Via Wonkblog, I learn the Census just issued new state population estimates for 2015! Whoo-hoo! What do we learn about South Dakota?
- As of July 1, 2015, the Census estimates there were 858,469 South Dakotans.
- Worldwide, one out of about 8,500 people is a South Dakotan.
- South Dakota is one of only six states with fewer than a million people.
- We are the fifth-least populous state.
- Delaware has more people (about 946K); North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming have fewer.
- The Census estimates we’ve netted 44,278 new South Dakotans in the last five years.
- That’s a 5.44% increase over five years, or a 1.06% annual rate.
- At that rate, South Dakota’s population would double in 65 years.
- Since 2010, South Dakota has posted the 12th fastest population growth rate.
- We beat Minnesota, which ranked 28th with a 0.69% annual growth rate (but added 4.2 times as many people as South Dakota).
- North Dakota grew the fastest, followed by D.C., Texas, and Colorado.
- West Virginia is the only state that lost population; Vermont, Maine, Illinois, and Rhode Island grew most slowly.
- 58% of our net population growth came was “natural”—i.e., the number of births over deaths.
- 18% of our population growth was folks coming from other countries.
- 23% of our population growth was folks coming from other states.
- Minnesota actually lost more people to other states than they gained. But Minnesotans made lots of babies and attracted lots more international immigration.
I assume that most of this population growth was in the Sioux Falls metro area. At the next redistricting Sioux Falls will pick up two more Senators and four representatives. The rest of the state should be well advised not to piss off the Sioux Falls people.
Paul, let’s see…
Census doesn’t have city estimates for 2015, but in 2014, they estimated Sioux Falls had grown since 2010 by 14,689 and Rapid City by 4,674. That’s annual growth rates of 2.3% for Sioux Falls and 1.7% for Rapid, both outpacing the state average. If I multiply those growth rates to get 2015 estimates (carry the 2…), I find Sioux Falls and Rapid accounting for 55.26% of the above population growth.
But don’t fret those legislative seats yet: the next time we redistrict will be 2017, once Amendment T passes, and while SF and RC are growing faster than the rest of the state, neither will have grown by the size of an entire legislative district. At worst, I’d suggest SF might gain one district (one senator, two reps).
But even if SF and RC do gain a district or two, I’d suggest we remind Sioux Falls not to torque us off, or we’ll organize a shopping boycott and buy all our loot in Brookings and Aberdeen! Come eat at The Flame! :-)
I know of 5 people that have relocated from Minnesota to SD as part of business expansion in the last year. Ironically, NONE of the business done due to that expansion has been in SD.
Cory, your analysis of the growth in Sioux Falls grants me a little peace of mind. Guess that I was getting a little ahead of myself.
CH,
I think you are right SF area will gain one seat but there is a chance that SFalls proper and continguous might lose one as two or three of the ring districts lose their Sioux Falls dominance. That said, I think it will make those who represent SFalls more purely urban.
My district, district 26, already covers five pretty large counties. I guess we can suck it up and add a couple more.
Paul, I make no guarantees. These numbers can all change. it just doesn’t look like they’ve changed enough to provoke a drastic boost in the number of reps from Sioux Falls in the 2017 or even 2012 redistricting. Of course, that all depends on how the legislators draw the lines. If Amendment T failed and legislators were allowed to continue their gerrymandering, one could draw some wild lines that would allow twenty districts to have fingers in Sioux Falls but dilute Sioux Falls’s voting power to ensure lots of rural reps get elected from Moody, Lake, McCook, Turner, and Lincoln counties. Theoretically speaking, of course….
In further theoretical madness, if the growth rates of the last five years held steady, South Dakota could surpass the District of Columbia, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia in this century. We’d catch Montana by 2114, at which point our population would be 2.4 million. By that point, given the growth rates I gave Paul for Sioux Falls and Rapid City, RC would have a population of 374,000, while SF would have a population of 1.59 million. Rapid City would have 16% of the state’s population; Sioux Falls would have 66%. Then, Paul, you would have the terror of Sioux Falls holding a supermajority in the Legislature.
At current growth rates, North Dakota will pass us in population in 2030, when we would both be around 1.07 million. But bust the Bakken boom, and the ND curve breaks fast.