Apr 26, 2021
2020 Census Results Press Conference Transcript April 26
The U.S. Census Bureau reported the 2020 Census results on April 26, 2021. Texas gained two seats in Congress and Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon all gained one. California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia all lost one seat. Read the transcript of the press conference briefing here.
Transcribe Your Own Content
Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling.
Michael Cook: (00:07)
Good afternoon. On behalf of the US Census Bureau, welcome to our briefing. Today, we will release the state population counts from the 2020 census and the resulting changes in congressional apportionment. I’m Michael Cook, division chief of the Public Information Office. And I will serve as moderator for today’s program.
Michael Cook: (00:28)
Some things have changed since we released the results last decade, most notably, this decade. Many households learned about the 2020 census online and completed the questionnaire online. Today, we come together online to share the results. One thing has not changed, the Census Bureau’s commitment to protect the privacy of those who responded to the census and our commitment to provide statistics that help shape planning for our future.
Michael Cook: (00:58)
I am pleased to welcome US Commerce Secretary, Dr. Gina Raimondo, who will begin our program followed by acting director for the US Census Bureau, Dr. Ron Jarmin, who will provide a brief look back at the 2020 census, and then the population results. We will then take questions from credential media. Welcome, Madam Secretary.
Dr. Gina R.: (01:21)
Hello, everyone. I’m thrilled to join you on such a momentous day. The decennial census plays a vital role in our democracy. And I’m so proud of the work the Census Bureau has done over the past decade to complete the 24th decennial census. It’s a wonderful witness of all the work that now coming to fruition.
Dr. Gina R.: (01:41)
First, I want to thank all of the dedicated staff at the Census Bureau. Without you, today would not have been possible. 2020 brought unprecedented challenges, a global pandemic, destructive wildfires, the most active hurricane season on record, and civil unrest across the country. With all of that happening, the Census Bureau had to quickly adapt its operations to confront these challenges head on, but the dedicated civil servants to the Census Bureau, with these systems of state and local governments and community groups, managed to overcome these hurdles and conduct a complete and accurate census count.
Dr. Gina R.: (02:23)
Today, we express our gratitude to you and let you know how proud we are of your work. I also want to thank the American people for their overwhelming participation in the census. While the Census Bureau has worked tremendously hard over the last year, a complete and accurate count would not have been possible without all those who took the few minutes to respond to the census. To all those that responded, thank you for participating in democracy.
Dr. Gina R.: (02:54)
As a former governor, I know first-hand how critical census data is for our communities. We know census data is used to determine how many representatives each state has in Congress, but it’s used for much more than that. State and local officials, the federal government, non-profits, all use census data to make decisions that have a direct impact on our lives. We use the data to decide how many teachers we need in our schools, how much funding we need for public housing programs, where to locate a business or a health clinic, where to build new roads. We use the data to make sure the economy’s working for everyone. The data is vital, and we are so lucky to have some of the best and brightest statisticians at the Census Bureau who have worked tirelessly this past decade. I trust these experts and I’m confident of this work.
Dr. Gina R.: (03:50)
Earlier today, I had the privilege of transmitting the 2020 census population and apportionment counts for each state to the president. Per the constitution, these counts determine the apportionment of seats in the US House of Representatives. This is a unique ritual that has occurred only 23 other times in American history. I assured the president that the census was complete and accurate.
Dr. Gina R.: (04:18)
President Biden will then deliver the population counts and apportionment results to Congress as required by law. But our work isn’t over yet, and we look forward to delivering the redistricting data no later than September 30th. Thank you for having me today, and congratulations on completing yet another census.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (04:40)
Thank you, Madam Secretary. This is a historic moment that happens once every 10 years. And it is my honor to represent all of the hardworking staff at the US Census Bureau who spent countless hours to ensure everyone was counted, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. I also want to thank everyone who responded to the census during these extraordinary times. When the first census was being conducted in 1790, Congress expected about 2 million people to be living in the country. When the results came back in 1793, the population exceeded 3.9 million, and overnight, the number of congressional representatives grew by 40. This number was so much larger than anticipated that they had to add on to Independence Hall to house all of the new lawmakers.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (05:26)
The first census was a critical step to help build the foundation of our democracy. And as we’ve learned over the years, it continues to be a cornerstone of our growing nation through wars, times of great social and technological change. And during a global pandemic, our nation has taken the census every 10 years as directed by our constitution.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (05:47)
The census is a massive operation that takes years to plan, and it takes a community to see it come to fruition. In addition to our dedicated staff, we had the support of hundreds of thousands of national and local partners, and of course, we had the help of our respondents who spend a few minutes completing the 2020 census form.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (06:08)
The count began in January 2020 in the small Alaskan village of Toksook Bay. It was there we counted the first person in the 2020 census. On March 12, 2020, invitations to respond to the census began to arrive in mailboxes across the country. Less than a week later, states across the nation began to impose stay-at-home orders. Immediately, we knew we needed to adapt. We adapted our operations to protect the health and safety of our staff and the public. And we adapted our schedule to ensure we could deliver high-quality statistics. And later, we adapted due to natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (06:49)
Through all of this, we remained flexible and practical and persistent so that we could fully conduct the 2020 census count. We were especially pleased to see how two-thirds of the nation completed the census on their own. Trying to reach as many people as possible, we extended our communications campaign and quickly developed new ads reflecting life during the pandemic. We advertised on pizza boxes, instead of during basketball games. Our partners joined us in reaching people at food banks and school cafeterias, instead of promoting the census at county fairs.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (07:22)
