and New Congressional Districts by Race

681,113

71%

500,000 500,000


400,000 400,000 300,000 300,000

11

22

5% 2% 2% <1%

3% 2% <1%

3% 2% <1%

00

11%

13% 11%

8% 12%

4% 3% 2% 2% <1%

2% 2% <1%

100,000 100,000

13%

200,000 200,000 11%


72%

76%

600,000 600,000

80%

89%

Total Population:

55 44 Old Congressional Districts - Race and Age 18 & Over

33

New Congressional Districts 400,000 581,941

567,851 88%

574,063

67%

75% 67%

White Hispanic African American

200,000

300,000 300,000

Asian Two Or More Races 10% 5% 2% 2% <1%

4% 2% <1%

6% 3% 2% 1% <1%

Other Single Race

15% 13%

8% 12% 3% 1% <1%

<1%

5% 4% 2% 2%

100,000 3% 2% <1%

100,000 100,000

15%

200,000 200,000

13%


561,576

Ol d C o n g r e ssi o n a l D i st r i c t s B y R a c e

80%

300,000

500,000 500,000

400,000 400,000

568,007

552,127 87%

Total Population:

00 1

1

22

3

0 1

2

44

3

Old Congressional Districts 3

4

12

66

55

5

6

Note: Percent totals for each district may be higher or lower than 100% due to rounding.

Old 1 C o mp o nent t o N ew 1

Figure 8: Population from Old Districts 1, 2, & 6 Combined to Create New District 1 - by Race Graphics By: Connecticut State Data Center University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

White Hispanic

14%

African American

16%

3% 2%

Asian Two Or More Races

<1%

Other Single Race Ol d 6 P a r t o f N e w 1

65%

1% 3% 2% 1%

506,621 (74% of New District 1) is from Old District 1 <1%

New Congressional District 1 - 6 Races

2% 11%

93%

2%

13%

<1%

165,654 (24% of New District 1) is from Old District 6

Ol d 2 P ar t of N ew 1

72%

5% 12%

4% 2% <1%

New Congressional District 1 77%


From Old District

Total Population

White

Hispanic

African American

Asian

1 2 6

506,621 (74%) 8,838 (1%) 165,654 (24%)

327,308 6,807 153,492

71,535 424 5,434

81,960 1,079 2,554

14,061 318 2,142

9,451 175 1,639

2,306 35 393

Total for New District 1

681,113

487,607

77,393

85,593

16,521

11,265

2,734

13

Two or More Other Single Races Race

Par t s o f o ld 2 t o new 2 Figure 9: Population from Old Districts 1, 2, 3, & 6 Combined to Create New District 2 - by Race


White Hispanic

5%

Ol d 0 6 pa r t of ne w 0 2


African American Asian


Two Or More Races

5%

1% 1%

6%

Other Single Race

3%

2% 2% <1%

<1%

88% 87%

New 02

P a r t s of Ol d 1 t o N e w 2

<1% <1% 2%

2% 1% 1%

4%

95%

2%

3%

<1%


89% P a r t s of Ol d 3 t o ne w 2

<1% 1%

2%

<1% <1%

95%


New Congressional District 2 From Old District

Total Population

White

Hispanic

African American

Asian

1 2 3 6 Total for New District 2

45,506 (7%) 524,840 (77%) 41,586 (6%) 69,181 (10%) 681,113

43,148 460,907 39,541 60,185 603,781

637 24,586 888 3,111 29,222

473 17,399 173 4,185 22,230

745 9,313 553 788 11,399

14

Two or More Other Single Races Race 397 8,604 352 711 10,064

106 4031 79 201 4417

Old 3 to New 3

Figure 10: Population from Old Districts 2, 3, & 5 Combined to Create New District 3 - by Race Graphics By: Connecticut State Data Center University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

White


Hispanic African American

9% 13%

3%

Asian

2%

Two Or More Races Other Single Race

<1%

Ol d 5 t o N e w 3

74% 4%

2%

1%

New CD 03 <1%

7%

86% 8%


12% 3% 76%

Ol d 2 t o N e w 3


2% <1%

5%

New Congressional District 3

12% 2% 78%

3% <1%

From Old District

Total Population

White

Hispanic

African American

Asian

2 3 5

34,329 (5%) 519,990 (76%) 126,794 (19%)

