Minnesota has eight congressional districts. But there were ten until 1933. Nine until 1963. Soon, there could be seven.
While it might not be the most exciting event of the decade, the 2020 U.S. Census is set to determine the future of Minnesota.
First and foremost, it will determine whether or not the state will lose a seat in the U.S. House. While every state is guaranteed at least one representative in In the House, the total number of U.S. House seats is capped at 435. This means that in order to ensure seats are distributed by population — a process called apportionment — they have to be redistributed among the states every ten years each time the Census is taken. Officials in Minnesota has long feared Minnesota is due to lose a House seat after 2020 as states like Texas and Florida grow at a faster rate.
Now there’s a new complication added in to the 2020 Census. As part of the president’s wide-reaching net of immigration policies, the Trump administration decided to reinstate a question asking whether Census respondents are U.S. citizens, something that has not been on the Census since 1950. The Census Bureau’s own research show that the citizenship question may significantly reduce response rates in non-citizen populations.
There is significant concern that, because of a question that will ask about citizenship, there will be an undercount nationally. And an undercount in any state potentially contributes to the loss of funding, the loss of a congressional seat, or both.
Growing slowly
Perhaps the most visible effect of the Census is the reapportionment of seats in the U.S. House; as states’ populations change relative to each other, the 435 U.S. House seats are reallocated, with some states gaining, some states losing and some states keeping the same number of representatives. The Census also kicks off the process of the process of redrawing district lines inside states.
Beyond apportionment, the Census determines how much money is allocated to the state by the Federal government via formulas that are dependent on the number of people. In Minnesota, that funding totals about 15 billion dollars, for everything from transportation to emergency services to health care.
“The reach of the Census data are far and people typically don’t understand that because it’s not exciting and it’s not particularly visible either,” said Minnesota State Demographer Susan Brower.
In the 2010 Census, Minnesota had the second highest response rate among states. The concern is that, despite recent growth, it will not be enough compared to other states to maintain eight House seats. That gives all the more reason for state officials to push for high Census turnout to avoid losing a seat or receiving less in funds.
The citizenship question introduces more uncertainty. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that around 83,000 undocumented Americans live in Minnesota — about 1.5% of Minnesota’s total population of 5.6 million.
Minnesota’s undocumented population is small in comparison to states like California and Texas, which are estimated to have 3,059,000 and 1,597,000 undocumented residents, respectively. Because the citizenship question would be asked in each state, and undocumented immigrants make up a relatively small proportion of Minnesota’s population compared to other states, the effect of the citizenship question could actually be to prevent Minnesota from losing a seat.
“I think there’s a strong possibility that Minnesota could retain a seat due to an undercount in other states,” said Chris Warshaw, a professor at George Washington University. Warshaw found that several states could lose a congressional seat due to an undercount in population — potentially Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and/or Texas.
But Brower was clear: regardless of how this impacts redistricting, any undercount could still cause issues of funding for communities around Minnesota.
“The bottom line,” Brower said, “is that if you don’t have an accurate count, you can’t tell if the funds are getting are accurate.” Brower said that there could be residual effects as well, with some folks in state telling her office that they might not answer the citizenship question in solidarity with the state’s undocumented population.
“I think that the addition of this question has potential reach beyond Hispanic or Latinx populations,” she said, “in support of immigrant communities and reaction of what appears to be politicization of the Census. I’ve also heard ‘I’m not going to fill out my Census.’”
Untested question
The legality of the citizenship question will be decided by the Supreme Court in June, but recent reporting deems it likely that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of allowing the question, in a 5-4 decision, on ideological lines.
During an oversight hearing last Tuesday, U.S. Census Bureau Director Dr. Steven Dillingham explained that his office will not share data with the Trump administration, beyond publishing aggregate results. Sharing individual’s information with other agencies would be illegal.
“We do not release any information except aggregate data. We release numbers,” said Dillingham. “There should be no fear among individuals completing the census.”
Brower was less sanguine about the addition of the question: “The main issue is that it’s not tested. They’re usually very slow to add things. They’re very deliberate. A reasonable estimate of the impact is not there. So many things rest on the quality of this data.”
“We don’t have good information on what the impact will be.”
While I won’t answer the citizenship question, I will otherwise fill out the census form.
Good idea. I hope it catches on.
