N.Y. Times rounds up examples of rural areas losing population and power in state legislatures

Rural areas have been losing influence in Congress and state legislatures since the reapportionment and redistricting rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960s, and the 2010 census mandates that the trend will continue. We've noted this more than once, but it's an important topic and The New York Times has done a nice job of collecting some interesting pieces of the puzzle "in states that have long been considered synonymous with rural America," as reporter A.G. Sulzberger puts it. He used an excellent source for anyone covering the issue: Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures, who told him, “It really is the next chapter in the long saga of the loss of rural political power in America.”

The story's litany begins with Nebraska, where more than half the population is now concentrated in three urban counties in the east; goes to North Dakota, where "More education money has migrated to urban schools and universities;" then to Kansas, where "Rural legislators were unable to block a transportation bill favorable to the thriving metro areas;" and finally to Georgia, where "The Atlanta region appears likely to take control of a majority in the legislature."

In Nebraska, “As political power and population shifts, the legislators are less and less tolerant of the subsidies that have been built in” for rural areas, Nebraska State Education Association research director Larry Scherer told Sulzberger. However, the power of metropolitan lawmakers "is sometimes diffused by infighting between city and suburbs or city and city — a contrast to the more monolithic rural coalitions," Sulzberger reports, quoting Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery: “We haven’t seen the creation of a strong urban identity. It takes a while for people’s attitudes and cultural orientations to catch up with the numbers.” (Read more)