By: John C. Lesher
The Census and the Matter of Citizenship
Headlines concerning the House impeachment inquiry have pushed most news from the front page, but a significant issue will reassert itself in the very near future: the decennial Census of the United States will be conducted in 2020. OK—you can yawn now.
The typical American is aware of this exercise in counting our residents, but lacks an in-depth understanding of how government uses the data compiled during the census year. The most easily understood effect on all of us is program-based at the local level: federal funds for many activities such as school lunches and highway construction are allocated to the many states based on population within a state. State governments then distribute these tax dollars among their departments, institutions, local governments and constituents. Less understood are the electoral consequences of a census tabulation, as noted below.
An Abbreviated Census Primer
The fundamental point to be remembered is that the census is not a count of citizens, or registered voters, or homeowners, or of anything other than residents of the United States at a moment in time. The term “resident” is broadly interpreted by the Census Bureau and includes, in addition to citizens of all ages, both documented and undocumented non-citizens. Tourists staying for short periods are not included, but anyone residing in the U. S. for any appreciable time is eligible to be counted. The Census Bureau rules for who gets counted and who doesn’t are somewhat puzzling. For example, approximately 4,000,000 citizens of the U.S. are business executives and their dependents stationed overseas. These individuals pay annual taxes to the US Treasury, own property in the States and accumulate annual Social Security benefits, but, because of temporary overseas residence, are not included in the census.
Once fully compiled, the census becomes the basis for all electoral politics in America for the subsequent ten years. The Census Bureau tabulates a national population, breaks that population down by state and completes a process known as apportionment. The Constitution requires that every 10 years the 435 seats in the federal House of Representatives be apportioned among the states according to relative population. If your state has 3% of the nation’s population, your state will get 3% of House memberships, subject to the rounding of fractional seats. That apportionment by the Census Bureau will remain in effect until the next census when the process of census count and relative apportionment will be repeated. Currently, California (53 seats) and Texas (36 seats) lead in congressional representation because of their large populations relative to other states.
Once the state populations and House of Representatives apportionment numbers are determined they are given to the President, the Clerk of the House and to the Governor of each state. At this point the individual states use the population and apportionment data to form geographic electoral units for both federal and state legislative offices according to the procedures contained in each state’s constitution. These geographical units from which office holders are elected are known as “districts” and the process by which they are formed is referenced as “redistricting.” The population numbers tabulated by the Census Bureau are the central element in any redistricting process because a series of United States Supreme Court decisions requires that states form federal electoral districts within their borders that are rigorously equal in population. State legislative districts have slightly more latitude regarding equality of population, but the starting premise of all redistricting exercises is that Census Bureau population statistics are the fundamental data base. From start (April 1, 2020) to finish the census count/district formation process should take approximately two years; the goal will be to have all electoral units in place well before the November, 2022 elections.
Why is “Are You a Citizen” So Problematic?
The 2020 census data will be used for funds distribution and electoral redistricting in a manner no different from prior decades, but in 2020 the census has engendered a controversy. In decades past a census question was asked: “Where were you born?” If the answer was a location other than the US and its territories a second question requested you to name your place of birth. This two-part inquiry didn’t directly say “are you a citizen,” but it accomplished the same end. In 2020 the Administration has proposed that “are you a citizen” wording be included in the census forms.
Nominally, there should be no controversy over what appears to be an innocuous inquiry. Why shouldn’t a sovereign state be able to determine how many citizens it has? The problem stems from the fact that so much economic and political power flows from the primary census statistic--the population of a given jurisdiction. In our federal system, the greater or lesser a state’s population, the greater or lesser its congressional representation and share of federal tax distributions will be. Anything that can be conceived as reducing a state’s population is a threat to both power and money and will be opposed by the negatively affected parties.
The concern of those in opposition to the citizenship question is that many residents who are here illegally will refuse to be counted out of fear that those admitting to non-citizen status will be turned over to immigration authorities, regardless of assurances that their responses are confidential. This is supposition, but if it happens, states with large undocumented populations (notably California, Texas, Florida and New York) will see their census populations reduced, and will experience a concomitant reduction in congressional apportionment and federal tax distributions.
At the moment this is a problem more for Democrats than for Republicans. The primary example is California, where the nation’s largest population of undocumented residents is found. If wide-spread refusal to answer the citizenship question were to occur, California could see several congressional seats allocated to other states because its census population would decline. Since California’s congressional delegation is overwhelmingly Democratic (approximately 85%), the Party’s fear is that the seats lost would be held by Democrats and would be gained by Republicans in other states. If that process were repeated in Texas, Florida and New York, a major shift in Party power in Congress could occur. This is all “ifs and maybes,” but the opponents of the question take this potential loss of power quite seriously. In June, 2019 the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from adding the citizenship question to the census forms, but the Court’s reasoning left open the possibility that the matter could be reopened.
Will Total Population Continue To Be the Standard?
In early 2016 the Supreme Court settled a controversy in Texas by stating that Texas could go forward with its redistricting and use census data as the basis for the formation of electoral districts that were equal in population. However, the court also said that whether some state at a future date could assert the right to redistrict based on a methodology other than Census Bureau population was an open question. No decision on such an assertion would be forthcoming until a state actually attempted to redistrict without using census statistics and a new formula and procedure were presented to the Court for approval. What would happen if the count of citizens in a given state were that new standard?
America’s population after the 2010 census was approximately 308 million. The number of non-citizens in that population is difficult to determine, but wildly varying and unverified estimates as high as 50 million are proffered. Eliminating non-citizens from the census count would create very real dislocations far in excess of the theoretical fears expressed by opponents of a citizenship question on a census, as discussed earlier in this essay.
In this case, when the apportionment exercise is conducted, only citizens would be included in the formula calculating the apportionment of congressional seats to the states; states with large non-citizen populations (regardless of proper documentation) would lose House membership and states with low non-citizen populations could gain seats. The distribution of legislative power and tax dollars could be altered significantly. As such, a citizenship standard will be resisted fiercely. It would also leave unanswered the question of whether tax distributions to the states should continue to be based on total population because citizenship counts do not necessarily correlate with the number of students receiving lunch aid or the miles of highways within a state needing repair.
For now, the status quo will be maintained, but these issues of asking a citizenship question on a census and the use of either citizenship or total population as the data base for the formation of electoral districts are not about to disappear.