Supreme Court of the United States...Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE, ET AL., Petitioners, —v.— STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

No. 18-966

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ET AL., Petitioners,

—v.—

STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

(VOLUME 2)

d

DALE E. HO*

American Civil Liberties

Union Foundation

125 Broad Street

New York, NY 10004-2400

[email protected]

(212) 549-2693

LETITIA JAMES

Attorney General

State of New York

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD*

Solicitor General

28 Liberty Street

New York, NY 10005-1400

[email protected]

(212) 416-8016

*Counsels of Record

for Respondents

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

[email protected]

(202) 514-2217

Counsel of Record

for Petitioners

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: JAN. 25, 2019

CERTIORARI GRANTED: FEB. 15, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Volume 2 of 4

Excerpts from Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey (Mar. 2017) (A.R. 194–270) ................................ 160

Emails between Kris Kobach and Wendy Teramoto (July 24, 2017) (A.R. 763–764) .......... 185

Letter from Vanita Gupta to Wilbur Ross (Jan. 4, 2018) (A.R. 773–775) ............................. 188

Letter from Leadership Conference to Wilbur Ross (Jan. 10, 2018) (A.R. 798–803) ...... 193

Letter from Vincent Barabba, et al. to Wilbur Ross (Jan. 26, 2018) (A.R. 1057–1058) ................................................ 203

Letter from Jeff Landry to Wilbur Ross (Feb. 8, 2018) (A.R. 1079–1080) ......................... 207

Letter from Eric Schneiderman, et al. to Wilbur Ross (Feb. 12, 2018) (A.R. 1090–1101) ................................................ 211

Summary of Conversation between Wilbur Ross and Hermann Habermann, Former Deputy Director and COO of Census Bureau (A.R. 1259–1260) ...................... 235

Summary of Conversation between Secretary Ross and Christine Pierce, SVP of Data Science, Nielsen (A.R. 1276) ......... 238

i

PAGE

Emails between Wilbur Ross and Earl Comstock (Sept. 1, 2017) (A.R. 2424) ........ 241

Email from Earl Comstock to Wendy Teramoto (Sept. 16, 2017) (A.R. 2458) ............................... 243

Email from Earl Comstock to Wilbur Ross (Mar. 10, 2017) (A.R. 2521–2523) ...................... 245

Email from Wilbur Ross to Peter Davidson (Sept. 19, 2017) (A.R. 2528) ............................... 251

Emails between Wendy Teramoto, Danielle Cutrona, and John Gore (Sept. 18, 2017) (A.R. 2636) ............................... 252

Emails between Danielle Cutrona, Wendy Teramoto, and John Gore (Sept. 18, 2017) (A.R. 2651–2652) ...................... 254

Email from John Abowd to John Philips, et al. (Feb. 20, 2018) (A.R. 2950–2953) ....................... 257

Email from Ron Jarmin to Karen Kelley (Dec. 22, 2017) (A.R. 3289) ................................. 264

Email from Ron Jarmin to Karen Kelley (Feb. 6, 2018) (A.R. 3460) ................................... 266

Draft Letter from Wilbur Ross to Senator Harris (Jan. 2018) (A.R. 3560–3561) ................................................ 267

Letter from Civil Rights Legal Groups to Wilbur Ross (Mar. 22, 2018) (A.R. 3605–3606) ................................................ 269

ii

PAGE

Emails between David Langdon, Lisa Blumerman, Burton Reist, et al. (May 24, 2017) (A.R. 3702–3704) ....................... 273

Email from Earl Comstock to Wilbur Ross (May 2, 2017) (A.R. 3710) ................................... 276

Talking Points re: Citizenship Question Request and Process of Adding Content to Decennial Census (A.R. 3890–3891) .................. 277

Emails between Wilbur Ross and Earl Comstock (Aug. 10, 2017) (A.R. 3984) ............... 281

Email from Earl Comstock to Wilbur Ross (Aug. 8, 2017) (A.R. 4004) .................................. 283

Excerpts from Submission of the 2020 Census and American Community Survey Questions to Congress (Feb. 2018) (A.R. 4802–4826) ................................................ 284

Memorandum from John Abowd to Ron Jarmin (Jan. 3, 2018) (A.R. 5473–5475) ......................... 290

Email from Ron Jarmin to Arthur Gary (Jan. 3, 2018) (A.R. 5489-5491) .......................... 296

Alternative Sources of Citizenship Data for the 2020 Census (Dec. 22, 2017) (A.R. 5500–5511) ................................................ 301

iii

PAGE

Summary of the Process for Using Administrative Records to Add Citizenship to the 2020 Census Microdata and Produce Block-level Tabulations from the Enhanced Data (Jan. 19, 2018) (A.R. 6415) ...... 319

Questions Assigned for the Census Memorandum (A.R. 7644–7645) ........................ 322

Excerpts from Challenges and Experiences Adapting Differentially Private Mechanisms to the 2020 Census (2018) (A.R. 8912–8953) ................................................ 324

Email from Christa Jones to Sahra Park-Su (Feb. 24, 2018) (A.R. 9190) ................................. 347

Emails between John Abowd and Mark Asiala (Jan. 29, 2018) (A.R. 9205–9207) ....................... 348

Emails between Mark Asiala and John Abowd (Jan. 29, 2018) (A.R. 9218–9220) ....................... 349

Email from John Abowd to Ron Jarmin (Jan. 29, 2018) (A.R. 9221) ................................. 357

Emails between John Abowd, Mark Asiala, et al. (Jan. 29, 2018) (A.R. 9222–9224) .............. 359

Emails between Mark Asiala, John Abowd, et al. (Jan. 29, 2018) (A.R. 9225–9226) .............. 361

Memorandum from Center for Survey Measurement to Associate Directorate for Research and Methodology (Sept. 20, 2017) (A.R. 10386–10393) ............................................ 365

iv

PAGE

Checklist for Disclosure Avoidance Officers (Jan. 19, 2018) (A.R. 10733–10734) ................... 379

Questions on the Jan. 19 Draft Census Memo on the DOJ Citizenship Question Request (A.R. 10895–10902) ............................................ 381

Spreadsheet re: Question Assignments (A.R. 10950) ........................................................ 395

Email from Matt Fidel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism to Wilbur Ross (Feb. 15, 2018) (A.R. 1122–1123) ....................... 397

Emails between Earl Comstock and James Uthmeier (Aug. 11, 2017) (A.R. 11343–11345) ............................................ 401

Memorandum from John Abowd to Ron Jarmin (Dec. 22, 2017) (A.R. 11646–11648) ................... 404

Emails between Wilbur Ross and Earl Comstock (Aug. 10, 2017) (A.R. 12476) ............. 410

Emails between Earl Comstock, Wendy Teramoto, and Wilbur Ross (Aug. 10, 2017) (A.R. 12755–12756) ............................................ 412

Email from Christa Jones to Sahra Park-Su (Feb. 24, 2018) (A.R. 13023–13024) ................... 416

Emails between Karen Kelley, Israel Hernandez, Sahra Park-Su, et al. (Sept. 11, 2017) ................................................... 418

Joint Stipulations .................................................... 421

v

PAGE

Declaration of Steven Choi (Oct. 26, 2018) ............. 429

Supplemental Declaration of Steven Choi (Nov. 2, 2018) ...................................................... 441

Excerpts from Declaration of Dr. Jennifer Van Hook ............................................................ 448

Affidavit of Susan Brower (Oct. 25, 2018) .............. 462

Declaration of George Escobar (Oct. 26, 2018) ....... 466

Affidavit of Marchelle Franklin (Oct. 25, 2018) ..... 477

Affidavit of Emily Freedman (Oct. 24, 2018) .......... 484

Excerpts from Affidavit of Dr. Hermann Habermann (Oct. 26, 2018) ................................ 489

Affidavit of Katherine Harvell Haney (Oct. 24, 2018) ..................................................... 497

Affidavit of Jason Harmon (Oct. 23, 2018) ............. 502

Declaration of Samer Khalaf (Oct. 26, 2018) .......... 511

Affidavit of Christine Pierce (Nov. 6, 2018) ............ 527

Affidavit of Elizabeth Plum (Oct. 26, 2018) ............ 547

Affidavit of Jacqueline Tiema-Massie (Oct. 23, 2018) ..................................................... 534

Volume 3 of 4

Declaration of Daniel Altschuler (Oct. 26, 2018) ..................................................... 558

vi

PAGE

Supplemental Declaration of Daniel Altschuler (Nov. 2, 2018) ...................................................... 572

Affidavit of Todd A. Breitbart (Oct. 26, 2018) ........ 583

Excerpts from Amended Declaration of Dr. John Thompson (Nov. 11, 2018) .................. 592

Excerpts from U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Quality Standards .............................................. 604

Memorandum from Lisa Blumerman to the Record (Apr. 29, 2016) ................................. 634

Excerpts from Defendants’ Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Defendant U.S. Department of Commerce ....................................................... 650

Excerpts from Office of Management and Budget Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys (Sept. 2006) ......................... 654

Addendum to Statistical Policy Directive No. 2 ..... 677

Committee on National Statistics Letter Report on the 2020 Census (Aug. 7, 2018) ........ 697

Excerpts from Status Conference Transcript (July 3, 2018) ...................................................... 747

Excerpts from Trial Transcript (Nov. 5, 2018–Nov. 15, 2018) ............................ 755

Excerpts from 2010 Census Match Study (Nov. 16, 2012) .................................................... 953

vii

PAGE

Testimony of Wilbur Ross before the House Committee on Ways and Means (Mar. 22, 2018) ................................................... 956

Defendant’s Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Plaintiffs’ Claims ................................................ 960

Volume 4 of 4

Disclosure Avoidance Officer Exempt Data Product Release Form (Jan. 22, 2018) (A.R. 10735–10736) ............................................ 965

Excerpts from J. David Brown, et al., Understanding the Quality of Alternative Citizenship Data Sources for the 2020 Census (Aug. 6, 2018) ......................................... 967

Excerpts from Deposition of John Gore (Oct. 26, 2018) ................................................... 1021

Excerpts from Deposition of Sahra Park-Su (Oct. 25, 2018) ................................................... 1116

Excerpts from Deposition of Dr. John Abowd (Aug. 29, 2018) .................................................. 1119

Declaration of Dr. Andrew Reamer (Oct. 23, 2018) ................................................... 1136

Excerpts from Declaration of Dr. Christopher Warshaw (Oct. 26, 2018) .................................. 1164

viii

PAGE

Census Bureau Website Page: “American Community Survey When to Use 1-Year, 3-Year, or 5-Year Estimates” ........................... 1197

U.S. Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection, 2020 Census Federal Register Notice Vol. 83, No. 111 (June 8, 2018) ............. 1200

2000 Long-Form Decennial Census (A.R. 2–39) ... 1211

2000 Short-Form Decennial Census (A.R. 42–46) ...................................................... 1249

2010 Decennial Census (A.R. 48–52) .................... 1254

2010 American Community Survey (ACS) (A.R. 509–523) .................................................. 1259

Excerpts from Deposition of Earl Comstock ......... 1274

Excerpts from 2020 Census Program Management Review (A.R. 5253–5275) ........... 1295

[COVER]Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census

and American Community Survey

__________

Federal Legislative and Program Uses

Issued March 2017 Revised

[IMAGE]

United StatesTM Census BureauU.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics AdministrationU.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

1

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX 01 (DOCUMENTS 1 THRU 6) AL 3/21/19

160

* * *AgeAge asked since 1790.

AGE AND DATE OF BIRTH QUESTIONS AREUSED TO UNDERSTAND THE SIZE ANDCHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT AGEGROUPS AND TO PRESENT OTHER DATABY AGE.Age data are used in planning and fundinggovernment programs that provide funds orservices for specific age groups, such as children,working-age adults, women of childbearing age, orthe older population. These statistics are also usedto enforce laws, regulations, and policies againstage discrimination in government programs and insociety.

AGE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES:

Provide Assistance to Older AmericansKnowing how many people in a community areaged 60 and older helps local officials provideprograms and services that enable older adults to remain living safely in their homes andcommunities (Older Americans Act). Age data arealso used in programs that provide services andassistance to seniors, such as financial assistancewith utilities (Low Income Home Energy AssistanceProgram).

2


161

Provide Assistance to Children and FamiliesKnowing the numbers and ages of children infamilies in combination with other information,such as household income, health insurancestatus, and poverty status, can help communitiesenroll eligible families in programs designed toassist them. For example, age data are used intargeted efforts to enroll eligible people inMedicaid and the Children’s Health InsuranceProgram.

Educate Children and AdultsKnowing how many children and adults depend onservices through schools helps school districtsmake long-term building, staffing, and fundingdecisions. Age in combination with otherinformation, such as disability status, languagespoken at home, and poverty status, assistsschools in understanding the needs of theirstudents and qualifying for grants that help fundprograms for those students (Elementary andSecondary Education Act of 1965).

Ensure Equal OpportunityKnowing the ages of people in the community incombination with information about housing,employment, and education, helps governmentand communities enforce laws, regulations, andpolicies against discrimination based on age. Forexample, age information is used to analyze theemployment status of workers by age (AgeDiscrimination in Employment Act).

3


162

4


Sele

cted

Sta

tuto

ry U

ses

of A

ge D

ata

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Agr

icul

ture

42 U

SC §

§ 14

72, 1

474,

148

5, 1

486,

149

0,an

d 14

90a

7 C

FR 3

550.

10U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

duca

tion

20 U

SC §

§ 63

33, 6

334(

a)(1

), 63

35(a

), an

d63

37(b

)(1)

(A)

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

cati

on22

0 U

SC §

§ 68

21, 6

824,

701

1(5)

, and

7801

(20)

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

42 U

SC 3

00kk

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

for

Com

mun

ity

Livi

ngU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d Pa

tien

t Pro

tect

ion

and

Aff

orda

ble

Car

e A

ct,

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Cen

ter

for

Publ

ic L

aw 1

11-1

48, §

103

34; 4

2 U

SC 3

00kk

Med

icar

e an

d M

edic

aid

Serv

ices

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

42 U

SC §

139

7ii(

b)(2

)(A

)-(C

)H

uman

Ser

vice

s, O

ffic

e of

the

Ass

ista

nt S

ecre

tary

for

Plan

ning

an

d E

valu

atio

nU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ousi

ng a

nd

12 U

SC §

170

1q; 2

4 C

FR p

art 8

91U

rban

Dev

elop

men

tU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of J

usti

ce,

Vot

ing

Rig

hts

Act

of 1

965,

Pub

lic L

aw 8

9-C

ivil

Rig

hts

Div

isio

n11

0, a

s am

ende

d, §

203

; 52

USC

§ 1

0503

; 28

CFR

Par

t 55

163

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Jus

tice

,Ti

tle

VII

of t

he C

ivil

Rig

hts

Act

of 1

964,

C

ivil

Rig

hts

Div

isio

nPu

blic

Law

88-

352;

42

USC

§ 2

000e

-2U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of L

abor

Old

er A

mer

ican

s A

ct A

men

dmen

ts o

f 200

0,Pu

blic

Law

109

-365

, 42

USC

§ 3

056e

; 20

CFR

641

.140

, 641

.360

, and

641

.365

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or29

USC

§§

49f(

a)(3

)(D

), 49

g(d)

, and

49

l-2(

a)15

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fixi

ng A

mer

ica’

s Su

rfac

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 1

14-9

4; 4

9 U

SC §

530

3(c)

,(e

), (h

), (i

), (j)

,(k),

and

(n)

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Vet

eran

s A

ffair

s38

USC

§ 8

104(

b)(2

)U

.S. E

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Fede

ral W

ater

Pol

luti

on C

ontr

ol A

ct

Age

ncy

(Cle

an W

ater

Act

), Pu

blic

Law

92-

500,

33

USC

§ 1

254(

a)(1

)-(2

), (b

)(2)

, (b)

(6),

(b)(

7),

(n)(

1), a

nd (o

)(1)

U.S

. Equ

al E

mpl

oym

ent O

ppor

tuni

tyA

ge D

iscr

imin

atio

n in

Em

ploy

men

t Act

of

Com

mis

sion

, Off

ice

of G

ener

al19

67, P

ublic

Law

90-

202,

29

USC

§ 6

23(a

)-(d)

Cou

nsel

and

633a

; 29

CFR

1625

.7(d

); H

azel

woo

d Sc

hool

Dis

t. v

. Uni

ted

Stat

es, 4

33 U

.S. 2

99 (1

977)

U.S

. Soc

ial S

ecur

ity

Adm

inis

trat

ion

The

Soci

al S

ecur

ity

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 7

4-27

1,as

am

ende

d, 4

2 U

SC §

401

(c)

5


164

GenderGender asked since 1790.

A QUESTION ABOUT THE GENDER OFEACH PERSON IS USED TO CREATESTATISTICS ABOUT MALES AND FEMALESAND TO PRESENT OTHER DATA, SUCH ASOCCUPATION, BY GENDER.Gender data are used in planning and fundinggovernment programs and in evaluating othergovernment programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of males and females. These statistics are also used toenforce laws, regulations, and policies againstdiscrimination in government programs and insociety.

GENDER DATA HELP COMMUNITIES:

Ensure Equal OpportunityKnowing the gender of people in the community incombination with information about housing,voting, language, employment, and education,helps government and communities enforce laws,regulations, and policies against discrimination onthe basis of gender. For example, gender data areused to enforce laws against discrimination basedon gender in education programs and activitiesreceiving federal financial assistance (Title IX ofthe Education Amendments of 1972).

Understand ChangesKnowing whether people of different genders havethe same opportunities in education, employment,

6


165

voting, home ownership, and many other areas isof interest to researchers, advocacy groups, andpolicymakers. For example, the National ScienceFoundation uses gender data to provide informationon women in the science and engineering work-force, and several agencies use gender data toinvestigate whether women, including women whoare military veterans, have similar employmentopportunities as men.

7


166

8


Sele

cted

Sta

tuto

ry U

ses

of G

ende

r D

ata

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

42 U

SC §

862

3(a)

(2) a

nd (4

), §

8629

(a)(

1)-(

3),

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

(6),

§ 86

29(b

)fo

r C

hild

ren

and

Fam

ilies

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

42 U

SC 3

00kk

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

for

Com

mun

ity

Livi

ngU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d42

USC

§§

299a

(a)(

3),(6

),(8)

, 299

b-2(

a)(1

), H

uman

Ser

vice

s, A

genc

y fo

ran

d 29

9(c)

(1)(

B)

Hea

lthc

are

Res

earc

h an

d Q

ualit

yU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d Pa

tien

t Pro

tect

ion

and

Aff

orda

ble

Car

e A

ct,

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Cen

ter

for

Publ

ic L

aw 1

11-1

48, §

103

34;

Med

icar

e an

d M

edic

aid

Serv

ices

42 U

SC 3

00kk

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

42 U

SC §

254

e; 4

2 C

FR 5

.2H

uman

Ser

vice

s, H

ealt

h R

esou

rces

an

d Se

rvic

es A

dmin

istr

atio

n,

Bur

eau

of C

linic

ian

Rec

ruit

men

t an

d Se

rvic

e

167

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

42 U

SC §

139

7ii (

b)(2

)(A

)-(C

)H

uman

Ser

vice

s, O

ffic

e of

the

Ass

ista

nt S

ecre

tary

for

Plan

ning

an

d E

valu

atio

nU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ousi

ng a

nd

Fair

Hou

sing

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 9

0-28

4,

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

42 U

SC 3

600-

3620

, 42

USC

360

8(e)

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Jus

tice

, Ti

tle

VII

of t

he C

ivil

Rig

hts

Act

of 1

964,

C

ivil

Rig

hts

Div

isio

nPu

blic

Law

88-

352,

42

USC

§ 2

000e

(2)(

k);

War

ds C

ove

Pack

ing

Co.

v. A

toni

o; 4

90 U

.S.

642

(198

9)U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of J

usti

ce,

Titl

e IX

of t

he E

duca

tion

Am

endm

ents

of

Civ

il R

ight

s D

ivis

ion

1972

, 20

USC

§ 1

701

et s

eq.

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fixi

ng A

mer

ica’

s Su

rfac

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 1

14- 9

4; 4

9 U

SC §

530

3(c)

,(e

), (h

), (i

), (j)

,(k),

and

(n)

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Vet

eran

s A

ffair

s38

USC

§ 5

46

9


168

U.S

. Env

iron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n Fe

dera

l Wat

er P

ollu

tion

Con

trol

Act

A

genc

y(C

lean

Wat

er A

ct),

Publ

ic L

aw 9

2-50

0,

33 U

SC §

125

4(a)

(1)-

(2),

(b)(

2), (

b)(6

), (b

)(7)

,(n

)(1)

, and

(o)(

1)U

.S. E

qual

Em

ploy

men

t C

ivil

Rig

hts

Act

of 1

964,

Pub

lic L

aw 8

8-35

2;O

ppor

tuni

ty C

omm

issi

on,

42 U

SC §

200

0e-2

(k)(

1)(A

); H

azel

woo

d O

ffic

e of

Gen

eral

Cou

nsel

Scho

ol D

ist.

v. U

nite

d St

ates

, 433

U.S

. 299

,30

7-30

8 (1

977)

U.S

. Equ

al E

mpl

oym

ent O

ppor

tuni

tyC

ivil

Rig

hts

Act

of 1

964,

Pub

lic L

aw 8

8-35

2;C

omm

issi

on, O

ffic

e of

Res

earc

h,

42 U

SC §

200

0e-2

(k)(

1)(A

); H

azel

woo

d In

form

atio

n, a

nd P

lann

ing

Scho

ol D

ist.

v. U

nite

d St

ates

, 433

U.S

. 299

,30

7-30

8 (1

977)

U.S

. Soc

ial S

ecur

ity

Adm

inis

trat

ion

The

Soci

al S

ecur

ity

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 7

4-27

1,as

am

ende

d, 4

2 U

SC §

401

(c)

10


169

Race/EthnicityRace asked since 1790, ethnicity asked since 1970.

QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON’S RACE ORETHNICITY ARE USED TO CREATE DATAABOUT RACE AND ETHNIC GROUPS.These data are required for federal and stateprograms and are critical factors in the basicresearch behind numerous policies, particularlyfor civil rights. Race and ethnicity data are usedin planning and funding government programsthat provide funds or services for specific groups.These data are also used to evaluate governmentprograms and policies to ensure they fairly andequitably serve the needs of all racial and ethnicgroups and to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination laws, regulations, and policies.States also use these data to meet legislativeredistricting requirements.The U.S. Census Bureau collects race andethnicity data in accordance with the 1997 Officeof Management and Budget standards on race andethnicity. The categories on race and ethnicity arebased on self-identification and generally reflect asocial definition of race and ethnicity. The categoriesare not an attempt to define race and ethnicitybiologically, anthropologically, or genetically.

RACE AND ETHNICITY DATA HELPCOMMUNITIES:

Ensure Equal OpportunityKnowing the races and ethnicities of communitymembers in combination with information about

11


170

housing, voting, language, employment, andeducation, helps government and communitiesenforce antidiscrimination laws, regulations, andpolicies.For example, race and ethnicity data are used inthe following ways:• Establish and evaluate the guidelines for federal

affirmative action plans under the FederalEqual Opportunity Recruitment Program.

• Monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Actand enforce bilingual requirements.

• Monitor and enforce equal employment oppor-tunities under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

• Identify segments of the population who maynot be getting needed medical services underthe Public Health Service Act.

• Allocate funds to school districts for bilingualservices under the Bilingual Education Act.

Understand ChangesKnowing if people of different races andethnicities have the same opportunities ineducation, employment, voting, home ownership,and many other areas is of interest to researchers,advocacy groups, and policymakers. The NationalScience Foundation uses data on race andethnicity to provide information on people ofdifferent racial and ethnic backgrounds in thescience and engineering workforce. Several federalagencies use race and ethnicity data to investigatewhether housing or transportation improvementshave unintended consequences for specific race

12


171

and ethnic groups. Data on race and ethnicity areused with age and language data to addresslanguage and cultural diversity needs in healthcare plans for the older population.

Administer Programs for Specific GroupsKnowing how many people are eligible to participatein certain programs helps communities, includingtribal governments, ensure that programs areoperating as intended. For example, the IndianHousing Block Grant program, Indian CommunityDevelopment Block Grant program, and IndianHealth Service all depend on accurate estimates ofAmerican Indians and Alaska Natives. Data for the American Indian and Alaska Nativepopulation come from the questions about aperson’s race or ethnicity.

13


172

14


Sele

cted

Sta

tuto

ry U

ses

of R

ace/

Eth

nic

ity

Dat

aU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, 13

USC

§ 1

41(c

)B

urea

u of

the

Cen

sus

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce,

52 U

SC §

105

03B

urea

u of

the

Cen

sus

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

Com

mun

ity

Serv

ices

Blo

ck G

rant

Act

, Pub

lic

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Law

105

-285

, 42

USC

§§

9902

(2),

9903

, and

fo

r C

hild

ren

and

Fam

ilies

9908

(b)(

1)(A

), (b

)(11

), an

d (c

)(1)

(A)(

i)U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d O

lder

Am

eric

ans

Act

of 1

965,

Pub

lic L

aw

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

89-7

3, 4

2 U

SC §

301

8fo

r C

omm

unit

y Li

ving

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

42 U

SC 3

00kk

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

for

Com

mun

ity

Livi

ngU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

dPa

tien

t Pro

tect

ion

and

Aff

orda

ble

Car

e A

ct,

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Cen

ter

for

Publ

ic L

aw 1

11- 1

48, §

103

34;

Med

icar

e an

d M

edic

aid

Serv

ices

42 U

SC §

300

kkU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

dSn

yder

Act

, Nov

. 2, 1

921,

c. 1

15, 2

5 U

SC §

13;

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Ind

ian

Hea

lth

Tran

sfer

Act

, Aug

. 5, 1

954,

c. 6

58, §

2, 4

2 Se

rvic

eU

SC §

200

1(a)

; Ind

ian

Hea

lthc

are

Impr

ove-

men

t Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 9

4-43

; 25

USC

§ 1

602

173

15


U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

C

rans

ton-

Gon

zale

z N

atio

nal A

ffor

dabl

e U

rban

Dev

elop

men

tH

ousi

ng A

ct, P

ublic

Law

101

-625

, 42

USC

1270

5(b)

(1)-

(3);

24 C

FR P

art 9

1, 2

4 C

FR91

.205

(a)-

(c)

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

M

cKin

ney-

Ven

to H

omel

ess

Ass

ista

nce

Act

, U

rban

Dev

elop

men

t42

USC

113

71-1

1376

; 24

CFR

Par

t 91

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

H

ousi

ng a

nd C

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent A

ct o

fU

rban

Dev

elop

men

t19

74, 4

2 U

SC 5

306(

a)(1

); 24

CFR

§10

03.1

01U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ousi

ng a

nd

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an H

ousi

ng A

ssis

tanc

e an

d U

rban

Dev

elop

men

tSe

lf-D

eter

min

atio

n A

ct o

f 199

6, P

ublic

Law

104-

330,

as

amen

ded,

25

USC

§ 4

152(

b);

24 C

FR 1

000.

324-

1000

.330

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Jus

tice

, Ti

tle

VII

of t

he C

ivil

Rig

hts

Act

of 1

964,

C

ivil

Rig

hts

Div

isio

n42

USC

§ 2

000e

-2U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of J

usti

ce,

Vot

ing

Rig

hts

Act

of 1

965,

§ 2

03,

Civ

il R

ight

s D

ivis

ion

52 U

SC §

105

03; 2

8 C

FR P

art 5

5U

.S. E

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Fede

ral W

ater

Pol

luti

on C

ontr

ol A

ctA

genc

y(C

lean

Wat

er A

ct),

Publ

ic L

aw 9

2-50

0, 3

3 U

SC §

125

4(a)

(1)-

2), (

b)(2

), (b

)(6)

, (b)

(7),

(n)(

1), a

nd (o

)(1)

U.S

. Equ

al E

mpl

oym

ent O

ppor

tuni

tyC

ivil

Rig

hts

Act

of 1

964,

Pub

lic L

aw 8

8-35

2,

Com

mis

sion

, Off

ice

of R

esea

rch,

42 U

SC §

200

0e-2

(k)(

1)(A

); H

azel

woo

d In

form

atio

n, a

nd P

lann

ing

Scho

ol D

ist.

v. U

nite

d St

ates

, 433

U.S

. 299

,30

7-30

8 (1

977)

174

RelationshipRelationship asked since 1880.

A QUESTION ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPOF EACH PERSON IN A HOUSEHOLD TOONE CENTRAL PERSON IS USED TO CREATEESTIMATES ABOUT FAMILIES, HOUSE-HOLDS, AND OTHER GROUPS, AND TOPRESENT OTHER DATA AT A HOUSEHOLDLEVEL.Relationship data are used in planning andfunding government programs that provide fundsor services for families, people living or raisingchildren alone, grandparents living withgrandchildren, or other households that qualifyfor additional assistance.

RELATIONSHIP DATA HELP COMMUNITIES:

Provide Adequate HousingKnowing about the different types of householdsin a community (single people, couples, families,roommates, etc.) helps communities understandwhether available housing meets the needs ofresidents. Information about the relationshipsamong people in a household, in combination withhousing costs and the combined income of allpeople in a household, helps communities under-stand whether housing is affordable for residents.When housing is not sufficient or not affordable,relationship data can help communities enrolleligible households in programs designed to assistthem, and can help communities qualify for grantsfrom the Community Development Block Grant,

16


175

HOME Investment Partnership Program, EmergencySolutions Grant, Housing Opportunities for PersonsWith AIDS, and other programs.

Provide Assistance to FamiliesKnowing more about families, such as the ages ofchildren, household income, health insurancestatus, and poverty status, can help communitiesenroll eligible families in programs designed toassist them, such as Head Start and the Children’sHealth Insurance Program, and can help commu-nities qualify for grants to fund these programs.Relationship data are also used to ensure thatprograms like Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies are making a difference for families.

Understand Changing HouseholdsInformation about living arrangements and howthey are changing, including whether olderresidents are staying in their homes as they age,whether young people are living with parents ormoving in with roommates, and which kinds ofhouseholds include young children, can helpcommunities plan future programs and servicesfor residents. For example, the Social SecurityAdministration estimates future program needsbased on the current relationships of workingpeople.

17


176

18


Sele

cted

Sta

tuto

ry U

ses

of R

elat

ion

ship

Dat

aU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d 42

USC

§ 2

42k(

b), (

h), a

nd (l

)H

uman

Ser

vice

s, C

ente

rs fo

r D

isea

se C

ontr

ol a

nd P

reve

ntio

n,

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter

for

Hea

lth

Stat

isti

csU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

yE

nerg

y C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Prod

ucti

on A

ct,

Publ

ic L

aw 9

4-38

5, a

s am

ende

d, 4

2 U

SC

§ 68

61, 6

864;

10

CFR

440

.10

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fixi

ng A

mer

ica’

s Su

rfac

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 1

14-9

4; 4

9 U

SC §

530

3(c)

,(e

), (h

), (i

), (j)

,(k),

and

(n)

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

cati

on20

USC

§§

6333

, 633

4(a)

(1),

6335

(a),

6337

(b)(

1)(A

)U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d 42

USC

§§

8629

(a) (

1)-(3

) and

(5)-(

6),

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

8629

(b),

and

8622

(11)

for

Chi

ldre

n an

d Fa

mili

esU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d 13

USC

§ 1

41 n

ote

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

for

Chi

ldre

n an

d Fa

mili

esU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d D

evel

opm

enta

l Dis

abili

ties

Ass

ista

nce

and

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Bill

of R

ight

s A

ct o

f 200

0, P

ublic

Law

106

-fo

r C

omm

unit

y Li

ving

402,

§ 1

24(c

)(5)

; 42

USC

150

24

177

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth

and

Pati

ent P

rote

ctio

n an

d A

ffor

dabl

e C

are

Act

, H

uman

Ser

vice

s, C

ente

r fo

rPu

blic

Law

111

-148

, §10

334;

42

USC

300

kkM

edic

are

and

Med

icai

d Se

rvic

esU

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

d 42

USC

§ 1

397i

i (b)

(2)(

A)-

(C)

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Off

ice

of th

e A

ssis

tant

Sec

reta

ry fo

r Pl

anni

ng

and

Eva

luat

ion

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

M

cKin

ney-

Ven

to H

omel

ess

Ass

ista

nce

Act

, U

rban

Dev

elop

men

t42

USC

113

71- 1

1376

; 24

CFR

Par

t 91

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

H

ousi

ng a

nd C

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent A

ct

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

of 1

974,

as

amen

ded,

Pub

lic L

aw 9

3-38

3, 4

2U

SC 5

301,

530

2, a

nd 5

305;

24

CFR

91.2

05(a

)-(c

), 9

1.30

5(a)

-(c),

570.

208(

a)(1

), 57

0.48

3(b)

(1),

570.

704(

a)-(c

), 57

0.70

7(a)

-(c),

and

570.

901

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

Cra

nsto

n-G

onza

lez

Nat

iona

l Aff

orda

ble

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

Hou

sing

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 1

01-6

25, 4

2 U

SC12

705(

b)(1

)-(3

); 24

CFR

Par

t 91;

24

CFR

91.2

05(a

)-(c

)U

.S. S

ocia

l Sec

urit

y A

dmin

istr

atio

nTh

e So

cial

Sec

urit

y A

ct, P

ublic

Law

74-

271,

as a

men

ded,

42

USC

§ 4

01(c

)U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of V

eter

ans

Affa

irs

Vete

rans

Ben

efit

s Im

prov

emen

t Act

of 2

008,

Publ

ic L

aw 1

10-3

89, T

itle

III—

Labo

r and

Educ

atio

n M

atte

rs, S

ubti

tle

C—Vo

cati

onal

Reha

bilit

atio

n M

atte

rs, §

334

, 38

USC

§ 3

122

19


178

Tenure (Owner/Renter)Tenure asked since 1890.

A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER A HOME ISOWNED OR RENTED IS USED TO CREATEDATA ABOUT TENURE, RENTERS, ANDHOME OWNERSHIP.Tenure is the most basic characteristic to asseshousing inventory. Tenure data are used ingovernment programs that analyze whetheradequate housing is affordable for residents.Tenure data are also used to provide and fundhousing assistance programs. These statistics arealso used to enforce laws, regulations, and policiesagainst discrimination in private-market housing,government programs, and in society.

TENURE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES:

Provide Adequate HousingKnowing the different types of households in acommunity (single people, couples, families,roommates, etc.) and rates of home rental andownership helps communities understand whetheravailable housing meets the needs of residents.Data about owners and renters, in combinationwith housing costs and the combined income of allpeople in a household, help communities under-stand whether housing is affordable for residents.When housing is not sufficient or affordable, dataabout owners and renters can help communitiesenroll eligible households in programs designed toassist them, and can help communities qualify forgrants from the Community Development Block

20


179

Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program,Emergency Solutions Grant, Housing Opportunitiesfor Persons With AIDS, and other programs.

Plan Community DevelopmentKnowing how the balance of rented homes, mort-gaged homes, and homes owned free and clearchanges over time can help communities under-stand changes in local housing markets; identifyopportunities to improve tax, assistance, andzoning policies; and to reduce tax revenue lossesfrom vacant or abandoned properties. Tenure isalso used in formulas that communities use todetermine housing assistance funding (FairMarket Rents).

Ensure Equal OpportunityKnowing the characteristics of people who rentand people who own homes in the community,such as age, gender, race, Hispanic origin,disability, helps government and communitiesenforce laws, such as the 1968 Fair Housing Act,designed to eliminate discrimination in housing.

Understand Changing HouseholdsKnowing whether older residents are staying inhomes as they age or moving into rented homes;and whether young people are staying with parents,renting with roommates, or buying homes, canhelp governments and communities distributefunds appropriately between home ownership and rental housing programs and services forresidents.

21


180

22


Sele

cted

Sta

tuto

ry U

ses

of T

enu

re D

ata

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Agr

icul

ture

42 U

SC §

§ 14

72, 1

474,

148

5, 1

486,

149

0,14

90a,

149

0I, 1

490m

, 149

0p-2

, 149

0r;

7 C

FR 1

940.

563-

564,

194

0.57

5, 3

560.

11,

and

3560

.152

(a)(

2)U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ousi

ng a

nd

McK

inne

y-V

ento

Hom

eles

s A

ssis

tanc

e A

ct,

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

42 U

SC §

113

71-1

1376

; 24

CFR

Par

t 91

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

H

ousi

ng a

nd C

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent A

ct

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

of 1

974,

Pub

lic L

aw 9

3-38

3, a

s am

ende

d,42

USC

§ 1

439

(d)(

1)(A

)(i)

; 24

CFR

791

.402

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

U

nite

d St

ates

Hou

sing

Act

of 1

937,

Pub

lic

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

Law

93-

383,

as

amen

ded,

42

USC

§14

37f(

c)(1

); 24

CFR

888

.113

; 24

CFR

982.

401

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

Cra

nsto

n-G

onza

lez

Nat

iona

l Aff

orda

ble

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

Hou

sing

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 1

01-6

25, 4

2 U

SC12

705(

b)(1

)-(3

); 24

CFR

Par

t 91,

24

CFR

91.2

05(a

)-(c

)U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ousi

ng a

nd

Reh

abili

tati

on A

ct o

f 197

3, §

504

, Pub

lic

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

Law

93-

112,

29

USC

794

; 24

CFR

§ 8

.22(

b);

24 C

FR §

8.2

3(a)

181

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

12

USC

§ 4

568

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

12

USC

§ 1

701q

; 24

CFR

par

t 891

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

Ta

x R

efor

m A

ct o

f 198

6, P

ublic

Law

99-

514,

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

26 U

SC §

42(

d)(5

)(B

)(ii)

(I),

(iii)

(I),

(iv)

,an

d(g)

; 15

U.S

.C §

631

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Jus

tice

, V

otin

g R

ight

s A

ct o

f 196

5; 5

2 U

SC §

103

01;

Civ

il R

ight

s D

ivis

ion

28 C

FR P

art 5

1; L

ULA

C v

. Per

ry, 5

48 U

.S.

399

(200

6); J

ohns

on v

. DeG

rand

y, 5

12

U.S

. 997

(199

4); T

horn

burg

V. G

ingl

es,

478

U.S

. 30

(198

6)U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n49

USC

§ 5

303;

49

CFR

Par

t 613

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fixi

ng A

mer

ica’

s Su

rfac

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Act

, Pub

lic L

aw 1

14-9

4; 4

9 U

SC §

530

3(c)

,(e

), (h

), (i

), (j)

,(k),

and

(n)

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

49 U

SC §

§ 63

02(b

)(3)

(B),

6302

(c),

6304

(a),

6309

(a)

23


182

PAGE 248

Place of Birth, Citizenship, and Year ofEntryPlace of birth asked since 1850, citizenship askedsince 1820,1 year of entry asked since 1890.2

QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON'S PLACE OFBIRTH, CITIZENSHIP, AND YEAR OF ENTRYINTO THE UNITED STATES ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT CITIZENS, NON-CITIZENS, AND THE FOREIGN-BORNPOPULATION.These statistics are essential for agencies andpolicymakers setting and evaluating immigrationpolicies and laws, seeking to understand theexperience of different immigrant groups, andenforcing laws, policies, and regulations againstdiscrimination based on national origin. Thesestatistics are also used to tailor services toaccommodate cultural differences.

PLACE OF BIRTH, CITIZENSHIP, AND YEAROF ENTRY DATA HELP COMMUNITIES:

Ensure Equal OpportunityKnowing how many people in the community areborn in other countries in combination withinformation about housing, voting, language,employment, and education, helps the governmentand communities to enforce laws, regulations, and

24


1 Citizenship asked 1820-1830, 1870, and 1890 topresent.

2 Year of entry asked 1890-1930, and 1970 to present.

183

policies against discrimination based on nationalorigin. For example, these data are used tosupport the enforcement responsibilities under theVoting Rights Act to investigate differences invoter participation rates and to enforce other lawsand policies regarding bilingual requirements.

Educate ChildrenKnowing how many foreign-born children dependon services through schools helps school districtsmake staffing and funding decisions. Place ofbirth, citizenship, and year of entry statistics incombination with other information, such aslanguage spoken at home, help schools understandthe needs of their students and qualify for grantsthat help fund programs for those students(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of1965).

Understand ChangesKnowing whether people of different races orcountries of birth have the same opportunities ineducation, employment, voting, home ownership,and many other areas is of interest to researchers,advocacy groups, and policymakers. These datamay also help communities with large refugeepopulations that qualify for financial assistance(Immigration Nationality Act).

25


184

PX-019

From: Kris Kobach [mailto [REDACTED]Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:43 PMTo: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal)Cc: Alexander, Brooke (Federal)

[REDACTED]; Hernandez, Israel(Federal) [REDACTED]

Subject: Re: Follow up on our phone callYes.Sent from my iPhoneOn Jul 24, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Teramoto, Wendy(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:Kris – can you do a call with the Secretary andIzzy tomorrow at 11 am? Thanks. WendyFrom: Kris Kobach [mailto: [REDACTED]Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 12:02 PMTo: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) [REDACTED]Subject: Re: Follow up on our phone callThat works for me. What number should I call? Orwould you like to call me?On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Teramoto,Wendy (Federal) [REDACTED] wrote: We can speak today at 230. Please let me know ifthat works. WSent from my iPhone

NOT RELEVANT

26


185

On Jul 21, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Kris Kobach[REDACTED] wrote: Wendy,Nice meeting you on the phone this afternoon.Below is the email that I sent to Secretary Ross.He and I had spoken briefly on the phone aboutthis issue, at the direction of Steve Bannon, a fewmonths earlier.Let me know what time would work for you onMonday, if you would like to schedule a short call.The issue is pretty straight forward, and the textof the question to be added is in the email below.Thanks.Kris Kobach---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Kris Kobach [REDACTED]Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:12 AMSubject: Follow up on our phone call To: [REDACTED]Secretary Ross,Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach here. I’mfollowing up on our telephone discussion from afew months ago. As you may recall, we talked aboutthe fact that the US census does not currently askrespondents their c it izenship. This lack ofinformation impairs the federal government’sability to do a number of things accurately. It alsoleads to the problem that aliens who do notactually “reside” in the United States are stillcounted for congressional apportionmentpurposes.

27


186

It is essential that one simple question be addedto the upcoming 2020 census. That questionalready appears on the American CommunitySurvey that is conducted by the Census Bureau(question #8). A slight variation of that questionneeds to be added to the census. It should read asfollows:Is this person a citizen of the United States?� Yes, born in the United States� Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S.Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas� Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent orparents� Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization – Printyear of naturalization ____� No, not a U.S. citizen – this person is alawful permanent resident (green cardholder)� No, not a U.S. citizen – this person citizenof another country who is not a green cardholder (for example holds a temporary visaor falls into another category of non-citizens)Please let me know if there is any assistance thatI can provide to accomplish the addition of thisquestion. You may reach me at this email addressor on my cell phone at [REDACTED]Yours,Kris Kobach

28


187

---

PAGES 773 TO 775The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

[LETTERHEAD][STAMP]

2018 FEB 22 PM 2:39O S EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

[HANDWRITTEN]18-059793

January 4, 2018Honorable Wilbur L. RossSecretary of CommerceU.S. Department of Commerce1401 Constitution Ave NWWashington, DC 20230Dear Secretary Ross:I write as the president and CEO of The Leader-ship Conference on Civil and Human Rights, acoalition charged by its diverse membership ofmore than 200 national organizations to promoteand protect the civil and human rights of allpersons in the United States. In this capacity andon behalf of this broad coalition, I urge you toreject the request in the December 12, 2017 letterfrom the Department of Justice to Acting CensusDirector Ron Jarmin, to add a new citizenshipquestion on the 2020 Census. As you well know,adding a new and untested question to the 2020Census would disrupt preparations at a pivotalpoint in the decade, undermine years of costly,painstaking research and testing, and increase

29


188

census costs significantly at a time when Congresshas directed a less expensive enumeration. All ofthese factors would threaten a fair and accuratedecennial census.We appreciate the commitment to a full, fair, andaccurate census that you and your senior staff haverecently expressed. The Leadership Conferenceviews a fair and accurate census, and the collectionof useful, objective data about our nation’s people,housing, economy, and communities generally, tobe among the most important civil rights issues ofour day. However, as discussed below, the JusticeDepartment ’s i l l -advised proposal poses asignificant threat to our shared goal.First, as you noted during the House Committeeon Oversight and Government Reform’s October12, 2017 hearing on the 2020 Census (where weboth testified), requiring a new topic this late inthe preparations for the census is irresponsiblebecause robust testing for new questions in acontemporary, census- l ike environment isessential. This is especially true given the chillingeffect of adding a citizenship question to the form.Census preparations are already behind schedule,the final dress rehearsal will kick off in a month,and there simply is no time left to redesign thecensus form and rigorously test the proposedadditional question. As we know from extensiveresearch and testing in the survey field, evensmall changes in question order and wording cansignificantly affect both the rate and accuracy ofresponses. Yet the Census Bureau has neither thetime nor the resources to evaluate the consequencesof such a major change in the questionnaire.

30


189

Second, as I know from my prior experience as thechief government enforcer of the Voting RightsAct, the Justice Department has never needed toadd this new question to the decennial census toenforce the Voting Rights Act before, so there is noreason it would need to do so now. Contrary to theJustice Department’s letter, the Census Bureauhas not included a citizenship question on themodem census “short form,” sent to every house-hold. In fact, no such question has appeared onthe census “short form” since enactment of theVoting Rights Act in 1965. Estimates of the citizenvoting-age population derived from the ongoingAmerican Community Survey, and the so-calledcensus “long” or sample form before that, havebeen and continue to be suitable for purposes ofcivil rights and Voting Rights Act enforcement.Whether uti l iz ing such data for Section 2enforcement actions, Section 203 determinations,or other voting rights enforcement efforts, courtsand the Justice Department have accepted censusdata as currently collected since enactment of theVoting Rights Act. Civil rights groups, likewise,have never asserted a need for a “100 percent”census citizenship question in order to effectivelyrepresent and ensure voting rights for minoritycommunities. Given these plain facts, the entirejustification for the request should be viewedskeptically as an attempt to throw a wrench intofinal planning and preparations for an enumerationthat already faces enormous challenges, includinginadequate and delayed funding, cyber-securityrisks, and a c l imate of fear fanned by anti -immigrant rhetoric.

31


190

---

Third, this new proposed question on the 2020Census is unnecessarily intrusive and will raiseconcerns in all households – native and foreignborn, c it izens and noncit izens – about theconfidentiality of information provided to thegovernment and how government authoritiesmight use that information. Asking every house-hold and every person in the country about theircit izenship status in the current pol it icalenvironment – when there is no legal basis orneed for doing so – will no doubt give many peoplepause about participating in the census altogether.In fact, new Census Bureau research already israising alarm bells about the growing reluctanceof immigrant households to participate fully andhonestly in any Census Bureau surveys, due totheir fear about how their responses will be usedby government agencies.Adding this new question would also result intaxpayers spending signif icantly more for agovernment undertaking that we know in advancewould not be successful. Your recent oral testimonybefore Congress acknowledged that the CensusBureau will need billions of dollars more thanoriginally estimated to conduct a modem, inclusivecensus. The Justice Department’s proposal to adda new citizenship question would increase censuscosts even further while decreasing accuracy,because self-response rates are certain to plummet,which in turn will require additional, costly door-to-door visits that still may not spur cooperationor result in accurate responses.Finally, this request – coming almost a year afterthe Census Bureau has finalized topics for the2020 Census, as required by law – risks jeopardizing

32


191

the accuracy of the 2020 Census in every state andevery community by deterring many people fromresponding, making the data collected in thiscrucial once-a-decade operation less accurate anduseful for al l o f us. As four former CensusDirectors, who served in both Republican andDemocratic administrations, wrote in an amicicuriae brief in the Supreme Court case Evenwel v.Abbott, asking about citizenship status in thedecennial census ‘‘would likely exacerbate privacyconcerns and lead to inaccurate responses fromnon-citizens worried about a government record ofthe immigration status... The sum effect would bebad Census data.”I know you appreciate that the stakes of a fair andaccurate census are high and everyone – fromCongress to governors, mayors, and school boardofficials, to business owners and nonprofits servingthe most vulnerable in our communities – willhave to live with any flawed results for the next10 years. The Leadership Conference and itsmember organizations look forward to workingwith you and your staff to ensure a cost-effective,secure, and above all, accurate and inclusivecensus in every one of the nation’s communities. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me orChris Harley, Census Campaign Director, at (202)466-3311. Thank you for your consideration of ourviews.Sincerely,

/s/Vanita Gupta

33


192

Cc: Acting Deputy Secretary and Under Secretaryfor Economic Affairs Karen Dunn Kelley Acting Census Director Ron Jarmin

PAGES 798 TO 803The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

[LETTERHEAD][STAMP]

2018 JAN 12 AM 8:00O S EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

[HANDWRITTEN]18-059175

January 10, 2018

Protect the Census: Oppose DOJ Request toAdd a Citizenship Question to the 2020 Census

Dear Secretary Ross:On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civiland Human Rights, a coalition charged by itsdiverse membership of more than 200 nationalorganizations to promote and protect the civil andhuman rights of all persons in the United States,and the undersigned 167 organizations, we urgeyou to reject the Department of Justice’s untimelyand unnecessary request for a new citizenshipquestion on the 2020 Census , which wouldthreaten a fair and accurate decennial census.Adding a new citizenship question to the2020 Census would destroy any chance for an

34


193

accurate count, discard years of careful research,and increase costs significantly.You and your staff have made clear that you shareour goal of a full, fair, and accurate census. A fairand accurate census, and the collection of useful,objective data about our nation’s people, housing,economy, and communities generally, are amongthe most significant civil rights issues facing thecountry today. Every census since the first enumer-ation in 1790 has included citizens and non-citizensalike. Adding a new question on citizenship to the2020 Census undoubtedly would affect responserates, outreach, and advertising strategies, andother important elements of the nation’s largest,most complex peacetime activity, calling intoquestion the results of many years of costly,painstaking research and testing.Adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Censuswould disrupt preparations at a pivotal point inthe decade, undermining years of research andtesting and increasing census costs significantlyat a time when Congress has directed a lessexpensive enumeration. The Justice Department’srequest would literally would add billions ofdollars to the life-cycle cost of this census, withoutimproving accuracy.Questionnaire design and testing began nearlyeight years ago during the 2010 Census. Requiringthis new topic this late in the decade wouldthreaten the success of the 2020 Census becauserobust testing in a census-like environment isessential, given the probable chilling effect ofadding these questions to the form. There simplyis no time to redesign the census form, craft

35


194

scienti f ical ly sound questions to col lect theinformation the Justice Department requests, andevaluate the impact of this new question oncensus participation and operations before thecensus starts, in any responsible way. Given theconstitutional requirement to conduct the censusin 2020, final planning and preparations for thecensus would be haphazard, at best, leaving thenation with a deeply flawed foundation for ourdemocratic ideals, informed decision-making, andprudent allocation of precious taxpayer dollars.In addition, adding this question would jeopardizethe accuracy of the 2020 Census in every state andevery community by deterring many people fromresponding. The question is unnecessari lyintrusive and will raise concerns in all households– native- and foreign-born, citizens and non-citizens – about the confidentiality of informationprovided to the government and how that informa-tion might be used. Moreover, there are manymixed status households in the United States,which include members who are both citizens andnon-citizens with various legal statuses. Mixed-status and immigrant households will be especiallyfearful of providing information to the federalgovernment in 2020, given the heightened climateof fear that anti-immigrant rhetoric and policieshave created. In short, any effort to determinecitizenship through the constitutionally requiredcensus would jeopardize the accuracy of the entirecount, leaving public, private, and nonprofitdecision-makers with bad information for allpurposes, for the next 10 years. Further, such aneffort is likely to shake public confidence in the

36


195

narrow (though vital) statistical objectives of theCensus Bureau’s work, damaging ongoing datacollection efforts well into the future.Finally, in addition to being untimely, the requestis unnecessary. The Justice Department has neverneeded to add this new question to the decennialcensus to enforce the Voting Rights Act before, sothere is no reason it would need to·do so now.Contrary to the Justice Department’s letter, theCensus Bureau has not included a citizenshipquestion on the modern census “short form,” sentto every household. In fact, no such question hasappeared on the census “short form” sinceenactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.Estimates of the citizen voting-age populationderived from the ongoing American CommunitySurvey, and the so-called census “long” or sampleform before that, have been and continue to besuitable for purposes of civil rights and VotingRights Act enforcement. Whether utilizing suchdata for Section 2 enforcement actions, Section203 determinations, or other voting rights enforce-ment efforts, courts and the Justice Departmenthave accepted census data as currently collectedsince enactment of the Voting Rights Act. Giventhese plain facts, the entire justification for therequest should be viewed skeptically as an attemptto throw a wrench into final planning and prepa-rations for an enumeration that already facesenormous challenges, including inadequate anddelayed funding, cyber-security risks, and aclimate of fear fanned by anti-immigrant rhetoric.For these reasons, we urge you to reject theJustice Department’s request to add a citizenshipquestion to the 2020 Census. If you have any

37


196

---

questions about these comments, please contactLeadership Conference Census Task Force Co-chairs Terry Ao Minnis, Asian Americans Advanc-ing Justice|AAJC, at 202-296-2300 x0127, orArturo Vargas, NALEO Educational Fund, at 213-747-7606, or Chris Harley, Census CampaignDirector at 202-466-3311.Sincerely,The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human

Rights18MillionRising.org ACCESSACLUAdvancement Project CaliforniaAlliance for Strong Families and Communities American Association of University Women

(AAUW) American Educational Research AssociationAmerican Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees (AFSCME) American Federation of TeachersAmerican Library Association American Sociological Association American Statistical AssociationAmerican-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee APACEvotesArab American InstituteArkansas Advocates for Children and Families Asian & Pacific Islander American Health ForumAsian American Legal Defense and Education

Fund (AALDEF) Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJCAsian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law

Caucus

38


197

Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AtlantaAsian and Pacific Islander American Vote Asian Counseling and Referral ServiceAsian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic

Empowerment (APACE) Association of Population CentersAssociation of Public Data Users Autistic Self Advocacy Network Black Women’s Roundtable Black Youth Vote!Bread for the World Brennan Center for Justice California CallsCampaign Legal CenterCasa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for

Healthy Families and Communities Casa LatinaCenter for American ProgressCenter for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers Children NowChildren’s Advocacy Alliance Church World Service ClaritasCoalition for Disability Health Equity Coalition on Human NeedsCommon Cause Congregation Beth ShalomCongregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good

Shepherd, US Provinces Consortium of Social Science AssociationsCouncil for Community and Economic ResearchCouncil of Professional Associations on Federal

Statistics Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)Council on American-Islamic Relations, California

39


198

Defending Rights & DissentDetention Watch Network Education Law Center–PA Emgage FoundationEmpowering Pacific Islander Communities Equal Justice SocietyEquality California Faith in Public Life Family Equality Council Farmworker Justice FORGE, Inc.Franciscan Action NetworkFriends Committee on National Legislation Friends of the Earth USGovernment Accountability Project Government Information Watch Hispanic FederationHuman Rights Campaign Human Rights WatchIn the Public Interest IndivisibleInsights Association Interfaith Worker JusticeIrish Immigration Center of Philadelphia Irish International Immigrant CenterIslamic Society of North America, Office for

SInterfaith and Community Alliances Jacobs Institute of Women’s HealthJapanese American Citizens League KIDS COUNT in Delaware Lambda LegalLatinoJustice PRLDEFLeague of United Latin American Citizens League of Women Voters of the United States Legal Aid at Work

40


199

Los Angeles LGBT Center Maine Children’s Alliance MALDEFMassachusetts Voter Table Mi Familia VotaMuslim Justice League NAACPNAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. NALEO Educational FundNational Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the

Good Shepherd National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity

(NAPE)National Association of Social Workers National CAPACDNational Center for Lesbian Rights National Center for Transgender EqualityNational Coalition on Black Civic Participation National Council of Asian Pacific Americans

(NCAPA) National Council of Jewish WomenNational Council on Independent Living National Disability Rights Network National Education Association National Employment Law Project National Health Law ProgramNational Immigrant Justice Center National Immigration Law Center National Institute for Latino Policy (NiLP)

National Justice for Our NeighborsNational Korean American Service & EducationConsortium (NAKASEC)National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health National Latina/o Psychological Association National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund

41


200

National Low Income Housing CoalitionNational Network for Arab AmericanCommunities National Partnership for Women & Families National Youth Employment CoalitionNatural Resources Defense Council NC ChildNC Counts Coalition Neighborhood Action CoalitionNETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice New Mexico Voices for ChildrenNorthern California GrantmakersOCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates OneAmericaOpenTheGovemmentPeople For the American WayPFLAG National PICO CaliforniaPierce County Labor Community Services Agency Planned Parenthood Federation of America PolicyLinkPopulation Association of America Presente.orgPrison Policy Initiative Public CitizenResearch Advisory Services, Inc. Senior Executives AssociationService Employees International Union (SEIU) Sikh CoalitionSiX ActionSociety of American Archivists Southeast Michigan Census Council Southern California Grantmakers Southern Coalition for Social Justice Southern Echo Inc.

