A cautious defense of Trump’s new census director

For those who worry about President Donald Trump’s dismantling of the federal bureaucracy, there are so many different agencies to worry about. One of these, as I wrote in May, is the Census Bureau. It is not at all clear that the Trump administration will adequately fund the census. The focus of the Trump administration on questioning scientific expertise and dismantling bureaucratic agencies provides reason to believe that the census will not be done well.

It is perhaps natural, then, that the political media is in a tizzy about the appointment of Thomas Brunell, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, as the deputy director of the Census. As Politico breathlessly pointed out, Brunell is the author of a recent book entitled “Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Districts are Bad for America.” The author of such a book, we are led to believe, is someone who is not on board with the task of counting people.

{mosads}This may look bad to you; as one anonymous former government official told Politico, “There is going to be hell to pay on the optics.” But it is a mistake to slime Brunell because of his book. In Redistricting and Representation, Brunell argues that drawing districts to be competitive in general elections introduces many problems for small-d democrats.

The practice increases the chance that in “wave” election years a party can get a minority of the vote yet control a majority of districts (as has arguably been the case for much of this decade). It makes it harder to represent communities of interest; as Brunell notes, people like their legislators more when they reside in heavily partisan districts. And it has the potential to deprive congress of the benefits that senior legislators bring.

The legislators who have historically specialized in particular issues or have really developed an understanding of how to use congressional rules to make changes are generally people from safe districts. And, contrary to conventional wisdom, legislators who represent competitive districts are no more likely to be centrists than are other legislators.

There are two problems with the criticisms of Brunell. First, nowhere in Brunell’s book does he suggest that we should shortchange efforts to count Americans accurately. A careful and accurate census is essential if we are to draw districts that maximize competition — but it is also essential of one wants to draw lopsidedly partisan districts.

The Census Bureau is not in charge of drawing district lines. There is nothing in Brunell’s book that suggests he would not want to provide high quality census data to the states. And, as is appropriate in good political science work, there isn’t anything particularly partisan about Brunell’s argument.

Second, Brunell’s book represents a valuable corrective to much of the literature on gerrymandering. If we are concerned about gerrymandering, we need to figure out why we are concerned about it. One of the most important contributions academics can make to American political discourse is to challenge conventional wisdom, to raise arguments that fall outside the bounds of mainstream discourse. 

I have no idea how much Brunell aspired to be part of this tradition when he set out to write his book. However, I do think it is unwise to beat up on him for questioning our assumption that maximizing partisan competition is always a good thing.

There are plenty of Clinton and Obama appointees who were flayed by conservatives for trying to make provocative academic arguments. Some of them never made it through their confirmation hearings, derailed on the basis of things they had written years prior. Some of those who made it through wound up being among the more creative thinkers in those administrations.

Trump has appointed lots of unqualified people to positions of power. As most of the criticisms of Brunell have made clear, Trump himself probably didn’t discover Brunell, and the job he will be filling is not really one of the most important positions in the executive branch. Nonetheless, people should be cautiously pleased that someone with Brunell’s academic record has gotten an appointment in the Trump administration.

It is true that Trump’s track record in picking people provides grounds for concern. And yes, Brunell is a Republican and has testified in favor of Republican districting plans. Maybe he will wind up pursuing policies that liberals dislike. But if so, it won’t be because of his views on gerrymandering.

Focus on the big things, people.

Robert G. Boatright is a professor of political science at Clark University and the director of research at the National Institute for Civil Discourse.