The Official 2020 Census Thread

[Kevinstat]

The fact that the last ACOs will only finish their work in mid-October shows how essential the court order was to force the Trump admin and Census Bureau to continue counting and quality controls until October 31.

I see it the other way: the fact that almost all ACOs would wrap up their work by October 5 proves how political the court and plaintiffs are.  Their real motive is to stop Drumpf from completing the Census on time.  If we're all done by October 15, why not let Census move on to processing?

I asked this on another thread, but why does it matter who the President is when the apportionment numbers come out?  Is a potential adjustment for not counting illegal immigrants still a possibility (I thought that issue had been settled against what Trump had hoped for)?  Or is there some other way the President (either a President Trump or a President Biden) could adjust the numbers if that person were President at the time the numbers were released?

Thanks.

[Kevinstat]

The fact that the last ACOs will only finish their work in mid-October shows how essential the court order was to force the Trump admin and Census Bureau to continue counting and quality controls until October 31.

I see it the other way: the fact that almost all ACOs would wrap up their work by October 5 proves how political the court and plaintiffs are.  Their real motive is to stop Drumpf from completing the Census on time.  If we're all done by October 15, why not let Census move on to processing?

I asked this on another thread, but why does it matter who the President is when the apportionment numbers come out?  Is a potential adjustment for not counting illegal immigrants still a possibility (I thought that issue had been settled against what Trump had hoped for)?  Or is there some other way the President (either a President Trump or a President Biden) could adjust the numbers if that person were President at the time the numbers were released?

Thanks.

There's a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court about whether illegal aliens must be counted for apportionment purposes.

The bigger issue is that a delayed apportionment count and data release will put the states that must redistrict in early 2021 under their laws in a bind. So time is of the essence.

I hadn't realized that issue was still pending.  That explains why Democrats were hoping for a delay in the release of the apportionment numbers.

I agree that procedurally, it works much better if the numbers are released on schedule (in December of this year for the apportionment counts and by April 1 for the redistricting data).  It also means I won't have to wait as long to start drawing plans for various districts, with a Maine focus but probably some elsewhere (I get into Vermont Senate districts where there's no limit in the number of Senators per district, and the number currently varies from 1 to 6).

[Kevinstat]

Census Bureau to Release 2020 Census Geographic Products

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that 2020 Census redistricting (P.L. 94-171) geographic support products will be available for all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico on a flow basis starting Jan. 19 and ending no later than Feb. 28.

These products consist of 2020 Census geography with the newly created 2020 Census blocks and updated block groups, census tracts, voting districts, and current boundaries for legal governments and school districts referenced to Jan. 1, 2020. Each state’s package will include shapefiles, maps, block assignment files and name lookup tables. These products are provided to support redistricting efforts by state and local governments.

In addition, a 2010 to 2020 block crosswalk will be provided with each state release to assist data users in comparing geographic data between censuses. Shapefiles, maps, block assignment files, name lookup tables, and the crosswalk will be provided in the same format as the 2010 Census version of these files.

The Census Bureau uses geography as the basis for conducting the census and tabulating census data. Census geography is a key component of the data products for decision-makers and data users. The Census Bureau collects, defines and maintains boundaries for over 29 different categories of geographic areas for statistical purposes, but this variety of geographic areas are often important to other federal, state and local agencies as well. Many agencies rely on the Census Bureau boundaries for incorporated places, minor civil divisions and counties since they are updated and maintained each year.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-census-geographic-products.html

What does "flow basis" mean? Does it mean we'll get one or two states every day between January 19 and February 28? If so, is there a schedule?

In 2011, when the actual data was released, there would be an announcement each Thursday of the states that would be released the following week.

Then on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday there would be announcements that the data had been sent to the legislature and governors of the states. The next day there would be a public release after the Census Bureau received confirmation that data had been received, and the Census Bureau would provide a data analysis.

The releases in 2011 were weighted towards Wednesday.

Monday: 11
Tuesday: 16
Wednesday: 25
Total: 52 (includes DC and PR).

So they were able to tell 6 days in advance when they would be able to ship the data, and about 1/2 the time, they were able to do so in 4 or 5 days.

In 2011 weekly releases were

Jan 31-Feb 2: 0,0,4
Feb 7-9: 0,1,4 = 5
Feb 14-16: 2,1,1 = 4
Feb 21-23: 0,4,4 = 8
Feb 28-Mar 2: 1,2,2 = 5
Mar 7-9: 2,2,3 = 7
Mar 14-16: 3,3,3 = 9
Mar 21-23: 3,3,4 = 10

My guess is that there are teams responsible for completing each state, with members moving to later states as they near completion.