42


201

State Voices Sunlight FoundationThe Children’s PartnershipThe United Methodist Church – General Board of

Church and SocietyThe Voter Participation CenterUnidosUS (formerly NCLR) Union for Reform Judaism Union of Concerned Scientists Voices VerdesVoices for ProgressVoices for Vermont’s Children Voto LatinoWallingford IndivisibleWashington Immigrant Solidarity Network Win/Win NetworkWomen’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund

43


202

PX-116

January 26, 2018The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross Secretary of CommerceU.S. Department of Commerce14th St. and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230Dear Secretary Ross:

As former directors of the U.S. Census Bureau,serving under both Republican and Democraticadministrations, we want to thank you for the carefor the future of the Census Bureau you havedisplayed. We were, however, troubled to learn thatthe Department of Justice has recently asked theBureau to add a new question on citizenship to the2020 census. We are deeply concerned about theconsequences of this possible action and hope thatour objective observations provide a usefulperspective before a final decision is made on thisissue.

We were encouraged by your testimony before theCensus Bureau’s House and Senate authorizingcommittees last October. Your frank assessment ofthe status of 2020 Census preparations and youracknowledgment that the Bureau will need moreresources to conduct an acceptably accurateenumeration were correct. Undoubtedly, yoursubstantial private sector experience has informedyour approach to the Bureau’s mission. Similarly,your experience as a census enumerator many yearsago may have helped to shape your appreciation forthe importance of the fair and accurate census ourConstitution envisions, free from partisan influence

44


203

and guided by sound, well documented, scientificallydriven decisions.1

There is a well-proven multi-year process tosuggest and test new questions. We strongly believethat adding an untested question on citizenshipstatus at this late point in the decennial planningprocess would put the accuracy of the enumerationand success of the census in all communities at graverisk. Your observation at the House Oversight andGovernment Reform Committee hearing on October12, 2017 — that adding untested questions couldreduce response rates — suggests that you havecarefully considered respondent burden and otherfactors that contribute to public acceptance ofcensuses and surveys, as the window of opportunityto lock down census methods, operations, content,and infrastructure closes quickly.

As you fully appreciate, planning a decennialcensus is an enormous challenge. Preparations for acensus are complex, with each component related toand built upon previous research and tests. Thecritical ‘dress rehearsal’ for the 2020 Census (the2018 End-to-End Census Test) is starting inProvidence County, RI. Adding a citizenship questionwithout a testing opportunity in a contemporary,census-like environment will invalidate the results

45


1 We think you will enjoy recalling that KennethPrewitt, a signer of this letter, was your crew leader in 1960.You were in the Harvard Business School, and he in theHarvard Divinity School; like you, he wanted to make someextra money over spring break. Ken was appointed a crewleader and recruited enumerators only from the HBS,knowing that they would carry out their duties efficiently.Indeed, they (you) did — your crew finished first in Boston,with the highest accuracy score in the city.

204

and lessons learned from the End-to-End test. Keyassumptions underlying estimates of self-response,staffing needs, local office sites, and communicationstrategies will no longer be sound, calling intoquestion cost projections that we know you haveworked hard to validate and update. In addition, theCensus Bureau would need to modify data captureand processing systems, language assistance andenumerator training materials, and web-basedinstructions for completing the census in the timeremaining before the 2020 Census starts – allwithout the benefit of field testing.

There are sound reasons that the Census Actrequires the Bureau to submit to Congress the topicsand actual questions it will include, three and twoyears, respectively, before Census Day. It is highlyrisky to ask untested questions in the context of thecomplete 2020 Census design. There is a great deal ofevidence that even small changes in survey questionorder, wording, and instructions can have significant,and often unexpected, consequences for the rate,quality, and truthfulness of response. The effect ofadding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census ondata quality and census accuracy, therefore, iscompletely unknown. Also of import, overcomingunexpected obstacles that arise as 2020 Censusoperations unfold would add to the cost, withoutassurances that such efforts would yield a moreaccurate outcome.

In summary, we believe that adding a citizenshipquestion to the 2020 Census will considerablyincrease the risks to the 2020 enumeration. Becausewe share your goal of a “full, fair, and accuratecensus,” as the Constitution requires, we urge you to

46


205

consider a prudent course of action in response to theJustice Department’s untimely and potentiallydisruptive request.

Please let us know if we can answer any questionsor be of further assistance.

Sincerely,Vincent P. Barabba (1973-1976; 1979-1981) Martha Farnsworth Riche (1994-1998) Kenneth Prewitt (1998-2001)Steven H. Murdock (2008-2009) Robert M. Groves (2009-2012) John Thompson (2013-2017)

47


206

State of LouisianaDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[LETTERHEAD][SEAL]Jeff LandryAttorney General

[STAMP]2018 FEB –8 PM 3:03

O S EXECUTIVE SECRETARIATFebruary 8,2018The Honorable Wilbur RossUnited States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20233-0001Re: Request to Reinstate Citizenship Question on2020 Census QuestionnaireDear Secretary Ross:As the Chief Legal Officer of the State of Louisiana, Iwrite concerning a matter that is very important tothe People of Louisiana. The use of the decennialCensus to capture accurate data concerning citizen-ship, legal immigration, illegal immigration, and thedistribution of the population is crucial to thefunctions of State government. It is also crucial interms of insuring fair and equitable districting of thepeople’s representatives at the State and local level.This issue touches the heart of our democracy andthe constitutional rights of every Louisiana citizen.As you are aware, from 1970 to 2000, the CensusBureau included a citizenship question on the “longform” questionnaire sent to nearly one in every six

48


207

households during each decennial census. After the2000 Census, the Census Bureau ceased using the“long form” questionnaire. Instead, it replaced thisform with the American Community Survey (ACS).The ACS is currently the Census Bureau’s onlysurvey that collects information regarding citizenshipand estimates citizen voting-age population. The ACSis sent to far fewer people – approximately one inevery thirty-eight households each year, significantlychanging the statistical integrity of the data. TheACS, while insufficient for a number of reasons, mostimportantly provides only estimates with a highmargin of error.Because it is standard practice for States toapportion their legislative districts on the basis of thenumbers provided by the Census Bureau’s decennialcensus, this issue is of critical importance. See Nat’lConf. of State Legislatures Redistricting Law 2010 at11 (2009). States frequently even find themselvesmired in federal litigation lasting from one Census tothe next. Currently, the decennial Census countseveryone regardless of the individual’s legal statusand no longer provides any reliable citizenship data.Ultimately, this process dilutes the votes of alllegally-eligible voters by improperly counting thoseineligible to vote when determining the populationfor representative districts. Not only does this resultin bolstering the representation of illegal immigrantsand non-voting legal immigrants at the expense ofthe voting age citizenry, but also skews the datanationally and can result in some states losingrepresentatives in Congress to other States.Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held thatSection 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits “votedilution” by state and local jurisdictions engaged in

49


208

redistricting, which can occur when a racial group isimproperly deprived of a single-member district inwhich it could form a majority. See Thornburg v.Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federalcourts of appeals have held that, where citizenshiprates are at issue in a vote-dilution case, citizenvoting-age population is the proper metric fordetermining whether a racial group could constitutea majority in a single – member district. See, e.g.,Reyes v. City of Farmers Branch, 586 F.3d 1019,1023-24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. City of Chicago,141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negron v. City ofMiami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1567-69 (11th Cir.1997); Romero v. Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9thCir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds byTownsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d1136 (9th Cir. 1990). A more accurate decennialcensus, which should collect this data, would preventthe inevitable dilution of votes and further exposureof the states to endless litigation. The current use ofACS data puts States into a no-win situation wherethey cannot apportion representative districts in amanner that is consistent with the Constitution, theVoting Rights Act, or their own state redistrictinglaws.It is clear that the intent of Section 2’s prohibition “isto facilitate participation. . .in our political process”by preventing unlawful vote dilution on account ofrace. Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, 548(5th Cir. 1997). Courts have reasoned that “[t]heright to vote is one of the badges of citizenship” andthat “[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship arediluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote.” Barnett,141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong resultfor a legislature or a court to draw a single-member

50


209

district in which a numerical racial minority group ina jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-agepopulation in that district but “continued to bedefeated at the polls” because it was not a majority ofthe citizen voting-age population. Campos, 113 F.3dat 548. As these cases show, for the U.S. Departmentof Justice to avert racial discrimination in voting andensure adherence to the spirit of Section 2, it is vitalthat the “long form” citizenship question in thedecennial Census provide the necessary citizenvoting-age population data.When the right of all citizens to cast a properlyweighted vote is not protected, there is a resultingdilution of the voting power of citizens residing indistricts that are home to a smaller number ofnonvoting residents. Moreover, it incentivizessanctuary cities by granting an electoral advantageat the expense of non-sanctuary cities. Voting is oneof the most precious rights of citizenship. And yet, itis clear that representative districts with largerpopulations of illegal and non-voting legalimmigrants have gained representation over thosewithout.Accordingly, I am imploring the Census Bureau toreinstate the citizenship question in the decennial2020 Census to assist Louisiana and all other statesin making a good faith effort to equalize districts in amethod that ensures, as far as practicable, equalityin the weight of votes.Sincerely,/s/ Jeff LandryLouisiana Attorney General

51


210

February 12, 2018

The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of CommerceU.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230

Dear Secretary Ross,We, the undersigned Attorneys General of New

York, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut,Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, NewJersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, RhodeIsland, Vermont, and Washington, as well as theGovernor of Colorado, write to oppose the recentrequest by the Department of Justice to add aquestion on citizenship to the questionnaire forthe 2020 decennial Census.1 Adding a citizenship

52

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX 02 (DOCS 7 THRU 9) AL 3/21/19

1 See Letter from Arthur E. Gary, General Counsel,Justice Management Division, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to RonJarmin, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Dutiesof the Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dep’t ofCommerce (Dec. 12, 2017), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4340651-Text-of-Dec-2017-DOJ-letter-to-Census.html [hereinafter DOJ Letter]. The Justice Department’srequest that the Bureau “reinstate” a citizenship question onthe Census, see id. at 1, is misleading, as no citizenshipquestion has been included on the decennial census since1950. From 1970 to 2000, a citizenship question wasincluded only on the “long form” questionnaire, which wasdistributed to a sample of about one in six households in lieuof the decennial census questionnaire. Following the 2000Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the “long form”questionnaire and replaced it with the American CommunitySurvey, which is now sent to about one in every 38 house-holds each year.

211

question – especially at such a late date in the2020 Census planning process – would significantlydepress participation, causing a population under-count that would disproportionately harm statesand cities with large immigrant communities. Thisundercount would frustrate the Census Bureau’sobligation under the Constitution to determine“the whole number of persons in each state,”2

threaten our states’ fair representation in Congress,dilute our states’ role in the Electoral College, anddeprive our states of their fair share of hundredsof billions of dollars in federal funds that areallocated in part on decennial Census data.Indeed, as the Census Bureau has itself previouslyexplained, “any effort to ascertain citizenship” inthe decennial Census “will inevitably jeopardize theoverall accuracy of the population count.”3

These tremendous harms are not justified by theJustice Department ’s purported interest instrengthening enforcement of Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act. To the contrary, requestingcitizenship data would undermine the purposes ofthe Voting Rights Act and weaken voting rightsenforcement across the board.

For these reasons, we have serious concernsthat adding a citizenship question to the 2020Census at this late date would violate the CensusBureau’s obligations under the Constitution, theAdministrative Procedure Act, and other federalstatutes.

53


2 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2; see also id. art. I, § 2, cl. 3.3 Fed’n for Am. Immigration Reform v. Klutznick, 486

F. Supp. 564, 568 (D.D.C. 1980).

212

Furthermore, the underfunding of the CensusBureau raises concerns that technology andimplementation strategies will not be adequatelydeveloped before the start of the full 2020 Census.The lack of testing in rural areas is particularlydisconcerting. We request your assurances thatthe Bureau will be able to cope with this fundingcrisis and provide a full and accurate enumerationof the population of each state.

I. Adding a citizenship question at thislate date would fatally undermine theaccuracy of the 2020 Census, harming thestates and our residents. The JusticeDepartment’s request should be rejected becauseadding a citizenship question to the 2020 Censuswould reduce participation and response rates,threatening the Census Bureau’s ability to complywith its obligations under the Constitution andharming the states’ interests.

1. Questions about citizenship would deterparticipation in the 2020 Census, undermining theconstitutional mandate to conduct an “actualEnumeration.” The Constitution provides thatRepresentatives “shall be apportioned among theseveral States . . . according to their respectiveNumbers,”4 which requires “counting the wholenumber of persons in each State.”5 This count is tobe determined by an “actual Enumeration”conducted every ten years.6 It is well-settled that

54


4 Id. art. I, § 2, cl. 3.5 Id. amend. XIV, § 2.6 Id. art. I, § 2, cl. 3; see also 13 U.S.C. § 4 (delegating

to the Secretary of Commerce authority to conduct thedecennial census).

213

this “actual Enumeration” includes all residents,both citizens and noncitizens.7 A citizenshipquestion would hinder the Census Bureau’s abilityto complete this “actual Enumeration” by chillingparticipation in the 2020 Census by noncitizensand naturalized citizens alike.

The Census Bureau has long recognized thedifficulty of counting immigrant and noncitizencommunities. In preparing for the 2010 Census,the Bureau identi f ied immigrants as one ofseveral hard-to-count populations, and designed asignificant public education campaign to increaseparticipation from that group.8 Similarly, in thelead up to the current decennial Census, theBureau organized a working group to recommendstrategies to minimize undercounts of undocu-mented immigrants, as well as immigrant Latinosand Asians.9

Notwithstanding these efforts, the difficulty ofcounting such groups has only increased in thecurrent climate. Recent pretests by the Census

55


7 Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. at 575-77.8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Integrated

Communications Plan, 21, 75, 191, 223, 278 (Aug. 2008),https://www.census.gov/2010census/partners/pdf/2010_ICC_Plan_Final_Edited.pdf; U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office,GAO-09-525T, Communications Campaign Has Potential toBoost Participation, 6 (Mar. 6, 2009), https://www.gao.gov/assets/130/122012.pdf.

9 U.S. Census Bureau, Nat ’ l Advisory Comm. onRacial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, Final Report of theAdministrative Records, Internet, and Hard to CountPopulation Working Group, 2, 8 (July 2016), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/reports/2016-07-admin_internet-wg-report.pdf.

214

Bureau have revealed that immigrant respondentsincreasingly expressed concerns about confiden-tiality and data sharing, especially when askedquestions about citizenship.10 Citing fears relatedto the current discourse on immigration policy,respondents have also refused to respond toquestions and have ended interactions withsurveyors.11 The Census Bureau has recognizedthat these anxieties might present a barrier topartic ipation in the 2020 Census, and maydiminish overall data quality.12 Even before theDepartment of Justice made its request, CensusBureau officials reported that early test surveysshowed “an unprecedented groundswell inconfidentiality and data-sharing concerns amongimmigrants or those who live with immigrants”related to the 2020 count.13 The Bureau already

56


10 Memorandum from the U.S. Census Bureau, Ctr. forSurvey Measurement, to Assoc. Directorate for Research andMethodology, 1, 5-7 (Sept. 20, 2017), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/Memo-Regarding-Respondent-Confidentiality-Concerns.pdf.

11 Id. at 2.12 U.S. Census Bureau, Nat ’ l Advisory Comm. on

Racial , Ethnic , and Other Populations, RespondentConfidentiality Concerns and Possible Effects on ResponseRates and Data Quality for 2020 Census, 2, 12-13, 15 (Nov.2, 2017), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/Meyers-NAC-Confidentiality-Presentation.pdf.

13 Mica Rosenberg, U.S. Officials Worry ImmigrantFears Could Make Census Inaccurate, Reuters (Nov. 30,2017, 3:10 PM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-census/u-s-officials-worry-immigrant-fears-could-make-census-inaccurate-idUSKBN1DU2U7. These concernsfrom some federal officials are shared by state-level expertswith experience coordinating the administration of thedecennial Census in their states. Massachusetts Secretary of

215

acknowledges that questions about citizenship inany federal statistical survey are sensitive andmust be treated with care14; adding a citizenshipinquiry to the mandatory decennial Census wouldundoubtedly exacerbate these problems, leading tolarger undercounts and less reliable data.

Indeed, in a brief filed with the Supreme Courtless than three years ago, four former Directors ofthe Census Bureau – appointed by Presidents ofboth political parties – explained based on theirexperience that “a one-by-one citizenship inquirywould invariably lead to a lower response rate tothe Census in general,” and would “seriouslyfrustrate the Census Bureau’s ability to conductthe only count the Constitution expressly requires:determining the whole number of persons in eachstate in order to apportion House seats among thestates.”15 The former Directors explained that“[r]ecent experience demonstrates lowered partici-pation in the Census and increased suspicion ofgovernment collection of information in general.

57


the Commonwealth, William Galvin, for example, recentlytestified before a state legislative committee that a citizen-ship inquiry would be a clear deterrent to participating inthe 2020 Census. See Christina Prignano, Mass. secretary ofstate warns Trump could “sabotage” 2020 Census, BostonGlobe (Feb. 6, 2018), https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/02/06/mass-secretary-state-warns-trump-could-sabotage-census/HH2b73v0o2dkddzrjYDyUK/story.html.

14 U.S. Census Bureau, Data Stewardship Exec. PolicyComm., DS-16: Policy on Respondent Identification andSensitive Topics in Dependent Interviewing, 1-2 (Dec. 9,2014), https://www2.census.gov/foia/ds_policies/ds016.pdf.

15 Brief of Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureauas Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees at 25, Evenwel v.Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016) (No. 14-940).

216

Particular anxiety exists among non-citizens.There would be little incentive for non-citizens tooffer to the government their actual status; theresult [of inquiring about citizenship status]would be a reduced rate of response overall and anincrease in inaccurate responses.”16

The Census Bureau in fact declined to add acitizenship question to the 2010 Census question-naire,17 and has repeatedly warned against addingsuch a question to the decennial Census because ofthe risk of lower response rates and reducedaccuracy.18 As the Census Bureau has explained,questions about “citizenship are particularlysensitive” for individuals who “perceive[] anypossibility of the information being used againstthem,” and thus “any ef fort to ascertaincitizenship will inevitably jeopardize the overallaccuracy of the population count” required by theConstitution.19

2. This threat to the accuracy of the 2020 Censusis magnified by the extreme lateness of the Justice

58


16 Id. at 5.17 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Memorandum

Planning Series No. 239, 2010 Census Content and FormsDesign Program Assessment Report, 14 (Sept. 25, 2012).

18 See Census Equity Act : Hearings Before theSubcomm. on Census & Population of the Comm. on Post Off.& Civ. Serv. 43-45 (1989) (statement of C. Louis Kincannon,Deputy Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census); ExcludeUndocumented Residents from Census Counts Used forApportionment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Post Office& Civil Serv., 100th Cong. 50-51 (1988) (testimony of JohnKeane, Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census) [hereinafterCensus Counts].

19 Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. at 568.

217

Department’s proposal. Even assuming it werepossible to devise a citizenship inquiry that wouldnot risk an unconstitutional undercount, it is fartoo late in the planning process for the CensusBureau to test and validate any such approach.The Bureau must meet a statutory deadline ofMarch 31, 2018 – less than two months away – tosubmit its final questionnaire for the 2020 Censusto Congress.20 Two months is insufficient time todesign and test a question as sensitive as this oneconsistent with the guidelines that apply tofederal statistical agencies.

By statute, the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) has responsibility for coordinatingthe federal statistical system, including to ensure“the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, andconfidentiality of information collected for statisticalpurposes.”21 OMB is also required to establishgovernment-wide guidelines and policies regardingstatistical collection methods.22 Consistent withthese statutory obligations, OMB has published anumber of Statistical Policy Directives that govern

59


20 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(2) (providing, with respect to eachdecennial census, “the Secretary [of Commerce] shall submitto the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdictionover the census . . . not later than 2 years before theappropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’sdetermination of the questions proposed to be included insuch a census”); 13 U.S.C. § 141(a) (establishing April 1,2020 as the decennial census date).

21 44 U.S.C. § 3504(e)(1); see also 44 U.S.C. § 3501(9);44 U.S.C. §§ 3504(a)(1)(B)(iii), (e); Office of Mgmt. & Budget,Statistical Programs of the United States Government, FiscalYear 2017, 3-4, 11 (2017).

22 44 U.S.C. § 3504(e)(3).

218

the data collection efforts of federal statisticalagencies, including the Census Bureau.23 Theseguidelines require, among other obligations, thatagencies “ensure that all components of a surveyfunction as intended . . . by conducting a pretest ofthe survey components or by having successfullyfielded the survey components on a previousoccasion.”24 OMB specifically recommends pre-testing new components of a survey prior to a fieldtest, and incorporating results into the final design.

In addition, the Census Bureau has furtherclarified the statistical standards it must utilize toaddress the agency’s unique methodological andoperational challenges.25 These standards requirethat all data collection instruments be tested “in amanner that balances data quality and respondentburden,” and specifically require pretesting toensure questions are not “unduly sensitive” and“do not cause undue burden.”26

60


23 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Statistical Policy DirectiveNo. 1: Fundamental Responsibilities of Federal StatisticalAgencies and Recognized Statistical Units, 79 Fed. Reg.71,610 (Dec. 2, 2014); Office of Mgmt. & Budget, StatisticalPolicy Directive No. 2: Standards & Guidelines for StatisticalSurveys (Sept. 2006); Office of Mgmt. & Budget, StatisticalPolicy Directive No. 4: Release and Dissemination ofStatist ical Products Produced by Federal Statist icalAgencies, 73 Fed. Reg. 12,621 (Mar. 7, 2008).

24 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Statistical Policy DirectiveNo. 2, § 1.4 at 9 (2006).

25 See U.S. Census Bureau, Statist ical QualityStandards, ii (Jul. 2013), https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/about/about-the-bureau/policies_and_notices/quality/statistical-quality-standards/Quality_Standards.pdf.

26 Id. at 7-8 reqs. A2-3 & A2-3.3.

219

These requirements cannot reliably be met in thelimited time available before the Census Bureau’sMarch 31 deadline. The Census Bureau alreadydeveloped and approved its National Content Test in2015, which it characterized as its “primary mid-decade opportunity to compare different versions ofquestions prior to making final decisions for the 2020Census.”27 And the 2018 End-to-End Census Test –which the Census Bureau describes as the “culmina-tion” of its years-long process of testing andvalidating all aspects of the decennial Census design– is already underway, having begun in August2017.28 In short, there is insufficient time for theCensus Bureau to conduct the extensive developmentand testing that would be required to comply withOMB guidelines for adding new questions to the 2020Census while assuring its validity and accuracy. Andas the Census Bureau has explained, conducting theCensus with “untested and unproven procedures”would further undermine the Bureau’s ability toconduct “a timely, accurate” enumeration.29

These concerns are heightened even further bythe Census Bureau’s already-precarious fiscalposition as it prepares for the 2020 Census. TheBureau is dramatically underfunded, and theaddition of a citizenship question would add

61


27 U.S. Census Bureau, Information Collection Request:2015 National Content Test, 80 Fed. Reg. 29,609, 29,610(May 22, 2015).

28 U.S. Census Bureau, Frequently Asked Questions forthe 2018 End-to-End Census Test (Dec. 20, 2017), https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2018-census-test/faqs.html.

29 Census Counts, at 49-50.

220

significantly to the overall price of completing theCensus. The Bureau’s appropriated budget forFiscal Year 2017 was roughly ten percent belowits request, and was finalized seven months late.30

And the administration’s initial budget request forFiscal Year 2018 proposed only a two percentincrease for the Census Bureau over the previousyear – well short of the resources needed for theBureau to prepare adequately for the decennialCensus.31 Further exacerbating these budgetconstraints, the reduced response rates that acitizenship question would cause will result invastly increased costs overall. Reduced responserates trigger an expensive in-person follow-upprocess, which could result in an estimatedincrease of hundreds of millions of dollars to theprice tag for the 2020 Census.

Because of inadequate financial resources,unreliable cost estimates, information technologychallenges, and other concerns, GAO has alreadyplaced the 2020 Census on its “High Risk List” ofgovernment programs at greatest risk of fraud,waste, abuse, and mismanagement.32 Adding the

62


30 Robert Shapiro, The 2020 Census May Be WildlyInaccurate – And It Matters More Than You Think,BROOKINGS (Aug. 31, 2017), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/08/31/the-2020-census-may-be-wildly-inaccurate-and-it-matters-more-than-you-think/.

31 See id. (noting that the Census Bureau’s fundingincreased 60 percent between 2007 and 2008 in advance ofthe 2010 Census).

32 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-317, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, WhileSubstantial Efforts Needed on Others, 220-31 (Feb. 2017),https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682765.pdf.

221

challenge of testing and validating a question oncitizenship to the tremendous operational andplanning challenges that the Census Bureaualready faces would increase the risk of error andheighten the chance of an undercount in ourstates.

3. The states would be irreparably harmed by aninaccurate 2020 Census. By deterring partici-pation in the Census, the proposed citizenshipquestion would harm everyone, citizens and non-citizens alike.

First, an inaccurate 2020 Census could result inwidespread malapportionment of the states ’representation in Congress. As noted, theConstitution requires that Representatives “shallbe apportioned among the several States . . .according to their respective Numbers.”33 Asprovided by the Census Act, the Secretary ofCommerce is required to use the decennial Censusresults to tabulate the total population by stateand report those results to the President,34 whomust then “transmit to the Congress a statementshowing the whole number of persons in eachState . . . and the number of Representatives towhich each State would be entitled.”35 An under-count that fails accurately to report the “wholenumber of persons” in each state would result in an incorrect calculation of the number ofRepresentatives to which each state is entitled, in violation of the Census Clause of the

63


33 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3.34 13 U.S.C. § 141(a).35 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a).

222

Constitution. 36 Inaccurate data would alsojeopardize the ability of the states – and all of ourlocal jurisdictions – to comply with the FourteenthAmendment’s one-person one-vote requirementwhen drawing district lines for everything fromthe state legislature to local city councils. 37

Moreover, there would be no possibi l i ty ofcorrecting this harm for at least a decade, whenthe next decennial Census takes place – and noway to undo the harm the states would suffer froma ten-year deprivation of their constitutionalallotment of Representatives.

In addition, a Census undercount could affectstate representation in the Electoral College. TheConstitution assigns each state a number ofelectors equal to “the whole number of Senatorsand Representatives to which the State may beentitled in the Congress.”38 An undercount thataffected the apportionment of Representativeswould also misrepresent the number of electorseach state should receive, thereby miscalculating

64


36 See, e.g., Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452, 459 (2002)(challenge by the State of Utah and its Congressionaldelegation to a Census Bureau methodology that resulted inUtah receiving one less Representative in Congress);Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 790-91 (1992)(challenge by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to theCensus Bureau’s change in the method of counting overseasfederal employees, which caused Massachusetts to receiveone less seat in the House of Representatives).

37 See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964); Bakerv. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208-09, 237 (1962).

38 U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2; see also id. amend. XII,amend. XXIII (allocating electors to the District of Columbia).

223

each state’s proper role in selecting the Presidentand Vice President.

This extraordinary harm to the fabric of ourfederal system would come with equally signifi-cant f inancial harm. Data derived from thedecennial Census guide the geographic distributionof hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grantfunds to states and local areas. According to oneestimate, there are about 300 Census-guidedfederal grant programs, with total appropriationsin Fiscal Year 2015 of approximately $700billion.39 These programs include Medicaid, theSupplemental Nutritional Assistance Program(SNAP), Tit le I grants to local educationalagencies under the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act , formula grants for highwayplanning and construction, Section 8 housingchoice vouchers, the Low-Income Home EnergyAssistance Program, and more.40 In other words, aCensus undercount would jeopardize criticalfederal funding the states need to provide healthinsurance, public education funding, food assistance,housing opportunities, energy assistance, andother services and support for mill ions ofresidents, regardless of citizenship status. Suchwidespread underfunding harms everyone,starting with the most vulnerable, including low-income communities and children.

65


39 See Andrew Reamer, Counting for Dollars 2020: TheRole of the Decennial Census in the Geographic Distributionof Federal Funds, G.W. Inst. Pub. Pol’y (Aug. 22, 2017),https://gwipp.gwu.edu/counting-dollars-role-decennial-census-geographic-distribution-federal-funds.

40 See id.

224

The Census Bureau has both constitutional andstatutory obl igations to conduct an “actualenumeration.” Including a question on the 2020Census that would manipulate the count byscaring people away from being counted – causinggrave harm to the states and our residents – isinconsistent with those obligations.41

II. Adding a citizenship question to the2020 Census would hamper the goals of theVoting Rights Act. The Justice Department’srequest for citizenship data asserts that thisinformation is necessary to ensure compliancewith Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In fact,voting rights compliance will be undermined – notenhanced – by the addit ion of a c it izenshipquestion to the 2020 Census. Because the JusticeDepartment’s request is unsupported by its statedreason, adding a citizenship question would bearbitrary and capricious under the AdministrativeProcedure Act.42

1. Collecting citizenship data would underminethe goal of fair and effective representation for allcommunities, which the Voting Rights Act wasenacted to protect. The purpose of the Voting

66


41 Cf. Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives,525 U.S. 316, 348 (1999) (Scalia, J., concurring) (noting thatthe purpose of a “genuine enumeration” is to accomplish “themost accurate way of determining population with minimalpossibility of partisan manipulation”).

42 See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut.Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (noting that an agencyacts arbitrarily and capriciously when it “entirely fail[s] toconsider an important aspect of the problem” or “offer[s] anexplanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidencebefore the agency”).

225

Rights Act is to accomplish “nondiscriminatorytreatment by government – both in the impositionof voting qualifications and the provision oradministration of governmental services, such aspublic schools, public housing and law enforce-ment.”43 Any method of enumeration that predictablyundercounts some communities – as the JusticeDepartment’s proposal would do – will mean thatthose communities are not fairly representedwhen legislative seats are apportioned and districtlines are drawn.

The Supreme Court has long made clear thatlegislators represent all constituents in thedistricts they serve, regardless of whether anyparticular individual is a citizen: “[T]he funda-mental principle of representative government inthis country” is “one of equal representation forequal numbers of people.”44 The Justice Depart-ment’s request should be rejected because it wouldundermine this fundamental principle.

2. Citizenship data from the decennial Census isunnecessary to enforce the vote-dilutionprohibition in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.The Justice Department’s request should also berejected because it is unsupported. The Justice

67


43 Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 652 (1966).44 Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 560-61; see also Evenwel v.

Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120, 1131-32 (2016); Davis v. Bandemer,478 U.S. 109, 132 (1986) (plurality opinion); Daly v. Hunt, 93F.3d 1212, 1226 (4th Cir. 1996) (explaining that “people canaffect what their representatives do in another way” besidesvoting: “through their right to petition their representativesto voice their concerns and interests on particular issues. Thisright is available to everyone, even those who are ineligibleto vote.”).

226

Department contends that it needs a “reliablecalculation of citizen voting-age population” (or“CVAP”) in order to enforce the vote-dilutionprohibition of Section 2.45 But the Supreme Courthas never held that citizen voting-age population isthe proper measure for examining whether aminority group can constitute a majority in a single-member district (the first element of proving a vote-dilution claim).46 The Justice Department notes thatin LULAC v. Perry, the Supreme Court “analyz[ed]a vote-dilution claim by reference to citizen voting-age population,”47 but fails to note that in asubsequent Section 2 case – Bartlett v. Strickland –the Court assessed the vote-dilution inquiry interms of “voting-age population.”48 The question ofthe appropriate population measure in Section 2vote-dilution cases is, at best, unsettled.49

68


45 DOJ Letter at 1.46 Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50-51 (1986)47 DOJ Letter at 1 (citing LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S.

399, 423-442 (2006)).48 Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 12 (2009) (“This case

turns on whether the first Gingles requirement can besatisfied when the minority group makes up less than 50percent of the voting-age population in the potential electiondistrict.”); see also id. at 18 (“Unlike any of the standardsproposed to allow crossover-district claims, the majority-minority rule relies on an objective, numerical test: Dominorities make up more than 50 percent of the voting-agepopulation in the relevant geographic area? That rule providesstraightforward guidance to courts and to those officialscharged with drawing district lines to comply with § 2.”).

49 See, e.g., Sanchez v. State of Colo., 97 F.3d 1303, 1311(10th Cir. 1996) (“Because Gingles advances a functionalevaluation of whether the minority population is large enoughto form a district in the first instance, the Circuits have beenflexible in assessing the showing made for this precondition.”).

227

In addition, even if citizen voting-age populationwere required in all cases, adding a citizenshipquestion to the Census would not give the JusticeDepartment the “reliable calculation” of citizen-ship information it claims to need. The Census isof course only administered every ten years,50 soany CVAP figures from the decennial Censuswould quickly become outdated and less reliableover the course of the subsequent decade as aresult of population shifts. And a citizenshipquestion would not provide information sufficientto ascertain the precise number of eligible votersin a district because district residents might beineligible to vote for other reasons, such as priorfelony convictions.

In any event, the Census Bureau’s AmericanCommunity Survey already collects citizenshipdata, and these estimates are available for thefederal government to use as needed.

Indeed, Congress could not possibly haveintended for effective Section 2 enforcement todepend on the availability of person-by-personcitizenship data, because such data has neverbeen available at any point since Section 2 hasexisted: not in 1965 when the Voting Rights Actwas first enacted; not in 1982 when the Act wasamended to clarify the vote-dilution standard; notin 1986 when the Supreme Court articulated thevote-dilution test in Thornburg v. Gingles. Becausethe Justice Department’s request seeks data thathas never before been required in Section 2litigation – and that cannot reliably be collected in

69


50 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3; 13 U.S.C. § 141(a).

228

any event – it cannot credibly serve as the basisfor major changes to the 2020 Census design thatwill undercut the accuracy of the constitutionallymandated enumeration.

III. The addition of a question regardingcitizenship to the 2020 Census is inconsistentwith the Census Bureau’s InformationQuality Guidelines. The Information QualityAct (“IQA”) requires agencies to ensure that theinformation they disseminate to the public isaccurate, reliable, and objective.51 Consistent withthis directive, the IQA requires OMB and otherfederal agencies to issue guidelines “ensuring andmaximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, andintegrity of information, including statisticalinformation, disseminated by the agency.”52

Recognizing the crit ical importance of theinformation it disseminates, the Census Bureauhas adopted particularly stringent agency-specificIQA guidelines. These guidelines provide detailedrequirements that the Census Bureau must meetto ensure the “utility,” “objectivity,” “integrity,”and “transparency” of information from thedecennial Census.53

70


51 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Pub. L. No.106-554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763 (Dec. 21, 2000).

52 Id.; see also Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizingthe Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of InformationDisseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 Fed. Reg. 8457 (Feb.22, 2002).

53 Information Quality Guidelines, U.S. Census Bureau(May 12, 2015), https://www.census.gov/about/policies/quality/guidelines.html.

229

The Census Bureau’s IQA guidelines disfavorquestions that diminish response rates. TheBureau’s guideline for ensuring “objectivity,”requires collection and dissemination of informa-tion that is “accurate, reliable and unbiased.”54 Toachieve this end, the guideline requires theCensus Bureau to utilize collection methods that“minimiz[e] respondent burden.”55 This concernrecognizes that respondents may choose not torespond when confronted by a question that isunduly sensitive or burdensome.56 Burdensomequestions may diminish the accuracy and reliabilityof data collected in surveys by driving downresponse rates. Indeed, the Census Bureau hasacknowledged this very concern by adoptingstatistical standards that test for and revise thesetypes of questions.57

The addition of a question regarding citizenshipwill diminish overall response rates. As notedabove, many immigrant and citizen groups arelikely to be highly sensitive to the citizenshipinquiry. Adding this question to the 2020 Censusquestionnaire would impose a high burden on

71


54 Information Quality: Objectivity, U.S. Census Bureau(Apr. 17, 2015), https://www.census.gov/about/policies/quality/guidelines/objectivity.html.

55 Id; Similarly, OMB’s statistical standards require theCensus Bureau to design its data collection instruments andmethods “in a manner that achieves the best balance betweenmaximizing data quality . . . while minimizing respondentburden and cost.” Office of Mgmt. & Budget, StatisticalPolicy Directive No. 2, § 2.3 at 11.

56 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Quality Standards,at A2-3.3.

57 Id.

230

these groups, dissuade many from responding, andimpair the survey ’s ult imate accuracy andreliability. As a result, by adding a citizenshipinquiry to the questionnaire, the Census Bureauwould hinder compliance with its own objectivitystandard.

Moreover, the Census Bureau has not taken anysteps to test the citizenship inquiry and its impacton potential respondents. The objectivity standardapplies not only to the utilization of a particulardata collection method, but also to the develop-ment of that method.58 As noted above, both OMBand the Census Bureau have adopted statisticalstandards that require pre-testing in the develop-ment of data col lection methods and surveyquestions.59 To date, the Census Bureau has notengaged in any pretesting of the citizenshipquestion. As a result, adoption of the citizenshipquestion would conflict with the agency’s IQAguidelines, and the Census Bureau should rejectrequests to include that question on the 2020Census questionnaire.

IV. Conclusion. Fair, proportionate electoralrepresentation in our democracy depends on validCensus data. The proposal to add a citizenshipquestion to the 2020 Census questionnaire woulddefeat that goal, violate the Constitution, andundermine the purposes of the Voting Rights Actthat the Justice Department claims it wants toprotect . Because inclusion of a c it izenship

72


58 U.S. Census Bureau, Information Quality: Objectivity.59 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Statistical Policy Directive

No. 2, § 1.4 at 9; U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical QualityStandards, ii.

231

question would threaten the Census Bureau’sability to conduct its constitutionally-mandatedrole, and would be arbitrary and capricious underthe Administrative Procedure Act – causingsignif icant, direct harm to our states andresidents – we urge you to reject the JusticeDepartment’s request.Sincerely,/s/ Eric T. SchneidermanERIC T. SCHNEIDERMANAttorney General of the State of New York/s/ Maura HealeyMAURA HEALEYAttorney General for the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts/s/ Xavier BecerraXAVIER BECERRAAttorney General of the State of California/s/ John W. HickenlooperJOHN W. HICKENLOOPERGovernor of the State of Colorado/s/ George JepsenGEORGE JEPSENAttorney General of the State of Connecticut/s/ Matthew DennMATTHEW DENNAttorney General of the State of Delaware/s/ Karl A. Racine KARL A. RACINEAttorney General for the District of Columbia

73


232

/s/ Russell Suzuki RUSSELL SUZUKIActing Attorney General of the State of Hawaii/s/ Lisa Madigan LISA MADIGANAttorney General of the State of Illinois/s/ Thomas J. MillerTHOMAS J. MILLERAttorney General of the State of Iowa/s/ Janet T. MillsJANET T. MILLSAttorney General of the State of Maine/s/ Brian FroshBRIAN FROSHAttorney General of the State of Maryland/s/ Jim HoodJIM HOODAttorney General of the State of Mississippi/s/ Gurbir GrewalGURBIR GREWALAttorney General of the State of New Jersey/s/ Hector H. Balderas HECTOR H. BALDERASAttorney General of the State of New Mexico/s/ Ellen F. RosenblumELLEN F. ROSENBLUMAttorney General of the State of Oregon/s/ Josh Shapiro JOSH SHAPIROAttorney General of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania

74


233

/s/ Peter Kilmartin PETER KILMARTINAttorney General of the State of Rhode Island/s/ Thomas J. Donovan, Jr.THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.Attorney General of the State of Vermont/s/ Bob FergusonBOB FERGUSONAttorney General of the State of Washingtoncc: The Honorable Mick Mulvaney

Director, Office of Management and BudgetArthur E. GaryGeneral Counsel, Justice ManagementDivisionU.S. Department of JusticeDr. Ron JarminPerforming the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the DirectorU.S. Bureau of the Census

75


234

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIALPRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

As part of his decision-making process,Secretary Ross spoke to a number ofdifferent stakeholders about the Departmentof Justice’s request to reinstate the citizen-ship question on the 2020 Decennial. Thesenotes attempt to memorialize those conver-sations. These are not verbatim transcriptsand each summary reflects the recollectionsof attendees from the Department ofCommerce. Every effort has been made toensure these notes are an accurate reflectionof Secretary Ross’s conversations with stake-holders.Hermann Habermann, former Deputy Directorand COO of the Census Bureau (2002-2006)On March 23, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staffspoke with Hermann Habermann, former DeputyDirector and COO of the Census Bureau, formerDirector of the U.N. Statistical Division, andformer Chief Statistician at OMB. Mr. Habermannstated that he was not aware of a controlled studythat could quantify the effect on participationrates of asking a c it izenship question. Mr.Habermann stated that he believed that asking acitizenship question on the Decennial Censuswould diminish response rates and degrade thequality of responses, but there is no data tosupport these beliefs or to quantify the expectedresponse diminution rate. Mr. Habermann statedthat he believed the “burden of proof” for getting aquestion added to the Decennial Census is on theperson who proposes it. Specifically, the proposing

76


235

party should be required to demonstrate how theproposed question would not degrade the census.Mr. Habermann stated that the census is fragile,and that it is particularly fragile now because ourcountry is divided and people are influenced bysocial media, which can be a powerfully disruptingforce. Mr. Habermann continued that social mediamakes it much easier to galvanize mistrust aboutthe census by questioning its very purpose. Mr.Habermann stated that lower response ratescause the costs of the census to go up and thequality of the data to go down.Mr. Habermann shared an example from his timeat Census Bureau. In 2004, DHS asked theCensus Bureau to provide data on the number ofArab Americans by zip code in certain areas of thecountry. Mr. Habermann noted that thisinformation was already available to the publicbut DHS could not figure out how to access it.When the Census Bureau provided DHS with theinformation it requested, there was a politicalfirestorm and the Census Bureau was accused ofproviding DHS with sensitive information. (Mr.Habermann made clear that the Census Bureaudoes not give out personally identi f iableinformation and did not do so here, but the resultwas the same.) Mr. Habermann noted that despitethe outcry, the response rate to subsequent censussurveys did not change in the communities mostimpacted by the dissemination of the supposedlysensitive information. Mr. Habermann confirmedthat he ascertained this personally, but alsocautioned that we are living in a different timenow and the political climate is different.

77


236

Mr. Habermann stated that he believed thatreinstating a citizenship question would causedivisiveness and that the party requesting theaddition should have the burden of proof toestablish the overriding policy reason for theaddition. Mr. Habermann further stated that ifthe Secretary wants to add the question, thereason must be clear – there must be no publicmistrust of the underlying reason, which is notthe case here. Mr. Habermann noted that thisproposed c it izenship question would beparticularly fraught because there has not been aclear explanation given as to why this data isnecessary. Therefore, it is easy to misconstrue themotives behind the question. Final ly , Mr.Habermann noted that if a proposed questionwould not decrease cost, serve an important policyobjective, or increase data quality, there is noreason to put it on the questionnaire.

• Lower response rate• Degrade quality of responses• Burden of proof on proposing party• Country divided• Higher costs

78


237

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIALPRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

As part of his decision-making process,Secretary Ross spoke to a number ofdifferent stakeholders about the Departmentof Justice’s request to reinstate the citizen-ship question on the 2020 Decennial. Thesenotes attempt to memorialize those conver-sations. These are not verbatim transcriptsand each summary reflects the recollectionsof attendees from the Department ofCommerce. Every effort has been made toensure these notes are an accurate reflectionof Secretary Ross’s conversations with stake-holders.Christine Pierce, SVP of Data Science, NielsenOn March 23, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staffspoke with Christine Pierce, Senior Vice Presidentof Data Science for Nielsen. Ms. Pierce sharedthat Nielsen uses census data in a lot of importantways, specifically how they recruit and projectsamples. Ms. Pierce stated that Nielsen neededthe census to be accurate and needed the census tobe efficient and that the best census is one thatproduces the highest quality data at the lowestcost. Ms. Pierce stated that her biggest concernswas that the reinstatement of a citizenship questioncould lead to a lower response rate, and that themailback rate (or initial response rate) is veryimportant. Costs are lower when people respondthe first time. Failure to respond increases costsbecause Census Bureau needs to deploy enumerators.Ms. Pierce stated that including a question oncitizenship could make people less likely to respond,

79


238

but that there is no data to predict how muchlower the response rate might be.In response to a question, Ms. Pierce stated thatthe longer a survey is, the less likely people are torespond. She further stated that the more sensitivethe question, the more likely people are to beturned off by the question and decline to respond.Ms. Pierce explained that examples of sensitivequestions included questions or religion andsexuality. Ms. Pierce stated that Nielsen some-times chooses to ask sensitive questions even ifthey believe it will depress response rates. Ms.Pierce stated that Nielsen conducts a cost-benefitanalysis to determine whether it is worth askingthe question, even if it means having to do moreextensive nonresponse follow-up. Ms. Piercestated that sensitive questions often appeared onlonger surveys and that longer surveys generallyhad lower response rates than shorter ones. Ms.Pierce stated that she was not aware of a shortcensus survey that contained a sensitive question,but that Nielsen has tested some of the ACSquestions perceived to be “sensitive” (birthplaceand date of arrival in the US) on shorter surveys.Ms. Pierce noted that she and others at Nielsenwere concerned about response rates declining dueto the presence of the sensitive questions on theshort questionnaire, but that Nielsen did notobserve lower response rates to the survey. Ms.Pierce noted the importance of testing questions.She also noted that in the only specific situationshe was aware of that sensitive questions weretested on a short questionnaire, there was noimpact on response rates. Finally, in response to aquestion, Ms. Pierce stated that Nielsen incentivize

80


239

participation with low dollar cash reward in the$1-$15 range. Ms. Pierce believed that for thesurvey referenced above, any incentive would havebeen at the lower end of the range.

• Lower response rate/higher NRFU• Higher costs• Testing

81


240

PX-045

From: Wilbur Ross [REDACTED]Sent: 9/1/2017 3:12:16 AMTo: Comstock, Earl (Federal) [REDACTED]CC: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal)

[REDACTED]Subject: Re: [REDACTED]I have received no update, nor has there been anupdate [REDACTED], nor the issue of the censusquestion, nor whether KDB thinks we have ourarms around the census cost data nor anothercandidate. To run census, [REDACTED]Sent from my iPad> on Aug 31, 2017, at 6:29 AM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:> [REDACTED]> On 8/30/17, 10:37 PM, “Wilbur Ross [REDACTED]wrote:[REDACTED]Earl> > Sent from my iPad>>> on Aug 30, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:>>[REDACTED]

82


241

>> From: “Comstock, Earl (Federal)”[REDACTED]

>> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 5:44 PM>> To: “Ross, Wilbur (Federal)” [REDACTED]>> CC: Wendy Teramoto [REDACTED] >> Subject: [REDACTED]>>>> Mr. Secretary -[REDACTED]>> Thank you.>>>> Earl>>>> [cid:[email protected]]>> [cid:[email protected]]>> [FU Scansnap Manager #iXSOO]>>>>>>>> <image001.png>>> <image002.png>>> <image003.png>

[STAMP]EXHIBIT 23

WIT: COMSTOCKDATE: 8/30/18 KLJ

83


242

PX-048

To: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal)[REDACTED]@doc.gov]

From: Comstock, Earl (Federal)Sent: Sat 9/16/2017 11:33:38 AMImportance: NormalSubject: Calls with DoJReceived: Sat 9/16/2017 11:33:38 AMMorning Wendy –Here is the memo I gave SWLR regarding mydiscussions with DoJ. Earl***September 8, 2017To: Secretary Wilbur Ross Fr: Earl ComstockRe: Census Discussions with DoJIn early May Eric Branstad put me in touch withMary Blanche Hankey as the White House liaisonin the Department of Justice. Mary Blancheworked for AG Sessions in his Senate office, andcame with him to the Department of Justice. Wemet in person to discuss the citizenship question.She said [REDACTED]. A few days later shedirected me to James McHenry in the Departmentof Justice.I spoke several times with James McHenry byphone, and after considering the matter furtherJames said [REDACTED]. James directed me toGene Hamilton at the Department of HomelandSecurity.

84


243

Gene and I had several phone calls to discuss thematter , and then Gene relayed that afterdiscussion DHS real ly fe lt that i t was besthandled by the Department of Justice.At that point the conversation ceased and I askedJames Uthmeier, who had by then joined theDepartment of Commerce Off ice of GeneralCounsel, to [REDACTED].

[STAMP]EXHIBIT

Teramoto 78/24/18 TD

85


244

PX-055

To: Wilbur Ross [REDACTED]Cc: Branstad, Eric (Federal)

[[email protected]]From: Comstock, Earl (Federal)Sent: Fri 3/10/2017 8:31:29 PMImportance: NormalSubject: Your Question on the CensusReceived: Fri 3/10/2017 8:31:30 PMI was not able to catch anyone at their desk whenI called the numbers I have for the Census Bureaufrom their briefing. However, theCensus Bureau web page on apportionment isexplicit and can be found athttps:// www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16 It says:

Are undocumented residents (aliens) in the50 states included in the apportionmentpopulation counts?Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with ausual residence in the 50 states are to beincluded in the census and thus in the appor-tionment counts.

Further, this WSJ blog post from 2010 confirmsthat neither the 2000 nor the 2010 Census askedabout citizenship.http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/the-pitfalls-of-counting-illegal-immigrants-937/

[STAMP]EXHIBIT 2

WIT: ComstockDATE: 8/30/18 KLJ

86


245

THE NUMBERSThe Pitfalls of Counting Illegal Immigrants[IMAGE]By CARL BIALIKMay 7, 2010 7:05 pm ETThe debate over Arizona’s immigration law hasincluded several estimates of the state’s illegal-immigrant population, at “almost half a million,”“half a million” or “more than half a million.”Arguing against the law, Homeland Security chiefJanet Napolitano — who is the former governor ofArizona — pointed to decreasing illegal immigra-tion in the state.These estimates and claims rest on several annualefforts to count illegal immigrants in the U.S. Thenonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center estimated thatin 2008 the nationwide population was 11.9million, and half a million in Arizona. The federalDepartment of Homeland Security and the Centerfor Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.,research group that opposes increased immigra-tion, agree on a figure of 10.8 million for 2009,with DHS putting the Arizona population at460,000, down from 560,000 a year earlier.But as my print column notes this week, theseestimates are limited by several factors that makeit difficult for researchers to count this population.[REDACTED]. Thus estimates of the number ofillegal immigrants in the country are indirect andpossibly far off from the correct count.These studies rely on census surveys, and assumethat about 10% of illegal immigrants aren’t counted

87


246

in these surveys. But that figure largely is basedon a 2001 survey of Mexican-born people living inLos Angeles. “I do not advise use of my estimatedundercounts for the 2000 census outside of L.A.county, nor for migrants from other nations,” saidstudy co-author Enrico Marcel l i , assistantprofessor of sociology at San Diego State University.“However, demographers do not have any otherempirical evidence at the moment with which toproceed.”One concern is that the nearly two in five house-holds who didn’t respond to the 2001 survey mayhave included a disproportionately large numberwho also didn’t respond to census interviewers.Marcelli said further study would be needed totest that possibility, but he noted the extent of theefforts to select a representative sample and toput respondents at ease in order to elicit honestanswers.“As far as I know, there has not been a new, seriousattempt to estimate the undercount of illegalimmigrants in the census,” said Steven Camarota,director of research for the Center for ImmigrationStudies.In 2005, Robert Justich, then a portfolio managerfor Bear Stearns, co-authored a report suggestingthe population of illegal immigrants “may be ashigh as 20 million people.” Jeffrey Passel, seniordemographer for the Pew Hispanic Center,disputed that finding. For one thing, other datasources, such as U.S. birth rates and Mexico’s owncensus, don’t corroborate such a large number. Ifthere were really so many more immigrants, thanthere would be more women of child-bearing age,

88


247

and more births. And if instead the missingmillions are mostly Mexican men working in theU.S. and sending money home, the flip side of thatinflux would be reflected as a gap in the Mexicancensus numbers.“Definitely the number is not as high as 20 million,”said Manuel Orozco, senior associate of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington, D.C., policy-analysis group.Justich, who now owns a music and film productionfirm, countered that immigrants from countriesother than Mexico may make up the rest. However,he added that the number is no longer as high as20 million.Larger estimates also sometimes are based onborder-patrol counts of apprehensions, which arefar from reliable proxies. No one is sure of howmany people are missed for each one who iscaught trying to cross into the U.S. illegally. Manyof those who do get through may return quickly, orcross back and forth. Also, some people are caughtmore than once, inflating the count. “It seems likewe’re not missing that many bodies in the UnitedStates,” said Camarota, referring to the gapbetween the 20 million figure and his own.The immigrant counters generally have seen adecline in the illegal-immigration population.“Economic drivers are very, very powerful” inlowering the illegal-immigrant population, saidHans Johnson, associate director of the PublicPolicy Institute of California. Others point tostepped-up enforcement efforts.

