In Part 1, I went over some of the terms and the history of redistricting and the fact that Georgia is a Section V state and what that has meant to the redistricting process. In Part 2, I will explore the move of the Census from the Department of Commerce to the White House and the ramifications of that policy.
Traditionally, the Director of the Census has reported to the Secretary of Commerce, but when President Obama announced that Republican Judd Gregg would be taking the helm of that Department, cries from the left, and more particularly the Congressional Black Caucus and Latino groups, prompted President Obama to elevate the Director of the Census to a direct report to the President rather than the Commerce Secretary. Even with Gregg’s withdrawal from the nomination, that decision hasn’t seemed to be reversed.
While the Constitution mandates that the census be taken every ten years under Article I, which defines the powers of Congress, it is up to the Executive to enforce the laws which would also include the actual process of carrying out of the census. That of course does not mean that the Congress cannot act, but with the liberal wing of the Democrats in charge of the Congress, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be unlikely to have any problems with this new arrangement.
A couple of weeks ago, John Fund in the Wall Street Journal goes into a great analysis on why the political operation at the White House would want control over the census to create a Democrat majority for the next decade.
As stated in Part 1, the main reason for this move is to help make sure sampling is applied in the census numbers.
Fund quotes Bruce Chapman, Director of the Census under Ronald Reagan, who states, “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.”
Of course having any margin of error works against the principle of “one man, one vote” that the Supreme Court has required.
Discussing these issues with Dr. Charles Bullock, the Richard B. Russell Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia, Bullock noted that, [I]t is likely that suits will be brought on some grounds. It is difficult to devise plans that are litigation proof.”
But the main question is who would sampling would help or hurt the most, the Democrats or the Republicans? First of all, as Fund notes in his article,
“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.”
The tactic in Georgia has been to pack minorities in districts to insure minority representation. The idea is that if two Democratic candidates run in a majority minority district, the candidate who is of that minority or ethnicity will be more likely to win over the one who is not. If a district has a high minority population, say in the 30-40% rang, but not a majority, it will likely elect a Democrat, but not necessarily a member of the minority group. This was part of our requirements per Section V of the Voting Rights Act, making sure that minority representation is maximized.
If sampling cannot be used to redistrict the Congress, then it will not affect representation in Washington. However, will the Census produce two sets of numbers? One with sampling and one without?
If a state, like Georgia, uses sampling data for local redistricting and the hard count for Congress, then does the state open itself wide for the same kind of litigation it faced due to its deviations in 2001?
“Notice in the last round of redistricting when the Democrats were in control of the legislature the gerrymandered Republican districts had a +5% deviation and Democrat districts were -5% deviation,” said Don Hill. “That got them into big trouble when the Republicans sued and now the courts look for close to zero deviation in all districts so both the Democrats and Republicans will be hard pressed to justify any deviations in district designs.”
Sampling will be the focus of lawsuits, not just in Georgia but around the county, in the coming years if it is used.
“There’s only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement,” a career professional at the Census Bureau told Fund. “And it’s called politics, not science.”
In Part 3 we will explore the tactics and strategies both sides may use as they redraw Georgia’s districts for the 2012 elections.
{ 18 comments }
I repeat: the census is expressly political.
It deals within the relm of politics so it is, by its very nature, political, but it is not supposed to be nor should it be partisan.
Dude, your deciding who is getting how much representation in Congress.
It will be political. Any attempts to think of it as an apolitical event is a little too idealistic.
Redistricting shouldn’t be partisan or political, that’s the serious threat to our system.
Rugby, Are we arguing about the fact we both agree it is a political process?
You two will never get up to the high standards set by Andre V. Decaturguy.
In reality, the move of the census bureau will not have too much of an impact on redistricting efforts. The director of the census, by law (under VTRA 1965, Sec 5) reports his findings to the attorney general and the civil right division of the DOJ. Inevitably, the Attorney General signs off on redistricting plans and changes of laws by Section 5 states.
In my opinion, the moving of the census, if anything, is for the administration to have a realistic view of immigration numbers. There is a lot of thought that the Bush Admin may have given false reports and projections about the number of undocumented immigrants and on immigration in general.
The move has policy implications, but I do not think you are looking at the right area of the law.
If this is a matter of redistricting…then the GOP better start working with the administration to prevent the catastrophe of having competitive districts in this state. OH NO! Competition! My god what would we do if that concept was applied to elections!
If the AG does not approve of the redistricting plan the the GA GOP sends him…then the AG picks a court to redistrict the state in a “fair and judicious manner.” California would have gone 45-7 with their Democrat/Republican split had the Bush Administration not made a deal. Democrats are typically more pragmatic than today’s GOP…but the question looms, will the GOP play ball or be defiant.
Personally, I kind of like the way GA is districted…but it could use some tweaking. The 7-6 split is desirable…and it makes sense that the GOP holds a majority in the delegation. GA is a republican state now. The one thing I do not like is that the GOP seats are all very safe. There is 0 competition. The 6 Democratic seats have 2 competitive districts.
