Over this weekend, I have seen some postings floating around the net quoting a recent blog from former Republican Congressman (and 2008 Libertarian Candidate) Bob Barr.
The essence of the blog is that it is a federal crime for a landlord to not grant access to your apartment. The title of the blog and tha language used in the blog suggests that access means the right to enter your apartment in your absence. The language also implies that this is something novel and scary. Many conservatives will, based on the blog, argue that this is another step by the Obama administration to establish a police state.
Now for the truth for fighting back against the rabid members of the Tea Party. The statute that Mr. Barr is talking about is Title 13, Section 223 of the US Code. This statute has been around in essentially the same form since 1929 and was last amended in 1957. In other words, it was part of the big plot for a government takeover by Hoover and Eisenhower.
Now for what the law really provides. It provides that census workers can request a list of the names of tenants/guests from the owners of hotels, boarding houses, apartments, etc. It also provides that such landlords must give census workers "ingress" and "egress" to those apartments. As a lawyer, I am used to seeing ingress and egress used in property cases on a somewhat regular basis. Ingress and egress normally is used to describe a path or right of way. It is the way to get to a property. In other words, think of a gated apartment complex or some apartments and many hotels in which the individual rooms or apartments can only be entered from inside the building. What this statute provides is that the landlord can't prevent the census worker from going to the individual apartment or room. It does not require the landlord to permit the census worker to enter the apartment, especially if nobody is home.
Today, I'm thinking about fat fingers and other signs of a "modern" economy. Also about the sadness over the ecological damage to the gulf, and associated needless loss of life on the rig, and the problems to shrimpers and others in the fishing and tourism industries. Much sadness also over the flooding in Nashville and other places. Also wondering when the SCOTUS nomination will come through.
I'm outlining my post for tomorrow on potential changes to Senate rankings based on the primaries later this month.
Mostly, though, I'm thinking about the Census. Since I was a kid and found out about the Census, I always wanted to be part of the process, and was never able to until this year. The way it works is you take a 28 question test, and then they call all the people who received a score of 28, then they call the 27's, etc., until they have a crew for each Census tract. They try to keep the whole crew within a zip code and hand out assignments based on the tracts that comprise the zip. It likely works differently depending on how big the zips are relative to the tracts. But that's how they did it here.
While the Census claims that they added jobs, around here, it's really a part-time gig, because most people are only home nights and weekends. That's certainly different in other places. You're assigned a book, which lists all the houses in your assigned area, and the names of the people who filled out the Census and returned their forms prior to 1 April are listed in a column. Other columns have XXXX's where the forms were received after the books were printed, and others have blanks next to the addresses which need to be enumerated. Those blanks are the housing units you visit, and there is a differing number per book, dependent on the return rate.
Something I learned in the training class was that the commitment to protecting data is absolute. Not only will the Census Bureau release no Personally Identifying Information (PII) for 72 years, but there is also a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in jail for any employee who personally releases any PII, so I can't tell you my really good stories....but I can tell you that my book had my name printed in it, so the houses I'm visiting have people I generally know in them. (I can tell you that I'm in my book because one is allowed to release his/her own personal PII.)
At most of the houses I've enumerated, I've been able to greet the people by name, as they know mine. They're surprised to see me because the Census Bureau asks that you enumerate in business casual clothes, and normally, they see me in jeans. This conversation happens at many of the houses:
"Hi....[person X]"
"Hi Jess, where's Olivia?"
"She's home, I'm on official business, here's my badge."
The person then looks around and asks "Where's your candidate?"
So I'm off later this morning to finish my book: we're expecting a lot of rain, so I'm expecting people to be home.
Working the Census is a lot of fun. It's interesting why people didn't fill out their forms, and explaining why certain questions are asked the way they are.
What are you up to today? What are you thinking about?