We quickly expanded from 13 non-English languages to 46 languages to assist in reaching additional historically undercounted populations. We mailed additional reminders to respond. We emailed households in low-responding areas and worked with colleges and universities directly to ensure their students were counted in the right place. We worked hard to get more people to respond, especially in those historically undercounted areas.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (07:50)
Census takers have a hard job to begin with. And trying to count people during a global pandemic made it even more challenging. But in order to count the remaining households that did not respond on their own, our census takers went out to those addresses, equipped with masks and iPhones, and collected responses directly from household members or from knowledgeable neighbors. In some cases, when we couldn’t get a response in any of these ways, we were able to use information households already provided the government, such as through past census responses, tax returns, or other government records.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (08:23)
As we move into the results, I want to note that we appreciate the public’s patience as we took the appropriate amount of time to ensure the accuracy and quality of the count. With that, let’s get to the results you’ve all been waiting for.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (08:40)
The 2020 census took a snapshot of all people living in the United States on April 1, 2020, and the results are in. According to the 2020 census, the number of people living in the United States was 331,449,281. This represents an increase of 7.4% over the official population count from the 2010 census. This population growth rate is lower than the previous growth rate of 9.7% between the 2000 and 2010 censuses. In fact, the growth rate from 2010 to 2020 is the second slowest in US history. The country’s 7.4% increase in population this decade was only slightly more than the 7.3 increase between 1930 and 1940.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (09:34)
For the regions, the South grew the fastest over the last decade with a 10.2% increase in population followed by the West with 9.2%, the Northeast with 4.1%, and the Midwest with 3.1%. The Northeast grew faster this decade than it grew between 2000 and 2010, while the other three regions grew slower this decade than the last. When looking across the states, we see large variation in population sizes. The state with the largest 2020 census resident population was California with 39,538,223. The state with the smallest population was Wyoming with 576,851. However, the 10 most populous states each had a resident population between 10 and 40 million, while the 10 least populous states each had a resident population between a half a million and 1.4 million.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (10:42)
The population of most states grew between 2010 and 2020. Utah was the fastest growing state with an 18.4% increase in population, growing to 3.3 million in 2020. On the other hand, three states lost population, was with West Virginia having the largest rate of decrease at 3.2%. The population of District Columbia grew by 14.6%. Puerto Rico’s population decreased by 11.8% to 3.3 million.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (11:17)
Now, let’s get to the apportionment results from the 2020 census. The constitutional purpose of the census is congressional apportionment, which is the process of distributing the memberships or seats in the US House of Representatives amongst the states every 10 years in a way that is proportional to each state’s population. Since 1941, the law has specified that the method of equal proportions will be used to assign House seats to the states. And while the law does not require the Census Bureau to calculate the number of seats each state will get, we do it as a courtesy to the president. We apply the required method to the apportionment population of the 50 states, not including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, because they have no voting seats in the Congress.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (12:01)
The 2020 census apportionment population includes the number of people living in the 50 states, plus the overseas population, which is a count of federal employees living overseas and their dependents living with them who are allocated to a home state. Since 1940, the regional trend with apportionment has been an increase in the number of congressional seats for the South and West, and a loss of congressional seats for the Northeast and Midwest. More specifically, since 1940, there’s been a combined net shift of 84 seats to the South and West regions. Overall, the effect of the official 2020 census population counts on congressional apportionment is a shift of seven seats among 13 states, which is the smallest number of seats shifting among the states in any decade since the current method of calculating apportionment was adopted in 1941.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (12:59)
Six states will gain seats in the House of Representatives. Texas will gain two seats, and Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon will each gain one seat. Seven states will each lose one seat in the House, California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The number of seats for the remaining 37 states will not change. The states that will have the most representatives in Congress are California with 52 seats, Texas with 38 seats, Florida with 28 seats, and New York with 26 seats. These four states are the most populous in the US with each having more than 20 million people. And together, those states will hold about a third of the total seats in the House of Representatives. Also, each of the six least populous states will have less than 1 million people, and will have only one seat.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (14:09)
After the first apportionment incurred, based on the 1790 census, each member of the House represented roughly 34,000 people. Now, the average population size of each House district, based on the 2020 census, will be 761,169 people, which is an increase of 50,402 people per representative when compared to the average of 710,767 people per representative, based on the 2010 census.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (14:40)
And those were the first results of the 2020 census. We have taken the time we needed to produce the high-quality statistics that we and the public expect. While no census is perfect, we are confident that today’s 2020 census results meet our high data quality standards. We would not be releasing them to you, otherwise. The Census Bureau is committed to sharing what we know when we know it to help the…
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (15:03)
The Census Bureau is committed to sharing what we know when we know it to help the nation understand the quality of the 2020 Census results. Despite all the challenges of the pandemic, the completeness and accuracy of these first 2020 Census results are comparable with recent censuses. We had numerous quality checks built into collecting the data, and we have conducted one of the most comprehensive reviews in recent Census history during data processing. Later today, we will release the next set of operational quality metrics and additional quality indicators. This afternoon’s release will be unprecedented in how soon after the Census we are able to provide operational metrics, down to the state level. They are just one of the many ways we evaluate and assess the quality of the 2020 Census. While our assessments won’t change the results of the 2020 Census, they will inform and influence our planning for the next Census.
