California Lose 6 House Representatives Without Illegal Aliens

Summary

California'southward political representation depends on an accurate demography in 2020-only an authentic count is far from guaranteed. Inadequate funding and fears among immigrant communities increase the likelihood of a significant undercount. Moreover, California is susceptible to an undercount: three in four Californians belong to at least one "hard to count" population, including Latinos, African Americans, renters, and others.

Do the threats to the 2022 Demography put California's political representation at risk? This written report uses population trends and research on past undercounts to model several plausible scenarios in 2020. We find:

• California is on rail to maintain 53 seats in the House of Representatives, given current population growth and a census as accurate as the concluding 1. California volition probably non gain a representative, whereas faster-growing states like Oregon, Arizona, and Texas are likely to gain seats.
• If the next census does a poor job of reaching traditionally hard-to-count populations and immigrant communities, more than 1.half-dozen million Californians could exist missed and the land could easily lose a seat. This scenario assumes a generally inaccurate count, similar to the 1990 Census, and a ten per centum undercount among households with i or more undocumented immigrants.
• Undercounting traditionally hard-to-count populations and immigrant communities could affect how political districts are redrawn within the state, shifting representation away from poorer areas with larger communities of color and toward wealthier and less racially and ethnically diverse parts of the country.

It is impossible to predict exactly how the 2022 Census volition unfold. For instance, it may be too restrictive to say only undocumented households would respond at lower rates or that a poorly conducted census would be similar to the 1990 Demography. California could really have a more authentic count than other states-increasing the likelihood of maintaining California'southward political representation-if information technology dedicates plenty resource. Accordingly, we consider a range of possible scenarios in this report.

There is much community organizations and state and local governments can do to improve the odds of an authentic census. With $90.3 million currently allocated in the state budget for census outreach, educating residents most the importance of the census for California and the security of the data they share with the Demography Bureau will go a long way to ensuring that every Californian is counted.

Introduction

Every 10 years, equally mandated by the Constitution, the federal government undertakes a census of the US population to decide the allotment of seats in the Business firm of Representatives. The census has likewise get indispensable for other purposes'such as distributing federal funding across the country and providing a detailed portrait of residents-but its role in political representation is paramount. In addition to determining the size of California's congressional delegation, the census count will exist used to redraw federal and state legislative commune boundaries. The rate of population growth since the last census-both across states and within California-volition affect the number, location, and shape of new districts.

However, there are major concerns about the accuracy of the 2022 Census. Distrust and privacy concerns have driven survey response rates down, making surveys harder and more expensive to field. Today'due south political climate is likely to exacerbate those concerns, especially afterward the federal government decided to add a question on citizenship status to the 2022 Census. Moreover, the Census Bureau, which has long argued that its funding levels are inadequate to count the nation'south growing population, is using new methods to modernize demography-taking and cut costs. For example, the 2022 Census aims to be the first in Us history to collect a majority of responses online. But bereft funding could limit the bureau'due south ability to fully test and implement outreach activities designed to ensure a complete count.

These challenges are a particular concern for California. Iii out of 4 Californians vest to one or more populations that take been historically undercounted: children, immature men, Latino and African American residents, and renters.¹ These groups at present make up a greater share of the country's population than they did in 2010. Though the 2010 Census was the most accurate in the nation's history, it all the same undercounted California past an estimated 0.26% (or 95,000 people), with larger undercount rates among hard-to-reach populations. PPIC'south interactive census maps show both historically undercounted populations and additional groups that may be hard to count in 2020.

This report begins past projecting the number of United states Firm seats California may receive after 2020, assuming current trends in population growth and a census count as authentic as the last 1. Next, we explore the potential impact on California'due south share of Business firm seats if the 2022 Census significantly undercounts the population considering the census is poorly conducted in general and/or immigrant households answer at much lower rates. Finally, we present trends in population growth within California to highlight how district boundaries may be afflicted by the upcoming census count.

Population Growth and the 2022 Census

Since becoming a state in 1850, California has gained 1 or more seats in the Firm of Representatives in all merely ii censuses (1920 and 2010). If electric current trends in population growth continue and the side by side census is as accurate as the terminal ane, the 2022 Census will be another exception. We project that under these conditions, California would maintain its 53 seats in the Firm of Representatives.

To gauge how California's representation in Congress might change afterward the 2022 Demography, we first project state populations to 2022 using current growth trends (run into Technical Appendix A for details). We and so apply the Census Bureau's reapportionment formula for the 435 House seats to our population projections. This approach assumes that the 2022 Demography will be as authentic in counting land populations as the 2010 Census.

