The census won't add the citizenship question after all

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,459
4,451
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/trump-census-citizenship-question.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The Trump administration said Tuesday that it would be printing forms for the 2020 census without a question asking about citizenship, abandoning its quest to add the query after being blocked last week by the Supreme Court.

The decision is a victory for critics who said the question was part of an administration effort to skew the census results in favor of Republicans.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
I don't see how it's advantageous to the purpose of the census to deliberately exclude this data.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,459
4,451
I don't see how it's advantageous to the purpose of the census to deliberately exclude this data.
It'll increase the nonresponse rate, which will affect the validity of the enumeration-- the primary purpose of the census.

According to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Department allegedly believes that adding a citizenship question will “prioritize[ ] the goal of obtaining complete and accuratedata.” It will not. Instead, contravening one established statistical principle after another in this
fashion will throw into doubt that data’s integrity and utility. The overwhelmingly sensitive nature of the citizenship question will substantially reduce census participation rates while generating a higher percentage of incomplete or inaccurate responses. The Secretary asserts that there is no evidence that the citizenship question will cause lower participation rates, but that assertion improperly stands the appropriate statistical standard on its head, is inconsistent with the Bureau’s longstanding practice of deliberative caution in adding questions to the census, and is deeply at odds with basic professional statistical norms.
BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION AND POPULATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA AS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ POSITION AT TRIAL

wikipedia confirms that
The American Statistical Association (ASA) is the main professional organization for statisticians and related professionals in the United States. It was founded in Boston, Massachusetts on November 27, 1839, and is the second oldest continuously operating professional society in the US (only the Massachusetts Medical Society, founded in 1781, is older). The ASA services statisticians, quantitative scientists, and users of statistics across many academic areas and applications.
and not just a PAC with an interesting name.
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
It'll increase the nonresponse rate, which will affect the validity of the enumeration-- the primary purpose of the census.



BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION AND POPULATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA AS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ POSITION AT TRIAL

wikipedia confirms that


and not just a PAC with an interesting name.
Isn't the enumeration supposed to be for citizens, though?

I mean, if it's used for things like determining the distribution of the electoral college, for instance, then why would you want it to include responses from non-citizens?
 

curmudgeonette

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2016
505
325
California
Isn't the enumeration supposed to be for citizens, though?
No, the enumeration is supposed to be anyone within the US borders - I think including even short term foreign visitors who are here on the magic day.

I mean, if it's used for things like determining the distribution of the electoral college, for instance, then why would you want it to include responses from non-citizens?
Even non-voting residents need representation. They're participating in the economy. They can be arrested. Taxes, laws and etc. apply to them.
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
No, the enumeration is supposed to be anyone within the US borders - I think including even short term foreign visitors who are here on the magic day.



Even non-voting residents need representation. They're participating in the economy. They can be arrested. Taxes, laws and etc. apply to them.
But if only citizens can vote, how does counting them in the census (or not) give them representation? It just makes the weighting of their area larger but no indication of how they would be represented.

Also, I don't think that's how any of it works, but your own opinion on it. Visitors in the country (or illegal immigrants) don't have a legal say in the direction and operation of the country.
 

Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
600
1,242
Isn't the enumeration supposed to be for citizens, though?

I mean, if it's used for things like determining the distribution of the electoral college, for instance, then why would you want it to include responses from non-citizens?
To answer your first question: No.

To answer your second question: Because, per the Constitution, apportionment of representatives - and thus, electoral votes - among the states is based on the count of persons in each state, not based on the count of citizens in each state.
 

appleisking

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2013
658
2,040
But if only citizens can vote, how does counting them in the census (or not) give them representation? It just makes the weighting of their area larger but no indication of how they would be represented.

Also, I don't think that's how any of it works, but your own opinion on it. Visitors in the country (or illegal immigrants) don't have a legal say in the direction and operation of the country.
Children can’t vote should we also not count them and consider them Unrepresented?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor

Night Spring

macrumors G5
Jul 17, 2008
13,064
5,084
Isn't the enumeration supposed to be for citizens, though?

I mean, if it's used for things like determining the distribution of the electoral college, for instance, then why would you want it to include responses from non-citizens?
As another poster said, the Constitution says to count persons, not citizens. I'm pretty sure a major reason for that was so slaves could be counted -- remember, slaves counted as 3/5 of a person.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,459
4,451
Children can’t vote should we also not count them and consider them Unrepresented?
From the new york times article, which has grown substantially from the initial two or three paragraphs:

...The department, which oversees the Census Bureau, had argued that the Justice Department needed a more accurate count of citizens to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but three lower courts ruled that that was an obvious pretext for some other unstated goal. The department’s explanation was further undermined last month after plaintiffs uncovered computer files from a deceased Republican political strategist, Thomas B. Hofeller, who had first urged the incoming Trump administration in 2016 to consider adding the question to the next census.
The files included a study in which Mr. Hofeller concluded that a citizenship question was central to a strategy to increase Republican political power by excluding noncitizens and persons under voting age from the census figures used for drawing new political boundaries in 2021.
The disclosure led to the reopening of one of the lawsuits opposing the question, and plaintiffs were scheduled to begin new efforts this month to prove that the question was an effort to discriminate against Hispanics for political gain.
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
To answer your first question: No.

