2020 United States census: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Shel5136 (talk | contribs)
102 edits
Population projections are very tangential to the actual census and don't merit a dedicated section in this article.
Shel5136 (talk | contribs)
102 edits
Edited to clarify that number of congressional seats and number of electoral college seats are the same number.
Line 20: Line 20:


In 2020, the United States population is projected to be 333,546,000,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popproj.html|title=Population Projections|first=US Census|last=Bureau|website=www.census.gov}}</ref> an 8.03% increase from the [[2010 United States Census|2010 Census]].
In 2020, the United States population is projected to be 333,546,000,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popproj.html|title=Population Projections|first=US Census|last=Bureau|website=www.census.gov}}</ref> an 8.03% increase from the [[2010 United States Census|2010 Census]].

=== Purpose of the Census ===

=== Reapportionment ===
=== Reapportionment ===
The results of the 2020 census will determine the number of seats for each state in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], as well as the number of delegates for each state in the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]], for elections in 2022 to 2030.
The results of the 2020 census will determine the number of seats for each state in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], which mirrors the number of delegates for each state in the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]], for elections in 2022 to 2030.


Multiple forecasters have projected which states will gain or lose seats due to the 2020 reapportionment. According to these estimates, [[New York (state)|New York]] is likely to lose 1 or 2 seats; [[Alabama]], [[Illinois]], [[Ohio]], [[Michigan]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], and [[West Virginia]] are likely to lose 1 seat; [[California]] and [[Minnesota]] may lose 1 seat or remain the same; [[Montana]] may gain one seat or remain the same; [[Arizona]], [[Colorado]], [[North Carolina]], and [[Oregon]] are likely to gain 1 seat; [[Florida]] is likely to gain 2 seats; and [[Texas]] is likely to gain 3 seats.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cea |first1=Brianna |title=Potential Shifts in Political Power after the 2020 Census {{!}} Brennan Center for Justice |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/potential-shifts-political-power-after-2020-census |website=www.brennancenter.org |accessdate=11 July 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Tippett |first1=Rebecca |title=2020 Congressional Reapportionment: An Update |url=https://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2017/12/21/2020-congressional-reapportionment-an-update/ |website=Carolina Demography |accessdate=11 July 2019 |date=21 December 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=2020 Reapportionment Forecast – Total Population - 2018 Estimates |url=https://fairlines.org/blog/apportionment/2020-reapportionment-forecast-total-population-2018-estimates/ |website=fairlines.org |accessdate=11 July 2019 |language=en}}</ref>
Multiple forecasters have projected which states will gain or lose seats due to the 2020 reapportionment. According to these estimates, [[New York (state)|New York]] is likely to lose 1 or 2 seats; [[Alabama]], [[Illinois]], [[Ohio]], [[Michigan]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], and [[West Virginia]] are likely to lose 1 seat; [[California]] and [[Minnesota]] may lose 1 seat or remain the same; [[Montana]] may gain one seat or remain the same; [[Arizona]], [[Colorado]], [[North Carolina]], and [[Oregon]] are likely to gain 1 seat; [[Florida]] is likely to gain 2 seats; and [[Texas]] is likely to gain 3 seats.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cea |first1=Brianna |title=Potential Shifts in Political Power after the 2020 Census {{!}} Brennan Center for Justice |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/potential-shifts-political-power-after-2020-census |website=www.brennancenter.org |accessdate=11 July 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Tippett |first1=Rebecca |title=2020 Congressional Reapportionment: An Update |url=https://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2017/12/21/2020-congressional-reapportionment-an-update/ |website=Carolina Demography |accessdate=11 July 2019 |date=21 December 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=2020 Reapportionment Forecast – Total Population - 2018 Estimates |url=https://fairlines.org/blog/apportionment/2020-reapportionment-forecast-total-population-2018-estimates/ |website=fairlines.org |accessdate=11 July 2019 |language=en}}</ref>

Revision as of 18:27, 5 August 2019

Twenty-fourth Census
of the United States
← 2010 April 1, 2020
Seal of the U.S. Census Bureau
The "Census 2020" logo
General information
CountryUnited States