California's population is on runway to grow viii.9% past 2020, adding 3.3 million people. Although this would exist the lowest rate in the state's history, California's population growth rate is however 16th among all states and slightly higher than the nationwide growth rate (see Technical Appendix Tabular array B1 for details). In terms of number of residents added, California will likely exist 2d simply to Texas. Overall, the state is projected to contain a slightly larger share of the nation's total population in 2020, compared to 2010.

The reapportionment formula is nuanced and depends on more than than merely population growth and size. Every state is guaranteed at least 1 representative. Beyond that, country population is the primary determinant. Just big growth in the number of residents volition not pb to an additional seat unless the state is besides growing at a faster rate than the residuum of the nation. The formula compares state populations to each other, while besides considering how many seats a state already holds. This makes it subject to threshold furnishings: a country far from the threshold for a new seat might add a lot of residents without gaining a seat, while a land close to the threshold could gain a new seat with a much smaller change.ⁱⁱ

Thus, California's growth does non hateful it will gain seats in 2020. In fact, if trends go on and the side by side census is as accurate as the concluding, we project that California will go on to be apportioned 53 seats in the House (Figure 1). In this baseline scenario, a handful of states are likely to gain seats: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas. Several states, mostly in the Midwest and Northeast, will probable lose a seat.

SOURCE: Authors' calculations from US Census Bureau data.

NOTE: Relative to the 2010 circulation, green states are gaining seats in our 2022 population forecast, purple states are losing seats, and greyness states remain unchanged.

These results by and large concord even under alternative population projections. In our baseline scenario, California is about 600,000 residents above the threshold for losing a seat, a fairly robust margin. When we utilise population projections for the state developed by the California Department of Finance, California is similarly not in danger of losing a seat. The University of Virginia's (UVA) Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service has state-level projections that suggest California would gain a seat. But California gains this actress seat past a margin of just 189,000 people-a relatively small-scale margin given the size of California's population. As a result, the seat gain is tenuous and tends to get away in our undercount scenarios below.³ On balance, California has grown enough to maintain its seats or possibly gain one seat in the House. California is unlikely, based on recent population trends and bold a fairly accurate count, to lose a seat.

How Might California Be Undercounted?

An undercount could happen in innumerable and unpredictable ways. Our goal is not to say exactly what the undercount volition exist. Every demography is dissimilar, and the challenges facing the adjacent one arrive particularly difficult to predict with certainty. Instead, we explore a few plausible undercount scenarios based on inquiry and past experience, with the goal of benchmarking how astringent an undercount would demand to be to threaten California's political representation.

We examine 2 different sources of an undercount:

• Low accurateness: groups that accept been undercounted in the past are undercounted again, at similar or larger rates than earlier, due to inadequate funding or other reasons. We utilize the undercount rates of the 1990 Census, a particularly inaccurate census, as the starting point for this analysis.
• Clearing-related: individuals who are immigrants or alive with immigrants are less likely to reply to the census for fear of existence deported or otherwise targeted by the government. Nosotros utilise a 10 pct undercount among households with at least i undocumented immigrant as the starting signal for this analysis.

Throughout, we focus on statewide undercount scenarios that treat all individuals in a demographic subgroup the same regardless of where they alive inside a state. For example, if Latino young children are severely undercounted in 2020, nosotros assume that those living in Los Angeles volition be undercounted at the same rate as those living in Fresno.^iv

Low-Accurateness Undercount

The risk of low accuracy stems from two concerns. First, many feel that the Census Bureau does not have the funding needed to follow upwards on hard-to-achieve populations and ensure that as many of these residents are counted as possible (Seeskin and Spencer 2018). Second, the Census Bureau plans to collect the majority of initial responses over the Net in 2022 to cut costs. Such a significant change requires all-encompassing testing alongside the typical pre-census training. But due to insufficient resource, the Census Bureau is testing the calculator systems that will back up the Net survey but not the outreach to inform residents well-nigh non-online options.⁵ Inadequate outreach will probably bear on the same communities that are less probable to respond to the paper-and-pencil version.

The overall accuracy of the census has improved over fourth dimension. The 2010 Census was the nigh authentic in the nation's history, actually overcounting the total population by a pocket-size 0.01 percent. But this overall charge per unit masks differences in accuracy across states and demographic subgroups. For example, Latinos were undercounted past 1.54 percent-meaning that nationwide about 763,000 Latino residents were not represented in the 2010 Demography.⁶ These undercount rates reverberate an improvement from previous years, every bit the Census Bureau has made strides in reaching hard-to-count populations.

