Census Shapes It, From Politics to Marketing
The most detailed self-portrait in American history is about to emerge, a statistical mosaic revealing who we are, where we live, the languages we speak--even how long it takes to get from home to work in the morning.
The release of census data, beginning next month, will launch a nationwide transformation affecting everything from the makeup of Congress to the siting of new branch libraries and the availability of ethnic foods at the local supermarket.
The stakes are enormous, from both a political and a business standpoint.
The federal government will apportion roughly $200 billion a year for the next decade on the basis of census results. The boundaries of the House of Representatives will be redrawn to reflect a population shift away from the Midwest and Northeast toward California and the Sun Belt. Control of statehouses all across the country will be up for grabs.
Businesses will pore over the numbers to decide where to locate new franchises and what products to stock in which neighborhoods. Market researchers will slice and dice the data to provide ever-finer gradations, breaking them into consumer clusters such as “kids and cul-de-sacs,” “inner city” and “shotguns and pickups.”
“You can’t overstate the importance in giving us a benchmark for who we are,” said Hans Johnson, an analyst with the Public Policy Institute of California.
Hidden in the numbers, which will trickle out over the next two years, are myriad discoveries and small dramas.
Take the city of Detroit. If the population there drops below 1 million, it will mark the failure of a decades-long battle to stem a seemingly unstoppable exodus.
Once the fourth-largest city in America, Detroit’s population peaked at 1.8 million in the 1950 census. Residents have been leaving ever since.
The growth of Los Angeles, Houston and San Diego pushed Detroit to seventh on the list of biggest cities in 1990. In 2000, it’s likely Detroit will have dropped even further, to 10th place, behind Dallas, Phoenix and San Antonio.
The city poured considerable resources into getting as many residents as possible to fill out their census forms, and now awaits the results. “Our victory will be expressed by a single number,” Mayor Dennis Archer said at a 1999 rally launching Detroit’s census drive. “That number is one million.”
Fine-Tuning the Government
The most basic purpose of the census is to allow the people of our representative democracy to fine-tune their government, recalibrating every 10 years to account for ebbs, flows and shifts in population. That is required by the Constitution.
Coming at a time when America is almost evenly split between the two major parties, the once-a-decade redrawing of legislative boundaries promises to be among the most contentious and consequential ever. While control of Congress--now Republican by a whisker--hangs in the balance, a good deal more is riding on the outcome.
“The legislatures within each state are as close as they’ve ever been in history,” said Tim Storey, a redistricting expert with the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan research group.
“Whoever controls the legislatures will decide the policies that really matter to people, on issues like welfare reform, prescription drugs, transportation, criminal justice, health care,” he said.
The census numbers will also be used across the country to redraw lines for local offices, such as city councils and county boards.
More broadly, the census offers America a reflection of its identity, like a mirror held up to study the nation’s collective and ever-changing face.
The figures are likely to show a nation growing faster than expected--more Latino, more Asian, more multiracial and, in a word, more complex. Understanding that complexity is no small matter for a country dedicated to self-government.
“A lot of people have greatly distorted views about the composition of the United States,” said Eugene Ericksen, a sociologist at Temple University in Philadelphia. “We need to have something to get it straight in our minds.”
More practically, the population figures dictate federal funding for everything from roads, bridges and school textbooks to drug treatment programs and health care for the poor. In all, about 80% of federal grants are tied to census data.
Urban planners and government researchers use the numbers to place schools, create branch libraries and open post offices. Traffic engineers study commuter patterns to decide where to widen roads and add freeway offramps. Legal experts study the figures to find patterns of discrimination in hiring or jury selection.
The census touches everyone, though few may be aware of it, said John Haaga, a demographer with the nonpartisan Population Reference Bureau. “The great shame is the way the political numbers tend to dominate the discussion, particularly inside Washington,” Haaga said.
Outside the capital, the census findings are breathlessly anticipated by hundreds of businesses, from retailers trying to place new stores to market researchers hunting for new customers.
Once the province of a few experts, the data can now be grabbed off the Internet by anyone with a desktop computer. The census numbers are the “core of the market research onion,” said Pat Galloway, treasurer of the Marketing Research Assn., an industry trade group. “It’s the gospel truth.”
Demographers across the country are just as eager to delve into the data. In California, the findings are expected to verify things long conjectured, such as the huge Latino influx into South-Central Los Angeles and the gentrification of San Francisco’s once-tatty Mission District.