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (15:52)
We are also looking forward to sharing more 2020 Census population results with you later this year, including redistricting data, statistics on age, sex, race and ethnicity, and details about the center of population. The results for the US island areas will also be provided in a separate release at a later date. States, as well as the public, will receive the data they need to begin redistricting by August 16th. The Census Bureau will also deliver the final redistricting data toolkit to all states and the public by September 30th. COVID-19 related delays and prioritizing the delivery of these apportionment results today delayed our original plan. Different from previous Censuses, the Census Bureau will deliver the data for all states at once, instead of on a flow basis. Finally, I want to take a moment again to thank our tireless, hardworking staff for everything they have done to ensure the delivery of today’s data and future data releases from the 2020 Census. I want to thank the millions of people who completed the 2020 Census on their own, or provided information to our Census takers. Thank you. Michael, back to you.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (17:05)
Thank you, Ron. We will now begin taking questions from credentialed media about the first 2020 Census population results. Members of the media who registered received the phone number via email from our Eventbrite account. When asking a question, please include your name and media affiliation. Operator, can you please provide the instructions for calling in?
If you would like to ask a question, press star one, unmute your line, and speak your name and media affiliation when prompted. To [inaudible 00:17:41] questions, star [inaudible 00:17:45]. Again, to ask a question, press star one.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (17:52)
Thank you to all the speakers. All of the results discussed today are available on our website at census.gov. You will find many materials related to… While we await callers, let me introduce our Census Bureau matter experts to us. We have with us today, Ron Jarmin, our Acting Director of the Census Bureau, [Al Fontenot 00:18:24], Associate Director for the Decennial Census, Victoria Velkoff, the Associate Director for Demographic Programs, Karen Battle, Chief of the Population Division and Kristin Koslap. She’s our lead technical expert for the 2020 Census apportionment in the population division. Operator, are we ready for our first question?
Yes. This question comes from Mike Schneider with Associated Press. Your line is open.
Mike Schneider: (18:54)
Hi, this is Mike Schneider with the Associated Press. My question was for Dr. Jarmin. The estimates showed Texas was supposed to gain three seats, but only gained two seats. Florida was expected to gain two seats according to the estimates, but only gained one seat. What is your theory on why these states did not get the extra seats? Both have sizable Hispanic populations, is there any concern that Hispanics in these states were overlooked?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (19:25)
Thanks for that question, Mike, I’m going to have Ron speak to that, but also knowing that our demographic experts might have some sound and some background, some information to give you as well. Ron?
Dr. Ron Jarmin: (19:36)
Yeah. Thanks for the question, Mike. So, we did do a very thorough job, especially in those areas, making sure that we counted everybody. I think we saw from our population estimates that the population growth had slowed significantly, and I think that some folks’ projections might’ve been based on some, on slightly higher population growth projections, but I’m not the demographer on the call here. So maybe I’ll turn it over to Tori or Karen to give a little bit more insight into that?
Karen Battle: (20:12)
Hi there. Good afternoon. So what I’ll just mention is that for the state of Texas, and for the state of Florida, the 2020 Census counts were actually below our population estimates from vintage 2020, now for Texas and Florida, the difference between the 2020 Census count and the estimates was within about 1%, so they were still close, but the 2020 counts were slightly lower than our population estimates.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (20:42)
Thanks for that Karen. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Our next question comes from Zach [inaudible 00:20:51] with Politico. Your line is open.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (20:55)
Hey all, thanks for doing this. Thank you for taking questions. I to follow a little bit on Mike’s question; we saw, Rhode Island didn’t lose a seat like we widely expected, Florida and Texas kind of gained less, against I want to reiterate, do we have any estimations for why the earlier population estimates were [inaudible 00:21:16] to over undershooting? And what is the Bureau’s level of confidence in this count, given everything that’s happened over the last year, given the pandemic, given all the changes to the schedule, what’s the level of confidence in the results?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (21:29)
Thanks for that line of questioning. I’ll pass that back to our demographic experts to talk about the quality of our data, but in specifically your questions that asked about the apportionment results. Tori?
