The Census: Foundation of our Democracy

Jane DeLung

The Census is coming!!! The Census is coming!!! In less than 8 months all households in the United States will receive a mailing containing the 10 questions of the 2010 Census. This mailing will go to every household in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas and is intended to count all residents. By December 31, 2020, state population totals must be submitted to the President of the United States.

With its companion survey, The American Community Survey, the 2010 Census will provide a detailed description of the socioeconomic characteristics (age, race, education, occupation, income, wealth, marital status) of the American people in each community across the country.

The collecting of census data is the largest peacetime undertaking of the US government. It is estimated that the 2010 Census will cost between $13 billion and $15 billion dollars and employ more than 1.5 million part-time enumerators, an estimated cost of $100 per housing unit or between $25 and $35 per resident.

And what does the nation get in return for this effort? Census data are used to reallocate political power at all levels of government based upon new population numbers. The seats in the House of Representatives are allocated among the states, the number of electoral college votes are set for a decade and state and local legislative districts are redrawn based on these data.

More than $400 billion in federal grants and contracts are awarded based upon these data and large parts of the recent stimulus package ($700 billion) used Census data to allocate funds. The socio-economic data will shape decisions made by all levels of government, business and the non-profit community across the country for a decade.

The Census is one of the most powerful tools in our democracy, although it is a step-child in the world of Washington for most of the decade. Only at the end of the decade when politicians realize that their congressional seat may be at stake do they become involved and concerned about the census. Only when the numbers are published do people begin to realize the consequences of the data. Apart from a few dedicated census junkies, the census is ignored by elected officials and citizens until the data is published.

Conducting the Census

In March 2010, the Census Questionnaire will be mailed to approximately 115 million households across the country. This questionnaire will ask age, date of birth, relationship to head of house hold, sex, race, ethnicity, home ownership and six administrative questions. Although it should only take about 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire, the bureau anticipates that only 64% of the household will return it. Telephone calls and home visits will be made by enumerators to get the information from the remaining households.

The 2010 Census is the first census without a long form (based on a sub-sample) since 1940. The American Community Survey which replaces the long form has 48 questions and is sent to 2% of the American population over the course of each year. The questions cover a wide range of topics including income, work, occupation, veteran status, some health questions, and education and housing questions. All of the questions are dictated by federal laws and regulations and are used to implement federal programs. Many states also use the data for program planning and governance.

The Census: A Brief History

Every decade beginning in 1790 the federal government has counted our population, documenting our national growth from 3.9 million people living on the Eastern seaboard in 1790 to nearly 283 million people spread across the continent in 2000. It is anticipated that more than 310 million Americans will be counted next year.

The Census: A Constitutional Requirement

“The Great Compromise” of the Constitutional Convention gave us one legislative body to represent the states (the Senate) and another body to represent the people (House of Representatives). This settled the competing interests between the large and small states and ensured adequate representation of both state and individual interests in Congress.

Article I requires that the federal government count the population at least every ten years to allocate representation in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states. The size of the Congressional delegation from each state is apportioned based on the decennial population count. The U.S. Census was the first constitutionally required national census in the world and the first to be used to apportion legislative representation.

The Constitution (amended by the 14th Amendment) stipulates that the census count all inhabitants, regardless of citizenship, voting status, age, race or gender. This method was chosen to accommodate different citizenship requirements among the states. After the Civil War, the federal government set standards for citizenship.

The First Counts

Federal marshals conducted the 1790 census by going door-to-door. It took 18 months and counted 3.4 million people. The 1830 Census used the first printed forms instead of ledgers or scraps of paper. The census of 1840 significantly expanded the kind of information collected, including information on Revolutionary War pensioners, schools and colleges, literacy, occupations, idiocy, and insanity, as well as commerce and industry.

In 1849, Congress created the Census Board to undertake the 1850 count. In the latter portion of the 19th century, the census increased in accuracy, detail, speed and cost. Machine tabulation was introduced in the 1890 Census. The 1940 Census was the first to use a more detailed questionnaire, or long form, for a sampling to track specific trends within the overall population. In 1950, shortly after their invention, UNIVAC 1 computers were used to tabulate a portion of the census. In 1960 the Census Bureau mailed forms to urban households, for the first mail-back census. In 1970, census forms were mailed to all households. Enumerators visited those households (about 30% of total households) which had not returned the form.