In 2011 the four states that were released first were LA, MS, NJ, and VA, wre the four states with 2011 legislative elections (i.e. they needed new districts pronto). In 2021, only NJ and VA have legislative elections. LA and MS still use odd years, but they are every four years.

In 2011, states with early primaries in 2012, such as IL and TX had fairly early releases.

This release is a little bit different since it includes only the geography. States and the public will be able to draw maps, but won't have any population numbers.

It is possible that someone using the crosswalk files may be able to transfer the 2010 Census figures into the 2020 geography, so that someone could use DRA to practice drawing maps for when the actual data arrives.

p.s. The Census Bureau has scheduled a release announcement for every Friday through July. This was probably just a clerk who was told to add a periodic event to the calendar, and were told to do one for every Friday. "For how long?", "Oh, through April should be fine, let's be extra cautious and do July. We can cancel if they aren't needed."

If they follow the pattern of 2011, announcement will occur on January 22, with the first data shipping on January 25-27.

Did they release the geography before the data in 2011?  I wasn't aware of it if they had, but they certainly might have.

I'm looking forward to making the "skeletons" of some spreadsheets.  Maine's such a lily white state that I've never felt the need to worry about anything but the total population numbers, and now that Trump's efforts to have a count of illegal immigrants (and perhaps a citizen v. non-citizen data as well) seems to have failed, I'll only have one population number I'll need for each geography.  (I'll also have a column showing how many fractional State House, State Senate or County Commissioner "quotas" a given municipality has and things like that.  But just having one population number does make things easier, even if the data isn't the most reliable.

[Kevinstat]

Census Bureau to Release 2020 Census Geographic Products

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that 2020 Census redistricting (P.L. 94-171) geographic support products will be available for all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico on a flow basis starting Jan. 19 and ending no later than Feb. 28.

These products consist of 2020 Census geography with the newly created 2020 Census blocks and updated block groups, census tracts, voting districts, and current boundaries for legal governments and school districts referenced to Jan. 1, 2020. Each state’s package will include shapefiles, maps, block assignment files and name lookup tables. These products are provided to support redistricting efforts by state and local governments.

In addition, a 2010 to 2020 block crosswalk will be provided with each state release to assist data users in comparing geographic data between censuses. Shapefiles, maps, block assignment files, name lookup tables, and the crosswalk will be provided in the same format as the 2010 Census version of these files.

The Census Bureau uses geography as the basis for conducting the census and tabulating census data. Census geography is a key component of the data products for decision-makers and data users. The Census Bureau collects, defines and maintains boundaries for over 29 different categories of geographic areas for statistical purposes, but this variety of geographic areas are often important to other federal, state and local agencies as well. Many agencies rely on the Census Bureau boundaries for incorporated places, minor civil divisions and counties since they are updated and maintained each year.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-census-geographic-products.html

This had been anticipated to have been released in December.

Not according to an e-mail I got from the Chief of the Census Bureau's Redistricting and Voting Rights Office on July 6, in reply to a long-winded e-mail of mine (that I won't include here) where I tried to play the card about how a delay would inconvenience states (this was before I was aware of the REPLAN, and judging from the reply it hadn't been unveiled yet) as justification for his office going outside its rules to make some "common sense" changes (like having different County Subdivisions (cities and towns) in Maine be different voting districts; they will be in 6 of Maine's counties, with some divided into wards, but not in the other 10):

Good Morning Kevin -
While I thank you for such a researched and information packed request, I am afraid I am going to disappoint you with my reply.  The Census Redistricting Data Program is established under Public Law 94-171.  This law requires the Census to establish a program which allows the states to identify the small area geography they need for conducting legislative redistricting and to provide census counts for those areas to the states in a timely manner.  The law also requires us to conduct this information exchange in a non-partisan manner, which we do by working with the official non-partisan liaisons in each state.  The law also requires the Census to establish the criteria for that exchange.  We have worked over the decades to make that criteria as flexible as possible within the operational constraints being born by the Census Bureau.  Those operational constraints for the 2020 Census included an end to the geographic inputs for the Redistricting Data Program of March 31, 2020.  This is a deadline that is necessary for the Census Bureau to process and upload the data prior to the final overall geographic review that must happen before creating the 2020 Census geographic output files.  The requested delay in the delivery of the census counts is necessary due to the delay in the collection of census responses which in turn effects the timeline for processing those responses and returning the data.  This does not have as great an effect on the geography and in fact, we expect the geography to be delivered in February and March of 2021, well ahead of the tabulation data.  The final overall geographic review of that data has already begun and is well under way. 

