2020 Census Questions Submitted to Congress

[jimrtex]

I'd say there is an argument to be made behind the motives for this. The fact that they threw in the laughable "Voting Rights Act" excuse shows they have something to hide.

Why do you think the VRA is laughable? Didn't the Obama Justice Department demand this data in litigation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is wrong with districts having equal number of eligible voters? Don't you believe that a vote should count the same regardless of where it is cast? Are you opposed to one person, one vote?

[jimrtex]

Questions Planned for 2020 Census and American Community Survey (PDF)


Race

What is this persons race?

Check boxes:

[  ] White - Print, for example, German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian [___________]
[  ] Black or African Am. - Print, for example, African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somali, etc. [__________]
[  ] American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principle tribe(s), for example, Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe, Mayan, Aztec, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, Nome Eskimo Community, etc. [___________]
[  ] Chinese
[  ] Filipino
[  ] Asian Indian
[  ] Vietnamese
[  ] Korean
[  ] Japanese
[  ] Other Asian, Print, for example, Pakistani, Cambodian, Hmong, etc. [___________]
[  ] Native Hawaiian
[  ] Samoan
[  ] Chamorro
[  ] Other Pacific Islander. Print, for example, Tongan, Fijian, Marshallese, etc. [_________]
[  ] Some Other Race. Print race or origin. [________________]

The response box for type of white is new. Presumably this is to get information about Middle Eastern persons, without adding another ethnic origin equivalent to Hispanic Origin. The suggestions are the most common, plus two middle eastern origins, including one in Africa.

During testing, there were issues whether Armenians, Iranians/Persians, Israelis, and Berbers were Middle Eastern.

The response box for type of blacks is new. Also "Negro" is dropped as part of the description. This lets Haitians, Jamaicans, and Africans to identify as distinct from African American. Somali and Ethiopian may be to encouraged ro select Black. They leave it up to darker skinned Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, whether they wish to also identify as black.

The list of example tribes is new. There may be an intent to discourage responses of Cherokee (princess) by using more formal names, and leaving off Cherokee from the list. In addition, two Central American groups are included, even though there might not be any formal tribal organization.

The check boxes for Asian and Native Hawaiian are arranged in the same form as the past. The Census Bureau has not asked if someone is "Asian" and then what kind. The box for Other Asian, was reworded, dropping "race" from "Other Asian Race". Pakistani was placed at the beginning of the example list, perhaps to discourage choosing White. Laotian and Thai were dropped from the list.

The check box for Chamorro is a change from the 2010 "Guamanian or Chamorro", perhaps to distinguish between ethnicity and place of birth. The example list for Other Pacific Islander had Marshallese added, likely to suggest any number of smaller groups.

I’m really happy they kept Middle Easterners in the White category, because as much as Islamaphobic Conservatives and SJW Liberals don’t want to admit it, Arabs, Iranians, Berbers, Turks, Azerbaijanis, Jews, Armenians, Georgians, and North Caucasians are Racialy Caucasoid (most of these groups can be confused with people from Southern and Southeastern Europe).

The Census Bureau says:

"The categories on race are based on self-identification and generally reflect a social definition of race. The categories are not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically."

[Tender Branson]

Please stop playing the victim here (that's also an advice to other Democrats in general).

And I'm a Democratic-leaning person myself (if I were to live in the US of course).

Seems irrelevant in this case. You are notoriously laser-focused on immigration, so playing the "I'm a Democrat too" card doesn't make it sound any more reasonable coming from you.

What's wrong with being "laser-focused on immigration" ? I'm merely pointing out wrong and dangerous developments when it comes to mass immigration.

Yet I'm still largely a Social Democrat here in the European sense and a Democrat in the US sense. Just a more common-sense old-school one like in the 1970s, when there was a national consensus among these parties that mass-immigration = bad and would bring additional crime and despair to Europe.

Why would anyone want these additional problems being brought here ? We already have enough of our own problems to solve.

If someone is staging a surprise Facebook party on the lawn of your apartment, inviting 1000 people to attend, you'll also bring out the hose and hose these hippies down until these punks are gone again. The same with the masses of impoverished and crime-infested Arabs and Africans that are now coming.

