The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: 2020 census
Census Data Shows (Again) Why We Need To Expand Congress

Census Data Shows (Again) Why We Need To Expand Congress

The preliminary 2020 census count has been released, and as usual, it means that when it comes to congressional representation, some states will gain and some will lose. Illinois is one of seven states that will suffer a shrinkage of their House delegations. But the zero-sum nature of this game is not a necessary feature, and it's not a good one.

The reason states are pitted against one another every 10 years is that the nation's population has steadily grown but the House has not. It has been frozen at 435 seats since 1911, even though the number of people in America has more than tripled. Back then, the typical member represented 212,000 people. Today, it's 761,000.

The current number has no basis in the Constitution. The framers meant for the House to grow over time, and it did — from 141 in 1803 to 293 in 1873 to 357 in 1893. The only constitutional limit is that there can be no more than one representative per 30,000 people. James Madison wrote confidently that "the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution."

The author of the Federalist No. 52 (either Madison or Alexander Hamilton) said that each member should have "an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people." There is nothing intimate about a relationship with 761,000 people. It may be no coincidence that only 37 percent of Americans know the name of their representative.

Some districts are physically enormous. New Mexico has one that occupies 71,000 square miles. Texas has one that stretches across 550 miles. But nothing tops the one that is the size of Alaska — because it comprises all of that state, which is 2,261 miles wide. Six other states have just one representative.

Expanding the House would mean members would be better able to serve the needs of their constituents, because they wouldn't have so many to serve. Helping people grapple with problems related to the federal government, such as getting veterans benefits or securing Paycheck Protection Program loans, makes up the bulk of what occupies congressional offices.

Less populous districts would also make it easier for members of Congress to get to know the communities and people they represent, and vice versa. It would provide fast-growing states with additional seats without depriving slower-growing states of the ones they have.

In the latest YouGov poll, only 25 percent of Americans approve of how Congress is doing its job. I know what you're thinking: If I don't like the people in Congress, why would I want more of them?

But more House seats would reduce the size of districts, making them more cohesive. Rural voters would be less likely to be lumped with distant urbanites. Minority populations would have a better chance of electing people attuned to their particular interests. Campaigns would be less expensive. Who knows? Better people might get elected.

Expanding the House would align the Electoral College more closely with public sentiment. Each state gets as many electoral votes as it has members of Congress. Increasing the number of House seats would mean more populous states would get a say in choosing the president that is more proportionate to the number of voters they have. It would reduce the grossly outsized voting strength of small states.

You might assume that a bigger House would be impossibly unwieldy. But other countries have lawmaking bodies that function well despite being much larger than ours.

The German Bundestag seats 709 people. The 650 members of Britain's House of Commons serve a country the size of Oregon. Each member represents about 100,000 people, less than one-seventh the number represented by the average U.S. House member. No other wealthy democracy has as high a ratio of citizens to national legislators as we do.

How big should the U.S. go? Under an option that says no district shall have more people than the least populous state (Wyoming, with 576,851 people), the House would grow to 545 members. An expansion on that scale would bring in a lot of fresh faces and ideas while changing the dynamics of a body that has gotten too far from the American people.

If the House had grown with the population as the framers expected, it would have 11,000 members. That would be too many. But 435 is way too few.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Trump Aides Worked With GOP Activist Who Sought To Rig Census

Trump Aides Worked With GOP Activist Who Sought To Rig Census

The House Oversight and Reform Committee has obtained evidence showing that the Trump administration worked hand-in-hand with a GOP activist to try to rig the 2020 census.

Thomas Hofeller, who died last year, was a Republican activist who specialized in gerrymandering and redistricting. In 2015, he conducted a study that determined that having a citizenship question on the decennial census would disadvantage Democrats and be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”

During litigation over the Trump administration’s attempts to justify adding the question to the 2020 census, allegations appeared that Hofeller’s study had been instrumental in the administration’s decision to push for the question. The Justice Department flatly denied this, saying that the study “played no role” in the matter.

Now, the House Oversight Committee says it has material showing that the Trump administration began strategizing about how to add a citizenship question almost immediately after Trump took office — and, in the summer of 2017, worked directly with Hofeller to do so.

Mark Neuman, who was a member of the Trump transition team and a former adviser on census issues, provided information about his contacts with Hofeller during the time the administration was discussing how it could get the citizenship question on the census.

In August 2017, Neuman, then an adviser to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, communicated directly with both Hofeller and his business partner, Dalton “Dale” Oldham, about how to best phrase the citizenship question. Neuman asked both men to review language in a letter Neuman was sending to request the addition of the question.

Neuman’s letter offered the unfounded rationale the DOJ would later use to justify the question — to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act — and he wanted to make sure Hofeller and Oldham thought the language was correct. Both Oldham and Hofeller agreed the language was fine.

At every turn, Hofeller sought to advantage Republicans by minimizing participation by voters of color and Democratic voters. He didn’t do this in the shadows. On the contrary, Hofeller was ubiquitous in his efforts to ensure Republican control at any cost. When he passed away in 2018, one obituary said he “may be more responsible for the Republican majority in Congress than any other single person in modern politics.”