When you see "April first" what is the first thing that pops into your mind? Is it an April Fool's Day joke? Well, if you're a regular DCW reader, probably the first thing is "today is Census day"....That's right kids, today is the day the government has requested that everyone returns their census forms if they haven't already.
A lot of people won't be returning them. Personally, I'm hoping that non-compliance takes place in all of Texas except Austin and Dallas, and any other blue enclaves, and that they lose 3 CDs, but that's just wishful thinking. Likewise that Michele Bachmann gets gerrymandered out of existence. And I'm betting there are people not returning their forms in a show of solidarity with the unemployed people who got the enumerator jobs with the Census, and will gladly give their information when those Census workers come around.
But hey -- if you received a form, likely you should have returned it. Did you?
Looks official, doesn't it? At least, the RNC hopes it will, since it's mailing this form, and others like it, to Republicans across the country. It doesn't really look like the real census form, which looks like this:
But it will certainly fool people, and has, especially since it comes in an envelope which says "Do Not Destroy: Official Document."
You may be wondering why we know about this little RNC action. See the addressee on the form? His wife posted this on her blog:
My husband, who is the 8th Congressional District Chair for the Democratic Party of Georgia, has been getting some interesting mail. This mailer from the RNC came just yesterday and is made to look like an official census document. Pretty deceptive, if you ask me. But, the funny part of this is the pitch-the Republican Party would like Daryl to "lead Republicans in the 8th Congressional District." What a hoot! I wonder where the RNC is getting their lists these days, but do appreciate them wasting their donor's money this way.
The magazine AdAge has projected some of the demographics they predict will arise from the 2010 census. While we at DCW are not all that interested in the marketing implications, but rather the political ones, there are two findings that we should take note of, assuming AdAge is correct in its assessment. The points:
No single household type will comprise even a third of households. It used to be that the "Nuclear Family" of a father, a mother and 2.3 children was the dominant type. Now, AdAge contends, they will make up, at most 22% of households.
Minorities become majority. The report says:
One fact says it all: in the two largest states (California and Texas), as well as New Mexico and Hawaii, the nation's traditional majority group -- white non-Hispanics -- is in the minority. [...]
Consider these 2010 projections: 80% of people age 65-plus will be white non-Hispanics. But just 54% of children under age 18 will be white non-Hispanics.
In 2010, Hispanics will be both the nation's fastest-growing and largest minority (50 million people).
So what does this mean politically?
First, it means that the demographics are far more heterogeneous than they ever have been before. For example, in suburbs with great school systems, and high house prices and taxes, there were always more "traditional families" than single people. Now that there will be 14 documented household choices, politicians will have to "play" to more types. At the local level, that might make it harder to get property taxes raised if they are earmarked for schools. While there are a lot of people who contend that better schools raise property values, single households, couples whose children have grown up and left home, couples who don't want children, etc., may vote down these increases as they would rather see less property appreciation and lower taxes.
On a state level, it means that the wingnuts are going to have problems going forward. Even in blood red states like Wyoming, Alaska and Utah, there are single people and gay people. While there have always been one-person households shown demographically in the census, there were never "gay households." Census data is aggregated and the final tallies anonymous, and thus people who may be in the closet at work but are actually gay married people would show as "married." The census will be breaking out both gay and straight marriages. While most states still don't recognize gay marriage, it doesn't mean that couples have not married in states that do, and then moved. A force to be reckoned with.
Next, there is the issue of Hispanics. It is truly a game changer if the majority of people in a state are not non-white Hispanics. Not for people like me, the rest of the DCW team, and most of the people who read DCW. We don't have "gay friends" and "Hispanic friends" and "black friends" etc. We have FRIENDS. We don't actually group our friends by religion, race, sexual orientation, or anything other than, perhaps "old childhood friend who also hasn't aged" or "close friend" or "fair weather friend." But to the people who hate: the bigots, the racists, and their ilk, this will be a problem.
