[EL] Politico article and Census counting citizens

[Douglas Johnson]

The “big data problem” part of Dr. Persily’s article seems incorrect. For one thing, the column opens with a factually incorrect statement about the current Census: “[T]hat data set counts just two things: the total number of people, and the number of people over the age of 18.”  As Dr. Persily no doubt knows, the current Census short form also counts the members of various ethnic groups [I suspect deleting a reference to that was an editor’s error].

 

But that’s a secondary issue. The heart of the article’s headline-focused argument is near the end: 

“The fact that no accurate count of citizens exists should be the end of the matter. Unless the justices are prepared to mandate a new kind of citizen census — one never contemplated by the Constitution — then they should leave it to the states to draw their districts using the most accurate data available. “

The Constitution, however, also did not contemplate counting voting age population nor ethnicity, and both of those questions have been a part of the Census short form for decades. I see no reason why adding a citizenship question is more of a constitutional question than adding age and ethnicity questions were when they were added.

 

As Dr. Persily’s article lays out well, districting rules are (somewhat oddly) separated from apportionment rules, and the definition of “one person, one vote” is remarkably unspecified by the court. 

 

But I would rebut the article’s main point by saying such an important policy question should not be by whether or not a question is included or excluded from the Census short form. The questions on the form have already ventured far from the Constitutionally mandated count of “persons,” and adding or excluding a citizenship question is a policy decision, not be a process nor legal challenge. 

 

While I have not taken a position either way, I believe that since the Court made this decision justiciable, it would be good for the Court to answer what it meant when it said ‘one person, one vote,’ either 

a)      Each elected official in a given elected body should represent an equal number of people? 

or

b)      Each eligible voter should have equal voting power over the decision of who is elected?

 

Think of it this way: if a decision is made to add citizenship to the Census form, would proponents of answer (a) still want the decision left to the individual jurisdictions?

 

-          Doug

 

Douglas Johnson, Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

at Claremont McKenna College 

douglas.johnson at cmc.edu

310-200-2058 

 

 

 


 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73106> Nate Persily on The Supreme Court’s Big Data Problem in Evenwel


Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73106> June 3, 2015 7:16 am by  <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/the-supreme-courts-big-data-problem-118568.html#.VW8MBlxVhHx> Politico:

Legitimate philosophical arguments can be made in favor of using one set of statistics over another — just as one could argue that some concerns in redistricting, such as keeping counties or communities intact, should override the concern for precise equality. A redistricting plan based on equal numbers of people, the system we have now, also ensures that the workload and constituent-related burdens of representatives are roughly equal. In effect, equal representation may be more important than equal voting power itself.

But the question that confronts the court as it prepares to hear the Evenwel case in the fall is whether the Constitution mandates the use of one statistic to the exclusion of all else. The fact that no accurate count of citizens exists should be the end of the matter. Unless the justices are prepared to mandate a new kind of citizen census — one never contemplated by the Constitution — then they should leave it to the states to draw their districts using the most accurate data available. The one person, one vote rule isn’t broken, and the Supreme Court shouldn’t try to fix it.

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150604/53284df4/attachment.html>