Comment on UNM weighs COVID-19 vaccination mandate to return to campus by labraham_incoln

I support requiring vaccines. It can get students back in school to resume real learning sooner without risking another outbreak. However, there may be an issue with this since it is requiring individuals to give information about their medical history. I think it is reasonable however, since its only a small part of one’s medical history, and is just a yes or no on whether one has been vaccinated, not detailed personal information. We all got vaccine cards after getting vaccinated, so it would be very simple and convenient to check for this. This also offers incentive to more people to get vaccinated so they can return to campus, which is a good thing.

Source: US Government Class

Comment on UNM weighs COVID-19 vaccination mandate to return to campus by SuddenlyPineaples

I believe that a requirement vaccine is a smart thing to do. Having the majority of people on campus vaccinated would allow students to return to classes as normal and would provide a safe working environment for both students and staff. However, I am curious about what they would consider “special accommodations”. I would hope that it would be a more difficult process to get those accommodations so that people can’t cheat their way in without getting a vaccine.

Source: US Government Class

Comment on UNM weighs COVID-19 vaccination mandate to return to campus by i.am.a.brick.

I believe the requirement is reasonable for students, teachers, and staff to return to campus for the fall semester. However, “a reasonable accommodation” may have its negatives. I can understand how it gives the people some type of freedom if they have some sort of negative thing happening to them, like being allergic to a specific item in the vaccine, however, there may be people who will not have a good reason to avoid the vaccine, or those who could be in danger of the vaccine may not have a good enough reason for schools to accommodate them. What is a “reasonable accommodation?” What resonates as a “reasonable accommodation” and what doesn’t?

Source: US Government Class

Comment on UNM weighs COVID-19 vaccination mandate to return to campus by TDbaseball

I think that there should not be a vaccine mandate at any university. If you were denied of getting your education that you paid for, or earned through scholarships, because of something you don’t feel comfortable getting how would you feel? Online school might be the option for them, but I also think that online school is 10 times harder to learn from.

Source: US Government Class

Comment on UNM weighs COVID-19 vaccination mandate to return to campus by NotMeLol

I think it’s a good idea to require people to get the vaccine and show up to in person school. Teachers are going to be able to go back to teaching the way they were before, and the students will be able to experience all that college has to offer.

Source: US Government Class

UNM weighs COVID-19 vaccination mandate to return to campus

Santa Fe New Mexican – The University of New Mexico may require students and staff to be vaccinated for COVID-19 to return to campus in the fall.

The university on Monday posted a proposed vaccine requirement along with a statement on its plans to return to in-person instruction and regular campus activities.

The university said it was seeking comment on the proposed requirement.

The requirement would apply to students and staff “unless they have been granted a reasonable accommodation,” the proposal said.

In Las Cruces, New Mexico State University officials encourage everyone to get the vaccine but haven’t decided to require students and employees to be vaccinated, university spokesman Justin Bannister told the Albuquerque Journal.

Numerous other colleges and universities nationwide have announced vaccination requirements.

Source: US Government Class

Facebook Oversight Board upholds Trump suspension but orders company to review

CBS News – The Facebook Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the suspension of former President Donald Trump’s account, four months after Facebook suspended him following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

But the board said it was “not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension.” The board said that Facebook’s “normal” policies include “removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.”Facebook now must review the matter within six months, opening the door for a possible return. The board also ruled that Facebook must come up with “clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression.”

In response, Facebook said it was “pleased” with the decision, saying in a statement that they believe the January decision was “necessary and right.”

“We will now consider the board’s decision and determine an action that is clear and proportionate. In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s accounts remain suspended,” Facebook said in a statement.

Following its own rules

Former Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who is a member of the Oversight Board, said in a press conference that the decision was less a referendum on Mr. Trump than a decision on “Facebook and its users.”

“We can’t be left up to Facebook to just choose their own penalty for users — they have to follow their own rules,” Thorning-Schmidt said. “If users have to follow the community standards and values of Facebook and Instagram, Facebook has to do the same. So we’re basically saying that all users are equal and that Facebook also has obligation towards the community standards, and that is to follow their own rules.”

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the board, said Facebook could not “keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored.”

