Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A Chicago-Style Census
The census is one of the most important functions performed by the federal government because the integrity our representative democracy depends on it. Because both parties understand its importance, the census has always been insulated from political corruption.
That is why news of the Obama Administration’s plan to take the 2010 census away from the Commerce Department and run it out of the White House is disturbing. This action will have enormous implications on the balance of political power in the country.
When I was co-chairman of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, the left fought unsuccessfully to introduce “statistical sampling” into the census count. Had they gotten their way, it would have adjusted the numbers.
Statistical sampling is inherently unreliable and carries the potential for corruption and fraud. There are competing theories on which model or formula to use to adjust the numbers. If you pick the wrong formula, everyone would be deprived of having an equal vote and equal representation.
Some say that statistical sampling cannot be used in congressional districting. That is only half-true. First, the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that sampling cannot be used to reapportion seats from one state to another. However, the Court did not address whether sampling could be used to redraw district lines within each state. Look at how Texas’s redistricting plan last decade flipped several Democrat seats to Republican seats, and it is clear how much of an impact redrawing lines can have.
Second, there are ways clever lawyers can figure out how to push the envelope with sampling to manipulate reapportionment without blatantly violating the Court’s order. The Obama Administration is overflowing with clever lawyers.
Beyond that, sampling can be used to “adjust” the numbers for receiving federal money. With the trillion-dollar spending monstrosity that just squeaked through Congress, allocating those funds could easily target districts to help vulnerable Democrats, and pick off vulnerable Republicans.
Finally, some say not to be overly concerned because it’s too late to impact the 2010 census. Don’t believe that for a moment. While it is true that some aspects have been in the planning for years, there are tremendous changes that could be done at the last minute. This is a partisan power grab, and Republicans need to stand up against it.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel would most likely be supervising the census. This is the man who, for the past few years, was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). As such, his mission was to elect as many Democrats as possible to Congress. No person in America is better-versed than Mr.
Emanuel on exactly what redistricting and reapportionment plan would give Democrats a super-majority in Congress for the next decade.
Further, the White House can keep its census deliberations secret. This adds a dangerous dimension to the process. The Commerce Department is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires public hearings and input for making rules and regulations, and requires agencies to explain how they account for all the evidence presented. But the White House is not an agency, and is exempt for the APA. If the White House takes over the census, they could incorporate suggestions from organizations such as ACORN and MoveOn.org on how to conduct the census, and all such meetings and consultations would be secret. So much for President Obama’s promise of transparency.
It is exactly this sort of Chicago-style politics that must be kept out of the census. The administration’s power grabbing scheme will allow for the worst sort of political dealing in smoke-filled backrooms.
Republicans should immediately introduce legislation to keep the census out of the White House. Nothing should be more independent of rank partisan politics than the process that determines the integrity of our representative democracy.
President Obama got elected talking about the audacity of hope. It is truly audacious for his administration to hope that Chicago-style politics could carry the day on this important issue.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Why Obama Wants Control of the Census
Why Obama Wants Control of the Census
Counting citizens is a powerful political tool.
JOHN FUND
President Obama said in his inaugural address that he planned to "restore science to its rightful place" in government. That's a worthy goal. But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn't think it would mean having the director of next year's Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. "There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."
The decision was made last week after California Rep. Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained to the White House that Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire slated to head Commerce, couldn't be trusted to conduct a complete Census. The National Association of Latino Officials said it had "serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 Census produces the most accurate possible count."
Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census to prepare the economic data that so much of business relies upon. "If the original numbers aren't as hard as possible, the uses they're put to get fuzzier and fuzzier," says Bruce Chapman, who was director of the Census in the 1980s.
Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.
Such a move would prove controversial. "Sampling potentially has the kind of margin of error an opinion poll has and the same subjectivity a voter-intent standard in a recount has," says Mr. Chapman.
Starting in 2000, the Census Bureau conducted three years of studies with the help of many outside statistical experts. According to then Census director Louis Kincannon, the Bureau concluded that "adjustment based on sampling didn't produce improved figures" and could damage Census credibility.
The reason? In theory, statisticians can identify general numbers of people missed in a head count. But it cannot then place those abstract "missing people" into specific neighborhoods, let alone blocks. And anyone could go door to door and find out such people don't exist. There can be other anomalies. "The adjusted numbers told us the head count had overcounted the number of Indians on reservations," Mr. Kincannon told me. "That made no sense."
The problem of counting minorities and the homeless has long been known. Census Bureau statisticians believe that a vigorous hard count, supplemented by adding in the names of actual people missed by head counters but still found in public records, is likely to lead to a far more defensible count than sampling-based adjustment.
The larger debate prompted seven former Census directors -- serving every president from Nixon to George W. Bush -- to sign a letter last year supporting a bill to turn the Census Bureau into an independent agency after the 2010 Census. "It is vitally important that the American public have confidence that the census results have been produced by an independent, non-partisan, apolitical, and scientific Census Bureau," it read.
The directors also noted that "each of us experienced times when we could have made much more timely and thorough responses to Congressional requests and oversight if we had dealt directly with Congress." The bill's chief sponsor is New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who represents Manhattan's Upper East Side.
"The real issue is who directs the Census, the pros or the pols," says Mr. Chapman. "You would think an administration that's thumping its chest about respecting science would show a little respect for scientists in the statistical field." He worries that a Census director reporting to a hyperpartisan such as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel increases the chances of a presidential order that would override the consensus of statisticians.
The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House will oversee the Census Bureau. But Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insists there is "historical precedent" for the Census director to be "working closely with the White House."
It would be nice to know what Sen. Gregg thinks about all this, but he's refusing comment. And that, says Mr. Chapman, the former Census director, is damaging his credibility. "He will look neutered with oversight of the most important function of his department over the next two years shipped over to the West Wing," he says. "If I were him, I wouldn't take the job unless I had that changed."
