1:103:72: ?it IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA Delilah Christine Gentges, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. Oklahoma State Election Board, Defendant2015 - - . A ?110 2 NO. cv 2012 284 37 cog? (?8235 - RK Judge Aletia Haynes TRIAL BRIEF Tulsa, Oklahoma April 25, 2016 THOMAS LAW FIRM, PLLC William D. Thomas, OBA #21554 James C. Thomas, OBA 8935 1621 South Harvard Ave. Tulsa, OK 74112 (918) 289 0150 phone (918) 835 2125 Fax WW @1631) TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II IMPACT ON RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 EVIDENTIARY HEARING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Excluding the Vote of the AmishBrennan Center SurveyYounger CitizensWomen VotersThe ElderlyPersons Living In PovertyMinority or African-American CitizensOKLAHOMA REGISTERED VOTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 THE VOTER FILES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 VI REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA Delilah Christine Gentges, an individual, Plaintiff, i vs. NO. CV-2012-284 Oklahoma State Election Board, i Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons Defendant. i TRIAL BRIEF THOMAS LAW FIRM, PLLC William D. Thomas, OBA #21554 James C. Thomas, OBA 8935 1621 South Harvard Ave. Tulsa, OK 74112 (918) 289 0150 phone (918) 835 2125 Fax Tulsa, Oklahoma April 25, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II IMPACT ON RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 EVIDENTIARY HEARING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Excluding the Vote of the AmishBrennan Center SurveyYounger CitizensWomen VotersThe ElderlyPersons Living In PovertyMinority or African-American CitizensOKLAHOMA REGISTERED VOTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 PURGING THE VOTER FILES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 VI REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA Delilah Christine Gentges, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. i NO. CV-2012-284 Oklahoma State Election Board, i Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons Defendant. i TRIAL BRIEF I INTRODUCTION On 21 January 2016, this case came on for hearing before the District Court in Oklahoma County, Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons presiding. On the parties? Counter Motions for Summary Judgment, two issues came before the district court, as mandated by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In Gentges v. Oklahoma State Election Board, 2014 OK 8, 319 P. 3d 674, the Court mandated this Court to decide: (1) the Constitutionality of the Oklahoma Voter ID law; and (2) the venue issue, as a special law. 1. Venue Issue: Reviewing ?rst the venue issue, 12 Okla. Stat. 133, Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of 133, as a special law. Plaintiff argued that 133, as interpreted, is unconstitutional as a special law. That, when the Legislature infringes on any special law prohibition, it has become settled law, that Art. 5 Okla. Const. 46 ?is an absolute and unequivocal prohibition? against special legislation in the listed subject areas, including prohibitions against changes in venue. Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 98, 17, 302 P.3d 775, 784 (Emphasis added). In Wall, the Court reaffirmed this strict rule against special laws identi?ed in 46. See, Reynolds v. Porter, 1988 OK 88, 760 P.2d 816, 823; Zier. Zimmer, Inc., 2006 861, 867. On the subject of ?venue?, Art. 5 Okla. Const. 46, reads in part: ?The Legislature shall not . . . pass any local or special law . . . providing for change of venue in civil and criminal cases.? (Emphasis added). 2. The Oklahoma Voter ID law is unconstitutional: The Oklahoma Voter ID law, 26 Okla. Stat. 7-114, became effective for all elections beginning July 1, 2011, and the ?rst statewide election in which voters were required to show voter identi?cation was the Presidential Preferential Primary on March 6, 2012. As that law is applied, it has placed a signi?cant restraint on right to vote on thousands of quali?ed voters. 3. mstrict Court Hearing: Based on the parties? briefs and arguments, Judge Timmons entered a Minute Order on the parties counter motions for summary judgment? 1. Defendant?s motion for Summary Judgment sustained as to the issue of venue; 2. Plaintiffs motion for Summary Judgment sustained as to the issue of whether the Act was passed to detect/Punish Fraud; and 3. Evidentiary hearing to be set on whether the Voter ID Act has an impact on the right of suffrage. Hearing set for 3 June, 2016, at 9:00 A.M. II IMPACT ON RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE The Oklahoma Voter ID Act is having a serious and material negative impact on the right of suffrage. The framers of the Oklahoma Constitution imposed absolute restrictions on the power of the Legislature against any act that might infringe upon the right of suffrage. The Constitution stands as a shield against any restriction on the right of suffrage, as follows: 1. Art. 1 Okla. Const. 6 - Right of suffrage:?The State shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. (Emphasis added). 2. Art. 2 Okla. Const. 8 4 - Interference with right of suffrage: ?No power, civil or military, shall ever interfere to prevent the ?ee exercise of the right of suffrage by those entitled to such right. (Emphasis added). 3. Art. 3 Okla. Const. 5 - Free and equal elections: ?All elections shall be free and equal. No power, civil or military, shall ever interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage, and electors shall, in all cases, except for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the attendance on elections and while going to and from the same.? (Emphasis added). True to the right of constitutional right of suffrage, can there ever be a true democracy without an unfettered right to vote for all people regardless of race, sex, age, physical disability or economic standing? ?The sovereign power of this State is exercised by its quali?ed electors who vote. ?Sparks v. State Election Board, 1964 OK 114, 11 9, 392 P.2d 711. (Emphasis added). And, deprive a quali?ed elector of his right to vote bylaw would be contrary to the spirit of both Federal. . . and State Constitution.? Id. (Emphasis added). With respect to the Oklahoma Voter ID law, however, religious groups, racial minorities, the elderly, physically disabled, women, and persons living in poverty, are identi?ed classes of persons deprived of their eight to vote, absolutely. Because these identi?able groups have no drivers license or other accepted photo identi?cation, these otherwise quali?ed voters are deprived of the most ?indamental constitutional right. Under the Voter ID Act, they are no long quali?ed to vote, except by what is referred to as a provisional ballot, which will be shown to have 11 real meaning. Simply without proof of identity, persons without a driver?s license, are not allowed to vote. A signi?cant inquiry must be raised: Who among our democratic society ?nd it most dif?cult to prove his or her identity? Not all people born in the United States have a birth certi?cate. There are many more people who have no photo identi?cation. They have no photo identi?cation because they do not drive an automobile by choice, or because they are elderly or disabled, or because they can?t afford to drive. And simply because of these inherent economic de?ciencies, these lawful citizens are deprived of their right to vote. The Voter ID laws inherently downgrades the value of the right of suffrage and seriously reduces the number of people in our community who are permitted to participate in government, by way of their vote. American citizens, even those who live on the streets, under a bridge, or in the economic reach of poverty, still hold on to that precious right of suffrage. But with the Voter ID law, this right of suffrage evaporates under the political scheme of centralizing political power in the hands of a few. These persons without some State issued voter identi?cation are no longer permitted to exercise their fundamental right to vote. This truism makes clear that the Oklahoma Voter ID law is unconstitutional. As stated above, deprive a quali?ed elector of his right to vote by law would be contrary to the spirit of both Federal . . . and State Constitution.? Spar/cs v. State Election Board, 1964 OK 114, 1[ 9, 392 P.2d 711; Gentges v. Oklahoma State Election Board, 2014 OK 8, 319 P. 3d 674. Long gone are the blatant denials of the right to vote based on race after a group of Black citizens stood up for their right to vote, down in Selma, Alabama. It was the year of 1965, when this group and other supporters, knowing that they were facing the brutal force of Alabama, stood committed to the right to vote and with the intent on marching across the Edmund Pettus bridge and on to the State Capitol. They faced the violent force of the State of Alabama, accepting the physical blows to the body, and yes, they forced the issue before Congress, which responded by passage of the federal right to vote act. It had been thought that voter discrimination based on race had long been resolved by the Fifteenth ??Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: ?The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.? Equally, the founding fathers of the State of Oklahoma, guaranteed this same protection to Oklahoma?s minority: ?The State shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.? Art. 1 Okla. Const.? 6. (Emphasis added). Constitutional protections in the US. and Oklahoma Constitutions, however, has not prevented the States from continuing their discriminatory practices against Black citizens. This discrimination may not have been done openly, but through the ruse aimed at discriminatory effects of long standing, including the deprivation of education, structured upon the judicial created doctrine of ?separate but equal.? Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US. 537 (1896). The doctrine of ?separate but equa was not overturned by the Court until 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US. 483 (1954). The judiciary?s ?political question? abstention prevented the Court from entering the political fray of ?voter? deprivation . Colegrove v. Green, 328 US. 549 (1946). In Breedlove v. Auttles, 302 US. 277 (193 7), The Court upheld the legality of the Georgia poll tax, levied and collected each year from every inhabitant, both white and Black, between the ages of 21 and 60. The poll tax was only one dollar each year and was cumulative in terms of the exercise of the right to vote. The Breedlove case was initiated by a white citizen who claimed the right to vote as being part of the ?privileges and immunities? under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized: ?Levy by the poll has long been a familiar form of taxation, much used in some countries and to a considerable extent here, first in the colonies and later in the states.? 302 US. 277. The Breedlove Court viewed voting as a ?privilege? and noted, ?Privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the State and, save as restrained by the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Ainendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the State may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate.? 302 US. 277. Likewise, the states were permitted to ?conclude that only those who are literate should exercise the franchise? to vote. Lassiter v. Northhampton County Board of Elections, 360 US. 45 (1959). The poll tax and literacy test were used extensively in the south to prevent African-American citizens from voting. Women were kept out of the polls simply for being women. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States expressed an intent to protect the right to vote of the Black citizens. ?The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. But, the Fifteenth Amendment offered no protection to the right of suffrage of women, and this protection was not added to the Constitution until the Nineteenth Amendment was rati?ed in 1920. ?The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.? Protection of the right of suffrage by the judiciary did not begin until the Court broke away from Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Thereafter, the right to vote was no longer viewed as a privilege to be regulated by the states; the right to suffrage became recognized as ?a ?lndamental right in a free and democratic society.? Westberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 583 (1964). The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, rati?ed in 1964, added one more protection to the right to vote: ?The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.? Now, with the freedom to vote, the African American voters, the poorest of the poor, women, the disabled and all others, after reaching legal age, could now cast their vote and achieve great changes in the foundation of government. It brought change through the power of the vote. Now, instead of community violence to block efforts to vote, the voters of America elected and reelected America?s ?rst Black President, Barack Obama. Obama was elected President in 2008 and reelected in 2012; but after his historic election, State Voter ID laws suddenly were adopted by State Legislatures; and these disenfranchising laws went into effect. Voter ID laws make certain that there will never again be an election of a Black man or women to the high of?ce of President. State Voter ID laws can be referred to as the anti-Obama Voting laws. Oklahoma as did other States took legislative action which literally makes it impossible for thousands of quali?ed voters to vote. These excluded voters include communities of African Americans, the disabled, the economic poor and the elderly. That these voters might vote by provisional ballot is a laughable joke based on the evidence in this case, thus creating a false and misleading image. These people, these humans, these citizen have one thing in common, they do not have any photo identi?cation. After all, not all people have a state issued photo identi?cation because they do not own or drive an automobile. The Voter ID laws place registered voters into two categories: (1) property owners and drivers of automobiles; and (2) persons who have no state-issued photo identi?cation. These are the registered voters who are too poor to own a vehicle, the elderly who have given up driving, the blind, the disabled, and religious groups. The voters in the ?rst category go to the polls, show their photo ID, and they are allowed to vote. Those voters in the second category, go to the polls, but are only allowed to vote by provisional (probationary) ballot, which may or may not be counted under the procedure adopted by the Defendant. Based on the long history of states? restrictive practices intended to deny ?undesirable? persons the right to vote, State Voter ID laws should have been immediately recognized as one more gimmick to make it more dif?cult to vote. Based on this long history of voter deprivation, the new voter restraint should have been considered suspect, and struck down by the courts. But the judiciary refused to consider the Voter ID as suspect, notwithstanding the long history of using gimmicks to deprive certain groups, their fundamental right of suffrage. When the issue the constitutionality came before this Court, Judge Timmons considered the constitutional arguments, and decided to schedule an evidentiary hearing in her Court, on June 3, 2016. For this evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff may call four or ?ve witnesses. 1. Secretary of the Mayes County Election Board, Jill McCullah; 2. Secretaryof the Tulsa County Election Board, Patty Bryant; 3. Secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board; 4. Judy Eason McIntyre, Plaintiff? 5 expert witness; and 5. Representative Richard Morrissette. Through these witnesses, Plaintiff will offer into evidence the following EXHIBITS: 1. Printed article Amish America: Oklahoma Amish; 2. Abstract from book, John Hostetler, Amish Society (4th Ed., Johns Hopkins U. Press); 3. Wikipedia, US. States by Amish Population (2010); 4. Printed article, Nat?l. Women?s L. Center, A Woman?s Guide to Combating Voter Suppression, (2012); 5. Brennan Center For Justice, A Survey: Citizens Without Proof (2006); 6. Eric Holder, Recent Studies Show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 Percent of Whites Lack Govemment-Issued Photo Ids (2012); 7. The Atlantic, The Decline of the Driver?s License (2016); 8. U. of Michigan: Reasons For the Recent Decline in Young Driver Licensing in the US. (Transportation Res. Institute, 2013); 9. US Dept. Health Human Services, A Pro?le of Older Americans (2014); 10. US. Census Bureau, How The Census Bureau Measures Poverty (2014); 11. Wikipedia, List of States by Poverty Rate; 12. US. Census Bureau, Population Oklahoma (2014); 13. Election Board document, Provisional Voting Statistics State. Admissibility of Exhibits: The printed documents offered into evidence at the scheduled evidentiary hearing in this case, fall within the Oklahoma Evidence Code provision on self- authentication, 12 Okla. Stat. 2902 (5 6): ?Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: . . . (5) Books, pamphlets or other publications purporting to be issued by public authority; (6) Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals.? Counsel for the State Election Board is expected to challenge the reliability of the evidentiary documents proffered by Plaintiff. The evidence, however, will establish the clear reliability of the documents offered into evidence by Plaintiff. In addition, the printed documents intended to be offered into evidence at the scheduled evidentiary hearing in this case, fall within the hearsay exceptions of the Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 Okla. Stat. 2804.1: ?In exceptional circumstances a statement not covered by Section 2803, 2804, 2805, or 2806 of this title but possessing equivalent, though not identical, circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the court determines that: . . . 1. The statement is offered as evidence of a fact of consequence; 2. The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and 3. The general purposes of this Code and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. EVIDENTIARY HEARING Based on this Court?s Order, Plaintiff has the burden of proving by evidence that the Oklahoma Voter ID Law has had an impact on the right of suffrage in this State. More speci?cally, as expressed in the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 2 Okla. Const. 4: ?No power, civil or military, shall ever interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage by those entitled to such right.? The evidence will establish that different groups of qualified voters in the 10 State of Oklahoma have been prevented from their ?free exercise of the right of suffrage,? including members of Amish settlement; young voters; elderly voters; women; African-American citizens; and citizens living in poverty. A. Excluding the Vote of the Amish: As a requirement that a quali?ed voter on the registry show an unexpired, state-issued photo identification, as a mandatory condition to the right to vote, the Oklahoma Voter ID law excludes those persons who, for religious reasons, do not allow any photograph to be taken of them. Jill McCullah, Seeretary of the Mayes County Election, will con?rm that there are Amish settlements located in Mayes County, in and around, Chouteau. During her deposition on March 14, 2016, Secretary McCullah was shown literature on the presence of Amish and their religious belief. 1. Printed article Amish America: Oklahoma Amish (EXHIBIT 1)0; 2. Abstract from book, John Hostetler, Amish Society (4th Ed., Johns Hopkins U. Press) (EXHIBIT 2). The article on Oklahoma Amish discloses that the Amish settlement near Chouteau is over one hundred (100) years old; and the community numbers four (4) churches and around 600 people. The book, Amish Society, authored by John Hostetler, discloses that the Amish, for religious reasons, refuse to be photographed. Hostetler at p. 319. Asked about her knowledge of the presence and belief of the Amish, Secretary McCullah responded ?not as election board secretary.? (Depo. Transcript McCullah at p. 24, lines 17-18) (Emphasis added). During the scheduled evidentiary hearing, Secretary McCullah will be allowed to give more expansive testimony; and she will be asked about the Wikipedia publication on US. States by Amish 11 Population (2010), which discloses increased growth of Amish population in Oklahoma. Unlike the State of with its large population of Amish, Oklahoma?s Voter ID law has no ?religion? exemption from the absolute requirement of a current State issued photo identi?cation. Without this exemption, the Oklahoma voter ID law violates the First Amendment Rights of the Amish population. Szulewski, Forgotten Voters: The Constitutionality of Indiana ?s Voter ID Law and Its Effect 0n Amish Voters, 15 Rutgers J. L. Religion 107, 119- 122 (2013). This article points out: ?Perhaps one of the most well-known religious beliefs of the Amish is that they do not pose for photographs under any circumstances.? Id at 121, citing Hostetler, Amish Society, supra at 311. Recognizing that the Amish do not pose for photographs for any reason, thereby raising a First Amendment issue. With respect to religious objections, the State of included a religion exemption in its Voter ID law. Pa. Election Code Omnibus Amendments Act, Mar. 14, 2012, P. L. 195, N0 18 102(1). Oklahoma?s Voter ID law, however, contains no exemption to cover religious objections to being photographed. Therefore, quali?ed voters within Amish settlements in Oklahoma have been prevented from exercising ?the free exercise of the right of suffrage? as a direct result of the Voter ID law, in violation of Art. 2 Okla. Const. 4, and the First Amendment of the US. Constitution. In addition to the exclusion of the quali?ed voters with the Amish community in Oklahoma, thousands of other Oklahoma voters are being deprived of their right of suffrage. Plaintiff will establish by clear evidence, the number of quali?ed voters within the State, whose right of suffrage has been obliterated. by the Voter ID law. Perhaps the most authoritative survey 12 on the subject was the one conducted by the Brennan Center For Justice, A Survey: Citizens Without Proof (2006), out of New York University (EXHIBIT This survey was endorsed by the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, when he addressed the NAACP in 2012. Eric Holder, Recent Studies Show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 Percent of Whites Lack Government-Issued Photo Ids (2012) (EXHIBIT This is unbelievable and unacceptable! Twenty-?ve percent of African-American quali?ed voters are being deprived of their sacred right to vote, only because they have no acceptable photo identi?cation. With the Oklahoma Voter ID law, the Legislature simply ignored the Fourteenth Amendment and the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 1 Okla. Const. 