USA 2020 Census Results Thread (Release: Today, 26 April)

[Frodo]

Or more accurately, it is the suburbs of Sun Belt cities that have been booming recently:

Sun Belt cities boom as major cities bleed population

[jimrtex]

More detailed info on the next Census products that will be released:

Demographics and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)

Release Date May 2023

The DHC will include many of the demographic and housing tables previously included in the 2010 Census Summary File 1 (2010 SF1). Some tables are repeated by race and ethnicity.

Subjects: Age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household type, family type, relationship to householder, group quarters population, housing occupancy, and housing tenure.

Access: data.census.gov.

Lowest level of geography: Varies, with many tables proposed at the census block level.

Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A)

Release Date August 2023

Subjects: Population counts and sex by age statistics for approximately 370 detailed racial and ethnic groups, such as German, Lebanese, Jamaican, Chinese, Native Hawaiian, and Mexican, as well as about 1,200 detailed American Indian and Alaska Native tribal and village population groups, such as Navajo Nation.

Access: data.census.gov.

Proposed 2020 geographies: Nation, state, county, and American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) areas. We’re evaluating the feasibility of adding places (cities and towns) and census tracts, per data user feedback.

This was from an April 2022 pre-release. The August 2023 was the forecast then. With more detailed information there is a greater risk of revealing individual responses. Supposedly a prototype based on 2010 data was to be release in January 2023. I could not find any such prototype (until now January 31).

This will be the first census data that permits a breakdown based on racial origin. I suspect the Census Bureau was trying to have an informal MENA category by suggesting "Lebanese" as subtype of White. Among the write-in choices were German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, and Egyptian. This could eventually supplant the ancestry question.

Product Will Provide Detailed Racial and Ethnic Groups and American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and Villages

Since they were using 2010 data, they were limited to Asian, NHPI, and AIAN groups where the Census Bureau had detailed subgroups. Much of the report are about statistical methods - in essence they want to know if this data is good enough for you to use.

This xlsx shows the type of detail they may have.

Proof_of_Concept_Examples (xlsx)

For the Navajo Nation (286,531 persons) they provided 5-year subgroups for the USA and Arizona. For Texas, it was 10-year subgroups. For Idaho it was broad groups (Under 18, 18-44, 45-64, 65 and up). For Alaska it was simple total count.

For Singaporean (5,347 persons) they provided 5-year subgroups for the USA and California. Kosraen (906 persons had broad categories), Tokelauan (107 persons had only head counts).

[The Free North]

Image Link

-Mormons
-Amish
-Native Americans
-A smattering of plains counties with tiny populations?

[Gracile]

Image Link

-Mormons
-Amish
-Native Americans
-A smattering of plains counties with tiny populations?

The counties in Kansas have large Hispanic populations, which skew younger and have families with young children.

[Tintrlvr]

Image Link

-Mormons
-Amish
-Native Americans
-A smattering of plains counties with tiny populations?

Only certain types of Native Americans (the Navajo Nation for example does not stand out at all - even though most of the population in those counties that is neither Navajo nor Hopi is Mormon).

As others pointed out, some Hispanic populations (particularly farmworker areas in the Central Valley and the Tri-Cities and meatpacking workers in SW Kansas - maybe also that spot on the Iowa/Missouri border?) stand out as well.

Some odd patches in the South too that don't seem immediately explicable. And Ocean County, New Jersey stands out likely because of Hasidic Jews.

[Sol]

Image Link

-Mormons
-Amish
-Native Americans
-A smattering of plains counties with tiny populations?

Only certain types of Native Americans (the Navajo Nation for example does not stand out at all - even though most of the population in those counties that is neither Navajo nor Hopi is Mormon).

As others pointed out, some Hispanic populations (particularly farmworker areas in the Central Valley and the Tri-Cities and meatpacking workers in SW Kansas - maybe also that spot on the Iowa/Missouri border?) stand out as well.

Some odd patches in the South too that don't seem immediately explicable. And Ocean County, New Jersey stands out likely because of Hasidic Jews.

Patterns in the South look a bit suggestive of a correlation with the military.

[jimrtex]

Image Link

-Mormons
-Amish
-Native Americans
-A smattering of plains counties with tiny populations?