89


248

However, because of all the assumptions bakedinto these numbers, such drops come with so muchstatistical uncertainty that they may not bestatistically significant. “The methodology fordoing these estimates is not really designed tomeasure year-to-year change,” Passel said.One key difference between his count and thefederal agency’s: Homeland Security uses theCensus Bureau’s American Community Survey,which has a much larger sample size than theCurrent Population Survey, which Passel used. “Ideveloped all of my methodology and all of thethings that go with it when there wasn’t an ACS,”Passel said, “and I haven’t gotten around toshifting to the new survey.”The ACS was introduced after the 2000 census,and may help overcome a problem with censusnumbers exposed in the last decennial census.[REDACTED] Census of f ic ials think theseestimates have improved since 2000 thanks to theannual ACS surveys of three million households.‘‘That’s the source we’re using to estimate themovement’’ of the foreign-born population, saidHoward Hogan, the Census Bureau’s associatedirector for demographic programs. “It’s a hugeimprovement over anything we had available inthe ’90s.”Still, the Census Bureau doesn’t ask people abouttheir immigration status, in part because suchquestions may drive down overall response rates.Robert M. Groves, director of the Census Bureau,said he’d like to test that hypothesis. “We’re sortof data geeks here,” Groves said. “What we’d liketo do to answer that question is an experiment.”

90


249

That doesn’t mean that census interviewers don’ttry to find and enumerate illegal immigrants.Groves compares counting that group to efforts totrack another population that is hard to count,though not necessarily because of willful avoidance:people who are homeless. Census interviewersspend three days visiting soup kitchens, sheltersand outdoor gathering spots such as under certainhighway overpasses in Los Angeles. “You don’thave to look at that operation very long to realizethat though it’s a heroic effort, there are all sortsof holes in it,” Groves said. As a result, the CensusBureau includes anyone counted in that effort inthe overall population, but doesn’t break out aseparate estimate of homeless people.“We would like to do estimates that have thesmallest number of assumptions we can’t test,”Groves said. When it comes to counting illegalimmigrants, “there are a set of assumptions thatwe know we can’t test. When we find ourselves inthat situation, then we’re uncomfortable giving aCensus Bureau estimate that is subject to all ofthose debates.”Further reading: Passel outlined methods forcounting the illegal-immigrant population, whilethis paper analyzed some difficulties with theestimates. Earlier the Christian Science Monitorand I have examined these numbers. Immigrationstatistics have become a subject of debate in theU.K., as well.

91


250

PX-057From: Wilbur Ross [/O=EXCHANGELABS/

OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVEGROUP(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=6EA444C1E0EB42CFSDC621A7B6D014B4-WLR]

Sent: 9/19/2017 3:02:32 PMTo: Davidson, Peter (Federal)

[REDACTED]@doc.gov]Subject: CensusWendy and I spoke with the AG yesterday. Pleasefollow up so we can resolve this issue today. WLRsent from my iPhone

[STAMP]EXHIBIT

Teramoto 108/24/18 TD

92


251

PX-061

From: [REDACTED]@doc.gov [REDACTED]Sent: 9/18/2017 3:10:02 PMTo: Gore, John (CRT) [REDACTED]Subject: Re: CallHi. AG and Sec spoke. Pls let me know when youhave a minute.Sent from my iPhoneOn Sep 16, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Gore, John (CRT)[REDACTED] wrote:Wendy:By this email, I introduce you to Danielle Cutronafrom DOJ. Danielle is the person to connect withabout the issue we discussed earl ier thisafternoon.Danielle:Wendy’s cell phone number is [REDACTED]Thanks.Sent from my iPhoneOn Sep 13, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Teramoto, Wendy(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:Yes. CC’ing macie to set up. Look forward to con-necting. WSent from my iPhoneOn Sep 13, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Gore, John (CRT)[REDACTED] wroteWendy:

93


252

My name is John Gore, and I am an actingassistant attorney general in the Department ofJustice. I would like to talk to you about a DOJ-DOC issue. Do you have any time on your scheduletomorrow (Thursday) or Friday for a call?Thanks.John M. GoreActing Assistant Attorney GeneralCivil Rights DivisionU.S. Department of Justice[REDACTED]

94


253

PX-066

From: Cutrona, Danielle (OAG) [REDACTED]Sent: 9/18/2017 1:05:14 AMTo: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) [REDACTED]Subject: Re: CallExcellent. Thanks.Sent from my iPhoneOn Sep 17, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Teramoto, Wendy(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote: They connected. Thanks for the help. WendySent from my iPhoneOn Sep 17, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Cutrona, Danielle(OAG) [REDACTED] wrote:Wendy,The Attorney General is available on his cell. Hisnumber is [REDACTED] He is in Seattle so he is 3hours behind us. From what John told me, itsounds like we can do whatever you all need us todo and the delay was due to a miscommunication.The AG is eager to assist. Please let me know ifyou need anything else. You can reach me at[REDACTED]Thanks,DanielleSent from my iPhoneOn Sep 17, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Cutrona, Danielle(OAG) [REDACTED] wrote:

95


254

Checking now. Will let you know as soon as I hearfrom him.Sent from my iPhoneOn Sep 16, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Teramoto, Wendy(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:Thanks. Danielle–pls let me know when the AG isavailable to speak to Secretary Ross. Thanks.Anytime on the weekend is fine too. WSent from my iPhoneOn Sep 16, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Gore, John (CRT)[REDACTED] wrote:Wendy:By this email, I introduce you to Danielle Cutronafrom DOJ. Danielle is the person to connect withabout the issue we discussed earlier this afternoon.Danielle:Wendy’s cell phone number is [REDACTED]Thanks.

[STAMP]EXHIBIT 26

WIT: ComstockDATE: 8/30/18 KLJ

Sent from my iPhoneOn Sep 13, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Teramoto, Wendy(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:Yes. CC’ing macie to set up. Look forward toconnecting. WSent from my iPhone

96


255

On Sep 13, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Gore, John (CRT)[REDACTED] wrote:Wendy:My name is John Gore, and I am an actingassistant attorney general in the Department ofJustice. I would like to talk to you about a DOJ-DOCissue. Do you have any time on your scheduletomorrow (Thursday) or Friday for a call?Thanks.John M. GoreActing Assistant Attorney GeneralCivil Rights DivisionU.S. Department of Justice[REDACTED]

97


256

PX-003

From: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)[[email protected]]

Sent: 2/20/2018 2:38:50 PMTo: Phillips, John [REDACTED];

Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)[[email protected]]

CC: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)[[email protected]]; Michael A Berning (CENSUS/ERD FED)[[email protected]]; Davies, Paul [REDACTED]; Hebert, Sybil[REDACTED]; Katherine Dodson Hancher(CENSUS/DEPDIR FED)[[email protected]]

Subject: Re: Follow-up from our callSince you want Ron, please work through hisassistant Kathy Hancher.Thanks,JohnJohn M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief ScientistResearch and MethodologyU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: Phillips, John [REDACTED]Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:36:03 AMTo: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED);

John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)

98


257

Cc: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED);Michael A Berning (CENSUS/ERD FED);Davies, Paul; Hebert, Sybil

Subject: RE: Follow-up from our callRon and John,Thank you for the responses below. Afterdiscussing internally, we have some additionalquestions. Can we schedule a call to discuss?Maybe keep it small for now (Ron, Enrique, John,Mike; John, Paul). Who should we work with onyour staff for scheduling purposes? Sybil Hebert,copied here, handles my calendar. I look forwardto speaking soon. Thanks.JohnFrom: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)

[mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 8:51 AMTo: Phillips, John [REDACTED]Cc: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

<[email protected]>; Michael A Berning (CENSUS/ERD FED)<[email protected]>;Davies, Paul [REDACTED]; Ron S Jarmin(CENSUS/ADEP FED)<[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Follow-up from our callHi John,Ron asked me to coordinate the responses to yourquestions, and reply directly to you. Mike andPaul have also been in direct communication.Question 1: When does Census wish to beginincluding the Numident citizenship data in the

99


258

PL94 reports? I gather from the write-up that thedata must be released by April 1 of the yearfollowing a decennial census, which I presumewould be April 1, 2021. The write-up also refers toannual CVAP tabulations each February based on5-year ACS tabulations. How soon do you needapproval/concurrence from us? Are you wanting touse Numident citizenship data in your February2018 release? I doubt that we would be able to getthis approved in time.Answer:The Census Bureau has not yet designated thevehicle of publication for this new product but hasbeen asked to release a citizenship tabulationproduct by April 1st of 2021, alongside the P.L.94-171 data.Question 2: For the purpose of our legal review, itwould be helpful if you could point to specificauthorities or specific projects within the SSA-Census Numident agreement that you believesupport this activity. Can you please send us aproject name/number and/or cite specific passagesin the agreement? We will share this informationwith our lawyers to aid their review.Answer:Our impression was that the following paragraphin the authorized uses section of the currentNumident agreement (Section 5.A.1b) includes theuse of citizenship data for this project:

b. The Census Bureau may use demographiccharacteristics in the Numident (such as age,sex, and race/Hispanic origin) missing from theCensus Bureau’s administrative records as part

100


259

of its decennial research program, and forcurrent surveys, decennial census, survey, orother Tit le 13 administrative records forresearch and statistics uses. Specifically, theCensus Bureau may use Numident data toimprove decennial census operations includingthe un-duplication of public, private, and censuslists; imputing missing data, and modeling todesign and assign resources to carry out thecensus.

[IMAGE]However, just to be sure we re-wrote that paragraphand submitted it to SSA OGC as a modification.That mod is still in SSA legal review. The revisedparagraph is shown below:1. Replace Section 5.A.1.b (quoted above)Authorized Uses of the Numident, paragraph onewith the following revised paragraph:b. The Census Bureau may use demographiccharacteristics in the Numident (such as name,date of birth, age, sex, race/Hispanic origin, andcountry of origin) as the source for direct substi-tution or replacement to the Census Bureau’sdecennial census research, testing and operations,and other demographic and economic surveyimprovements as well as for administrativerecords l inked research and operations forstatistical purposes. This usage includes thearchiving and release of these directly substitutedcharacteristics 72 years after the Census. Suchauthorized uses include the use of the Numidentto improve decennial census operations includingthe un-duplication of public, private and census

101


260

lists; imputing or directly substituting missingdata, modeling to design and assign resources tocarry out the census or surveys, and supportingadministrative records research.Please let me know if you would like furtherclarification on either of these answers.Best,JohnJohn M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief ScientistResearch and MethodologyU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: Phillips, John [REDACTED]Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 1:24:07 PMTo: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)Cc: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED);

John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRMFED); Michael A Berning (CENSUS/ERDFED); Davies, Paul

Subject: RE: Follow-up from our callRon,Thank you for the write-up about enhancing thePL94/CVAP data with citizenship informationfrom the Numident. As you mention, the lawyerswill need to agree that this is covered under theSSA-Census Numident agreement. To help us

102


261

with our internal reviews, can you please respondto the questions below?When does Census wish to begin including theNumident citizenship data in the PL94 reports? Igather from the writeup that the data must bereleased by April 1 of the year following a decennialcensus, which I presume would be April 1, 2021.The write-up also refers to annual CVAP tabula-tions each February based on 5-year ACS tabula-tions. How soon do you need approval/ concurrencefrom us? Are you wanting to use Numident citizen-ship data in your February 2018 release? I doubtthat we would be able to get this approved in time.For the purpose of our legal review, it would behelpful if you could point to specific authorities orspecific projects within the SSA-Census Numidentagreement that you believe support this activity.Can you please send us a project name/numberand/or cite specific passages in the agreement? Wewill share this information with our lawyers to aidtheir review.At some point, I suspect we will have additionalquestions about the proposal and may need moredetails about how the Numident citizenship datawould be incorporated into the PL94/CVAP/2020processes and how disclosure avoidance will behandled (in somewhat less technical terms). Butfor now, I think the questions above are morepressing. We are briefing our leadership on thissubject and that too may generate more questions– I will keep updated.Thanks,John

103


262

From: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)[mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 9:34 AMTo: Phillips, John [REDACTED]Cc: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

<[email protected]>; JohnMaron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)<[email protected]>;Michael A Berning (CENSUS/ERD FED)<[email protected]>

Subject: Follow-up from our callJohn,Please see attached short description of a plan toenhance the CVAP data we provide to DOJ usingcitizenship information from the NUMIDENTwhich a team here as analyzed and found to fit forthis purpose. Only block level tabulations willleave the Bureau and the CVAP microdata areNOT part of the Decennial record system that getsarchived and made available to the public in 72years. I believe the agreement we have with SSAthat expires in 2019 covers this type of use, butlawyers will need to agree. Since we’ll need toextend that agreement, that can be an opportunityto ensure this type of use is covered.Please let know if you have any questions and let’sdiscuss how best to proceed.ThanksRon Jarmin, PhD.Associate Director for Economic Programs, andPerforming the Non-Exclusive Functions andDuties of the Director, U.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.1858, [email protected] Connect with us on Social Media

104


263

PX-071

From: [email protected][[email protected]]

Sent: 12/22/2017 8:36:41 PMTo: Karen Kelley [PII]Subject: Fwd: Request to Reinstate Citizenship

Question On 2020 Census QuestionnaireFYI. Will let you know what I hear. Sent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message:From: “Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)”

<[email protected]>Date: December 22, 2017 at 3:32:12 PM ESTTo: [PII]Cc: “Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)”

<Enrique.Lamas@cens us.gov>Subject: Request to Reinstate Citizenship

Question On 2020 CensusQuestionnaire

Arthur,Thank you for your letter dated 12/12/2017regarding improving the quality of citizenshipinformation for DOJ enforcement of the VotingRights Act. Let me start by saying the Bureau isfully supportive of providing DOJ with the highestquality statistical information possible. To thatend , I directed staff to review all possible ways toaddress the needs expressed in the letter. Theyhave now briefed me and their findings suggestthat the best way to provide PL94 block-level data

105


264

with citizen voting population by race andethnicity would be through utilizing a linked fileof administrative and survey data the CensusBureau already possesses. This would result inhigher quality data produced at lower cost.I suggest we schedule a meeting of Census andDOJ technical experts to discuss the details of thisproposal. We look forward to working with you onthis important statistical matter.Happy HolidaysRon Jarmin, PhD.Associate Director for Economic Programs, andPerforming the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the DirectorU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.1858, [email protected] census.gov Connect with us on Social Media

[STAMP]EXHIBIT 7

WIT: JARMINDATE: 8/20/18 KLJ

106


265

PX-75 (R)

From: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)[[email protected])

Sent: 2/6/2018 8:42:03 PMTo: Kelley, Karen (Federal) [REDACTED]CC: Lamas, Enrique

[enrique.lamas@census. gov]Subject: DOJ Karen,I spoke with Art Gary. He has spoken with DOJleadership. They believe the letter requestingcitizenship be added to the 2020 Census fullydescribes their request. They do not want to meet.Thanks RonSent from my iPhone

107


266

Interim pre-decisionalTemplate sent by email

[WATERMARK]DRAFT

January XX, 2018Senator Harris, et al.Thank you for your January 5, 2018, expressingconcern regarding the Department of Justice’srequest to add a citizenship question to the 2020Census questionnaire.The U.S. Census Bureau has a well-establishedprocess for considering requests for new questionsto the Decennial Census and the AmericanCommunity Survey. The requested data mustfulfill legal and regulatory requirements establishedby the Congress, and the Census Bureau workswith the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)to review and assess the justification of the newcontent or question.While the discretionary authorization for definingnew content or questions resides with theSecretary of Commerce, the 5-step process belowis employed by the Census Bureau and OMB tomake a determination. Once each of these stepsare completed, a new question can be added to the2020 Census.

Step One: With the exception of technicalquestions needed to collect accurate data, allquestions on the various census forms generatedata in response to request for the Congressor other agencies in the Executive Branch.

108


267

Step Two: Upon determining that a newquestion is warranted, the Census Bureaumust notify the Congress of its intent to addthe question. As you may know, by law, theCensus Bureau notified the Congress of thetopics to be covered in the 2020 Census onMarch 31, 2017, and must deliver the specificquestions by March 31, 2018.Step Three: The Census Bureau then mustnotify the public, and invite comments regard-ing the change in the questionnaire with aFederal Register Notice.Step Four: The Census Bureau must test thewording of the new question.Step Five: The Census Bureau must makeadditional operational adjustments, beyondtesting, to include new content. This includesredesigning each data capture method as wellas training modules for enumerators.

We will keep you apprised of any developmentsregarding the citizenship question. If you haveany additional questions or would like to discussthe formal process in detail, please have a memberof your staff contact the Census Bureau’s Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Affairs on(301) 763-6100.

Sincerely,

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. SecretaryDepartment of Commerce

109


268

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER

[LETTERHEAD]

__________March 22, 2018

The Honorable Secretary Wilbur RossU.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230Dear Secretary Ross:We the undersigned legal organizations write tourge you to reject the Department of Justice’srequest that you add a mandatory question to the2020 Census asking all persons to divulge theircitizenship status. A new, untested citizenshipquestion would be an end-run around theConstitution’s text, history, and values. It cannotbe squared with the federal government ’sconstitutional obligation to ensure a nationalcount of all persons-regardless of where they arefrom or their immigration status.Our Constitution establ ishes a democracypremised on the idea that all persons deserveequal representation in our government. Toensure a proper count of the nation’s populationand a proper apportionment of representatives,the Constitution explicitly requires an “actualEnumeration” of the people, imposing on thefederal government the duty to count the “wholenumber of persons in each State.”1 This critical

110


1 U.S. Const. art. I,§ 2, cl. 3; amend. XIV,§ 2.

269

constitutional language imposes a clear duty onthe federal government: it must count all peopleliving in the United States, whether they arecitizens or non-citizens, whether they were born inthe United States or in a distant part of the world.As the Constitution’s text and history dictate, theConstitution requires the federal government tocount “the whole body of the people” without excep-tion.2 lt draws no distinction between citizens andnon-citizens, but rather requires that the “wholeimmigrant population should be numbered withthe people and counted as part of them.”3

Adding the new citizenship question proposed bythe Department of Justice would undermine theCensus Bureau’s constitutional commitment tocount al l persons. It would also result ininaccurate data, thereby biasing congressionalapportionment, redistrict ing, and fundingdecisions, for an entire decade, and producingharmful inequalities which would last even longer.Overwhelming evidence shows that this newquestion, if it becomes a part of the 2020 Census,will deter participation by immigrants across thecountry, who do not want an official record of theirimmigration status and fear that their responseswill be used by the government to harm them andtheir families. The Census Bureau’s own datademonstrates “an unprecedented groundswell inconfidentiality and data sharing concerns,particularly among immigrants or those who livewith immigrants.”4 In the run up to the 2020

111


2 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 385 (1866).3 Id. at 432.

270

Census, “researchers heard respondents expressnew concerns about topics like the ‘Muslim Ban,’discomfort ‘registering’ other household membersby reporting their demographic characteristics, thedissolution of the ‘DACA’ . . . program, [and]repeated references to Immigration and CustomsEnforcement.”5 Adding a citizenship question to the2020 Census-given the overwhelming evidence thatit will chill participation and produce inaccurateresponses—would break faith with the Constitu-tion’s mandate for a head count of the entire nation.Although the Department of Justice urges theaddition of a citizenship question to the 2020Census, it offers no reason to doubt what the latestCensus Bureau data shows: asking all persons todivulge their cit izenship status wil l chil lparticipation by noncitizens and citizens alike andproduce inaccurate data. Instead, the DOJmaintains that a new citizenship question willensure better enforcement of the Voting RightsAct. This is false. Since the passage of the VotingRights Act in 1965, the Census has never asked allpersons to report their citizenship. In other words,a mandatory question on citizenship has neverbeen necessary to ensure robust protection of the

112


4 Mikelyn Meyers, U.S. Census Bureau, RespondentConfidentiality Concerns and Possible Effects on ResponseRates and Data Quality for the 2020 Census 15 (Nov. 2,2017), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/Meyers-NAC-Confidentiality-Presentation.pdf.

5 Memorandum from Ctr. for Survey Measurement tothe Assoc. Directorate for Research & Methodology, Re:Respondent Confidentiality Concerns 1 (Sept. 20, 2017),https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/Memo-Regarding-Respondent-Confidentiality-Concerns.pdf.

271

right to vote. That is just as true now as it was in1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed.The Justice Department’s effort to game theCensus and manipulate the national head countour Framers wrote into the Constitution should berejected. Failing to count all persons in the UnitedStates, as the Constitution mandates, would deala huge blow to our democracy. The stakes arehigh, and there are no do-overs permitted—wemust get it right, and get it right now.

Sincerely,Asian Americans Advancing Justice—

AAJC Campaign Legal CenterConstitutional Accountability Center Democracy ForwardLawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights

Under Law NAACP Legal Defense and Education

Fund, Inc. United To Protect DemocracyVoting Rights Institute

cc: Donald F. McGahn, White House CounselMichael J. Walsh, Jr., Deputy General Counsel,Department of CommerceHon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, Senate HomelandSecurity and Governmental Affairs CommitteeHon. Claire McCaskill Ranking Member, SenateHomeland Security and Governmental AffairsCommitteeHon. Trey Gowdy Chairman, House Committee onOversight and Government ReformHon. Elijah Cummings Ranking Member, HouseCommittee on Oversight and Government Reform

113


272

PX-085

From: Langdon, David (Federal) [REDACTED]Sent: 5/24/2017 10:51:56 PMTo: Blumerman, Lisa M

[[email protected]]Subject: Fwd: Requested Information – Legal

Review All Residents...Fyi on the citizenship question below. Can youprovide a short answer? Ideally this evening.-------- Original message --------From: “Langdon, David (Federal)” Date: 05/24/2017 5:53 PM (GMT-05:00)To: “Reist, Burton H (CENSUS/ADDC FED)”Cc: “Creech, Melissa L”,

“Dinwiddie, James L”Subject: RE: Requested Information – Legal

Review All Residents...Actually, the Secretary seemed interested onsubjects and puzzled why citizenship is notincluded in 2020.[REDACTED] Say, citizenship. What criteriadrives us to put it on ACS but not 2020?

From: Reist, Burton H (CENSUS/ADDC FED)[mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:42 PMTo: Langdon, David (Federal) [REDACTED]

114


273

Cc: Creech, Melissa L<[email protected]>;Dinwiddie, James L<[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Requested Information – LegalReview All Residents...

David,Melissa and I will be in early tomorrow. If youneed anything let us know.Lisa and I are also happy to discuss the Lifecyclestuff I sent and answer the questions you have. Burton

From: Langdon, David (Federal)Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:24:30 PMTo: Reist, Burton H (CENSUS/ADDC FED)Cc: Melissa L Creech (CENSUS/PCO FED);

James L Dinwiddie (CENSUS/ADDC FED)

Subject: RE: Requested Information – LegalReview All Residents...Thank you!I apologize for not answering sooner, but Ihonestly have been in meeting with SWR allafternoon. (Not the norm.)This is a lot to digest, but [REDACTED]

115


274

From: Reist, Burton H (CENSUS/ADDC FED)[mailto: [email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:10 PMTo: Langdon, David (Federal) [REDACTED]Cc: Creech, Melissa L

<[email protected] >;Dinwiddie, James L<[email protected]>

Subject: Fw: Requested Information – LegalReview All Residents...

This is the more complete set of documents that Ireferenced in my earlier email.Burton

From: Misty L Reed (CENSUS/DEPDIR FED)Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:02 PM To: Reist, Burton H (CENSUS/ADDC FED)Subject: Requested Information – Legal Review

All Residents...Hotspots are amazing and luckily I scanned thefiles (Melissa gave me hard copies). Let me knowif there’s anything else I can provide.Thanks, MistyMisty Reed, PhD, PMP, Special Assistant,Communications Directorate, U.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.0228 Cell [REDACTED][email protected] Connect with us on Social Media

116


275

PX-088

From: Comstock, Earl (Federal) [REDACTED]Sent: 5/2/2017 2:19:11 PMTo: Wilbur Ross [REDACTED]CC: Herbst, Ellen (Federal) [REDACTED]Subject: Re:CensusI agree Mr Secretary.On the citizenship question we will get that inplace. The broad topics were what were sent toCongress earlier this year as required. It is nextMarch — in 2018 – when the final 2020 decennialCensus questions are submitted to Congress. Weneed to work with Justice to get them to requestthat citizenship be added back as a censusquestion, and we have the court cases to illustratethat DoJ has a legitimate need for the question tobe included. I will arrange a meeting with DoJstaff this week to discuss.EarlSent from my iPhone>On May 2, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Wilbur Ross[REDACTED] wrote:[REDACTED] Worst of all they emphasize thatthey have settled with congress on the questionsto be asked. I am mystified why nothing have beendone in response to my months old request thatwe include the citizenship question. Why not?[REDACTED]>Sent from my iPhone

117


276

Talking Points• The Census Bureau today received a letter

from the Department of Justice requestingthat a question on citizenship be added to the2020 Census.

• The Census Bureau follows a well-establishedprocess when adding questions to the decennialcensus based on the recognition that the datamust fulfill legal and regulatory require-ments established by the Congress. While thediscretionary authority for defining the ques-tions on either the American CommunitySurvey or the Decennial Census questionnaireresides with the Secretary of Commerce, theCensus Bureau works with the Office of Man-agement and Budget (OMB) to review andassess the justification of the new question.

• By law, the Census Bureau must provide thequestions for the 2020 Census and AmericanCommunity Survey to Congress by March 31– two years prior to taking the nationalheadcount.

• Historically, a citizenship question wasasked periodically over the history of thecensus, and most recently from 1980 to 2000as part of a decennial census long form ques-tionnaire that provided socio-economic andhousing characteristic data of the population.

• The Census Bureau currently asks citizen-ship on its nationwide American CommunitySurvey, a survey conducted nationwide everyyear among 3.5 million addresses.

118


277

Response to Query“The Census Bureau today received a letter fromthe Department of Justice requesting that a questionon citizenship be added to the 2020 Census. TheCensus Bureau follows a well-established processwhen adding questions to the decennial censusbased on the recognition that the data must fulfilllegal and regulatory requirements established bythe Congress. While the discretionary authorityfor defining the questions on either the AmericanCommunity Survey or the Decennial Census ques-tionnaire resides with the Secretary of Commerce,the Census Bureau works with the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) to review andassess the justification of the new question. TheCensus Bureau does ask citizenship on its nation-wide American Community Survey, a surveyconducted nationwide every year among 3.5million addresses.”Process of Adding Content to the Census/SurveyQuestionnaire

• Step One – With the exception of operationalquestions needed to collect accurate data, allquestions on the various census question-naires generate data in response to requestsfrom the Congress or other agencies in theExecutive Branch. Upon receiving a requestlawyers at the Department of Commercework closely with the Census Bureau staff todetermine whether the data fulfill legal,regulatory or Constitutional requirements.Within this process, the Census Bureau alsoconsults with the OMB.

119


278

• Step Two – Upon determining that a newquestion is warranted, the Census Bureaunotifies Congress of its intent to add thequestion through its submission of theproposed questions for the 2020 Census. Bylaw, the Census Bureau notified the Congressof the subjects to be covered by the 2020Census on March 28, 2017. The Census Bureaumust deliver the specific questions by March31, 2018. This is an intentional processdesigned to give the Congress the ability toreview the subjects and questions on thequestionnaire before they are finalized.

• Step Three – The Census Bureau must testthe wording of the new question. It is too lateto add a question to the 2018 End-to-EndCensus Test, so additional testing on asmaller scale would need to be developed andimplemented as soon as possible. This testwould also require approval from OMB, whichincludes notifying the public and invitingcomments through a Federal Register Notice(FRN). The updated FRN needs to be clearedby OMB prior to a new 30-day FRN posting.The Census Bureau must respond to commentsfrom the public after 30 days. Then OMB canissue final approval.

• Step Four – The Census Bureau must makeadditional operational adjustments, beyondtesting, to include new content. This includesre-designing the paper questionnaires andadjusting the paper data capture system. Forall automated data collection instruments(including Internet self-response, Census

120


279

Questionnaire Assistance, and NonresponseFollowup), the additional question will requiresystem redevelopment, for English and allsupported non-English languages. In addition,the training for the enumerators and CensusQuestionnaire Assistance agents will needredevelopment.

• Step Five – Based on the result of the test-ing, the Census Bureau must finalize theactual 2020 Census questionnaires (paperand automated). The Census Bureau thenmust submit for OMB approval of the 2020Census information collection. This submissionalso requires notifying the public and invit-ing comments through a Federal RegisterNotice (FRN), as detailed in Step 3.

121


280

PX-095

From: Wilbur Ross [REDACTED]Sent: 8/10/2017 7:38:25 PMTo: Comstock, Earl (Federal) [REDACTED]Subject: Re: Census MatterI would like to be briefed on Friday by phone. Iprobably will need an hour or so to study thememo first. [REDACTED] WLRsent from my iPad>On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) <[REDACTED]> wrote:>>>PREDECISIONAL AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT

PRIVILEGED>>Mr. Secretary – we are preparing a memo andfull briefing for you on the citizenship question.The memo will be ready by Friday, and we can dothe briefing whenever you are back in the office.[REDACTED]>>Earl>>On 8/8/17, 1:20 PM, “Wilbur Ross” [REDACTED]wrote:>[REDACTED] Were you on the call this morningabout Census? [REDACTED] where is the DoJ intheir analysis? If they still have not come to a

122


281

conclusion please let me know your contact personand I will call the AG. Wilbur Ross>>Sent from my iPhone>>On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:>>>>[REDACTED]>>

123


282

PX-097

To: Wilbur Ross [REDACTED]From: Comstock, Earl (Federal)Sent: Tue 8/8/2017 7:44:29 PMImportance: NormalSubject: Re: [REDACTED]Received: Tue 8/8/2017 7:44:29 PM[REDACTED PARAGRAPH]Will be back shortly with an update on the censusquestion. I have two attorneys in the DoC GeneralCounsel’s office working on it.EarlOn 8/8/17, 1:20 PM, “Wilbur Ross” [REDACTED]wrote:>[REDACTED] Were you on the call this morningabout Census? [REDACTED] where is the DoJ intheir analysis? If they still have not come to aconclusion please let me know your contact personand I will call the AG. Wilbur RossSent from my iPhone>On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:>>[REDACTED]

124


283

PX-098

PRE-DECISIONAL

125


284

Submission of the 2020 Census and American Community Survey Questions to Congress

Briefing for the XXXX

February##, 2018

( United Slates· I U.S. Oepanment of Commerce ensus ~:r~~,. .... ,,.n .. ,., ... l(IO,

_ ....,..., ,, .. ,.."'""'

The Census Bureau is required by Section 141(f)of the Census Act to submit the subjects for thenext census to Congress no later than 3 yearsbefore April 1, 2020. We delivered the subjects inMarch 2017.The Census Act also requires the questionsincluded in the next census be submitted toCongress no later than 2 years before April 1,2020. A document that meets this requirement forthe 2020 Census and the ACS will be submitted toCongress by March 31, 2018.

PRE-DECISIONAL

126


285

2020 Census and American Community Survey Subjects and Questions Requirements

Section 141(f) of the Census Act requires that the subjects included in the next census be submitted to Congress no later than 3 years before the census date.

✓ This document was issued on March 28, 2017.

The Census Act also requires that the questions included

in the next census be submitted to Congress no later than 2 years before the census date.

► A document that meets this requirement for the 2020 Census and the ACS will be submitted to Congress by March 31, 2018 .

~o1>o<t,PtM1no<1roou,,2ow0to..,_n,.i Arnc:nc, ocnmn: rm•

The Census Bureau follows a well-establishedprocess when adding questions to the decennialcensus based on the recognition that the datamust fulfill legal and regulatory requirementsestablished by the Congress.The discretionary authority for defining thequestions on the Decennial Census Short Formresides with the Secretary of Commerce.Requests undergo legal, technical, and policyreview to determine whether the data fulfill legal,regulatory, or Constitutional requirements.Upon determining a new question is warranted,the Census Bureau must notify Congress of itsintent to add the question. By law, the CensusBureau notified the Congress of the topics to becovered by the 2020 Census on March 31, 2017.

PRE-DECISIONAL

127


286

How a Question Becomes Part of the Census {short form) Steps in the Process

Authority

• The discretionary authority for defining the questions on the Decennial Census Short Form resides with the Secretary of Commerce.

Review of Request

• Requests undergo legal, technical, and policy review to determine whether the data fulfill legal, regulatory, or Constitutional requirements.

Notification

• Upon determining a new question is warranted, the Census Bureau must notify Congress of its intent to add the question.

• The Census Bureau also solicits public comment through a Federal Register Notice.

Testing

• If the question is not currently used in an ongoing survey, the Census Bureau must test the wording of the new question .

Operational Adjustments

• The Census Bureau must make operational adjustments to all data collection and processing systems to include the approved, new question.

( United Stales· I U.S. Dcpanment of Commerce ensus ~r=•~~>l1t,Ml1KM"1•hnn ___ ...,,..., rMSm-9<"1

The Census Bureau must deliver the specificquestions by March 31, 2018.The Census Bureau also notifies the public andinvites comments regarding the change in thequestionnaire with a Federal Register Notice(FRN).The Census Bureau must test the wording of thenew question.If approved, the Census Bureau must makeoperational adjustments to all data collection andprocessing systems to include the new question.***********************************************Requests undergo legal review of the justificationby DOC; technical review by the Census Bureau;and policy review by DOC and OMB.More detail if pressed further:The Census Bureau follows a well-establishedprocess when adding questions to the decennialcensus based on the recognition that the datamust fulfill legal and regulatory requirementsestablished by the Congress. While the discretionaryauthority for defining the questions on either theAmerican Community Survey or the DecennialCensus Short Form resides with the Secretary ofCommerce, the Census Bureau works with theOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) to reviewand assess the justification of the new content orquestion.Step One – With the exception of technicalquestions needed to collect accurate data, allquestions on the various census forms generate

128


287

data in response to requests from the Congress orother agencies in the Executive Branch. Uponreceiving a request lawyers at the Department ofCommerce work closely with OMB to determinewhether the data fulfill legal, regulatory orConstitutional requirements.Step Two – Upon determining that a new questionis warranted, the Census Bureau must notifyCongress of its intent to add the question. This isparticularly important for the 2020 Census Ques-tionnaire. By law, the Census Bureau notified theCongress of the topics to be covered by the 2020Census on March 31, 2017. The Census Bureaumust deliver the specific questions by March 31,2018. This is an intentionally process designed togive the Congress the ability to review the topicsand questions on the questionnaire before they arefinalized. If an additional topic is required, it isimperative that Congress be notified as soon aspossible.Step Three – The Census Bureau then must notifythe public, and invite comments regarding thechange in the questionnaire with a Federal RegisterNotice (FRN). The updated FRN needs to be clearedby OMB prior to a new 30-day FRN posting. TheCensus Bureau must respond to comments fromthe public after 30 days. Then OMB can issuefinal approval.Step Four – The Census Bureau must test thewording of the new question. With respect to apossible question on citizenship, no testing wouldbe required because we would use a questionidentical to what we already use in the ACS.

129


288

Step Five – The Census Bureau must makeadditional operational adjustments, beyond testing,to include new content. This includes re-designingthe paper questionnaire and adjusting the paperdata capture system. For Internet self-response,the additional question will require systemredevelopment, once for English and then againfor Spanish. The Census Questionnaire Assistanceoperation will require development as well.Finally, the Nonresponse Followup data collectioninstruments will need to be redesigned, and thetraining modules for the enumerators will needfurther development.Once each of these steps are completed a newquestion can be added to the 2020 Census.

130


289

PX-100

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economics and Statistics AdministrationU.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233-0001[LOGO]

January 3, 2018MEMORANDUM FOR: Ron S. Jarmin

Performing the Non-exclusive Functions andDuties of the Director

From: John M. Abowd [signature]Chief Scientist andAssociate Director forResearch & Methodology

Prepared by: Stephen Buckner, PatrickCantwell, Joanne Crane,Melissa Creech, BurtonReist, and JamesWhitehorne

Subject: Summary of Quality/Cost ofAlternatives for MeetingDepartment of Justice Requestfor Citizenship Data

The Department of Justice has requested censusblock-level citizen voting-age population estimates byOMB-approved race and ethnicity categories from the2020 Census of Population and Housing. Theseestimates are currently provided in two related dataproducts: the PL94-171 redistricting data (PL94),

131


290

produced by April 1st of the year following a decennialcensus under the authority of 13 U.S.C. Section 141,and the Citizen Voting Age Population by Race andEthnicity (CVAP) tables produced every Februaryfrom the most recent five-year American CommunitySurvey data. The PL94-171 data are released at thecensus block level. The CVAP data are released atthe census block group level.There are three alternatives for meeting the DoJrequest:Alternative A: Maintain the status quo for datacollection, preparation and publication. After theregular PL94 and CVAP data have been published in2021, prepare a special product for DoJ thatcombines these tables to produce a Census Bureaubest estimate of the block-level citizen voting agepopulation by race and ethnicity. This would besimilar to the approach now used to support theSection 203 requirements of the Voting Rights Act.Alternative B: Add a citizenship question to the 2020Census questionnaire. Process the citizenship questionusing the 2020 Census data processing system, includ-ing using administrative records where currentlyauthorized and implemented. Produce the block-leveltables of citizen voting age population by race andethnicity during the publication phase of the 2020Census.Alternative C: Do not add a citizenship question tothe 2020 Census questionnaire. Add the capability tolink an accurate, edited citizenship variable fromadministrative records to the final 2020 Censusmicrodata files. Produce the block-level tables ofcitizen voting age population by race and ethnicity

132


291

during the publication phase of the 2020 Censususing the enhanced 2020 Census microdata.An analysis of the cost and quality implications ofeach alternative follows.

[CENSUS BUREAU LOGO AND URL]For Alternative A, the cost would be similar to thecost of the every-five-year production of languagedeterminations to support DoJ enforcement ofSection 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We estimatethat the incremental cost of producing Alternative Ais approximately $200,000. This estimate is based onthe total cost of producing the 2016 language deter-minations. These costs are the salaried time of staffin the Redistricting Office, the Policy CoordinationOffice, the American Community Survey Office, andthe Center for Statistical Research and Methodology.We estimate that delivering block-level citizen votingage population tables by race and ethnicity based onstatistical modeling of the 2020 PL94-171 and CVAPtables would be a similar effort in terms of both costand quality.For Alternative B, our estimate of the incrementalcost is as follows. We estimate that there will beapproximately 145 million addresses in the 2020Census. Recent American Community Survey (ACS)data indicate that 9.8% of households contain at leastone non-citizen. This yields an estimate of 14.2million households with at least one non-citizen. Ouranalysis of 2010 response data for both the AmericanCommunity Survey and the Short-Form Censusindicates that the presence of a question on citizen-ship suppressed response by 5.1 percentage points forthese households. Based on our working assumptionof a response rate of 60.5% in the 2020 census, a

133


292

reduction of 5.1 percentage points for householdscontaining at least one non-citizen will increase theNonresponse Follow-up (NRFU) workload byapproximately 700,000 households, or approximately0.5 percentage points. We estimate that for eachpercentage point increase in NRFU the cost of the2020 Census increases by approximately $55 million.Accordingly, the addition of a question on citizenshipcould increase the cost of the 2020 Census by at least$27.5 million. It is worth stressing that this costestimate is a lower bound. Our estimate of $55million for each percentage point increase in NRFUis based on an average of three visits per household.We expect that we would make a total of six visits tohouseholds containing non-citizens who did not self-respond. We also believe that the decrease inresponse for these households in 2020 could begreater than the 5.1 percentage points we observedduring the 2010 Census.Alternative B would most likely deliver higherquality block-level citizen voting age population byrace and ethnicity data than Alternative A because itis based on obtaining a direct report of citizenshipstatus for each respondent. But it would result inlower quality enumeration data. Because of theestimated 5.1 percentage point increase in NRFU forhouseholds with noncitizens and because NRFU isless accurate than self-reports, there is a decreasethe coverage quality of the census. We estimate thatasking the citizenship question would result in154,000 fewer correct enumerations. This is also alower bound estimate on the loss of accuracy.For Alternative C, the cost estimate has not yet beenfully vetted. The estimated cost is less than

134


293

$1,000,000. In the current system of administrativedata acquisition and processing for the 2020 Census,there are ten remaining data acquisitions betweenJanuary 1, 2018 and April 1, 2020. We include thecost of these data acquisitions in our incremental costestimate for Alternative C because it would no longerbe an option to discontinue the acquisition of thesedata and use only the already acquired files. Inaddition, we include the cost of two senior analysts.The analysts would do the required integration of theedited citizenship into the 2020 Census microdata.This estimate does not include the cost of modifyingexisting Memoranda of Understanding with theagencies that supply the data used to acquire thecitizenship variable because those negotiations arealready in progress, and would continue. Thisestimate also does not include the cost of negotiatinga new MOU with the United States Citizen andImmigration Services to acquire those data, refreshedappropriately over the 2020 Census life cycle becausewe have not yet gathered the required informationfrom USCIS to estimate this cost.Alternative C delivers higher quality data thanAlternative B for DoJ’s stated uses. Our primarydata sources for the administrative record citizenvariable require proof of citizenship. For this reason,they are very accurate. There is good evidence thatcitizenship is accurately reported by citizens, but lessaccurately self-reported by household responders fornoncitizens. This accuracy deficit in the self- responsesmay be due to the inherent difficulty of the respondentknowing the citizenship status of everyone in thehousehold. Proxy respondents are even less likely toknow the citizenship status of all members of thehousehold. It may also be due to the sensitivity of the

135


294

citizenship question itself. For DoJ’s stated purposes,Alternative C produces the highest quality data.Alternative A is not very costly and does not harmthe quality of the census count. Alternative B betteraddresses DoJ’s stated uses; however, it is very costlyand does harm the quality of the census count byincreasing erroneous enumerations. Alternative Ceven better meets DoJ’s stated uses, is comparativelyfar less costly than Alternative B, and does not harmthe quality of the census count. For these reasons, werecommend Alternative C for meeting the Departmentof Justice data request.

136


295

PX-101

From: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)[[email protected]]

Sent: 1/3/2018 6:45:55 PMTo: Gary, Arthur (JMD) [REDACTED]CC: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

[[email protected]]Subject: Re: Request to Reinstate Citizenship

Question On 2020 Census QuestionnaireGary,I’m bringing technical, program and legal folks. Itwould be good if some technical folks on the DOJside were there so we can ensure we understandand can meet your requirements. Thursday andFriday are the most open for us, but we're flexibleand can shuffle to meet earlier in the week ifthat’s preferable.ThanksRon Jarmin, PhD.Associate Director for Economic Programs, andPerforming the Non-Exclusive Functions andDuties of the DirectorU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.1858, [email protected] Connect with us on Social Media

137


296

From: Gary, Arthur (JMD) [REDACTED]Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 2:21:05 PMTo: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)Cc: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)Subject: RE: Request to Reinstate Citizenship

Question On 2020 Census QuestionnaireIt should work fine — let me get back to you.Best wishes to you for 2018 as well.Thanks, ArtArthur E. Gary General CounselJustice Management DivisionU.S. Department of JusticeTwo Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NEWashington, DC 20530202-514-3452 (OGC main line)NOTICE: This email (including any attachments)is intended for the use of the individual or entityto which it is addressed. It may contain informationthat is privileged, confidential, or otherwiseprotected by applicable law. If you are not theintended recipient (or the recipient’s agent), youare hereby notified that any dissemination, distri-bution, copying, or use of this email or its contentsis strictly prohibited. If you received this email inerror, please notify the sender immediately anddestroy all copies.

138


297


Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 1:59 PMTo: Gary, Arthur (JMD) <[REDACTED]Cc: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

<[email protected]>Subject: Re: Request to Reinstate Citizenship

Question On 2020 Census QuestionnaireArthur,Happy New Year! Would the late next week workfor a meeting? BestRon Jarmin, PhD.Associate Director for Economic Programs, andPerforming the Non-Exclusive Functions andDuties of the DirectorU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.1858, [email protected] Connect with us on Social Media

From: Gary, Arthur (JMD) [REDACTED]Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 4:16:35 PMTo: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)Cc: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)Subject: RE: Request to Reinstate Citizenship

Question On 2020 Census QuestionnaireDr. Jarmin – thank you for your response. We lookforward to meeting with you and your team inearly January. Best regards

139


298

Arthur E. Gary General CounselJustice Management DivisionU.S. Department of JusticeTwo Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NEWashington, DC 20530202-514-3452 (OGC main line)NOTICE: This email (including any attachments)is intended for the use of the individual or entityto which it is addressed. It may contain informa-tion that is privileged, confidential, or otherwiseprotected by applicable law. If you are not theintended recipient (or the recipient’s agent), youare hereby notified that any dissemination, distri-bution, copying, or use of this email or its contentsis strictly prohibited. If you received this email inerror, please notify the sender immediately anddestroy all copies.


Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 3:32 PMTo: Gary, Arthur (JMD) <[REDACTED]Cc: Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

<[email protected]>Subject: Request to Reinstate Citizenship

Question On 2020 Census QuestionnaireArthur,Thank you for your letter dated 12/12/2017regarding improving the quality of citizenshipinformation for DOJ enforcement of the VotingRights Act. Let me start by saying the Bureau is

140


299

fully supportive of providing DOJ with the highestquality statistical information possible. To thatend, I directed staff to review all possible ways toaddress the needs expressed in the letter. Theyhave now briefed me and their findings suggestthat the best way to provide PL94 block-level datawith citizen voting population by race andethnicity would be through utilizing a linked fileof administrative and survey data the CensusBureau already possesses. This would result inhigher quality data produced at lower cost.I suggest we schedule a meeting of Census andDOJ technical experts to discuss the details of thisproposal. We look forward to working with you onthis important statistical matter.Happy HolidaysRon Jarmin, PhD.Associate Director for Economic Programs, andPerforming the Non-Exclusive Functions andDuties of the DirectorU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.1858, [email protected] Connect with us on Social Media

141


300

PX-102

*** INTERNAL CENSUS USE ONLY***

Alternative Sources of Citizenship Data for the2020 CensusPrepared for: John M. AbowdThrough: John L. EltingePrepared by: Michael Berning, J. David Brown,

Misty Heggeness, Shawn Klimek,Lawrence Warren, and Moises Yi

Disclosure review: Amy Lauger(CBDRB-2017-CDAR-001)The statistics in this report maybe released to the public.

Date: December 22, 2017IntroductionThe Census Bureau has provided estimates of theCitizen Voting Age Population by Race and Ethnicity(CVAP)1 and data to support redistricting underPublic Law 94-171 (PL94) and Section 2 of the VotingRights Act.2 This paper examines alternative sourcesfor the citizenship data, specifically the addition of aquestion on the 2020 decennial instrument or theintegration of administrative records on citizenshipinto the 2020 Census Edited File (CEF). In 2011,when they were released, the PL94 data from the2010 Census had a reference date of April 1, 2010.The CVAP data released in February 2011 were basedon the 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)data from 2005-2009. In addition, the 2011 CVAP data

142

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX 05 (DOCS 29-32) AL 3/23/19

1 https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/voting-rights/cvap.html

2 https://www.census.gov/rdo/data/2010 census.html

301

were based on Census 2000 block group geographywhile the PL94 data were based on 2010 Census blockgeography. The difficulty in integrating these two datatools for redistricting and enforcement of the VotingRights Act was directly cited by the Department ofJustice in its December 12, 2017 letter to Dr. RonJarmin, who was performing the non-exclusivefunctions and duties of the Director on that date.Data from Household Questionnaires andAdministrative SourcesThe Census Bureau currently has four surveyscontaining citizenship questions. Citizenship iscollected on the American Community Survey (ACS),the Current Population Survey (CPS), the AmericanHousing Survey (AHS), and the Survey of Incomeand Program Participation (SIPP), and all persons inthe household are in universe. The ACS, CPS, andAHS distinguish between citizens born in the UnitedStates, in U.S. territories, abroad to U.S. parents,and of foreign nativity but naturalized. SIPPcollapses citizenship into a binary indicator ofwhether or not one is a citizen.3 Table 1 shows howmuch of the 2010 Census these sources cover. Bylinking citizenship data collected from the householdsurveys listed below to the 2010 Census, we canidentify directly reported citizenship for approxi-mately 14.4% of the total population.The integration of these surveys with the 2010 Censusis based on the Protected Identification Key (PIK) addedto all files using the Person Identification ValidationSystem (PVS). From 2000 to 2015, a small number ofthe PIKs in these surveys do not match records in the2010 Census. The nonmatch rate is less than 0.2% forall years, with a minimum of less than 0.1% in 2010.

143


3 This information is from the Master DemographicPilot Report.

302

Tabl

e 1.

Citi

zens

hip

in H

ouse

hold

Sur

veys

Lin

ked

to th

e 20

10 D

ecen

nial

by

Dem

ogra

phic

sHo

useh

old S

urve

ys L

inke

d to

2010

Dec

enni

alNo

nciti

zen

Citiz

enM

issin

gTo

tal

2010

Dec

enni

al

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)(%

)N

(%)

Tota

l Pop

ulat

ion1,5

23,00

043

,090,0

001,1

92,00

010

0.0

308,7

45,53

810

0.0

Cove

rage

14.4

Sex Fe

mal

e78

5,000

1.722

,380,0

0048

.961

3,000

1.351

.915

7,000

,000

50.8

Mal

e73

8,090

1.620

,710,0

0045

.257

9,000

1.348

.115

1,800

,000

49.2

Race W

hite

729,0

001.6

35,32

0,000

77.1

837,0

001.8

80.5

227,2

00,00

073

.6Bl

ack

127,0

000.3

4,157

,000

9.117

2,500

0.49.

740

,400,0

0013

.1Am

erica

n In

dian

, Al

eut E

skim

o14

,800

0.056

2,000

1.215

,780

0.01.

34,0

07,00

01.

3As

ian or

Pac

ific I

sland

er36

4,000

0.81,6

88,00

03.7

93,00

00.2

4.7

16,77

0,000

5.4

Othe

r28

6,800

0.61,3

58,00

03.0

74,65

00.2

3.8

20,40

0,000

6.6

Ethn

icity

Hisp

anic/

Span

ish67

5,000

1.54,0

46,00

08 8

198,1

000.4

10.7

50,48

0,000

16.4

Non-

Hisp

anic/

Span

ish84

8,000

1.939

,040,0

0085

.299

4,300

2.289

.325

8,300

,000

83.7

Sour

ce: 2

010 D

ecen

nial

Cen

sus a

nd M

aste

r Dem

ogra

phics

, U.S

. Cen

sus B

urea

u.No

te: H

ouse

hold

surv

ey d

ata u

nweig

hted

. The

repo

rted

popu

latio

n to

tal i

s the

offic

ial c

ount

from

the 2

010 C

ensu

s. Al

l oth

er co

unts

hav

e bee

n ro

unde

d.

144


303

The Census Bureau has acquired multiple nationaladministrative record sources that include citizen-ship data, as shown in Table 2.Table 2. National Administrative Record Sources with

Citizenship FieldsCurrently In Census Inventory UniverseSocial Security Administration Quarterly Transactions

NumidentTemporary Assistance to Program Applicants

Needy FamiliesBureau of Prisons Federal Prison InmatesPotential New Acquisitions UniverseUSCIS Citizen Data PopulationReal ID Act Data Driver’s License

ApplicantsFHA Loan Applications Loan ApplicantsState Department Students studying aboard

Expatriates and embassies registrationsMedicare/Medicaid Program Applicants

Loan Applications

Whether or not citizenship data are collected on the2020 Census questionnaire, it would be consistenttreatment to use administrative records to edit and/or impute the citizenship variable, when necessary.From the sources in Table 2, the Census Numident isthe most complete and reliable administrative recordsource of citizenship data currently available. TheNumident file is a record of applications for SocialSecurity cards. Unique, life-long SSNs are assignedto individuals based on these applications. A fullrecord of all changes to the information (such aschange of name) is also maintained. To obtain a

145


304

Social Security Number, the applicant must providedocumented identifying information to the SocialSecurity Administration (SSA). Through the“enumeration at birth” program, children can beissued a Social Security Number (SSN) when theyare born. Examples of data elements on a Numidentrecord include name, date and place of birth, parents’names, and date of death.As shown in Table 3, 90 percent of persons in the2010 Census can be matched to the ProtectedIdentification Key (PIK).4 Once a PIK is assigned,virtually every record is matched to the CensusNumident (>99%). Nearly all the PIKs not in theNumident are Individual Taxpayer IdentificationNumbers (ITIN), which are held by noncitizens forIRS tax filing reasons. Among persons with non-blank citizenship in the Numident, 91 percent areU.S. citizens. Around 21 percent of the Numidentrecords have a blank for citizenship. The SocialSecurity Administration did not require evidence ofcitizenship until 1972.5 Many older persons thus didnot report citizenship when applying for an SSN. Weinvestigate this issue further below.

146


4 See NORC (2011) and Layne, Wagner and Rothhaas(2014) for details about the process used to assign and thequality of the PIKs used in data linkage at the Census Bureau.

5 A detailed history of the SSN is available at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html (Exhibit 1).

305

Tabl

e 3.