26,628 382,284 109,171

1,863 44,227 8,551

4,032 69,528 4,693

817 14,398 2,012

861 7,707 1,714

128 1,846 653


681,113

518,083

54,641

78,253

17,227

10,282

2,627

15


Part of Old 4 to New 4

Figure 11: Population from Old Districts 4 & 5 Combined to Create New District 4 - by Race White



15%

Asian

13%

Two Or More Races Other Single Race

4%

67% Graphics By: Connecticut State Data Center University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

2%

New District 4 <1%

Ol d 5 t o N e w 4

<1% 2%

2%

<1% <1%

13%

11% 3% 94% 2% 71% <1%



Total Population

White

Hispanic

African American

Asian

4 5

574,063 (84%) 107,050 (16%)

382,253 100,872

84,981 2,345

73,574 708

19,885 2,078

10,482 832

2,888 215


681,113

483,125

87,326

74,282

21,963

11,314

3,103

16


Old 5 to New 5

Figure 12: Population from Old Districts 5 & 6 Combined to Create New District 5 - by Race White


Hispanic 14%

African American Asian

7%

Two Or More Races

3% 2%

Other Single Race

<1% 74%


New CD 5

Old 6 to New 6

3% 7%

2%

1% 11%

<1%

5% 2% 2% <1%

80% 87%



Total Population

White

Hispanic

African American

Asian

5 6

348,097 (51%) 333,016 (49%)

257,754 288,495

47,427 24,314

25,439 9,774

8,709 5,745

6,189 3,782

2,579 906


681,113

546,249

71,741

35,213

14,454

9,971

3,485

17


514,549

516,168

75%

83% 73%


1

22

1

New Congressional Districts

C o ng r essio nal D ist r ict s - R ace and 427,539 A g e 18 & Over 428,169

430,261

83% 70%

71%

78%

300,000

430,308 90%

Old 432,421

89%

415,179

400,000 400,000

9% 5% 2% 1% <1%

3% 1% <1%

10%

12% 10%

Read Voters by Race, Gender, and Party Affiliation on page 4 before comparing these charts with Figures 7 or 14.

Old Congressional Districts5 - Race and Age 18 & Over 44 5

33

400,000 Total 18 & Over:

3% 1% <1%

4% 3% 2% 1% <1%

1% <1%

2% 00

7%

200,000 200,000

9% 11%

White

300,000 300,000


200,000

Asian

200,000 200,000

00

1

2

1

0 1

4

6

6

5

3

18

4

<1%

5% 3% 1% 1%

5

4

Old Congressional Districts

2

9% 5% 2% 1% <1%

4% 2% <1%

33

2

Other Single Race

13% 12% <1%

4% 4% 2% 1% <1%

100,000 3% 2% <1%

100,000 100,000

11% 14%

Two Or More Races 7% 11% 3% 1%


Figure 13: Old and New Congressional Districts by Race and Potentially Eligible Voters (Age 18 & Over)

300,000 300,000

100,000 100,000


509,344

504,010

79%

500,000 500,000

400,000 400,000

519,806

90%

Total 18 & Over:

5

6


New Districts Race Age 0 to 17 164,945 161,307

166,564

177,103

Figure 14: Old and New Congressional Districts by Race and Future Voters (Age 0 to 17)

171,769

85%

Total Age 0 to 17:

64%

66%

60%

120,000 120,000

16% 6% 2% 2% <1%

<1%

3% 3%

14%

137,590

58%

65%

82%

74%

84%

151,633

White

55%

90,000 90,000

55

Old CD Race Age 0 to 17 133,407 146,524

135,586

300,000

44

33


136,948

120,000 120,000

<1%

16% 2% 2%

3%

<1%

<1%

6% 3% 2%

13%

16% 3% 3%

2 2

400,000

Total Age 0 to 17:

Read Voters by Race, Gender, and Party Affiliation on page 4 before comparing these charts with Figures 7 or 13.

