Commerce Department Announces Citizenship Question on 2020 Census and Lawsuits Filed
Legal Sidebari
Commerce Department Announces
Citizenship Question on 2020 Census and
Lawsuits Filed
April 6, 2018
On March 26, 2018, the Commerce Department, which houses the U.S. Census Bureau, announced that
the 2020 decennial census questionnaire will include a citizenship question. Thereafter, the State of
California and a coalition of states and cities led by the State of New York filed lawsuits to stop
Commerce from including the question, generally arguing that including a citizenship question would
suppress the census response rate and result in undercounts that would violate the U.S. Constitution’s
mandate to count every resident. Commerce maintains, among other things, that inclusion of the
citizenship question in the census questionnaire to the entire U.S. population will produce census block
level data on “citizenship voting age population” (CVAP) that is more accurate and complete than current
data, thereby outweighing concerns of a lower response rate, and that such data will assist the Department
of Justice in enforcing the Voting Rights Act. This sidebar provides an overview of the Commerce
Department’s announcement; relevant constitutional and statutory provisions; how census data is used in
redistricting and ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act; and pending legal challenges.
Background and Commerce Announcement
In the memorandum announcing the decision to include a question on citizenship in the 2020 census,
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross references a December 12, 2017 request from the Department of
Justice (DOJ) that the Census Bureau “reinstate a citizenship question on the decennial census to provide
census block level citizenship voting age population (‘CVAP’) data that are not currently available from
government survey data” for use by the courts and DOJ “for determining violations of Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act (‘VRA’).” Further, the memorandum states that “having these data at the census block
level will permit more effective enforcement of the Act.”
Most decennial censuses through 1950 included a citizenship question. In addition, as the memorandum
explains, the 2000 decennial census “long form” survey, which was distributed to one in six people in the
U.S., included a question on citizenship. Subsequently, the “long form” survey was replaced by the
American Community Survey (ACS), which has included a citizenship question since 2005. The ACS
gathers social, economic, demographic, and housing data monthly from a sample of the population and
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10114
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
aggregates the data over time to produce yearly estimates for areas with at least 65,000 people and five-
year estimates for less populous areas.
According to Secretary Ross’ memorandum, “DOJ seeks to obtain CVAP data for census blocks, block
groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected,
and DOJ states that the current data collected under the ACS are insufficient in scope, detail, and certainty
to meet its purpose under the VRA.” Further, the memorandum states that “the census-block-level
citizenship data requested by DOJ are not available using the annual ACS, which . . . does ask a
citizenship question and is the present method used to provide DOJ and the courts with data used to
enforce Section 2 of the VRA.”
Key Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
Every 10 years, the U.S. Constitution requires a population census or “actual Enumeration” for the
apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. Specifically, Article I, Section 2, clause 3, as
amended by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that the House of Representatives is to be
apportioned—or divided —among the 50 states, based on each decennial census that is conducted “in
such Manner” as Congress “shall by Law direct.”
Accordingly, federal law addresses how the questions to be included on the census questionnaire are
determined. Specifically, 13 U.S.C. §5 provides that “[t]he Secretary [of Commerce] shall prepare
questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the
statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title.”
Census Data, Redistricting, and the Voting Rights Act
When congressional and state legislative redistricting maps are drawn, census data is integral for ensuring
population equality among districts and compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court has
interpreted Article I, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution to require that each electoral district within a
state contain approximately the same population. This requirement is known as the “equality standard” or
the principle of “one person, one vote.” Ideal or precise equality is the average population that each
district would contain if a state population were evenly distributed across all districts. According to the
Court, congressional districts are required to have less deviation from precise equality than is permissible
for state legislative districts. While the Court has issued several decisions since 1964 on the extent to
which precise mathematical equality among districts is constitutionally required, the Court has not
specifically addressed the question of who should be counted (i.e., total population, voting age population
(VAP), CVAP, or some other measure of eligible voters or population) within districts in order to achieve
such equality. In in a 2016 ruling, Evenwel v. Abbott, against a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection
claim, the Court held that states are permitted to use total population to draw electoral districts; however,
the Court did not rule specifically on the constitutionality of a state drawing district lines based on some
other measure of population, such as eligible, CVAP, or registered voters. Therefore, that question could
come before the Court in a future case.
In addition, census data is relevant in ascertaining whether congressional and state legislative district
boundaries comply with Section 2 of the VRA. Section 2 authorizes the federal government and private
citizens to challenge discriminatory voting practices or procedures, including minority vote dilution, (that
is, the diminishing or weakening of minority voting power). Specifically, Section 2 prohibits any voting
qualification or practice applied or imposed by any state or political subdivision that results in the denial
or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority. Section 2
further provides that a violation is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, electoral
processes are not equally open to participation by members of a racial or language minority group in that
the group’s members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives
Congressional Research Service
3
of their choice. Accordingly, in certain circumstances, Section 2 requires the creation of one or more
“majority-minority” districts in a redistricting plan. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial or
language minority group comprises a voting majority. The creation of such districts can avoid racial vote
dilution by preventing the submergence of minority voters into the majority, and the denial of an equal
opportunity to elect candidates of choice. In ascertaining whether a violation of Section 2 has occurred,
the Supreme Court has utilized both the CVAP and the VAP as the measure of population.
Legal Challenges
Both the State of California and a coalition of states and cities led by the State of New York have recently
filed lawsuits in federal district courts seeking to stop the Commerce Department from including a
question about citizenship on the 2020 census. In both lawsuits, the parties argue, among other things, that
including a citizenship question in the census questionnaire will suppress the census response rate and
result in undercounts of their population in violation of the Constitution’s mandate to conduct an “actual
Enumeration.” The parties further argue that the inclusion of the citizenship question in the census is
agency action subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, and that it violates that Act’s prohibition
against arbitrary and capricious agency action and action that is not in accordance with the law, contrary
to constitutional right, and beyond statutory authority. The parties in both lawsuits allege harms from
inclusion of a citizenship question, including that an undercount will negatively impact their
apportionment of congressional seats, Electoral College electors, and federal funding.
Author Information
L. Paige Whitaker
Legislative Attorney
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
LSB10114 · VERSION 2 · NEW