Accordingly, the cost of the count rose from six cents per person in 1860 to 16 cents per person in 1900. By comparison, it cost $15.99 per person in 2000 (unadjusted dollars). The 2010 Census will cost about $25 per person.

Issues in the 2010 Census

Leadership. Leadership has been a major concern for people who closely follow the Census. The Bureau was without a Director for almost a year in 2006-2007, and again there was a seven month delay after the Obama administration took office. The delay was both administrative and partisan. The Obama administration did not send a name to the Senate until May 2009 and then the Republicans placed a hold on the vote because of dispute about sampling to adjust the population counts. Finally, in July the Senate invoked cloture by a 77-33 vote and then approved Dr. Robert Grove to be Director of the Census Bureau by a voice vote.

Undercounting. The continuing undercounting of low income and ethnic minorities is a major concern for the Bureau, politicians and social scientists. The population figures from the Census are used to allocate political power and financial benefits at all levels, and serve as the basis for samples for all demographic surveys conducted during the decade. If a particular sub-set of residents (such as black men, homeless, Hispanics, undocumented aliens) are undercounted they will not exist in our data for the next ten years.

The Bureau became aware of the undercount among minorities in 1941 when they significantly underestimated the number of black men who would be eligible for the draft. The issue of undercounting minorities and low income residents has plagued the Census Bureau ever since. Significant resources have been devoted to trying to reduce the undercount and in 2000 the Bureau had important success. The undercount declined from 5.4% in 1940 to 1.6% in1990. However, in 1990, the differential undercount between white and minority residents was greater than ever. A concerted effort in 2000 reduced the undercount to 1.2% which represents a net undercount of 3 million individuals (almost 4 Congressional seats). The black-white differential, while reduced, was still 2.8%.

A major public relations effort is undertaken each decade to encourage people to respond to the census. Organizations with ties to the targeted communities are recruited by the Census Bureau to reach out to their constituencies and encourage them to respond to the Census. Massive public relations campaigns on television and radio are undertaken. The Bureau makes a special effort to hire people as outreach personnel who can relate to the targeted communities.

Adjusting the census numbers is a major issue for politicians and was the main reason for the delay of Dr. Grove’s appointment. In response to the differential undercount of 1990, the Bureau developed statistical techniques which allowed them to adjust for the undercount at the block level. This was done by conducting a re-survey three months after the Census.

Certain members of Congress objected to this and took the issue to court. In 1999 the Supreme Court ruled that statistical sampling and adjustment could not be used to apportion Congressional seats. The court was silent on whether or not states could use adjustments for apportioning state legislative seats and for allocation of federal and state expenditures.

This caused great concern among Republicans because they believe that most of the people who are missed live in Democratic-leaning districts thus increasing the probability that when the districts are drawn by the states there might be more districts leaning toward the Democrats. Republicans want no adjusted figures published that might be used by states. This has not been resolved yet but the Bureau does not have plans to publish adjusted figures unless there is a significant undercount.

Reapportionment: Legislative Redistricting Revisited and the Role of the Census

The Census was originally mandated to determine the number of seats that each state should have in the House of Representatives. The Constitution originally provided for 33 members of the House of Representatives with each state (13) receiving one seat and the remaining allocated based on estimated population size. The number immediately increased to 66 in 1792 when the new population figures arrived.

From the founding of the nation in 1790 until 1910 the House of Representatives grew each decade as our population expanded and new states entered the union. The House increased from 33 Member to the current 435 in 1910. There were only two stipulations in the Constitution: that every state have one Member of the House of Representatives (50 seats) and that no district be smaller than 33,000. There was some discussion that no district should be greater than 50,000 but that did not pass in the Bill of Rights.

During the 19th century, the process by which the seats were allocated was a subject of great debate, followed with great interest by the American citizens. Newspapers discussed the difference between the Clay method and the Webster methodology. Citizens were aware of the importance of the allocation of the seats among the states. Imagine having Members of Congress who can and do discuss complex mathematical formulas to determine the way that power is allocated today.

Some of the bitterest political battles have been fought over the census figures. Prior to the Civil War states were admitted together as a slave state/free state to maintain that balance of power. In 1870 after the North had won the Civil War, the numbers of House seats the former Confederacy had increased because blacks were counted as full citizens.

