Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at The
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Wade Miller, Senior advisor at the
Center for Renewing America. We talk about the census bureaus
defrauding of the American voter. Houston.
Speaker 2: We have a problem. We have a problem all.
Speaker 1: Over Texas and across the United States of America when
it comes to the census. We're going to delve into
all of that today. Wade, thank you so much for
joining us on this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, the work that you folks are doing to
really take a look at the numbers and communicate the
real problems here why American voters are being defrauded and
have been so for some time. I want to delve
into that. The twenty twenty census, as we know, counted
illegal immigrants for apportionment, diluting the vote of the American citizen,
and as you note in a recent expost, thanks to
shady differential privacy, we can't even verify citizenship status. As
you know, it's time to add the question and scrap
the algorithm. We're going to get into that in just
a moment. But if we have been living in this
kind of fantasy world based on the numbers, when blue
states have been over represented, given more representation than they
certainly deserve based on the numbers, why don't we get
into a mid decade census count? Should we begin there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a good question.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of different technical paths forward.
Speaker 2: One would be a mid decade census.
Speaker 3: That's a little bit more difficult because there are some
statutory provisions that suggest that you can't use a mid
decade census for apportionment. However, what you can very easily do,
and by the way, I'm not saying that that's necessarily
correct or even constitutional, but that's some statutory prohibitions there.
But what you can easily do is republish and if
you're republishing a prior census. That's not the same as
conducting a mid decade or a brand new census, and
so you should be able to get around those prohibitions
fairly easy by just merely republishing a past census.
Speaker 1: What would that do republishing a past sensus, what would
that open the door to.
Speaker 3: Well, depending on what you account for in the data,
so you can if you're doing it. There's a lot
of things you can account for. You and account for
shifts in voting patterns by various demographics, and that would
come into play in the actual redistricting process, and less
so in the apportionment process. You can account for undercounts
and overcounts. You can account for citizenship, and again there's
two paths you can go there. You can say, one
legal path would be to claim that citizens are those
who are here illegally, and perhaps even those here legally
but are not citizens should not count for apportionment, and
then then therefore that would affect the political redistricting process
as well. Or you can claim that, okay, maybe illegals
don't or maybe they do, and perhaps legal citizens count
for the purposes of apportionment, but they don't count for
the purposes of redistricting, and those set up two very
different legal fights, but they both get you to a
similar overall outcome.
Speaker 1: It's with the court system the way it is right now,
I can only imagine how long these battles would play
out in court unless we have original jurisdiction to the
US Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: How would that work out legally? If you go down.
Speaker 1: Those paths to contest where the census stands well.
Speaker 3: Factoring in reality, like you've pointed out, the courts, I
think both are achievable.
Speaker 2: Both paths are achievable. So the upside of if you want.
Speaker 3: To republish and then not count legal or illegal people
are immigrants here for the purposes of apportionment, then that
dictates how many seats or how many votes for the
purposes of electoral college or congressional seats that each state gets. However,
you would still argue that for the purposes of the
political map, that they don't And I think that that's
a more difficult legal route, but I think doable, and
I think that the constitutional legal arguments are correct if
you wanted to go that route. So and then in
other words, California might lose four to six seats. Texas
might lose two to three, but for the purposes of redistricting,
you would not count.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Yes, if you don't count for apportionment, then a lot
of states will lose and others will gain seats. If
you want to count for apportionment, then that's an easier
legal battle because you're saying, Okay, we're asking the system
ship question, but for the purposes of apportionment, all of
those people legal Andy Lee are going to account and
the overall population and so all of the seats would
remain roughly the same amount. But you could still then
say for the purposes of redistricting, they won't and that's
a whole different conversation either either way. With apportionment without
I think that the second route is probably legally easier
because you're saying that there's no change to the apportionment process, really,
but for the political redistricting process, that's a whole you know,
guarantee clause.
Speaker 2: One person, one vote.
Speaker 3: I think that that's the easier because if you if
you don't change, if you change apportionment, you're having two
separate legal battles. If you don't change apportionment. Then you're
having the one legal battle and I think so therefore,
I think that that ladder option is easier. But again,
the outcome is essentially the same. Yes, there are some changes.
If you take the former route, it's more difficult, some
states lose, but because of the redistricting process itself, is
it basically the same in terms of nationwide I think
both outcomes would favor the right. And again this is
coming from a I am conservative, I want I am
you know, I inherently biased to what will benefit the right. Sure,
but even just putting aside trying to be objective, every
single thing that has gone wrong with the census has
benefited the left and harm the right. And if you
just do it fairly, just objectively, fairly, the way it
should be done, it will significantly help the right over
the left in terms of how the maps look, potentially,
how the electoral college operates. There's just a lot of
upside to wanting to do this, and it's also just
the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: And that's it. It is truly the right thing to do.
We're going to delve into the details of why this
would be extremely meaningful for the right in this country.
To say the least coming up. But I think before
we move on.
Speaker 2: There are two closely related.
Speaker 1: Terms in use here, but they are ultimately different in
meaning apportionment in redistricting. They're tied together, but they're not
the same thing, and that's where I think the confusion
comes in in this conversation. A lot of times.
Speaker 3: That's right, and again, apportionment is just based off the
population in relation to other states and the total this
is how many seats you're going to get. Redistricting is
where those districts are placed within a state, And so
if you change apportionment, there's going to be some movement
on which states get how many seats. If you don't
change apportionment, that will stay the same. But either way,
if you change it for the purposes of redistricting, you're
going to have a seismic shift that will benefit the
right overall. And we can talk about the various reasons
for why that is, especially once you introduce some of
these other concepts that are playing into it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess one of the questions that I have
have is this isn't anything new, right. I mean, twenty
twenty was bad. We saw a lot of undercounting in overcounting.
You point this out in your research, but this isn't
something that just has happened overnight. This is something that's
going on for quite some time. And as you mentioned before,
it seems to always benefit blue states. It seems to
always benefit liberals and democrats. Why is that.
Speaker 2: Well, I have a lot of theories on that.
Speaker 3: I think that there's at the most charitable read on
this is that the bureaucrats who run the census are
at least in the last couple have been kind of
of the deep state.
Speaker 2: Mold.
Speaker 3: They're either kind of centric, they come from centrist Republican regimes,
or the Obama regime or the Biden regime. And so
I think that in the most charitable case, they have
figured out things, things that they have an objective argument for,
but by the way, also just so happened to help
their side significantly.
Speaker 2: And I think that's the most charitable case I have.
Speaker 3: You know, there's degrees of which it gets worse from there,
and I think that there's certainly possibilities and where there's
an intentional effort here to hide behind objectivity, but really
the actual agenda is to benefit their own side. And
you see you know, you are right that it is
not a new thing to have controversy around census outcomes.
I will say, however, I believe that the twenty twenty
census was the worst one in most of our lifetimes.
I mean, there was some controversy around the nineteen ninety census,
but as a as an example, the twenty ten census nationwide,
their post census study was that they missed the mark
by about thirty six thousand total over the entire country.
Speaker 2: That's how much they estimate that they were off.
Speaker 3: As an example, in the twenty twenty census, just in Texas,
they were off by five hundred and sixty thousand votes.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: They massively undercounted Florida, they massively undercounted Arizona, and they'll
sprinkle in some other blue states that they intercounted. But
by the way, those mistakes didn't actually cost those states.
And the net result was you basically had six seats
that went to the Democrats that should not have gone
to Democrats, and six seats that should have an objective
account that was accurate gone to the right. And that's
just miscounts. There's so many other things that are manipulated.
But I think that the twenty twenty census process was
the most corrupt and fraudulent that we've had in our lifetimes.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that you say that as well, because what
we experienced on the election front. Certainly there's a good
deal of evidence what we know the election was rigged.
We don't know all of the places where the votes turned,
but we knew going in that the left would use
and they did use COVID to their advantage in a
number of different places. They also obviously used the census
in twenty twenty. So this is a combination really of
the deep state the administrative state.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, and I would be more inclined to go the
charitable route of this is just an unconscious bias of
the left that tends to help them.
Speaker 2: Except for the last decade.
Speaker 3: We've seen the most weaponization of the federal government since at.
Speaker 2: Least this fifties and sixties.
Speaker 3: At least we've had censorship Industrial complex, We've had COVID
era policies that were completely corrupt. We've had all sorts
of weaponization on virtually every front of the deep state,
and with every mechanism of power in the federal government
by the left. So I just think it's it is
strange the preponderance of the facts here kind of all
till towards how is it that all of these errors.
Speaker 2: Just so happened.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's technically plausible from a statistics perspective that
it could have been random, but it just seems irrational
to believe that it's random when you see how this
policy works. How they admit that it's what it does,
and then in conjunction with all of the other weaponization
of the federal government.
Speaker 1: But wait, even if this is a gigantic whoopsie on
the part of the bureaucrats in the Census Bureau, that
still does not negate the fact that voters across this
country were screwed out of representation and they were screwed
royally if I can turn the expression, that's correct.
Speaker 2: And importantly, the Census admits this.
Speaker 3: They admit that this was a big failure, and their
excuse is COVID era policies. I don't know if that's
if they're basically blaming the mechanism by which they used
to get this result intentionally as the cause of it,
and they're kind of showing their hand. But there was
a lot of things that went wrong with the twenty
twenty count and a big part of this, and we
can get into differential privacy, and we can get into
what's called a CQR and a bit, but the main
point here is this is to say that there was
a policy that you could have used in previous censuses
to help correct some of that data in real time.
It's called a CQR account question resolution. But because of
some of the changes that they made in twenty twenty,
differential privacy being one of them, that process was unable
to be used. And the argument was, so if they
used it to keep the census accurate, then they would
have divulged a confidential algorithmic process that they're using which
was not publicly available, and only a very few people
the Census had clearance to access to it what was
called the Tiger file. So this was the raw data
that had not been manipulated. It's only a very few people,
not even people, and other federal agencies have access to this.
Speaker 2: And think about that for a minute.
Speaker 3: If the data was wrong, and they admit it's wrong,
and in fact it's an intentional process to make the
data wrong, all of the other federal agencies rely on
that data. We're basically think of this, all of the
federal funding formulas that dictate hundreds of different federal programs
and how money gets allocated across the country, they're all
using fake data. So it's possible, based on there are research,
and based on a lot of other people who have
done similar research, that rural communities have been massively underfunded
and cities have been massively overfunding funded because the census
data gives everyone fake data and we're not allowed to
correct it any longer because an attempt to correct it
would give access or potentially they would argue give insight
into their algorithms that are confidential.
Speaker 4: If you've been a victim of affinity fraud, the watch
Dot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski every day,
Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy
and how it affects your wallet. Although someone could look
like you, talk like you, relate to you, don't be
convinced you can trust them with money. Whether it's your church, parish,
a union, don't be a victim of Don't be a
victim of a scam. Whether it's happening in DC or
down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially be informed.
Check out the watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: That is absolutely unconscionable when you think about it, because
it's representation. Obviously that is the cornerstone of all of this.
But we're also talking about how funding is distributed from
federal tax dollars to states across the country, to localities
across the country. And again it's clear that, as you say,
red areas, particularly rural small town areas, have been underfunded,
and there's no way, it seems to go back and say,
our oopsie needs to be corrected and the rightful representation,
the rightful allocations need to go to these places. But
let me ask you this, how many Republicans? How many
more Republicans would be in Congress, the House and Senate
now if we would have had a fair reading on
these numbers.
Speaker 3: If the census was done accurately, without any changes in
terms of how we count the population. For just assume
that we count the population accurately using all of the
processes that were still there, even the ones I disagree with.
Probably six at least six seats went to the Democrats
that should have gone to Republicans if you just count,
if you count for all the rest of it, This
is the part we're still doing a deep dive into.
Really the Some estimates are twelve, other estimates are thirty
to forty.
Speaker 2: I actually think it's on the higher end.
Speaker 3: If you redo redistricting and take out some of these populations,
I think that it's going to be in the thirty.
That's just kind of pulling a hat eye. We are
working on this part of the equation of if you
do this, then this will be the byproduct of it.
But I think that my preliminary assessment is it would
be dozens potentially go to Republicans nationwide.
Speaker 1: So at least six with the Bear numbers the Bear process.
But again, your estimation here is significantly higher, and that
I think should resonate with Americans across the country, but
it should particularly resonate in red states. So to the
current controvert see where we have Texas liberals hiding out
in Illinois, of all places, protesting gerrymandered districts in Texas,
or at least the plan as they call it, gerrymander
in Texas. They go to a state that is a
blue state that is arguably the most gerrymandered state in
the country, and so while they're debating all of this,
nobody's truly really talking about how they got a huge
The left got a huge advantage from miscounting from this
bad census.
Speaker 3: That's right, and you know, we can get into differential
privacy here in a minute, But in Texas that has
really been a huge impact in terms of making it
harder to write maps that in a fair setting would
would ultimately the outcome would that it benefits the right
more than the left. The left has been a massive
beneficiary in Texas of differential privacy, and that's why I
think that one of the requests from the Trump administration
is that Texas redo this on a number of fronts,
one the illegal aliens question, and I'm hoping the longer
term fight here will be also on differential privacy, especially
for the twenty thirty since this process that's about to
spin up here, and then just accounting for where these
populations are in Texas.
Speaker 2: Once you know that, it shifts.
Speaker 3: Political power towards the big cities, and then the left
uses know what har Meat Dillon and others have argued
or unconstitutional minority majority district districts to their favor, although
there's some argument that in red states that actually can
be used to the rights advantage. I don't really care
about who what advantage is who here. I care about
out is that a constitutional process, And I think that
the idea that you would create a district based on
racial makeup alone is unconstitutional anyways, and I think that
we should be moving away from that.
Speaker 2: But certainly the.
Speaker 3: Left and many have hid behind all of these various
things to concentrate power in the cities, which dilutes political
power of the rural areas and helps.
Speaker 2: Democrats make legal.
Speaker 3: Arguments in the courts of why they need a lot
of different districts, whether at the state level, the state
legislative level, the congressional level, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So this is they've been hiding behind this.
Speaker 3: And I think that Texas recognizing all of these things also,
by the way, recognizing in Texas, and this isn't true everywhere,
but in Texas, the Hispanic vote is about fifty to
fifty if not leans towards Republicans, and so nationwide, Democrats
have really relied on using that to form Democrat districts.
But it doesn't actually work that way in Texas, and
so any consideration of that in the past, I think,
based on the last election, Republicans in Texas should use
that to rewrite the maps more favorably to themselves, because
I think that that would actually be a fair outcome
based on what the data allows.
Speaker 1: It says yes, and as you say, it is ultimately
what is right, and we don't mean that in a
conservative sense. We mean that in a constitutional sense. Our
guest today is Wade Miller, Senior advisor at the Center
for Renewing America, talking today about the census bureaus defrauding
of the American voter. It has been absolutely shameful the
consequences therein As we said earlier, you noted this recently
in an ex post. The twenty twenty cents has counted
illegal immigrants for apportionment, diluting your vote as a citizen.
Thanks to shady differential privacy, we can't even verify citizenship status.
Tell us what differential privacy is and what is needed
to make sure that we can verify and ship status.
Speaker 3: Sure, so a quick rundown of how it's supposed to work,
so you can really understand you know, the census spins up,
it hires a lot of people, it gets out there,
tries to reach out, It counts a lot of door knocking,
a lot of things going out in the mail.
Speaker 2: Then there's an.
Speaker 3: Entire process to reconcile the data to make sure that
there's not errors. You know, someone being counted at a
residence and a living center, or someone being counted at
a residence and a dorm, a college dorm. They should
only kind of want which one should they count at.
And then there should be a whole process for cities
and states and counties to submit data, to try to
fix erroneous reporting, reconcile it all, and then you have
what's called a tiger file, and this is the raw data. Now,
there are some concerns on various aspects characteristic data for individuals,
about privacy, and I'm open to Okay, I get that
anything that's foilable, I think that it shouldn't be.
Speaker 2: But you know, if we want.
Speaker 3: To protect religious affiliation data because we just don't want
the government to know or whatever, Okay, fine, but there's
some data that is directly real, has a direct relationship
to actual apportionment and actual redistricting. One is population, other
is eligible citizens.
Speaker 2: So we should not be changing that.
Speaker 3: And so what happens through differential privacy is they run
this algorithm on the data and it scrambles the data
and moves it all over the place. So if you
don't do differential data, this is the way it's supposed
to work. A state would get the numbers statewide totals.
Then you have county level numbers. Then you have census
track numbers, and then within the census tractor you have
block groups, and then within the block groups you have blocks,
and all of those block those numbers add into one
each other accurately all the way to the top, and
then the state wide totals are all good. So the
math works when you use differential privacy. The only data
that's accurate assuming the count was correct in the first place,
and that was not the case in twenty twenty. The
counts were off. But assuming that the data is correct,
and we've done a really robust process, we've got it
down to a very small degree of air. What happens
is they run differential privacy and it moves the data
all around, and how much we don't know because they
don't give anyone access to the algorithm. A very small
number of people at the Census Bureau have access to
this people and other federal agencies don't have access to
this information. You have to have a special clearance. And
so here's the problem. There's been a lot of studies
on some of the open source versions of this, and
it has shown that populations have been moved around, which
impacts a lot of things. It impacts redistricting, It impacts
federal funding formulas and how much money communities get. But
as an example of how this might work, let's just
say that the city of Millersburg. It's a fictional city
in Texas. There maybe there is a Millersburg, but let's
just say Millersburg and it has a population of five hundred. Well,
after differential privacy, they might be listed as four hundred
and sixty two.
Speaker 2: And all of the rest of the characteristic data.
Speaker 3: Also changes, so like what percentage of our people are male, female, white, Black, Asian, Hispanic,
all of that data is skewed. And so the reason
that this all matters one is because if it's skewing
towards the cities, and again we don't know that we
know that there's a problem. We know that the data
is not accurate, so the question is to what degree,
and is it two percent or is it forty percent
or is it two percent on some things, but for
purposes of citizenship, it's a forty percent change. So in
other words, it really messes up the data. And this
is an important point the Trump administration can insist on
and actually get the citizenship question asked. But if we
have differential privacy in place, we won't know where.
Speaker 2: They're at in the cities or in the states.
Speaker 3: And that matters for redistricting because let's just assume that
seventy percent of the illegal alien population is in a
big city or one of its suburbs, and that someone
can do some research and given the exact number, but
it's more than half. And so if a large majority
of this population are in urban or big city settings,
then the population is weighted towards the city inaccurately. So
if that's reality, then we can account If we know that,
then we can account for it, and we can in redistricting.
We can draw accurate maps that only account for people
who can vote. But if you have differential privacy on
top of this, before you get to redistricting, then you
don't know where they're at and you don't know how
to account for them. So yes, you can ask the
citizenship question, and yes that might affect apportionment, but it
won't help you on redistricting. So while it might take
four or five seats from California and or you know,
two or three from texts, is, if you don't know
where they're at within a state, then you can't then
reaccount for that in the redistricting. And a little bit
of it as a wash that now that alone will
help the right, They will benefit in terms of electoral uh,
in terms of congressional representation in Congress, But if you
really want the big swing here, you have to know
where they're at. You have to know you know what
percentage of them are in Dallas, what percentage of them
are in Houston, what percentage of them are in San Antonio,
what percentage of them are in Austin. Because if you
know that then and you account for it, you are
pushing political power away from those big cities. And in
the past, this is where Democrats get their seats. They
draw up districts that are uh, you know, all within
the Dallas city lines or all within you know, the
inner parts of Houston, and this is where they do it.
And it's harder to cut that up if you're the
rights because there's so much population. There's just not enough
rural population to cut those up in a way that
doesn't give Democrats to these seats. So if you know
where they're at and you can account for it, it's
going to be really hard for in any state. By
the way, in California, it will be much more difficult
for California if they can't count illegals, because we know
exactly where they're at, and then the power will be
pushed into the red rural parts of California. Now, California
will still have majority Democrat seats, but it won't.
Speaker 2: Be as scuted as it is right now. Same thing
with New York, same.
Speaker 3: Thing with a lot of other New Jerseys, same thing
with Maryland, a lot of other Blue states. They will
have a much harder time to write their maps in
a way that advantages them to the degree that they've
been doing because right now they rely on in California,
for instance, they allow millions of illegal aliens to wait
the population center, so they can essentially carve out all
of these red rural districts but out vote them with
these large populations in the cities.
Speaker 2: And so this is the way it works.
Speaker 3: If you account for that, then it's a seismic shift
in electoral power in Congress.
Speaker 2: And the electoral college.
Speaker 1: Isn't Millersburg in the greater Lukenbach, Texas metro area. If
I'm not mistaked, it might be it might be made
nobody feel no pain there, although they are feeling pain electorally,
which is what this conversation is truly all about. You'll
have to forgive me too if I feel a little
bit triggered when I hear the term algorithm. Is this
the same kind of stuff that was used by oh,
I don't know, social network companies like Twitter and Facebook
and or Meta and Google and the rest to set
up algorithms, of course, to censor conservatives. It feels a
lot like that in this way.
Speaker 3: Yes, social media platforms, big tech they use differential privacy
as a process in theory to protect their consumers and
to predict data and some privacy elements, but the application
of it in the sense is is skewed. Now again,
you can have a process that protects important data, but
I think that there is a compelling governmental interest to
not protect citizenship data, to not protect population data. Now,
the privacy advocates here, in the most charitable sense, will
say that if we don't move the population down around
at least somewhat, then people can reverse engineer the algorithm.
But again, you know, most of this data is public anyways,
and so like we just need to if there's an
argument that that personal privacy is a is a concept
that needs to be considered here, there's other ways to
do it, and we're not doing that right now. And
the biggest problem is, of course there's just no transparency
over it. No one knows, like I do not know,
and I don't have access to what is the algorithm?
Speaker 2: How much does the.
Speaker 3: Algorithm move around people on the basis of citizenship status,
because they have a lot of that data, but they
just mask it so it's not used. They can ascertain
a lot of the based on all of the information
they pull in all the social security data, all of
these various characteristic datas, they can come up with a
rough answer on which portions of these populations are legal,
legal or citizens. But we do need to actually formally
ask the question, and we need to not hide it,
and then we also need to have a very transparent
process for cities and states to reconcile, because if a
city has seven hundred and eighty property tax paying citizens
but the Census says they have five hundred citizens, there
should be a process by which this small city can
submit a request because that's a twenty five percent cut
in any funding formulas that they might be granted that
the state allocates, the county allocates, that the federal government allocates.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of public interest.
Speaker 3: Reasons is why this data should not be masked and
that we should have important data. But the big takeaway
from all of this is all of this data that
we're making apportionment that we're making redistricting off of that
we're making using for funding federal funding formulas, it's all fake.
It's and it's intentionally designed to be fake. The question
is to what degree is it fake? And again, no
one knows because it's not an open source algorithm.
Speaker 2: None of us are given insight into it.
Speaker 3: And I don't have a lot of confidence that Obama
error bureaucrats who run the Census are doing this fairly,
and so we need someone to dig into this. We
need to get rid of it as a process anyways,
But I'd like to know is it really a scientifically narrow.
Speaker 2: Window that we're off Is it one percent? Is it
two percent?
Speaker 3: Or is it like is it a significant amount? And
if it is, we should have congressional hearings. People should
be held accountable because this isn't it That would be
an intentional manipulation of data to change change the political process.
Speaker 2: In a way that no one is aware of and
no one voted on.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a good question. The Trump administration. President Trump
is back in the White House. You mentioned that only
a very small group of bureaucrats in the Census Bureau
have control over this information. I would assume. I don't
want to assume anything, So I ask you, does the
president and those who act in his name do they
have the power to truly dig into this, just like
we have seen in other areas where the deep state
has been exposed.
Speaker 2: Yes, they do have power to change this, to.
Speaker 3: Really fundamentally transform the Census Bureau itself and the processes.
So yes, one of the problems we had and the
last admin is that you know, the Census, the person
who's ultimately in charge of the Census at the cabinet
level is usually not a person who knows a lot
about the census, because it's that's a sub program of
a larger department, like right now it's under the Commerce department,
and Howard Lutnik is in charge of Commerce. Howard's a
very smart guy, and I have a lot of confidence
that when he pays attention to this, and he may
already have that, he will dig into it and correct it.
But I'm assuming that Howard Lutnak coming into this was
not a census expert. And this is where the bureaucracy
gets away with this is it's a highly technical, mathematical,
algorithmic argument and it has a veneer of legitimacy under
protecting privacy, and I don't think until recently very many
people understood. So I've sent my paper over to some
folks and the Trump admin. I am very confident that
if Stephen Miller wraps his head around this, and he
may already have known about it too, that he I
have a lot of faith in Howard Lutnick and Stevevan
Miller to get to the bottom of this and fix it,
because they're both both very bought into needing to fix this,
and they're both big believers in the type of.
Speaker 2: Reforms that need to take place.
Speaker 3: I think that the one X factor here is do
they truly have a grasp of differential privacy? If not,
I would highly encourage them to get to look into it.
And I think that what's needed is they need to
get rid of the bureaucrats who have been holdovers from
previous administrations and really bring in some new blood who
get it. And there's three or four people that are
pretty smart guys, and I've forgotten some of their names.
Speaker 2: Don't ask me, but I do have in my research.
Speaker 3: I've come across some people who recognize this problem, want
to get to the bottom of it, and would dutifully
take the lead on this and be faithful to the
Trump administration's efforts to change this.
Speaker 2: So you know, we'll see.
Speaker 3: But it's one last thing. The last Trump administration started
to figure some of this out, and this is why
they tried to get the citizenship question asked towards the end,
but they ran out of runway. So Trump is aware.
I think they're aware of how to do this correctly
this time. I just don't what I don't know is
do they know all of the variables or just some
of them. They certainly know some of them. And I've
seen a lot of public reports that they want to
fix a lot of it. Stephen Miller's been very public
on wanting to get to the bottom of a lot.
Speaker 2: Of this and fix it.
Speaker 3: So I'm hoping that they understand this and will reform it,
get rid of differential privacy, or at least fix it
to a considerable degree so that doesn't affect the characteristic
data that we're concerned about here.
Speaker 1: Well, they better fix it now because thirty is coming
on fast. And what you just said to me was
to all of us, is that what needs to happen
to really restore the republic is to ultimately change what
is going on and get rid of people in this bureacracy.
You know, this bureaucracy that we don't think about too often.
You know that seemingly plays a very, you know, small role,
but has massive consequences for everything that happens in this republic.
Are you hopeful because twenty eight is not promised to
the people who will truly be interested in reforming this,
Do you think that true reform will come to this
very important agency.
Speaker 3: I think so I'm fairly confident we're going to see
a significant shift in policy.
Speaker 2: I just don't know if.
Speaker 3: It's going to be everything, Like if I could just
snap my fingers, will it be all of that or
will it be seventy five percent of it? Either way,
I think that the next census will be done in
a fair process. That is, that will then be used
to make a more representative map of the United States,
and that will inherently, I think, if it's fair, benefit
the right. So the question is will it be you know,
so we're getting in theory if they republish the data
at least maybe six seats that shift back and that
the right would get. And then you've seen various redistricting plans.
You know, you saw one one ongoing in Texas that
would be a net five, and you know, other Republican
states have said that they might do this.
Speaker 2: Some blue states have threatened this. But I just don't
think that it's they.
Speaker 3: I don't think they're going to net very many seats,
not nearly as many as the right can do, because
they've already basically done this. They just did it in
the normal redistricting process and the Right didn't push as
hard as they could, So we're going to get some
seats in the next I hope by the mid terms
here and then through the republishing and then through some
of the redistricting maps, and then I think if you
just do the process even normally, I think the right,
because of population changes, is going to have an additional
swing their way of several seats. And then if you
get into some of the fundamental reforms, like accounting for
illegals and potentially legal immigrants who can't vote in terms
of drawing districts or apportionment, then that's where you're talking
potentially dozens of seats.
Speaker 1: What's the number on this, I think that's what a
lot of Americans are trying to figure out. How many
people who cannot vote, whether they're illegal immigrants or here
in this country authorized to be in this country but
not legal voters. How many were counted in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: For purposes of apportionment, it was millions.
Speaker 3: I think that if you accurately count every person physically
in the United States, you're talking somewhere between twenty and
fifty million, and I've seen other estimates that they're more
that are counted, and I can get the exact number.
It might even be in the study I've come across
it in terms of how many we're counted in the
last one, But again that's an extrapolation and estimate because
we don't actually know because of differential privacy. That's one
of the things that Trump administration is trying to get
done to the republishing is going back in to get
into this data and account for some of these data
mistakes and then correct them. But if you do correct
them in republishing, you could be talking about twenty to
fifty million that would not be kind of for apportion Now,
if you don't want to fight the apportionment battle, then
you're then you're talking about twenty to fifty million that
would not be counted for purposes of creating a political
district in the States after apportionment is assigned, it's a.
Speaker 2: Lot of people.
Speaker 3: It's moving millions and millions of people, mostly away from
big cities, and that would represent a seismic shift of
political power in the United States away from major metropolitan
areas towards rural America.
Speaker 2: And I think that's fair.
Speaker 1: I guess that's the question A lot of us have
as well, is why are they counted? And I know
that the left goes into you know, absolute applectic seizures
when you talk about these sorts of like how can
you not pay for illegal immigrants who are here? But
that's exactly what we're doing. Why are they counted to
begin with?
Speaker 2: So this is a more of a theoretical question.
Speaker 3: But you know, a political district should represent a population
of people who vote one and two. Every district should
be the same in terms of roughly the same political
power contained.
Speaker 2: By a citizen.
Speaker 3: So if you have a district that has a million,
or state that has millions, like ten million of legal
aliens versus state that has you know, twenty thousand or whatever,
then this state over here, the average citizens voting power
with ten million illegals is way higher than that of
a state potentially with only twenty twenty thousand. And it's
you know, you have to do this math in terms
of share of the population to share. But either way,
it's a skews population data massively in a way that
makes some citizens voting power stronger than other citizens. And
so at the very least, if you don't account for
them in apportionment, you have to account for them in redistricting.
Speaker 2: Otherwise you're going to have.
Speaker 3: Districts that have a lot fewer citizens than other districts,
and the districts the political districts that are fewer citizens
in them, those citizens will have a lot more voting
power than the districts with fewer illegal aliens and more
citizens in them. And that gets into an equal representation problem,
a guarantee clause one person, one vote problem. It's not
a constitutional system, and it creates an inherent imbalance and
political power. Our entire systems designed not to have that,
and so this practice of counting people for political districts
is constitutionally reverse. There are arguments to say that we
should count them, but.
Speaker 2: Only so that we know how many there are.
Speaker 3: There are some funding formulas that pay out based on
legal immigration status that you could qualify for, even some
for illegals.
Speaker 2: Should there be no but there are some, and so
funding formulas.
Speaker 3: I get there's an argument there to count them, but
for political districts at the very least, that it should not,
and it's a constitutionally perverse process that needs to be
completely annihilated.
Speaker 2: No doubt about it.
Speaker 1: I know that our listeners will still have a number
of questions. I know that you continue to track this
through the Center for Renewing America. If you wouldn't mind
give us some contact information so that if folks have
questions about where things stand and perhaps where they are going.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you can find us at America renewing dot com.
Speaker 2: My X handle is Wade Wade.
Speaker 3: Miller underscore USMC marine V and I've had that handle
for a while, so you can find us there. We've
got organizational social media handles on basically every platform, and
we're going to continue to study this and look into this.
Like I said earlier, we have a study where we
will be conducting a study trying to ascertain what the
impacts of all of these policy reforms would be in
terms of where states would benefit, which states wouldn't benefit,
and what does that make the congressional representation look like
from a two party perspective.
Speaker 1: This is an elemental issue foundational to the survival of
this republic. Quite frankly, these numbers really add up. Where
they ultimately do that's the question as we move forward.
Thanks to my guest today, Wayde Miller, Senior advisor at
the Center for Renewing America, talking about the census bureaus
defrauding of the American voter. You've been listening to another
edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior
Elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the frame.
Speaker 3: I heard the fame voice the reason, and then it
faded away.