The Census Director says “his office will not share data with the Trump administration, beyond publishing aggregate results”. I have no confidence in the accuracy of his statement given the rampant corruption and dishonesty of both Mr. Trump himself and his administration. I too will not answer the citizenship question.
That is immaterial. The goal is to intimidate Scary Brown People into not filling out a census.The census bureau will turn over the numbers of both citizens and non-citizens, but only those that answer the census.
I received a copy of the American Community Survey to fill out, and it has the citizenship question on it. I wonder why no one seems to be concerned about that?
Here’s why Pat:
The census is used to apportion political power from the US House on down to the city and county level (in some localities). It is also used to apportion federal spending.
Neither of those is true of the community survey.
Because that survey doesn’t effect representation or funding.
If everyone just put ‘white’ ‘US Citizen’ how would the Feds be able to tell the difference?
Whether or not citizens answer the citizenship question has no bearing on this.
Remember, the purpose is to intimidate both non-citizens and new citizens from filling out the census at all. So if dorky white guys like me don’t answer, that makes no difference. It’s the under counting of bodies that is the goal here, to keep power in the hands of an ever shrinking white demographic.
Not filling out the census is even worse than leaving the citizenship question blank.
Answer this question however you want. If ICE attempts to access this information to deport people, they are committing a crime that should result in jail time.
It’s great to show the fire and independence of your character by righteously refusing to answer the citizenship question, but who knows how the Trumpets will find a way to screw the state because of a low response. Vote the buggers out and change the form back by law.
Whenever reporting to the government, I will always give an honest answer to any question asked and not abstain (insert fake chicken here). I wish that all of you, all of our public servants, and our President would do the same. I sincerely doubt the former who I would then lump in with the latter, and deservedly so.
In spite of the press reports of the SC hearing predicting a 5-4 decision, I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts will support this clear politicization of the design and administration of the census. In his recent talk at the U of Minn Law School, he appeared to express a commitment to protecting the judicial independence of the SC.
The reason why we would put a citizenship question in the census is to discourage participation. And it just wouldn’t discourage legal or illegal aliens. Among minority populations, particularly those who have suffered a history of discrimination, there is a tendency to avoid interactions with the government. If the census is controversial, why bother with it? When there is nothing to be gained individually from the census, why risk participating in it at all?
Yes!
This is why not answering the question doesn’t matter at all.
Just having the question on the form, and the related controversy, means the extremist right wing reactionary Ed win.
It’s similar to voter suppression tactics. Even when tossed out by judges, they sow confusion and cynicism.
It is against the law to not fill out the census form. That alone should be reason enough to fill it out honestly and completely.
It wasn’t too many years ago that certain Republicans were objecting to census forms that did anything more than count the number of people. As I recall, their claim was that the Constitution does not authorize anything more than a numerical tabulation, and does not allow the Federal Government to collect demographic information.
And as you well know, Republican objections magically vanish when the thing they were formerly objecting to can now be retooled to the advantage of their political objectives.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
If that old argument had any merit (and I’m not prepared to say it does not), the citizenship question is plainly unconstitutional. The Constitution authorizes an “Enumeration” of the “whole number of free persons” in each state. The only exclusions are for “Indians not taxed,” and “all other Persons,” who only count as 3/5 of a person.
There is no constitutional authority to ask demographic questions, but there is likewise no authority to ask about citizenship.
Illegal immigrants will already be afraid of the government no matter what it’s asking.
Illegal immigrants will already be afraid of the government no matter what it’s asking.
Then what’s the point in asking the question?
They won’t fill out a census form no matter what.
We are talking margins here. And of course, the problem is both bigger and unaddressed. If I were running the census, I would put together an advertising campaign targeting minority and alien communities emphasizing that the census is used for enumeration purposes only, that nothing learned from the census is shared with law enforcement agencies or immigration authorities, and in no way puts at risk anyone’s continued stay in the United States whether legal or illegal. That’s the right thing to do, but of course, the federal government, particularly under Trump would never do it.
Do those who apply for welfare have to answer a citizenship question, or those enrolling children in school, or filling out a job application? If so, is it mandatory? I don’t see a problem with it being included with a census. I would think we’d want an accurate count as close as we can get.
I don’t see a problem with it being included with a census. I would think we’d want an accurate count as close as we can get.
The belief is that including a citizenship question would discourage participation in the census. I know it’s something I would do, if I wanted to discourage participation in the census.