PIK

Cov

erag

e of

the

201

0 D

ecen

nial

Cen

sus

and

Num

iden

t C

itiz

ensh

ipD

istr

ibut

ion

Coun

tPe

rcen

t of

Perc

ent o

fD

ecen

nial

Mat

ched

Po

pula

tion

Sam

ple

No

PIK

, not

sent

to P

VS10

,367

,975

3.4

No

PIK

, fai

led

in P

VS19

,198

,234

6.2

PIK

, but

not

in N

umid

ent,

not I

TIN

8,87

10.

0PI

K, b

ut n

ot in

Num

iden

t, is

ITIN

1,56

6,64

50.

5Bl

ank

Citiz

ensh

ip57

,914

,337

18.8

20.9

U.S

. Citi

zen

200,

422,

211

64.9

72.2

Lega

l Alie

n, a

utho

rize

d to

wor

k18

,198

,545

5.9

6.6

Lega

l Alie

n, n

ot a

utho

rize

d to

wor

k44

4,72

70.

10.

2O

ther

259,

674

<0.1

<0.1

Alie

n St

uden

t, re

stri

cted

wor

k au

thor

ized

184,

673

<0.1

<0.1

Cond

ition

ally

Leg

aliz

ed A

lien

179,

646

<0.1

<0.1

Tota

l30

8,74

5,53

810

0.00

100.

00PV

S is

the

Pers

on Id

entif

icat

ion

Valid

atio

n Sy

stem

.

147


306

One of the reasons why some person records fail toreceive a PIK is insufficient personally identifiableinformation, which is the case for the 3.4 percent of records not sent to the Person IdentificationValidation System (PVS), as shown in Table 3. It isthus likely that many of the same records for which itis not possible to link in citizenship information dueto a lack of a PIK also have imputed values for otherdemographic variables. Tables 4A-4C show thatimputation rates are much higher for 2010 DecennialCensus person records lacking a PIK, especially fordate of birth (a characteristic which may be hard forproxy respondents to report on behalf of theirneighbors, for example).

Table 4A. 2010 Decennial Census Gender Source,PIK vs. non-PIK Records

With PIK No PIKAs reported 98.7 75.4From first name 1.3 1.4Value edited for household

consistency <0.1 0.4Allocated from hot deck 0.0 2.1Allocated from consistency

check <0.1 <0.1Substituted <0.1 20.7Percent of Sample 90.9 9.1The number of observations is 304,450,000. GroupQuarters are excluded.

148


307

Table 4B. 2010 Decennial Census Date of BirthSource, PIK vs. non-PIK Records

With PIK No PIKFully reported date of birth 96.0 35.7Only day of month allocated 0.2 0.5Month and day both allocated 0.3 1.7Year of birth created from 0.7 0.5

two-digit yearDOB allocated consistent with 1.6 16.4

reported ageDOB allocated consistent with 1.3 24.7

allocated ageSubstituted 0.0 20.7Year of birth of householder or <0.1 <0.1

spouse adjusted to be consistent with number of children

Percent of Sample 90.9 9.1The number of observations is 304,450,000. GroupQuarters are excluded.Table 4C. 2010 Decennial Census Race Source,

PIK vs. non-PIK RecordsWith PIK No PIK

As reported 96.6 68.6Code changed through

consistency edit <0.1 <0.1Assigned race from response

in Hispanic question <0.1 <0.1Allocated from within household 1.5 4.1Allocated from hot deck 0.7 5.9Substituted 0.0 20.7Assigned race from previous

census response 1.2 0.7Percent of Sample 90.9 9.1The number of observations is 304,450,000. GroupQuarters are excluded.

149


308

The Estimated Effects of Including a Citizen-ship Question on the 2020 CensusWe also study how including the citizenship questionmight affect response rates by comparing firstmailing response rates in the 2010 Decennial and the2010 ACS for the same housing units. An importantdifference between the two questionnaires is that theACS questionnaire contains citizenship questions,and the Decennial Census does not. Households withnoncitizens could be particularly sensitive to theinclusion of citizenship questions. Here we focus onhousing units that received a mailing (housing unitsin the initial mailing and that did not have mailreturned as Undeliverable as Addressed (UAA)) andwhich were not classified as a vacant or delete. Thehousing units are divided into two groups, thosewhere at least one person is a noncitizen in theCensus Numident and has been assigned to thishousing unit in the 2010 Census Match Study’sadministrative records person-place (PIK-MAFID)crosswalk, and those where all of the persons arecitizens in the Census Numident.Table 5 shows the 2010 Census and ACS responserates for these two groups. The self-response rate ishigher for 2010 Census than for the ACS for bothcitizenship categories, presumably reflecting thehigher burden of the ACS. The citizens6 response rateis greater than the noncitizen rate in each survey,suggesting that noncitizens have a lower participa-tion rate in general. Most important for this study isunderstanding how the difference in self-responserate across groups varies between the 2010 Census

150


6 Citizens include those born in the U.S., those bornabroad to U.S. parents, and naturalized.

309

and ACS. While the self-response rate for citizenhouseholds is 13.8 percentage points lower in theACS than in the 2010 Census, the self-response ratefor households with at least one noncitizen is 18.9percentage points lower for the ACS than theself-response rate to the 2010 Census, which is a 5.1percentage point difference between the twocategories. Though there could be other reasons whyhouseholds with noncitizens are particularlyunwilling to respond to the ACS, this evidence isconsistent with citizenship questions being moresensitive for households with noncitizens.Table 5. Comparison of 2010 ACS and 2010

Decennial Census Response Rates, by2010 Numident Citizenship Status

Response rate Difference Row (%) Percent

(Numident Status) Census ACSCitizen 79.9 66.1 13.8 94.1Not Citizen 71.5 52.6 18.9 5.9The sample size is 929,000 households.Other proxy measures for understanding responsesensitivity to questions of citizenship can be examinedwith longitudinal data. Using the 2014 SIPPlongitudinal panel waves 1 and 2, Table 6 showshousehold response rates for citizens and noncitizens.Noncitizens made up around 6% of the 2014 SIPPsurvey. Of persons living in households where at leastone individual did not respond to the surveyquestionnaire, noncitizens made up around 8%.

151


310

Table 6. Noncitizens and Non-Response in the2014 Survey of Income and ProgramParticipation

Wave 1 Wave 2(%) (se) (%) (se)

Noncitizens 6.1 (0.144) 5.7 (0.096)At least one member in the noncitizen household did not respond 7.9 (0.473) 8.5 (0.351)Source: 2014 SIPP, Waves 1 and 2Note: Citizenship status refers to status in Wave 1.To get a sense of the quality of the survey andadministrative citizenship data, we compared ACSand Census Numident responses for the same PIKs.Table 7A shows that over 99 percent of the blanksare U.S. citizens in the ACS, so it is highly likely thatpersons with blanks for citizenship in the Numidentare U.S. citizens. Among those who are legal residentnoncitizens in the Numident, roughly 40 percent saythey are U.S. citizens, nearly all via naturalization.This suggests that either the Numident citizenshipdata are out of date, or that there is a tendency fornoncitizen ACS respondents to report being U.S.citizens. To provide context for these discrepancies,note that the share of the stock of legal permanentresidents who became naturalized citizens was 8.3percent, 6.0 percent, and 4.9 percent in 2008, 2009,and 2010, respectively, suggesting that the Numidentdata would need to be several years out of date toexplain the observed discrepancies, if the ACS dataare accurate.7 If the Census Bureau obtains the U.S.

152


7 The data on naturalizations come from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Naturalizations_2010.pdf,

311

Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) citizen-ship file, we would be able to measure how up to datethe Numident citizenship information is.One way discrepancies can occur between the ACSand Numident citizenship information is incorrectPIK linkages. In Table 7B we include only PIKs thathave median or above PVS scores in the linkingattempt matching on the most information(geosearch pass 1). The discrepancies are smaller forthe cases where the PIK is a citizen in the Numident,but they are larger where the PIK is a noncitizen inthe Numident. This suggests that the significantdiscrepancies with the ACS when the PIK is anoncitizen in the Numident are not due to linkageerrors with the PIKs.

153


and estimates for the stock of legal permanent residentscome from https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/LPR.

312

Tabl

e 7A

. Com

pari

son

of 2

010

ACS

and

2010

Num

iden

t Citi

zens

hip,

All

PIK

sAC

S\Nu

mid

ent

Blan

kA=

US.

B=Le

gal

C=Le

gal

D=ot

her

E=Al

ienF=

Row

Citiz

enAl

ien,

Alien

, not

St

uden

t,Co

nditi

-Pe

rcen

tau

thor

ized

auth

orize

dre

stric

ted

onal

lyto

wor

kto

wor

kwo

rkleg

alize

dau

thor

ized

alien

Yes,

Born

Citi

zen

95.1

96.6

3.83.6

11.6

2.05.6

91.0

Yes,

Natu

raliz

ed4.1

3.236

.937

.311

.047

.242

.45.3

Not a

Citi

zen

0.80.3

59.3

59.1

77.3

50.7

51.9

3.7Co

lum

n Pe

rcen

t24

.869

.55.3

0.1<0

.1<0

.1<0

.1Th

e num

ber o

f obs

erva

tions

is 4,

022,0

00.

Tabl

e 7B

. Com

pari

son

of 2

010

ACS

and

2010

Num

iden

t Citi

zens

hip,

Hig

her Q

ualit

y PI

Ks

ACS\

Num

iden

tBl

ank

A=US

.B=

Lega

l C=

Lega

l D=

othe

rE=

Alien

F=Ro

wCi

tizen

Alien

,Al

ien, n

ot

Stud

ent,

Cond

iti-

Perc

ent

auth

orize

dau

thor

ized

rest

ricte

don

ally

to w

ork

to w

ork

work

legal

ized

auth

orize

dal

ienYe

s, Bo

rn C

itize

n97

.297

.92.7

2.826

.42.4

8.695

.4Ye

s, Na

tura

lized

2.42.0

44.0

40.9

17.4

45.8

47.1

3.1No

t a C

itize

n0.4

<0.1

53.3

56.4

56.2

51.9

44.3

1.5Co

lum

n Pe

rcen

t28

.169

.52.3

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

The

num

ber

of o

bser

vatio

ns is

2,1

68,0

00. O

nly

PIKs

with

a m

edia

n or

abo

ve s

core

in th

e Pe

rson

Iden

tifica

tion

Valid

ation

Sys

tem

(PVS

) geo

sear

ch m

odul

e pas

s 1 ar

e inc

lude

d he

re.

154


313

Table 8 shows the ACS citizenship responsedistribution for ITINs. About 7 percent report beingcitizens, though only noncitizens should have ITINs.Table 8. 2010 ACS Citizenship Responses for ITINs

ITINYes, Born Citizen 4.9Yes, naturalized 2.4Not a citizen 92.7The number of observations is 42,000.We next examine how the discrepancies between theACS and Numident citizenship responses vary bywhether the household responds to the first mailingvs. different kinds of follow-up. We restrict the ACSsample to the population of individuals in householdsthat received a mail-in form A self-response in oursample refers to an individual being part of a house-hold that successfully responded to a first ACSmailing. An individual is classified as a “Mail Follow-up” (Mail FU) if that person responded to a follow-upmailing. Lastly, an individual is classified as CATI/CAPI if that person did not respond to the initialmailing and ended up receiving a telephone or in-person follow-up interview. To assess the reportedcitizenship in the ACS, we consider individuals in ourACS sample who also match to the Numident, givingus an additional source of citizenship information Inthe Numident, we classify all citizen categories aswell as missing citizenship as citizens, for thereasons given above.Table 9 shows the distribution of ACS outcomes forindividuals who are also classified as citizen ornoncitizen in the Numident. Regardless of theresponse mode, individuals classified as citizens in

155


314

the Numident also reply that they are citizens in theACS, while nearly half of those classified asnoncitizens in the Numident report being citizens.Thus, the patterns shown in Table 7 vary little byresponse mode.Table 9. Comparison of 2010 ACS and 2010

Numident Citizenship by Response TypeACS\Numident Citizen Not Row

Citizen PercentCitizen, (Resp.) 63.9 22.7 61.6Not Citizen, (Resp.) 0.2 29.2 1.8Citizen, (Mail FU) 21.1 9.9 20.5Not Citizen, (Mail FU) 0.1 13.9 0.9Citizen, (CATI/CAPI) 14.6 8.5 14.2Not Citizen, (CATI/CAPI) 0.1 15.8 1.0Column Percent 94.4% 5.6%The number of observations is 3,752,000 individuals.Mail FU is Mail Follow-up, CATI is Computer-AssistedTelephone Interview, and CAPI is Computer-AssistedIn-Person Interview.Other Potential Administrative Record Sourcesof Citizenship DataThere are several additional administrative sourcesof citizenship information that the Census Bureaucould consider trying to obtain. Most important arethe USCIS citizenship and noncitizen legal residentfiles. The citizenship file could be used to evaluatethe quality of the Numident citizenship data, and inparticular, how quickly it is updated. The legal non-resident file could serve as an additional referencefile, so that more noncitizens can be given CensusPIKs.

156


315

Another likely useful source of citizenship is statedrivers’ license data. The REAL ID Act of 2005requires evidence of citizenship to obtain a driver’slicense. This has been fully implemented in 28 states,and the others have waivers. The Department ofHomeland Security is overseeing implementation ofthe law. Starting January 22, 2018, passengers witha driver’s license issued by a state that is still notcompliant with the REAL ID Act (and has not beengranted an extension) will need to show an alterna-tive form of acceptable identification for domestic airtravel to board their flight. Each state must agree toshare its motor vehicle database with all other states.This database must include, at a minimum, all thedata printed on the state driver’s licenses and IDcards, plus drivers’ histories.8 These databases couldbecome an important source of citizenship data.Other potential sources include FHA loan applica-tions and Medicare and Medicaid applications.It would also be useful to obtain data on U.S.expatriates from the U.S. State Department. TheState Department may have data on students study-ing abroad and expatriates registering with embassies.These data would prevent these PIKs from beingmistakenly included in the administrative recordperson-place crosswalk.It is worth noting that others who are interested innoncitizens have used administrative records toestimate stay rates and other relevant characteristics.

157


8 There is some debate about whether a national data-base is being created from these data. DRS says this isn’t thecase, but see https://papersplease.org/wp/2016/02/1/how-the-real-id-act-is-creating-a-national-id-database/.

316

Finn (2014) developed stay rates for students inscience education by linking social security numbersof students enrolled in science programs with theInternal Revenue Service (IRS) tax records.Not only is using administrative records potentially amore accurate measure of citizenship, but it is alsocost efficient. The Bureau already acquires SSANumident information on a quarterly basis. Tocollect that information through self-report by addingquestions to the 2020 decennial would require addi-tional unnecessary costs and burden to the Bureau.Implementation for the 2020 CensusThe direct solution to supporting redistricting in themanner requested by the Department of Justice is tomake a citizenship variable available on the 2020Census Edited File (CEF), the internal, confidentialdata file from which the PL94 tabulations areproduced. If citizenship were available on that file,the PL94 tabulations could be restructured to includedirect estimates of the citizen voting age populationby race and ethnicity at the block level. These tabula-tions would have essentially the same accuracy ascurrent PL94 and Summary File 1 (SFI) data. Werecommend provisioning the citizenship variable ontothe CEF by record linkage using the nationaladministrative data discussed above.Once the citizen tabulation variable is added to theCEF, it would be available to the 2020 DisclosureAvoidance Subsystem (DAS) for inclusion in amodified version of the proposed P2 table“Race/Ethnicity for the Population Age 18 and Over”where “Population Age 18 and Over” would bereplaced by “Citizen Population Age 18 and Over.”This revision would allow the use of the same

158


317

disclosure avoidance methodology, state-of-the-artdifferential privacy, currently available for the 2018End-to-End Test and the enhanced methods,integrated PL94 and SFI protection, planned for the2020 Census itself. This version of P2 would be thefirst PL94 data produced at the block-level withestimates of the citizen voting age population by raceand ethnicity and with accuracy comparable to theaccuracy of the P1 “Total population” table. The P1and P2 tables would tabulate race and ethnicity inthe same manner as currently proposed. Tables P42“Group Quarters Population by Group QuartersType” and H1 “Occupancy Status” would not bemodified. The 2020 Census questionnaire would notbe altered, and the field operations would not have tobe expanded to compensate for the lower rate ofvoluntary compliance predicted for a census thatasks the citizenship question directly.ReferencesFinn, Michael G., 2014, “Stay Rates of ForeignDoctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities, 2011,”Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a4c/49e7878730bS87201548338aa6052e2401b7.pdf.Layne, Mary, Deborah Wagner, and CynthiaRothhaas, 2014, “Estimating Record Linkage FalseMatch Rate for the Person Identification ValidationSystem,” CARRA Working Paper #2014-02.NORC, 2011, “Final Report: Assessment of the U.S.Census Bureau’s Person Identification ValidationSystem,” University of Chicago: Bethesda, MD.

159


318

Summary of the process for usingadministrative records to add citizenship to the 2020 Census microdata and produce

block-level tabulations from the enhanced data

Background: Currently, the Census Bureauproduces the PL94-171 redistricting (PL94) data,which are block-level tabulations of total populationand voting-age population by race and ethnicityusing the OMB-approved categories, from thedecennial census. These data are mandated by 13U.S.C. Section 141, and must be released by April1st of the year following a decennial census. TheBureau also produces the Citizen Voting-AgePopulation by Race and Ethnicity (CVAP) data,which are block-group-level tabulations of thecitizen voting-age population by the same race andethnicity categories. These tabulations areproduced from the most recent five-year ACS dataand released annually in February. State redistrict-ing offices use PL94, CVAP, and other sources todraw new Congressional and legislative districtsthat conform to the one-person, one-vote mandateand the Voting Rights Act. The Department ofJustice uses PL94 and CVAP to enforce the VotingRights Act. Both products were designed withextensive input from their stakeholders. Becausethe PL94 data are tabulated from the universeperson-level Census microdata file, they are treatedas exact block-level tabulations, although they havebeen subjected to the Bureau’s disclosure avoidancealgorithms, known as confidentiality edits. TheCVAP data are based on the ACS sample, and arereleased with block-group-level margins of error.The statistical fusion of the PL94 and CVAP data

160


319

to produce block-level citizen voting-age populationby race and ethnicity necessarily involvesmodeling, and produces block-level estimates thatmay have very large margins of error inheritedfrom the CVAP block-group-level MOEs.Request: We received a Department of Justicerequest to produce more accurate block-level CVAPtabulations by asking the citizenship question onthe 2020 Census, and incorporating those responsesinto block-level tabulations instead of using theACS data. We believe higher quality dataproposedlinking an administrative record-sourced citizen-ship status variable directly to the 2020 finaledited microdata file, and tabulating CVAP fromthose data instead of putting citizenship directly onthe 2020 Census questionnaire.Method: We currently use the PVS system to adda PIK to the confidential 2020 Census universeperson and household microdata outside thedecennial census production system. The currentdecennial census production system accepts thesePIKed data for downstream processing. External tothe decennial census processing system, we wouldcreate a universe “best citizenship” variable fromNUMIDENT, United States Citizen and ImmigrationServices (USCIS), and possibly other sources, usingmethods similar to the ones we have used to linkother administrative variables into productiontabulation systems. The “best citizenship” variablewould be linked to the confidential 2020 Censusperson-level microdata record using the PIK.Tabulations and Disclosure Avoidance: Aversion of the redistricting data would be createdtabulating citizen voting age population by race

161


320

and ethnicity at the block level. These tabulationswould be protected using the new differentialprivacy disclosure l imitation system beingimplemented for all 2020 Census tabulations. Thedifferential privacy system provides globalconfidentiality protection guarantees that accountfor the information in all 2020 publications and areprovably resistant to all future external data at alevel controlled by the global confidentiality budget.The new block-level CVAP tabulation would sharethe global confidentiality budget of the 2020Census, not augment it. Whether we would releasethis product as a substitute for voting-age tabulationsor a supplement has not been determined.

Abowd to JarminJanuary 19, 2018Pre-decisional

162


321

Question Assigned to Completed1 Reist2 Reist3a Abowd: Mule X3b Velkoff 4 Velkoff5 Abowd: Mule X6 Abowd: Brown7 Abowd: Brown X8 Velkoff9 Abowd: Brown10 Abowd X11 Abowd: Brown12 Abowd: Berning X13 Abowd X14 Abowd: Berning X15 Abowd X16 Abowd: Berning X17 Abowd: Berning X18 Abowd X19 Abowd X20 Abowd21 Abowd X22 Abowd: Berning X23 Abowd: Mule X

163


322

24 Abowd: Brown X25 Velkoff X26 Reist X27 Abowd: Brown28 Velkoff29 Velkoff30 Velkoff31 Velkoff32 Reist: Whitehorne33 Reist34 Abowd X35 Resit: Dinwiddie

164


323

165


324

FC

SM

f ,

,l,r

al C

,,m11

1111

n ,,

n <;1

,1,_

1 c

,1 ~f

,1h,

1<ln

lni:>

C

hal

len

ges

an

d E

xper

ien

ces

;(d

apti

ng

Dif

fere

nti

ally

Pri

vate

Mec

han

ism

s to

th

e 20

20 C

ensu

s

Uni

ted

Stat

es· I

U.S.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

Cen

sus

··-~"""

'''""'"~

''"'""'"~

' U

.S.C

FN<J

J'\B

IJR

fAU

---

&ru

u ,en

sus.Q

O,'

Sim

son

L. G

arfin

kel

Sen

ior

Sci

entis

t, C

onfid

entia

lity

and

Dat

a A

cces

s U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u

Fed

eral

Com

mitt

ee o

n S

tatis

tical

Met

hodo

logy

2

018

Res

earc

h an

d P

olic

y C

onfe

renc

e 8

: 30

-10

:15a

m

Th

is p

rese

ntat

ion

is m

ade

with

the

hope

tha

t the

ir c

on

ten

t m

ay b

e o

f in

tere

st to

the

gen

eral

sta

tistic

al c

om

mu

nity

. The

vie

ws

in t

his

pres

enta

tion

are

thos

e o

f the

aut

hor(

s), a

nd d

o no

t ne

cess

aril

y re

pres

ent t

hose

of t

he U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u.

166


325

Bu

t, w

e n

eed

to

pro

tect

pri

vacy

! 13

U.S

. C

od

e§

9 -

Info

rmat

ion

as

con

fid

enti

al;

exce

pti

on

Ca

) Nei

ther

the

Sec

reta

ry, n

or a

ny o

ther

offi

cer o

r em

ploy

ee o

f the

Dep

arbn

ent o

f Com

mer

ce o

r bur

eau

or a

ger1

9'.th

areo

f, or

ro

cal g

over

nmen

t cen

sus

liais

on m

ay, e

xcep

t as

prov

ided

in s

ectio

n 8

or 1

6 o

r ch

apte

r 10

of t

his

title

or

sect

ion

21

0 o

f th

e

Dep

artm

ents

of C

omm

erce

, Ju

stic

e, a

nd S

tate

, th

e J

udic

iary

, an

d R

elat

ed A

ge

nci

es

App

ropr

iatio

ns A

ct,

1998

.

(1)

Use

the

inf

orm

atio

n fu

rnis

hed

unde

r th

e pr

ovis

ions

of t

his

title

for

any

pur

pose

oth

er th

an t

he

stat

istic

al p

urpo

ses

for

whi

ch i

t is

sup

plie

d; o

r (2

) M

ake

any

publ

icat

ion

whe

reby

the

data

furn

ishe

d by

any

par

ticul

ar e

stab

lishm

ent o

r ind

ivid

ual

unde

r thi

s tit

le c

an b

e id

entif

ied;

or

(3)

Per

mit

anyo

ne o

ther

than

the

sw

orn

offic

ers

and

empl

oyee

s o

f the

Dep

artm

ent o

r bu

reau

or

agen

cy

ther

eof t

o ex

amin

e th

e in

divi

dual

rep

orts

. N

o de

part

men

t, bu

reau

, ag

ency

, of

ficer

, o

r em

ploy

ee o

f the

G

over

nmen

t, ex

cept

the

Se

cre

tary

in c

arry

ing

ou

t th

e pu

rpos

es o

f thi

s tit

le,

shal

l re

quire

, fo

r a

ny

reas

on,

copi

es o

f cen

sus

repo

rts

whi

ch h

ave

been

ret

aine

d by

an

y su

ch e

stab

lishm

ent o

r in

divi

dual

. C

opie

s of

cen

sus

repo

rts, w

hich

hav

e be

en s

o re

tain

ed, s

hall

be im

mun

e fro

m le

gal p

roce

ss, a

nd s

hall

not,

with

out t

he c

onse

nt o

f the

indi

vidu

al o

r est

ablis

hmen

t con

cern

ed, b

e ad

mitt

ed a

s ev

iden

ce o

r us

ed

for a

ny p

urpo

se in

any

act

ion,

sui

t, or

oth

er ju

dici

al o

r adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

eedi

ng.

(b) T

he

pro

visi

ons

of s

ubse

ctio

n (a

) o

f thi

s se

ctio

n re

latin

g to

th

e c

onfid

entia

l tre

atm

en

t of d

ata

for

part

icul

ar in

divi

dual

s a

nd

es

tabl

ishm

ents

, sh

all

not

appl

y to

th

e c

ensu

ses

of g

ove

rnm

en

ts p

rovi

ded

for

by s

ub

cha

pte

r Ill

of c

hapt

er 5

of t

his

title

, no

r to

in

terim

cur

rent

da

ta p

rovi

ded

for

by s

ubch

apte

r IV

of c

ha

pte

r 5

of t

his

title

as

to t

he

sub

ject

s co

vere

d by

cen

suse

s o

f go

vern

men

ts, w

ith r

espe

ct t

o a

ny

info

rmat

ion

obta

ined

th

ere

fore

tha

t is

com

pile

d fr

om,

or

cust

omar

ily p

rovi

ded

in,

publ

ic r

ecor

ds.

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

en

sus

~~

~~

~•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,area

u ce

nsus

.!)()'

,'

167


326

Dis

clo

sure

Avo

ida

nce

fo

r th

e 2

010

Ce

nsu

s

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

IT'S

IN

OU

R H

AN

DS

cens

us·

2010

168


327

"Thi

s is

the

of

ficia

l fo

rm

for

all

the

peop

le a

t th

is

addr

ess.

"

(U

nite

d St

ates

~ I U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

en

sus

~~

~~

~~

~•:s

Mrrn

111

,tr"1

KJn

---

e.ar

eau

cen5

11s.g

ov

U.e

,blu

eo

rblt

ickp

en

.

Sta

rt h

ere

Th

eC

en

susm

ust

cou

nte

very

pe

,s.o

nlM

ng

lntll

eU

nlte

<:I

S

tate

son

Ap

rU1

,20

10,

Bef

ore

yo

u-,

swer

0u

uti

on

1,c

ou

nt1

hep

eop

leli

Yin

gin

th

lsh

o<

lse,

apar

tmen

t,o

rmo

bil

eho

meu

sln

go

urg

uld

elln

es.

•~

~a1

.:.:

::::

:rd

.dn

gb

lll»

es,w

ho

!iv

ean

dsl

99

ph

we

Th

eCen

•usB

ure

eual

soco

nd

ucl

sco

umal

nlns

tltu

tlon

a a

nd

olh

erp

lace

s,so

:

•Oo

no

lau

,tan

yo

nal

ivin

gaw

ayei

lher

ato

:,le

ge«

inlh

a

-•

Oon

olco

t.rll

anyo

nein

anur

$S)Q

hom

e.~

pri

soo

. de

teot

ion!

acit

y,el

c.,o

nApr

il1,

2010

.

•LO

OV

8111

8Sep

oopk

loll)

'Oll'

form

,QW

l'lift

h9yw

illro

wm

kl

Mlh

&nl

af!,

..th

9yle

ave"

"""9

e,lh

llnu

min

ghom

a,lh

a m

alar

), ia

l, Ill

e. O

the!

wls

e, lh

ey m

ay b

e C

Wlte

d tw

,ce

The

Cen

st1s

mu

stel,

oin

clud

epeo

ple

wit

ho

uta

per

man

enl

pla

ce1

oit

ay,s

o:

•lt

sorn

oo

ne

wh

otw

no

po

,ma

f'IO

lllp

1¥

&to

sta

yi&

S1

a}'

Wlg

h

er8

on

Ap

ril1

,20

10

,CO

IHlh

a1

p,n

on

.Ofie

rwis

Q,h

eo

r sh

em

ayb

Grn

is.s

.ed

inlle

cen

sus.

1. H

owm

anyp

eopl

ewN

elM

ngor

stay

lngl

nthl

sl'H

)use

, ap

artm

ent,

orm

oblle

,io

meo

n A

pril

1, 20

10?

Numl>e

rot,-,

,,i.~□

2.W

ere

lhef

ean

yad

dh

lon

alp

eop

lest

ayln

gh

o,,

e A

prl

l1,2

01

01

h~

no

tln

clud

elnO

UeS

l!cn

1?

Ma

rl<

1d

rlvlt

4'P

/y.---

□Chlcnn

,ouchas-.nt>Abitiorf/,ti"'-..,

OR

elat

ives

,suc

t,as

adl.f

tcni

i,;!,

e,',,

ocus

i.,s,

orin

-law

s 0

No

nre

latr

;tt,

MlC

hU

"'°"

""l'

J ..

orli

\l,._

.,bal

>ys

itle

<o

□Peop1a~ng""'81emp,,,arjy

O""

°add

itiona

lpeop

1e

J. '

:ia~

•,"°

o".

:-·:

::.r

tmen

t,o

rmo

bil

eho

me-

O

Ow

,>id

by

yo

uo

r-~

inth

ish

ou

Nld

dM

lli

a m

ortg

a,ge

otlo

an?l

nclu

deho

mee

qui1

yban

s □

Ow,>idbyyouor-~lfllhrlhouMholdl,...ond

dea

r(M

1hoi

.lam

ongi

,gao

rl0A

n)?

o ...

. .,,

OO

ccu

ped

wit

l<U

pay

mem

o1

ren

11

4. ::

:;1~r:7

::-:::.:

:.mber

"!W<1

111i1y

califw

9 A

rea

Co

dll+

Nln

be

r

c::::

J c:

::::J

c=

i

~--

----

~ .,□

6

. W

hat

isP

e™>n

1's

su?

Ma

rl<

, O

NE

OO

..

0 M

ale

O F

emal

e 7.

Wha

tls

PK

90

fl1's

19

1a

nd

wf)

1tl

si>

«G

On

1'a

dat1

olb

irth

?

P!e

a6

'!re

pM

Da

bie

&a

sa

go

o~

rh9

cti

idillG

ssllla

ll!y

e,a

rold

. P

mll)

OO

?bei

5.i'lt

:io:.w

. ~

""~

1.2

010

l.1ui

l~

Day

Y

earo

lbin

h

c::::

J ~ D

C

=::

J ➔

/tOTE

: Pl

eue

anu

m· i

lOiH

Oue

<~on

8 •b

oll!

IUsp

anlc

orig

in a

nd

OU

61io

n9a!

lou1

race

.For

lhls

cens

us,

Hls

panl

cori

gins

aren

otr

ace

s.

8.

le P

e<so

~ l

ol

N15

pani

c. L

atin

o.o

r S

pani

sh o

rigi

n?

0 N

o,no

t<>!

Hill

pani

c,L

lbno

,orS

jlan

ooho

rigi

n

§;Y

M,.

Mc.

<lC

lll,

Ma.

uca

nA

m.,

Ch

oca

no

Yn

,"'-

10R

icen

V

n,C

lban

,Q

0

YM

,M<

llh

ar~

.Lali

na,o

rSp

atl

<sh

o,;

g.,

-PM

.,.,

.,_

lr-.

-_

A~

Co

tn

illo

:,,~

~~

~.

J.'d

oooo

.7

9.

Wha

tis

~™

>n

1's

,ace

?Ma/

ll. >

' oo

oorm

M1b

:u'e

s.

□-

□ B

ilck

."'f

ric.

-iA

m.,o

rNeg

ro

0 A

mer

ican

lndi

anor

Ala

skaN

alM

-l'Y

ir,_

,,,o

t..,

.,kd

,rix

q,,J

lflt

7

0M

ianl

ndia

n □

J__.,

□a.

na.a

□

Kor&

M □~

□v-

OO

!hw

....

..,

-P

titl1

K1,

lb<

..._

..,l

m,g

,W..

,Th

ai;

,.

._,~

..

. .,..

,, 7

OS

om

eolh

erra

.ce-

Pri

nfr

aoe.

7 0

Nal

M>

Haw

aiia

n

□a-

-·""

'""°

""

□-

□OI ...

.. Pa

cifi

clsl

aod9

<-

MII

,a

;e,i,

, ...... ..

,..,

.Tcn

p,,

.do

ocn

. 7

1'10

.Do

esPe

rson

1som

etlm

esll

veor

st11

yso"

'"'h

eree

l11e

? □

No □

YM-M

llrl

<.ta

l,;,

,,tl

J()p

ly.

□lncolegehouslng

□Fo<cnlda.,slod)-

Dln

!hem

iila

ry

Oin

fail

orpn

oon

OA

ia!I

MS

OM

I 0

1na

~h

om

lll

o,..,.,,,.i,-

0Fo

,.,.

._,_

➔

H m

ore

peop

le w

ere

,;o

un

~ ln

Out

ttio

P 1

, eon

tinu

e Yl

'llh ~

rso

n 2

.

"It

is q

uick

an

d ea

sy,

and

your

an

swer

s ar

e pr

otec

ted

by

law

."

169


328

2010

Cen

sus

of

Po

pu

lati

on

: B

asic

Res

ult

s

Tot

al p

op

ula

tio

n

308,

745,

538

Hou

seho

ld p

op

ula

tio

n

300,

758,

215

Gro

up

qu

art

ers

po

pu

latio

n

7,98

7,32

3

Hou

seho

lds

116,

716,

292

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

11

170


329

2010

Cen

sus:

Hig

h-l

evel

dat

abas

e sc

hem

a

Var

iabl

es

Dis

tinct

val

ues

Ha

bita

ble

blo

cks

10,6

20,6

83

Ha

bita

ble

tra

cts

73,7

68

Sex

2

Age

11

5

Ra

ce/E

thn

icity

(0

MB

Cat

egor

ies)

12

6

Ra

ce/E

thn

icity

(SF2

Cat

egor

ies)

60

0

Re

latio

nsh

ip t

o p

erso

n 1

17

Na

tio

na

l h

isto

gra

m c

ells

(0

MB

Cat

egor

ies)

49

2,66

0

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

12

171


330

2010

Cen

sus:

S

um

mar

y o

f th

e p

ub

licat

ion

s (c

ou

nts

are

ap

pro

xim

ate)

Rel

ease

d co

un

ts

Pub

licat

ion

(in

clu

din

g z

eros

)

PL9

4-17

1 R

ed

istr

ictin

g

2,77

1,99

8,26

3

Bal

ance

of S

um

ma

ry F

ile 1

2,

806,

899,

669

Su

mm

ary

File

2

2,09

3,68

3,37

6

Pub

lic-u

se m

icro

sa

mp

le

30,8

74,5

54

Lo

we

r b

ou

nd

on

pu

blis

he

d s

tatis

tics

7,70

3,45

5,86

2

Sta

tistic

s/p

ers

on

25

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

13

172


331

2003

: D

atab

ase

Rec

on

stru

ctio

n

AB

STR

AC

T

We

exam

ine

the

trad

eoff

bet

wee

n pr

ivac

y an

d u

sabi

lity

of

stat

isti

cal

data

base

s. W

e m

odel

a s

tati

stic

al d

atab

ase

by a

n

n-b

it s

trin

g d1

, .. ,

dn,

wit

h a

que

ry b

eing

a s

ubse

t q

<;;; [

n] t

o

be

answ

ered

by

E,E

q d

;. O

ur m

ain

resu

lt is

a p

olyn

omia

l re-

co

nstr

ucti

on a

lgor

ithm

of

dat

a fr

om n

oisy

(p

ertu

rbed

) su

bse

t su

ms.

A

pply

ing

this

rec

onst

ruct

ion

algo

rith

m t

o s

ta

tist

ical

dat

abas

es w

e sh

ow t

hat

in

orde

r to

ach

ieve

pri

vacy

on

e ha

s to

ad

d p

ertu

rbat

ion

of

mag

nitu

de O

(vn

).

Th

at

is,

smal

ler

per

turb

atio

n a

lway

s re

sult

s in

a s

tro

ng

vio

lati

on

of

priv

acy.

W

e sh

ow t

hat

thi

s re

sult

is

tig

ht

by e

xem

plif

yin

g ac

cess

alg

orit

hms

for

stat

isti

cal

data

base

s th

at p

rese

rve

priv

acy

whi

le a

ddin

g p

ertu

rbat

ion

of

mag

nitu

de 0

( vn

).

For

tim

e--T

bo

un

ded

adv

ersa

ries

we

dem

onst

rate

a p

riva

cy

pres

ervi

ng a

cces

s al

gori

thm

who

se p

ertu

rbat

ion

mag

nitu

de

is~

,/T

.

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

en

sus

~~

~~

.,""

"-w

•~

---e

urem [

l'fl

'il6

.gO

Y

Re

vea

ling

In

form

ati

on

wh

ile P

rese

rvin

g P

riva

cy

lrit

Din

ur

Kob

bi N

!ssi

m •

NE

CR

ese

arc

n1n

s11t1

.1te

4ln

dep

end

eoce

Way

Pr

mce

ton,

NJ0

8540

(i

ritd

.kob

bi J@

rese

arch

.nj.

nec

.co

m

AB

ST

RJ\

C."

T

Ot••

"""I

"' ''·

"'"'

"••*

',1u

,.,.,.

,n.,_

,...,

': 1h

..Ja,,

.1~.

_.

•U ·

1ck-

r11,

f,in

£ o

t1nl

~1

1,.

.,..

i,""

' tb

.• 1

_,,..

...,L

_. "'"

"'-"'"

'..!

,J,.

t·

fl

1 I

!):lo

-•~

•,

• .._

_.

,, ti

...,,

"~

"l"

'fd

t,.-

,. ,

.,.,

. • ..,

. <.

f 1.

,-j\

;orV

11"

11,..

..I,,

~·•

•1:.

.

,.,.

. ...,.

1, .-

1,.-•

., 1,

.,.,

1 1 .

.. ,.~1

1: "'

l•T

tlm

..,,.

I •~

• ~,

ai,.,~

,. ,;

,,~

.,J

,i..

,,,i

..._

....

. ,\

dar

n .

.,._1

W,.,.

,,d,m

z· ,

1.,_

,..;s

.,.1

,1,,.

,,

f th

e ,1

1,,n

nal•

M1

;,, 1

1•

,L,,

at_

. O

n t

i,~ u

,J,,

,..

h~,o

d.

--1

,,,, 1

ake,

1 w

to 1

b,c.

-u1

,11rn

c-.o

•ei:.

...-ie

.. ji

l 'I

""".

,._

..

•Ii• l•

"'1·•

dl

.,_ o

t.li

,.-1

to

'-,,

11.

-p1

i,-,,,

·,· u

( 11

.,, 1,

.,,...

,.,._

•t

rin

ioo

. C

iil d

.ola

pe

nw

ba

<io

n.

aod

(ii

il o

utp

ul

p,,n

urb.

.--

•<-. k

-ali

•••

• ..,.,

1,m

1m~.

..,.~

,1,0

111h

.-.1

na,

M 1

,.. r

,bu

«l

'" ,

, ••

•"·

W,•

g_,,

.-a

1,..-

,,..,.

,..-w

,;f

,t,,

-;aj

,.,,

..,.1

,...1

..-J.

.w.

~•i<

I '"1

~•·1

f~·

1••l

•·U1

Th

r l•"

'1>1

t.-,J

..,,.,

1,,..

., an

·,-.

, 11.

...-h

;,,oi

,-u,

lo

r••h

-t t

h, ,-

Ir<

\"

·2

~· .. a

d,.

,.;a

;kl

.,,,

,-~

(I(

tit<

" *'

"11>

«!,

• 1, ..

,1;,,

,.1..,

.,1,, ..

a1i

.-..,

...-,

.,;,,.

,. ...

, ...

.. ,r

, 1, .. ,

.~,.,

1 •.

aa.1

,i..

-u .

. ....

...i

._..

. ,.,.,

..,....,.,

..1., ..

. ~ .• .

._,...

••• ..,

.,1

.,,•

~••

,L,1

,-1

!.•p

mr.

•)·"

l~,r

y

Qu.

c,I"

)-n

.,,1

rlct

lon

. lo

theq

ue,-

,·r-

ricti

o:n

ap

pro

ach

. "''O

J:~' I

"''~•

••·

'V'"

"" -

""I"

'"'"

! to

~ ;

, "l"

"".J

"'"

""lu

rr .•

,.1,■

-,ll

~ '"

I"'

"'..

.,"

,1,,.

•~rr

rh•r

; ..

1,...

,,...,

y f"

"'o

g.>i

1>in

g ,,.

.., m

,K,h

wr

........

.. ,.,..,

di,.

,..,

,-p,:,

..ifi~

Ja1

11.,;

,,.e

, .. ,u

;.,,.

n...

1;,,.

,, "r

t.b

i. a""

"""'

b i

.tb

..1

lt a

lJo

.r.b

-•

rdat

mel

,·•na

.>Jl

num

b<-,

-,-

"W,«

l ,.,.,.

t, ,~.

.,.. a·

I""'

•I■

· auo

l.,..

.. _

_, D

IM.V

' lf

ot

~ ,~

,:;;

;;.;

;.~

· ••

•I •

•lu~

,.,

,.;,,,

,~ M

......

.. .11

11

,...,,

.,,...

, S.

b--

...,

.,,_

.. -~

.. -

•-<

>f.

o1

10

0.-

,<>

f11

1t1

-1r.

. ,..

....,.

..o,d

w,i,

-.,..

.,,.-

......

. rc.,

..,.1<

1N1 .

... _

_

....

....

. .,.

,,,_

r .. pr

o1< ..

.....,.,....,._

.""'.

_.

_..,._

,,-.. IW

l-o

o•I

><

....

_

TO

<C

f':"

-><

IO

,q:,

ubl,

>L

0>p,

,,aw

""'"

' .. .,

.,,,,_

.,....

.__,

,_,,,

«6:

--

... r

.:, f'

OD

>.;

oo_,

_,-,

_1;

-.;0

0J _

_ 0

«p

.c"

Co

p)n

pl!

OIH

KM

l-•i

ll•.

.fi"

I0-6

-0•0

6 S

•GO

,\ .

"-j.~

t,,J

;.I,-,

, i,

. ,;

l , .•

,...

..,.

d•■

l.ri1,g

.:"J. i

.,.

~ ~

'II

o(

II••

q

u,,

rw,,

.io

,po

:.an

dn

....

-y_

.qn

Ol)

·i>

d1

"<1

:-.l

~,,

.P<

..,.

j bl

ocom

prom

.i,~

,..U

....-m

,:(~

in.o

;,h

eq

u,r

yaa:u

dm

~ly

.

'.\

p,,1

;..n,

·.v

,,,1

e-t.

•Pl

>t""

i•n.

,t<"~

g,."

.~JJ

l"'"

'";m

.o,.-

.. ..,

;gltt

n

hm

r•lv

.•n

dH

••f1

,,h

1n

t,,-

n•u

l,..,.

.ly ..

. ffi.

., ~,

<HO

•III

1.

i.~,•

~kt

-•fi,

-..1;

..., ,

,r "

"""

J~-U

""'~

' rn"

d,.,

a,1.

..,._

.,,r,.

11,,

,,,.

...,

.i l

""•·

nu.

Th

.•

·u•,

1■,

u •

•"h

"'"

"'·

J ~

r,L

,··

,·I.

•nu

r· •

Un

l,u

le,l

"'d

'"'

,.,,

...,

,, .

,kn

.,..

,.

F.-

.,,,..

,oi,

lt,,

n

t::=:

.~tt.

\= ~t:'~~~~ :,

;~ ma

_v

173


332

2006

: D

iffe

ren

tial

Pri

vacy

Ab

stra

ct.

We

cont

inue

a l

ine

of

rese

arch

init

iate

d in

[10

, 11

] o

n p

riva

cy

pres

ervi

ng s

tati

stic

al d

atab

ases

. C

onsi

der

a tr

ust

ed s

erve

r th

at

hold

s a

dat

abas

e o

f se

nsit

ive

info

rmat

ion.

Giv

en a

q

uer

y f

unct

ion

/ m

app

ing

d

atab

ases

to

rea

ls,

the

so-c

alle

d tr

ue a

nsw

er i

s th

e re

sult

of

app

lyin

g

f to

th

e d

atab

ase.

To

pro

tect

pri

vacy

, th

e tr

ue

answ

er i

s p

ertu

rbed

by

th

e ad

dit

ion

of

ran

do

m n

oise

gen

erat

ed a

ccor

ding

to

a c

aref

ully

cho

sen

dis

trib

uti

on

, an

d t

his

res

pons

e, t

he

tru

e an

swer

plu

s no

ise,

is

retu

rned

to

th

e us

er.

Pre

vio

us

wor

k fo

cuse

d o

n t

he

case

of

nois

y su

ms,

in

whi

ch /

=

L

, g(x

,),

whe

re x

, de

note

s th

e it

h r

ow o

f th

e d

atab

ase

and

g m

aps

dat

abas

e ro

ws

to

[O, l

]. W

e ex

ten

d t

he

stu

dy

to

gen

eral

fun

ctio

ns /

, pr

ovin

g th

at

priv

acy

can

be

pres

erve

d by

cal

ibra

tin

g t

he

stan

dar

d d

evi

atio

n o

f th

e no

ise

acco

rdin

g to

th

e se

nsit

ivit

y o

f th

e fu

ncti

on /

. R

ough

ly

spea

king

, th

is is

th

e am

ou

nt

that

any

sin

gle

arg

um

ent

to /

can

cha

nge

its

ou

tpu

t. T

he

new

ana

lysi

s sh

ows

that

for

seve

ral

par

ticu

lar

appl

icat

ions

su

bst

anti

ally

les

s no

ise

is n

eede

d th

an w

as p

revi

ousl

y u

nd

erst

oo

d t

o b

e th

e ca

se.

Th

e fi

rst

step

is

a ve

ry c

lean

ch

arac

teri

zati

on

of

priv

acy

in t

erm

s o

f in

dist

ingu

isha

bili

ty o

f tr

ansc

rip

ts.

Add

itio

nall

y, w

e o

bta

in s

epar

atio

n r

esu

lts

show

ing

the

incr

ease

d va

lue

of

inte

ract

ive

san

itiz

atio

n m

echa

nism

s ov

er n

on-i

nter

acti

ve.

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

Cal

ibra

tin

g N

ois

e to

Sen

siti

vit

y i

n P

riv

ate

Dat

al

An

aly

sis

Cy:

nthi

a D

wor

k1, F

rank

McS

herr

y1,

Kob

bi N

issi

m2

, an

d A

dam

Sm

ith!

! ..

1 M

icro

aofl

. R

elle

arch

, S

ilic

on V

alle

y. {dv

ork,

•cll

ll.e

rry}

l:al

icro■o

ft.c-.

~ B

en-G

urio

n U

nive

rsit

y. kobbitc

■.b

gu.a

c.il

s

Wei

.m:w

m I

nst

itu

te o

f S

cien

ce.

~.a

ait

hlv

eiz

llan

ll..

ac. i

l

Ab

stra

ct.

We

con

tin

ue

a li

ne o

f rea

earc

h in

itia

ted

in [1

0, 1

1] o

o p

riva

cy

pres

ervi

ng s

tatis

tical

. d

ata

b-.

Con

side

r a

trus

ted

i,e

rw

r t

hat

hold

s a

dat

abM

e o

! se

mri

.tive

in!

orm

atio

n. G

iWII

11,

qu

ery

func

tion

/

map

pin

g

dat

ahM

M t

o r

eals

. th

e 1

1D-c

alle

d ~

O.n

.ttl

lo!i

' i■ th

e re

mlt

of

anp

lyin

g

, ,, C

L

. ....

..-i

i.

"""'

~ ~

........ ~

=

to< '

E;,

d

at,

atab

a11e

la pr

ivacy

-l!lp,!

lwwwll!

l\llemgl

!Plal!!cal

!!e.11,al!

!cmll'!l

aal!cal!

mlllii

'~a-iwa

'=~~

•• ;'l=l

r,•~-la

a .....,

1ea

m p

rope

rj

ties

of t

he

popu

lati

on a

s a

who

le w

hile

pro

tect

ing

th

e pr

ivac

y of

the

indi

vid,

o

on

trib

uto

ri,.

We

assu

me

the

data

b~

is h

eld

by

a t

rust

ed s

erve

r. O

n in

pu

t a q

uery

func

ti

/ m

appi

ng d

atab

aaee

to re

!WI,

the

so-c

alle

d tn

ie a

n.tw

eris

the

resu

lt o

f app

lyin

g Ito

the

data

base

. To

prot

ect

priv

acy,

th

e tr

ue

answ

er is

per

turb

ed b

y th

e ad

dit'

* S

uppo

rted

by

the

Lou

is L

. and

Ani

ta M

. P

erim

&n

Pos

tdoc

tora

l F

ello

,nhi

p.

174


333

Th

e 20

00 a

nd

201

0 D

iscl

osu

re A

void

ance

Sys

tem

o

per

ated

as

a fi

lter

, on

th

e C

ensu

s E

dit

ed F

ile:

~•tt

ttif!

it

l,~\t

tl

t-t~t

itftt!

t (

Uni

ted

Stat

es· I

U.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

en

sus

~~

~~

~•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

16

fSR

DC

.,II

•■■

■■ll

■■P

175


334

Th

e p

rote

ctio

n s

yste

m u

sed

in

2000

an

d 2

010

relie

d o

n sw

app

ing

ho

use

ho

lds:

Ad

van

tag

es

of s

wap

ping

: •

Eas

y to

und

erst

and

• D

oes

not

affe

ct s

tate

cou

nts

if s

wap

s ar

e w

ithin

a s

tate

•

Can

be

run

stat

e-by

-sta

te

• O

pera

tion

is "

invi

sibl

e" t

o re

st o

f Cen

sus

proc

essi

ng

Dis

adva

ntag

es:

• D

oes

not

con

sid

er

or

prot

ect

agai

nst

data

base

rec

onst

ruct

ion

atta

cks

• D

oes

not

prov

ide

form

al p

riva

cy g

uara

ntee

s •

Sw

ap r

ate

and

deta

ils o

f sw

appi

ng m

ust

rem

ain

secr

et.

• P

rivac

y gu

aran

tee

base

d on

the

lac

k o

f ext

erna

l da

ta

Sta

te "

X"

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

17

176


335

Th

e U

S C

ensu

s B

ure

au e

mb

race

s fo

rmal

pri

vacy

.

2018

End

-to

-End

C

ensu

s T

est

Pro

vld

cm:c

Co

unt

y, R

.I.

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

cens

us

2020

177


336

Mo

tiva

tio

n:

To p

rote

ct t

he

pri

vacy

of

ind

ivid

ual

su

rvey

res

po

nse

s

2010

Cen

sus:

•

7.7

billi

on i

ndep

ende

nt ta

bula

r su

mm

arie

s pu

blis

hed

• 25

sta

tistic

s pe

r pe

rson

Dat

abas

e re

cons

truc

tion

(Din

ur a

nd N

issi

m 2

003)

is a

ser

ious

di

sclo

sure

thr

eat

that

all

stat

istic

al t

abul

atio

n sy

stem

s fr

om

conf

iden

tial

data

mus

t ac

know

ledg

e.

The

con

fiden

tialit

y ed

its a

pplie

d to

the

201

0 C

ensu

s w

ere

not

desi

gned

to

defe

nd a

gain

st th

is k

ind

of a

ttack

.

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

19

178


337

Ou

r p

lan

is

to c

reat

e a

"Dis

clo

sure

Avo

idan

ce S

yste

m"

that

dro

ps

into

th

e C

ensu

s p

rod

uct

ion

sys

tem

.

Fea

ture

s o

f the

DA

S:

• O

pera

tes

on t

he e

dite

d C

ensu

s re

cord

s

• D

esig

ned

to m

ake

reco

rds

that

are

"sa

fe t

o ta

bula

te."

Cen

sus

Ed

ited

File

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

Dis

clos

ure

Avo

idan

ce

Sys

tem

Mic

roda

ta D

etai

l F

ile

(202

0)

20

179


338

Th

e D

iscl

osu

re A

void

ance

Sys

tem

all

ow

s th

e C

ensu

s B

ure

au t

o e

nfo

rce

glo

bal

co

nfi

den

tial

ity

pro

tect

ion

s.

n,tt.

ntt!

jtl't

~itt

l t-M

tltttO

t

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

Priv

acy

Bud

get,

A

ccur

acy

Dec

isio

ns

21

fSR

DC

.,II

•■■

■■ll

■■P

180


339

Th

e C

ensu

s d

iscl

osu

re a

void

ance

sys

tem

will

use

dif

fere

nti

al

pri

vacy

to

def

end

ag

ain

st a

rec

on

stru

ctio

n a

ttac

k,

Diff

eren

tial

priv

acy

prov

ides

: •

Pro

vabl

e bo

unds

on

the

accu

racy

o

f the

bes

t po

ssib

le d

atab

ase

reco

nstr

uctio

n gi

ven

the

rele

ased

ta

bula

tions

.

• A

lgor

ithm

s th

at

allo

w p

olic

y m

aker

s to

dec

ide

the

tra

de

-off

be

twee

n ac

cura

cy a

nd p

rivac

y.

()'

~

:::; u u (ll

(ll ro 0

om

RO

Ccu

rve

.,;,

,:,,

,;,

Priv

acy

loss

bud

get

(E)

Fin

al p

riva

cy-l

oss

budg

et d

eter

min

ed b

y D

ata

Ste

war

dshi

p E

xecu

tive

Pol

icy

Com

mitt

ee (

DS

EP

) w

ith r

ecom

men

datio

n fr

om D

iscl

osur

e R

evie

w B

oard

(O

RB

) (

Uni

ted

Stat

es· I

U.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

en

sus

~~

~~

~•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

22

'"'

181


340

Th

e D

iscl

osu

re A

void

ance

Sys

tem

rel

ies

on i

nfu

sin

g

form

ally

pri

vate

no

ise.

