Census 2020: A Monday Morning Lesson Plan for Civics Classes

by Shawn P. Healy, PhD, Democracy Program Director

My teaching career began in the fall of 1999, and the 2000 Census was among the topics I tackled with students in my “Social Problems” classes. At the time, there was significant debate over whether the U.S. Constitution required a hard count of the population, or if statistical sampling techniques would suffice given their superior record for accuracy. The former interpretation prevailed, and the rest is history.

Yet the Census is a decennial phenomenon. Fast forward nearly twenty years, and a plethora of new issues have emerged, the subject of this first post in a two-part series on Census 2020.

Let’s begin by examining the constitutional underpinnings of the Census. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution lays out the process of congressional apportionment based upon an “enumeration…made within the first three years of the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.”

This responsibility is carried out by the Census Bureau, housed within the Commerce Department. Counting begins in earnest in April 2020, but preparations are already well underway, and concerns heightened for a number of reasons.

One, according to Marcia Avner of the Bauman Foundation, the Bureau is inadequately funded, has reduced staff while at the same time charging them with larger territories, has delayed plans to communicate broadly about the process, and currently has only interim leadership. Moreover, this Census will be the first one orchestrated entirely online, employing technologies with limited testing, and presenting access issues for those without broadband at home.

Aside from these significant challenges, the addition of the “citizenship question” to the standard Census form has raised concerns about both its impact on hard-to-count (HTC) communities' willingness to participate and the potential consequences of sharing this information with an administration hostile to immigrants.

The legality of the “citizenship question” is being challenged in federal court (Illinois is among the signatories). It reads “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” Yes options include native born, born abroad to parents who are citizens, or a naturalized citizen. The no option is accompanied by the clause “not a citizen.”

By law, all residents are required to complete census forms. According to Asian Americans for Advancing Justice (AAAJ), penalties for not answering questions or providing false responses may result in $100 and $500 fines, respectively. Actions to inhibit an accurate count could warrant fines of $1,000 and up to one year imprisonment. However, the Census Bureau lacks law enforcement powers, a responsibility of the Justice Department. The Census Bureau does not make such referrals.

According to Politifact, the “Rule of 72” prevents the disclosure of personally identifiable information provided to the Census Bureau for a period of 72 years after its collection. Concerns have been raised about the Roosevelt Administration’s use of census data to facilitate the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. This action was legal at the time, but current statute, as articulated above, prevents its recurrence. Moreover, the Bureau has a strong culture of commitment to confidentiality and privacy, key to the currency of trust it must build with residents to ensure an accurate count.

In balance, then, we strongly recommend that residents complete census forms given the stakes for Illinois that we will lay out in a subsequent post. As educators, we can illustrate these stakes and encourage students to help facilitate form completion at home. In fact, students as young as 15 are permitted to complete forms on their family’s behalf, a common practice in immigrant families according to the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.