6, Right of su?i?age: ?The State shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. (Emphasis added). B. Brennan Center Survey: The Brennan Center Survey of groups of quali?ed voters in American without any photo identi?cation, discloses the following (EXHIBIT l. 11 percent of all United States citizens (21 million individuals) ?do not have government-issued photo identi?cation.? 2. 18 percent of ?elderly citizens (6 million)are less likely to possess government-issued photo identi?cation.? 3. 25 percent of African-American citizens (5.5 million) ?are less likely to possess govemment-issued photo identi?cation.? 1 The Brennan Center Survey was conducted by a highly reputable non-pro?t organization, New York University. The survey was conducted from November 16-19, 2006, by ?the independent Opinion Research Corporation.? In the survey, several questions about photo identi?cation were asked of some 987 voting age persons, randomly selected. Citizens Without Proof at p. l. 13 4. 15 percent of ?voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government?issued photo identi?cation.? 5. 18-24 percent of younger citizens ?do not have photo Brennan Center For Justice, Citizens Without Proof A Survey of Americans Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification, at p. 3 (N YU 2006) (EXHIBIT C. Younger Citizens: Interestingly the percentage younger citizens without photo identi?cation is on the rise. According to a survey by the University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, there is a decline in young driver licensing in the US See, Schoettle Sivak, The Reasons For The Recent Decline In Young Driver Licensing In The US, (UMTRI 2013) (EXHIBIT This twenty??ve (25) page report offers detail explanations, charts and graphs to make the point that young people are not all drivers and are without drivers? licenses. Reasons given for this phenomenon varies depending on age group, with the top four reasons being: 1. Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license; 2. Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive; 3. Able to get transportation from others; and 4. Prefer to bike or walk. Id at p. 5. Also, I. Beck, The Decline of The Driver ?s License (T he Atlantic, 2016) (EXHIBIT D. Women Voters: A study conducted by the National Women?s Law Center, discloses the number of women who have no Voter identi?cation, and thereby excluded from voting. A 14 Women?s Guide to Combating Voter Suppression (N WLC 2012) (EXHIBIT It is noted that the study draws upon the Brennan Center of Justice surveys. The Women?s Law Center study discloses that ?because women?s names often change in marriage, many women lack state-issued photo ID in their current legal names.? Id at p. 2. In addition, the report discloses that 8 percent of people who are college-age (between 18 and 24) lack a photo ID with their current address and current legal name. And,18 percent of older women ?lack a photo Id. E. The Elderly: As the Women?s Law Center reported, 18 percent of older women ?lack a photo The Brennan Center disclosed from its survey that 18 percent of ?elderly citizens (6 million) are less likely to possess government-issued photo identi?cation.? The U.S.'Department of Health and Human Services published its Pro?le of Older Americans: 2024 (EXHIBIT which reveals that in 2014, there were 549,121 persons 65 and older, in the State of Oklahoma. Therefore, based on the population ?gures and the reported percentage of elderly people without a photo ID, nearly one hundred thousand (98,842) Oklahoma residents 65 or older are excluded from voting. This ?number may be even higher, considering that the DHHS report ?irther discloses that of the 549,121 persons 65 and older in Oklahoma, 9.5 percent lived below poverty level. F. Persons Living In Poverty: The Brennan Center survey revealed that 15 percent of ?voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government-issued photo identification.? (EXHIBIT 5). That is understandable, considering the inability of persons living in poverty to afford the operation of an automobile. Many people in America and in Oklahoma live in poverty at a far lower rate than the $35,000 per year, the amount used for the Brennan Center survey. The US. Census Bureau?s weighted average 15 threshold for poverty at $12,316 for persons under 65 years of age; and 11,354 for persons 65 and older. How The Census Bureau Measures Poverty (Census-gov. 2014) (EXHIBIT Simply because people are living in poverty, they are still citizens of the United States and Oklahoma; and these economically impoverished persons hold a right equal to the wealthiest their constitutional right to vote. In Oklahoma, according to the US Census Bureau, 27.5 percent of the 2014 population of 3,759,517 live in poverty. This means that over a million people in Oklahoma (1,033,867) live in poverty; and of these 155,080 are with no photo identi?cation. Population 65 Years And Over In The United States (US Census Bureau 2014) (Exhibit 10). G. Minority or African-American Citizens: The Brennan Center survey, endorsed by the US. Attorney General, Eric Holder, reveals that 25 percent of African-Americans lack government-issued photo identi?cation. In Oklahoma, according to the Census Bureau, 7.4 percent of the State?s population of 3,878,051 are African-Americans, or 286,976; and of this number 71,744 African-American citizens, residing in Oklahoma, are without any photo identi?cation. IV OKLAHOMA REGISTERED VOTERS Applying the Brennan Center survey data to the number of registered voters in Oklahoma, the exclusion of quali?ed voters without photo identi?cation is equally startling. Election Board records reveal that as of January 15, 2014, there were 1,978,812 registered voters in the State. Looking again at the Brennan Center survey data, showing different groups of citizens with government?issued photo ID. 16 . I 1. General population 11 percent; 2. Elderly citizens 18 percent; 3. Minority citizens 25 percent; 4. Citizens living in poverty 15 percent; and 5. Young college age citizens 18-25 percent. Now, applying these percentages to the number of registered voter, 1,978,812, the Court gets an accurate idea of how many quali?ed voters are being excluded by reason of the Oklahoma voter ID law. The percentages shown in parenthesis are drown from the Census Bureau on p0pulation. 1. General population 11 percent 2. Elderly citizens (14.3) 18 percent 3. Minority citizens (7.4) 25 percent; 4. Citizens living in poverty (27.5) 15 percent; 5. Young college age citizens 18-25 percent; and 6. Women (50.5) 18 percent. Conservative estimate total As a conservative estimate, over a half-million (566,712) quali?ed voters in Oklahoma are being excluded from exercising the constitutional right of suffrage. They are being excluded only because they have no government issued photo identi?cation. The Oklahoma Photo ID Law makes a mockery out of the words of the US. Constitution, Preamble, that it is ?We the People of the United States . . . establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Equally so, the Oklahoma voter ID law, albeit that it was adopted by a voted of the People, offends and 217,669 50,935 36,608 81,626 ridicules the foundation of our democracy within the State of Oklahoma. Art. 2 Okla. Const. 1 establishes a sound bases of democracy: ?All political power is 17 inherent in the people . . . and they have a right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.? The voter ID law, however, seriously limits the ?political power? within the State of Oklahoma to those persons who can afford and/or elect to own an automobile, and thereby with a driver?s license issued by the State of Oklahoma. Quite clearly, hundreds of thousands of quali?ed voters are being excluded from their constitutional right to vote, but the situation gets even worse. PURGING THE VOTER FILES The Oklahoma Legislature, in addition to the Voter ID law, adopted the requirement on the State Election Boards to purge the voter ?les every two years. 26 Okla. Stat. 4-1202. Voters who fail to vote within that period, are, after ?rst receiving a notice of such inactivity, are placed on an inactive registry. Then, after those voter fail to vote, they may be removed as a registered voter. With the voter ID law preventing thousands of citizens from voting because of their lack of a State issued photo identi?cation, voter-purging may in time remove these thousands of people from the registered voters in Oklahoma. In time, all the groups identi?ed in the Brennan Center survey will be eliminated from the election board ?les. Eleven percent of all registered voters will be permanently disenfranchised; eighteen percent of the elderly registered voters are wiped away; twenty-?ve percent of the registered voters who are Black or African American are erased from the registered voters; and then there are those living in poverty, women, and college age young people, who elect not to drive. The voter registry will be limited to those people who can afford to drive, who are not disabled, and who have not gotten too old to drive. And, with this process, the democratic society will have 18 been weakened. It is recognized, of course, that the Oklahoma voter ID law allows those registered voters without the required voter identi?cation to cast their vote by provisional ballot. These registered voters are permitted to cast ?provisional ballots,? which may or may not be counted. Persons casting provisional ballot must come forward with proof of their identity before the Friday following the election. 26 Okla. Stat. But recognizing the presence of the provisional ballots, it cannot be ignored that this process is not a valid answer. As shown by the results of the general election on November 4, 2014, only a total of 1,607 voters sought to cast a provisional ballot, and of these, only 826 were counted. (Exhibit 13). If our democracy in Oklahoma is to have continuing meaning, the voter ID law must be struck down as being unconstitutional. As stated above, deprive a quali?ed elector of his right to vote by law would be contrary to the spirit of both Federal . . . and State Constitution.? Sparks v. State Election Board, 1964 OK 114, 1} 9, 392 P.2d 711. (Emphasis added). In Sparks, the Court acknowledged that the deprivation of ?a quali?ed elector,? a single voter, is ?contrary to the spirit? and the language of the Oklahoma and Federal Constitution. In fact, an application of the Oklahoma Voter ID law imposes an unnecessary condition of the right to vote for all quali?ed voters, particularly, when there is no evidence of any voter fraud of voter identity. VI REMEDY Reinstatement of Purges Voters: First of all, this Court is urged to declare the Oklahoma Voter ID Law unconstitutional. And, with this judicial declaration, the Court should further require Defendant Election Board to reinstate all the voters purged from ?les since the 19 voter ID law went into effect in Oklahoma. These purged voters should not be required to start all over by registering as new voters. Attorney Fees Cost: At one time in American and Oklahoma jurisprudence, recovery of attorney fees in public interest cases were recoverable under a recognized exception to the American rule the ?private attorney general? exception. But the US. Supreme Court, in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 US. 240 (1975), blotted out that practice. Davis, Attorney Fee Awards In Voting Rights Litigation, 34 SD. L. Rev. 303, 304 (1988/1989). In quick response to Alyeska, however, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Attorneys? Fees Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. 1988. Davis, supra at 305. See also, State ex rel Oklahoma bar Association v. Weeks,1998 OK 83, 969 P.2d 347. In the Weeks case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the Civil Rights Attorneys? Fees Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. 1988. Weeks, 1998 OK 83, 1M 22-30. The Court explained that the ??purpose of 1988 is to insure effective access to the judicial process? for persons with civil rights grievances.? Id at 1] 23. Certainly the deprivation of the right of suffrage of one person or a thousand persons is more than a signi?cant ?civil rights grievances.? In applying 1988, the Weeks Court added, party is a ?prevailing party? for purposes of entitlement to attorney?s fees under 1988 in a case that settles favorably to claimant prior to trial.? Id. In calculating an award of attorney?s fees under 1988, the Weeks COurt explained, ?There is a ?strong presumption? that the ?reasonable fee? contemplated by 1988 is the product of ?reasonable hours time a reasonable rate.?? Id 1] 26. And it is recognized that in exceptional cases, the 20 attorney fee award may be adjusted upward by the ?lodestar amount.? Id 11 27. See also, Silver Creek Investments, Inc. v. Whitten Const. Mgmt., Inc, 2013 OK CIV APP 49, 11 23, 307 P.3d 360, 369. RCSpectfully submitted, THOMAS LAW FIRM, PLLC D. Thomas, OBA #21554 James C. Thomas, OBA 8935 1621 South Harvard Ave. Tulsa, OK 74112 (918) 289 0150 phone (918) 835 2125 Fax 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7" I hereby certify that on the 2, 5 day of April, 2016, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was deposited in the United States mail with the proper postage af?xed thereto and addressed to: M. Daniel Weitman Oklahoma Attorney General?s Of?ce Litigation Division 313 NE. 21St Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 no es C. Thomas 22 .4 0! Oklahoma Amish lAmlsh Amenca FAQ STATE sash] Like AMISH STORE POPULAR ABOUT . - snug - Oklahoma Get the Amish in your Inbox ?ubscribe .5 AsSeen In: Milt-win" . .. Oklahoma is not known for much Amish settlement. But the state does have a small but long-lived presence in two places. at ghouteau in Mayes County. and Clarita in Coal County. 1o~e>mu - 7' ,4 Amish women serve up ice cream at the annual school auction in Clarita. Oklahoma You Might Like: Chouteau Amish The settlement near Chouteau in Mayes County is over 100 years old, having been founded in 1910. and the largest Amish community west of the much more heavily-Amish states of lowa and Missoug?. As of 2011. the Cnouteau community numbered 4 church districts, around 600 people. 10 . Amish Men?s last name for Amish in this community is ?Yoder? of Oklahoma and Qulture: Amish). ?lhe Chouteau Amish are known for its liberal use of tractors. which. unl?te most Amish, they use in the ?elds. Tractors are conSidered a_ necessity due to the di?icult-to?work soil in the region. Most Amish do not permit tractorsto be used in the ?elds due to their similarity to cars. though many Amish will allow tractor engines to be used to power machinery near the barn. In addition to farming the Chouteau Amish run a variety of businesses. 10 Rare Ones) There is a bit of a tourism industry at Chouteau as well. The Amish Cheese House. as well as the Dutch Pantry. are two of the food attractions. Ropp?s 5 Tips When Farm and Bakery is another venue providing baked goods and sweets. At least Visiting an Amish one retail store selling Amish-made furniture can be found in Chouteau. Community - Clarita Amish Chouteau is not a large community, given its age. But it is the largest in Oklahoma, Most of the ?rst Amish to settle at Chouteau came from Ohio. The most common dutch matte: . FURNITURE WM 5w Asusrt ,t ROMANCE Farm Eve - James A. Gates NEW YORK AMISH Sue. View 25 Most Recent Comments .3. U) - a Oklahoma Amish The Amish community at Clarita was'founded in 1978 by a relatively conservative group of Amish from Ohio and Indiana. The group is just a single church district in size, despite it's 3+ decades in existence. Like the Chouteau community. the Clarita Amish also allow tractors to be used in the ?elds. Tractors have been used since the community decided in favor of itin 1994 (with the requirement that they be steel-wheeled). The justi?cation for tractors was the dif?culty of working the region's hard-packed soil with horses Locations ofAmish communities in Oklahoma: Mayes County (red) and Coal County (blue) WITH OUR ("Some Amish to Use Tractors: Those Opposed May Move?, The New York Times. April 16, 1995). 1N ?We fanned (exclusively) with horses forthe'?rst couple years. We really all tried.? explained Clarita Amish minister Raymond Miller in an article for Oklahoma Today. ?Well. with good horses, we could plow two acres a day. and you plow ten acres LEADERSHIP and (out here) that part you plowed is dried out deep as it was plowed. So it's just a completely different ball game than what we had back East.? Miller added: ?The reason we agreed to go on and use the tractor ourselves. own the tractor, was so that more of our young people can stay on the farm and raise the family at home" (?The Simple Life", Ralph Marsh. Oklahoma Today. September 1996). ?25: ?lmmaker a i so?: . Ethridge, Tennessee 1500 Amish in the Heart of the South Where do Amish live? The Amish population in 2014 Infographie cuts: all! Image {Where doiihe'??uhh live? As a result of that decision. Amish who Obiected moved away from the community, which may be one reason it remains a small size today. Amish here have also gotten steadin more progressive in otherareas of technology, adopting power lawn mowers and garden tillers as well (?The Simple Life"). The Clarita community is also knovvn for the annual Clarita Amish auction and sale, bene?ting the Amish school. and which they have held since @8391; "mir- 1988 of Oklahoma History and Culture: Amish). The event features a. quilts. buggies. baked goods. and a range of other items. and attracts large crowds. - The auction is held each year on the second Saturday in September. I .5 .. I46. I- of 230.090 . Historic Oklahoma Amish settlements Thu-fro ?met 1. that stat-I: out. Emu-?ush. and Indiana Amish have attempted to settle Oklahoma a few times in the past. The ?rst community founded in Oklahoma was located near the town of Thomas in Custer County. This settlement was quite long-lived. lasting from 1893 to 1960 (The -. Amish in America: Settlements that Failed 1840-1960. David Luthy p. 375). Favorites: - ?ns-z fix-sis}: papalatian {a . . . -, Children Learn in School (Besides Book Subjects) Oklahoma Arnish .. Buggies up for sale at the Amish auction in Clarita. Oklahoma The Custer County settlement was started by Amishmen who acquired their land during a "land run", in which the government opened up areas of the Oklahoma Ten'itory for settlement The ?rst Amish to set up shop in the area came from Amish cgmmunities in Kansas. Other Amish came from Mississippi. California. Napganee. lndiana, and the Arthur, illigois Amish community. David Luthy explains that the land offered in such land runs was not choice. but that ?people who had very little money were glad for the opportunity to settle there". Oklahoma itself did not become a state until 14 years after Amish had settled there (Settlements that Failed. p. 375). Along with the Old Order Amish settlement. 8 more progressiva Amish-Mennonite congregation also developed in Custer County. with the two groups interacting and even attending church services together, especially during the early years. Many of the Amish living here were quite poor, as were their numerous lndian-neighbors. To make a living, Custer County Amish grew wheat and did 3-4 day hauling trips, aking grain to market in order to supplement income. Many of the Amish lived in dugout houses. Eventually railroad tracks were laid through the county. which improved the area's fortunes (Settlements that Failed. p. 378). The end of this settlement came about due in part to the adoption of the tractor in 1937, which one can ?nd in today?s Oklahoma Amish communities of Chouteau and Clarita. The tractor was cited as a' main factor in eventually adopting the automobile. After the tractor. electricity arrived to Amish homes as well. Some of the Old Order Amish then moved away. while the remaining members af?liated with the Beachy Amish. The departure of the last Old Order Amish person in 1960 brought the Custer County settlement to an end (Settlements that Failed. p. 383). A second settlement was founded in the vicinity of Watova in Nowata County in 1931. Settlers from Hutchinson. Kansas founded this community, attracted by the cheap farm land available in the area, affordable for a depression-era farmer (Settlements that Failed, p. 385-6). . Amish settlers came to Nowata County {rpm 3 MM community, as well as Custer County in Oklahoma. Conditions in the area were dif?cult for farmers. though. The settlement battled drought some years. too much precipitation in others. and generally faced poor growing conditions. The Nowata County?s bishop c?ed in 1941, and the remaining families moved away over the next two years. bringing the community to an end in 1943 (Settlements that Failed. p. 386-8). Amish in Oklahoma Today. the Oklahoma Amishpopulation is. not exactly growing like gangbusters. .4 st gt 1 Oklahoma Amish Unlike some other Western states, Oklahoma has not attracted much new settlement in recent years (see Colorado Amish). in the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies' 2010 review of the past two decades of Amish growth, Oklahoma turned out to have one of the slowest- growing Amish populations, at 25%. vs. an overall Amish average of 102%. But Oklahoma's two Amish communities are hanging on, despite the challenges of farming in what their Eastern cousins might ?nd to be challenging turf. They may use tractors a bit more liberally than most Amish. but have carved out a living in the Sooner State for over 100 years and counting. Drivmg Directions Maps Easy to Follow Directions, Maps and More with the Free Maps Toolbar .t For further information, see: of Oklahoma History and Culture: Amish . he Simple Life", Ralph Marsh. Oklahoma Today. September 1996 ?Some Amish to Use Tractors; Those Opposed May Move", The New York ?limes. April 16, 1995 The NewAmerioan Almanac 201 Raber's Bookstore (Baltic. Ohio). Ben J. Raber Amish Settlements Across America: 2008; David Luthy The Amish in America: Settlements that Failed, 1840-1960, David Luthy 'Amish Population by State (2010)": ?Amish Population Change 1991~2010": Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, Elizabethlown College Photo Credit: all Oklahoma Amish photos by Bradford Dunham Question on the Amish? Get answers to 300+ questions in 41 categories at the Amish FAQ. Tweet Like Share Get the Amish in your inbox . enter your email - - ?Azul'f?K? vim - . 45"? a" I. \9 -2 3' af?l?t a ?yaw ?icf? 3! I z: 0 5yyea"? v. 1% ?up? m. . . is?a?f . . L, Kgff?iqv($ij . wuwu't. . ., Nadia.? moaned can 808.25 wBmemZZD 35:82 mzmom mmp. b?o?o? .4 9E. zoELom mHmDomw A .