by Terri Ann Lowenthal
Want to throw away the $7+ billion Congress has already spent to research, design, plan and prepare for the 2010 census? Want to postpone the constitutionally required decennial count for the first time in our nation’s history, or put off reapportioning the House of Representatives for only the second time (post-1920 census was the first)?
The Vitter-Bennett amendment to the FY2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill (H.R. 2847), waiting for a vote in the U.S. Senate today, is the answer to your prayers. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) wisely proposed adding a question on citizenship and legal status to the 2010 census, in order to facilitate the exclusion of undocumented residents (or all non-citizens … not clear which) from the state population totals used for congressional apportionment.
I won’t rehash the exclusion proposal’s legal infirmities or probable effect on census accuracy (see October 6 blog post), except to reiterate that both Republican and Democratic administrations have concluded unequivocally that the Constitution requires a count of all persons residing in the country. I’ll try to contain my frustration at the fact that CONGRESS requires the Census Bureau to submit the census topics and questions three and two years, respectively, before Census Day, so it can decide if it wants to add or drop anything. (Weren’t these Senators serving in their posts at the time?)
Let’s just look at why the amendment is the height of irresponsible and misinformed legislating: If enacted, the 2010 census would come to a halt. It would be delayed for who knows how long, and with that, apportionment and subsequent redistricting wouldn’t happen either. Why?
Sen. Bennett suggested that the Census Bureau could simply print an addendum. If it were that easy to add a question to the form, Congress wouldn’t have allocated $7+ billion over the past decade to plan the census. Questions must be tested, forms designed carefully in order to elicit the intended information. The Census Bureau would need to re-do all of its informational and promotional materials (10 questions, 10 minutes … no wait, 11 questions!); all of its assistance guides (59 languages!); all of its instructional materials for census staff. It would need to redesign all data-processing software. It would need to reprint 180 million new forms, a process which already took most of a year and most of the nation’s printing capacity. The list goes on and on.
Perhaps the biggest irony in all of this? If apportionment were postponed, UTAH would not get the fourth congressional seat it has coveted since losing it post-2000 census (despite filing two federal lawsuits and piggybacking on the D.C. statehood bill). Surely Sen. Bennett would not want to deprive his state of an additional House member one day more than necessary!
2 responses so far ↓
Patty Becker // October 8, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
Right on — and calls to senators are necessary because the silliness of this thing is not readily apparent to everyone!
Jonathan Swift Would Have Been Proud! « The Census Project Blog // October 20, 2009 at 9:43 am |
[...] introduced their amendment to the census budget (see Terri Ann’s Lowenthal’s posts on 10/6, 10/8 and 10/15), which would require an extra question on the 10-question Census 2010 form. The authors [...]