Over the years, Republicans paid him millions of dollars for his services.

Hofeller helped draw a highly gerrymandered map in North Carolina. He was hired by the conservative Washington Free Beacon to assess whether it would advantage Republicans to draw political maps based on a subset of the population — American citizens of voting age — rather than a state’s total population. He worked as the redistricting director for the Republican National Committee.

Trying to rig the census was just a logical progression for Hofeller. In the Trump administration, he found a willing ear for his efforts. And now the House Oversight committee has proof the administration formed a partnership with Hofeller as well.

Published with permission of The American Independent.

IMAGE: Wilbur Ross departs Trump Tower after a meeting with Donald Trump in New York, November 29, 2016. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Congress Holds Wilbur Ross And William Barr In Criminal Contempt

Congress Holds Wilbur Ross And William Barr In Criminal Contempt

On Wednesday, Wilbur Ross became the first commerce secretary in the history of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress. In a 230-198 vote, the House of Representatives voted to hold both Ross and Attorney General William Barr in criminal contempt of Congress.

Barr is the second attorney general Congress has held in contempt. In 2012, the House voted to hold President Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt in relation to the “Fast and Furious” scandal, even though Holder testified before Congress 11 times.

Hours before the contempt vote took place, Ross and Barr wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pleading with her not to hold the vote. Their request went unheeded.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats supported the resolution, while Republicans unanimously opposed it. Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, an independent who recently left the Republican Party, voted in favor of the resolution, while only four Democrats voted against it.

The vote came after both Ross and Barr refused to cooperate with congressional investigations into the Trump administration’s attempt to rig the 2020 census with a racist citizenship question. Both men ignored subpoenas demanding documents to aid in the investigation.

Ross falsely claimed to Congress that the idea to add the question came from the Justice Department. Internal documents show it was the Commerce Department that asked the Justice Department to request a citizenship question. Adding the question, according to a Republican operative involved in the process, would undercount millions of black and Hispanic residents and would be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”

In the end, it was a racist ploy to advantage Republicans and unfairly harm Democrats.

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration lied about why it wanted the question on the census in the first place, ultimately halting Trump’s efforts to add it.

The contempt vote allows Congress to sue Ross and Barr in federal court and have a judge enforce the subpoena. The vote also formally refers both men to the Justice Department for possible punishment, up to and including fines and jail time. Given Barr’s role as head of the Justice Department, it is highly unlikely the pair will face any repercussions.

Before the vote, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the House Oversight Committee, explained the reasons for moving forward with contempt, even though punishment is unlikely.

“Look, if you act with contempt for Congress and the American people, then you should be held in contempt of Congress and the American people, that’s pretty clear to me,” Raskin told NBC News. “We’ve never seen anything like this systemic defiance of the Congress by the president before.”

With the contempt vote behind it, Congress will likely file a lawsuit in federal court in the coming weeks, the New York Times reports. Many members of the Trump administration have been willing to defy Congress, but it remains unknown if they would also defy a court order directing them to comply with a congressional subpoena.

If the lawsuit against Ross and Burr is successful, America could soo find out.

Published with permission of The American Independent.

Spokesman Says The President Isn’t ‘Going To Be Beholden To Courts Anymore’

Spokesman Says The President Isn’t ‘Going To Be Beholden To Courts Anymore’

A White House spokesman let slip something in a Fox News interview on Friday he probably didn’t mean to say.

Discussing the defeat in the Commerce Department’s effort to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census, Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley tried to argue — as President Donald Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have said — that despite all appearances, the administration was actually vindicated by the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court even ruled this question could be on there, but it was impossible to get it on in time for printing,” Gidley said.

Of course, Gidley didn’t mention the fact that the reason it’s “impossible” to put the citizenship question on the Census in time is that the court found that the administration’s first attempt to include the question violated the law. Chief Justice John Roberts struck down the Commerce Department’s plans because it provided an apparently “contrived” justification for including the question. The impossibility only became a factor because the administration was so wildly inept and deceptive; it would have had to start all over again to add the question back to the Census because it is currently legally blocked from including it. And there just isn’t enough time for redo.

“We looked at inserts, we looked at all types of options,” Gidley continued. “And the president said: ‘Listen. I’m not going to be beholden to courts anymore. I have the legal authority to find out this information. The American people deserve to know it. So I’m moving forward with this method.”

Host Bill Hemmer ignored Gidley’s claim that the president claims he’s not “beholden” to the courts and quickly moved on. While it was likely just more pseudo machismo in the face of a humiliating defeat, the claim echoed what many feared when Barr and Trump suggested they might try to include a citizenship question on the Census despite the Supreme Court’s ruling. Trump ended up directing the administration to find other methods of calculating the number of American citizens.

Since even the Census Bureau long acknowledged that including the question on the decennial survey was not the best method for counting American citizens, it seems the administration’s real purpose for including the question in the first place was not really to get a quantitative answer. Rather, it sought to discourage response rates in regions heavily populated by Hispanics and immigrant groups, thus shifting political power from Democrats to Republicans.

Watch the clip below:

IMAGE: White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley.