The electoral consequences could be massive.

In 2021, California’s population declined for the first time since earning statehood in 1850. In 2022, it declined again. And then again in 2023. For a state historically defined by limitless opportunity and an ever-growing population, three straight years of decline delivered a cold dose of reality: things weren’t working.

The Golden State, of course, is not alone. Since Covid, the biggest blue states have dramatically lagged behind the biggest Republican states in population growth. Between 2020 and 2024, California, New York, and Illinois each lost more than 100,000 thousand residents. Florida and Texas, meanwhile, both gained around 2 million residents. The disparity is shocking.

It is tempting to chalk up the unprecedented decline to Covid. Now that the pandemic has faded, numbers will even out, some might argue. Nothing more than a blip. But the most recent figures confirm that the reasons behind the blue-state population decline run much deeper than Covid. Even though case counts are a thing of the past, populous red states continue to lap their blue counterparts. Between July 2023 and July 2024, Florida and Texas gained more than 1 million residents combined. Illinois, New York, and California barely broke 400,000 cumulatively.

Though certainly exacerbated by the virus, policy failures are ultimately at fault. Disastrous housing shortages, needlessly burdensome environmental regulations, the mind-boggling mess that is California’s high-speed rail project. The examples go on and on. Thankfully, left-of-center intellectuals are coming to terms with a much-needed course correction (though some have been there for a while). Marc Dunkelman’s Why Nothing Works and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s Abundance both attempt to address the problem—and a broader “Abundance Agenda” seems to slowly be gaining purchase with some policymakers.

But most elected Democrats remain oblivious or even contemptuous of the reforms needed to right the ship.. If the policy benefits are an insufficient carrot, then perhaps the frightening electoral costs will jolt Democrats into action: if blue-state populations don’t rebound soon, the 2030s presidential map could start to look very dicey.

Estimates from the American Redistricting Project predict that California is on track to lose three House seats—and three electoral votes—after 2030’s reapportionment. New York could drop 2 seats. Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Illinois all might lose a seat. Meanwhile, Texas and Florida are each projected to gain a whopping 4 seats. Idaho and Utah, too, will tack on an additional seat.

Notice a pattern? The states projected to gain representation—and an Electoral College boost—are overwhelmingly Trump states. The states projected to lose representation are Harris states. If we exclude the battlegrounds of Arizona, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, red states will add 10 electoral votes and blue states will lose 9 electoral votes ahead of the 2032 election.

These projections, of course, might shift over the next few years. The roster of swing states could change too. Nothing is set in stone. But if the numbers hold, the electoral impact could be disastrous for Democrats.

Nate Silver’s 2024 election model included a list of the most likely permutations of the 7 swing states. The two most frequent outcomes were: (1) a Trump sweep, which is exactly what happened; and (2) a Harris sweep. Because of correlated error, a 7-state sweep will naturally be the most common result, even when polls show a very tight race. But two of the five most common “Harris win” scenarios placed the former vice president at 270 and 276 electoral votes. In the former, Harris wins the “Blue Wall” trio, but loses the remaining four battlegrounds. In the latter, she adds Nevada’s six electoral votes to her column.

After reapportionment, neither of those scenarios would produce a Harris win. Two of the easiest, most plausible paths towards 270 no longer do the trick. The mighty Blue Wall—long an electoral refuge for Democratic campaigns—would not cut it anymore.

Or imagine, for example, that Republicans start routinely winning the Midwest, but Democrats build an edge in the Sun Belt. In 2024, carrying Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina produces a Democratic win. By 2032, that won’t be enough. All in all, even if new swing states enter the fold, the next round of reapportionment will make life harder for Democratic presidential campaigns.

Huge gains in Texas and Florida will also boost the GOP in the House. Assuming Republicans maintain control of the state legislatures in both states, they will gerrymander a fresh handful of safely red seats. The new Idaho seat, too, will certainly elect a Republican. These marginal shifts might seem inconsequential, but the first few months of the 119th Congress should remind us that every seat matters.

The good news for Democrats is there’s still time. Even if matching Florida and Texas is impossible, snagging back a few electoral votes could make a huge difference. But renewing population growth won’t happen out of thin air. Over the next five years, Democrats across all levels of government must prioritize restoring blue states as attractive and accessible places to live. A decade’s worth of electoral politics could hinge on their success.

Nate Moore