In 1920, the House of Representatives failed to reapportion because this was the first time that seats had not been added. Because of high immigration rates over the previous two decades rural states in middle America and the South lost seats to the North-east. Claiming very rainy weather, the House refused to go through the process of reapportioning until the Supreme Court ordered them to do so in 1928.

Much is made of the Democratic sweep under Roosevelt in 1932 and the large majorities that were gained in the House of Representatives. Little attention is paid to the fact that there was major redistribution of power from rural and Republican America to the more urban and Democratic northeast based on the founding guidelines of our Constitution.

Because there has been no increase in the size of the House of Representatives since 1910 when the population was 100 million people, the U.S. population growth (now approximately 310 million) has increased the average constituent size for each Congressperson from 30,000 in 1790 to 670,000 in 2000. The US is projected to reach 400 million people by 2040 which means that the average Congressional district will have almost 1 million people.

Consequently, Congress members will represent districts that will have 500,000 (for the smallest states like Delaware, Wyoming) to 1.7 million constituents for that one state that can not make it across the population threshold to get a second seat. It is estimated that more than 1/3 of the states will have only one or two Members in the House while Texas, Florida, and California will have almost one-fourth of the House membership. The House of Representatives composition will follow the migration of Americans from the Northeast and Midwest to the more Republican South and West.

One has to question whether or not the House of Representatives can be called the House of the People if the members represent more and more constituents and power becomes more concentrated in only a few states.

Redistricting at the State Level: One Man One Vote

Until 1962, state legislatures were given a virtually free hand to draw district boundaries. The Constitution said nothing about equal representation within states. For example, in 1930, New York's largest district contained 776,400 voters versus only 90,700 for its smallest. In 1962, the Supreme Court changed this practice, declaring the "one man, one vote" principle, which required state legislatures to draw congressional districts that are close to equal in population.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 carried this principle one step further, requiring state legislatures to, wherever possible, draw districts that grant representation to African-Americans, and later, Hispanics. When those ethnic groups become a majority of the population within the district, they would have the opportunity to elect representatives of their own ethnicity. When combined with the "one man, one vote" principle, this legal requirement expanded the need for an accurate head count by geographic area.

In later decisions the Supreme Court extended the "one man, one vote" principle to all levels of government. As a result the population counts generated by the Census immediately becomes the focus of attention of all members of the House of Representatives and both political parties, and elected officials at all levels of government.

In all but four states (Iowa, North Dakota, New Jersey and now California) the political boundaries are drawn by the legislature and approved by the governor. Each decade the redistricting process sets in stone the political boundaries of all governmental bodies in a state for ten years. This reallocation of political power is extraordinary and occurs every ten years without bloodshed. Control of state legislatures is critical in the redrawing of the political boundaries which occur in the '01 year of each decade.

In 1975, Congress expanded the census' responsibility for legislative redistricting again. The new law required the Census Bureau to provide Data on population numbers to states down to the block level (100 people usually), which has caused states to redistrict. These data are provided by July after the Census year. Demographic characteristics (income, age, sex, race, etc) are available later.

The Census has become the foundation of our democratic process—yet it receives little attention from the news media or the general public. It ensures a peaceful transition of power on a regular basis and deserves more of our attention. Undercounting, with attendant social and financial ramifications, is a serious issue. Talk about it; encourage everyone to be counted. The numbers really matter. Population growth matters. Population policy matters. Politicians only get concerned when reapportionment and redistricting threaten their party's power. The Census is one of our nation's great undertakings. It tells us who we are and where we are headed.

Jane S. De Lung has served as President of the Population Resource Center for 20 years. She has 35 years of experience in demographic research in the health and human services fields, public policy, and family planning. Prior to joining the Center, Ms. De Lung was President of Public Solutions where her work focused on the impact of population change on health and welfare programs. She was responsible for population forecasting, long-range planning and data system design. Her experience also includes serving as Assistant Commissioner for Finance at the Chicago Department of Health. As Vice-President of Illinois Family Planning Council, Ms. De Lung supervised 72 family planning clinics throughout the county. She has written numerous articles on family planning and population. She holds a B.A. from Emory University and an M.A. from Roosevelt University. Ms. DeLung is on the Board of Progressives for Immigration Reform, the League of Women Voters of Lawrence, New Jersey and Program Chair for the Present Day Club of Princeton.