How Reapportionment Has Affected Nevada after the 2000 Census - Research Paper Example

After The Census of 2000, How Have Reapportionment Affected the State of Nevada Introduction Nevada is one of the fifty states of the United States, situated in the west part of the United States. Nevada is known for its rich silver deposits, as well as the existing mines of zinc, gold, lead, and tungsten. Though agriculture is not popular in this state due to the dry climatic condition, several practices prevail such as hay farming. In addition, Nevada is a major attraction to tourists due to popularity of gambling in Las Vegas. Being one of the US states, Nevada participates in the apportionment in the United States, which involves a process of dividing 435 seats in the House of Representatives among the fifty states in the United States. According to the 2000 census report, the Nevada state had a total population of 2,002,032 0f which 1,998,267 was resident population and 3,775 included the united states population overseas for those whose hometown was Nevada. The article further states that the main aim of apportionment is to evenly distribute the congress seats among the fifty states. According to census determines the number of representatives that a state has in the United States House of Representatives. Those states with large populations are allocated more representatives compared to the low populated states. How reapportionment has affected the State of Nevada after the 2000 census Reapportionment is the process of allocation of seats among the fifty states in the United States based on the previous census. This allocation of the seats is determined by a state’s population. Reapportionment takes place after two years since the last census; hence, after the 2000 census, reapportionment was done in 2003. this apportionment population includes the adults, children, United States citizens, and immigrants. Importantly, Nevada received additional one representative for its state; however, each of the fifty states is usually entitled to one representative depending on the population of a state. A census in the United States is conducted after every ten years. When the census is done, the results are reported to the president by the end of that year, thus the results of the census are used to allocate the congress seats to all the states. There are four different types of formulas that are used when apportioning seats to the states. One of the formulas is the method of greatest divisors; this method divides the total population by the number of seats assigned to each state, such that every state is given the exact number of seats that it deserves. The second formula is the method of major fractions that was invented by Daniel Webster. It was used in the 1840’s, in which it considered adding a seat to a state that had a fraction of a half and above. Alexander proposed a third formula in the 1850’s that ensured that members were allocated to each state depending on the state’s population, while the remaining seats were allocated to the highly populated states. In 1930s, the formula of equal proportion arose in which it uses the state’s population and divides it by the geometric mean of a state’s present number of seats and the next seat. According to Rourke (1980, pp 7), reapportionment is viewed as a converter from the rural pattern to an urban dominance. He also states that reapportionment is deemed to produce changes in states, even if the change is minimal. During reapportionment, every state is always expected to gain at least one seat; however, apportionment usually affects the distribution of votes such that those states that loose any seat lose a particular number of electoral votes. After a census, the population growth results assist in reapportioning, which has an impact on the number of votes that a state accumulates in presidential elections. According to Salam (2010), some of the states like Nevada may find themselves in strain on issues such as mortgages. According to the national atlas of the United States (2011), as per the 2000 census, twelve seats were divided among eighteen states, thus leaving eight states with more representatives. However, Nevada was among those states that gained only one seat. According to Vila (2007, p. 172), ”reapportionment is intended to ensure that each state has the number of united states representative proportionate to its population; the redistricting process is intended to ensure that each district in a state has the same population as other districts in that state.” In addition, reapportionment is the stepping-stone to redistricting, which involves creating of boundaries of districts that elect representatives, who in turn fill in those positions. Several factors must be considered while redistricting such as the notion that districts should be equal to the population of a particular state. Redistricting must however be approved by the governor of a state. According to Ransom (2011), based on the 2000 census, each district of Nevada represented 666,086 people. Redistricting should not interfere with the capability of the minority voters at any point. In addition, redistricting plan should not set boundaries on a racial basis; rather, it should take into consideration all aspects of political divide in relation to the whole community. According to Estrada (2002), after the 2000 census, it was discovered that the population of Latinos had increased drastically in some states. This increase in population proved fruitful for the highly populated states, since these states received an additional two congressional seats. Another rule that governs redistricting is that the legislators involved should make sure that districts are compact in order to preserve the communities of interest. Redistricting can be used to increase the minority representation or divide the heavily populated