Difference between revisions of "Census"
From Simson Garfinkel
Jump to navigationJump to search
m |
m |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Useful things I've learned about the US Census, and references. | Useful things I've learned about the US Census, and references. | ||
=US Supreme Court Cases involving the US Census Bureau= | |||
* Baker v. Carr 369 U. S., 186 (1962) | |||
* [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/377/533.html Reynolds v. Sims (1964), No. 23] [http://www.kennedyhigh.org/view/33641.pdf classzone.com] | * [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/377/533.html Reynolds v. Sims (1964), No. 23] [http://www.kennedyhigh.org/view/33641.pdf classzone.com] | ||
== Litigation following Census 1980 == | |||
* Cuomo v. Baldridge, 1987 | |||
* [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/345/case.html Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 US 345 (1982)] Established the Census address lists are exempt from disclosure under FOIA under the confidentiality provisions of the Census Act, 13 USC §§ 8 and 9. | * [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/345/case.html Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 US 345 (1982)] Established the Census address lists are exempt from disclosure under FOIA under the confidentiality provisions of the Census Act, 13 USC §§ 8 and 9. | ||
* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1614.ZO.html Wisconsin, petitioner 94-1614 v. City of New York et al. Oklahoma, petitioner 94-1631]. Statistical methods such as the post-enumeration survey may not be used to adjust the count. | * [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1614.ZO.html Wisconsin, petitioner 94-1614 v. City of New York et al. Oklahoma, petitioner 94-1631]. Statistical methods such as the post-enumeration survey may not be used to adjust the count. | ||
* New York v. Department of Commerce 1989 | |||
== Litigation Concerning the 1990 Census == | |||
* U. S., Department of Commerce v. Montana 503 U. S. 442, 1992. | |||
* Franklin v. Massachusetts 505 U. S., 788 1992. | |||
* Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U. S. 1, 1996. | |||
== Litigation Concerning the 2000 Census == | |||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_v._Evans Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)] Hot Deck Imputation is okay. [https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/08/us/utah-in-census-war-fights-north-carolina-for-house-seat.html "Utah missed qualifying for the 435th and final seat by 856 people. That seat went to North Carolina instead."] | * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_v._Evans Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)] Hot Deck Imputation is okay. [https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/08/us/utah-in-census-war-fights-north-carolina-for-house-seat.html "Utah missed qualifying for the 435th and final seat by 856 people. That seat went to North Carolina instead."] | ||
* U. S., Department of Commerce v. U. S. House of Representatives 525 U. S. 316, 1999– the ruling decision for the Census of 2000 (Decided by the Supreme Court on January 25, 1999) | |||
=Title 13= | |||
* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/195 13 U.S.C. §195] prohibits the use of sampling for reapportioning the House of Representatives. "Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as “sampling” in carrying out the provisions of this title." | * [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/195 13 U.S.C. §195] prohibits the use of sampling for reapportioning the House of Representatives. "Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as “sampling” in carrying out the provisions of this title." | ||
=Articles about the Census= | |||
* [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/10/supreme-court-could-reshape-voting-districts-with-big-impact-on-hispanics/ Supreme Court could reshape voting districts, with big impact on Hispanics], Pew Research Center, December 10, 2015 | * [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/10/supreme-court-could-reshape-voting-districts-with-big-impact-on-hispanics/ Supreme Court could reshape voting districts, with big impact on Hispanics], Pew Research Center, December 10, 2015 | ||
| Line 19: | Line 41: | ||
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-on-one-person-one-vote.html?_r=0 Potential Power Shift as Court Weighs ‘One Person One Vote’], Adam Liptak, New York Times, Dec. 8, 2015 | * [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-on-one-person-one-vote.html?_r=0 Potential Power Shift as Court Weighs ‘One Person One Vote’], Adam Liptak, New York Times, Dec. 8, 2015 | ||
=References on census.gov= | |||
* http://www.census.gov/2010census/about/constitutional.php | * http://www.census.gov/2010census/about/constitutional.php | ||
| Line 25: | Line 47: | ||
* [https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File Technical Documentation] | * [https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File Technical Documentation] | ||
* [https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/rdo/pl94-171.pdf Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data, for the Year 2020 Census], December 2014 | * [https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/rdo/pl94-171.pdf Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data, for the Year 2020 Census], December 2014 | ||
=See Also= | |||
* https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/acs/handouts/SupremeCourt.doc | |||
Latest revision as of 08:59, 14 October 2018
Useful things I've learned about the US Census, and references.
US Supreme Court Cases involving the US Census Bureau
- Baker v. Carr 369 U. S., 186 (1962)
Litigation following Census 1980
- Cuomo v. Baldridge, 1987
- Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 US 345 (1982) Established the Census address lists are exempt from disclosure under FOIA under the confidentiality provisions of the Census Act, 13 USC §§ 8 and 9.
- Wisconsin, petitioner 94-1614 v. City of New York et al. Oklahoma, petitioner 94-1631. Statistical methods such as the post-enumeration survey may not be used to adjust the count.
- New York v. Department of Commerce 1989
Litigation Concerning the 1990 Census
- U. S., Department of Commerce v. Montana 503 U. S. 442, 1992.
- Franklin v. Massachusetts 505 U. S., 788 1992.
- Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U. S. 1, 1996.
Litigation Concerning the 2000 Census
- Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002) Hot Deck Imputation is okay. "Utah missed qualifying for the 435th and final seat by 856 people. That seat went to North Carolina instead."
- U. S., Department of Commerce v. U. S. House of Representatives 525 U. S. 316, 1999– the ruling decision for the Census of 2000 (Decided by the Supreme Court on January 25, 1999)
Title 13
- 13 U.S.C. §195 prohibits the use of sampling for reapportioning the House of Representatives. "Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as “sampling” in carrying out the provisions of this title."
Articles about the Census
- Supreme Court could reshape voting districts, with big impact on Hispanics, Pew Research Center, December 10, 2015
- Potential Power Shift as Court Weighs ‘One Person One Vote’, Adam Liptak, New York Times, Dec. 8, 2015
References on census.gov
Decennial Census 2020
- 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File Technical Documentation
- Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data, for the Year 2020 Census, December 2014