The 2020 United States Census will be the twenty-fourth United States Census. National Census Day, the reference day used for the census, will be April 1, 2020.[1]

Introduction

As required by the United States Constitution, the U.S. Census has been conducted every 10 years since 1790. The 2010 United States Census was the previous census completed. Participation in the U.S. Census is required by law in Title 13 of the United States Code.[2] As per Title 13, personally identifiable information is private and the Census Bureau will never release it. However, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) will release the original census returns in 2092, under the 72-year rule[3]

In 2020, the United States population is projected to be 333,546,000,[4] an 8.03% increase from the 2010 Census.

Purpose of the Census

Reapportionment

The results of the 2020 census will determine the number of seats for each state in the House of Representatives, which mirrors the number of delegates for each state in the Electoral College, for elections in 2022 to 2030.

Multiple forecasters have projected which states will gain or lose seats due to the 2020 reapportionment. According to these estimates, New York is likely to lose 1 or 2 seats; Alabama, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia are likely to lose 1 seat; California and Minnesota may lose 1 seat or remain the same; Montana may gain one seat or remain the same; Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Oregon are likely to gain 1 seat; Florida is likely to gain 2 seats; and Texas is likely to gain 3 seats.[5][6][7]

Implementation problems

The printing company Cenveo won the $61 million contract in October 2017 to produce census forms and reminders, but went bankrupt less than four months later. The Inspector General of the U.S. Government Publishing Office said the agency failed to check the company's financial status, and improperly allowed the company to lower its bid after other bids were unsealed.[8]

Citizenship question debate

The U.S. decennial census is used to determine federal funds, grants and support to states. The Census Bureau had included a citizenship question until 1950 when it was removed, though it continued to include a question asking about place of birth.[9] In a January 2018 memo, an initial evaluation by Census Bureau officials advised against such a question, saying that compiling citizenship data from existing administrative records is more accurate and far less expensive. However, Wilbur Ross, secretary of the United States Department of Commerce which oversees the Census Bureau, decided the administrative approach alone would not be sufficient.[10] The Census Bureau announced in March 2018 its plan to add a question related to citizenship for the 2020 census: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?".[11] [12][13] For the 2020 Census, Ross stated to Congress that the citizenship numbers were necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act's protection against voting discrimination.[12] Ross stated to Congress that the citizenship question was requested by the Justice Department and approved by him.[14]

Upon the Bureau's announcement, several state and city officials criticized the decision, reiterating the concern about discouraging participation from immigrants, resulting in undercounting, and questions the motives of Secretary Ross in adding the question. Three simultaneous separate federal lawsuits came out of this discovery, occurring at the district courts of New York, Maryland, and California.[15] During the controversy over the census question, the Census Bureau ran a test census in June 2019 on about 480,000 households to determine what effects adding the census question would have on participation, and to prepare the Bureau, its staffing, and its counting measurements, to handle the potential lack of responses due to the citizenship question.[16]

During these trials, documents released in May 2019 showed that the late Thomas B. Hofeller, an architect of Republican gerrymandering, had found that adding the census question could help to gerrymander maps that "would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.[17] Hofeller later wrote the DOJ letter which justified the policy by claiming it was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.[17] Following this discovery, the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued subpeonas for the Department of Justice to provide materials related to the census question and to question both Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and United States Attorney General William Barr, seeking action to judge if they are in contempt. The Trump administration, as of June 12, 2019, asserted executive privilege over portions of the requested documents.[18] As a result, the House Committee subsequently voted along party lines to hold both Ross and Barr in contempt that day.[19] The full House voted to hold Ross and Barr in contempt on July 17, 2019, in a 230-198 vote along party lines. Despite this passage, the measure will likely not have any effect on Ross and Barr unless the Justice Department takes legal actions against Ross or Barr.[20]