Adv

anta

ges

of

nois

e in

fusi

on w

ith f

orm

al p

rivac

y:

• E

asy

to u

nder

stan

d •

Pro

vabl

e an

d tu

nabl

e pr

ivac

y gu

aran

tees

•

Priv

acy

guar

ante

es d

o no

t de

pend

on

exte

rnal

dat

a •

Pro

tect

s ag

ains

t da

taba

se r

econ

stru

ctio

n at

tack

s •

Pri

vacy

ope

ratio

ns a

re c

om

po

sab

le

Glo

bal

Con

fiden

tialit

y P

rote

ctio

n P

roce

ss

Dis

clo

sure

A

void

an

ce S

yste

m

£ D

isad

vant

ages

: •

Ent

ire c

ount

ry m

ust

be p

roce

ssed

at

once

for

bes

t ac

cura

cy

• E

very

use

of p

rivat

e da

ta m

ust

be

talli

ed i

n th

e p

riva

cy lo

ss b

ud

ge

t

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

23

182


341

Wh

y g

ener

ate

a d

iffe

ren

tial

ly p

riva

te M

DF

?

• F

amili

ar to

int

erna

l an

d ex

tern

al s

take

hold

ers

• O

pera

tes

with

leg

acy

tabu

latio

n sy

stem

s to

pro

duce

PL-

94 a

nd S

F-

1 ta

bula

tions

• G

uara

ntee

s po

pula

tion

tota

ls (

votin

g ag

e, n

on-v

otin

g ag

e,

hous

ehol

der)

exa

ct a

t al

l le

vels

of g

eo

gra

ph

y

• C

onsi

sten

cy a

mon

g q

ue

ry a

nsw

ers

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

24

183


342

Ch

alle

ng

es in

cre

atin

g a

dif

fere

nti

ally

pri

vate

MD

F

Cha

nges

req

uire

d to

Cen

sus

busi

ness

pro

cess

es:

• A

ll de

sire

d qu

erie

s on

MD

F m

ust

be k

now

n in

adv

ance

.

• A

ll us

es o

f con

fiden

tial

data

nee

d to

be

trac

ked

and

acco

unte

d.

• D

ata

qual

ity c

heck

s on

tab

les

cann

ot b

e do

ne b

y lo

okin

g at

raw

dat

a.

Com

mun

icat

ions

cha

lleng

es:

• D

iffer

entia

l pr

ivac

y is

not

wid

ely

kno

wn

or u

nder

stoo

d.

• M

any

data

use

rs w

an

t hi

ghly

acc

urat

e da

ta r

epor

ts o

n sm

all

area

s.

• U

sers

in 2

000

and

2010

did

n't

know

the

erro

r in

trod

uced

by

swap

ping

.

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

25

184


343

Dif

fere

nti

al p

riva

cy m

eets

A

rtic

le 2

, S

ecti

on

1 a

nd

th

e P

L-9

4 "I

nvar

iant

s fo

r 20

18 E

2E t

est"

Spe

cific

PL-

94 q

ueri

es

mu

st b

e ex

act:

• B

lock

pop

ulat

ion

• B

lock

vot

ing

age

popu

latio

n •

Blo

ck h

ouse

hold

ers

& v

acan

cies

•

Cer

tain

gro

up q

uart

ers

type

s (b

ut

no

t th

eir

pop

ulat

ion

coun

ts)

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

"Priv

acy

prot

ecte

d"

Oth

er

PL-

94 a

nd S

F-1

quer

ies

will

not

be

exac

t: •

Age

dis

trib

utio

n u

nd

er

18

• A

ge d

istr

ibut

ion

18 a

nd o

ver

• R

ace

and

ethn

icity

dis

trib

utio

n •

Hou

seho

ld r

elat

ions

hip

dist

ribu

tion

• H

ouse

hold

ow

ners

hip

dist

ribu

tion

26

185


344

2018

En

d-t

o-E

nd

Tes

t P

rovi

den

ce C

ou

nty

, R

.I.

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

2018

End

~to

-End

C

ensu

s T

est

Pro

vld

cnu.

~ C

ou

nl)

', R

.I.

186


345

We

are

crea

tin

g

A f

ram

ew

ork

fo

r D

iscl

osur

e A

void

an

ce

Sys

tem

s:

• D

eve

lop

me

nt

& T

est

Mo

de

•

Pro

du

ctio

n M

od

e

Tes

ting

Sys

tem

s:

• D

AS

O -

10

0%

acc

urac

y, n

o p

riva

cy

(No

disc

losu

re a

void

ance

)

• D

AS

1 -

10

0%

priv

acy,

no

acc

ura

cy

• D

AS

2 -

"bo

tto

m-u

p"

en

gin

e

Ope

ratio

nal

Sys

tem

: •

DA

S3

-"t

op

-do

wn

" e

ng

ine

No

deci

sion

ye

t on

pri

vacy

loss

bu

dg

et

or

acc

ura

cy r

equi

rem

ents

.

()'

~

:::; u

10

0-

01

5-

(.)

O.!

il·

(ll

(ll ro 0

00

0-

(U

nite

d St

ates

· I U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

ensu

s ~

~~

~~

•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

Que

stio

ns?

000

AO

C c

urve

DA

SO

02'

o!,,

o.7s

100

Priv

acy

loss

bud

get

(E)

40

187


346

Pla

ns

for

the

2018

En

d-t

o-E

nd

Tes

t

The

201

8 E

nd-t

o-E

nd t

est w

ill i

ncor

pora

te d

iffer

entia

l pr

ivac

y

• Li

kely

DA

S2

-B

otto

m-u

p al

gorit

hm

Onl

y th

e pr

otot

ype

PL9

4-17

1 fil

es w

ill b

e pr

oduc

ed

No

deci

sion

s ye

t re

gard

ing

the

priv

acy-

loss

bud

get

or

accu

racy

leve

l Q

uest

ions

? (

Uni

ted

Stat

es· I

U.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

en

sus

~~

~~

~•:s

Ad

nM

r>

,tra

!KJn

---

e,ar

eau

cens

us.!)

()','

41

PX-123

To: Park-Su, Sahra (Federal)[REDACTED]

Cc: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEPFED) [[email protected]]; Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDPFED) [[email protected]]; Kelley, Karen (Federal)[REDACTED]; Walsh, Michael(Federal) [REDACTED]; Lenihan,Brian (Federal) [REDACTED]

From: Christa Jones (CENSUS/ADEP FED)Sent: Sat 2/24/2018 7:01:41 PMImportance: NormalSubject: Re: Draft Response to QuestionReceived: Sat 2/24/2018 7:01:42 PMSahra, I’m fine with this [REDACTED]On Feb 23, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Park-Su, Sahra(Federal) wroteRon/Enrique/Christa,Thank you again for you all your assistance.Below is [REDACTED]. Please let us know if youhave any questions, comments, or concerns. Havea great weekend.SahraWhat was the process that was used in the past toget questions added to the decennial Census or dowe have something similar where a precedent wasestablished?[REDACTED]Sahra Park-Su

188

78228 • ACLU • 06 APPENDIX (DOCS 33 THRU 40) AL 3/22/19

347

Senior Policy AdvisorOffice of Policy and Strategic PlanningU.S. Department of Commerce[REDACTED]Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:18:03 AMFrom: John Maron Abowd

(CENSUS/ADRM FED) To: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell (CENSUS/DSSD

FED); Simson L Garfinkel(CENSUS/ADRM FED); Ron S Jarmin(CENSUS/ADEP FED); Enrique Lamas(CENSUS/ADDP FED); JamesWhitehorne (CENSUS/ADDC FED)

Subject: Re: Questions from DoC on technicalresponse to DoJ request

I do not understand this:>The data were rounded according to the standardDRB rounding scheme for special tabs where zeroestimates are presented as ‘0’, estimates rangingbetween one and seven are presented as ‘4’ = 0,and all estimates eight or higher are rounded tothe nearest five (e.g., 10, 15, 20, ...).I think you mean:recode 0 to 0recode 1-7 to 4recode 8-12 to 10recode 13-17 to 15...

189


348

Please confirm.John M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief Scientist Research and MethodologyU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED) Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:08:20 AMTo: John Maron Abowd

(CENSUS/ADRM FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell

(CENSUS/DSSD FED); Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED); Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED);Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED);James Whitehorne (CENSUS/ADDC FED)


I confirmed with James Whitehorne that thefollowing restrictions were put into place for theCVAP tabulation:1. The disclosure rules included restrictions onwhich tables could be published at the tract andblock-group level but there were no individualgeography suppressions. Specifically at the tractand block group level, we only publish the tables

190


349

of counts by race and ethnicity for the universes ofcitizens and citizens of voting age. The tablesbased on the universes of total population andtotal voting age population by race/ethnicity arenot published at the tract and block-group level.This prevents the derivation of non-citizens andvoting age non-citizens by race/ethnicity for theselevels of geography.The data were rounded according to the standardORB rounding scheme for special tabs where zeroestimates are presented as ‘0’, estimates rangingbetween one and seven are presented as ‘4’ = 0,and all estimates eight or higher are rounded tothe nearest five (e.g., 10, 15, 20, ...).2. For special tabs, no data quality filtering basedon reliability are enforced. Thus, buyers get whatthey ask for and we typically use the workingrelationship developed in the special tab requestprocess to communicate the limitations of thedata.3. Zero given the information from #1 and #2above.Mark E. AsialaAssistant Division ChiefAmerican Community Survey Statistical Design Decennial Statistical Studies DivisionU.S. Census BureauOffice: 301.763.3605 Room: 4K071-HQE-mail: [email protected] with us on Social Media

191


350

From: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 01:43 PMTo: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell

(CENSUS/DSSD FED); Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED); Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED);Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

Subject: Questions from Doc on technicalresponse to DoJ request

I was called by David Langdon, Chief PrivacyOfficer, DoC, with the following questions andrequests vis-a-vis our technical response:1. In the block-group CVAP tables, what are thedisclosure avoidance suppression rules (with publicparameters only)?2. In the block-group CVAP tables, what MOEstandards are used to determine publishability?3. What percentage of the CVAP population dataare suppressed for either confidentiality or MOEreasons?More questions are probably coming, but weshould be able to get answer to these. Thanks,JohnJohn M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief Scientist Researchand MethodologyU.S. Census Bureau

192


351

193


Office 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room 8H120 [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)

[[email protected]]Sent: 1/29/2018 6:25:11 PMTo: John Maron Abowd

(CENSUS/ADRM FED)[[email protected]]

CC: Patrick J Cantwell (CENSUS/DSSD FED)[[email protected]];Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED)[[email protected]]; Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)[[email protected]]; Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)[[email protected]]; James Whitehorne (CENSUS/ADDC FED)[[email protected]]

Subject: Re: Questions from DoC on technicalresponse to DoJ requestThat is correct.I see I forgot to delete some old text as I wasediting which caused the confusion.Mark E. AsialaAssistant Division ChiefAmerican Community Survey Statistical DesignDecennial Statistical Studies Division

352

U.S. Census BureauOffice: 301.763.3605 Room : 4K071-HQE-mail: [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: John Maron Abowd

(CENSUS/ADRM FED) Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:18:03 AMTo: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell



I do not understand this:>The data were rounded according to the standardDRB rounding scheme for special tabs where zeroestimates are presented as ‘0’, estimates rangingbetween one and seven are presented as ‘4’ = 0,and all estimates eight or higher are rounded tothe nearest five (e.g., 10, 15, 20, ...).I think you mean:recode 0 to 0recode 1-7 to 4recode 8-12 to 10

194


353

recode 13-17 to 15...Please confirm.John M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief Scientist Research and MethodologyU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room 8H120 [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED) Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:08:20 AMTo: John Maron Abowd

(CENSUS/ADRM FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell



I confirmed with James Whitehorne that thefollowing restrictions were put into place for theCVAP tabulation:1. The disclosure rules included restrictions onwhich tables could be published at the tract and

195


354

block-group level but there were no individualgeography suppressions. Specifically at the tractand block group level, we only publish the tablesof counts by race and ethnicity for the universes ofcitizens and citizens of voting age. The tablesbased on the universes of total population andtotal voting age population by race/ethnicity arenot published at the tract and block-group level.This prevents the derivation of non-citizens andvoting age non-citizens by race/ethnicity for theselevels of geography.The data were rounded according to the standardORB rounding scheme for special tabs where zeroestimates are presented as ‘0’, estimates rangingbetween one and seven are presented as ‘4’ = 0,and all estimates eight or higher are rounded tothe nearest five (e.g., 10, 15, 20, ...).2. For special tabs, no data quality filtering basedon reliability are enforced. Thus, buyers get whatthey ask for and we typically use the workingrelationship developed in the special tab requestprocess to communicate the limitations of thedata.3. Zero given the information from #1 and #2above.Mark E. AsialaAssistant Division ChiefAmerican Community Survey Statistical Design Decennial Statistical Studies DivisionU.S. Census BureauOffice: 301.763.3605 Room: 4K071-HQE-mail: [email protected] with us on Social Media

196


355

From: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 01:43 PMTo: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell

(CENSUS/DSSD FED); Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED); Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED);Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

Subject: Questions from Doc on technicalresponse to DoJ request

I was called by David Langdon, Chief PrivacyOfficer, DoC, with the following questions andrequests vis-a-vis our technical response:1. In the block-group CVAP tables, what are thedisclosure avoidance suppression rules (withpublic parameters only)?2. In the block-group CVAP tables, what MOEstandards are used to determine publishability?3. What percentage of the CVAP population dataare suppressed for either confidentiality or MOEreasons?More questions are probably coming, but weshould be able to get answer to these. Thanks,JohnJohn M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief Scientist Research and MethodologyU.S. Census Bureau

197


356

Office 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room [email protected] with us on Social Media

* * *From: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)

[[email protected]]Sent: 1/29/2018 3:24:14 PMTo: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)

[[email protected]]; Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)[[email protected]]

Subject: DoJ Technical ResponseAny guidance on when the next version needs to beready? Thanks,John M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief Scientist Research and MethodologyU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room [email protected] with us on Social Media

* * *From: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)

[[email protected]]Sent: 1/29/2018 2:18:03 PMTo: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)

[[email protected]]

198


357

CC: Patrick J Cantwell (CENSUS/DSSD FED)[[email protected]]; Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED)[[email protected]]; Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)[[email protected]]; Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)[[email protected]]; James Whitehorne (CENSUS/ADDC FED)[[email protected]]


I do not understand this:>The data were rounded according to the standardDRB rounding scheme for special tabs where zeroestimates are presented as ‘0’, estimates rangingbetween one and seven are presented as ‘4’= 0, andall estimates eight or higher are rounded to thenearest five (e.g., 10, 15, 20, ...).I think you mean:recode 0 to 0 recode 1-7 to 4recode 8-12 to 10recode 13-17 to 15...Please confirm.John M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief Scientist Research and MethodologyU.S. Census Bureau

199


358

Office 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:08:20 AM To: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell (CENSUS/DSSD FED);

Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED); Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED);Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED);James Whitehorne (CENSUS/ADDC FED)

Subject: Re: Questions from Doc on technicalresponse to DoJ request

I confirmed with James Whitehome that thefollowing restrictions were put into place for theCVAP tabulation:1. The disclosure rules included restrictions onwhich tables could be published at the tract andblock-group level but there were no individualgeography suppressions. Specifically at the tractand block group level, we only publish the tables ofcounts by race and ethnicity for the universes ofcitizens and citizens of voting age. The tables basedon the universes of total population and totalvoting age population by race/ethnicity are notpublished at the tract and block- group level. Thisprevents the derivation of non-citizens and votingage non-citizens by race/ethnicity for these levels ofgeography.

200


359

The data were rounded according to the standardORB rounding scheme for special tabs where zeroestimates are presented as ‘0’, estimates rangingbetween one and seven are presented as ‘4’= 0, andall estimates eight or higher are rounded to thenearest five (e.g., 10, 15, 20, ...).2. For special tabs, no data quality filtering basedon reliability are enforced. Thus, buyers get whatthey ask for and we typically use the workingrelationship developed in the special tab requestprocess to communicate the limitations of the data.3. Zero given the information from #1 and #2above.Mark E. AsialaAssistant Division ChiefAmerican Community Survey Statistical Design Decennial Statistical Studies DivisionU.S. Census BureauOffice: 301.763.3605 Room: 4K071-HQE-mail: [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 01:43 PMTo: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell (CENSUS/DSSD FED);

Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED); Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED);Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

Subject: Questions from DoC on technical responseto DoJ request

201


360

I was called by David Langdon, Chief PrivacyOfficer, DoC, with the following questions andrequests vis-a-vis our technical response:1. In the block-group CVAP tables, what are thedisclosure avoidance suppression rules (with publicparameters only)?2. In the block-group CVAP tables, what MOEstandards are used to determine publishability?3. What percentage of the CVAP population dataare suppressed for either confidentiality or MOEreasons?More questions are probably coming, but we shouldbe able to get answer to these. Thanks,JohnJohn M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief ScientistResearch and MethodologyU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)

[[email protected]]Sent: 1/29/2018 2:08:20 PMTo: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)

[[email protected]]CC: Patrick J Cantwell (CENSUS/DSSD FED)

[[email protected]]; Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED)[[email protected]];

202


361

Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)[[email protected]]; Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)[[email protected]]; James Whitehorne (CENSUS/ADDC FED)[James. [email protected]]


I confirmed with James Whitehome that thefollowing restrictions were put into place for theCVAP tabulation:1. The disclosure rules included restrictions onwhich tables could be published at the tract andblock-group level but there were no individualgeography suppressions. Specifically at the tractand block group level, we only publish the tables ofcounts by race and ethnicity for the universes ofcitizens and citizens of voting age. The tables basedon the universes of total population and totalvoting age population by race/ethnicity are notpublished at the tract and block- group level. Thisprevents the derivation of non-citizens and votingage non-citizens by race/ethnicity for these levels ofgeography.2. The data were rounded according to thestandard ORB rounding scheme for special tabswhere zero estimates are presented as ‘0’, estimatesranging between one and seven are presented as‘4’= 0, and all estimates eight or higher are roundedto the nearest five (e.g., 10, 15, 20, ...).3. For special tabs, no data quality filtering basedon reliability are enforced. Thus, buyers get whatthey ask for and we typically use the working

203


362

relationship developed in the special tab requestprocess to communicate the limitations of the data.3. Zero given the information from #1 and #2above.Mark E. AsialaAssistant Division ChiefAmerican Community Survey Statistical Design Decennial Statistical Studies DivisionU.S. Census BureauOffice: 301.763.3605 Room: 4K071-HQE-mail: [email protected] with us on Social MediaFrom: John Maron Abowd (CENSUS/ADRM FED)Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 01:43 PMTo: Mark E Asiala (CENSUS/DSSD FED)Cc: Patrick J Cantwell (CENSUS/DSSD FED);

Simson L Garfinkel (CENSUS/ADRM FED);Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED);Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDP FED)

Subject: Questions from DoC on technical responseto DoJ request

I was called by David Langdon, Chief PrivacyOfficer, DoC, with the following questions andrequests vis-a-vis our technical response:1. In the block-group CVAP tables, what are thedisclosure avoidance suppression rules (with publicparameters only)?

204


363

2. In the block-group CVAP tables, what MOEstandards are used to determine publishability?3. What percentage of the CVAP population dataare suppressed for either confidentiality or MOEreasons?More questions are probably coming, but we shouldbe able to get answer to these. Thanks,JohnJohn M. Abowd, PhDAssociate Director and Chief Scientist Research and MethodologyU.S. Census BureauOffice 301.763.5880 (simulring on cell) Room [email protected] with us on Social Media

205


364

Internal Document - Not for Public Release

September 20, 2017MEMORANDUM FOR Associate Directorate forResearch and Methodology (ADRM) From: Center for Survey Measurement (CSM)Subject: Respondent Confidentiality ConcernsCSM researchers have noticed a recent increase inrespondents spontaneously expressing concernsabout confidentiality in some of our pretestingstudies conducted in 2017. We recommend system-atically collecting data on this phenomenon, anddevelopment and pretesting of new messages toavoid increases in nonresponse among hard-to-count populations for the 2020 Census as well asother surveys like the American CommunitySurvey (ACS).Below is a preview of findings relating to respon-dent confidentiality concerns from recent CSMprojects, followed by a more detailed recommen-dation from CSM. These findings are drawn fromusability interviews with English- and Spanish-speaking respondents (N=[REDACTED]), cognitiveinterviews with Spanish-speaking respondents(N=[REDACTED]) , four focus groups withSpanish-speaking Field Representatives (FRs) (N=[REDACTED], f ive focus groups with FieldSupervisors (FSs) and Field Representatives(N=[REDACTED]), and [REDACTED] focus groupswith respondents (N [REDACTED]). These inter-views and focus groups were conducted in differentregions of the country in English, Spanish, Chinese,Korean, Vietnamese, Russian, and Arabic since

206


365

January of 2017. All projects were small, qualita-tive studies and as such, unrepresentative of thepopulation as a whole, and none of them werespecifically designed to examine confidentialityconcerns. However, respondents and field repre-sentatives spontaneously brought up these concernsat a much higher rate than CSM researchers haveseen in previous pretesting projects, and as such,this information may have implications fornonresponse on U.S. Census Bureau studies andsurveys.In particular, CSM researchers heard respondentsexpress new concerns about topics l ike the“Muslim ban,” discomfort “registering” otherhousehold members by reporting their demo-graphic characteristics, the dissolution of the“DACA” (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival)program, repeated references to Immigration andCustoms Enforcement (ICE), etc. FRs and FSsemphasized facing a “new phenomenon” in thef ield and reported that respondents ’ fears ,particularly among immigrant respondents, haveincreased markedly this year. Respondentsreported being told by community leaders not toopen the door without a warrant signed by ajudge, and CSM researchers observed respondentsfalsifying names, dates of birth, and other infor-mation on household rosters. FRs requestedaddit ional training to help them overcomerespondents’ fears regarding confidentiality anddata sharing with other agencies like ICE, as wellas materials they could share with respondents toreassure them about these concerns.Usability Findings (2017 PEGA Internet Self-Response Instrument; N = [REDACTED]

207


366

Overall, [REDACTED] respondents who parti-cipated in usability interviews in the DC-metroarea to pretest the 2017 PEGA internet self-response (ISR) instrument in English and Spanishintentionally provided incomplete or incorrectinformation about household members due toconcerns regarding confidentiality, particularlyrelating to perceived negative attitudes towardimmigrants.One Spanish-speaking respondent said she wasuncomfortable “registering” other householdmembers and tried to exit the survey at thedashboard when she realized she would have toprovide information on others who live with her.She mentioned being afraid because of the currentpolitical climate and news reports about changingimmigration policy. The researcher had to helpthe respondent delete the other householdmembers from the roster to avoid a break-off; sheonly provided her own information.A second Spanish-speaking respondent filled outinformation about hersel f and three familymembers but intentionally left three or fourroomers off the roster because, “This frightens me,given how the situation is now” and mentionedbeing worried because of their “[immigration]status.” Both Spanish-speaking respondentsstated that they would not complete the survey athome.A third Spanish-speaking respondent, who theresearcher had reason to believe was not concernedabout whether his data would be shared withother federal agencies because of his status aslegal resident in the country, commented:

208


367

“Particularly with our current political climate,the Latino community will not sign up becausethey will think that Census will pass their infor-mation on and people can come looking for them.”This theme came up repeatedly even for thosewithout concerns about the immigration status ofmembers of their household.One English-speaking respondent entered falsenames and some incorrect dates of birth for hisroommates because he was not comfortableproviding their information without their consentdue to data sharing concerns.A second English-speaking respondent did notreport five unrelated household members (some ofwhom were immigrants) because she does notreport their rental income to the IRS and becauseof what she referred to as the “Muslim ban.”It should be noted that this level of deliberatefalsification of the household roster, andspontaneous mention of concerns regardingnegative attitudes toward immigrants, is largelyunprecedented in the usability interviews that CSMhas been conducting since 2014 in preparation forthe 2020 Ce nsus. In general, we assume thatpretesting respondents are in fact more willing tofill out the survey than most respondents would beduring the 2020 Census, given that they are beingpaid a cash incentive for their participation andbeing interviewed by a researcher with whom theyhave established rapport. As such, these concernsmight be even more pronounced during a productionsurvey than researchers observed during pretesting.

209


368

Cognitive Findings (CBAMS Paper Testing; N[REDACTED].)Spanish-speaking respondents who participated inpaper testing of the CBAMS (Census Barriers,Attitudes, and Motivators Survey) expressedconcern about whether their answers might beshared with other government agencies. Onerespondent said, “The possibility that the Censuscould give my information to internal security andimmigration could come and arrest me for not hav-ing documents terrifies me.” Later she commentedthat she was worried that her information couldbe used against her if she answered that she is notsatisfied with the government here. She thoughtsomeone could say, ‘If you’re not satisfied, why areyou here?’ and this could be used against her toexpel her from the country.Respondent concerns on this survey were eye-opening for CSM researchers because some of therespondents who participated in cognitive inter-views had previously taken part in CSM pretestingprojects. Despite having participated in the past,they seemed visibly nervous and reticent andrequired extensive explanations regarding howtheir data would be used and their personalidentifying information would be redacted. Thisbehavior was in contrast to their demeanor duringprior CSM pretesting projects.Multilingual Focus Groups on DoorstepMessages for the 2020 Census (N =[REDACTED])Respondents also raised concerns in [REDACTED]focus groups conducted this spring in order to testdoorstep messages that enumerators can use to

210


369

overcome reluctance in the 2020 Census. Thesefocus groups were conducted in English, Spanish,Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Russian, andArabic, and the topic of confidentiality concernscame up in several groups.For example, Spanish-speakers brought upimmigration raids, fear of government, and fear ofdeportation. Respondents talked about havingreceived advice not to open the door if they fear avisit from Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE) and that they could instead ask that warrantsbe slipped under the door. They suggested that theCensus Bureau have something in writing thatenumerators could slip under the door to indicatewhy an enumerator is at a respondent’s home.They felt that the most important message toencourage participation was confidentiality andthe greatest barriers to Latino participation arefear and mistrust.Several Chinese-speaking focus group respondentsstated that the Chinese community’s main fear orconcern was immigration status and how the dataare used. They also expressed concern aboutopening the door to a government official and notwanting to be “investigated.”Arabic-speakers reported that they had concernsabout their perception of the current environmentas unwelcoming to Arabic-speaking immigrantsand said that they feared deportation. Onerespondent said, “The immigrant is not going totrust the Census employee when they arecontinuously hearing a contradicting messagefrom the media everyday threatening to deportimmigrants.” Respondents wanted to have more

211


370

assurance about how the data would be usedbefore providing personal information.English-speakers expressed similar reservationswhen discussing the current “environment.” In oneEnglish focus group, respondents spontaneouslyexpressed concerns that their personal informa-tion would be shared with other agencies, andmentioned in particular that data could be sharedwith Immigration and Customs Enforcement andthe Department of Homeland Security. Oneparticipant recommended that Census materialsshould explicitly explain that personal informa-tion is not shared with these agencies.Overall, concerns about the confidentiality of data,including between agencies, negative perceptionsof immigrants, and deportation emerged acrosslanguages in this project.Focus Groups with Spanish-speaking FieldRepresentatives (N = [REDACTED].)CSM conducted four focus groups from July toSeptember with Spanish-speaking Census BureauField Representatives who work in different statesregarding the Spanish translation of a healthsurvey. Many of the FRs spontaneously broughtup the topic of an upsurge in respondentconfidentiality concerns.Many FRs stated that before they can begin aninterview, they have to spend several minutescalming respondents and gaining their trust dueto the current “political state.” [REDACTED] said,“The politics have changed everything. Recently.”Another mentioned that this is especially relevantgiven that the DACA (Deferred Action for Child-

212


371

hood Arrival) program is “on the chopping block.”FRs reported that some respondents worry aboutgiving out legitimate names or completing theroster; they often do not feel comfortable givingout information about other people in the house-hold. [REDACTED] said, “This may just be a signof the times, but in the recent several monthsbefore anything begins, I’m being asked timesover, does it make a difference if I’m not a citizen?”FRs reported that many Spanish-speakingrespondents distrust the statement on confiden-tiality in the survey mailing materials, even whenthey understand it. Many respondents believe that“the less information they give out, the better. Thesafer they are.”[REDACTED] said that in June she was doing aCensus Bureau survey interview with questionsabout citizenship status. A Spanish-speakingrespondent answered that he was not a citizen,and then appeared to lie about his country oforigin. When [REDACTED] started asking abouthis year of entry into the U.S., he “ shut down”and stopped responding to her questions. He thenwalked out and left her alone in the apartment,which had never happened to her during an inter-view before.[REDACTED] commented that she had seen thisscenario many times while administering theACS, although this was the first time she hadheard of a respondent actual ly leaving the[REDACTED] alone in his or her home. Shesuggested that respondents might have concernsabout confidentiality given “the current politicalclimate.”

213


372

A [REDACTED] added that she had observedHispanic members of a household move out of amobile home after she tried to interview them.She said, “There was a cluster of mobile homes, allHispanic. I went to one and I left the informationon the door. I could hear them inside. I did twomore interviews, and when I came back, they weremoving.... It’s because they were afraid of beingdeported.”FRs reported using various strategies to overcomerespondents’ fears. They are often asked if theywork for other federal agencies, and reassurerespondents that this information is not reportedto other federal agencies; their information is notshared with “immigration or taxes.” They explainthat the respondent’s immigration status does notmatter. The FRs reported that sometimes theyencourage respondents to do the interviewanonymously with fake names, when it seems likethe respondent is about to refuse.The FRs recommended that ad campaigns be usedto reduce the mistrust the public has towardcompleting our surveys. They also requested “animmigration letter” like one used on the NHANES(National Health and Nutrition ExaminationSurvey) that mentioned “la migra” [a slang termfor ICE] that was very effective. The FRs coulduse it selectively when it was needed. It clearlysaid that the Census Bureau was not in any wayrelated with “la migra”.FRs were asked to share the most importantchange that they wanted to see made to theSpanish translation of the survey materials. In[REDACTED] focus group, the [REDACTED] FRs

214


373

agreed unanimously that they would like an“immigration statement” to appear on mailingmaterials because of current “political issues.”They reported that immigration concerns are the“topic of the day” and that they always have toallay fears about immigration by saying, “We donot share information with other agencies.” Theysuggested that the statement should convey thatwhile the Census Bureau is part of the federalgovernment, it is a statistical agency, and that therespondent’s legal status in the country does notmatter at all.Focus Groups with Field Supervisors andField Representatives (N = [REDACTED]CSM conducted five focus groups in Septemberwith Field Supervisors and Field Representativesto collect feedback on FR training, the availabilityof printed materials in various languages, and theusage of printed materials during a recent housingsurvey operation. The topic of respondent concernsregarding confidentiality came up repeatedly inthese focus groups.In [REDACTED] focus group of Field Supervisors,[REDACTED] reported having a respondentproduce papers proving US citizenship of house-hold members during an interview. [REDACTED]reported that each time she spoke to a Spanish-speaking respondent, her focus was on convincingthe respondent of the confidentiality of theiranswers “given the political temperature thesedays.” One FS said, “we have to let [respondents]know where this information is going. That’s theirbiggest fear.” When asked if the training the FRs had received was adequate, [REDACTED]

215


374

commented that more training was needed onrespondent confidentiality concerns, but that “thisclimate didn’t exist before [when training wasdesigned last time], when you did the study threeyears ago, so of course it wasn’t planned in there.”FSs reiterated that the main issue they saw wasprivacy concerns of Latino respondents, and thatFRs should do more practice interviews wheresomeone models those concerns and concernsabout immigration so that the FRs are moreprepared to respond adequately in the field.FRs who spoke a language other than Spanish orEnglish (e.g., Cantonese) reported that completinginterviews for the survey in question this year wasmuch harder than the last time the survey wasfielded: “Three years ago was so much easier toget respondents compared to now because of thegovernment changes... and trust factors [and] alsobecause of what happened here [in the UnitedStates]. . . Three years ago I didn’t have problemswith the immigration questions.” [REDACTED]commented, “There wil l always be pol it icalsituations that are out of our control .... Some-times I just come right out and say, this isn’t forimmigration.”Even FRs who only speak English reportedneeding additional training for encounteringhouseholds where respondents are especiallyfearful. [REDACTED] reported that respondentshave been confusing him with someone fromImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE,formerly known as INS). He reported thatrespondents that identified him as working for thegovernment were hesitant to answer any questions,

216


375

and it was di f f icult to gain their trust .[REDACTED] agreed that most incompletes weredue to a distrust of the government. When askedwhether their training adequately prepared them,[REDACTED] mentioned that training regardingconcerns about ICE could not have been includedin the training they received because it was a newphenomenon. The FRs in this focus groupemphasized that they were having to reorder thequestions in this housing survey to col lectdemographics last in order to avoid breakoffs.Spanish bilingual FRs shared many of the sameconcerns as the Field Supervisors, speakers oflanguages other than English or Spanish, and themonolingual English-speaking FRs. They empha-sized that when completing interviews withSpanish-speaking households, immigration concernswere challenging and that respondents seemedfearful. They requested more training focusing onrespondent fears, particularly immigrant respon-dents’ fears. They mentioned respondents givingout false names and reordering survey questionsto collect demographics last.RecommendationOverall, these findings, in various languages fromrespondents, Field Representatives, and FieldSupervisors across the country who have partici-pated in recent projects are raising concernswithin CSM regarding potential barriers torespondent participation in the 2020 Census, aswell as other Census Bureau surveys. The findingsl isted above are a sampling of what CSMresearchers have observed on recent projects, andthese concerns were all expressed spontaneously

217


376

to researchers during the course of pretestingvarious survey materials. These findings areparticularly troubling given that they impacthard-to-count populations disproportionately, andhave implications for data quality and non-response.A systematic pretesting study evaluatingrespondent confidentiality concerns, both from theperspective of respondents as wel l as FieldRepresentatives, would shed light on the natureand prevalence of these concerns, particularly forLimited English Proficient (LEP) or immigrantpopulations in the U.S. Quantitative analysiscould also be done to examine any changes inresponse rates, mode of administration, item non-response, or number of contact attempts forsurveys such as the ACS among non-Englishspeakers and hard-to-count, immigrant respondents.Similarly, we could review whether the number ofresidents reported or the number of unrelatedhousehold members within households hasdeclined in recent months.In addition to gathering data on any uptick inconfidential ity concerns that may exist , werecommend designing and pretesting wording thatcould address these concerns in mailing materials,the Decennial Internet Self Response instrument,FAQs provided to enumerators, etc. This textcould inform respondents that the Census Bureaudoes not collect information on immigration statusor religion (similar to the language stating thatwe do not collect social security numbers), or thatwe do not share data with agencies like ICE.Pretesting with respondents from a variety of

218


377

backgrounds would be vital given that such amessage could be reassuring to some respondentsbut may have other ef fects for di f ferentpopulations. Care should be taken in crafting newmessages. CSM also recommends that additionaltraining be provided to FRs across surveysregarding allaying respondents’ confidentialityconcerns.

219


378

* * *Checklist for Disclosure Avoidance Officers1. DRB Request No: CBDRB-2018-CDAR-0142. Bypass: Yes3. Name of Disclosure Avoidance Officer: William

Wisniewski4. Name of request: Memo to Department of Justice

Request to Add Citizenship Question to the 2020Census

5. Summary of request: The Department of Justicehas requested block level citizen voting-agepopulation estimates by OMB-approved race andethnicity categories from the 2020 Census ofPopulation and Housing. This request contains amemo in response to the DOJ, describingalternative approaches to obtaining thisinformation. It contains national level estimatesof citizenship statistics from Census, survey andadministrative records.

6. Name of disclosure avoidance programmer: N/a,as all requested output was based on unweightedor weighted counts. Statistics in the memo wereeither rounded households, or percentages ofindividuals based on some demographiccharacteristics. A supporting file was preparedby David Brown, CES and used to ensure allunderlying counts pass Census disclosureavoidance thresholds.

7. Date submitted to the Disclosure Review Board:N/a, DAO Bypass

8. Date reviewed by the Disclosure Review Board:N/a, DAO Bypass

220


379

9. Date completed: 1/19/1810. Location of data files/specs: On RM shared drive:

[REDACTED]11. Were all Disclosure Review Board rules /require-

ments followed? Note that if there are anyquestions about how to correctly perform therequired disclosure avoidance procedures, pleasecontact the Center for Disclosure AvoidanceResearch for help. Briefly summarize thedisclosure avoidance procedures used to protectthese data.Yes

12. After performing the disclosure avoidanceprocedures, how was the quality of the resultingdata examined? For example, comparing crosstabulations of the data before and afterdisclosure avoidance, auditing programs forsuppression, checks for inconsistencies in thedata if certain values were altered. Data was not altered after I performed thedisclosure review.

13. After completion, the checklist must be attachedto a copy of the request and the DisclosureReview Board approval memo. The DisclosureAvoidance Officer must ensure that his or herdivision/program area maintains a copy of thisdocu mentat ion . Location of this information:This DAO checklist will be placed on the RMshared drive: [REDACTED]

14. Signature of Disclosure Avoidance Officer:(signed) William Wisniewski, 1/19/18

221


380

PX-140

Questions on the Jan 19 Draft Census Memoon the DoJ Citizenship Question Reinstate-ment Request1. With respect to Alternatives B and C, what

is the difference, if any, between the timewhen the data collected under each alter-native would be available to the public?Since the collection of this data, whether fromadministrative records or from an enumeratedquestion, occurs prior to the creation of theMicrodata Detail File (MDF) from which alltabulations will be performed, there is nodifference in the timing of when the datacollected under either alternative B or C couldbe made available to the public.

2. What is the “2020 Census publicationphase” (page 1 of the Detailed Analysis forAlternative B) versus Alternative C? Wouldthere be any difference?The 2020 Census publication phase is a broadwindow stretching from the release of theapportionment counts by December 31, 2020through the last data product or reportpublished in FY 2023, the final year of decennialfunding for the 2020 Census. However, as statedin the answer to question 1, this data could bemade available to the public on the sameschedule as any other post-apportionmenttabulated data product regardless of whetheralternative B or C is used in its collection.

222


381

3. What is the non-response rate for: (A) eachquestion on the 2000 and 2010 DecennialCensus short form and (B) each questionon the 2010 ACS and most recent ACS?The table below shows the item non-response(INR) rate for each question on the 2000 and2010 Decennial Census short form. This is thepercentage of respondents who did not providean answer to an item.Item Nonresponse Rates for 2000 and 2010Short Form Person Questions

Source: Rothhaas, Lestina and Hill (2012) TablesNotes and Soucre:Rothhaas, C., Lestina, F. and Hill, J. (2012)“2010 Decennial Census Item Nonresponse andImputation Assessment Report” 2010 CensusProgram for Evaluations and Experiments,January 24, 2012.From report:The INR rate is essentially the proportion ofmissing responses before pre-editing orimputation procedures for a given item (i.e., therespondent did not provide an answer to theitem). For INR, missing values are included inthe rates, but inconsistent responses (i.e.,incompatible with other responses) areconsidered non-missing responses.

Relationship Sex Age Hispanic Race TenureOrigin

2010 1.5 1.5 3.5 3.9 3.3 4.52000 1.3 1.1 3.7 3.1 2.9 4.1

223


382

I I I I I I I I

Online link to 2010 report that has 2000information as well. https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Census_INR_Imputation_Assessment.pdfSee attached spreadsheet for the non-responserates for the ACS. Note that these are internaluse data.

4. What was the total survey response rate(i.e. percentage of complete question-naires) for the 2000 long form and the 2000short form? Of the incomplete long forms,what percentage left the citizenship ques-tion blank? Of the completed long forms,what percentage (if known) containedincorrect responses to the citizenshipquestion?

5. For the 2000 long and short forms, whatwas the percentage unanswered (leftblank) for each question (i.e., what per-centage of the responses for each question(sex, race, ethnicity, income, citizenship,etc.) were left blank)?

6. What was the incorrect response rate forthe citizenship question that was asked onthe Long Form during the 2000 DecennialCensus? Does the response rate on the 2000Long Form differ from the incorrectresponse rate on the citizenship questionfor the ACS?

7. What is the incorrect response rate onother Decennial or ACS questions forwhich Census has administrative recordsavailable (for example, age, sex or income)?

224


383

8. How does the Census presently handleresponses on the (A) Decennial Census and(B) the ACS when administrative recordsavailable to the Census confirm that theresponse on the Decennial Census or ACSis incorrect? Is the present Census approachto incorrect responses based on practice/policy or law (statute or regulation)?We have always based the short form DecennialCensus and the ACS on self response, and whilewe have procedures in place to address duplicateor fraudulent responses, we do not check theaccuracy of the answers provided to the specificquestions on the Census questionnaire. This is along established practice at the Census Bureauthat has been thoroughly tested and in placesince 1970, when the Census Bureau moved to amail-out/respond approach to the DecennialCensus. Title 13 of the U.S. Code allows theCensus Bureau to use alternative data sources,like administrative records, for a variety ofpurposes, and we are using data in new ways inthe 2020 Census. While this includes the use ofadministrative records data to fill in areaswhere a respondent does not provide an answer,we have not explored the possibility of checkingor changing responses that a respondinghousehold has provided in response to thequestionnaire.

9. Please explain the differences between theself-response rate analysis and the break-off rate analysis. The range of breakoffrates between groups was far smaller thanthe range of self-response rates betweengroups.

225


384

10. The NRFU numbers are comparativelysmall – approximately one additionalhousehold for NRFU per Census enumera-tor. Is this really a significant source ofconcern?

11. Given that the breakoff rate differencewas approximately 1 percent, why didCensus choose to use the 5.1 percentnumber for assessing the cost ofAlternative B?

12. Alternative C states that Census woulduse administrative data from the SocialSecurity Administration, Internal RevenueService, and “other federal and statesources.” What are the other sources?In addition to continuing the acquisition of theSocial Security Administration and InternalRevenue Service data, the Census Bureau is indiscussion with the U.S. Citizen and Immigra-tion Services (USCIS) staff to acquire additionalcitizenship data.

13. Is Census confident that administrativedata will be able to be used to determinecitizenship for all persons (e.g., not allcitizens have social security numbers)?

14. For Alternative C, the memo says, “weassume the availability of these recordlinkage systems and associated adminis-trative data” – does Census already havein place access to this data or would thisneed to be negotiated? If negotiated, forwhich data sets specifically?

226


385

The Census Bureau has longstandingcontractual relationships with the SocialSecurity Administration and the InternalRevenue Service that authorize the use of datafor this project. For new data acquired for thisproject (i.e., USCIS) we would estimate a sixmonth development period to put a data acqui-sition agreement in place. That agreementwould also include terms specifying theauthorized use of data for this project.

15. Are there any privacy issues/sensitiveinformation prohibitions that mightprevent other agencies from providingsuch data?

16. How long would Census expect anynegotiation for access to data take? Howlikely is it that negotiations would besuccessful? Are MOA’s needed/required?Current data available to the Census Bureauprovide the quality and authority to use thatare required to support this project. Additionalinformation potentially available from USCISwould serve to supplement/validate thoseexisting data. We are in early discussions withUSCIS to develop a data acquisition agreementand at this time have no indications that thisacquisition would not be successful.

17. What limitations would exist in workingwith other agencies like IRS, HomelandSecurity, etc. to share data?The context for sharing of data for this projectis for a one-way sharing of data from theseagencies to the Census Bureau. Secure file

227


386

transfer protocols are in-place to ingest thesedata into our Title 13 protected systems. Forthose data already in-place at the CensusBureau to support this project, provisions forsharing included in the interagency agreementrestrict the Census Bureau from sharingperson-level microdata outside the CensusBureau’s Title 13 protections. Aggregates thathave been processed through the Bureau’sdisclosure avoidance procedures can bereleased for public use.

18. If Alternative C is selected, what isCensus’s backup plan if the administra-tive data cannot be completely collectedand utilized as proposed?

19. Does Census have any reason to believethat access to existing data sets would becurtailed if Alternative C is pursued?No we do not believe that any access to existingdata sets would be curtailed if we pursueAlternative C.

20. Has the proposed Alternative C approachever been tried before on other data col-lection projects, or is this an experimentalapproach? If this has been done before,what was the result and what were lessonslearned?

21. Is using sample data and administrativerecords sufficient for DOJ’s request?

22. Under Alternative C, If Census is able tosecure interagency agreements to provideneeded data sets, do we know how long itwould take to receive the data transmission

228


387

from other agencies and the length of timeto integrate all that data, or is thatunknown?With the exception of the USCIS data, the dataused for this project are already integrated intothe 2020 Census production schema. In mid-tolate 2018, we plan to acquire the USCIS dataand with those data and our existing databegin to develop models and business rules toselect citizenship status from the composite ofsources and attach that characteristic to eachU.S. person. We expect the development andrefinement of this process to continue into 2019and to be completed by third quarter calendaryear 2019.

23. Cross referencing Census decennialresponses with numerous governmentaldata sets stored in various databases withdiffering formats and storage qualitiessounds like it could be complicated. DoesCensus have an algorithm in place toefficiently combine and cross referencesuch large quantities of data coming frommany different sources? What cost isassociated with Alternative C, and whattechnology/plan does Census have in placeto execute?

24. For section C-1 of the memo, when didCensus do the analyses of the incorrectresponse rates for non-citizen answers tothe long form and ACS citizenship ques-tion? Were any of the analyses published?The comparisons of ACS, 2000 DecennialCensus longform and SSA Numident citizen-

229


388

ship were conducted in January 2018. Thisanalysis has not been published.

25. Has Census corrected the incorrectresponses it found when examining non-citizen responses? If not, why not?In the American Community Survey (ACS),and the short form Decennial Census, we donot change self-reported answers. TheDecennial Census and the ACS are based onself-response and we accept the responsesprovided by households as they are given.While we have procedures in place to addressduplicate or fraudulent responses, we do notcheck the accuracy of the answers provided tothe specific questions on the Census question-naires. This is a long established process at theCensus Bureau that has been thoroughly testedand in place since 1970, when the CensusBureau moved to a mail-out/respond approachto the Decennial Census.

26. Has the Department of Justice ever beenmade aware of inaccurate reporting ofACS data on citizenship, so that they maytake this into consideration when usingthe data?Not exactly. The Census Bureau is in close,regular contact with the Department of Justice(DOJ) regarding their data requirements. Ourcounterparts at DOJ have a solid understand-ing of survey methodology and the quality ofsurvey data, and they are aware of the publicdocumentation on sampling and accuracysurrounding the ACS. However, the specificrate of accuracy regarding responses to the

230


389

ACS question on citizenship has never beendiscussed.

27. Why has the number of persons who can-not be linked increased from 2010 to 2016?

28. Independent of this memo, what actiondoes Census plan to take in response tothe analyses showing that non-citizenshave been incorrectly responding to thecitizenship question?The Census Bureau does not have plans tomake any changes to procedures in the ACS.However, we will continue to conduct thoroughevaluations and review of census and surveydata. The ACS is focusing our research on thepotential use of administrative records in thesurvey. For instance, we are exploring whetherwe can use IRS data on income to reduce theburden of asking questions on income on theACS. We are concentrating initially onquestions that are high burden, e.g., questionsthat are difficult to answer or questions thatare seen as intrusive.

29. Did Census make recommendations thelast time a question was added?Since the short form Decennial Census wasestablished in 2010, the only requests for newquestions we have received have been for theACS. And, in fact, requests for questions priorto 2010 were usually related to the DecennialCensus Long Form. We always work collabora-tively with Federal agencies that request a newquestion or a change to a question. The firststep is to review the data needs and the legal

231


390

justification for the new question or requestedchanges. If, through this process, we determinethat the request is justified, we work with theother agencies to test the question (cognitivetesting and field testing). We also workcollaboratively on the analysis of the resultsfrom the test which inform the finalrecommendation about whether or not to makechanges or add the question.

30. Does not answering truthfully have aseparate data standard than notparticipating at all?We’re not sure what you’re asking here. Pleaseclarify the question.

31. What was the process that was used in thepast to get questions added to thedecennial Census or do we have some-thing similar where a precedent wasestablished?The Census Bureau follows a well-establishedprocess when adding or changing content onthe census or ACS to ensure the data fulfilllegal and regulatory requirements establishedby Congress. Adding a question or making achange to the Decennial Census or the ACSinvolves extensive testing, review, and evalua-tion. This process ensures the change isnecessary and will produce quality, usefulinformation for the nation.The Census Bureau and the Office of Manage-ment and Budget (OMB) have laid out a formalprocess for making content changes.

232


391

• First, federal agencies evaluate their dataneeds and propose additions or changes tocurrent questions through OMB.

• In order to be included, proposals mustdemonstrate a clear statutory or regulatoryneed for data at small geographies or forsmall populations.

• Final proposed quest ions result fromextensive cognitive and field testing toensure they result in the proper data, withan integrity that meets the Census Bureau’shigh standards.

• This process includes several opportunitiesfor public comment.

• The final decision is made in consultationwith OMB.

• If approved, the Census Bureau implementsthe change.

32. Has another agency ever requested that aquestion be asked of the entire populationin order to get block or individual leveldata?Not to our knowledge. However, it is worthpointing out that prior to 1980 the short formof the Decennial Census included more thanjust the 10 questions that have been on theshort form since 1990.

33. Would Census linking of its internal datasets, with other data sets from places likeIRS and Homeland Security, have animpact on participation as well (i .e.privacy concerns)?

233


392

The potential that concerns about the use ofadministrative records could have an impact onparticipation has always been a concern ofours, and it’s a risk that we’re managing on ourrisk register. We’ve worked closely with theprivacy community throughout the decade, andwe established a working group on ourNational Advisory Committee to explore thisissue. We’ve also regularly briefed theCongress about our plans. At this stage in thedecade there does not appear to be extensiveconcerns among the general public about ourapproach to using administrative records in theNonresponse Operation or otherwise. We willcontinue to monitor this issue.

34. Would Alternative C require any legis-lation? If so, what is the estimated timeframe for approval of such legislation?

35. Census publications and old decennialsurveys available on the Census websiteshow that citizenship questions werefrequently asked of the entire populationin the past. Citizenship is also a questionon the ACS. What was the justificationprovided for citizenship questions on the(A) short form, (B) long form, and (C)ACS?In 1940, the Census Bureau introduced the useof a short form to collect basic characteristicsfrom all respondents, and a long form to collectmore detailed questions from only a sample ofrespondents. Prior to 1940, census questionswere asked of everyone, though in some casesonly for those with certain characteristics. For

234


393

example, in 1870, a citizenship question wasasked, but only for respondents who were maleand over the age of 21.We have never asked a question about citizen-ship on the short form.Comment [JMA(F1]: This is inconsistent withthe paragraph above. I suggest, “Since movingto the short form in 1940, we have never ...Beginning in 2005, all the long-form questions– including a question on citizenship – weremoved to the ACS. 2010 was the first time weconducted a short-form only census. Thecitizenship question is included in the ACS tofulfill the data requirements of the Departmentof Justice, as well as many other agenciesincluding the Equal Employment OpportunitiesCommission, the Department of Health andHuman Services, and the Social SecurityAdministration.

235


394

PX-142

Question Assigned to Completed1 Reist X2 Reist X3a Abowd: Mule X3b Velkoff X4 Velkoff X5 Abowd: Mule X6 Abowd: Brown X7 Abowd: Brown X8 Velkoff X9 Abowd: Brown X10 Abowd X11 Abowd: Brown X12 Abowd: Berning X13 Abowd X14 Abowd: Berning X15 Abowd X16 Abowd: Berning X17 Abowd: Berning X18 Abowd X19 Abowd X20 Abowd X21 Abowd X

236


395

23 Abowd: Berning X23 Abowd: Mule X24 Abowd: Brown X25 Velkoff X26 Reist X27 Abowd: Brown X28 Velkoff X20 Velkoff X30 Velkoff X31 Velkoff X32 Reist: Whitehorne X33 Reist X34 Abowd X35 Reist: Dinwiddie X

237


396

Missouri Johnson, Marcellina (Federal)From: Fidel, Matt <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:12 PMTo: DOCExecSecCc: Pesner, Rabbi Jonah; Weinstein,

BarbaraSubject: National Jewish Organizations

Urge Secretary Ross to Reject theDepartment of Justice Request toAdd a Citizenship Question to the2020 Census

Attachments: National Jewish OrganizationsUrge Secretary Ross to Reject theDepartment of Justice Request toAdd a Question about Citizenshipto the 2020 Census FINAL.docx

February 15, 2018The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of CommerceU.S. Commerce Department 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230Dear Secretary Ross:On behalf of the 10 undersigned Jewish organiza-tions, we urge you to reject the Department ofJustice’s harmful request to add a new citizenshipquestion to the 2020 Census. This additionalquestion is unnecessary and would fundamentallythreaten the integrity and accuracy of thedecennial census, with wide-ranging implicationsfor our nation.

238


397

If the Census Bureau were to grant the Depart-ment of Justice’s request, it raises the likelihood ofsuppressing response rates from immigrant andother minority communities. From the ban on entryof immigrants from Muslim-majority countries tothe termination of DACA, America’s immigrantcommunities feel increasingly vulnerable. A newCensus question about citizenship will raise fearsabout such information now or in the future beingused against them or their loved ones. This willpotentially lower Census response rates andundermine the Census’s accuracy.Depressed Census participation would have farreaching consequences, as the data gathered by theCensus is relied upon to allocate federal fundingand determine congressional representation. Ifcommunities with large immigrant populations areundercounted by the Census, the government’sability to meet the needs of the American peoplethrough the provision of essential services and aiddollars will be thwarted. Further, the interests ofimmigrant communities would not be accuratelyrepresented in Congress if the congressionalapportionment process is based upon flawed data,undermining our representative democracy.The Justice Department stated that the addition ofthe citizenship question will facilitate enforcementthe Voting Rights Act. However, the federalgovernment continues to conduct the AmericanCommunity Survey to obtain estimates of thecitizen population, the data from which has beendeemed suitable for use in Voting Rights Actenforcement cases. Since the inception of thedecennial Census in 1790, it has counted citizensand non-citizens alike. It has not included

239


398

questions about citizenship since 1960. Moreover,all questions that are included on the Census arecarefully designed and tested to ensure that thedata collected is accurate. Adding a question to theCensus at this stage of the planning process woulddisrupt preparation and increase costs, in additionto threatening the accuracy of the data.Throughout history, the Jewish community hasvalued broad participation in civic life. Even inbiblical times, Jewish leaders understood theimportance of a fair and accurate census. TheTorah tells us that in the wilderness of Sinai, Godcommanded Moses to take a head count of thepeople (Numbers 1:2). Our modern-day respon-sibility to support the engagement of all people inthe life and well-being of our communities is no lesssignificant.Historically, the Census has undercounted peopleof color and immigrants. We urge you not tocompound this problem and, instead, protect theintegrity of the 2020 Census by rejecting theDepartment of Justice’s request to add a questionabout citizenship.If you have any questions or wish to discuss thisfurther, please contact Rabbi Jonah Pesner,Director of the Religious Action Center of ReformJudaism, at [email protected] or 202-387-2800.Sincerely,Anti-Defamation League Bend the Arc Jewish ActionCentral Conference of American RabbisHadassah, the Women’s Zionist

Organization of America, Inc.Jewish Council for Public Affairs

240


399

Jewish Federations of North America Jewish Women InternationalMAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger National Council of Jewish Women Union for Reform JudaismMatt FidelLegislative AssistantReligious Action Center of Reform Judaism(202) 387-2800 | [email protected]/TheRAC | facebook.com/TheRAC| instagram.com/theRACgram[LOGO]

241


400

PX-607

To: Comstock, Earl (Federal) [PII]From: Uthmeier, James (Federal)Sent: Fri 8/11/2017 8:05:48 PMImportance: NormalSubject: Re: Census paperReceived: Fri 8/11/2017 8:05:51 PM Census Memo Draft Aug 11 2017.docxThanks Earl, clean copy attached. I can swing acall any time after 4:30 today.JamesFrom: Comstock, Earl (Federal)Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 3:40 PM To: Uthmeier, James (Federal) Subject: Re: Census paperThanks James. Please take a look at the attachededits. If you agree then we can send to theSecretary, who wanted to have a call today todiscuss. EarlFrom: “Uthmeier, James (Federal)” [PII]Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 10:18 AMTo: “Comstock, Earl (Federal)” [PII]Subject: Re: Census paperMade a couple small edits for clarity. Also, I havenot yet sent this to Peter. Just let me know if youwant me to loop him in—I think he is heading outpretty early today, and I’m tied up 11-1, but maybewe can walk through with him early next week.