To understand the consequences of a low-accuracy census we plough to the 1990 Demography, a well-documented instance of a relatively high undercount.⁷ With a net undercount of 1.8 percent, the 1990 Census is the least accurate of the concluding several censuses, and a repeat performance would be a disappointing step astern consistent with concerns nigh the upcoming count. The Demography Bureau has likewise carefully measured the size and telescopic of the 1990 undercount, including estimating undercount and overcount rates by age, race, renter/homeowner, and region (Due west and Robinson 1999). Latinos, for example, were undercounted past 5.0 pct, meaning that 1.ii one thousand thousand residents were left out of the 1990 Census nationwide. Furthermore, the 1990 Census actually happened, so nosotros know that such an undercount is possible. Thus, nosotros are not claiming that 2022 will look similar 1990, though information technology certainly might. Rather, the 1990 Census is an instance of a bad outcome that the Census Bureau hopes to avoid but that falls entirely inside the realm of possibility.

Below, nosotros simulate what would happen if the 2022 Census undercounted the same groups of people to the same degree as the 1990 Demography did (see Technical Appendix Tabular array A1 for specific undercount rates). The highest undercounts are for African American and Latino children and for renters, and all undercounts tend to be somewhat higher in the Due west than in other regions of the country. We utilize our 2022 population estimates as a baseline, which nosotros then "downweight" based on the size of the undercount. For case, if a particular grouping had an undercount of 5 percent in 1990, we multiply that group'south population projection for 2022 by 0.95. It is important to note that the consequences of the 1990 undercount rates would be dissimilar in 2022 than they were originally since the U.s.a. population is at present more diverse, with more people living in the S and West.

Immigration-Related Undercount

A unique threat to the 2022 Census is the electric current political climate toward immigrants, which motivates a 2d undercount scenario. Federal government rhetoric and actions around border security, deportation, and immigrant rights have raised concerns among immigrants, even those legally in the United States.^viii These concerns arguably make it much harder for a federal agency like the Demography Bureau to obtain responses from immigrant households. In addition, the Department of Commerce approved adding a question on citizenship to the 2022 Census. A citizenship question has not been asked of every respondent since 1950, and even Census Agency staff fear it will damage the accuracy of the census (Brown et al. 2018). Furthermore, the question was added as well tardily for the Census Bureau to test approaches to minimizing nonresponse.

Information reported to the Census Bureau is protected by federal law, which prohibits releasing whatever information that can identify individuals or sharing the information with whatsoever other regime entity for anything beyond broad statistical purposes. Still, research suggests residents, fifty-fifty those born in the land, are unaware or skeptical of these protections (Kissam 2012; Maslin and Sonenshein 2017; Meyers and Goerman 2017).

In addition, foreign-born residents are a diverse group, currently numbering more than than 43 million nationwide, and it is incommunicable to know how different subgroups might respond to the census in the current climate. Roughly half of foreign-born residents are naturalized United states of america citizens, a quarter are estimated to have legal status of some sort (e.1000., a green carte, a piece of work visa similar H1-B, or temporary protected status), and a quarter are estimated to be undocumented. Volition naturalized immigrants be more likely to reply the demography, perhaps even more likely than some US-built-in minority groups? Will news of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) arrests of legal permanent residents dampen the response of light-green-card holders to the demography? These questions are further complicated by the fact that many immigrant households include individuals with a variety of legal statuses and birthplaces (i.e., US born or foreign built-in). Each household is supposed to get a census form, and the primary respondent for the household may choose not to list all members or may not respond at all if, for example, one or more family fellow member is undocumented.

The representation of foreign-born residents in the 2022 Census is thus difficult to predict and highly dependent on outreach efforts by the Demography Bureau, state and local governments, media, and especially community organizations. Below we consider an undercount similar to that observed in the American Community Survey, a big-scale Census Bureau survey that asks respondents detailed questions about individuals in their household, including birthplace and citizenship status. In typical years, immigrants are estimated to exist undercounted by 10 percent in the American Community Survey (Jensen et al. 2015). This is similar to the share of respondents who answer the survey only skip the citizenship question (Clark 2014).

However, the response rates documented in these studies do non account for the potential touch on of the current political climate. While this is difficult to pivot downwardly, the undercount could plausibly be much higher than ten percent, peculiarly amid households with undocumented immigrants. For example, instance studies of hard-to-count immigrant subgroups like farmworkers suggest undercounts as high as 38 percentage in the 2000 Census or up to 52 percent in the 1990 Demography (Gabbard et al. 1993; Kissam and Jacobs 2004). Related research identifies a dramatic upshot of immigration enforcement on participation in government programs like SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps) and the Affordable Care Act, on the gild of a 10 to 30 percent decline even amongst naturalized immigrants (Alsan and Yang 2018).

Based on this research, nosotros consider an immigration-related undercount of ten percent equally a starting signal. "Immigration-related" here means those who are either undocumented or live in a household with at least one undocumented immigrant. This is the group well-nigh likely to be affected by an undercount and serves as a lower bound of estimates for reapportionment. Nosotros likewise explore scenarios that assume a broader impact of the electric current political climate, including undercounts amid households with at least one noncitizen of any legal condition and among Latinos and Asians/Pacific Islanders of any citizenship and legal status.

The Potential Impact of Undercounting

How might a substantial undercount affect the reapportionment of Firm seats in 2020? The challenges backside the two kinds of undercounts described higher up are unpredictable and irresolute day to 24-hour interval. They are also driven by somewhat distinct factors-even if the Census Bureau received more funding to support the online survey, for example, immigrant communities may withal be reluctant to answer in this political climate. Thus a combination of both kinds of undercounts seems more likely than seeing only i or the other. Our analysis begins with a scenario that combines the low-accuracy undercount with an boosted undercount for individuals in undocumented households. We then examine isolated scenarios of low-accuracy undercounts and immigration-related undercounts.

Combined Low-Accuracy and Immigration-Related Undercount

Figure ii shows the potential bear on on Business firm circulation in our combined scenario-a low-accuracy undercount similar to the 1990 Census and an undercount of 10 percent for individuals in undocumented households (come across Technical Appendix A for details). If both of these undercounts occur, about 1.6 million Californians would be left out and the state would likely lose a seat relative to the baseline projection. However, California remains close to the threshold: it is only about 100,000 residents short of maintaining its 53rd seat and would be side by side in line amongst all states to receive i.

This scenario produces other shifts in the apportionment of Business firm seats too. Relative to the baseline population projections (Figure 1), Arizona and Texas would also lose a seat, and Minnesota, Montana, and Ohio each would proceeds one. However, these states would be no worse off-and Texas and Montana would be ameliorate off-compared to their current number of seats in the Business firm. Merely California would lose an existing House seat.⁹

SOURCE: Authors' calculations from Us Census Bureau data.

Annotation: Relative to the baseline estimate in Effigy 1, green states are gaining seats in our combined undercount scenario, purple states are losing seats, and grey states remain unchanged.

Considering California is disproportionately affected past these undercounts, equally the undercount worsens California'south relative position worsens besides. Notwithstanding, it would take a much larger undercount to cost California a second seat (every undercounted group would demand to be undercounted by an additional 11%).¹⁰

There is a swell deal of activity around the demography in California, and information technology is possible that the count may really be more authentic here than in other states. The latest state budget includes $90.3 one thousand thousand for census outreach to ensure every bit many Californians respond as possible, and local governments and customs groups are planning their own efforts. If California alone improved its undercount of all groups by i percent, the state would no longer lose a seat, and if the undercount in California were improved by 5 percent, the state would actually gain a seat.^eleven Thus in that location is nevertheless room for meaningful independent land action.

The in a higher place scenarios presume that there will be both a poorly conducted census and a low response rate among households with undocumented immigrants. Beneath nosotros examine what would happen if only one of these scenarios occurs.

Low-Accuracy Undercount Merely

Figure 3 presents our estimates of what would happen if the nation had an undercount like to the 1990 Census but without whatsoever immigration-related undercount at all. Despite a lower population count (past near 1.1 million) and a lower growth rate relative to the baseline projections, in this scenario California nevertheless holds 53 seats by a margin of about 200,000 residents. In other states, the undercount yields like results: lower population growth rates simply in general not plenty to prompt losing a seat. In fact, the only change from the baseline prediction is that Arizona no longer gains a seat and Minnesota no longer loses 1.¹²

SOURCE: Authors' calculations from United states of america Demography Bureau data.

Notation: Relative to the baseline estimate in Figure 1, the green state is gaining a seat in our depression-accuracy undercount scenario, the regal state is losing a seat, and greyness states remain unchanged.

As earlier, it is useful to test the limits of these results since we practice not know for certain what the undercount will look like. If the rate of undercount from 1990 were worsened by 5 percent for each undercounted group, California would lose a seat. If overcounted groups were besides counted more-thus worsening the count in both directions-it would take only a 3 percentage modify to lose a seat. And if California is the only state where undercounted groups are undercounted more, it takes being just a unmarried percentage signal worse than the 1990 undercount to lose a seat. On the other paw, California could actually proceeds a seat if its undercount-and not those of other states-were 3 percent better than the 1990 undercount.

Immigration-Related Undercount Simply

Figure 4 presents our estimates of what would if happen if households with at least ane undocumented immigrant were undercounted by 10 pct but at that place were no broad low-accuracy undercount. This scenario notwithstanding leaves California with 53 House seats, though information technology reduces the state's overall population count by virtually one-half a million people compared to the baseline projections. The margin for losing a seat is a little more generous hither than in the low-accuracy scenario, leaving a cushion of about 240,000 people. Nationwide, Firm seats for Arizona and Minnesota remain unchanged, but Montana picks up a seat at Texas's expense. Otherwise, this scenario is similar to the baseline guess.^thirteen

SOURCE: Authors' calculations from US Census Bureau data.

Note: Relative to the baseline estimate in Figure 1, the dark-green land is gaining a seat in our immigration-related undercount scenario, the purple state is losing a seat, and grayness states remain unchanged.

We would need to see a very substantial undercount among undocumented households to cost California a seat: households with at least one undocumented immigrant would have to be undercounted by 19 percentage. Fifty-fifty if only undocumented households in California were undercounted and those in every other country were perfectly counted, 13 out of every 100 people in California households with undocumented immigrants would have to be missed. These undercount rates are not out of line with some of the research studies discussed earlier, but they do indicate that the undercount of undocumented households would need to be relatively bad to take abroad a seat.

In one case again, information technology is worth considering what happens if California'southward count is really better than those of other states. With a ten percent undercount of undocumented households, California keeps its 53rd seat by a margin of 240,000 residents. If California, merely not other states, improves that undercount by only 5 pct (i.east., so that 95 out of 100 people in undocumented immigrant households are counted, instead of xc), its margin more than than doubles to about 500,000 residents. The margin tops out at about 760,000 if California fully counts the undocumented population but other states do not. Information technology is non possible for California to pick upwardly a seat in these scenarios.¹⁴

It may be as well restrictive to say that only undocumented households would be agape of responding to the demography. If nosotros broaden our assay to include any household with at to the lowest degree one noncitizen of any legal condition, it only takes an undercount of 8 pct to lose a seat. Furthermore, if nosotros assume an consequence tied not to citizenship but ethnicity, with an effect on Latinos and Asians/Pacific Islanders of any background, information technology becomes even easier for California to lose a seat.¹⁵ A iv percent undercount of Latinos and Asians/Pacific Islanders would be enough to cost California a seat. Note that these estimates assume simply Latinos and Asians/Pacific Islanders are undercounted, and all other demographic subgroups are counted at least as accurately as in 2010.

The Potential Outcome on Political Redistricting

The 2022 Census will also be used to redraw political boundaries within the state, including for congressional, state senate, and state assembly districts.^xvi Local governments such as cities and counties must redraw districts within their borders too.

The demand to redraw district boundaries is driven by trends in population growth. Political districts must be approximately equal in population, and so whatever deviations in population that emerge betwixt censuses must be corrected afterwards the size of the deviation becomes credible.¹⁷ California overall is on track to grow 8.9 percentage past 2020. However, parts of the state are growing much more slowly or are losing residents, while other areas are growing at much faster rates. These patterns could yield shifting commune boundaries following the 2022 Demography.

Figure 5 shows projected population growth from 2012 to 2020. Although this omits ii years of population modify (2010-12), these data allow united states of america to examine projected growth within key demographic subgroups and at the sub-county level for densely populated regions. Specifically, we show public employ microdata areas (PUMAs), geographic designations of at least 100,000 people. The highest population growth is projected outside of larger cities in outer suburban and inland areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley and Inland Empire.

SOURCE: Authors' calculations from US Census Bureau and California Department of Finance information.

NOTE: Population change is calculated based on growth from 2012 to projected 2022 estimates for public use microdata areas (PUMAs) in California.