The sad thing is that many within today's Social Democratic parties all over the world have given up common sense thinking and are increasingly paying the price for it at the ballot boxes.

[jimrtex]

Can one report multiple ancestries in the "race" category?

I don't know. The proposed questions do not include instructions.

The Census Bureau intends/hopes that most persons will respond online using an interactive application.

When I was a participant in a census test in 2016, I checked on all 8 racial categories. For each there were radio buttons for the more common "ancestries" (on a traditional car radio, if you pushed a button for one station, the other button pops up, the analogous thing happens with a GUI). There was also a type-in option. It is not unreasonable to have the GUI check for spelling. So it might be that you will be blocked from giving multiple responses.

I'm not sure how I would answer the question on the 2020 form.

I recall answering the ancestry question, it could have been on a 2000 long form, or perhaps for the ACS, where I squeezed in five ancestries. I don't know what happened to that response. I did not get a knock on the door at 3 AM. There has been a increase of persons reporting categories such as European, Western European, Scandinavian, etc. It is possible that "German Swedish Norwegian" is coded as 1. German 2. Scandinavian, or "Alsatian Swedish English German Irish" is coded as 1. Dutch Mixture or 1. European

The ACS form for ancestry has two lines, and instructions say to give up to two responses.

[jimrtex]

I'd say there is an argument to be made behind the motives for this. The fact that they threw in the laughable "Voting Rights Act" excuse shows they have something to hide. I'm just curious whether it's a matter of federal funds or setting up a future case where they can be allowed to draw maps by eligible citizen voters, which would give them another advantage in redistricting, or both. To think that Republican actions here are innocent is incredibly naive. They are leveraging their power at the federal level to help them win future elections, just like they have done in the past.

I'm not sure that the VRA part is an "excuse" on the part of the Census Bureau. I know from panel discussions going back to 2009 that this question of citizenship has been one they have wrestled with long before this administration. At one 2010 meeting expert redistricting lawyers were giving their best ideas for workarounds to try to be compliant with results from the prior decade's cases.

As recently as the 2000 Census, 1 out of every 6 households was sent the long form that included the same citizenship question in the 2020 draft. Cases were using VAP in the 1990's cycle, though for Latinos it was recognized that numbers well above 50% were needed (The 7th circuit went along with a threshold just under 60% for IL-4.) Courts weren't requiring it, and the long form needed to be moved out of the decennial Census, so the question was dropped for 2010.

After 2000 courts leaned move heavily on CVAP, and not just VAP,  because then all groups could be treated by the same use of the Gingles test when identifying that a minority made up 50% of a compact area. However, realization of the impact of those decisions on mapmakers came too late to affect the official list of questions. The courts have continued to move more in the direction of CVAP for the VRA, so shouldn't the correct data be available at the time the plan is prepared?

And yes, I get that there are partisans who would think this will help them in future elections. But I don't see how that changes the underlying issue. We should also be able to look back to the 2000 Census and see how the response rate for the citizenship question on the long form compares to the ACS. If there are real differences, then yes I would agree that more work needs to be done to improve education and outreach on the question. But if not, I think those who are fighting this may be just as partisan as those who are motivated to add it in hopes of winning future elections.

Here is the explanation from Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross

Directive from Secretary of Commerce, regarding citizenship question (PDF)

[jimrtex]

And yes, I get that there are partisans who would think this will help them in future elections. But I don't see how that changes the underlying issue. We should also be able to look back to the 2000 Census and see how the response rate for the citizenship question on the long form compares to the ACS. If there are real differences, then yes I would agree that more work needs to be done to improve education and outreach on the question. But if not, I think those who are fighting this may be just as partisan as those who are motivated to add it in hopes of winning future elections.