Remember this graphic? The daily considerations a year ago of who would win which state, and who would reach/surpass the magic 270? We know the Census is coming next year, and from there, Congressional Districts will be re-allocated based on state populations. The conventional wisdom says that places like California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Florida will pick up seats at the expense of the rust belt: a trend which we've seen over the past several decades.
The conventional wisdom is likely wrong.
If you look at the map, you'll notice that the highest EV count belong to the states with the highest populations. The population for each state is after the jump. They are the July 2008 Census numbers. Here's the thing: it looks like California and Florida will lose population. California has lost at least 500,000 people since 2004, and that number could actually report as a million by the time all the 2010 Census numbers come in. Florida has lost at least 58,000 people between July 2008 and July 2009. It's hard to tell exactly how many.
USA Today (1 September 2009, page 1A) ran an article detailing the Florida population loss. But there was a problem: their base numbers differed from the Census numbers, by 400,000. I called the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research to ask about the discrepancy. They said (after several conversations) that they stood by their numbers. I called the US Census Bureau, and they also stand by their numbers: so it's hard to tell how big the loss actually is. If Florida is correct about the current numbers, then the loss next year in the Census would top half a million.
The states which will lose the most population are those with high bubble housing prices, and relatively high unemployment coupled with more recent population growth and younger populations. Thus, add Nevada and Arizona to Florida and California.
Remember, it's unlikely that the United States would lose population countrywide. That means the people who leave will move somewhere. You might think that Ohio and Michigan would also face high population losses due to the high unemployment numbers, but the populations there are more established, and less likely to leave the state. The logic is that if a family moved somewhere a few years ago to take advantage of job growth (common in, say, Nevada) and the jobs dried up and they lost their house, they'd likely go back to their home state. If you lived your life in Michigan, and your grandfather and father worked for GM, and you lost your GM job, it's less likely that your whole family would leave Michigan. The prime breadwinner might go to another state to find employment, but the other parent (and their children) might well move in with relatives.
Traditionally, the longer someone lives somewhere, the larger and stronger his/her social structure. More family, more friends, more options.
My projections based on trending demographics are as follows:
Losing one seat each: California, Florida, Louisiana
Gaining one state each: Georgia, Texas, Utah
I think everything else stays the same. Take Pennsylvania: conventional wisdom says it will lose a seat in 2010, but Pennsylvania has gained about 200,000 people since 2000. Thus, its population is relatively stable. Most of the rust belt states are in similar positions. Remember, it's not about total population as much as it is about shifts: by not losing population, a lot of the states that lost out to the sunbelt over the last few censuses may well keep what they have.
Comments are open, I'm sure most of you have a different perspective.
We reported a few days ago about a Kentucky census worker who was found hanged with the word "Fed" on his chest, and the authorities were unclear whether it was murder or suicide.
Seems they actually did know. In fact, anyone who saw the body would have known. Here is the description from one of the men who found Bill Sparkman (his name was finally released):
The only thing he had on was a pair of socks. And they had duct-taped his hands, his wrists. He had duct tape over his eyes, and they gagged him with a red flag or something. And they even had duct tape around his next. And they had like his identification tag on his neck. They had duct-taped to the side of his nect, on the right side, almost on his right shoulder.
That is a direct quote from Jerry Weaver, who was amoung the group of relatives who found Mr. Sparkman. (Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, 27 September, page A21.) Other family members reported that his feet were bound with duct tape.
Other information in the article includes that Kentucky State Police Captain Lisa Rudzinski indicated the police had still not determined whether the death was a homicide, suicide or accident. The fact that the authorities will not confirm that this is a homicide is appalling. It reeks of the black lynchings in the South which were also determined to be "suicides". If they don't declare it a homicide, they will not investigate, and will never find, the person or people who killed this man.
Yesterday, we reported on people and organization who were opposed to filling out their census forms. That can have great financial and political ramifications, but I never thought we'd see this:
The FBI and the Kentucky State Police are investigating the death of a 51-year-old Census worker who was found hanged near a cemetery in rural Kentucky. The word “fed” was written across the man’s chest, said a law enforcement official who was briefed on the incident. The official asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to comment on the matter.