To answer your second question: Because, per the Constitution, apportionment of representatives - and thus, electoral votes - among the states is based on the count of persons in each state, not based on the count of citizens in each state.
That's very interesting. So you could, for instance, have 20 or 30 million illegal citizens, plus all kinds of temporary residents, have a massive effect on elections and the direction of the country.
 

Tech198

macrumors G5
Mar 21, 2011
13,976
1,643
Australia, Perth
ok,, yes.. why do you need to know constantly where someone resides.??... They wouldn't have become one anyway *roll eyes*

Best just to always check anyway.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,459
4,451
So you could, for instance, have 20 or 30 million illegal citizens, plus all kinds of temporary residents, have a massive effect on elections and the direction of the country.
Well, presumably, you live in an area with large numbers of undocumented immigrants, more so than if you lived in a lily white community that stands to lose out in the coming redistricting. This has made you extra sensitive to this threat of alien invasion. But those large numbers will give you extra votes in Congress to deal with this urgent threat. See! It balances out!
 
Last edited:

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
Well, presumably, you live in an area with large numbers of undocumented immigrants, more so than if you lived in a lily white community that stands to lose out in the coming redistricting. This has made you extra sensitive to this threat of alien invasion. But those large numbers will give you extra votes in Congress to deal with this urgent threat. See! It balances out!
So you fail to address my point and instead make some completely false assumptions. Nice deflection, though.

What's worrisome is that this constitutes a valid and reasonable response to you and several others. o_O
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,459
4,451
Now Trump says this is fake news.
Perjury is a serious crime.
Will the lawyers for the Commerce department be disbarred, if, in fact, the printed forms do contain this question?
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2011
20,661
22,372
Perjury is a serious crime.
Will the lawyers for the Commerce department be disbarred, if, in fact, the printed forms do contain this question?
What a clusterf—k. And people on Twitter are blaming DOJ/Commerce employees. I’m sorry it’s not someone else’s fault for the whims of Trump’s tweets. Perhaps Trump should be communicating to his staff before rage tweeting.

 

Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
600
1,242
What a clusterf—k. And people on Twitter are blaming DOJ/Commerce employees. I’m sorry it’s not someone else’s fault for the whims of Trump’s tweets. Perhaps Trump should be communicating to his staff before rage tweeting.

It’s not so much a clusterf—k as it is business as usual these days.

There’s the reality of various situations and there’s the rubbish that the President spews. The two are often entirely disconnected from each other.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,459
4,451
There’s the reality of various situations and there’s the rubbish that the President spews. The two are often entirely disconnected from each other.
And yet some people believe that Trump is rightfully our king. What a POS.

So it is not merely “a single question on the 2020 census” decision. It is the question: To which branch does the Constitution commit which powers? Get that wrong, and the walls of separation are down, the checks don’t balance. It’s open season, one branch upon the other.

The census belonged to the president. Until this past Thursday it did. He needs to get it back.
some guy with his head in close proximity to Trump's backside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,459
4,451
here's the transcript of the conference with judge hazel

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M3Y6vj3QlQpSdlYcCdq3BkbnnWIrEPlf/view

MR. GARDNER: Your Honor, this is Mr. Gardner. The one thing I would request is, given that tomorrow is the Fourth of July and the difficulty in assembling people from all over the place, is it possible that we could do this on Monday?

THE COURT: No.
MR. GARDNER: And again -- okay.
THE COURT: No. Because timing is an issue. Timing is an issue, and we've lost a week at this point. And this isn't anything against anybody on this call. I've been told different things, and it's becoming increasingly frustrating.

If you were Facebook and an attorney for Facebook told me one thing, and then I read a press release from Mark Zuckerberg telling me something else, I would be demanding that Mark Zuckerberg appear in court with you the next time because I would be saying I don't think you speak for your client anymore.
I think I'm actually being really reasonable here and just saying I need a final answer by Friday at 2 p.m. or we're going forward. That's where we are. Because we've wasted a week. The Fourth Circuit sent this back to me with a promise from me that I would get it done, the discovery done in 45 days, a hearing, and then a decision, and they sent it back to me with that promise having been made. And we've lost seven days already with the back and forth, which, again, I don't blame anybody on this call for, but that's where we are.

So Friday, 2 p.m., we're going forward or we're resolving it. That's where we are.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,338
29,940
Catskill Mountains
It's amazing that people swear an oath to uphold the Constitution yet they willingly do not.

I wonder what happens if they put the question on it regardless. What would happen?
Taxpayers would have paid for a lot of wasted ink and paper. The Republican Party is hanging itself out to dry with this guy at the helm, it's unbelievable.