“In the event of a violation, a user’s post may be removed or restricted with no future limitation with a limitation for a specific time bound period, or even in severe cases, permanently,” McConnell said. “But users and their audiences must not be left in a state of uncertainty as to time or reasons for restoration.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg established the oversight board in 2019. The 20-member body, which includes lawyers, professors, journalists, and human rights activists worldwide, is sometimes referred to as “Facebook’s Supreme Court” because it can overturn decisions made by company executives and its decisions are final.

However, Facebook critics have also panned the board as being too close to the company it’s supposed to regulate.

Roger McNamee, a Facebook investor turned critic, said on Wednesday that the oversight board has “failed.”

“Donald Trump has used Facebook to spread disinformation and incite hate and violence for years,” McNamee said in a statement. “Even when he posted ‘When the looting starts, the shooting starts,’ Facebook failed to act. He violated their terms of service again and again and again, facing no consequences. And yet, Facebook’s Oversight Board still could not summon the courage or common sense to uphold a permanent ban.”

Mr. Trump’s case is  the tenth decision the board has handed down. A five-member panel from the board was assigned to hear the case and produce a final opinion.

A riot at the Capitol

Mr. Trump’s Save America PAC put out a statement Wednesday morning from the former president trashing Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, but did not mention the Facebook decision.

Mr. Trump was banned from major social media platforms in the wake of the January 6 attack, when a mob of his supporters descended on the Capitol to try to stop the counting of the Electoral College votes. Lawmakers were forced to flee as rioters overtook the building for several hours. Five people died and Mr. Trump was later impeached by the House on a charge of inciting an insurrection.

During the riot, Mr. Trump posted on Twitter and Facebook for his supporters to leave, but also repeated false claims about the election.

“I know your pain, I know you’re hurt,” Mr. Trump said in the video. “We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace.” Later in the video, he repeated the false claim that it was a “fraudulent election.”

Facebook took down his video later that day, calling it an “emergency situation.” “We removed it because on balance we believe it contributes to rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence,” posted Facebook vice president Guy Rosen.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and in the weeks leading up to and after the election, social media platforms had been flagging Mr. Trump’s posts that contained misleading information. On January 6, Facebook was the first to remove the video entirely.

After it was removed, Mr. Trump took to Twitter, writing: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Twitter removed the post and froze his accounts for 24 hours. The following day, Twitter permanently suspended Mr. Trump’s account, as well as his campaign account.

On January 7, Facebook suspended Mr. Trump’s account until the inauguration, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg posting that the “risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”

After the inauguration, Facebook turned its final decision on Mr. Trump’s account over to its Oversight Committee.

The committee said in April that it was extending the public comment period before making a decision. According to Reuters, Facebook said it had received over 9,000 comments, more than any other case.

The Facebook Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the suspension of former President Donald Trump’s account, four months after Facebook suspended him following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Following its own rules

Former Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who is a member of the Oversight Board, said in a press conference that the decision was less a referendum on Mr. Trump than a decision on “Facebook and its users.”

“We can’t be left up to Facebook to just choose their own penalty for users — they have to follow their own rules,” Thorning-Schmidt said. “If users have to follow the community standards and values of Facebook and Instagram, Facebook has to do the same. So we’re basically saying that all users are equal and that Facebook also has obligation towards the community standards, and that is to follow their own rules.”

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the board, said Facebook could not “keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored.”

“In the event of a violation, a user’s post may be removed or restricted with no future limitation with a limitation for a specific time bound period, or even in severe cases, permanently,” McConnell said. “But users and their audiences must not be left in a state of uncertainty as to time or reasons for restoration.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg established the oversight board in 2019. The 20-member body, which includes lawyers, professors, journalists, and human rights activists worldwide, is sometimes referred to as “Facebook’s Supreme Court” because it can overturn decisions made by company executives and its decisions are final.

Roger McNamee, a Facebook investor turned critic, said on Wednesday that the oversight board has “failed.”

“Donald Trump has used Facebook to spread disinformation and incite hate and violence for years,” McNamee said in a statement. “Even when he posted ‘When the looting starts, the shooting starts,’ Facebook failed to act. He violated their terms of service again and again and again, facing no consequences. And yet, Facebook’s Oversight Board still could not summon the courage or common sense to uphold a permanent ban.”

