This used to be true, but doing this with static typing is no longer especially difficult, because of how much type inference algorithms have advanced. To some extent, these algorithms are the reason Julia is even possible; Julia can infer types well enough to be “mostly static.”
Python is big, but AFAICT it’s not growing very fast anymore (see the StackOverflow surveys). TBF this probably doesn’t have to do with static typing (already provided by MyPy et al.); it’s just hard for a language to grow when the whole target audience is already using it.
The fastest-growing languages I can think of off the top of my head are Dart (just switched in 2.0), Zig, Rust, Kotlin, Crystal, and TypeScript, all of which have static types. Two of these, Crystal and TypeScript, are static dialects of an existing dynamic language, basically just “Ruby/JavaScript with types.” That gives us a clean comparison without many confounders; despite starting at a huge disadvantage, both TS and Crystal are just as popular as the originals, if not more.
This is true even though both are scripting languages designed for fast iteration and easy coding. As long as static type checking is optional and/or inferred, it doesn’t seem to have much of a negative impact on development time, but it can still substantially improve code quality.