I\u2019ll admit it. Before the Supreme Court intervened, the recent wrangling regarding the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census got me thinking\u2026 I\u2019m thinking it\u2019s the wrong question\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[Note: The U.S. Census Bureau and Wikipedia are utilized significantly below\u2026]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the U.S. government \u201ccounts each resident of the country, where they live on April 1, every ten years ending in zero\u2026 The goal is to count everyone once, only once, and in the right place.\u201d The process originated 229 years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMany federal, state, local and tribal governments use census data to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally \u2014 and importantly \u2014 the data is used to apportion seats for the U.S. House of Representatives. As the population shifts, so does congressional voting power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In specific regard to the citizenship question, its history is as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n So why the wrangling?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Opponents of the question\u2019s inclusion argue that it will deter undocumented immigrants\/illegal aliens from filling out the form; the count would then be inaccurate. Since the results are used to allocate resources for the building of schools, hospitals, roads, etc., an accurate count is necessary to receive a perceived a fair or necessary share of federal funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Dept. of Justice maintains they need this question to get an accurate count of the citizen-voting-age population<\/em> to enforce the Voting Rights Act; the citizen-voting-age population<\/em> is a necessary metric in drawing appropriate, legal, district maps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What this means is that in addition to the allocated federal funding, congressional redistricting \u2014 determined by the U.S. Census \u2014 is based on citizens and non-citizens combined. <\/em>Remember that non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections. (\u201cFederal law does not prohibit non-citizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed non-citizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw non-citizen voting in 1926.\u201d)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n As for how the country feels about adding the question, in a recent Hill-HarrisX survey, 60% of registered voters said that the citizenship question should be included \u201ceven if it means fewer people might fill out the questionnaire.\u201d 21% said the question should not. 19% were \u201cunsure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the better question that got me thinking, as expressed by a wise mentor of mine \u2014 and I\u2019m not certain what the answer is \u2014 but\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cShould Congressional representation be determined using all population or just citizens?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is currently all population, and the attempt to add the question would have undermined that. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n But should a state with more non-citizens get more representation in Congress, funding, etc.?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Should the state get more funding for roads, etc., but not more representation?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Not sure there is a right or wrong answer, and given the current tone of our political discourse, the side one is on is simply that which will benefit themselves.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n And therein lies the problem\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n While there exist legitimate reasons for both opposition or advocacy, the current tone of our political discourse impedes our ability to ask and answer the better questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I\u2019ll admit it. Before the Supreme Court intervened, the recent wrangling regarding the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census got me thinking\u2026 I\u2019m thinking it\u2019s the wrong question\u2026 [Note: The U.S. Census Bureau and Wikipedia are utilized significantly below\u2026] Mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the U.S. government \u201ccounts … <\/p>\n