Report: Georgia stands to gain 1 congressional seat after Census

Georgia is one of eight states that stand to gain at least one congressional seat from the latest Census, according to an unofficial study reported by CNN.  Georgia would gain one seat along with Arizona,  Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Florida and Texas would gain two and four seats, respectively, CNN reports:

Every ten years, upon the conclusion of the national Census, the number of congressional seats in each state is recalculated based on population changes since the previous census. The process is known as “reapportionment.”

It is the first step in the decennial redistricting process in which states redraw the boundaries of their congressional districts….

Of the eight states predicted to gain electoral votes, five [including Georgia] were carried by Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, while three were carried by President Obama.

Eight states Obama won in 2008 are projected to lose electoral votes, compared to two states carried by McCain.

10 comments Add your comment


September 27th, 2010
1:53 pm

One more Republican congressman will benefit Georgia and the country.

Wes Barker

September 27th, 2010
2:08 pm

All states that are gaining are Republican states usually. So that should give us +8 more seats in 2012 + a Republican President. Thank God


September 27th, 2010
2:12 pm

This is an important reason to elect Deal. We must ensure the districts are drawn in a way to maximise Republican representation from Georgia. Remember what Barnes did in 2000 to make sure there was only a 7-5 advantage.


September 27th, 2010
2:25 pm

Not so fast….the Obama Admin Justice Dept with Eric Holder in charge will reject redistricting across the country, mark it down, count on it, it will happen. They will do all they can in an effort to thwart redistricting and will allege what Democrats always do, “racism”. This is the same Justice Dept that is slowing down the processing and return of illegals thru ICE, the same Justice Dept which is suing Arizona, suing Sheriff Arapao for enforcment of immigration law.


September 27th, 2010
3:07 pm

I’m certain Barnes is excited about getting his hands on any redistricting. Remember what happened in 2001? If not, maybe you could reference these articles from the AJC – “What’s Roy Hiding Up His Sleeves in Redistricting?” (8/23/01) “Democratic Coup Under Gold Dome” (9/2/01), “Governor’s Redistricting Role Unique: Involvement Adds to Image of King Roy.” (10/1/01), “Governor has Gone Over the Line” (9/25/01) or “House Says it Will Decide Redistricting, Not Barnes.” (8/23/01)

….and to think…the House was controlled by the Democrats at that time…….

Roy Barnes

September 27th, 2010
3:09 pm

I propose splitting John Lewis’s congressional district into two; that’ll guarantee another Democrat from Georgia in congress !

These Republicans seem to have multiplied in Georgia since the last time I ran for governor. Por Tom Murphy must be spinning in his grave.

professional skeptic

September 28th, 2010
12:05 am

September 27th, 2010
2:12 pm

td– we know you’re a goose-stepping, non-thinking voter who’ll vote (R) even if it means electing a crook. There’s nothing too too corrupt, too unethical, too underhanded, too self-serving or too illegal that Nathan Deal could possibly do to make you decide not to vote for him. We know this.

Fortunately millions of other Georgians want a better person than that for Governor.


September 28th, 2010
12:05 pm

Maybe the seat will be in a more liberal district. We can wish.

David S

September 28th, 2010
2:37 pm

In the early 1900’s, without an amendment to the constitution, the US government decided that going forward we would all be less and less represented by our elected representatives. A US Law delared that the congress would never get any larger than it was then.

When our country was founded, the constitution declared that there would be 1 representative for every 30,000 enumerated “citizens.” Yes, I know the 3/5ths thing with slaves and the fact that women couldn’t vote. Given both of these factors, many estimate that each congressman effectively represented only about 5,000 voters (you have to leave out the under 21 year olds too). Look at that number and tell me if what sort of relationship you would have with your congressman if they only represented 5,000 voters.

Today, each US representative “represents” nearly 750,000 people versus the original 30,000. They now claim to represent 25 times more people than our founding fathers intended. We should have 25 times as many representatives as we have today. We have effectively been disinfranchised by our own government without a constitutional amendment or any due process.

Yes, a House of Representatives that was 25 times its current size would be challenging to say the least, but can we deny that every one of us would be better represented? Can the folks in northern DeKalb deny that they would likely elect someone completely different from Hank Johnson if only they and their neighbors were the voters for the office rather than the entire county?

One more rep for GA is fine, but we should have 250 more representatives.

Until we start discussing that disinfranchisement, nobody should really care about another body who will give as little attention to his/her 750,000 constituents as the current gang of criminals does.

Randolph Phillips

September 29th, 2010
3:04 am

This article discusses states which will gain one new Rep in Congress. Are there any which will gain more than one. And will the Northeast, NY, PA, Ill, etc. blue states which have lost Reps beginning with the 1970 census hold their own.

The 2010 ACORN census was meant to bring back Reps and electoral votes to those blue states and assure Obama’s reelection in 2012. Will the ploy succeed?

As for the district lines, the US Justice Department will require gerrymandered districts to create as many minority districts as possible (under the 1965 Voting Rights Act) for Congress and the State Legislature, and efforts by Fair Vote and others will be made to further eoode the majority vote requirement for candidates to get elected. Every effort should be made to insure no one can be elected without getting at least 50% plus 1 of all legal votes cast, and insuring runoff elections are kept to insure that. Avoid single shot voting, winning by pluralities, and “the instant runoff” schemes so loved by liberals and organizations funded by George Soros.