of of the facebook oversight board talk to axios about their recent decision to keep former president donald trump banned from using facebook. then at 1:00 p.m. another hearing on the 2020 budget request with energy secretary zpwrern grand -- jennifer grandholm testifying of >> this week, we will showcase what's available on c-span2. thursday night we feature best sellers. first tulane university profess or walter issakson shares a book of jennifer on general -- gene editing. and heather mcgee discusses racism. and retired ranger james patterson going back to vietnam. watch book tv thursday night starting at 8:00 eastern on

c-span2. >> and witnesses michael li who is at the brennan center for justice. here to talk to us a about 2020 census results. is michael lee. here with us to talk about the 2020 census results. more specifically about the congressional reapportionment of seats. made possible by the 2020 census results. welcome to washington journal. let's read -- let's remind our view is that if they did not know those numbers, the states that gained or lost seats, the 2020 census has texas gaining two seats.

north carolina and oregon gained one seat. the loss of seats by one, california, illinois, michigan, new york, ohio, pennsylvania and west virginia. with these numbers surprising to you at all? >> i think that they surprised a lot of people. there were expectations about how the reapportionment would come out. they did not get all of the seats that they were expecting to get. arizona was expected to pick up an additional seat but ended up getting no new seats. new york was widely expected to lose two seats that came within 89 people of not losing any seats. there were a few surprises. people are still trying to figure out what it means. >> remind us why those states

gained and lost seats. michael: last year the census was different than any other one that was had. the numbers that are derived were used to reallocate seats around the country. those who grew more slowly he lose seats. it is to make sure that the allocation of congressional seats matches the population revealed in the census. that is something that happens every 10 years. >> those decisions will be made by those state legislatures or the boards. how does that process get underway? michael:

it increases the incentive for gerrymandering.

it is said that you can't bring gerrymandering claims in a federal court and in the u.s. constitution and that makes it possible because what's it to target community of color and to achieve a political affect. republican legislatures taxed black voters and claimed ha the voting rights act required them to do so. the courts rejected that. but there's a risk that republican legislatures will back black and latino voters in the south and simply claim that they were targeting democrats. . this decade, there is a risk. they will claim that they were simply targeting democrats. even if those democrats are latino, so be it.

>> when will be get the specific numbers? michael: that data will come starting in made august -- mid august. i would say beginning of september, we will get a better sense of what the numbers show. we have some sense based on other data sense of what that looks like, but states will use the census to draw maps. if it varies from that, we will know starting mid september. >> one of the states that is gaining ac, you have them in terms of your risk of gerrymandering improved. michael: we also have michigan as an improved state.

colorado did not have terrible maps. it should make the process a lot better. michigan did have gerrymandering maps last decade. michigan would draw the maps there. >> our guest is michael li talking about the census numbers and congressional apportionment. we will go first to gary in moorefield, west virginia. caller: good morning. i am a retired employee.

with the way this last census went, it cut off, awfully early. how can everybody be looking at the numbers? i know -- i can guarantee that in west virginia. >> your confidence in the 2020 census numbers. michael: i think there are a lot of questions about that. in large part because of the pandemic. we were all supposed to fill out the census. as a result of the pandemic, the census bureau had to do a with some of the census workers in the field. in addition to that, there were

efforts to interfere with the census. many people worry. it was unsuccessful, but they worry about the efforts. it might have done damage when they announced it. i think people worry that the damage was done. this census was underfunded for about a decade. it basically told the census bureau that you could spend in 2020 what you spent in 2010 despite it being larger and more complicated. it is like having thanksgiving dinner. you have the same budget.

there are a lot of concerns. we do not know yet what the results will be. >> what is the larger demographic story from the 2020 census come in terms of the nation's growth. michael: there are a couple stories. it is really something that has been a trend line. it has been slowing. less immigration of the latter part of the decade. but you also saw a shift of

power and representation to the south west. once the ultimate numbers come out we think there will be a story. fueled by nonwhite people. there is an expectation that the white population overall will have declined. it will be a first. it will be from black, latino and asian communities. >> good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this has a little bit to do with mark twain.

he had stated that anywhere where a man had a vote, those laws were impossible. kind of a strange person. he got some negative feedback. he was a well-known man. he went from one side to the other. he went from -- i do not know. on the other end, he went --

like some of his novels like the prince and the popper -- pauper. >> we will stick with voting for a second. michael on voting itself. how does that legislation and dress the anticipated changes that states might make an apportionment and other voting laws that might take place? michael: that is a great question. the senate is expected to pick up the summer. it is an omnibus voting and elections deal that would do a number of things. it would set a number of minimum standards for how we conduct

elections. on the redistricting front, what it would do is have a set of rules that are determined mostly in state law. that would be a strong set of four to five principles. they include stronger protections for communities of color. i mentioned earlier how the supreme court -- congress has the power to ban partisan gerrymandering. that is one of the things that they would do. it would strengthen the judicial remedies and litigate cases faster.

that is something that they are expected to take out later this summer. it depends on how the filibuster plays out. they decided that it was their big priority. from redistricting, it would be one of the biggest things to happen. it would be a big step forward. >> from the wall street journal, their opinion piece was, they said census figures were released near historic levels. they say that gop states with stricter -- black turnout was

highest in maryland. georgia had a smaller voting cap. massachusetts, wisconsin, oregon -- any thoughts on that? michael: it goes to show that they are not about. there are voting laws that need a lot of improvement. there is no question about that. it is creating a national minimum floor.

they are able to do that. it does say that new york will have two weeks for early voting. there are rules on any number of things. if they are thinking it is a pro-democratic bill, that is where they fall or fail. >> next is someone from new jersey, independent line. caller: this morning, it has been made clear to me as to why the invasion on the southern borders has been completely out of check. i was wondering why the situation does not exist.

it spelled it out in very clear language. there is no need, as far as census taking goes to restrict citizens only. they are counted legitimately as a citizen of the country, to be represented in washington. >> what does the constitution say about who should be counted? michael: it requires a whole number of persons. everyone in the u.s., whether they are a citizen or not -- for

example, back in the early days, we counted women and children. we count noncitizens. my parents immigrated in the 1960's. it did not become citizens until a couple years later. we always counted everyone. >> rhonda is next. caller: good morning, america. i have lived in new jersey my whole life. it is really a beautiful, integrated community. i have adopted my baby granddaughter. she is seven years old. her school is 78% hispanic.

i know that census is under. i know that they are not registering with the census, these hispanics that are in our country. i do not have a problem with them. i love them. they are my neighbors and they have beautified our city with their culture and talent. it breaks my heart that these people are afraid to come out and register so that we can get more funds for new jersey taxes. i built this house 15 years ago. my property taxes were 4000 a year. now they are 8000 a year. >> we will go from there. michael: we do not know yet. we only know how many people this census shows are in a

state. there are under counts in some communities. they are also over counted. it is not a significant of account, but it does happen. it is really white people -- we do not know if there are differential counts. a lot of experience.

it was especially hard to get. there have always been under counts. states like new jersey, new york and california did invest millions of dollars to get people to participate in the census. that might have been the reason why new york did much better. that is probably part of the investment. it might he do to the texas legislature allocating zero dollars to get people to participate in the census. there were no advertisement or church groups telling people why it was important.

it is not just about federal power. it is federal funds that go to the states based on the census for everything from roads to education, and the number of vaccines. it was based on the 2010 census and it will be based on the census going forward. >> it will be in effect as of the 2022 election, correct? michael: that's right. they will be used for the first time in 2022. >> the new york times wrote about it. the pandemic may be accelerating the decline. births were down sharply when babies conceived at the start of the health crisis would have been born.

does the census reflect the nation's slowing birth rate? michael: it does. it does not reflect the effects of the pandemic. it does show a slowing birth rate. that is something -- the country is aging. the birth rate has fallen. >> here is jeff on the republican line. caller: your taxes are going to go up because people pay more for those who are here illegally. we are supporting them but they are not paying any taxes. of course your taxes are going

to go up. illegals are proving up everything for us who are here legally. they should not be counted in the state census. that is improper, illegal and against the law. those who are here illegally, waiting to become citizens, yes. those who are here illegally that should have no path to citizenship should not be counted. >> any response? michael: i think the general legal consensus is that there is a requirement that the people put in there. counting women and children.

i do think it is important, besides the legal argument, i think it is important that we count everyone. the federal funding goes to state that are there. whether undocumented people are counted or not impact the number of -- the amount of money that they will have. it is not as if, if you do not count them, they are not using the subway or sending kids to school. it is important that they get the money that they need to service the people that are there. >> we hear from steve in topeka, kansas, next. caller: i think this is a fascinating subject. i think it will be's -- be

shortchanged. what i had is a bigger issue. i have american indian heritage. i use the census to track indian heritage. what about the people with indian heritage? it has been a fascinating trip for me to use the actual census records to look at that. they are asking, were you a confederate veteran or a union veteran. they had a crazy history. probably, this census is not really useful from the standpoint of where it was originally meant for everybody. i know that for a fact. how are they categorized? that is all i have. i like the subject that we are

talking about this morning. >> ahistorical reflection there. any thoughts? michael: the value of the census is kept private. it becomes available to people and from a certain standpoint, it is absolutely incredible. you get to see the evolution of people who use very italian names. they change their names over time. you get to see an evolving sense of identity. there is a lot of valuable information that comes out of the census. it is an incredible resource over time.

including native identity, it is a critical thing. i will say, they are one of the communities that have been traditionally hard to count. it is something that the census bureau has tried to get right. in part because of historic implications. making sure that they are at the table, as much as they can. >> certainly, 2020 with the pandemic and some political challenges, in terms of the questions to be included in the 2020 census. how is that rib -- resolved? michael: the big challenge was that the trump administration decided very late in the process -- the development of the census takes about 10 years. a test question multiple times

in different formats to make sure that people are not getting confused by it. they do a lot of scientific testing. it would be asked of all people. it was challenged in court and was ultimately found to violate the administrative procedures, which regulate how government decisions are made. again, a lot of people were concerned that the damage was done, once it got out that they were trying to do this. it stoked a lot of fear in communities about how the data would be used despite strong

privacy. >> saying trump was trying to break what he saw blue or sanctuary states. he has done lasting damage to this country in so many ways. don is on the independent line. caller: i am actually working on an article about congressional reapportionment. there were 99 house members that shifted from the midwest to the south and the west. there were 84 since 1940. $.66 1960. it is a long-term trend due to some cagey operations to get live infrastructural investment.

it was largely paid for by those in the northwest. it is a significant issue. add immigration to it. a lot of them were driven by wars, attacks and death squads. it is a volatile situation. >> any thoughts? michael: he mentioned that 2010 and 2020 census. it is a good reminder. in 2020, the census -- the 2020 census reflected that the country was becoming much more diverse. italy, western europe, the population was moving from rural areas, into the cities. that scared a lot of people.

states did not redistrict in the 1920's because they could not stomach the actual results that were shown from the census. similar to what we are facing today. reaction to immigration. it was fear that the basic demographic attributes were changing. there was a lot of freak out about that. >> explained to us how many members -- how many of the population, a member of congress represents. what are the numbers that a typical representative represents in his or her district? michael: that is a great question.

even the smallest state will have one, but even when you allocate it out, there is a mathematical formula that is used. some states lose a seat. it results in some variation of the size of districts. it was up about 60,000 from a decade ago. idaho also has two states. it is -- there is quite a bit of variation. it was set in the apportionment act.

that is what we have had since then. even though the country is much larger. it does create a greater variance. some people have suggested as a way to resolve that, to make the u.s. house figure, which would allow for us to have smaller districts to be more evenly sized. >> what is your view on it? bigger house? michael: there is an argument for it. i have not decided how much bigger. he want the house to be able to function. having one person represent 760,000 people or almost a million people can be quite challenging from making sure that all of the needs are met. members do not go to washington just to vote. they handle veterans.

