Commerce, Obama, and Gerrymandering of Congressional Seats

[TheMercenary]

Well, now number 2 choice is withdrawing his nomination. The flap appears to be over Obama's plan to move the control of the Census into the Executive Branch and out of Commerce which would effectively allow the Executive Branch to control gerrymandering of Congressional districts in the White House. Well he said it was going to be transparent so we can give him that!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...ing/index.html

http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/20...-constitution/

Merc..you do understand that it is the state legislatures that gerrymander districts after each census, not the federal government.

Perhaps you can explain how having the White House provide a more hands-on role in the census function as opposed to the Commerce Dept will control gerrymandering?

It seems to me that having that "control" in the White House could very well give it a higher profile and thus more visible and public accountability than having it buried in the Commerce Dept.

I dont know it if is a good idea, but the political argument in your articles seem like a stretch to me.

[classicman]

The White House promised to work directly with bureau's director to assuage those concerns, but that response drew further criticism from House Republicans concerned about greater executive influence in the Census Bureau.

In a letter to the president, House Republicans Patrick McHenry and Darrell Issa described the White House as "circumventing the secretary of commerce" and called it "both outrageous and unprecedented," suggesting the Obama administration could affect U.S. census results and congressional districting due out in 2010.

The move, they say, could insulate Democratic congressional power.

The White House said it recognizes the importance of an accurate census count "free from politicization" and added it "has not proposed removing the census from the Department of Commerce."

It sounds like a questionable political decision by Obama that the Republicans are jumping on with unsubstantiated charges.

There is no explanation of how it will "insulate" Democratic congressional power.

At best, we can expect maybe 4-5 states to be impacted, in terms of the number of Congressional seats, by the 2010 census...a few losing a seat, a few gaining a seat. It will be hard to hide those final numbers since they have already been projected.

The rest is up to the states....not the federal government.

I absolutely expect the state legislatures to gerrymander in favor the party in control of the legislature. so whats new?

Make that eight states:

Texas will lose some influence in Washington when President George W. Bush leaves the White House, but a new study finds that the Lone Star state will be the big winner in the upcoming congressional reapportionment.

The study, from the firm Election Data Services, projects that Texas will pick up three seats in Congress. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Utah would gain one seat each. Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania would each lose one

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16816.html

So if the Whte House tries to "fix" the final numbers, you dont think these numbers would be raised and shouts for investigations?

[richlevy]

I think Merc has been listening to Michelle Bachmann. Heck, Merc might actually be Michelle Bachmann for all we know.

Anyway, Michelle is off of her meds again and produced this rant on talk radio.

I am trying to track down a transcript to verify that she actually made the ridiculous claims that have been attributed to her, one of which was the redistricting talking point brought up by Merc. The link has an audio of the show, but I have a hard time listening to the woman. I'd prefer to see it in print.

* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."

[TheMercenary]

Don't worry, I can't stand her rants either. Limbaugh without the penis.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Make that eight states:

So if the Whte House tries to "fix" the final numbers, you dont think these numbers would be raised and shouts for investigations?

I wonder how Ill is going to fare?

[TheMercenary]

By 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."

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html