Mr. Trump’s case is  the tenth decision the board has handed down. A five-member panel from the board was assigned to hear the case and produce a final opinion.

A riot at the Capitol

Mr. Trump’s Save America PAC put out a statement Wednesday morning from the former president trashing Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, but did not mention the Facebook decision.

Mr. Trump was banned from major social media platforms in the wake of the January 6 attack, when a mob of his supporters descended on the Capitol to try to stop the counting of the Electoral College votes. Lawmakers were forced to flee as rioters overtook the building for several hours. Five people died and Mr. Trump was later impeached by the House on a charge of inciting an insurrection.

During the riot, Mr. Trump posted on Twitter and Facebook for his supporters to leave, but also repeated false claims about the election.

“I know your pain, I know you’re hurt,” Mr. Trump said in the video. “We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace.” Later in the video, he repeated the false claim that it was a “fraudulent election.”

Facebook took down his video later that day, calling it an “emergency situation.” “We removed it because on balance we believe it contributes to rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence,” posted Facebook vice president Guy Rosen.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and in the weeks leading up to and after the election, social media platforms had been flagging Mr. Trump’s posts that contained misleading information. On January 6, Facebook was the first to remove the video entirely.

After it was removed, Mr. Trump took to Twitter, writing: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Twitter removed the post and froze his accounts for 24 hours. The following day, Twitter permanently suspended Mr. Trump’s account, as well as his campaign account.

On January 7, Facebook suspended Mr. Trump’s account until the inauguration, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg posting that the “risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”

After the inauguration, Facebook turned its final decision on Mr. Trump’s account over to its Oversight Committee.

The committee said in April that it was extending the public comment period before making a decision. According to Reuters, Facebook said it had received over 9,000 comments, more than any other case.

In its previous decisions the Oversight Board has tended to rule in favor of “free expression.” The board has sided against the company on several high-profile cases, including a ruling to overturn Facebook’s removal of a post about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China. The Oversight Board has also overturned decisions to remove posts relating to nudity, COVID-19 misinformation and hate speech, while upholding a decision to remove a post that contained an ethnic slur.

“Outsourcing responsibility”

Facebook’s reliance on the board to decide a small number of challenging cases has come under fire from critics who say the company needs to be doing more to reduce the spread of dangerous misinformation and disinformation on the world’s largest social network.

“It’s just outsourcing responsibility for the problems which are on its platform,” Carole Cadwalladr, an author and investigative journalist who first exposed the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal in 2018, told CBSN on Tuesday. “It’s kind of whitewashing these decisions through this body of experts,” she said, and “deflecting attention from what are the real harms of Facebook, which is not content moderation. The real harms are really its business model, these algorithms which we know amplify polarizing and hate content and lead to some of the impacts that we’ve seen.”

Twitter has not allowed Mr. Trump back, and issued a ruling in April that it will not be archiving his tweets. But while Mr. Trump’s personal page will not be archived, Twitter has kept a record of several institutional government accounts, including those that belong to former White House press secretaries Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kayleigh McEnany.

The @POTUS45 account, which was the official government page for the president, and the official @WhiteHouse45 account are both archived on Twitter.

Twitter CFO Ned Segal said in an interview with Yahoo Finance that there are “no changes” in their thinking on Mr. Trump’s account.

“When you step back and think about our policies, we want to work hard to be consistent, to be transparent so people know exactly what to expect from us,” Segal said. “We don’t have an oversight board like that [like Facebook]. Our team is accountable for the decisions that we make. There is no changes to anything we have talked about in the past.”

Without a direct line to the millions of followers he used to reach on Twitter and Facebook, Mr. Trump has begun posting statements, sometimes several times per day, on a page of the Save America PAC website.

 

Source: US Government Class

Intel plans to invest $3.5 billion to modernize New Mexico plant

Santa Fe New Mexican – RIO RANCHO — How big was it?

So big that three members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation — and the governor — showed up.

So big that the money figures bandied about dwarfed Facebook’s investment in the state.

Intel Corp. on Monday announced a $3.5 billion modernization of its Rio Rancho plant to increase the manufacturing capacity for its next-generation advanced semiconductor technology research and manufacturing — a move that gives new momentum to the New Mexico production facility and provides some badly needed good news on the state’s economic front.

The investment exceeds the $1 billion-plus Facebook has invested in its Los Lunas data center since 2016, with Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham calling Intel’s commitment the “single largest investment by a company in New Mexico.”

Lujan Grisham, U.S. Sens. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján and U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández attended the announcement — an indication of just how much impact an Intel plant with renewed vigor could mean for the state’s economy, which is largely dependent on the oil and gas industry.

Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel is the largest U.S. semiconductor manufacturer and among the three largest in the world. Its Rio Rancho plant — which until the past few years had been a significant chipmaker within the company’s portfolio — has existed since 1980. Officials now describe the Rio Rancho plant’s mission as the company’s “innovation hub.”

“This is an important part of Intel’s global operations,” said Keyvan Esfarjani, Intel’s senior vice president of manufacturing and operations. “Now Rio Rancho is even more critical to Intel’s success.”

The three-year modernization converts the Intel plant from its past as a central processing unit and traditional semiconductor manufacturer to an advanced semiconductor technology manufacturer. Intel is pioneering stacking semiconductor tiles on top of each other rather than side by side. The practice saves space in components like cellphones and personal computers.

Heinrich could not resist describing it as “stacked enchiladas.”

“This is an opportunity for New Mexico to lead in science and technology,” Heinrich said at the announcement, conducted on the lawn in front of the Intel campus.

The state Economic Development Department is investing $5 million in Local Economic Development Act funds to the project if hiring metrics are met. Intel announced 700 jobs should be added in the next three years to the 1,800 now in place at Rio Rancho.

Sandoval County pledged $500,000 if specific job goal requirements are met, and Rio Rancho plans to add $250,000. Intel also will be allowed to keep $14 million, half the projected $28 million in gross receipts tax revenue, generated by the construction.

“This launches a new economic reality in New Mexico,” Lujan Grisham said. “We have expectations of more of this kind of work.”

Intel has been on a rebound in Rio Rancho the past two years after employment dropped from more than 5,000 in the first half of the 2000s to 1,100 in 2017 and 2018 as central processing unit manufacturing was phased out and Intel transitioned into advanced semiconductor technology.

The $3.5 billion modernization principally will enable Intel to install its Foveros 3D chip-stacking technology, introduced in 2019, and enhance technology already in place since 2017 to simplify and optimize semiconductor packaging, memory and connectivity, said Erika Edgerly, Intel’s director of public affairs for New Mexico, Texas and Massachusetts.

“Foveros plays into many of our future product lines,” Edgerly said.

The modernization will update and optimize the 350,000-square-foot Fab 11 and Fab 11X structures from the early 1990s and revive the more than 70,000-square-foot Fab 9 building that has been unused since 2008-09, Edgerly said.

“It’s about the efficiency of running the factory,” said Katie Proudy, Intel New Mexico’s site leader and vice president of manufacturing and operations. “The biggest thing is automated manufacturing and data analysis. We have a lot of capability, but this is a way to transition into a new way of doing things.”

Intel no longer produces CPUs in Rio Rancho.

“This will serve to modernize our existing facility so they can support advanced packaging,” Intel spokeswoman Linda Qian said. “It’s a new era of innovation for Intel in New Mexico. New Mexico is evolving as a hub of innovation for advanced packaging.”

Intel first built Fab 7 — the seventh company fabrication facility — on a sod farm in what had yet to become Rio Rancho in 1980. At the time, the population was 10,000; the city incorporated in 1981. With Intel as an anchor, Rio Rancho has evolved into New Mexico’s third-largest city with about 100,000 residents.

Source: US Government Class

Biden’s 1st 100 Days: A Look By The Numbers

NPR –  As far as artificial milestones go, few dates seem to carry as much weight as a new president’s 100th day in office. It’s a date that former Obama adviser David Axelrod once referred to as a “Hallmark holiday.” In other words, it gets lots of attention but has no actual significance.

For better or worse, marking the first 100 days has become a time-honored tradition in Washington. For that, President Biden has Franklin D. Roosevelt to thank. Over the course of his first 100 days in office, FDR not only helped shore up a rapidly deteriorating banking system — helping to bring an end to the Great Depression — but also laid much of the groundwork for what would become the New Deal.

Presidents have been measured by the 100-day standard ever since. As Biden inches closer to crossing the milestone on Thursday, here is a look at where he stands on nine key benchmarks.

Bills signed into law: 11

When it comes to a yardstick for measuring a president’s first 100 days, political scientists will say to focus on the significance of the bills the president signs, not the number. In part, that’s because the first 100 days have become far less productive on the legislative front for modern presidents since the high-water mark of 76 laws set by FDR. Biden’s early record is a case in point for this theory. The 11 bills he has signed into law are among the fewest for any newly elected president dating back to FDR. At the same time, if there is one piece of legislation that Biden’s first 100 days will be remembered for, it will be the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package that he signed in March.

Executive orders: 42

While Biden may be lagging his predecessors on the number of bills he has signed, he’s far outpacing them on executive orders. Biden has issued 42 to date, more than any president going back to Harry Truman. He may have campaigned on bringing bipartisanship back to Washington, but much of his early focus at least has been on policies he can implement on his own, such as measures to revoke the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, requiring masks on federal property and continuing a ban on evictions amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump orders reversed: 62

Executive action has also been a way for Biden to make good on promises to undo some of his predecessor’s most controversial policies. He has recommitted the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement, halted the U.S. exit from the World Health Organization and paused construction of the border wall. It’s not exactly shocking that a new Democratic president is undoing the policies of his Republican predecessor — it’s what Biden campaigned on after all. What’s notable is the pace at which Biden is working. Through April 23, he had undone 62 out of 219 orders signed by former President Donald Trump, according to the American Presidency Project.

Trump, by comparison, reversed 12 of former President Barack Obama’s orders in his first 100 days but managed to roll back over a dozen more regulations in the early months of his presidency through use of the Congressional Review Act. Because of the way the law is written, Democrats have only a narrow window of time within which to use it. But even without the CRA, Biden’s use of executive action has already allowed him to undo more than twice as many orders in his first 100 days as the last three presidents combined.

Biden’s job approval rating in the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey clocked in at 53% — his highest since taking office. He is already more popular than Trump was on any day of his presidency, according to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average, but his job approval is generally below where most recent presidents have been at this point in their first term. That appears in large part to be a result of increased polarization — 93% of Democrats approve of the job Biden is doing versus only 12% of Republicans. Given that divide, the question is, how much can his numbers move in either direction? While Trump may have left office with the lowest approval rating of any modern-day president, his numbers held more or less steady over his four years in office. Unless partisan tensions ease dramatically, Biden could be on course for a similar trajectory.

Unemployment: 6%

U.S. employers have added more than 1.2 million jobs since Inauguration Day, and while that is certainly welcome news inside the White House, nearly 10 million Americans are still out of work and the jobless rate is stuck about 2.5 points higher than it was before the pandemic. To be sure, most economic conditions are beyond a president’s control, so it can be tough to assign too much credit or blame to whoever’s in office, especially 100 days in. But the strength of the recovery will nonetheless continue to frame the debate around the president’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan — a plan he says is all about jobs.

COVID-19 cases: down 73%

Biden has made confronting the coronavirus his administration’s top priority, but no president in modern history has taken office amid a global health crisis on the scale of what he inherited on Jan 20. Under Biden, new daily cases have dropped from an average of more than 199,000 in the week leading up to his inauguration to about 54,400 cases today — a 73% drop. While that progress has won Biden high marks for his handling of the pandemic, cases have been slowly creeping back up as newer, more virulent strains of the virus have grown more dominant.

Americans vaccinated: 140 million

At the center of the administration’s plan to end the public health crisis is the push to get as many shots into arms as quickly as possible. And if there has been one theme on that front, it has been to underpromise and overdeliver. Biden took office promising 100 million vaccine shots by his 100th day, but after reaching that target on Day 58, he upped the goal to 200 million. He hit that figure last week. Biden similarly set May 1 as the deadline for when all adults would be eligible to receive a vaccine but then moved that target up to April 19. As of Monday, more than 230 million vaccines have been administered. More than 139 million people, or about 54% of the adult population, have received at least one dose, while more than 95 million, or about 37% of the adult population, are now fully vaccinated.

