The United States Constitution requires a census every 10 years. While it might seem a trivial matter, the data is critical: it determines how many seats each state receives in the House of Representative and also guides the distribution of federal funds. There are also concerns that the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the upcoming census to give Republicans an advantage. The administration claims this is nonsense; they claim to want the controversial citizenship question added for benign reasons. This matter raises a host of issues and is well worth considering.
It is worth noting that the citizenship question was last included on the census for all households in 1950 but some census forms and other similar surveys do still include the question. As such, it can be obviously be argued that there is a precedent for including the question again and that doing so would not be completely unusual. It would just be something that had not been done since 1950. Of course, the fact that it has been done before neither shows nor disproves that including it now would be a good idea. In this case, whether it is a good idea or not is a matter of the purpose of the census.
As the Constitution notes, the main purpose of the census is to determine the apportionment of representatives. This requires an accurate count of the population and it is reasonable to hold that anything that impedes an accurate count would be contrary to the purpose of the census. A moral argument can also be made for the importance of an accurate census: if the United States has a principled commitment to the system of representative government, this requires a commitment to ensuring an accurate census. Otherwise the representation will be unjustly distributed. Because I hold to this principle, I have a moral issue with the inclusion of the citizenship question.
It might be wondered why the question should be regarded as an impediment to an accurate survey. Since I am a known Democrat, it might be suspected that I swayed by my ideology. As such, I will turn to a devoted Republican (now deceased) for the evidence that the question would impact the accuracy of the survey.
Thomas Hofeller was a brilliant Republican redistricting strategist who saw and used the power of modern computers to literally change the political landscape. Before his death, he had been pushing for the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census because he believed that doing so would impact participation and provide a structural electoral advantage for “Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.” The Trump administration has denied this intention and has claimed that Hofeller had no role in the matter. Unfortunately for the administrations, Hofeller’s documents have become available and they show that he wrote a key part of a draft Justice Department letter alleging that the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
As a professor, this scenario reminded me of a common occurrence in academics: a student turns in a paper that seems to be someone else’ work and they claim that the word-for-word similarity is mere coincidence. I do not buy that in the classroom and certainly do not buy it coming from the Trump administration.
It could be countered that the Trump administration and Hofeller are truly concerned with the 1965 Voting Rights act and that is the real reason for the question. On the one hand, that does make sense: Hofeller proved skillful at using the act to the advantage of Republicans. On the other hand, the documents make Hofeller’s intent clear: whether the question connects to the act, the question is intended to impact participation to the advantage of “Republican and non-Hispanic whites.” As such, the reasonable inference is that the Trump administration wants the question included to advantage Republicans and they understand it will negatively impact the accuracy of the census.
It might be argued that presenting Hofeller’s documents as evidence is not enough to show that the question would have a negative impact. After all, one could contend that Hofeller and the administration hope it will have that effect. One could contend that it will not. To counter this, I offer the fact that businesses that use census data and need accurate information have pushed back against the administration’s efforts to include the question. After all, their business success depends on accurate data, not data rigged to advantage white Republicans. As such, it seems reasonable to think that the question would have a negative impact on participation and hence should not be included—the census needs to be accurate.
Supporters of the question do advance the argument that it is essential to produce important citizenship data that is essential for some goals of the administration. This, one supposes, is supposed to offset the accuracy problem. However, even the researchers at the Census Bureau have pointed out that the question will result is less accurate and more expensive data than existing government data. As such, this defense is no defense: better, cheaper sources of citizenship data already exist.
Some have advanced arguments based on their view that the census should only cover citizens anyway, that only illegals will be afraid to answer the question and they should not be counter, and so on. After all, they contend, representation and such should be based on citizens.
The easy and obvious reply is to point out that the constitution specifies a count of population and does not specify a count of citizens. Looking back historically, the census counted black slaves as 3/5 of a person so the default is to count everyone, citizen or not. It could be objected that this is wrong and the census should just count citizens—but this is another issue; that is, whether the constitution should be changed to change the census. This can and has been done: obviously the 3/5 person thing was changed. So, those who think that the census should only cover citizens have every legal right to try to amend the Constitution to have their way.
