Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Study says census behind; director says not really

Census

Census Director Steven Dillingham faced sometimes harsh questioning from members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday after a Government Accountability Office report found the Census is behind in hiring staff and finding local partners to promote participation.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Through several hours of sometimes intense questioning, Census Director Steven Dillingham on Wednesday offered this response to House members worried about the success of the critical count that begins next month.

Don't worry. We got this.

But analysts at the Government Accountability Office, who released a new status report on the 2020 census as part of the hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, are not so sanguine.


The report says that the Census is behind:

  • in the hiring of people who will knock on doors to count those Americans who don't self-report.
  • in the number of community partnerships it needs to establish to help find difficult to count people.
  • in efforts to ensure that the technology being debuted with this census works and is secure.

A lot is at stake in the outcome of the decennial count: $600 billion in federal funds are distributed each year based on the census count and so are the number of House members each state is allotted. In addition, the census is used to draw the district boundaries for local, state and federal officeholders.

"We are confident that we are on mission, on budget and on target," Dillingham said in response to the critical GAO report.

He said the Census will surpass the goal of recruiting 2.5 million applicants for the 500,000 people who will be hired as enumerators. He acknowledged that the 240,000 community partnerships the census has established is behind the pace needed to reach the goal of 300,000 by the start of the census but it is already more than were generated for the 2010 census.

Asked by ranking Republican committee member Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio to respond to Dillingham, J. Christopher Mihm, director of the GAO's Strategic Issues team, said: "I'm from the GAO and I'm paid to worry on your behalf."

The chief concern is with how successful the officials are in convincing Americans to fill out the census form online for the first time ever.

The estimate is that 60.5 percent of people will either do that or they will fill out and mail in the paper form, if they don't respond to the initial request to go online.

But if that estimate is just a few percentage points off, it will mean millions of additional people that enumerators will need to find.

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., a former police officer, warned that the number of online scams in recent years will make people leery about providing personal information in an online format.

The most combative part of the hearing came when Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., castigated Dillingham for not providing a list that she and other members had requested showing the names of the census community partners by legislative district.

Dillingham said officials were checking to make sure it was OK to release the names of all of the partners.

Wasserman Schultz said she found this "baffling" since the partners are described by Census officials as "public."

Then Wasserman Schultz demanded to know who controls release of the list and asked Dillingham to promise that it would be available within the next few days.

Dillingham eventually said he didn't know exactly who was involved in the review, which Wasserman Schultz deemed "outrageous."

She accused Dillingham of deliberately withholding the list and of creating an obstacle to tracking down difficult to find communities.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less