As the population grew, states acquired additional representatives, and so Congress expanded by fairly simple arithmetic until 1911, when a cap was placed upon the number of seats in the House. From then on, changes in population had to be reflected by readjusting the numbers within the grand total of 435, some states losing seats and others gaining after each population count. State representation in the Electoral College, which chooses the president, is also affected by the census, since each state is allowed as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives combined.

Over the years the role of the census has expanded to take in additional functions. While the census still serves to determine the composition of the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, today it also influences government spending. A great deal of federal money is now allocated and distributed according to population statistics, particularly in programs designed to help first-time homebuyers, college students, veterans, the poor, minority groups, the elderly, and children. Besides direct benefits, there are grants to municipalities for roads, schools, water treatment plants, and so forth, often tied to population. Every state, indeed every town in the country has an interest here. (Rural towns have been known to lobby vigorously to acquire large state prisons, full of offenders from the city, who will skew the town’s demographic profile and make it eligible for increased federal aid.)

Almost equally vital is the information the census can provide for merchants and advertisers, town planners, social service administrators, and politicians; good demographic data are essential for all sorts of plans. Whether a town would be wise to invest in a new school or some low-cost senior housing; whether a hospital should hire a full-time translator, whether a TV commercial should have a Latin beat—these are all decisions that prompt people to consult the census. Its figures are therefore studied avidly, both for what they say and for what they suggest about the future.

Not surprisingly, the 2000 Census was the subject of much political wrangling, both before and after Census Day (April 1). The main issue was the reliability of the data. It is extremely difficult—some would say impossible—to count all the people in the United States with perfect accuracy. The Census Bureau uses a two-pronged approach, mailing out questionnaires to every known address and then sending agents around to follow up on the questionnaires that have not been returned. (Agents bearing forms are also sent to homeless shelters, military barracks, college dormitories, and fairs and carnivals.) Most people receive the "short form," a page of questions about the number of people who reside at the address, their gender, age, ethnic group, and family relationship; however, a sizable number get the dreaded "long form," which asks further, and much more detailed, questions and serves as the basis for reports on education, employment, income, housing, household property, and health. The people most likely to be missed by these methods are those who rent short-term or have no fixed address—poor people, usually, who are living close to the margins of society. At the opposite extreme, people who are well fixed may be counted twice, because they are likely to have more than one address.

In an effort to improve upon the 1990 census, which was widely seen as having fallen short in its reach and accuracy, the Bureau launched an advertising campaign for 2000 explaining the advantages to communities of having an accurate count and reassuring people that their names and addresses would not be passed along to the IRS, the INS, or the landlord. (The Bureau shares statistics with other government agencies—that is its principal function—but personal names and addresses are separated from the forms and kept under seal for 72 years, by which time they are mostly of interest to genealogists.) The Bureau also enlisted the help of community leaders to get its message across. The census that resulted in 2000 was certainly an improvement over the previous one, especially in the counting of immigrants and minorities. Even so, the Bureau itself has estimated that some six million people were missed and perhaps an equal number counted twice. The two errors cancel out as far as total population is concerned, but not, unfortunately, in other respects. The people most likely to have been skipped come from groups that traditionally vote Democratic (this alone insures that the issue will remain alive) and from groups that are often eligible for federal aid. A state can lose federal funding if its eligible populations have also been undercounted; it may even lose its chance for an additional seat in Congress if the contest is close.

Critics of the census have long argued that the basic head count should be adjusted by applying sampling techniques to identify undercounts and overcounts, but there is some doubt as to whether the sampling techniques are themselves reliable, or whether the public would trust any procedure that is so hard to understand. In the end, the courts decided to rely on the head count alone for reapportionment in 2000 and for the allocation of federal funds, although some states have already announced that they will use sampling techniques of their own when it comes to distributing those funds.

By law the Bureau is required to release a complete count of population, county by county, for the entire nation within a year after the census is taken, so that the work of redistricting can begin. Statistics on minority populations must also be released promptly because minority voting rights are protected by law, and the law cannot be applied unless the courts know the facts. Then, in the years following, the Bureau issues its reports based on the long form. Demographers study the figures and try to decipher the story behind the numbers (who are all these people who are moving to the West? and why are they doing that now?). They pay particular attention to numbers that are unexpected, for these may be indications of a flaw in the model they have been using or the first signs of a shift in social trends.

This book is a collection of articles reprinted from newspapers, magazines, and journals about the population of the United States—what it is and how it may be developing—as represented in the 2000 census. That population is highly diverse, and so are the voices heard here: journalist, scholar, businesswoman, activist, private citizen, foreign observer, immigrant. The articles in the first section of the book, "The Census at the End of the Century," establish the context for the 2000 census and examine two of the controversies about the way it was conducted. Articles in Part II, "Who We Are Now," deal with race and ethnic group, age, and gender. In Part III, "Where We Live Now," the subject is the geographical distribution of the populace, and in Part IV, "How We Live Now," it is families and households. Finally, in Part V, "Reapportionment and Redistricting," the political implications of the count are explored. Throughout there are maps and tables, some attached to articles, some received directly from the Census Bureau, which also provided a sample of its long form for 2000 and its tally sheet for 1900 (these are reprinted in the Appendix). A Bibliography offers suggestions for additional reading.

In preparing this collection, I was lucky to have a great deal of help. I would like to thank the authors and original publishers of the articles collected here for allowing their works to be reprinted, the Census Bureau for sharing its data, and my colleagues Lynn Messina, Rich Stein, Jennifer Peloso, and Sandra Watson for their assistance, advice, and patience.

Norris Smith

February 2002