Other data could answer different questions, such as how commuting patterns have developed in the far reaches of the Inland Empire, or the size of the Hmong population in Merced. (For the first time, last year’s census gave people a chance to identify with more than one race, allowing for 126 racial and ethnic combinations and the most careful cataloging of America’s diversity ever.)
3 Million Missed in National Count
The nation’s population snapshot was taken April 1, 2000. That day the census turned up 281,421,906 Americans--citizens, immigrants (both legal and illegal) and diplomats and military personnel living abroad. By its own estimate, the Census Bureau missed roughly 3 million people, an undercount that is far smaller than the one of 10 years ago, but still big enough to generate controversy.
The undercount tended to miss minorities and others with Democratic leanings, so Democrats want the Census Bureau to adjust its final figures to account for those overlooked. But Republicans say the original count is fairer and more accurate.
President Bush has until March 5 to announce whether the figures will be adjusted. He is expected to say no.
Either way, release of the numbers will open a season of pitched legal and political battling. A look at the partisan divide across the country shows why.
Republicans control the Virginia Senate by four seats and the House by five; Democrats control the Texas House by six seats and Republicans control the Senate by one. Democrats control the Wisconsin Senate by one seat; the House in Washington state and the Senate in Arizona are tied.
The legislative breakdown is crucial to the national political picture, because state lawmakers control congressional reapportionment in California as well as 43 other states. In the rest, independent boards or commissions handle the remapping process.
By law, congressional districts must be redrawn to reflect population shifts that have taken place over 10 years. The intention is to make sure that each lawmaker represents roughly the same number of people. But that works only in theory.
There are 435 House seats. Each state is guaranteed at least one, with the rest allocated on the basis of population. California, with 53 members, will again have the largest delegation.
Each California lawmaker will represent about 640,000 people, more than the entire state of Wyoming, which constitutes the least populous congressional district--with 480,000 residents.
Montana, which failed to snag a second House seat by only about 8,000 people, will constitute the most populous district. Its lone House member will represent all 900,000 residents.
Though certain legal guidelines dictate the reapportionment process--governing the size, shape and sometimes racial composition of districts--both major parties try to use the redrawing of political lines to maximize their potential gains.
Because many House members will be running in new territory next year, the chances of turnover--and the potential shift in partisan control--will be the highest in years. (The U.S. Senate, now split 50-50, will not be affected because members run statewide.)
Republicans hope to gain as seats shift toward states Bush carried in November over Democrat Al Gore. Publicly, GOP leaders say they expect to pad their House margin--and perhaps to lock up control for years to come--by winning 10 to 20 additional seats next year.
Privately, however, party strategists are more cautious, in line with Democratic forecasts. True, population has grown fastest in states Bush carried. Much of the growth, however, has come in parts of those states--primarily suburbs--where Democrats have held their own or even gained seats in recent elections.
Moreover, there are only a few places where either party has a free hand in reapportionment. In most states, different parties hold either one legislative chamber or the governor’s office, providing an effective check on partisan mischief.
The big exceptions are California, North Carolina and Georgia--where Democrats are in control--and Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio--where Republicans will be in charge.
In all, each party will hold full sway over roughly 100 seats. The bottom line is like much else in national politics these days. “In terms of political advantage,” Storey said, “it’s about even.”
*
Times staff writers Hector Tobar and Robin Fields contributed to this story.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
States to Watch
Congressional redistricting promises a series of political and legal battles across the country, as the two major parties vie for control of the House. These states bear particular watching:
*
Arizona: This Republican-leaning state gains two seats. For the first time, the lines will be drawn by an independent commission designed to eliminate partisanship.
California: Gains only one seat, but Democratic strategists think creative map-making could net four seats for their party, offsetting losses elsewhere in the country.
Florida: The Republican-run Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush will seek to ensure that two new seats go their way. The wild card is the state Supreme Court, filled with Democratic appointees.
Georgia: President Bush easily carried the state in November. But Democrats will control the design of two new congressional districts.
Michigan: The state is losing a seat. Republicans, who control the process, are aiming at two senior House Democrats, John Dingell and David Bonior.
New York: The state is losing two seats. A bipartisan legislative task force will guide the remap process; Republican Gov. George Pataki has veto power. Some members of Congress have hired their own lobbyists to mind their interests in Albany.
Pennsylvania: The state loses two House seats, and the Legislature is narrowly divided. A bipartisan commission will also have a say.
Texas: The state gains two seats. Democrats control the state House; Republicans hold the Senate and the governor’s office.