if you are handling social security benefits or need help on this or that. >> a couple more calls for you. we will go to thomas in wildrose, wisconsin. democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. he showed the map of wisconsin and it was blue, but we are heavily republican influenced state because we are mostly republican controlled for our governor. they are fighting him tooth and nail. they want him to do the job he is supposed to do. why isn't the federal government, as far as redistricting, taking control of districting in the states, so that it can be done fairly. >> i think it is blue because that is one of the improved states you have on your map. michael: we put it as an

improved state because there is a democratic governor. courts do not draw perfect maps, but they do not tend to aggressively gerrymander the way that single party controlled legislature will tend to do. wisconsin is listed as an improved state. it would set uniform, national rules and would require the use of commissions to draw maps in the states. there is a recognition that this is an area that states have struggled to get right. it is tempting to do. >> next up is dale. caller: a couple points.

one trend that is emanating a lot is the question that was trying to be included this time around. it has definitely compromise the integrity of things. it needs to take into consideration all of the specific geographic locations. as time has gone on, the representation is definitely compromise. you mentioned quite a few things. representation, being somewhere between 700000 and 800,000 people. it is hardly a good way to note who the representative is. i think it is peculiar that the supreme court was -- it kept

gerrymandering in check. gerrymandering is not something that they will be able to think about. i think the combination of those two factors will continue to be a very big problem. i also think that we are becoming too polarized. it is clearly something that should be involved in there. >> thank you. michael. michael: i think the supreme court's decision that you could not bring federal claims into federal court about gerrymandering. i think it is very ominous. it is particularly ominous in the south. most democrats tend to be black

and latino, nonwhite. georgia and texas, for example, they get 25% to 28% of the white vote. the only way that he grabbed a disproportionate share of seats -- it is very ominous. all the more reason that there is a statutory ban -- that a statutory ban would go a long way of leveling the playing field. >> a quick call from mary. caller: i think that the basic question is not when you use the sentences to elect congress, congress is supposed to represent u.s. citizens. there should be the question, are you a u.s. citizen, or are you a noncitizen?

it is taxpayer's money that is delegated to the states. i do firmly believe that the question must be process in terf apportionment in the state? guest: the next step is that data will come out in the fall and we will be drawing maps. it could be a very different process because it will be occurring at a different time of the year. some states will try to take shortcuts and justify it on the basis of time. now is the time for people to get involved and talk about what they want the maps to look like. what is important to their communities. look at existing maps, talk about what changes should be made and get together with others. we had an election in 2020 about top political power for two years. the maps we draw starting this

fall will determine political power for 10 years. this is the time for people to get involved. host: frankly with the brennan center, senior council, talking about the 2020 census and apportionment. you can read their report on that at brennancenter.org. >> c-span's "washington journal." every day we take your calls live on the air and the news on the day and discuss policy issues that impact you. tomorrow morning, the cost of prescription compared to the rest of the world with john dicken with the government accountability process. then we look at the latest in the fight against coronavirus in the u.s. and globally with dr. chris biber of the bloomberg school of public health. and purdue university mitch daniels on the new civics literally requirement and

challenges facing higher education overall. watch c-span's washington journal thursday morning. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. coming up thursday gina raymundo testifies on president biden's 2020 budget request and a house prorpgse sub -- appropriations subcommittee. on c-span2, members of the facebook oversight board talks to axios about their recent decision to keep former president donald trump off of facebook and then another hearing on the 2022 budget committee with energy secretary jennifer granholm testifying. >> we not only are going to do

the theoretical work or the esoteric work like particle physics but we're trying to confront real world problems that are associated with our ability to get our work done. i found myself having to become an expert in trans phobia in science because i needed to fight for myself. i needed to fight to make room for myself. in order to feel like a person of consciousness i needed to fight to make room for other people. >> chanda prescott on sub atomic particles, the histories of the cosmos. you can listen to q&a on a podcast where you get your podcast.

♪ >> education department secretary miguel cardona testified on the president's 2020 budget request before a house appropriations subcommittee. secretary cardona addressed reopening schools' curriculum and federal grants and loans for higher education. this runs two hours and 10 minutes.