FBI spokesman David Beyer said authorities were investigating whether Bill Sparkman’s death was a murder or a possible suicide. His body was discovered Sept. 12, hanging near a cemetery in southeast Clay County, where some of Sparkman’s relatives are buried, Beyer said. Sparkman had been diagnosed with Stage 3 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and had undergone chemotherapy, according to The Sentinel-Echo newspaper of London, Ky.
“One of the things we are looking at is whether there is any relationship between his death and the fact that he is a Census worker,” police spokesman Lt. David Jude said. — Kevin Johnson (USA Today, page A3)
Not filling out a form is one thing, killing someone for doing an honest day's work is something else entirely.
Some Latino groups for the first time are urging people to refuse to fill out the Census form unless Congress helps an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants gain legal status.
That line really caught my eye in today's USA Today (page 5A).
There are other groups, as always, protesting against something in the census. Urban types want prisoners counted at home to not skew voting districts, since incarcerated criminals cannot vote, and many prisons are located in rural areas, while the prisoners come from urban areas. Bob Bennett (IIE-UT) submitted a bill to disallow the counting of illegal immigrants. Incredibly problematic since the Census has never asked immigration status. Michele Bachmann (IIE-MN) and her ilk are just plain nuts.
But it's the potential Hispanic refusal that is of greatest concern. Think California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Florida. What if none of the Hispanics, or only 50% of the Hispanics, fill out census forms? Below is a map based on 2000 data. While we know the data has changed, Hispanic population has only increased. If you click on the map, you'll be able to see state-by-state data.
IMAGINE what this would do to overall population in the states affected, not to mention the county-by-county effects. Then, think in terms of re-allocation of Congressional seats in 2011. Already, Florida lost population in 2009 compared to 2008, meaning that they won't be getting an additional seat no matter what. If they lose one...
And what of Texas? Rumour has it they could gain up to three seats. If there are no Hispanics there, I'm thinking, not so much.
The Hispanic organizations promulgating the "just say no to the census" plan are basically cutting off their noses to spite their collective faces. They somehow think that this form of blackmail will cause codification and implementation of the massive, unilateral immigration reform they want so badly. They somehow haven't thought through that if the stated population of the United States becomes, say, 6% Hispanic instead of 13% Hispanic, they are NOT helping their cause.
It also means that a lot of rust belt states with reasonably stable populations will suddenly, relatively appear to be larger compared to other states. And what about the cities? Right now, in order of population, the 10 largest US cities are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Dallas, San Diego and San Jose.
Phoenix only overtook Philadelphia as the 4th largest city in the last census, and not by much. Without Hispanics, Phoenix will drop in rank, as will Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and San Diego. This affects all sorts of public funding levels, not to mention all sorts of other economic impacts. For example, ad rates are set by the size of the media markets -- less ad revenue is less income for yet another local industry.
There is an article in today's Washington Post about complaints states make in determining residence for Census counts. I'll admit, my Census focus has been on Robert Groves confirmation and the inclusion of same-sex married partners being counted AS married people. This flew under my radar.
First though, the Census Bureau has made a determination on same-sex marriage:
The decision reverses a Bush-era policy that prohibited the release of the data. In a legal opinion published last week, Commerce Department lawyers concluded that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not prohibit the Census Bureau from publicly releasing the data, contrary to the conclusions reached by Bush administration lawyers.
Continuing current policy, the new guidelines state that software used by Census enumerators will recode answers given by same sex-partners who mark their relationship status as "husband or wife," to "unmarried partner." But then, in late 2011, Census officials will for the first time release the raw state-by-state data on same-sex couples that marked their relationship status as "husband or wife."