In reviewing your request, it does appear that all the pieces you will need for conducting your work will be present in the files we deliver. Unfortunately, as you note, they may not all be contained within the VTD layer so some additional processing will be required to pull this together.
I am sorry we can not accommodate your request.
Best Regards
James

***************************
James Whitehorne, Chief
Redistricting & Voting Rights Data Office/ADDC/HQ
U.S. Census Bureau

(emphasis added by me)

Of course, the REPLAN (or maybe whatever you call the plan before the COVID-19 plan) might have had something about the geographic data coming out earlier, but the geographic date at least seems to be ahead of the schedule that was anticipated in early July.

[Kevinstat]

Thanks for your informative reply as always, Jimrtex.

In my letter to James Whitehorne and others in the Redistricting and Voting Rights Office, I had mentioned that the Voting Districts were not really needed for the redistricting itself (and Maine's liaison had mentioned that in her e-mail to me on February 21, 2020 when she told me that it didn't look like her office would be able to add county subdivisions as voting districts for those 10 counties - the Census Bureau seemed to limit the 2nd verification phase of the voting district project (VDP) to areas where the state had made change requests in one or more of the annotation and first verification phases, so even though that was before March 31 it was likely too late).  I mentioned that my main concern was that Dave's Redistricting used voting districts as the indivisible units (in their interface, at least; one can download any plan onto DRA) in what I'd say was the generally used format (I know Dave Bradlee also does a Block Group one, but most Atlas people use the Voting District one and Block Groups as you've noted in the past don't always coincide with municipalities either).  I said, "it can sometimes seem like people feel that if a line's not on Dave's Redistricting, it might as well not exist."

So I was basically asking the RDO to take extraordinary measures so I didn't have to look at people on this forum (and perhaps AAD as well) with not much knowledge of Maine doing redistricting plans on the App and treating it as the be all end all for amateur redistricting of the state.  So I can't be too upset with them for not obliging.  I had written Dave Bradlee last February after I heard from Maine's liaison about the absent (or effectively county-wide) "voting districts" in the 10 counties likely remaining as single-county voting districts and asked if he could do a hybrid instead, with county subdivisions used in those 10 counties.  But in that e-mail I threatened that I would make a post on this forum asking "Is Dave Bradlee mentally retarded?" if he claimed to have added Maine for post-2020 redistricting without my requested revisions, which he replied was very disrespectful of those with disabilities and that my approach "is the worst way of getting me to do something for you."  I then apologized, and he seemed to have forgiven me by last July when I forwarded him the bad news (from my perspective) from James Whitehorne and again apologized for having been a jerk in February, replying that the discussion was was interesting and giving me Kudos for pursuing it with the Census Bureau.  There's still no guarantee that he won't just use the voting districts as defined by the Census Bureau, though.

[Edited to change an "I" to a "he"]

[Kevinstat]

Census Bureau to Release 2020 Census Geographic Products

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that 2020 Census redistricting (P.L. 94-171) geographic support products will be available for all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico on a flow basis starting Jan. 19 and ending no later than Feb. 28.

These products consist of 2020 Census geography with the newly created 2020 Census blocks and updated block groups, census tracts, voting districts, and current boundaries for legal governments and school districts referenced to Jan. 1, 2020. Each state’s package will include shapefiles, maps, block assignment files and name lookup tables. These products are provided to support redistricting efforts by state and local governments.

In addition, a 2010 to 2020 block crosswalk will be provided with each state release to assist data users in comparing geographic data between censuses. Shapefiles, maps, block assignment files, name lookup tables, and the crosswalk will be provided in the same format as the 2010 Census version of these files.

The Census Bureau uses geography as the basis for conducting the census and tabulating census data. Census geography is a key component of the data products for decision-makers and data users. The Census Bureau collects, defines and maintains boundaries for over 29 different categories of geographic areas for statistical purposes, but this variety of geographic areas are often important to other federal, state and local agencies as well. Many agencies rely on the Census Bureau boundaries for incorporated places, minor civil divisions and counties since they are updated and maintained each year.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-census-geographic-products.html

(emphasis mine)

Were any states' geographic support products released today?  I thought I'd ask since today is the 19th.  But it may follow the 2011 pattern (for the actual data) with announcements on a Thursday as to which states will have the products released in the following week.  I don't know if the Census Bureau has to send these files directly to government officials in the states and wait for acknowledgement of receipt for these geographic files like they will with the data, but they may.