Old Congressional Districts - Race and Age 18 & Over

00 11

16%

60,000 60,000

30,000 30,000


200,000

Asian

60,000 60,000

0

Other Single Race

3% 2% 2% <1%

<1%

6% 3% 2% <1%

9%

14%

16% 4% 3%

19%

17% 3% 2% <1%

12% 1%

3%

7% 5% 2%

100,000 3% 3% <1%

30,000 30,000

19%

Two Or More Races 20%



90,000 90,000

18%


72%

150,000 150,000

0

1

1

2

0

3

2

1

44

3

Old Congressional Districts 2

3

19

55

4

6 6

5

6


49%

51%

Figure 15: Old and New Congressional Districts by Gender and Age 18 & Over Graphics By: Connecticut State Data Center University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

35%

36%

39%

39%

48%

52%

48%

50%

52% 41% 36%

200,000

37%

35%

250,000

38%

40%

300,000


50%

48%

350,000

52%

New Congressional Districts - Gender

Female Female 18 Over Male

150,000

Male 18 Over

100,000

50,000

0 1

2

3

4 5 - Gender New Congressional Districts


49%

51%

Female

37%

39%

35%

39%

35%

49%

51%

48% 40%

41%

37%

39%

200,000

35%

200,000 200,000

36%

48%

52%

49%

51%

48%

250,000 40%


250,000 250,000

300,000

52%

300,000 300,000

52%

Old Congressional Districts - Gender

350,000

Female Female 18 Over

150,000 150,000

Male Male 18 Over

150,000 100,000 100,000

Female 18 & Over Male Male 18 & Over

100,000 50,000 50,000

00

50,000 11

22

33

44

55

66


0 1

2

3

4

20

5


Total Registered:

Old and New Congressional Districts by Voter Registration 386,772 378,106 358,554 370,949

379,864

Figure 16: Old and New Congressional Districts with Voter Registration by Political Party

60,000 60,000

42% 30%

27%

1

3

11

20%

<1%

314,108

328,527

41%

Unaffiliated Democratic

32%

Republicans

27%

29%

27%

33%

44%

22%

60,000 60,000 60,000

30%

32%

90,000 90,000

Minor Parties

0 1

1

0

2

21

3

3

2

4

4


21

3

5

5

<1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

30,000

30,000 30,000

0

36%

37%

90,000

36%

120,000 120,000

5 5

44%

44%

120,000

4 4

Old Congressional Districts - Voter Registration 316,503 318,273 291,431

45%

150,000 150,000

<1%

3 3

Majority Party by Town Based on Party Affiliation of Registered Voters


150,000 305,403

Total Registered:

Old and New Congressional Districts by Voter Registration

2 2

180,000

4

19%

00

<1%

<1%

<1%

30,000 30,000


2

5

19%

20%

24%

31%

31%

31%

120,000 120,000

90,000 90,000


37%

38%

42% 37%

150,000 150,000


44%

45%

180,000 180,000

4

6

6

5



43% 34%

90,000 90,000

Figure 17: Old and New Congressional Districts Presidential Election 2000 by Political Party

52%

53%

54% 40%

120,000 120,000

287,433

60%

62%

150,000 150,000

33%

1 2

5

1

2

2

1

4

3

4

55

Majority Party by Town Based on November 2000 Presidential Election

<1%

3% <1% <1%

<1%

3

4

3

4% <1% <1% <1%

00

5% <1% <1%

4% <1% <1% <1%

30,000 30,000

6%

60,000 60,000

<1% <1% <1%


180,000 180,000

New Congressional Districts - Presidential Election 2000 303,419 287,911 286,161

294,547

43%

Total Voting:

New CongressionalNew Districts Congressional Districts - Presidential Election 2000

180,000 238,848

Total Voting:

243,824

229,696

243,292

256,462

52% 44%

41%

Democratic Republican

42%

51%

55% 34%

90,000

38%

90,000

90,000

56%

120,000

60%

62%

150,000

120,000 120,000

60,000 60,000

Ol d C o n g r e ssi o n a l D i st r i c t s - P r e si d e n t i a l El e c t i o n 2 0 0 0