242


401

From: Uthmeier, James (Federal)Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:55:52 AMTo: Comstock, Earl (Federal)Subject: Re: Census paperEarl-A draft, predecisional and privileged memo isattached. I know he likes short briefing materials,but I wanted to be more thorough given the issueand our uncertainty regarding the exact question(s)being presented.I will keep working to clean it up and am happy toincorporate any edits. I am out of the office forsome MBDA and infrastructure meetings but canbe reached on my cell. I’ll be able to talk todayother than 11-1. Will be working over the next hourto clean this up a bit.If you want to provide some handwrittencomments, you can deliver to Barb (OGC secretary)and she will get them to me quickly.I have some new ideas/recommendations onexecution that I look forward to discussing.Ultimately, we do not make decisions on how thedata should be used for apportionment, that is forCongress (or possibly the President) to decide. Ithink that’s our hook here.Best,James

243


402

From: Comstock, Earl (Federal)Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:11:41 AMTo: Uthmeier, James (Federal)Subject: Re: Census paperGreat. Thanks! Earl Sent from my iPhone>On Aug 11, 2017, at 7:45 AM, Uthmeier, James(Federal) <[PII]> wrote:>>Earl->>Finishing this up this morning and will have amemo to you by 930.>>James>>Sent from my iPhone

244


403

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economics and Statistics AdministrationU.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233-0001[Logo]

December 22, 2017MEMORANDUM FOR Ron S. Jarmin

Performing the Non-exclusive Functions andDuties of the Director

From: John M. AbowdChief Scientist andAssociate Director forResearch and Methodology

Subject: Feasibility of Enhancingthe PL94-171 RedistrictingData

[This memorandum and the accompanying whitepaper contain no confidential data. The tables inthe white paper and the estimates in this memowere cleared for release to the public under CBDRB-2017-CDAR-001.]SummaryBased on balanced consideration of multiple factorsof quality, cost and feasibility, we recommend thatthe citizenship data for Department of JusticeVoting Rights Act enforcement be obtained throughthe use of administrative records and not throughthe addition of a question to the decennial censusinstrument.

245


404

Citizenship, race, and ethnicity data for the voting-age population are essential to designing legislativedistricts that meet the criteria for nondiscriminationaccording to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. TheCensus Bureau currently supports this require-ment with two distinct publications: the PL94-171redistricting data (PL94), which must be releasedby April 1st of the year following a decennial census,and the Citizen Voting Age Population by Race andEthnicity (CVAP) data, which are publishedannually in February using the most current 5-yearAmerican Community Survey (ACS) data. TheDepartment of Justice and redistricting experts,partisan and bi-partisan, combine these data toproduce estimates of the citizen voting agepopulation by race and ethnicity at the lowestfeasible level of geography, usually a census block.Neither the PL94 nor the CVAP tabulationscontain estimates of the citizen voting agepopulation by race and ethnicity at the block level.For PL94, this is because there is no citizenvariable on the census questionnaire. For CVAP,this is because the 5-year ACS estimates do not gobelow the block-group level, and even there oftenhave margins of error that make them difficult touse for creating block-level estimates incombination with PL94 via statistical methods.The direct solution to this problem is to make acitizenship variable available on the 2020 CensusEdited File (CEF), the internal, confidential datafile from which the PL94 tabulations are produced.If citizenship were available on that file, the PL94tabulations could be restructured to include directestimates of the citizen voting age population byrace and ethnicity at the block level. These

246


405

tabulations would have essentially the sameaccuracy as current PL94 and Summary File 1(SF1) data. There are two alternative methods foraccomplishing the addition of citizenship to theCEF. The first method is to ask the question on the2020 Census, just as we currently do on the ACSand used to do on the decennial census long form.The second method is to load the citizenshipvariable onto CEF by record linkage usingadministrative data. There are advantages anddisadvantages to both methods.The advantages of directly asking the question are(1) the provenance of the data is transparent and(2) the data are contemporaneous with the censusby construction. The disadvantages are (1)potential negative impact on voluntary cooperationwith the census, and (2) poorer quality citizenshipdata than would be available through administrativerecords. The advantages of using administrativerecords are better quality data than result fromdirectly asking citizenship, and (2) cost savings tothe census from avoiding the need to redesignquestionnaires and increase nonresponse follow-updue to lower voluntary compliance. The dis-advantages of using administrative data are (1)some risk of differential incomplete coverage due toincompleteness of these data for some foreign-bornsubpopulations, and additional processingcomplexity during the critical period between thecloseout of the Decennial Response File (DRF), theend of data acquisition from the census operations,and the delivery of the Census Edited File.

247


406

AnalysisWe were not able to find any randomized controlledtrials of the census or ACS questionnaires with andwithout the citizenship question. We conducted alimited analysis of the incremental field burdenusing the following natural experiment. Comparethe first mailing response rates in the 2010 Censusand the 2010 ACS for the same housing units.Response rates for citizens and noncitizen house-holds are both lower in the ACS than in the 2010Census, however the response rate for the noncitizenhouseholds falls by 5.1 percentage points more thanthe decline for citizens. Assuming that the numberof households with at least one noncitizen is about7,435,000 (+/– 47,000),1 this implies an incrementalburden of 380,000 households in non-responsefollow-up. 380,000 is approximately 0.3% of the2016 Population estimate of 117,700,000 house-holds in the U.S. At $100,000,000 incrementalNRFU cost per 1% decline in first mailing responserates, this translates to approximately $32,000,000cost due to the decline in response rates fromincluding the citizenship question.The cost of implementing our recommendedsolution has not been fully vetted. Accounting forten cycles of processing between January 1, 2018and April 1, 2020 and two senior staff FTEs to dothe required modeling, the cost is less than$1,000,000. These estimates include the burden on the2020 Census processing of the Census Unedited File.

248


1 2011 estimate from https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-15.pdf. The 7,435,000 estimate is forhouseholds with a noncitizen head. The estimate for house-holds with at least one noncitizen is necessarily greater.

407

We investigated the availability of directly reportedcitizenship data on all household surveys. The whitepaper concludes that there is insufficient datacollected between 2000 and 2015 to use this sourcealone. It also concludes that the administrative recorddata are superior to the direct reports in severalimportant dimensions. First, using historical directreports creates problems with the timeliness of thecitizenship status for naturalized citizens whoacquired that status between the time that theyresponded and the reference date for the 2020 Census.Second, we document that there is good evidence thatcitizenship is accurately reported by citizens, but lessaccurately self-reported by household responders.This accuracy deficit in the self-responses may be dueto the inherent difficulty of securing suchinformation from the householder or proxies whenthey pertain to someone other than the respondent.The accuracy deficit may also be due to the sensitivityof the citizenship question itself. The white paperdocuments with preliminary evidence that acquiringcitizenship status from administrative records is verylikely to produce more accurate and timely dataoverall than asking the question directly, and thenhandling the item nonresponse in the edit andimputation phase of the 2020 Census. Nevertheless,we note that if the question is asked, theadministrative data sources discussed in the whitepaper could be a valuable supplement to that phase.RecommendationThe accompanying white paper proposes thecreation of PL94 block-level data with citizenvoting age population by race and ethnicity, inaddition to the total population by race and

249


408

ethnicity, using citizenship data that have beenlinked from (i) a collection of high quality nationaladministrative data that the Census Bureau hasalready integrated into 2020 Census systems and(ii) data from the United States Citizen andImmigration Services (USCIS) that would beacquired by executing a Memorandum of Under-standing with USCIS. We would develop our ownedit and imputation system for the citizenshipvariable. The tabulation variable would be added toCEF and available to the 2020 Disclosure AvoidanceSubsystem (DAS) for inclusion in a modifiedversion of the proposed P2 table “Race/Ethnicity forthe Population Age 18 and Over” where “PopulationAge 18 and Over” would be replaced by “CitizenPopulation Age 18 and Over.” This revision wouldallow the use of the same disclosure avoidancemethodology, state-of-the-art differential privacy,currently available for the 2018 End-to-End Testand the enhanced methods, integrated PL94 andSF1 protection, planned for the 2020 Census itself.This version of P2 would be the first PL94 dataproduced at the block-level with estimates of thecitizen voting age population by race and ethnicityand with accuracy comparable to the accuracy of Pl“Total population.” The P1 and P2 tables wouldtabulate race and ethnicity in the same manner ascurrently proposed. Tables P42 “Group QuartersPopulation by Group Quarters Type” and H1“Occupancy Status” would not be modified. The2020 Census questionnaire would not be altered,and the field operations would not have to beexpanded to compensate for the lower rate ofvoluntary compliance predicted for a census thatasks the citizenship question directly.

250


409

PX-523

From: Wilbur Rossi [PII]Sent: 8/10/2017 7:38:25 PMTo: Comstock, Earl (Federal) [PII]Subject: Re: Census MatterI would like to be briefed on Friday by phone. Iprobably will need an hour or so to study the memofirst.we should be very careful, about everything,whether or not it is likely to end up in the SC. WLRSent from my iPad> On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) [PII] wrote:>> PREDECISIONAL AND ATTORNEY-CLIENTPRIVILEGED>> Mr. Secretary – we are preparing a memo andfull briefing for you on the citizenship question.The memo will be ready by Friday, and we can dothe briefing whenever you are back in the office.Since this issue will go to the Supreme Court weneed to be diligent in preparing the administrativerecord.>> Earl>> On 8/8/17, 1:20 PM, “Wilbur Ross” [PII] wrote:[NOT RESPONSIVE/DELIBERATIVE][NOT RESPONSIVE/DELIBERATIVE]were you on the call this morning about Census?They seem dig in about not sling the citizenshipquestion and that raises the question of where is

251


410

the DoJ in their analysis? If they still have notcome to a conclusion please let me know yourcontact person and I will call the AG. Wilbur Ross>> Sent from my iPhone>>> on Aug 8, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) [PII] wrote:>> >> [NOT RESPONSIVE/DELIBERATIVE]

252


411

PX-008

From: Wilbur Ross [PII]Sent: 8/10/2017 7:38:25 PMTo: Comstock, Earl (Federal) [PII]Subject: Re: Census MatterI would like to be briefed on Friday by phone. Iprobably will need an hour or so to study the memofirst.we should be very careful,about everything,whether or not it is likely to end up in the SC. WLRSent from my iPad> On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Comstock, Earl(Federal ) [PII] wrote:>> PREDECISIONAL AND ATTORNEY-CLIENTPRIVILEGED>> Mr. Secretary – we are preparing a memo andfull briefing for you on the citizenship question.The memo will be ready by Friday, and we can dothe briefing whenever you are back in the office.Since this issue will go to the Supreme Court weneed to be diligent in preparing the administrativerecord.>> Earl>> on 8/8/17, 1:20 PM, “Wilbur Ross” [PII] wrote:[NOT RESPONSIVE/ DELIBERATIVE][NOT RESPONSIVE/ DELIBERATIVE]were you on the call this morning about Census?They seem dig in about not sling the citizenshipquestion and that raises the question of where is

253


412

the DoJ in their analysis? If they still have notcome to a conclusion please let me know yourcontact person and I will call the AG. Wilbur Ross>> Sent from my iPhone>>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) [PII] wrote:>>>> [NOT RESPONSIVE/ DELIBERATIVE]To: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal)

[REDACTED]@doc.gov]From: Comstock, Earl (Federal)Sent: Sat 9/16/2017 11:33:38 AMImportance: NormalSubject: Calls with DoJReceived: Sat 9/16/2017 11:33:38 AMMorning Wendy–Here is the memo I gave SWLR regarding mydiscussions with DoJ. Earl***September 8, 2017To: Secretary Wilbur Ross Fr: Earl ComstockRe: Census Discussions with DoJIn early May Eric Branstad put me in touch withMary Blanche Hankey as the White House liaisonin the Department of Justice. Mary Blanche workedfor AG Sessions in his Senate office, and came withhim to the Department of Justice. We met in person

254


413

to discuss the citizenship question. She said shewould locate someone at the Department who couldaddress the issue. A few days later she directed meto James McHenry in the Department of Justice.I spoke several times with James McHenry byphone, and after considering the matter furtherJames said that Justice staff did not want to raisethe question given the difficulties Justice wasencountering in the press at the time (the wholeComey matter). James directed me to GeneHamilton at the Department of Homeland Security.Gene and I had several phone calls to discuss thematter, and then Gene relayed that after discussionDHS really felt that it was best handled by theDepartment of Justice.At that point the conversation ceased and I askedJames Uthmeier, who had by then joined theDepartment of Commerce Office of General Counsel,to look into the legal issues and how Commercecould add the question to the Census itself.September 8, 2017To: Secretary Wilbur Ross Fr: Earl ComstockRe Census Discussions with DoJIn early May Eric Branstad put me in touch withMary Blanche Hankey as the White House liaisonin the Department of Justice. Mary Blanche workedfor AG Sessions in his Senate office, and came withhim to the Department of Justice. We met in personto discuss the citizenship question. She said shewould locate someone at the Department who couldaddress the issue. A few days later she directed meto James McHenry in the Department of Justice.

255


414

I spoke several times with James McHenry byphone, and after considering the matter furtherJames said that Justice staff did not want to raisethe question given the difficulties Justice wasencountering in the press at the time (the wholeComey matter). James directed me to GeneHamilton at the Department of Homeland Security.Gene and I had several phone calls to discuss thematter, and then Gene relayed that after discussionDHS really felt that it was best handled by theDepartment of Justice.At that point the conversation ceased and I askedJames Uthmeier, who had by then joined theDepartment of Commerce Office of GeneralCounsel, to look into the legal issues and howCommerce could add the question to the Censusitself.

256


415

PX-014

To: Park-Su, Sahra (Federal) [REDACTED]Cc: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED)

[[email protected]] Enrique Lamas (CENSUS/ADDPFED) [[email protected]] Kelley, Karen (Federal) [REDACTED]; Walsh, Michael (Federal)[REDACTED]; Lenihan, Brian(Federal) [REDACTED]

From: Christa Jones (CENSUS/ADEP FED)Sent: Sat 2/24/2018 7:01:41 PMImportance: NormalSubject: Re: Draft Response to QuestionReceived: Sat 2/24/2018 7:01:42 PMSahra, I’m fine with this. (This is not to say thereweren’t some improvements and presentationchanges for the topics between l990-2000-2010 andplanned for 2020. I just want us all to be clear thatthe questionnaires was not identical from 1990 tonow.)On Feb 23, 2018 , at 6:50 PM, Park-Su, Sahra(Federal) [REDACTED] wrote:Ron/Enrique/Christa,Thank you again for you all your assistance. Below isa draft response worked with Deputy GC Walsh.Please let us know if you have any questions,comments, or concerns. Have a great weekend.SahraWhat was the process that was used in the pastto get questions added to the decennial Census

257


416

or do we have something similar where aprecedent was established?No new questions were added to the 2010 DecennialCensus, so there is no recent precedent for consider-ing a request to add questions to a decennial census.Consistent with longstanding practice for adding newquestions to the ACS survey, the Census Bureau isworking with relevant stakeholders to ensure thatlegal and regulatory requirements are fulfilled andthat the question would produce quality, usefulinformation for the nation. As you are aware, thatprocess is ongoing. Upon its conclusion, you will haveall of the relevant data at your disposal to make aninformed decision about the pending request from theDepartment of Justice.Sahra Park-SuSenior Policy AdvisorOffice of Policy and Strategic PlanningU.S. Department of Commerce[REDACTED]

258


417

PX-614

To: Kelley, Karen (Federal) [PII];Hernandez, Israel (Federal) [PII]

From: Park-Su, Sahra Sent: Mon 9/11/2017 10:39:25 PMImportance: NormalSubject: Re: Census Matter Follow-UpReceived: Mon 9/11/2017 10:39:26 PMFYISent from my iPhoneOn Sep 11, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Uthmeier, James(Federal) [PII] wrote:Sahra–Here is the attached from last week. Apologies, Iwill make sure to keep you in the loop on this stuff.JamesFrom: Uthmeier, James (Federal)Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 6:07 PMTo: Comstock, Earl (Federal) [PII]

Davidson, Peter (Federal) [PII]Cc: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal [PII]Subject: Re: Census Matter Follow upEarl–Here is an update on our efforts:[ACP/DELIBERATIVE][ACP/DELIBERATIVE]Peter and I plan to continue discussing this onMonday and will look forward to reviewing withyou and the Secretary. I will also continue toresearch the [ACP/DELIBERATIVE] throughout

259


418

the weekend. If other thoughts or needs come upover the weekend, please do not hesitate to call meon my cell.Have a nice weekend,JamesFrom: Comstock, Earl (Federal)Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 6:13 PMTo: Davidson, Peter (Federal) [PII]

Uthmeier, James (Federal) [PII]Cc: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) [PII]Subject: Re: Census Matter Follow-UpI suggest setting up a call for tomorrow. TheSecretary is asking for progress on this. EarlFrom: “Davidson, Peter (Federal)” [PII]Date: Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 5:30 PMTo: “Uthmeier, James (Federal)” [PII]

“Comstock, Earl (Federal)” [PII]·Cc: Wendy Teramoto [REDACTED]Subject: RE: Census Matter·Follow-Up·I don’t believe it was the AG of Kansas, but insteadthe Sec of State that he was referring to. He is thestate official that is heading up the anti-fraudworking group. I am concerned about contactinghim [ACP/DELIBERATIVE] contacted him, and the Sec will be is set up a meeting with some trusted before we do anything externally. I Mark Neumann, Ken and/or good political judgment. Wetimeout on any external contacts on this looking into this.

260


419

From: Uthmeier, James (Federal)Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 4:58 PMTo: Comstock,, Earl (Federal) [PII]Cc: Davidson, Peter (Federal) [PII]Subject: Re: Census Matter Follow upHi Earl–[ACP/DELIBERATIVE][ACP/DELIBERATIVE]I’ll also spend more time looking at the[ACP/DELIBERATIVE]JamesOn Sep 7, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Comstock, Earl(Federal) [PII] wrote:Hi Peter and James–As I discussed with James a little while ago, theSecretary would like an update on progress sincethe discussion yesterday regarding the citizenshipquestion.If we could get a short email or memo today thatwould be great.Thanks. Earl<nihms-497406.pdf>

261


420

Joint Stipulations in State of New York, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of

Commerce, et al, 18-CV-2921 (JMF)

I. Past Census Bureau Practices With Regardto Citizenship Information

a. Decennial Census Overview1. The U.S. Constitution requires the federalgovernment to conduct a Decennial Censuscounting the total number of “persons”—with noreference to citizenship status—residing in eachstate.2. The Constitution provides that Representatives“shall be apportioned among the several States . . .according to their respective Numbers”; whichrequires “counting the whole number of persons ineach State.”3. The Constitution requires that this count be an“actual Enumeration” conducted every ten years.4. Through the Census Act, Congress assignedthe responsibility of making this enumeration tothe Secretary of Commerce.5. The Secretary of Commerce is charged with theresponsibility to take a Decennial Census to createan actual enumeration of the United Statespopulation.6. The central constitutional purpose of theCensus Bureau in taking the Decennial Census isto conduct an enumeration of the total population.7. To enable a person-by-person count, the CensusBureau sends a questionnaire to virtually everyhousing unit in the United States, which is directed

262


421

263


to every person living in the United States and allpersons living in the United States are legallyrequired to respond.8. If the Census Bureau does not receive a responseto the questionnaire it then sends a Census Bureaustaffer known as an enumerator to the housing unitto attempt to conduct an in person interview inorder to collect the data. This process is the NonResponse Follow Up (“NRFU”) operation.9. If the initial NRFU visit does not result incollecting complete data for a household, admini-strative records may be used to enumerate alimited number of those households for which thereis high quality administrative data about thehousehold.10. For those households without high-qualityadministrative records, an enumerator will attemptto re-contact the household in person.11. If a third attempt to contact a household doesnot yield a response, a case will become “proxy-eligible.”12. A proxy is someone who is not a member of thehousehold—such as a neighbor, landlord, Postalworker, or other knowledgeable person who canprovide information about the unit and the peoplewho live there.13. For a proxy-eligible case an enumerator willattempt three proxies after each re-contact attemptthat does not result in an interview.14. After the NRFU process is completed, theCensus Bureau then counts the responses fromevery household, including those completed

422

through the NRFU process, to determine thepopulation count in each state.15. Data from the Decennial Census are reporteddown to the census block level.16. The population data collected through theDecennial Census determines the apportionment ofseats in the U.S. House of Representatives amongthe states.17. The population data collected through theDecennial Census also determines the number ofelectoral votes each state has in the ElectoralCollege.18. States also use Decennial Census data to drawcongressional, state, and local legislative districts.19. The federal government also uses DecennialCensus data to allocate hundreds of billions ofdollars in public funding each year, including tostates and local governments.20. Approximately 132 programs used CensusBureau data to distribute hundreds of billions ofdollars in funds during fiscal year 2015.21. Some demographic groups have proven moredifficult to count in the Decennial Census thanothers. The Census Bureau refers to these groupsas “hard-to-count.”22. Racial and ethnic minorities, immigrant popu-lations, and non-English speakers have historicallybeen some of the hardest groups to count accuratelyin the Decennial Census.23. Individuals identifying as Hispanic were under-counted by almost 5% in the 1990 DecennialCensus.

264


423

24. The 2010 Decennial Census undercounted onnet more than 1.5 million Hispanic and AfricanAmerican individuals.25. The Census Bureau describes the under-counting of a particular racial and ethnic group incomparison to the overall net undercount orovercount of the population as a whole as a“differential undercount,” as distinct from a “netundercount” of the entire population.26. The Census Bureau has developed a range ofstrategies to address the differential undercount of“hard-to-count” populations—including targetedmarketing and outreach efforts, partnerships withcommunity organizations, deployment of field staffto follow up with individuals who do not respond,and retention of staff with foreign language skills.27. In the 2000 and 2010 Decennial Censuses, theCensus Bureau designed and implemented publicadvertising campaigns to reach hard-to-countimmigrant communities, including using paidmedia in over a dozen different languages toimprove responsiveness.28. For the 2000 and 2010 Decennial Censuses, theCensus Bureau also partnered with local busi-nesses, faith-based groups, community organiza-tions, elected officials, and ethnic organizations toreach these communities and improve the accuracyof the count.

b. The Long Form and the AmericanCommunity Survey

29. The 1950 Decennial Census asked for theindividual’s place of birth, and whether a foreign-born individual had been naturalized.

265


424

30. A question concerning citizenship did notappear on the Decennial Census questionnaire sentto every household in the United States (commonlyreferred to as the “short form”) in 1970, 1980, 1990,2000, or 2010.31. From at least the 1970 Decennial Censusthrough the 2000 Decennial Census, in lieu of theshort-form questionnaire the Census Bureau sent along form questionnaire to approximately one in sixhouseholds.32. For the 1970 Decennial Census, the long formquestionnaire, which contained additionalquestions, was sent to approximately one in fivehouseholds.33. For the 2000 Decennial Census, the long formquestionnaire, which contained additionalquestions, was sent to approximately one in sixhouseholds.34. Data collected from the sample householdssurveyed with the long form were used to generatestatistical estimates.35. In the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 DecennialCensuses, the long form Decennial Census ques-tionnaire contained a question about citizenshipstatus.36. In the 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses, thecitizenship status question on the long form ques-tionnaire was preceded by a question about place ofbirth.37. After the 2000 Decennial Census, the long formquestionnaire was replaced by the AmericanCommunity Survey.

266


425

38. After the 2000 Decennial Census, the functionsperformed by the long form have been replaced bythe American Community Survey (“ACS”).39. The ACS began operating in 2000 and was atfull sample size for housing units in 2005, and forgroup quarters in 2006.40. The ACS is a yearly survey of approximately2% of households—about 3.5 million—across theUnited States.41. A question concerning citizenship statuscurrently appears as among one of more than 50questions on the 28-page ACS questionnaire.42. The citizenship status question on the ACS ispreceded by a question asking where the personwas born.43. The citizenship question that appears on theACS is not a binary yes/no question. The ACS citizen-ship question, asks whether the person was born inthe United States, a U.S. territory, or abroad.44. The data collected by the ACS allows theCensus Bureau to produce estimates of CitizenVoting Age Population (“CVAP”).45. CVAP data based on responses to the ACS arereported by the Census Bureau down to the censusblock group level.46. Margins of error are reported with the ACSestimates and provide a measure of the samplingerror associated with each estimate.47. The ACS is intended to provide information oncharacteristics of the population, and the social andeconomic needs of communities.

267


426

268


48. Unlike the Decennial Census, the ACS is not acomplete enumeration, but rather a sample surveythat is used to generate statistical estimates.49. Because ACS estimates are statisticalestimates based on a sample, the tabulations areweighted to reflect sampling probabilities andeligibility for NRFU, as well as well as to control toofficial population totals as established by thePopulation Estimates program.50. Because the ACS collects information from onlya small sample of the population, it producesannual estimates only for “census tract[s]” and“census-block groups.”51. Although the ACS survey is conductedannually, ACS data from individual years can alsobe aggregated to produce multi-year estimates(commonly referred to as “1-year”, “3-year” or “5-year” estimates depending on the number of yearsaggregated together).52. Multi-year ACS estimates have larger samplesizes than 1-year ACS estimates. Cumulating thefive-year pooled estimates yields approximately aone-in–every-eight- household sample.53. Multi-year ACS estimates have greater levelsof statistical precision for estimates concerningsmaller geographical units.54. 1-year ACS estimates produce “[d]ata for areaswith populations of 65,000+”; 1-year supplementalACS estimates produce “[d]ata for areas withpopulations of 20,000+”, 3-year ACS estimatesproduced “[d]ata for areas with populations of20,000+” until they were discontinued after the2011-2013 3-year estimates, and 5-year ACSestimates produce “[d]ata for all areas.”

427

55. The 2000 Decennial Census short form ques-tionnaire did not include a question on citizenship.56. The 2010 Decennial Census questionnaire didnot include a question on citizenship.

II. The 2020 Decennial Census57. A planned question on the 2020 DecennialCensus questionnaire asks, “Is this person a citizenof the United States?,” with the answer options“Yes, born in the United States”; “Yes, born inPuerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, orNorthern Marianas”; “Yes, born abroad of U.S.citizen parent or parents”; “Yes, U.S. citizen bynaturalization – Print year of naturalization”; and“No, not a U.S. citizen”.58. The 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire willpose questions including questions regarding sex,Hispanic origin, race, and relationship status.59. A planned question on the 2020 DecennialCensus questionnaire asks “Is this person ofHispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?”60. A planned question on the 2020 DecennialCensus questionnaire asks “What is this person’srace?”61. A planned question on the 2020 DecennialCensus questionnaire asks how each person in thehousehold is related to the person filling out thequestionnaire.62. A planned question on the 2020 DecennialCensus questionnaire asks, “What is this person’ssex?”

269


428

270

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX 8 (DOC 53-55) AL 3/24/19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

__________

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-05025-JMF

__________

NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION, CASA DE MARYLAND, AMERICAN-ARAB

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE, ADC RESEARCH INSTITUTE, and

MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK,Plaintiffs,—v.—

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;and WILBUR L. ROSS, JR., in his officialcapacity as Secretary of Commerce, and

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, an agency within theUnited States Department of Commerce; andRON S. JARMIN, in his capacity as performingthe non-exclusive functions and duties of the

Director of the U.S. Census Bureau,Defendants.

__________

DECLARATION OF STEVEN K. CHOI

Steven K. Choi, pursuant to the provisions of 28U.S.C. § 1746, declares under penalty of perjury asfollows:

429

1. I am the Executive Director of the New YorkImmigration Coalition (“NYIC”). In that capacity, Iam responsible in part for NYIC’s education andoutreach efforts around the 2020 Census. I am alsoone of the NYIC executives responsible for theorganization’s budgeting, fundraising, and policypriorities. I have been Executive Director of NYICfor over five years.2. NYIC is an umbrella policy and advocacyorganization for nearly 200 groups in New YorkState, representing the collective interests of NewYork’s diverse immigrant communities and organi-zations. NYIC is headquartered at 131 West 33rdSt, New York, NY 10001.3. NYIC’s mission is to unite immigrants,members, and allies so that all New Yorkers canthrive. NYIC envisions a New York State that isstronger because all people are welcome, treatedfairly, and given the chance to pursue their dreams.NYIC pursues solutions to advance the interests ofNew York’s diverse immigrant communities andadvocates for laws, policies, and programs that leadto justice and opportunity for all immigrant groups.It seeks to build the power of immigrants and theorganizations that serve them to ensure theirsustainability, improve people ’s l ives, andstrengthen New York State.4. NYIC’s nearly 200 members are dues-payingnonprofit organizations that are committed toadvancing work on immigrant justice, empowerment,and integration. NYIC’s member organizations—located throughout New York State and beyond—all share NYIC’s mission to serve and empowerimmigrant communities. NYIC’s members include

271


430

grassroots community groups, social servicesproviders, large-scale labor and academic institu-tions, and organizations working in economic,social, and racial justice. Representatives of NYIC’smember organizations serve on the NYIC Board ofDirectors.5. The Decennial Census is a critical andconstitutionally-mandated data-gatheringinstrument, used to distribute hundreds of billionsof dollars in federal resources and to apportionpolitical power at the federal, state, and locallevels. The importance of a complete and accurateDecennial Census is significant and requires adirect inquiry of every person in the United States.6. As such, NYIC, its member organizations, andthe communities we serve all have a fundamentalinterest in ensuring as complete and accurate aDecennial Census as possible. Among otherCensus-guided programs, NYIC member organiza-tions receive funding through the MedicalAssistance Program, also known as Medicaid; theSpecial Supplemental Nutrition Program forWomen, Infants, and Children; the State Children’sHealth Insurance Program; programs authorizedunder the Workforce Innovation and OpportunityAct; English Language Acquisition Grants; theCorporation for Community & National Service,which operates the AmeriCorps program; andformula grants authorized by the Violence AgainstWomen Act.7. NYIC also understands that data from theDecennial Census provides the basis forapportioning political representation at the federal,state, and local levels. An undercount for immigrant

272


431

communities of color under the Decennial Censuswould unduly harm our members’ level of politicalrepresentation at all levels of government.8. Because a complete and accurate count iscritical to ensuring that our member organizationsand the communities they serve receive thegovernment funding and full political representa-tion to which they are entitled, NYIC has anongoing commitment to promoting engagement inthe Decennial Census among individuals served byits member organizations.9. During the 2010 Census cycle, NYIC partneredwith the New York Community Media Alliance tolaunch an outreach campaign to boost immigrantparticipation in the Census. As part of that effort,NYIC coordinated public service announcements in24 languages that appeared in 69 newspapers.NYIC also held press briefings with electedofficials. These efforts helped to increase New YorkCity’s mail-in 2010 Census participation rate byapproximately 3%.10. For the 2020 Census, NYIC has already begunits outreach efforts. Since the beginning of 2018, ithas helped form New York Counts 2020, a growing,non-partisan coalition of more than 50 diverseorganizational stakeholders across New York toadvocate for a fair and complete enumeration. Thisbroad-based coalition, which was formally launchedin March 2018, is composed of racial, ethnic,immigrant, religious, health, education, labor,housing, social services, and business groups work-ing in partnership with state and local governmentofficials.

273


432

11. NYIC is investing resources to solidify thework and reach of New York Counts 2020 throughrobust advocacy, outreach, and mass educationalforums. It has already begun disseminating onlinepetitions, petitioning Community Boards to passresolutions for a fair and accurate count, and co-convened an all-day statewide conference, “MakingNew York Count in 2020.” NYIC will continuecoordinating the working committees of New YorkCounts 2020, including by: coordinating “train thetrainer” sessions throughout the state to equipleaders with tools to educate their communities onthe importance of the Census; devising effectivemessaging to convince hard-to-reach communitiesto participate; empowering coalition members toassist their communities in completing the Censusonline; and advocating to ensure that there are nounnecessary barriers impeding marginalizedcommunities from being counted while alsoensuring their privacy is protected.12. NYIC has been and remains committed toCensus education and outreach work in partbecause NYIC understands that immigrants andcommunities of color have been historicallyundercounted by the Census. From our work in thecommunity, we understand that one reason thatimmigrants and communities of color have beenundercounted is a distrust of government officialsand a fear of turning over personal information tothe government.13. This level of fear and distrust of governmentamong immigrants and communities of color hasbeen exacerbated by the Trump Administration andits officials’ hostility to these communities, as

274


433

demonstrated through numerous acts andstatements. Immigrant communities of color, whichhistorically have been reluctant to engage withgovernment officials, are even more reluctant nowdue to the consistent racism and xenophobiaexhibited by the Administration and its officials.Among the racist and xenophobic acts that theTrump Administration has undertaken includebanning individuals from six majority Arab and/orMuslim countries from entering the United States;rescinding the Deferred Action for ChildhoodArrivals (“DACA”) program, which allowed 800,000individuals—90% of whom are Latino—brought tothis country as children to legally reside and workin the United States; rescinding TemporaryProtected Status programs for individuals from ElSalvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Nepal;calling for an end to the diversity visa lottery, aprogram in which over 40% of individuals admittedare from Africa, while another 30% are from Asia;and proposing to end family-based immigration,which would disproportionately harm immigrantsfrom Latin America and Asia. NYIC hasconsistently fought these efforts to intimidate andmarginalize immigrants of color.14. Now, New York immigrant communities ’heightened fear of interacting with governmentworkers has increased even further due to thedecision to add the citizenship question. The citi-zenship question creates an incremental obstacle toCensus participation because it ties immigrantcommunities of color’s fear directly to the DecennialCensus instrument. By adding a citizenshipquestion to the Decennial Census, the TrumpAdministration has taken advantage of a unique

275


434

opportunity to bring their campaign to intimidateand marginalize immigrants into the homes ofevery immigrant. The citizenship questionthreatens to put all immigrant respondents, as wellas their families, loved ones, and neighbors, in abind: Identify your disfavored status to a hostileadministration or risk the loss of critical federalresources and political power. For an administra-tion that has found myriad ways to threaten anddisparage immigrants, the citizenship questionpresents a singularly intrusive and effective methodof attacking immigrants—one that has generatedan incremental and heightened fear for immigrantcommunities of color.15. In its already extensive 2020 Census outreach,NYIC has faced, and will continue to face, a moredifficult Census-response environment due to NewYork immigrant communities’ heightened fear ofinteracting with government workers because ofthe addition of the citizenship question. This fearextends not only to undocumented immigrants ornon-citizens with legal status, but also to familyand household members of non-citizens who will beconcerned that participating might endanger theirloved ones.16. The decision to add a citizenship question tothe 2020 Decennial has required NYIC to makesubstantial and additional investments to achieveCensus participation rates comparable to what wewhat would have achieved absent this decision.Prior to the addition of the citizenship question,NYIC had planned to spend approximately$625,000 on Census education and outreach over athree-year period ahead of the 2020 Census, with

276


435

most the spending planned for 2019 and 2020.However, to the best of my knowledge, over thenext three years, NYIC is planning to spendapproximately $1 million on community educationand outreach efforts to work towards a completeand accurate count within the communities thatNYIC and its member organizations serve—representing an increase of approximately 60% overwhat the organization would have spent in theabsence of a citizenship question.17. So far in 2018, as a result of the decision to adda citizenship question, NYIC has spent at least$93,000 on Census-related activities that it wouldhave not spent otherwise. NYIC anticipates spend-ing an additional amount in excess of $282,000between now and May 2020 as a result of the citi-zenship question.18. To address the fear and confusion caused bythe citizenship question among the immigrantcommunities that NYIC and its members serve,NYIC has had to begin its Census education andoutreach efforts substantially earlier and engagemany more staff, members, and partners thanplanned. Prior to the decision to add a citizenshipquestion, NYIC did not anticipate having tocommence significant Census education andoutreach work until the Summer of 2019. Instead,as a result of the announcement of Secretary Ross’decision, NYIC had to accelerate the start ofsignificant Census work to March 2018.19. The fear and confusion brought on by thedecision to add a citizenship question promptedNYIC to hire a dedicated, full-time senior censusfellow at a cost of approximately $36,000 in the

277


436

year to date, whose responsibilities includedaccelerating the launch of New York Counts 2020and organizing a conference that was prompted inlarge part by the addition of the citizenshipquestion. Absent the citizenship question, NYICwould not have hired a dedicated, full-time seniorcensus fellow until 2019. NYIC also hired multiplepaid Census Interns to engage with NYIC’s ongoingcommunications, training, and education needs asthey related to the citizenship question, at a cost ofnearly $10,000 in the year to date. Without thecitizenship question, NYIC would not have hiredany Census-focused interns, but now anticipatesspending $50,000 on interns through May 2020.NYIC also expended resources to broaden the reachof the New York Counts 2020 conference to addressconcerns among NYIC’s members and theircommunities arising out of the decision to add acitizenship question, which cost over $19,000—exclusive the cost of the time for organizationalstaff or the senior census fellow. NYIC has divertedand anticipates continuing to have to divert 10% ofthe staff time from the organization’s managers ofmember engagement for the Long Island, WesternNew York, Hudson Valley, and Central New Yorkregions to address concerns related to the citizen-ship question, costing approximately $19,000. In2019, NYIC expects to divert approximately 50% ofthe staff time for these four positions to Censuswork as a result of the citizenship question. SinceMarch 2018, NYIC has also had to divert approxi-mately 20% of staff time from the organization’sdirector of immigration policy to staff work, at acost of approximately $14,000 to the organization.NYIC is also in the process of hiring a full-time

278


437

manager of democracy policy to support the NYIC’sCensus policy work, especially as relates to policyissues generated by a potential citizenship ques-tion, including Title 13 privacy protections, whatan undercount due to the citizenship questionwould mean for immigrant and refugee NewYorkers and the communities they live in, and dataconcerns. We anticipate 40% of the Manager’s timeto be spent on work generated as a result of thecitizenship question through May 2020, costingapproximately $41,000. NYIC has also madeexpenditures and anticipates continuing to have tomake expenditures for overhead and benefits foreach of these positions that together account forapproximately one-and-a-half times the amount ofsalary paid for each of the above positions.20. NYIC has also made or anticipates makingconsiderable and additional expenditures forcommunications, training, and travel expenses toeducate members of the immigrant communities weserve about the Census and the citizenship questionin particular, including public service announce-ments, workshops and conferences, and otheroutreach. We anticipate that these expenditureswill total approximately $100,000.21. NYIC has diverted and anticipates continuingto have to divert a large amount of time from theorganization’s managers—including myself, VicePresident of Policy Betsy Plum, our communi-cations staff, and managers of member engagementfor Long Island and Western New York—to addressongoing concerns related to the citizenship question.22. NYIC’s increased investment in Censuseducation and outreach work has been driven in

279


438

part by the concerns of our member organizationsand the communities they serve have raised aboutthe citizenship question. NYIC management,including Ms. Plum, remains in regular communi-cation with staff and management at memberorganizations about the issues and policiesaffecting immigrant communities in New York.NYIC member organizations, including Chinese-American Planning Council (“CPC”), Arab-American Association of New York (“AAANY”),Masa, Chinese Progressive Association, MinKwonCenter for Community Action, and ChhayaCommunity Development Corporation (“Chhaya”),have reported to Ms. Plum members of the immigrantcommunities of color they serve expressing anunwillingness to participate in the Census as aresult of the citizenship question. In particular,members of immigrant communities of color haveexpressed significant fear that answering the citi-zenship question will give a hostile administrationinformation about the number of citizens and non-citizens on a neighborhood basis, or even a cityblock basis. They are concerned that public citi-zenship information may be viewed and potentiallyused for law enforcement profiling against peopleon blocks with high levels of noncitizens byagencies like Immigration and Customs Enforce-ment or other parts of the Trump Administrationthat have been used to intimidate and marginalizeimmigrants.23. As a statewide organization, NYIC and itsmembers serve a community of approximately fourmillion immigrants across New York. If theaddition of a citizenship question is permitted anddiminishes the completeness and accuracy of the

280


439

Census, NYIC, its members, and the immigrantcommunities we serve will suffer substantial lossesof federal resources supporting vital social service,health, education, and other programs supportedby Census-guided funds. Moreover, the immigrantcommunities of color that NYIC and its membersserve will also suffer significant diminution of theirpolitical power.I declare under penalty of perjury that the fore-going is true and correct.Dated: New York, New York

October 26, 2018

/s/Steven K. Choi

281


440


__________


__________

STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,Plaintiffs.

NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION, et al.,Consolidated Plaintiffs,

—v.—

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE, et al.,

Defendants.

__________

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF STEVEN K. CHOI

I, Steven K. Choi, pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct:

1. As explained in my October 26, 2018Declaration, I am the Executive Director of theNew York Immigration Coalition (“NYIC”). In thatcapacity, I am responsible in part for NYIC’s

282


441

education and outreach efforts around the 2020Decennial Census. I am also one of the NYIC execu-tives responsible for the organization’s budgeting,fundraising, and policy priorities. I have beenExecutive Director of NYIC for over five years.

2. All of the statements made in my October 26Declaration and in this Declaration are made basedon my personal knowledge, acquired after morethan five years as Executive Director of NYIC.During that time period, I have familiarized myselfwith NYIC’s internal records and processes; ourstaff and their responsibilities; our programs andprogram areas; our member organizations includ-ing their missions, the communities they serve, andtheir participation in activities with NYIC.

3. As Executive Director of NYIC, I have spentsignificant time traveling around New York Stateand meeting with both our member organizationsand the immigrant communities that we serve.Through this process, I have familiarized myselfwith prevailing views in the community concerninga number of issues, including the Trump Admini-stration’s treatment of immigrant communities andimmigration-related policies, and fears inimmigrant community about the policies of thisAdministration. As part of this process, I havegained personal knowledge about the prevailingfeeling of fear among immigrant communities inNew York State concerning the Trump Admini-stration and, specifically, the decision to add acitizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Censusand potential use of the information gleaned fromthis question. I have also been working withimmigrant communities in New York in one form or

283


442

another since 1999 and have developed a thoroughunderstanding of prevailing views in thecommunities I’ve worked with.

4. My statements concerning the fears ofmembers of New York’s immigrant communityconcerning the citizenship question and its effect ontheir willingness to answer the Decennial Censustherefore reflect my knowledge as both the leaderof NYIC and a leader in New York’s immigrantcommunity, rather than a restatement of any par-ticular individual’s views. Similarly, in expressingmy views about the likely effect of the citizenshipquestion on New York’s immigrant community, I donot intend to offer any specific predictions aboutnon-response rate or percentage undercount, butmerely my observations based on my knowledge asa community leader and my work as NYIC ExecutiveDirector.

5. I have also been extensively and personallyinvolved in the research, development, and imple-mentation of NYIC’s Census education and outreachprograms, including the organization’s work in theNew York Counts 2020 coalition. Through thatwork as well as my work in previous Census cycles,I have gained familiarity with the importance ofdata gathered from the Decennial Census inapportioning political representation and theallocation of some government funding sources.Because NYIC is driven to address the concerns ofits members and the communities they serve in thework that we do, I have also familiarized myselfwith how those organizations and communities willbe impacted by an undercount. Issues related to theCensus have been an important part of my work

284


443

with immigrant communities for three DecennialCensus cycles now.

6. My observations in Paragraph 6 of theOctober 26 Declaration about the Census-guidedfunding programs in which NYIC member organi-zations participate is based on my work in theresearch, development, and implementation ofNYIC’s Census education and outreach programs,including the organization’s work in the New YorkCounts 2020 coalition, as well as my regular anddirect involvement with our member organizations,and in particular our Board of Directors andImmigrant Leaders Council.

7. Regarding statements made in Paragraph 7of my October 26 Declaration, my knowledge thatdata from the Decennial Census provides the basisfor apportioning political representation at thefederal, state, and local levels is based on my workin the research, development, and implementationof NYIC’s Census education and outreach programs,including the organization’s work in the New YorkCounts 2020 coalition, which are high priorityprograms for NYIC. In addition, my knowledge thatan undercount for immigrant communities of colorunder the Decennial Census would unduly harmour members’ level of political representation at alllevels of government is also based on my partici-pation in and management of NYIC’s Census-related work, my past Census work, as well as myfamiliarity with our member organizations and thecommunities we serve.

8. Regarding statements made in Paragraph 9of my October 26 Declaration, I am familiar withNYIC’s activities during the 2010 Decennial

285


444

Census cycle through my work in the process ofresearching, developing, and implementing NYIC’seducation and outreach for the 2020 DecennialCensus cycle and also my work on the 2010Decennial Census cycle for one of NYIC’s memberorganizations, MinKwon Center for CommunityAction.

9. Regarding statements made in paragraph 14of my October 26 Declaration, my observation thatNew York immigrant communities’ heightened fearof interacting with government workers hasincreased even further due to the decision to addthe citizenship question is based on knowledge thatI have gained in the course of developing, imple-menting, and supervising NYIC’s Census educationand outreach work with its members and thecommunities they serve, including NYIC’s workwith the New York Counts 2020 coalition, as wellas my extensive contact with immigrant commu-nities throughout New York as Executive Directorof NYIC and as a leader in New York’s immigrantcommunity. This body of knowledge, as well as myengagement with immigration policy as ExecutiveDirector of NYIC, also supports my statementsabout the intrusiveness of the citizenship questioninto immigrant communities and the hostility ofthe Trump Administration towards thosecommunities.

10. Regarding statements made in paragraph 15of my October 26 Declaration, my observation thatNYIC has faced, and will continue to face, a moredifficult Census-response environment due to NewYork immigrant communities’ heightened fear ofinteracting with government workers because of

286


445

the addition of the citizenship question is based onbased on my research of NYIC’s past Censusefforts for developing and implementing NYIC’s2020 Census activities, my work with MinKwonduring the 2010 Decennial Census cycle, myexperience in developing NYIC’s Census workbefore the decision to add a citizenship question, aswell as my participation and supervision in NYIC’sextensive Census work since the citizenshipquestion was announced. Census education andoutreach programs for immigrant communities forthe 2020 Decennial Census have been on NYIC’spolicy agenda since at least the middle of 2017.

11. Regarding statements made in paragraph 22of my October 26 Declaration, my statements aboutinformation I have received from NYIC staff,including Vice-President of Policy Betsy Plum,regarding the concerns of NYIC member organiza-tions and the communities we serve illustrate partof the basis for my decisions as Executive Directorin authorizing NYIC’s increased investment inCensus education and outreach work. Thesedecisions were also informed by my own work andobservations in working with NYIC staff andmember organizations-in particular, our Board ofDirectors and Immigrant Leaders Council—inresearching, developing, and implementing oureducation and outreach programs for the 2020Decennial Census cycle, as well as my interactionswith immigrant communities in my role as acommunity leader. This body of knowledge alsoinforms my understanding that immigrantcommunities are color are reluctant to participatein the Census and are concerned about theintrusion into their privacy that may result from

287


446

the publication of data derived from the citizenshipquestion.

12. Regarding statements made in paragraph 23of my October 26 Declaration, my statements thatabout the effect of any undercount of immigrantcommunities is based on my participation andsupervision of the research, development, andimplementation of NYIC’s Census education andoutreach programs, through which I have gained anunderstanding of the role of Census data m theapportionment of political representation and theallocation of government funding. Again, inexpressing my views about the likely effect of thecitizenship question on New York’s immigrantcommunity, I do not intend to offer any specificpredictions about non-response rate or percentageundercount, but only my observations based on myknowledge as a community leader and my work asNYIC Executive Director, and my participation andsupervision of our extensive education andoutreach efforts for the 2020 Decennial Census.

I declare under penalty of perjury that theforegoing is true and correct.Executed: November 2, 2018

New York, NY/s/Steven K. Choi

288


447


__________

Civil Action No. 18-cv-2921-JMFHon. Jesse M. Furman

__________

NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION, et al.,Plaintiffs,—v.—


Defendant.

__________

DECLARATION OF JENNIFER VAN HOOK

1. I, Jennifer L. Van Hook, pursuant to theprovisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare underpenalty of perjury that the following is true andcorrect.

2. I submit this declaration in lieu of directexpert testimony in the trial in the above captionedcased.

I. Background and Qualifications3. I was asked by Plaintiffs to bring my

scientific expertise and experience to bear on the

289


448

question of whether the addition of the citizenshipquestion to the 2020 Decennial Census is likely toresult in greater item and unit nonresponse,particularly among populations for whom thecitizenship question may be particularly sensitive.

4. I am Roy C. Buck Professor of Sociology andDemography at the Pennsylvania State University.I served as director of the Population ResearchInstitute at Penn State from 2011 through 2016.Currently, I am the director of graduate studies insociology at Penn State and co-editor of Demography,the flagship journal for population science. I amalso a non-resident fellow at the Migration PolicyInstitute.

5. I am trained as a sociologist and demog-rapher. I obtained a PhD in Sociology in 1996 fromthe University of Texas at Austin. I have an M.S. inSociology from the University of Wisconsin atMadison and B.A. from Carleton College. Afterobtaining my PhD, I worked at the Urban Instituteon projects related to education and programparticipation among immigrants. In 1999 I joinedthe faculty at Bowling Green State University, andthen moved to Penn State University in 2007.

6. I have over 20 years of research experienceanalyzing large demographic data sources on topicsrelated to immigration. My publications haveappeared in major sociology and demographyjournals, including Demography, Journal of Healthand Social Behavior, Social Science and Medicine,Sociology of Education, Social Forces, and AmericanSociological Review, and I have received externalfunding for my work from the National Institutes ofHealth, the National Science Foundation, the

290


449

Foundation for Child Development, the RussellSage Foundation, and the U.S. Census Bureau.

7. My work uses demographic methods toestimate the size, characteristics, and dynamics ofthe foreign-born population. My colleagues and Ihave evaluated and improved estimates of theunauthorized foreign-born population. This line ofresearch resulted in several high-profile publica-tions, including new estimates of the size andheterogeneity of the unauthorized Mexican-bornpopulation (Bean et al. 2001); the development of anew method and estimates of foreign-bornemigration (Van Hook et al. 2006; Van Hook &Zhang 2011) and coverage error (Van Hook et al.2014); new assessments of the quality of self-reported data on citizenship and legal status (VanHook and Bachmeier 2013; Bachmeier, Van Hookand Bean 2014); and monte carlo simulations thattested a variety of legal status imputationapproaches (Van Hook et al. 2015). The work onlegal status led to important innovations that haveenabled researchers at the Migration PolicyInstitute and elsewhere to produce estimates of thecharacteristics and geographic distribution of theunauthorized population in greater detail thanpossible with earlier methods. A copy of myCurriculum Vitae includes a complete list of mypublications. See PX-536.

8. I served as a member of the Census AdvisoryCommittee of Professional Organizations, PAA,from 2008 to 2011. I also served as an expert forthe 2010 Census Demographic Analysis Program(Net International Migration Team) and amcurrently serving on the 2020 Census Demographic

291


450

Analysis Program (Net International MigrationTeam). In such capacities, I advise the CensusBureau on various issues, including which itemsshould be included in the decennial Census and thelikely impact of adding such questions on theoverall quality of the data collected.

9. I submitted an expert report in this case onSeptember 7, 2018. See PX-317.

10. I submitted a supplemental expert report onOctober 23, 2018, based on data that was notavailable when I drafted my initial report,including American Community Survey data madeavailable to the public by the Census Bureau justrecently on October 18, 2018. See PX-318.

11. Based on my experience, training,knowledge, and education, I believe I am wellqualified to offer expert opinions on the question ofwhether the addition of the citizenship question tothe 2020 Decennial Census is likely to result ingreater item and unit nonresponse, particularlyamong populations for whom the citizenshipquestion may be particularly sensitive. I hold myopinions in this case to a strong degree ofprofessional certainty.

II. Summary of Opinions12. My analyses of the patterns and trends in

nonresponse point to three key findings:1) Hispanics and immigrants (especially

noncitizens or those living in immigranthouseholds) tend to have relatively highunit nonresponse rates and item non-response rates for questions on place ofbirth and citizenship.

292


451

2) Both unit and item nonresponse haveincreased significantly over time amongimmigrants. Unit nonresponse rates rosein the Trump era among noncitizens whileremaining steady or declining amongcitizens. Item nonresponse also rose amongthose living in immigrant households,particularly for Hispanics.

3) Hispanic immigrants experienced par-ticularly large increases in nonresponsesince the start of 2018.

13. Between the last quarter of 2016 and thefirst quarter of 2018, the adjusted unit nonresponserate increased among Hispanic noncitizens by 43percent. Adjusted item nonresponse rates increasedby a similar amount — 45 percent — amongHispanics in immigrant households during thesame time period. These are large changes for sucha short period of time, especially when consideringthat my analysis probably underestimates the truelevels of unit nonresponse in the population. As Idiscuss in greater detail below, the outcomes Iexamined — unit nonresponse for follow-upinterviews and item nonresponse — are measuredon a sample of people who have already agreed toparticipate in at least one Current PopulationSurvey (“CPS”) interview. My results do notcapture the patterns and trends in nonresponse forthe least compliant survey respondents, those whonever agreed to participate in the CPS.

