Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Mapmakers will have to scramble if Trump gets the census delay he wants

President Donald Trump

"How can you possibly be knocking on doors for a long period of time now?" President Trump said Monday, calling for an extension of the census.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Time to redraw all the country's legislative maps would be shortened if the census gets slowed down because of the coronavirus. But it's unclear how many significant problems that would create — and whether Congress will approve the Trump administration's request for a delay.

The Census Bureau on Monday proposed postponing all its major deadlines by 120 days, starting with the time for trying to count everyone in the country during the pandemic, producing a cascading effect on the entire redistricting timetable.

Such a four-month extension would mean the states would not know until the end of next April how many U.S. House districts they will have for the next decade and would not get the detailed population information required for congressional, legislative and local government mapmaking until the end of July.


This would have the most immediately problematic impact on the only two states slated to hold legislative elections in November 2021 using new maps: Virginia, where voters this fall will decide whether to turn the line drawing over to an independent commission, and New Jersey, where the process is already in the hands of a special panel outside the control of either party.

Neither state is projected to see the size of its congressional delegation change, but the delay could nonetheless upend efforts at good governance in both — and in states around the country, where almost all the rules are designed for redistricting to happen in the first half of next year.

Both New Jersey and Virginia hold their primaries in June, for example, and it would be impossible to keep to such a timetable without retaining the maps currently in use.

But that could inappropriately preserve political power in places that have lost people in the past decade while denying clout to neighborhoods that have grown. It could also cost the taxpayers if, to correct those inequities, all 120 legislators in New Jersey and the 100 Virginia House members are compelled to run again in special elections under the new maps in 2022.

Such complexities would spread across the country soon enough.

The Texas Legislature, for example, would have to convene a special session in the summer to draw a new congressional map that will probably include 39 instead of 36 districts — and be even more intensely fought-over than usual if Austin, as seems likely, become less monolithically Republican after this election than at any time since the early 1990s.

But the Texas Constitution says the maps for state legislative districts are to be remade at the "first regular session after the publication of each United States decennial census," which will end in May, so it's not at all clear how the Trump administration's proposed timetable would square with that requirement.

It's largely up to census officials to decide when to end efforts at an accurate count of who is living in the country and where. In-person work was called off in March and has now been put on hold until the end of May to comply with social distancing guidelines.

But it is not immediately clear if Congress will agree to delay announcement of the reapportioned congressional seats and the delivery of the neighborhood-level head counts to the states — figures that will determine not only the distribution of political power throughout the 2020s but also the allocation of billions of dollars in federal funding.

The most influential voice on the census at the Capitol, Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said the panel "will carefully examine the administration's request, but we need more information that the administration has been unwilling to provide."

The New York Democrat was referring to the unwillingness of Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham to answer congressional questions about how the census was faring during the Covid-19 outbreak.

Only 70 million households have participated in the constitutionally mandated count so far, about half the number the government expected would respond by this point.

"How can you possibly be knocking on doors for a long period of time now?" President Trump said at his daily news briefing Monday, where he said a 120-day delay in such field work might not be "nearly enough" and wondered aloud if congressional approval is needed to change the deadlines.

The Constitution says Congress decides how the census is conducted.

The administration's proposal won a rare endorsement from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which opposes Trump on almost every front but is an ardent promoter of census participation in the count. "We cannot afford to compromise the health of our communities or the fairness and accuracy of the census," said the group's president, Vanita Gupta.

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