The order regarding the 21-day data release ban relating to the National Urban League lawsuit doesn't affect the release of the geographic support products, does it?

[Kevinstat]

2020 Census Geographic Products Available (for Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia) (U.S. Census Bureau)

One can view maps or download shapefiles, etc. from the Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data page.

[Kevinstat]

2020 Census Geographic Products Available (for Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia) (U.S. Census Bureau)

One can view maps or download shapefiles, etc. from the Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data page.

These were released on January 19.

So they say, and probably so.  But when I checked Tuesday afternoon, and I'm pretty sure it was after 5 p.m., I didn't see that data online.  But I could have been looking in the wrong place.

The next two tranches have also been announced.

States Posted on 01/19/2021: AR, CO, MD, NJ & VA
States Posting on 01/26/2021: CA, IA, IN, LA, MO, NC, NY, OH, & OR
States Posting on 02/02/2021: DE, HI, ME, MS, NE, NV, PA, SD, WA, WI

NJ and VA are the two states holding legislative elections this year, and being first among the geographical products suggests that they may be first with the population data.

LA and MS also hold odd-year legislative elections, but they are on a 4-year cycle with the next elections in 2023.

So I get to look at Hudson (NY) census geography next week to tide me over for the Maine census geography a week later.

The next two batches are larger than the 2011 batches (for the actual data) were from what I recall.  The batches for the actual data might be smaller than that this year, but I imagine New Jersey and Virginia will be among the first.  Five states seems roughly in line with what I recall from 2011.  Four or five.  So maybe the batches including New York and Maine will each be divided into two batches for the actual data.

In our discussion of staggered state senate terms did I ever mention that North Dakota truncates the terms of senators and representatives when there has been considerable change in the district.

So if odd-numbered districts were contested in 2020, and an odd-numbered district would be significantly changed in redistricting, the senator's term would be truncated to two years, and an election for a two-year term would be held in 2022.

This would mean that even-numbered districts contested in 2018 would be up in 2022 and there would be no restrictions on redistricting for 2022.

North Dakota also varies the number of districts, so for example, they might add a district in the Williston Basin rather than sliding districts into an area of high growth.

I'm not sure if you had mentioned that about North Dakota.  Something to that effect in some state rings a bell.

It's interesting about the flexible number of legislators in North Dakota.  Maine allows for either 31, 33 or 35 state senators, and at the beginning the period for which that was the range we had 33, but we've had 35 since 1984 and I don't think anyone expects that to change, even if the Supreme Judicial Court (the official name for the state's top court) has to draw the lines.

There is clear precedent for not redistricting four year (concurrent) when the first election would be in the -4 year.

Maryland elects legislators on a four year cycle. There was a companion case to Reynolds v Sims, where the SCOTUS explicitly stated that it was OK for Maryland to not be  redistricted until the 1966 (the other states, including Alabama were required to redistrict for 1964).

Alabama was (and is) on a four-year cycle, and was not redistricted until 1974 even though it was still under jurisdiction of the district court.

Are you saying there's clear precedent for letting Legislators serve out the terms they are elected to?  (At least when all terms are expiring at the same time, and it seems like the courts are fine with that even when it results in "deferral".)  I was aware of that, and it's not surprising.  I had thought it might be different for a state like Mississippi with '1' year elections that sometimes doesn't get redistricting done in the '1' year, because of that happened in the 1990s (the terms elected in 1991 were actually commuted to 1 year, with Legislators elected for 3-year terms from new districts in 1992), but you informed me that the Legislators who were elected in 2011 from the old districts were able to complete their 4-year terms.

Am I misremembering, but wasn't Maine forced to do its congressional redistricting for the 2012 election, even though in the past it had waited for the -4 elections.

You are not misremembering.  Here is the thread on Maine congressional redistricting for the 2010s that I started after that lawsuit was launched.  There was no lawsuit against the then-existing Legislative districts being used in 2012, but in 2011 the Maine Constitution was amended so that starting after the 2020 Census, practically all* redistricting in Maine would happen in time for the '2' year elections, mostly in the '1' year**.

