In Article 1, Section 2, the US Constitution dictates that the population of the country will be counted every ten years for purposes determining how many representatives go to which state — a process called reapportionment. “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
“…in such Manner as they shall by Law direct” – therein lies the rub. Depending on how you conduct the count , you get different answers – the questions that are asked and the way they are phrased can be intimidating to some people or make them refuse to answer, and thus be counted, at all. Of course, uncounted people skew representation and affect the distribution of funds that go to states by population. Some people have argued that the process is so flawed that it should be replaced by statistical modeling – that is that we can get a more accurate picture of who lives where by estimating the numbers based on what we actually do know. The Census Bureau already estimates the population in between Census years to keep an accurate notion of population growth. While this might be more accurate, critics say it violates the requirement of an “actual enumeration and the Supreme Court has said that while it can be used for some purposes, it cannot be used for the apportionment.
Why is this controversial? Because the people least likely to be counted – young people, immigrants who are afraid of deportation, or people who have undocumented people living in their homes – are more likely to vote Democratic. Therefore it’s in the interest of Democrats to seek a more accurate count and get more representation and resources for Democratic areas and for Republicans to prefer not to count such people. That’s the context for the story below, about a case before the Supreme Court on whether the Census can directly asked whether the residents are US citizens (they do not have to be and no penalty attaches to them if they aren’t.)
The people the Constitution says will be counted are “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” This reflects the infamous three-fifths compromise in which, for purposes of determining representation, slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a man. Obviously this is obsolete, but the desire to manipulate the count to maximize political advantage lives on.
3. Supreme Court to tackle Trump admin’s census controversy April 21, 2019 by Sam Baker
The 2020 Census will redraw the electoral map and guide billions of dollars in federal spending for the next decade. And critics say the Trump administration is skewing those results by adding a question about citizenship to the census, Axios’ Sam Baker writes.
The big picture: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday over the citizenship question — about whether it’s unconstitutional, if it violates other federal laws, and whether this dispute even belongs in court.
Why it matters: The basic point of the census is to figure out how many people live in the U.S., and where. Countless decisions flow from that, including how many seats each state gets in the House. The survey also includes basic demographic questions, including age and sex.
- But, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross touched off a firestorm last year by announcing the addition of a new question — asking people whether they’re U.S. citizens.
Between the lines: The Census Bureau itself told Ross that adding the question would make the census less accurate, because some non-citizens will lie or refuse to fill out the survey. It would probably end up undercounting about 6.5 million people, the bureau said.
- Minority communities “stand to lose funding for their schools, housing, infrastructure, and healthcare, among other critical needs, for the next decade if the citizenship question is allowed to go forward,” the Brennan Center for Justice said in a brief to the Supreme Court.
Critics believe that’s the whole point, and sued.
- They said the process by which this happened doesn’t support Ross’ stated reasons for doing it, citing internal communications as well as the fact that he passed up other alternatives the Census Bureau said would be more accurate.
- A federal judge in New York sided with Ross’ critics earlier this year, saying he didn’t follow the processes laid out in federal law and calling his reasoning a mere pretext.
The other side: The Justice Department argues, first and foremost, that this isn’t the courts’ business, as the Commerce secretary has considerable authority over the census.
- On the merits, the administration says this question is no big deal — it’s been asked before (though usually of smaller samples) — and that the risk of under-counting is mere speculation.
- The lower court “strained to read every statement and action of the Secretary in the worst possible light,” DOJ argues.
What’s next: A ruling is expected by June.
AmGov, Axios and the News 