32%

Green Concerned Citizens Reform Libertarian 5% <1% <1% <1%

<1% <1% <1%

4%

3% <1% <1% <1%

5% <1% <1% <1%

30,000 30,000

6% <1% <1% <1%

60,000 4% <1% <1% <1%


150,000 150,000

247,349

30,000 00

1

2

1

3

2

44

3

5

6

5

6


0 1

2

3

22

4

5


New Congressional Districts - Senate Election 2000 257,574 258,867 269,070

69%

60%

61%

150,000 150,000


33

2%

44

<1%

<1%

1%

2%

2 2

<1%

29%

11

<1%

2%

<1%

30,000 30,000

2%

60,000 60,000

00

37%

36%

90,000 90,000

38%

120,000 120,000

32%


66%

180,000 180,000

Figure 18: Old and New Congressional Districts Senate Election 2000 by Political Party

259,001

60%

266,749

Total Voting:

55

New Congressional Districts Old Congressional Districts - Senate Elections 2000

Old Congressional Districts - Senate Elections 2000 218,579 218,254 207346 220,172

Total Voting: 150,000 216,689

60%

38%

37%

Republican Concerned Citizens

<1%

2%

<1%

2%

<1%

1%

<1%

Libertarian 2%

<1%

2%

2%

36%

29%

34%

60,000 <1%

31%

30,000 30,000

0

Democratic

90,000

90,000 90,000

60,000 60,000

62%

120,000 120,000

60%

69% 63%

120,000

66%


150,000 150,000

230,221

30,000

0 1

2

1

3

2

4

3

5

4


6

5

6

Old Congressional Districts 0 1

2

3

23

4

5

6

Figure 19: Income and Higher Education in Connecticut

1 5

2 3

4

Per Capita Income

Percent of Population with Bachelors Degree or Higher


State Avg. is $28,766

State Median is $53,935

State Avg. is 21%

State Mean is $74,196

24

Median Household Income

Mean Household Income

Figure 20: Income and Higher Education in New District 1

1 2

5 3 4


Hartland

Colebrook

Barkhamsted

Winchester

Hartland

Colebrook Granby

East Granby

Granby

Windsor Locks

Barkhamsted

Winchester

East Windsor

East Granby

Windsor Locks

Windsor

East Hartford

Bristol

Bloomfield

Glastonbury

Wethersfield

Bristol

Rocky Hill Southington

Berlin

Cromwell

Portland

Southington

Berlin

Barkhamsted

ton ng Southington

Berlin

New Hartford

Bloomfield

Glastonbury

Wethersfield

Bristol

Southington

Portland

Berlin

South Windsor Manchester

Glastonbury

Rocky Hill

Cromwell

ow let dd Mi

n

n

ow let dd Mi

25

East Windsor

West Hartford East Hartford Hartford

Manchester

Rocky Hill

Cromwell

Windsor Locks

wNe gton in

wNe gton in

Wethersfield

East Granby

Windsor South Windsor


Bristol

Barkhamsted

ton ng

Bloomfield

Winchester

East Windsor

rri To

rri To

New Hartford

Portland

Hartland Granby

Windsor Locks Windsor



n

Winchester

East Granby

Glastonbury

ow let dd Mi

n Colebrook

Hartland Granby

Manchester

Rocky Hill

Cromwell

ow let dd Mi

Colebrook

South Windsor


Manchester

wNe gton in

Wethersfield

wNe gton in

Per Capita Income

Hartford

New Hartford

ton ng

ton ng West Hartford

Windsor

South Windsor

Bloomfield

rri To

rri To

New Hartford

East Windsor

Portland



1 2

5 3


4

Salem

Lyme Chester East ver Lyme Deep Ri ex s s E Old We stb O Lyme roo Sayb ld Clinton roo k