Matt had sent me that article, and in his email he pointed out that while it wasn't the perfect answer we all wanted, there's no doubt that enough people know how to use the Sum function in Excel to get a nationwide number. My thought on this is that it was the IRS, not the FBI that brought down Al Capone. Perhaps it will be a bunch of enumerators and actuaries who start the death knell for the racist, misogynistic, homophobic wing nuts that wish to deny standing to gay people.
So back to "where do you live?" The idea of the Census is that one day is picked, and Americans list where they live ON THAT DAY. It seems pretty simple to me. So Bernie Madoff et. al. are counted as "in prison" on 1 April 2010. College students are counted in their dorms. The count in itself is not political, it's statistical. The applications of the Census data, though, are political, and thus we have Utah pushing for counting their missionaries in foreign countries as living in Utah, Northeastern states counting snowbirds as living there and not in Florida, and the Gulf states asking that people who plan to return are counted in Louisiana, Alabama, etc.
First, we finally know the names of the Senators with anonymous hold on Robert Groves' nomination, courtesy of Roll Call (sub req'd): Richard Shelby and David Vitter. (Those links, by the way, are to several of the pair's shenanigans, but are by no means inclusive lists of their individual and group foibles and lunacies.)
At least they're out of the closet. (Sorry, sorry, sorry, couldn't help myself.)
Seriously, Robert Groves is an excellent choice to head the Census Bureau, as we've written before, here and here. There will be many challenges with the 2010 Census, and it starts just eight short months from now. If Dr. Groves is to be voted down, let it be quick, because a leaderless Census Bureau will be unable to do its job.
Dick and Dave object because they don't want statistical sampling used, and they believe that Dr. Groves will utilize the technique. He said he wouldn't in his confirmation hearings earlier this year. They must think Dr. Groves lied to the Senate. I understand this because they both have long histories of lying to everyone, and therefore don't believe that other people are honest.
But many people, the DCW team included, want to see him confirmed. So does Harry Reid, and he is looking to force a cloture vote on Monday. (Update: Reid filed the paperwork for Cloture late on Thursday). As in "take that magic number 60 out for a spin." I'm hoping he can count on Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, or two other Republicans, because by my count, the Majority Leader is only at 58, unless he can find a way to get Senators Byrd and Kennedy healthy enough to attend. Neither is currently in DC.
We reported a couple weeks ago that the Census would be counting married gay couples as married couples. Technology may not catch up in time.
USA Today is reporting that there are several challenges (6 July, page 3A). Currently, the software used by the Census Bureau automatically converts same-sex married couples to unmarried partners. The last time the census was taken, there were not US states that recognized gay marriage, so this made sense at the time. According to the newspaper, the Census Bureau does not have a high level of confidence that it can update the computers in time.
While it seems counter-intuitive, there may be reasons to hold off on the changes. Census data is used to do various things, beyond the redistricting on which everyone who reads this site focuses. Amoung them are enforcement of fair housing and equal opportunity laws: if classifying more gay married couples as straight married couples adversely affects the government's ability to enforce fair housing legislation, that would be bad.
The other issue has to do with shared federal data as it relates to family income and family size, in fact, the definition of "family": these areas would have to be reclassified.
The above three paragraphs are a reporting of the information, basically from Census Bureau sources. I read the article. I typed up the information. I should leave it at that.
But I can't.
It's inexcusable for the Census Bureau to NOT make the changes. And whatever the outcome to the classifications of family demographics, the goal of the decennial enumeration is an honest accounting of people living in the United States. And it is dishonest to say people aren't married when they are.
In related news, no, there is no progress on the Groves nomination. He's still on anonymous hold courtesy of some coward Senator. If this reminds you of "double secret probation" from Animal House, you're not alone.
First, the good news: in a smack-down to the Bush administration, married gay couples will be counted as "married" in the 2010 census. It's also a baby-smack to DOMA, which deserves a bigger smack, but it's better than nothing.
Second, the bad news: Robert Groves is still on hold to head the Census Bureau. Bad, bad, bad.