New York District Court and subsequent Supreme Court case

See also: Department of Commerce v. New York

A lawsuit, led by New York state's attorney general Barbara Underwood and joined by seventeen other states, fifteen cities and other civil rights groups, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. During the discovery phase of the trial, new information came to light that Ross had had previous discussions with Steve Bannon before March 2018 with the intent to add the citizenship question, contradicting statements that he had made to Congress in March. This led District Judge Jesse M. Furman in September 2018 to ask that Ross clear a day in his schedule to give a deposition to the court related to the addition of the census question prior to the planned start of the trial in November.[21]

The Trump administration filed a writ of mandamus to the United States Supreme Court, requesting that they postpone the trial, and also to defer any involvement with Ross until the start of the trial. The Supreme Court issued an order that allowed the trial to go forward, but agreed to postpone Ross's deposition until after the start of the trial.[22] The Supreme Court also agreed to treat the writ of mandamus as a writ of petition, and granted certiorari to review the question raised by the government of whether a district court can request deposition of a high-ranking executive branch official on a matter related to a trial before evidence has been presented.[23]

Judge Furman ruled in January 2019 that the addition of the citizenship question to the census was unlawful, stating that "the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census—even if it did not violate the Constitution itself—was unlawful for a multitude of independent reasons and must be set aside."[24] The Justice department filed a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment to have the case directly heard by the Supreme Court and bypass the normal appeal that would have been heard by the Second Circuit, given the pending deadline of June 2019 to publish the census forms. The Supreme Court accepted the petition related to Furman's ruling on February 15, 2019, a separate matter from the question of Ross's deposition, and the case's oral arguments were heard on April 23, 2019.[25][26]

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 27, 2019, rejecting the Trump administration's stated rationale for including the question.[27] While the Court majority agreed that the question was allowable under the Enumeration Act, they also agreed with the ability of the District Court to ask Commerce for further explanation for the question under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and that they agreed with the District Court that the answers Commerce had provided at the time appeared to be "contrived" and pretextual, leaving open the possibility that Commerce could offer a better rationale.[28] The case was remanded back to the District Court, to give Commerce the opportunity to provide better explanation for the rationale of the question to the District Court, who would deem if that was sufficient before allowing the question on the census. The question would be allowed on the census only if these steps can be completed before the self-imposed form printing deadline.[29] On July 7 the DOJ announced that it was replacing its entire legal team dealing with that question, but on July 9 Furman rejected the DOJ action, saying that reasons must be given for the withdrawal of each attorney and pointing out that the administration had been insisting for months that the question needed to be settled by July 1.[30]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken steps to introduce the Hofeller evidence into the New York case but it will not be heard until late 2019, after the Census forms are to be published.[31]

California District Court case

The second suit over the census question came in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Richard Seeborg, raised by the state of California and several cities within it. In March 2019, Seeborg similarly found as Furman had in New York that the addition of the census question was unconstitutional and issued an injunction to block its use.[15][32] The government has appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which is expected to be heard on July 10, 2019.[33]

Maryland District Court case

A similar question related to the intent of the question was raised by several immigrants-rights groups in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The case was overseen by Judge George J. Hazel in the District of Maryland. Hazel had found for the pro-immigration groups in April 2019, ruling that the addition of an immigration question to the Census was unconstitutional.[15] The government issued its appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The new Hofeller evidence was presented to Hazel as the case was being heard on appeal during June 2019 at Fourth Circuit. Hazel stated that the new evidence "raises a substantial issue" [34] On June 25, 2019, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case back to Hazel's District Court with the newly provided evidence, and to review if the additional evidence showed discriminatory intent. Should Hazel find such intent, it would be possible for him to place an injunction on the addition of the census question during a new discovery phase, regardless of the Supreme Court decision in Department of Commerce v. New York. This action would effectively render the question moot since the Census forms would need to be published at this point without the citizenship question to meet the mailing deadlines.[31]

Subsequent actions

President Trump, after the Supreme Court decision in Department of Commerce was announced, stated his intent to find a way to delay the census as long as possible so that the judicial matter could be resolved.[35] On July 2, 2019, the Justice Department announced that the citizenship question would not be included in the census, and the Commerce Department began printing census forms without a citizenship question.[36] However, the next day, Trump insisted that his administration was "absolutely moving forward" with the citizenship question, and the Justice Department confirmed in court that it had been instructed to find a legal way to include it in the census.[37][38]