Gris-

g

g rlin

Vo lu

nto w

n

Norwich Preston

Montville

gw o rt h

St e

L is bo n

L is bo n

on

East Haddam

Plainfield

Sprague

North Stonington

Ledyard

Waterford


Stonington

Groton

East Hampton

Stonington

Lebanon

Kil lin

gw o rt h

Colchester East Haddam

Haddam

Chester ver Deep Ri ex Ess W

Clinton

26

Windham

Hebron

es

O tbr oo Saybr ld k ook

Brooklyn Plainfield

Canter-

Sprague Franklin

Bozrah

Norwich

Old Lyme

Vo lu

nto w

North Stonington

Montville East Lyme

Gris-

Preston

Salem Lyme

g

r ove And Columbia

Killingly

Ledyard

Waterford w n Ne ndo Lo

Groton

Durham

on d is Ma

Waterford

Mansfield

L is bo n

n

North Stonington

Pomfret

rlin

rlin

g

Glastonbury

Chaplin

Coventry

nd

Preston Ledyard

Putnam

rd

tla

nto w

tfo

o Sc

Vo lu

Ea s

on

Bolton

gh rou

Gris-

Ashford

Willington

o rlb

Montville

Tolland

Thompson

Woodstock

St e

Killingly

Plainfield

Union

Vernon

Brooklyn

Canter-

Stafford

Somers

Ellington

Norwich

w n Ne ndo Lo

Old Lyme

East Lyme

Enfield

Ma

Salem

Suffield

Thompson

t mp Ha

on nd


Kil lin

Pomfret

Sprague Franklin

Bozrah

Lyme

tla

Clinton

es

Stonington

Bozrah

Colchester

Haddam

Putnam

rd

o Sc

Windham

Lebanon

gh rou


tfo

t mp Ha

Chaplin

o rlb

on d is Ma

gw o rt h

Ea s

Mansfield

Hebron

Ma

Kil lin

Durham

Woodstock

Ashford

Coventry

East Haddam

Haddam

Lebanon

w n Ne ndo Lo

Willington

Colchester

Durham

North Stonington

Killingly

Brooklyn

Canter-

nd

Union

r ove And Columbia

East Hampton

East Hampton

Pomfret

k

Bolton Glastonbury

Groton

Windham

Columbia

Franklin n

Putnam

rd

tla

Old Lyme

Tolland

Vernon

Ledyard

Waterford

Stafford

Somers

Ellington


Montville

East Lyme

nto w

tfo

er

rl-

Enfield


Lyme

Vo lu

Chaplin

Hebron

Ma

es

Salem

Gris-

Ea s

Mansfield

ov And

Glastonbury

on d is Ma


Clinton

Suffield

Preston

East Haddam

Plainfield

Ashford

Coventry

Bolton

Norwich

w n Ne ndo Lo

on d is Ma

gw o rt h

nd

rl-

Kil lin

Bozrah

Colchester

Haddam Durham

Canter-

Sprague Franklin

Lebanon

East Hampton

tla

Ma

Per Capita Income

Windham

Hebron

Brooklyn

Willington

Thompson

Woodstock

o Sc

Glastonbury

Tolland

Vernon

Killingly

o Sc

r ove And Columbia

Ellington

Pomfret

on

Mansfield

Bolton

Union

t mp Ha

Chaplin

Putnam

rd

t mp Ha

Coventry

tfo

Stafford

Enfield

St e

Vernon

Ea s

Ashford Willington

Somers

Suffield

Thompson

Woodstock

rlin

Tolland

Ellington

Union

St e

Stafford

Somers

Enfield

L is bo n

Suffield

Groton

Stonington

n



1 2

5 3


4

Waterbury

Waterbury Middlefield

Prospect

North Haven

West Haven

New Haven

Anso nia De rb y

Shelton

Guilford

Branford

Orange

Middlefield

New Haven

Branford

Wallingford

Hamden Bethany

Orange

West Haven

New Haven

Ea st H

Anso nia De rb y

ave n

North Haven

Woodbridge

Naugatuck

Prospect Wallingford

Durham Beacon Falls

Bethany North Branford Branford

Shelton

Guilford

Anso nia De rb y

Orange

Stratford

Stratford

Milford

27

North Haven

Woodbridge

Seymour

Middletown

Durham

Hamden

Milford

New West Haven Haven

Ea st H

Beacon Falls

Middlefield

