Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

New report offers solutions to weaknesses in census

census forms
Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

The census was created to give the government an understanding of the U.S. population: its size, its ethnic diversity, its socioeconomic range. It is the foundation for allocating government spending and assigning House districts to each state.

However, the census has its limitations. In 2020, its flaws were brought to light after the census failed to account for 18.8 million people. A series of challenges impacted census-takers’ ability to get an accurate count, including the Covid-19 pandemic and administrative interference in the process. A post-count review by the Census Bureau showed significant undercounts of many non-white populations, affecting funding for their communities as well as their representation in Congress.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning think tank based at New York University, has offered a set of solutions to improve future counts.


The 2020 census failed to account for 5 percent of the American population. Those errors included undercounts in eight states, many of which are home to a number of Latino, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native communities. This led to situations like Alabama’s new congressional map, with the district lines accounting for just one out of the seven districts having a majority-Black population, despite this demographic making up 25 percent of the state’s voting population.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Constitution requires the federal government to determine the “actual enumeration,” or headcount, of the United States every 10 years. The Census Bureau is tasked with completing that count, as directed by the Census Act. According to the Brennan Center, the Census Act has been amended over the years but still requires significant updates. In addition the report found that the bureau itself is overextended and the 10-year gap between censuses has not helped the bureau’s competency. If anything, the headcount and all the economic and demographic surveys produce too much data in a 10-year span for the Census Bureau to handle in an organized manner, according to the Brennan Center, even with $14 billion in funding over the course of the decennial cycle.

“Legitimacy and accuracy require equity; an equitable census is free from the long-running tendency to undercount Black, Latino, and Native American communities in comparison with white ones, inspiring confidence in its fundamental fairness,” the report’s five authors wrote.

They developed 19 proposals to fix the shortcomings of the count and grouped them into seven categories:

  1. Limiting executive interference, which became more pronounced during the Trump administration with researchers claiming the executive office tried to “suppress the count of immigrant communities and communities of color for partisan gain.” Suggested solutions include making the Census Bureau its own executive agency, limiting the number of political appointees and prohibiting the president from contributing in the apportionment process.
  2. Enhancing congressional oversight of the Census Bureau by establishing subcommittees on the census to oversee varying aspects of the bureau’s duties. This restructuring would force Congress to pay special attention to data quality, reviews of previous censuses and make concerted plans to incorporate improvements into the following decade’s census.
  3. Improving data collection by modernizing the census and making efforts to capture data from different sources. Proposals include removing statutory limits on data collection methods, incorporating questions that would encapsulate the population’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identities, and establishing a National Academies panel to guage operational changes.
  4. Supporting state-level efforts to end prison gerrymandering, in which incarcerated people are counted where they are imprisoned rather than at their home addresses. Opponents of that process say it articificially limits the actual share of populations among communities of color and is a racially discriminatory way to dilute the votes of those communities. They suggest updating the residence rule to count incarcerated people at their pre-incarcerated addresses and holding the Census Bureau accountable for accurately collecting residence addresses.
  5. Improving data confidentiality, and thereby encouraging more people to participate in the census, by clarifying and codifying the Census Act and various other bureau policies on sensitive data.
  6. Ensuring adequate funding for the census with more discretionary authority handed to the Census Bureau.
  7. Eliminating outdated sections of the Census Act. By removing outdated provisions while simultaneously strengthening others, the Census Bureau’s mission may be better executed.

Read the full report.

Read More

Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.

In that news report, David Meyers wrote:

Keep ReadingShow less