Gordon L. Weil
Next week, we may find one small
benefit in Covid-19.
On April 1, the nation's census is to
be taken, and more people are likely to be staying home than would be
normal. Because people are supposed to be counted by where they
live, that could make the census more accurate.
The number people in the country are
counted, as required by the Constitution, so that seats in the House
of Representatives can be distributed fairly among the states. As
the population shifts, states may gain or lose seats, though no state
may have less than one.
The constitutional rule is that the
census counts all the people, not only citizens or voters. The most
obvious reason for this rule is that government affects everybody,
whether or not they can vote for members of the House.
At the time the Constitution was
drafted, women, children, and almost all people of African descent
did not have the right to vote. But they were counted, though a
slave counted then as only a fraction of a free person. Indians on
reservations were not counted.
Today's census counts everybody,
including foreigners, legal or otherwise, unless they are diplomats.
The Constitution covers the rights of people, not citizens, so laws
apply to everybody. Beyond that, the census influences federal
government financial aid to states based on the number of
inhabitants.
Every state wants as much influence as
it can gain in the federal government, so the census, taken every ten
years, is critically important. The House members elected in 2022
will be allocated according to the population counted next Wednesday.
That allocation will last until 2032. Maine wants you to be
counted.
How big is the congressional pie that
will be divided? When the Constitution was drafted, George
Washington insisted that districts should be as small as possible.
He wanted to keep government close to the people.
There are now 435 seats in the House, a
number that has not changed in a century. Meanwhile the population
of the country has almost tripled according to the 2010 census.
Congress can change the number of House
members, but it has refused to act. Some small states would lose
influence in an enlarged House, so they resist change. Some worry
that, if the House grew larger, it would be unmanageable. Added cost
is a relatively small worry, because the cost of Congress is a
microscopic part of the federal budget.
Each of the smallest states gets a
guaranteed House seat. Because districts do not cross state lines,
the allocation of seats among states must be rounded off. The result
of both these factors is that some districts are far more populous
than others. Right now, the Montana, with a single district, has
close to twice as many people as one of the Rhode Island districts.
The problem could be greatly reduced, though not completely resolved,
by a simple act of Congress. Each district could be made to have the
same population as the population of the single-district state with
the smallest population. In effect, that would eliminate the special
weight given to the smallest states. The equal representation of
states in the Senate would remain.
In that case, the House would increase
in size by only about 110 members. Rounding would remain, but its
impact would be reduced. A voter in Montana would count more nearly
as much as a voter in Rhode Island.
State districts must meet the
requirement of “one person, one vote.” Each state district has
the same population. Enlarging the size of the House would ensure
that rule was also applied to the country as a whole to the fullest
extent possible.
The two most obvious results would be
greater fairness and a lot of new faces in Congress. And enlarging
the House would be a useful step in keeping Congress closer to the
people.
The first census was directly relevant
to Maine statehood, now celebrating its 200th anniversary.
At the 1788 Massachusetts convention to
ratify the Constitution, leaders worried that Maine delegates would
reject the draft because it required a state's consent to the loss of
any of its territory to create a new state. If Mainers opposed the
Constitution on this point, Massachusetts might not have had enough
votes for ratification. A majority of Maine delegates voted in
favor.
That concern was a strong indication
that all knew that Maine was on track to become an independent state.
Just two years later, in the 1790
census, Maine was counted separately from the rest of Massachusetts.
Vermont and Kentucky, also census districts but not states, were
similarly counted separately. All three became states.
It was up to Maine and Massachusetts to
make the split. Maine decided to leave the Bay State after
Massachusetts failed to help against the British invasion in the War
of 1812. Massachusetts was willing to see Democratic Maine depart,
reducing the threat to Federalist Party rule in the Commonwealth. In
1820, Congress used Maine, a free state, to balance Missouri, a slave
state, in enlarging the Union.
The census plays a central role in
America's history and government. It's important for you to be
counted so you will count in that history.
No comments:
Post a Comment