Middletown

ave n

Naugatuck

Shelton


Waterbury Prospect

Seymour

West Haven

North Guilford Branford

Milford

Milford

Waterbury


North Haven

Woodbridge

Stratford

Stratford

Orange

Durham

Hamden Bethany

Seymour North Branford

ave n

Anso nia De rb y

Ea st H

Shelton

Beacon Falls

Middletown

ave n

Bethany

Wallingford

Durham

Hamden

Seymour Woodbridge

Per Capita Income

Naugatuck Prospect

Wallingford

Beacon Falls

Middlefield

Middletown

Ea st H

Naugatuck

North Branford

Branford

Guilford



1 2

5 3 4


Oxford Oxford

Monroe Ridgefield

Redding Ridgefield

Easton

Wilton

Per Capita Income

New Canaan Stamford Greenwich

Trumbull

Wilton Fairfield

Shelton Easton

Weston

Norwalk

Monroe

Redding

Shelton

Fairfield

New Canaan

Bridgeport

Norwalk

Westport

Stamford

Darien

Greenwich

Trumbull

Weston


Bridgeport

Westport

Darien

Oxford Oxford

Monroe


Ridgefield

Easton Wilton

Weston Fairfield

New Canaan Stamford Greenwich

Norwalk

Monroe

Redding

Ridgefield

Shelton

Redding

Shelton

Trumbull

Trumbull

Wilton

Bridgeport

Weston

Fairfield

New Canaan

Westport

Norwalk

Stamford

Darien

Greenwich

28

Easton

Westport Darien

Bridgeport



1 5

2 3

4


North Canaan

North Canaan

Norfolk

Watertown

Wolcott

Mid

Cheshire

Meriden

Bethel

North Canaan

Goshen Cornwall

Watertown

Waterbury

Cheshire

Meriden

New Milford

ok ld fie

Danbury

Danbury Bethel

Newtown

ton

mas T ho

Bethlehem

Avon Farmington Plainville New

Britain

Plymouth

Watertown

Woodbury

Southbury

Newtown Bethel

29

r

o Br

ld fie

ok

New Fairfield

Meriden

Canton

Harwinton Burlington

Morris

Roxbury te wa ge

r

o Br

te wa ge

dle

Wolcott

Cheshire

Simsbury Torrington

Litchfield

Wa shi ngt on

id Br

id Br

Southbury

Plymouth

Waterbury


Norfolk Goshen

Warren

New

Plainville Britain

Wolcott

Cornwall Kent

n r ma She

n r ma She

New Fairfield

Roxbury Woodbury

ton

mas T ho

bur y

Morris Wa shi ngt on Bethlehem

New Milford

Canton

Torrington

Avon Burlington Litchfield Harwinton Farmington

Warren

Kent

Canaan

Mid

Sharon

Watertown

New Britain

North Canaan

Sharon

Simsbury

Plainville

Plymouth

Newtown

Salisbury

Norfolk

Canaan


r

Danbury

Bethel

Salisbury

Bethlehem

Farmington

Southbury

ld fie ok

ld fie ok

New Fairfield

o Br

r

o Br

Newtown

Danbury

ton

mas T ho

Roxbury Woodbury te wa ge

dle

Waterbury

Morris

Wa shi ngt on

New Milford

Britain

Harwinton Burlington

id Br

bur y

Plainville New

Plymouth

Avon

Litchfield

Warren

n r ma She

te wa ge

Southbury

Farmington

Canton

Cornwall

Kent

bur y

Burlington

Avon

ton

mas T ho

Roxbury Woodbury id Br

New Fairfield

Harwinton

Simsbury

Torrington

dle

Morris Wa shi ngt on Bethlehem

n r ma She

Per Capita Income

Litchfield

Warren

New Milford

Goshen Sharon

Cornwall Kent

Simsbury

Mid

Canton

Torrington

bur y

Goshen

Sharon

Norfolk

Canaan

Salisbury

dle

Canaan

Mid

Salisbury

Wolcott

Waterbury

Cheshire

Meriden


Methodology Credits The following individuals made contributions to this report: Orlando Rodriguez, Data Manager Don Levy, Research Assistant Wayne Villemez, Ph.D., Director

