ACE

Author: James Valentin

  • U.S. Census Citizenship Question: The Controversy and Its Lasting Impact

    U.S. Census Citizenship Question: The Controversy and Its Lasting Impact

    Background

    The citizenship question is a proposed addendum to the decennial U.S. Census. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the U.S. Census every ten years to determine the headcount of the United States. The results of the U.S. Census are used for several purposes, including:

    • Apportionment (the process of proportionally distributing the 435 seats in the House of Representatives to the 50 states)
    • Redistricting
    • Determining the distribution of federal funds to state and local programs. 

    The Census Bureau sends the decennial Census in the form of a survey that asks questions about the respondent’s date of birth, sex, race, and income. 

    The citizenship question, if it were added to the census, would additionally ask respondents if they and/or members of their household are citizens of the United States. The decennial U.S. Census previously included a question about citizenship beginning in 1820, but removed the question after 1950. The question does continue to appear, however, on the American Community Survey (ACS), another survey conducted by the Census Bureau which is sent to 3.5 million households annually.

    The citizenship question became a topic of debate in the lead-up to the 2020 Census when the Justice Department sent a letter requesting the inclusion of the citizenship question to then-Census director Dr. Ron Jarmin. Democratic critics accused the Trump administration of adding the question to depress political power in Republican-leaning areas of the country. After three federal judges blocked a Department of Commerce motion to include the citizenship question, the issue arrived at the Supreme Court. In Department of Commerce v. New York, the Court temporarily barred the citizenship question from the census, but held that the inclusion of the citizenship question in the U.S. Census is constitutional. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Citizenship Question

    Those who advocate for the addition of the citizenship question on the decennial U.S. Census argue that accurate counts of citizens and noncitizens are crucial for accurate redistricting and fair elections. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) states that racial discrimination in voting procedures and standards is strictly prohibited. In order to enforce this portion of the VRA and rectify instances of vote dilution, many argue that the Justice Department must know how many citizens of each race live in a jurisdiction. Multiple court cases have established that determining whether a minoritized racial group should hold the majority in a district should be based on the number of citizens of that racial minority, rather than noncitizens. 

    Arguments Against the Citizenship Question

    Opponents of the citizenship question believe that the question would undermine the accuracy of the decennial U.S. Census by lowering response rates. A Harvard Kennedy School study found that asking respondents about citizenship status on a mock Census study “significantly increases the number of questions skipped, especially among Hispanic populations, and makes respondents less likely to report having members of their household who are of Hispanic ethnicity.” The study estimated that at a national level, the decrease in responses spurred by the citizenship question would reduce the number of Hispanic and Latinx people counted in the Census by 6.07 million. Another study found that the inclusion of the citizenship question could potentially cause an overall 2.2% drop in Census response rates. The researchers involved in the study found that the main reason for this drop concerned respondents’ fear that their answer to the citizenship question would be shared with governmental agencies outside the Census Bureau.

    Since research suggests that including the citizenship question could significantly reduce Census response rates, some claim that doing so would violate the constitutional reasoning behind the Census. In 2020, 14 State Attorneys General sued the Trump administration for its efforts to include the citizenship question, stating that the question violated the constitutional requirement to “count each person in our country – whether citizen or noncitizen – ‘once, only once, and in the right place.’”

    Conclusion

    The issue of the citizenship question is likely to stay relevant at the legislative and judicial levels. Members of the House of Representatives have already begun discussing legislation on the topic. For example, Representative Chuck Edwards introduced the Voter Population Accuracy Act in January 2024, which would require the census to ask about citizenship status. The bill passed in the House of Representatives in May 2024, but has yet to pass in the Senate.

    The debate over including the citizenship question in the U.S. Census ultimately hinges on whether it would provide a more accurate count of the U.S. population and improve outcomes for funding, apportionment, redistricting, and elections in the years to come.

  • Freedom to Vote Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on U.S. Elections

    Freedom to Vote Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on U.S. Elections

    Background

    The Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA) is a bill under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives that would expand protections for voting rights in the United States. The bill was originally introduced in 2019 during the 116th U.S. Congress as the For the People Act (FTPA). After being blocked in the Senate, the FTPA underwent revisions and became the FTVA. Despite these changes, the bill still failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. Its current iteration remains stuck in committee today.

    The FTVA includes an expansive set of provisions that, were the bill to pass, would impact many different components of voter law.