Dr. Victoria Velkoff: (21:40)
Thanks for that question. We are very confident in the data that we released today. We measure the quality of the census in many different ways, and one of the ways that we measure the quality of the census is to compare to our population estimates. Of course, our population estimates are based on the last census, and built forward, adding births, subtracting deaths, adding in migration, so most estates are within 1% of our population estimates, which makes us feel very good about those census counts.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (22:14)
Great. Thanks for that line of questioning. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Our next question comes from [inaudible 00:22:23] be unembarrassed back with Star Tribune, your line is open.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (22:25)
Speaker 1: (22:27)
Hi, thanks for taking my question. I was wondering if someone could talk a little bit more about how the seats that were narrowly expected to lose like Minnesota in preliminary numbers, was going to lose one of his state seats, how it held on, could higher participation have contributed to something like that?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (22:43)
Thanks for that line of questioning. And again, I’ll lean in and toss this back over to our demographic directorate experts to talk a little bit about the count itself. And as you stated, those states that lost a seat, or were on the verge of gaining a seat.
Kristin Koslap : (23:00)
Okay, well, I’ll start. Thank you for that question. I want to repeat what my colleagues have said; we’re very confident in the quality of the data, and we’ve worked hard to ensure that the data that we’re using to calculate a portion is correct. As far as how certain scenarios may have impacted the results of a portion of it, we don’t tend to speculate on that, we just use the counts that come from the decennial census, after they’ve been finalized. So, we will continue to look into the quality of the data as we move forward.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (23:46)
Thank you, Kristin. And thank you for calling for that question. Operator, do we have our next caller?
[Jeanette 00:23:54] [inaudible 00:23:55] with the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Your line is open.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (23:58)
Speaker 2: (23:59)
Hi everyone, thanks so much for having me. I really just need a couple of basic data points from you on the data reporter here at the Post. Can you please just tell me what the population of Missouri is, and what the population of Illinois is?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (24:17)
What I’m going to suggest for you, if you don’t mind, we have population, or public affairs specialists that are on our comms line in PIO, if you could contact them at email@example.com, or 301 763 3030, we’ll get you those numbers right away, so you can follow your story.
Speaker 2: (24:38)
Okay, all right can you still hear me here?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (24:41)
Speaker 2: (24:42)
Is that information not searchable on your data portal right now?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (24:47)
Well, ma’am, we’re actually conducting a live conference or a news conference and a Q&A, and some of our SMEs don’t have the database at their fingertips, so just to expedite getting you that response, I wanted you to reach out to our Public Information Office, if that’s quite all right by you?
Speaker 2: (25:07)
Okay. Yes, I will do that. Thank you so much.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (25:11)
Thank you so much, and thank you for your continued interest in the 2020 Census. Operator, can we have our next caller?
Dan Clark with PBS Public Broadcasting, your line is open.
Dan Clark: (25:23)
Hi, can you hear me?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (25:25)
We can, loud and clear.
Dan Clark: (25:27)
All right. Great. So just looking in New York specifically, and given your answer to the last reporter, I’m not sure if you know, but just looking in New York specifically, is there any indication of where New York’s population is going, in terms of which states they’re moving to, or that we’re losing people to? And can any of you tell me how close New York was to losing a second congressional seat?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (25:54)
Yes. We have information on that, and I’ll pass that over to our demographic directors, specialists or experts.
Dan Clark: (26:01)
Sure, thank you.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (26:04)
Karen Battle: (26:04)
Actually, I was just going to start and say that we do know from our population estimates that the state of New York has experienced negative net domestic migration, meaning there were more people moving out of the state of New York over the last decade than moving into the state. I don’t have right here, information on specifically which states people were moving to, but that’s something that could be discussed with subject matter experts at the Census Bureau.
Dr. Victoria Velkoff: (26:35)
And can I just add that actually New York crew between the 2010 Census and the 2020 Census by about 4.2%.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (26:47)
Thanks for that.
Kristin Koslap : (26:49)
I was just going to follow up on the last part of the question. She asked how close New York was, and so what we have is that if New York had had 89 more people, they would have received one more seat, instead of the last state that received their last seat, there are 435 seats, so the last seat went to Minnesota, and New York was next in line. And if you do the algebra equation that determines how many they would have needed, it’s 89 people, but that’s if you hold the population of all other states, constant.
Dan Clark: (27:30)
Wait, can you still hear me? Sorry.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (27:33)
Dan Clark: (27:35)
So if we had counted 89 more people in New York state, and assuming everything else was constant, we would not have lost a congressional seat?
Dr. Victoria Velkoff: (27:49)
Dan Clark: (27:53)
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (27:54)
Thank you for that, sir. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Jim Jakobs with GVwired.com. Your line is open.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (28:06)
Hi there. Can you hear us? Operator, I don’t think they’re ready.
[crosstalk 00:28:22] Jim Jakobs, your line is… All right, [Jamie White 00:28:22] with-
Jim Jakobs: (28:27)
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (28:29)
We can hear you loud and clear now. We can hear you.