Since the just purpose of the census is to get an accurate count and there are good reasons to believe that the citizenship question would impede participation, it should not be on the census. Again, those who think that the census should only count citizens have every legal right to try to get the Constitution amended to suit them. But until then the citizenship question should be excluded.
Now that the nation is long settled, the map needs to be redrawn with 50 states of equal population so that we can have proper representation.
“…The easy and obvious reply is to point out that the constitution specifies a count of population and does not specify a count of citizens. Looking back historically, the census counted black slaves as 3/5 of a person so the default is to count everyone, citizen or not.”
This “3/5ths” compromise is perhaps one of the most purposely misunderstood and inaccurately spun aspects of our history. It was, in fact, the epitome of Democrat gerrymandering and electoral manipulation.
As you state, the main purpose of the census is to determine population for purposes of representation in Congress. The greater the population of a state, the more representatives that state would have in Congress.
During the years between 1790 and 1860, slaves consistently represented a full 1/3 of the population of southern states. In 1810, for example, there were 2.2 million whites and free non-whites counted across the southern states, and 1.1 million slaves.
Should slaves be counted among the population? The result of this would be that the populations of these states would be skewed by a full third, giving Southern Democrats and slavery sympathizers an undeserved increase in representation in Congress, and an unfair advantage over their Republican anti-slavery counterparts.
The result was this 3/5 compromise. Many today interpret this as “racist” – that blacks were only considered to be 3/5 human, or as you surmise, that the “the default is to count everyone, citizen or not.”
I think you are confusing “result” with “intent”. To make the statement that the census question “would benefit Republicans and non-Hispanic whites” is an observation, not necessarily the intent. This conflation or purposeful misinterpretation happens all the time.
“Tax cuts benefit the wealthy more than the poor (because the wealthy pay more taxes), therefore we will re-brand them as “Tax-Cuts-For-The-Rich” and interpret them as the Administration being pro-rich and anti-poor”
“The ACA resulted in millions of Americans losing their private health insurance and being unable to continue to see their own doctors, therefore we will brand this as a dishonest step toward government take-over and complete socialism”.
But back to the original question. By not including the citizenship question, are we not skewing the census results in favor of those who would support open borders, i.e., Liberals and Democrats in general?
The state of California presents an interesting scenario. Obviously, California is a crucial electoral stronghold for Democrats – but the population and demographics have been changing. Over the last seven years, the net domestic migration to the state has been negative – more US citizens have been leaving the state than entering. According to an article by Dan Kopf, a San Francisco based reporter for “Quartz”:
“Besides births, the main reason California’s population hasn’t already started falling has been international migration into the state. Every year since 2011, net domestic migration has been negative—i.e., more people leave California than move in from other states. But from 2011 to 2016, the number of international migrants moving into California was larger than the number of locals who were moving out.
Since then, however, domestic departures have outstripped international arrivals. In 2018, 156,000 locals left the state, compared to 118,000 international who came.”
Like most Liberals, Kopf uses the term “international migrants”, without differentiating between legal and illegal immigration – but California has both the highest raw number of illegal immigrants and the highest percentage of illegal aliens relative to total population in the country. Faced with an accelerating decline of US citizens in the state, it isn’t too big a stretch to see a strong motivation to keep population numbers up in order to keep the Democrat electoral stronghold, and the highest representation in Congress. Add to that, of course, that the most powerful Democrat in Congress, the Speaker of the House, is from California, and, well, the writing is on the wall. If we don’t count “international migrants” as part of the overall population, California is experiencing a serious decline in population, and could stand to lose representation in Congress and overall left-leaning electoral clout.
In a previous essay, you said that “Democrats have a distinct moral advantage over Republicans”. You said this without explanation, you did not specify whether or not you meant “Individuals” (like the morally upstanding Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Anthony Weiner, et al), or just Democrat policies (frightening an entire generation into depression and hopelessness with AGW, promoting “politics of envy” over basic freedoms) – but you did say that you believed that Americans would be better off with more Democrats in office than Republicans.
Are you also of the mind that “the end justifies the means”? Are you OK with padding the population with non-citizens for the purpose of determining state representation, as in the inclusion of slaves in southern states’ populations to give more power to their Democrats?