*The timetable for dividing Knox County into Budget Committee districts isn't specified in the Maine Constitution (they're one of two counties with directly elected finance/budget committees, and the other one (Aroostook) uses subdivisions of county commissioner districts so those districts are presumably redrawn whenever the CC districts are redrawn).

**The legislative part of the 2011 state constitutional amendment on redistricting was pretty much written by yours truly.  The congressional and county commissioner parts were added in a floor amendment and the county commissioner part was done somewhat sloppily, mostly just taking the then-existing statutes and adding 38 years (effectively subtracting 2 years "modulo 10"), so the county redistricting could happen as late as mid-April 2022 if the Clerk of the House took the maximum time allotted to prepare a legislative document and the Legislature failed to enact a plan so the Court had to do it.  The filing deadline for candidates of parties that qualify to hold primaries is (the first business day on or after) March 15 of even years.  Congressional and legislative redistricting in Maine have to occur in the '1' year now.

[Kevinstat]

So it's all about ME?

You may want to look at BAF's, NLT's, and crosswalks.

What are BAFs and NLTs?  I think BAFs (presumably "Block Assignment Files") might be the relationships between 2010 census blocks and 2020 census blocks, but I'm not sure about that and have no idea what NLT stands for, although I could look it up, so I may know the answer by the time you reply.  But your explanations on these kinds of things are cool so I won't answer my own question here.

You might be credited for moving ME up. In 2011 it was in the last group.

I'm sure the main reason for Maine being moved up is that we no longer delay the use of new districts to 2014.  In 2011 the Census Bureau was probably unaware that Republican lawyers had lined up plaintiffs from the seemingly faster-growing first congressional district (they might have lined up plaintiffs from the second district too, I don't know) in anticipation of a lawsuit forcing an early redraw, while Republicans had the trifecta.

Of course, as I noted, I was involved in getting the Maine Constitution amended to have all redistricting go into effect for the '2' year elections, so that may be why you were saying I might be credited for moving Maine up, rather than my more recent pestering of the Census Bureau.

It was fairly ordinary for state constitutions to provide for a range of legislators. This would permit the legislature to grow as new areas were filled in, and avoiding removing districts from slower growing areas. Sometimes when the maximum was reached, the constitution was amended to set a fixed number. This has happened in Texas, where at one time the range of the size of the House was 90 to 150. When other parts of the apportionment provisions were cleaned up, the count was simplified to 150.

The Maine House also.  Started at 141, with an established "pseudo-maximum" of 200 (when that size was reached, there would a popular vote every 10 years on increasing or reducing the size of the House (although 200 may have been a hard maximum, as the potential increasing could have been after some reductions following prior decennial votes; the minimum was only 100).  Went to 18_ (I forget the exact number) in the early 1830s and hit the maximum of 2000 after the 1840 census, and in 1841 (the last year of the 18_ House) the Legislature proposed and the voters approved (presumably at the same time they were electing a 200-member House) a Constitutional amendment setting the size of the House at 151, beginning with the Legislature to be elected in 1842.  So Maine had a 200-member State House for one year.

I am saying that in states with four year terms and no stagger (all elected at once), redistricting can occur on a 12, 8, 12, 8, year cycle, taking effect at the normal time of election.

Understood.  Also something I've been aware of, although some things I had written may have suggested otherwise, and it's good to have that on record for others here who may not have known that.

Members of the State and Local Government committee in Maine got tripped up on that in 2019 when they had to deal with a constitutional amendment resolution to have four-year concurrent and non-staggered terms for both houses of the Legislature.  There was concern about someone being drawn out of her/his district in a '1' year that was the first year of her/his term (you could still do the redistricting in the '1' year even if there was no '2' year election) being ineligible to continue serving, which seems silly when I write it that way but it seems to be the crux of the issue (and prior 4-year term bills had been written with 12-year redistricting cycles, which have obvious issues).  After the bill had died, with even the sponsor voting against the report of those on the committee who didn't vote straight ONTP ("Ought Not to Pass"), I sent an email to committee members and others involved in the discussion that you could simply have had something in the bill stating that the redistricting would take effect in 2022 and every 20 years thereafter and in 2034 and every 20 years thereafter (so alternating 12- and 8-year lives of a plan; elections were to be in Gubernatorial election years in that bill).  The committee had inserted staggering within a decade (with the Illinois Senate style 2-4-4, 4-4-2 and 4-2-4 cycles), which the sponsor of the bill was adamantly against.  That could have just been what the committee wanted to do, but they seemed to have been led to believe by government officials that the initial bill with 10-year redistricting cycles was problematic (I would have just assumed that that meant alternating 8- and 12-year lives of district lines).

Interestingly, in 2017 there had been a bill for four-year terms, with no staggering within either chamber but with State Representatives and State Senators being elected 2 years apart (Representatives elected in Gubernatorial election years and Senators elected in Presidential election years).  The bill as initially drafted had a 12-year redistricting cycle, but with that bill the Deputy Secretary of State who heads the Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions suggested a 10-year cycle (which seemed to correspond with what you are calling a "12, 8, 12, 8, year cycle").  There it seemed to be assumed that people could serve out the term they were elected to even as members in the other chamber were elected from new districts (and the new districts would likely have been drawn for the first chamber as well, and there might be some pairs of incumbents from some districts in that chamber).  Maybe it was the fact that at least some people were to be elected in the year following redistricting that made things easier to grasp, while having a '1' year redistricting with elections not until the '4' year every other decade seemed to snag in a lot of people's minds.

[Kevinstat]

The Census Bureau has posted the geographical data for the second group on 1/25 (though there doesn't seem to be a news release). Instead it is on their PL 94-171 web page.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summary-files.html#P2

In addition, they announced ten states that will be released in the fourth tranche.

States Posted on 01/19/2021: AR, CO, MD, NJ, VA
States Posted on 01/26/2021: CA, IA, IN, LA, MO, NC, NY, OH, OR
States Posting on 02/02/2021: DE, HI, ME, MS, NE, NV, PA, SD, WA, WI
States Posting on 02/09/2021: AL, AK, AZ, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, OK, TX

This will bring the total for the four groups to 34 states, which will likely mean completion in 6 weeks. In 2011, the data AND geographical support was released over 8 weeks.

So far, the release order is correlated with the 2011 order:

2021 Release 1: Average Week 2.0 in 2011.
2021 Release 2: Average Week 4.2 in 2011.
2021 Release 3: Average Week 4.6 in 2011
2021 Release 4: Average Week 5.4 in 2011.
Unannounced for 2021: Average Week 6.7 in 2011.

2011 Release Week 1: 1, 1, 2, 3 in 2021
2011 Release Week 2: 1, 1, 2, 2 in 2021 (all but VT)
2011 Release Week 3: 3, 4, 4,4
2011 Release Week 4: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4 (all but UT)
2011 Release Week 5: 2, 3, 3 (all but KS and WY)
2011 Release Week 6: 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4 (all but ID)
2011 Release Week 7: 4, 4, 4 (FL, GA, KY, NM, ND, TN not announced)
2011 Release Week 8: 2, 3, 4 (MI, NH, RI, SC, WV, DC, PR not announced)

Since it wasn't specifically posted here yet, I figured I'd post all the states in each week in 2011.  I'm going by week rather than date as with the dates I wonder whether I should use the date the coming data for the states was announced (that's what jimrtex used in his post on Saturday morning), the date the data is delivered to the states or the date it's made public.

2011 Release Week 1: LA, MS, NJ, VA
2011 Release Week 2: AR, IA, IN, MD, VT
2011 Release Week 3: IL, OK, SD, TX
2011 Release Week 4: AL, CO, HI, MO, NV, OR, UT, WA
2011 Release Week 5: DE, KS, NC, NE, WY
2011 Release Week 6: AZ, CA, CT, ID, OH, PA, WI
2011 Release Week 7: AK, FL, GA, KY, MN, MT, ND, NM, TN
2011 Release Week 8: MA, ME, MI, NH, NY, RI, SC, WV, DC, PR

Also, assuming the 2021 geographical release is 6 weeks, here is the reverse of the averaging jimrtex did regarding the 2011 and "2021 Geo" correlation (with ranges where applicable), rounded to the nearest 0.1 except if it's exactly at an 0.05 interval:

2011 Release Week 1: Average Week 1.75 for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 2: Average Week 2.2 or 2.4 for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 3: Average Week 3.75 for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 4: Average Week 2.9 or 3.0 for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 5: Average Week 3.6 to 4.0 for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 6: Average Week 3.3 or 3.4 for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 7: Average Week 4.7 to 5.3 for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 8: Average Week 4.4 to 5.1 for 2021 Geo

So not quite as well correlated going in that direction.  Still a decent correlation.

[Kevinstat]

https://twitter.com/hansilowang/status/1354506653555695628?s=20

Wow.  I wasn't expecting that.

