I Give Up: Someone Explain the Census Dustup to Me

[Bullet1987]

I don't get why it's such a "hot-button" issue for the White House to take over the Census. This is one of those issues where I don't think we're being told the entire story of why some don't like this.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Without researching

I'll opine that repugs in Congress are upset that they won't be in a position to monkey with census data in an attempt to gerrymander districts and generally muck about with the facts in order to further their corporatist agenda.

[Vincardog]

3. Bingo. The GOP wants to ignore the LATINOS. If they do not count them they can get a lot more red

states in 2010

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Exactly! And besides California, Texas has the fastest growing Latino

population and trending blue even though Tom Deranged forced a redistricting in 2004, remember?

The anti-immigrant message constantly being promoted by repubs isn't making any friends among the Latino community.

[uponit7771]

19. Texas can turn blue with some work, Fort Worth is the hold out but wth Latinons and blacks moving...

...into Arlington from California it's not going to hold for long.

[Lasher]

5. Exactly right.

The upcoming census will trigger changes in US House of Representatives electoral districts. It's state governments that will redraw those lines.

In 2000, when the last census was conducted we Democrats had outright control of 16 state legislatures, the GOP had control of 18, and 15 were split. Now we have control of 27, Republicans have 15 and 8 are split. So yes, I can see how GOP hypocrites want to change the rules now.

It is particularly annoying to hear their whining when I remember Republicans haven't even waited on the next census to justify their gerrymandering.

[AtomicKitten]

2. It's a difference in ideology basically, i.e., statistic sampling over an actual count.

How people are counted is important because the Census is the basis for redrawing electoral districts, from alderman to Congress and everything in between.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. The Census is critical information. And information is power. There is a reason it's put

specifically into the constitution. Congressional districts are determined by population.

Also, all kinds of (Fed)government spending to the states and to counties, cities, etc. is determined by the census.

[loveandlight]

6. it's about votes and districts

The next census is going to show lots of movement of people and growth of Democratic-leaning ethnic communities. The Republicans like to under-count these people and keep the districts set up to favor them, the Democrats want to set it up to favor their party. It is natural on both sides, but the most important point is that when you don't count people, like certain groups of minorities, the poor, etc., they don't get their fair share of representation in government when it comes to district lines being drawn. That, of course, is the Republican dream. That is my best understanding of it.

[theoldman]

7. In Texas the gerrymandering occurred place long after the census

was taken. It allowed the Republicans to control critical area.

[BlueCaliDem]

14. I was so furious when I saw the Dems leaving the state and BushCo corruption

at work as Rove was about to send the National Guard after them!

I still can't believe the court upheld the, to me, illegal redistricting since it happened in-between Census years.

Oh man, I thought we were really done as a Republic back then.

[Jane Eyre]

8. Republicans don't want to count everyone

OK, that is oversimplifying things. What this is about is what methods are used to count people for the 2010 census. The 2010 census will be used for redistricting Congressional seats. The Republicans oppose using a scientifically approved sampling method which has been proven to better reflect the actual numbers of people not otherwise counted. The sampling method, while more accurate, is opposed by Republicans because it increases the number of people counted who traditionally vote Democratic. In other words, the sampling method increases the accuracy of the count of low income constituents. This makes a big difference when it comes to drawing the new Congressional districts which is required every 10 years.

Here's a link to a helpful article about the controversy:

GOP Leaders Seek to Ban Census Sampling

Here's a link to another discussion concerning Judd Gregg and the census controversy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8197132

An example of how important the census count can be is the dust-up between the states of Utah and North Carolina over the 2000 census. The census counts between the two states were very close, but North Carolina won out in the census count for the last additional Congressional seat that was up for grabs. Utah argued that the Mormon missionaries living overseas should have been counted. The case went to the Supreme Court. Utah lost. NC has a solidly Democratic state legislature as opposed to Utah's Republican state government. NC added a Democratic Congressional seat in Congress, which would likely have been an additional Republican seat had Utah won its challenge. And of course, NC picked up an additional electoral vote for the presidential contests. In 2008, NC was blue and Utah was red.

[Still Sensible]

9. It's all about the who and how of counting

the far right, Gregg included, doesn't really want to count 'everyone' and especially the poor and homeless. They worry that illegal immigrants will get counted and since that group is generally poorer it does the republicans no favors to have them counted.

For various reasons, typically related to inner cities, higher crime areas, etc., the Census Bureau has certain policies they employ in some instances to estimate counts. Theses same issues are not found, generally, as the bureau tries to count in areas that are overwhelmingly republican.