- Chapter I 2 Government and the Amish I THUS FAR Amish society has been presented as a functioning whole. But distinctive, small subcultures such as the Amish are in a con? srant state of being and becoming, suspended between competing value systems, subjected to enticements from the external world, and confronted by the forces of lethargy and dissension from within. In theirattempts to maintain the simple life the Amish are confronted with special problems of coping with regulations and bureaucracies. A Several threats to Amish community and family organization stem from laws made to serve the industrialomilitary complex. They are: (1) consolidation of small elementary schools, lengthening of the period of compulsory. school attendance and the subsequent requirement of high- school attendance, (3) compulsory welfare systems, and (4) conscription. In addition there are many infonnal threats, such as the easy access to automobiles. television. and radios. Fundamentalist religious influences, with their stress on individualistic and charismatic experiences, pose a threat to the nonverbal solidarity of the Amish. It is impossible to describe here all the potentially disruptive forces in detail. This chapter emphasizes one of the most pervasive threats to the Amish way of life, compulsory education, and touches upon compulsory social security and conscription as well. The attitude of the Amish toward government is essentially unchanged from that of their Anabaptist forefathers. They acknowledge the necessity of government and its prerogative to rule over its citizens. In the words of Menno Simons, government functions ?to punish the evil, to protecr the . good,_ to adminisrer a righteous justice . . . to provide a police force that is 255 256 :1 Patterns of Change not against God and his world."1 Rebellion against the state is considered unvCl?iristian and unthinkable. The function of government is to maintain order in the natural or carnal world. But like the Anabaptisrs, the Amish place a major limitation on the authority of the state. As far as they are concerned the state has no jurisdicv tion over the spiritual realm, no right to promote religious and ecclesiasti? cal uniformity or to suppress dissent. (In this respect the Anabaptists? concept of church and state differed from the Catholic and Prorestant concepts of state and church during the Reformation. 2 The state may not assume the function of conscience or asisume the individual's responsibility to God. Amish persons do not run for public of?ce and they avoid any kind of political activity that would require the use of force, for this would violate the higher law of Christian love as they understand it. The Amish do not resort to courts of law to settle disputes among themselves or with outsiders. They are admonished to suffer injustices rather than instigate legal suits or defend themselves in the courts. They are forbidden to take an oath, serve on juries. or collect debts by using the courts. The Amish have an outstanding reputation as law?abiding citizens and they are rarely prosecuted criminally. However, in matters that violate their conscience and religion they resolutely stand their ground. and as a consequence have advanced the cause of religious liberty for everyone. Some Amish have made use of the law, depending on the circum? stances and their conscience. Family heads do have some choice in the matter. When ?ned for refusing to send their children to high school, Amish parents refused to pay. To pay the lines was to admit guilt. In such cases attorneys have represented them in courts. Their ambivalence about going to court was expressed by one Amish man: ?The trouble with a lawsuit is that . if you lose you lose, if you win, you lose too (in good will). Some Amish have an irrational fright of going to court, fearing that if the powers of evil are coerced, greater evil will result. This fear is an outgrowth of their experience with totalitarian governments in Europe and theirlimited knowledge of how American legal processes function to improve human rights. Although holding public of?ce or any position of power is forbidden, vOting in local or national elections is not. Voter turnout is r. Mennonite s.v. ?State. Anabaptist-Mennonite Attitude Toward.? a. For an excellent discussion of these differences. see Thomas G. Sanders. Procesmnt Cancepts of Church and State (New York: Holt. Rinehart 6L Winston. r964). For present?day practices. see Paul C. Kline. ?Relations between the Plain People and Government in the United States" diss.. American UniVersity. 1968). and Donald B. Kraybill, ed.. The Amish and the State (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 199 3). Lance? . 4 . . age; gig?; .tpaxe?l.? is; t. I 1 Government and the Amish i 257 heaviest in local township elections. The Amish will vote for persons they know and for persons, they have learned by experience to trust. In the past some Amish people have served as school directors and supervisors of roads-'5 Few of the Amish voluntarily register to vore, but they will often respond to local committee persons who offer transportation for registrav tion and voting. Once registered, they are inclined to vote?. In some Penn? sylvania townships up to 40 percent of the Amish' have voted. They are generally conservative and are opposed to taxation. school consolidation, rezoning of farmland, and liberalization of liquor laws. _Most register as Republicans. Some of the Amish who live near villages serve as local ?re company volunteers. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the'Arnish pay their taxes. In their history they have had a reputation for paying taxes and without rancor. They understand that the Bible teaches respect for g0vern? ment and the obligation to pay honest debts and government dues. They pay federal and state income taxes, municipal or county taxes, sales tax, realveState transfer tax, and tax in addition to supporting their own private schools. The Amish provide for the care of their own aged, and for that they can apply for exemption from selfvemployment Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance. The School Controversy It was not until well into the twentieth century that most Amish com' munities deveIOped widespread objections to the public schools and founded their own. When public schools and compulsory education were ?rst established in the various states, Amish men frequently served as school board members. When attendance was required beyond the fourth grade a few Amish parents were summoned to court for refusal to comply. Reluctantly and gradually the Amish acquiesced to required attendance through the eighth grade. The con?ict was brought into the open with the enforcement of school consolidation and the extension of compulsory ato tendance beyond the elementary grades. The one?room rural elementary school served the Amish community well in a number of ways. As long as it was a public school, it stood midway between the Amish community and the ?world.? Its influence was tolero able, depending upon the kind of resources the Amish were able to bring to 3. Christ 5. Lapp, School Hiswry, ngo?xggo (Cordonville, Pa.: By the author. 199:), p. no. I I max i i. Devid?ion and Vulnerability 2 319 .9: ?lthough the Amish discourage members From working in or con? .. its iij?g?gfestablishments speci?cally for the tourists, some Amish pro?t indiv j? .yi?om the economic ?ow of tourist activity. A few Amish?single and the Amish. One of the major objections of the Amish to tourism is the snapping of photographs. In the words of one young A'i?rrifishman. just don?t enjoy living in a museum or a zoo, whatever you call it. According to another, ?They invade your privacy. They are a ig?iSance when I go to town, for I can?t go to any public place without being gighfronted by tourists who ask dumb questions and take pictures.? The camera is an object of intrusion and prevents normal reciprocity ?g?ween the photographer and the Amish. Objections of the Amish to the iff?amera are widely known. The reasons given are based on religious i?zgrounds, ranging from the prohibition of the graven image (Exod. 20:4- 5) iff'to a variety of other biblical teachings against a show of personal pride and vanity. To take phorographs or pose for pictures is speci?cally forbidden in Amish law. The tourist who wishes to capture some of the scenery, peeple, l" and lore of the Amish community is confronted with a dilemma. If he asks Amish persons for permission to photograph, they are obliged to decline politely. The graven image principle does not prohibit patients in hospitals from having x?rays taken of their body, and children are not prevented from drawing pictures of nature, including birds and animals. or even crude sketches of persons. But homemade dolls in some traditional Amish com? munities lack facial details. When photos are taken without asking, how do Amish people feel? ?If they don?t respecr us enough when we tell them in a kind way that we don?t approve, there is really not much we can do. said one Amishwoman. She added: ?Most people don't even bother to ask. It would not ?t with our nonresistant beliefs to use force. Getting upset and making a scene would hardly be a light to the world. Another offered this advice: ?In my Opinion the best thing to do is ignore them. By allmeans, don't go to great exrremes to hide. You'll only draw more attention to yourself, ?plus giving the camera- man a good story to go with his picture." Several photographic treatments of the Amish have been published, and many ?ne collections of photographs of the Amish are owned by individuals. The illustrations for this book were selected from many such I I I i [If] List of U.S. states by Amish population Wikipedia, the free '18/2016 l1Fist of US. states by Amish population Wikipedia, the free In 2010 here 28 states of he United States 'that a - A map of the United States with all 50 states and the District of Columbia 'signi?cant Amish population. The 2010 census of Amish population was published in 2012, compiled by Elizabeth Cooksey, professor of sociology, and Cory Anderson, a graduate student in rural sociology, both lat The Ohio State Universitylu It was commissioned by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies for the 2010 US. Religion Census (published in Following are populations by [state per the results. The data for 2001 are from a book published in 2001 (Donald Kraybill, The Riddle ofAmish The data for 1992 are from a book published in 1993 (John A. Hostetler, Amish Society). 'The data for 2015 are from "Amish Studies - The Young 1/3 Emma List of US. state? by Amish population - Wikipedia, the free State Population Population Population Population in 1992 in 2000 2010 in 2015 Ohio 43 ,200 49,750 59,103 69,255 35,200 40,100 58,009 68,820 Indiana 25,200 32,650 45,144 50,955 Wisconsin 7,800 10,250 14,957 17,665 [New York 4,700 5,000 10,787 17,280 iMichigan 6,500 9,300 10,218 14,495 lMissouri 5,200 6,100 9,833 11,230 Kentucky 1,500 5,150 8,172 11,010 IIowa 3,700 4,850 7,179 8,785 Illinois 3 ,200 4,200 6,267 7,280 I I Minnesota 1,500 1,600 2,765 4,535 ?Tennessee 800 1,500 1,948 2,750 IMaryland 1,000 800 1,5 12 1,485 Delaware 1,300 1,100 1,424 1 ,5 00 I Kansas 800 1,100 940 2,025 Virginia - 500 547 1,080 IOklahoma 300 700 523 810 Montana - 550 363 540 Colorado 330 675 Nebraska - - 275 8 10 I West Virginia - - 217 225 Maine - - 203 675 Mississippi - - 175 150 Arkansas - - 130 270 North Carolina - - 127 135 Florida* - - 125 75 Texas - 52 75 South Dakota - 31 95 I Idaho - - - 75 Wyoming - - - 75 Vermont - - 15 l* The settlement in Pinecraft (Sarasota), Florida is very atypical and its population varies a lot according to the season. 2/3 8/2016 List of U.S. states by Amish population - Wikipedia, the free According to Albrecht Powell, the Amish are not the largest group of US. Amish as is ommonly thought. The Amish have settled in as many as twenty-four states, Canada, and Central America, hough about 65% are located in Ohio and Indiana. The greatest concentration of Amish is in i Holmes and adjoining counties in northeast Ohio, about 100 miles from Pittsburgh. Next in size is a group 5 Amish people in Elkhart and surrounding counties in northeastern Indiana. Then comes the Amish ettlement in Lancaster County, The Amish population in the US. numbers more than 270,000 and is growing rapidly, due to large family size (seven children on average) and a church?member I etention rate of approximately lReferences Phys. org. Retrieved July 27, 2012. 2. 2010 US. Religion Census of?cial website. i 3. Donald Kraybill (2001). The Riddle of Amish Culture. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018?6772- 9. 4. Amish Studies: "Population Change 2010-2015" I 5. Powell, Albrecht. "Amish 101 - Amish Beliefs, Culture Lifestyle, History of the Amish in America". about.com. Retrieved 2012. I 1. Emily Caldwell (July 27, 2012). "Estimate: A new Amish community is founded every three and a half weeks in lRetrieved from i ategories: Lists of states of the United States 1 United States demography-related lists i Amish in the United States I United States religion-related lists I This page was last modi?ed on 24 November 2015, at 14:51. I I Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia? is a i registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, a non-pro?t organization. 3/3 ?7 NATIONAL W0 LAWCENTER THE FACT SHEET A Woman's Guide to Combating Voter Suppression August 2012 . APMRS vou'ne in mmesur A axing Day at the Polls name, New, 1 me name?s mulceu?r Rumouan 1 LIVE ON MAIN sneer vou um: PHOTO LD 9 we? Ioo?? wait on me anion-r 5m. mums 1'0 vars wouwu'r marten All men and women should be equal in the voting booth, but new state laws may dramatically impact women?s ability to vote in the 2012 election. Since 2011, 16 states have passed restrictive voting laws, 11 states currently have these new lows in effect, and 41 states have introduced at least 180 bills restricting voting} These campaigns to restrict voting rights have gone far beyond preventing the rare case of ineligible voters casting ballots and are now taking away eligible citizens? fundamental right to vote! In order to make your voice heard, make sure you know the voting rules in your state. The new state laws: - Require voters to produce specific forms of current . Limit early and absentee voting State-issued Photo ID Make it more dif?cult to restore voting rights3 - Require voters to produce proof of citizenship - Make it more difficult to register to vote by eliminating Election Day registration and placing new restrictions on voter registration drives These laws place barriers in the way of individuals seeking to ful?ll their responsibilities as citizens by voting. In particular, they undermine women?s right to vote. 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036 1 202.588.5180 Fax 202.588.5185 VOTING 8L ELECTIONS: VOTER SUPPRESSION Because women's names often change in marriage, many women lack state-issued photo ID in their current legal names. Although 1 in 10 Americans do not have a valid state-issued photo ID, ten states have recently passed "no?photo, no-vote" laws that will disproportionately impact women because of these name changes.4 As a result of these new laws, women who do not have a valid state-issued photo ID in their current name may need to first get an official copy of their marriage license before they can get a photo cumbersome process that may be prohibitively expensive for women hard hit in this economy.5 Women often lack proof of citizenship in their current legal names. Of those voting?age women who have access to documents that prove citizenship, only 66% have documents reflecting their current legal names.6 Of those voting-age women who have access to their birth certificates, only 48% have birth certificates with their current legal names.7 Voting should be free, fair, and accessible to all, but in order to vote, these women too will have to spend money and time to obtain official copies of their marriage licenses. Women make up nearly 60 percent of?all college students, and 18 percent of people who FACT SHEET are college-age (between the ages of 18 and 24) lack a photo ID with their current address and current legal name.8 Laws in some states that place restrictions on the ability to use student 105 to vote impose a significant barrier to voting for students.9 Women make up the greatest share of older Americans, and older voters are far less likely to have state-issued photo IDs. Six million seniors, 18 percent of the population aged 65 and older, lack state-issued photo ID.10 Most older Americans are women, and poverty is more common among older women than older men,11 which means financial barriers to voting affect older women particularly. Restrictive voter ID laws put voters struggling in this economy at a profound disadvantage, and women make up the greatest share of these low-income Americans.12 Low-income Americans are more than two times more likely than other Americans not to have proof of citizenship or state-issued photo ID.13 In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws, 1.2 million eligible voters living below the poverty line are located at least 10 miles from the closest state office that issues photo IDs, and many of these eligible voters do not have ready access to transportation.14 Make sure you know and understand the voting rules in your state. Call to learn what you need to go vote or to report a voting problem. Critical issues hang in the balance in this election. Women voters will choose candidates who will make decisions that have profound effects on education, retirement security, health care, reproductive health, and workplace policies for our country. Women fought hard to win the right to vote. It's time to fight hard to keep it. When women vote, leaders listen. REGISTER. VOTE. The National Women's Law Center is a non-profit, non~partisan organization that has been working to advance and protect women?s legal rights since 1972. NWLC takes no position on candidates or elections, and nothing herein should be construed as an endorsement of any candidate or party. 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036 I 202.588.5180 Fax 202.588.5185 VOTING 8L ELECTEONS: VOTER FACT SHEET 1 Brennan Center for Justice 2012 Summary of Voting Law Changes, available at summary of voting law changesz, (last visited Aug. 18, 2012). States with new laws in effect are: Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. 2 American Civil Liberties Union Voter Suppression in America, available at (last visited Aug. 17, 2012). 3 See Summary of Voting Law Changes, supra note 1 at 2. 4 Brennan Center for Justice, The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identi?cation, available at tt bren 1a (last visited Aug. 16, 2012). 5 Id. 6 Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans? Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identi?cation, p. 2 (November 2006), available at file 39232.9;3 (last visited August 16, 2012). 7 Id. Alex Williams, The New Math on Campus, NY TIMES (Feb. 5, 2005); Citizens Without Proof, supra note 6 at 3. 9 Open Channel, NBCNews.com, That Student ID. May Not Get You Into the Voting Booth, available at (last visited August 17, 2012). 10 Citizens Without Proo? supra note 6 at 3; see also NAACP, Seniors: How Voting Laws Could Discount Seniors at the Polls. available (last visited Jul, 13, 2012). 11 Administration on Aging, A Pro?le of Older Americans: 2011, at 1 (US. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2012), available at haggamaoagovzaoarootlagigg statistics. 12 NWLC, Poverty Among Women Si Families 2000-2010 (2011), available at am 13 Citizens Without Proo? supra note 6 at 3. 14 The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identi?cation, supra note 4 at 3. f2 8 4a 43d303 i36m6l hi. df 00 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036 202.588.5180 Fax 202.588.5185 VOTING RIGHTS ELECTIONS SERIES CITIZENS WITHOUT PROOF: A SURVEY OF AMERICANS, POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP AND PHOTO IDENTIFICATION Summary A recent national survey sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law reveals that millions of American citizens do not have readily available documentary proof of citizenship. Many more primarily women - do not have proof of citizenship with their current name. The survey also showed that millions of American citizens do not have government-issued photo identi?cation, such as a driver?s license or passport. Finally, the survey demonstrated that certain groups primarily poor, elderly, and minority citizens are less likely to possess these forms of documentation than the general population. From November 16-19, 2006, the independent Opinion Research Corporation conducted a telephone survey of 987 randomly selected voting-age American citizens.1 The survey included several questions sponsored by the Brennan Center, asking whether reSpondents had readily available documentary proof of citizenship or government-issued photo identi?cation, and if so, whether it contained current information: 1) Do you have a current, unexpired government?issued ID with your picture on it, like a driver?s license or a military 2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name (as opposed to a maiden name) on it? 3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth certi?cate/US. passport/US. naturalization papers) in a place where you can quickly ?nd it if you had to show it tomorrow? 4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)? Scholars recognize that many telephone surveys underrepresent low-income and minority households. See, Stephen J. Blumberg et al., Telephone Coverage and Health Survey Estimates: Evaluating the Need for Concern About Wireless Substitution, 96 AM. J. PUBLIC HEALTH 926 (2006); US. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, STATISTICAL BRIEF: PHONELESS IN AMERICA (1994), at 16.ndf. Although the results of this survey were weighted to account for underrepresentation of race, they were not weighted to account for a likely skew toward higher-income households. Because the survey found that low-income households were less likel to have documentary proof of citizenship or photo ID, it is therefore likely that the survey results actually underestimate the total number of American citizens who do not have readily available documentation. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School Of Law 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12?11 Floor 0 New York, NY 10013 212-998-6730 - November 2006 Survey results: proof of citizenship As many as 7% of United States citizens 13 million individuals - do not have ready access to citizenship documents. Seven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have ready access to U.S. passports, naturalization papers, or birth certi?cates.2 Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 13 million American adult citizens nationwide who cannot easily produce documentation proving their citizenship.3 Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess documentation proving their citizenship. Citizens earning less than $25,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack ready documentation of their citizenship as those earning more than $25,000.4 Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 12 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $25,000 per year do not have a readily available U.S. passport, naturalization document, or birth certi?cate.5 Documentation proving citizenship often does not re?ect the citizen?s current name. Many of those who possess ready documentation of their citizenship do not have documentation that re?ects their current name. For example, survey results show that only 48% of voting-age women with ready access to their U.S. birth certi?cates have a birth certi?cate with current legal name6 and only 66% of voting-age women with ready access to any proof of citizenship have a document with current legal name.7 Using 2000 census citizen voting-age population data, this means that as many as 32 million voting-age women may have available only proof of citizenship documents that do not re?ect their current name. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, the margin of error for these survey results, to a 95% con?dence level, is i2%. 3 We note that 135 respondents indicated that they had both a U.S. birth certi?cate and U.S. naturalization papers. This most likely indicates confusion on the part of the respondents, who might not have understood what a ?naturalization certi?cate? is. Because these 135 individuals most likely do possess some documentary proof of citizenship, whether birth certi?cate or naturalization papers, they have been included for purposes of these results with survey respondents who indicated that they do possess citizenship documents. If these 135 respondents were excluded from the total sample, the remaining population would have revealed an even larger portion (nine percent) without documentary proof of citizenship. 4 The survey did not yield statistically signi?cant results for differential rates of possession of citizenship documents by race, age, or other identi?ed demographic factors. 5 The margin of error for this particular result, to a 95% con?dence level, is 55%. 6 The margin of error for this particular result, to a 95% con?dence level, is i5%. 7 The margin of error for this particular result, to a 95% con?dence level, is Brennan Center for Justice 2 November 2006 at NYU School Of Law Survey results: photo identi?cation As many as 11 percent of United States citizens more than 21 million individuals do not have government-issued photo identi?cation. Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identi?cation with a photograph, such as a driver?s license or military ID.8 Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 21 million American adult citizens nationwide who do not possess valid government photo ID. Elderly citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identi?cation. Survey results indicate that seniors disproportionately lack photo identi?cation. Eighteen percent of American citizens age 65 and above do not have current government-issued photo ID.9 Using 2005 census estimates, this amounts to more than 6 million senior citizens. Minority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identi?cation. According to the survey, African-American citizens also diSproportionately lack photo identi?cation. Twenty-?ve percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens.10 Using 2000 census ?gures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult African-American citizens without photo identi?cation. Our survey also indicated that sixteen percent of Hispanic voting-age citizens have no current government-issued ]photo ID, but due to a low sample size, the results did not achieve statistical signi?cance. 1 Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess photo identi?cation. Citizens earning less than $35,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack current government-issued photo identi?cation as those earning more than $35,000. Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 15 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government-issued photo ID.12 Photo identi?cation often does not re?ect current information. For many of those who possess current, valid government-issued photo ID, the documentation does not re?ect their current information. For example, survey results show that ten percent of voting-age citizens who have current photo ID do not have photo ID with both their current address and their current legal name. The rate is higher among younger citizens: as many as 18 percent of citizens aged 18?24 do not have photo ID with current address and name; using 2004 census tallies, that amounts to almost 4.5 million American citizens.13 8 This ?gure is consistent with of?cial government estimates. The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission, for example, cited the US. Department of Transportation and the US. Census Bureau in ?nding that approximately twelve percent of the national voting-age population does not possess a driver?s license. Commission on Federal Election Reform, Building Con?dence in US. Elections, at 73 n.22 (2005). 9 The margin of error for this particular result, to a 95% con?dence level, is i6%. 10 The margin of error for this particular result, to a 95% con?dence level, is 21:8%. 11 The margin of error for this particular result, to a 95% con?dence level, is i7%. 12 The margin of error for this particular result, to a 95% con?dence level, is i4%. 13 The margin of error for this particular result, to a 95% con?dence level, is Brennan Center for Justice 3 November 2006 at NYU School Of Law l/7/2016 Eric Holder says recent studies show 25 percent of African Americans. 8 percent of whites lack government-issued photo [05 PolitiFact Texas PolitiFactTexas Says recent studies indicate that nationally, only 8 percent of White voting?age citizens but 25 percent of African-American voting?age citizens lack government-issued photo IDs. Eric Holder on Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 in a speech to the NAACP convention in HoustonEric Holder says recent studies show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued I photo IDs I By Sue Owen, W. Gardner Selby on Wednesday, July 11th, 2012 at 10:22 a.m. Addressing the NAACP at its annual convention in Houston, Attorney General Eric Holder stressed his commitment to battling states such as Texas seeking to put in place laws requiring citizens to show a government-approved photo ID before voting at the polls. According to the prepared text of his July 10, 2012, speech, Holder recapped the Justice Department?s decision not to approve the Texas law?s implementation after deciding it would be harmful to minority voters. Separately, the State of Texas, led by its attorney general, Greg Abbott, has sued the government toward winning judicial approval of the law, which the Republican?led Legislature approved in 2011. Holder credited the NAACP with "working to raise awareness about the potential impact of this and other similar laws, and the fact that according to some recent studies nationally, only 8 percent of white voting?age citizens, while 25 percent of African?American voting-age citizens, lack a government-issued photo ID. In our efforts to protect voting rights and to prevent voting fraud, we will be vigilant and strong. But let me be clear: We will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious right." ents/2012fjul/1 1/8 '7/2016 Eric Holder says recent studies show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued photo 105 Politi Fact Texas We asked the Justice Department how Holder reached his percentages and didn?t immediately hear back. But the references to 8 percent and 25 percent, respectively, were familiar to us. In a January 2012 fact check, we rated Mostly True a claim by Democratic U.S. Reps. Steny Hoyer of Maryland and John Lewis of Georgia that up to "one in four African Americans do not carry the necessary forms of identification to vote" under the conditions of state photo ID laws. At the time, we noted that the ?gure originated in a 2006 survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University?s School of Law. The center combines research and legal advocacy on public policy issues such as campaign ?nance reform and racial balance in criminal law, and it has said that state efforts to require photo IDs from voters at the polls could discourage millions from voting, especially minority and low?income Americans. In an October 2011 report, the center said that in ?ve states where photo ID laws were scheduled to take effect in 2012, some 3.2 million Americans, accounting for about 10 percent of the states? voting-age residents, lacked government-issued photo IDs. Two of those states -- Texas and South Carolina -- must have their laws cleared by the US. Department of Justice because of past failures to protect minority voting rights. The department rejected South Carolina?s law in December 2011 (saying that minority registered voters were more likely than whites to lack state IDs) and declined to bless the Texas law in March 2012. The Texas law would require voters to show a valid government?issued photo ID, such as a Texas driver's license, Department of Public Safety identi?cation card, state concealed handgun license, US. military ID or US. passport. Back to the nationwide data: The center?s 2006 survey reached by telephone 987 US. ems/201 2fjul/ 1 percent-af/ ZIB [/7/2016 Eric Holder says recent studies show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued photo I05 I PolitiFact Texas citizens of voting age, asking them questions including, "Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a driver?s license or a military As voter ID debates heated up in 2011, the conservative Heritage Foundation issued a critique of the survey, noting it was still frequently cited and questioning its decision not to focus on registered or actual voters. The Brennan Center?s response said in part, "While it is true that citizens in those groups are more likely to vote in any given election, they are not the only citizens who have the right to vote." Overall, according to the survey, 11 percent of voting?age Americans did not have current government-issued photo ID. Among African Americans, 25 percent did not have such ID, compared to 8 percent of whites. Not enough Hispanics were surveyed to reach reliable conclusions about that subgroup, the center said. In a December 2011 report, the NAACP mentioned the 25-percent ?gure from the cost of getting a photo ID (because minorities are over-represented in the poor population) or a lack of the documents needed to apply for the photo ID, such as birth certi?cates (not issued to many African Americans born before the Civil Rights Act passed), which also can cost money to obtain. When we looked into the Democrats? claim, we found no other national surveys by race of which US. citizens eligible to vote have government?issued photo IDs. Two national surveys taken in 2008, however, checked on registered voters. Before the 2008 presidential election, researchers from the University of Washington and other schools carried out a national telephone survey of 4,563 registered voters. In the survey, 10 percent of blacks, 11 percent of Hispanics and 5 percent of whites said they did not have a valid driver's license or an ID issued by their home state. Another survey, reaching 10,000 registered voters via phone and Internet after the 2008 election, included questions about driver?s license ownership by race. In an Aug2006 survey, going on to say that factors in individuals not having IDs may include the ents/2012f1ul/1 3/8 uU1 es-show-ZS-percent-af/ l2016 Eric Holder says recent studies show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued photole Politi Fact Texas 30, 2011, blog post, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Charles Stewart said responses showed that 19 percent of black respondents and 3 percent of Whites did not have a driver?s license. In his blog post, Stewart did not break out results for Hispanic respondents. Among half a dozen other studies, ranging in scope from three counties to three states, several struck us as having limited applicability: The NAACP report said a 2008 Pew Center study in Georgia showed 30 percent of African Americans said they voted absentee because they lacked a photo ID. However, this statistic re?ects the responses of only 30 voters in three counties, and the Pew report warns against using it to draw conclusions. A 2005 Department of Justice summary of state data said that among registered voters who applied for Georgia driver?s licenses or state ID cards, African Americans had state ID at a higher" percentage than whites. A 2011 Associated Press analysis of South Carolina data showed the state?s photo ID law would fall harder on black populations in some areas and on whites in other areas. Two other surveys asked questions closest to matching the statement by Holder. A 2007 survey of Indiana?s voting-age citizens found 26.6 percent of blacks and 13.6 percent of whites did not have a "current" government-issued or state university? issued photo ID. A 2008 survey of registered voters in Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland found 3.8 percent of blacks and 0.9 percent of whites did not have g0vernment?issued photo IDs. Our ruling Holder?s ?gures appear to trace to a single national survey taken about six years ago though, far as we can tell, mostly unchallenged since. Other collections of data do not touch on exactly the same points, but most indicate that African Americans are less likely than whites to hold varied kinds of government? issued IDs, with percentages of blacks without such IDs ranging from nearly 4 percent 4/8 rl2016 Eric Hoider says recent studies show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued photo IDs PolitiFact Texas to more than 26 percent and percentages of whites having such an ID ranging from 1 3 I percent to nearly 14 percent. I We rate Holder?s claim as Mostly True. 00% OUR NEW ONLINE EDD. EN ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP REQUEST About this statement: Published: Wednesday, July 11th, 2012 at 10:22 am. Researched by: Sue Owen, W. Gardner Selby Edited by: Bill Adair Subjects: Civil Rights, Elections, Legal Issues Sources: 38 [2016 Eric Holder says recent studies show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued photo IDs PoiitiFact Texas Speech, Attorney General Eric Holder, July 10, 2012 Truth?O?Meter article, Democratic leaders say up to a quarter of African AmeriCans don?t have government photo January 13, 2012 Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law report, "Citizens Without Proof," November 2006 Telephone interview with Brennan Center senior communications coordinator Erik Opsal, July 11, 2012 Heritage Foundation report, "Without Proof: The Unpersuasive Case Against Voter Identification," Aug. 24, 2011 Brennan Center commentary, "?Citizens Without Proof? Stands Strong," Sept. 8, 2011 NAACP report, "Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America," Dec. 5, 2011 University of Washington?s Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race working paper, "The Disproportionate Impact of Indiana Voter ID Requirements on the Electorate," Nov. 8, 2007 Report by Charles Stewart of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and coauthors, "2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections: Final Report," March 1, 2009 Entry on Caltech.edu blog Election Updates by Charles Stewart "What More Can We Learn from Aug. 30, 2011 Pew Center on the States report, Survey of Georgia Voters in the 2008 General Election," December 2009 U.S. Department of Justice letter from U.S. Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella to U.S. Sen. Christopher Bond, Oct. 7, 2005 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute report, "The Driver License Status of the Voting Age Population in Wisconsin," June 2005. American University survey, "Voter IDs Are Not the Problem: ASurvey of Three States," Jan. 9, 2008 How to contact us We want to hear your suggestions and comments. Email the Texas Truth-O?Meter with feedback and with 6/8 Eric Holder says recent studies show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued photo 103 PolitiFact Texas [2016 '7 claims you'd like to see checked. If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise. Browse The Texas Truth-O?Meter See all Pants on Fire rulings See all False rulings See Rick Perry's file See John Cornyn?s file See Lloyd Doggett's file See all Truth-O?Meter rulings from the state capitol ASVERTISEMENT 4 Stages to a Heart Attaa 4 Signs The Cardiac Kine: Subscribe Keep up to date with PolitiFact Texas Via a widget for your site I Via RSS es-shoN-ZS-percent-af/ 7/8 [2016 Eric Holder says recent studies Show 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government?issued photo IDs PolitiFact Texas 0 Follow us on Twitter I 0 Fan us on Facebook In the Austin American?Statesman WLHIFACT 2016 All Rights Reserved Tampa Bay Times 490 First Avenue South - St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-893-8111 About PolitiFact I Contact Us Advertise Plivacy Policy I Terms, Conditions Copyright 8/8 The Decline of the Driver?s License - The Atlantic iil?anlic The Decline of the Driver's License Fewer people of all ages are getting them, and it?s not quite clear why. Toby Talbot 5 TEXT SIZE 9CD Remember how, in Clueless, Alicia Silverstone?s character Cher fails her JULIE BECK JAN 22, 2016 TECHNOLOGY driver?s test after nearly killing a biker and scraping her car alongside several parked cars? And then how she asks, ?Do you think I should write them a note?? as she drives away? And then how, at the climax of the movie, her friend Tai (Brittany Murphy) calls her ?a Virgin who can?t drive? and it is just hulewwthea?anli c.com/technologylarchivel201 69/ 1/4 IBIZO16 PREVIOUS The Decline of the Driver's License - The Atlantic the harshest burn? Well, that was a ?ctionalized version of the ?903, and this is now. Things are different. Young people are not getting driver?s licenses so much anymore. In fact, no one is. According to a new study by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, the percentage of people with a driver?s license decreased between 2011 and 2014, across all age groups. For people aged 16 to 44, that percentage has been decreasing steadily since 198 3. It?s especially pronounced for the teens?in 2014, just 24.5 percent of 16- year-olds had a license, a 47-percent decrease from 1983, when 46.2 percent did. And at the tail end of the teen years, 69 percent of 19-year-olds had licenses in 701 4- tn R72 nervent in 1 0523. 71-nerr'ent NEXT ?9 Among young adults, the declines are smaller but still signi?cant?16.4 percent fewer 20-to-24-year?olds had licenses in 2014 than in 1983, 11 percent fewer 2 S-to-29-year?olds, 10. 3 percent fewer 30?to-34-year-olds, and 7.4 percent fewer 3 S-to-3 9-year-olds. For people between 40 and 54, the declines were small, less than 5 percent. Above 5 5, the story?s a little different. Older adults were more likely to have a driver?s license in 2014 than in 1983?in the case of those 70 and older, 43.6 percent more likely. But these age groups, too, saw a modest decline from 2011 to 2014. RELATED STORY The True Costs of Driving 2/4 [8/2016 The Decline of the Driver's License The Atlantic The researchers didn?t look into what the reasons for this decline might be, but in an earlier study, they surveyed young adults ages 18 to 39 without driver?s licenses about why they don?t have them. The top three reasons were: ?too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license? (3 7 percent), ?owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive? (3 2 percent), and ?able to get transportation from others? (3 1 percent). Another reason that springs to mind is that more people are living in cities and using public transportation. But in the survey, only 1 7 percent said their reason for not having a license was that they preferred public transit. In other studies, Sivak and Schoettle suggest that driving in general may have already peaked in the United States. The total distance driven per person in the US. was at its highest in 2004, and by 2013, it had decreased by 9 percent. In part, this may be because people are traveling less in general: Comparing 2004 to 2014, people spent less time traveling to places to eat and drink, to buy goods and services, to work, school, and to leisure activities. The ease of Amazon, the rise of teleworking, and the endless entertainment provided by the Internet may be leading people to stay home more, but it?s hard to say?there?s no research available that explains these trends. A New York Times article from 2013 mentions unemployment as a reason for young people buying fewer cars, but as Jordan Weissman noted in The Atlantic that same year, downward trends in driving started before the recession. Maybe it?s just that people today have more things they?d rather do than practice parallel parking between traf?c cones. Or maybe it?s because the photos on those plastic cards are almost never ?attering. Sivak and Schoettle are hoping to soon study possible reasons, for the drop in driver?s licenses. But regardless of the cause, it seems that if you want to insult a teen today, shaming them for not being able to operate a motor vehicle might not be the 3/4 The Decline of the Driver's License - The Atlantic '18/2016 waytogo. ABOUT THE AUTHOR JULIE BECK is a senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where she covers health. yTwitter 2: Email 4/4 AUGUST 2013 THE REASONS FOR THE RECENT DECLINE IN YOUNG DRIVER LICENSING IN THE U.S. BRANDON SCHOETTLE MICHAEL SIVAK i *s .3725. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE THE REASONS FOR THE RECENT DECLINE IN YOUNG DRIVER LICENSING IN THE U.S. Brandon Schoettle Michael Sivak The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 USA. Report No. UMTRI-2013-22 August 2013 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. UMTRI-2013-22 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date The Reasons for the Recent Decline in Young Driver Licensing in the August 2013 6. Performing Organization Code 3 83 8 1 8 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak 9. Performing Organization Name and Address The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 USA. 10. Work Unit no. (T RAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period The University of Michigan were? Sustainable Worldwide Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Information about Sustainable Worldwide Transportation is available at 16. Abstract This survey examined why a substantial percentage of young adults currently do not have a driver?s license, and the future plans of this group concerning obtaining a license. The survey yielded useable responses from 618 persons aged 18 to 39 without a driver?s license. The top eight reasons (primary or secondary) for not having a driver?s license were as follows: (1) too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license (2) owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive (3) able to get transportation from others (4) prefer to bike or walk (5) prefer to use public transportation (6) concerned about how driving impacts the environment (7) able to communicate and/or conduct business online instead and (8) disability/medical/vision problems Of the respondents, 22% indicated that they plan on never getting a driver?s license. On the other hand, 69% expect to get a driver?s license within the next ?ve years. Young adults without a driver?s license?in comparison with the general population of the same age?tend to have less education and higher unemployment. However, the present study was not designed to investigate whether there is a causal relationship, or the direction of the effect if there were such a relationship. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement young drivers, driver licensing, delaying licensing, foregoing licensing Unlimited 19. Security Classi?cation (of this report) 20. Security Classi?cation (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price None None 27 Contents Introduction .- 1 Method --2 Survey instrument ..2 Respondents ..2 Results ..4 Primary reason for not obtaining a driver?s license ..4 Secondary reason(s) for not obtaining a driver?s license ..7 Combined summary of all reasons for not obtaining a driver?s license .. 10 Future plans for obtaining a license ..13 Additional demographic results Discussion .. 8 Why do some young adults decide not to obtain a driver?s license? ..18 What are the long?term plans of young adults without a driver?s license? ..20 Driver?s license, education, and employment ..20 Conclusions ..21 References ..22 Appendix ..23 ii Introduction A recent series of our papers concerning driver-licensing trends (Sivak and Schoettle, 2011; 2012a; 2012b) have documented the decreasing frequency of obtaining a driver?s license for younger members of the population under 40 years of age), both in the US. and in other countries. However, limited information exists regarding the underlying causes of this decline. An analysis of licensing trends in 15 countries (Sivak and Schoettle, 2012a) found a signi?cant relationship between Internet users per capita and reduced rates of licensing for younger adults. Other studies have attempted to further describe the source of this decline, but with limited success (Davis and Dutzik, 2012; Delbosc and Currie, 2013; Taylor, Ralph, Blumenberg, and Smart, 2013; Williams, 2011). These studies examined the attitudes of young adults and the potential in?uence of recent societal changes, including graduated licensing; changes in transportation and communication technologies; changes in the social status attached to driving and car ownership; and the so-called boomerang effect with young adults returning to live with their parents. But the methods of these studies were often not speci?cally focused on why individuals chose to delay getting (or not to get) a license. (One part of the study by Williams [2011] did attempt to speci?cally analyze the reasons for delay in licensing, but only for a narrow sample restricted to 15- to As such, previous studies were not conclusive on the question of delayed licensing for young adults as a whole. Therefore, the current study was designed to speci?cally assess the reasons younger adults chose to delay (or forego) obtaining a driver?s license. A survey was administered to young adults, 18 to 39 years old, who do not currently possess a valid driver?s license, directly asking these individuals to describe the underlying reasons for not having a license and whether they plan to get a license in the future. Method Survey instrument An online survey was conducted using SurveyMonkey a web?based survey company. A questionnaire was developed to examine several issues related to an individual?s decision not to obtain a driver?s license. The main issues addressed were as follows: Primary reason for not obtaining a driver?s license 0 Secondary reason(s) for not obtaining a driver?s license Future plans for obtaining a license Information related to daily online activity, the availability of other licensed drivers in the household, and additional demographic information was also collected for inclusion in the analysis. The full text of the questionnaire is included in the appendix. Respondents SurveyMonkey?s Audience tool was used to target and recruit individuals in the US. between the ages of 18 and 39 from SurveyMonkey?s respondent database. The recruitment resulted in 4,572 replies from potential respondents. Two selection criteria were then applied: 1) Only individuals who reported not currently having a valid driver?s license were included. 2) Respondent age was then veri?ed and required to be between 18 and 39. Additionally, a target quota of approximately 100 responses per age group was set, leading to the exclusion of otherwise quali?ed individuals as some age-group quotas were ?lled. Usable surveys were received for 618 respondents. Although 717 were initially quali?ed to complete the survey, 99 individuals did not ?nish after starting the survey, were excluded during the prescreening process due to their age-group quota being or were excluded due to disqualifying answers given later in the survey. The ?nal response rate total completed divided by total eligible, or 618/717) was 86%. The percentage of individuals not quali?ed to complete the survey (3,855 out of 4,572 reported that they do have a valid license) was 84.3%. This value is consistent with the percentage of individuals 18 to 39 with a driver?s license in the current US. population?84.7% (Sivak and Schoettle, 2012b). Age and gender breakdowns for the respondents are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Age and gender breakdowns for the ?nal 618 respondents. Demographic 18 99 16.0 18-19 19 99 16.0 20-24 1 15 18.6 25-29 99 16.0 30-34 108 17.5 Age group 20?29 30-39 - 35-39 98 15.9 Female 386 62.8 en er Male 229 37.2 There were 3 cases with unSpeci?ed gender. Results Primary reason for not obtaining a driver?s license Respondents were asked: (Q4) ?What is the MAIN reason you do not Currently have a driver?s license?? Respondents were allowed only one response to this question. The most common response (see Table 2) was ?too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license? (26.9% overall). The second most common response related to the cost of owning and maintaining a vehicle followed by the ability to get transportation from others An age effect for this top reSponse is evident in Table 2; more than twice as many in the youngest age group gave this answer than in the oldest age group Though less commonly stated as reasons for not obtaining a license, the oldest age group (30-39 years old) was more likely than the youngest group (18-19 years old) to indicate that they have a medical problem or disability (11.2% vs. are concerned about the environment vs. have a fear of driving vs. or have some legal issue vs. In terms of gender effects (see Table 3), female respondents were more likely than males to indicate that they have not yet learned to drive vs. have a fear of driving vs. or have some legal issue preventing them from obtaining a license vs. Males were more likely to say that they could communicate or conduct business online vs. I 1 . Table 2 Percentage of reSponses, by age group, for the question ?What is the MAIN reason you do not currently have a driver?s license?? (The most frequent response is shown in bold.) Reason Age grouP Total 18-19 20-29 30-39 Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license 37.9 26.6 16.5 26.9 Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive 16.7 12.1 15.0 14.6 Able to get transportation from others 14.6 10.3 11.7 12.1 Prefer to bike or walk 12.1 8.9 9.2 10.0 Prefer to use public transportation 2.5 13.1 13.6 9.9 Disability/medical/vision problem 1.0 6.1 11.2 6.1 Other reason 5.1 8.4 2.9 5.5 Never learned or still learning to drive 4.5 6.5 2.4 4.5 at: commumcate and/or conduct busmess onhne 3.0 28 4.4 3. 4 how impacts the L0 3.3 4.9 3. I Do not like to drive/afraid to drive 1.0 1.4 3.9 2.1 Legal issue 0.5 0.5 4.4 1.8 Total 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 I 00. 0 Table 3 Percentage of responses, by gender, for the question ?What is the MAIN reason you do not currently have a driver?s license?? (The most frequent response is shown in bold.) Reason Gender Total Female Male Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license 25.9 28.4 26.9 Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive 13.5 16.2 14.6 Able to get transportation from others 13.5 10.0 12.1 Prefer to bike or walk 1 1.1 8.3 10.0 Prefer to use public transportation 9.1 11.4 9.9 Disability/medical/vision problem 5.7 7.0 6.1 Other reason 5.2 5 .7 5.5 Never learned or still learning to drive 6.2 1.7 4.5 31:16:? communicate and/or conduct busmess onlme 2.1 5.7 3' 4 Concerned about how driving impacts the environment 2.3 4.4 3.1 Do not like to drive/a?aid to drive 3.1 0.4 2.1 Legal issue 2.3 0.9 1.8 Total 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 Secondary reason(s) for not obtaining a driver?s license Respondents were asked: (Q5) ?Are there any ADDITIONAL reasons you do not currently have a driver?s license?? Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses to include all additional reasons. The most common response was ?no additional reasons? (Re3pondents were not allowed to select additional reasons if this option was selected.) The second most common response related to the ability to get transportation from others followed by the cost of owning and maintaining a vehicle Table 4 shows responses by age. The youngest age group was more likely than the middle or older groups to indicate that they were able to get transportation ?om others (29.5% vs. 16.5% and 18.2%, respectively). They were also more likely to say that they were too busy or did not have enough time to get a license (21.4% vs. 8.0% and The oldest age group was more likely than the younger or middle age groups to mention being able to communicate or conduct business online vs. 3.5% and The oldest group was also least likely to have a fear of driving vs. 2.3% and An expected age effect was observed for respondents reporting they have not yet learned to drive, with decreasing frequency as age increased (an inverse relationship). When the top responses were analyzed by gender (see Table 5), female respondents were more likely than males to report being able to get transportation from others (23.0% vs. that they have not yet learned to drive vs. or have a fear of driving vs. As with the previous question, male respondents were more likely than females to report being able to communicate or conduct business online vs. Table 4 Percentage of responses, by age group, for the question ?Are there any ADDITIONAL reasons you do not currently have a driver?s license?? (The most frequent response is shown in bold; percentages sum to more than 100 because selection of more than one reason was allowed.) Reason Age grout) Total 18-19 20-29 30-39 *No additional reasons* 31.8 43.6 46.0 40. 7 Able to get transportation from others 29.5 16.5 18.2 21.2 Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive 15.6 22.3 20.9 19. 7 Prefer to bike or walk 13.9 12.2 13.9 13.3 Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license 21.4 8.0 5.3 11.3 Prefer to use public transportation 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.0 Esfiig?gnibout how drivmg impacts the 5.2 5.3 8.0 6' 2 3:153:22: communicate and/or conduct busmess onlme 3.5 3.2 7.5 4. 7 Other reason 2.3 3.2 1.1 2.2 Never learned or still learning to drive 3.5 1.6 1.1 2.0 Do not like to drive/a?aid to drive 2.3 3.7 0.0 2.0 Disability/medical/vision problem 0.0 2-1 1.6 1.3 Legal issue 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 Table 5 Percentage of responses, by gender, for the question ?Are there any ADDITIONAL reasons you do not currently have a driver?s license?? (The most frequent response is shown in bold; percentages sum to more than 100 because selection of more than one reason was allowed.) Reason Gender Total Female Male *No additional reasons* 39.9 41.6 40. 7 Able to get transportation from others 23.0 17.8 21.2 Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive 20.7 18.3 19. 7 Prefer to bike or walk 13.2 13.7 13.3 Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license 12.9 8.6 11.3 Prefer to use public transportation 7.2 9.6 8.0 Concerned about how driving impacts the environment 5.2 8.1 6.2 $21: at: communicate and/or conduct busmess onhne 3.4 7.1 4. 7 Other reason 3.2 0.5 2.2 Never learned or still learning to drive 2.6 0.5 2.0 Do not like to drive/afraid to drive 2.9 0.5 2.0 Disability/medical/vision problem 1.1 1.5 1.3 Legal issue 0.3 0.0 0.2 Combined summary of all reasons for not obtaining a driver?s license Tables 6 and 7 present summaries of all reasons given by respondents for not obtaining a driver?s license in Q4 (primary reason) and Q5 (all secondary reasons) combined, by age and by gender, respectively. Because this is a summary of multiple responses, the percentages add to more than 100. Paralleling the results for the primary reason for not obtaining a license, the most common response was ?too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license? (36.9% overall). The second most common response related to the cost of owning and maintaining a vehicle followed by the ability to get transportation from others While ?too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license? was the most common overall response, it was inversely related to age, with decreasing frequency as age increased (from 56.6% for the youngest group to 21.4% for the oldest group). Moreover, the most common reSponse for the oldest age group was that owning and maintaining a vehicle was too expensive The youngest age group was more likely than the middle or older groups to say that they were able to get transportation from others (40.4% vs. 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively). Conversely, the youngest group was less likely to prefer the use of public transportation vs. 20.1% and Concern about the environment, ability to communicate or conduct business online, medical problem or disability, and legal issues all increased in frequency as respondent age increased. The frequency of respondents who had not yet learned to drive decreased as age increased. Female respondents were more likely than males to indicate that they were able to get tranSportation from others (34.2% vs. Females were also more likely than males to report that they have not yet learned to drive vs. have a fear of driving vs. or have some legal issue preventing them ?'om obtaining a license vs. Male respondents were more likely to report being able to communicate or conduct business online (11.8% vs. 10 Table 6 Percentage of responses, by age group, for all reasons given in both Q4 and Q5. (The most frequent response is shown in bold; as a summary of multiple responses, percentages sum to more than 100.) Reason Age group Total 18-19 20-29 30-39 Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license 56.6 33.6 21.4 36.9 Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive 30.3 31.8 34.0 32.0 Able to get transportation ?om others 40.4 24.8 28.2 30.9 Prefer to bike or walk 24.2 19.6 21.8 21.8 Prefer to use public transportation 9.6 20.1 20.9 17.0 Exp?nipggn?gnibout how impacts the 5.6 7.9 12.1 8- 6 $1831: at: commumcate and/or conduct busmess onhne 6.1 5.6 11.2 7. 6 Disability/medical/vision problem 1.0 7.9 12.6 7.3 Other reason 7.1 10.7 3.4 7.1 Never learned or still learning to drive 7.6 7.9 3.4 6.3 Do not like to drive/afraid to drive 3.0 4.7 3.9 3.9 Legal issue 0.5 0.5 4.9 1.9 ll Table 7 Percentage of responses, by gender, for all reasons given in both Q4 and Q5. (The most frequent response is shown in bold; as a summary of multiple responses, percentages sum to more than 100.) Reason Gender Total Female Male Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license 37.6 35.8 36.9 Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive 32.1 31.9 32.0 Able to get transportation from others 34.2 25.3 30.9 Prefer to bike or walk 23.1 20.1 21.8 Prefer to use public transportation 15.5 19.7 17.0 Concerned about how driving impacts the environment 7.0 11.4 8.6 3121:2113) communlcate and/or conduct busmess onllne 5.2 11.8 7. 6 Disability/medicaI/vision problem 6.7 8.3 7.3 Other reason 7.5 6.1 7.1 Never learned or still learning to drive 8.5 2.2 6.3 Do not like to drive/afraid to drive 5.7 0.9 3.9 Legal issue 2.6 0.9 1.9 12 Future plans for obtaining a license Respondents were asked: (Q6) ?When do you plan to get a driver?s license?? Overall, 21.5% said they plan on never getting a driver?s license. For those saying that they will never get a driver?s license, the oldest age group was the most likely to give this response with decreasing frequency as age decreased (21.5% and respectively). Males were also more likely to say ?never? than females (26.6% vs. The majority of respondents said that they do have ?iture plans for getting a license For those who do plan to get a license, the youngest age group is the most likely to say they will get one in the next ?ve years with decreasing frequency as age increased (70.5% and 47.5%, respectively); females were more likely than males to respond in this range (76.2% vs. For more long-term plans, the oldest group was the most likely to say six or more years with decreasing frequency as age decreased and respectively). It was more common for males to say they planned to get a license in six or more years than it was for . females 13 Table 8 Percentage of responses, by age group, for the question ?When do you plan to get a driver?s license?? (The most frequent reSponse is shown in bold.) Reason Age grouP Total 18-19 20-29 30-39 Never 7.1 21.5 35.4 21.5 In less than 1 year 64.1 46.7 18.4 42.9 In 1 to 5 years 26.3 23.8 29.1 26.4 In 6 to 10 years 1.5 2.8 11.7 5.3 In more than 10 years 1.0 5.1 5.3 3.9 Total 1 00.0 100. 0 100. 0 I 00.0 Table 9 Percentage of responses, by gender, for the question ?When do you plan to get a driver?s license?? (The most frequent response is shown in bold.) Reason Gender Total Female Male Never 18.7 26.6 21.5 In less than 1 year 47.7 34.5 42.9 In 1 to 5 years 28.5 22.7 26.4 In 6 to 10 years 2.6 10.0 5.3 In more than 10 years 2.6 6.1 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 l4 Additional demographic results Tables 10 through 14 present summaries of additional demographic information for the respondents. The most common attributes for the young adults without a driver?s license in this survey are as follows: Most have never had a valid driver?s license Most spouses or partners do have a valid driver?s license - However, approximately half of respondents currently have no spouse or partner. High school graduate was the most frequent education level completed Nearly half are currently unemployed When including ?ill-time students, 66.4% are currently unemployed. Most reSpondents spend from 1 to 4 hours per day online Table 10 Percentage of respondents who have ever had a valid driver?s license. (The most frequent response is shown in bold.) Have you ever had a valid- . . Percent dnver license? Yes 15.5 No 84.5 Total 100.0 15 Table 1 Percentage of respondents with a spouse, partner, or signi?cant other having a valid driver?s license. (The most frequent response is shown in bold.) Does your Spouse, partner, or signi?cant other Applicable . . . Percent currently have a vahd dnver lrcense? percent Yes 35.3 65.9 No 18.3 34.1 Not applicable 46.4 - Total 100. 0 100. 0 Table 12 Highest level of education completed. (The most frequent response is shown in bold.) What is the highest level of education you Percent have completed? Some high school 14.9 High school graduate 36.6 Some college 26.5 Associate degree 6.0 Bachelor degree 8.4 Graduate degree 7.6 Total 100. 0 l6 Table 13 Current level of employment. (The most frequent response is shown in bold.) What is your current level of employment? Percent Full-time employment 18.8 Part-time employment 14.9 Full-time student (and not employed) 20.6 Not currently employed (including retired) 45.8 Total 100. 0 Table 14 Hours per day spent online. (The most frequent response is shown in bold.) How many hours per day do you spend online communicating Percent fnends and famlly or conductmg busmess? 