Demographics Demographic information was downloaded from the U.S. Census website. The entire Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1), Block level, dataset was downloaded. The entire Summary File 3 (SF3), Block Groups and Tracts, was also downloaded. Demographics on Figures 3-18 and Figure 25 use Block level data. Each Block had a pre-assigned congressional district number for the 106th Congress. This Block assignment was used to group Census Blocks by old congressional districts. An error was found in the Census 2000 assignments for old congressional districts 4 and 5 — see Corrections section. Census Block assignments for the 108th Congress were obtained from the Connecticut Congressional Redistricting Plan 2001 Geography Report. This report was issued by the Reapportionment Commission of The Connecticut General Assembly. Figures 19-24 use Block Group level data. The maps on Figures 16 and 17 use town level data.

Vo t e r R e g i s t r a t i o n and Election Results Voter registration and election results data were downloaded from the Connecticut Secretary of the State’s website. Specifically, voter registration information came from the report Registration and Party Enrollment in Connecticut October 24, 2000. Presidential election results came from the report Vote for President of the United States November 7, 2000. Federal Senate election results came from the report Vote for United States Senator November 7, 2000. Voter registration and elections results are reported by the state at the town level. This data had to be re-aggregated to both the old and new congressional district levels for split towns. This re-aggregation was done by allocating votes and registration numbers in the same percentages as the population “age 18 and over” is distributed within a town. For example, the town of Torrington has been split between new districts 1 and 5. Approximately 42% of Torrington’s population ages 18 and over is in new district 1 with the remaining 58% of the population ages 18 and over in new district 5. Consequently, we took 42% of the town’s total voter registration numbers, presidential votes, and senate votes and assigned them to new district 1. We assigned the remaining 58% of the town’s totals to new district 5. This technique relies upon the underlying assumption that all of Torrington’s eligible voting population, ages 18 and over, registered and voted in similar patterns throughout the entire town.

30

Maps A digital map of the Census 2000 Blocks was downloaded as ArcView shape files from www.geographynetwork.com. A digital map of the old congressional district boundaries (106th Congress) was downloaded as ArcView shape files from the U.S. Census website. Digital maps of the new congressional district boundaries and town boundaries were downloaded from the Connecticut Secretary of the State’s website. The income categories for the maps on Figures 19-24 correspond approximately with standard deviations. The higher education categories correspond to natural breaks.

Corrections During the process of verifying our results we discovered that Census 2000 has mistakenly assigned several Blocks to the wrong 4th congressional district of the 106th Congress. The result is that Census 2000 has 38 individuals incorrectly assigned to old district 4. These individuals should be in old district 5. We reassigned these individuals for this report and reported our findings to the U.S. Census Bureau. Because of this error, our total population numbers for old districts 4 and 5 will differ from that of the census. Census 2000 reports the total population of old district 4 as 574,101 — whereas we report 574,063 (38 less). Census 2000 reports the total population of old district 5 as 581,903 — whereas we report 581,941 (38 more).

Consolidating Census 2000 Race Categories The Census 2000 questionnaire asked respondents to identify themselves in one or more of fifteen separate racial groups. In addition to the question of self-identified race, every respondent was asked whether or not they identified themselves as also being Hispanic. Those who identified themselves as Hispanic were both Hispanic and also a separate racial group (African-American, White, etc…). However, general reporting of race by Census 2000 is done using only seven broad groups that include: African-American, White, Asian, Two or More Races, Other Single Race, American Indian, or Hawaiian. In Figure 25 the results for Connecticut are shown using these seven racial groups. Nearly 82%, or 2,780,355, of Connecticut’s residents identified themselves as White, 9%, or 309,843, identified themselves as African-American and 4%, or 147,201, identified themselves as Other Single Race. The remaining 5% were distributed among Asian, Two or More Races, American Indian and Hawaiian. For Census 2000 every respondent self -identified as being either Hispanic or non-Hispanic. In effect, Census 2000 recorded information that would allow the treatment of Hispanics as a distinct group. In an effort to treat Hispanics as a distinct group, the column labeled Reveal Hispanics – 8 Races (Figure 25) was developed for this report. This was accomplished by treating Hispanic as a racial group in the same way that the other seven