That's the same deadline as on the COVID-19 plan, I think.  That plan didn't have the redistricting data (with population and other info for sub-state entities down to the block level) arriving until July 31.

[Kevinstat]

Since it wasn't specifically posted here yet, I figured I'd post all the states in each week in 2011.  I'm going by week rather than date as with the dates I wonder whether I should use the date the coming data for the states was announced (that's what jimrtex used in his post on Saturday morning), the date the data is delivered to the states or the date it's made public.

2011 Release Week 1: LA, MS, NJ, VA
2011 Release Week 2: AR, IA, IN, MD, VT
2011 Release Week 3: IL, OK, SD, TX
2011 Release Week 4: AL, CO, HI, MO, NV, OR, UT, WA
2011 Release Week 5: DE, KS, NC, NE, WY
2011 Release Week 6: AZ, CA, CT, ID, OH, PA, WI
2011 Release Week 7: AK, FL, GA, KY, MN, MT, ND, NM, TN
2011 Release Week 8: MA, ME, MI, NH, NY, RI, SC, WV, DC, PR

2021 Geography Release (Week) 1 (Posted on 01/19/2021): AR, CO, MD, NJ, VA
2021 Geography Release (Week) 2 (Posted on 01/26/2021): CA, IA, IN, LA, MO, NC, NY, OH, OR
2021 Geography (Week) 3 (Posted on 02/02/2021): DE, HI, ME, MS, NE, NV, PA, SD, WA, WI
2021 Geography Release (Week) 4 (Posting on 02/09/2021): AK, AL, AZ, CT, FL, ID, IL, KS, MA, MN, MT, ND, NH, NM, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV
2021 Geography Release (Week) 5 (Posting on 02/17/2021): GA, KY, MI, RI, VT, WY, DC, PR

2021 Geo Release (Week) 1 (5 States): Weeks 1, 1, 2, 2, 4 (Mean Week 2.0; Median Week 2) in 2011
2021 Geo Release (Week) 2 (9 States): Weeks 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8 (Mean Week 4.2; Median Week 4) in 2011
2021 Geo Release (Week) 3 (10 States): Weeks 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 8 (Mean Week 4.6; Median Week {4, 5}) in 2011
2021 Geo Release (Week) 4 (20 States): Weeks 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8 (Mean Week 6.05; Median Week 7) in 2011
2021 Geo Release (Week) 5 (8 States or State Equivalents): Weeks 2, 5, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8 (Mean Week 6.6; Median Week {7, 8}) in 2011

2011 Release Week 1 (4 States): Weeks 1, 1, 2, 3 (Mean Week 1.75; Median Week {1, 2}) for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 2 (5 States): Weeks 1, 1, 2, 2, 5 (Mean Week 2.2; Median Week 2) for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 3 (4 States): Weeks 3, 4, 4, 4 (Mean Week 3.75; Median Week 4) for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 4 (8 States): Weeks 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4 (Mean Week 2.75; Median Week 3) for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 5 (5 States): Weeks 2, 3, 3, 4, 5 (Mean Week 3.4; Median Week 3) for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 6 (7 States): Weeks 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4 (Mean Week 3.1; Median Week 3) for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 7 (9 States): Weeks 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5 (Mean Week 4.2; Median Week 4) for 2021 Geo
2011 Release Week 8 (10 States or State Equivalents): Weeks 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5 (Mean Week 4.1; Median Week 4) for 2021 Geo

[Kevinstat]

Census moved up the final 8 (which include DC & PR) to next Friday. So we should have all the 2020PL shps by the end of next week.

Time to update my earlier comparison.  I'll note the the three different groups of states which were announced would be released next week (the last group still having a later scheduled release date than the other two).  I guess I won't worry about the weeks anymore for this year's release of census geography, but I'll keep the weekly grouping for 2011 since the states in those groupings were pretty close together, like in one case how the coming Vermont data was announced the day after four other states.  I've rounded all my figures to the nearest 0.1 unless it was exactly #.#5, where I decided not to round either way here.

