Baltimore has a math problem

According to population estimates released by the U.S. Census Bureau, Maryland’s population grew by just over 4 percent from 2010 to 2016 while Baltimore City’s population declined by 1 percent. Lagging behind the state’s rate of growth by a few points may seem inconsequential; however, that disparity will have profound consequences when the state redraws its congressional and legislative districts after the 2020 census.

The loss of population in Baltimore City and explosive growth in the Washington suburbs have helped to reshape state politics over the past several decades. These trends are continuing in this decade: The Census Bureau estimates Baltimore City’s population declined over the past six years while the population grew by 10.5 percent in Howard County, 7.6 percent in Charles County, 7.4 percent in Montgomery County, 7 percent in Saint Mary’s County, 6 percent in Frederick County and 5.1 percent in Prince George’s County.

These trends cost Baltimore representation in the General Assembly in each of the last three rounds of redistricting. One district moved to Montgomery County after the 1990 census, and another moved to Prince George’s County after the 2000 census. Two-thirds of a senatorial district moved to Baltimore County after the 2010 census. Baltimore City will again lose representation after the 2020 census.

After each census, policymakers determine a target population for districts by dividing the state’s population by the number of districts: 47.

Prior to the 2010 Census, Baltimore had six state Senate seats. After the 2010 census, the target population for a state Senate district was 122,813, and Baltimore’s adjusted total population was 626,664, or 5.1 senate districts. Former mayor and thenGov. Martin O’Malley did his best to preserve Baltimore’s representation by under-populating the city’s senate districts by an average of 4.5 percent. As a result, Baltimore has 5.33 Senate districts — about one-quarter of a district more than it would have if the districts met their target populations.

Maryland’s current estimated population is 6,016,447, and the target population for a state Senate district has climbed to 128,009. Baltimore’s current estimated population is 614,664, or 4.8 Senate districts. Based on these numbers, Baltimore would lose one third to one half of a senatorial district if the maps were redrawn today — and the maps will not be redrawn for another four years.

Baltimore City’s problem is part of a larger regional issue. While Baltimore, Carroll and Harford counties grew over the past six years, they grew more slowly than the state as a whole. As a result, it will be virtually impossible to draw a congressional map that results in four of the state’s eight members of Congress living in proximity to I-695.

City boosters are downplaying the math. Mayor Catherine Pugh argued the estimates cannot be right because they do not reflect the visible progress in thriving moments in time. Planning Director Thomas J. Stosur pointed out that the Census Bureau has a hard time counting lowincome and immigrant populations. Live Baltimore Executive Director Steve Gondol said the Census Bureau overstated the decline.

Quibbling with the Census Bureau might be worthwhile if Baltimore existed in a vacuum, but it does not. Baltimore’s population must be considered through the lens of decade after decade of decline; the latest figure is evidence that the city is midway through another such decade. Even if Baltimore’s population holds steady or grows slightly, the city will still lose ground — and representation — to its rapidly growing neighbors to the south.

Examined through this lens, the question becomes what Baltimore is to do about its math problem. Clearly, the city must continue to pursue every opportunity to stabilize and begin growing again. At the same time, Baltimore’s business, nonprofit and government leaders need to have an honest conversation about the loss of power, resources and prestige the next census will bring. By beginning a substantive and thoughtful evaluation of these shifts now, civic leaders can put city in a better place to manage the eventual, foreseeable and unavoidable impact these changes will bring.