groups were treated. However, to avoid counting any individual twice, anyone who identified themselves as Hispanic was placed only in the Hispanic racial group and removed from whatever other group (White, African-American, etc…) they had also selected. In Connecticut, of the 320,323 individuals that identified as Hispanic, 141,510 were also identified as White, 139,060 as Other Single Race, 21,952 as Two or More Races, 14,272 as African-American, and the balance of 3,529 were either American Indian, Asian, or Hawaiian. Creating a separate racial group for Hispanic allows us to include Hispanic as a meaningful group in this analysis. Without the separate Hispanic group, and the adjusted seven original races, it would be inaccurate to compare the original seven census race groups (White, African-American, etc…) with Hispanics. Doing so would have resulted in an exaggerated total state population because we would be double-counting those individuals that selected Hispanic in addition to one of the other census races. In the 2000 census, 139,060 Hispanics identified themselves as also being Other Single Race. This group of people, 94.5% of Other Single Race, appears to see Hispanic as a distinct racial group. They strongly self-identify as Hispanic and prefer the Other Single Race group over White, Asian, African-American, etc. Looking at Figure 25, 141,510 Hispanics were removed from the group “White”. Although they had self-identified as White they also see themselves as Hispanic. In the same way, 14,272 Hispanics were removed from the group African-American. Neither the Hispanic-African-Americans nor the Hispanic-Whites identified themselves as multi-racial.

31

This report treats all individuals who self-identified as Hispanic as being only within the newly created Hispanic racial group. We treat this newly created racial group, Hispanic, as a separate group in order to help demonstrate the composition of Connecticut’s congressional districts in as complete and informative a fashion as possible. Finally, in order to simplify the charts and discussion, we further combine the remaining Other Single Race, American Indians, and Hawaiians into one group — Other Single Race. The analysis of Connecticut’s congressional districts, new and old, was done with six racial groups: White, Hispanic, African-American, Asian, Two or More Races, and Other Single Race (listed in order from highest total statewide population to lowest total statewide population). Column 3 of Figure 25 shows the breakdown of the total population of the state of Connecticut by these six racial groups both in absolute numbers and in percentages.

S o f t wa r e All attribute data was imported into Microsoft Access database for storage. Analysis was done using Brio’s BrioQuery. Maps were done in ESRI’s ArcView. Charts were created using Microsoft Excel. All components were then compiled into a single report using Microsoft Publisher.

Figure 25: Consolidating Census 2000 Racial Groups — Total Connecticut Population Figure 2x: Consolidating Census 2000 Race Categories

3,000,000

81.6%

77.5%

77.5%

2,000,000

1,000,000 2.2%

9.1% 2.4%

0

White

4.3%

9.4% 8.7%

<1%

2.4% 1.6% <1%

Census 2000 -7 Census 2000Categories Racial Groups “7 Races” Races

Reveal Hispanics Reveal Hispanics - 8 Races

2,780,355

2,638,845

2,638,845

320,323 320,323

320,323

295,571

295,571

“8 Races”

141,510


9.4% 8.7%

<1% 2.4% 1.6%

309,843

14,272

Combine Smallest Groups -6 Combine Three Smallest Groups “6 Races” Races

Asian

82,313

749

81,564

81,564

Two Or More Races

74,848

21,952

52,896

52,896

147,201

139,060

8,141

8,141 7,267

Other Single Race American Indian

9,639

2372

7,267

Hawaiian

1,366

408

958

Total Population: 3,405,565

3,405,565

16,366 16,366

958

3,405,565


32

The Demographics of Congressional Redistricting in Connecticut

Recommend Documents