In response to an order from Judge Hazel, the Justice Department affirmed on July 5, 2019 that it will be seeking a route to add the citizenship question to the census, though at the time did not know which route it would take. Hazel had ordered this response as, if the Department was intending to add the question, he could begin determining a schedule in coordination with Judge Furman in the New York court for further proceedings and discovery in both the New York and Maryland lawsuits.[38][39] On July 7 the DOJ announced its intention to replace its entire legal team on the case,[40] but Furman allowed the DOJ to dismiss only two of its eleven attorneys, writing in the July 9 rejection that the DOJ had "provide[d] no reasons, let alone 'satisfactory reasons,' for the substitution of counsel".[33][41] Furman pointed out that the case had already run past the DOJ's own previously requested deadline of July 1 and that replacing counsel would cause further delays.[42][33]

Separate from the events in the courts, Trump has stated he has also considered using an executive order to place the citizenship question on the census.[43] However, on July 11 he issued an executive order directing the Department of Commerce to obtain citizenship data from other federal agencies rather than via the census.[44] He added that "we are not backing down in our effort to determine the citizenship status of the United States population" and that data from other federal agencies would be "far more accurate" than a census question.[45] A spokesperson for the Department of Justice said that although the DOJ had agreed with Ross's plan to include the question, "Today’s Executive Order represents an alternative path to collecting the best citizenship data now available, which is vital for informed policymaking and numerous other reasons. Accordingly, the Department will promptly inform the courts that the Government will not include a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census.”[45]