0 hours 8.1 1 to 4 hours 49.0 5 to 8 hours 22.3 9 to 12 hours 12.5 13 to 16 hours 2.9 17 or more hours 5.2 Total 100.0 l7 Discussion Why do some young adults decide not to obtain a driver?s license? Our survey examined both the primary and secondary reasons for not having a driver?s license among young adults 18 through 39 years of age. Because the patterns of the two sets of responses were similar, we will combine all reasons given in the discussion below. The top eight reasons were as follows: (1) Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license (2) Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive (3) Able to get tranSportation from others (4) Prefer to bike or walk (5) Prefer to use public transportation (6) Concerned about how driving impacts the environment (7) Able to communicate and/or conduct business online instead (8) Disability/medical/vision problems Being too busy to obtain a license reason) is generally determined by an individual?s personal priorities. The frequency of this response decreased as age increased 33.6%, and 21.4%, respectively). The #2 and #3 reasons for not obtaining a license (owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive and able to get transportation from others) are generally supported by the underlying demographics of the reSpondents. Speci?cally, when compared with the general population 18 to 39 years old, respondents in this survey had much higher levels of unemployment 66.4% when including full- students), and a smaller proportion had completed an associate degree or higher. For comparison, unemployment for the same age group in the US. population is 10.5% (BLS, 2013), and 37.4% have completed an associate degree or higher (US. Census Bureau, 2013a). The ability to get transportation from others is likely aided by the fact that the majority of spouses or partners have a valid driver?s license. (Though not measured in this study, it is likely that most parents of younger adults living at home also possess valid driver?s licenses.) The #4 and #5 reasons were prefer to bike or walk and prefer to use public tramportation. The importance of these reasons likely re?ects the increased urbanization 18 of the US. population (US. Census Bureau, 2013b) and is indirectly in?uenced by the #6 reason (concerned about how driving impacts the environment). Overall, 8.6% of the respondents selected concern about the environment as a reason, with the 30- to 39-year? olds selecting this reason more frequently than the two younger groups (12.1% vs. 5.2% and The youngest age group was more likely to be able to get tranSportation from others than the other two age groups (40.4% vs. 24.8% and as were females in comparison with males (34.2% vs. The #7 reason?able to communicate and/or conduct business online instead? was selected by 7.6% of all respondents, but by 11.2% of those between 30 and 39 years of age. Male respondents were more likely to report being able to communicate or conduct business online (11.8% vs. In a regression performed on data from 15 countries (Sivak and Schoettle, 2012a), we found that the number of Internet users per capita was inversely related to the frequency of obtaining driver?s licenses among young persons. The results from the current study suggest only a modest association between these two factors, given that only 7.6% of respondents selected able to communicate and/or conduct business online instead as a primary or secondary reason. Furthermore, it could be that high Internet usage may be a consequence of not having a driver?s license and being unable to readily drive whenever needed. (Daily Internet usage was relatively moderate for the respondents in this study, with 49.0% reporting one to four hours per day of online activity. At the two extremes, 20.6% of respondents reported nine or more hours of use while 8.1% reported no use at all). 7 The #8 problems?was selected by 7.3% of all respondents, but by 12.6% of those between 30 and 39 years of age. 19 What are the long-term plans of young adults without a driver?s license? Our results suggest that 21.5% of persons 18 through 39 years of age who currently do not have a driver?s license plan to never get one. The corresponding percentages for those aged are 21.5%, and 35.4%, respectively. Male respondents were more likely to plan on never getting a license than females (26.6% vs. On the other hand, 69.3% of persons between 18 and 39 years of age who currently do not have a driver?s license plan to get a license within the next ?ve years. The corresponding percentages for those aged are 90.4%, 70.5%, and 47.5%, reSpectively. Females are more likely than males to get a license within the next ?ve years (76.2% vs. Driver?s license, education, and employment This study found that young adults without a driver?s license-?in comparison with the general population of the same age?tend to have less education and higher unemployment. However, the present study was not designed to investigate Whether there is a causal relationship between having a driver?s license on one hand and education and employment on the other hand, or the direction of the effect if there were such a relationship. Focus on these issues in future studies promises to be fruit?il. 20 Conclusions This survey examined why a substantial percentage of young adults currently do not have a driver?s license, and the future plans of this group concerning obtaining a license. The survey yielded useable responses from 618 persons aged 18 to 39 without a driver?s license. The top eight reasons (primary or secondary) for not having a driver?s license were as follows: (1) too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license (2) owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive (3) able to get transportation from others (4) prefer to bike or walk (5) prefer to use public transportation (6) concerned about how driving impacts the environment (7) able to communicate and/or conduct business online instead and (8) disability/medical/vision problems Of the respondents, 22% indicated that they plan on never getting a driver?s license. On the other hand, 69% expect to get a driver?s license within the next ?ve years. Young adults without a driver?s license?in comparison with the general population of the same age?tend to have less education and higher unemployment. However, the present study was not designed to investigate whether there is a causal relationship, or the direction of the effect if there were such a relationship. 21 References BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics]. (2013). Labor force statistics from the current population survey: A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race. Available at: Davis, B. and Dutzik, T. (2012). ranSportation and the New Generation: Why Young People are Driving Less and What it Means for Transportation Policy. Frontier Group and US. PIRG Education Fund. Available at: Sivak, M. and Schoettle, B. (2011). Recent changes in the age composition of US. drivers: Implications for the extent, safety, and environmental consequences of personal transportation. Traffic Injury Prevention, 12, 588-592. Sivak, M. and Schoettle, B. (2012a). Recent changes in the age composition of drivers in 15 countries. Traffic Injury Prevention, 13, 126-132. Sivak, M. and Schoettle, B. (2012b). Update: Percentage of young persons with a 7 driver?s license continues to drop. ra?ic Injury Prevention, 13, 341 . Taylor, B.D., Ralph, K., Blumenberg, 13., and Smart, M. (2013). Who knows about kids these days? Analyzing the determinants of youth and adult mobility between 1990 and 2009. Paper presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the TranSportation Research Board, January 13-17, 2013, Washington, DC. US. Census Bureau (2013a). Current population survey, 2012 annual social and economic supplement: Table 1. Educational attainment of the population I 8 years and over, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 2012. Available at: 2/tables.html US. Census Bureau. (2013b). Urban, urbanized area, urban cluster, and rural population, 2010 and 2000: United States. Available at: Williams, A.F. (2011). Teenagers? licensing decisions and their views of licensing policies: A national survey. Tra?'ic Injury Prevention, 12, 312-319. 22 Appendix Driver?s Licensing Survey (via SurveyMonkey) 1) Do you currently have a valid driver?s license? Yes (including a suspended license) -) Thank respondent and exit survey No 2) What is your age? 18 19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35?39 3) Have you ever had a valid driver?s license? Yes No 4) What is the MAIN reason you do not currently have a driver?s license? Please select ONLY ONE main reason. Able to communicate and/or conduct business online instead Able to get tran5portation from others (friends, parents, etc.) Concerned about how driving impacts the environment Disability, medical problem, or vision problem Do not like to drive or afraid to drive Legal issue Never learned or still learning to drive Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive Prefer to bike or walk Prefer to use public transportation (bus, train, taxi, etc.) Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license Other (please specify) 23 5) Are there any ADDITIONAL reasons you do not currently have a driver?s license? Select ALL additional reasons that apply. No additional reasons Able to communicate and/or conduct business online instead Able to get transportation from others (friends, parents, etc.) Concerned about how driving impacts the environment Disability, medical problem, or vision problem Do not like to drive or afraid to drive Legal issue Never learned or still learning to drive Owning and maintaining a vehicle is too expensive Prefer to bike or walk Prefer to use public transportation (bus, train, taxi, etc.) Too busy or not enough time to get a driver?s license Other (please specify) 6) When do yon plan to get a driver?s license? Please select your best estimate. Never In less than 1 year In 1 to 5 years In 6 to 10 years In more than 10 years 7) Does your spouse, partner, or signi?cant other currently have a valid driver?s license? yes (including a suspended license) no not applicable (no spouse, partner, or signi?cant other) 8) What is the highest level of education you have completed? Some high school High school graduate Some college Associate degree Bachelor degree Graduate degree 24 9) How many hours per day do you spend online communicating with friends and family or conducting business? This includes email, chat, instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media or online communications. Please enter from 0 to 24 hours. 10) What is your current level of employment? Please select only ONE option that best describes you. Full-time employment Part-time employment Not currently employed Retired ull-time student (and not employed) 25 A Pro?le of Older Americans: 2014 Administration on Aging Administration for Community Living U.S. partment of Health and Human Services Table of Contents HIGHLIGHTS .. 1 THE OLDER POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 FUTURE GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF PERSONS 65 1900-2060 (NMERS INMILLIONS) .. 3 MARITAL STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 FIGURE 2: MARITAL STA TUS OF PERSONS 65 2014 .. 4 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS 5 FIGURE 3.- LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF PERSONS 65 2014 .. 5 RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 6 FIGURE 4: PERSONS 65+ AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION, 2013 .. 7 FIGURE 5: PERCENTINCREASEINPOPULA TION 65 2003 TO 2013 .. 7 FIGURE 6: THE 65+ POPULATION BYSTAIE, 2013 .. 8 INCOME.. . . 9 FIGURE 7: PERCENTDISTRIBUTIONBYINCOME: 2013 .. 9 POVERTY .. 10 HOUSING . 11 EMPLOYMENT 11 EDUCATION 11 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE 12 HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE .. 13 FIGURE 8: PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS 65 BY TYPE OF HEALTHINSURANCE COVERAGE, 2013 .. I 3 DISABILITY AND ACTIVITY LIMITATIONS 14 FIGURE 9: PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS 65 WITHA DISABILITY, 2013 .. 14 NOTES 15 Highlights* 0 The population age 65 and over numbered 44.7 million in 2013, an increase of 8.8 million or 24.7% since 2003. 0 Between 2003 and 2013 the population age 60 and over increased 30.7% from 48.1 million to 62.8 million. 0 The number of Americans aged 45?64 who will reach 65 over the next two decades increased by 20.7% between 2003 and 2013. 0 About one in every seven, or 14.1%, of the population is an older American. 0 Persons reaching age 65 have an average life expectancy of an additional 19.3 years (20.5 years for females and 17.9 years for males). 0 There were 67,347 persons aged 100 or more in 2013 (0.15% of the total 65+ population). 0 Older women outnumber older men at 25.1 million older women to 19.6 million older men. 0 In 2013, 21.2% of persons 65+ were members of racial or ethnic minority populations-86% were African-Americans (not Hispanic), 3.9% were Asian or Paci?c Islander (not Hispanic), 0.5% were Native American (not Hispanic), 0.1% were Native Hawaiian/Paci?c Islander, (not Hispanic), and 0.7% of persons 65+ identi?ed themselves as being of two or more races. Persons of Hispanic origin (who may be of any race) represented 7.5% of the older population. 0 Older men were much more likely to be married than older women-?72% of men, 46% of women (Figure 2). In 2014, 35% older women were widows. 0 About 28% (12.5 million) of noninstitutionalized older persons live alone (8.8 million women, 3.8 million men). 0 Almost half of older women age 75+ live alone. 0 In 2013, about 536,000 grandparents aged 65 or more had the primary responsibility for their grandchildren who lived with them. 0 The population 65 and over has increased from 35.9 million in 2003 to 44.7 million in 2013 (a 24.7% increase) and is projected to more than double to 98 million in 2060. The 85+ population is projected to triple from 6 million in 2013 to 14.6 million in 2040. 0 Racial and ethnic minority p0pulations have increased from 6.3 million in 2003 (17.5% of the older adult population) to 9.5 million in 2013 (21.2% of older adults) and are projected to increase to 21.1 million in 2030 (28.5% of older adults). 0 The median income of older persons in 2013 was $29,327 for males and $16,301 for females. Median money income (after adjusting for in?ation) of all households headed by older people rose by 3.7% (which was statistically signi?cant) between 2012 and 2013. Households containing families headed by persons 65+ reported a median income in 2013 of $51,486. 0 The major sources of income as reported by older persons in 2012 were Social Security (reported by 86% of older persons), income from assets (reported by private pensions (reported by government employee pensions (reported by and earnings (reported by 0 Social Security constituted 90% or more of the income received by 36% of bene?ciaries in 2012 (22% of married couples and 47% of non-married bene?ciaries). 0 Over 4.2 million older adults were below the poverty level in 2013. This poverty rate is statistically different from the poverty rate in 2012 In 2011, the US. Census Bureau also released a new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) which takes into account regional variations in the livings costs, non-cash bene?ts received, and non-discretionary expenditures but does not replace the of?cial poverty measure. In 2013, the SPM shows a poverty level for older persons of 14.6% (more than 5 percentage points higher than the of?cial rate of This increase is mainly due to including medical out?of-pocket expenses in the poverty calculations. *Principal sources of data for the Pro?le are the US. Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Pro?le incorporates the latest data available but not all items are updated on an annual basis. The Older Population The population age 65 years or older numbered 44.7 million in 2013 (the most recent year for which data are available). They represented 14.1% of the US. population, about one in every seven Americans. The number of older Americans increased by 8.8 million or 24.7% since 2003, compared to an increase of 6.8% for the under-65 population. Between 2003 and 2013, the number of Americans aged 45-64 (who will reach age 65 over the next two decades) increased by 20.7% and the number of Americans age 60 and over increased by 30.7% from 48.1 million to 62.8 million. In 2013, there were 25.1 million older women and 19.6 million older men, or a sex ratio of 128.1 women for every 100 men. At age 85 and over, this ratio increases to 195.9 women for every 100 men. Since 1900, the percentage of Americans 65+ has more than tripled (from 4.1% in 1900 to 14.1% in 2013), and the number has increased over thirteen times (from 3.1 million to 44.7 million). The older population itself is increasingly older. In 2013, the 65-74 age group (25.2 million) was more than 10 times larger than in 1900; the 75-84 group (13.4 million) increased by 70 percent and the 85+ group (6 million) was 49 times larger. In 2013, persons reaching age 65 had an average life expectancy of an additional 19.3 years (20.5 years for females and 17.9 years for males). A child born in 2013 could expect to live 78.8 years, about 30 years longer than a child born in 1900. Much of this increase occurred because of reduced death rates for children and young adults. However, the period of 1990-2007 also has seen reduced death rates for the population aged 65-84, especially for men by 41.6% for men aged 65-74 and by 29.5% for men aged 75-84. Life expectancy at age 65 increased by only 2.5 years between 1900 and 1960, but has increased by 4.2 years from 1960 to 2007. Nonetheless, some research has raised concerns about future increases in life expectancy in the US compared to other high-income countries, primarily due to past smoking and current obesity levels, especially for women age 50 and over. About 3.4 million persons celebrated their 65th birthday in 2013. Census estimates showed an annual net increase between 2012 and 2013 of 1.6 million in the number of persons age 65 and over. Between 1980 and 2013, the centenarian population experienced a larger percentage increase than did the total population. There were 67,347 persons aged 100 or more in 2013 (0.15% of the total 65+ population). This is more than double the 1980 ?gure of 32,194. Sources: US. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013. Release Date: June 2014; 2010 Census Special Reports, Centenarians: 2010, 2012; and Table 5. Population by Age and Sex for the United States: 1900 to 2000, Part A. Hobbs, Frank and Nicole Stoops, Census 2000 Special Reports, Series CENSR-4, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Xu I Q, Arias E. Mortality in the United States, 2013. NCHS data brief, no 178. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2014. National Research Council, Crimmins EM, Preston SH, Cohen B, editors. Explaining Divergent Levels of Longevity in High?Income Countries. Panel on Understanding Divergent Trends in Longevity in High-Income Countries, 2011. Future Growth The older population will continue to grow signi?cantly in the future (Figure 1). This growth slowed somewhat during the 1990's because of the relatively small number of babies born during the Great Depression of the 1930's. But the older population is beginning to burgeon as the "baby boom" generation begins to reach age 65. The population age 65 and over has increased from 35.9 million in 2003 to 44.7 million in 2013 (a 24.7% increase) and is projected to more than double to 98 million in 2060. By 2040, there will be about 82.3 million older persons, over twice their number in 2000. People 65+ represented 14.1% of the p0pulation in the year 2013 but are expected to grow to be 21.7% of the population by 2040. The 85+ population is projected to triple from 6 million in 2013 to 14.6 million in 2040. Racial and ethnic minority populations have increased from 6.3 million in 2003 (17.5% of the older adult population) to 9.5 million in 2013 (21.2% of older adults) and are projected to increase to 21.1 million in 2030 (28.5% of older adults). Between 2013 and 2030, the white (not Hispanic) population 65+ is projected to increase by 50% compared with 123% for older racial and ethnic minority populations, including Hispanics African-Americans (not Hispanic) American Indian and Native Alaskans (not Hispanic) and Asians (not Hispanic) Figure 1: Number of Persons 65+: 1900-2060 (numbers in millions) Figure 1: Number of Persons 65+, 1900 to 2060 (numbers in millions1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2013 2020 2040 2060 Year (as of July 1) Note: Increments in years are uneven. Source: US. Census Bureau, Population Estimates and Projections. Sources: US. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013, Release Date: June 2014; Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex and Age for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010; Intercensal Estimates of the White Alone Resident Population by Sex and Age for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010; 2014 National Population Projections: Summary Tables, Table 3. Projections of the Population by Sex and Selected Age Groups for the United States: 2015 to 2060, released December 10, 2014; and Projected Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: 2014 to 2060. Marital Status In 2014, older men were much more likely to be married than older women--72% of men, 46% of women (Figure 2). Widows accounted for 35% of all older women in 2014. There were more than three times as many widows (8.7 million) as widowers (2.3 million). Divorced and separated (including married/spouse absent) older persons represented only 14% of all older persons in 2014. However, this percentage has increased since 1980, when approximately 5.3% of the older population were divorced or separated/spouse absent. Figure 2: Marital Status of Persons 65+, 2014 Figure 2: Marital Status of Persons 65+, 2014 100% 90% a 0 72% 70% ?Women IMen 60Married Widowed Divorced or Single (never Separated] married) Spouse Absent Source: US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Source: US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Table A1. Marital Status of People 15 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, Personal Earnings, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 2014. Internet data release January 2015. Living Arrangements Over half of older noninstitutionalized persons lived with their spouse in 2014. Approximately 14.2 million or 72% of older men, and 11.3 million or 46% of older women, lived with their spouse (Figure 3). The proportion living with their spouse decreased with age, especially for women. Only 32% of women 75+ years old lived with a spouse. About 28% (12.5 million) of all noninstitutionalized older persons in 2014 lived alone (8.8 million women, 3.8 million men). They represented 35% of older women and 19% of older men. The proportion living alone increases with advanced age. Among women aged 75 and over, for example, almost half lived alone. In 2013, a total of about 2.2 million older people lived in a household with a grandchild present. About 536,000 of these grandparents over 65 years old were the persons with primary responsibility for their grandchildren who lived with them. A relatively small number (1.5 million) and percentage of the 65+ population in 2013 lived in institutional settings such as nursing homes (1.3 million). However, the percentage increases dramatically with age, ranging (in 2013) from 1% for persons 65-74 years to 3% for persons 75-84 years and 10% for persons 85+. Figure 3: Living Arrangements of Persons 65+: 2014 Source: US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Sources: US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey; Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 1 Men Women 9% 1 19% I iiving spouse living atone 469? l?ving alone nether lower 72% 35% Racial and Ethnic Composition In 2013, 21.2% of persons age 65+ were members of racial or ethnic minority populations??8.6% were African-Americans (not Hispanic), 3.9% were Asian or Paci?c Islander (not Hispanic), 0.5% were Native American (not Hispanic), 0.1% were Native Hawaiian/Paci?c Islander, (not Hispanic), and 0.7% of persons age 65+ identi?ed themselves as being of two or more races. Persons of Hispanic origin (who may be of any race) represented 7.5% of the older population. Only 8% of all the people who were members of racial and ethnic minority populations were 65+ in 2013 compared with 17.8% of non-Hispanic whites. The percentage of peOple age 65 and over within each racial and ethnic minority group are as follows: 9.8% of African-Americans (not Hispanic), 10.7% of Asians (not Hispanic), 7.4% of Native Hawaiian and Other Paci?c Islanders (not Hispanic), 9.4% of American Indian and Native Alaskans (not Hispanic) and 6.2% of Hispanics. Source: US. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident POpulation by Sex, Age, Race Alone or in Combination, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013. Release Date: June 2014. Geographic Distribution The proportion of older persons in the population varies considerably by state with some states experiencing much greater growth in their older populations (Figures 4 and 5). In 2013, over half of persons 65+ lived in 13 states: California (4.8 million); Florida (3.6 million); Texas (3.0 million); New York (2.8 million); (2.1 million); and Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Georgia, Virginia, and Arizona each had well over 1 million (Figure 6). Persons 65+ constituted approximately 15% or more of the total population in 19 states in 2013: Florida Maine West Virginia Vermont Montana Delaware Hawaii Iowa Rhode Island Oregon Arizona Arkansas (15 New Hampshire South Carolina Connecticut Ohio Michigan and Missouri In 20 states, the 65+ population increased by 30% or more between 2003 and 2013: Alaska Nevada Colorado Georgia Arizona Idaho South Carolina Utah Washington North Carolina Delaware Texas New Mexico Oregon Virginia New Hampshire Montana Tennessee Wyoming and Hawaii The 15 jurisdictions with poverty rates at or over 10% for older adults during 2013 were: District of Columbia Mississippi Louisiana New Mexico New York Kentucky (1 Texas Florida Georgia Alabama Arkansas California South Carolina South Dakota and North Carolina Most persons 65+ lived in metropolitan areas in 2013 About 54% of these older persons lived outside principal cities and 27% lived inside principal cities. Also, 19% of older persons lived outside of metropolitan areas. Older adults are less likely to change residence than other age groups. From 2013 to 2014, only 3% of older persons moved as opposed to 13% of the under 65 population. Most older movers stayed in the same county and 81% remained in the same state. Only 19% of the movers moved from out-of?state or abroad. Sources: Administration for Community Living, agid.acl. gov. Data Source: Population Estimates, accessed March 24, 2015. US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. POV40. Age, Sex, Household Relationship, by Region and Residence - Ratio of Income to Poverty Level. Figure 4: Persons 65+ as a Percentage of Total Population, 2013 Flgure 4: Persons 65+ as a Percentage of Total Population, 2013 marmesoh an? ?nuance? 12.3166!) Imp ?295m .. (2) (Scarce: as. Figure 5: Percent Increase in Population 65+, 2003 to 2013 Figufe?: 2003!!) 2013 it?uaos?m 29.0%? mugs) mum) 325% Figure 6: The 65+ Population by State, 2013 Number of Persons Percent of All Percent Increase Percent Below State 65 and Older Ages from 2003 to 2013 Poverty 2013 US Total (50 States DC) 44,704,074 14.1 24.7 9.5% Alabama 721,166 14.9 22.4 10.6% Alaska 66,089 9.0 61.7 5.2% Arizona 1,018,862 15.4 43.2 8.9% Arkansas 454,420 15.4 20.6 10.5% California 4,791,731 12.5 28.0 10.4% Colorado 647,391 12.3 46.8 7.4% Connecticut 545,671 15.2 15.1 7.4% Delaware 147,484 15.9 37.8 7.2% District of Columbia 73,422 11.4 9.1 17.5% Florida 3,647,617 18.7 26.3 10.7% Georgia 1,195,955 12.0 44.4 10.7% Hawaii 219,557 15.6 30.3 7.2% Idaho 223,142 13.8 43.1 8.2% Illinois 1,743,641 13.5 15.7 8.8% Indiana 915,033 13.9 19.7 7.9% Iowa 480,879 15.6 10.4 7.8% Kansas 405,063 14.0 14.2 7.9% Kentucky 634,252 14.4 23.5 1 1.2% Louisiana 613,486 13.3 17.1 12.7% Maine 23 5,067 17.7 24.6 9.1% Maryland 794,981 13.4 27.6 8.0% Massachusetts 989,312 14.8 16.0 8.8% Michigan 1,487,593 15.0 19.9 8.3% Minnesota 756,077 13.9 23.8 7.4% Mississippi 416,300 13.9 19.8 14.7% Missouri 907,777 15.0 19.0 9.4% Montana 164,768 16.2 31.5 9.2% Nebraska 264,008 14.1 13.6 8.4% Nevada 380,900 13.7 50.7 8.7% New Hampshire 203,205 15.4 33.0 5.6% New Jersey 1,283,468 14.4 14.8 8.2% New Mexico 306,661 14.7 36.2 11.7% New York 2,832,481 14.4 14.2 11.6% North Carolina 1,407,099 14.3 38.1 10.0% North Dakota 102,815 14.2 9.2 9.4% Ohio 1,752,297 15.1 15.4 8.4% Oklahoma 549,121 14.3 19.4 9.5% Oregon 607,395 15.5 33.7 9.0% 2,091,330 16.4 10.2 8.5% Rhode Island 162,814 15.5 8.5 8.5% South Carolina 727,768 15.2 43.1 10.2% South Dakota 126,163 14.9 16.3 10.1% Tennessee 952,376 14.7 31.0 9.7% Texas 2,966,167 11.2 36.7 1 1.0% Utah 283,635 9.8 40.0 7.2% Vermont 102,473 16.4 28.2 8.0% 7 Virginia 1,105,381 13.4 33.3 7.4% Washington 951,084 13.6 38.2 8.1% West Virginia 320,041 17.3 14.9 9.4% Wisconsin 849,967 14.8 19.0 9.0% Wyoming 78,689 13.5 30.5 7.6% Puerto Rico 599,193 16.4 29.0 40.4% Sources: Administration for Community Living, Data Source: Population Estimates, accessed March 24, 2015. US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement; Population Estimates; and American Community Survey. Income The median income of older persons in 2013 was $29,327 for males and $16,301 for females. From 2012 to 2013, median money income (after adjusting for in?ation) of all households headed by older people rose 3.7% which was statistically signi?cant. Households containing families headed by persons 65+ reported a median income in 2013 of $51,486 ($53,821 for non-Hispanic Whites, $35,981 for Hispanics, $41,336 for African-Americans, and $53,179 for Asians). About 6% of family households with an older adult householder had incomes less than $15,000 and 70% had incomes of $35,000 or more (Figure 7). Figure 7: Percent Distribution by Income: 2013 Family Households 65+ Householder, 2013 40% 60% 80% 100% Under $10,000 $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 22.0% $75,000 and over 301'. $51,486 median for 15.6 million family households 65+ Persons 65+ Reporting became, 2613 0% 40% 60% 809i. 100% {Rider $5.000 $5.000 - $9,999 $10,003 $14,999 7.0% $15,800 $24,999 24.0% $5,000 - $34,999 W900 - $49,999 $50,000 and we 8.0% $21,225 medm 42.9 m?ion persons 65+ reporting 'mcome- Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. For all older persons reporting income in 2013 (42.9 million), 17% reported less than $10,000 and 43% reported $25,000 or more. The median income reported was $21,225. The major sources of income as reported by older persons in 2012 were Social Security (reported by 86% of older persons), income from assets (reported by private pensions (reported by government employee pensions (reported by and earnings (reported by In 2012, Social Security bene?ts accounted for 35% of the aggregate income1 of the older population. The bulk of the remainder consisted of earnings asset income and pensions Social Security constituted 90% or more of the income received by 36% of bene?ciaries (22% of married couples and 47% of non-married bene?ciaries). Sources: US. Census Bureau, Current POpulation Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, FINC- 01. Selected Characteristics of Families by Total Money Income in: 2013; Selected Characteristics of People 15 Years Old and Over by Total Money Income in 2013, Work Experience in 2013, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex; and DeNavas-Walt, Carmen and Bernadette D. Proctor, US Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013, US. Government Printing Of?ce, Washington, DC, 2014. Social Security Administration,?Fast Facts and Figures About Social Security, 2014.? Poveny Over 4.2 million people age 65 and over were below the poverty level in 2013.2 This poverty rate is statistically different from the poverty rate in 2012 Another 2.5 million or 5.6% of older adults were classi?ed as "near-poor" (income between the poverty level and 125% of this level). Just over 2.5 million older Whites (alone, not Hispanic) were poor in 2013, compared to 17.6% of older African-Americans (alone), 13.6% of older Asians (alone), and 19.8% of older Hispanics (any race). Higher than average poverty rates were found in 2013 for older persons who lived inside principal cities and in the South Older women had a higher poverty rate than older men in 2013. Older persons living alone were much more likely to be poor than were older persons living with families The highest poverty rates were experienced among older Hispanic women who lived alone. In 2011, the US. Census Bureau released a new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). The SPM methodology shows a signi?cantly higher number of older persons below poverty than is shown by the of?cial poverty measure. For persons 65 and older this poverty measure shows a poverty level of 14.6% in 2013 (more than 5 percentage points higher than the official rate of Unlike the of?cial poverty rate, the SPM takes into account regional variations in the cost of housing etc. and, even more signi?cantly, the impact of both non-cash bene?ts received SNAP/food stamps, low income tax credits, W1C, etc.) and non?discretionary expenditures including medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenses. For persons 65 and over, MOOP was the major source of the signi?cant differences between these measures. The SPM does not replace the of?cial poverty measure. Sources: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement; Age and Sex of All People, Family Members and Unrelated Individuals Iterated by Income-to- Poverty Ratio and Race: 2013; POV40: Age, Sex, Household Relationship, by Region and Residence -- Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 2013"Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013," P60-249, issued September, 2014; Poverty Thresholds for 2013 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years; and ?The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013,? P60-251, issued October 2014. 1 Aggregate income refers to the total income of couples and nonmarried persons aged 65 or older. 2 The poverty threshold in 2013 was $11,173 for householders age 65 and over living alone and $14,095 for householders age 65 and older living with one other person. 10 i . 2 . Housing Of the 26.8 million households headed by older persons in 2013, 81% were owners and 19% were renters. The median family income of older homeowners was $34,500. The median family income of older renters was $17,300. In 2013, almost 45% of older householders spent more than one-fourth of their income on housing costs - 39% for owners and 69% for renters - as compared to 45% of all householders. For older homeowners in 2013, the median construction year was 1972 compared with 1976 for all homeowners. Among the homes owned by people age 65 and older, 2.7% had moderate to severe problems with plumbing, heating, electric, kitchen, and/or upkeep. In 2013, the median value of homes owned by older persons was $150,000 (with a median purchase price of $63,900) compared to a median home value of $160,000 for all homeowners. About 65% of older homeowners in 2013 owned their homes free and clear. Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey, National Tables: 2013. Employment In 2014, 8.4 million (18.6 Americans age 65 and over were in the labor force (working or actively seeking work), including 4.6 million men and 3.8 million women They constituted 5% of the US. labor force. About 5% were unemployed. Labor force participation of men 65+ decreased steadily from 63.1% in 1900 to 15.8% in 1985; then stayed at 16%?18% until 2002; and has been increasing since then to over 20%. The participation rate for women 65+ rose from 8.3% in 1900 to 10.9% in 1956, fell to 7.3% in 1985, and then stayed at during the 19905. Beginning in 2000, labor force participation of older women started to gradually rise from 9.7% to the 2014 level. This increase is especially noticeable among the population aged 65-69. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, Labor Force Statistics. Educa?on The educational level of the older population is increasing. Between 1970 and 2014, the percentage of older persons who had completed high school rose ?om 28% to 84%. About 26% in 2014 had a bachelor's degree or higher. The percentage who had completed high school varied considerably by race and ethnic origin in 2014: 88% of Whites (not Hispanic), 76% of Asians (not Hispanic), 74% of African-Americans (not Hispanic), 76% of American Indian/Alaska Natives (not Hispanic), and 54% of Hispanics. The increase in educational levels is also evident within these groups. In 1970, only 30% of older Whites and 9% of older African-Americans were high school graduates. Source: US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 11 Health and Health Care In 2011-2013, 43% of noninstitutionalized people age 65 and over assessed their health as excellent or very good (compared to 55% for persons aged 45-64 years). There was little difference between the sexes on this measure, but older African?Americans (not Hispanic) older American Indians/Alaska Natives older Asians and older Hispanics were less likely to rate their health as excellent or very good than were older Whites (not Hispanic) Most older persons have at least one chronic condition and many have multiple conditions. In 2011-2013, the most frequently occurring conditions among older persons were: diagnosed arthritis all types of heart disease any cancer diagnosed diabetes (21% in 2009-2012), and hypertension (high blood pressure or taking antihypertensive medication) (71 percent in 2009?20 12). In January-June 2014, 71% of people age 65 and over reported that they received an in?uenza vaccination during the past 12 months and 61% reported that they had ever received a pneumococcal vaccination. About 29% (of persons 60+) reported height/weight combinations that placed them among the obese. over 41% of persons aged 65-74 and 27% of persons 75+ reported that they engaged in regular leisure-time physical activity. Only 9% reported that they are current smokers and 7% reported excessive alcohol consumption. Only 2% reported that they had experienced distress during the past 30 days. In 2012, 6.8 million people age 65 and over stayed in a hospital overnight at least one night during the year. Among this group of older adults, 11 percent stayed overnight 1 time, 3 percent stayed overnight 2 times, and 2 percent stayed overnight 3 or more times. This is approximately double the number of overnight hospital stays for the population age 45 to 64 who had 6 percent stay overnight 1 time, 1 percent stay overnight 2 times, and 1 percent stay overnight 3 or more times. Older persons averaged more of?ce visits with doctors in 2012. Among people age 75 and over, 23 percent had 10 or more visits to a doctor or other health care professional in the past 12 months compared to 14 percent among people age 45 to 64. In anuary-J une 2014, 97% of older persons reported that they did have a usual place to go for medical care and only 2.4% said that they failed to obtain needed medical care during the previous 12 months due to ?nancial barriers. In 2013 older consumers averaged out?of-pocket health care expenditures of $5,069, an increase of 35% since 2003. In contrast, the total population spent considerably less, averaging $3,631 in out-of-pocket costs. Older Americans spent 12.2% of their total expenditures on health, as compared with 7.1% among all consumers. Health costs incurred on average by older consumers in 2013 consisted of $3,347 for insurance, $803 for medical services, $730 for drugs, and $188 for medical supplies. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data from the anuary-J une 2014; Blackwell DL, Lucas W, Clarke TC. Summary health statistics for US. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2012. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10(260). 2014. National Health Interview Survey; and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, Table 1300. Age of Reference Person: Annual Expenditures Means, Shares, Standard Errors, and Coef?cient of Variation. Health Insurance Coverage In 2013, almost all non-institutionalized persons 65+ were covered by Medicare. Medicare covers mostly acute care services and requires bene?ciaries to pay part of the cost, leaving about half of health spending to be covered by other sources. About 54% had some type of private health insurance. Among non~ institutionalized older adults, 7% had military-based health insurance and 6% were covered by Medicaid (Figure 8). Less than 2% did not have coverage of some kind. Figure 8: Percentage of Persons 65+ by type of Health Insurance Coverage, 2013 Figure ?Pe?rCentageef Palisonfs by 'ytypie, of Health" Insurance (foyerage, 2,613 .109 Note: Figure 8 data are for the non-institutionalized older adults. A person can be represented in more than one category. Source: US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Sources: US. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement; and Health Insurance in the United States: 2013," P60-250, issued September, 2014. 13 Disability and Activity Limitations According to the US. Census Bureau?s American Community Survey, some type of disability dif?culty in hearing, vision, cognition, ambulation, self-care, or independent living) was reported by 36% of people age 65 and over in 2013. The percentages for individual disabilities ranged from almost one quarter (23 percent) having an ambulatory disability to 7 percent having a vision dif?culty (Figure 9). Some of these disabilities may be relatively minor but others cause people to require assistance to meet important personal needs. Figure 9: Percentage of persons 65+ with a disability, 2013 Figure-19}: Percentage of persons- 65+ With a disability, 2013 lndependentliut?g .Sengcar??idif?tfutty Source: US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Using limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) to measure disability, in 2012, 33% of community-resident Medicare bene?ciaries age 65+ reported dif?culty in performing one or more ADLs and an additional 12% reported dif?culty with one or more IADLS. By contrast, 96% of institutionalized Medicare bene?ciaries had dif?culties with one or more ADLs and 83% of them had dif?culty with three or more ADLs. include bathing, dressing, eating, and getting around the house. IADLs include preparing meals, shopping, managing money, using the telephone, doing housework, and taking medication] Limitations in activities because of chronic conditions increase with age. Except where noted, the ?gures above are taken from surveys of the noninstitutionalized older adults. Although nursing homes are being increasingly used for short-stay post-acute care, about 1.3 million older adults are in nursing homes (almost half are age 85 and over). These individuals often need care with their ADLs and/or have severe cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease or other dementias. Sources: US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare Current Bene?ciary Survey. 14 Notes *Principal sources of data for the Pro?le are the US. Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Pro?le incorporates the latest data available but not all items are updated on an annual basis. Age-adj usted estimates are used when available. A Pro?le of Older Americans: 2014 was developed by the Administration on Aging Administration for Community Living, US. Department of Health and Human Services. serves as an advocate for older adults within the federal government and is working to encourage and coordinate a responsive system of family and community based services throughout the nation. helps states develop comprehensive service systems which are administered by 56 State Units on Aging, 629 Area Agencies on Aging, 244 Tribal organizations, and 2 Native Hawaiian organizations. 15 time. How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - US Census Bureau I (Ilwwvacensusgovlglossaryl) I FAQs (Ilaslccensusgc US. Department or Commerce I Blogs I Index Gloss- Search 'ensus.gov (I) Population Poverty Main About Poverty . J, html) How the Census Bureau Measures ovorty How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty Following the Office of Management and Budget's (0MB) Statistical Policy Directive 14. the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family?s threshold. then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically. but they are updated for in?ation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty de?nition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing. Medicaid. and food stamps). Income Used to Compute Poverty Status (Money Income) benefits. pension or retirement income. interest. dividends. rents. royalties. income from estates. trusts. educational assistance. alimony. child support, assistance from outside the household. and other miscellaneous sources. Noncash bene?ts (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) do not count. 