minority areas, making the election of a racial or ethnicity minority more difficult (Streb, 2011, pp 103). Nevertheless, redistricting is faced with some critics such as; it may lead to odd drawn districts that may spread throughout the state, thus making it impossible for the representatives to be able to adhere to the wishes of their constituents. Streb (2011) further explains that redistricting takes place in those states that have high population, so that the district boundaries are set. In addition, when new districts are formed, maps are drawn to mark the change. Generally, the main aims of redistricting include making sure that there are an equal number of people in each district. It also aims at developing compact and contiguous districts, protecting the minority representation and promotes electoral competition, and sustaining the communities of interest and maintaining the political subdivisions (Streb, 2011, pp 104). The main benefit of reapportionment is that it is an added advantage to the highly populated states since they receive additional congressional seats after a census. However, according to Wilson (2010), reapportionment does not necessarily guarantee that one party will have more rewards than another party will. Reapportionment involves the shift of congressional seats after every census, thus the calculation of the state’s votes is determined by the number of house members each state has. According to Walker (2010), “the shift of congressional seats from states that either gain or loose those seats, means that the state legislators or governors of these states have a chance to create a new configuration of the house districts that favors one political party over another.” However, according Polsby (1971, pp 115), reapportionment is accompanied by an advantage in that reapportionment contributes greatly to politics. In contrast, one of the demerits is that, reapportionment may break up communications in to different constituencies. After the 2000 census results, states such as Nevada, California, Colorado, and North Carolina gained one seat each, as they had an increased population. However, some states like New York and Pennsylvania lost two seats each, while other eight states lost one seat each. As a result, it is evident that a state whose population is growing fast gets more house representatives compared to the least populated states. In conclusion, research proves that the state of Nevada has been affected by the reapportioning after the 2000 census because it gained one more seat as a result of its increased population. Therefore, it is only correct to declare that reapportionment affects both the highly populated states by allocating more seats as some states loose their seats as a result of reapportionment. Conclusion In the United States, a census occurs after every ten years, necessitation the process of apportionment among the fifty states based on their population. Though the reapportioning process may be affected by counting illegal migrants during a census, it as well has an advantage to the citizens of America. Once a state is rendered to have a high population, it becomes eligible for more seats in congress after the census. One of the factors that may affect reapportioning is the number of immigrants that are supposedly illegal. After reapportioning is completed, the second process that follows is the redistricting, which is carried out by state legislatures, involving the process of setting boundaries within states. Nevertheless, reapportioning proves to be a benefit to some states that have high population, which are lucky to be allocated one or two extra seats after a census. However, reapportioning does not seem to focus much on the least populated states, as the state with the highest population determines the presidential votes, thus the reason why such a state is given more attention. Nevertheless, reapportionment works along with redistricting, in that, there has to be a census, the results are tallied, and they are presented to the president by the end of that census year. Then the reapportionment is carried out depending on the population of each state and finally redistricting takes place where boundaries are set for different districts among the chosen states. These districts are required to at least have equal amount of residents in a state. References Estrada, L. (2002). UCLA School of public policy and social research; redistricting a lost opportunity for Latinos. Retrieved from http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/june07-02/lost.htm. National atlas government article. (2011). U.S Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/boundaries/a_conApport.html#one. Polsby, N. (1971). Reapportionment in the 1970s. CA: University of California press publishers. Ranson, S. (2011). First step in reapportionment battle begins. Lahontan Valley News. Retrieved from http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20110329/NEWS/110329882/1055&ParentProfile=1045. Reid, W. (2010). Don't Believe the Reapportionment Hype. Retrieved from http://nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/don-t-believe-the-reapportionment-hype-20101223. Rourke, T. (1980). The impact of reapportionment. London: Transaction Publishers. Salam, R. (2010). Thinking through the policy impact of reapportionment. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/255770/thinking-through-policy-impact-reapportionment-reihan-salam. Strebs, M. (2011). Rethinking American Electoral Democracy. London: Taylor & Francis publishers. Vila, T. (2007). Rhode Island Latino Political Empowerment. NY: Lulu publishers. Walker, B. (2010). Reapportioning and redistricting favor republicans. New America news. Retrieved from http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5602:reapportionmnet-and-redistricting-favor-republicans&catid=24:elections&Itemid=39. Read More