Does it even matter at this point if the push back is a partisan fear that Republicans are trying to rig the system in their favor even more? I think that is a completely rational response after what Republicans have been doing since Obama's presidency wiped out the Democratic Party. On one side, you have people who just want the census to stay the same as it has for decades with regards to this question, and the other, you have others who want to add a question that will give them data to possibly bolster attempts to redraw districts in a way that shifts power further to the Republican Party. I think if you were a well-informed, strongly Democratic voter yourself, you would probably have the same fears. You might even be wondering, "why can't Republicans stop trying to put their thumb on a scale that already significantly benefits them at almost every level? Why can't one year go by where scheming politicians don't try to rig the system more in their favor?"

Partisan concerns aside, I still have to ask why it is so important to add such a controversial question so close to the census. There doesn't seem to be a lot of support for the Voting Rights Act excuse - a flurry of responses which could be partisan in itself, but I'm not so sure. I haven't really seen anything that supports this being so important that it has to be done. I concede that you provide a reason for it, but is the reason simply existing good enough in this case?

I would only say again that he citizenship question was in there up through the 2000 Census, and was only missing once - in 2010. It's true that the question didn't go to all households, but those long forms were treated just as rigorously as the short forms that went to the other 5/6 of the US. That treatment included follow up by workers in the field, so we have data from 2000 that can tell us how fairly and accurately the question can be collected.

One area where the past should be a guide are in the results from CA in 2000. This was after CA had started limiting access to services for illegal immigrants through prop 187 (1994). Undercounts in minority areas had been a problem for decades and were again in 2000. If reticence to participate increased because of a citizenship question, it should have been present in CA in 2000. I don't recall any particular stories that cited a concern that the long-form citizenship question would impact CA counts that year beyond the problems that were faced in 1990, but if there is a paper out there I would be interested in seeing it.

My point is that the controversy does not seem to be backed by either history or data. It seems purely political to me.

It was not present in the 2010 Census because the ACS had replaced the long form by then.

A problem for redistricting would be that you would want to use the 2008-2012 ACS which was not published until 2013, and even that would be far from accurate.

[The Mikado]

https://twitter.com/nancywyuen/status/980044290276564992

Just dropping this off here for anyone thinking its totally unreasonable to fear that your immigration answers would be used against you and that your Census answers are totally confidential.

[jimrtex]

https://twitter.com/nancywyuen/status/980044290276564992

Just dropping this off here for anyone thinking its totally unreasonable to fear that your immigration answers would be used against you and that your Census answers are totally confidential.

So its probably best not to get a green card or participate in DACA since that will be in government records. Even if you are a citizen, if you are a minority, or under 30, or in a same-sex relationship best not to fill out the census form, or at least leave off one of the partners. You can't be too paranoid.

[dpmapper]

This is ridiculous.  Can the fact that you're not on the voter rolls (presumably) be used against you too? 

[Tender Branson]

https://twitter.com/nancywyuen/status/980044290276564992

Just dropping this off here for anyone thinking its totally unreasonable to fear that your immigration answers would be used against you and that your Census answers are totally confidential.

More ABSURD fear-mongering !

The privacy laws concerning the Census Bureau have been significantly strengthened since WW2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And in March 1947, the WW2 data sharing was repealed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/PrivConfidChrono.pdf

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Tender Branson]

Instead of this constant fearmongering, Democrats should inform their base (among them many minorities and immigrants) and tell them they must participate to ensure an almost complete census.

The information above needs to be sent to them via email. The Democratic Party has a huge database of migrant voters who got naturalized.

If properly informed, they will also tell their (undocumented) friends - which will lead to higher participation and a better Census in general.

If Democrats continue with their obstruction and criticism, they will only cut into their own flesh and allow Trump a victory on this issue ...

[Sol]

I wonder, does an undercount actually hurt Republicans? Not that that makes it acceptable to include a citizenship question but it'd presumably mean the expansion of Latinx VRA districts in Texas, Arizona, etc.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Shut up Tender. Your concern trolling, racism, and xenophobia might play well in Austria, I don't know, but even with Trump in the White House, they're not mainstream views in the US (thankfully - despite my own views and biases on this issue, I do genuinely believe that in the US, the majority of people opposed to illegal immigration have more of a problem with the illegal part than the immigration part - to the extent that they have a problem with the latter at all, which does exist as a phenomenon but I honestly think is overplayed and exaggerated as A Thing by my ideological comrades).