Jim Jakobs: (28:31)
Ah, excellent. My button got pushed there. Sorry. Yeah. Was just Jim Jakobs with GVwire.com. My question is very similar to the gentleman’s in New York, but I want to be more California centric and specific because that’s where I am at. Can you talk to me about the shifting demographics in the state of California, inflow versus outflow, and how close were we to losing a potential second seat, or in the case of New York, how close are we to not losing one seat? If that makes sense? Thank you.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (28:58)
Thanks for that line of questions and because it’s about the data results. I’ll turn that back over to our demo experts.
Karen Battle: (29:05)
Hi there, this is Karen Battle. So with the state of California, what I can tell you is that from our population estimates program, we know that over the last decade, California has actually experienced natural increase, where they were able to gain population because there were more births than deaths. And they also had positive net international migration, but California did have negative net domestic migration, where again, there were more people moving out of California than moving into California. And so that contributed to the population count in the Census.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (29:48)
Thanks for that, Karen. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Jim Jakobs: (29:52)
I’m sorry [crosstalk 00:29:53]-
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (29:52)
Oh, go ahead?
Kristin Koslap : (30:00)
I think he was waiting for the rest of the answer, which is, he asked about how close Cali-
Kristin Koslap : (30:03)
He was waiting for the rest of the answer, which is he asked about how close California was. What I can tell you is that, as I said before, there’s 435 seats. If you continue down the rankings, California was at number 441, so that’s about six steps down from gaining the next seat.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (30:25)
Thank you for that, Kristin. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Jamie Weiss with 4029 News, your line is open.
Jamie Weiss: (30:35)
Hi, good afternoon. Can you hear me?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (30:37)
We can, loud and clear.
Jamie Weiss: (30:39)
Hi there, this is Jamie Weiss with 4029 News. I’m not sure if you can answer the specifics, I’m calling it out Arkansas and Oklahoma, states in the South where they’re next to big states like Texas that have seen an increase in population. I’m curious if you’ve seen any data about growth in those states, but why maybe they haven’t received a congressional seat and why they haven’t lost any congressional seats either?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (31:06)
Thanks for that line of questioning. Again, I’ll pass this over to our demographic experts.
Kristin Koslap : (31:14)
In terms of why a state has not gained or lost a seat, it all depends on the population distribution for any given decennial census. So if their population in relation, proportional relation to the other states hasn’t changed, then they won’t gain or lose a seat.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (31:38)
Thanks for that, Kristen. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Shia Kapos with Politico, your line is open.
Shia Kapos: (31:49)
Hi. It’s Shia Kapos Illinois Playbook in Politico. Can you talk a little bit about the in migration, out migration of Illinois and how close was it from losing a second seat? And is there a chance that block by block information will be released a little bit earlier than September?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (32:09)
Thanks for that line of questioning. We’ll take this right back to our demographic experts for a little explanation, albeit be mindful of the fact that the set of data that we’ve released today is only down to the state level as far as the geography is considered, but there will be more to come and more details to follow as we continue to, to disseminate the results of the 2020 Census. Demo.
Karen Battle: (32:33)
So I’ll start. So Illinois was actually one of the three states that actually lost population over the last decade. We know from our population estimates program that the state of Illinois actually had negative net domestic migration. Again, there were more people moving out of that state than moving into that state. I think I’ll turn it Over to Kristin to talk more about the next part of your question.
Kristin Koslap : (33:07)
As far as how close they were to losing another seat. I don’t have that in front of me, because that would require me to look up in the rankings, above 435 to see how close they were to seat 435. But when I look at the 10 states that were directly below seat 435 Illinois is not among them. So Illinois was not close to getting… to not losing another seat. If that makes sense.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (33:36)
Thanks for that, Kristen. Porter, operator, do we have our next caller?
Lynn Sweet with Chicago Sun Times your line is open.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (33:47)
Lynn Sweet: (33:48)
Thank you. I know it must seem that there’s a lot of Illinois interest, but I want to follow up with my colleagues from Missouri and from the Illinois Playbook. Could you make it perhaps a little clearer, is the loss not so much… So we’ve lost population in Illinois, but was it really more of a matter that other states just had such big gains? Even if we had held steady we might’ve lost a seat. Meaning was it really our loss or was it because other states just gained more that we lost the seat?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (34:23)
Coming right back to you demo.
Kristin Koslap : (34:28)
We can’t really comment. I mean, we can’t really speculate on that because it’s all about the dispute distribution overall. What you’re stating could possibly be true, but without digging into it a lot more deeply, we wouldn’t know exactly the reason why one state loses or gains because the calculation is done as a whole on all the states together and how they’re proportionally related. But theoretically, if certain states gained a lot more than other states, proportionally, then they would be more likely taking seats.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (35:08)
Thank you for that Kristin. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Roxanne Scott with WABE News, the line is open.
Roxanne Scott: (35:21)
Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me? I hope so.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (35:24)
We can, loud and clear.