Finally, the inane: Michele Bachmann, US Congressperson and goo-humor-source is refusing to fill out her census form. She seems to be unaware of the Constitutional requirement to do so. Her reasoning? She doesn't trust how the data will be used and she's afraid ACORN will somehow be involved. Since it's federal law, I'm hoping they arrest her for non-compliance. But mostly, I'm hoping that she can convince enough of her neighbors to not fill out their forms so that she gets redistricted out of existence. Just kidding, I don't want anyone to convince others to break the law, but there would be some poetic justice in that...
We, the people, have a census every ten years. That count has been undertaken every ten years since 1790. Said enumeration is stipulated in the Constitution: right up front in Section 2 of Article 1. We, the people, need to know how many of us there are. Originally, it was to make sure that there was one Representative for every 30,000 people. Albeit, now that number is about 650,000. Now, we use Census data not just to apportion House seats, but to look at how all sorts of government goods and services are assigned based on population. And it is a good thing to know how many people live here.
Taking a census was much easier many years ago. First, all you had to do was send someone out with a written form and a quill pen. He would go door to door, people would answer the door, and give correct answers. In 1790, there were 3,929,326 people enumerated in the United States, of whom 697,681 were slaves. This is what was asked:
Name of head of family
Number of free white males 16 and up, including heads of families
Number of free white males under 16
Number of free white females including heads of families
Number of all other free persons, except Indians not taxed
Number of slaves
If you want to see a PDF of the actual findings that still remain (some were lost during a fire in 1812), click this link, download the top zip file, and then open the one marked "02".
Things have changed since then. First, THANKFULLY we no longer legally allow slaves in these United States. Second, we ask more questions. But the big change is that it's much harder to find everyone and therefore get an accurate count. Not to mention the problem of finding people committed to not being found.
It is something of an understatement to describe Robert Groves as "an expert in survey methodology." He is one of our nations' most respected survey methodologists and arguably the leading authority on the subject of non-response in surveys.
Groves' nomination is supported by seven above-reproach scientific groups in the stat field.
Dr. Groves is eminently qualified. He's an incredibly smart person, with the kind of background that doesn't lead itself to be swayed by petty politics. He's facing the most expensive Census in history, with an overlay of problems related to the implementation of new technology into the process.
Several budgetary, procedural and political issues await the next director. Next year’s census will cost at least $15 billion, the most expensive ever. The bureau received $1 billion in stimulus funding to help prepare for the census and will devote up to $250 million for advertising and outreach programs to help boost participation levels among traditionally undercounted groups, mostly minorities in urban areas.
The bureau has been criticized for the development of new handheld, GPS-enabled computers that approximately 140,000 temporary workers will start using this week for address canvassing, or a national verification of each place of residence. Field tests raised concerns about the devices and the bureau decided last April to use them for address canvassing only. The Government Accountability Office has also raised concerns about how the Census will process the hundreds of thousands of new fingerprint records for temporary hires that conduct next year’s follow up visits with people who do not complete Census forms.
The undercount is a problem, and has been in the past. Yes, there have been overcount problems, but they have not been as severe. The undercount relates in part to the "non-response" issue alluded to by Mark Blumenthal. The proposed solution is "statistical sampling" where the "true" or "truer" number is derived from known data properly extrapolated to what the totals would have been had everyone answered.
Please use the comments to say whether or not you support the idea of using statistical sampling. If you're opposed, please cite what you would do instead to make sure that the count is accurate.
If you look at the map, you'll notice that the highest EV count belong to the states with the highest populations. The population for each state is after the jump. They are the July 2008 Census numbers. Here's the thing: it looks like California and Florida will lose population. California has lost at least 500,000 people since 2004, and that number could actually report as a million by the time all the 2010 Census numbers come in. Florida has lost at least 58,000 people between July 2008 and July 2009. It's hard to tell exactly how many. 