The census is the basis for redistricting and reallocation of congressional seats each decade. The bottom line is that since people who are poorer overwhelmingly vote democratic, the GOP doesn't support anything the bureau does to actually try and count everybody.

[avaistheone1]

17. You are right.

[JBoris]

10. The repubs want to return to counting non-whites as 3/5 of a person.

Would it really surprise you if that was true?

[liberal N proud]

11. Think congressional districts and federal funding

[steelyboo]

12. All valid points, but there's something else

I work at the National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, IN. My mom worked here 31 years. She'd tell me that every 2-4 years, some jackass congressman would show up talking about how much of a waste of money the Bureau was, and how they were going to shut it down. Then they saw what we actually do (its a whole lot more than counting people. Almost all government statistics and mapping, we are essentially the statistical branch of the gov.), and they would typically leave with their tail between their legs.
I think there is another reason Gregg took his ball and went home as well. Since Bush, the thugs have been trying to push more and more of the work to private firms. For instance, every 5 years there are economic and agricultural censuses done. Both were done by the Bureau since God was a boy. Under Bush, USDA started using an outside company to do the Agricultural. So, as hard as it is to believe, an underlying reason they are pissed is that they want to dismantle the Bureau so that they can enrich even more of their business buddies by paying them likely more than it should cost to do the work of the government, in addition to having influence with the companies to alter data to suit their agenda. I was surprised it didn't happen in the last 8 years.

[Igel]

15. The story.

It has layers.

First, Congress gave the duty to the Commerce Dept., and the commerce secretary has the authority to govern his own dept. The Constitution says it's to be done by whomever the Congress designates. For legal sticklers--and yes, there are some--it's important. Some are sticklers not because they're sticklers for legalities, but because this point serves an agenda. Unless a person says his motives, it's not always possible to judge.

Second, the Census was a headcount. Some want it to be statistical in nature. A headcount is a number; there may be a difference between what the headcount returns and what the actual number of people is, but a headcount is a single number.

A statistical approach requires doing the headcount and then going over an area with a fine-tooth comb to find those missed. Then you determine the relevant characteristics of the population and apply it to the groups. You wind up not with a single number, but a number with an error bar and a confidence level. You apply that number to a single neighborhood, and you wind up with a different margin of error and confidence interval. It's likely that the number, let's say it's 2815, is wrong, but the model you're using says 95% sure that the actual population of the neighborhood is between 2690 and 2943. What's the population of the neighborhood for purposes of the census? 2815? 2690? 2943? 2939? Ah, but a different model gives a different set of numbers, and a third model gives a third. So first you have to choose your model and say it's The One. Then you have to settle on a definite number provided by The One Model, when the stats give only ranges and probabilities. The headcount provides false clarity, but the statistical method provides fertile grounds for wrangling,and there will be wrangling. I believe case law says "headcount" based on a SCOTUS decision, BTW.

This matters for a lot of reasons. Congressional seats, sure. State and county offices. Federal funding and state funding. School planning and where to put firehouses. But mostly it's over how to gerrymander--with both sides decrying it when it hurts them, but elevating it to the status of a Lofty Principle when it gives them power--and how to allocate money. Of course, the two are sometimes connected.

We like to say that legal sticklers are doing it because they're racist--in other words, they want to keep power for whites, but it also has the effect of skewing power towards republicans (mostly). It's no less true that those who want statistical sampling want to do it because it skews power towards democrats, but at the same time many advocates for minority groups want it because it gives their base more power and money. Some are still just legal sticklers, of course.

Third, as a practical matter the census needs to have competent management and funding for their plans all lined up no later than 2007. Of course, it's 2009. The hardware/software they were going to use is a disaster. Political wrangling kept it from having stable leadership under *--for all the reasons outlined under "second" and because now that they have need for it the "right" people will decide something that *should* be as apolitical as possible. I can only hope that the civil service staffers have made tolerable plans and have things well in hand. Of course, the more new bosses, the more likelihood that the plans will be reworked and altered when there's really not time for it--and if there are no plans, one chief is better than two or three.

[Samantha]

18. Very interesting - thanks n/t

[northernlights]

16. Makes Judd look like a 'trojan horse" candidate

Rethugs thought they could slip him into Commerce to undercount minorities in the upcoming Census. Once it was clear that wouldn't happen, he lost interest in the job....'xcuse me, suddenly woke up to irreconcilable differences with the administration. Right.