Only certain types of Native Americans (the Navajo Nation for example does not stand out at all - even though most of the population in those counties that is neither Navajo nor Hopi is Mormon).

As others pointed out, some Hispanic populations (particularly farmworker areas in the Central Valley and the Tri-Cities and meatpacking workers in SW Kansas - maybe also that spot on the Iowa/Missouri border?) stand out as well.

Some odd patches in the South too that don't seem immediately explicable. And Ocean County, New Jersey stands out likely because of Hasidic Jews.

Patterns in the South look a bit suggestive of a correlation with the military.

Forts Benning, Campbell, Polk, and Hood stand out. It may also be true for Fort Drum and Riley though not in the South.

Williston Basin and Permian Basin.

[Vern]

When will the 2023 estimate be out?

[Annatar]

When will the 2023 estimate be out?

Should come out sometime in the next 2 weeks.

[Atlas Force]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1759638217345687925

[Tintrlvr]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1759638217345687925

This is a weird one because the merits seem not that strong, but the plaintiffs should have standing, and the appeal right now is all about standing. Of course the Supreme Court at least and therefore probably also the DC Circuit loves dismissing suits where they doubt the merits by using standing as a cudgel.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1759638217345687925

This is a weird one because the merits seem not that strong, but the plaintiffs should have standing, and the appeal right now is all about standing. Of course the Supreme Court at least and therefore probably also the DC Circuit loves dismissing suits where they doubt the merits by using standing as a cudgel.

In the most optimistic scenario for the plaintiffs, wouldn't this still get Purcell-ed away as applied to the 2024 election?

[Vosem]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1759638217345687925

This is a weird one because the merits seem not that strong, but the plaintiffs should have standing, and the appeal right now is all about standing. Of course the Supreme Court at least and therefore probably also the DC Circuit loves dismissing suits where they doubt the merits by using standing as a cudgel.

This is an authentically fascinating one, because the Census Bureau has never before admitted to mistakes of a similar magnitude; it actually seems beyond dispute that MN and RI got an extra seat, and TX and FL were stiffed one, and several other changes are plausible.

On the one hand, my understanding is that the Census Bureau's assessment is final and can't be changed, but I think that's statutory, such that if the Supreme Court feels like it, it could probably just unilaterally give those seats away using due process or something. Fascinating case (though my guess is that SCOTUS doesn't want to rock this boat and won't introduce any really novel remedies, but I don't see why residents of Texas and Florida deprived of their constitutionally-guaranteed representation wouldn't have standing).

[Vosem]

Has presidential implications, too: the plaintiffs being granted relief (in the form of extra seats given to FL and TX, even if those seats aren't taken away from anywhere else) would almost certainly mean 2020+GA/AZ/NV turns into a Trump victory map, and takes away the requirement that a Midwestern state flips.

[Skill and Chance]

Has presidential implications, too: the plaintiffs being granted relief (in the form of extra seats given to FL and TX, even if those seats aren't taken away from anywhere else) would almost certainly mean 2020+GA/AZ/NV turns into a Trump victory map, and takes away the requirement that a Midwestern state flips.

Isn't it already within Purcell range of 2024 though, especially if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits?

Did a case ever reach SCOTUS asking them to force reapportionment in the 1920's?  I know the 1910 census apportionment was used for 2 decades for political reasons.  Of course, that predates all modern civil rights law. 

[Vosem]

Has presidential implications, too: the plaintiffs being granted relief (in the form of extra seats given to FL and TX, even if those seats aren't taken away from anywhere else) would almost certainly mean 2020+GA/AZ/NV turns into a Trump victory map, and takes away the requirement that a Midwestern state flips.

Isn't it already within Purcell range of 2024 though, especially if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits?

Did a case ever reach SCOTUS asking them to force reapportionment in the 1920's?  I know the 1910 census apportionment was used for 2 decades for political reasons.  Of course, that predates all modern civil rights law. 

I mean, if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits, then the case might very easily only be heard by SCOTUS next year; by no means do I think it would be too early now, but I think I agree with you that even if the plaintiffs triumph it'll probably be too late to alter the outcome of 2024 (and I don't think the plaintiffs have a very good chance of winning, actually; I just think it's a fascinating and novel question, and I think the case is not ridiculous).