Roxanne Scott: (35:26)
Yes. Thank you. I wanted to know, and similar to New York, how far off was Georgia in either gaining or losing a seat in the house?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (35:38)
Thanks for that question. We’ll have our demo experts address that line of questioning. This is Georgia gaining or losing a seat.
Kristin Koslap : (35:49)
This answer is similar as far as I don’t know how close they were above the number of seat 435 as to whether they might’ve lost or gained one. But when you go below the 435 to see the states that almost received another seat, they are not among that list of the 10 next states. So they weren’t close to receiving one more than they got.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (36:21)
Thank you for that. Operator, do we have our next caller
Pat Cloonen with Indiana Gazette, your line is open.
Pat Cloonen: (36:32)
Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you for that. By the way that is Indiana, Pennsylvania for what it is worth. Pennsylvania, I don’t know what specifics you have for the Keystone State, did Pennsylvania gain population, but just not enough of a gain to offset the possible loss of seats.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (36:52)
Thanks for that. Let me toss this over to demo and see if we have any data that we can share for you or insights on the state of population specifically. For all the callers who are calling about specifics in relationship to the totals of pop change and things of that nature, I want to remind everyone that after today’s news conference we will be posting our news release as well as tables that support this release that’ll assist you in finding those discrete variables, but also another pitch for the public information office, you can always reach out to us if you, by chance you don’t get to ask your question during today’s news conference, we’re more than welcome and willing to help you get those direct answers. So tossing this back over to demo.
Kristin Koslap : (37:43)
Hi, I just checked one of the tables that will be posted online, or may have already been posted online depending on how we’re doing with our live posting. For Pennsylvania it was 2.4% increase between 2010 Census and 2020 Census. Was there more to the question I can’t remember?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (38:16)
Is the caller still there? I think that that addresses it.
Kristin Koslap : (38:22)
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (38:22)
Thanks for that. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Kobee Vance with Mississippi Broadcasting, your line is open.
Kobee Vance: (38:32)
Thank you. I was curious which states, I heard y’all say the South saw the largest growth in population, which states all the largest growth and which states saw, in that region, the lowest growth rates?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (38:47)
Thanks for that question about the data. So we’ll take that data question back to our demo experts to see if they have that information at ready, at their fingertips. Demo.
Kristin Koslap : (39:02)
I don’t have the list of the states within the South that had the largest increase, but I do have the states, the top five states that had the largest percent increase, and that was Utah, Idaho, Texas, North Dakota, and Nevada. Those states had the largest percent increase between 2010 and 2020.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (39:26)
Thank you for that. Operator, do we have a next caller.?
Mark Cavitt with the Oakland Press, your line is open.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (39:35)
Mark Cavitt: (39:38)
Yes. Hi, this is Mark Cavitt at the Oakland Press. Just wanted to talk about Michigan, specifically, losing one seat in the U.S. House. How close was Michigan to losing two seats talk about the decrease in population there in Michigan has led to this losing of one seat.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (39:57)
Thank you for that line of question about Michigan. Turning back to our data experts and the demographic director.
Kristin Koslap : (40:08)
Again, I don’t have the part about what’s above the 435, but as far as the next 10 states in the ranking that that just missed getting another state, Michigan is in number 444 in the ranking, which means that they could have potentially been closer to not losing a seat. However, I just want to mention that for all these questions about how close a state was, and if you want to see the part that I’m talking about that I don’t have in front of me that are above 435, on the 2020 Census apportionment results web page, there is a priority values table that’s should be posted, and that will give you the ranking order of all of this, of the seat and the states that just missed below it as well.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (41:02)
Thanks for that, Kristin, because we know that it’s very important for people to see themselves in the data, especially with this important release that we’re putting out today. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Geoff Redick with WSYX ABC 6, your line is open.
Geoff Redick : (41:22)
Hi, you’re all able to hear me?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (41:24)
We can, loud and clear.
Geoff Redick : (41:25)
Hi we’re here in Columbus, Ohio and central Ohio here as a part of a state that experiences significant growth. So I’m wondering how nitty gritty you can get in terms of where Ohio is lagging in population growth? Where else is holding the state back?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (41:45)
Thanks for that. One disclaimer, or some air cover for our demo experts who are getting a lot of questions today, want to remind everyone, all the reporters and media outlets that are covering today’s release, today’s release takes us down to the state level when we talk about populations and values and count. So there is more to come with the 2020 Census and future releases when we get below the state level, which I think will give you some insights into some of the questions that you’re asking, but I’ll turn it over to the demo and allow them to give you information they do have to share today.
Karen Battle: (42:25)
Hi there. So again, what we can tell you is about Ohio’s growth as state and Ohio’s population grew by 2.3% over the last decade. As Michael mentioned, once we have our next data release, the redistricting data, we’ll be able to look more within the state and look at different areas of growth and see how the growth was faster or slower and make those comparisons at that time.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (42:55)
Anecdotally can you say how Ohio matches up with the rest of the Midwest?