14. While I cannot state with certainty whichfactors or events contributed to these trends, myanalyses controlled for and enabled me to discountseveral of the most mundane explanations,

293


452

including the possibilities that they arose fromchanging demographic composition of the popu-lation, household migration patterns, sudden up-ticks in household migration or deportations, orthat they reflect increasing trends in item non-response in general and not just for citizenship/nativity questions.

15. Instead, the results of my analyses areconsistent with the concept that immigrants,especially Hispanic noncitizens and those living inforeign-born households, have become less compliantrespondents to Census Bureau surveys since early2017, and more sensitive in particular to questionconcerning citizenship. Moreover, the timing of thesharp increase in item and unit nonresponse in2018 is noteworthy as it overlaps with the timeperiod when the 2020 citizenship question wasbeing discussed in national media and when theissue of citizenship appeared to be particularlysalient among Spanish-speaking internet users.

16. In sum, the overall patterns of unit and itemnonresponse are consistent with the understandingthat survey response changed for the worse amongHispanic noncitizens, and the timing of the changesuggests that it is linked to changes in the politicaland/or policy climate, including the proposal to addthe citizenship question to the 2020 DecennialCensus. The unit nonresponse data is consistentwith the understanding that adding a citizenshipquestion to the Census will reduce nonresponserates among racial minorities ( in particularHispanics) as compared to non-Hispanic whites,and noncitizens as compared to citizens. Moreover,the item non-response rate estimates raise

294


453

295


concerns that adding a citizenship question will notyield accurate citizenship responses for asubstantial percentage of certain groups, includingHispanics, Asians, and people living in a householdwith at least one immigrant.

III. Overview of Analysis17. For my initial expert report, I analyzed data

from the Current Population Survey (“CPS”), whichis a monthly survey of approximately 60,000 U.S.households administered by

* * *66. Analysis of the second quarter 2018 CPS

data confirmed trend observations and opinions inmy initial report. As previously discussed, itemnonresponse to citizenship changed slowly untilabout 2016, after which it increased rapidly forHispanics, particularly those in immigranthouseholds, reaching its peak in the first twoquarters of 2018, while there was no correspondingincrease in item nonresponse on questions aboutage. See Table A1-S and Figures 13-S and 14-S inthe Appendix.

67. These patterns remained even after adjust-ments were made to account for shifts in populationcomposition with respect to state of residence, age,sex, education and nonresponse on age, sex, andmonth of interview. See Table A2-S and FiguresA2-S and A3-S in the Appendix. During the firsthalf of 2018, the CPS adjusted item nonresponserates to citizenship questions of Hispanics (7.9percent) and of Hispanics in immigrant households(10.5 percent) were significantly greater than therespective rates in all of the years from 2013 to2016.

454

68. I also conducted a difference-in-changeanalysis of CPS item nonresponse using theadjusted data and found that the change in itemnonresponse for Hispanics between 2016 and June2018 is significantly greater than the change from2013 to 2015. This is shown in Table S1 in theAppendix. This acceleration of the item nonresponserate can also be seen among Hispanics living inimmigrant households, leading this group to havesignificantly higher item nonresponse in 2017 and2018 than in any year from 2013 to 2016 (see TableA2-S and Figure 14-S in the Appendix).

B. ACS Item Nonresponse69. The American Community Survey (ACS) is

important because it is the most similar to the 2020Census with respect to its mode of data collection.Also, similar to the decennial census, response tothe ACS is mandatory by law. Dr. Abowd’s January19, 2018 memorandum to Secretary Ross analyzesACS data for 2013-2016. I conducted an analysisbased the more current 2017 ACS data, which onlyrecently was made available to the public by theCensus Bureau on October 18, 2018.

70. Item nonresponse on citizenship increasedsignificantly among Hispanics each year from 2013-2017 as shown in Figure S1 below (and Table S3 inthe Appendix). In contrast, item nonresponse didnot significantly increase after 2014 among Asians,and it did not significantly increase after 2015among blacks and among non-Hispanic whites. By2017, item nonresponse on citizenship wassignificantly higher among Hispanics than Asians,blacks, and non-Hispanic whites.

296


455

297


456

10

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

5.8 I

His

pani

cs

8.2 T

6.8

I I

2013

■ 2

01

4 ■ 2

01

5 ■ 2

01

6 ■ 2

01

7

7.5

7.6

7.

8

4.8

4.

7 4.

6 4.

3

Asi

ans

Bla

cks

NH

-Wh

ite

s

Fig

ure

S1.

It

em

No

n-R

esp

on

se o

n C

itiz

ensh

ip in

th

e A

CS

by R

ace/

Eth

nic

ity

and

Yea

r,

Am

on

g A

du

lts

Ag

e 1

8+

Sou

rce:

20

13-2

017

1% p

ublic

-use

mic

rod

ata

AC

S fil

es (

dow

nloa

ded

fro

m t

he C

ensu

s FT

P do

wnl

oad

site

)

Err

or

ba

rs=

95

% c

onfid

ence

in

terv

als

(cal

cula

ted

usin

g AC

S re

plic

ate

wei

ghts

)

71. Among those in immigrant households,blacks have higher item nonresponse thanHispanics as shown in Figure S2 below (and TableS3 in the Appendix). This differs from all adults,among whom Hispanics have the highestnonresponse rates. However, the temporal patternsamong those living in immigrant households aresimilar as for all adults. Item nonresponseincreased significantly every year from 2013 to2017 among Hispanics as shown in Figure S2. Incontrast, item nonresponse did not significantlyincrease after 2014 among Asians; it did notsignificantly increase after 2015 among blacks; andit did not significantly increase in any year amongnon-Hispanic whites.

298


457

299


458

12

10

8 6 4 2 0

2013

■ 2

01

4 ■ 2

015 ■ 2

01

6 ■ 2

017

10

.5

10

.2

10

.3

9.4

_L

_1_

9.3

8.5

i

7.5

r¼

-, 7

.6

7.7

7

.8

8.0

6.6

-

-

I I~

II I I

I -

! I II

II I

I :I

II ll

6.6

I I

His

pani

cs

Asi

ans

Bla

cks

NH

-Wh

ite

s

Fig

ure

S2.

It

em

No

n-R

esp

on

se o

n C

itiz

ensh

ip in

th

e A

CS

by

Rac

e/E

thn

icit

y an

d Y

ear,

Am

on

g A

du

lts

Age

18+

in i

mm

igra

nt

ho

use

ho

lds

So

urc

e:

20

13

-20

17

1%

pu

blic

-use

mic

rod

ata

AC

S f

iles

(do

wn

loa

de

d f

rom

th

e C

ensu

s FT

P d

ow

nlo

ad

sit

e)

Err

or

ba

rs =

95

% c

on

fid

en

ce in

terv

als

(ca

lcu

late

d u

sin

g A

CS

re

plic

ate

we

igh

ts)

72. I also examined how item nonresponse oncitizenship compares with the other decennialcensus questions that are asked in the ACS: age,sex, race, Hispanic origin, and housing tenure(rent/own). In the 2017 ACS, for all four racial/ethnic groups, item nonresponse rates on citizen-ship was significantly higher than any otherdecennial census item as shown in Figure S3 andTable S4 in the Appendix.

73. Additionally, I examined trends in itemnonresponse on all decennial census questions thatalso are on the ACS among Hispanics to assesswhether the increase in nonresponse on thecitizenship question is part of a broader pattern ofincreasing nonresponse. My analysis shows thatthis question is different from the other decennialcensus questions. The percentage point change initem nonresponse on the citizenship questionincreased since 2013 more than it did for the otherquestions, as shown in Figure S4 below (and TableS5 in the Appendix).

300


459

301


460

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

2013

20

14

2015

20

16

2017

Citi

zen

ship

Age

Ten

ure

Sex

His

pani

c O

rig

in

Rac

e

Fig

ure

S4.

P

erce

nta

ge

Po

int C

han

ge

Sin

ce 2

01

3 in

Ite

m N

on

-Res

po

nse

on

Dec

enn

ial

Cen

sus

Ite

ms

,

by

Yea

r, A

mo

ng

His

pan

ic A

du

lts

Ag

e 18

+, 2

01

3-2

01

7 A

CS

Sou

rce

: 20

13-2

017

1% p

ublic

-use

mic

rod

ata

AC

S fil

es

(do

wn

loa

de

d f

rom

th

e C

ensu

s FT

P d

ow

nlo

ad

site

)

Err

or b

ars

= 9

5%

co

nfid

en

ce i

nte

rva

ls (

calc

ula

ted

usi

ng A

CS

rep

lica

te w

eig

hts

)

302

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX 8 (DOC 53-55 xyz 00:00 00/00/07

74. Finally, I conducted a difference-in-changeanalysis of ACS item nonresponse on citizenshipshown in Table S6 in the Appendix. Item non-response increased more for Hispanics as a wholeas well as for Hispanics in immigrant householdbetween 2015 and 2017 than in the earlier 2013 to2015 time period.

75. In sum, the item nonresponse trends Iidentified in my analysis of the ACS data are con-sistent with the findings of my analysis of the CPSdata.

VII. Conclusion76. In sum, it is my opinion to a strong degree of

professional certainty that the overall patterns ofunit and item nonresponse seen recently in CPSand ACS surveys are consistent with the under-standing that response to Census Bureau surveyshas changed for the worse among Hispanics,particularly those in immigrant households. Thetiming of the change suggests that it is linked tochanges in the political and/or policy climate,including the proposal to add the citizenshipquestion to the 2020 Decennial Census. The unitnonresponse data is consistent with the under-standing that adding a citizenship question to theCensus will reduce nonresponse rates among racialminorities (in particular Hispanics) as compared tonon-Hispanic whites, and among noncitizens ascompared to citizens. Moreover, the item non-response rate estimates raise concerns that addinga citizenship question will not yield accuratecitizenship responses for a substantial percentageof certain groups, including Hispanics, Asians, andpeople living in a household with at least oneimmigrant.

461

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

__________

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-cv-2921 (JMF)

__________

STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,Plaintiffs,

—v.—

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE; et al.,

Defendants.

__________

AFFIDAVIT OF SUSAN BROWER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I , SUSANBROWER, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and havepersonal knowledge of all the facts stated herein.

2. I obtained my Ph.D. in sociology from theUniversity of Michigan.

3. I am the State Demographer for the State ofMinnesota. As State Demographer, I oversee theMinnesota State Demographic Center (“the Center”).

303

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX 09 (DOCs 58-63) AL 3/24/19

462

By statute, I am appointed by the Commissioner ofAdministration. Minn. Stat. § 4A.02(a). My dutiesare identified in Section 4A.02(b), and includegathering and developing demographic data relevantto the state; serving as the liaison to the UnitedStates Bureau of the Census; coordinating stateand federal demographic activities; and aiding thestate legislature in preparing a census data planand form for each decennial census. I have beenemployed as the Minnesota State Demographersince 2012. My knowledge of the facts containedherein is based on my experience as a professionaldemographer, and in my capacity as the MinnesotaState Demographer. My knowledge is also based on records I reviewed in my capacity as StateDemographer, including records on Minnesota’sredistricting, and on publically available dataregarding the population and demographics of theState of Minnesota.

4. As liaison between the Census Bureau and theState of Minnesota with respect to redistricting, Iinform the Census Bureau about the type of andformat of data the State of Minnesota needs andwants to complete its redistricting. In order toidentify what the State needs and wants inconnection with redistricting, I anticipate commu-nicating with the State of Minnesota legislativeredistricting committees. Those committees havenot been formed yet for the 2020 Census; based onthe process for redistricting following the 2010census, I expect each party caucus (one Republicanand one Democratic Farmer Labor (“DFL”)) to formone committee per legislative chamber, such thatthere are four redistricting committees. I alsoanticipate working with the redistricting committees

304


463

to send them the census data file from the CensusBureau and help them understand the data.

5. The Center works to ensure a full count andreduce non-response rates and undercounting. TheCenter’s outreach efforts are premised in part onproviding residents accurate answers to their ques-tions about the census. Residents have alreadyasked questions about the impact of the citizenshipquestion, and I expect those questions to continue.One question residents have asked relates to theconfidentiality of survey responses. Census surveysare supposed to be confidential. That is one mecha-nism to encourage full participation to obtain anaccurate count.

6. However, even if a specific person’s surveyanswers will not be public, some census data isgenerally made public on a very granular level. TheU.S. Census produces some data at the block level.The block level is a low level of geography. Forexample, according to the 2010 Census Redistrict-ing Data (Public Law 94-171) File, 26,213 blocks inMinnesota contained only one household; 95,220blocks in Minnesota contained between one andnine households. That compares to the total of151,646 blocks in Minnesota that contained morethan zero households. In other words, 63% of theblocks in Minnesota that contained any households,contained fewer than ten households.

7. Relatedly, 5,685 blocks in Minnesota con-tained only one person; 87,135 blocks in Minnesotacontained between one and nineteen people. Thatcompares to 151,983 blocks in Minnesota that con-tained more than zero persons. In other words, 57%of the blocks in Minnesota that contained any

305


464

people contained fewer than twenty people. If thecitizenship question is asked, therefore, the publicwould be aware on a block level, how many resi-dents are non-citizens .

8. At a meeting with U.S. Census Bureauofficials the week of July 30, 2018, in Los Angeles,I conveyed that Minnesota does not want to receivecitizenship status at the block level. I did so becauseit is not necessary for redistricting, I believe thatpublishing that data could undermine the confi-dential nature of the survey, and I believe aware-ness that such data will be published coulddiscourage residents from completing their censussurveys.

9. I was informed by U.S. Census staff that evenif the data was not published to the states in theform of a data file in connection with redistricting,if the Census gathers citizenship data, then it willmake that data public on a block level. If I knowthat citizenship data will be published at a blocklevel, it will be harder to give people assurancesthat their survey responses will be safe andconfidential. Simply, the disclosure of block-levelcitizenship data will adversely affect our outreachand likely our response rates.

I declare under penalty of perjury that, to thebest of my knowledge, the foregoing is true andcorrect.

Executed on this 25 day of 10, 2018

/s/SUSAN BROWER

306


465


__________


__________


New York Immigration Coalition, et al.,Consolidated Plaintiffs

—v.—UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE; et al.,Defendants.

__________

DECLARATION OF GEORGE ESCOBAR

I, George Escobar, pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct:1. I am the Chief of Programs and Services at

CASA (“CASA”). In this capacity, I overseeCASA’s services departments, including legalservices, health services, workforce develop-

307


466

ment, employment, education, and our immi-grant integration programs.

2. Based on my nearly 20 years of professionalexperience working for Latino and immigrantserving organizations in both the public andprivate sectors, the current outreach to immi-grant communities I oversee in my currentcapacity at CASA, and my conversations withindividual CASA members, I believe theaddition of a citizenship question to the 2020Decennial Census short-form questionnairewill deter participation of many individuals inthe Latino and immigrant communities andresult in a disproportionate undercount ofLatinos. As a result of the decision to add thisquestion, CASA has diverted and will continueto be required to divert resources from coreorganizational priorities to additional, remedialoutreach to counteract the citizenship ques-tion’s negative effect on Census response ratesin our community.

3. This undercount will also injure many CASAmembers, many of whom live in areas of theUnited States in which immigrants of color andother communities of color exceed national andstate averages. Specifically, they will beharmed because the disproportionate under-count that will result from the citizenshipquestion among immigrants of color willdiminish their political power relative to otherparts of their states. In addition, this under-count will diminish the amount of Census-related funding those areas receive for keyprograms, services, and facilities that our

308


467

members and their families rely on to succeedin the communities in which they live.

I. CASA’s Mission and Activities4. CASA in a non-profit 50l(c)(3) membership

organization headquartered in Langley Park,Maryland, with offices in Maryland, Virginia,and Pennsylvania. Founded in 1985, CASA isthe largest membership-based immigrants’rights organization in the mid-Atlantic region,with more than 90,000 members.

5. CASA’s mission is to create a more just societyby increasing the power of and improving thequality of life of low-income immigrant commu-nities. To advance this mission, CASA offerssocial, health, education, job training, employ-ment, and legal services to immigrant commu-nities. CASA serves nearly 20,000 people ayear through its offices and provides support toadditional clients over the phone and throughemail.

6. As Chief of Programs and Services, my funda-mental role in the organization is to align itsprogramming with its mission and ensure ourinterventions and programs are effective inaddressing disparities impacting immigrantcommunities while setting our members andtheir families on a path to success.

II. CASA’s Census-Related Work7. CASA has an ongoing commitment to promot-

ing engagement in the Decennial Censusamong its members, constituents, and commu-nities. Member participation in the Decennial

309


468

Census advances CASA’s mission by increasingthe political power of low-income immigrantcommunities and improving quality of life forthose communities through increased population-driven government funding.

8. Given CASA’s 30 year history working withimmigrant communities throughout the Mid-Atlantic region and the trust it has developedwith these communities as a result of thishistory, CASA has consistently been a “go-to”organizational partner in conducting outreachand education around the Decennial Censusand other related activities.

9. In 2010, CASA partnered with various localgovernment education and outreach campaignsthroughout Maryland. In addition, CASAreceived dedicated funding from other sourcesto conduct door-to-door outreach, facilitate groupeducational sessions, and work with local, ethnicmedia to inform, engage, and encourage parti-cipation in the Census among Limited EnglishProficient, immigrant communities in theregion.

III. CASA’s Work Connecting Members withGovernment Services

10. CASA provides a number of services screening,navigating and enrolling its members for publicbenefits for which they are eligible. This workincludes connecting members with public bene-fits related to health, education, and legalservices.

11. Through its Health and Social Service Program,CASA case managers assess its members needs

310


469

and screen for eligibility for several publicbenefit programs. CASA assists eligible mem-bers in enrolling in food assistance programssuch as the Supplemental Nutritional Assis-tance Program (SNAP), which provides foodassistance to low-income individuals, and theSpecial Supplemental Nutrition Program forWomen Infants and Children (WIC), whichprovides supplemental foods, health carereferrals, and nutrition education to eligibleindividuals.

12. CASA also assists eligible members in enroll-ing for health care coverage through Medicaid,or enrolling their children in the Children’sHealth Insurance Program.

13. CASA’s Education Department works withfamilies residing in dense immigrant neighbor-hoods to navigate them through the schoolenrollment process in Title 1 funded publicschools serving these neighborhoods. Staff alsoprovide information about early childhood edu-cation programs available in the neighborhoodsserved by CASA and partner with local pro-viders to enroll eligible children in thoseprograms.

14. In addition, CASA’s Legal Program providesindividualized legal counseling to individualsclaiming employment discrimination, wagetheft, and other issues that may lead to jobloss. For those who have suffered from job loss,CASA provides assistance in navigating theunemployment insurance application processfor those who are eligible.

311


470

IV. Harm to CASA as a Result of the Citizen-ship Question

15. As described below, the addition of a citizen-ship question to the Decennial Census harmsCASA members, as well as the organizationitself. The increased fear among immigrants,caused by the Trump Administration’s anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric, has led todecreased engagement with the governmentgenerally, and specific fear of participating inthe Decennial Census. This fear and decreasedparticipation harms CASA as an organization,because we are now diverting our limitedresources in an effort to encourage partic-ipation in the Decennial Census.

A. Fear in the Latino ImmigrantCommunity under the CurrentAdministration

16. Based on my conversations and work in thecommunity, immigrant members of CASA havefelt targeted, bullied and attacked by therhetoric and actions of the Trump Administra-tion. Starting with the presidential campaign,through to its current policies, CASA membershave expressed fear, frustration and despairover how they feel this administration hasscapegoated them. In particular, they haveexpressed fear over the emphasis this admini-stration has placed on increased deportationsand immigration enforcement.

17. In particular, policies such as family separa-tion at the border, the “zero-tolerance policy”for immigrants entering the United States

312


471

without documentation, and the elimination ofthe Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS)programs have all increased the fear amongimmigrant communities of being targeted byagencies such as Immigration and CustomsEnforcement (ICE). This fear has led to achilling effect on the willingness of immigrantcommunities of all types, regardless of immi-gration status, to interact with the federalgovernment in any way.

18. The recent announcement of changes to thedefinition of who constitutes a “Public Charge”for immigration purposes has only inflamed thecurrent situation. Collectively, these policieshave led to widespread confusion and fear, tothe point that many individuals are hesitant toapply for a public benefit for which they areeligible to receive.

19. CASA and its partner providers have begun totrack a decrease in the number of individualsapplying for certain public benefits. Mosttroubling has been a decrease in the number ofenrollments into benefits completely unrelatedto the policies that have been announced, suchas a decrease in the number of immigrantsapplying for health insurance made availablethrough the Affordable Care Act or a decreasein the number of Legal Permanent Residentsapplying for citizenship. To those of us atCASA, this decreased participation indicatesthat the Trump Administration’s policies arenot only affecting those individuals andcommunities who are directly targeted by these

313


472

policies, but are increasing fear among theimmigrant community more broadly.

B. CASA Members are Less Willing toEngage with the Decennial Censusdue to Increased Fear

20. Under the current environment, CASAmembers have expressed fear of even a knockon their door by a stranger given the highnumber of arbitrary immigration enforcementactions that have resulted in the deportation ofimmigrants with little or no criminal back-ground in the communities CASA serves. Thisfear of even speaking to someone approachingtheir door will certainly be compounded by arequest by a government official, such as acensus enumerator, regarding an individual’scitizenship status, or the citizenship status ofothers in their household.

21. Many CASA members have expressed doubtsand fears to me about how information withinthe government is shared, and whether ananswer to a question on a particular documentor application may lead to their family beingharmed or separated. Under these circum-stances, many have expressed a feeling thatparticipation in the Census presents too high arisk to the safety and security of themselvesand their families to justify participating.

22. The fear of participating in the Census hasbeen shared with multiple CASA staff andvolunteers who routinely conduct field outreachin the community, such as CASA HealthPromoters and Community Organizers. Shortly

314


473

after information about the addition of thecitizenship question became public and wasreported on by Spanish language media, theseoutreach workers reported that the reaction offear in the community was widespread. ManyCASA staff members and volunteers reportedan increase in general suspicion and fearamong community members in completing anytype of application or document associated withany government entity.

23. Recently, a CASA Health Promoter shared aninteraction with me that she had with a CASAmember who told her a story about a familymember that he believed was placed indeportation proceedings shortly after applyingfor a Driver’s License. “If those two things arelinked,” the member reportedly said, “then whyon earth would I answer a question aboutimmigration status on a form from the federalgovernment? It’s not worth the risk.” Thatreaction is typical of what we have experiencedin the community.

24. Through this litigation, I have learned thatblock-level data can identify the characteristicsof a population within a very small geographicarea. By identifying the citizenship status ofindividuals in such a small area, I am con-cerned that this could lead to immigrationenforcement targeting these particular areasand communities, thus harming the privacy ofCASA members. I believe this concern is parti-cular will discourage CASA members fromparticipating in the Decennial Census.

315


474

C. CASA is Diverting Resources toEncourage Participation in theDecennial Census

25. CASA recognizes the importance of theDecennial Census for its members and thebroader Latino immigrant community. Parti-cipation in the Census is necessary to preservethe political power of these communities, andto ensure that these communities receive thevital federal resources that so many of ourmembers rely upon. In order to combat theincreased fear in the Latino immigrant commu-nity, and the unwillingness of many CASAmembers to participate in the DecennialCensus, CASA is currently planning a massiveresponse to try and overcome the manybarriers to participation.

26. In order to combat these barriers, CASA willhave to reorganize its communication team andreassign staff to Census outreach and educa-tion to a level not previously anticipated. Givensignificant funding for this work is not antici-pated, much of the work will have to be fundedthrough other sources, perhaps including CASAreserves and leveraged with volunteers.

27. Our work in response to the addition of thecitizenship question on the Decennial Censushas already begun. CASA’s CommunityOrganizing team has already conducted several“house” meetings on this topic to combat thefear and suspicion that has already beenexpressed about the addition to the citizenshipquestion. These meetings have been held inmany of the neighborhoods regularly canvassed

316


475

by the community organizing team and havebeen focused on the importance of participatingin the census.

28. Education about the census is also beingimbedded within the “Get Out The Vote”canvassing work being done by CASA duringthe 2018 election season. CASA canvassers areprovided talking points and some literatureabout the Census to share with voters as theyconduct outreach in their work encouragingvoters to cast their ballots.

29. The increased focus on Census outreach andeducation will necessarily divert CASA’slimited resources, resulting in less resourcesbeing allocated to other vital CASA programs.

30. I declare under penalty of pc1jury that theforegoing is true and correct.

Executed: October 26, 2018Washington, DC

/s/George Escobar

317


476


__________


__________


—v.—


Defendants.

__________

AFFIDAVIT OF MARCHELLE FRANKLIN

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I, MarchelleFranklin, hereby declare as follows:1. I am over the age of eighteen and have personal

knowledge of all the facts stated herein.2. I am the Human Services Director for the City

of Phoenix, a role I have held since November2017. In this role, I oversee a staff of 375employees and a budget of approximately $84million. Part of my work includes overseeing

318

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX 10 (DOC 60) AL 3/24/19

477

the federally-funded programs described in thisdeclaration.

3. I have worked for the City of Phoenix since2002. My previous roles include serving as theInterim Human Services Director, Director ofthe Police Department’s Community AffairsDivision, and Chief of Staff for former MayorPhil Gordon. I have a Masters of BusinessAdministration in finance from Grand CanyonUniversity, a Bachelor of Science in businessadministration from the University of Phoenix,and I completed the Executive DevelopmentProgram in human resources consulting andstrategy development at the University ofSouthern California.

4. The City of Phoenix Human Services Depart-ment provides a comprehensive array ofservices to help people meet emergency, short-and long-term needs, and help every individualreach their highest level of self-sufficiency.Program areas include early childhood educa-tion, emergency assistance, older adult services,crime victim services, homeless services,business/workforce development and commu-nity initiatives:a. Education . Responsible for overall

implementation and monitoring of HeadStart performance standards for more than3,300 children through a directly operatedprogram and contracted delegate agencies.

b. Community and Senior Services .Community Services develops, implementsand operates human service programs tomeet the emergency, short and long-term

319


478

needs of eligible low-income residents, toinclude the elderly and individuals withdisabilities.

c. Family Advocacy Center. The FamilyAdvocacy Center uses a multidisciplinaryapproach to provide comprehensive servicesto victims of violent crime such as domesticand sexual violence, child abuse, physicalassault and homicide.

d. Homeless Services. Homeless Programsprovide emergency shelter, rapid-rehousing(Housing First), street outreach and sup-portive services components for homelessfamilies, youth and individuals through cityprograms and through contracts with localcommunity providers.

e. Business and Workforce Development.Business and Workforce Developmentprograms provide job readiness and skillstraining for adults and youth.

5. An undercount of the true population of theCity of Phoenix in the upcoming 2020 Censuswould impact the work of the Human ServicesDepartment in a number of ways.

6. Victims of Crime Act (“VOCA’’) Funds. TheU.S. Department of Justice administers thedistribution of VOCA funds. The VOCAstatutory distribution formula provides eachstate with a base amount for each state anddistributes the remainder proportionately,based on U.S. Census population. These fundssupport direct services to victims of crime thatassist with emotional, psychological or physical

320


479

needs; stabilization after victimization; under-standing and participating in the criminaljustice system; and/or restoring a measure ofsecurity and safety. A differential undercounton the 2020 Census that impacts Arizonarelative to other states would likely affect theVOCA funding passed through to the City ofPhoenix that provide crucial services to victimsof domestic violence, sexual assault, and physi-cal assault. The services provided include crisisintervention, emergency services (i.e. trans-portation, child care services, and temporaryhousing), and comprehensive assistance withnavigating the criminal justice system. TheCity of Phoenix’s Family Advocacy Officereceives $ 665,420 annually in VOCA funding.A 1% cut in VOCA funding would make $6,654less funding available for the provision of theseservices.

7. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(“TANF”) Funds. The U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services distributes TANFfunds to the State of Arizona, who thendistributes these funds to municipalities orother organizations based on the number oflow-income individuals under 125% of theFederal poverty level in each service area.TANF funds are used to design and operateprograms that help needy families achieveself-sufficiency. An undercount of the popula-tion in Phoenix would likely affect the fundingprovided to the City of Phoenix to provide casemanagement services (counseling, skills devel-opment, budgeting, employment assistance,etc.) to individuals and families seeking self-

321


480

sufficiency. The City of Phoenix’s Communityand Family Services Centers use $985,710 inTANF funds annually. A 1% reduction in thosefunds would be a loss of $9,857, which wouldtranslate into a loss in man hours, negativelyimpacting the City’s ability to provide criticalservices to its population.

8. Low-Income Home Energy Assistance(“LIHEAP”) Funds. The U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services distributesLIHEAP funds to the State of Arizona, whothen distributes these funds to municipalitiesor organizations based on the number of low-income individuals under 125% of the Federalpoverty level in each service area. LIHEAPfunds are used to assist families with energycosts. A differential undercount in Arizonarelative to other states, or in Phoenix relativeto other municipalities in Arizona, would likelyaffect the funding provided to the City ofPhoenix to provide assistance with payingutility bills, increasing the risk of health andsafety problems that arise from unsafe heatingand cooling practices. The City of Phoenix’sCommunity and Family Services Centers havean annual LIHEAP budget of $6,020,953. A 1%reduction would result in the loss of $60,209and would mean utility assistance paymentswill not be processed for roughly 109 house-holds.

9. Head Start Funds. The U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services grants fundingdirectly to municipalities and other organiza-tions to promote school readiness of children

322


481

from birth through age 5 from low-incomefamilies through education, health, social andother services. Each municipality/non-profitproviding Head Start services is required touse a community needs assessment in order toidentify eligible families for selection andenrollment. Head Start slots are placed inspecific areas related to where eligible familiesare in the city. The families we serve are atpoverty and have additional risk factors. Thereis no requirement for them to have legalpresence. The community needs assessmentsrequire the use of census data to identify wherewe place our services and slots. A differentialundercount of the population of children aged0-5 in Phoenix, relative to other municipalities,would likely affect the community needsassessment, which will lead to erroneousinformation that will impact identifyingfamilies that meet the eligibility requirementsfor Head Start and associated services. A 1%cut in the City’s $34,405,759 annual HeadStart budget would mean a loss of $344,057and result in the loss of 35 slots for thesemuch-needed school readiness services.

10. Workforce Innovation and OpportunityAct (“WIOA”) Funds. The U.S. Department ofLabor grants funding to the State of Arizona,who then distributes to municipalities andother organizations based on: (a) local arearelative share of total unemployed in area ofsubstantial unemployment; (b) local arearelative share of excess unemployed; and (c)local area relative share of economicallydisadvantaged adults ages 22-72. A differential

323


482

undercount of the population of the City ofPhoenix relative to other municipalities willimpact the distribution of funds to the City ofPhoenix by reducing the number of partici-pants who would receive services under theWIOA programs and services such as employ-ment training, skills development, occupationaltraining. Stated differently, because allocationsare based on formulas stated above, anundercount of individuals associated with aparticular metric/data point will reduce theallocation, thereby reducing the number ofindividuals that can be served with thoseprogram funds. These programs also include ayouth component designed to prepare youth toenter post-secondary education, training andemployment. The City of Phoenix receives$10,751,819 in WIOA funds annually. A 1%reduction in those funds would result in$107,518 less funds available for employmentand support services to adult, youth, anddisplaced workers.

I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the bestof my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on this 25th day of October, 2018

/s/MARCHELLE FRANKLIN

324


483


__________


__________


—v.—


Defendants.

__________

AFFIDAVIT OF EMILY FREEDMAN

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I, Emily Freedman,hereby declare as follows:

1. My name is Emily Freedman. I am over theage of eighteen and have personal knowledge of allthe facts stated herein.

2. I am Director of Community Development forthe City of Providence, Rhode Island. I oversee theadministration, coordination, and preparation of allwork required to complete and fulfill the City’sobligations under its community development and

325


484

housing programs, including but not limited to allHUD-funded programs. I have been employed bythe City of Providence since 2016.

3. As the City’s Community DevelopmentDirector, I develop strategic goals, solicit and evalu-ate project proposals annually, develop programbudgets and spending plans, issue and evaluatefederally-funded contracts, and report to HUD andother relevant funding entities. Part of my workentails working with federal grant programs,including Community Development Block Grantfunds, Emergency Solution Grant funds, and HOMEInvestment Partnership Program Funds.

4. The City of Providence receives millions ofdollars in federal funding from the U.S. Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) onboth an annual and competitive basis.

5. Annual entitlement funding from the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development isallocated by funding formulas that includeweighted population, poverty, housing counts andother data points.

6. In Federal Fiscal Year 2018, the City ofProvidence will receive $5,034,413 in CommunityDevelopment Block Grant funding; $421,403 inEmergency Solutions Grant funding, and$1,700,757 in HOME Investment PartnershipsProgram funding.

7. The CDBG statute identifies poverty,deteriorated housing, economic distress, decline,and suitability of one’s living environment asimportant components of community developmentneed. The City’s annual allocation of CDBG fundsis calculated by HUD through Formula A or

326


485

Formula B, as defined under 42 U.S.C. §5306.Formula A calculates funds to a jurisdiction basedon its metropolitan area’s share of 3 factors acrossall US metropolitan areas: 1) population, weightedat 25 percent; 2) people in poverty, weighted at 50percent; and 3) overcrowded housing units,weighted at 25 percent. Formula B also calculatesfunds to a jurisdiction based on its metropolitanarea’ s share of 3 factors across all US metropolitanareas, but the Formula B factors are: 1) populationgrowth lag since 1960, weighted at 20 percent; 2)people in poverty, weighted at 30 percent; and 3)pre-1940 housing units, weighted at 50 percent.After HUD runs the calculations using the twoformulas, it allocates the City the larger amount ofthe two. In recent years, the City of Providence hasbeen awarded funds under Formula B. Adifferential undercount on the 2020 Census thatimpacts the Providence metropolitan area moreheavily than other metropolitan areas will result inunderreporting of the population and populationgrowth lag as those formula factors are based onlast Decennial Census counts.

8. Further, to utilize CDBG funds on neighbor-hood facilities or improvements, neighborhoodCensus Block populations must be 51% or greaterlow/moderate income. Any undercounting ofresidents, particularly in neighborhoods with highpoverty rates and large minority and immigrantpopulations, would result in fewer neighborhoodsbeing eligible for these critical neighborhood-basedinvestments.

9. Reduced CDBG funding will result in areduction in critical social services (such ashomeless and domestic violence case management,

327


486

food pantry operations, and job training programs)as well as reduced investment in local infra-structure and affordable housing. If a 1% fundingreduction were to occur, over $50,000 in criticalservices and programming would need to be cutfrom the City’s annual CDBG budget. Activitieseliminated from a reduced City CDBG budget toabsorb such a cut would be free daycare and after-school programs for hundreds of low-incomefamilies, and street and sidewalk improvements.

10. The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) is anannual entitlement grant program whereby fundsare allocated under a 24 C.F.R. § 576.3-definedformula. Allocations are a function of the prioryear’s CDBG allocation; therefore, if CDBG fundsdecrease, ESG funds will be reduced as well. ESGfunds are used to provide rental assistance topersons experiencing homelessness, as well asstreet outreach and case management services.

11. A reduction in City ESG funding wouldresult in higher rates of homelessness, displace-ment of at-risk populations from assisted housing,and a decline in case management and shelterservices. Even a modest 1% reduction in funding($4,000) would mean cutting hundreds of hours forlocal case workers-hours that would have beenspent finding housing for homeless living and dyingon Providence streets.

12. Eligibility of a local government to receiveHOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)is also a factor of the amount of CDBG received bythe municipality. The HOME formula is thenfurther determined by the following factors: 1) localand national vacancy rates (sourced by theDecennial Census), 2) prevalence of rental housing

328


487

with substandard conditions, 3) number of pre-1950rental units (sourced by the Decennial Census), 4)RS Means cost index and substandard rental units,5) number of families in poverty, and 6) low net percapita income and population (population figuresfrom the Decennial Census). If a differentialundercount on the 2020 Census results in morehomes being identified vacant than actually are,the formula would be negatively impacted as localmarket tightness (a proxy for local need for moreaffordable rental housing units) would beunderstated.

13. A reduction in City HOME funding willresult in a decrease in the production of newaffordable housing and a reduction in local down-payment and closing cost assistance programs toaid first-time homebuyers with limited means. Areduction of $170,000 (1%) in HOME funds wouldresult in approximately 22 low-income families notreceiving down-payment and closing cost assistanceand realizing the dream of homeownership.

14. Finally, it is important to note that allformula factors for the programs above are derivedfrom either the Decennial Census or US CensusBureau American Community Surveys.I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the bestof my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on this 24th day of October, 2018

/s/EMILY FREEDMANDirector of CommunityDevelopment for the City of Providence

329


488


__________

18-CV-2921 (JMF)

__________


—v.—


Defendants.

__________

Affidavit of Dr. Hermann Habermann

I. Professional experience and qualifications.1. I have over thirty-five years of experience as

a statistician, earning much of that experience atstatistical agencies of the United States govern-ment. Among other federal government positions, Ihave served as Chief Statistician of the UnitedStates (1988–1992) and as Deputy Director andChief Operating Officer of the United States CensusBureau (2002–2007). I also served for eight yearsas Director of the United Nations StatisticsDivision (1994–2002).

330


489

2. I earned my Ph.D. in Statistics from theUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison in 1975. A copy ofmy curriculum vitae is PX-353.II. Summary of Findings.

3. I was retained by the plaintiffs in thislitigation to provide my expert opinion on thepolicies and procedures federal statistical agenciesfollow when designing, modifying, and imple-menting statistical instruments, and on the extentto which the Commerce Department and

* * *the 2020 Census, none of those processes werefollowed with respect to adding the citizenshipquestion to the 2020 Decennial Census short form.

40. Despite repeated references in the Admin-istrative Record to steps involving “robust pro-cesses” for working with OMB and the ICSP-SACS[see, for example, PX-004 (AR 003890), PX-004 (AR005567), PX-004 (AR 005512)], the addition of thecitizenship question just prior to the submission ofplanned questions to the Congress appears to havetaken place without any apparent consultation withOMB or the ICSP-SACS. In fact, as of March 6,2018, a Census Bureau briefing for the Departmentof Commerce indicated that there would be nochanges to the 2020 Census subjects, that an OMBbriefing had taken place on February 22, and thatthe ICSP-SACS briefing would take place on March14. PX-001 (AR 000435).

41. In addition, as noted above, the CensusBureau requested a meeting with the Departmentof Justice in order to give the technical experts anopportunity to discuss the details of the proposal to

331


490

add a citizenship question, but the Department ofJustice declined to meet. PX-004 (AR 009074);(Abowd 8/30/2018 dep. tr. 96-99). As Dr. Abowdtestified on behalf of the Census Bureau, it isunusual to receive a data request from an agencyand then for the agency to refuse to meet to discussthe technical aspects of that data request. (Abowd8/30/2018 dep. tr. 98-99).

42. The content review process for the DOJ’srequest for a citizenship question did not follow thebasic protocols for interacting with OMB and theCensus Bureau to assure that questions on thedecennial census are required by federal programsand that the information collection is as minimallyburdensome as possible.

43. An example of a typical interagency collabo-ration process illustrates the extent to which theCommerce Department deviated from typicalpractice here. Revisions to survey questions in thefederal statistical system usually involve anextensive, multi-faceted process. This is particularlytrue when a question may be employed, or its dataused, by multiple agencies. A salient case is thequestion employed across the government whenasking about race and ethnicity. Prior to the mid-1970s, there was no standard approach to askingthis question on federal information collections,whether for general demographic information, forthe evaluation of federal program initiatives, or forenforcement of government policies. At the requestof several agencies, OMB undertook the develop-ment of a standard approach to collecting thisinformation, and in 1977 issued a standard for useby agencies that intended to collect race andethnicity data. For the first time, the “denomi-

332


491

nators” from the decennial census could be usedwith “numerators” from various surveys (e.g.,education, labor, health) as well as administrativereports (school enrollment, employee charac-teristics, patient records) to better understandaccess to learning, labor force participation, anduse of services. The 1977 standard, based largelyon the question then used by the Office ofEducation in the Department of Health, Education,and Welfare, was adopted following an OMB-ledconsultation with several federal agencies.

44. In the early 1990s, Congress highlighted theneed for a review and possible revision of the OMBstandards for data on race and ethnicity. OMBagreed to undertake this review, outlining a three-pronged process. This included: (1) establishing aninteragency committee comprising the producersand users of data on race and ethnicity (30-plusagencies); (2) conducting a research and testingprogram to examine and assess alternatives thatwere under consideration; and (3) providing multipleopportunities for public input and comment onoptions (via public hearings as well as multipleFederal Register notices).

45. The process ultimately spanned four years,from inception to announcement of revisions(October 1997). During that time, both affectedfederal agencies and stakeholders outsidegovernment had multiple, continuing opportunitiesto contribute to the research agenda and tocomment on the potential changes. The incrementalresearch and testing program (which includedsubstantial cognitive work) allowed for fullconsideration of alternatives, some of which cameinto view as the process unfolded.

333


492

46. The standards that ultimately were adopted,though not necessarily the first choice of someconstituencies, were well-received as a consequenceof the robust process that had been employed. Afour-year process is not always necessary, but thecritical components of the process need to becarried out: interagency involvement, research andtesting, and timely public comment.

VI. The Commerce Secretary rejected a less-costly and better-quality alternative thatthe Census Bureau proposed for produc-ing block level citizenship data.

47. Part IV of this affidavit discussed thestandards that apply to an agency’s request for aparticular data collection, including the require-ment that the request be supported by sufficientjustification to demonstrate the practical utility ofa collection, and the necessity of that collection toproperly perform a given agency function. I furtherdiscussed that insufficient information wasprovided in the Commerce Secretary’s March 2018memo for rejecting the Census Bureau’s opinionthat the information needed by the DOJ could beobtained through modeling of existing ACS data.

48. However, assume for the moment that suchevidence had been supplied by DOJ. In that event,the Census Bureau did develop a solution whichwould provide block-level data on citizenship, butwould not require adding a question on citizenship.Moreover, this option would, in the judgment of theCensus Bureau, be less costly and provide betterquality data than

334


493

* * *planning standard requires agencies to provide ajustification that includes, in part, the decisions thesurvey is designed to inform, the precision requiredof estimates (e.g., the size of differences that needto be detected), when and how frequently usersneed the data, and the tabulations and analyticresults that will inform decisions and other uses.The pretesting survey systems’ standard requiresagencies to ensure that all components of a surveyfunction as intended when implemented in the full-scale survey, and that measurement error is con-trolled by conducting a pretest of the surveycomponents.

57. Standards and guidelines for cognitiveinterviews issued by OMB similarly apply to federalcensuses and surveys. Cognitive interviewing is akey method used to pretest survey questions andquestionnaires that can indicate whether a surveyquestion captures the intended construct, andidentify difficulties that respondents experience inunderstanding and accurately answering proposedquestions.

58. In adding a question to a survey, the normalpractice is to test the question. This testing is doneto understand, inter alia, how the question will bereceived by different respondents (including responserates and quality of responses); what wording of thequestion performs best, and the question’s impacton other questions; and the correct placement of thequestion. These practices are part of the OMBstandards.

59. With respect to these OMB standards ondevelopment of questions, the administrative

335


494

record produced in this lawsuit shows that theCensus Bureau stated it needed to undertake arigorous process to evaluate proposed contentadditions to the decennial census. PX-004 (AR003890). This process includes several steps relatedto testing.

60. For example, the Census Bureau wrote thatit “must test the wording of the new question.” TheCensus Bureau stated that since “it is too late toadd a question to the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. . . additional testing on a smaller scale would needto be developed and implemented as soon aspossible. This test would also require approval fromOMB, which includes notifying the public andinviting comments through a Federal RegisterNotice (FRN).”

61. In addition, the Census Bureau wrote that it“must make additional operational adjustments,beyond testing, to include new content. Thisincludes re-designing the paper questionnaires andadjusting the paper data capture system. For allautomated data collection instruments (includingInternet self-response, Census Questionnaire Assis-tance, and Nonresponse Follow up), the additionalquestion will require system redevelopment, forEnglish and all supported non-English languages.In addition, the training for the enumerators andCensus Questionnaire Assistance agents will needredevelopment.”

62. The Census Bureau also explained that“[b]ased on the result of the testing, the CensusBureau must finalize the actual 2020 Census ques-tionnaires (paper and automated). The CensusBureau then must submit for OMB approval of the

336


495

2020 Census information collection. This submissionalso requires notifying the public and invitingcomments through a Federal Register Notice.”

63. This rigorous and “well-established process”is referenced repeatedly in the AdministrativeRecord and is consistent with OMB standards. PX-004 (AR 004773; AR 004874; AR 005512; AR005565; AR 005567).

64. In his March 26 memo, the Secretary, whileacknowledging the principle of testing, concludes:“[t]he Census Bureau staff have advised that thecosts of preparing and adding the question wouldbe minimal due in large part to the fact thatcitizenship question is already included on theACS, and thus the citizenship question has alreadyundergone the cognitive research and questionnairetesting required for new questions.” PX-001 (AR001313).

337


496


__________


__________


—v.—


Defendants.

__________

AFFIDAVIT OF KATHERINE HARVELL HANEY

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, KatherineHarvell Haney, do hereby depose and state thefollowing:

1. I am the Chief Financial Officer at theMassachusetts Executive Office of Health andHuman Services. I have served in this role for thelast eleven months. Previous to serving in this role,I spent ten years working in various financecapacities for Masshealth, the MA Department of

338


497

Elder Affairs and the MA department of MentalHealth. I also spent five years as the BudgetDirector for the Harvard T.H. Chan School ofPublic Health managing the school’s more than$120,000,000 annual federal grant expenditures.

2. I have either personal knowledge of thematters set forth below or, with respect to thosematters for which I do not have personal knowl-edge, I have reviewed information gathered for mein my capacity as Chief Financial Officer.

3. The Executive Office of Health and HumanServices (EOHHS) is the secretariat responsible forapproximately fifteen agencies that providebenefits and services to some of Massachusetts’most vulnerable citizens, including children,families, individuals with disabilities and elders.EOHHS works with the agencies within EOHHS toensure federal grant requirements such asreporting, state plan compliance and federal matchrequirements are met so that agencies may drawdown federal revenue to cover allowable grantexpenditures.

4. Many of the agencies within EOHHS rely onfederal grants to fund the services they provide tothese vulnerable populations. Many of these federalgrants use state population figures from the federaldecennial census to determine the amount offunding available under the grant The Departmentof Children and Families, the MassachusettsCommission for the Blind, the Department ofPublic Health, the Department of Mental Health,the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, andthe Executive Office of Elder Affairs togetherreceive fourteen different grants that consider statepopulation figures from the decennial census to

339


498

determine the amount of funding allocated to theCommonwealth.

5. For example, the Massachusetts RehabilitationCommission (MRC) and the Massachusetts Com-mission for the Blind (MCB) receive funding fromthe Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant (VRgrant). The VR grant provides funding to stateagencies that offer vocational rehabilitation (inMassachusetts, MRC and MCB are the agenciesthat receive VR grant funds) to pay for services forindividuals with disabilities to prepare for andengage in employment with the ultimate goal ofachieving economic self-sufficiency. The formula fordistributing VR grants to states and territories is tofirst allocate what the state or territory received infiscal year 1978. Of the remainder of the funds,one-half is distributed based upon states’ generalpopulation, as established by the decennial census,and a factor that compares the state’s per capitaincome to the national per capita income; the otherone-half is distributed according to the statepopulation, again drawn from decennial censusfigures, and the square of the per capita income.The larger a state’s population, the more funds itwill receive, but the higher a state’s per capitaincome compared to the national level, the lower itsallotment will be. In this way, an undercount oflow-income residents of a state would have aheightened impact on reducing VR grant fundingreceived by that state.

6. In State Fiscal Year 2018 (SFY18), Massa-chusetts received approximately $46 million in VRgrant funds. If Massachusetts’ share of the popula-tion relative to other states were to appear todecrease because of an undercount in the decennial

340


499

census, the formula used to distribute VR grantfunds to states would award less to Massachusetts.

7. Similarly, Community-Based Child AbusePrevention (CBCAP) Grants are given to state childwelfare agencies to support community-basedefforts to prevent child abuse and neglect. InSFY18, the Massachusetts Department of Childrenand Families received approximately $460,000 inCBCAP funding. Funds are distributed to statesbased on the number of children under age 18 ineach state, which figure is drawn from decennialcensus data. If the population of children under 18in Massachusetts were to appear to decreaserelative to other states because of an undercount inthe census, the formula used to distribute theCBCAP Grants would award less to Massachusetts.In this way, even if there is little to no net under-counting of the national population, if the Massa-chusetts population of children under 18 were to bedisproportionately undercounted as compared toother states, the Massachusetts’ percentage of allchildren under 18 in the nation would appear todecrease, and Massachusetts’ share of CBCAPgrants would also decrease.

8. Finally, the Older Americans Act (OAA)Grants for State and Community Programs onAging are given to state agencies designated as“State Units on Aging” and used to support thestate’s over 60 population to fund home andcommunity-based services, such as home-deliveredmeal and other nutrition programs, in-homeservices, transportation, legal services, elder abuseprevention and caregiver support. In SFY18, theExecutive Office of Elder Affairs receivedapproximately $26 million in OAA funding. Each

341


500

state receives OAA funds according to a formulabased on the state’s share of the national popula-tion of seniors, age 60 and older, as assessed by thedecennial census. If the population of 60 and olderresidents in Massachusetts were to appear todecrease relative to other states’ populations ofresidents aged 60 and older because of an under-count in the decennial census, the formula used todistribute OAA funds to states would award less toMassachusetts.

9. If there is an undercount of eligible popula-tions in Massachusetts as compared to other states,Massachusetts would receive less funding eventhough the actual number of individuals in theeligible populations has not decreased.I declare under penalty of perjury that the fore-going is true and correct. Executed on October 24, 2018.

/s/Katherine Harvell Haney Chief Financial OfficerExecutive Office of Health and Human ServicesCommonwealth of Massachusetts

342


501


__________

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-2921 (JMF)

__________


—v.—


Defendants.

__________

AFFIDAVIT OF JASON HARMONPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I, JASON

HARMON, hereby declare as follows:1. I am over the age of eighteen and have

personal knowledge of all the facts stated herein.2. I am the Director of the Office of the Every

Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”) Funded Programsat the New York State Education Department(“NYSED”) and have been employed by NYSEDsince 2013. Part of my work includes overseeingthe federally-funded programs described below.

343

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX part: 64 NP 5:40 3/24/19

502

3. My office administers approximately $1.4billion in federally funded ESSA Programs toLocal Education Agencies (“LEAs”), Boards ofCooperative Educational Services (“BOCES”), andInstitutions of Higher Learning (“IHL”) across theState each year, and is responsible for monitoringthe programmatic and fiscal components for eachof the federally funded programs identified below:

o Title I, Part A - Improving basic programsoperated by LEAs;

o Title I, Part C - Education of migratorychildren;

o Title I, Part D - Prevention andintervention programs for children andyouth who are neglected, delinquent, or at-risk;

o Title I - School Improvement Grants(“SIG”)

o Title II, Part A - Supporting effectiveinstruction;

o Title IV Part A - Student Support andAcademic Enrichment Grants;

o Title V, Part B - Rural education; ando Title IX - McKinney-Vento Homeless

Assistance Act.4. Many of the ESSA funded programs utilize

formulas that directly rely on the populationcounts for children living in poverty (“childrencounts”) from the federal Census Bureau. Anydecline in the number of children in these countswould have a significant impact on not only Stateresources, but on the ability of school districts andcharter schools to serve their administrators,

344


503

teachers and more importantly, the students ofthis State.

5. For example, Title I, Part A funds of theElementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),as amended by ESSA, are used to providefinancial assistance to LEAs and schools with highnumbers or high percentages of chi ldren inpoverty to help ensure that all children meetchallenging state academic standards. The ESSAstatute requires the U.S. Department of Education(“USDOE”) to calculate Title I allocations basedon four formulas: Basic Grants, ConcentrationGrants, Targeted Grants, and Education FinanceIncentive Grants (“EFIG”) to LEAs. Each of thesegrants directly utilizes the definition of “formulachildren” to determine each LEA’s allocation. Thedefinit ion of formula chi ldren is based onannually-updated poverty estimates by the federalCensus Bureau and this count affects the amountof funds an eligible LEA receives under eachformula.

6. For the basic grants formula, an LEA iseligible for funds if the LEA has at least 10formula children and that number exceeds twopercent of the Census Bureau’s estimate of theLEA’s ages 5 to 17 population. An LEA is eligiblefor concentration grants, if the LEA meets thebasic grant’s eligibility formula and if its numberof formula children exceeds 6,500 or 15 percent ofthe Census Bureau’s estimate of the LEA’s ages 5to 17 population. An LEA is eligible for TargetedGrants and EFIG if the LEA has at least 10formula children and that number equals or

345


504

exceeds f ive percent of the Census Bureau’sestimate of the LEA’s ages 5 to 17 population.

7. New York State’s 2017-2018 Title I, Part Aallocation was $1,208,000,088 and its 2018-2019allocation is $1,213,935,615.

8. Title I, Part A funds are used by LEAs foracademic support for at-risk students, including,but not limited to: academic intervention services(AIS) and response to intervention (RTI) servicesprovided by certi f ied teachers and teachingassistants; counseling, school-based mental healthprograms, special ized instructional supportservices, mentoring services supported by schoolcounselors, social workers, and other supportpersonnel; prekindergarten programs; summerand extended day programs; professionaldevelopment for teachers, teaching assistants, andother school personnel; and equitable services tostudents in participating private schools.

9. These programs and services for at-riskstudents would be directly and substantiallyimpacted by any decrease in the count of “formulachildren” and the resulting decrease in Title I,Part A funds. For example, a decrease in the countof “formula children” as small as 0.02 percentcould cause an LEA to lose funding under theTargeted Grants and EFIG. Among LEAs that lostfunding under those two programs in the 2018-2019 school year, the average decrease was nearly40 percent of Title I, Part A funding compared tothe previous year. For one LEA, a decrease of 1.54percent in the count of “formula children” resultedin a loss of nearly $300,000 in Title I, Part Afunding in a single year. For an LEA with an

346


505

average teacher salary of $50,000 when budgeting,losing $300,000 translates into a loss ofapproximately 6 ful l t ime academic supportteachers, and potentially threatens hundreds ofstudents with a reduction in services.