2011 Release Week 1: LA, MS, NJ, VA
2011 Release Week 2: AR, IA, IN, MD, VT
2011 Release Week 3: IL, OK, SD, TX
2011 Release Week 4: AL, CO, HI, MO, NV, OR, UT, WA
2011 Release Week 5: DE, KS, NC, NE, WY
2011 Release Week 6: AZ, CA, CT, ID, OH, PA, WI
2011 Release Week 7: AK, FL, GA, KY, MN, MT, ND, NM, TN
2011 Release Week 8: MA, ME, MI, NH, NY, RI, SC, WV, DC, PR

2021 Geography Release 1 (Posted on 01/19/2021): AR, CO, MD, NJ, VA
2021 Geography Release 2 (Posted on 01/26/2021): CA, IA, IN, LA, MO, NC, NY, OH, OR
2021 Geography Release 3 (Posted on 02/02/2021): DE, HI, ME, MS, NE, NV, PA, SD, WA, WI
2021 Geography Release "4A" (the original Release 4) (Posting on 02/09/2021 (announced last week)): AK, AL, AZ, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, OK, TX
2021 Geography Release "4B" (presumably originally Release 5) (Posting on 02/09/2021 (announced this week)): FL, ID, KS, ND, NH, NM, SC, TN, UT, WV
2021 Geography Release 5 (presumably originally Release 5) (Posting on 02/12/2021 (moved up from 02/17/2021)): GA, KY, MI, RI, VT, WY, DC, PR

2021 Geo Release 1 (5 States): Weeks 1, 1, 2, 2, 4 in 2011 (Mean Week 2.0; Median Week 2)
2021 Geo Release 2 (9 States): Weeks 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8 in 2011 (Mean Week 4.2; Median Week 4)
2021 Geo Release 3 (10 States): Weeks 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 8 in 2011 (Mean Week 4.6; Median Week {4, 5})
2021 Geo Release 4A (10 States): Weeks 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8 in 2011 (Mean Week 5.4; Median Week 6)
2021 Geo Release 5 4B (10 States): Weeks 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8 in 2011 (Mean Week 6.7; Median Week 6)
(2021 Geo Release 4 overall: Mean Week 6.05; Median Week 7)
2021 Geo Release 6 5 (8 States or State Equivalents): Weeks 2, 5, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8 in 2011 (Mean Week 6.6; Median Week {7, 8})

2011 Release Week 1 (4 States): Releases 1, 1, 2, 3 for 2021 Geo (Mean Release 1.75; Median Release {1, 2})
2011 Release Week 2 (5 States): Releases 1, 1, 2, 2, 5 for 2021 Geo (Mean Release 2.2; Median Release 2)
2011 Release Week 3 (4 States): Releases 3, 4, 4, 4 4A, 4A, 4A for 2021 Geo (Mean Release 3.75; Median Release 4A)
2011 Release Week 4 (8 States): Releases 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4A, 4B for 2021 Geo (Mean Release 2.9 2.75; Median Release 3)
2011 Release Week 5 (5 States): Releases 2, 3, 3, 5, 6 4B, 5 for 2021 Geo (Mean Release 3.8 3.4; Median Release 3)
2011 Release Week 6 (7 States): Releases 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5 4A, 4A, 4B for 2021 Geo (Mean Release 3.3 3.1; Median Release 3)
2011 Release Week 7 (9 States): Releases 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6 4A, 4A, 4A, 4B, 4B, 4B, 4B, 5, 5 for 2021 Geo (Mean Release 4.9 4.2; Median Release 5 4B)
2011 Release Week 8 (10 States or State Equivalents): Releases 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6 4A, 4B, 4B, 4B, 5, 5, 5, 5 for 2021 Geo (Mean Release 4.8 4.1; Median Release 5 4B)

[Kevinstat]

This has probably been asked and answered on this forum before somewhere, but there's a question I've had for a while: Did this whole differential privacy thing originate within the Census Bureau (okay, maybe not within, but concerned citizens just mentioned the issue with no legal threats involved and Census Bureau officials decided on their own to adopt it; I understand that development began before the 2010 census but wasn't ready then), OR was there a lawsuit or specific threat of a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds (right to privacy) that led to the Bureau taking their current course?

[Kevinstat]

Will [there] be sufficient accuracy for Hudson wards, or Maine House districts?

That concern could be why, last I knew, Maine's AG was one of two Democratic AGs to join the Alabama lawsuit.  I say last I knew as it might not take that much pushback from Democratic-aligned forces for him to withdraw his support and retreat with his tail between his legs (he's elected by joint ballot of members of both chambers of the Maine Legislature, and the two parties will each nominate candidates and Legislators are expected to vote for their party's nominee).  But even some seemingly Democratic-aligned groups have raised concerns about the accuracy of the data (for things such as making sure majority-minority or minority "opportunity" districts are maintained) under the Census Bureau's differential privacy procedures.