Regions are not equally afflicted past the combined undercount scenario, where both depression-accurateness and clearing-related undercounts occur. This is not a result of regional differences in undercounting just rather due to the differential demographic makeup of regions across California. Areas of California with larger communities of colour-ranging from central Los Angeles to the San Joaquin Valley-have substantially larger undercounts than other areas, reaching up to ix.4% in some parts of the state (Figure 6). Technical Appendix Tabular array B5 contains canton-level estimates of undercount rates under this scenario.

SOURCE: Authors' calculations from Us Census Agency and California Section of Finance data.

Annotation: Percent undercounted (using the combined low-accuracy and immigration-related scenario) is calculated based on projected 2022 estimates for public use microdata areas (PUMAs) in California. County-level estimates are available in Technical Appendix B.

In this scenario, where traditionally difficult-to-count populations and households with undocumented immigrants are undercounted, non only could California lose a seat in Congress (as Figure 2 showed), just the balance of districts within the country could be affected in significant ways. Many parts of the country that are projected to have the greatest population growth by 2020-including the San Joaquin Valley and Inland Empire-are also projected to be disproportionately undercounted. The demographic composition of these areas and others, like southcentral Los Angeles and eastern sections of the Bay Area, means that they are more at risk of beingness undercounted. This could shift political representation away from communities of colour and toward parts of the state that are wealthier and predominantly white.

Conclusion

The 2022 Census faces many political and practical challenges, and an accurate count is not guaranteed. Our estimates suggest that California could lose a seat if realistically big undercounts occur amidst traditionally difficult-to-count groups and immigrant communities.

We examine two potential kinds of undercounts. The commencement mirrors the poorly conducted 1990 Census-the to the lowest degree accurate of the last several censuses-which severely undercounted traditionally hard-to-count populations, including Latinos, African Americans, renters, immature children, and others. The second is an immigration-related undercount, where immigrant households respond at lower rates. If the 2022 Demography is similar to the 1990 Census and households with one or more than undocumented immigrants are undercounted by 10 percent, California could easily lose a seat in the Firm of Representatives. If the undercount is worse in California than elsewhere, the state'southward risk of losing a seat also increases.

How might we know if there is a meaning undercount in California? I way is past comparing the California Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates on the eve of the census count to the census count itself. Though these numbers are only estimates'specifically, extrapolations from the last census using administrative records-they are likely to be broadly accurate.^eighteen Any meaning deviation would probably reveal a deeper trouble with the demography count.

The Census Agency besides conducts ii separate validations of its own count. The first is a mail service-enumeration survey where demography workers recanvass a random sample of census blocks more aggressively and compare the results to the original census count for the same blocks. The second is a demographic analysis where the Census Bureau adjusts the 2010 population count using administrative records on births, deaths, and migration.^nineteen Assuming that funding limitations at the Census Bureau do not foreclose these evaluations, these assessments tin can give a good sense of whether the official count is biased, in what style, and by how much.

Though the state is bound past law to accept the official census count for congressional reapportionment, if there appears to be a substantial undercount, California might have leeway when redrawing districts inside the state.²⁰ The state might exist permitted to substitute its own count for the official census or to adjust the census count using the Census Bureau'due south undercount estimates. In 1991, the California State Associates requested the Census Bureau's detailed undercount estimates for this purpose, though the Demography Bureau ultimately turned down the request (Barringer 1991). However, the constabulary on this issue remains unsettled, and the country could confront a legal claiming for using alternate counts, even if information technology ultimately prevailed in the courts. The easiest and least contentious approach is merely to ensure a quality census count in the get-go place.

What can be washed to avoid a large undercount in California? Customs organizations and country and local governments take an important function to play. The state has currently allocated $ninety.3 million for census outreach, and efforts to educate residents almost the importance of the demography for California and the security of the information they share with the Demography Bureau will get a long way toward ensuring that every resident is counted. In fact, our analysis suggests that even a modestly improved count for California relative to other states would be enough to maintain California'south 53 House seats.

The consequences of a significant undercount could be costly for the Golden State. If there is a change in federal policy-for instance, if the Demography Bureau receives more than funding or if the citizenship question is not added-the situation would look much amend for California. But it is important to emphasize that vigorous outreach by California regime and stakeholders could make a existent difference and stave off some of the worst outcomes. California is far from powerless to control its fate.

woodsthock1999.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ppic.org/publication/the-2020-census-and-political-representation-in-california/

Share this post