10. Tit le II , Part A funds from ESEA, asamended by ESSA, are also directly reliant onpoverty counts from the federal Census Bureaudata. There is a two-step allocation process forTit le II , Part A funds. First , the USDOEcalculates an SEA apportionment, using the mostrecent federal Census Bureau data. For FiscalYear (FY) 2017, the amount of funds allocated toeach state was based on the following:

• 35 percent according to each State ’spopulation of children ages 5 through 17relative to the number of these children in allStates; and

• 65 percent according to each State’s relativenumbers of individuals ages 5 through 17from families with incomes below the povertyline relative to the number of these childrenin all States.

11. Beginning in f iscal year 2018, newpercentages have been phased in. The share ofexcess funds allocated on the basis of a State’srelative number of children ages 5 through 17from families with incomes below the poverty lineincreases and the share allocated on the basis of aState’s relative number of children ages 5 through17 decreases, as follows:

347


506

12. After required reserves for subgrants toel igible LEAs and al lowable reserves foradministration and state-level activities, the SEA,then distributes funds to LEAs based solely on thefollowing formula:

• 20 percent of the funds must be distributedto LEAs based on the relative numbers ofindividuals ages 5 through 17 who reside inthe area the LEA serves (based on the mostrecent Census data, as determined by theSecretary); and

348


Fiscal Year Percentage basedon population

ages 5 - 17

Percentage basedon populationages 5 - 17 in

poverty

FY 2017 35 65

FY 2018 30 70

FY 2019 25 75

FY 2020andsubsequentyears

28 80

507

• 80 percent of the funds must be distributedto LEAs based on the relative numbers ofindividuals ages 5 through 17 who reside inthe area the LEA serves and who are fromfamilies with incomes below the poverty line(based on the most recent Census data, asdetermined by the Secretary) (ESEA section2102(a)).

13. Both funding formulas directly rely onpopulation counts from the federal CensusBureau. If the population counts for childrenunder the Census Bureau were to decline, thiswould have a negative direct impact on not onlystatewide activities supported by the New YorkState Education Department, but on the nearly1,000 school districts and charter schools acrossNew York State.

14. New York State’s 2017-2018 Title II, Part Aallocation was $166,390,917 and its 2018-2019allocation is $157,360,601.

15. Specifically, a decrease in Title I, Part Aand Title II, Part A funds would immediatelyreduce the amount of available administrativefunds used to support State- level programactivities. Such a reduction would immediatelyand substantially diminish NYSED’s capacity to:assist schools, districts, charter schools, andprivate schools with basic program implementa-tion; develop tools and resources such as technicalassistance aids, guidance materials, and othersupports ; and conduct ef fect ive compliancemonitoring based on established risk protocols. Adecrease in Title II, Part A funds would also

349


508

drastically reduce the State’s capacity to provideguidance and resources on the Next GenerationLearning Standards; to train teachers in lowperforming schools on how to develop curriculummaterials aligned to such standards; and to ensurethat teachers properly prepared on these newstandards and appropriately qualified to teach lowincome students. These supports and training arenecessary to ensure that low income students willhave consistent or equitable access to effectiveeducators and properly trained and ski l ledteachers as compared to their peers from lower-needs communities across the state.

16. Beyond the negative impacts describedabove, decreases in Title I, Part A funding as theresult of a decline in population counts used in thefederal Census Bureau data would also have adisproportionately negative impact on the lowestperforming schools and districts in the state.Under Section 1003 of ESSA, 7 percent of Title Ifunds must be set-aside annually for the purposesof School Improvement. School ImprovementGrants are funds that are set aside specifically forthe lowest achieving schools , that have thegreatest need for funding and who demonstratethe strongest commitment to ensuring funds areused to improve the academic achievement of thelowest performing students in these schools. Lowperforming LEAs use School Improvement fundshelp implement critical supports, services, andevidence-based interventions detailed in schooland district-level improvement plans that areinformed by a state-required review process.Funds to support improvement plans are

350


509

primarily targeted at addressing (1) the specificacademic, social-emotional, and safety needs ofstudents, (2) the professional development needsof teachers and (3) effectively engaging parentsand families.

17. An LEA’s funding allocation for Title IV,Part A of ESSA is also contingent upon the LEA’sfunding allocation provided under Title I, Part A,which as described in paragraph 5 above, isdirectly reliant on the population counts of thefederal Census Bureau. As a result, if an LEA’sTitle I allocation decreases as a result of a declinein child poverty counts, its Title IV, Part Aallocation will also decrease. Title IV, Part Afunding is used to support wel l -roundededucational programs such as college and careercounseling, STEM education, arts, civics andadvanced programs such as InternationalBaccalaureate/Advanced Placement; safe andhealthy school programs including school climatesurveys, comprehensive school mental health,drug and violence prevention, training on trauma-informed practices, and health and physicaleducation; and to support the effective use oftechnology. These services may be at risk with anydecrease in funding.

I declare under penalty of perjury that, to thebest of my knowledge, the foregoing is true andcorrect.Executed on this 23rd day of October, 2018

/s/ JASON HARMON

351


510


__________


__________


NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION, et al.,Consolidated Plaintiffs,

—v.—


Defendants.

__________

DECLARATION OF SAMER E. KHALAF

I, Samer E. Khalaf, pursuant to the provisionsof 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct:

1. I am the National President of theAmerican-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee(“ADC”) and ADC Research Institute (“ADCRI”).

352


511

My responsibilities include overseeing all of thework of both organizations, and leading our effortsregarding the 2020 Decennial Census.

2. Based on my knowledge as a leader in theArab-American community, ADC and ADCRI’scommunity outreach work, and my interactionswith individual ADC members, I believe theaddition of a citizenship question to the 2020Decennial Census short-form questionnaire willdeter participation of many individuals in theArab-American community and result in adisproportionate undercount of Arab Americans.As a result of the decision to add this question,ADC and ADCRI have diverted and will continueto be required to divert resources from coreorganizational priorities to additional, remedialoutreach to counteract the citizenship question’snegative effect on Census response rates in ourcommunity.

3. This undercount will also injure many ADCmembers, many of whom live in areas of theUnited States in which immigrants of color andother communities of color exceed national andstate averages. Specifically, they will be harmedbecause the disproportionate undercount that willresult from the citizenship question amongimmigrants of color will diminish their politicalpower relative to other parts of their states aswell as the amount of Census-related fundingthose areas receive for key programs, services, andfacilities that our members and their communitiesuse.

353


512

I. Background on ADC and ADCRI

A. ADC and ADCRl’s Mission andActivities

4. Senator James G. Abourezk founded ADC in1980. As the first Arab American to serve in theUnited States Senate, Abourezk founded ADC inresponse to stereotyping, defamation, anddiscrimination directed against Americans of Araborigin.

5. In 1981, Senator Abourezk founded ADCRI.It is a corporation exempt from taxation underSection 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.The Institute sponsors a wide range of programson behalf of Arab Americans and of consequence tothe wider American community.

6. ADC is a civil rights membershiporganization that is committed to defending andpromoting the rights and liberties of ArabAmericans and other persons of Arab heritage. Infact, ADC is the largest American-Arab grassrootscivil rights organization in the United States.

7. ADC’s mission focuses on combatingstereotypes and discrimination against andaffecting the Arab-American community in theUnited States and serving as its public voice foron domestic and foreign policy issues, as well aseducating the American public in order to promotegreater understanding of Arab history andculture. ADC advocates, educates, and organizesto defend and promote human rights and civilliberties of Arab Americans and other persons of

354


513

Arab heritage, from recent immigrants to citizensborn in the United States.

8. ADC has several thousand members whoreside in all 50 states and the District ofColumbia. Many of these members are active inADC’s 28 local chapters, which are located in 20states and the District of Columbia. These includeactive chapters with members leading localefforts, including in Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona;Los Angeles and Orange County, California;Miami and Orlando, Florida; New York, NewYork; and Austin and Dallas, Texas.

9. ADC focuses its legal advocacy efforts onissues that have a large impact on the ArabAmerican community, which includes employmentdiscrimination, education discrimination, andimmigration. The Legal Department hascontinued its efforts to work with establishedcoalitions and build new partnerships with otherminority groups on issues of mutual interest.Furthermore, the Legal Department maintains astrong relationship with government agencies toensure that the diverse voices of the ArabAmerican community are heard by key decision-makers in American government.

10. ADCRI’s programs train Arab Americans inthe exercise of their constitutional rights ascitizens. They include research studies andpublications, seminars, and conferences, whichdocument and analyze the discrimination faced byArab Americans in the workplace, schools, mediaand government agencies. They also promote abetter understanding of the rich Arab cultural

355


514

heritage by the public, policy makers, and the newgenerations of Arab Americans.

11. A major activity of ADCRI is the AnthonyShadid Internship Program, which annuallybrings undergraduate, graduate, and law studentsto Washington for hands-on experience in theNation’s capital. The program provides them theopportunity to learn about issues confronting ArabAmericans, to develop effective leadership skills,to gain experience in research and writing, and todevelop greater knowledge and understanding ofthe complexities of the U.S. government and ourpolitical process.

12. ADCRI programs include the publicationand distribution of educational materials to ArabAmericans, educators, academic institutions,policy makers, and the public at large. TheInstitute has in the past and will continue tofoster intergroup harmony in American society,the entry of Arab Americans into the mainstreamof American life and leadership, and the abolitionof prejudice, stereotyping, defamation, hatecrimes, and violence directed at the ArabAmerican and Muslim communities.

B. ADC and ADCRI’s History of Census-Related Work

13. ADC and ADCRI have an ongoingcommitment to promoting engagement in theDecennial Census among its members andconstituents. Since the 1980s, ADC has served innumerous capacities on the Census Bureauadvisory committees. In 2000, ADC reinvigoratedits census campaign and policy initiatives, actively

356


515

educating Arab Americans and other minoritypopulations about the importance of the censusand mobilizing participation and outreach events.In 2008, ADC actively worked with the CensusBureau to identify classification concerns of ArabAmericans on the United States census.

14. In the months leading up to and during the2010 Decennial Census, ADC and ADCRIconducted outreach and engagement work withthe Arab-American community concerning censusengagement. That work consisted of creatingmessaging about participating in the DecennialCensus that was focused on the Arab-Americancommunity including launching a nationalcampaign advocating for the completion of censusforms and holding outreach events to counterconcerns of sharing of information withgovernment and law enforcement agencies. ADCand ADCRI also engaged in efforts to “get out thecount” in that community as well, includinghosting town halls and symposiums in select citiesacross the country. ADC and ADCRI also producedand published material for distribution whichencouraged participation in the 2010 Census andhighlighted its importance. ADC also served onthe U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census AdvisoryCommittee.II. Organizational Harm to ADC and ADCRI

as a Result of the Citizenship Question15. Because of the importance of having Arab

Americans accurately counted in the 2020decennial census, ADC and ADCRI had alreadybegun preparations for outreach to the Arab-American community before the announcement of

357


516

a citizenship question. Specifically, in 2017, ADCand ADCRI had begun focusing on educatingcommunity members about the Decennial Censusand its importance. The announcement in lateMarch 2018 that the 2020 Decennial Censuswould include a citizenship question, however,changed the plans of both ADC and ADCRI.

16. As described below, the decision stoked andcontinues to stoke tremendous fear in the Arab-American community and threatens to lowerresponse rates and increase the undercount of ourcommunity. As a result, this decision has harmedpart of ADC and ADCRI’s organizational missionsand forced them to divert resources from otherprogrammatic attempts to ameliorate some of thecitizenship question’s impact.

A. Fear in the Arab-American CommunityDue to the Citizenship Question and itsImpact

17. For a number of reasons, the Arab-Americancommunity has traditionally been significantlyundercounted in the decennial census. Because ofthis, before the announcement of the citizenshipquestion, ADC and ADCRI already saw a need toconduct census outreach. Additionally, someoutreach was already planned because of ADCmembers’ and the Arab-American community’sheightened fear of interacting with governmentworkers due in part to the TrumpAdministration’s persistently hostile anddiscriminatory actions and attitudes towards ArabAmericans, Muslim Americans, and immigrants ofcolor generally.

358


517

18. Those fears, however, and the risk of aneven greater undercount in the Arab-Americancommunity, have already been greatlyexacerbated by the Administration’sannouncement that it will add a citizenshipquestion and will be further exacerbated if thecitizenship question is ultimately included in the2020 Census. This fear is not unique toundocumented immigrants or non-citizens withdocumented legal status, but also to family andhousehold members of non-citizens and theirfriends and neighbors, who have expressedconcern that participating in the Census mightendanger their loved ones.

19. Specifically, I know based on interactionswith ADC members and people in the communitiesthey serve that some Arab Americans would befearful of responding and may not respond to theCensus questionnaire if the citizenship question isadded. ADC hosted different town hall eventsthroughout the country, and Census 2020 wascovered. I learned from those sessions that manycommunity members fear the addition of thecitizenship question and are unwilling toparticipate in the 2020 Census out of the fearderiving from the citizenship question.

20. For example, even in Dearborn, Michigan,which has the highest concentration of ArabAmericans in the United States, many communitymembers fear responding to the Decennial Censusbecause of the existence of the citizenshipquestion and the improper purposes for whichthey believe it might be used against them andtheir neighbors. Even with outreach from ADC

359


518

and active leaders in the organization such asAmer Zahr in Dearborn, many in that communityare not able to be persuaded to participate in the2020 Census largely because of the citizenshipquestion. From ADC events held at a number oflocations throughout the country; interactionswith individual ADC members; our various “KnowYour Rights” seminars in several locationsincluding Dearborn, Buffalo, Queens, Brooklyn,and Minnesota; and information gained at our2018 National Convention, I am aware of similarconcerns among community members in NewYork, Texas, Michigan, and California.

21. Specifically, Arab American communitiesfear that the citizenship question will causecommunity targeting by ICE and DHS.Community members fear that the citizenshipcensus data would be utilized for deportation andgovernment surveillance purposes. Similarly tohow the Census Bureau utilized its data to helpthe government round up Japanese Americansinto internment camps during World War II, ArabAmericans fear that the Census Bureau wouldreport areas with high concentrations ofnoncitizen Arab Americans to the government forthe purposes of deportation, censorship, andsurveillance. In areas like Dearborn or OrangeCounty, California, which contain highconcentrations of Arab Americans, there is a fearthat the citizenship question would lead toirreversible DHS targeting of the community.

22. After meeting with community membersacross the country, it is clear that—due insignificant part to the citizenship question and the

360


519

context in which this Administration added it—the community fears that census participation willresult in loss of citizenship, revocation of LPRstatus, or the broadening of PresidentialProclamation 9645, which implemented the travelban on several Arab- and Muslim-majoritycountries. The community is hesitant toparticipate in the Census due to the citizenshipquestion and the possible effects it can have onthe immigration status of individuals, families,friends, and other community members.

B. Harm to ADC and ADCRI from theCitizenship Question

23. The fear and likelihood of higher non-participation in the Decennial Census by ArabAmericans due to the announcement of thecitizenship question and the ultimate presence ofthe question on the Decennial Censusquestionnaire has harmed the ability of ADC andADCRI to carry out key aspects of their missions.It has also forced them to divert resources fromother programmatic areas to try to encourageArab Americans to participate.

24. Despite these efforts, ADC is already facinga much more challenging environment forconducting outreach and encouraging ArabAmericans, both citizens and noncitizens, torespond to the 2020 Census than the 2010 Census.Because of the heightened fear and suspicioncreated by the citizenship question, ADC hasrecognized the need to expand upon the census-related services, programming, and support it hadalready to try to reduce the negative effect of this

361


520

question on the response rate in the Arab-American community.

25. The citizenship question has posed greaterchallenges for ADC and ADCRI to engage with theArab American community on Census 2020related matters. In 2010, and prior Censusoutreach efforts, ADC and ADCRI found it easierto work with the community on pushing theimportance of Census participation. Thecitizenship question adds a new dynamic of fearand uncertainty. Additional outreach, meetings,and informational sessions are being planned andimplemented in an effort to answer questions andaddress concerns. This year, ADC and ADCRI willhold focus groups to test messaging aboutDecennial Census participation and will follow upwith polling afterwards. As the Decennial Censusdraws nearer, ADC and ADCRI will conducttraining for census enumerators, run advertise-ments encouraging participation, and hold astrategy symposium, among other activities. ADCand ADCRI will also host community symposiumsacross the country in an effort to address concernsand answer questions. In addition, ADC andADCRI will be working with coalition partners onissues of mutual concern relating to the 2020Census, including the citizenship question.

26. Specifically, ADC and ADCRI have putadditional resources toward a number of census-related efforts in large part because of the need totry to counteract the expected effects of thecitizenship question on Arab Americans. As oneexample, on October 12, 2018, as part of itsannual National Convention, ADC hosted a paneltitled: “We Count Too! A Look at the 2020

362


521

Census.” See PX-251.30. One of the primarypurposes of, and topics covered during, that Panelwas the addition of the citizenship question to theDecennial census form. In addition to offeringtheir own thoughts about the citizenship question,the three panelists fielded questions from ADCmembers in the audience that reflected fears andconcerns about the role of this question on thecensus.

27. ADC and ADCRI have also put an increasedamount of time and effort into work with membersof multiple coalitions to address the likely impactof the citizenship question, including theLeadership Conference on Civil and HumanRights and the Funders’ Committee for CivicParticipation’s Census Initiative 2020. This workincludes advocacy on Capitol Hill, with the CensusDepartment, Commerce Department, and theOffice of Management and Budget. Additionally,we have worked to put together new strategies toeducate and communicate with our community.

28. ADC and ADCRI expects that they will needto interact with its constituents multiple times toanswer questions and try to convince them toparticipate in the 2020 census, spending moreresources to reach the same number of people.Despite this, they expect that it will be lesssuccessful in convincing its constituents toparticipate in the 2020 Census than in 2010 duein large part to the presence of the citizenshipquestion. Collectively, ADC and ADCRI anticipatespending at least $150,000 more on 2020 Censuseducation and outreach that the organizationspent on its efforts to encourage participation in

363


522

the 2010 Census as a result largely of thepresence of the citizenship question.

29. Because of the need to increase the time andmoney spent on Census outreach due to theaddition of the citizenship question, ADC andADCRI will need to divert resources from otherareas critical to its mission including organizing,issue advocacy efforts and educational initiatives.ADC and ADCRI have already diverted resourcesfrom these other areas in order to addressconcerns from their constituents stemming fromthe announcement of the citizenship question. Asthe largest Department in ADC, resources will bediverted from legal work to Census relatedmatters. The diverting of resources means ADCwill have less money to use towards assistingvictims of hate crimes, and providing pro bonolegal services. The ADC Legal Department is probono, thus the resources committed to thedepartment are essential in providing services tocommunity members across the country.III. Associational Harm to ADC through

Harm to its Members as a Result of the Citizenship Question

30. ADC has members in all 50 states plusWashington, DC, as well as a national network ofchapters.

31. ADC has a national network of chapterswith members in all 50 states. PX-252. ADC hasBoard of Directors, most of whom membershipelects, and all of whom are also ADC members andrepresent a cross-section of the United States,including: Los Angeles County, California (Dr.

364


523

Souhail Toubia and Dr. Diane Shammas); SanDiego, California (George Majeed Khoury);Brooklyn, New York (Dr. Debbie AlMontaser);Miami, Florida (Shatha Atiya); Washington, DC(Dr. Safa Rifka and Dr. Doo’a Taha); and Wayne,New Jersey (Abed Awad), among other cities andstates. PX-253.6.

32. ADC also has 28 local chapters, which arelocated in 20 states and the District of Columbia.These include active chapters with membersleading local efforts, including in Tucson andPhoenix, Arizona, Los Angeles and OrangeCounty, California, Miami and Orlando, Florida,New York, New York, and Austin and Dallas,Texas.

33. For example, ADC member and Austin,Texas chapter President Ahmad Zamer has helpedreinvigorate the Austin Chapter in recent years.In 2016 and 2017, the Austin chapter held anumber of events, including a “know your rights”event, film screening, gala, and Iftar dinner forAustin’s Arab, Muslim, and Latino communities.PX-251.38, 39. Similarly, ADC has several activeCalifornia chapters with dozens of members. TheOrange County and San Diego chapters hosted anumber of events, including a refugee empower-ment event, a letter-writing event, and amemorial banquet. PX-251.38, 40.

34. These documents, as well as my personalknowledge, establish that ADC has members in allfifty states plus the District of Columbia. I havepersonal knowledge of each of these documentsand attest to their authenticity.

365


524

35. Many of ADC’s dues-paying members residein states and localities in which the percentage ofimmigrants of color exceeds state and nationalaverages. This includes: 172 in Arizona; 1,441 inCalifornia; 1,296 in D.C.; 551 in Florida; 437 inIllinois; 612 in Maryland; 819 in New York; 341 inOhio; 1,341 in Pennsylvania; 30 in Rhode Island;408 in Texas; and 186 in Washington State. Interms of local communities, ADC has members incommunities with large concentrations of Arab-Americans such as Wayne County, Michigan, andOrange County, California, as well ascommunities with large Latino and noncitizenpopulations, including New York, New York, LosAngeles County, California, Houston, Texas,Miami, Florida, Prince George’s County,Maryland, Phoenix, Arizona, and Chicago, Illinois.A disproportionate undercount of thosepopulations will deprive ADC members in thosestates and communities of political power bydiluting the amount of state and congressionalrepresentatives to their areas.

36. ADC members across the nation rely on anumber of facilities and services whose fundingallocation relates to population and demographicdata derived from the Decennial Census includingparents with children enrolled in schools thatreceive funding under Title I of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act and drivers who useinterstate highways and mass transit on a dailybasis and thus depend on federal funds to performtheir jobs.

366


525

I declare under penalty of perjury that theforegoing is true and correct.

Executed: October 26, 2018Washington, DC

/s/ Samer E. Khalaf

367


526


__________


__________


—v.—

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFCOMMERCE., et al.,

Defendants.

__________

AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTINE PIERCE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I, ChristinePierce, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and havepersonal knowledge of all the facts stated herein.

2. I am the Senior Vice President of DataScience for The Nielsen Company (US) LLC(‘‘Nielsen”). I am a social scientist by training andworked as a demographer for Nielsen prior to my

368

78228 • ACLU • APPENDIX part:66 NP 4:51 3/24/19

527

current role leading a team of scientists whosupport Nielsen’s audience measurementproducts. I earned a Master of Public Policy fromthe University of Minnesota and a graduatecertificate in Applied Statistics from PennsylvaniaState University. I frequently represent Nielsen atresearch conferences and have authored papersand presentations for the American Association ofPublic Opinion Research, the AdvertisingResearch Foundation, and the PopulationAssociation of America. In the fall of 2018, theNew York State Office of the Attorney Generalrequested that I submit a voluntary affidavit inthis case describing my communications with theDepartment of Commerce in lieu of potentiallyreceiving a trial subpoena.

3. I am submitting this affidavit in order toensure that the record accurately reflects mycommunications with the Department ofCommerce.

4. In the spring of 2018, Nielsen received arequest from an assistant to Secretary Rossasking to set up a meeting with someone atNielsen who is familiar with Nielsen’s use ofCensus data. At the time, I was under theimpression that the phone call would be to discussthe importance of the Census generally, the needfor Nielsen and its commercial clients to have ascomplete and accurate a count as possible, and toadvocate for full funding for Census operations.Nielsen’s SVP Community Engagement (DonLowery) received this request. When Don Lowerysent the email connecting me to the Secretary’soffice he included a statement that said “Christine

369


528

looks forward to speaking to the Secretaryregarding the importance of the 2020 Census toNielsen.” See PX-532 (a true and accurate copy ofemail communications with Department ofCommerce).

5. Prior to the phone call, Brian Lenihan fromSecretary Ross’s staff asked me via email for a“copy of my biography (paragraph) along with adescription of Data Science/Nielsen and howCensus data comes into play.” I indicated that“For Nielsen, these public data sources such asthe Decennial Census and ACS serve a crucial rolein planning samples and consumer panels.Accurate population estimates enhances thesample design and ensures the most accuratecoverage of households and persons with variousdemographic characteristics. Additionally, thesepublic data sources are used to adjust theunweighted input to reflect the entire population.”See id.

6. I exchanged several emails with the staffregarding the date/time for the call. The staff didnot mention the citizenship question in any ofthese emails. Other than the aforementionedbiography and description, Secretary Ross’s staffdid not ask me to provide any other documents ordata nor did I provide any other data ordocuments to the Department of Commerce inSpring 2018.

7. On the evening of March 23, 2018, I had atelephone call with Secretary Ross and MichaelWalsh, a lawyer from the Commerce Department.This telephone call lasted approximately 10-20minutes. This was the only time that I spoke with

370


529

Secretary Ross. I understand that three days afterour conversation, Secretary Ross wrote a memo inwhich he discussed our conversation (the “RossMemo”).

8. Prior to speaking to the Secretary, I was notaware that the citizenship question was going tobe a topic of conversation. However, itimmediately became apparent that the citizenshipquestion was the only topic of conversation.Secretary Ross and Mr. Walsh told me that theyneeded to make a recommendation about whetherto include a citizenship question on the DecennialCensus and were reaching out to experts andstakeholders to gather information.

9. During this conversation, I told SecretaryRoss unequivocally that I was concerned that acitizenship question would negatively impact self-response rates. I explained that people are lesslikely to respond to a survey that containssensitive questions. I also added that increasingthe length of a survey can reduce response rates.I discussed the impact that lower response rateshave on survey costs. I emphasized that Censusnon-response follow up operations are expensivebecause they require a full count and non-response follow up operations for the DecennialCensus include in-person data collection.

10. The Ross Memo states that I “confirmedthat, to the best of [my] knowledge, no empiricaldata existed on the impact of a citizenshipquestion on responses.” (Ross Memo at 3). I didnot say “to the best of [my] knowledge noempirical data existed on the impact of acitizenship question on responses.” I did discuss

371


530

the importance of testing questions to understandany impacts to response and I explained that alack of testing could lead to poor survey results. Iconfirmed that I was not aware of any such test ofa citizenship question by the Census Bureau. Icannot and did not attempt to quantify the extentof the reduction in self response.

11. During our conversation, Secretary Rossand Mr. Walsh asked me if Nielsen asked anysensitive questions. I told them that Nielsen doesnot ask about citizenship status on its surveys butthat we do have surveys that occasionally includesensitive questions.

12. The Ross Memo explains that Nielsen“stated that it had added questions from the ACSon sensitive topics” including “immigration statusto certain short survey forms without anyappreciable decrease in response rates.” (RossMemo at 3). I did not state that Nielsen had added“questions concerning immigration status to shortsurvey forms without any appreciable decrease inresponse rates.”

13. I did explain to Secretary Ross and Mr.Walsh that Nielsen does ask certain questionsfrom the ACS in our surveys and of our panelists,including place of birth and year of entry to theUnited States. I stressed the importance ofspecifically testing changes to questionnaires andthat Nielsen had done such testing specificallybecause we anticipated these sensitive questionscould have a negative impact on response rates. Idid confirm that these place of birth and year ofentry questions had not caused a significantdecline in response rates on Nielsen surveys or in

372


531

our panels. But I did not suggest that SecretaryRoss could draw parallels between the surveysconducted by Nielsen and the Decennial Census.

14. Nielsen’s survey and panel operations areentirely different from the Decennial Censusoperations. Nielsen surveys are not conducted bya government agency and are not required by law.Nielsen studies are intended to understandconsumer purchases and media usage. Responserates to the Nielsen surveys and panels in mypurview generally range from 5% to 40%. Ifindividuals do not answer a Nielsen survey ordecline to participate in a panel, Nielsen willselect and recruit different respondents to ensurewe have the desired reporting sample size. Whilewe strive for an accurate representation of thepopulation, we are not required to count allpeople. And unlike the Census, Nielsen providesincentives — usually cash — for filling out oursurveys.

15. To my knowledge, the Department ofCommerce has not asked for any documentsrelated to Nielsen’s survey work or questionnairetesting. To my knowledge, no one else at Nielsenhas been asked for, or provided, any additionaldata, documents, or surveys to the Department ofCommerce in response to the discussions aroundthe citizenship question.

16. I have reviewed a copy of the CommerceDepartment’s notes of my March 23, 2018conversation, marked as page 1276 in theAdministrative Record (“AR 1276”) for this case.

373


532

17. AR 1276 states that “Ms. Pierce stated thatincluding a question on citizenship could makepeople less likely to respond, but that there is nodata to predict how much lower the response ratemight be.” I do not recall making this statementas worded here. Any statement like this wouldhave been in the context of stressing theimportance of conducting specific tests for thepurpose of predicting the response rates. Addinga citizenship question to the Decennial Censusintroduces risk specifically because the impactshave not been tested.

18. AR 1276 states that I “noted that in the onlyspecific situation she was aware of that sensitivequestions were tested on a short questionnaire,there was no impact on response rates.” I did notstate that “in the only specific situation that I wasaware of that sensitive questions were tested on ashort questionnaire, that there was no impact onresponse rates.” However, I did discuss Nielsen’suse of certain ACS questions and how Nielsen hastested those questions specifically to understandany impact to response. I did not provide anywritten reports with testing results nor did Iprovide Nielsen data in an attempt to estimate theimpact of adding a citizenship question to theDecennial Census.Executed on October 25, 2018.

/s/ Christine Pierce

374


533

375



__________


__________

NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION, CASA DE MARYLAND, AMERICAN-ARAB

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE, ADC RESEARCH INSTITUTE, and

MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK,Plaintiffs,

—v.—

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFCOMMERCE; and WILBUR L. ROSS, JR., in his

official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, andBUREAU OF THE CENSUS, an agency within the

United States Department of Commerce; and RONS. JARMIN, in his capacity as performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Director of

the U.S. Census Bureau,Defendants.

__________

534

DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH PLUM

Elizabeth Plum, pursuant to the provisions of 28U.S.C. § 1746, declares under penalty of perjuryas follows:1. I am the Vice-President of Policy for Plaintiffthe New York Immigration Coalition (“NYIC”). Inthat capacity, I am responsible in part for NYIC’seducation and outreach efforts around the 2020Census. I am also one of the NYIC executivesresponsible for the organization’s budgeting,fundraising, and policy priorities. I have been onstaff at NYIC for over five years.2. NYIC is an umbrella policy and advocacyorganization for nearly 200 groups in New YorkState, representing the collective interests of NewYork’s diverse immigrant communities andorganizations. NYIC is headquartered at 131 West33rd St, New York, NY 10001.3. NYIC’s mission is to unite immigrants,members, and allies so that all New Yorkers canthrive. NYIC envisions a New York State that isstronger because all people are welcome, treatedfairly, and given the chance to pursue theirdreams. NYIC pursues solutions to advance theinterests of New York’s diverse immigrantcommunities and advocates for laws, policies, andprograms that lead to justice and opportunity forall immigrant groups. It seeks to build the powerof immigrants and the organizations that servethem to ensure their sustainability, improvepeople’s lives, and strengthen New York State.

376


535

4. NYIC’s nearly 200 members are dues-payingnonprofit organizations that are committed toadvancing work on immigrant justice,empowerment, and integration. NYIC’s memberorganizations—located throughout New YorkState and beyond—all share NYIC’s mission toserve and empower immigrant communities.NYIC’s members include grassroots communitygroups; social services providers; large-scale laborand academic institutions; and organizationsworking in economic, social, and racial justice.Representatives of NYIC’s member organizationsserve on the NYIC Board of Directors.5. Many of NYIC’s member organizations receivefunding from a variety of local, state, and federalgovernment sources to carry out social service,health, and education programs. Many of theprograms from which NYIC member organizationsreceive money allocate funding based onpopulation and demographic data generated bythe Decennial Census. Among other Census-guided programs, NYIC member organizationsreceive funding through the Medical AssistanceProgram, also known as Medicaid; the SpecialSupplemental Nutrition Program for Women,Infants, and Children; the State Children’s HealthInsurance Program; programs authorized underthe Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act;English Language Acquisition Grants; theCorporation for Community & National Service ,which operates the AmeriCorps program; andformula grants authorized by the Violence AgainstWomen Act.

377


536

6. For example, several NYIC members,including Chhaya Community DevelopmentCorporation (“Chhaya’’), receive funding throughthe Community Development Block Grantprogram.7. For another example, NYIC members FamilyHealth Centers at NYU Langone, Little Sisters ofthe Assumption Family Health Services (“LSA”),Korean Community Services of Metropolitan NewYork, and Planned Parenthood of New York Cityreceive funding through Medicaid to providecommunity health services.8. For a third example, NYIC member Chinese-American Planning Council (“CPC”) receivesfunding through the Workforce Innovation andOpportunity Act to provide education, training,and other services to aid job seekers in securingemployment.9. NYIC also receives the value of $799,109 inCensus-guided funding from the Corporation forNational & Community Service for 21 positionsfilled by AmeriCorps VISTA members andapproximately $20,000 for travel andadministrative costs related to those positions.Through this program, NYIC has placed 17AmeriCorps VISTA members into positions atmember organizations, while 4 AmeriCorps VISTAmembers work directly with NYIC.10. As an organization, NYIC has an ongoingcommitment to promoting engagement in theDecennial Census among individuals served by itsmember organizations—in large part because ofhow critical the population count determined by

378


537

the Census is for our members’ level ofgovernmental funding and their level of politicalrepresentation at the federal, state, and locallevels. For example, NYIC partnered with theNew York Community Media Alliance to launchan outreach campaign to boost immigrantparticipation in the 2010 Census. As part of thateffort, NYIC coordinated public serviceannouncements in 24 languages that appeared in69 newspapers. NYIC also held press briefingswith elected officials. These efforts helped toincrease New York City’ s mail-in 2010 Censusparticipation rate by approximately 3%.11. For the 2020 Census, NYIC has already begunits outreach efforts. Since the beginning of 2018,it has helped form “New York Counts 2020,” agrowing, non-partisan coalition of more than 50diverse organizational stakeholders across NewYork to advocate for a fair and completeenumeration. This broad-based coalition, whichwas formally launched in March 2018, is composedof racial, ethnic, immigrant, religious, health,education, labor, housing, social services, andbusiness groups working in partnership with stateand local government officials.12. NYIC is investing resources to solidify thework and reach of New York Counts 2020 throughrobust advocacy, outreach, and mass educationalforums. It has already begun disseminating onlinepetitions, petitioning Community Boards to passresolutions for a fair and accurate count, and co-convened an all-day statewide conference,“Making New York Count in 2020.” NYIC willcontinue coordinating the working committees of

379


538

New York Counts 2020, including by: coordinating“train the trainer” sessions throughout the stateto equip leaders with tools to educate theircommunities on the importance of the Census;devising effective messaging to convince hard-to-reach communities to participate; empoweringcoalition members to assist their communities incompleting the Census online; and advocating toensure that there are no unnecessary barriersimpeding marginalized communities from beingcounted while also ensuring their privacy isprotected.13. In its already extensive 2020 Censusoutreach, NYIC has faced, and wi11 continue toface, a more difficult Census-responseenvironment. NYIC was already facing moresignificant challenges in its Census outreach evenbefore the decision to institute the citizenshipquestion because New York immigrantcommunities are more skeptical and fearful ofinteracting with the government due to the TrumpAdministration’s persistently hostile anddiscriminatory actions and attitudes towardimmigrants of color. Now, New York immigrantcommunities’ heightened fear of interacting withgovernment workers has increased even furtherdue to the decision to add the citizenship question.This fear extends not only to undocumentedimmigrants or non-citizens with legal status, butalso to family and household members of non-citizens who will be concerned that participatingmight endanger their loved ones.14. The decision to add a citizenship question tothe 2020 Decennial Census has required NYIC to

380


539

make substantial and additional investments toachieve Census participation rates comparable towhat we what would have achieved absent thisdecision. Over the next three years, NYIC isplanning to spend approximately $1 million oncommunity education and outreach efforts to worktowards a complete and accurate count within thecommunities that NYIC and its memberorganizations serve. To the best of my knowledge,the $1 million that NYIC anticipates spending onCensus-related work represents an increase ofapproximately 60% over what the organizationwould have spent in the absence of a citizenshipquestion.15. This additional spending is partially aresponse to reports NYIC has received from itsmember organizations that some of their membershave expressed an unwillingness to participate inthe Census as a result of the citizenship question.NYIC has heard such reports from many of itsmember organizations, including CPC, Arab-American Association of New York (“AAANY”),Masa, Chinese Progressive Association, MinKwonCenter for Community Action, and Chhaya.16. For example, in CPC’s ChildhoodDevelopment Programs, parents who areimmigrants of color have been asking CPC staffmembers whether or not it is “the law” to fill outthe Census form and if or how they would bepenalized if they chose not to respond. They alsoask what will happen if they don’t answer aquestion during an in-person visit. Some haveexpressed concern that they may receive a visitfrom Immigration and Customs Enforcement if

381


540

they indicate that there are noncitizens in theirhousehold. They have expressed reluctance toparticipate in the Census at all. In CPC’s SeniorCenters, some seniors who are immigrants of colorhave been asking whether an incomplete mail-inform would be enough to trigger an in-person visitfrom ICE or another government official. In CPC’sBrooklyn Community Center, the senior servicesprogram has received an unusually high numberof inquiries from community members on how toapply for citizenship. Some seniors and someyounger generation Asian-Americans have alsoexpressed concern because they are aware thatCensus data was used to identify Japanese-Americans and place them in internment campsduring World War II.17. For another example, AAANY has reportedthat many members of the Arab and Arab-American community they serve in and aroundthe Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn have beenreaching out to ask if they can refuse to fill outthe Census because those community members areworried about the impact it will have on them ormembers of their households who have uncertainlegal status. AAANY’s Adult Education ProgramManager Somia Elrowmeim shared the fearfulsentiments expressed by her students, many ofwhom said that they were apprehensive abouthaving their names disclosed because of theirlegal status. AAANY’s adult education programconsists of 110 women who are recent immigrants,primarily from Yemen and Egypt and between theages of 18-68. According to Ms. Elrowmeim:

382


541

“A lot of the women who I work with donot feel comfortable if someone asks themif they are a citizen. They feel like theywill be targeted and treated like second-class citizens. Usually, if they see aquestion like that on any application theyusually do not fill it out. Especially underthis administration, the Arab communitydoes not feel comfortable to say if they area citizen or even a green card holder.Many struggle and endure manydifficulties to become citizens and at theend they are still being asked where theyare from. Our students and women haveexpressed how they feel like something iswrong and that they are being targetedwith these questions. My members do notwant their name out there, they are notcomfortable because they are not citizensyet and do not feel like they have enoughprotections.”

18. For a third example, Chhaya has reported toNYIC that they have heard from members of theSouth Asian community they serve that thecitizenship question is very concerning to themand they do not trust the federal government withsuch information. Those community membershave expressed hesitation about participating inthe Census specifically because of the citizenshipquestion, including one community member whosaid at Chhaya’s monthly community meeting inMay 2018 that if a citizenship question is added tothe Census she will not fill out the Census, andwill advise her family to do the same. She

383


542

expressed that she felt scared that theinformation would be used to target members ofher community for adverse immigrationconsequences. Chhaya has reported that theyanticipate lower than average Censusparticipation among their community members in2020 if the citizenship question is included.Chhaya has reported that the fear generated bythe citizenship question will require Chhaya toconduct more extensive education and outreach tothe South Asian community regarding the 2020Census than Chhaya would have conductedotherwise.19. For a fourth example, Desis Rising Up andMoving, a member of the New Yark ImmigrationCoalition, reported that a man who emigrated tothe United States from Guyana in the 1970s saidthat even as a citizen, he would not complete theCensus if it contains a citizenship questionbecause many people in his family and communityare not citizens. This individual believed that thisinformation could be used to target his familymembers who are non-citizens for deportationbased on his understanding that Census data wasused to target Japanese-American citizens forinternment camps during the second World War.30. For a fifth example, Little Sisters of theAssumption Family Health Service, a community-based organization and health services provider inEast Harlem and a member of the New YorkImmigration Coalition, reported to NYIC aconversation with a community member about theCensus and the fear about what a citizenshipquestion could mean for his family and the

384


543

community they serve. The community member isa 30-year-old male resident of East Harlem and isoriginally from Mexico. He is a DACA recipientand lives in a household with persons of mixedimmigration status. He reported that he wasafraid to answer a citizenship question on theCensus because he is concerned that the TrumpAdministration may use that data to hurt hisfamily and community.21. NYIC has also received these reports directlyfrom immigrants, including one from animmigrant from India who told an NYIC staffmember that he would not fully participate in theCensus because he is still trying to build a lifewithin his community in New York and, that aftereverything he has had to sacrifice to live in thiscity and country, he cannot afford to put himselfin danger of deportation.22. One of the central concerns of NYIC and itsmembers organizations with respect to thecitizenship question is the loss of privacy thatmembers of the immigrant communities we servewould suffer by the publication of citizenship dataon the neighborhood or even city block level. Withcitizenship data at that level of granularityavailable, especially when combined withsimilarly granular data on race and Hispanicorigin, it would be possible to determine wherethere are a high level of non-citizens of color, andfor law enforcement agencies, particularlyimmigration authorities, to engage in the profilingof immigrant communities of color.23. Because of the heightened fear and suspicioncreated by the citizenship question, NYIC and its

385


544

member organizations will be forced to expendmore resources on their outreach efforts to try toreduce the effect of this question on the responserate in the immigrant communities they serve.Due to this strain on resources, NYIC is alreadyfundraising to try to support its 2020 Censuswork. NYIC will need to apply for additionalgrants to sustain the increased need for 2020Census outreach, further diverting its resourcesthat would otherwise be spent on trying to obtaingrants for other areas. Further, NYIC has already,and will continue to, divert resources from itsother organizational priorities, including its workon health care and language access issues. Forexample, NYIC was undertaking a study andpublication on adult English literacy andworkforce development, which examines thecritical role of English language acquisition inintegrating immigrants into the workforce andpreparing them to earn higher wages; however,that project has been postponed indefinitelybecause of the resources required to performadditional Census outreach and education work.Additionally, based on information reported by theCommunications Committee of New York Counts2020, NYIC and some of its member organizationswill have to divert resources that would have beenspent on education and outreach efforts toincrease Census response rates among immigrantcommunities of color towards addressing theheightened fear generated by the citizenshipquestion.

386


545

I, Elizabeth Plum, declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct tothe best of my knowledge and recollections.Dated: New York, New York

October 26, 2018/s/

Elizabeth Plum

387


546


__________


__________


—v.—

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFCOMMERCE., et al.,

Defendants.

__________

AFFIDAVIT OF JACQUELINE TIEMA-MASSIE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I, JacquelineTiema-Massie, hereby declare as follows:

1. My name is Jacqueline Tiema-Massie. I amover the age of eighteen and have personalknowledge of all the facts stated herein. I makethis Declaration in connection with State of NewYork, et al., v. United States Department ofCommerce, et al.

388


547

2. I am the Director of Planning, Research andDevelopment as well as the Director of GrantsManagement for the Chicago Department ofFamily and Support Services (“DFSS”). I haveserved in this position since December 2013. Idirect the preparation of complex federal, state,local, and private human service grants worthover $315 million annually, which representsmore than 80% of DFSS’s budget. Additionally, Isupervise a team of grant project managers andplanners that are responsible for the developmentand submission of the Department’s 30 reoccur-ring grants; for identifying new funding sources tosupport DFSS programs and new initiatives;preparing key reports, plans, and assessmentsassociated with DFSS grants; and for the projectmanagement of the Community Services BlockGrant (“CSBG”) program ($11.1 million).

3. Prior to DFSS, I served as the Director ofPlanning, Research and Development for theChicago Department of Public Health, Bureau ofPublic Health Preparedness and EmergencyResponse, where I was responsible for the develop-ment and submission of the Public HealthEmergency Preparedness Grant ($10 million) andthe Hospital Preparedness Program Grant ($3million) programs. I was also responsible foremergency preparedness planning, performancemanagement, and planning activities during anemergency preparedness response.

4. In regards to the City of Chicago budget, Iam involved with the Department’s preparationand submission of the annual appropriationordinance, specifically the 925 – Grant Funds

389


548

table, which includes all anticipated DFSS grantsfor the upcoming fiscal year, including carryoverfunds. For 2018, the total DFSS 2018 anticipatedfunds ($309,419,194) and carryover funds($6,862,000) totaled $316,281,194. My team isresponsible for securing these funds to supportboth the Department’s direct services, performedthrough the City’s Community Service Centersand Senior Regional and Satellite Centers, andcontracted delegate agency services that supportcitywide human service delivery across multipleDFSS program models and service areas, includ-ing childcare, youth development, workforce,homeless, human, domestic violence, and seniorservices.

5. DFSS receives multiple federal and federal-state pass-through grants to support the City ofChicago’s human services delivery system. Thefollowing formula-driven grants are determined,in whole or at least in part, by populationinformation collected by the Census: Federalgrants – Community Development Block Grant;Emergency Solutions Grant; Federalstate passthrough grants – Area Plan on Aging Grants(federal and state); and the Community ServicesBlock Grant.

6. For the programs identified above,information gathered during the decennial censusis used by federal funding agencies to determinefunding levels to states and local jurisdictions.These federally originated grants supportcommunities based on census derived data thatenumerates the total population counts and dataabout poverty, income, sex, and race/ethnicity.

390


549

7. Approximate grant amounts are as follows:Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) –$25,000,000 (this is DFSS’s portion; the total forthe City of Chicago is $72,100,000); EmergencySolutions Grant (“ESG”) – $6,500,000; Area Planon Aging Grant (Federal) – $13,000,000; AreaPlan on Aging Grant (State) – $8,000,000; and theCommunity Services Block Grant (“CSBG”) –$11,050,000. CDBG, ESG, and CSBG providesupport for all age groups, and the Area Plan onAging (federal and state) funding supportsindividuals aged 60 and over.

8. The CDBG program works to address a widerange of community needs. The City of Chicagoreceives annual allocations from CDBG on aformula basis, and this formula takes into accountthe current population of the City of Chicago aswell as the number of Chicagoans in poverty. In2017, these programs provided services for over696,000 families citywide.

9. DFSS CDBG funds are used to operatehomeless shelters and supportive service programsfor people and families who are experiencinghomelessness or are at imminent risk of homeless-ness so that they attain or maintain safe andsecure housing; to provide emergency food suppliesto at-risk populations; to conduct Intensive CaseAdvocacy for seniors which includes in-homeassessments, case advocacy and support, and on-going monitoring to vulnerable and socially isolatedseniors and to provide home-delivered meals toseniors; to provide job readiness services, careercounseling, vocational skills training, job place-ment assistance, and other workforce services;

391


550

and to provide assistance and advocacy to thosewho have been victims of domestic violence,including counseling, case management, legalservices, and supervised visitation and safeexchange.

10. The ESG program provides services topeople and families experience homelessness. In2017, ESG funding provided services for over17,800 families throughout the City of Chicago.Locally, ESG funds are used to engage people andfamilies experiencing homelessness; improve thenumber and quality of emergency shelters; sup-port shelter operations; provide essential servicesto shelter residents; rapidly re-house people andfamilies experiencing homelessness; and preventfamilies and individuals from becoming homeless.

11. The CSBG provides funds to alleviate thecauses and conditions of poverty withincommunities. Locally, the Chicago Department ofFamily Support Services (DFSS) leads the chargeto reduce poverty, in part, by providing CSBGservices and supports to Chicago’s most vulnerablecitizens. This is accomplished by delivering socialservices to residents through partnerships with anetwork of contracted/community-based (delegate)agencies and directly through DFSS. Through theCSBG contracted/community-based delegate agencynetwork, DFSS provides the following services:Homeless Services, which provide support servicesfor homeless persons, homeless street outreach,assessment, and counseling; and Workforce Services,which provide economic opportunities for low-income persons who are unemployed, job readi-ness services, career counseling, vocational skills

392


551

training, job placement assistance, re-entryassistance, and other workforce services. Throughdirectly administered programs DFSS providesthe following services: DFSS Community ServiceCenter (CSC) services, which provide clientintervention and stabilization services, case work,case management, information and referral, emer-gency food referrals, transportation assistance,financial assistance program referrals andmultiple co-located services (including veteranservices, public benefits assessments, educationalworkshops, etc.); and The Scholarship Program,which provides post-secondary educationalscholarships to CSBG eligible clients in an effortto achieve economic security and stability. Inaddition, the DFSS Community Service Centersprovide emergency response to victims ofdisasters, such as people experiencing weatherrelated problems. In instances of extreme(heat/cold) weather conditions, the facilities alsoserve as Warming and Cooling Centers to those inneed. When the State of Illinois receives CSBGfunds from the federal government, the statedistributes 90% of these funds to the CommunityAction Agency (“CAA”) Network, which includeslocal governments such as the City of Chicago.The distribution of these funds to the Illinois CAANetwork is based solely upon a formula utilizing aproportion of the state’s poverty rate, which isderived from the Census. In 2017, the DFSSCSBG programs, through DFSS direct anddelegate agencies, provided services to over 26,600families throughout Chicago.

393


552

12. The Area Plan on Aging grants (federal andstate) provide funding to maximize the quality oflife of people aged 60 years and over and supporta wide range of senior services including multi-purpose senior centers, nutritional aid (homedelivered meals and congregate dining), andcaregiver and ombudsman services. The City ofChicago has been designated as an Area Agencyon Aging by the State of Illinois Department onAging (“IDOA”) and is responsible for coordinatingthese community-based services to help those age60 years and older stay as independent as possiblein their homes and communities and avoidhospitalization or nursing home care.

13. The Area Agencies on Aging, including theCity of Chicago, receive funding from IDOA basedon a formula which takes into consideration thenumber of older citizens and elderly minorities inthe area, as well as the number of seniors living inpoverty, in rural areas, and alone. In order for aparticular factor to be included in the fundingformula, it must, among other things, be based on data which is derivable from the Census.Specifically, the funding formula factors areweighted as follows: the number of the state’spopulation age 60 years and older comprises 41%of the total; the number of the state’s populationage 60 years and older, at or below the povertythreshold constitutes 25% of the total; the numberof the state’s population age 60 years and olderresiding in rural areas comprises 9% of the total;and the final 25% is based on the state’s elderlypopulation evidencing indicators of greatest socialneed. This final 25% is amalgamated as follows:

394


553

those who are at least 60 years of age and amember of a minority group make up 10%; thoseat least 60 years of age and who live aloneconstitute 7.5%; and the number of the state’spopulation age 75 years and over comprise 7.5%.In 2017, the DFSS Area Plan on Aging grantsserved over 230,000 seniors citywide.

14. An accurate count of the populations servedthrough the aforementioned programs isextremely important to serving the basic humanneeds of these populations, including housing,food, education, employment and income, andother needs. Many of these populations areextremely vulnerable and are from some ofChicago’s poorest neighborhoods.

15. Reducing funding to any of these programsputs these populations at greater risk to a widerange of vulnerabilities such as increased poverty,homelessness, substandard housing, hunger/foodinsecurity, unemployment, underemployment,lack of job skills training, social isolation, lack ofaccess to higher education, exposure to intimatepartner violence, and exposure to extreme weather.Reduced funding will also negatively impactDFSS’s contracted/community-based delegateagencies and their staff that provide these servicesand rely on this funding to successfully operateand manage their community programs. Based onsimilar analyses I have conducted in the past toaddress state budget concerns, these outcomes arevery likely to occur as a result of reduced funding.

16. DFSS receives multiple federal, federal-state pass-through, state, and local funding to supportits human services delivery in the City of Chicago.

395


554

Some of DFSS’s largest federal and federal-statepass-through grants, including CDBG, ESG,CSBG, and Area Plan on Aging funding wouldsignificantly be impacted as a result of a reductionin funding due to a census miscount.

17. In addition to the service population beingaffected, DFSS administrative and program staffassociated with this funding would be impacted.Delegate agencies which heavily rely ongovernment support to operate programs,including their staff and operations, and thecommunities in which these organizations arelocated would all be negatively impacted.

18. Additionally, DFSS’s direct services wouldbe impacted. For example, a reduction in fundingto the CSBG would significantly impact low-incomefamilies. CSBG supports, among many otherthings, the operation of six DFSS CommunityService Centers to assist individuals and familiesin need to access a wide range of resources, fromshelter, food, and clothing to domestic violenceassistance, drug rehabilitation, job training, andprison re-entry services. The Area Plan on Aginggrants support the operations of six DFSSRegional and 15 Satellite Senior Centers. DFSSSenior Centers offer a variety of social, educa-tional, cultural, and recreational activities forseniors and their informal caregivers. Manyseniors utilize center resources for life enrichmentactivities, computer learning classes, internetaccess, fitness programming, congregate dining,caregiver services, and much more. Any reductionin funding could negatively impact these DFSS

396


555

Centers that are integral to many Chicagoneighborhoods, persons and families.

19. Chicago is a very diverse and multi-ethniccity, with 560,000 foreign-born residents from over140 countries and more than 100 languagesspoken. A strong and accurate census count isextremely important to ensuring that the popula-tions served by federal and federal-state pass-through funding that the City receives willcontinue to receive support for the vital servicesthat meet their basic human needs, such as food,shelter, quality child care, employment and train-ing, safety planning, and other services as describedabove. A Census miscount would directly reduceand negatively impact the grant funding that theCity receives.

20. The formula-driven grants that DFSSreceives are vital and instrumental in providingdirect and contracted services to hundreds of com-munity organizations that provide a wide range ofservices to all Chicago residents, especially themost vulnerable, including immigrants. With sucha substantial amount of federal dollars deter-mined by Census data, multiple levels of the localsafety net would be impacted. This could extend toother areas such as access to critical medical care,cash and nutrition assistance programs providedby state agencies through federal formula funding,as well as local housing assistance programs. Thiscould further intensify Chicago residents’ need forlocal services in response to crises, while areduction in funding would directly impact DFSSand its contracted partners’ ability to provideassistance to all Chicago residents. Any reduction

397


556

in funding would be devastating to the localhuman services infrastructure – to clients, non-profit and community-based organizations, andmost importantly to the at-risk populations thatare served.I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the bestof my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on this 23 day of October, 2018

/s/Jacqueline Tiema-MassieDirector of Planning,

Research and Development Director of Grants

ManagementChicago Department of

Family & Support Services

398


557

Documents

Supreme Court of the United States...Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE, ET AL., Petitioners, —v.— STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI