New Census Data to Set Off Partisan Numbers Game

The federal government today is expected to announce an estimate of how many people were missed last year when the nation’s population was tallied, touching off a political battle that could affect billions of dollars in government funding and the balance of legislative power.

The hearing before the House census subcommittee today is a prelude to a decision the Bush administration must make on whether to use census figures gathered last year through mailings and door-to-door interviews to determine the U.S. population, or to use numbers adjusted to include the “undercount” in the final figure.

The electoral and financial stakes are enormous: The official figures help determine for 10 years the boundaries of congressional seats and the district lines for thousands of state and local legislative seats.

And the distribution of $200 billion a year in federal funds is shaped by the census. Every mayor and city council member is vitally aware that the more people are counted, the bigger the check they receive from Washington.

The hearing is expected to prompt lawsuits after the Bush administration decides which of the two sets of figures to use as the official census tally when it releases detailed numbers next month for every community in the nation.

The census is more likely to overlook minorities, including African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans, experts say.

Democrats, who tend to win strong support from minorities, favor an adjustment in the census tally. They say it is a better way to include those who have been missed. The result would be more potential seats for Democrats when new districts are drawn.

Republicans contend that the original census is accurate and that an adjusted figure, while accurate nationally, would be misleading at the block level where district lines are drawn street by street. They want to use the original unadjusted number from last year’s census, hoping to maintain their narrow majority in the House.

Both sides will release blizzards of numbers and deploy legions of experts to make their case. But it is an arcane and often confusing field.

“Nobody knows for sure about any of this stuff,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-Va.), chairman of the Republican National Campaign Committee.

“What the Democrats are talking about is raw political power, not power for minorities. Instead of 1 million people, all of a sudden you have 1.1 million people” when district lines are being drawn.

Davis and other House Republicans are discussing a compromise using both sets of numbers. They would favor using the original figures for redistricting, which could protect the number of Republican House seats. But they also favor using the adjusted numbers for handing out federal dollars. That helps local officials, notably those in cities with large minority populations.

The allocation of money through the adjusted figures “can be more reliable, so inner-city areas are not short-changed,” Davis said.

But a ranking Democrat on the census subcommittee said such a compromise is unworkable.

“That’s just like the Republicans: They think money is more important than people,” said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.). “If a number is accurate, it is accurate for both representation and distribution of funds. The census is about people, about being fair and making sure that everyone is counted.”

The government should follow the recommendation of the census professionals who will issue a report later this month on whether adjusted numbers should be used, she said.

Census experts are expected to recommend using the adjusted figures. Organizations representing minority groups are strong advocates for the adjusted figures.

More than 1 million Latinos were not counted in the 1990 census, experts estimate. “We believe an adjusted count is the best and most accurate count for the minority population,” said Marisa Demeo, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

If President Bush refuses to order an adjustment, that decision would please Republicans but risk the wrath of minority organizations. If he makes the adjustments, Republicans will contend that he is giving away legislative seats to Democrats.