I want to expound on one of the points I just made – if it’s not already patently obvious:
“The result was this 3/5 compromise. Many today interpret this as “racist” – that blacks were only considered to be 3/5 human, or as you surmise, that the “the default is to count everyone, citizen or not.”
Southern Democrats and slaveholders in that era believed very strongly in the morality of slavery. They pointed out biblical references to the institution, including the fact that Abraham himself owned slaves. They argued that the institution was divine, and that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. John C. Calhoun said,
“Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.”
They compared the conditions of slaves in America to the plight of the poor in Europe, claiming that American slaves were far better off – better fed, better treated, and generally better off.
So in fact, the result of the debate over whether or not slaves should be counted for purposes of Congressional representation, the result of the compromise that settled the debate was still an unfair advantage to the power of the Southern Democrats (albeit 2/5 smaller). With that increased power, they were able to ensure that their moral stand in favor of slavery held sway for far longer than it should or could have.
Likewise, making the “moral argument” today in favor of counting illegal immigrants among all citizens for the purpose of Congressional representation will ensure that the real issues of illegal immigration remain unsolved, and that Democrat power in Congress will remain – whether those representatives are speaking for American citizens or not.
Not clear why this is a *moral* issue. Political gamesmanship is par for the course.
In any case, Mike is right about the Constitution. That is, unless the Supreme Court finds that the Constitution says the census should count only citizens was written right next to the right to an abortion.
The census has been used to ask all sorts of questions not having to do with population. The 2010 census asks questions about ethnicity and race, the 2000 census asked questions about long term health problems, employment & transportation, time of departure for work, etc.
No one is saying that the census should count only citizens. I think it makes sense to count everyone, but as long as the process collects additional ethnic and demographic information, I see nothing wrong with adding one about citizenship.
Whether or not to apportion representation based on the entire population of a state, or only the population of citizens is a different question, which is a constitutional one.
The question of whether to apportion representation based on the entire population is indeed a constitutional one, but surely also a rational and political one.
Why should the power of a citizen’s vote depend partly on the number of non-citizens in the state? It eludes me. I never knew that. It does go some way to explaining why so many Democratic Party politicians protect and abet lawbreaking, though.
If the governor of California invited the entire population of China over for the biggest Hollywood party of all time on census day, and sent them home afterwards with a complimentary mountain of aspirin, California would have almost all the seats in the House for the next decade? There is something wrong with that.
As for the question itself, I see no reasonable objection to its inclusion in principle. Indeed, I’d consider it an essential question. The motivation for its return may well be linked to discouragement of people who enter the country illegally, and/or a wish to confirm numbers of non-citizens living in the US for policy purposes. I don’t necessarily see those as objections, though – political moves, certainly, but when there is a valid justification, the fact that some people have other motives for promoting it is irrelevant.
The question of whether to apportion representation based on the entire population is indeed a constitutional one, but surely also a rational and political one.
Why should the power of a citizen’s vote depend partly on the number of non-citizens in the state? It eludes me.
Well, exactly. And I was thinking the same thing regarding California and China. It’s nonsense on stilts. I did a quick once-over of the Constitution and I’m pretty sure, if you want to, you could argue that there’s nothing in there saying you can’t count dead people either.
I think the answer to this is similar to the answer to many constitutional questions. Back in 1787, the idea of “citizen” was far different than it is today, and it’s not unlikely that our founding fathers didn’t even imagine that we’d be overpopulated with an illegal immigration problem and a massive government over-reach issue.
The Constitution doesn’t go into a whole lot of detail about what a citizen is, but Constitutional Scholars have speculated about the “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” principles. The fact is that immigration to this country was free and open through most of the 19th century; a “citizen” was defined mostly by having lived here for 2 years.
To me, the reasonable speculation is that they just considered “free white men” as citizens, and the more the merrier.
So we’re left to speculate about “What would they have said if they had known?”
The mandate for the census is in the US Constitution, but the form and content are governed by the Dept. of Commerce:
“The Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title.”
So there is nothing prohibiting the citizenship question from being asked. No doubt future censuses will inquire about things like gender identity, preferred pronouns, and other important political data.