It is a pipe dream, but I have always wanted to see an election cycle where a super majority of the congressional seats are competitive on party lines. Getting rid of the incumbeny advantage is tough…unless you district a sitting congressman out of his home. When GA has 14 seats…it would be nice to see them competitive. Realistically, only 9 or 10 could be competitive given the size of metro atlanta. Looking at the Cook Partisan Voting Index…I would like to see alot of 1′s 2′s and 0′s next to the party affiliation though.
Yes. I’m saying it has never been apolitical, it never was intended to be apolitical, it never will be apolitical, and that only reason you care this year is because Democrats will be in charge.
No, I care about sampling being used over a hard count. I was concerned the Bush Administration was leaning that way in 2001, but I didn’t have a blog to express it.
“Yes. I’m saying it has never been apolitical, it never was intended to be apolitical, it never will be apolitical…”
Never? It’s outlined in the Constitution as a means to count the population. It’s actually MEANT to be apolitical. And in fact real conservatives would like to keep it that way. Most of the Republican redistricting is meant to simply undo the damage caused by liberals and race-based gerrymandering. In reality a “district” or area or community would have it’s own unique geographical economic and income-based characteristics. And each community should naturally attract a natural mix of different races and religions, or perhaps in some cases might be somewhat ethnic. Chinatown in San Francisco for example.
I think people are getting confused by terms here. The census is political in that a political branch (Congress) is assigned by the constitution to conduct it and that political branch assigns another political branch (the Executive) to carry out that mandate.
“Political” does not mean “Republican” or “Democrat.” The census has never been apolitical because it has, since its creation, been a political process. What we don’t want to to become is a partisan process.
Redistricting has always been partisan, but the data from the census needs to be free from partisan tampering.
Using liberal politics to guesstimate census numbers especially of minorities may have positive consequences for Republicans. If the census number use virtual minorities to draw districts the actual number of minority voters will be much reduced from what is claimed. So a district that is reported as 60% minority to the DOJ may be several percentage points less. Thereby a district that is a virtual Black Democrat district may actually be a swing district or a district that would tend to nominate Black Democrats, but actually does not have enough minority voters to carry the district in the General. If the guesstimates are off by a large amount, there may be enough virtual minorities to pass muster with the DOJ, but not enough actual minority voters to win the seat for minorities or Democrats.
Here’s some folks from Chinatown. They might tend to have their own political beliefs, as well as work schedule, diet, needs and wants, ect… and would therefore deserve their own representation for their own area of the City or State.
http://tectonicforces.blogspot.com/search?q=storms
G.F., there might be Big Trouble if that happened.
“You two will never get up to the high standards set by Andre V. Decaturguy.”
Have you finished law school yet just doesn’t have quite the same pop as have you finished college yet.
Very true. And I will be done in May 2010, which means that I maybe will be finished with my education just under 30 years since I started it.
I say maybe because I am 2 classes away from a 2nd BA in journalism at Georgia State. I may go ahead and knock them out, though it might feel funny being the only lawyer in an undergrad class.
Well, Shep, those undergrads will be the only folks REALLY impressed with having a lawyer in their midst. Might as well live in that fantasy world while you have that chance.
very true. Oh, can I owe you a call back Bill!
Damaging liberal policies?
Like what?
The only policies that America has seen that are damaging are “conservative” policies. Whether you want to disown them or not, which is what “conservatives” do to each other, they were passed by the people you wanted elected.
Sooner or later, “conservatives” that are not in the upper 3% of income earners will learn that in the beltway…”conservative” is a euphemism for a policy that will line the pockets of a contributor and gaurentee a spot on the board post-congressional service.
The biggest problem with conservatism in America is that it is not viewed favorably by,…anybody. Self proclaimed conservatives have no sense of where their ideology stems from nor can they even agree upon what is “conservative.” Conservatism has been relegated to an anti-liberal ideology…with not philisophical foundation of its own.
While the term “liberal” was becoming synonymous with reckless…that definition has changed in the eyes of the public. Publicly, liberal now means open minded, tolerant, or to be in the public interest. Liberal has never been bad…it is the foundation of our country. Most every American knows the names of a few liberal philosophers and their names will forever be revered by our people.
When “conservative” is identified only by failed and corrupt politicians…well, a make over is necessary. Now that the GOP has been attached to this undefined term, “conservative,” there is a rocky road ahead for that party. I am no oracle…but, regardless how things turn out over the next years, the GOP will be a minority for a few election cycles.
To add to the topic of the thread…no the census was never meant to be apolitical. It has always been used as a political tool. Since there are no real-”conservatives” to claim that they have ever tried to undo or to do anything is a bit of a contradiction. GameFan is just playing the “not a real conservative” card again. People like him want the government to ignore everything that went into the creation of our Constitution and confine the activities to the enumerated powers…but Game fAn, were does it explicitly state that the census should be apolitical? it doesn’t. Get over it. You “conservatives” have been manipulating census data for decades too.
Comments on this entry are closed.