References

  1. ^ "Interactive Timeline". About the 2010 Census. U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Archived from the original on December 20, 2010. Retrieved June 17, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Title 13 §221 of the United States code" (PDF). February 21, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  3. ^ PIO, US Census Bureau, Census History Staff,. "The "72-Year Rule" - History - U.S. Census Bureau". Census.gov. Retrieved October 26, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Bureau, US Census. "Population Projections". www.census.gov.
  5. ^ Cea, Brianna. "Potential Shifts in Political Power after the 2020 Census | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  6. ^ Tippett, Rebecca (December 21, 2017). "2020 Congressional Reapportionment: An Update". Carolina Demography. Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  7. ^ "2020 Reapportionment Forecast – Total Population - 2018 Estimates". fairlines.org. Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  8. ^ "Officials Botched 2020 Census Printing Contract, Report Finds". NPR.org.
  9. ^ "FACT CHECK: Has Citizenship Been A Standard Census Question?". npr.org.
  10. ^ Wallace, Gregory (July 11, 2019). "Here's how the Census Bureau can find out who's a citizen". CNN. Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  11. ^ "The 2020 Census Questions Every U.S Household Will Be Asked, Annotated". NPR.org. Retrieved November 3, 2018.
  12. ^ a b "Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 30, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ "Addition of citizenship question to Census draws swift opposition". CBS News. March 27, 2018. Retrieved November 16, 2018.
  14. ^ "Citizenship Question Controversy Complicating Census 2020 Work, Bureau Director Says". NPR.org. Retrieved November 3, 2018.
  15. ^ a b c de Vogue, Ariane; Hartfield, Elizabeth (April 5, 2019). "Third federal judge blocks census citizenship question". CNN. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  16. ^ Lo Wang, Hansi (June 13, 2019). "As Legal Battle Persists, Census Citizenship Question Is Put To The Test". NPR. Retrieved July 2, 2019.
  17. ^ a b Wines, Michael (May 30, 2019). "Deceased G.O.P. Strategist's Hard Drives Reveal New Details on the Census Citizenship Question". The New York Times. Retrieved May 31, 2019.
  18. ^ Foran, Clare; Fox, Lauren (June 12, 2019). "Trump invokes executive privilege ahead of House Oversight contempt vote for Barr, Ross". CNN. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
  19. ^ Jansen, Bart (June 12, 2019). "House panel votes contempt for Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross". USA Today. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
  20. ^ Foran, Clare; Killough, Ashley (July 17, 2019). "House votes to hold Barr, Ross in criminal contempt over census dispute". CNN. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  21. ^ "Census citizenship controversy likely to face New York trial". Associated Press. September 15, 2018. Retrieved November 16, 2018 – via CBS News.
  22. ^ Hennessy Jr., William (November 2, 2018). "Supreme Court refuses Trump administration request to delay trial on 2020 census citizenship question". Associated Press. Retrieved November 16, 2018 – via CBS News.
  23. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (November 16, 2018). "Supreme Court to hear census citizenship question dispute". Reuters. Retrieved November 16, 2018.
  24. ^ Hartfield, Elizabeth; Wallace, Gregory (January 15, 2019). "Federal judge strikes down effort to add citizenship question to Census". CNN. Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  25. ^ "Supreme Court will rule on Trump administration's effort to add question on citizenship to 2020 Census". www.msn.com. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
  26. ^ "Supreme Court hears arguments on 2020 census citizenship question". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
  27. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 27, 2019). "Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt" – via NYTimes.com.
  28. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 27, 2019). "Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  29. ^ "Supreme Court orders further fact-finding on controversial 2020 census citizenship question". USA Today. June 27, 2019. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  30. ^ Thomsen, Jacqueline (July 9, 2019). "Judge rejects Justice Dept request to pull lawyers from census case". The Hill.
  31. ^ a b Thomsen, Jacqueline (June 25, 2019). "Appeals court sends census case to lower court to review discrimination claims". The Hill. Retrieved June 25, 2019.
  32. ^ Lo Wang, Hanso (March 6, 2019). "Second Judge Blocks Trump Administration's Census Citizenship Question Plans". NPR. Retrieved July 3, 2019.
  33. ^ a b c Polantz, Katelyn (July 9, 2019). "Federal judge says DOJ can't swap out its legal team in census case". CNN. Retrieved July 9, 2019.
  34. ^ Lo Wong, Hansi (June 19, 2019). "Judge's Order Sets Up Potential New Block Against Census Citizenship Question". NPR. Retrieved June 20, 2019.
  35. ^ Wu, Nicolas; Wolf, Richard (June 27, 2019). "Trump says he asked lawyers if census could be delayed after Supreme Court decision on citizenship question". USA Today. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  36. ^ Marimow, Ann E.; Bahrampour, Tara (July 2, 2019). "2020 Census will not include citizenship question, DOJ confirms". Washington Post.
  37. ^ Wang, Hansi Lo; Kelly, Amita (July 3, 2019). "DOJ Still Looking To Add Census Citizenship Question, Official Tells Court". NPR.org. Retrieved July 3, 2019.
  38. ^ a b Wines, Michael; Haberman, Maggie; Rappeport, Alan (July 3, 2019). "Justice Department Reverses Course on Citizenship Question on Census, Citing Trump's Orders". The New York Times. Retrieved July 3, 2019.
  39. ^ Wines, Michael (July 5, 2019). "Trump Administration Pressing Ahead in Efforts to Add Citizenship Question to Census". The New York Times. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  40. ^ Collins, Kaitlan; Shortell, David; Sullivan, Kate (July 7, 2019). "DOJ says new legal team will take over census case". CNN. Retrieved July 7, 2019.
  41. ^ Levine, Sam (July 9, 2019). "Judge Blocks DOJ Request To Switch Lawyers In Census Citizenship Case". HuffPost. Retrieved July 10, 2019.
  42. ^ Thomsen, Jacqueline (July 9, 2019). "Judge rejects Justice Dept request to pull lawyers from census case". The Hill. Retrieved July 9, 2019.
  43. ^ Acosta, Jim; Johns, Joe; Wallace, Gregory (July 11, 2019). "Trump expected to announce executive action on census". CNN. Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  44. ^ "Trump backs away from census citizenship question, direct agencies to hand over citizenship information to Commerce". No. July 11, 2019. CNN. Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  45. ^ a b Re, Gregg (July 11, 2019). "Trump, 'not backing down' in effort to count citizens amid census fight, announces executive order". Fox News. Retrieved July 11, 2019.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_census&oldid=909481322"