Art, after doing a bit more research, I think I have a better idea of why there is such a resistance to adding this question.
I originally thought it was due to redistricting and how the party in power could draw the lines most favorable to them. While that's still a concern, the bigger issue is undercounting in general. The main purpose of the decennial census is to determine each state's representation in the House. According to Article 1, Section 2:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting
of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years,"
Setting aside the fact that the 3/5 thing, Indians, and indentured servants were eliminated by the 13th amendment, there's nothing there that requires citizenship. The Constitution just basically calls for a body count every 10 years.
The issue, as I understand it, is that immigrants may be reluctant to respond to the census if they have to answer questions about their citizenship status or the citizenship status of family members, which could lead to undercounting in some states, which then could lead to a shift in Congressional representation.
That's major. The census, as defined in the Constitution, does not require proof of citizenship. That, and the possible ramifications of asking the question, is what has a lot of liberals up in arms. |