Karen Battle: (43:01)
Well, I believe we showed information earlier today that showed that actually the Midwest and the Northeast, their growth overall was 3% or 4% over the last decade. That’s in comparison to the South and the West where we saw about 9.2 and 10.2% growth.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (43:21)
Thank you for that, Karen. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Malachi Barrett with MLive, your line is open.
Malachi Barrett: (43:30)
Thank you. Hopefully you can hear me and my colleague Mark here in Michigan actually knocked out a couple of questions that I was curious about. All I have to ask if the coronavirus, states that were impacted more severely throughout the pandemic, if that created any kind of disproportionate impact on the ability to accurately record counts in those states? Obviously Michigan had some significant struggles with that.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (44:03)
Thanks for that line of questioning. We can definitely give you a little bit about the data, but I like to, if at all possible, allow Al Fontenot to give us a little bit of information about the quality of our operation. In particular, the impacts due to the pandemic and the things that we did to ensure a complete and accurate count. Al.
Albert Fontenot: (44:26)
Thank you, Michael. We work very hard to coordinate data from the CDC, from state and local governments to ensure that when we send people out into the field, we were sending them out at a time when the local community would tolerate, or be more open to door to door enumeration. What we found was by delaying some of our field operations, we were able to go into the field and successfully collect the data in areas that had high COVID impacts early in the COVID outbreak. We feel very confident that we did a good job.
… and we feel very confident that we did a good job of collecting data in spite of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (45:10)
Thank you, Al. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Rachel Hoffmeyer with NBC 26, your line is open.
Rachel Hoffmeyer: (45:23)
Hi. Thank you guys so much for taking questions. I’ve already emailed that email to try and get as much data as possible because I understand the numbers aren’t in front of you, but is there anything Wisconsin-specific you guys can share? I know two of our neighbors experienced losses and the Midwest was, like you said, the slowest region in terms of growth. Just curious if there’s any insight you could share about Wisconsin.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (45:48)
Thank you for that. Let’s take a look or let’s check in with demo and see what light we can shed on the Midwest and Wisconsin in particular, specifically.
Kristin Koslap : (45:59)
Wisconsin did have a 3.6% increase in their population between 2010 and 2020, which as Karen mentioned, is in line with the Midwest as a whole. Do you want to add anything to that, Karen?
Karen Battle: (46:18)
No. I don’t think we have additional data at our fingertips at this particular moment for Wisconsin.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (46:27)
Thank you. Thanks for those line of questions as well. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Olivia Winslow with Newsday, your line is open.
Olivia Winslow: (46:39)
Thank you very much for taking my call. I just did get the numbers from the CIO office, but I wanted clarification in the name of the demographer who made the statement. I didn’t catch it. I’m in New York, so I’m concerned or interested in the New York results. The demographer who mentioned that New York had had 89, and is that right, just 89 more people? It would not have lost a congressional seat. Confirm that please and tell me the name of the person who said it. Thank you.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (47:14)
Hi, Olivia. This is Michael Cook. That was Kristin Koslap. If you go to our electronic press kit, you’ll see her name and title. It was Kristin Koslap who made that statement. I don’t know, Kristin, if you have anything else to add.
Olivia Winslow: (47:26)
I guess [crosstalk 00:47:26] from one to 89 people. I mean, that 1% differential that you were talking about, that 89 people would be much less than that. Wow. That’s a big loss for just 89 people. Anybody want to comment on that?
Kristin Koslap : (47:49)
I can just confirm that the number when you calculate it is 89, however, it’s part of the standard of the method of equal proportions is that it all depends on the overall proportion of all the states within the nation. For example, it’s not unusual for there to be a small margin like that. In 1970, Utah only needed 231 people to move up from the 436th to the 435th ranking value.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (48:29)
Thank you for that, Kristin. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Anna Staver with Columbus Dispatch, your line is open.
Anna Staver: (48:40)
Hi, can you guys hear me?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (48:41)
We can, loud and clear.
Anna Staver: (48:45)
Oh, great. I wanted to ask about Ohio. I know you just spoke with a reporter about New York, but I wanted to ask where did Ohio hit on that chart? If New York was just below the line, was Ohio like 1,000 people off or were we more closer to like we barely kept from losing two seats, if that makes sense?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (49:11)
It does make sense. Let me toss this over to Kristin Koslap to see if she has that information right in front of her. If she doesn’t, we’ll work on getting that for you from our PIO call-in number. Kristen?
Kristin Koslap : (49:27)
What I do have is that Ohio was next in line behind New York. They were at ranking number 437. They were close as well to receiving one more seat than they did.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (49:48)
Thanks for that, Kristin. Operator, do we have our next caller?
Howard Fischer with Capitol Media Service, your line is open.
Mike Schneider: (49:56)
Thank you. I appreciate you guys taking the calls. I know that a lot of us are waiting for some of the data to be posted, but like all of us, I need to be parochial. Arizona was one of the fastest growing states historically yet we didn’t gain an anticipated seat. How far off were we in terms of having that 767,000, or whatever it was, to get a 10th seat?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (50:25)
Thanks, Howard, for that question. I’ll let [demo 00:50:27] speak to that line of questioning about your state.
