pudge's Journal: Which Census Questions I Won't Answer

There's ten questions on the 2010 census questionnaire. I believe several of them cannot legally be required, and I won't be answering them.

The Constitution says on the subject:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

The point here is twofold: a. that the federal government gets to count us, and b. that they can do it in such manner the law directs. Implied in the latter part, of course, implies "that doesn't violate the Constitution." Otherwise, they could just make pass a law that says "no one may criticize the Census," and it would not violate the First Amendment.

That's obviously silly, but it's the argument they actually make when they say they can require us to provide any information they choose to force us to provide, despite the fact that the Constitution says they cannot.

There's four types of questions on the form. The first is the explicitly constitutional one: the number of people living there; the second is about whether those people sometimes live elsewhere; the third type is individual identification: name, phone number; the fourth is demographic information for the purposes of tailoring government programs: age, sex, gender, and home ownership.

The first type of question is obviously legitimate, speaking directly to the point of the census as explained in the Constitution. The second is arguably legitimate, as it can aid in preventing double-counting.

The third type -- personal identifying information -- is arguably legitimate as well, for the same basic reason: helping to get an accurate count. Naming each person can aid the respondent in listing all the people properly, and the phone number might be used for clarification if necessary.

The fourth type, though ... it's pure nonsense. In fact, the federal government explicitly states the purpose is all about government programs, instead of enumeration. The constitutional purpose of the census is not served. This questions can, arguably, still be allowed and required, however, if any other part of the constitution is not violated in the process.

Unfortunately for the government, however, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do protect my right to privacy. Government cannot compel this extra-constitutional information from me without following due process, and "passing a law" is not due process.

So in the end, I'll only be answering the questions about how many people live here. I am undecided whether I will provide any names of the people living here. The justification is shaky, and it's arguable either way. I'll give them my phone number, though. The Census Bureau will be free to call me and ask for clarification, which will include recitations of relevant portions of the Constitution and legal precedents like Griswold v. Connecticut.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

You should be ok

[Arker]

Although my last contact was obviously some time ago, and the climate has changed a lot since then, so YMMV. But last census workers were told that although they should try to get all the information asked for, and to be persistent in that quest, that ultimately if someone refused to answer the worker should just write down all the information they could obtain themselves and move on. The whole writing it in for you part is very dodgy IMHOP but...

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Arker]

Depends on the person, and again, the climate has changed. But based on my experience they will be trained to try real hard to convince you otherwise, and if unsuccesful they will fill in as much of that info as they can see (or think they can see) themselves then go on.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Arker]

Well they will ask your neighbors so far as numbers and names, professions, anything they can get out of them. They will class your "race" by visual appearance. I have even seen them sift through peoples mail for names.

Re:

[pudge]

I have even seen them sift through peoples mail for names.

You've seen them violate federal law?

Re:

[Arker]

Not sure it is technically a violation if they dont open or remove anything, just look at the address visible on the outside of the mail. I know a trainer 10 years back who approved of that and the common belief, at least, was that it was perfectly legal. Another thing they will do is talk to the postman, who is also a federal employee and usually very sympathetic, as well as (in rural areas this is) quite knowledgeable about who and where everyone is and generally knows quite well everything that could be

Re:

[pudge]

If you open a mailbox that isn't yours, without authorization, to look for information, you're violating the explicit letter (no pun intended) of federal law.

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/1702.html [onecle.com]

Whoever takes any letter ... out of ... any authorized depository for mail matter ... before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design ... to pry into the business or secrets of another ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Re:

[Arker]

Actually it doesnt look like what they were doing did violate the letter of the law based on your quote. It didnt necessarily involve removing the letter from the box. In some cases there was no box, but even in others the address can be read without removing it from a standard mailbox. I still thought it was pretty dodgy, personally, but I really dont see anyone getting in trouble for it.

Re:

[pudge]

It didnt necessarily involve removing the letter from the box.

"Take" does not imply "remove" but to even merely handle.

In some cases there was no box

Irrelevant: "any authorized depository for mail matter."

They broke the law.

geneology hobbyists

[Bill Dog]

Census records are invaluable for discovering ancestry and relateds -- if everyone only responded with the count of people in the household...

Re:

[pudge]

So my right to privacy can be sacrificed for someone else's hobby?

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Calm down, I'm obviously not (nor would be) suggesting any sacrifices of rights, I'm only pointing out that there's a legitimate non-governmental use for including the names in your household instead of just the count. If no one used this extra information, then being an extremist on this wouldn't hurt, but consider that some grandchild of some nephew of yours may wish to be able to know that you existed and a little something about you some day, and weigh that against what potential damage the govt. could

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Hmm, geneologists also like ages, and maybe the govt. even has a legitimate use for that info, such as for forecasting when all the socialist (i.e. unsustainable, as is their very nature) programs are expected to reach their inevitable crumbling point. So I'll give my household count, name, and age, and maybe even things like how many TV's do I have. Yeah that last part is not strictly constitutional, but I don't desire to be super-anal about it when it comes to harmless stuff, and technology adoption is an

Re:

[pudge]

Hmm, geneologists also like ages

Just to reiterate: I couldn't care less (and the feds say this information won't be released anyway).

and maybe the govt. even has a legitimate use for that info, such as for forecasting when all the socialist (i.e. unsustainable, as is their very nature) programs are expected to reach their inevitable crumbling point

No, again, this is wrong-headed. It's not how the Constitution works. As I noted in the journal entry, government needs more than "this information will be useful to us" to compel us to provide it.

You might be saying -- which is beside the point I've made -- that you WANT to provide it even though the government cannot compel it. And I am asserting that by allowing the government to pretend it is compelli

Re:

[pudge]

Calm down

Impossible, since I am already perfectly calm.

I'm obviously not (nor would be) suggesting any sacrifices of rights, I'm only pointing out that there's a legitimate non-governmental use for including the names in your household

And I am asserting that this bears no relevance, of any kind, to my point.

Obviously, someone could find legitimate non-governmental use for data about how often you have sex, and with whom. But that's irrelevant to complaints about government mandating you answer such questions.

If no one used this extra information, then being an extremist on this wouldn't hurt

It doesn't hurt anyone for me to be an "extremist" by "asserting my constitutional rights." (FWIW, I