0 Before taxes Excludes capital gains or losses. Includes earnings. unemployment compensation. workers? compensation. Social Security, Supplemental Security Income. public assistance. veterans' payments. survivor If a person lives with a family. add up the income of all family members. (Non-relatives. such as housemates. do not count.) Measure of Need (Poverty Thresholds) Poverty thresholds are the dollar amounts used to determine poverty status. Each person or family is assigned one out of 48 possible poverty thresholds - 48k] Thresholds vary according to: Size of the family Age: of the members The same thresholds are used throughout the United States (do not vary geographically). Updated annually for in?ation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Although the thresholds in some sense re?ect families needs. They are intended for use as a statistical yardstick. not as a complete description of what people and families need to live. Many government aid programs use a different poverty measure. the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines . or multiples thereof. Poverty thresholds were originally derived in 1963-1964. using: US. Department of Agriculture food budgets designed for families under economic stress. Data about what portion of their income families spent on food. Computation lf total family income is less than the threshold appropriate for that family. The family is in poverty. All family members have the same poverty status. For individuals who do not live with family members. their own income is compared with the appropriate threshold. If total family income equals or is greater than the threshold. the family (or unrelated individual) is not in poverty. Example Family A has ?ve members: two children. their mother. father. and great-aunt. Their threshold was $28.960 in 2014. (See poverty thresholds for 2014) - 48k] Suppose the members' incomes in 2014 were: Mother Father Great-aunt First Child I Second Child Total Income Compare total fam?y income with their family's threshold: Income I Threshold $30.000 I 328.960 1.04 1/2 3016 How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - US Census Bureau Since their income was greater than their threshold, Family A is not "in poverty? according to the of?cial de?nition. The income divided by the threshold is called the Ratio of Income to Poverty. - Family A?s ratio of income to poverty was 1.04. The r?fference in dollars between family income and the family's poverty threshold is called the Income De?cit (for families in poverty) or Income Surplus (for families above Pove?Y) Family A's income surplus was $1,040 (or $30,000 - $28360). People Whose Poverty Status Cannot Be Determined Unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children): If someone is under age 15 and not living with a family member. we do not know their income. Since we cannot determine their poverty status. they are excluded from the 'poverty universe" (table totals). Income questions are asked of people age 15 and older. People in: Institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes) College dormitories - Military barracks - Living situations without conventional housing (and who are not in shelters) Authority Behind Of?cial Poverty Measure The of?cial measure of poverty was established by the Of?ce of Management and Budget (OMB) in Statistical Policy Directive 14 I To be used by federal agencies in their statistical walk. Government aid programs do not have to use the official poverty measure as eligibility criteria. Many government aid programs use a r?fferent poverty measure. the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines . or variants thereof. - Each aid program may de?ne eligibility differently. Of?cial poverty data come from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). formerly called the Annual Demographic Supplement 1 or simply the "March Supplement." How Poverty is Calculated in the American Community Survey - 11k] History The Development of the Orshansky Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Of?cial US. Poverty Measure him-[Mm runner r: . by Gordon M. Fisher ABOUT US FIND DATA BUSINESS 3. INDUSTRY PEOPLE a. HOUSEHOLDS SPECIAL TOPICS NEWSROOM Are You in a Survey? OuickFacts Help With Your Forms 2020 Census Advisers. Centers and News Releases (lien-w Min 'r (Ii-r? ?w Research Programs :gzgyisz?w?m' American Economic Indicators 2010 Census (Ilfadfmdemoensusgovl) oensus.govleoonemio? Statistics in Schools Release Schedule FAQs (Ilaskoensusgovl) Easy ndrcatorsl) American Comm? (lb-1M" Director's Corner Economic Census Survey Tribal Resources (MAN) ad'ans? samp'ea'wn'an?? (lhmucensusgovleoonloensusl) Facts for Features Regional Of?ces EStats ?News's? Ernegency Preparedness (?W'wnsus?gownemmads' (llwwuoensusgovlregionsl) 2010 Census Income History International Trade Abstract 5'3? . (Ilvwvuoensusgovlhistoryl) Sammie Census (IMMoensusgovlforeign- Poverty Researdr ?den 0 A i A A L'bsuads?hm? ??93 (IMwmoensusgovlresearchI) Mend?. Maps Export Codes Population Estimates Special Census Program Sciean Integm .oensus.govlforergn- (Ilvmsensusgovlpopesll) (Ilwwucensusgovlprograms- - 3. . .. . .41'c_megmhm) soheduleslbl) Populaam Flak,th . NAICS "f ?Wily 8. Scams (Sf nsus ?mets.html) careers.htmi) Data Tools Governments Health Insurance sumyyf?gmxj'. . Diversity Census "?me?gw?gws?) "mmnm'gm?hhes?m?hm :1 summit) connecr us toolsJ?rtr?) Local Employment Housing ye Ad gm.comus.govlahow?mucg. Develop?: Dynam gownoovewn uslsoctal_medta.henl) Business Opportunities (IMwwoensusgovldevelopesl) (Imm'ws?msus'wm International (1W sane": . . Survey of Business Owners opportunitieshtmi) - . . . .. (limes-nan: Genealogy Congressional and pubh?ms ?memvemmal . I . (Ilvmw.oen3us.govlaboutloong- com?! Us Accessibiin Information Quality I FOIA Data Protection and anacy Policy US Department 01 Comm us.ht?i) Source: US. Census Bureau Social. Economic. and Housing Stat?stirs Div'aion: Poverty] Last Revised: September 16. 2015 Poverty Thresholds for 2014 by Size of Family and Number of Related Two Householder under 65 Householder 65 years and Three Four Five Six Seven I Nine oeoale or ?5 Eigh 1 One person (unrelated Under 65 65 years and Children Under 18 Years 24.091 28,252 32.631 37.791 42,485 51 .396 27.820 31.633 36.701 41,501 34,036 38.953 47,899 3/2016 List of U.S. states by poverty rate - Wikipedia, the free List of US. states by poverty rate From Wikipedia, the free This article is a list of the 50 United States of America (U.S.) states, also including the District of Columbia, ordered by poverty rate. 2014 statistics are not identical to of?cial poverty rates because they include children not counted in the of?cial numbers (see Revised Tables link below). Supplemental Poverty Measure takes into account differences in cost of living between states housing costs appreciably higher/lower than the national average) as well as taxes and the value of government assistance programs. All data are from the United States Census Bureau. Contents 1 States Map of poverty rate in the United States in 2013. 3: Legend: =l =l >16.5% 2 See also 3 References 4 External links States I. i' a 39% Map of estimated poverty rates in the United States by county, 2008. Legend: <20% <35% <10% <25% <40% <15% <30% >40% 1/4 List of U.S. states by poverty rate - Wikipedia, the free 6 People in 1 Parts), Supplemental Poverty Rank State (by Household (includes Measure (2010?2014 Household Income unrelated a?ferage) . Income) (in children) (Geographically Adj usted) thousands) - United States 12.6% 45,950 16.0% :01 6.8% 592 9.5% 15.5% 02 Maryland 7.6% 412 9.6% 10.1% 03 Oregon 7.86% 73 7.11% 10.3% 04 Minnesota 412 12.1% 9.7% 05 Hawaii 8.6% 110 12.6% 17.3% 06 Delaware 9.2% 78 12.4% 13.9% 07 Utah 9.2% 231 9.8% 11.6% 08 Virginia 9.2% 684 10.8% 13.3% 09 Nebraska 9.5% 167 10.0% 10 Vermont 9.7% 542 9.7% 13.4% 11 Idaho 9.9% 143 13.9% 11.8% 12 Alaska 10.0% 66 12.1% 12.5% 13 Massachusetts 10.1% 641 10.9% 13.8% 14 Washington 10.2% 636 11.9% 12.2% 15 Wisconsin 10.2% 553 11.1% 10.8% 16 Nevada 10.6% 260 13.1% 19.8% 17 Wyoming 10.6% 54 9.3% 9.2% 18 Connecticut 10.8% 376 10.6% 12.5% 19 Florida 11.1% 2,250 14.6% 19.5% 20 North Dakota 11.2% 70 11.0% 9.2% 21 11.2% 1,372 11.2% 12.6% 22 Iowa 11.3% 327 10.9% 8.6% 23 Colorado 11.4% 530 12.4% 13.7% 24 Illinois 11.5% 1,441 13.3% 15.2% 25 Missouri 11.6% 659 15.6% 12.4% 26 South Dakota 11.8% 90 14.3% 10.6% 27 Michigan 12.0% 1,196 27.6% 13.5% 28 New Jersey 12.0% 436 13.7% 13.9% 29 Rhode Island 12.1% 127 13.2% 13.6% List of US. states by poverty rate - Wikipedia, the free Ohio 12.3% 1,392 13.5% 13.2% 131 Kansas 12.5% 337 13.9% 11.5% I 32 Indiana 12.6% 774 16.4% 14.2% 33 Maine 12.6% 166 11.6% 11.2% I: 34 SEEM 13.1% 1,115 17.0% 14.2% I 35 California 13.2% 4,716 15.5% 23.8% 36 Montana 13.8% 128 13.5% 12.1% I 37 Georgia 14.4% 1,298 18.5% 18.2% 38 New York 14.9% 2,760 15.9% 18.1% I 39 Kentucky 14.8% 599 17.1% 13.6% 40 Tennessee 15.0% 872 16.7% 15.5% I 41 233521121 15.0% 626 13.8% 15.8% I 42 Arizona 15.2% 917 21.3% 18.8% 43 West Virginia 15.4% 276 16.0% 12.9% I 44 Oklahoma 15.6% 543 13.0% 13.4% 45 Arkansas 15.9% 509 19.1% 16.5% I 46 Texas 16.2% 3,681 17.4% 16.4% 47 Alabama 16.7% 750 16.8% 13.5% I 48 New Mexico 17.9% 347 19.6% 16.1% 49 Louisiana 18.3% 748 14.3% 18.5% I 50 Mississippi 20.1% 571 23.2% 16.1% I 51 20.7% 15 18.0% 22.7% See also I I List of US states by Gini coef?cient I List of lowest-income places in the United States I I Thank God for Mississippi I References 1. and I for 2015 I External links I Total Number of People Living in Poverty based on Household Income (In Thousands), 2005 3/4 1 [03/2016 List of US. states by poverty rate - Wikipedia, the free State Health Facts. December 14, 2007. I I Poverty Rate based on Household Income, 2005 . State Health Facts. 1 December 14, 2007. I I Geographic Adjustments of Supplemental Poverty Measure Thresholds: Using the American i Community Survey Five-Year Data on Housing Costs 5 I djustmentsJuly2011_WEA.pdf) Accessed November 27, 2012. I The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure I Accessed June 5, 2014. Retrieved from tit1e=List_o f_U. 12945972? lCategories: Lists of states of the United States 1 United States demography-related lists Poverty in the United States I - This page was last modi?ed on 1 April 2016, at 00:08. - Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia? is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-pro?t organization. 4/4 section. Versions of this for the following years2011 20 1 0 20 09 2008 2007 2006 2005 table are available POPULATION 65 YEARS AND OVER THE UNITED STATES 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates American FactFinder - Results Although the American Community Suwey (ACS) produces popuiation. demographic and hous'ng unit estimates. it "s the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the of?cial estimates of the population for the nation. states. counties. cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. Supporting documentation on code ?sts. subiect de?nitiOns. data accuracy. and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates. allocation rates. and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey websie in the Methodology section. Oklahoma Oklahoma County, Oklahoma Tulsa County, Oklahoma 1 Total 65 years and over Total 65 years and over Total 65 yeals and over Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin 0% Subject Estimate of Error Estimatei of Error Estimate of Error Estimate oiError?Estimate of Errorq Estimate of Error Total population 3.673.051 "m 561.563 766.215 m" 95.721 +1-3 629.593 32.093 +1-223 SEX AND AGE . 3 i Male 49.5% +1.01 44.3% +1-0.2 43.9% +1-0.1 42.7% +1-0.1 43.7% +101 421% +1-0.1 Female 50.5% 90.1 55.7% 51.1% +1.01 57.3% +1-o.1 51.3% 110.1 57.9% +1-0.1 Median age (years) 36.2 +1-o.2 73.2 +1-o.1 34.3 +10.2 73.4 +1-0.3 35.4 +1-0.1 73.2 +10.3 RACE AND i OR LATINO ORIGIN One race 92.3% +1.02 96.4% +1-o.3 93.1% +1.05 97.9% +1-0.6 91.3% +1-0.5 96.5% +1-o.5 White 72.9% +1-o.2 35.7% 110.2 69.1% +1-0.6 31.7% 110.5 70.6% +1-0.4 35.6% +1.03 tf?ma? 7.4% +1.01 4.4% +1-0.2 15.1% +10.4 10.6% +1-0.4 i 9.9% +103 62% +102 mga??a't'i?v?ga? 7.5% +1-o.1 4.5% +102 27% +102 2.3% +1-0.4 4.5% +1.03 2.5% +1-0.4 Asian 20% +1-0.1 1.1% +1-o.1 3.4% +102 2.3% +101 26% +102 1.6% +1-0.3 Native Hawaian and Other Pacific 0.1% +1-o.1 0.0% +1-o.1 0.1% +1-0.1 0.0% +1-0.1 0.1% +1-o.1 0.1% +1-0.1 Islander i Some other race 2.4% +1.01 0.5% +1-o.1 2.6% +1-0.4 1.0% +1-0.5 4.0% +1-o.4 0.5% +1-o.3 Twoor more races 7.7% +1-0.2 +1-o.3 6.9% +106 21% +1-0.6 3.2% +1-0.5 3.5% +1-0.5 9.3% 22% +102 16.2% 4.0% +1-o.1 11.3% m" 2.6% +1-0.1 mfg?? ?"593? 67.0% +1-o.1 64.2% +1-0.2 57.7% +1-0.1 73.3% +1-o.1 63.7% +1-0.1 63.3% +1-0.3 5. RELATIONSHIP 33:33: 3.767.999 541.265 +1.1.911 743.512 +1-4,126 92.647 41-479 621.302 +1.1.332 79.916 +1-525 Eggjsezwe? 57.6% +1-o.2 91.9% +1-o.6 56.0% +1-0.7 90.6% +1-1.3 56.1% +1-0.6 91.0% +1.15 Parent 1.0% 11.01 3.6% +1-0.4 1.1% +102 3.9% +1-1.o 0.9% +102 3.6% +1.09 Other relatives 35.7% +1-0.3 3.0% +1-0.3 36.5% 3.3% 110.6 352% +105 3.6% +1-1.0 Nonrelatives 5.7% +1-0.2 1.5% +1.02 6.4% +1-o.6 2.2% +1.06 5.6% +1.04 1.9% +l-0.6 Unmarried partner 22% +1-0.1 0.6% +101 24% +1-o.3 0.3% +1.04 2.4% +102 12% +1-0.4 i HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Households 1.459.759 +1-5.575 351.005 4.1.3.025 293.079 113.731 60.997 111 .246 243.907 +1.1.752 51.474 +1-1.139 Family households 662% 110.5 55.2% +1-o.3 62.1% +1.13 525% 63.2% +1.1.1 52.1% +1.1.9 46.7% 41-04 44.9% +1-0.7 42.9% +1-1.1 420% +122 45.0% +1-1.1 43.1% +1-1.9 5; Female 125% 41-03 3.2% +1-o.5 14.0% +1-o.9 3.6% +1-1.5 13.2% +10.7 7.3% +1-1.2 family 33.6% +1-0.5 44.3% 37.9% +1-1.3 47.5% +1-2.6 36.6% +1-1.1 47.9% +1-1.9 i ngem'de' 26.2% +1-0.5 429% +109 31.5% +1-1.2 44.7% ?12.6 30.5% +1-1.1 45.4% +1-1.9 1 MARITAL STATUS ?5 Yea? 3.030.740 114.721 561.563 599.113 +1-142 95.721 +1.3 494.154 32.093 +1-223 excel? 50.1% +10.4 57.0% +1-0.7 45.9% +1.1.1 53.6% +1-22 43.5% +1.1.1 55.7% +1-22 Widdwed 6.3% +1-o.2 26.4% +1-0.7 5.7% +1-0.3 26.6% 1l-1.3 5.4% 110.3 23.3% +1-1.s Divorced 132% +1-0.2 13.0% 110.5 13.5% +1-0.7 15.4% +1-1.6 14.1% 15.2% +1-1.5 Separated 2.1% 41-01 0.3% 110.1 2.3% +103 1.3% 110.5 24% 41-02 0.7% +1-0.3 Never married 262% +1-0.3 27% +1-o.3 32.7% 3.1% 41-07 29.7% +1-o.7 4.6% +1-o.9 EDUCATIONAL 25 2.529.635 561.563 ?4.536 496.320 +1-267 95.721 +1-3 410.220 m" 32,093 +1-223 :55 12.7% +1-0.3 15.3% +l-O.6 13.2% +1-0.3 12.1% +1-1.3 11.4% +1-o.7 13.1% 04.3 High school graduate. GED. or 31.7% +1-0.4 35.6% +1-0.9 24.7% +1-0.9 27.9% +1-2.0 25.3% +1-1.0 32.0% ms alternative 1/4 [252016 American FactFinder - Resuits Scinefollege 0' 31.4% +7-o.4 27.3% 31.5% +7-1.1 29.6% +7-1.7 32.1% +7-0.9 26.6% +7-1.7 assoelale?s degree ?9'99 24.2% +7.04 21.3% 30.6% 30.2% +7-1.9 30.7% +70.9 26.3% +7-1.6 RESPONSIBILITY FOR GRANDCHILDREN 1 16 YEARS 23:15:?? 3? yea? 2.266.950 +7.2,779 561.566 +7-1.566? 434.207 +7-267 95.721 +7-3 363.901 62.093 +7-223 ?mg with 4.0% +7-o.2 4.4% +7043; 3.4% +7.05 3.6% +7-1.0 3.7% +7-o.5 4.0% +7-0.9 2 Resmsb?e'? 2.1% +7-o.1 1.9% 1.5% +703 2.0% +7073 1.9% +704 1.5% +7-0.5 grandch?dken) STATUS . 3 mum? ?8 2.908.631 561.566 64.566? 565.452 64.014 95.721 466.515 +7-169 82.093 +7-223 years and over . Civiian veteran 9.5% +702 224% 9.1% +7-0.5 21.7% 7.7% +7.04 20.4% +7-1.3 DISABILITY STATUS Civ?'san noninstitutiona?zed 3.797.966 +7-1.457 542.799 +7-1.741; 751.696 +7-3.609 92,946 +7-454 624.659 +7-97s 60.047 +7-509 population 1 W471 any disabmty 16.1% +702 424% 14.1% +7-0.7 41.1% +7-1.6 13.4% +7-0.5 37.9% +7-2.0 NO disability 63.9% +7.02 57.6% 65.9% +7-0.7 56.9% +7-1.6 66.6% +7.05 62.1% +7.20 RESIDENCE1 YEAR 5321136611 1 year and 3,827,288 561,553 +7.1,536 753.522 +7-1.559 95.721 +7-3 620.464 +7-902 62.093 i Same house 62.3% +7-0.4 93.5% +7-0.4 61.1% +7-1.1 92.3% +7-1.3 60.5% +740 921% +7-1.2 17.3% +7-0.4 6.3% 16.1% +7-1.1 7.3% 16.9% +7-1.0 7.5% +7-1.1 Umted States 5 Same county 10.0% +7-0.3 3.5% +7-03?i 12.5% +7-1.o 4.6% +7-1.0 125% +709 4.5% Di?erentcouniy 7.3% 26% +7-o.3 5.6% +70] 2.7% +7-0.6 6.3% 29% +7-0.6 Same state 4.4% +7-0.2 1.6% +702 2.9% +7-0.4 1.3% +7-0.4 3.1% +7-0.4 1.2% +7-o.5 Different state 29% +7-0.2 1.1% +7-0.2 2.6% +7-0.6 1.4% +I-o.7 3.3% +7.05 1.6% +7-o.7 Abroad 0.4% +7-o.1 0.3% 1701 0.6% +7-0.3 0.4% +7.03 0.6% +7.02 0.4% +7-0.2 PLACE OF BIRTH. ENATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS. ENTRY ?1 Total population 3.676.051 ?m 561.566 +7-1.566 766.215 "m 95.721 +7.3 629.596 62.093 +7-223 Native 3.651.366 +7-6.645 544.352 +7-1.612 661.776 +7-3.531 69.933 +7-617 576.111 +7-2.665 76.142 +7-601 Foreignborn 226.665 +7-6.645 17.216 +7.1.311 64.437 +7.3.531 5.766 53.467 62.665 3.951 +7-620 201?? 16.7% +7-1.5 20% +7-1.7 17.6% +7-2.6 2.0% 15.1% 1.7% +727 5353? 20?? 35.3% +7-1.6 7.9% +7-3.0 39.9% +7-3.6 6.6% +743; 36.5% +730 127% +7-7.9 2533:? hem? 47.9% +7-2.0 90.1% +7-3.4 425% +7-3.7 91.1% 46.3% +7-26 65.6% Sign? 324% +7-1.5 724% +74.3 27.7% +I-3.o 75.4% +7-6.5 29.3% +7-2.9 71.1% 47-99 NotaU.S.citizen 67.6% +7-1.5 27.6% +7-4.3 723% +730 24.6% +7-6.5 70.7% +7-29 26.9% +7.99 SPOKEN AT HOME AND ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH 3.614.253 +7-1.779 561.566 +7.1.566 706.266 +7-3 95.721 +7.31 563.145 62.093 +7-223 English onty 90.0% +7-02 96.0% +7-03 63.2% +7-0.6 94.0% +7-0.7 66.4% +7.05 94.7% +7-o.6 2:333:93 ?hem? 10.0% +7-o.2 4.0% #03 16.6% #06 6.0% +7-0.7 13.6% +7415 53% +7-0.6 39?? 5?95? ?35? 4.2% 1747.2 1.9% +7-0.2 6.4% +7-0.5 3.1% +7-0.6 5.7% +7.04 3.0% +7-0.6 lhan very wel? EMPLOYMENT STATUS 3.011.602 561.566 +7-1.566 565.753 +7-1.420 95.721 +7-3 464.636 474.033 62.093 +7-223 yearsandover In labor force 61.1% +7-o.3 16.4% +7-o.6 65.3% +7-1.1 21.3% +7-1.7 67.5% 22.3% +7-1.7 Employed 57.6% +7-0.3 17.9% +7-0.6 61.3% +7-1.1 20.6% +7-1.7 63.9% +7.06 21.5% +7-1.6 Unemployed 3.5% +7-o.2 0.5% +7-0.1 4.0% +7-0.4 0.7% +7-0.3 3.6% +7.03 0.6% +7-0.4 Percent of civiian tabor 5.7% 26% +7-0.7 6.1% +7-0.6 33% +7-1.6 5.3% +705 3.6% +7-1.7 force Noun labor force 36.9% +7-o.3 61.6% +7-0.6 34.7% +7-1.1 76.7% +7-1.7 32.5% 77.7% INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATTON-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Households 1.459.759 +7-5.575 351.005 +7-3.025 293.079 +7-3.761 60.997 +7-1.246 246.907 +7-1.752 51.474 +7-1.139 Wilhearnings 76.6% +7.04 36.5% +7.09 79.7% +7.1.0 39.1% +7-25 61.1% +7-0.6 41.6% +7.24 65.169 44,715 69.336 +7-2.164 50.362 +7-5.071 70.273 +7-1.616 50.223 +7-5.245 mfg?? WW 31.2% +7-0.3 92.2% +7-0.5 26.7% +7-o.6 91.6% +7-1.4 26.1% +l-O.6 69.5% +7-1.5 Mean Social 214 '25/2016 Security income (dollars) 1 7.292 American FactFinder - Results +1447 18.865 H.182 17,476 44420 19.271 +l-480 18.523 +Io422 20.401 44-483 With Supplemental Security Income 5.6% 5.8% {ti-0.4 5.5% 4.8% 61-1 .0 4.9% 5.5% +l~1.2 Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) 9.197 9.147 +l-485 8.611 1 8.335 .0 79 9.274 2 9.834 .551 With cash pubic assistance income 3.1% 2.5% 3.3% 2.5% +l-0.8 2.2% 4-0.3 1 +l-0.6 Mean cash public assistance income (dollars) 1.911 2.160 1.404 1.246 44-535 2.510 14-637 5.518 +7-2.918 With retirement 'ncome 17.4% 45.1% 1 .0 17.6% 53.0% 13.3% 42.5% 44-28 Mean retirement income (dollars) 20.862 44-797 21.068 22.323 1.304 23.229 22,666 24.729 44-4382 Food bene?ts 13.8% 7.6% 14.5% 6.5% fl-1.2 12.8% 6.6% POVERTY STATUS IN 5 THE PAST 12 MONTHS Population for whom poverty status is determined 3.759.517 tI-2.366 542.799 4.1.741 747.984 +l-4.045 92.946 619.330 80.047 Below 100 percent of the poverty level 16.6% 8.5% 4-0.5 18.3% 44-12 6.6% +1-1.1 1 5.0% 7.7% 100 to 149 percent of the poverty level 10.9% 1 1.6% 44.0.5 1 0.5% .0 8.2% 10.1% +l-0.7 9.6% At or above 150 percent of the poverty level 72.5% 79.9% 71.2% +1-1.3 85.3% 74.9% 82.7% Occupied housing units 1 .459. 759 351.005 293.079 60.997 4-H .246 248.907 51.474 . 1 39 HOUSING TENURE $3.025 Owner-occupied housing units 65.1 82.4% 44-0.? 57.5% +1-1.1 79.1% 0-2.0 59.6% 1 .0 77.8% 1 Renter?occupied housing units 34.9% +l-0.5 17.6% 42.5% +7-1.1 20.9% 40.4% +1-1.0 22.2% Average household see of owner-occupied uni 2.62 +l-0.01 1.91 4-10.02 2.59 1.91 2.57 1 .93 Average household size of renter-occupied unit 2.51 1.58 +l-0.06 2.50 +?0.06 1.51 4-0.09 2.38 +l-0.04 1.54 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS No telephone service available 2.9% 14.0.2 2.0% 2.2% 1.3% H-0.6 2.7% 1 +l-0.6 1.01 or more occupants per room 2.8% 0.5% ?4.0.1 3.0% 2.6% 4-0.4 0.9% +705 Owner-occupied housing units 950.81 7 289.154 168.539 +1-3.554 48.220 148.372 44-2511 40.069 .274 SELECTED OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Less than 30 percent 81.6% +l-O.6 80.7% 81.2% +l-1.4 81.9% 79.8% 77.9% 30 percent or more 18.4% 19.3% 1 8.8% +1-1.4 18.1% 20.2% +1.13 22.1% +l?2.3 WNER CHARACTERISTICS Median value (dolars) 119.800 112,600 .876 136.000 131.700 140.000 ?4.228 133.400 +1-5.319 Median selected owner costs with a mortgage (dollars) 1.143 +44; 1 .036 1.234 1.104 1.220 Median selected owner costs without a mortgage (dolars) 375 374 we 433 +1-10 432 435 +l-9 440 +7-15 Renter-occupied housing units 508.942 61.851 +1-2.51 9 124.540 $1.330 100.535 11.405 +1-1.154 GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Less than 30 percent 60.1% +l-1.0 53.7% ?4-2.2 55.3% 45.8% tl?6.2 58.2% +1?1.9 44.5% 30 percent or more 39.9% +l-1.0 46.3% 44.7% H-2.1 54.2% 4-62 41.8% +1.13 55.5% 4-5.1 GROSS RENT Median gross rent (dolars) 737 +l-8 670 4-20 781 +143 770 44-66 785 +l-10 769 +l-69 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2014 American Community Survey 1?Year Est'mates Explanation ot Symbols: An entry ?n the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were avalable to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. 3/4 512016 American FactFinder - Results ?A'statistical test is not appropriate. An entry in the estimate column 'ndicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were avaiable to compute an estimate. or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. An following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended d'strbution. An following a median estimate means the median falls ?n the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. An entry ?11 the margin of error column 'ndicates that the median ials in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical testis not appropriate. An entry in the margin of error column 'ndicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. An entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too smal. An means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variabiity. The degree of uncerta'nty for an estimate arising from sampling variabiity is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent marg'n of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probab?ty that the ?nterval de?ned by the est'mate minus the margin of error and the est'mate the margin of error (the lower and upper con?dence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to samp?ng variability, the ACS estimates are subiect to nonsamp?ng error (for a discussion 0! nonsampling variab?ity. see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. The 65 years and over column of data refers to the age of the householder for the estimates of households. occupied hous'ng units. owner-occupied housing units. and renter-occupied hous'ng unis lines. The age speci?ed on the population 15 years and over. population 25 years and over. population 30 years and over, civiian population 18 years and over. civiian population 5 years and over. population 1 years and over. imputation 5 Years and over. and population 16 years and over lines refer to the data shown in the 'Total? column while the second column is limited to the population 65 years and over. - Due to methodological changes to data collection that began 'n data year 2013. comparisons of language estimates from that point to estimates from 2013 forward should be made with caution. For more information. see: Language User Note. The Census Bureau introduced a new set of disability questions in the 2008 ACS questionnaire. Accordingly. comparisons of disability data from 2008 or later with data from prior years are not recommended. For more information on these questions and their evaluation it the 2006 ACS Content Test. see the Evaluation Report Covering Disabi?ty. While the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) data generaly reflect the February 2013 Ot?ce of Management and Budget (OMB) de?nitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas: in certain instances the names. codes. and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may di?er from the OMB de?nitions due to differences in the ett'ective dates of the geographic entities. Estimates of urban and rural population. housing units. and characteristics re?ect boundaries of urban areas de?ned based on Census 2010 data. As a result. data for urban and mral areas from the ACS do not necessariy re?ect the results of ongoing urbanization. cein sflpageslproductvi 4__1 03&proo'l' ype=table 4J4