Kristin Koslap : (50:34)
For Arizona, they were ranking number 440 as far as the states that were just below the cutoff to receive one more seat than they would have. I don’t have the numbers in front of me for all of those lower states as far as how much they would need to move up.
Mike Schneider: (50:56)
Essentially, we weren’t as close as Ohio and New York. It’s not even a question that we were just below the line, we just didn’t didn’t get there.
Kristin Koslap : (51:10)
Mike Schneider: (51:11)
Okay, great. Now, when we finally get this stuff posted, because I keep hitting refresh on what’s supposed to be the kit, we’ll have the specifics in terms of all of that state by state?
Kristin Koslap : (51:28)
There’s a table called priority values, a priority values table for the 2020 census. It will be closer to the bottom of the 2020 census apportionment results webpage, which should be live soon. You should be able to get to it from the apportionment press kit webpage. That will show you all of the rankings for seats 51, because each state gets one to start with, the rankings from seat 51 to about 460. You’ll be able-
Mike Schneider: (51:59)
Okay, fantastic. Thank you much.
Kristin Koslap : (52:01)
… to see about how far below.
Mike Schneider: (52:03)
Great. To the extent that somebody in the PIO office can get that posted now you might end up avoiding a lot of these questions, but thank you much.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (52:13)
Kristin Koslap : (52:13)
I’m sure they will.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (52:17)
Operator, do we have our next caller?
Michelle Quesada with WPTV, your line is open.
Michelle Quesada: (52:25)
Hi. I have two questions. One, they’re both …
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (52:34)
Are you there, Michelle? Are you there, Michelle?
It looks like Michelle may have gotten disconnected.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (53:02)
Okay. Can we have our next caller, please?
Our next question comes from Karla Valdez with Univision. Your line is open.
Karla Valdez: (53:12)
Hi, can you hear me?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (53:16)
We can, loud and clear.
Karla Valdez: (53:18)
Perfect. I know there was an increase on our population in Texas. Do we know if the Hispanic population increased too?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (53:29)
Thanks for that. I’ll let [demo 00:53:32] shed some light on that data and that specific characteristic for the population of Texas.
Karen Battle: (53:38)
Hi there. At this point, we have processed population totals and we are now beginning a process of processing the characteristics data collected in the 2020 census, data on race and Hispanic origin, age and sex. At this point in time, we actually don’t have final numbers to share about the Hispanic population at this time.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (54:09)
Thanks for that question and thanks for that response, Karen. Operator, I think we’re going to go and take our last question.
Our last question comes from Frank Lockwood with Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Your line is open.
Frank Lockwood: (54:25)
Thank you. I was wondering if you could talk about what the South is seeing as far as immigration and live births, some of those things. Also, you’ve got a chart that shows priority values for the 2020 census apportionment, there are three Arkansas places on there. Can you explain how the priority value system works?
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (54:52)
Thanks for that line of question about priority values. I’ll toss that over to, I believe it looks like Tori Velkoff. Nope, sorry, Karen Battle.
Tori Velkoff: (55:01)
No. No. I think it’s Kristin that is the expert on that.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (55:05)
Kristin Koslap : (55:06)
I can answer the part about the priority values, but if Karen wants to follow up to talk about the shifts in population for the South, she could do that. For the priority values, the way the method of equal proportions works is that we calculate numbers, priority values is what we call them, that are based on each state’s population and the number of potential seats each state could receive. We calculate as many of those as could potentially be received up to like 70, I believe. Then we rank all of those values and then take number 51 through 435 and assign to each state. Then any state that had a number below that 435 did not get another seat. You can also read about this in more detail in the blog that we put out today about how we calculate apportionment.
Karen Battle: (56:15)
I’ll just add that in terms of the population growth in the South, there really are different reasons for the growth. I don’t have kind of the aggregated statistics just for the South, but there are states like Texas and Florida that definitely are experiencing natural increase, again, more births than deaths. These types of states are also experiencing a lot of migration, net migration, be it people moving internationally into those states or people moving domestically into those states. There’s more of that moving into the state than people moving out of the state.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (56:59)
Thank you to all the speakers. All of the results discussed today are available on our website at census.gov. You will find many materials related to the release of the first 2020 census results, including an America Counts story, a blog, a news release and links to the statistics and maps in our apportionment press kit.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (57:20)
In about two hours, we will release the next set of 2020 census operational metrics through an interactive dashboard along with a blog. With additional quality indicators available in a working paper and blog, please visit census.gov to access information. Members of the media, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call (301) 763-3030 for any additional questions. A live presentation in Spanish will follow the news conference. Media interested in obtaining Spanish language soundbites should remain on this live stream.
Michael C. Cook, Sr.: (57:57)
Thank you all for joining us. The Census Bureau is proud to bring you the first results of the 2020 census. We will now take a brief break before our Spanish language presentation.