Connecticut State Data Center Reports
Included below are archived reports created by the Connecticut State Data Center.
(Dec 2007) The One-Man, One-vote Myth: The Impact of Non-Voting Populations on Congressional Apportionment
On December 20th, 2007, CtSDC Manager Orlando Rodriguez published a second analysis of Congressional Apportionment and the processes and statistics on which it is based."Current Congressional Apportionment ignores the impact of the non-voting population and fails to remedy political actions that seek to limit the participation of some voters."
In proposing apportionment based on voters, Mr. Rodriguez offers an incentive to all citizens to become committed to participation in the selection of America's leadership. As his study includes statistical evidence that moving to counting voters from counting persons would not have upset recent elections, his study is also non-partisan.
On September 20th, 2007, CtSDC reported on two scenarios for the 2010 Apportionment of Congressional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The first scenario assumes Census 2010 counts all undocumented residents, who settle primarily in Southern border states (AZ, FL, TX), with the expected outcome that Northern and Midwestern states (MI, IL, MO, OH, NY) will lose seats .A concurrent finding is that undocumented populations appear to distort the relative voting power of all citizens nationwide.
The second scenario assumes undocumented residents will not be included in the count for U.S. Representative apportionment, which is a departure from previous procedures. In this scenario, six Northern and Midwestern states(MA, NY, NJ, PA, OH and IA) lose only six seats between them. Exclusion of undocumented populations could (1) mute the geographic shift from north to south and (2) have only Florida gain another seat.
(Feb 2006) How Census Income Estimates provide Misleading Statistics on Personal Income for Connecticut Towns
This report compares Census 2000 Income data (1999 tax year) with IRS Federal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) for the 1999 tax year. Read the Press Release. This comparison will show that Income data from the Decennial Census does not accurately reflect income for the wealthiest and poorest towns.
Furthermore, the delay of incorporating Census 2000 data into funding formulas at the state level until 2004-2005 resulted in postponing the equalization of income across the state of town personal income, a formula used for education funding.
We examined a number of economic indicators and chose the following with which to compare and contrast Connecticut towns: (1) Population Density, (2) Median Family Income, and 3) Percent Living in Poverty. We found the following five (5) groups represent the characteristics of these three data types: (1) Wealth, (2) Suburban, (3) Rural, (4) Urban Periphery, and (5) Urban Core.
(Oct 2003) Comparing CT to National Averages The Changing Demographics of Connecticut: 1990 to 2000, Part I
This report compares 1990 with 2000 Census data to report on similarities and differences from national averages in age, race, income, educational attainment, home-ownership, and the prevalence of poverty.
(Oct 2002) 108th U.S. Congress The Demographics of Congressional Redistricting in Connecticut, for January 2003
The national population figures collected by the U.S. Census in 2000 resulted in re-allocating the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Using data from the U.S. Census, the Connecticut Secretary of State, and the Registrar of Voters for some Connecticut towns, this report compares the previous districts with the new districts and their demographic composition.