Judicial nominations: 11

Biden has made 11 nominations to the federal bench, but he has a long way to go if he hopes to match the more than 220 judges who won confirmation as part of a historic overhaul of the judiciary under Trump. Biden’s staff says filling judicial vacancies is a top priority, but his window may be a narrow one. If Republicans win back the Senate in next year’s midterm elections, Biden will in all likelihood face the same roadblocks that kept Obama from filling more seats. There are currently 77 vacancies for Biden to fill, plus another 27 judges who’ve announced they will step down or take “senior status” in the next few months.

Tweets: 589

As a candidate, Biden said the U.S. needed a president who would lower the temperature in Washington. On Twitter at least, he appears to be doing just that. Since taking office, Biden’s @POTUS account is averaging about six tweets per day. Compare that with Trump, who by one count spent more than nine full days of his presidency on Twitter. Until Trump’s account was permanently suspended in January, in fact, Trump tweeted more than 26,000 times as president, or roughly 18 times per day.

Source: US Government Class

Winners and losers from first release of 2020 census data

AP – More than a year since the 2020 census began in a remote Alaska village, the first numbers to emerge from the nation’s once-a-decade head count were released on Monday, showing how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes each state is getting based on its population.

Because the number of seats in the House of Representatives is set at 435, it’s a zero-sum game with one state’s gain resulting in another state’s loss — like a pie with uneven slices. As one state gets a larger slice because of population gains, that means a smaller slice for a state that lost population or didn’t grow as much.

Here’s a look at the 13 states that will gain or lose political power — and federal money — through the apportionment process because of changes in population over the past decade:

THE WINNERS

TEXAS — The Longhorn State is the big winner, adding two congressional seats courtesy of 4 million new residents. Demographers say people moving from other states like California have contributed a significant chunk of the growth. The nation’s second most populous state will now have 38 congressional representatives, behind only California.

FLORIDA — The nation’s third most populous state adds one congressional seat because of a population gain of more than 2.7 million. This boosts its House delegation to 28 and Electoral College votes to 30, furthering the Sunshine State’s importance in presidential elections.

COLORADO — Population growth around Denver helped Colorado gain an extra seat, its first new House seat in 20 years. The mostly college-educated transplants have helped Colorado go from being a solidly Republican state to a competitive swing state to, now, a solidly Democratic one — though the state’s districts will be drawn by a nonpartisan commission.

MONTANA — By gaining a congressional seat, Montana goes from having a single House representative to having two. The gain marks a rebound for Montana, which had two congressional seats for most of the 20th century but lost one after the 1990 census.

NORTH CAROLINA — Fueled by retirees and job seekers, North Carolina’s population boom is earning it an extra seat, raising its House count to 14. The gains have been concentrated in the Charlotte and Raleigh areas.

OREGON — Oregon is getting a new congressional seat for the first time in 40 years, going from five House members to six. Although Democrats control state government, they have agreed to give up their advantage in redrawing the state’s political districts for the next 10 years in exchange for a commitment from Republicans to stop blocking bills.

___

THE LOSERS

CALIFORNIA — While California is still the nation’s most populous state, its stagnant growth over the past decade causes it to lose a single seat for the first time in 170 years of statehood. Its number of House members goes from 53 to 52 for a state that has been a symbol of limitless growth and endless possibilities since the Gold Rush of the 1800s.

ILLINOIS — Illinois goes from 18 to 17 House members, continuing a 40-year streak of losing congressional seats.

MICHIGAN — The number of House members representing Michigan drops from 14 to 13, particularly because of population losses in the Upper Peninsula.

NEW YORK — There was no question New York was going to lose a congressional seat, but the suspense lay in whether it would be one or two seats. The Census Bureau says New York lost its seat by a mere 89 people. The loss of one seat reduces its House delegation from 27 to 26 members.

OHIO — Sluggish population growth over the past decade causes Ohio to lose a single congressional seat, continuing its streak of losses every decade since 1960. The adjustment reduces the Buckeye State’s House seats from 16 to 15.

PENNSYLVANIA — Although Pennsylvania remains an important presidential battleground, its influence will be diminished by the loss of one Electoral College vote. Its House delegation drops from 18 to 17 members.

WEST VIRGINIA — A decadeslong exodus of residents finally causes West Virginia to lose a congressional seat, reducing its representation in the House from three to two members.

Source: US Government Class