To my knowledge there was not such a case in the 1920s, though if there was some very interesting things could be learned. I feel like the whole practice of the Census Bureau putting out press releases apart from the Census itself where it opines on the meanings of the data it has collected and the problems with collecting it, is most likely peculiar to the Internet Age (and the problems with the 2020 Census are a one-time consequence of the COVID epidemic)?

[Skill and Chance]

Has presidential implications, too: the plaintiffs being granted relief (in the form of extra seats given to FL and TX, even if those seats aren't taken away from anywhere else) would almost certainly mean 2020+GA/AZ/NV turns into a Trump victory map, and takes away the requirement that a Midwestern state flips.

Isn't it already within Purcell range of 2024 though, especially if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits?

Did a case ever reach SCOTUS asking them to force reapportionment in the 1920's?  I know the 1910 census apportionment was used for 2 decades for political reasons.  Of course, that predates all modern civil rights law. 

I mean, if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits, then the case might very easily only be heard by SCOTUS next year; by no means do I think it would be too early now, but I think I agree with you that even if the plaintiffs triumph it'll probably be too late to alter the outcome of 2024 (and I don't think the plaintiffs have a very good chance of winning, actually; I just think it's a fascinating and novel question, and I think the case is not ridiculous).

To my knowledge there was not such a case in the 1920s, though if there was some very interesting things could be learned. I feel like the whole practice of the Census Bureau putting out press releases apart from the Census itself where it opines on the meanings of the data it has collected and the problems with collecting it, is most likely peculiar to the Internet Age (and the problems with the 2020 Census are a one-time consequence of the COVID epidemic)?

I also don't think it's nuts in a world where malapportionment violates equal protection.

However, they would obviously need a lot of votes from conservative justices, and it seems that originalism/textualism would heavily favor deferring to congress on how to conduct the census?  I think there's an obvious middle ground here where congress is free to pass a law ordering an interim census to correct apparent errors in representation, but SCOTUS can't order them to conduct one in the absence of such a law?

[Tintrlvr]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1759638217345687925

This is a weird one because the merits seem not that strong, but the plaintiffs should have standing, and the appeal right now is all about standing. Of course the Supreme Court at least and therefore probably also the DC Circuit loves dismissing suits where they doubt the merits by using standing as a cudgel.

This is an authentically fascinating one, because the Census Bureau has never before admitted to mistakes of a similar magnitude; it actually seems beyond dispute that MN and RI got an extra seat, and TX and FL were stiffed one, and several other changes are plausible.

On the one hand, my understanding is that the Census Bureau's assessment is final and can't be changed, but I think that's statutory, such that if the Supreme Court feels like it, it could probably just unilaterally give those seats away using due process or something. Fascinating case (though my guess is that SCOTUS doesn't want to rock this boat and won't introduce any really novel remedies, but I don't see why residents of Texas and Florida deprived of their constitutionally-guaranteed representation wouldn't have standing).

Fundamentally, it's important to understand what the Census Bureau is saying. The Bureau has not said that there were mistakes in the 2020 Census. Instead, what it has asserted is that the methodology it uses for estimating population on an intercalated basis and the methodology it used for implementing the 2020 Census produced different results. There is no reason to believe that the intercalated estimates are more accurate than the Census itself, and in fact generally speaking the estimates have historically performed worse than the Census when examined by private studies. (A classic example is the wild overestimate of Detroit's population in the 2009 estimates vs. the 2010 Census because the estimates were exceptionally bad at tracking home abandonment.) 2020 was an extreme example because it did take place during the Covid pandemic, and it's possible that the circumstances of 2020 made the Census itself worse than the estimates, but we really do not know that at all.

Anyway, the merits of the case are about something completely different. The plaintiffs in this case claim that various voter ID laws sufficiently abridge the right to vote such that the Penalty Clause of the 14th Amendment kicks in and should reduce the population used for those states' allocation of seats by those disenfranchised by the laws. The Supreme Court at least is extremely unlikely to agree that voter ID laws rise to the level of triggering the Penalty Clause. But either way, the plaintiffs are not disputing the Census results, only how they are implemented in apportionment. So I'm not sure why we're even talking about this.