    • Expanding ballot access: The bill includes a set of policies that aim to expand ballot access across the United States. These policies would require all 50 states to offer a minimum of two weeks for early voting, establish a standardized vote-by-mail system for all eligible voters, and provide more options for identity confirmation in states with voter ID requirements.
    • Expanding voter registration: The bill seeks to expand voter registration options by mandating that all 50 states offer online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. It also introduces a standardized review system for purging voter rolls to ensure eligible voters are not mistakenly removed during post-election voter roll cleanups.
    • Addressing election security: The FTVA focuses on enhancing election security by requiring voter-verified paper ballots and creating standard procedures for post-election audits. It would make threatening, intimidating, or coercing election workers a federal crime, and would also safeguard against interference with voters. The bill would create federal grants for the recruitment and training of non-partisan election officials.
    • Reforming campaign finance: The FTVA targets campaign finance reform, diminishing the power of super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations and strengthening the power of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It aims to eliminate dark money, or funds spent to influence elections that cannot be traced due to the anonymity of a donor, by incorporating provisions from the DISCLOSE Act to increase donor transparency. Additionally, the FTVA seeks to enhance FEC enforcement by requiring a majority vote to dismiss campaign fraud cases early and by extending the statute of limitations for campaign finance crimes from five to 10 years.
    • Addressing redistricting: The FTVA offers several policy directives to address redistricting, including a federal prohibition on “mid-decade” redistricting, or the practice of redrawing pre-established district lines using the same census information.  It also aims to ban partisan gerrymandering by defining gerrymandering through statistical analysis and authorizing legal challenges against it. Under the FTVA, states would be required to publish district map proposals, and the data used to create them, for public transparency. 

    Arguments in Favor of the FTVA

    Supporters of the bill emphasize its role in safeguarding against restrictive voting access laws. 

    They highlight the hundreds of state-level bills that aim to impose restrictions on voting access and argue that the FTVA offers a national remedy. Given that many argue strict ID requirements, inconvenient registration options, and limited voting methods disproportionately impact communities of color and disabled people, supporters see the FTVA as crucial for increasing equal access to voting in the U.S..

    Proponents also argue that the FTVA could increase trust in the American election system by providing a guardrail against administrative malpractice by state election officials. They hold that election certification has become increasingly political, with multiple election boards attempting to delay or refuse the certification of election results since the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Since the FTVA contains provisions that limit election officials’ ability to interfere with local election administrators, supporters claim that the bill will restore trust in the legitimacy of election results. 

    Finally, proponents of the FTVA reject the argument that the bill upsets the power balance between state and federal authority. They point to the Election Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress authority over states’ voting procedures for members of the House and Senate. They argue that this clause allows the FTVA standards to override pre-existing state election standards in the case of federal congressional elections.

    Arguments Against the FTVA

    Arguments against the bill largely concern the efficacy of its provisions. Both a study by American University in 2008 and a study from the University of Wisconsin found that early voting, a provision of the FTVA, decreased voter turnout. Critics argue that these studies suggest the early voting provisions in the FTVA may hinder rather than encourage voter turnout, making them obsolete. In addition, evidence from Princeton University indicates that making Election Day a federal holiday – another provision of the FTVA – would privilege middle- and upper-class voters. Opponents use this to argue that the FTVA might not promote equal access to voting to the extent its supporters claim. 

    Opponents also argue that the FTVA’s provisions encroach on states’ rights, because they would transfer consolidated power over election procedures to the federal government. Given that the states currently have the right to pass their own election laws, critics claim states might lose freedom to control their own election standards if the FTVA were to pass. 

    Conclusion

    After its reintroduction by Senator Amy Klobuchar in July 2023, the current iteration of the FTVA was referred to committee, where it remains today. Given that support and opposition for the bill run largely along partisan lines, the likelihood of the FTVA being passed likely depends on the composition of future congressional sessions.

  • James Valentin

    James Valentin

    James (he/him) is a senior at the University of Iowa. He is currently undertaking a major in Ethics and Public Policy with a concentration in Political Science, as well as a minor in Statistics and certificates in Writing and Social Science Analytics. Having previously studied Data Science and Communication Studies at DePaul University, James’ involvement with policy research began after discovering his passion for learning about and educating others on legislation and policy issues. James’ previous experiences with policy and social science research have largely involved analysis of the impact of social media and mass communication on the efficacy of activist efforts. James joined the election policy team at ACE in the summer leading up to the 2024 United States presidential election with the hopes of providing accessible, non-partisan educational resources for voters. In his spare time, James enjoys spending time with friends, hiking, listening to all kinds of music, live storytelling, and cooking.

    LinkedIn