Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS DocumentPlanned 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 440 Finalize and Deliver the Questions for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey PRE-DECISIONAL Planned Timeline Activity Timeline ⚠ Finalize draft of the Planned Questions document March 1, 2018  Present at the 2020 Program Management Review January 26, 2018  Brief Census Executive Staff February 13, 2018  Brief the Office of Management and Budget February 22, 2018  Brief the Department of Commerce March 6, 2018 Brief the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy Subcommittee on the ACS March 14, 2018 Brief the Census Scientific Advisory Committee March 29, 2018 Brief the National Advisory Committee March-April 2018 Brief House and Senate Staffers April 2018 Planned Questions document delivered* No later than March 29, 2018 *2020 Island Areas Censuses Subjects and Questions are submitted via letter in the same period. 000441 7 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 2 of 440 Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey PRE-DECISIONAL Document Outline Contents: • Introduction • Questions Planned for the 2020 Census • Questions Planned for the ACS • Year First Included in a Decennial Census or on the ACS Structure: • Question image (paper form) • Statement about why the question is asked (relationship to published data) • Paragraph summarizing federal government use of data derived from the question • Select summaries of types of community-level uses 000442 8 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 3 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Questions Planned for the 2020 Census Question Images • • • • • • • Age Gender Hispanic origin Race Relationship Tenure (owner/renter) Operational (number of people) 000443 9 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 4 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Age Asked since 1790 Answers to the age and date of birth question provide the data that help us understand the size of different age groups and how other characteristics may vary by age. 000444 10 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 5 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Gender Asked since 1790 A question about the gender of each person is used to create statistics about males and females and to present other data by gender. 000445 11 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 6 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Hispanic Origin* Asked since 1970 A question about whether a person is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin is used to create statistics about this ethnic group. * This Hispanic origin question will be implemented on the ACS in 2020. Note: Hispanic origin and race are asked separately in accordance with the 1997 OMB standards on race and ethnicity. 000446 12 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 7 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Race* Asked since 1790 A question about a person's race to create statistics about race and to present other estimates by race groups. * This race question will be implemented on the ACS in 2020. Note: Hispanic origin and race are asked separately in accordance with the 1997 OMB standards on race and ethnicity. 000447 13 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 8 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Relationship* Asked since 1880 A question about the relationship of each person in a household to one central person is used to create estimates about families, households, and other groups, and to present other data at a household level. *This relationship question will be implemented 000448 on the ACS in 2019. 14 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 9 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Tenure (owner/renter) Asked since 1890 A question about whether a home is owned or rented is used to create data about tenure, renters, and home ownership. 000449 15 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 10 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Operational Asked since 1790 Some operational questions are asked to better administer the data collection process and to ensure greater accuracy of the data collected. Contact information is not part of published estimates and is carefully protected, as mandated by federal law, to respect the personal information of respondents. 000450 16 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 11 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Subjects Planned for the 2020 American Community Survey As submitted in March 2017 No changes to the ACS subjects. 2020 Subjects Operational Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Relationship Tenure Social Subjects Ancestry (1980) Disability (1830) Fertility (1890) Grandparent Caregivers (2000) Language Spoken at Home (1890) Marital Status (1880) Marital History (1850) Migration/Residence One Year Ago (Year first asked in the Decennial Census Program) Economic Subjects Journey to Work/Commuting (1960) Health Insurance (2008) Income (1940) Industry of Worker (1820) Occupation of Worker (1850) Class of Worker (1910) Labor Force Status (1890) Work Status Last Year (1880) Housing Subjects Acreage & Agricultural Sales (1960) Computer & Internet Use (2013) Home Heating Fuel (1940) Home Value & Rent (1940) Plumbing Facilities (1940) Kitchen Facilities (1940) Telephone Service (1960) Selected Monthly Owner Costs (1940-1990) (1930) Utilities, mortgage, etc. Place of Birth (1850) SNAP (2005) Food Stamps Citizenship (1820) Year of Entry (1890) School Enrollment (1850) Educational Attainment (1940) Undergraduate Field of Degree (2009) Veteran Status (1890) Veteran Period of Service and VA Service-Connected Disability (2008) Units in Structure (1940) Rooms (1940) Bedrooms (1960) Vehicles Available (1960) Year Built (1940) Year Moved In (1960) Note: The 2020 ACS (formerly the long form) will be administered in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 2020 Island Areas 000451 Censuses will use the 2020 ACS as a base, which will be modified to better meet the needs of the Island Areas. 17 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 12 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Questions Planned for the 2020 American Community Survey • Based on results of the 2016 ACS Content Test, changes to the questions about the following topics are planned for implementation on the 2019 ACS (and will be carried forward to the 2020 ACS): • • • • • • • • Telephone service Journey to work Weeks worked Class of worker Industry and Occupation Retirement income Relationship Health insurance premiums and subsidies (new question) • The ACS will implement the version of the race and Hispanic origin questions used on the 2020 Census on the 2020 ACS. 000452 18 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 13 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL Questions? 000453 19 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 14 of 440 PRE-DECISIONAL 2020 Census and ACS Questions Document Development 2020 Census and ACS Subjects 2020 Census and ACS Questions 000454 20 PRE-DECISIONAL Subjects and Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and ACS Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 15 of 440 Decennial Census Content Determination Process Content Reviews Following ACS Implementation: Program Review OMB Request (Sunstein Memo) ACS Program Review Periodic Reviews of Existing Content ACS implementation ACS Cognitive and Field Testing Census Cognitive and Field Testing 2000 Census 2010 Census 2020 Census Subjects Planned Questions Planned 1990 Questions Planned for 2000 Census New: Grandparents as Caregivers Removed: Sewage Disposal, Source of Water 2000 2010 Questions Planned for 2010 Census and ACS New: Health Insurance Coverage, VA Service-Connected Disability Rating Removed: Years of Military Service 2020 Questions Planned for 2020 Census and ACS New: Computer and Internet Use Removed: Business on Property, Flush Toilets 000455 21 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 16 of 440 Comparison of 2010 ACS and 2010 Decennial Census Response Rates by 2010 Numident Citizenship Status Self-response rate (%) Difference Row Percent Numident Status Census ACS Citizen 79.9 66.1 13.8 94.1 0.04 0.05 Non-citizen 71.5 52.6 18.9 5.9 0.19 0.21 Sources: 2010 ACS 1-year file and 2010 Decennial Census Unedited File (CUF), first mailout responses only. Notes: Unweighted percentages. The sample size is 929,000 households. Standard errors below response rates. DRB clearance CBDRB-2017-CDAR-001. Difference in difference is -5.1 with a standard error of 0.26 (N=929,000). 000456 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 17 of 440 2016 Internet Breakoff Rates (from Internet Paradata,weighted with base weight) Non Hispanic White Non Hispanic Non White Hispanic last_screen Percent* SE MOE Percent* SE MOE Percent* SE notbreakoff 90.52 0.0400 0.0658 85.93 0.1091 0.1795 82.41 0.1445 2ndmortgage 0.0707 0.0036 0.0059 0.0998 0.0114 0.0188 0.1590 0.0163 2ndmortgageamt 0.0223 0.0020 0.0033 0.0267 0.0054 0.0089 0.0233 0.0056 acres 0.0249 0.0021 0.0035 0.0533 0.0076 0.0125 0.0790 0.0121 activelookforwork 0.0124 0.0015 0.0025 0.0168 0.0036 0.0059 0.0306 0.0068 add_1 0.0000 0.0012 0.0012 0.0020 address 0.0034 0.0007 0.0012 0.0066 0.0023 0.0038 0.0012 0.0012 addresslastyear 0.0716 0.0038 0.0063 0.1049 0.0089 0.0146 0.1383 0.0146 agrsales 0.0125 0.0013 0.0021 0.0095 0.0029 0.0048 0.0242 0.0062 ancestry 0.1274 0.0049 0.0081 0.0840 0.0092 0.0151 0.1568 0.0138 another_home 0.0000 0.0000 another_home_who 0.0000 0.0000 anywork 0.0144 0.0018 0.0030 0.0337 0.0054 0.0089 0.0352 0.0060 attendschool 0.0828 0.0036 0.0059 0.1757 0.0132 0.0217 0.1846 0.0164 away_now 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003 0.0000 birth 0.0071 0.0010 0.0016 0.0152 0.0037 0.0061 0.0157 0.0048 blind 0.0461 0.0027 0.0044 0.0825 0.0089 0.0146 0.0826 0.0113 business 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 businessclass 0.0376 0.0027 0.0044 0.0543 0.0073 0.0120 0.0878 0.0120 citizenship 0.0352 0.0025 0.0041 0.2678 0.0159 0.0262 0.3628 0.0256 compuse 0.0257 0.0018 0.0030 0.0451 0.0071 0.0117 0.0433 0.0080 condo 0.0132 0.0014 0.0023 0.0222 0.0044 0.0072 0.0397 0.0085 condofee 0.0016 0.0008 0.0013 0.0011 0.0008 0.0013 0.0044 0.0025 condofeeamt 0.0031 0.0007 0.0012 0.0014 0.0012 0.0020 0.0043 0.0021 couldwork 0.0057 0.0009 0.0015 0.0091 0.0030 0.0049 0.0204 0.0048 dateofbirth 0.0108 0.0015 0.0025 0.0174 0.0037 0.0061 0.0224 0.0063 deaf 0.0303 0.0022 0.0036 0.0303 0.0049 0.0081 0.0611 0.0091 difficultyconcent 0.037 0.0029 0.0048 0.0663 0.0085 0.0140 0.0418 0.0062 difficultydress 0.0579 0.0031 0.0051 0.0563 0.0067 0.0110 0.1020 0.0123 difficultyerrand 0.0458 0.0029 0.0048 0.0563 0.0069 0.0114 0.0764 0.0120 difficultywalk 0.0351 0.0025 0.0041 0.0380 0.0069 0.0114 0.0510 0.0079 MOE 0.2377 0.0268 0.0092 0.0199 0.0112 0.0000 0.0020 0.0240 0.0102 0.0227 0.0000 0.0000 0.0099 0.0270 0.0000 0.0079 0.0186 0.0000 0.0197 0.0421 0.0132 0.0140 0.0041 0.0035 0.0079 0.0104 0.0150 0.0102 0.0202 0.0197 0.0130 Missing Data Percent* SE 17.06 0.4003 0.0358 0.0161 0.0725 0.0240 0.0241 0.0125 0.0411 0.0213 0.2677 0.0326 0.0192 0.0481 0.0280 0.0043 0.0077 0.0620 0.0209 0.0077 0.0121 0.0423 0.0149 0.0140 0.0239 0.0168 0.0043 0.0077 0.0235 0.0153 0.0077 0.0089 0.0202 0.0465 0.0273 0.0208 0.0150 0.0262 0.0152 0.0152 0.0243 40.6823 0.0390 0.0077 0.0209 0.0679 0.0492 0.0156 0.4465 0.0154 0.0077 0.0153 0.0238 0.0253 000457 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 18 of 440 disabilityrate divorce duties elecamt elecinc elecpay employeetype employer englishprof estincome facilities fieldofdegree fiftymoreweeks finalize finishedperson foodstamps gasamt gasinc gaspay gasuse grandchildrenhome grandparentsresp heatingfuel highestlevel hispanic hoursworked hunitstatus insurance interest interestamt language lastworked layoff lengthofresp 0.0062 0.0161 0.1432 0.0931 0.0056 0.0434 0.2209 0.092 0.0034 0.0644 0.0239 0.0686 0.0576 0 0.2479 0.0135 0.0181 0.0055 0.0208 0.0061 0.0122 0.0011 0.0168 0.1666 0.0043 0.1017 0.0017 0.1875 0.2086 0.1234 0.0294 0.0484 0.0086 0.0006 0.0009 0.0016 0.0046 0.0036 0.0009 0.0028 0.0070 0.0045 0.0007 0.0035 0.0018 0.0038 0.0029 0.0000 0.0056 0.0015 0.0017 0.0011 0.0017 0.0009 0.0014 0.0003 0.0019 0.0051 0.0008 0.0034 0.0006 0.0062 0.0060 0.0052 0.0019 0.0031 0.0012 0.0003 0.0015 0.0026 0.0076 0.0059 0.0015 0.0046 0.0115 0.0074 0.0012 0.0058 0.0030 0.0063 0.0048 0.0000 0.0092 0.0025 0.0028 0.0018 0.0028 0.0015 0.0023 0.0005 0.0031 0.0084 0.0013 0.0056 0.0010 0.0102 0.0099 0.0086 0.0031 0.0051 0.0020 0.0005 0.0098 0.0282 0.2228 0.1465 0.0063 0.0684 0.3665 0.1440 0.0195 0.0813 0.0461 0.0730 0.0948 0.0007 0.4049 0.0391 0.0221 0.0079 0.0277 0.0092 0.0158 0.0007 0.0338 0.2567 0.0091 0.1802 0.0020 0.3305 0.1788 0.0769 0.0502 0.0685 0.0151 0.0008 0.0033 0.0057 0.0145 0.0112 0.0023 0.0087 0.0184 0.0125 0.0050 0.0085 0.0064 0.0085 0.0096 0.0007 0.0210 0.0053 0.0049 0.0026 0.0061 0.0028 0.0038 0.0007 0.0052 0.0151 0.0028 0.0127 0.0014 0.0155 0.0129 0.0079 0.0079 0.0085 0.0040 0.0007 0.0054 0.0094 0.0239 0.0184 0.0038 0.0143 0.0303 0.0206 0.0082 0.0140 0.0105 0.0140 0.0158 0.0012 0.0345 0.0087 0.0081 0.0043 0.0100 0.0046 0.0063 0.0012 0.0086 0.0248 0.0046 0.0209 0.0023 0.0255 0.0212 0.0130 0.0130 0.0140 0.0066 0.0012 0.0065 0.0302 0.2657 0.1620 0.0098 0.1109 0.3990 0.1855 0.0359 0.1528 0.0529 0.0525 0.1123 0.0006 0.5694 0.0292 0.0292 0.0064 0.0350 0.0115 0.0207 0.0067 0.0327 0.2981 0.0065 0.1953 0.0018 0.3364 0.2418 0.0616 0.0542 0.0995 0.0153 0.0032 0.0061 0.0199 0.0145 0.0030 0.0127 0.0253 0.0159 0.0065 0.0129 0.0088 0.0096 0.0130 0.0006 0.0241 0.0069 0.0065 0.0029 0.0072 0.0038 0.0053 0.0026 0.0074 0.0190 0.0026 0.0173 0.0018 0.0195 0.0203 0.0107 0.0093 0.0145 0.0052 0.0053 0.0100 0.0327 0.0239 0.0049 0.0209 0.0416 0.0262 0.0107 0.0212 0.0145 0.0158 0.0214 0.0010 0.0396 0.0114 0.0107 0.0048 0.0118 0.0063 0.0087 0.0043 0.0122 0.0313 0.0043 0.0285 0.0030 0.0321 0.0334 0.0176 0.0153 0.0239 0.0086 0.0000 0.0286 0.0232 0.0195 0.0071 0.0154 0.0988 0.0175 0.0171 0.0134 0.0129 0.0071 0.0109 0.0311 0.0108 0.0043 0.0280 0.0043 0.0168 0.0373 0.0200 0.1358 0.0273 0.0131 0.0077 0.0043 0.0461 0.0269 0.0357 0.0138 0.0131 0.0077 0.0043 0.0220 0.0160 0.0263 0.2119 3.0989 0.0280 0.0047 0.1200 0.0612 0.0198 0.0031 0.0409 0.0164 0.0157 0.0474 0.1696 0.0169 0.0047 0.0272 0.0236 0.0144 0.0022 0.0197 0.0128 000458 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 19 of 440 live liveu marriedstatus meals militaryemployer mintowork mobilehometax monthrent mortgage mortgageamt mortgageinsurance mortgagetax netaccess netsub numberofmarriages numberofriders ofuelamt ofuelinc ofuelpay ofueluse otherincome otherincomeamt periodofservice pin placeofbirth pmarried propinsurance propvalue pselect publicasst publicasstamt race recalltowork recovery 0.0002 0.001 0.0103 0.0253 0.0002 0.0399 0.0068 0.0116 0.0516 0.0602 0.0111 0.0174 0.022 0.0419 0.0391 0.0534 0.0035 0.0014 0.0038 0.0139 0.0607 0.0104 0.0073 0.0011 0.4475 0.0131 0.1275 0.0744 1.3214 0.0389 0.0042 0.0308 0.0026 0.0003 0.0001 0.0005 0.0015 0.0020 0.0002 0.0026 0.0009 0.0015 0.0026 0.0033 0.0012 0.0019 0.0021 0.0023 0.0029 0.0029 0.0007 0.0005 0.0007 0.0013 0.0028 0.0012 0.0012 0.0004 0.0091 0.0014 0.0044 0.0033 0.0156 0.0026 0.0008 0.0020 0.0007 0.0002 0.0002 0.0008 0.0025 0.0033 0.0003 0.0043 0.0015 0.0025 0.0043 0.0054 0.0020 0.0031 0.0035 0.0038 0.0048 0.0048 0.0012 0.0008 0.0012 0.0021 0.0046 0.0020 0.0020 0.0007 0.0150 0.0023 0.0072 0.0054 0.0257 0.0043 0.0013 0.0033 0.0012 0.0003 0.0264 0.0702 0.0012 0.0516 0.0071 0.0299 0.0671 0.0648 0.0199 0.0206 0.0464 0.0602 0.0416 0.0588 0.0001 0.0005 0.0015 0.0330 0.0831 0.0184 0.0136 0.0033 0.7656 0.0266 0.1150 0.0883 2.0959 0.0496 0.0096 0.0791 0.0016 0.0050 0.0075 0.0012 0.0071 0.0027 0.0052 0.0080 0.0078 0.0044 0.0052 0.0057 0.0084 0.0049 0.0063 0.0001 0.0005 0.0011 0.0051 0.0093 0.0039 0.0037 0.0019 0.0255 0.0053 0.0107 0.0082 0.0419 0.0065 0.0028 0.0101 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0082 0.0123 0.0020 0.0117 0.0044 0.0086 0.0132 0.0128 0.0072 0.0086 0.0094 0.0138 0.0081 0.0104 0.0002 0.0008 0.0018 0.0084 0.0153 0.0064 0.0061 0.0031 0.0419 0.0087 0.0176 0.0135 0.0689 0.0107 0.0046 0.0166 0.0015 0.0000 0.0012 0.0362 0.0947 0.0018 0.0561 0.0129 0.0209 0.0999 0.0540 0.0242 0.0203 0.0512 0.0683 0.0994 0.0935 0.0012 0.0062 0.0108 0.0018 0.0078 0.0042 0.0050 0.0124 0.0096 0.0059 0.0070 0.0095 0.0100 0.0113 0.0109 0.0011 0.0040 0.0226 0.1161 0.0208 0.0129 0.0011 0.0028 0.0058 0.0139 0.0061 0.0038 0.9614 0.0246 0.1530 0.1286 2.5070 0.0787 0.0171 0.1030 0.0012 0.0388 0.0065 0.0150 0.0154 0.0656 0.0106 0.0041 0.0105 0.0012 0.0000 0.0020 0.0102 0.0178 0.0030 0.0128 0.0069 0.0082 0.0204 0.0158 0.0097 0.0115 0.0156 0.0165 0.0186 0.0179 0.0000 0.0018 0.0046 0.0095 0.0229 0.0100 0.0063 0.0000 0.0638 0.0107 0.0247 0.0253 0.1079 0.0174 0.0067 0.0173 0.0020 0.0000 0.0504 0.0077 0.0257 0.0238 0.0077 0.0149 0.0319 0.0071 0.0252 0.0521 0.0131 0.0077 0.0187 0.0071 0.0158 0.0204 0.0131 0.0077 0.0195 0.0071 0.0098 0.0132 0.0115 0.0071 0.0076 0.0132 0.0019 0.0235 0.0280 0.0019 0.0155 0.0169 0.0131 0.0192 0.2188 0.0350 0.0509 0.0178 0.4710 0.0226 0.0131 0.0099 0.0418 0.0255 0.0242 0.0140 0.0848 0.0131 2.7677 0.0201 0.0301 0.1553 0.0119 0.0167 000459 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 20 of 440 ref_per relationship remove_one residencelastyear resp_name retirement retirementamt rooms roster_a roster_b roster_c roster_check security selfemp selfempamt sex socialsecurity socialsecurityamt ssi ssiamt taxes tempabsent tenure thankyoubusiness timeleftforwork totalincome transporttowork typeofbusiness typeofunit typeofwork vadisability vehicles veteranstat vrfyincome 0.1361 0.048 0.0044 0.0028 0.1039 0.004 0.049 0.0207 0.0659 0.0011 0.0005 0.0002 0.0229 0.0095 0.0906 0.0396 0.0111 0.0824 0.0972 0.0425 0.0057 0.1637 0.0085 0.0401 0.0007 0.124 0.1081 0.0368 0.0506 0.0352 0.076 0.009 0.0184 0.0399 0.1983 0.0044 0.0009 0.0030 0.0017 0.0031 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0021 0.0010 0.0033 0.0027 0.0012 0.0039 0.0036 0.0030 0.0008 0.0055 0.0013 0.0021 0.0004 0.0047 0.0040 0.0026 0.0030 0.0021 0.0039 0.0011 0.0018 0.0026 0.0064 0.0072 0.0046 0.0000 0.0072 0.0015 0.0049 0.0028 0.0051 0.0007 0.0003 0.0003 0.0035 0.0016 0.0054 0.0044 0.0020 0.0064 0.0059 0.0049 0.0013 0.0090 0.0021 0.0035 0.0007 0.0077 0.0066 0.0043 0.0049 0.0035 0.0064 0.0018 0.0030 0.0043 0.0105 0.1797 0.0756 0.0133 0.0083 0.1822 0.0023 0.0493 0.0359 0.1091 0.0029 0.0010 0.0004 0.0227 0.0109 0.0990 0.0339 0.0174 0.0945 0.0808 0.0568 0.0125 0.1824 0.0207 0.0581 0.0139 0.0017 0.0078 0.0052 0.0097 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004 0.0041 0.0031 0.0093 0.0066 0.0035 0.0087 0.0101 0.0063 0.0037 0.0140 0.0045 0.0070 0.1701 0.1161 0.0507 0.0937 0.0634 0.0866 0.0125 0.0272 0.0638 0.2625 0.0133 0.0111 0.0079 0.0100 0.0072 0.0083 0.0036 0.0048 0.0076 0.0159 0.0219 0.0137 0.0000 0.0229 0.0028 0.0128 0.0086 0.0160 0.0030 0.0013 0.0007 0.0067 0.0051 0.0153 0.0109 0.0058 0.0143 0.0166 0.0104 0.0061 0.0230 0.0074 0.0115 0.0000 0.0219 0.0183 0.0130 0.0165 0.0118 0.0137 0.0059 0.0079 0.0125 0.0262 0.2258 0.1053 0.0196 0.0109 0.2321 0.0006 0.0700 0.0166 0.1456 0.0163 0.0006 0.0104 0.0048 0.0129 0.0018 0.0013 0.0377 0.0224 0.1663 0.0255 0.0277 0.1405 0.0843 0.0629 0.0076 0.2593 0.0096 0.0967 0.0073 0.0055 0.0165 0.0056 0.0083 0.0142 0.0105 0.0088 0.0029 0.0194 0.0032 0.0117 0.1899 0.1408 0.0653 0.0805 0.0843 0.1322 0.0042 0.0337 0.0676 0.3678 0.0151 0.0139 0.0092 0.0108 0.0099 0.0161 0.0025 0.0081 0.0098 0.0213 0.0322 0.0179 0.0000 0.0268 0.0010 0.0171 0.0079 0.0212 0.0000 0.0021 0.0000 0.0120 0.0090 0.0271 0.0092 0.0137 0.0234 0.0173 0.0145 0.0048 0.0319 0.0053 0.0192 0.0000 0.0248 0.0229 0.0151 0.0178 0.0163 0.0265 0.0041 0.0133 0.0161 0.0350 10.5385 6.9910 0.0035 0.0572 0.0359 0.0377 0.0132 0.0959 0.0377 0.0270 0.0263 2.6231 0.1912 0.0175 0.0121 10.5951 0.0542 0.0154 0.0370 0.2792 0.2275 0.0034 0.0226 0.0176 0.0200 0.0132 0.0319 0.0205 0.0161 0.0186 0.1678 0.0466 0.0139 0.0121 0.2981 0.0225 0.0109 0.0180 0.0181 0.0417 0.0564 0.0113 0.0264 0.0208 0.0227 0.1488 0.0153 0.0311 0.0830 0.0090 0.0174 0.0168 0.0716 0.0395 0.0287 0.0078 0.0138 0.0100 0.0274 0.0241 000460 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 21 of 440 wages wagesamt wateramt waterinc waterpay weeksworked welcomeback whatgrade whatlanguage whenmovedin widow worklastweek worklocal yearbuilt yearofentry yearofmarriage 0.3651 0.5887 0.0672 0.0056 0.0377 0.0405 0.0281 0.0126 0.0052 0.0868 0.0147 0.2567 0.6416 0.0554 0.0219 0.0559 0.0092 0.0101 0.0031 0.0010 0.0023 0.0027 0.0021 0.0016 0.0009 0.0039 0.0016 0.0060 0.0108 0.0029 0.0019 0.0029 0.0151 0.0166 0.0051 0.0016 0.0038 0.0044 0.0035 0.0026 0.0015 0.0064 0.0026 0.0099 0.0178 0.0048 0.0031 0.0048 0.4589 0.6908 0.0821 0.0144 0.0538 0.0561 0.0269 0.0319 0.0111 0.1689 0.0188 0.4066 1.0446 0.1233 0.1193 0.1044 0.0197 0.0286 0.0088 0.0036 0.0063 0.0072 0.0047 0.0054 0.0034 0.0132 0.0037 0.0162 0.0322 0.0105 0.0092 0.0094 0.0324 0.0470 0.0145 0.0059 0.0104 0.0118 0.0077 0.0089 0.0056 0.0217 0.0061 0.0266 0.0530 0.0173 0.0151 0.0155 0.5903 0.7509 0.0797 0.0048 0.0681 0.0735 0.0702 0.0366 0.0361 0.1996 0.0244 0.5969 1.2457 0.1591 0.2599 0.1082 0.0277 0.0315 0.0108 0.0026 0.0080 0.0098 0.0107 0.0069 0.0092 0.0163 0.0065 0.0244 0.0379 0.0159 0.0207 0.0116 0.0456 0.0518 0.0178 0.0043 0.0132 0.0161 0.0176 0.0114 0.0151 0.0268 0.0107 0.0401 0.0623 0.0262 0.0341 0.0191 0.0569 0.0396 0.0150 0.0330 0.0019 0.0334 0.6223 0.0220 0.0210 0.0132 0.0194 0.0019 0.0235 0.0791 0.0203 0.0825 0.0043 0.0573 0.1133 0.0330 0.0202 0.0150 0.0289 0.0043 0.0233 0.0372 0.0174 0.0119 cit/pob/yoe combine 0.5045 0.0097 0.0160 1.1526 0.0330 0.0543 1.5841 0.0480 0.0790 0.2855 0.0484 * The numerator is the breakoff at each questions and the denominator is the total of times that question was reached. 000461 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 22 of 440 a MOE 0.6585 0.0265 0.0395 0.0206 0.0350 0.0000 0.0696 0.0245 0.0230 0.0393 0.0276 0.0071 0.0127 0.0387 0.0252 0.0127 0.0146 0.0000 0.0247 0.0431 0.0250 0.0250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0257 0.7345 0.0253 0.0127 0.0252 0.0392 0.0416 000462 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 23 of 440 0.0000 0.0281 0.0220 0.0212 0.0117 0.0179 0.0512 0.0178 0.0000 0.0071 0.0276 0.0000 0.0329 0.0000 0.0587 0.0227 0.0215 0.0127 0.0071 0.0362 0.0263 0.0000 0.0258 0.0780 0.2790 0.0278 0.0077 0.0447 0.0388 0.0237 0.0036 0.0324 0.0211 0.0000 000463 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 24 of 440 0.0000 0.0392 0.0127 0.0245 0.0000 0.0308 0.0117 0.0260 0.0336 0.0215 0.0127 0.0000 0.0189 0.0117 0.0125 0.0217 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 0.0255 0.0278 0.0000 0.0215 0.0163 0.0688 0.0419 0.0398 0.0230 0.1395 0.0215 0.0000 0.2555 0.0196 0.0275 000464 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 25 of 440 0.4593 0.3742 0.0056 0.0372 0.0290 0.0329 0.0217 0.0525 0.0337 0.0265 0.0306 0.2760 0.0767 0.0229 0.0199 0.4904 0.0370 0.0179 0.0296 0.0000 0.0186 0.0434 0.0342 0.0000 0.0252 0.0512 0.0000 0.0000 0.0472 0.0128 0.0227 0.0165 0.0451 0.0396 000465 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 26 of 440 0.0362 0.0345 0.0217 0.0319 0.0031 0.0387 0.1301 0.0000 0.0247 0.0475 0.0071 0.0383 0.0612 0.0286 0.0196 0.0000 0.0796 000466 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 27 of 440 ACS Item Allocation Rates for United States: 2016, Title Overall housing allocation rate occupied and vacant housing units Overall person allocation rate total population Vacancy status vacant housing units Tenure occupied housing units Units in structure occupied and vacant housing units Year moved in occupied housing units Month moved in occupied housing units into which households move in the last two years Year built occupied and vacant housing units Lot size occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes Agricultural sales occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes with lot size greater than or equal to 1 acre Business on property occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes Number of rooms occupied and vacant housing units Number of bedrooms occupied and vacant housing units Running water occupied and vacant housing units Flush toilet occupied and vacant housing units Bathtub or shower occupied and vacant housing units Sink with a faucet occupied and vacant housing units Stove or range occupied and vacant housing units Refrigerator occupied and vacant housing units Telephone 2016 4.9 9.5 3.9 1.2 1.5 3 0.7 18.2 3.9 4 ** 5 5.5 2.4 ** 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.2 000467 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 28 of 440 occupied housing units Number of vehicles occupied housing units Heating fuel occupied housing units Monthly electricity cost occupied housing units Monthly gas cost occupied housing units Yearly water and sewer cost occupied housing units Yearly other fuel cost occupied housing units Yearly food stamp recipiency - household occupied housing units Yearly real estate taxes owner-occupied housing units Yearly property insurance owner-occupied housing units Mortgage status owner-occupied housing units Monthly mortgage payment owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Mortgage payment incl. real estate taxes owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Mortgage payment incl. insurance owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Second mortgage owner-occupied housing units Home equity loan owner-occupied housing units Other monthly mortgage payment(s) 1.5 1.2 3.4 8.1 9.6 8.5 7.3 1.7 16.7 23.9 2.2 10.5 6.2 6.8 3.2 3.7 owner-occupied housing units with second mortgage or home equity loan Property value owner-occupied housing units and vacant housing units for sale Yearly mobile home costs occupied mobile homes and other units Monthly condominium fee owner-occupied housing units Monthly rent 23.3 occupied housing units rented for cash rent and vacant housing units for rent Meals included in rent 10.5 11.6 21.7 0.8 000468 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 29 of 440 occupied housing units rented for cash rent and vacant housing units for rent Desktop/laptop/notebook computer occupied housing units Handheld computer/smart mobile phone occupied housing units Tablet or other portable wireless computer occupied housing units Smartphone occupied housing units Other computer occupied housing units Household has internet access occupied housing units Dial-up internet service occupied housing units with internet access DSL internet service occupied housing units with internet access Cable modem internet service occupied housing units with internet access Fiber-optic internet service occupied housing units with internet access Cellular data plan (formerly mobile broadband) occupied housing units with internet access Satellite internet service occupied housing units with internet access High speed internet service occupied housing units with internet accesss Some other internet service occupied housing units with internet access Race total population Hispanic origin total population Sex total population Age total population Relationship total household population Marital status total population 15 years and over Married past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married 2.1 1.3 ** 1.6 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.8 ** ** ** 7.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 1.5 1.8 0.1 1.7 1.2 5.3 6.9 000469 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 30 of 440 Widowed past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married Divorced past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married Times married total population 15 years and over, except those never married Year last married total population 15 years and over, except those never married Place of birth total population Citizenship total population Year of naturalization total population naturalized citizens Year of entry total population not born in US Speaks another language at home total population 5 years and over Language spoken 7.4 7.4 8.1 13.5 9.1 6 22.5 14.8 6.8 total population 5 years and over who speak another language at home English ability 8.3 total population 5 years and over who speak another language at home School enrollment total population 3 years and over Grade level attending total population 3 years and over enrolled Educational attainment total population 3 years and over Field of degree 7.1 total population 25 years and over with a bachelor's degree or higher Mobility status total population 1 years and over Migration state/foreign county total population 1 years and over movers Migration county total population 1 years and over movers within US Migration minor civil division total population 1 years and over movers within US Migration place total population 1 years and over movers within US Health insurance thru employer/union 6.7 10.2 8.5 13.5 7.2 13.2 14.6 14.2 15 000470 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 31 of 440 total population Health insurance purchased directly total population Health insurance through Medicare total population Health insurance through Medicaid total population Health insurance through TRICARE total population Health insurance through VA total population Health ins. thru Indian Health Service total population Visual difficulty  total population Hearing difficulty  total population Physical difficulty  total population 5 years and over Difficulty remembering  total population 5 years and over Difficulty dressing  total population 5 years and over Difficulty going out  total population 16 years and over Grandchildren living in home noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over Responsibility for grandchildren noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over who are grandparents with grandchildren in the home Months responsible for grandchildren noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over who are grandparents with grandchildren in the home that have responsibility Fertility status female total population 15-50 Veteran status total population 17 years and over Periods of military service total population 17 years and over on active duty now or previously Service-connected disability rating total population 17 years and over, except those who never served in the Armed Forces Service-connected disability rating value 10.7 11.3 9.5 12.2 12.5 12.3 12.8 7.1 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 1.1 17.7 17.2 7.8 7.3 9.7 6.8 000471 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 32 of 440 total population 17 years and over with a service-connected disability Employment status recode noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over When last worked noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over Weeks worked in the past 12 months noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over who worked in the past 12 months Hours worked per week noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over who worked in the past 12 months Place of work state/foreign county 0.2 8.7 9.6 10.6 11.9 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work county 11.8 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work minor civil division 12.5 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work place 3.6 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Transportation to work 13.1 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Carpool size noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who drive to work Time of departure noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who don't work at home Commuting time noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who don't work at home Class of worker total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Industry total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Occupation total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Wages/salary income total population 15 years and over 9.6 10.9 20.2 14.5 11.7 12.7 13.4 19.1 000472 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 33 of 440 Self-employment income total population 15 years and over Interest, dividends, etc. income total population 15 years and over Social security or railroad retirement total population 15 years and over Supplemental security income total population 15 years and over Public assistance total population 15 years and over Retirement income total population 15 years and over Other income total population 15 years and over Some or all income allocated total population 15 years and over 10.5 15.2 14.5 12.7 13.2 13.6 13.2 28.4 Source: ACS 1-year data. See following links for more information: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample-size-and-data-quality/item-allocation-rat https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/sample-size-and-data-quality/item-a Note: ** X0AT This item was not asked in this year. 000473 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 34 of 440 , 2013, 2010 2013 2010 5.6 5.2 8.4 5.8 3.5 2.9 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 3 3.4 0.7 0.7 17.1 16.2 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.4 2.4 3 5.5 5.2 4.6 4.3 2.1 2 2.2 2 2.2 2 2.2 2 2.8 2.5 2.9 2.7 000474 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 35 of 440 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.3 3.4 3.3 8.2 7.3 9.9 9.8 8.8 8.1 8.3 10.6 1.7 1.3 18.5 16.3 25.6 23.2 2.5 2.1 12.4 10.7 6.9 (X) 7.4 (X) 3.7 3.4 4.3 4.2 21.7 17.9 12.9 12.3 21.5 19.9 0.8 0.7 9.8 9.3 000475 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 36 of 440 2.1 2 3.2 ** 3.3 ** ** ** ** ** 3.7 ** 4.4 ** 5.7 ** 5.7 ** 5.7 ** 5.7 ** 26.7 ** 5.7 ** ** ** 5.7 ** 1.6 1.5 2.1 1.8 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.2 4.8 3 6.6 4.7 000476 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 37 of 440 7 4.5 7 4.5 7.8 5.1 13.3 11.4 8.6 6.5 5.2 2.7 22.5 16.6 13.2 10.3 5.9 3.4 7 5.7 5.9 4 6 3.7 8.9 6 8 5.6 12.4 9.8 6.5 4 11.3 7.1 12.5 8.3 12.1 8.4 12.9 8.8 000477 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 38 of 440 9 6.2 9.7 6.9 8.1 5.2 10.5 7.9 10.8 8.1 10.7 8.1 11.1 8.5 6.1 3.4 5.9 3.2 6.7 3.5 6.7 3.5 6.7 3.5 6.5 3.4 1 0.9 15.7 12 16.1 14.9 6.7 3.7 6.8 3.8 9.3 6.3 6.6 3.9 000478 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 39 of 440 0.2 0.7 8.1 5.1 9.1 5.7 9.7 6.9 10.8 7.7 10.4 6.3 11 7 3.3 2.1 11.6 7.6 8.8 5.7 9.9 6.8 18.5 12.8 13.3 9.7 10.7 7.2 11.4 7.8 11.8 8.1 19 16 000479 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 40 of 440 9.3 5.9 12.6 8.8 12.3 8.9 10.3 6.7 10.5 6.8 11.1 7.5 10.8 7.4 25.3 22.4 es/ allocation-rates-definitions.html 000480 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 41 of 440 Percent of ACS Response by Mode: 2010-2017 42.3 7.9 49.8 2010 43.5 8 48.8 2011 43 43 43.6 42.8 42.3 42.3 7.3 6.1 5.1 4.5 3.9 2.6 20.7 19.7 CAPI CATI 18.6 Mail Internet 22.7 21.6 29.7 31.9 34.2 36.5 28.3 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* 49.7 2012 * 2017 data are preliminary 000481 1 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 42 of 440 Response Rates and Rea Year 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Housing Unit Response Rate Refusal 94.7 95.8 96.7 89.9 97.3 97.6 97.5 98 97.9 97.7 97.5 97.3 93.1 96.7 97.7 96.7 95.1 Unable to Locate 2.1 2 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 1 1 1.7 1 1.3 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 Response Rates and Rea Year 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Group Quarters (Person) Response GQ Person Refusal Rate 95.7 1.2 95.3 1.3 95.9 1.2 95.2 1.1 95.1 0.9 96.9 0.8 97.6 0.9 98 0.9 98 0.5 97.8 0.4 97.4 0.8 Unable to Locate GQ Person 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Note: As a result of the 2013 government shutdown, the ACS did not have a second mailing States, paper questionnaire in Puerto Rico) contribute to the overall response for this pane housing unit response rate rises to 97.1%. Similarly, due to a reduction in funding in 2004, t response rate. 000482 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 43 of 440 asons for Noninterviews (in percent) - Housing Units - United Response Rates and Reasons for Noninterviews No One Home Temporarily Absent 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.1 Language Problem 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Insufficient Data 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 1 sons for Noninterviews (in percent) - Group Quarters - Unite Response Rates and Reasons for Noninterviews Resident Temporarily Absent 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Language Problem Insufficient Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 GQ Person Other 0.9 1.5 1 1.6 2.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 1 1.2 0.6 g, a telephone followup, or a person followup operation for the October 2013 housing unit panel. On el. This caused a drop in the annual housing unit response rate of about 7 percentage points. If we ex the telephone and personal visit followup operations for the January 2004 panel were dropped, whic 000483 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 44 of 440 d States Maximum Contact Attempts Reached Other 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.6 7.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 4.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ed States Whole GQ Refusal Whole GQ Other 1 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0 0 0.2 nly respondents from the first mailing (Internet in the United clude the October panel from the calculation, the annual ch resulted in a comparable effect on the overall 2004 000484 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 45 of 440 US. OF com-3nag-.9} Community SURVEY People are our most important resource. This Census Bureau survey collects information about education, employment. income. and housing?information your plan and fund programs_ Your This form asks for three types of information: 0 basic information about thel people who are living or staying at the address on the mailing abel above response IS a specific information about this house. apartment. or mobile - home Important, and we 0 more detailed information about each person living or staying here keel) your answers What is your name? Please PRINT the name of the person who is ?lling out this form. include the telephone number so we can contact you if there is a question. and today's date. Last Name confidential. First Name MI If you need help or have questions Area Code Number about completing this form, please call 1-800-354-7271. The telephone call is free. Date (Monthmanyear) Telephone Device for the Deaf Call 1-800-582-8330. The telephone call is free. ENECESITA 5" usted habla ESPBFIOI How many people are living or staying at this address? necesita ayucia para completar su cuestionario, Ilame sin cargo alguno al 1?800-354?7271. Number Of people For more information about the American site at. 0 Please turn to the next page to continue. rum tics-H2000) OMB No. 0607-0310 300?] Approval Expires 10131f2002 000485 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 46 of 440 ?that What Is this person's How is this person related I 0 I 5 Is this date of birth and what to Person person's is this person's age? Print numbers in boxes. INSTRUCTIONS FIRST Last Name [Please print) Month Day Year of birth Person 1 (Person 1 is the person living or staying 0 Male here in whose name this house or ??359 out this form Female apartment is owned, being bought, or as 590" 35 possible alter First Name MI Age (in years) rented. lf there is no such person, start Wing it i" mail. with the name of any adult iiving or 0 LIST everyone who is 5?in here.) living or sta Ing here for more than months. Relationship of Person 2 to Person I. - . . was; 351333355333: 3,233 Last Name (Please print) Month Day Year 0" bl?h Husband or Wife 0 ?oomer. boardrr another usual place to 0 Son or daughter Housemate. stay. Male Brother or sister [3 roommate I DO HOT LIST anyone who First Name 0 Female . Father or mother Unmarried partner is living somewhere else M. A99 "n years) 0 Grandchild Foster child for more than 2 months. Other nonrelative such as a College student In- law away. Other relative Relationship of Person 3 to Person 1. this lace is a Last Name [Please print} Month Day Year of birth 0 Husband or wife 0 Boomer, boarder want on home or a 0 Son or daughter Housemate. ?390?? Male Brother or sister roommate ere no one is Unmarried partner household stays for more ?rst Name MI 0 Female Age {in Father or mother 0 Foster than 2 months. do not 0 Grandchild list any names In the List ln-Iavv Other nonrelavae of Residents. Complete onl pages 4. 5. and 6 Other relat ve an return the form. Relationship of Person 4 to Person 1. IF you ARE nor suns Last Name Mm, pm,? Month Day 'r'ear of birth 0 Husband or wife Cl Reamer. boarder WHOM TO LIST. CALL Son or daughter Housemate. 1-800-354-72?l. Male Brother or sister roommate Unmarried partner Female . Father or mother First Name MI Age will!) 6 rand ch' I 0 Foster child aw Other nonrelatiw Other relative Relationship of Person 5 to Person r. Last Name {Please print) Month Day 'r'ear Of birth Husband or wife 0 ?oomer. boarder Sort or daughter Housemate. a Brother or sister momma; Female Unmarr partner - . Father or mother Furst Name MI Age (In years} Graham-? Foster child In-law Other nonre?at'rve ti If there are more than - - - - - D- Other rela five people list them for more lnl'ormat on about Last Name (Please print}I Last Name Last Name 0 After you've created the List of Residents. answer the questions First Name First Name First Name MI across the top of the page for the first five people on the list. 2 000486 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 47 of 440 is' this NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. ?amls Is this on Spanish! 0 What is this erson's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this status? Hispan clLatino? person consi ers himsel?herseif to be. Mark the ?No? box if not Spanishli-lispanidlatino. Now married 0 No. not SpanisthispaniclLatino White 0 Asian Indian Native Hawaiian Widowed Yes. Mexican. Mexican Arm. 0 Black. African Am. or Negro Chinese Guamanian or Chamorro Divorced Chicano American indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Y?s' Pun" 9" ?9"me Japanese Other Pacific Islander Print race below Never married It" Cubans isthis icl Korean Some other race Print race below 3? .7 other it Lauti?no - Pr?iat group '27! Vietnamese Other Asian - Print race i?L? it'd Now married No. not SpanishiI-iispaniclLatino White 0 Asian Indian 0 Native Hawailan Widowed Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am. Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guantanian or Chamorro Divorced 01'3? American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Puerto Rican Erg??g?n?fgzm; Japanese Other Pacific islander Print race below Never married Cuban Korean Some other race Print race below 7 {7 Latino nt group Other Asian -- Print race Now married 0 No. not Spanishll-Iispanicllatino White Asian Indian 0 Native Hawaiian Widowed Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. 0 Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guaman Ian or Chamorro Divorced Chicano American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Yes. Puerto Rican lullatpi?vielc?igjn?ggm; of mm!? Japanese Other Pacific Islander Print race below - Never married mm? icl Korean Some other race . Print race below 7 ?7 es. er Latino Pr or group Era Vietnamese Other Asian - Print race?I- 0 Now married 0 No. not Spanisi?nli'lispaniclLatino White 0 Asian Indian Native Hawaiian Widowed Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am. Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guamanian or Chamorro Divorced mum American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Yes. Puerto Rican :?g?agjn?gm; ofenrolled Japanese Other Pacific Islander Print race below Never married Yes. Cuban Korean Some other race Print race below 3? 7 Yes. other 5 nisthispanicl Vietnamese Latino group 7 Other Asian - Print race?n+- Cl Now married No. not Spanishniispanicrtatina White Ci Asian indian Native Hawaiian Widowad Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guamanian or Chamorro Divorced Chicano American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Puerto Rican Japanese Other Pacific Islander Print race below Never married la" Cumbans lsthis it! Korean Some other race Print race below 2 7 as. 0 er Latino Prim group ;a ?Human Other Asian .. Print race?r s-n? . . .. . . Person 9 Person 10 Person 1 1 Person 12 Last Name Last Name Last Name Last Name First Name run First Name MI First Name pm First Name MI .-- . 9 When you are finished, turn the page and continue with the Housing section. 3 .-s. - - -. - 000487 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 48 of 440 as Housing information helps your community plan for police and fire protection. Hou?How many bedrooms are in this house. 0 Please anstlirer the following . . a a apartment. or mobile home: that is. how questions about the house. othemiseySKiP to uestr'on 7 many bedrooms would you list if this apartment. or mobile home at the house. apartment. or mobile home were address on the mailing label. on the market for sale or rent? 0 No bedroom 0 which best describes this building? How many ?lms is this house or 1 bedr??m include all apartments. flats. etc. even if "While home 2 bedrooms are?. 8 Less than 1 acre -9 to question 6 3 bedrooms A mobile home 1 to 9.9 acres 0 4 bedrooms A one-famin house detached from any 10 or more acres other house Cl 5 or more bedrooms A one-family house attached to one or more. houses 0 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. what were Does this house. apartment. or mobile A budding with 2 apartments the actual of all agricultural home have COMPLETE plumbing facilities: 8 A building with 3 or 4 apartments 3049?? from this 2:323; A building with 5 to 9 apartments None . A building with 10 to 19 apartments C) 51 to 5999 8 Yes has all three faculties A building with 20 to 49 apartments Cl $1,000 to $2.499 0 A building with 50 or more apartments 0 $2,500 to $4.999 0 Boat. van. etc. 0 55.000 to $9399 Does this house apartment. or mobile $10,090 or more home have COMPLETE kitchen facilities; that is. 1) a sinlt with piped water. 2) a 0 About when was this building first built? stove or range. and 3) a refrigerator? CJ 1999 or later Is there a business (such as a store or Yes. has all three facilities 0 1995 to 1998 a medical office on No 1990 to 1994 Yes 1930 to 1939 1970 to 1979 N0 is there telephone service available in this 1960 6 house. apartment. or mobile home from to 19 9 which you can both malte and reoeive 195" to 1959 How many rooms are in this house. 1940 to 1949 apartment. or mobile home? Do NOT count El Yes 1939 or earlier bathrooms. porches, balconies, foyers. hails. or C) No half-rooms. 1 room a When did PERSON 1 (listed in the U51 0 2 rooms How many automobiles. vans. and trucks 0' on P399 2) into 3 rooms of one-ton capacity or less are kept at house. apartment. or mobile home? 0 4 rooms home for use by members of this Month Year household? 5 rooms None 6 rooms 1 7 rooms 0 8 rooms 0 2 9 or more rooms more E. 000488 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 49 of 440 Housing (continued) Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this house. apartment. or mobile home? DGaszfro unde round i servin the neighbo'niood pas 0 Gas: bottled. tank. or LP Electricity 0 Fuel oil. kerosene. etc. Coal or cake 0 Wood Solar energy Other fuel No fuel used a. LASTMONTH. whatwasthe costof electricity for this house. apartment. or mobile home? Last month?s cost Dollars OH included In rent or condominium fee 0 No charge or electricity not used 13. LAST MONTH. what was the cost of gas for this house. apartment. or mobile home? Last month's cost Dollars OR 0 Included In rent or condominium fee included in electricity payment entered above 0 No charge or gas not used c. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. what was the cost of water and sewer for this house. apartment. or mobile home? if you have lived here less than 12 months. estimate the cost. Past 12 months' cost - Dollars ?l Included in rent or condominium fee No charge cl. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. what was the Is this house. apartment. or mobile cost of oil. coal. kerosene. wood. etc. for this house. apartment. or mobile home? lfyou have lived here les than 12 months. estimate the cost. Past 12 months' cost Dollars OR [3 Included in rent or condomlnium fee 0 No charge or these fuels not used At any time DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS. were you or any member of . this household enrolled in or receiving benefits from: a. free or reduced-price meals at school a through the National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program? Yes No b. the Federal home heating and cooling assistance program? Giles At any time DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS. did anyone in this household receive Food Stamps? 0 Yes What was the value of the Stamps? Past 12 months' value Dollars Is this house. apartment, or mobile home part of a condominium? Yes -) What is the condominium fee? For renters, answer only if you pay the condominium fee in addition to your rent: othenvise. mark the ?None? box. amount Dollars 0 None No home - Owned by you or someone In this household with a mortgage or loan? 0 Owned by ou or someone In this household ree and clear (without a mortgage or loan)? 0 Rented for cash rent? Occupied without payment of cash rent? Skip to question 21 Answer questions 193-21 you PAY RENT for this house. apartment. or mobile home. Otherwise, to question 22. a. What is the rent for this house. apartment. or mobile home? amount - Dollars g. b. Does the rent include any meals? DYes a. Is the rent on this house. apartment. or mobile home reduced because the Federal. state. or local government is paying part of the cost? DYes No w) Skip to question 21 b. What government program provides this reduced rent? 0 The 'Sectlon 8' program 0 Some other government program Not sure is this house. apartment. or mobile home in a public housing project; that is. is it part of a government housing project for persons with low income? DYes ONO 000489 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 50 of 440 Housing (continued) Answer questions 22?26 ONLY 0? you or someone else in this household OWNS or l5 this house, apartment, or mobile home. Otherwise, to What is the value of this property; that is, how much do you thinlt this house and lot. apartment. or mobile home and lot. would sell for if it were for sale? Less than $10,000 Cl $10,000 to $14,999 to $19,999 Cl $20,000 to $24,999 Cl $25,000 to $29,999 Cl $30,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 0 $50,000 to $59,999 C) $60,000 to $69,999 C3 $70,000 to 579,999 $00,000 to 589,999 $90,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $174,999 $175,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $249,999 $250,000 or more - Specify 7 What are the annual real estate taxes on THIS property? Annual amount Dollars [3 None What is the annual payment for ?re, hazard. and flood insurance on THIS Annual amount Dollars None 9 a. Do you or any member of this household have a mortgage. deed of trust. contract to purchase, or similar debt on THIS property? Yes, mortgage. deed of trust, or similar debt Yes, contract to purchase 0 No -I to question 25.: b. How much is the regular mortgage payment on property? Include payments only on mortgage or contract to purchase. amount Dollars on No regular gayment required to question 2 c. Does the regular mortgage payment include payments for real estate taxes on THIS property? Yes, taxes included in mortgage payment No, taxes paid separately or taxes not requrred d. Does the regular mortgage pay- ment include payments for fire, hazard, or flood insurance on THIS property? Yes, insurance included in mortgage payment No, insurance paid separately or no insurance a. Do you or any member of this household have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on THIS property? Yes. home equity loan Yes. second mortgage Yes. second mortgage and home equity loan b. How much is the regular payment on all second orjunior mortgages and all home equity loans on THIS property? amount -- Dollars on No regular payment required Answer questions 27a and is ONLY lF this is a HOME. Otherwise, to a. Do you or any member of this household have an installment loan or contract on THIS mobile home? Yes b. What are the total annual costs for installment loan payments, personal property taxes, site rent. registration fees. and license fees on THIS mobile home and its site? Exclude real estate taxes. Annual costs Dollars Answer questions 28H ONLY lF yorr listed at least one person on page 2. Otherwise, to page 24 for the mailing instructions. a. Do all of the persons listed on pages 2 and 3 live at this address year round? 0 Yes to the questions for Person 1 on the next page No b. 0f the persons listed on pages 2 and 3, how many live somewhere else part of the year? 0 All persons listed Some persons How many? 2 Personls) 45er to the questions for person i on the next page. c. Do you consider this house. apartment. or mobile home, that uses the address on the front cover. your- 0 Primary residence? Vacation home? School residence? Work residence? Other Specify Continue with the questions about PERSON 1 on the next page. 000490 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 51 of 440 Person 1 Please cop the name of Person 1 from the List of lies dents on page 2. then oontlnue answering questions below. Last Name First Name Ml Where was this person born? 0 In the United States - Print name oi'state. Cl Outside the United States Print name ur foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes. born in the United States 4- Sirip to "la Yes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam. the U5. Virgin islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. U.S. citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States 1When did this person come to live In the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. At any time IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. kinde rten, elementary school, and schooling which eads to a high school diploma ora college degree. 0 No. has not attended in the last 3 months ?11? to question it Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. private college Is. 1I?lhat grade or level was this person attending? Marl: {Xi ONE box. 0 Nursery school. preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) 0 Graduate or professional school {for example: medical. dental. or law school} i Ili?l? What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. if cun'ently enrolled. mark the prevl'o us grade or highest degree received. 0 No schooling completed 0 Nursery school to 4th grade 0 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade NO DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent (for example: GED) 0 Some college credit. but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college. no degree 0 Associate degree (for example: AA. AS) Bachelor's degree {for example: BA. AB. 85) Master's degree (for example: MA. MS. MEng. MSW. MM) Professional degree {for example: MD. DDS. Lil/M. LLB. Doctorate degree (for example: r-1 What is this person?s ancestry or ethnic origin? [For example. italian. Jamaican. African Am- Cambodian Cape Verdean. Norwegian. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Korean. Lebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. laiwanese. Ukrainian. andso on.) a. Did this person live In this house or apartment 1 year ago? Person is under 1 year old 45le to the questions for Person 2 on page to. Yes. this house -s to in the next column No. outside the United States Print name of foreign country. or Pu?to Rico. Guam. etc. below.- then to in next column. 0 No. different house in the United States I). Where did this person live 1 year ago? Name of city. town. or post office ri- Your answers are important! Every person in the American Community Survey counts. c. Did this person live limits ofthe city ortown? Yes No. outside the cityitown limits Name of county Home of state ZIP Code if this person is UNDER 5 years of age. to the questions for PERSON 2 on page to. Otherwise, continue with question 14. a. Does this erson speak a language other than at home? DYes No SKIP to question 15 b. lilihet is this language? For example: Korean. ltalian. Spanish. Vietnamese c. How well does this person spealc English? 0 Very well 0 Not well Well Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. Blindness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking. climbi stairs. reaching. lifting. or carry ng? DC) Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have an difficulty In doing any of the following actl ties: Yes a. Leaming. remembering. or concentrating? b.Dressin .bathl .or around inside ?some?? getting c. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD Oil OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? d. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Working at a job or business? DD [30% Cl 000491 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 52 of 440 Person 1 (continued) 0 If this person is UNDER 15 years of age. to the questions for PEBSON 2 on page to. Otherwise. continue with Answer question l7 lF this person is female and 15?50 years old. Otherwise. to question 19a lies this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? 0 Yes Ditto a. Does this person have any of hislher own grandchildren under the age of ?19 living in this house or apartment? Yes N0 to question 19 b. Is this grandparent currentiy responsible for most of the basic needs of any rrandchildlren) under the age of 19 who ivels) In this house or apartment? 0 Yes No -r to question l9 c. How Ionihas this grandparent been responsi le for thelsa) grandchildlrenl? if the grandparent is ?nancially responsible for more than one grandchild. answer question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the iongestperiod of me. 0 Less than 6 months to 11 months 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty In the 0.5. Armad Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard. but DOES include activation. for example. for the Persian Gulf War. 0 Yes. now on active duty Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. training for Reserves or National Guard only to question 22 No. never served in the military to question 22 a When did this lperson serve on active duty in 9 the 0.5. Arme Forces? Marl: (X) a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later August 1990 to March 1995 {including Persian Gulf Wari September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1950 Vietnam era (August 1964 to April 1975} February 1955 to July 1954 Korean War (June 1950 to January 1955} World War it {September 1940 to July 1947) Some other time In total. how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? 0 Less than 2 years 2 years or more LAST WEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the "r'es' box even if the person worked only 1 hour. or helped without pay in a family business or farm for 15 hours or more. or was on active duty in the Armed Forces. 0 Yes No sue to question 211 At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than on:I location. print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address {Number and street name} If the exact address is not lrnown. give a description of the location such as the building name or the or intersection. h. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? DYes No. outside the cityltown limits d. Name of county e. Illame of 11.5. state or foreign country i. ZIP Code 6 How did this person usually get to work LAST lf this person usuall used more than one method of transportation urin the nip. marl: [it] the box of the one used for most 0 the distance. Car. truck. or van Bus or trolley bus Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car 0 Walked 0 Subway or elevated 0 Worked at home -r 0 Railroad Sitii? to question 32 Ferryboat Other method Taxicab Answer question ZS ONLY lF you marked 'Car. truck. or van in question 24. Otherwise. to question 26. How many people. including this person. usually rode to work in the car. truck. or van LAST Personls} What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST WEE ad?. pm. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Minutes Hour Minute Answer questions 28-31 ONLY iF this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise. to question 32. a. LAST WEEK. was this person on layoff from a job? Yes -s 5er to question 28c No b. LAST WEEK. was this absent from a job or Yes, on vacation. temporary illness, labor dispute. etc. SKll' to question 31 No ?a to question 29 c. Has this person been lnfonned that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months Olt been given a date to return to work? Yes a $er to question 30 No erson TEMPORARILY siness? 000492 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 53 of 440 Person 1 {continued} Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? DYes No ms to question It WEEK. could this person have started a oh if offered one. or returned to worlt If rocal Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary illness No. because of all other reasons {in school. etc.) When did this person last work. oven for a few days? 0 Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago Still? to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked to question 40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS. how many WEKS did this rson work? Count paid vacation. paid leave. and military service. Weeks a During the PAST 12 MONTHS. In the WEEKS NORKED. how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK Answer questions 34?39 ONLY iF this person worked in the past 5 years. Otllenvise. SKIP to question 40. 34-3! CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person?s chlefiob activi or business last Week. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last week, give lnfonna tion for hisiher last job or business. 1itias this person - Mark ONE box. an em layers of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bus ness. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt. or charitable organization? 0 a local GOVERNMENT employee (city. county. etc)? a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? SELFEMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? 0 working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm? For whom did this person work? if now on active duty in the Armed Forces. mark this box ?s and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What kind of business or Industry was this? Describe the activity at the location where employed. {For example: hospital, newspaper publishing. mail order house. auto engine manufacturing. bank} Is this mainly - Mark {Xi one box. 0 manufacturing? wholesale trade? 0 retail trade? other (agriculture. construction. service. government. etc)? What kind of work was this person doing? {For example: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department secretary. accountant} What were this rson's most Important activities or as? {For example: patient care. directing hiring policies. supervising order clerks. typing and tiling. recounting ?nancial records} INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Mark on the 'Yes' box for each type of income this person received. best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT du ng PAST i2 MONTHS. (NOTE: The 'past 1'2 months' is the period from today's date one year ago up through today.) Mark the 'No' box to show types of income NOT received. if net income was a loss. merit the 'toss' box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appro rlate share for each person - or. if that?s not possi report the whole amount for only one person and mark the 'No' box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes. bonds. dues. or other items. Yes as Cl No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS b. Income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses. including proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET income after business expenses. 0 YES -ll I No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS DLoss c. interest. dividends, net rental Income. royalty Income. or Income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account. Yes ?l 0 Loss 0 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. DYes?l No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS a. Supplemantal Seusrity Income (SSII. Yes No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Any public assistance or welfare payments irom the state or local welfare office. DYes No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. DYes-e No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS it. Any other sources of income received re ularly such as Veterans' pa merits. unem y- ment compensation. support or at many. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home. DYes?s 3 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS what was this person's total Income duri the PAST 12 Add entries in questions 4 to 40h; subtract an losses. if net income was a loss. enter the amount an mark (X) the 'toss' box next to the dollar amount. Loss 0 None 0R TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Continue with the questions for Person 2 on the next .Ifonlyt Res . SKIP to page 24 for mailing Instructions. 000493 0 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 54 of 440 Please copr the name of Person 2 from the List of Res dents on page 2. then continue answering questions below. Last Name First Name MI Where was this person born? In the United States Print name of state. Outs'de the United States Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? 0 Yes. born In the Un'ted States -I Skip to tile Yes. born In Puerto ll'co. Guam. the U.S. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. US. citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States When did this person come to live In the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. At any time IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. lrinde arten. elementary school. and schooling which eads to a high school diploma or a college degree. 0 No. has not attended in the last 3 months to question it Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Marl: ONE box. Cl Nursery school. preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years {freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school {for example' medical. dental. or law school} 10 What Is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. it currently enrolled. mark the previous grade or highest degree received. 0 No schooling completed Nursery schoo to 4th grade grade or 6th grade 71h grade or 81h grade 9th grade 10th grade 0 11?th grade 121h grade - no DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent [for example: GED) Some college credit. but less than 1 year or more years of college. no degree Associate degree {for example: AA. 0 Bachelor?s degree {for example: BA. AB. 35} Master?s degree {for example. MA, MS. MEng. MSW. MBA) Professional degree (for example: MD. DDS. DVM. JD) Doctorate degree (for example: PM). Ele a What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? For example: ltalian. Jamaican. African Am. Cambodian. Cape Verdean. Norwegian. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Korean. lebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago? Person is under 1 year old to the questions for Person 3 on page 13 Yes. this house to in the next column 0 No. outside the United States - Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. below. then SKIP to in next column. No. different house In the United States is. Where did this person live 1 year ago? Home of city. town. or post office a Survey information helps your community get financial assistance for roads. hospitals. schools. and more. 0 GB 9 c. Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? Yes No. outside the cityltown limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code If this person is UNDER 5 years of age. to the questions for PERSON 3 on page 13 Otherwise. continue with question 1'4 a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home? 0 Yes No 5er to question rs b. What is this language? For example: Korean. itallan. Spanish. Vietnamese c. How well does this person spealt English? 0 Very wel. Not well 0 Well 0 Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No CID a. BI 'ndness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? b. A condit' on that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking. climbing stairs. reaching. lifting. or carrying? CJCJ Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have any dif?culty in doing any of the following activities: Yes a. Learn'ng. remembering. or concentrating? b. Dress'ng. bathing. or getting around inside the home? c. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor?s of?ce? d. [Answer If this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Working at a Job or business? 00 000494 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 55 of 440 Person 2 (continued) If this person is UNDER 15 years of age. to the questions for PERSON 3 on page 13. Otherwise, Continue with Answer question l7 ONLY 11? this person is female and 15?50 years old. Otherwise. to question i?a. Has this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? DYes a. Does this person have any of own grandchildren under the age of 18 living In this house or apartment? 0 Yes No to question rs b. Is this grandgarent currently responsible for most of the asic needs of any grandchildlreni under the age of ti! who lvelsi in this house or apartment? DYes No ?9 to question 19 c. How Ionahas this grandparent been respons le for thelse) grandchildtreni'i if the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild. answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent gas been responsible for the longest period of me. Less than 6 months 6 to 11 months i or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty in the 0.5. Armed Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include trainin for the Reserves or National Guard. but DOES nciude activation. forexampie. for the Persian Gulf War. Yes. now on active duty Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. training tor Reserves or National Guard only -i SKIP to question 22 No. never served in the military -i Still? to question 22 0 GB When did this rson serve on active duty in the 11.5. Ann Forces? Mark (X) a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later August 1990 to March 1395 (including Persian Gulf War) September 1930 to July 1990 May 1915 to August 1980 Vietnam era {August 1964 to April 1915] 0 February 1955 to July 1964 0 Korean War {June 1950 to January 1955] World War Ii (September 1940 to .Iuiy 194'!) Some other time In total. how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? Less than 2 years 2 years or more MST WEEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the 'Yes' box even if the person worked only 1 hour. or helped with: at pay in a fami business or farm for 15 hours or more, or was on a re duty in the Armed Forces DYes No -l to question 28 as what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location. print where he or she worked most last Week a. Address (Number and street name} if the exact address is not known. give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection- b. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? 0 Yes No. outside the cityl?town limits d. Name of county e. Name of state or foreign country i. ZIP Code a How did this person usually get to work MST if this person usual! used more than one method of transportation urin the trip. mark 00 the box of the one used for most the distance. Car. truck. or van 0 Bus or trolley bus 0 Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car 0 Walked Subway or elevated Ci Worked at home -i Railroad to question 32 ?"be Other method 0 Taxicab Answer question 25 ONLY Hi you marked ?Car. truck. or van in question 24. Othenvise. SKIP to question 26 How many people. including this person. usually rode to work in the car. truck. or van LAST Personis) What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST Minute 0 em. 0 p.m. Hour How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work Minutes Answer questions 28?31' ONLY lF this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise. to question 32. a. LitS?l' WEEK. was this person on layoff from a job? Yes $le to question 28c No b. WEEK. was this gerson TEMPORARILY absent from a job or usiness? Yes. on vacation. temporary illness. labor dispute. etc. SKIP to question 3! No 4 sure to question 29 c. line this person been Informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next a or been given a date to returnto 0 Yes -) 5ch to question so No 11 000495 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 56 of 440 Person 2 (continued) Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? CI Yes No 5er to question at LAST WEEK. could this person have started a oh if offered one. or returned to Work if recall Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary illness No. because of all other reasons {in school. etc.) When did this person last worlc. even for a few days? 0 Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago -I SKIP to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked ?ar SKIP to question 40 During the PMT 12 MONTHS. how many WEEKS did this person work? Count paid vacation. paid sic ieave. and military service. Weeks During the PAST 12 MONTHS, in the WEEKS WORKED. how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK . Answer questions 34-39 ONLY iF this person worked in the past years. Othenvise. SKIP to question 40. 34-39 CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ICTIVITY. Describe clearly this person's chief fob activi or business iast week. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business iast week. give information for hisiher last job or business. Was this person - Mari: no ONE box. an em 'oyee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bus ness. or of an individual, for wages. salary. or commissions? an empioyee of a PRNATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt, or charitable organization? a local GOVERNMENT employee (city. county. eth? a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED In own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? 0 work log WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm? 12 9 mo For whom did this person work? if new on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark {it} this box -i and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at the location where employed. {For example: hospital. neWspaper publishing. mail order house. auto engine manufacturing. bank} Is this mainly - Mark ix) one box. 0 manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? other (agriculture. construction. service. government, etc)? What kind of work was this person doing? {For exampie: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department. secretary. accountant} What were this person's most important activities or duties? [For exampie; patient care. directing hiring policies, supervising order clerics. typing and filing. reconciling financiai records} INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Mark the 'Yes box for each type of income this person received. and give or best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during PAST i2 MONT HS. (NOTE: The ?past 12 months' is the period from today?s date one year ago up through today.) Mari: (X) the 'No box to show types of income NOT received. If net income was a loss, mark the 'toss' box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appropriate share for each person or. if that's not possible. report the whole amount for only one person and maric the ?No box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. or tips from all iobs. Report amount before deductions for taxu, bonds. dues. or other items. DYes?s DNO TOTAL AMOUNT for plan 12 MONTHS 0 b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses. including and partnerships. Report NET income after business expenses. ?513 N0 TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 0 Loss c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or income from estates and trusts. Report even smaii amounts credited to an account. DYes?s DLOSS No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHs d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. DYes?r No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS e. Supplemental Security Income UYes-s No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS f. Any public assistance or Welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. DYes-s No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT inciude Social Security. CI Nu TOTAL AMOUNT Eur past 12 MONTH h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' WA) pa ants. unem loy- ment compensation. support or al mony. Do NOT inciude iump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home. No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS What was this person?s total Income during the PAST 12 Add entries in questions 40a to 40h; subtract any losses. if net income was a ioss. enter the amount and mark (X) the 'toss' box next to the dollar amount. 0 Loss 0 None OR TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Continue with the questions for Person 3 on the next go. If only 2 people are listed in the List of Resigns. SKIP to page 24 for mailing Instructions. 000496 0 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 57 of 440 Person 3 Please cop? the name of Person 3 from the list of Iles? dents on page 1. then continue answering questions below. Last Name First Name Where was this person born? In the United States - Print name of state. Outside the United States - Print name or foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Cl Yes. born In the United States did}: to ma 0 Yes. born In Puerto Rico. Guam. the U5. Virgin islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. US. citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. At any time THE MONTHS. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. kinde arten. elementary school. and schooling which eao's to a high school diploma on college degree No. has not attended in the last 3 months -i SKIP to question II Yes. public school. public college 0 Yes. private school. private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Marl: 00 ONE box. 0 Nursery school. preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 Collagie undergraduate years (freshman to Graduate or profession-such {for example. medical. dental. or law school) .., What Is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mari: ONE box. if currently enrolled. marl: the previous grade or highest degree received 0 No schooling completed 0 Nursery school to 4th grade 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or 8th grade 0 9th grade 0 lilth grade 0 11th grade 12th grade no DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent {for9 example. GED) 0 Some college credit. but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college. no degree 0 Associate degree {for example: AA. AS) 0 Bachelor's degree {for example: 8A. All, 85) Master's degree {for example: MA. MS. MEng. Mild. MSW. Professional degree {for example: MD. DDS. DVM. 0 Doctorate degree {for example: PM). Edit!) What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? {For example: itaiian. Jamaican. African Am. Cambodian. Cape Verdean. Nomegian. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Korean. iebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on.) a. Did this person litre in this house or apartment 1 year ago? [3 Person is under 1 year old 5er to the questions for Person 4 on page id. Cl Yes, this house -s to in the next column 0 No. outside the United States - Print name of foreign country. or Pugrto Rico. Guam. etc. below; then to in next column. No. different house In the United States is. Where did this person live 1 year ago? Home of city. town. or post office Information about children helps your community plan for child care. education. and recreation. c. Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? Yes No. outside the cityltown limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code - if this person is UNDER 5 years of age. to the questions for PERSON 4 on page i6. Otherwise. continue with question 14. a. Does this arson spealt a language other than at home? Yes No to question :5 b. What is this language? For example: Korean. ltalian. Spanish. Vietnamese c. how well does this person speak English? Very Well 0 Not well "Neil Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. Blindness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? is. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking. climbing stairs. reaching. lifting. or carrying? Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have an difficulty in doing any of the ollowlng actiu a Learning remembering or Yes No . concentr'ating'l b. Dress! . bathing. or getting around home? 0 c. {Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD Oil OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? 0 .. lmil?l?l?itmlr .. business? 0 13 000497 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 58 of 440 Person 3 (continued) If this person is UNDER 15 years of age. Hill" to the questions for PERSON 4 on page 16. otherwise. continue with - .. -4 Answer question i 7 Hi this person is female and years old. Othemrise. BMW to question 18a. Has this person given to any children in the past 12 months? DYes a. Does this person have any of own grandchildren under the age of 10 living In this house or apartment? DYes No ?r SKIP to question rs b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any under the age of 10 who ivels) in this house or apartment? OYes No -a $er to question 19 c. How lonihas this grandparent been responsi Ie for theise] grandchildlreni?i if the grandparent is financiaiiy responsible for more than one grandchild. answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent hfas been responsibie for the longest period of are Less than 6 months 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty In the 1.1.5. Armed Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard. but DOES include activation, for example. for the Persian Gulf War. 0 Yes. now on active duty Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. tra'ning for Reserves or National Guard only -a 5109 to question 22 No. never served in the military -r to question 22 1d a when did serve on active duty In 0 the 1.1.5. Arme Forces? Mark (X) a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later 0 August 1990 to March 1995 {including Persian Gull War] September 1990 to July 1990 May 1915 to August 1980 Vietnam era [August 19640: April 1975) February 1955 to July 1954 Korean War {lune 1950 to January 1955) World War II (September 1940 to July 194?) Some other time In total. how many years of activeduty military service has person had? Less than 2 years 2 years or more WEEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark (X) the ?Yes? box even if the person worked only 1 hour. or helped without pay in a iamii business or farm for 1'5 hours or more. or was on act duty in the Armed Forces. UYes No -r sure to question 28 At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location. print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address [Number and street name) if the exact address is not known. give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. b. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location Inside the limits of that city or town? Yes No. outside the limits d. Name of county e. Name of 1.1.5. state or foreign country f. ZIP Code i ii i How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usuaii used more than one method of transportation urin the trip. mark the boar of the one used for most the distance. Car. truck. orvan 0 Bus or trolley bus Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car Walked Subway or elevated Worked at home ?9 Railroad to question 32 Ferryboat Other method Taxicab Answer question 25 ONLY lF you marked 'Car. truck. or van' in question 24. Otherwise, SKIP to question 26. ltow many people. including this person. usually rode to work in the car. truck. or van LASI Personisl What time did this person usually leave home to go to Work LAST Dam. pm. Hour Minute How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work illiEEK'i Minutes Answer questions 28-31 GM. lF this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise. to question 32. a. LAST was this person on layoff from a job? Yes our to question 28: No b. LAST WEEK. was this arson TEMPORARILY absent from a job or usiness't Yes. on vacation. temporary illness. labor dispute. etc. ?r $le to question 31 N0 to question 29 c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next a months on been given a date to return to work? 0 Yes 5er to question 30 No 000498 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 59 of 440 Parson 3 {continued} Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 waelts? DYes No -r 5er to question at LAST WEEK. could this person have started :Joh if offered one. or returned to worlt if recall Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary illness No. because of all other reasons (In school. etc.) When did this person last work. even for a few days? 0 Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago -r SKIP to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked to question 40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS. how many WEEKS work? Count paid vacation. paid leave. and military service. Weeks During the PAST 12 MONTHS. in the WEEKS WORKED. how many hours did this person usually worlr each Usual hours worked each WEEK Answer questions 34-39 ONLY lF this person worked in the pasts years. Othenvr'se. SKii' to question 40. 34?39 CORNET OR MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe cieariy this person's chief job activi or business last week. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last Week. give information for hisiher iastjob or business. Was this person - Mari: ONE box. an employee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bu nets. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt. or charitable organization? a local GOVERNMENT empioyee (city. county. eth? a state GOVERNMENT employee? 0 a Federai GOVERNMENT employee? SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm? ?3 a For whom did this person work? it now on active duty in the Armed Forces. mark {Xi this box?r and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What Itind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at the location where employed. [For example: hospirai. newspaper publishing. mail order house. auto engine manufacturing. bank) Is this mainly - Mark {it} one box. 0 manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? 0 other (agriculture. construction. service. government. etc]? What Itind of work was this person doing? (For example: registered nurse. personnei manager. supervisor of order department. secretary. accountant] What were this rson's most important activities or dut as? {For example: patient care. directing hiring policies. supervising order clerks. typing and filing. reconciling ?nancial records) INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Mark the 'Yes' box for each type of income this person received. and ive ur best estimate ofthe TOTAL AMOUNT du ng PAST t2 MONTHS. (NOTE: The 'past 12 months? is the period from today's date one year ago up through today.) Mari: the ?No box to show types of income NOT received. if net income was a loss. mark the 'toss' box to the right of the doiiar amount. For income received jointly. report the appro riate share for each person - or. ifthat?s notpossi ie, report the whole amount for oniy one person and mark the 'No' box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes. bonds. dues. or other items. DYes?i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS b. Self-employment income from own nonfarrn businesses or farm businesses. Including . proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET - income after business expensesTOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS DLoss c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or Income from estates and trusts. Report even smaii amounts credited to an account. DYes?s No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Social Security or Railroad Retirement. DYes-i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS e. Supplemental Security Income Yes No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. Yes -i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS g. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. DYes-i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS h. An other sources of income received ularly as Veterans' (VA) pa ants. unern - ment compensation. chil support or al mony. Do NOT inciude iump sum payments such as may from an inheritance or the saie of a home. 0 Yes . I No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS What was this person's total income during the PAST 12 Add entries in questions 40a to 40h.- subtract an losses. if net income was a loss. enter . the amount a mark the 'toss' box next to the doiiararnount. 0 None OR . 0 Loss TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Continue with the questions for Person 4 on the next a. If only 3 people are listed in the list of Real 5le to page 24 for mailing instructions. 15 000499 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 60 of 440 Person 4 Please co the name of Person 4 from the List of lies dents on page 2. then continue answering questions below. Last Name First Name MI Where was this person born? In the United States Print name of state. Ci Outside the United States Print name of foreign country. or Pueno Rico. Guam. etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes. born in the United States - Skip to 10a 0 Yes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam. the US. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. US citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year (D a. At any time in THE LAST 3 MONTHS. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. kinde rten. elementary school. and schooling which eads to a high school diploma ora college degree. No. has not attended in the last 3 months -s to question it Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. privste college 11. What grade or level was this person attending? Marl: {Xi ONE box. Ci Nursery school. preschool Ci Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years [freshman to Senior) Graduate or professional school [for example: medical. dental. or law school) 16 0 What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Marl: 00 ONE box. it currently enrolled. mark the previous grade or highest degree received. 0 No schooling completed Nursery school to 41h grade 0 5th grade or 6th grade 'lth grade or 8th grade 0 91h grade 0 10th grade 0 11th grade C) 12:11 grade no outcome HIGH SCHOOL GRADIMTE high school or the equivalent {for example: GED) 0 Some college credit. but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college. no degree Associate degree {for example: AA. 0 Bachelor's degree {for example: BA. AB. ES) Master?s degree {for example: MA, MS. ?Eng. Mid. MSW. 0 Professional degree [for example: MD. DDS. DVM. till. JD) 0 Doctorate degree {for example: What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? 6 (For example: ltalian. Jamaican. African Am. Cambodian. Cape Verdean. Norwegian. Dominican. French Canadian, Haitian. Korean. Lebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on.) a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago? 0 Person is under 1 year old -s 5101' to the questions for Person 5 on page 19. Yes. this house a to f? in the next column No. outside the United States - Print name of foreign country. or Pugh} Rico. Guam. etc. below: then to in next column. 0 No. different house in the United States Is. Where did this person live 1 year ago? Name of city. town. or post office -- 1. Knowing about age. race. and sex helps your community better meet the needs of everyone. 9 c. Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? DYes No. outside the cityitown limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code If this person is UNDER 5 years of age. mm to the questions for PERSON 5 on page Otherwise. continue with question 14. a. Does this erson speak a language other than Engl sh at home? 0 Yes No $er to question rs Is. What is this language? For example: Korean. ltalian. Spanish. Vietnamese c. How well does this person speak English? Cl very well [3 Not well Cl Well 0 Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. B'indness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? b. A condition that substantlallvr limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking. climbing stairs. reaching. llfting. or carrying? CID Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have any dif?culty In doing any of the following acthr ties: Yes No a. Learning. remembering. or concentrating? Cl b. Dressi . bathing. or getting around inside rige home? c. {Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? d. {Answer if is 16 YEJAES OLD OR OVERbusiness? 0 0 000500 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 61 of 440 69 Person 4 (continued) If this person is UNDER 15 years of age. to the questions for PEEISON 5 on page 15. Otherwise, continue with - Answer question 1? ONLY lF this person is female and years old. Otherwise. SKIP to question 18a. Has this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? 0 Yes No a. Does this person have any of hlsiher own grandchildren under the age of 18 living In this house or apartmentquestion is b. Is this grandglalrent currently responsible for most of the ic needs of any under the age of 1 a who ivels} In this house or apartment? DYes No ?r 5le to question is c. How ion has this grandparent been for thelse) grandchildireni? ii the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent been responsible for the longest period of me. Less than 6 months 0 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty in the us. Armed Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation for example. for the Persian Gulf War. 0 Yes. now on active duty Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. training for Reserves or National Guard only ?r to question 22 No. never served In the mliitary Hill? to question 22 is When did this rson serve on active duty in the 0.5. Arme Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later August 1590 to March 1595 (including Fenian Gulf War} 0 September 1930 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1980 Vietnam era {August 1564 to April 1975} 0 February 1955 to July 1964 Korean War (June 1550 to January 1955} world War ll (September 1940 to iuly 194?) Some other time In totai, how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? 0 Less than 2 years 2 years or more LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the 'Yes' box even if the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a famlir business or farm for 15 hours or more. or was on act ve duty in the Armed Forcesquestion 23 At what location did this person worlt LAST if this person worked at more than one location. print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address [Number and street name) if the exact address is not known. give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. b. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? Yes El No. outside the cityltown IEmits it. Name of county a. Name of state or foreign country f. Code I9 How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usuall used more than one method of transportation urin the trip. marl: (X) the box of the one used for most 0 the distance. Car. truck. or van 0 Bus or trolley bus Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car Walked 0 Subway or elevated 0 Worked at home 0 Railroad to question 32 Ferryboat Other method 0 Taxicab Answer question 25 ONLY lF you marked 'Car. truck. or van? in question 24. Otherwise. to question 26. How many people. Including this person. usually rode to worlr in the car. trudr. or van LAST Person(s) time did this person usually leave home to go to worlt LAST Minute 0 a Hour How many minutes did It usually talre this person to get irom home to worlt Minutes Answer questions 28-3! ONLY lF this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise, to question 32. a. LAST WEN. was this person on layoff from a job? 0 Yes 5le to question 28c No b. LAST WEEK. was this arson TEMPORARILY absent from a job or uslness? Yes, on vacation. temporary illness. labor dispute. etc. to qustlon 3i Cl No a SKIP to question 29 c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to worit within the next Sun?ths Oitbeengivenadatetoreturnto we 0 Yes -r 5MP to question 30 Duo 1? 000501 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 62 of 440 Person 4 (continued) Has this person been looking for worlr during the last 4 weeks? DYes No 5er to question 31 LAST WEEK. could this person have started a oh if offered one. or returned to worlr it recalle Ci Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary Illness No. because of all other reasons {in school. etc.) When did this person last work. even for a few days? Ci Within the past 12 months 0 I to 5 years ago to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked to question 40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS. how many WEEKS did this person work? Count paid vacation. paid sick leave. and military service. Weeks During the PAST 12 MONTHS. in the WEEKS WORKED. how many hours did this person usually worlt each Usual hours worked each WEEK Answer questions 34-39 ONLY lF this person worked in the past 5 years. Othenlvise. SKIP to question 40. 34-39 CURRENT MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person's chief job actlvi or business last week. if this person had more I an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last Week. give information for last job or business. Was this person - Marl: {Xi ONE box. 0 an em loyee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bus ness. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt. or charitab'e organization? a local GOVERNMENT employee (city. county. etc)? a state GOVERNMENT employee? Ci a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or iarm? Ci SELFEMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? 0 working WITHOUT PAY in family business or iarm'l TE For whom did this person worlt? it now on active duty in the Armed Forces. mark {it} this box ?1 and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at the location where employed. {For example: hospital. newspaper publishing. mail order house. auto engine manufacturing. bank) Is this mainly - Mark (X) one box. manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? other (agriculture. construction. service. government. etc]? What Irind of worlt was this person doing? {For example: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department. secretary. accountant] What were this erson's most important activities or dut as? {For example: patient care. directing hiring policies. supervising order clerics. typing and fiir?ng, reconciling financial records} INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Mark the 'Yes? box for each type of income this person received. and give or best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during PAST I2 MONT H5. (NOTE: The 'past l2 months' is the period from today?s date one year ago up through today.) Mark the 'No' box to show types of income NOT received. if net income was a loss. marl: the 'toss' box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appro date share for each person .. or. if that?s not post le. report the whole amount for only one person and marl: the 'No' box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes. bonds. dues. or other items. Ci Yes Cl No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses. including proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET income after businen expenses. 0 Yes -11 T. ND TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account. 0 YES LOSS No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. Ne TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS e. Supplemental Security Income Yes No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. i? No TOTAL AMOUNT past 12 MONTHS 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. DYes?i No TOTAL AMOUNT tor past 12 MONTHS h. Any other sources of Income received regularlyI such as Veterans? IVA) pa ants. unern loy- ment compensation. chil support or al mony. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as moneyr from an inheritance or the sale of a home. DYes?i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS What was this person's total lncoma during the PAST 12 Add entries in questions 40a to 40h.- subtract my losses. lr' net income was a loss, enter the amount a marl: (X) the 'Loss' box next to the dollar amount. 0 None OR 0 loss TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Continue with the questions for Person 5 on the next go. It only a people are listed In the List of tiesl nts. SKIP to page 24 for mailing instructions. 000502 0 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 63 of 440 Person 5 Please oopr the name of Person 5 from the List of lies dents on page 2. then continue answarlng questions below. Last Name First Name MI where was this person born? In the United States .. Print name of rta it. 0 Outside the United States Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes. born in the United States Skip to Yes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam. the U5. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. U.S. citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States When did this person come to live In the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. At any time IN THE 3 has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. kinde arren. and schooling which reads to a high school diploma ora college degree. 0 No. has not attended in the last 3 months SKIP to question if Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. private college is. What rode or level was this person attending? Mark {Xi ONE box. 0 Nursery school. preschool 0 Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school (for example: medical. dental. or law school) or ?I?lhat is the highest degree or loyal of school this person has Marl: (X) ONE box. if currently enroiied. marl: the previous grade or highest degree received. No schooling completed Nursery school to 4th grade grade or 6th grade 7th grade or grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 0 IZth grade - no olrtoma HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE school DIPLOMA or the equivalent {for example: GED) 0 Some college credit. but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college. no degree 0 Associate degree {for example: AA. AS) 0 Bachelor?s degree {for example: an, AB, 85) Master's degree (for example: MA, MS. MEng. MSW. MBA) Professional degree [for example: no. nos. DVM. JD Doctorate degree (for example: ?dD) What is this person?s ancestry or ethnic origin? {For example: Italian. Jamaican. African Am. Cambodian, Cape Verdean. Norwegian. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Korean. lebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on] a. Did this person live In this house or apartment 1 year ago? Person is under 1 year old -l SKIP to the mailing instructions on page 24. Yes. this house -r SKIP to in the next coiumn No. outside the United States - Print name of foreign country. Rim. Guam. etc. below: then SKIP to i in next column. No. different house in the United States it. where did this person live 1 year ago? Name of city. town. or post office Your answers help your community plan for the future. a Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? 0 Yes No. outside the cityitown limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code if this person is UNDER 5 years of age, I SKIP to the the instructions on page 24. a. Does this rson speak a language other than at home? DYes No 5er to question 15 is. what Is this language? For exampie: Korean. itallan. Spanish. Vietnamese c. llow well does this person speak English? 0 Very well 0 Not well Well 0 Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. Blindness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? h. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic ph ical activities such as walking. clim ing stairs. reaching. lifting. or carrying? 0 Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have an difficulty in doing any of the allowing activ as: a Learning remembering or Yes No . concentr'ating? b. Dressi . bathing. or getting around insidet home? 0 c. {Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD Oil OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? 0 tantrum ?5 Vailbusiness? 1 9 000503 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 64 of 440 Person 5 (continued) it this person is UNDER 15 years of age. SKIP to the mailing instructigns on page 24. Etrhenvr'se, continue with .. I ?73- Answer question i? ONLY iF this person is female and rs? 50 years old. Otherwise, to question We. lies this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? DYes a. Does this person have any of hislher own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? DYes No 45er to re is. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any frandchildlren) under the age of 13 who in") In this house or apartment? 0 Yes No Sit'iP to re c. How Iongbhas this grandparent been responsl le for thelse) grandchildireni't if the grandparent is ?nancially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandch id for whom the grandparent hi? been responsible for the longest period of me. 0 Less than 6 months 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty in the 0.5. Armed Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation. for example. for the Persian Gulf War Yes. now on active duty 0 Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. training for Reserves or National GUul?d only -r to question 22 No, never served in the military SKIP to question 22 20 9 0 When did this rson serve on active-duty in the U.5. Anne Forces? Mari: (Xi a box for EACH period in which this person served. April 1995 or later August 1990 to March 1995 {including Persian Gulf War) 0 September 1980 to iuly 1990 May 1975 to August 1980 0 Vietnam era (August 1964 to April 19?5) 0 February 1955 to July 1964 Korean War {June 1950 to January 1955) World War it {September 19401: July 1947} Some other t:'rne In total. how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? 0 Less than 2 years 2 years or more WEEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark (X) the 'Yes' has even .If the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a famii business or farm for is hours or more. or was on a re duty in the Armed Forces. 0 Yes No ?r to question 28 At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week a. Address [Number and street name} if the exact address is not known. give a description ol' the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. ls. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? Yes No. outside the cityitown Iim its d. of county e. ?ame of 0.5. state or foreign country f. Code How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usuall used more than one method of transportation urin the trip, mark 00 the box of the one used for most the distance. Car. truck. or van 0 Bus or trolley bus 0 Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car 0 Walked 0 Subway or e'evated Worked at home lailroad to question 32 Other method Taxicab Answer question 25 ONLY iF you marked ?Car. truck. or van in question 24. Others-rise, Sith to question 26. I How many people. including this person. usually rode to work In the car. truck. or van LAST Personlsi What time did this person usually leave home to go to work Cl a.m. pm. Hour Minute How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Will Minutes Answer questions 28-31 ONLY it? this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise. to question 32. a. LAST WEEK. was this person on layoff tron: a job? Yes ?r to question 29c No b. lAS'l' WEEK. was this rson TEMPORARILY absent from a job or siness'i Yes. on vacation. temporary il Iness. labor dispute. etc. ?i Still? to question 31 No -) to question 29 c. Has this person been Infon'ned that he or she will he recalled to worlr within the nest manths Oil been given a date to return 000504 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 65 of 440 Person 5 {continued} lies this person been looking for work during the last 4 Weeks? DYes No srup to question 31 LAST WEEK. could this person have started a oh if offered one. or returned to Work. if recall 7 Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary illness No. because of all other reasons {in school. etc.) When did this person last work. even for a few days? 0 Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago -) to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked ?1 to question 40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS. how many WEEKS did this person work? Count paid vacation. paid siclr leave. and military service. Weeks During the PAST 12 MONTHS. in the WEEKS WORKED. how many hours did this person usually wort: each Usual hours worked each WEEK Answer questions 34-39 ONLY lF this person worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise. to question 40. 34?39 CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person's chiefjab acting or business last week. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last week. give information for hislher last job or business. Was this person - Mari: ONE box. 0 an employee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bu ness. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt. or charitable organization? a local GOVERNMENT employee (city. county. etc)? 0 a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practlce. or farm? working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm? For whom did this person work? lfnow on active duty in the Armed Forces. marl: no this box and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activl at the location where employed [For example: hosp tal. newspaper publishing. mail order house. auto engine manufacturing. bank} is this mainly - Mark one box. manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? 0 other (agriculture. construction. service. government. etc)? What kind of work was this person doing? {For example: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department. secretary. accountant} What were this person's most Important activities or dut as? {For example.- patr'ent care. directing hiring policies, supervising order clerics, typing and filing. reconciling financial records) INCOME IN THE FIST 12 MONTNS. Marl: the 'Ya' box for each type of income this person received. and give ur best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during PAST 12 MONTHS. (NOTE: The 'past 12 months? is the period from today?s date one yearago up through today.) Marl: (K) the 'No box to show types of income NOT received. if net income was a loss. marl: the 'Loss" box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appro riate share for each person - or. if that?s not post ie. report the whole amount for only one person and mark the 'No? box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds. dues. or other items. DYes?i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS b. Self-employment Income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses. Including proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET income after business expenses. 0 Yes ?1 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS DLo-ss c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or Income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account. Yes 4 in". Ln? No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement Yes ?1 . 77?" No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS e. Supplemental Security Income Yes ?1 r? No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. 0 Yes ?11 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. 0 Yes ?i .- Ill" No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS h. Any other sources of income received ularly such as Ueterans' (VA) pa ents. unemr oy- ment compensation. support or al mony. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home. . Yes -i "i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS What was this person's total income during the PAST 12 Add entries in questions We to 40h; subtract an losses. If net income was a loss. enter the amount a mark the 'toss? box next to the dollar amount. 0 None 011 0 Loss TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Now continue with the mailing Instructions on page 24 21 000505 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 66 of 440 Pages 22 and 23 are intentionally left blank 22 000506 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 67 of 440 23 000507 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 68 of 440 Mailing Instructions 0 Please make sure you have.. - put all names on the List of Residents and answered the questions across the top of the page .- - answered all Housing questions - answered all Person questions for each person on the it List of Residents. 0 - put the completed questionnaire into the postage-paid I return envelope. (It is addressed to the Bureau of the Census Processing Center in Je?ersonville, indiana) - make sure the barcode above your address shows in the window of the return envelope. Thank you for participating in the American Community Survey. The Census Bureau that. [or the .m-ragrUSE household. Form \Nl? talre .13 minutes to complete, Including the time [or rev owing the Instructions and answers Comments about thr- estmate should be directed to the Assortate POP PHONE "1 Director for Administration. Census Bureau. I: l: I: Room 3104. r3 3, Washington. DC 20233. Attn 0607-0810 Please DO NOT RETURN your questiornarre to this address Use the enclosed .- preaddressed envelope to return your completed I I 1 IE I: Respondents are wet required to respond to any tniorrnatron collection unless it displays a valid approva number from the ol Management and Budget. B-dtgil number appears In the bottom 'elt on the lront cover of this term Forrn (9-1 2000) 2% 000508 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 69 of 440 13190012 Ah ?My. THE American Community Survey This booklet shows the content of the American Community Survey questionnaire. Please complete this form and return it as soon as possible after receiving it in the mail. This form asks for information about (Q I the people who are living or staying at Please print the name and telephone number of the person who is ?lling out this form. We may contact you if there is a question. the address on the mailing label an 511 ?swam" about the house, apartment, or -. home located at the address a? ?Mame M, mailing label. \gct Area Code Number If you need help or have questions [El about completing this form. please call 1-800-354-7271. The telephone call is free. How many people are living or staying at this address? - INCLUDE everyone who is living or staying here for more than 2 months- Deaf INCLUDE yourself if you are living here for more than 2 months. a 2-333 The telephone call is "99' . iaftmone aisle sta in here ugho dloes not have another place to . - ay, even ey are are or mont or see. . DO NOT INCLUDE anyone who is living somewhere else for more than llama sin cargo alguno el 1-877-833-5825. 2 months, such as a col ego student living away or someone In the Usted tembi?n puede pedir un cuestionsrio on Armed Forces on deployment. espa?ol completar su entrevista por tel?fono Number Of people con un entrevistador que hebla espar'tol. For more information about the American 9 . . . . . Fill out pages 2. 3. and 4 for everyone. including yourself. who is Community Survey. our web arts at. .censusgovl'ec 33:31:; saying for more than 2 months. Then 0MB A ll 000509 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 70 of 440 i 3 1 90020 (Person 1 is the person living or staying herein whose name this house or apartment is owned, being bought. or rented. If there is no such person, start with the name of any adult living or staying here.) What is Person ?I'a name? Last Name (Please print) First Name How is this person related to Person 1 i3] Person 1 What is Person 1 's sax? Merl: ONE box. Male El Female What is Person 1 age and what is Person 1 's date of birth? Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes. Age {in years] Month Day Year of birth -) NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about His anic origin and is Person 1 of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? it No. not of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin 6 Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am. Chicano Yea. Puerto Rican Yea. another His nic. Latino. or Spanish origin - Print ample, Argentinean, Co omblen, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salve . nlard. and so on. 3 Yes. Cuban I -. i a What is Person 1's race? Merl: (X) one Wares. x3 Black. African Am. or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native -- Print name of enrolled or principal tribe? Asian Indian '3 Japanese Ci Native Hawaiian Chinese '3 Korean El Guamanian or Chamorro Filipino El Vietnamese Ci Samoan El Other Asian - race. Ci Other Paci?c islander - Print race, for example. Fijian. Tongan, and so on. 7 for exam ls, Hmong, Laotian, al. Pakistani. Cambodian. and so on. if Some other race - Print race. What is Parson 2's name? MI Last Name (Please print) First Name a How is this person related to Person 1 Mark ONE box. Question 6 about race. For this survey. Hispanic gins are not races. ii Ci Husband or wife Son-in-Iaw or daughter-in-iew Biological son or daughter Ci Other relative Adopted son or daughter i] Boomer or boarder Stepson or stepdaughter Housemate or roommate Brother or sister Ci Unmarried partner in Father or mother El Foster chiid Grandchild Other nonrelative Parent-in-law What is Person 2's earmark (X) ONE box. '3 Male .. What is Parso and what is Person To date of birth? Please report age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. if} . Print numbers in boxes. Age {in yearle: Month Day Year oi birth - Please answer BOTH Question 5 about His anic origin and on 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic gins are not races. arson 2 of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? F?s? No. not oi Hispanic. Latino, or Spanish origin Yes. Mexican, Mexican Am. Chicano Yes. Puerto Rican Yes. Cuban DUDE Yes, another His anic. Latino. or Spanish origin - Print origin, for example. Argentinean, Co ombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan. Salvadoran, Spaniard. and so on. i' What is Person 2?s race? Mark one or more boxes. El Black. African Ant.. or Negro Ci American Indian or Alaska Native -- Print name of enrolled or principal tribe. Ei Asian Indian Ci Japanese Native Hawaiian El l.?.hinese Ci Korean Guamanian or Chamorro Ei Filipino Vietnamese El Samoan Other Asian - Print race. Other Paci?c Islander- i'or exam le, Hmong, Print race, for example. Laotian. hal. Pakistani, Fijian, Tongan, and Cambodian, and so on. 3? so on. Some other race - Print race. 000510 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 71 of 440 13190038 What is Person 3's name? Last Name {Please print} MI I First Name a How is this person related to Person 1? Mark {Xi ONE box. Husband or wife Son-in-Iaw or daughter-in-Iaw El Biological son or daughter Other relative El Adapted son or daughter ?3 Boomer or boarder El Stepaon or stepdaughter Housemate or roommate Brother or sister Unmarried partner Father or mother I: Foster child Other nonreiative Parent-in-Iaw What is Person 3's sent? Merit ONE box. Male Female What is Person 3's age and what is Person 3?s date of birth? What is Person 4's name? Last Name (Hesse print} First Name I How is this person related to Person 1 7 Mark {x1 ONE box. El Husband or wife Son-in~law or daughter-in-Iaw Biologic-Ii son or daughter El Other relative Adopted son or daughter El Boomer or boarder Stepson or stepdaughter Housemate or roommate Brother or sister El Unmarried partner El Father or mother Foster child El Grandchild CI Other nonreletive Parent-in-law What is Person 4's sex? Mark {xi ONE box. Male What is and what is Person 4's date of birth? Piease report babies as age 0 when the child is iess than 1 year aid. Please report bis as age 0 when the chiid' is iess than 1 year oid Print numbers in boxes. Print numbers in boxes. Age lin yearsi Month Day Year of birth Age {in wait if Month Day Year oi birth -) NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about His nic origin and 4-- Please answer Question 5 about His nic origin and Question 8 about race. For this survey. Hispanic gins are not races. on 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic gins are not races. Is Person 3 of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? Person 4 of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? '3 No, not of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin . No. not oi Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Yes. Mexican. Mexican Arm. Chicano Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am., Chicano Yes. Pueno Hican Yes. Puerto Bican Yes. Cuban in. :35 Yes. Cuban Yes. another Hi anic. Latino. or Spanish origin- Print exampia. Yes. another His nic. Latino. or Spanish origin- -Print origin. for ass is. Argentinean, Co ombian, Dominican. Nicaraguan. Seiv panierd, Argentinean, ombian, Dominican. Nicaraguan. Seivadoran, Spaniard? andsoon? .3, andsoonWhat is Person 3's race? Merit (X) one Wires. 0 What is Person 4's race? Merit (X) one or more boxes. El White a; White Black, Airlcan Am., or Negro Black. African Am.. or Negro El American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enroiied or principai tribe? American Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enroiied or principal tribe? El Asian Indian Japanese Native Hawaiian El Asian Indian Japanese Native Hawaiian Chinese Korean Guamanian or Chamorro CI Chinese Korean El Guamanian or Chamorro Filipino Vietnamese Samoan El Filipino Vietnamese El Samoan Other Asian - Print race. Other Paci?c Islander - Other Asian- Print race, Other Paci?c Islander - for exam e. Hmong, Print race. for exempie. for exam eHrn ong Print race. for example. Laotian. ei, Pakistani, ?jian, Tongan. and Laotian. e1 Pakistani ?jien. Tongan. and CambodianCambodianSome other race .. Print race. 7 Some other race - Print race. 3? mm a 00051 1 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 72 of 440 13 190046 If there are more than five people living or staying here. print their names in the spaces for Person 6 through Person 12. What is Person 5's name? We may caii you for more information about them. 7 Last Name [Please print} ?rst Name MI I Last Name (Please print) First Name Ir? 9 How is this person related to Person 1? Mark on ONE box. I Husband or wiie I: Son-irrlaw or daunhter-in-law Biological son or daughter Other relative CI Adopted son or daughter Boomer or boarder has Mala Female Age [in year-Ii Stepson or stepdaughter [3 Housemate or roommate r1 1" [3 Brother or sister Unmarried partner Name (Please print} First Name Mi Father or mother Foster child I I CI Grandchild Other nonraietiva El Parant-in-Iaw . What is Parson 5?s salt? Mari: (x1 one box. Sal Male El ?If? yoml [3 Male Fama?a ..- Person 3 i? ?g What is Person 5's age and what is Person 5's date of birth? ml Piease report babies as age 0 when the chiici is less than 1 year old. ?at Name (Piaf; Hm Name Print numbers in boxes. rf" I Age {in vests} Month Day- Year oi birth 4 NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about His nic origin and Ag. {in Question 6 about race. For this survey. Hispanic 0 gins are not races. Is Person 5 of Hispanic. Latino, or Spanish origin? ?rst Name it? No. not of Hispanic, Latino. or Spanish origin .. I Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am. Chlcenc Yes. Puerto ?ican (at. h?.G El Cuban ?afar .2- Sas El Flmlis Age [In Yes another l-iis enic. Latino. or Spanish origin- Print ample, Argentinean Co ambian, Dominican. Nicaraguan, Salve lard, an $0 on Last Name {Please print) First Name MI I What is Person 5?s race? Mark one 0 Wires. [3 White Black. African Am. or Negro Sea His El Fan-leis Age [In years} American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name ofanroiied or principal tribe? i1 1 1 I Last Name {Please print) First Name HI '3 Asian Indian Japanese I: Netive Hawaiian Chinese Korean Guamanien or Chemorro Filipino Vietnamese Samoan s? Maia El hm.? A90 [in Either Asiafn -;rinr race, 102??" Islander; or exam a, mo nt race, or exa Laotian, . ai, Pakig?rn? Fijian. Tongan, any Person 1 CambodianLast Name {Prensa print) First Name I Some other race Print race. 7 I Age 7mm 000512 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 73 of 440 Please anmer the following questions about the house. apartment. or mobile home at the address on the mailing label. Which best describes this building? include all apartments. flats, etc. even if vacant. A mobile home A one-family house detached from any other house A one-family house attached to one or more houses A building with 2 apartments A building with 3 or 4 apartments A building with 5 to 9 apartments A building with 10 to 19 apartments A building with 20 to 49 apartments A building with 50 or more apartments Boat. RV, van, etc. CIDEICIEJCICI CI Ell] About when was this building ?rst built? El 2000 or later- SW 1990 to 1999 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1950 to 1999 1940 to 1949 1939 or earlier When did PERSON 1 (listed on page 2] move into this house, apartment. or mobile home? Month Year 1 3 1 90053 Answer questions 4 - 6 if this is a HOUSE OR A otherm?se. Still? to quastlon 7e. How many acres is this house or mobile home on? El Less then 1 acre -) to question 6 1:1 1 to 9.9 acres or more acres 6 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what were the actual sales of all agricultural.- producta from this property? None 51 to $999 $1,000 to $2.499 $2,500 to $4,999 WV 55pm to 59,999 $10,000 or motel I: . eh {such as a store or a medical of?ce on a. How many separate rooms are in this house. apartment. or mobile home? Rooms must be separated by built-in archweys or mils that extend out at least 5 inches and go from ?oor to ceiling. - bedrooms, kitchens. etc. - EXCLUDE bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyer-s, balls, or un?nished basements. Number of rooms Count as bedrooms those rooms you would list if this house; apartment, or mobile home were for sale or rent. if this is an ef?ciency/studio apartment, print Number of bedrooms b. How many of these rooms are bedrooms? a Does this house, apartment, or mobile home have - Yes a. hot and cold running water? b. a flush toilet? . a bathtub or shower? D. . a sink with faucet? e. a stove or range? DUDUDCI f. a refrigerator? . telephone service from wh oh you can th make anc receive calls include cell phones. El l3 How many automobiles. vans. and trucks of one-ton capacity or less are kept at home for use by members of this household? None more Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this house. apartment. or mobile home? El Gas: from underground 1 as serving the neighborhood Gas: bottled, tank. or LP Electricity Fuel oil, kerosene. etc. Coei or coke Wood Solar energy Other fuel No fuel used 000513 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 74 of 440 Housing (continued) 1 1 a. LAST MONTH. what was the cost of electricity for this house. apartment. or mobile home? Last month?s cost Dollars on El Included in rent or condominium fee El Nun charge or electricity not used is. LAST MONTH. what was the cost of gas for this house. apartment. or mobile home? List month's cost Dollars OR included in rent or condominium fee El included in electricity payment entered above No charge or gas not used 0. IN 11-IE PAST 12 MONTHS. what was the cost of water and sewer for this house. apartment. or mobile home? lt? you have lived here less than 12 months: estimate the cost. Past 12 months' cost - Dollars on El Included in rent or condominium fee CI No charge cost of oil. coal. kerosene. wood, for this house. apartment. or mobile home? if you have lived here less than 12 months, estimate the cost. Past 12 months? cost - Dollars Oil El Included in rent or condominium fee El No charge or these iuels not used a. IN THE PAST 12 moms. whet yum .2 13190061 IN THE PAST 12 mourns. did anyone in this household receive Food Stamps or a Food Stamp bene?t card? lnclude government bene?ts item the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Do NDTinciude or the National School Lunch Program. Yes No Is this house, apartment. or mobile home part of a condominium? Cl Yes What is the condominium fee? For renters, answer only if you pay the condominium fee in addition to ?None? boxNone No it i Is this house. or mobile home - Mark ONE .- ?5 til or someone in this with a mortgage or do home equity loans. by you or someone in this hold free and clear [without a rtgage or loenl? . I .E . 2? Rented? (I if El Occupied without payment of rent? -) to Answer questions i5a and if this house, apartment, or mobile home is RENTED. Otherwise; to question lb?. 6 a. What is the rent for this house. apartment. or mobile home? amount - Dollars It. Does the rent include any meals? El Yes El No your rent; otherwise. mark the amount Dollars jl't Answer questions 18 20 if you or someone else in this household OWNS or is this house, apartment, or mobile home. Otherwise, to on the next page. About how much do you think this house and lot. apartment. or mobile home {and lot. if owned] would sell for if it were for sale? Amount Dollars i HE. What are the annual reel estate taxes on THIS property? Annual amount -- Dollars Oil El None is the annual payment for fire. hazard. and ?ood insurance on THIS property? Annual amount Dollars 4? on El None 1 l?ll ll ll 000514 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 75 of 440 13190079 Housing (continued) 19 a. Do you or any member of this household have a mortgage. deed of trust, contract to purchase. or similar debt on THIS property? [3 Yes. mortgage. deed of trust, or similar debt Yes. contract to purchase CI No 9 to question 20.! b. How much is the regular mortgage payment on THIS property? include payment only on mortgage or contract to purchase. amount - Dollars OR No ular rJayment required -) Still" to ones on 2 c. Does the regular mortgage payment include payments for reel estate taxes on THIS property? [1 Yes, taxes incl udad in mortgage payment No, taxes paid separately or taxes not required d. Does the regular mortgage payment include payments for fire. hazard. or ?ood insurance on THIS Prop-m? CI Yes, insurance Included In mortgage. payment :1 No, Insurance paid separately or insurance any member of this household have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on THIS preparer? El Yes, home equity loan Yes, second mortgage El Yes, second mortgage and home equity loan El No -) SKIP to b. How much is the regular payment on all second or junior mortgages and all home equity loans on THIS property? amount - Dollars on El No regular payment required Answer question 21 HOME. Otherwise. . II What annual costs for - - rtytases. site rent. 5" ?tnual costs - Dollars Answer questions about PERSON i on the next page if you listed at least one person on page 2. Otherwise. to page 28 for the mailing instructions. i'l. . Ill II ll ill 000515 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 76 of 440 then cont Last Name nuo answering questions below. FIrst Nsme 0 Where was this person born? In the United States - Print name oistata. 13150087 Please copy the name of Person from page 2. Outside the United States- Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. a is this person a citizen of the United States? Yes. born in the United States -) to 10a Yes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam. the U. S. lil'itgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents Yes. U. S. citizen by natural'zation- Print year of naturalization 7 No. not 3 us. citizen When did this rson come to live in the United States Print numbers in boxes. Year person att school or college? include only nursery orpreschool. ergartan. which leads to a high school deloma or a degree. El No. has not attended in the last 3 months -) to question 11 El Yes. public school. public college El Yes. private school. private college. home school Mark ONE box. Nursery school. preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 through 12 Speci?r gm 1 a? Colliegf undergraduate years lireshrnan to El Graduate or professional school bachelor's degree (for example: program. or medical or law school} a. At any time 111E LAST 3 MONTHS. has this (v {1 elementary school. home school. and schooll? - b. What {gases or level was this person attending? a or 6 What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Marl: le ONE box. it currently enrolled. mark the previous grade or highest degree received NO SCHOOLING COMPLETED No schooling completed NURSERY OR PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 12 El Nursery school Kindergarten CI Grade 1 through 11 - Specify grade ?-17 12th grade? no DIPLOMA HIGH amounts El Regular high ciploma El GED or alternative credential censors on some COLLEGE f- 1 1 or more years of college credit. no Associate?s degree (for example; AA. All}- Bachelor's degree (for WW) AFTER 3 BEGREECJ: Lil's: a Ms M?StMali/59M .1 9 Professional a bachelor?s degree {for axe . DVM. LLB. Doctoramrbirffor example: Eda} DUDE cation 12 if this person has a r's degree or higher. Otherwise. to question 13. This question focuses on this person' DEGREE. Please emaont below the i?c Ina rial of any EACH R's DEGREES is person received. {For example: chemical engineering. elementary teacher education. organizational I. . ill What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example: ltalian. Jamaican. African Am. .. Cambodian. Cape Verdean. No ion. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian Kore rean. abanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on. i a. Does this person speak a language other than English at homequestion 15s It. What is this language? t? For example: Korean. italian. Spanish, Vietnamese c. at well does this person speak English? a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago? Person is under 1 year old -t to question 16 El Yes. this house to question 16 No. outside the United States and Pue rtoFl ico- Print name of foreign country. or U..S Vi in lslanp?s. Guam. etc. below: then 51(ng question 16 Very well Well Not well Not at all No. different house in the United States or Puerto ico b. Where did this person live 1 year ago? Address {Number and street name} Name of city. town. or post office Name of county or municipio in Puerto Rico Name of 1.1.5. state or Puerto Rim ZIP Code mm 000516 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 77 of 440 131 90095 Person 1 continued . I i Answer question 19 if this person is Hm" hesthis 599" 15 years old or over. Otherwise. to I, e?'n?rwgw?gg in 1 6 Is Wenon CURRENTLY covered by any of the the questions for Person 2 on page 12. more rhan one rendchiid, enmr m, mun-a" foil ng ?1:11??le insuf?nicfzogthen? gratin has ooveregepens a es or nrespon eongiespe 0 me. ofooverage in items a 4? Because of a physical, mental, or emotional El Yes No condition, does this person have dif?culty Less than 5 months a. Insurance through a mrrent or . doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's l] 5 to 11 months former empl or union {of this af?ne or shopping? person or an famiilv El 1 or 2 years nanomx an insuring: oompamgibvt is El Yes 3 0M years person or another family member} El No 5 or more years c. Medicare, for people 65 and older. It W3 With certain "no" ?dull Hes this person ever served on active in the . - 1.1.8. Armed Forces. military Reserves, or onel d' Now married Guard? Active duty does not include mining for the phi. f0, mug, with low rm? El Widowed Reserves or Narionei Guard. but ones include a, a draw?, El Divorced activation. for exempie, for the Persian Guir' Wer. e. THICAFIE or other military health care Separated 13' Yes. 0? active duty f. VA iincludi those who have ever CI El Never married -) SKiPio WP 2:331:52 tmg? g?ii? now "mm? mgr?- acti tyi th that on V8 no g. Indian Health Service rig the last 12 h. image a. Married? [j . - farmzr?g?a?onal Guard 0" .- 3pm #7 b. Widowed? No. in the military -) SKIP to question I c. Divorced? q- . 4" a. is ?lls ps?n 13f 11::er helshe have How many times thin? been married? in irrigcifch this person serv?i, evean pen?haithe se ous ou ng ?3 Once a? pe . l' .i Yes Two times . September 2001 or later No Three or MEN 41m #333: 1693'? wa?rgust 2001 {including h. - dif?culty using "an ?my In what Ws person last get married? El September 1930 to July1990 glasses? May 1975 to August 1980 Yes El Vietnam eraiAugust1964 to April 1975i No March 1951 to Juiy1964 I . i iriswer question 24 if this person is February 1955 to February 1961 (G Answer question 188 .. if this person is female and 75 50 years old. Otherwise. El Korean War Univ 1950 to January 1955} 5 Years aid or over. Otherwrse, to :5 . .. SKIP to question 25% El January 1947 to June 1950 the questions for Person 2 on page 12. a k. El World War II [December 1941 to December 1946} Has this on liren birth to on children in a e. llamas of a primal. mental. or emiotlonal the pest mangle? El November 19?" or earlier on.rlu s spersonllnuase a e. Doesthisperson haveeVAsenrlce-oonnected raring? Ye, El LDoesthia rsonhaveenyofhisiherown El No run under the age of 18 living in 9 to question 29? hDoeIthls haveserl dlf? Ity person one on walking or climbing stairs? CI Yes b. $131?? persfon service-connected Yes El No 9 to question 25 Cl 0 percent hls?ds nmtounendv No most 0? the is needs of any 10 or 20 percent Does this person have dlf?oulty dressing or underthe age of 18 who liveisl this house or Cl 30 or 40 percent no? a" Cl 50 or 50 percent 70 percent or higher No No to question 25 1 [ll ll 000517 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 78 of 440 13150103 Person 1 {continued} 29 a. LASTWEEK. did thisrarsonworkfor pay at a job [or business} El Yes a SKIP to question 30 El No Did not work {or retired} h. LASTWEEK. did this person do ANY work for pay, even for as little as one hour? El Yes No SKIP to question 35.: At what location did this person work LAST If this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address {Number and street name) if the exact address is not known. give a description of the Iocation such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. hNameofcitonwmorpoatof?ce city or town El Yes No. outside the cityl?town limits Name of county a. Name of 0.3. state or foreign country f. ZIP Code a How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark {Xi the box or? the one used for most of the distance. Car. truck, or van I: Bus or trolley bus El Bicycle El Streetcarortrolleycar Cl Walked El Subway or elevated Cl Worked at a innate Ferryboat Other method Taxicab a What time did this person usually leave home a How many minutes did it usually take this - c. is the work l7ocation inside the limits of that Answer Simmons 35 a. LAST emotion this person on layoff from [If Na - Pb. fast WEEK, was this person rem-onset? . absent from a job or business? Answer question 32 if you marked 'Car, tmck, or van? in question 31. Othemise, SKIP to question 33. How many people. including this person. usually rode to work in the car. truck, or van LAST Parsonlsl togotoworkLAST Hour Minute em. El p.m. person to get trom home to work LAST 5 Minutes 'l ?person did NOT work Just wait. rwise, SKIP to question ?El-5:1. A, lie." I 4.. 537 largely-3? SKIP to question 35c Yes, on vecation.tempora illness. maternity leave, other familigirsonal reasons, bad weather. etc. IP to question 38 No 9 SKIP to question 36 c. the this person been Informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 8 most!? OR been given a date to return to wet Ci Yes -) SKIP to question 37 I: No Darin the hasthis person been ACTI LY looking for work? El Yes No -i SKIP to question 38 LAST went, could this person have started a job if offered one, or returned recalled? toworkif Yes, could have gone to work Ci No. because of own temporary illness Cl No. because of all other reasons {in school. eiol When did this person last work. even for a few days? Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago -) SKIP to El War 5 years ago or nevrn worked -) SKIP to question 47 a. During the PAST 12 MONTHS {52 weeks}. did this person work 50 or more weeks? Count paid time off as work. Yes -) SKIP to question 40 El No b. How ma weeks DID this person work. even for a few rs. includi paid vacation. paid sick leave. and ry service? 50m52weelts 48m49waaks 40t041weeks 2?to39waaks 14to2l3weeks 13weeksorless DDUUDU Durin the PAST 12 MONTHS. in the WEEKS W0 D, how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK 1:1 Hill il I'll 000518 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 79 of 440 Person 1 (continued) Answer questions 41 - 46 if this person worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise, to question 47. 41 - 48 CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe cieariy this person?s chief lob activity or business last week. if this person had more than onejob, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no Job or business iast week. give information for his/her iastjob or business. Was this race - Mark (Xi NE box. an employee ofa PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business, or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions? an employee of PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PFIOFIT. tax-exempt. or charitable organization? a local GOVERNMENT em I (city. county. etc}? eyes a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? business. professional practice, or farm? SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? workinq?WlTHOUT PAY in family business or farm For whom did this person work? iinowonectivedutyin theAnnedForcesrmaririXithisbox El and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name Of company, business, or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? (For exam is: hos tai. newspa ubiishin . mail order houfe, autoangine manugct?ring, begin! Is this mainly- Mark ONEbox. manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? other {agriculture construction, service. government. etc}? CICICIEI SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED Describe the activity at the iocation where empioyed. 13190111 What kind Of work was this person {For example: istered nurse, personne?imnager, supervisor erdepartment. secretary, accountant) What were most important activities or 7 {For exampie: patient care. directing hiring poiicies, supervisin?lorder clerks, typing and ?ling, reconciling ?nanc irecordsi a INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Merit (X) the 'Yes" box for each type of income this rson received. and ive yourbest estimate of the AL AMOUNT do no the PAST 12 The 'past 12 months" is the period from today?s date one year ago up through today.) Mari: no the "No? box to show types ofinocr?le NOT received r' if net income was a loss, merit the 'Loss?hi'l'o the right of the dollar amount. For income received iointiy, ppro riate share for each or not pass . report the smart no person and mark the 'Nc'boxfori .. person. . a. We aala ions. bonuses. or pail-o Reportamount before deducti bonds, dues, or other items. a ?1 gaggle? 1 ft?" Eb TOTAL AMOUNT for past lEr? 1 . 12 months :1 I i? . a Self-employment income from own nonfarm . 4 businesses orfarm businesses. including ri' rshi sand rmerships. He incomes CI Yes-3 No 12mon c. Interest, dividends. net rental income. royeity income. or income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an amount. Yes-t Cl No CI 12 months .I TOTAL Amount; for past 1-033 TOTAL AMOUNT for past 1-093 "13} No d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. EIYes-t Clue TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months a. Supplemental Security income [8311. Yes-) No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months Any public assistance or welfare We from the state or local welfare ca. DYes-t TOTAL AMOUNT for 12 months 1385* 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT inciude Social Security. Yes-) No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months it. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) ants. unemployment co sation. lid support or alimony. Do NOT ode lump sum payments such as money from an inhentance orthe saie of a me. El Yes-3 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months What was this person's total income during the PAST 1 2 Add entries in questions 47a to 47h: subtract any iosses. if net income was a ioss, enter the amount and mark {Xi the ?Loss? box next to the doiiar amount. NoneO? TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months a nestpagleonl 1 personislistedonpageZ. SKIP to page 28in mailing instructions000519 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 80 of 440 13190129 The balance of the questionnaire has questions for Person 2, Person 3, Person 4, and Person 5. The questions are the same as the questions for Person 1. 12 ?i II il [ill II Ii ill 000520 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 81 of 440 1 31 90277 i} 8:93?) Lg. it; . "i I "ill II I II 000521 27 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 82 of 440 13150285 Mailing Instructions 0 Please make sure you I listed all names and answered the questions on pages 2, 3, and 4 answered all Housing questions I answered all Person questions for each person. 0 -.. Ce . put the completed questionnaire into the postage-paid six. return envelope. if the envelope has been misplaced, {if please mail the questionnaire to: U.S. Census Bureau P.O. Box 5240 Jeffersonville, IN 47199-5240 a make sure the barcode above your address 5 . in the window of the return envelope. a Thank you for participating in the American Community Survey. {0441: I I 2' The Census Bureau estimates that. for the average QO household, this form will take 33 minutes to complete. including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers. Send comments regarding this burden estimate F0 can SU rea 58 or any other aspect of this collection of information. including suggestions for reducing this bu rden, to: Paperwork Project 0607-0810, 5. Census Bureau, ?3 FHDNE J'c? 4600 Silver Hill Road. AMSD - 3K138, Washington. o.c. I 20233. You may e-mail comments to i Paperworkiatmnsusgov: use ?Paperwork Proiect 0607-0310' as the subject Please DO NOT RETURN your questionnaire to this address. Use the enclosed EDIT CLERK TELEPHONE CLERK JIC3 preaddressed envelope to return your completed questionnaire. Respondents are not required to respond to any information collection unless it displays a valid approval number from the Of?ce of Management and Budget. This 8?digit number appears in the bottom right on the front cover of this form. Form ACS- {05-14-2009} as II I II 000522   Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 83 of 440 American Community Survey (ACS) Why We Ask: Place of Birth, Citizenship and Year of Entry We ask about place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry to provide statistics about citizens and the foreign-born population. These statistics are essential for agencies and policy makers setting and evaluating immigration policies and laws, understanding how different immigrant groups are assimilated, and monitoring against discrimination.           The questions as they appear on the 2014 ACS paper questionnaire. A question about “foreigners not naturalized” was first included in the Census of 1820, while a question on place of birth originated in 1850, and a year of entry question originated in 1890. These questions were transferred to the ACS when it replaced the Decennial Census long-form in 2005. Examples of Federal Uses  Required in the enforcement responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act's bilingual requirements to determine eligible voting populations for analysis and for presentation in federal litigation.  Required to enforce against discrimination in education, employment, voting, financial assistance, and housing.  Used in many reporting and research tasks to investigate whether there are differences for citizens and foreign-born individuals in education, employment, home ownership, health, income and many other areas of interest to policymakers. Examples of Other Uses State and local agencies use these statistics to understand the needs of all the groups in their communities over time. Some social, economic, or housing trends may have different impacts for different groups; understanding these changes may highlight future social and economic challenges. Advocacy groups use statistics about specific groups to understand current and future challenges and to advocate for policies that benefit their groups. 000523 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 84 of 440 Eensus Bureau Administrative Data Inventory Data access varies by source and requires opprovoifrom doto ownders ccniuuov .me mum-r. . more renewable Federal CNCS Corporation for National and Community Service Alumni{ArneriCorps. VISTA. etc.} 2005-2010-2013 Federal Department of Commerce US. Patent and Trademark Office' Patent Applications? 1893-2014 Federal Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program 2006 - 2015 Federal Department of Veteran's Affairs Department of Veteran's Affairs US Vetera n's Data 2013 Federal Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Child Care and Development Fund 2004 - 2014 Federal Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Temparary Assistance for Needy Families 2000 - 2014 Federal Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems 2014 Federal Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicaid Statistical Information System fy2000 - fy2016q4 Federal Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Enrollment Database 1999 - 2017 Federal Health and Human Services Health and Human Services National Institute of General Medical Sciences 1990-201? Federal Health and Human Services Indian Health Service Patient Registration 1999 - 2017 Federal Health and Human Services National Center for Health Statistics National Death Index linked to Current Population Survey 1973-2011 Federal Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Computerized Homes Undenivritlng Management System 2000-2010 Federal Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Federal Housing Authority Integrated Data Base 2010-2016 . Federal Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Public Indian Housing Information Center 2000 - 2016 Federal Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Tenant Rental Assistance Certification Center 1999 - 2016 Federal Office of Personnel Management Office of Personnel Management Central Personnel Data File 1990 - 201S Federal Selective Service System Selective Service System Registration File 1999 - 2017 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration Death Master File 2000-2016 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration Master Bene?ciary Record 2015 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration Numident Cumulative from 1998 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration SSA Administrative Records Linked to Current Population Survey 1991-2001 - 1991-2013 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration 55? ?minimal? Records "mkea 5" we? of '"mm and Program 1984-1996 - 1984-2014w1-3 Participation Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration Supplemental Security Income 2010 - 2015 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Business Master Entity Information {current} Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 Returns ty1969 - ty2016 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1040. 1040 Schedules C. CIEZ. SE. E. Form 1040-55. Form 1040-PR {current} Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1041. 1065 ty2007 - ty2016 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1099 Returns {Information Returns} ty2003 - ty2016 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1099-R Returns {Information Returns} ty1995 - ty2016 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 55-4 for Employer Identification Number {current} Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form ty2005 - ty2016 Forms 1120, 1120F. 1120L. 1120-PC. 1120-RIC. 1120-REIT. 990-R {formerly Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service 990}. 990-RZ {formerly 990-PF. 1120-C {formerly 990-0. 6765. 851. {current} 1096. 990-N Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Forms 941. 941PR. 94155. 943. 943PR. 944. 944-5P. 944-PR. 944-55 {current} Federal United States Postal Service USPS National Change of Address 2010 - 2017 Other Homeless Management Information Localities Houston. TX. Los Angeles. CA Houston. TX 2004 - 2015. Los Angeles. CA Governmental System 2004 - 2014 Other Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Tax Data ty2008 - ty2010 Governmental State Low Income Energy Assistance Low Income Energy Assistance Program C0 C0 2009-2010 - 2013-2014 000524 State State State State State State State Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Permanent Fund Data Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women. Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Care Services Unemployment Insurance Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Permanent Fund Data Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Frong for Women. Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Care Services Unemployment Insurance Commercial Real Estate Information IREIS) Corelogic DAR Partners Experian First American Data Tree InfoGroup Market Data Retrieval DIVISION of Dun Bradstreet} Melissa Data National Exchange Carrier Association INECAI Targus United Way 211 Data VSGI A2. C0. HI. IL. IN. MD. MI. NY. 00.11All States. DC and Commercial-to-residential zoning changes Property Tax. Deeds. MLS. Foreclosures Household Member and Telephone Data Credit Bureau Header Data Property Data Household Member Data Education Data Household Member Data Company Code Assignment Foreclosures Household Member and Telephone Data Greater Cleveland. OH Household Member and Telephone Data Page 85 of 440 2015 AL 2014 - 2016. AZ 2014 - 2017. CO 2011 - 2016. ID 2012 - 2015. NV 2006-2014. CIR 2008 - 2016. UT 2014 - 2016. WA 2004 - 2016. WI 2015 - 2016 AZ 2009 - 2015. CO 2012 - 2013. HI 2013 - 2015. IL 2008 - 2016. IN 2004 - 2016. M0 2009 - 2015. MI 2010 - 2016. NY 2007 - 2012. OR 2009 - 2014. TX 2008 - 2009. VA 2009-2013 ID 2010 - 2016. KY 2014 - 2015. MS 201?. ND 2004 - 2016. NI 2006 - 2018. NY 2013 2016. TN 2004 - 2016. UT 2012 - 2016 AZ 2009 - 2015. IN 2004 - 2016. MD 2009 - 2015. MI 2010 - 2016 WI 2008-2009 2009 - 2017 2014 2005-2016 - 2017 2015 - 2017 2010 - 2011 2016 - 2017 2010 - 2011 2011-2012 - 2016-2017 2010 - 2011 2013-2015 2005 - 2011 2010 - 2015 2011-2015 2010 - 2017 000525 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 86 of 440 2015 WL 5675832 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief) Supreme Court of the United States. Sue EVENWEL, et al., Appellants, v. Greg ABBOTT, In His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Appellees. No. 14-940. September 25, 2015. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Brief of Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees J. Gerald Hebert, Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center, 1411 K St. NW, Suite 1400, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 736-2200. Anita S. Earls, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, 1415 W. Highway 54, Suite 101, Durham, NC 27707, (919) 794-4198. Paul M. Smith, Jessica Ring Amunson, Mark P. Gaber, Jenner & Block LLP, 1099 New York Ave. NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 639-6000, jamunson@jenner.com, for amici curiae. *i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................................. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. I. States Redistrict Based Upon Decennial Census Data that Counts the “Whole Number of Persons” in Each State and There Is No Count of “Citizens” by the Decennial Census ................ A. Legal Framework and History of the Census. ......................................................................... B. States Rely on Census Data to Redistrict. ............................................................................... II. Serious Practical Concerns Counsel Against Constitutionally Requiring States to Draw Districts with Equal Numbers of Voting Age Citizens. ................................................................ A. ACS Citizenship Estimates Cannot Provide the Basis For a Constitutional Equal Protection Rule .............................................................................................................................................. 1. The ACS Estimates Do Not Align with the Timing of Redistricting ........................................ 2. ACS Estimates Are Not Available at the Smallest Geographic Levels, and Some Data is Suppressed to Protect Privacy ...................................................................................................... 3. As a Statistical Sample, ACS Estimates Are Subject to Error That Makes their Use for LineDrawing Difficult ......................................................................................................................... *ii B. Asking Citizenship Status of Every Household Would Lead to Reduced Response Rates and Inaccurate Responses, While Multiplying Privacy and Government Intrusion Fears ............. III. Voter Registration Data Would Be an Inappropriate Measure Upon Which to Require Districts To Be Drawn ................................................................................................................. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ i iii 1 4 6 7 7 11 13 13 14 17 19 23 26 28 *iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989) ....... Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) ..................................................... Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) .................................................... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 17 27 000526 1 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 87 of 440 Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) .......................................................................................... Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015). ......................................................................................... Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) .................................................... League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) .... Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ....................................................... Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indpendent School District, 168 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) ..................................................... Constitutional Provisions and Statutes U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 ............................................................................... U.S. Const. art. I, § 2 ................................................................................ U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2 ..................................................................... 13 U.S.C. § 9(a)(1) ..................................................................................... *iv 13 U.S.C. § 9(a)(2) ............................................................................. 13 U.S.C. § 141(a) ..................................................................................... 13 U.S.C. § 141(b) ..................................................................................... 13 U.S.C. § 141(c) ...................................................................................... 13 U.S.C. § 195 .......................................................................................... Act of Aug. 31, 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-530, 78 Stat. 737 ............................. Act of Mar. 1, 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 101 .......................................................... Act of Mar. 26, 1810, § 1, 2 Stat. 565-66 ................................................... Ga. Const. art. 3, § 2 ................................................................................. Ill. Const., art. 4, § 3(b) ............................................................................. N.J. Const. art. IV, § 2, ¶ 1 ....................................................................... Pa. Const. art. 2, § 17(a) ............................................................................ Fla. Stat. § 11.031(1) .................................................................................. Ill. Comp. Stat., Chapter 55, § 2-3001c ...................................................... Legislative Materials Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Federalism and the Census of the H. Comm. on Gov't Reform, 109th Cong. (2005) (Statement of Kenneth Prewitt). ................................................................ *v Other Authorities Sandra L. Colby & Jennifer M. Ortman, U.S. Census Bureau, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2016 (Mar. 2015), https:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/ publications/2015/demo/ p25-1143.pdf ....................................................... Andy Greenberg, Census Paranoia Fueled Distrust in Government Privacy More than NSA Wiretapping, Forbes, June 30, 2010, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ firewall/2010/06/30/census-paranoia-fueleddistrust-in-government-privacy-more- than-nsa-wiretapping/ .................... Letter from Postmaster General Timothy Pickering to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 26, 1793, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Jefferson/ 01-27-02-0557 ............................................................................ Catherine McCully, U.S. Census Bureau, Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data for the Year 2020 Census (Dec. 2014), http:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/publications/2014/ rdo/pl94-171.pdf ......................................................................................... Nathaniel Persily, The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 755 (2011) ......................................................................................................... *vi Pew Charitable Trust, Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade (Feb. 2012), http:// www.pewtrusts.org/°/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/ pcs_ assets/2012/ PewUpgradingVoterRegistrationpdf.pdf ................................................... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8, 9, 13 14, 15 12, 17, 22 15 11 22 11 25 7 7, 8, 25 18 18 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 12 12 11 11 12 12 24, 25 16 23 7 17 16, 17 27 000527 2 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 88 of 440 Kenneth Prewitt, What if We Give a Census and No One Comes?, 304 Sci. Mag. 1452 (June 4, 2004) .......................................................................... Prerana Swami, Rep. Bachmann Refuses to Fill out 2010 Census, CBS News (June 18, 2009), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ rep-bachmannrefuses-to-fill-out-2010-census/ ................................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts, https:// www.census.gov/ geo/reference/terms.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) ...... U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data (Oct. 2008), https://www.census.gov/content/ dam/Census/ library/publications/2008/acs/ACSGeneralHandbook.pdf .... U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey: Data Suppression (Nov. 15, 2013), http://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/ acs/tech_docs/ data_ suppression/ACSO_Data_Suppression.pdf ...................................... *vii U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 2014) - Chapter 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Error (Jan. 30, 2014), http://www2.census.gov/ programssurveys/acs/methodology/design _and_methodology/acs_design_methodology_ ch15_2014.pdf ................... U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide, http:// www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/ acs_information_guide/flipbook/ ............................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, Census Instructions, https:// www.census.gov/ history/www/through_the_decades/census_instructions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) .................................................................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey, https://www.census.gov/glossary/ #term_ ConfidenceintervalAmericanCommunitySurve (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) .................................................................................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, https://www.census.gov/history/ www/ through_the_decades/index_of_questions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) .......................................................................................................... *viii U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data, Voting Age Population by Citizen and Race (CVAP), 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, https://www.census.gov/rdo/data/ voting_age_population_by_citizenship_and_race_ cvap.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) ........................................................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population & Housing - Chapter 8: Accuracy of the Data 8-3 (July 2007), https:// www.census.gov/prod/ cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf ............................................... 23 24 11 10, 11 18 19 10 7 19 9 22 9 *1 INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE 1 Amici curiae are former directors of the U.S. Census Bureau. As former directors responsible for administering the U.S. Census, amici have a unique and valuable perspective on the practical implications of the rule proposed by Appellants and the limitations of the data on which such a rule would necessarily rely. In amici's view, serious practical concerns counsel against adopting Appellants' proposals to require states to draw districts with equal numbers of either voting age citizens or registered voters. Amicus curiae Dr. Kenneth Prewitt was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1998 to 2001. In that capacity, he oversaw the execution of the 2000 decennial Census and development of the American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Prewitt serves as the Carnegie Professor of Public Affairs and Special Advisor to the President at Columbia University, where he teaches and writes on issues related to the intersection of the Census, politics, and statistics. Prior to serving as Director of the Census, Dr. Prewitt served as Director of the National Opinion Research Center, President of the Social Science Research Council, and Senior Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation. Dr. Prewitt has © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000528 3 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 89 of 440 considerable knowledge and experience with the use and limitations of Census data and their effect on the political system. *2 Amicus curiae Dr. Robert Groves was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 2009 to 2012. During his tenure, he oversaw the 2010 decennial Census and implementation of the American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Groves is the Executive Vice President and Provost of Georgetown University, where he also serves as a professor in the Math and Statistics Department as well as the Sociology Department. Prior to serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Groves was a professor at the University of Michigan and Director of its Survey Research Center, and before that a research professor at the University of Maryland's Joint Program in Survey Methodology. Dr. Groves has written extensively on the mode of data collection and its effect on responses, the social and political influences on survey participation, and the effect of privacy concerns on Census data collection. He has significant knowledge and experience related to the use and limitations of Census data and their effect on the political system. Amicus curiae Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1994 to 1998. In that capacity, she oversaw the design of the 2000 decennial Census, as well as the new American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Riche is affiliated with the Cornell Population Center at Cornell University, and participates in research projects with various Washington-based organizations, most recently on issues of demographic concern to the U.S. military. Prior to serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Riche directed policy studies for the Population Reference Bureau, and was a founding editor of American Demographics magazine. Dr. Riche has *3 considerable knowledge and experience with the use and limitations of Census data across the public, private, for profit, and not-for-profit sectors. Amicus curiae Vincent P. Barabba was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1973 to 1976 and from 1979 to 1980 - the only director to be appointed by presidents of both political parties. After serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Barabba was appointed by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to be the U.S. Representative to the Population Commission of the United Nations. He has also served on the board of directors for the Marketing Science Institute, the American Institutes for Research, and the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. In recognition of his performance in the private and public sectors he has received: An Honorary Doctorate of Laws degree from the Trustees of the California State University, been Inducted into the Market Research Council Hall of Fame, and was awarded The Certificate of Distinguished Service for Contribution to the Federal Statistical System from the Office of Management and Budget. Currently, Dr. Barabba is a member of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. He has a demonstrated interest in both accurate population statistics and redistricting. *4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In order to comply with the equal protection principle of one-person, one-vote, nearly all states and jurisdictions redistrict using total population data based on counts from the most recent decennial U.S. Census. Appellants urge the Court to overthrow this long-settled practice and replace it with one of the two voter-based measures of population they propose - citizen voting age population or registered voters. Beyond the legal and policy flaws with Appellants' argument, serious practical concerns counsel against adopting either of their proposed metrics as a constitutionally mandated means of complying with the one-person, one-vote principle. As an initial matter, there is no actual count of the number of voting age citizens. In keeping with the manner the Constitution provides for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states, the Census Bureau counts the number of persons in each state. The Census Bureau does not count the number of citizens. The only voting age citizen data that exists are estimates based on a continual sampling conducted as part of the American Community Survey (“ACS”) by the Census Bureau. But ACS was not designed with redistricting in mind. The timing of ACS estimates does not align with the timing of redistricting and ACS estimates are not reported at the small geographic levels redistricters normally use to build districts. Moreover, the geographic areas at which such estimates are available carry large error © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000529 4 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 90 of 440 margins because of the small sample sizes. These factors make the ACS an inappropriate *5 source of data to support a constitutional rule requiring states to create districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens. Nor is it possible to accurately obtain a count of voting age citizens by inquiring about citizenship status as part of the Census count. Recent experience demonstrates lowered participation in the Census and increased suspicion of government collection of information in general. Particular anxiety exists among non-citizens. There would be little incentive for non-citizens to offer to the government their actual status; the result would be a reduced rate of response overall and an increase in inaccurate responses. Both would frustrate the actual express obligation the Constitution imposes on the U.S. Census Bureau to obtain a count of the whole number of persons in order to apportion House of Representatives seats among the states. Finally, Appellants' suggestion that voter registration data be used to draw districts is even more flawed. Studies show that the country's voter registration data is often inaccurate and outdated. And its inaccuracy aside, voter registration is, as this Court has already recognized, a fluctuating and political measure, making it generally a poor candidate for protecting a right to equal representation guaranteed by the Constitution. Adequate data to support Appellants' positions simply do not exist. The district court's judgment should be affirmed. *6 ARGUMENT A theory of how to determine equal protection for purposes of the one-person, one-vote principle is only as good as the data upon which it is built. Appellants urge the Court to adopt a constitutional rule that would require states to draw districts that have equal numbers of eligible voters rather than equal numbers of people. But the available data to implement such a requirement simply cannot bear the weight the Constitution requires. Indeed, such a requirement would in practice lead to serious equal protection violations because of the inherent uncertainty and fluctuation currently present in the various measures proposed by Appellants to tally eligible voters. 2 Moreover, there is strong reason to doubt sufficiently precise data could be obtained to ensure Appellants' theory of equal protection would ever be equal in practice. An overview of the history and legal framework regarding population data aids in understanding the practical difficulties posed by Appellants' position. *7 I. States Redistrict Based Upon Decennial Census Data that Counts the “Whole Number of Persons” in Each State and There Is No Count of “Citizens” by the Decennial Census. A. Legal Framework and History of the Census. The Constitution contains only one explicit requirement regarding the enumeration of population: to properly apportion the number of seats in the House of Representatives among the states, “the whole number of persons in each State,” U.S. Const, amend XIV, § 2, must be enumerated “every … ten years, in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct,” id. art. I, § 2. 3 Since the original decennial Census in 1790, Congress has passed a number of laws regarding the Census. 4 The discretion afforded the Census Bureau to determine the content and methodology of the Census has grown over time. Originally, U.S. Marshals conducting the Census took an oath to obtain “a just *8 and perfect enumeration,” see Act of Mar. 1, 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 101. Congress amended this provision in 1810 to require “an actual inquiry at every dwelling-house.” Act of Mar. 26, 1810, § 1, 2 Stat. 565-66. The current Census Act, enacted in 1954, also required data be collected by personal visit until it was modified first to permit some non-apportionment data to be obtained through statistical sampling, see © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000530 5 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 91 of 440 13 U.S.C. § 195, and then to repeal the requirement that Census data be obtained through personal visits, and thus permit the Census Bureau to obtain responses through the mail, see Act of Aug. 31, 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-530, 78 Stat. 737. Currently, the only statutorily required data point the Census Bureau must obtain is a “tabulation of total population by States,” 13 U.S.C. § 141(b), which is necessary to fulfill the constitutional mandate to apportion based on the “whole numbers of persons,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2; see Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999) (holding that Census Act requires actual enumeration data, not sample-based counts, to be used for apportionment purposes). Beyond that, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Census Bureau and its directors, is granted wide latitude to conduct the Census “in such form and content as he [or she] may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.” 13 U.S.C. § 141(a). Exercising the discretion afforded by Congress (and, in turn, conferred upon Congress by the *9 Constitution), the Census Bureau has, in every Census since 1970, asked only a limited number of questions (known as the “short form”) as part of the actual enumeration of every person. These “short form” questions are generally limited to information such as name, age, sex, and race. 5 From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau also sent a “long form” to approximately one in every six households. 6 This “long form” was used to collect answers to a wider array of questions, including demographic, economic, social, and housing questions, as well as inquiring about citizenship status. 7 The data gathered through the “long form” sampling was used by local, state, and federal agencies to administer a wide range of government programs. See Dep't of Commerce, 525 U.S. at 341 (characterizing the Census as the “linchpin of the federal statistical system” (quotation marks omitted)). *10 Following the 2000 Census, the decennial “long form” was discontinued and was replaced by a continual sampling program called the American Community Survey (“ACS”). ACS collects the same type of information that was included on the long form, but does so on a continuous basis throughout the decade. 8 Each month, about 295,000 addresses are mailed the ACS questionnaire, for a total of 3.5 million households a year, or roughly one in thirty-eight households. 9 The ACS data is then used to generate three sets of estimates, according to the size of the jurisdictions covered: a yearly report for cities and states with over 65,000 people, a three-year report for jurisdictions with over 20,000 people, and a five-year report for all jurisdictions. 10 This practice reflects the small size of the ACS sample compared to the prior decennial long form, and the resultant larger sampling errors. A new version of each report is published every year, with the most recent year's data replacing the oldest year's data in the three- and five-year versions. 11 The smallest geographic unit for which ACS estimates are available *11 is the Census block group level in the five-year report. Unlike short form counts, ACS estimates are never available at the individual Census block level. 12 B. States Rely on Census Data to Redistrict. Understandably, states and municipalities do not generally fulfill their requirement to redistrict congressional, state legislative, and other local districts by conducting their own, separate population counts. Rather, they largely rely on Census data to perform their redistricting obligations. See Bd. of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Indeed, the constitutions and laws of a number of states expressly require that decennial Census data be used to redistrict. See, e.g., N.J. Const. art. IV, § 2, ¶ 1 (requiring state senate seats to be apportioned “as nearly as may be according to the number of their inhabitants as reported in the last preceding decennial census of the United States” (emphasis added)); Pa. Const. art. 2, § 17(a) (requiring redistricting to occur “each year following the Federal *12 decennial census”); Ga. Const. art. 3, § 2 (same); Ill. Const, art. 4, § 3(b) (same); Fla. Stat. § 11.031(1) (“All acts of the Florida Legislature based upon population and all constitutional apportionments shall be based upon the last federal decennial statewide census”); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 55, § 2-3001c (defining “[p]opulation” for county board redistricting as “the number of inhabitants as determined © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000531 6 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 92 of 440 by the last preceding federal decennial census”); see also Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 738 (1983) (approving the use of decennial Census counts for congressional redistricting, noting that because “the census count represents the best population data available, it is the only basis for good-faith attempts to achieve population equality” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). States and municipalities do, however, generally use their own geographic units - called voter precincts - for purposes of conducting elections in their respective jurisdictions. Each voter precinct is comprised of a number of Census blocks. Congress has facilitated states' reliance on Census data for redistricting by providing that states may submit to the Census Bureau, three years prior to the decennial Census, the geographic boundaries for which they would like Census data to aid them in making redistricting decisions. See 13 U.S.C. § 141(c). Thus, states generally provide the Census with voter precinct information, and the Census in turn provides the states with data files that are organized by voter precincts. 13 *13 II. Serious Practical Concerns Counsel Against Constitutionally Requiring States to Draw Districts with Equal Numbers of Voting Age Citizens. A constitutional requirement mandating that states draw legislative districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens would be impossible to accurately implement with currently available data. Moreover, for several reasons, it would be difficult to obtain an accurate actual count, even were one attempted. A. ACS Citizenship Estimates Cannot Provide the Basis For a Constitutional Equal Protection Rule. The actual number of voting age citizens in each state is unknown. The only information in existence is ACS's statistical sample-based estimates. In some circumstances, statistical sampling can be preferable to an actual count. See Dep't of Commerce, 525 U.S. at 322-23 (“Some identifiable groups - including certain minorities, children, and renters - have historically had substantially higher undercount rates than the population as a whole.”); id. at 354 (“[U]nadjusted headcounts are also subject to error or bias - the very fact that creates the need for a statistical supplement”) (Breyer, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). But *14 the ACS was not designed to provide data to support a constitutional right to districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens. 1. The ACS Estimates Do Not Align with the Timing of Redistricting. As an initial matter, the ACS estimates do not align with the timing of congressional apportionment or traditional legislative apportionment. States traditionally redistrict their state legislative districts at, the same time as their congressional districts, using the same decennial Census count that triggered the congressional reapportionment. States thus use the Census count to create population equality among and within the states measured by a single, consistent snapshot in time that persists for the decade. As this Court explained in Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015): When the decennial census numbers are released, States must account for any changes or shifts in population. But before the new census, States operate under the legal fiction that even 10 years later, the plans are constitutionally apportioned. After the new enumeration, no districting plan is likely to be legally enforceable if challenged, given the shifts and changes in a population over 10 years. And if the State has not redistricted in response to the new census figures, a federal court will ensure that the districts comply with the one-person, one-vote mandate before the next election. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000532 7 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 93 of 440 *15 Id. at 488 n.2. This “legal fiction” is “necessary to avoid constant redistricting, with accompanying costs and instability.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 421 (2006) (opinion of Kennedy, J., joined by Souter, J., and Ginsburg, J.). Using the ACS voting age citizen estimates would unsettle this system. To begin, only the five-year information could be used because the one- and three-year reports are not statistically reliable at the small geographic units used to draw district boundaries. See supra Part I. This poses several problems that seriously undermine the ACS's utility for redistricting. First, with respect to the ACS five-year survey, eighty percent of the data is already between two and five years old at the time of redistricting. In contrast, redistricting occurs as soon as the population counts currently used by states is released by the Census Bureau. To illustrate, if ACS estimates were used instead of the total population count, a state redistricting in 2021 would be using aggregated estimates spanning from 2015 to 2020. Because the map drawn in 2021 would govern elections through the decade, by 2030, forty percent of the underlying aggregated estimates will be from questionnaires answered fourteen or fifteen years prior. The ACS estimates are therefore a more stale source of information than the total population count currently relied upon by the states. Second, because the ACS estimates contain five years of sampling, and the age information is not adjusted each year to reflect the passage of a year, many respondents who were between the ages of *16 thirteen and seventeen when their responses were recorded will continue to be excluded from the voting age citizen count at the time the estimates are used to draw district lines, despite the fact that they are in fact eighteen or older at that time. See Nathaniel Persily, The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 755, 777 (2011). This problem is exacerbated, as discussed above, by the fact that district lines remain in place for a decade, meaning that at the end of the redistricting cycle, a thirty-two-year-old person is not “counted” as a voting age person in their district if she was seventeen when first surveyed. Third, the share of minorities among people under the age of eighteen greatly exceeds their share of the total population. 14 As a result, areas with larger minority populations will be disproportionately affected by the use of ACS estimates that are not annually updated to reflect the actual age of respondents at the time the report is released, thus undercounting “eligible voters” among minority communities and therefore overpopulating minority legislative districts. Together, these issues would result in outdated information governing district lines and entrenched undercounting of young voters, disproportionately affecting minority populations. For these reasons, the *17 use of five-year-old ACS estimates cannot support the constitutional one-person, one-vote requirement. 2. ACS Estimates Are Not Available at the Smallest Geographic Levels, and Some Data is Suppressed to Protect Privacy. An additional problem is that ACS estimates are not available at the smallest geographical level that is actually used for purposes of redistricting - the Census block. The smallest geographic level at which ACS estimates can accurately be utilized is the block group level. See Persily, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. at 777. This would pose significant problem for states seeking to evenly populate districts. “In order to achieve the lowest possible levels of deviation within state legislative and congressional plans, state technicians have repeatedly advised the Census Bureau that they need decennial counts by small-area geography such as voting districts and census blocks.” 15 States need data at granular levels in order to make a good-faith effort to equalize population to the extent possible among districts. See Karcher, 462 U.S. at 730 (requiring that, for congressional redistricting, states “make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality” (quotation marks omitted)); Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842 (1983) (noting that the Court has permitted “minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts” (quotation marks omitted)). Without the granular Census block *18 data typically used to balance population between and among districts, states relying © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000533 8 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 94 of 440 upon ACS voting age citizen estimates likely will be unable to satisfy the standard this Court requires for legislative redistricting. Moreover, even at the block group level, there are a number of geographical areas where there are too few people to permit the Census Bureau to even release estimates without jeopardizing privacy. Congress has mandated that Census data may only be used for “the statistical purpose for which it is supplied,” 13 U.S.C. § 9(a)(1), and that the Census Bureau may not “make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular … individual … can be identified,” id. § 9(a)(2). As a result, the Census Bureau suppresses certain estimates that could be linked to identifiable persons in light of the small geographic size of the reporting area. 16 States depend upon population counts being reported at small geographic units to permit districts to be built that meet the constitutional requirement for equal distribution of population. In addition, having decennial Census counts available at small geographic units makes it easier to follow voter precinct lines or other political subdivision lines, such as city boundaries, particularly where those lines have recently changed by annexations or precinct splits. The ACS voting age citizen estimates are not reported - and in some cases *19 are statutorily prohibited from being reported - at the Census block level. The ACS estimates thus cannot meet the needs of states for redistricting purposes. 3. As a Statistical Sample, ACS Estimates Are Subject to Error That Makes their Use for Line-Drawing Difficult. As with any survey, the ACS estimates are subject to non-sampling errors (e.g., errors in data coding) and sampling errors (e.g., the chosen sample is non-representative of the actual community). 17 The ACS reports margins of error at the ninety percent confidence level. 18 For example, if the ACS estimates reported that a county had 10,000 citizens over the age of eighteen, with a five percent relative error, nine times out of ten (ninety percent of the time) one could be confident that the actual citizen voting age population of the county was between 9,500 and 10,500. The margin of error grows as the sample size decreases, so the smaller the area, the higher the possibility of error. This could become a significant issue because redistricting decisions are often made on the margins, using very small geographic units to *20 surgically move populations in and out of districts to satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirement. And, as discussed above, the smallest unit - the Census block - is not available with ACS estimates because of sample size limitations. Take for example Titus County, Texas, where Appellant Sue Evenwel resides. See Br. of Appellants at 10. Titus County has eight Census tracts, each with between two and four Census block groups, for a total of twenty-two block groups - the smallest level of geography reported by the ACS. The relative error for the ACS's estimates of voting age citizens for the Titus County block groups range from a low of 14.1 percent to a high of 36.6 percent. Figure 1 below shows the estimates by block group for Titus County. Figure 1: Titus County, Texas CVAP Estimates with Absolute and Relative Error by Block Group (2009-2013) Block Group   9501: #1   9501: #2   Est. CVAP with Absolute and Relative Error   1,045 ±213 (20.4%)   485 ±148 (30.5%)   Block Group   9505: #1   9505: #2   Est. CVAP with Absolute and Relative Error   640 ±153 (23.9%)   560 ±149 (26.6%)   © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000534 9 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) 9502: #1   9502: #2   9503: #1   9503: #2   9503: #3   9503: #4   9504: #1   9504: #2   9504: #3   Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 95 of 440 895 ±162 (18.1%)   9506: #1   9506: #2   9506: #3   9507: #1   9507: #2   9508: #1   9508: #2   9508: #3   9508: #4   680 ±116 (17.1%)   1,445 ±236 (16.3%)   905 ±204 (22.5%)   1,870 ±263 (14.1%)   540 ±177 (32.8%)   1,360 ±264 (19.4%)   2,020 ±301 (14.9%)   850 ±210 (24.7%)   750 ±197 (26.3%)   825 ±192 (23.3%)   615 ±154 (25.0%)   325 ±90 (27.7%)   315 ±114 (36.2%)   655 ±240 (36.6%)   575 ±178 (31.0%)   815 ±193 (23.7%)   330 ±111 (33.6%)   As Figure 1 shows, even if redistricters could conceivably rely upon block groups to move areas *21 among districts to properly draw boundaries, they would contend with relatively large error margins. For example, if an adjoining district needed to be increased by 330 voting age citizens, Block Group 4 of Census Tract 9508 would be considered. But the most that can be said is that nine times out of ten, one could be confident that there were between 219 and 441 voting age citizens in that area - a 33.6 percent relative error. The error margins are still relatively high at the next largest geographic unit, the Census tract, as illustrated by Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Titus County, Texas CVAP Estimates and Error Margins by Census Tract Census Tract Est. Absolute Error 90% Confidence Range Relative Error   CVAP         9501 1,530 ±210 1,320 - 1,740 13.7%           9502 1,570 ±180 1,390 - 1,750 11.5%           9503 4,755 ±297 4,458 - 5,052 6.2%           9504 4,230 ±297 3,933 - 4,527 7.0%           9505 1,200 ±182 1,018 - 1,382 15.2%           9506 2,190 ±217 1,973-2,407 9.9%           © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000535 10 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 96 of 440 9507 635 ±123 512 - 758 19.4%           9508 2,375 ±237 2,138 - 2,612 10.0%           The relative error ranges from 6.2 to 19.4 percent for the Titus County Census tracts. So, if redistricters needed to move 635 people to a neighboring district, tract 9507 would be an obvious candidate, but using ACS estimates, the most they could know is that nine *22 times out of ten, it would contain between 512 and 758 citizens of voting age. 19 All of these issues together - the timing issues, the unavailability of estimates at the block level typically used by redistricters, the unavailability of certain estimates because of privacy concerns, and the error margins combine to make the ACS voting age citizen estimates an inappropriate source to support the constitutional one-person, one-vote right. This is not to say the ACS estimates are inappropriate for other uses. Because it is the only citizenship information that exists, where courts require citizenship information to support legal claims, as some have for cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, see, e.g., Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 168 F.3d 848, 853 (5th Cir,. 1999), it is the “best population data available,” Karcher, 462 U.S. at 738 (quotation marks omitted). It is one thing to use less than perfect data when it is the only data available to meet a statutory evidentiary burden; it is quite another to create and impose a new constitutional rule that must necessarily be built upon that data. *23 B. Asking Citizenship Status of Every Household Would Lead to Reduced Response Rates and Inaccurate Responses, While Multiplying Privacy and Government Intrusion Fears. Directly inquiring about citizenship status as part of the short form Census is not a solution to the data problem posed by Appellants' legal theory. Doing so would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to inaccurate responses from non-citizens worried about a government record of their immigration status. During the past two decades, the Census Bureau has had to contend with significantly increased distrust, based on concerns about government intrusion and privacy. When the 2000 Census was taken, controversy erupted over the Census questions, with congressional leaders and others calling on people to disregard questions they found intrusive. 20 In one survey, 71 percent of respondents said that intrusive questions should go unanswered. 21 This problem continued with the 2010 Census - between 2009 and 2010, one survey showed the Census Bureau dropped in its “trust” rating from 75 percent to 39 percent. 22 One *24 Congresswoman publicly proclaimed that her family “will only be indicating the number of people in the household, because ‘the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that.’ ” 23 A mandatory inquiry into citizenship status is all the more likely to engender privacy concerns, particularly among noncitizens. “The nuanced reasons for the question … will of course be lost to millions upon millions of Americans. The question will be viewed with suspicion.” 24 “[I]t is foolish to expect that census-taking is immune from anxieties that surround such issues as undocumented aliens, immigration enforcement, terrorism prevention, national identity cards, total information awareness, and sharp increases in surveillance generally.” 25 In addition to both citizens and non-citizens simply not responding, “[n]on-citizens, mistrustful of the government's promise that their answers to a census question can never be used against them, will misrepresent themselves on the census form.” 26 *25 The sum effect would be bad Census data. And any effort to correct for the data would be futile. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000536 11 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 97 of 440 The Census Bureau cannot become a quasi-investigatory agency and still perform its basic responsibilities as a statistical agency. Responses to a citizenship question cannot be validated on a case-by-case basis. Although the bureau may devise ways to estimate the magnitude of misrepresentation in responses to a citizenship question at the national level, such an estimate would not likely be robust enough to be used in state-level counts - let alone at the smaller levels of geography relevant to congressional districting, state legislatures, and local government. 27 Finally, because a one-by-one citizenship inquiry would invariably lead to a lower response rate to the Census in general, such an inquiry would seriously frustrate the the Census Bureau's ability to conduct the only count the Constitution expressly requires: determining the whole number of persons in each state in order to apportion House seats among the states. See U.S. Const, art. II, § 1; id. amend XIV, § 2. 28 Neither existing data estimates nor a potential actual count can reliably permit states to draw districts *26 with equal numbers of voting age citizens. As a result, voting age citizen data cannot plausibly serve as a constitutionally-mandated metric for defining the one-person, one-vote principle. III. Voter Registration Data Would Be an Inappropriate Measure Upon Which to Require Districts To Be Drawn. Appellants' alternative measure - voter registration data - is also an inappropriate measure by which to require states to draw districts. The data is often inaccurate and unreliable, it is prone to dramatic changes, and it is generally available only at the voting precinct level, not at the smaller Census block level at which states generally draw districts. Although this Court has before permitted a state to draw districts based on voter registration data, it did so only for an interim districting plan with assurances that the data in the particular case did not vary from other population measures. In so doing, the Court expressed considerable doubts about the use of this data, stating: Use of a registered voter or actual voter basis … depends … upon the extent of political activity of those eligible to register and vote. Each is thus susceptible to improper influences by which those in political power might be able to perpetuate underrepresentation of groups constitutionally entitled to participate in the electoral process, or perpetuate a ghost of prior malapportionment. Moreover, fluctuations in the number of registered voters in a given election may be sudden and substantial, caused by such fortuitous factors as a peculiarly *27 controversial election issue, a particularly popular candidate, or even weather conditions. Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 92-93 (1966) (internal quotation marks omitted) (footnotes omitted). These problems have not changed since 1966 when Burns was decided. A 2012 study by the Pew Charitable Trust found that approximately 24 million voter registration records in the United States - 1 in 8 - are invalid or inaccurate, including 12 million with incorrect addresses, suggesting voters had moved or the addresses were otherwise incorrect. 29 The study also found 1.8 million deceased still registered, and 2.75 million voters registered in more than one state. 30 Beyond the inaccuracy of voter registration data, state registration data simply is not available at the Census block level. Rather, the smallest geographic unit at which voter registration data is available is the voter precinct level. Thus, redistricters would not be able to move particular Census blocks from district to district and would instead be limited © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000537 12 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 98 of 440 to moving precincts. These geographic areas are generally too large to accurately draw districts with substantially equal populations. *28 In light of the serious flaws in voter registration data, it would in most instances be a violation of equal protection for this metric to be used, contrary to Appellants' argument that the Constitution actually should require it. 31 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the decision of the district court. Footnotes Pursuant to Rule 37.6, amici affirm that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part and that no person other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 than amici and their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. The parties' letters of consent to the filing of amicus briefs are on file with the Clerk's office. Indeed, as Appellants' own brief demonstrates, there is considerable fluctuation and uncertainty even among the multiple measures Appellant proposes as potential constitutional requirements. See Br. of Appellants at 9,11-12. As historical documents show, this was from the start understood to be a “Census of Inhabitants,” without regard to citizenship. See, e.g., Letter from Postmaster General Timothy Pickering to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 26, 1793, http:// founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-27-02-0557 (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) (referring to the “Census of Inhabitants”). See generally U.S. Census Bureau, Census Instructions, https:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/ census_instructions/ (last visited September 23, 2015) (providing description of congressional authorizations and instructions provided to U.S. Marshals, enumerators, and inhabitants from 1790 to 2010). See U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, https:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/ index_of_questions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population & Housing - Chapter 8: Accuracy of the Data 8-3 (July 2007), https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. Although the total sample size was one in six households, it was not evenly distributed: a greater percentage of households in rural areas were sampled to increase the reliability of the data estimates in such areas. Id. See U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, https:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/ index_of_questions/ (listing long form questions for 1970 to 2000) (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ about_the_survey/acs_information_ guide/flipbook/. Id. at 6, 8. See U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data at 9 (Oct. 2008), https:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2008/ acs/ACSGeneralHandbook.pdf; see id. Appendix 1 at A-1A-2. See id. at 13. For example, if one five-year report aggregates information from 2008 to 2013; the next report will cover 2009 to 2014. Id., Appendix 1 at A-2. The Census Bureau has developed different levels of “statistical geography” to report information. The largest is the Census tract; typically each county will contain several tracts, with each tract having an ideal population of 4,000 (ranging from 1,200 to 8,000). See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts, https:// www.census.gov/ geo/reference/terms.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). Block groups are clusters of blocks within a tract, and contain between 600 and 3,000 people. Id. The lowest level of geography is the individual Census block, which follows physical features (such as the streets bounding a city block) or non-physical features (such as property lines). Id. If the Court holds that the Constitution requires states and local governments to use voting age citizens as the measure for the one-person, one-vote principle, nothing in the Constitution or in the current Census Act would require the Census Bureau to provide this information to states and local governments. Rather, the Court would be requiring states and local governments to obtain this information on their own, in the process abrogating the many state constitutional and statutory provisions linking the state process to the federal Census data. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000538 13 Case 2015 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, WL 5675832 (2015) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 99 of 440 See Sandra L. Colby & Jennifer M. Ortman, U.S. Census Bureau, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S.. Population: 2014 to 2016 10-11 (Mar. 2015), https:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/ p25-1143.pdf. Catherine McCully, U.S. Census Bureau, Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data for the Year 2020 Census 7-8 (Dec. 2014), http:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/rdo/pl94-171.pdf. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey: Data Suppression 2, 7 (Nov. 15, 2013), http://www2.census.gov/ programs-surveys/acs/tech_ docs/data_suppression/ACSO_Data_Suppression.pdf. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 2014) - Chapter 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Error, at 1 (Jan. 30, 2014), http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/ design_and_methodology/acs_design_methodology_ ch15_2014.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey, https://www.census.gov/glossary /#term_ ConfidenceintervalAmericanCommunitySurve (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). Data for both Figures 1 and 2 is taken from U.S. Census Bureau, Redisricting Data, Voting Age Population by Citizen and Race (CVAP), 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, https:// www.census.gov/rdo/data/ voting_age_population_by_citizenship_and_race_ cvap.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). Kenneth Prewitt, What if We Give a Census and No One Comes?, 304 Sci. Mag. 1452 (June 4, 2004). Id. Andy Greenberg, Census Paranoia Fueled Distrust in Government Privacy More than NSA Wiretapping, Forbes, June 30,2010, http:// www.forbes.com/sites/firewall/2010/06/30/ census-paranoia-fueled-distrust-in-government-privacymore-than-nsa-wiretapping/. Prerana Swami, Rep. Bachmann Refuses to Fill out 2010 Census, CBS News (June 18, 2009), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ rep-bachmann-refuses-to-fill-out-2010-census/. Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Federalism and the Census of the H. Comm. on Gov't Reform, 109th Cong. 77 (2005) (Statement of Kenneth Prewitt). Id. at 78. Id. Id. Appellants offer no explanation for how it could be that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids Texas from apportioning seats within the state in the same manner the Fourteenth Amendment requires seats to be apportioned among the states. Pew Charitable Trust, Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade 3-4 (Feb. 2012), http://www.pewtrusts.Org/°/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/ pcs_ assets/2012/ PewUpgradingVoterRegistrationpdf.pdf. Id. at 4. The “Non-Suspense Voter Registration” metric offered by Appellants is equally flawed - it adds additional potential error related to mailing of notices. See Br. of Appellants at 9. End of Document © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000539 14 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 100 of 440 Census 2000 Evaluation B.5 September 24, 2003 Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of Data for Selected Population and Housing Characteristics as Measured by Reinterview FINAL REPORT This evaluation reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by the US. Census Bureau. It is part of a broad program, the Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation (TXE) Program, designed to assess Census 2000 and to inform 2010 Census planning. Findings from the Census 2000 TXE Program reports are integrated into topic reports 'that provide context and background for broader interpretation of results. Singer and Sharon R. Ennis Demographic Statistical Methods Division USCENSUSBUREAU Helping You Make Informed Decisions 000540 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 101 of 440 000541 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 102 of 440 respondents changed answers during the reinterview. It is not surprising that this question displayed high inconsistency. Opinion questions often show high levels of inconsistency because the reSpondent may change opinions or perceptions between the two interviews. When evaluating such questions, we cannot determine if the results show response error or if they show changes in opinion. The signi?cant net difference rate suggests that one or both of the model assumptions (independence and replication) have not been met for the ?Very well,? ?Well," and ?Not at all? categories. The inconsistency level for the English-speaking ability question was high in both 2000 and 1990, but their indexes were not signi?cantly different (2 -0.3). Table 22 below provides the inconsistency level and aggregate index of inconsistency for this question by decade. Table 22. Aggregate response variance measures for English-speaking ability by decade 2000 1990 Index of inconsistency Index of inconsistency 90-pereent 90-pereent con?dence Inconsistency level Estimate con?dence interval Inconsistency level Estimate interval High 59.5 56.8 to 62.5 High 60.3 57.4 to 63.4 Households with non-Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with Hispanic sample persons, although both were high. Households with foreign?born sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with native sample persons, although both were high. Place of birth (CRS 16, Census 13) Some changes have been made to this question since 1990. Response check boxes were added to distinguish between born in the United States and born outside the United States. Also, separate write-in lines were provided for state of birth and place of birth outside the United States. In 1990, only one write-in line was provided. The place of birth question requested the CRS respondent to indicate whether the sample person was born inside or outside of the United States. Respondents reported very consistently. The index of inconsistency was 2.7 (2.2 to 3.3) and 0.5 percent (0.4 to 0.5) of respondents changed answers when reinterviewed. Households with male sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with female sample persons, although both were low. Households with native sample persons showed less inconsistency (low) than households with foreign-born sample persons (high). Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency than respondents who reported to enumerators, although both were low. 31 000542 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 103 of 440 If the sample person was born in the United States, then the question requested that the respondent report the name of the state in which the sample person was born. If the sample person was born outside of the United States, then the respondent was asked to report the name of the country where the sample person was born. These responses were grouped into 68 categories which are shown in Appendixes and E. The categories included the 50 states, the District of Columbia, United States territories, and other countries and regions. The aggregate index was 3.2 (3.0 to 3.5) and approximately 3 percent (2.9 to 3.4) of CRS reSpondents changed answers during the CRS. There was some evidence that one or more of the model assumptions were not met for 12 categories. All subgroups showed low inconsistency. Households with male sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with female sample persons. Households with I-IiSpanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with non- Hispanic sample persons. Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency than respondents who reported to enumerators. We then collapsed the states into four regions of the United States (Northeast, North Central, South, and West), grouping responses into 21 categories. The aggregate index was even lower at 2.3 (2.1 to 2.5). Approximately 1.8 percent (1.6 to 2.0) of CRS re3pondents changed answers in the reinterview. The net difference rate was signi?cantly different from zero for the ?Northeast," state not reported,? and ?Asia? categories suggesting that one or more of the model assumptions were not met. Citizenshi CRS 17 Census 14 As in the previous CRS, these data were reported very consistently in 2000. The data were signi?cantly less inconsistent in 2000 than in 1990 (z Table 23 shows the inconsistency level and aggregate index for both decades. Table 23. Aggregate response variance measures for citizenship by decade 2000 1990 Index of inconsistency Index of inconsistency 90-pm-ccnt Inconsistency level Estimate con?dence interval Inconsistency level Estimate confidence interval Low 9.8 9.0 to l0.8 Low 10.9 10.0 to 12.0 In 2000, the aggregate index was 9.8 (9.0 to 10.8) and 1.8 percent (1.7 to 2.0) of CRS respondents changed answers in the reinterview. The categories ?Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas" and ?Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents" were rare. The net difference rates weresigni?cantly different from zero for the ?Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization" and ?No, not a citizen of the United States.? This suggests that the model assumptions of independence and replication may not have been met by the reinterview. The CRS found more respondents reported ?Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization? and fewer respondents reported ?No, not a citizen of the United States? than on the census. 32 000543 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 104 of 440 All subgroups showed low inconsistency. Households with non-Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with Hispanic sample persons. Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency than respondents who reported to enumerators. Year of eng to the US (CRS 18, Census 15 I If the sample person was not born in the United States, then the respondent was asked what year the sample person came to live in the United States. This question has been modi?ed since 1990. For 2000, this was a write?in question, whereas in 1990 ten response intervals were provided. As shown in Table 24, the question from Census 2000 showed less inconsistency than the question from the 1990 census (2 -2.S). Table 24. Aggregate response variance measures for year of entry by decade 2000 1990 Index of inconsistency Index of inconsistency 9?hpereent 9?hpercent Inconsistency level Estimate con?dence interval Inconsistency level Estimate confidence interval Low 18.9 17.2 to 20.8 Moderate 23.0 21.1 to 25.2 We grouped the responses to this question into ten categories which are shown in Appendixes and B. These data were reported with low inconsistency. The aggregate index was 18.9 (17.2 to 20.8) and 16.4 percent (14.9 to 18.0) of respondents changed answers between the census and the CRS. The net difference rates were statistically signi?cant for the ?1970 to 1974," ?1960 to 1964,? and ?Before 1950? categories suggesting that the reinterview was not an independent replication of the census. Households with female sample persons showed less inconsistency (low) than households with male sample persons (moderate). Households with non-Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency (low) than households with Hispanic sample persons (moderate). Re3pondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency (low) than respondents who reported to enumerators (moderate). Miggtion (CRS 19; 19b, Census 16a; 16b) The CRS asked two migration questions. These questions ask about place of residence on April 1, 1995. Both questions have been modi?ed since 1990. - Live at current residence on April 1, 1995 (CRS 19; Census 16a) This question asked if the sample person lived at their current residence on April 1, 1995. For 2000, a separate write-in line was added for places outside the United States, whereas in 1990 this was combined with the United States write-in line. 33 000544 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 105 of 440 Respondents answered this question with moderate inconsistency. The aggregate index of inconsistency was 22.2 (21.4 to 22.9). The index was low for the ?Person is under 5 years old? category and moderate for the ?Yes, this house,? ?No, outside the United States,? and ?No, different house in the United States" categories. The rare category ?No, outside th United States? had the highest index, at 40.2 (36.7 to 44.0). Approximately 12 percent (1 1.7 to 12.5) of CR3 respondents changed answers. Among the respondents that changed answers when reinterviewed, approximately 70 percent (67.9 to 71.2) changed between ?Yes, this house? and ?No, different house in the United States.? The net difference rate was statistically different from zero for the ?Yes, this house" and ?No, different house in the United States? categories. The signi?cant net difference rates show us that one or both of the model assumptions, independence and replication, were not met. Households with non?Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with Hispanic sample persons, although both were moderate. Households with native sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with foreign-born sample persons, although both were moderate. Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency than respondents who reported to enumerators, although both were moderate. Where lived in US. on April 1. 1995 (CRS 19b. Census 1611) If the sample person was reported as living in a different house in the United States on April 1, 1995, then the respondent was asked where the sample person lived. Some changes have been made to this question. The respondent was asked for the zip code and the sequence of city, county, and state write-in lines were reordered for 2000. After the respondent reported the city, town, or post of?ce of where the sample person lived on April 1, 1995, they were then asked if the samme person lived inside the limits of that city or town. Respondents answered this question with high inconsistency. The index of inconsistency was 52.1 (49.4 to 55.1) and 16.1 percent (15.2 to 17.0) of respondents changed answers when reinterviewed. Approximately 56 percent (53.1 to 59.1) of the respondents that changed answers switched from ?No? in the census to ?Yes? in the CRS. The net difference rate was statistically signi?cant for this question suggesting that at least one of the model assumptions was not met. The reinterview found more ?Yes? responses. Households with non-HiSpanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with Hispanic sample persons, although both were high. Households with native sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with foreign-hem sample persons, although both were high. 34 000545 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 106 of 440 - Place of residence on April I, 1995 If the sample person did not live at their current residence on April I, 1995, then the respondent was asked to report the state or country where the sample person lived. These responses were grouped into the 68 categories shown in Appendixes and B. These data were reported very consistently. The categories included the 50 states, the District of Columbia, United States territories, and other countries and regions. The aggregate index of inconsistency was 4.4 (3.9 to 4.9) and approximately 4 percent (3.7 to 4.7) of CR8 respondents changed answers. The net difference rate for the ?Arizona,? ?Colorado,? and ?Tennessee" categories were signi?cantly different from zero suggesting that the reinterview was not independent and/or did not replicate the census conditions very well. All subgroups showed low inconsistency. Households with Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with non-HiSpanic sample persons. We then collapsed the states into four regions of the United States (Northeast, North Central, South, and West), grouping responses into 21 categories. The aggregate index was even lower at 3.0 (2.5 to 3.5). Approximately 2 percent (1.9 to 2.6) of re5pondents changed answers in the reinterview. Disabilim (CRS 20; 20b, 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d, Census 17; 17b, 18;, 18b, 18c, 18d] On the census and the CRS there were two disability questions with subparts, which resulted in a total of six disability items. The 2000 questions changed signi?cantly from the 1990 questions. New 2000 questions covered the major life activities of seeing and hearing and the ability to perform physical and mental tasks. Unless otherwise stated, these questions collected data on the disability of children ?ve years and over as well as adults. The 1990 questions collected data only for persons 15 years and over. - Sensory impairment (CRS 20a, Census 17a! This question asked the respondent if the sample person had any blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment. These data were reported with moderate inconsistency between the census and the reinterview. The aggregate index of inconsistency was 47.2 (44.2 to 50.5) and 3.7 percent (3.5 to 4.0) of respondents changed answers when reinterviewed. Of the respondents that changed answers, approximately 63 percent (59.4 to 65.8) switched from ?No? to ?Yes.? The net difference rate for the ?Yes" category was statistically different from zero. This shows us that one or both of the model assumptions were not met. There were more ?Yes? reSponses given during the CRS than the census. Households with non-Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency (moderate) than households with Hispanic sample persons (high). Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency (moderate) than re3pondents who reported to enumerators (high). 35 000546 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 107 of 440 000547 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 108 of 440 Census 2000 Evaluation A.7.a January 30, 2003 Census 2000 Mail Response Rates FINAL REPORT This evaluation reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by the US. Census Bureau. It is part of a broad program, the Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation (TXE) Program, designed to assess Census 2000 and to inform 2010 Census planning. Findings from the Census 2000 TXE Program reports are integrated into topic reports that provide context and background for broader interpretation of results. Herbert F. Stackhouse and Sarah Brady Decennial Statistical Studies Division USCENSUSBUREAU Helping You Make informed Decisions 000548 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 109 of 440 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv 1. BACKGROUND - 1.1 Previous Censuses 1.2 Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal . 2 Census 2000 3 2. METHODOLOGY 5 2.1 Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) 5 2.2 Dccennial Response File Stage 2 (DRF-2) 2.3 Calculation oFthe Mail Response Rate 6 2.4 Calculation of the Final Response Rate 7 2.5 Calculation of the Daily Response Rates 7 2.6 Application of Quality Assurance Procedures 8 3. LIMITATIONS 8 Missing Check-in Dates for Some Mail Returns 8 3.2 No Precise Cut-off Date for Nonresponse Followup Universe . 8 3.3 Housing Units in Denominator Not in Mailout 9 3.4 Issues with Comparison of Results to Previous Censuses 9 3.5 Form Type of Mail Returns Based on Form Type in 9 4. RESULTS 9 4.1 What were the Response Rates for the Nation? 9 i 000549 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 110 of 440 4.2 What were the Daily Response Rates? 13 4.3 How much did the Response Rates Differ from Census 2000 Return Rates? 16 REFERENCES 19 Appendix A: Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) Variable De?nitions 21 Appendix B: Decennial Response File Stage 2 (DRF-2) Variable De?nitions 23 Appendix C: Nineteen Response Categories of Housing Units in the Response Rate 25 Appendix D: Response Rate Numerators and Denominators 26 Appendix E: Four Figures Illustrating the Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and the Final Mail Response Rates as of December 2000 by Day and Form Type and Daily Percentage Increase in Response Rates by Day and Form Type 27 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day 31 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms 40 Appendix G-2: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms 49 ii 000550 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 111 of 440 Table I. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Dress Rehearsal Mail Response Rates 3 National Mai] Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration Area for the Fi?y States and the District of Columbia . . . 10 National Final ReSponse Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia . . . 11 Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia 12 Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 for Short Forms by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia 12 Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 for Long Forms by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fi?y States and the District of Columbia 13 Mail Response and Mail Return Rates as of April 18, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia 17 Final ReSponse and Final Return Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia 18 000551 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 112 of 440 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The response rate is a measure that represents the percentage of addresses eligible for Nonresponse Followup that returned questionnaires prior to the designation of the Nonresponse Followup universe. Response rates are the result of a combination of the level of respondent c00peration in Census 2000, the housing unit vacancy rate, and the quality of the Decennial Master Address File. Preliminary analysis indicates that self-enumerated returns have a lower imputation rate than enumerator returns.l Due to the higher level of data quality and the lower cost associated with self-enumerated responses relative to enumerator-eollected responses, it is important for response rates to be as high as possible. The mail response rate is de?ned as the number of mail returns received prior to the cut date for the Nonresponse Followup universe divided by the total number of housing units in mailback areas that were eligible for Nonresponse Followup. The ?nal reSponse rate is similar but includes all mail returns through the end of the year. Mail returns included in the response rates are actual paper questionnaires, interviews during the Telephone Questionnaire Assistance program, lntemet data captures, Be Counted forms, and Coverage Edit Followup returns. The mail response rate is different from the mail return rate. The mail return rate is essentially a measure of the percentage of occupied housing units that returned their questionnaires by April 18, 2000. It is a more useful rate for determining respondent cooperation and not as good as the reSponse rate for measuring the Nonresponse Followup workload. The denominator of the mail return rate is calculated from the Hundred percent Census Edited File with the reinstated housing units. It includes all occupied housing units in mailback type of enumeration areas that were added to the address ?le prior to NonreSponse Followup and had addresses that were delivered by the United States Postal Service or during the Census Bureau delivery operation. The response rate denominator is larger than the return rate denominator, largely because the response rate denominator includes vacant housing units, Undeliverable As Addressed addresses, some addresses deleted in Update/Leave and Urban Update/Leave delivery, and deleted in either Nonresponse Followup or Coverage Improvement Followup. 1US. Bureau of the Census, 2001b, Study Plan for 8.1: Evaluation of the Analysis oft/1e Imputation Process for 100 Percent Household Population Items, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series October 1, 2001. 000552 Case 3:18-ev-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 113 of 440 What were the National Mail Response Rates? The mail response rate as of April 18. 2000 was 64.3 percent, which was lower than the 1990 mail response rate of 65.0 percent.1 This rate represents 75,608,035 mail returns that were received by April 18, 2000 out of a response rate denominator of 1 17,661,748 households. Another 3,703,140 questionnaires were returned a?er April 18, resulting in a ?nal response rate of 67.4 percent, as of December 31, 2000. Re?ecting the higher response burden of the long form questionnaire, the short form mail response rate of 66.4 percent was 12.5 percentage points higher than the long form mail response rate of 53.9 percent. In 1990, the mail response rate for short forms and long forms were 65.9 percent and 60.6 percent, respectively.3 Approximately 14.3 percent of mail returns were long forms, a substantially lower percentage than the overall 17.1 percent sampling rate. However, many residents with long forms held onto them and returned them after April 18. After that date, a larger proportion of long forms were returned than short forms. The ?nal response rate was 69.1 percent for short forms and 59.4 percent for long forms. Mailout/Mailback areas had a mail response rate of 65.4 percent, which is higher than either the Update/Leave areas mail response rate of 59.3 percent or the Urban Update/Leave areas mail response rate of 50.5 percent Final response rates by type of enumeration area were 68.5 percent for Mailout/Mailback, 62.6 percent for Update/Leave, and 54.8 percent for Urban Update/Leave. Most questionnaires were returned in the period between March 15, when questionnaires in Mailout/Mailback areas were mailed, and March 28. There were slight surges in the number of mail returns corresponding to the delivery of reminder postcards beginning on March 20 and on Census Day (April 1). These two surges in response were more pronounced for long forms than short forms. Between the initial cut for the Nonresponse Followup universe on April 10 and the ?nal cut on April 18, 2,535,382 questionnaires (2.2 percent) were received. Had the ?nal Nonresponse Followup cut been on April 10, the Nonresponse Followup workload would have increased by this number of housing units. 2U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991, 1990 Census Mailback Questionnaire Check?in Rates, Decennial Planning Division, March 14, 1991. 3US. Bureau of the Census, 1991, 1990 Census MaiIbat'k Questionnaire Check?in Rates, Decennial Planning Division, March 14, 1991. 000553 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 114 of 440 The cut for the Nonresponse Followup universe was as of April 18; an additional 1,052,712 returns were received between April 18 and April 25, representing 28.4 percent of the mail returns checked in after April 18. These returns represent a potential decrease in the Nonresponse Followup workload of 2.5 percent, resulting in a potential cost savings of over $28.4 million. Therefore, work needs to be done to determine what is the optimal date for determining the Nonresponse Followup universe, by considering the cost bene?ts versus the operational challenges to other operations. In addition, research should be conducted to determine a more ef?cient way of updating the NonreSponse Followup lists. After April 18, the number of mail returns declined until very few forms were being received by May 6. For the total return rate, 3,703,140 mail returns were checked in after April 18. This was an increase in the return rate of 3.1 percentage points. The last date on which questionnaires were checked in was October 19, 2000. The last date on which enough forms were received that resulted in an increase in the rate was June 15 for short forms and June 29 for long forms. The mail response rate was compared with the mail return rate. The mail return rate as of April 18, was 74.1 percent, 9.9 percentage points higher than the mail response rate. The difference between the two rates is greater for short forms than long forms and greater for Urban Update/Leave and Update/Leave areas than for Mailout/Mailbaek areas. The ?nal response rate was compared to the ?nal return rate. The ?nal return rate is similar to the mail return rate but includes all mail returns through the end of the year 2000. The total ?nal return rate was 78.4 percent, 1 1.0 percentage points higher than the ?nal response rate of 67.4 percent. This is a greater difference than the difference in the mail response and return rates. The difference between the ?nal return and the ?nal response rates for long forms is about the same as the difference for short forms. However, the difference between the final return rate and the ?nal response rate is greater in Urban Update/Leave and Update/Leave areas than in Mailout/Mailback areas. vi 000554 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 115 of 440 1. BACKGROUND This evaluation provides the response rates for Census 2000 and an analysis of the rates at the national level. The mail response rate is a measure of the Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) workload that identi?es the percentage of Census 2000 addresses on the address ?le for mailback areas that were eligible for NRFU and returned their questionnaires by April 18, 2000. The ?nal response rate is similar but also includes mail returns through the end of the year. This report also examines response rate differentials for long and short forms and for different types of enumeration areas. 1.1 Previous Censuses Mail response rates were ?rst measured for the 1970 Census. In 1970, the mail response rate was 78.3 percent. The mail response rate by form type is not available for the 1970 Census. In 1980, the mail response rate was 75.0 percent, which is a decrease from the [970 mail return rate. Similar to I970, the mail response rate by form type is not availabie for the I980 Census. The decrease in return rate from 1970 to 1980 was the beginning of a trend of decline in respondent cooperation, as a decrease in response rates also occurred between the 1980 and the 1990 censuses. In the 1990 Census, the United States Postal Service (USPS) was the primary vehicle for delivering census questionnaires. Based on a master address list, the Census Bureau mailed questionnaires to about 86.2 million housing units in areas designated as being Mailout/Mailback Occupants were asked to complete the forms and mail them back in the provided postage paid enve10pe. In areas designated as Update/Leave enumerators visited approximately 10.3 million housing units, veri?ed addresses, and left questionnaires for occupants to complete and mail back in the provided postage paid envelope (US. Bureau of the Census, 1999a). in the 1990 Census, both a questionnaire and a mail reminder card were delivered to at! housing units in the Mailout/Mailback universe. The reminder card was delivered on March 30, approximately seven days a?er the questionnaire mailout. Census Day was of?cially April 1. The mail response rate was de?ned as the ratio of the number of housing units returning a census questionnaire by mail to the total number of housing units that were on the address ?le to receive a census questionnaire delivered by mail or by a census enumerator. The date for the mail return rate varied by District Of?ce (DO) type (Type 1, 2, 2A, and 3). District Of?ces are similar to Local Census Of?ces in 2000. There were 449 stateside DOS in 1990. Of these, 103 were Type 1 DOS, which were located in urban areas. Type 2 DOS were located in small cities, Suburbs, and rural areas, accounting for 276 of the 449 DOs. Seventy-nine of these were Type 2A, which handled the Update/Leave operation in addition to 000555 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 116 of 440 the Mailout/Mailback Questionnaires. Most of the 70 Type 3 DOS were located in rural, sparsely settled areas, and few were located in small cities. The date for the mail return rates in 1990 was April 19 for Type 1 DOs and April 28 for Type 2, 2A, and 3 (US. Bureau of the Census, 1991). For the 1990 Census the overall mail response rate was approximately 65.0 percent (US Bureau of the Census, 1991). The mail response rate was 65.9 percent for short forms and 60.6 percent for long forms, resulting in a difference of 5.3 percentage points between form types (US. Bureau of the Census, 1991). 1.2 Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal The Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal was conducted in three areas: Sacramento, California; Columbia, South Carolina, and 11 surrounding counties; and Menominee County, Wisconsin, including the Menominee American Indian Reservation. Each site was selected because of its demographic and geographic characteristics to provide experience with some of the expected Census 2000 environments. The Sacramento site was entirely Mailout/Mailback, South Carolina site was a mixture of Mailout/Mailback and Update/Leave addresses, and the Menominee site was entirely Update/Leave. There were four components of the Mailout/Mailback delivery: an advance letter, an initial questionnaire, a reminder card, and a ?blanket? replacement questionnaire (mailed to all addresses). These items used ?rst-class postage and were distributed by the USPS as part of the regular postal routes. The advance letter was mailed to each address between March 24 and 27, 1998. The initial questionnaire was mailed between March 28 and 31. The reminder card was sent to housing units between April 3 and 6. Replacement questionnaires were mailed between April 15 and 17. Census Day was of?cially April 18. The Update/Leave methodology involved Census Bureau enumerators delivering questionnaires at the same time they updated maps and the list of addresses. The Update/Leave delivery of questionnaires took place between March 14 and April 10, 1998. In ZIP codes that consisted entirely of Update/Leave housing units, the USPS delivered an advance letter to ?postal patrons? using third-class postage. Under both methodologies, respondents were asked to mail back their questionnaires in provided postage paid envelopes. Short and long form questionnaires were included in both delivery methodologies. Every housing unit received either a short or a long form. The long form sampling rate for the dress rehearsal varied within site. Response rate was de?ned to include in its numerator the number of housing units in the mailback universe that returned a questionnaire that was not blank. The response rate denominator included the number of housing units in the mailback universe that were either 000556 Case 3:18-ev-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 117 of 440 mailed a questionnaire or - in UpdatefLeave areas - received one delivered by a census enumerator. Housing units with an undeliverable status were included in these denominators. Table 1 contains the mail response rates for the three Dress Rehearsal test sites by form type (short versus long). Dress Rehearsal response rates are typically lower than those for the census. This is due to the fact that the dress rehearsal does not have a ?census environment.? A ?census environment" allows for a higher response rate due to the publicity surrounding the census. Table 1. Dress Rehearsal Mail Response Rates Form Type Site Total Short Long Sacramento 53.0 55.4 40.7 South Carolina 53.4 55.4 ?xi: 43.7 ?fa Menominee 39.4 40.6 ?rt; 32.4 ?Kn 1.3 Census 2000 In Census 2000, the questionnaire Mailout/Mailbaek system was the primary means of census taking. Cities, towns, and suburban areas with city-style addresses (house number and street name) as well as rural areas where city-style addresses are used for mail delivery comprised the Mailout/Mailbaek areas. Updatet Leave areas consisted of addresses that are predominantly not city-style. Census enumerators delivered addressed questionnaires to UpdatefLeave housing units. Update/Leave enumerators also made any necessary corrections or additions to census maps and address lists as they delivered the questionnaires. In both delivery methodologies, the housing units were provided with ?rst-ciass postage paid envelopes for returning their questionnaires. Types QfMailback Questionnaires Census 2000 included two types of questionnaires for mailback: - A short form was delivered to approximately 83 percent of all housing units. This form allowed the respondent to list up to 12 household members. It provided space for reporting the basic population and housing data name, relationship, age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, and tenure) for up to six household members and the housing unit. - A long form was delivered to a sample approximately 17 percent of all housing units. This form allowed the respondent to list up to [2 household members. it included all the questions on the short form, as well as additional housing unit questions and additional person questions for up to six household members. 3 000557 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 118 of 440 There is one difference between the Mailout/Mailback questionnaire and the Update-"Leave questionnaire. The Update/Leave questionnaire gave the respondent the opportunity to correct address information. 1.3.2 Multiple Mailing Strategy The Census Bureau used a mail strategy consisting of multiple contacts for Census 2000 in Mailout/Mailback areas. These contacts were: an advance notice letter to every mailout address that alerted households that the census form would be sent to them soon, - a questionnaire to every mailout address, and - a postcard to every mailout address that served as a thank you for respondents who had mailed back their questionnaire or as a reminder to those who had not. This multiple mailing strategy used ?rst?class postage for all mailing pieces in Mailout/Mailback areas. The volume for Mailout/Mailback areas was approximately 100 million pieces for each mailing. There was also a mailout strategy used in Update-"Leave areas for advance notice letters and reminder postcards. Advance notice letters were mailed to Update/Leave housing units that had ?good" addresses using first-class mail. Reminder cards were sent to housing units in ZIP codes that consist entirely of Update/Leave housing units. The reminder postcards were addressed to ?Residential Customer" and delivered using third-class postage. Consequently, some housing units received the advance notice letter and not the reminder card, some received the reminder card and not the advance notice letter, some received both, and some received neither. The expected volume for Update/Leave areas was about 22 million questionnaires (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001a). 1.3.3 Key Dates in Mailback Schedule Mailout/Mailback Enumeration Areas: Event Advance notice letter delivered March 6 - March 8 Mailout of Questionnaire March 13 - March 15 Delivery of Reminder Cards March 20 - March 22 Census Day April 1 Cut for Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) April 1 1 Late Cut for NRFU April 18 4 000558 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Update/Leave Enumeration Areas: Event Delivery of Advance Notice Letters Delivery of Questionnaires Delivery of Reminder Cards Census Day Initial Cut for NRFU Late Cut for NRF Filed 06/08/18 Page 119 of 440 March 1 - March 3 March 3 - March 30 March 27 - March 29 April 1 April 11 April 18 1.3.4 Delivery of Questionnaires in Other Languages The Census Bureau mailed census forms in ?ve other languages (Chinese, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese) to housing units that requested them. The advance notice letter provided the respondent with the opportunity to make this request. 2. METHODOLOGY The data ?les used to calculate the mail response rates are: - Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) - Decennial Response Fiic - Stage 2 2.1 Decennial Master Address File (DMF) The primary ?le used to calculate the mail response rates was the DMAF. We used this ?ie to identify the housing units to include in the response rates. The DMAF contained variables that were used to limit the response rate denominator to housing units in mailback areas which were NRFU eligible. The MAILD variable from the DMAF identifies the date on which a mail return questionnaire was checked into the Data Capture Centers (DCCs). The DMAF also contains information on which form type (short versus long) was designated for each address. The de?nitions of the DMAF variables can be found in Appendix A. 2.2 Decennial Response File Stage 2 (DRE-2) The is the ?le representing the capture of questionnaire data from Census 2000 and was used to determine which housing units had a valid mail return. We created a variable called ?om the RSOURCE variable on the DRF-Z to identify those addresses with a mail return. The variable was created based on all returns for an address on the DRF-E. This variable was merged onto the Decennial Statistical Studies Division?s version of the DMAF in order to calculate the response rates. For information on how this variable was 000559 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 120 of 440 de?ned, see Appendix B. The de?nitions of the DRE-2 variables used in calculating response rates can also be found in Appendix B. 2.3 Calculation of the Mail Response Rate The mail response rate denominator included housing units in mailback areas that were eligible for NRFU. The mail response rate numerator included housing units in the denominator that had a valid mail return and a mail return check-in date of April 18, 2000 (the date of the cut for the NRF universe) or earlier (variable MAILD, values of ?0101 through ?0418?, inclusive). Addresses with a valid mail return but no MAILD date (MAILD values of ?0000?, ?0099?, and ?2000') were included in the mail response rate numerator if they did not have a NRFU or Coverage improvement Followup data capture as determined using the DRF-2. The mail response rate was calculated for the geographic levels of tract, county, and state by summing the housing units up to each geographic level, dividing the numerator by the denominator, and rounding to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. The national mail response rate was created by summing the state numerators and denominators to the national level. Mail Response Rate Denominator Several criteria were used to identify addresses on the DMAF for the mail response rate denominator. Only housing units or 3) in mailback areas (Type of Enumeration Area (TEA) variable, values were included in the denominator. Additionally, only addresses that were not pre-identi?ed as having inadequate addresses for the mailout were included in the denominator (UAA variableatS). One of the DMAF variables, NRFU Universe (NRU variable, values of 1, 2, 3, or 4) was used to eliminate addresses not eligible for NRF from the response rate denominator. The de?nitions of these DMAF variables can be found in Appendix A. Separate mail response rate denominators were created for each of the three TEAS, for each of the two form types (short versus long), and for each TEA by form type. The three TEAS are Mailout/Mailback (TEA variable value of or 6), Update/Leave (value of 2 or 9) and Urban Update Leave (value of 7). Questionnaire form type was determined using the ASAM variable (value of for short form and 6 for long forms). 2.3.2 Mai! Response Rate Numerator For a housing unit to be in the mail response rate numerator, it had to be a mail return that was in the response rate denominator. Mail retums were determined using the variable from the DRF-Z. An address had a valid mail return if this variable indicated that it had a data capture in the form of a paper mail return, an Internet return, a Be Counted form, a Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) return, or a Coverage Edit Followup (CEFU) return. 000560 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 121 of 440 The MAILD variable ?om the DMAF was used to determine the date of a mail return?s check-in. If the MAILD variable indicated that a return for the housing unit was received on or before April 18, 2000 (?0101 ?04] then the address also was in the mail response rate numerator. There were some addresses with mail returns according to but no MAILD date (values of ?0000?, ?0099?, or ?2000?). These addresses were assigned to the mail response rate numerator based on whether or not they had data captures in the NRFU or CIFU operations variable digits 6 or 7). Only addresses with no mail returns on April 18, 2000 were supposed to be included in those two followup operations. Therefore, addresses with neither a NRFU nor a CIFU data capture were assigned to the mail response rate numerator. 2.4 Calculation of the Final Response Rate Like the mail response rate, the ?nal response rate is a measure of respondent participation in Census 2000. The difference is that the ?nal response rate is not restricted to mail returns received before the cut for the NRFU universe. As with the mail response rates, the ?nal response rates were calculated by dividing the numerator by the denominator and rounding to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. Final Response Rate Denominator The ?nal response rates have the same denominators calculated from the DMAF as the mail response rates (see Section 2.3.1). 2.4.2 inn! Response Rate Numerator The ?nal response rate numerator was calculated by including all valid mail returns as determined by the variable from the that were in the response rate denominator. Most of these mail returns had MAILD check-in dates between January 1 and October 19, 2000 (October 19 was the last day we received a mail return). Mail returns with no MAILD date which the variable showed with NRFU or CIFU data captures were assigned to the ?nal response rate and not the mail response rate. 2.5 Calculation of the Daily Response Rates The daily response rates were calculated in a manner similar to the mail and ?nal response rates. For the cumulative daily response rates, the denominators were the same for all rates. The numerators for each date of the year 2000 were calculated by limiting the numerators to addresses with mail return check?in dales on or before the particular date. For instance, the daily cumulative response rate numerator for May 5 was limited to addresses with a MAILD value less than or equal to ?0505?. As previously stated, the ?nal date on which questionnaires with a MAILD date were received was October 19 To determine the daily increase 000561 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 122 of 440 in the response rate, the numerators were calculated by limiting the numerators to addresses with mail return check-in dates on a particular date. For those mail returns in the denominator that did not have a valid MAILD date on the DMAF, we assigned a date of either April 18 or December 31 based on the existence of a NRFU or data capture. if these mail returns had neither a NRF nor a CIFU data capture, then they were assigned a date of April 18. Those mail returns with either a NRFU or a CIFU data capture were assigned to the December 31 response rate. 2.6 Application of Quality Assurance Procedures Quality Assurance procedures were applied to the design, implementation, analysis, and preparation of this report. A description of the procedures used is provided in the ?Census 2000 Evaluation Program Quality Assurance Process." 3. LIMITATIONS Missing Check-in Dates for Some Mail Returns Appendix shows a table with nineteen categories into which all addresses in the response rate denominator can be grouped based on their values for the DRF-2 variable and the DMAF variable MAILD. The rows of data in the table depend on the values of the variable from the DRE-2. The columns in the table are the values of MAILD on the DMAF. There were 418,845 valid mail returns (0.4 percent of the response rate denominator) for which the DMAF variable MAILD did not indicate a check-in date (cells 1A, 13, 2A, 213the table). These returns were assigned to either the mail response rate or the ?nal response rate based on whether or not their addresses also had a NRFU and CIFU return. Housing units with a valid mail return, no check-in date, and no data capture for NRFU or CIFU were assigned a date of April 18 and included in the mail response rate. These 11,188 mail returns are shown in cells 1A, 2A, 6A, and 7A of the table. Mail returns without a valid MAILD value and with a data capture for NRFU or CIFU were assigned a date of December 31 and only included in the ?nal reSponse rate. These 407,657 housing units are shown in cells 13, 2B, 6B, and 7B of the table. The other problem with the MAILD variable is that it only re?ects the date of check-in at the DCC, not the date on which a questionnaire was completed, mailed, or even the date on which the form was received by the DCC. 3.2 No Precise Cut-off Date for Nonresponse Followup Universe A housing unit was counted toward the mail response rate numerator if MAILD indicated at check-in date prior to the late cut for NRFU. That date was set at April 18, 2000 but users of the rates should keep in mind that there was some noise in the data with respect to the date since the NRFU universe was generated on a ?ow basis. That is, the NRFU universe of all housing units 000562 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 123 of 440 was not set instantaneously at midnight of April 18. The actual cut might have failen on either side of that date for some housing units. 3.3 Housing Units in Denominator Not in Mailout Some housing units on the DMAF from Mailout/Mailback and Update/Leave areas were added a?er the mailback universe was set. Hence, they are being counted toward the response rate denominator but did not have a chance to respond by mailback means prior to the late cut for NRFU. 3.4 Issues with Comparison of Results to Previous Censuses The de?nition of mail response rate for Census 2000 is not exactly the same as that from previous censuses. These differences are the following: - The TEAS in previous censuses were de?ned difl?erentiy than those in 2000 and included different parts of the country. - The timing of the mailout and the cut for NRFU were different for each of the I970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses. Speci?cally for comparing 2000 to 1990: - Like the 2000 ?nal response rates, 1990 mail response rates at the state, county, and tract levels in 1990 were calculated based on all returns during the year. The 1990 national response rate was calculated with returns through the cut for NRFU. 3.5 Form Type of Mail Returns Based on Form Type in Mailout Since this report does not analyze item non?response on 1.ralid mail returns, it is possible that some long forms that were returned did not contain complete data. The response rate analysis by form type was done based on which form the addresses were sent by the Census Bureau. 4. RESULTS What were the Response Rates for the Nation? The results presented in this report are for the ?fty states and the District of Columbia. They do not include the response rate for Puerto Rico. There were 1 17,661,743 housing units in mailback areas in Census 2000 that were eligible for HRFU and to which the USPS or the Census Bureau attempted to deliver questionnaires. This number is the national response rate denominator. Of this number, 20,082,777 housing units or 17.] percent of the housing units received a long form 000563 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 124 of 440 questionnaire. Thus, the sampling rate for the long forms was above one in six or 16.7 percent. Table 2 shows the total mail response rates and these rates by form type based on mail returns received on or before April 18, 2000. The data presented in the table are grouped into three TEAS - (TEAS and 6), (TEAS 2 and 9), and (TEA 7). The national mail response rate was 64.3 percent, meaning that 75,608,035 housing units returned their questionnaires in time to avoid the necessity of enumeration in Nonresponse Followup. This mail response rate is less than one percentage point below the mail response rate of 65.0 percent in the 1990 Census (US. Bureau of the Census, 1991). The numerators and denominators for the mail response rates by TEA can be found in Appendix D. The table shows that 66.4 percent or 64,792,554 housing units who received short forms returned them by April 18, 2000. In contrast, only about 53.9 percent of housing units who were delivered long forms returned them by that date. This 12.5 percentage point discrepancy means that a higher proportion of the data was collected by Census Bureau interviewers in NRFU on long forms than was the case for short form households. For information about the quality of data collected during NRFU for long forms and short forms, see Census 2000 Evaluation B.l: Analysis of the Imputation Process for 100 Percent Household Population Item (US. Bureau of the Census, 2001b). Approximately 14.3 percent of mail returns were long forms, a substantially lower percentage than the overall 17.1 percent sampling rate. Table 2. National Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia Form Type Total Short Long Difference TOTAL 64.3% 66.4% 53.9% 12.5% Mailout/Mailback 65.4% 67.3% 54.6% 12.7% Update/Leave 59.3% 61.9% 51 10.0% Urban Update/Leave 50.5% 52.2% 41.2% 11.0% Source: DMAF and DRF-Z. The difference in response rates by form type is not surprising, given the difference in response burden between the Short form and the long form. The short form only included seven questions. Person one was asked for name, age, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and tenure. In addition to name, age, sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity, persons two through six were also asked relationship to person one. In comparison, the long form had a total of 53 questions on a variety of topics including income, utilities, ancestry, and occupation. This gap between short form mail response rates and long form mail response rates varies by TEA, with households having the greatest difference in response rates by form type and households in areas having the smallest gap. 000564 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 125 of 440 Another noticeable variation in response rates is that housing units in MOIMB areas returned a much greater proportion (65.4 percent) of their forms than those in (59.3 percent) and, especially, (50.5 percent) areas. One explanation for this difference is that areas are generally more prosperous and have greater exposure to media advertising the census than more sparsely populated areas and inner-city areas. Another potential explanation is the delivery schedule for and areas is longer than the schedule for MB (March 3-30 vs. March 13?15). Residents in UL and areas that received their questionnaires at the end of the delivery schedule had less time to ?ll them out then residents in areas that received their questionnaires at the end of the schedule. Additionally, there are often problems with postal delivery in and UL areas and those households were less likely to receive the advance notice and reminder postcard. As a result of this discrepancy, a smaller proportion of residents of UL and areas were self?enumerated than residents of primarily urban and suburban MOIMB areas with city-style addresses. For the mail response rates by form type for each of the ?fty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, see US. Bureau of the Census, 2002b. Table 3 shows the ?nal response rates as of December 31, 2000 by TEA and form type. The number of households in mailback areas that returned their questionnaires after April 18, 2000 was 3,703,140, increasing the ?nal response rate by 3.1 percentage points over the mail response rate. The ?nal rc5ponse rate of 67.4 percent indicates the percentage of addresses in mailback areas that returned their questionnaires by the end of the year. Note the last form which was received and processed was October 19, 2000. Table 3. National Final Mail Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia Form Type Type of Enumeration Total Short Long Difference TOTAL 67.4% 69.1% 59.4% 9.6% Mailout/Mailback 68.5% 70.0% 60.4% 9.6% Update/Leave 62.6% 64.6% 57.0% 7.6% Urban Update/Leave 54.8% 56.1% 47.5% 8.7% Source: DMAF and DRF-Z. Most of the patterns in the response rates revealed in Table 3 are similar to those in Table 2, though ?nal response rates for all groups are, of course, higher. Short form ?nal reSponse rates (69.1 percent) are higher than long form ?nal response rates (59.4 percent) and this difference is greatest in areas. The areas have the highest ?nal response rate (68.5 percent) among TEAS and areas have the lowest (54.8 percent). One noteworthy difference between ?nal and mail response rates is that the discrepancy between short form response rates and long form response rates is substantially lower for ?nal response rates (9.6 percent) than for mail response rates (12.5 percent). Many households with long forms returned these forms at a ll 000565 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 126 of 440 later date than households who received short forms. The form type gap decline in the ?nal response rates was true for all TEAs. Table 4 compares the mail response rates and the ?nal response rates for the national total and for each of the three TEAS. The data reveal that there was a greater increase in and areas between April 18 and the end of the year than in areas. Thus, the gap among the TEAS that is evident in the mail response rates is not as great for the ?nal response rates. The mail response rate is 6.1 percentage points higher than the UL mail response rate, while the ?nal response rate is about 5.9 percentage points higher than the ?nal response rate. Table 4. Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia As of: Type of Enumeration 4/18/2000 12/31/2000 Difference TOTAL 64.3% 67.4% 3.1% Mailout/Mailback 65.4% 68.5% 3.1% Update/Leave 59.3% 62.6% 3.3% Urban Update/Leave 50.5% 54.8% 4.3% Source: DMAF and DRE-2. In Table 5, we compare mail response rates and ?nal response rates by TEA for short forms. The patterns of these data are similar to those observed in Table 4, although the increase ?om mail response rates to ?nal response rates (2.7 percent) is smaller for short forms than for the overall response rates (3.1 percent). Table 5. Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 for Short Forms by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia As of: 4/18/2000 12/31/2000 Difference TOTAL 66.4% 69. 1% 2.7% Mailout/Mailback 67.3% 70.0% 2.7% Update/Leave 61.9% 64.6% 2.6% Urban Update/Leave 52.2% 56.1% 4.0% Source: DMAF and DRF-Z. Table 6 shows the same rates as Tables 4 and 5, but for long forms. It is clear that a particularly large proportion of long form households in all areas returned mailback questionnaires after April 18, as compared to the short forms (Table 5). 12 000566 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 127 of 440 Table 6. Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 20110 for Long Forms by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia As of: 4/ 18/2000 12/31/2000 Difference TOTAL 53.9% 59.4% 5.6% Mailout/Mailback 54.6% 60.4% 5.7% Update/Leave 51 57.0% 5. 1% Urban Update/Leave 41.2% 47.5% 6.3% Source: DMAF and 4.2 What were the Daily Response Rates? Figure 1, as shown in Appendix B, shows the cumulative mail response rates by form type for each day from March 3 until April 18, 2000. These dates correspond to the start of questionnaire delivery by Census Bureau staff in areas and the cut for the NRFU universe, respectively. Addresses for which mail returns were received after April 18 were still visited by enumeratorf in NRFU. The x-axis on the ?gure shows the date and the y-axis shows the cumulative response rate for each date. The light-shaded line indicates the response rates for long forms, the medium-shaded line for short forms, and the thickest and darkest line is the total cumulative daily response rate. The data for Figures 1- 4 can be found in Appendices and G. Appendix shows the daily increase and cumulative mail returns for both the response rate numerator and the response rate, as well as key census dates. Appendix 0?1 shows the same data for short forms and Appendix G-2 for long forms. As indicated by Figure l, the response rates gradually increased after the beginning of delivery until about March 15. On that date, the mailout of questionnaires (March 13 through 15) in MOIMB areas caused a surge in the r05ponsc rates as a large majority of households received their questionnaires and many began to return them. Due to the time required for the USPS to deliver mail, there is approximately a two day lag between the date that householders mailed their forms and their check-in at the DCCs. As expected, based on the lower overall response rates for long forms, the line indicating long form response rates increases more gradually than the lines for total and short form response rates. Within a week of the mailout of questionnaires, a substantial gap is evident between long form response rates and the higher short form and total response rates. Since most questionnaires are short forms, it is not surprising that the pattern of returns for short forms is parailel but higher than that for the total response rate. Aside from the initiai surge in mail returns beginning March 15, the general pattern evidenced in Figure 1 is one in which the response rate increased rapidly for a few weeks and then began to level off. A second period of accelerated returns after the March 15 to 17 period occurred around March 20 with declines in the slope of the lines after March 23 and March 28000567 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 128 of 440 NRF universe on April 18, the increase in the response rates has become gradual, indicating that most households who are likely to return their forms had done so on that date. Figure 2 (see Appendix E) better reveals some of the patterns mentioned above. This ?gure shows the daily increase of the response rates rather than the cumulative rates for each date from March 3 through April 18, 2000. As in Figure 1, different lines indicate the mail returns for the total and for each form type. This ?gure reveals certain interesting patterns in the daily return of questionnaires. As described before, a higher proportion of short form mail returns were received at earlier dates. Due to the greater amount of time and effort in ?lling out the long form, many long form households took longer to return their questionnaires. The initial peak period of returns after the mailout was much greater for short forms than long forms and occurred on earlier days. On March 15, 2.8 percent of short forms were returned and 1.0 percent of long forms were checked in. Two days later, on March 17, 4.6 percent of short forms were checked in and 1.9 percent of long forms were received. As Figures 1 and 2 show, most short form mail returns came in between March 15 and March 28. Long forms were returned in the greatest numbers between March 20 and April 1. In fact, contrary to the short form pattern, the March 27/28 spike in returns was relatively much greater for long forms than the March 16/17 spike. For most of the period after March 28, long forms were actually being returned at a higher rate than short forms and the gap between the cumulative response rates for the two form types decreased. This is clear in Figure 2 which shows the line for long forms to be higher than that for short forms for almost every date after March 28. This indicates that a late cut for NRFU (April 18) resulted in a lower long form workload for NRFU, as compared to an April 10 date, and resulted in reducing the respondent burden. However, the rate of returns for both form types was well below one percent for every date after April 10. The data indicate an increase in mail returns after the reminder postcards were mailed between March 20 and March 22. For both long forms and short forms, the greatest increase in mail response rates occurred on these dates and the days immediately following. The DCCs received short form returns at an especially high rate from March 20 through 23, with a peak daily increase of 5.2 percentage points on March 22, 2000. For long forms, this peak occurred from March 21 through 24 with the greatest daily increase of 4.2 percentage points on March 23 and 24. Figure 2 also indicates that households, particularly those with long forms, exhibited some tendency to hold their questionnaires until Census Day (April 1, 2000). Figure 2 shows a major spike in long form returns and a smaller increase in short form returns on April 3 and 4, two days after Census Day. Between the initial cut for NRFU on April 10 and the ?nal cut on April 18, households continued to send in mail returns at a substantial, though relatively low and dwindling, rate. During that period, 626,467 long forms or 3.1 percent of long forms were returned and 1,908,915 short forms or 2.0 percent of short forms were checked in. Without a ?nal NRFU universe cut on April 18, the NRFU workload would have been increased by this number of housing units. 14 000568 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 129 of 440 Figure 3 (see Appendix B) shows the increase in response rates by form type for the entire year of 2000. The left side of this ?gure is the same as Figure l, but Figure 3 extends the timeline of cumulative mail returns from April 18 to December 31. The ?gure reveals that the response rates ieveled off after April 18 with a gradually ?attening slope for all three lines. The pattern was similar for the different form types although the gap in rates between long and short forms graduaily narrowed as time passed. For the total response rate, 3,703,140 mail returns were checked in after April 18. These forms resulted in an increase in the response rate of 3.1 percentage points. Between April 18 and the end of the year, the short form response rate increased by 2.6 percentage points (2,588,285 housing units) and the long form increased by 5.6 percentage points (1,1 14,855 housing units). For nearly every single date after March 28, the daily percentage increase in response rate was greater for long forms than for short forms. As Appendices and show, the last con?rmed date on which questionnaires were checked in was October 19, 2000, when three short forms were received. Prior to that day, 50 short forms and I3 long forms were checked in to the DCCs on September 15. The last date for which we have check-ins which resulted in a rate increase was June 15 for short forms when the short form response rate reached 68.7 percent. For long forms, this date was June 29 when the long form response rate leveled off at 58.9 percent. Figure 4, as shown in Appendix E, is an extension of Figure 2 through the end of 2000. It shows the daily increase in the response rates by form type for the entire year. After April 18, the number of mail returns continued to decline until very few forms were being received by May 6. As noted above, a relatively higher increase was observed for long forms than short forms for these mail returns in late April, May, and June. The ?gure shows several small weekly peaks on Fridays in May when a substantial number of forms were checked in to the DCCs. It appears that shipments of mail returns may have arrived at the DCCs on Fridays or that the DCC staff may have held mail returns during the week to check in on Friday. The largest single-day receipt of mail returns after April 18 was on June 15 when 95,721 long forms and 146,022 short forms were checked in. The ?nal increase in the response rates that appears on Figure 4 is on December 31, 2000. Those 407,657 questionnaires are the mail returns for which no mail return check-in date was recorded and for which there was a NRFU or CIFU data capture in addition to a mail return data capture. Since only mail returns received after April 18 could be in the NRFU or workloads, we determined that these mail returns came in a?er that date. We assigned a check-in date of December 31 to these mail returns and they were included in the ?nal response rate. Mail returns without a check-in date that were not in the NRFU and CIFU universe were assigned a date of April 18 and included in the mail response rate. The data presented in Figure 4 and in Appendices and show the potential effect on the NRFU workload of using a later cut date for the NRFU universe. In between April 19 and April 25, 1,052,712 mail returns were checked in, representing 28.4 percent of the returns received after April 18. If the ?nai NRFU out had occurred one week later, around April 25 instead of April 18, then the NRFU workload would have been reduced by 1,052,712 housing 15 000569 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 130 of 440 units, or about 2.5 percent of the NRF workload. This reduction in the workload would have saved close to $28.4 million, given that the cost of enumerating one housing unit in NRFU is just under $27 (see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002c). Since mail returns that were received after April 18 were disproportionately long forms, the savings were potentially even greater. if the cut for the NRFU universe had been delayed one more week until May 2, then the NRFU workload would have been reduced by approximately 598,000 additional housing units. However, a later start of the NRFU operation, despite a lower workload, could result in greater scheduling challenges. Some of the daily ?uctuation of mail returns observed in Figures 2 and 4 can be explained by the effect of the day of the week. More questionnaires were checked in on Thursdays (17.7 percent of all mail returns during the year), Fridays (16.4 percent), and Wednesdays (16.3 percent) than on other days of the week. Relatively few questionnaires came in on Sundays (9.3 percent) and Saturdays (1 1.0 percent). The dearth of check-ins on Sunday is probably the result of the fact that the USPS does not normally deliver mail on Sunday and that the DCCs worked fewer hours on weekends and thus checked in fewer forms on those days. Also, if respondents held their questionnaires until the beginning of a work week (Monday) to mail, then their forms would likely have an?ived Wednesday or Thursday at the DCCs, explaining the increase in check-ins on those days. 4.3 How much did the Response Rates Differ from Census 2000 Return Rates? Table 7 compares the mail response rates for Census 2000 to the mail return rates. Mail return rate is essentially a measure of the percentage of occupied housing units that returned their questionnaires by April 18, 2000. It is a more useful rate for determining respondent cooperation and not as good as the response rate for measuring the NRFU workload. The denominator of the mail return rate is calculated from the Hundred percent Census Edited File with the reinstated housing units It includes all occupied housing units in mailback TEAS that were added to the address ?le prior to NRFU and had addresses that were delivered by the USPS or during the Census Bureau delivery operation. The March 2001 MAF extract provided information on which addresses were added prior to NRFU. The response rate denominator (117,661,748 housing units) is larger than the return rate denominator (101,398,131), largely because the response rate denominator includes vacant housing units, Undeliverable As Addressed (UAA) addresses, some addresses deleted in and delivery, and deleted in either NRFU or CIFU. The return rate numerator (75,163,020 housing units) is calculated similarly to the response rate numerator (75,608,035 housing units). For more information on mail return rates and their calculation see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002b. The ?rst column of data in Table 7 shows the mail response rates broken down by total, form type, TEA, and form type and TEA. The next column shows the equivalent mail return rates and the last column shows the difference between the two rates. The total national mail return rate was 74.1 percent, 9.9 percentage points higher than the mail response rate. The difference 16 000570 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 131 of 440 between the two rates is greater for short forms than long forms and greater for and URL than for MOIMB areas. Table 7. Mail Response and Mail Return Rates as of April 18, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia Response Return Difference TOTAL 64.3% 74. 1% 9.9% Form Type Short 66.4% 76.4% 10.0% Long 53.9% 63.0% 9.2% Type of Mailout/Mailback 65.4% 75.1% 9.7% Enumeration Update/Leave 59.3% 69.6% 10.3% Urban Update/Leave 50.5% 63.7% 13.1% Form Type Short and Type of Mailout/Mailback 67.3% 77.2% 9.9% Enumeration Update/Leave 61.9% 72.3% 10.4% Urban Updater?Leave 52.2% 65.7% 13.5% Long Mailout/Mailback 54.6% 63.4% 8.8% Update/Leave 51.9% 61.9% 10.0% Urban Updatet'Leave 41.2% 52.3% 11.1% Source: DMAF, DRF-Z, and March 2001 MAF Extract. Table 8 compares the ?nal return and ?nal response rates by form type and TEA. The ?nal return rate is similar to the mail return rate but includes all mail returns through the end of the year 2000. The total ?nal return rate was 78.4 percent (79,530,100 housing units), 11.0 percentage points higher than the 67.4 percent (79,31 1,175) ?nal response rate. This is a greater difference than the difference in the mail response and return rates. The differences between ?nal return and response rates are about the same for both form types and are greater in and areas than in areas. 000571 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 132 of 440 Table 8. Final Response and Final Return Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia Rate Response Return Difference TOTAL 67.4% 78.4% 1 1.0% Form Type Short 69.1% 80.1% 11.0% Long 59.4% 70.5% 1 1.1% Type of Mailout/Mailback 68.5% 78.6% 10.1% Enumeration Update/Leave 62.6% 77.9% 15.3% Urban Update/Leave 54.8% 70.8% 16.0% Form Type Short and Type of Mailout/Mailback 70.0%. 80.1% 10.1% Enumeration Update/Leave 64.6% 79.9% 15.4% Urban Update/Leave 56.1% 72.3% 16.2% Long Mailout/Mailback 60.4% 69.9% 9.5% Update/Leave 57.0% 72.1% 15.1% Urban Update/Leave 47.5% 62.5% 15.0% Source: DMAF, DRF-2, and March 2001 MAF Extract. 18 000572 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 133 of 440 REFERENCES US. Bureau of the Census, 1991, 1990 Census Mailbaclc Questionnaire Check-in Rates, Planning Division, March 14, 1991. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 19923, Mail Response/Return Rates by Type of Form - I970, 1980, and 1990, Year 2000 Research and Development Staff, May 29, 1992. US. Bureau of the Census, 199921, Documentation of1990 Response and Return Rates, Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series December 6, 1999. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999b, Evaluation of Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal Mail Return Rates, Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series December 7, 1999. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a, Decennial Master Address File Layout, Systems and Contracts Management Of?ce, August 4, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b, Speci?cation for Updating the Master Address File on August 15. 2000, DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series September 5, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000c. 2000 Census Documentation Response File-Stage 2 (DRFZ), Systems and Contracts Management Of?ce, October 3, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Specification for Census 2000 Initial Response Rate Calculation, Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series October 31, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000c, Specificationfor Census 2000 Final Response Rate for the '90 Plus Five Project, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series October 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000f, 2000 Census Documentation Hundred percent Census Edit File with the reinstated housing units Systems and Contract Management Of?ce, December 15, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001a, Study Plan for A 7a: Census 2000 Mail Response Rates, Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series June 20, 2001. 19 000573 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 134 of 440 US. Bureau of the Census, 2001b, Study Plan for B. 1: Evaluation oft/1e Analysis oft/1e Imputation Process for 100 Percent Household Population Items, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series October 1, 2001. US. Bureau of the Census, 2002a, Requested Files of Census 2000 Mail Return Rates and inal Mail Return Rates art/1e Collection Tract and County Levels, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series January IS, 2002. US. Bureau of the Census, 2002b,Censns 2000 Response and Return Rates - National and State by Form Type, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series February 12, 2002. US. Bureau of the Census 2002c, Nonresponse Followup for Census 2000, Census 2000 Evaluation Memorandum H5, July 25, 2002. 20 000574 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 135 of 440 Appendix A: Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) Variable De?nitions ST COU TRACT MAFID TEA ASAM NRU Collection State Code Collection FIPS County Code Collection Census Tract MAF and DMAF ID characters l?Z state code when the MAP ID was assigned characters 3-5 county code when the MAP ID was assigned characters 6-!2 control ID Type of Enumeration Area 1 Mailout Mailback 2 Update Leave 3 List Enumeratc 4 Remote List Enumerate 5 Rural Update Enumerate 6 Military in Update Leaw: Area 7 - Urban Update Leave 8 Urban Update 9 Update Leave (converted from TEA 1) Group Quarters Housing Unit Flag 0 Housing Unit 1 Special Place 2 Group Quarters 3 GQ Embedded Housing Unit A Priori Sample I Short Form 6 Long Form Nonresponse Followup Universe 0 Universe not set 1 Not in data received (This indicates that a form was checked in; it does not guarantee that the form has any data.) 2 Not in but NRD, NRS, NRC and NRPOP will be set by Update/Enumerate or List/Enumerate 3 [n NRFU, Nonresponsc 4 [n NRFU, Too late for mailout 2} 000575 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 136 of 440 Source of Data Capture? 0 None 1 Some Data Capture The types of data capture for housing units are - MAILD UAA (1) Mail Return (RSOURCE: I, 4 - 10) (2) Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) (RSOURCE: (3) Internet (RSOURCE: 30) (4) Be Counted Form (BCF) (RSOURCE: I I. 12) (5) CEFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 34 36) (6) NRFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 17 - 21) (7) CIFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 22 - 24) (8) (RSOURCE: 3, 32, 33) (9) List Enumerate/Update Enumerate (RSOURCE: 13 - 16) (10) Group Quarters (RSOURCE: 25 - 29) (l 1) Orphans (RSOURCE: 37) (12) Other (RSOURCE: -1) Mail Return Check-in Month and Day 0000 No Mail Return Check-in 0099 Reverse Cheek-in 0101 - 1231 Check-in Day of]" Return 2000 2 Check-in, Date Unknown Undeliverable As Addressed (UAA) 0 No UAA check-in UAA check-in in NPC only 2 UAA check-in in in LCO check-in; no LCO check-out 3 UAA check-in in no LCO check-in; in LCD check-out 4 UAA check?in in in LCO check-in; in LCO cheek-out 5 No UAA check-in in in LCO check-in; no LCO check-out 6 No UAA check-in in no LCO check-in; in LCO check-out 7 No UAA check-in in in LCD check-in; in LCO check?out 8 Not enough Address information - Excluded from the Mailout 4This is a DRF2 variable and is based on the RSOURCE variable from the DRF-2. It was appended to the DMAF SAS dataset produced by the DSSD. 22 000576 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 137 of 440 Appendix B: Response File Stage 2 Variable De?nitions RST RUID RSOURCE Collection IPS State Code Unit ID Number (DMAF) characters l-2 state (when MAF ID was assigned) characters 3-5 county characters 6-12 sequence ID Source of Return -1 Not Computed 1 Paper mail back questionnaire from mail out 2 Paper mail back questionnaire from TQA mail out WITH ID 3 Paper mail back questionnaire from TQA mail out with NO 4 Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave 5 Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave ADD 6 Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave SUBSTITUTE 7 Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave 8 Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave ADD 9 Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave SUBSTITUTE 10 Paper mail back questionnaire from Request for Foreign Language 1 I Paper mail back questionnaire ??om BCF marked as whole household 12 Paper mail back questionnaire from BCF partial household NOT marked as whole household) 13 Paper enumerator questionnaire from List Enumerate 14 - Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumerate 15 Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumerate ADD 16 Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumerate SUBSTITUTE 17 Paper enumerator questionnaire from Nonresponse Followup (NRF U) 18 Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU ADD 19 Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU SUBSTITUTE 20 Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU Whole Household Usual Home Elsewhere (WHUHE) 21 Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU Iii-mover 22 Paper enumerator questionnaire from Coverage Improvement Followup (CIFU) 23 Paper enumerator questionnaire from CIFU ADD 24 Paper enumerator questionnaire from CIFU SUBSTITUTE 25 Paper enumerator questionnaire from T-Night 26 Paper questionnaire for UHE from Service-based Enumeration (SBE) (Individual Census Questionnaire 27 Paper questionnaire for UHE from Group Quarters (GQ) enumeration (Individual Census Questionnaire 28 Paper questionnaire for UHE from Military GQ enumeration (Military Census Report 29 Paper questionnaire for UHE from Shipboard GQ enumeration (Shipboard Census Report 23 000577 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 138 of 440 30 Electronic short form from IDC 31 Electronic TQA reverse-CAT] short form 32 Electronic TQA reverse-CATI BCF for whole household 33 Electronic TQA reverse-CAT] BCF for partial household 34 Electronic Coverage Edit Followup (CEFU) from long or short form 35 Electronic CEFU from BCF for whole household 36 Electronic CEFU from IDC 37 Paper enumerator continuation form - unlinked ?orphan? Source of Data Capture 0 None 1 Some Data Capture The types of data capture for housing units are - (1) Mail Return (RSOURCE: 1, 4 10) (2) Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) (RSOURCE: (3) Internet (RSOURCE: 30) (4) Be Counted Form (BCF) (RSOURCE: I I, 12) (5) CEFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 34 - 36) (6) NRFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 1 7 - (7) CIF Data Capture (RSOURCE: 22 - 24) (8) (RSOURCE: 3, 32, 33) (9) List Enumerate/Update Enumeratc (RSOURCE: 13 - 16) (10) Group Quarters (RSOURCE: 25 29) (1 l) Orphans (RSOURCE: 37) (12) Other (RSOURCE: 24 000578 000579 Appendix C: Nineteen Response Categories of Housing Units in the Response Rate Denominator Mail Check in Date (MAILD) Data Capture Flags from DRF-2) No Mail Check in (0000 or 2000) Reverse Check in (0099) Mail Returns Jan 1 - Apr 10 (0101 - 0410) Late Mail Returns Apr 11 Apr 18 (0411-0418) Late Late Mail Returns Apr 19 - Dec 31 (0419 - 1231) Total Mail Returns 13* 23* Paper Mail Return or TQA or Internet or Be Counted or Counted 1,939 401,666 8,657 2,646 71,943,511 2,460,317 3,247,472 78,066,208 8 9 10 CEFU 13 2,592 579 753 1,129,142 63,877 48,011 1,244,967 Nou- Mail Returns 11 l3 14 15 NRFU or CIFU or No Data Capture or Other Data Capture 28,270,977 987,902 122,671 6,020 8,963,003 38,350,573 Total 28,677,187 1,000,537 73,195,324 2,530,214 12,258,486 117,661,748 A - Neither NRFU nor CIFU data capture B-Either NRFU or CIFU data capture 25 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 139 of 440 000580 Appendix D: Response Rate Numerators and Denominators Type of Enumeration Numerator?April 18, 2000 Form Type Total Short Long 75,608,035 64,792,554 10,815,481 State TOTAL Mailout/ Mailback 62,890,520 54,955,537 7,934,933 Update! Leave Urban Update/ Leave 12,591,087 9,726,223 2,864,864 126,428 1 10,794 15,634 Source: DMAF and DRF-2 Note: National totals do not include Puerto Rico. Numerator?December 31, 2000 Form Type Short Long 67,380,839 11,930,336 Total 79,31 1,175 65,887,892 57,119,451 8,768,441 13,286,080 10,142,192 3,143,888 137,203 1 19,196 18,007 26 Denominator Form Type Total Short 1 17,661,748 97,578,971 96,184,164 81,658,117 21,227,339 15,708,543 250,245 212,31 1 Long 20,082,777 14,526,047 5,518,796 37,934 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 140 of 440 000581 Appendix E: Four Figures Illustrating the Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and the Final Mail Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Day and Form Type and Daily Percentage Increase in Response Rates by Day and Form Type 9sz asuodsau 100.0% 90.0% 00.0% 70-0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% U1L 08111181? begins Figure 1. Mail Response Rates by Date by Form Type Advance nollce :ensus Day initial NRFU cut Questionnaire UIL 11 1'11 0111181]? Late mall l?BtUl?l?l NRFL Reminder rar?c cui 31212000 31112000 _31612000 31012000 311012000 311212000 1 312012000 312612000 312412000 312212000 312012000 . 311312000 . 311512000 311412000 Date 313012000 41712000 41512000 41312000 41112000 I?Response Rale "Elan Form Rate 27 Long Form Rate 1 41912000 i 411512000 411312000 411112000 411112000 411912000 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 141 of 440 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 142 of 440 Figurez Daily Percenagelncreaseln Mall Response Rate: by Form Type Late mail requ lritial delivety ends Pam'nder cards memonnaire mailout 41'170000 . 410540000 - 4f130000 - 4? 10000 - 43940000 . 4100000 .. 415.0000 - 400000 4f 10000 - 31'300000 - 3030000 . 3.060000 3.040000 - 3020000 - 300.0000 34'130000 - 31'160000 - 3104:0000 - $120000 - 3I1010000 - 30.0000 34?60000 3f40000 300000 aseajouI . 5391,..31: ad'a'?'me 5.0% 1 0% 0.0% - Date ?Response $13 ?Short ForrnRate Long FormRate 28 000582 Figure 3. Response Rates by Date by Form Type 0 uestlonnalre mallou?hRFU begins HRFU complete Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 143 of 440 1212112000 121112000 1112312000 111912000 1012612000 1011212000 . 912012000 - 911412000 - 013112000 011712000 :01312000 - 712012000 . 71612000 . 512212000 - 51012000 - 512512000 - 511112000 ensus Day A Final NRFU cut - 41232000 - 411312000 313012000 . 311612000 00.0% 70.0% 00.0% =2 0 In was asuodseu 20.0% 10.0% 31212000 0.0% ate Short Form Rate 'Long Form Rate I 0500050 R010 29 000583 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 144 of 440 12010000 1 200000 11030000 1100000 10060000 107120000 9060000 La5:farm received Long Form Rate 9714:2000 6.010000 67170000 B00000 7000000 7760000 6020000 Date 30 complete 6760000 ?Response Rate "??Short Fon'n Rate 5050000 Figure 4. Dally Percentage Increase in Response Rates by Form Wpe 57110000 NRFU begins 4070000 47130000 33:91 Day Lam NFU nut '7 3000000 - 300000 amu asuodsou u! ascuom ?es?onnaire I 000584 000585 Appendix F: Mail Resgonse Numerators and Rates by Dayr Day Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 03/02/2000 03/03/2000 03/04/2000 03/05/2000 03/06/2000 03/07/2000 03/08/2000 03/09/2000 03/10/2000 03/1 1/2000 03/12/2000 03/13/2000 03/14/2000 03/15/2000 03/16/2000 03/17/2000 03/18/2000 03/19/2000 03/20/2000 03/21/2000 03/22/2000 03/23/2000 03/24/2000 03/25/2000 03/26/2000 03/27/2000 Daily Increase 1,397 65 52 149,634 62,469 176,971 235,918 422,723 180,427 217,372 756,539 550,444 2,915,464 4,269,016 4,851,766 3,454,841 2,923,374 5,262,381 5,326,760 5,791,069 5,250,239 3,627,566 2,420,556 2,5 1 1,970 2,993,679 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 0 1,397 1,462 1,514 151,148 213,617 390,588 626,506 1,049,229 1,229,656 1,447,028 2,203 .567 2,754,011 5,669,475 9,938,491 14,790,257 18,245,098 21,168,472 26,430,853 31,757,613 37,548,682 42,798,921 48,847,043 51,359,013 54,352,692 31 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% 2.5% 3.6% 4.1% 2.9% 2.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.9% 4.5% 3.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.5% Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 1.9% 2.3% 4.8% 8.4% 12.6% 15.5% 18.0% 22.5% 27.0% 31.9% 36.4% 39.5% 41.5% 43.7% 46.2% Keyr dates delivery begins Advance notice delivery begins Advance notice delivery ends Questionnaire mailout delivery begins Questionnaire mailout delivery ends Reminder card delivery begins Reminder card delivery ends Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 145 of 440 000586 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Day Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Date 03/28/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000 03/31/2000 04/01/2000 04/02/2000 04/03/2000 04/04/2000 04/05/2000 04/06/2000 04/07/2000 04/08/2000 04/09/2000 04/10/2000 04/1 1/2000 04/12/2000 04/13/2000 04/ 14/2000 04/15/2000 04/16/2000 04/17/2000 04/18/2000 04/19/2000 04/20/2000 04/21/2000 04/22/2000 Daily Increase 3,141,074 1,939,206 1,829,908 1,744,944 1,365,370 943,350 1,490,946 1,320,770 1,034,302 1,233,153 800,075 765,257 419,715 691,891 342,541 41 1,695 302, 1 8 1 523,441 305,789 167,706 352,030 129,999 210,358 209,63 1 215,905 68,345 Cumulative 57,493,766 59,432,972 61,262,880 63,007,824 64,373,194 65,316,544 66,807,490 68,128,260 69,162,562 70,395,715 71 ,195 ,790 71,961 ,047 72,3 80,762 73,072,653 73,415,194 73,826,889 74,129,070 74,652,51 1 74,958,300 75,126,006 75,478,036 75,608,035 75,818,393 76,028,024 76,243,929 76,312,274 32 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 2.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.2% 0.8% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% Cumulative 48.9% 50.5% 52.1% 53.6% 54.7% 55.5% 56.8% 57.9% 58.8% 59.8% 60.5% 61.2% 61.5% 62.1% 62.4% 62.7% 63.0% 63.4% 63.7% 63.8% 64.1% 64.3% 64.4% 64.6% 64.8% 64.9% delivery ends Census Day Initial NRFU cut Late mail return NRFU cut Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 146 of 440 000587 A?endix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Day Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Date 04/23/2000 04/24/2000 04/25/2000 04/26/2000 04/27/2000 04/28/2000 04/29/2000 04/30/2000 05/01/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/05/2000 05/06/2000 05/07/2000 05/08/2000 05/09/2000 05/10/2000 05/1 1/2000 05/12/2000 05/13/2000 05/14/2000 05/15/2000 05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/18/2000 Daily Increase 81,653 175,577 91,243 207,548 108,341 90,307 28,058 1,157 139,21 1 23,404 76,067 92,806 126,560 29,679 1,912 24,577 9,107 15,482 40,721 190,053 4,321 8,041 3,937 1 1,945 17,286 34,993 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 76,393,927 76,569,504 76,660,747 76,868,295 76,976,636 77,066,943 77,095,001 77,096,158 77,235,369 77,258,773 77,334,840 77,427,646 77,554,206 77,583,885 77,585,797 77,610,374 77,619,481 77,634,963 77,675,684 77,865,737 77,870,058 77,878,099 77,882,036 77,893,981 77,911,267 77,946,260 33 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 64.9% 65.1% 65.2% 65.3% 65.4% 65.5% 65.5% 65.5% 65.6% 65.7% 65.7% 65.8% 65 65.9% 65.9% 66.0% 66.0% 66-0% 66.0% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% Key dates NRFU begins Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 147 of 440 000588 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Day Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Date 05/19/2000 05/20/2000 05/21/2000 05/22/2000 05/23/2000 05/24/2000 05/25/2000 05/26/2000 05/27/2000 05/28/2000 05/29/2000 05/30/2000 05/31/2000 06/01/2000 06/02/2000 06/03/2000 06/04/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/07/2000 06/08/2000 06/09/2000 06/10/2000 06/1 1/2000 06/ 12/2000 06/13/2000 Daily Increase 134,413 28,279 6,373 9,765 8,310 18,270 33,353 98,298 13,414 6,801 1,057 7,864 7,935 17,131 67,302 14,539 6,880 9,015 9,931 24,731 32,955 17,698 8,450 5,937 20,851 10,689 Cumulative 78,080,673 78,108,952 78,115,325 78,125,090 78,133,400 78,151,670 78,185,023 78,283,321 78,296,735 78,303,536 78,304,593 78,312,457 78,320,392 78,33 7,523 78,404,825 78,419,364 78,426,244 78,435,259 78,445,190 78,469,921 78,502,876 78,520,574 78,529,024 78,534,961 78,555,812 78,566,501 34 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.5% 66.5% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.8% 66.8% Key dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 148 of 440 000589 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Dag.r Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Date 06/ 14/2000 06/15/2000 06/ 6/2000 06/17/2000 06/18/2000 06/19/2000 06/20/2000 06/21/2000 06/22/2000 06/23/2000 06/24/2000 06/25/2000 06/26/2000 06/27/2000 06/28/2000 06/29/2000 06/30/2000 07/01/2000 07/02/2000 07/03/2000 07/04/2000 07/05/2000 07/06/2000 07/07/2000 07/08/2000 07/09/2000 Daily Increase 11,928 241,743 9,857 3,672 3,127 4,632 3,883 3,705 3,425 2,496 1,067 493 2,612 1,953 2,239 24,147 1,580 765 127 Cumulative 78,578,429 78,820,172 78,830,029 78,833,701 78,836,828 78,841,460 78,845,343 78,849,048 78,852,473 78,854,969 78,856,036 78,856,529 78,859,141 78,861,094 78,863,333 78,887,480 78,889,060 78,889,825 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 35 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 66-8% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Kc}.r dates NRFU complete Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 149 of 440 000590 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Date 07/10/2000 07/ 1 1/2000 07/12/2000 07/13/2000 07/ 14/2000 07/15/2000 07/16/2000 07/17/2000 07/18/2000 07/19/2000 07/20/2000 07/21/2000 07/22/2000 07/23/2000 07/24/2000 07/25/2000 07/26/2000 07/27/2000 07/28/2000 07/29/2000 07/30/2000 07/3 1/2000 08/01/2000 08/02/2000 08/03/2000 08/04/2000 Daily Increase 2,146 Cumulative 78,892,098 78,892,098 78,892,098 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,898,999 78,900,106 78,900,106 78,900,106 78,900,106 78,900,106 78,900,607 78,900,607 78,900,607 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 36 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% Key dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 150 of 440 000591 Appendix F: Mail Resgonse Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Resnonse Numerator Day Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Date 08/05/2000 08/06/2000 08/07/2000 08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/ 0/2000 08/1 1/2000 08/ 12/2000 08/13/2000 08/ 14/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/17/2000 08/18/2000 08/19/2000 08/20/2000 08/21/2000 08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/26/2000 08/27/2000 08/28/2000 08/29/2000 08/ 3 0/2000 Daily Increase Cumulative 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,631 78,901,631 78,902,346 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,311 78,903 ,3 1 1 78,903,311 78,903,311 78,903,311 78,903,311 37 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67,1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 151 of 440 000592 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Day Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 08/31/2000 09/01/2000 09/02/2000 09/03/2000 09/04/2000 09/05/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000 09/08/2000 09/09/2000 09/10/2000 09/1 1/2000 09/ 12/2000 09/13/2000 09/ 14/2000 09/15/2000 09/16/2000 09/ 17/2000 09/18/2000 09/19/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000 09/22/2000 09/23/2000 09/24/2000 09/25/2000 Daily Increase Cumulative 78,903,31 78,903,31 1 78,903,452 78,903 ,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,5 15 78,9035 15 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,5 15 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,5 15 38 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% Key dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 152 of 440 000593 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Dair Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Sundayr Date 09/26/2000 09/27/2000 09/28/2000 09/29/2000 09/30/2000 10/01/2000 10/02/2000 10/03/2000 10/04/2000 10/05/2000 10/06/2000 10/07/2000 10/08/2000 10/09/2000 10/10/2000 10/1 1/2000 10/12/2000 10/13/2000 10/ 14/2000 10/ 15/2000 10/ 16/2000 10/1 7/2000 1 0/1 8/2000 10/1 9/2000 12/3 1/2000 Source: DMAF and Note: Rates are based on a response rate denominator of 117,661,748 housing units. Note: No forms with a valid check-in date were received after October 19 Mail Res onse Numerator Dailv Increase 3 407,657 Cumulative 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903 ,5 1 5 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,518 79,311,175 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% NRFU or CIFU with no check-in date were assigned a date of December 31, 2000. Note: Rates do not include Puerto Rice. 39 67-1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67-1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67-1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.4% Keg.r dates Last mail return with check-in date received 2000. Mail returns from addresses which also were enumerated in Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 153 of 440 000594 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday hdonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 03/02/2000 03/03/2000 03/04/2000 03/05/2000 03/06/2000 03/07/2000 03/08/2000 03/09/2000 03/10/2000 03/1 1/2000 03/12/2000 03/13/2000 03/ 14/2000 03/15/2000 03/16/2000 03/17/2000 03/1 8/2000 03/19/2000 03/20/2000 03/21/2000 03/22/2000 03/23/2000 03/24/2000 03/25/2000 03/26/2000 03/27/2000 Daily Increase 1,392 65 52 132,094 54,85 1 157,425 207,263 365,553 156,9 1 1 187,1 1 1 642,139 477,701 2,7 1 7,701 3,929,051 4,462,221 3,226,454 2,710,376 4,825,753 4,785 ,3 96 5,107,438 4,412,890 2,790,988 2,080,348 2,200,925 2,553,064 Cumulative 1,392 1,457 1,509 133,603 188,454 345,879 553,142 918,695 1,075,606 1,262,717 1,904,856 2,382,557 5,100,258 9,029,309 13,491,530 16,717,984 19,428,360 24,254,113 29,039,509 34,146,947 38,559,837 41,350,825 43,431,173 45,632,098 48,185,162 40 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 2.8% 4.0% 4.6% 3.3% 2.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.2% 4.5% 2.9% 2.1% 2.3% 2.6% Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 2.0% 2.4% 5.2% 9.3% 13.8% 17.1% 19.9% 24.9% 29.8% 35.0% 39.5% 42.4% 44.5% 46.8% 49.4% Key dates delivery begins Advance notice delivery begins Advance notice delivery ends Questionnaire mailout delivery begins Questionnaire mailout delivery ends Reminder card delivery begins Reminder card delivery ends Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 154 of 440 000595 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday,r Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Date Daily Increase Cumulative 03/28/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000 03/31/2000 04/01/2000 04/02/2000 04/03/2000 04/04/2000 04/05/2000 04/06/2000 04/07/2000 04/08/2000 04/09/2000 04/10/2000 04/1 1/2000 04/12/2000 04/13/2000 04/14/2000 04/15/2000 04/16/2000 04/17/2000 04/ 1 8/2000 04/19/2000 04/20/2000 04/21/2000 04/22/2000 2,616,985 1,586,934 1,446,048 1,398,330 1,049,] 15 735,306 1,1 13,753 994,482 771,809 945,438 607,170 593,514 314,340 525,253 273,694 312,637 216,264 392,869 223,567 140,207 255,300 94,377 159,543 152,556 153,237 54,291 50,802,147 52,389,081 53,835,129 55,233,459 56,282,574 57,017,880 58,131,633 59,126,] 15 59,897,924 60,843,362 61 ,450.532 62,044,046 62,358,386 62,883.639 63,157,333 63,469,970 63,686,234 64.079.103 64,302,670 4,442,877 64,698,177 64,792,554 64,952,097 65,104,653 65,257,890 65,312,181 Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 41 2.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0-3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 52.1% 53.7% 55.2% 56.6% 57.7% 58.4% 59.6% 60.6% 61.4% 62.4% 63.0% 63.6% 63.9% 64.4% 64.7% 65.0% 65.3% 65.7% 65.9% 66.0% 66.3% 66.4% 66.6% 66.7% 66.9% 66.9% Key dates delivery ends Census Day Initial NRFU cut Late mail return NRFU cut Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 155 of 440 000596 Appendix G?l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Date 04/23/2000 04/24/2000 04/25/2000 04/26/2000 04/27/2000 04/28/2000 04/29/2000 04/30/2000 05/01/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/05/2000 05/06/2000 05/07/2000 05/08/2000 05/09/2000 05/10/2000 05/1 1/2000 05/12/2000 05/13/2000 05/ 14/2000 05/15/2000 05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/18/2000 Daily Increase 61,795 1 1 1,230 75,580 157,419 78,608 62,802 27,293 932 109,058 20,264 62,649 75,532 61,303 24,327 1,246 13,180 7,161 13,167 26,125 146,001 2,697 3,434 2,699 8,423 1 1,631 21,719 Cumulative 65,3 73,976 65,485,206 65,560,786 65,718,205 65,796,813 65,859,615 65,886,908 65,887,840 65,996,898 66,017, 162 66,079,8l 1 66,155,343 66,216,646 66,240,973 66,242,219 66,255,399 66,262,560 66,275 ,727 66,301,852 66,447,853 66,450,550 66,453,984 66,456,683 66,465,106 66,476,737 66,498,456 42 Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 67.0% 67.1% 67.2% 67.3% 67.4% 67.5% 67.5% 67.5% 67.6% 67.7% 67.7% 67.8% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 68.1% 68.1% 68. 1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% Key dates NRFU begins Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 156 of 440 000597 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Res onse Numerator Day Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Date 05/19/2000 05/20/2000 05/21/2000 05/22/2000 05/23/2000 05/24/2000 05/25/2000 05/26/2000 05/27/2000 05/28/2000 05/29/2000 05/30/2000 05/31/2000 06/01/2000 06/02/2000 06/03/2000 06/04/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/07/2000 06/08/2000 06/09/2000 06/10/2000 06/1 1/2000 06/12/2000 06/13/2000 Daily Increase 91,378 14,615 3,953 5,180 4,344 11,828 22,708 59,220 8,691 3,811 755 4,966 4,865 9,096 39,681 6,885 4,099 5,358 6,827 14,982 16,036 8,888 4,308 2,981 13,022 5,597 Cumulative 66,589,834 66,604,449 66,608,402 66,613,582 66,617,926 66,629,754 66,652,462 66,7 1 ,682 66,720,373 66,724,184 66,724,939 66,729.905 66,734,? '10 66,743,866 66,783,547 66,790,432 66,794,53 1 66,799,889 66,806,716 66,821 ,698 66,837,734 66,846,622 66,850,930 66,853,91 1 66,866,933 66,872,530 4 Res onse Rate Daily Increase 3 0. 1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 68.2% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% Key dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 157 of 440 000598 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Day Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Date 06/ 14/2000 06/ 1 5/2000 06/16/2000 06/17/2000 06/18/2000 06/19/2000 06/20/2000 06/21/2000 06/22/2000 06/23/2000 06/24/2000 06/25/2000 06/26/2000 06/27/2000 06/28/2000 06/29/2000 06/30/2000 07/01/2000 07/02/2000 07/03/2000 07/04/2000 07/05/2000 07/06/2000 07/07/2000 07/08/2000 07/09/2000 Daily Increase 7,890 146,022 4,348 2,280 1,281 1,531 2,168 2,270 2,300 1,388 687 269 1,695 1,217 1,557 11,067 980 620 67 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 66,880,420 67,026,442 67,03 0,790 67,033,070 67,034,351 67,035,882 67,038,050 67,040,320 67,042,620 67,044,008 67,044,695 67,044,964 67,046,659 67,047,876 67,049,433 67,060,500 67,061,480 67,062,100 67,062,167 67,062, 167 67,062,167 67,062,167 67,062,167 67,062,167 67,062,167 67,062, I 67 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 68.5% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% Key dates NRFU complete Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 158 of 440 000599 Appendix G?l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Dav:r Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Date 07/10/2000 07? 1/2000 07/ 2/2000 07/13/2000 07/ 14/2000 07/15/2000 07/16/2000 07/17/2000 0711 8/2000 07/19/2000 07/20/2000 07/21/2000 07/22/2000 07/23/2000 07/24/2000 07/25/2000 07/26/2000 07/27/2000 07/28/2000 07/29/2000 07/30/2000 07/31/2000 08/01/2000 08/02/2000 08/03/2000 08/04/2000 Dailyr Increase 1,886 Cumulative 67,064,053 67,064,053 67,064,053 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,068,945 67,069,699 67,069,699 67,069,699 67,069,699 67,069,699 67,070,015 67,070,015 67,070,015 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 45 Response Rate Daily Increase 00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% Keyr dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 159 of 440 000600 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Date 08/05/2000 08/06/2000 08/07/2000 08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/10/2000 08/1 1/2000 08/12/2000 08/13/2000 08/ 14/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/17/2000 08/1 8/2000 08/19/2000 008/20/2000 08/21/2000 08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/26/2000 08/27/2000 08/28/2000 08/29/2000 08/30/2000 Daily Increase Cumulative 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,656 67,070,656 67,071 ,1 75 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,728 46 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% Key dates Case Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 160 of 440 000601 Appendix G?l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Res onse Numerator Dajr Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday ?day Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 08/3 1/2000 09/01/2000 09/02/2000 09/03/2000 09/04/2000 09/05/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000 09/08/2000 09/09/2000 09/10/2000 09/1 1/2000 09/ 12/2000 09/13/2000 09/ 14/2000 09/15/2000 09/16/2000 09/17/2000 09/18/2000 09/19/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000 09/ 22/2000 09/23/2000 09/24/2000 09/25/2000 Daily Increase 104 Cumulative 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071.882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 4 Daily Increase 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Res onse Rate Cumulative 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% Key dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 161 of 440 000602 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday hdonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Sunday Date 09/26/2000 09/27/2000 09/28/2000 09/29/2000 09/30/2000 10/01/2000 10/02/2000 10/03/2000 10/04/2000 10/05/2000 10/06/2000 10/07/2000 10/08/2000 10/09/2000 10/10/2000 10/1 1/2000 10/ 12/2000 10/13/2000 10/ 14/2000 1 0/ 5/2000 10/16/2000 10/17/2000 1 0/ 8/2000 10/19/2000 12/31/2000 Source: DMAF and DRF-2. Note: Short form return rates are based on a denominator of 97,578,971. Daily Increase 3 308,954 Cumulative 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,885 67,380,839 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Cumulative 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 69.1% Key dates Last mail return with check-in date received Note: No forms with a valid check-in date were received after October 19, 2000. Mail returns from addresses which also were enumerated in NRFU or CIFU with no check-in date were assigned a date of December 31, 2000. Note: Rates do not include Puerto Rico. Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 162 of 440 000603 Appendix G-2: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Da}r Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Date 03/02/2000 03/03/2000 03/04/2000 03/05/2000 03/06/2000 03/07/2000 03/08/2000 03/09/2000 03/10/2000 03/1 1/2000 03/12/2000 03/13/2000 03/ 14/2000 03/15/2000 03/16/2000 03/17/2000 03/1 8/2000 03/19/2000 03/20/2000 03/21/2000 03/22/2000 03/23/2000 03/24/2000 03/25/2000 03/26/2000 03/27/2000 03/28/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000 03/31/2000 Dailyr Increase 5 17,540 7,618 19,546 28,655 57,170 23,516 30,261 114,400 72,743 197,763 339,965 389,545 228,387 212,998 436,628 541,364 683,631 837,349 836,578 340,208 31 1,045 440,615 524,089 352,272 383,860 346,614 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 9 5 5 5 17,545 25,163 44,709 73,364 130,534 154,050 184,31 1 298,711 371,454 569,217 909,182 1,298,727 1.527,] 14 1,740,] 12 2,176,740 2,718,104 3,401,735 4,239,084 5,075,662 5,415,870 5,726,915 6,167,530 6,691,619 7,043,891 7,427,751 7,774,365 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 0.4% 1.0% 1.7% 1.9% 1.1% 1.1% 2.2% 2.7% 3.4% 4.2% 4.2% 1.7% 1.5% 2.2% 2.6% 1.8% 1.9% 1.7% 49 Cumulative 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 1.5% 1.8% 2.8% 4.5% 6.5% 7.6% 8.7% 10.8% 13.5% 16.9% 21.1% 25.3% 27.0% 28.5% 30.7% 33.3% 35.1% 37.0% 38.7% Key dates delivery begins Advance notice delivery begins Advance notice delivery ends Questionnaire mailout delivery begins Questionnaire mailout delivery ends Reminder card delivery begins Reminder card delivery ends Ur'f. delivery ends Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 163 of 440 000604 Appendix Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Date 04/01/2000 04/02/2000 04/03/2000 04/04/2000 04/05/2000 04/06/2000 04/07/2000 04/08/2000 04/09/2000 04/10/2000 04/1 1/2000 04/ 12/2000 04/13/2000 04/14/2000 04/15/2000 04/16/2000 04/17/2000 04/18/2000 04/19/2000 04/20/2000 04/21/2000 04/22/2000 04/23/2000 04/24/2000 04/25/2000 04/26/2000 04/27/2000 04/28/2000 04/29/2000 04/30/2000 Daily Increase 3 16,255 208,044 377,193 326,288 262,493 287,715 192,905 1 71 ,743 105,375 166,638 68,847 99,058 85,917 130,572 82,222 27,499 96,730 35,622 50,815 57,075 62,668 14,054 19,858 64,347 15,663 50,129 29,733 27,505 765 225 Cumulative 8,090,620 8,298,664 8,675,857 9,002,145 9,264,638 9,552,353 9,745,258 9,91 7,001 10,022,376 1 0, 1 89,0 14 10,257,861 10,3 56,919 10,442,836 10,573,408 10,655,630 10,683,129 10,779,859 10,8 15,48 1 10,866,296 10,923,371 10,986,039 1 1,000,093 1 1 ,019,95 1 1 1,084,298 1 1,099,96 1 1 1 1 50,090 1 1 1 79,823 1 1,207,328 1 1,208,093 1 1,208,318 50 Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 1.6% 1.0% 1.9% 1.6% 1.3% 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 40.3% 41.3% 43.2% 44.8% 46.1% 47.6% 48.5% 49.4% 49.9% 50.7% 51.1% 51.6% 52.0% 52.6% 53.1% 53.2% 53.7% 53.9% 54.1% 54.4% 54.7% 54.8% 54.9% 55.2% 55.3% 55.5% 55.7% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% Key dates Census Day Initial NRFU cut Late mail return NRFU cut NRFU begins Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 164 of 440 000605 Appendix Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Da}r Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Date 05/01/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/05/2000 05/06/2000 05/07/2000 05/08/2000 05/09/2000 05/10/2000 05/ 1 1/2000 05/12/2000 05/13/2000 05/14/2000 05/15/2000 05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/18/2000 05/19/2000 05/20/2000 05/21/2000 05/22/2000 05/23/2000 05/24/2000 05/25/2000 05/26/2000 05/27/2000 05/28/2000 05/29/2000 05/30/2000 Daily Increase 30,153 3,140 13,418 17,274 65 ,257 5,352 666 1 1,397 1,946 2,315 14,596 44,052 1,624 4,607 1,238 3,522 5,655 13,274 43,035 13,664 2,420 4,585 3,966 6,442 10,645 39,078 4,723 2,990 302 2,898 Mail Res onse Numerator Cumulative 11,238,471 1 1,241,61 1 11,255,029 11,272,303 11,337,560 1 1,342,912 11,343,578 11,354,975 11,356.921 1 1,359,236 11,373,832 11,417,884 1 1,419,508 1 1,424,] 15 11,425,353 11,428,875 11,434,530 11,447,804 11,490,839 1 1,504,503 11,506,923 1 1,51 1,508 1 1,515,474 1 1,521,916 1 1,532,561 1 1,571,639 11,576,362 11,579,352 11,579,654 11,582,552 Daily Res onse Rate Increase Cumulative 51 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56-0% 56.0% 56.0% 56.1% 56.5% 56.5% 56.5% 56.5% 56.6% 56.6% 56.6% 56.9% 56.9% 56.9% 56.9% 56.9% 56.9% 57.0% 57.2% 57.3% 57-3% 57.3% 57.3% 57.4% 57.4% 57.6% 57.6% 57.7% 57.7% 57.7% Key dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 165 of 440 000606 Appendix G-2: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday hAonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Date 05/31/2000 06/01/2000 06/02/2000 06/03/2000 06/04/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/07/2000 06/08/2000 06/09/2000 06/10/2000 06/1 1/2000 06/12/2000 06/13/2000 06/ 14/2000 06/15/2000 06/16/2000 06/17/2000 06/1 8/2000 06/19/2000 06/20/2000 06/21/2000 06/22/2000 06/23/2000 06724/2000 06/25/2000 06/26/2000 06/27/2000 06/28/2000 06/29/2000 Daily Increase 3,070 8,035 27,621 7,654 2,781 3,657 3,104 9,749 16,919 8,810 4,142 2,956 7,829 5,092 4,038 95,721 5,509 1,392 1,846 3,101 1,715 1,435 1,125 1,108 380 224 917 736 682 13,080 Cumulative 11,585,622 11,593,657 11,621,278 11,628,932 1 1,631,713 11,635,370 11,638,474 11,648,223 11,665,142 11,673,952 11,678,094 11,681,050 11,688,879 1 1,693,971 11,698,009 11,793,730 11,799,239 1 1,800,631 11,802,477 11,805,578 11,807,293 11,808,728 11,809,853 11,810,961 1 1,81 1,341 1 1,81 1,565 1 1,812,482 1 1,813,218 1 1,813,900 11,826,980 Response Rate Daily Increase 52 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Cumulative 57.7% 57.7% 57.9% 57.9% 57.9% 57.9% 58.0% 58.0% 58.1% 58.1% 58.2% 58.2% 58.2% 58.2% 58.2% 58.7% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.9% Key dates NRFU complete Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 166 of 440 000607 Mendix Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Dar Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Date 06/30/2000 07/01/2000 07/02/2000 07/03/2000 07/04/2000 07/05/2000 07/06/2000 07/07/2000 07/08/2000 07/09/2000 07/10/2000 07/1 1/2000 07/12/2000 07/13/2000 07/ 14/2000 07/15/2000 07/16/2000 07/17/2000 07/18/2000 07/19/2000 07/20/2000 07/21/2000 07/22/2000 07/23/2000 07/24/2000 07/25/2000 07/26/2000 07/27/2000 07/28/2000 07/29/2000 Dailj Increase 600 145 60 Mail Res onse Numerator Cumulative 11,827,580 11,827,725 11,827,785 11,827,785 11,827,785 11,827,785 11,827,785 1 1,827,785 11,827,785 11,827,785 11,828,045 11,828,045 11,828,045 1 1,828,162 11,828,162 1 1,828,162 1 1,828,162 11,828,162 1 1,828,162 1 1,828,162 1 1,828,162 1 1,828,162 11,830,054 11,830,407 11,830,407 11,830,407 11,830,407 11,830,407 11,830,592 11,830,592 Daily Increase 53 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% Res onse Rate Cumulative 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58,9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58,9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% Ke'.r dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 167 of 440 000608 Appendix G-2: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Day Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 07/30/2000 07/3 1/2000 08/01/2000 08/02/2000 08/03/2000 08/04/2000 08/05/2000 08/06/2000 08/07/2000 08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/10/2000 08/1 1/2000 08/12/2000 08/13/2000 08/ 14/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/17/2000 08/1 8/2000 08/19/2000 08/20/2000 08/21/2000 08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/26/2000 08/27/2000 08/28/2000 Mail Response Numerator Daily Increase 5 1 Cumulative 11,830,592 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,975 11,830,975 1 1,831,171 11,831,580 1 1,831,580 1 1,831,580 11,831,580 1 1,831,580 11,831,580 11,831,583 11,831,583 1 1,831,583 11,831,583 54 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% Key dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 168 of 440 000609 Appendix G-Z: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Dar; Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Date 08/29/2000 08/30/2000 08/31/2000 09/01/2000 09/02/2000 09/03/2000 09/04/2000 09/05/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000 09/08/2000 09/09/2000 09/10/2000 09/1 1/2000 09/12/2000 09/13/2000 09/14/2000 09/15/2000 09/16/2000 09/17/2000 09/18/2000 09/19/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000 09/22/2000 09/23/2000 09/24/2000 09/25/2000 09/26/2000 09/27/2000 Mail Response Numerator Dail}r Increase Cumulative 1 1,831,583 1 1,831,583 1 1,831,583 1 1,83 [,583 1 1,831,620 11,831,620 11,831,620 1 1,831,620 11,831,620 1 1,831,620 1 1,831,620 11,831,620 1 1,831,620 1 1,831,620 11,831,620 1 1,831,620 1 1,831,620 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 55 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 589% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% Key dates Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 169 of 440 000610 Appendix Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Sunday Source: DMAF and DRE-2. Date 09/28/2000 09/29/2000 09/30/2000 10/01/2000 10/02/2000 10/03/2000 10/04/2000 10/05/2000 10/06/2000 10/07/2000 10/08/2000 10/09/2000 10/10/2000 10/ 1/2000 10/ 12/2000 10/ 13/2000 10/ 14/2000 10/ 15/2000 10/16/2000 1 0/ 1 7/2000 10/1 8/2000 10/19/2000 1 2/3 1 .12000 Daily Increase 98,703 Cumulative 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 11,831,633 11,930,336 Note: Long form return rates have a denominator of 20,082,777. Note: No forms with a valid check-in date were received a?er October 19, 2000. Mail returns from addresses which also were enumerated in NRFU or CIFU with no check?in date were assigned a date of December 31, 2000. Note: Rates do not include Puerto Rico. Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 55 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 59.4% Key dates Last mail return with check-in date received Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 170 of 440 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 171 of 440 00061 1 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 172 of 440 TUE 12:29 PM CENSUS HON BD-CONG FHX N0. 301 457 5081 P. 02/05 ??ME?n?q 5?33?1281, 1991 Part Department of Commerce O?lce ol the Secretary Adjustment of the 1990 Census for Overcounts and linden-counts of Population and Houalng; Notice 01? Final Declston 000612 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 173 of 440 HER-024999 TUE 12:30 PM CENSUS HON BD-CONG N0. 301 457 5081 33582 Federal Register 1 Vol. 56. No. 140 I Monday. July 22. 1991 I Notices RTHE COMMERCE rose [meshes no. 51. part at massa- Dated: luly 15.1991. The! mire intended to provide Robert A-Masbecher. Office at the Secretary the ?gmc?orkbfol: b?tisnced ai'iact Watery ofCommeJ-ce. canal are on scretary ore [Docket No. 01202-1101! rel a? to the decision. mail STATEIIENT Decision oi the Secretary of The census adjustment decision Statement 0? 30mm 3059? A- Commerce on Whether a Statistical Adjustment of the 1990 Census of Population and Housing Should Be Made for Coverage Deficiencies Resulting in an Overcount or Undercount oi the Population U.5. Department of Contmerce. sorted: Nation at final decision. antennas: This is a notice of the final decision of the Secretary of Commerce on the issue of adjusting the 1990 census to correct for overcounts or undercounts of the population in the 1990 Decennial Census. The purpose of this no line is to inform the public of the decision and to explain the basis for the decision. career The decision is effective on July 15. 1991. FOR FURTHER OOHTICT: Michael R. Darby. Under Secretary for Economic Affairs and Administrator. Economics and Statistics Administration. Room 4MB Herbert 0. Hoover Buildin .United States Department of ornmerce. Washington. DC 20230. Telephone [202] arm-8727. suwmstenrm tnronunrlou: The Secretary of Commerce is required. pursuant to '13 0.8.0. 141. to conduct a decennial census of the population of the United States. The population totals derived from the census provide the basis for the apportionment of seats in the United States House of Re resentatives. for state legislative re islricting. for determining district boundaries for county and city elections. and for the allocation of federal lands to state and local governments. in 1937. the Secretary of Cameron decided not to plan for a statistical adjustment of the 1900 census. As a result. a lawsuit was ?led by the city of New York and other parties seeking to compel the Department to plan for such an adlusirnent. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties in City of New York. at v. Department of Commerce. et ah. Min-8474 the Department undertook a do novo review at the adiustment Issue in order to make a decision no later than luly 15. 1991. on whether in ndiusl the 1990 census. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public about the Secretary's decision and the basis for the decision. Final guidelines which aided the Secretary in his decision were published in the Federal Register on March 15. process was divided into seve distinct phases. The ?rst phase was the actual enumeration of the population. The second phase was the conduct of a post-enumeration survey. based on a probability sample of housing units.?t?his sample provided data for twa proposes: estimation oi the net overcount or undercount at basic enumeration subgroups using capture-recapture methodology. and application of factors for the adjustment of the enumerate counts. The third phase of them-nee,? was a determination of the adequacy of the post-enumeration survey as an evaluation and adjustment tool. The lourth and final phase of the precast was a decision on the adjustment question by the Secretary based on the published guidelines. in melting his decision. the Secretary relied on the advice at senior of?cialsin the Economics and Statistics Administration. which includes the Census Bureau. as well as other senior advisers. The Secretary also relied on the individual recommendations at the eight members of the Special Advisory Panel appointed to provide independent advice to the Secretary on the sdtusoneut question. In addition. the Secretary considered the public: comments submitted to the Department pursuant to a Federal Register notice dated May 24. 1991. seeking coma-tents on the question of whether the 1990 Census should be ed'usted. The Department receive approximatelyeso public cements. These conunents. as well as the appendices referred to inthe followtn explanation of the decision. are an hie tor public inspection in the . US. Department of Commerce Gene-cl Reference and Records Inspection Facility. room 0020 Herbert 0. Homer Building. 1401 Street and Constitution Avenue. NW.. Washington. DC 20210. Following is a detailed discussion of the adjustment decision and the basis for the decision. The discussion is in loot sections: a summary statement. on analysis of the guidelines. an evaluation of the recommendations oi the Special Advisory Panel and). statement of the decennial census procedures. I tit-opened guidelines Were published i?a- the Federal Register on December 11. months min-t has previously considered and relented a-dtallcnee to the guidelines. See City ofNew York in Um?ase? ?utes Department of Commerce, 5109 f?gam (adrift. 1999]: Hosbeeher on Adjustment of the 1000 Census Reaching a decision on the adjustment a! the ?1990 census has been among the most dif?cult decisions 1 have ever made. There are strong equity eats both for and against adjustment. But most importantly. the census counts are the basis for the political representation of every American. in every state. county. city. and block across the country. if we change the counts by a computerized. statistical process. we abandon a two hundred year tradition of how we actually count people. Before we take a step of that magnitude. we must be certain that it would make the estrous better and the distribution of the population more accurate. After a thorough review. I ?nd the evidence in support at an adjustment to be hiconclusive and unconvincing. That-elem. I have decided that the 1990 census counts should not be changed by a. statistical adj us trueni. The 1990 census is one of the two best censuses ever taken in this country. We located about 98 percent of all the people living in the United States as well as US. military personnel living oversees. which is an extraordinary iect given the size. diversity and mobility of ourpopuiation. But I am sad to report that despite the most aggressive outreach program in our nation's history. census participation and coverage was lower than average among certain segments of our pc??ula tion. Based on our estimates. his appear to have been undercounted in the 1990 census by Hispanics by Asian- Islanders by and American Indians by while non-Blacks to have been undercounted by ?l . I so: deeply troubled by this problem of di?'erantial participation and undercount oi? minorities. and i regret that an adjustment does not address this phenomenon without adversely affecting the Integrity oi the census. Ultimately. i had to make the decision which was [street for all Americans. The 1990 census is not the vehicle to address the equity concerns raised by the underconnt. Nonetheless. I am today requesting that the Census Bureau local-parole. as appropriate. information gleaned from the Post-Enumeration ashes: laid in il?llinates of 000613 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 174 of 440 TUE 12:30 PM CENSUS HON BD-OONG Federal Register I 50. No. 140 I Monday. Notices FHX N0. 301 457 5081 33533 the population. We should also seek other avenues for the Bush Administration and Congress to Work together and address the im not at the undarcount oi crities on federal programs. in reaching the decision not to adjust the census. 1 have bene?tted from frank and open dismtselons oi the full range at issues with my staff. with senior groiassicaals from the Economics and tetistics Administration and the Census Bureau. with my Inspector General. and with statisticians and other experts. out these discussions. there was a wide range of professional opinion and honest disagreement. The Department has tried to melts the process leading to this decision as open as tparsesible. In that spirit. we will provi the full record of the basis for our decision as soon as it is available. In reaching the decision. I looked to statis ticsl science for the evidence on whether the adjusted estimates were more accurate than the census count. As i am not a statistician. relied on the advice of the Director at the Census Bureau. the Associate Director for the Beaumont Census and other career Bureau of?cials. and the Under Secretary has Economic Affairs and Administrator of the Economics and Statistics Administration. 1 was also fortunate to have the independent counsel of the eight members of mg Special Advisory Panel. These eig experts and their dedicated stalls gave generously of their time and expertise. and I am grateful to them. There was a diversity of opinion among my advisers. The Special Advisory Panel. split evenly on to whether there was convincing evidence that the adiueted counts were more accurate. There was also disagreement among the proleaslonhla in the Commerce Depot-truest. which includes the Economics and Statistics Administration and the casein Bureau. This compounded the difficulty of the decision for rue. Ultimately. I was compelled to conclude ihatwe cannot proceed on unstable in such an important matter of public policy. The experts have raised some fundamental questions about an adjushnant. The Post-Etudtaratian Survey. which Was dc ed to allow us to ?nd people we had seed. also missed important segments of the population. The models used to tutor populations across the nation depended heavily an ocean: tions. and the results changed in in: ways when the assumptions aged. These problems don't disqualify the adlustrnent automatically?they mean we won't get a perfect count from on ad t. The question is whether we get better estimates of the population. But what does better mean? Firs I. we have to look at various levels of geography?whether the counts are better at national. state. local. and block levels. Secondly. we have to determine both whether the actual count is better and whether the share of states and cities within the total population is better. The paradox is that in attempting to melts the social count more accurate by an adjustment. we might be making the shares less accurate. The shares are very important because they determine how many songs-casinos! seats each state gals. how clitioal representation is allocated wit states. and how large a ?slice of the pie" of federal funds goes to each city and state. Any upward adjusunent of one share necessarily means a downward adjusunent of another. Because there is a laser for every winner. we need solid ground to stand on in making any changes. I do not ?nd solid enough ground to proceed with an adjustment. To make comparisons between the accuracy of the census and the sdiustod numbers. various types of statistical tests are used.?l?here is general agreement that at the national level. the admin! counts are better. though in ependent analysis shows that ediustcd counts. too. sailor serious ?aws. Below the national lave]. however. the experts disagree with respect to the accuracy of the shares measured from an adjusnucnt. The classical statisticaLtests of whether accuracy is improved by an adjustment at state and local levels show mixed results and depend critically on assessments of the amount of statistical variation in the way. Some question the validity chillers tests. and many believe more work is necessary beiorc we are sure of the conclusions. Based on the measurements so for completed. the Census Bunsen estimated that the proportional share oi about 20 states would he made more accurate and about 21 states would he made less accurate by adjustment. Looking at cities. the census appears more accurate in 11 of the it! metropolitan areas with 500.000 or more persons: Phoenix. Washington. DC. Jacksonville. Chicago. Baltimore. New York City. Memphis. Dallas. El Peso. Houston and San Antonio. Many large cities would it appear to be less accurately treated under an ad usunent. While titers analyses in cats that Incredpeoplc live in Jurisdictions where the It lasted counts appear more accurate. one thi of the population lives in areas where the census appears more accurate. Al the population units get smaller. including small and medium sized cities. . the adjusted ?gures become increasingly unreliable. When the Census Bureau made allowances for plausible estimates at factors not yet measured. these comparisons chilled toward favoring the accuracy of the census enumeration. Using this test. 2.0 or 20 states were estimated to he made less accurate it the adjustment were to be used. What all these tests show. and no one disputes. is that the adlusted ?gures for some localities will be an improvement and for others the census counts will better. While we know that some will [are better and some will fare worse under an adjustment. we don't really loicw how much better or how much worse. if the scientists cannot agree on these issues. how can we expect the losing cities and states as well as the American public to accept this change? The evidence also raises questions about the stability at adjustment procedures. To calculate a nationwide adjustment from the survey. a series of statistical models are used which depend on simplifying assumptions. Changes in these assumptions result in different population estimates. Consider the results at two possible adjustment methods that were released by the Census Bureau on June 13. 1991. The technical differences are small. but the diil'erences in results are signi?cant. The apportionment of the House of Representatives under the selected scheme moved two seats relative to the apportionment implied by the census. whereas the modi?ed method moved only one seat. One expert found that among ?ve reasonable alternative methods of calculating adjustments. none at the resulting spporlionmonts of the House were the same. and eleven diil'crent states either lost or gained a seat in at least one at the ?ve methods. I recognise that the formulas for apportioning the House are responsive to small changes and some sensitivity should be expected. What is unsettling. however. is that the choice at the adjustment method selected by Bureau officials canmake a difference in apportionment, and the political outcome at that choice can be known in advance. I am confident that political considerations played no role in the Census Bureau's choice of an model for the 1990 census. i am deeply con humour. that ad contract would open the door to p0 liical tampering with the census in the future. The outcome of the enumeration process cannot be directly affected in such a way. P. 04/05 000614 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 175 of 440 TUE 12:31 PM CENSUS HON BD-CONG 385M .Fedsralt noglstar. I Monday. My concerns about adjustment are compounded by the problems on ad'glustroent might cause in the re stricting process. which is contentious and litigious enough without an adjustment. An adjusted set of numbers will certainly disrupt the political process and may create paralysis in the states that are working on radish-lo or have it. Bomexeopls airs that they will he deals their rightful political representation without an adjustment. These claims assume that the distribution of the population is improved by an adjustment. This conclusion is not warranted based on. the evidence sysilsble. i also have serious concerns about the effect an adiosttnent might have on future censuses. I am worried that on adiustment would remove the incentive of states and localities to loin in the ol'lott to get a full and complete count. The Census Bureau relies heavily on the active support at state and local leaders to encourage census participation In their Because census counts are the basis for political and federal funding allocations. communities have a vital interest in achievingthe highest possible nrticipation rates. iicivic leaders and nest of?cials believe that an adjustment will rectify the failures in the census. they will be hard pressed to lustify putting census outreach programs above the many other needs clamoring for their limited resources. Without the partnership of states and cities in creating public aWareness and a sense of involvement in the census. the result is likely to be a further decline in participation. in looking at- ihe record of public comment on this issue. I am struck by the fact that many civic leaders are under the mistaken impression that an adjustment will ?x a particular problem they have identi?ed?for example. . speci?c housing units or weep uarters that they believe we missedrecount. What an adiustrnent Would do is add over a million people to the seam by duplicating the records of people sires counted in the census while . subtracting over 000.000 people who were actually identi?ed and counted. The decisions about which places gain people and which less people are based on statistical conclusions drawn from the sample survey. 'ihe additions and deletions in any partibuiar community are often based largely on data gathered from conununities in other states. The procedures that would be used to adjust the census are at the forefront of Jews 1991:! New. FHX N0. 301 457 5081 statistical methodology. Such research deserves and requires care professional scrutiny before it is used to affect the allocation at political representation. Since the results at the evaluation studies oi the survey were made available. several mistakes have been found which altered the certainty of some at the conclusions drawn by my advisors.?1?be ans sis continues. and new ?ndings are sly. i am concerned that if an adjustment were made. it Would be made on the basis of research conclusions that may well be reversed in the next several months. it is important that research on this problem continue.-We will also continue the open discussion at the quality of the census and the survey and will release additional data so that independent experts can analyze it. We must also look torrent-d to the next curses. Planning for the year 2000 has begun. A public advisory conunittes on the next census has been established and by early fall I will announce the membership of that committee. I have instructed the Census Bureau's Year 2000 task [area to consider all options [or the next census. including methods for achieving sound sdjuetrnent . techniques. I give my heartfelt thanks to the many people who have devoted so much time and energy to this enterprise. The staff at the Census Bureau have demonstrated their prefesslonelism at every turn through the last two dif?cult years. They executed a line census and an excellent survey and then condensed a challenging research program Into a few short months. i are deeply grateful for their help. Let me reiterate my sincere thanks to the Special Advisory Panel for their substantial contribution. ,The stall at the Dcpertrnent. especially those in the Economics and Statistics Administration. also deserve raise. With this dif?cult decision ohlnd no. we will consult oursalves snow to ?nding sound. {air and acceptable ways to continue to improve the census process. We welcome the leadership of Congress and other public oi?clais. community groups. and technical experts in maximizing the'eiiectlvencss and minimizing the dif?culties at the year 2000 census. luiy 15. 1991. SECTION HNALYSIS OF THE GUIDEUNI Analysis of the Guidelines Introduction The 1000 census counts should not be changed by a statistical adiustment. This section explains my evaluation of the evidence relevant to eitch oi the eight guidelines that 1 considered in reaching my decision. Each section begins with a statement of the guideline and reiteration of the explanation of the guideline contained in the March 15. 1990. Federal Register notice. A discussion of the guideline follows. The final section states my conclusions. Summaries oi my cmclusions on each gt {he eight guidelines are set forth cw. Guideline One Guideline One requires that convincing evidence he offered that the adjusted estimates of the population are more accurate than the census at the national. State. and local levels. in the absence of such evidence. the census counts are concluded to be the most accurate. At the national level. it is likely that the PES-edius ted estimates reflect more the total population and the rental on ethnic populations of the country. it appears equally clear. however. that the PES omitted large numbers of certain groups-notably black males. We have no htl'ormotioa on the location of these persons. In addition, the PBS and demographic anal sis lend to sharply different on usions about the accuracy of the census for several agelscx groups at the national level. Although these are not de?nitive disquali?ers at the national level. the do raise some question as to whether i adiusted ?gures are more accurate than the census count error: at the national level. The Constitution requires a census every 10 years not lust to count the total number of people in the United States but to locate theta so that political representation can be allocated to the states and the people in them in preportlon to their conclude that the primary criterion for accuracy should be dis tributivc accuracy?diet is. getting most nearly correct the moportions of people in different areas. proved numeric accuracy. although in itself desirable. cannot compensate for its-?lms states and individuals less a y. At the State and local level the correct statistical analysis for both distributive . and numeric accuracy straply has not been completed. The total error model indicates that the adjusted a tend to be too high but usually user in numeric terms to true po alien than the census counts tend to be too low. However. there is suf?cient uncertainty about the true variance of the adjusted ?gures that even numeric accuracy has not been de?nitiyely P. 05/05 000615 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 176 of 440 2020 Census Crosswalk from Life Cycle Cost Estimate to FY 2019 President's Budget Request (dollars in thousands) FY 2019 3,451,788 Life Cycle Cost Estimate (Executive Summary v. 1.0 December 2017) $ Reduction for Secretarial Contingency Reduction for Wage Rate Variability Contingency Reduction for OIG Transfer Pricing Differences between the Life Cycle Cost Estimate and FY 19 Budget Request $ $ $ $ (314,000) (22,000) (3,556) (2,976) CEDCaP Transfer to EDCaDS 1 $ (59,512) $ (34,600) CEDSCI Transfer to EDCaDS 1 FY 2019 President's Budget Request $ 3,015,144 1 The Life Cycle Cost Estimate assumes CEDCaP and CEDSCI are funded withing the 2020 Census PPA. The FY 2019 Budget Request proposes to transfer the programs to EDCaDS PPA. 000616 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 177 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... 1 Cases that cite this headnote KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Extend by Semple v. Williams, D.Colo., February 14, 2018  136 S.Ct. 1120 Supreme Court of the United States [2] Constitutional Law Power and duty to redistrict and reapportion Sue EVENWEL et al., Appellants v. Greg ABBOTT, Governor of Texas, et al. Under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, states must design both congressional and state legislative districts with equal populations, and must regularly reapportion districts to prevent malapportionment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. No. 14–940. Argued Dec. 8, 2015. Decided April 4, 2016. Synopsis Background: Voters brought action against Texas Governor and Secretary of State, seeking permanent injunction barring use of existing state Senate map in favor of map equalizing voter population in each district. A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 2014 WL 5780507, granted state's motion to dismiss. Probable jurisdiction was noted. [Holding:] The Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg, held that state and local jurisdictions plainly could measure equalization by total population of state and local legislative districts. Constitutional Law Electoral Districts 6 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Constitutional Law Population deviation Under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, states must draw congressional districts with populations as close to perfect equality as possible. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 5 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Constitutional Law Population deviation Under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, when drawing state and local legislative districts, states may deviate somewhat from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives, such as preserving the integrity of political subdivisions, maintaining communities of interest, and creating geographic compactness. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Affirmed. Justice Thomas concurred in judgment and filed opinion. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joined in part, concurred in judgment and filed opinion. West Headnotes (8) 5 Cases that cite this headnote [1] Constitutional Law Electoral Districts Malapportionment claims are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. [5] Constitutional Law Population deviation “Maximum population deviation,” i.e., the sum of the percentage deviations from © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000617 1 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 178 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... perfect population equality of the mostand least-populated districts, of more than 10% represents presumptively impermissible apportionment under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Constitutional Law Equality of representation; discrimination Election Law Population as basis and deviation therefrom Under one person, one vote principle of Equal Protection Clause, state and local jurisdictions plainly could measure equalization by total population of state and local legislative districts; at founding, basis of representation in House of Representatives was to include all inhabitants, to make equal representation for equal numbers of people, and this idea was reinforced during debates over what became Fourteenth Amendment and in Supreme Court cases holding that districting based on total population serves both states' interests in preventing vote dilution and states' interests in ensuring equality of representation, and adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset wellfunctioning approach utilized by all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions for decades, even centuries. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 2, cl. 3; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 6 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Constitutional Law Equality of Voting Power (One Person, One Vote) By ensuring that each representative is subject to the requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation, consistent with the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 3 Cases that cite this headnote [8] Constitutional Law Equality of representation; discrimination Under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, states have an interest in taking reasonable, nondiscriminatory steps to facilitate access for all its residents to their elected representatives. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Cases that cite this headnote *1121 Syllabus * Under the one-person, one-vote principle, jurisdictions must design legislative districts with equal populations. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7–8, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506. In the context of state and local legislative districting, States may deviate somewhat from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives. Where the maximum population deviation between the largest and smallest district is less than 10%, a state or local legislative map presumptively complies with the one-person, one-vote rule. Texas, like all other States, uses total-population numbers from the decennial census when drawing legislative districts. After the 2010 census, Texas adopted a State Senate map that has a maximum total-population deviation of 8.04%, safely within the presumptively permissible 10% range. However, measured by a voterpopulation baseline—eligible voters or registered voters —the map's maximum population deviation exceeds 40%. Appellants, who live in Texas Senate districts with particularly large eligible- and registered-voter populations, filed suit against the Texas Governor and Secretary of State. Basing apportionment on total population, appellants contended, dilutes their votes in relation to voters in other Senate districts, in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal Protection © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000618 2 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 179 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Clause. Appellants sought an injunction barring use of the existing Senate map in favor of a map that would equalize the voter population in each district. A threejudge District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Held: As constitutional history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, a State or locality may draw its legislative districts based on total population. Pp. 1126 – 1133. (a) Constitutional history shows that, at the time of the founding, the Framers endorsed allocating House seats to States based on total population. Debating what would become the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress reconsidered the proper basis for apportioning House seats. Retaining the total-population rule, Congress rejected proposals to allocate House seats to States on the basis of voter population. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 2. The Framers *1122 recognized that use of a total-population baseline served the principle of representational equality. Appellants' voter-population rule is inconsistent with the “theory of the Constitution,” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766 – 2767, this Court recognized in Wesberry as underlying not just the method of allocating House seats to States but also the method of apportioning legislative seats within States. Pp. 1126 – 1131. (b) This Court's past decisions reinforce the conclusion that States and localities may comply with the one-person, one-vote principle by designing districts with equal total populations. Appellants assert that language in this Court's precedent supports their view that States should equalize the voter-eligible population of districts. But for every sentence appellants quote, one could respond with a line casting the one-person, one-vote guarantee in terms of equality of representation. See, e.g., Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 560–561, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Moreover, from Reynolds on, the Court has consistently looked to total-population figures when evaluating whether districting maps violate the Equal Protection Clause by deviating impermissibly from perfect population equality. Pp. 1130 – 1132. (c) Settled practice confirms what constitutional history and prior decisions strongly suggest. Adopting votereligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have long followed. As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates and in receiving constituent services. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation. Pp. 1132 – 1133. (d) Because constitutional history, precedent, and practice reveal the infirmity of appellants' claim, this Court need not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population. Pp. 1132 – 1133. Affirmed. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and KENNEDY, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined except as to Part III–B. Attorneys and Law Firms William S. Consovoy, Arlingotn, VA, for Appellants. Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, for Appellees. Ian H. Gershengorn for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Appellees. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Charles E. Roy, First Assistant, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, P.O., Austin, TX, Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, Matthew H. Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General, Lisa Bennett, Assistant Solicitor General, for Appellees. Meredith B. Parenti, Parenti Law PLLC, Houston, TX, William S. Consovoy, Thomas R. McCarthy, J. Michael Connolly, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, Arlington, VA, for Appellants. Opinion *1123 Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000619 3 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 180 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Texas, like all other States, draws its legislative districts on the basis of total population. Plaintiffs-appellants are Texas voters; they challenge this uniform method of districting on the ground that it produces unequal districts when measured by voter-eligible population. Voter-eligible population, not total population, they urge, must be used to ensure that their votes will not be devalued in relation to citizens' votes in other districts. We hold, based on constitutional history, this Court's decisions, and longstanding practice, that a State may draw its legislative districts based on total population. I A This Court long resisted any role in overseeing the process by which States draw legislative districts. “The remedy for unfairness in districting,” the Court once held, “is to secure State legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress.” Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 556, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946). “Courts ought not to enter this political thicket,” as Justice Frankfurter put it. Ibid. Judicial abstention left pervasive malapportionment unchecked. In the opening half of the 20th century, there was a massive population shift away from rural areas and toward suburban and urban communities. Nevertheless, many States ran elections into the early 1960's based on maps drawn to equalize each district's population as it was composed around 1900. Other States used maps allocating a certain number of legislators to each county regardless of its population. These schemes left many rural districts significantly underpopulated in comparison with urban and suburban districts. But rural legislators who benefited from malapportionment had scant incentive to adopt new maps that might put them out of office. [1] The Court confronted this ingrained structural inequality in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 191–192, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). That case presented an equal protection challenge to a Tennessee state-legislative map that had not been redrawn since 1901. See also id., at 192, 82 S.Ct. 691 (observing that, in the meantime, there had been “substantial growth and redistribution” of the State's population). Rather than steering clear of the political thicket yet again, the Court held for the first time that malapportionment claims are justiciable. Id., at 237, 82 S.Ct. 691 (“We conclude that the complaint's allegations of a denial of equal protection present a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and a decision.”). [2] Although the Court in Baker did not reach the merits of the equal protection claim, Baker 's justiciability ruling set the stage for what came to be known as the oneperson, one-vote principle. Just two years after Baker, in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7–8, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964), the Court invalidated Georgia's malapportioned congressional map, under which the population of one congressional district was “two to three times” larger than the population of the others. Relying on Article I, § 2, of the Constitution, the Court required that congressional districts be drawn with equal populations. Id., at 7, 18, 84 S.Ct. 526. Later that same Term, in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the Court upheld an equal protection challenge to Alabama's malapportioned state-legislative maps. “[T]he Equal Protection Clause,” the Court concluded, “requires that the seats *1124 in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis.” Ibid. Wesberry and Reynolds together instructed that jurisdictions must design both congressional and state-legislative districts with equal populations, and must regularly reapportion districts to prevent malapportionment. 1 [3] [4] [5] Over the ensuing decades, the Court has several times elaborated on the scope of the one-person, one-vote rule. States must draw congressional districts with populations as close to perfect equality as possible. See Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 530–531, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 L.Ed.2d 519 (1969). But, when drawing state and local legislative districts, jurisdictions are permitted to deviate somewhat from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives, among them, preserving the integrity of political subdivisions, maintaining communities of interest, and creating geographic compactness. See Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842–843, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983). Where the maximum population deviation between the largest and smallest district is less than 10%, the Court has held, a state or local legislative map presumptively complies with the one-person, onevote rule. Ibid. 2 Maximum deviations above 10% are presumptively impermissible. Ibid. See also Mahan v. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000620 4 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 181 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 329, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973) (approving a state-legislative map with maximum population deviation of 16% to accommodate the State's interest in “maintaining the integrity of political subdivision lines,” but cautioning that this deviation “may well approach tolerable limits”). In contrast to repeated disputes over the permissibility of deviating from perfect population equality, little controversy has centered on the population base jurisdictions must equalize. On rare occasions, jurisdictions have relied on the registered-voter or votereligible populations of districts. See Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 93–94, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966) (holding Hawaii could use a registered-voter population base because of “Hawaii's special population problems”—in particular, its substantial temporary military population). But, in the overwhelming majority of cases, jurisdictions have equalized total population, as measured by the decennial census. Today, all States use total-population numbers from the census when designing congressional and state-legislative districts, and only seven States adjust those census numbers in any meaningful way. 3 *1125 B Appellants challenge that consensus. After the 2010 census, Texas redrew its State Senate districts using a total-population baseline. At the time, Texas was subject to the preclearance requirements of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring jurisdictions to receive approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing certain voting changes). Once it became clear that the new Senate map, S148, would not receive preclearance in advance of the 2012 elections, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas drew an interim Senate map, S164, which also equalized the total population of each district. See Davis v. Perry, No. SA–11–CV–788, 2011 WL 6207134 (Nov. 23, 2011). 4 On direct appeal, this Court observed that the District Court had failed to “take guidance from the State's recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan,” and therefore vacated the District Court's map. Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. ––––, ––––, –––– – ––––, 132 S.Ct. 934, 940–942, 943–944, 181 L.Ed.2d 900 (2012) (per curiam ). The District Court, on remand, again used census data to draw districts so that each included roughly the same size total population. Texas used this new interim map, S172, in the 2012 elections, and, in 2013, the Texas Legislature adopted S172 as the permanent Senate map. See App. to Brief for Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus et al. as Amici Curiae 5 (reproducing the current Senate map). The permanent map's maximum total-population deviation is 8.04%, safely within the presumptively permissible 10% range. But measured by a voter-population baseline— eligible voters or registered voters—the map's maximum population deviation exceeds 40%. Appellants Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger live in Texas Senate districts (one and four, respectively) with particularly large eligible- and registered-voter populations. Contending that basing apportionment on total population dilutes their votes in relation to voters in other Senate districts, in violation of the one-person, onevote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, 5 appellants filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. They named as defendants the Governor and Secretary of State of Texas, and sought a permanent injunction barring use of the existing Senate map in favor of a map that would equalize the voter population in each district. The case was referred to a three-judge District Court for hearing and decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a); Shapiro v. McManus, *1126 577 U.S. ––––, –––– – ––––, 136 S.Ct. 450, 454–456, 193 L.Ed.2d 279 (2015). That court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Appellants, the District Court explained, “rel[y] upon a theory never before accepted by the Supreme Court or any circuit court: that the metric of apportionment employed by Texas (total population) results in an unconstitutional apportionment because it does not achieve equality as measured by Plaintiffs' chosen metric—voter population.” App. to Juris. Statement 9a. Decisions of this Court, the District Court concluded, permit jurisdictions to use any neutral, nondiscriminatory population baseline, including total population, when drawing state and local legislative districts. Id., at 13a–14a. 6 We noted probable jurisdiction, 575 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 381, 193 L.Ed.2d 288 (2015), and now affirm. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000621 5 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 182 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... II [6] The parties and the United States advance different positions in this case. As they did before the District Court, appellants insist that the Equal Protection Clause requires jurisdictions to draw state and local legislative districts with equal voter-eligible populations, thus protecting “voter equality,” i.e., “the right of eligible voters to an equal vote.” Brief for Appellants 14. 7 To comply with their proposed rule, appellants suggest, jurisdictions should design districts based on citizen-voting-age-population (CVAP) data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS), an annual statistical sample of the U.S. population. Texas responds that jurisdictions may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, design districts using any population baseline—including total population and voter-eligible population—so long as the choice is rational and not invidiously discriminatory. Although its use of total-population data from the census was permissible, Texas therefore argues, it could have used ACS CVAP data instead. Sharing Texas' position that the Equal Protection Clause does not mandate use of voter-eligible population, the United States urges us not to address Texas' separate assertion that the Constitution allows States to use alternative population baselines, including voter-eligible population. Equalizing total population, the United States maintains, vindicates the principle of representational equality by “ensur[ing] that the voters in each district have the power to elect a representative who represents the same number of constituents as all other representatives.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 5. In agreement with Texas and the United States, we reject appellants' attempt to locate a voter-equality mandate in the Equal Protection Clause. As history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, it is plainly permissible for jurisdictions to *1127 measure equalization by the total population of state and local legislative districts. A We begin with constitutional history. At the time of the founding, the Framers confronted a question analogous to the one at issue here: On what basis should congressional districts be allocated to States? The Framers' solution, now known as the Great Compromise, was to provide each State the same number of seats in the Senate, and to allocate House seats based on States' total populations. “Representatives and direct Taxes,” they wrote, “shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 3 (emphasis added). “It is a fundamental principle of the proposed constitution,” James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers, “that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several states, is to be ... founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants; so, the right of choosing this allotted number in each state, is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants, as the state itself may designate.” The Federalist No. 54, p. 284 (G. Carey & J. McClellan eds. 2001). In other words, the basis of representation in the House was to include all inhabitants—although slaves were counted as only three-fifths of a person— even though States remained free to deny many of those inhabitants the right to participate in the selection of their representatives. 8 Endorsing apportionment based on total population, Alexander Hamilton declared: “There can be no truer principle than this—that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government.” 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 473 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). 9 When debating what is now the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress reconsidered the proper basis for apportioning House seats. Concerned that Southern States would not willingly enfranchise freed slaves, and aware that “a slave's freedom could swell his state's population for purposes of representation in the House by one person, rather than only three-fifths,” the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment considered at length the possibility of allocating House seats to States on the basis of voter population. J. *1128 Sneed, Footprints on the Rocks of the Mountain: An Account of the Enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment 28 (1997). See also id., at 35 (“[T]he apportionment issue consumed more time in the Fourteenth Amendment debates than did any other topic.”). In December 1865, Thaddeus Stevens, a leader of the Radical Republicans, introduced a constitutional amendment that would have allocated House seats to States “according to their respective legal voters”; in addition, the proposed amendment mandated that “[a] true census of the legal voters shall be taken at the © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000622 6 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 183 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... same time with the regular census.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1866). Supporters of apportionment based on voter population employed the same voterequality reasoning that appellants now echo. See, e.g., id., at 380 (remarks of Rep. Orth) (“[T]he true principle of representation in Congress is that voters alone should form the basis, and that each voter should have equal political weight in our Government....”); id., at 404 (remarks of Rep. Lawrence) (use of total population “disregards the fundamental idea of all just representation, that every voter should be equal in political power all over the Union”). Voter-based apportionment proponents encountered fierce resistance from proponents of total-population apportionment. Much of the opposition was grounded in the principle of representational equality. “As an abstract proposition,” argued Representative James G. Blaine, a leading critic of allocating House seats based on voter population, “no one will deny that population is the true basis of representation; for women, children, and other non-voting classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation of the country as those who actually deposit the ballot.” Id., at 141. See also id., at 358 (remarks of Rep. Conkling) (arguing that use of a voter-population basis “would shut out four fifths of the citizens of the country —women and children, who are citizens, who are taxed, and who are, and always have been, represented”); id., at 434 (remarks of Rep. Ward) (“[W]hat becomes of that large class of non-voting tax-payers that are found in every section? Are they in no matter to be represented? They certainly should be enumerated in making up the whole number of those entitled to a representative.”). The product of these debates was § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which retained total population as the congressional apportionment base. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 2 (“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”). Introducing the final version of the Amendment on the Senate floor, Senator Jacob Howard explained: “[The] basis of representation is numbers ...; that is, the whole population except untaxed Indians and persons excluded by the State laws for rebellion or other crime.... The committee adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis, and this is the principle upon which the Constitution itself was originally framed, that the basis of representation should depend upon numbers; and such, I think, after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which the Government can rest. Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property; this is the theory of the Constitution.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766–2767 (1866). Appellants ask us to find in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause a rule inconsistent with this “theory of the Constitution.” But, as the Court recognized in Wesberry, this theory underlies *1129 not just the method of allocating House seats to States; it applies as well to the method of apportioning legislative seats within States. “The debates at the [Constitutional] Convention,” the Court explained, “make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent ‘people,’ they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each state should be determined solely by the number of inhabitants.” 376 U.S., at 13, 84 S.Ct. 526. “While it may not be possible to draw congressional districts with mathematical precision,” the Court acknowledged, “that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitution's plain objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives.” Id., at 18, 84 S.Ct. 526 (emphasis added). It cannot be that the Fourteenth Amendment calls for the apportionment of congressional districts based on total population, but simultaneously prohibits States from apportioning their own legislative districts on the same basis. Cordoning off the constitutional history of congressional districting, appellants stress two points. 10 First, they draw a distinction between allocating seats to States, and apportioning seats within States. The Framers selected total population for the former, appellants and their amici argue, because of federalism concerns inapposite to intrastate districting. These concerns included the perceived risk that a voter-population base might encourage States to expand the franchise unwisely, and the hope that a total-population base might counter States' incentive to undercount their populations, thereby reducing their share of direct taxes. Wesberry, however, rejected the distinction appellants now press. See supra, at 1128 – 1129. Even without the weight of Wesberry, we would find appellants' distinction unconvincing. One can accept that federalism—or, as Justice ALITO emphasizes, partisan and regional political advantage, see post, at 1145 – 1149—figured in the Framers' selection of total © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000623 7 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 184 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... population as the basis for allocating congressional seats. Even so, it remains beyond doubt that the principle of representational equality figured prominently in the decision to count people, whether or not they qualify as voters. 11 Second, appellants and Justice ALITO urge, see post, at 1144 – 1145, the Court has typically refused to analogize to features of the federal electoral system— *1130 here, the constitutional scheme governing congressional apportionment—when considering challenges to state and local election laws. True, in Reynolds, the Court rejected Alabama's argument that it had permissibly modeled its State Senate apportionment scheme—one Senator for each county—on the United States Senate. “[T]he federal analogy,” the Court explained, “[is] inapposite and irrelevant to state legislative districting schemes” because “[t]he system of representation in the two Houses of the Federal Congress” arose “from unique historical circumstances.” 377 U.S., at 573–574, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Likewise, in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 371–372, 378, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963), Georgia unsuccessfully attempted to defend, by analogy to the electoral college, its scheme of assigning a certain number of “units” to the winner of each county in statewide elections. Reynolds and Gray, however, involved features of the federal electoral system that contravene the principles of both voter and representational equality to favor interests that have no relevance outside the federal context. Senate seats were allocated to States on an equal basis to respect state sovereignty and increase the odds that the smaller States would ratify the Constitution. See Wesberry, 376 U.S., at 9–13, 84 S.Ct. 526 (describing the history of the Great Compromise). See also Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 575, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (“Political subdivisions of States—counties, cities, or whatever—never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities.... The relationship of the States to the Federal Government could hardly be less analogous.”). “The [Electoral] College was created to permit the most knowledgeable members of the community to choose the executive of a nation whose continental dimensions were thought to preclude an informed choice by the citizenry at large.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 43–44, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968) (Harlan, J., concurring in result). See also Gray, 372 U.S., at 378, 83 S.Ct. 801 (“The inclusion of the electoral college in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns, validated the collegiate principle despite its inherent numerical inequality.” (footnote omitted)). By contrast, as earlier developed, the constitutional scheme for congressional apportionment rests in part on the same representational concerns that exist regarding state and local legislative districting. The Framers' answer to the apportionment question in the congressional context therefore undermines appellants' contention that districts must be based on voter population. B Consistent with constitutional history, this Court's past decisions reinforce the conclusion that States and localities may comply with the one-person, one-vote principle by designing districts with equal total populations. Quoting language from those decisions that, in appellants' view, supports the principle of equal voting power— and emphasizing the phrase “one-person, one-vote”— appellants contend that the Court had in mind, and constantly meant, that States should equalize the votereligible population of districts. See Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (“[A]n individual's right to vote for State legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living on other parts of the State.”); Gray, 372 U.S., at 379–380, 83 S.Ct. 801 (“The concept of ‘we the people’ under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.”). See also *1131 Hadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50, 56, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) ( “[W]hen members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”). Appellants, however, extract far too much from selectively chosen language and the “one-person, one-vote” slogan. For every sentence appellants quote from the Court's opinions, one could respond with a line casting the one-person, one-vote guarantee in terms of equality of representation, not voter equality. In Reynolds, for instance, the Court described “the fundamental principle of representative government in this country” as “one of equal representation for equal numbers of people.” 377 U.S., at 560–561, 84 S.Ct. 1362. See also Davis v. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000624 8 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 185 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 123, 106 S.Ct. 2797, 92 L.Ed.2d 85 (1986) (“[I]n formulating the one person, one vote formula, the Court characterized the question posed by election districts of disparate size as an issue of fair representation.”); Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 563, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (rejecting state districting schemes that “give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents”). And the Court has suggested, repeatedly, that districting based on total population serves both the State's interest in preventing vote dilution and its interest in ensuring equality of representation. See Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 693– 694, 109 S.Ct. 1433, 103 L.Ed.2d 717 (1989) (“If districts of widely unequal population elect an equal number of representatives, the voting power of each citizen in the larger constituencies is debased and the citizens in those districts have a smaller share of representation than do those in the smaller districts.”). See also Kirkpatrick, 394 U.S., at 531, 89 S.Ct. 1225 (recognizing in a congressionaldistricting case that “[e]qual representation for equal numbers of people is a principle designed to prevent debasement of voting power and diminution of access to elected representatives”). 12 Moreover, from Reynolds on, the Court has consistently looked to total-population figures when evaluating whether districting maps violate the Equal Protection Clause by deviating impermissibly from perfect population equality. See Brief for Appellees 29–31 (collecting cases brought under the Equal Protection Clause). See also id., at 31, n. 9 (collecting congressionaldistricting cases). Appellants point to no instance in which the Court has determined the permissibility of deviation based on eligible- or registered-voter data. It would hardly make sense for the Court to have mandated voter equality sub silentio and then used a total-population baseline to evaluate compliance with that rule. More likely, we think, the Court has always assumed the permissibility of drawing districts to equalize total population. “In the 1960s,” appellants counter, “the distribution of the voting population generally did not deviate from the distribution of total population to the degree necessary to raise this issue.” Brief for Appellants 27. To support this assertion, appellants cite only a District Court decision, which found no significant deviation in the distribution of voter and total population in “densely populated areas of New York State.” *1132 WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 238 F.Supp. 916, 925 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 382 U.S. 4, 86 S.Ct. 24, 15 L.Ed.2d 2 (1965) (per curiam ). Had this Court assumed such equivalence on a national scale, it likely would have said as much. 13 Instead, in Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 746–747, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973), the Court acknowledged that voters may be distributed unevenly within jurisdictions. “[I]f it is the weight of a person's vote that matters,” the Court observed, then “total population—even if stable and accurately taken—may not actually reflect that body of voters whose votes must be counted and weighed for the purposes of reapportionment, because ‘census persons' are not voters.” Id., at 746, 93 S.Ct. 2321. Nonetheless, the Court in Gaffney recognized that the one-person, one-vote rule is designed to facilitate “[f]air and effective representation,” id., at 748, 93 S.Ct. 2321, and evaluated compliance with the rule based on total population alone, id., at 750, 93 S.Ct. 2321. C [7] [8] What constitutional history and our prior decisions strongly suggest, settled practice confirms. Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries. Appellants have shown no reason for the Court to disturb this longstanding use of total population. See Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 678, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970) (“unbroken practice” followed “openly and by affirmative state action, not covertly or by state inaction, is not something to be lightly cast aside”). See also Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 203–206, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992) (plurality opinion) (upholding a law limiting campaigning in areas around polling places in part because all 50 States maintain such laws, so there is a “widespread and time-tested consensus” that legislation of this order serves important state interests). As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote. See supra, at 1126 – 1129. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates—children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong publiceducation system—and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000625 9 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 186 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 272, 111 S.Ct. 1807, 114 L.Ed.2d 307 (1991) (“Serving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individuals and groups therein is the everyday business of a legislator.”). 14 In sum, the rule appellants urge has no mooring in the Equal Protection Clause. The Texas Senate map, we therefore conclude, complies with the requirements of the one-person, one-vote principle. 15 Because *1133 history, precedent, and practice suffice to reveal the infirmity of appellants' claims, we need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas is Affirmed. Justice THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. This case concerns whether Texas violated the Equal Protection Clause—as interpreted by the Court's oneperson, one-vote cases—by creating legislative districts that contain approximately equal total population but vary widely in the number of eligible voters in each district. I agree with the majority that our precedents do not require a State to equalize the total number of voters in each district. States may opt to equalize total population. I therefore concur in the majority's judgment that appellants' challenge fails. I write separately because this Court has never provided a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle. For 50 years, the Court has struggled to define what right that principle protects. Many of our precedents suggest that it protects the right of eligible voters to cast votes that receive equal weight. Despite that frequent explanation, our precedents often conclude that the Equal Protection Clause is satisfied when all individuals within a district— voters or not—have an equal share of representation. The majority today concedes that our cases have not produced a clear answer on this point. See ante, at 1131. In my view, the majority has failed to provide a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle because no such basis exists. The Constitution does not prescribe any one basis for apportionment within States. It instead leaves States significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize total population, to equalize eligible voters, or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government. The majority should recognize the futility of choosing only one of these options. The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone—not to this Court. I In the 1960's, this Court decided that the Equal Protection Clause requires States to draw legislative districts based on a “one-person, one-vote” rule. * But this Court's decisions have never coalesced around a single theory about what States must equalize. *1134 The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Amdt. 14, § 1. For nearly a century after its ratification, this Court interpreted the Clause as having no application to the politically charged issue of how States should apportion their populations in political districts. See, e.g., Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 556, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946) (plurality opinion). Instead, the Court left the drawing of States' political boundaries to the States, so long as a State did not deprive people of the right to vote for reasons prohibited by the Constitution. See id., at 552, 556, 66 S.Ct. 1198; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 341, 347–348, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960) (finding justiciable a claim that a city boundary was redrawn from a square shape to “a strangely irregular twenty-eight-sided figure” to remove nearly all black voters from the city). This meant that a State's refusal to allocate voters within districts based on population changes was a matter for States—not federal courts—to decide. And these cases were part of a larger jurisprudence holding that the question whether a state government had a “proper” republican form rested with Congress. Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149–150, 32 S.Ct. 224, 56 L.Ed. 377 (1912). This Court changed course in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), by locating in © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000626 10 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 187 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... the Equal Protection Clause a right of citizens not to have a “ ‘debasement of their votes.’ ” Id., at 194, and n. 15, 200, 82 S.Ct. 691. Expanding on that decision, this Court later held that “the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). The Court created an analogous requirement for congressional redistricting rooted in Article I, § 2's requirement that “Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States.’ ” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7–9, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). The rules established by these cases have come to be known as “one person, one vote.” Since Baker empowered the federal courts to resolve redistricting disputes, this Court has struggled to explain whether the one-person, one-vote principle ensures equality among eligible voters or instead protects some broader right of every citizen to equal representation. The Court's lack of clarity on this point, in turn, has left unclear whether States must equalize the number of eligible voters across districts or only total population. In a number of cases, this Court has said that States must protect the right of eligible voters to have their votes receive equal weight. On this view, there is only one way for States to comply with the one-person, onevote principle: they must draw districts that contain a substantially equal number of eligible voters per district. The Court's seminal decision in Baker exemplifies this view. Decided in 1962, Baker involved the failure of the Tennessee Legislature to reapportion its districts for 60 years. 369 U.S., at 191, 82 S.Ct. 691. Since Tennessee's last apportionment, the State's population had grown by about 1.5 million residents, from about 2 to more than 3.5 million. And the number of voters in each district had changed significantly over time, producing widely varying voting populations in each district. Id., at 192, 82 S.Ct. 691. Under these facts, the Court held that reapportionment claims were justiciable because the plaintiffs—who all claimed to be eligible voters—had alleged a “debasement of their votes.” *1135 Id., at 194, and n. 15, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court similarly emphasized equal treatment of eligible voters in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963). That case involved a challenge to Georgia's “county unit” system of voting. Id., at 370, 83 S.Ct. 801. This system, used by the State's Democratic Party to nominate candidates in its primary, gave each county two votes for every representative that the county had in the lower House of its General Assembly. Voting was then done by county, with the winner in each county taking all of that county's votes. The Democratic Party nominee was the candidate who had won the most county-unit votes, not the person who had won the most individual votes. Id., at 370–371, 83 S.Ct. 801. The effect of this system was to give heavier weight to rural ballots than to urban ones. The Court held that the system violated the one-person, one-vote principle. Id., at 379–381, and n. 12, 83 S.Ct. 801. In so holding, the Court emphasized that the right at issue belongs to “all qualified voters” and is the right to have one's vote “counted once” and protected against dilution. Id., at 380, 83 S.Ct. 801. In applying the one-person, one-vote principle to state legislative districts, the Court has also emphasized vote dilution, which also supports the notion that the oneperson, one-vote principle ensures equality among eligible voters. It did so most notably in Reynolds. In that case, Alabama had failed to reapportion its state legislature for decades, resulting in population-variance ratios of up to about 41 to 1 in the State Senate and up to about 16 to 1 in the House. 377 U.S., at 545, 84 S.Ct. 1362. In explaining why Alabama's failure to reapportion violated the Equal Protection Clause, this Court stated that “an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State.” Id., at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362. This Court's post-Reynolds decisions likewise define the one-person, one-vote principle in terms of eligible voters, and thus imply that States should be allocating districts with eligible voters in mind. The Court suggested as much in Hadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970). That case involved Missouri's system permitting separate school districts to establish a joint junior college district. Six trustees were to oversee the joint district, and they were apportioned on the basis of the relative numbers of school-aged children in each subsidiary district. Id., at 51, 90 S.Ct. 791. The Court held that this plan violated the Equal Protection Clause because “the trustees of this junior college district [must] be apportioned in a manner © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000627 11 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 188 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... that does not deprive any voter of his right to have his own vote given as much weight, as far as is practicable, as that of any other voter in the junior college district.” Id., at 52, 90 S.Ct. 791. In so holding, the Court emphasized that Reynolds had “called attention to prior cases indicating that a qualified voter has a constitutional right to vote in elections without having his vote wrongfully denied, debased, or diluted.” Hadley, 397 U.S., at 52, 90 S.Ct. 791; see id., at 52–53, 90 S.Ct. 791. In contrast to this oft-stated aspiration of giving equal treatment to eligible voters, the Court has also expressed a different understanding of the one-person, one-vote principle. In several cases, the Court has suggested that one-person, one-vote protects the interests of all individuals in a district, whether they are eligible voters or not. In Reynolds, for example, the Court *1136 said that “the fundamental principle of representative government in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people.” 377 U.S., at 560–561, 84 S.Ct. 1362; see also ante, at 1131 (collecting cases). Under this view, States cannot comply with the Equal Protection Clause by equalizing the number of eligible voters in each district. They must instead equalize the total population per district. In line with this view, the Court has generally focused on total population, not the total number of voters, when determining a State's compliance with the oneperson, one-vote requirement. In Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 750–751, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973), for example, the Court upheld state legislative districts that had a maximum deviation of 7.83% when measured on a total-population basis. In contrast, in Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 21–22, 26–27, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975), the Court struck down a court-ordered reapportionment that had a total deviation of 20.14% based on total population. This plan, in the Court's view, failed to “achieve the goal of population equality with little more than de minimis variation.” Id., at 27, 95 S.Ct. 751. This lack of clarity in our redistricting cases has left States with little guidance about how their political institutions must be structured. Although this Court has required that state legislative districts “be apportioned on a population basis,” Reynolds, supra, at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, it has yet to tell the States whether they are limited in choosing “the relevant population that [they] must equally distribute.” Chen v. Houston, 532 U.S. 1046, 1047, 121 S.Ct. 2020, 149 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2001) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Court has not provided a firm account of what States must do when districting, States are left to guess how much flexibility (if any) they have to use different methods of apportionment. II This inconsistency (if not opacity) is not merely a consequence of the Court's equivocal statements on one person, one vote. The problem is more fundamental. There is simply no way to make a principled choice between interpreting one person, one vote as protecting eligible voters or as protecting total inhabitants within a State. That is because, though those theories are noble, the Constitution does not make either of them the exclusive means of apportionment for state and local representatives. In guaranteeing to the States a “Republican Form of Government,” Art. IV, § 4, the Constitution did not resolve whether the ultimate basis of representation is the right of citizens to cast an equal ballot or the right of all inhabitants to have equal representation. The Constitution instead reserves these matters to the people. The majority's attempt today to divine a single “ ‘theory of the Constitution’ ”—apportionment based on representation, ante, at 1128 – 1129 (quoting Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766–2767 (1866))—rests on a flawed reading of history and wrongly picks one side of a debate that the Framers did not resolve in the Constitution. A The Constitution lacks a single, comprehensive theory of representation. The Framers understood the tension between majority rule and protecting fundamental rights from majorities. This understanding led to a “mixed” constitutional structure that did not embrace any single theory of representation but instead struck a compromise between those who sought an equitable system of representation and *1137 those who were concerned that the majority would abuse plenary control over public policy. As Madison wrote, “A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000628 12 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 189 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... precautions.” The Federalist No. 51, p. 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). This was the theory of the Constitution. The Framers therefore made difficult compromises on the apportionment of federal representation, and they did not prescribe any one theory of how States had to divide their legislatures. 1 Because, in the view of the Framers, ultimate political power derives from citizens who were “created equal,” The Declaration of Independence ¶ 2, beliefs in equality of representation—and by extension, majority rule— influenced the constitutional structure. In the years between the Revolution and the framing, the Framers experimented with different ways of securing the political system against improper influence. Of all the “electoral safeguards for the representational system,” the most critical was “equality of representation.” G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787, p. 170 (1998) (Wood). The Framers' preference for apportionment by representation (and majority rule) was driven partially by the belief that all citizens were inherently equal. In a system where citizens were equal, a legislature should have “equal representation” so that “equal interests among the people should have equal interests in [the assembly].” Thoughts on Government, in 4 Works of John Adams 195 (C. Adams ed. 1851). The British Parliament fell short of this goal. In addition to having hereditary nobility, more than half of the members of the democratic House of Commons were elected from sparsely populated districts —so-called “rotten boroughs.” Wood 171; Baker, 369 U.S., at 302–303, 82 S.Ct. 691 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). The Framers' preference for majority rule also was a reaction to the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, each State could cast one vote regardless of population and Congress could act only with the assent of nine States. Articles of Confederation, Art. IX, cl. 6; id., Art. X; id., Art. XI. This system proved undesirable because a few small States had the ability to paralyze the National Legislature. See The Federalist No. 22, at 140–141 (Hamilton). advocated proportional representation throughout the National Legislature. 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 471–473 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Alexander Hamilton voiced concerns about the unfairness of allowing a minority to rule over a majority. In explaining at the Convention why he opposed giving States an equal vote in the National Legislature, Hamilton asked rhetorically, “If ... three states contain a majority of the inhabitants of America, ought they to be governed by a minority?” Id., at 473; see also The Federalist No. 22, at 141 (Hamilton) (objecting to supermajoritarian voting requirements because they allow an entrenched minority to “controul the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting [the public business]”). James Madison, too, opined that the general Government needed a direct mandate from the people. If federal “power [were] not immediately derived from the people, in proportion to their numbers,” according to Madison, the Federal Government would be as weak as Congress under the Articles of Confederation. 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 472. *1138 In many ways, the Constitution reflects this preference for majority rule. To pass Congress, ordinary legislation requires a simple majority of present members to vote in favor. And some features of the apportionment for the House of Representatives reflected the idea that States should wield political power in approximate proportion to their number of inhabitants. Ante, at 1126 – 1129. Thus, “equal representation for equal numbers of people,” ante, at 1129 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted), features prominently in how representatives are apportioned among the States. These features of the Constitution reflect the preference of some members of the founding generation for equality of representation. But, as explained below, this is not the single “theory of the Constitution.” 2 The Framers also understood that unchecked majorities could lead to tyranny of the majority. As a result, many viewed antidemocratic checks as indispensable to republican government. And included among the antidemocratic checks were legislatures that deviated from perfect equality of representation. Consequently, when the topic of dividing representation came up at the Constitutional Convention, some Framers © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000629 13 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 190 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... The Framers believed that a proper government promoted the common good. They conceived this good as objective and not inherently coextensive with majoritarian preferences. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 1, at 4 (Hamilton) (defining the common good or “public good” as the “true interests” of the community); id., No. 10, at 57 (Madison) (“the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”). For government to promote the common good, it had to do more than simply obey the will of the majority. See, e.g., ibid. (discussing majoritarian factions). Government must also protect fundamental rights. See The Declaration of Independence ¶ 2; 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *124 (“[T]he principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which are vested in them by the immutable laws of nature”). Of particular concern for the Framers was the majority of people violating the property rights of the minority. Madison observed that “the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” The Federalist No. 10, at 59. A poignant example occurred in Massachusetts. In what became known as Shays' Rebellion, armed debtors attempted to block legal actions by creditors to recover debts. Although that rebellion was ultimately put down, debtors sought relief from state legislatures “under the auspices of Constitutional forms.” Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Apr. 23, 1787), in 11 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 307 (J. Boyd ed. 1955); see Wood 412–413. With no structural political checks on democratic lawmaking, creditors found their rights jeopardized by state laws relieving debtors of their obligation to pay and authorizing forms of payment that devalued the contracts. McConnell, Contract Rights and Property Rights: A Case Study in the Relationship Between Individual Liberties and Constitutional Structures, 76 Cal. L. Rev. 267, 280–281 (1988); see also Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137–138, 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810) (Marshall, C.J.) (explaining that the Contract Clause came from the Framers' desire to “shield themselves and their property from the effects of those sudden and strong passions to which men are exposed”). Because of the Framers' concerns about placing unchecked power in political majorities, the Constitution's majoritarian provisions were only part of a complex republican structure. The Framers also placed several antidemocratic provisions in the Constitution. The original Constitution *1139 permitted only the direct election of representatives. Art. I, § 2, cl. 1. Senators and the President were selected indirectly. See Art. I, § 3, cl. 1; Art. II, § 1, cls. 2–3. And the “Great Compromise” guaranteed large and small States voting equality in the Senate. By malapportioning the Senate, the Framers prevented large States from outvoting small States to adopt policies that would advance the large States' interests at the expense of the small States. See The Federalist No. 62, at 417 (Madison). These countermajoritarian measures reflect the Framers' aspirations of promoting competing goals. Rejecting a hereditary class system, they thought political power resided with the people. At the same time, they sought to check majority rule to promote the common good and mitigate threats to fundamental rights. B As the Framers understood, designing a government to fulfill the conflicting tasks of respecting the fundamental equality of persons while promoting the common good requires making incommensurable tradeoffs. For this reason, they did not attempt to restrict the States to one form of government. Instead, the Constitution broadly required that the States maintain a “Republican Form of Government.” Art. IV, § 4. But the Framers otherwise left it to States to make tradeoffs and reconcile the competing goals. Republican governments promote the common good by placing power in the hands of the people, while curtailing the majority's ability to invade the minority's fundamental rights. The Framers recognized that there is no universal formula for accomplishing these goals. At the framing, many state legislatures were bicameral, often reflecting multiple theories of representation. Only “[s]ix of the original thirteen states based representation in both houses of their state legislatures on population.” Hayden, The False Promise of One Person, One Vote, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 213, 218 (2003). In most States, it was common to base representation, at least in part, on the State's political subdivisions, even if those subdivisions varied heavily in their populations. Wood 171; Baker, 369 U.S., at 307–308, 82 S.Ct. 691 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000630 14 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 191 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Reflecting this history, the Constitution continued to afford States significant leeway in structuring their “Republican” governments. At the framing, “republican” referred to “[p]lacing the government in the people,” and a “republick” was a “state in which the power is lodged in more than one.” S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (7th ed. 1785); see also The Federalist No. 39, at 251 (Madison) (“[W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour”). By requiring the States to have republican governments, the Constitution prohibited them from having monarchies and aristocracies. See id., No. 43, at 291. Some would argue that the Constitution also prohibited States from adopting direct democracies. Compare Wood 222–226 (“For most constitution-makers in 1776, republicanism was not equated with democracy”) with A. Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography 276–281 (2005) (arguing that the provision prohibited monarchies and aristocracies but not direct democracy); see also The Federalist No. 10, at 62 (Madison) (distinguishing a “democracy” and a “republic”); id., No. 14, at 83–84 (same). *1140 Beyond that, however, the Constitution left matters open for the people of the States to decide. The Constitution says nothing about what type of republican government the States must follow. When the Framers wanted to deny powers to state governments, they did so explicitly. See, e.g., Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 (“No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”). None of the Reconstruction Amendments changed the original understanding of republican government. Those Amendments brought blacks within the existing American political community. The Fourteenth Amendment pressured States to adopt universal male suffrage by reducing a noncomplying State's representation in Congress. Amdt. 14, § 2. And the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited restricting the right of suffrage based on race. Amdt. 15, § 1. That is as far as those Amendments went. As Justice Harlan explained in Reynolds, neither Amendment provides a theory of how much “weight” a vote must receive, nor do they require a State to apportion both Houses of their legislature solely on a population basis. See 377 U.S., at 595–608, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (dissenting opinion). And Justice ALITO quite convincingly demonstrates why the majority errs by reading a theory of equal representation into the apportionment provision in § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See post, at 1146 – 1149 (opinion concurring in judgment). C The Court's attempt to impose its political theory upon the States has produced a morass of problems. These problems are antithetical to the values that the Framers embraced in the Constitution. These problems confirm that the Court has been wrong to entangle itself with the political process. First, in embracing one person, one vote, the Court has arrogated to the Judiciary important value judgments that the Constitution reserves to the people. In Reynolds, for example, the Court proclaimed that “[l]egislators represent people, not trees or acres”; that “[l]egislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests”; and that, accordingly, electoral districts must have roughly equal population. 377 U.S., at 562–563, 84 S.Ct. 1362. As I have explained, the Constitution permits, but does not impose, this view. Beyond that, Reynolds' assertions are driven by the belief that there is a single, correct answer to the question of how much voting strength an individual citizen should have. These assertions overlook that, to control factions that would legislate against the common good, individual voting strength must sometimes yield to countermajoritarian checks. And this principle has no less force within States than it has for the federal system. See The Federalist No. 10, at 63–65 (Madison) (recognizing that smaller republics, such as the individual States, are more prone to capture by special interests). Instead of large States versus small States, those interests may pit urban areas versus rural, manufacturing versus agriculture, or those with property versus those without. Cf. Reynolds, supra, at 622–623, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (Harlan, J., dissenting). There is no single method of reconciling these competing interests. And it is not the role of this Court to calibrate democracy in the vain search for an optimum solution. The Government argues that apportioning legislators by any metric other than total population “risks © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000631 15 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 192 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... rendering residents of this country who are ineligible, unwilling, or unable to vote as invisible or irrelevant to our system of representative democracy.” *1141 Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27. But that argument rests on the faulty premise that “our system of representative democracy” requires specific groups to have representation in a specific manner. As I have explained, the Constitution does not impose that requirement. See Parts II–A, II–B, supra. And as the Court recently reminded us, States are free to serve as “ ‘laboratories' ” of democracy. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. ––––, ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2673, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015). That “laboratory” extends to experimenting about the nature of democracy itself. Second, the Court's efforts to monitor the political process have failed to provide any consistent guidance for the States. Even if it were justifiable for this Court to enforce some principle of majority rule, it has been unable to do so in a principled manner. Our precedents do not address the myriad other ways that minorities (or fleeting majorities) entrench themselves in the political system. States can place policy choices in their constitutions or have supermajoritarian voting rules in a legislative assembly. See, e.g., N.Y. Const., Art. V, § 7 (constitutionalizing public employee pensions); Ill. Const., Art. VII, § 6(g) (requiring a three-fifths vote of the General Assembly to preempt certain local ordinances). In theory, of course, it does not seem to make a difference if a state legislature is unresponsive to the majority of residents because the state assembly requires a 60% vote to pass a bill or because 40% of the population elects 51% of the representatives. So far as the Constitution is concerned, there is no single “correct” way to design a republican government. Any republic will have to reconcile giving power to the people with diminishing the influence of special interests. The wisdom of the Framers was that they recognized this dilemma and left it to the people to resolve. In trying to impose its own theory of democracy, the Court is hopelessly adrift amid political theory and interest-group politics with no guiding legal principles. III This case illustrates the confusion that our cases have wrought. The parties and the Government offer three positions on what this Court's one-person, one-vote cases require States to equalize. Under appellants' view, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to an equal vote. Brief for Appellants 26. Appellees, in contrast, argue that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against invidious discrimination; in their view, no such discrimination occurs when States have a rational basis for the population base that they select, even if that base leaves eligible voters malapportioned. Brief for Appellees 16–17. And, the Solicitor General suggests that reapportionment by total population is the only permissible standard because Reynolds recognized a right of “equal representation for equal numbers of people.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17. Although the majority does not choose among these theories, it necessarily denies that the Equal Protection Clause protects the right to cast an equally weighted ballot. To prevail, appellants do not have to deny the importance of equal representation. Because States can equalize both total population and total voting power within the districts, they have to show only that the right to cast an equally weighted vote is part of the one-person, one-vote right that we have recognized. But the majority declines to find such a right in the Equal Protection Clause. Ante, at 1132 – 1133. Rather, the majority acknowledges that “[f]or every sentence appellants *1142 quote from the Court's opinions [establishing a right to an equal vote], one could respond with a line casting the one-person, one-vote guarantee in terms of equality of representation, not voter equality.” Ante, at 1131. Because our precedents are not consistent with appellants' position —that the only constitutionally available choice for States is to allocate districts to equalize eligible voters—the majority concludes that appellants' challenge fails. Ante, at 1130 – 1133. I agree with the majority's ultimate disposition of this case. As far as the original understanding of the Constitution is concerned, a State has wide latitude in selecting its population base for apportionment. See Part II–B, supra. It can use total population, eligible voters, or any other nondiscriminatory voter base. Ibid. And States with a bicameral legislature can have some mixture of these theories, such as one population base for its lower house and another for its upper chamber. Ibid. Our precedents do not compel a contrary conclusion. Appellants are correct that this Court's precedents have © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000632 16 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 193 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... primarily based its one-person, one-vote jurisprudence on the theory that eligible voters have a right against vote dilution. E.g., Hadley, 397 U.S., at 52–53, 90 S.Ct. 791; Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362. But this Court's jurisprudence has vacillated too much for me to conclude that the Court's precedents preclude States from allocating districts based on total population instead. See Burns, 384 U.S., at 92, 86 S.Ct. 1286 (recognizing that States may choose other nondiscriminatory population bases). Under these circumstances, the choice is best left for the people of the States to decide for themselves how they should apportion their legislature. *** than statistics concerning eligible voters. Since Reynolds, States have almost uniformly used total population in attempting to create legislative districts that are equal in size. And with one notable exception, Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966), this Court's post-Reynolds cases have likewise *1143 looked to total population. Moreover, much of the time, creating districts that are equal in total population also results in the creation of districts that are at least roughly equal in eligible voters. I therefore agree that States are permitted to use total population in redistricting plans. II There is no single “correct” method of apportioning state legislatures. And the Constitution did not make this Court “a centralized politburo appointed for life to dictate to the provinces the ‘correct’ theories of democratic representation, [or] the ‘best’ electoral systems for securing truly ‘representative’ government.” Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 913, 114 S.Ct. 2581, 129 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Because the majority continues that misguided search, I concur only in the judgment. Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins except as to Part III–B, concurring in the judgment. The question that the Court must decide in this case is whether Texas violated the “one-person, one-vote” principle established in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), by adopting a legislative redistricting plan that provides for districts that are roughly equal in total population. Appellants contend that Texas was required to create districts that are equal in the number of eligible voters, but I agree with the Court that Texas' use of total population did not violate the oneperson, one-vote rule. Although this conclusion is sufficient to decide the case before us, Texas asks us to go further and to hold that States, while generally free to use total population statistics, are not barred from using eligible voter statistics. Texas points to Burns, in which this Court held that Hawaii did not violate the one-person, one-vote principle by adopting a plan that sought to equalize the number of registered voters in each district. Disagreeing with Texas, the Solicitor General dismisses Burns as an anomaly and argues that the use of total population is constitutionally required. The Solicitor General contends that the one-person, one-vote rule means that all persons, whether or not they are eligible to vote, are entitled to equal representation in the legislature. Accordingly, he argues, legislative districts must be equal in total population even if that results in districts that are grossly unequal in the number of eligible voters, a situation that is most likely to arise where aliens are disproportionately concentrated in some parts of a State. This argument, like that advanced by appellants, implicates very difficult theoretical and empirical questions about the nature of representation. For centuries, political theorists have debated the proper role I of representatives, 1 and political scientists have studied the conduct of legislators and the interests that they Both practical considerations and precedent support the conclusion that the use of total population is consistent with the one-person, one-vote rule. The decennial census required by the Constitution tallies total population. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; Amdt. 14, § 2. These statistics are more reliable and less subject to manipulation and dispute actually advance. 2 We have no need to wade into these waters in this case, and I would not do so. Whether a State is permitted to *1144 use some measure other than total population is an important and sensitive question that we can consider if and when we have before us a state districting plan that, unlike the current Texas plan, © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000633 17 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 194 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... uses something other than total population as the basis for equalizing the size of districts. III A The Court does not purport to decide whether a State may base a districting plan on something other than total population, but the Court, picking up a key component of the Solicitor General's argument, suggests that the use of total population is supported by the Constitution's formula for allocating seats in the House of Representatives among the States. Because House seats are allocated based on total population, the Solicitor General argues, the one-person, one-vote principle requires districts that are equal in total population. I write separately primarily because I cannot endorse this meretricious argument. First, the allocation of congressional representation sheds little light on the question presented by the Solicitor General's argument because that allocation plainly violates one person, one vote. 3 This is obviously true with respect to the Senate: Although all States have equal representation in the Senate, the most populous State (California) has 66 times as many people as the least populous (Wyoming). See United States Census 2010, Resident Population Data, http://www.census.gov/2010census/ data/apportionment-pop-text.php. And even the allocation of House seats does not comport with one person, one vote. Every State is entitled to at least one seat in the House, even if the State's population is lower than the average population of House districts nationwide. U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Today, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming all fall into that category. See United States Census 2010, Apportionment Data, http:// www.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-datatext.php. If one person, one vote applied to allocation of House seats among States, I very much doubt the Court would uphold a plan where one Representative represents fewer than 570,000 people in Wyoming but nearly a million people next door in Montana. 4 Second, Reynolds v. Sims squarely rejected the argument that the Constitution's allocation of congressional representation establishes the test for the constitutionality of a state legislative districting plan. Under one Alabama districting plan before the Court in that case, seats in the State Senate were allocated by county, much as seats in the United States Senate are allocated by State. (At that time, the upper houses *1145 in most state legislatures were similar in this respect.) The Reynolds Court noted that “[t]he system of representation in the two Houses of the Federal Congress” was “conceived out of compromise and concession indispensable to the establishment of our federal republic.” 377 U.S., at 574, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Rejecting Alabama's argument that this system supported the constitutionality of the State's apportionment of senate seats, the Court concluded that “the Founding Fathers clearly had no intention of establishing a pattern or model for the apportionment of seats in state legislatures when the system of representation in the Federal Congress was adopted.” Id., at 573, 84 S.Ct. 1362; see also Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 378, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963). Third, as the Reynolds Court recognized, reliance on the Constitution's allocation of congressional representation is profoundly ahistorical. When the formula for allocating House seats was first devised in 1787 and reconsidered at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the overwhelming concern was far removed from any abstract theory about the nature of representation. Instead, the dominant consideration was the distribution of political power among the States. The original Constitution's allocation of House seats involved what the Reynolds Court rather delicately termed “compromise and concession.” 377 U.S., at 574, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Seats were apportioned among the States “according to their respective Numbers,” and these “Numbers” were “determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons ... three fifths of all other Persons.” Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. The phrase “all other Persons” was a euphemism for slaves. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention from the slave States insisted on this infamous clause as a condition of their support for the Constitution, and the clause gave the slave States more power in the House and in the electoral college than they would have enjoyed if only free persons had been counted. 5 These slave-state delegates did not demand slave representation based on some philosophical notion that “representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote.” Ante, at 1132. 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000634 18 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 195 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... C B The Court's account of the original Constitution's allocation also plucks out of context Alexander Hamilton's statement on apportionment. The Court characterizes Hamilton's words (more precisely, Robert Yates's summary of his fellow New Yorker's *1146 words) as endorsing apportionment by total population, and positions those words as if Hamilton were talking about apportionment in the House. Ante, at 1127. Neither is entirely accurate. The “quote” comes from the controversy over Senate apportionment, where the debate turned on whether to apportion by population at all. See generally 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 470–474 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Hamilton argued in favor of allocating Senate seats by population: “The question, after all is, is it our interest in modifying this general government to sacrifice individual rights to the preservation of the rights of an artificial being, called states? There can be no truer principle than this— that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government. If therefore three states contain a majority of the inhabitants of America, ought they to be governed by a minority? Would the inhabitants of the great states ever submit to this? If the smaller states maintain this principle, through a love of power, will not the larger, from the same motives, be equally tenacious to preserve their power?” Id., at 473. As is clear from the passage just quoted, Hamilton (according to Yates) thought the fight over apportionment was about naked power, not some lofty ideal about the nature of representation. That interpretation is confirmed by James Madison's summary of the same statement by Hamilton: “The truth is it [meaning the debate over apportionment] is a contest for power, not for liberty.... The State of Delaware having 40,000 souls will lose power, if she has 1 /10 only of the votes allowed to Pa. having 400,000.” Id., at 466. Far from “[e]ndorsing apportionment based on total population,” ante, at 1127, Hamilton was merely acknowledging the obvious: that apportionment in the new National Government would be the outcome of a contest over raw political power, not abstract political theory. After the Civil War, when the Fourteenth Amendment was being drafted, the question of the apportionment formula arose again. Thaddeus Stevens, a leader of the socalled radical Republicans, unsuccessfully proposed that apportionment be based on eligible voters, rather than total population. The opinion of the Court suggests that the rejection of Stevens' proposal signified the adoption of the theory that representatives are properly understood to represent all of the residents of their districts, whether or not they are eligible to vote. Ante, at 1127 – 1129. As was the case in 1787, however, it was power politics, not democratic theory, that carried the day. In making his proposal, Stevens candidly explained that the proposal's primary aim was to perpetuate the dominance of the Republican Party and the Northern States. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 74 (1865); Van Alstyne, The Fourteenth Amendment, The “Right” to Vote, and the Understanding of the Thirty–Ninth Congress, 1965 S. Ct. Rev. 33, 45–47 (Van Alstyne). As Stevens spelled out, if House seats were based on total population, the power of the former slave States would be magnified. Prior to the Civil War, a slave had counted for only three-fifths of a person for purposes of the apportionment of House seats. As a result of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment, the former slaves would now be fully counted even if they were not permitted to vote. By Stevens' calculation, this would give the South 13 additional votes in both the House and the electoral college. Cong. Globe, 39th *1147 Cong., 1st Sess., 74 (1865); Van Alstyne 46. Stevens' proposal met with opposition in the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, including from, as the majority notes, James Blaine. Ante, at 1128. Yet, as it does with Hamilton's, the majority plucks Blaine's words out of context: “[W]e have had several propositions to amend the Federal Constitution with respect to the basis of representation in Congress. These propositions ... give to the States in future a representation proportioned to their voters instead of their inhabitants. “The effect contemplated and intended by this change is perfectly well understood, and on all hands frankly © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000635 19 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 196 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... avowed. It is to deprive the lately rebellious States of the unfair advantage of a large representation in this House, based on their colored population, so long as that population shall be denied political rights by the legislation of those States.... “The direct object thus aimed at, as it respects the rebellious States, has been so generally approved that little thought seems to have been given to the incidental evils which the proposed constitutional amendment would inflict on a large portion of the loyal States— evils, in my judgment, so serious and alarming as to lead me to oppose the amendment in any form in which it has yet been presented. As an abstract proposition no one will deny that population is the true basis of representation; for women, children, and other nonvoting classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation of the country as those who actually deposit the ballot.... “If voters instead of population shall be made the basis of representation certain results will follow, not fully appreciated perhaps by some who are now urgent for the change.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 141 (1865). The “not fully appreciated” and “incidental evi[l]” was, in Blaine's view, the disruption to loyal States' representation in Congress. Blaine described how the varying suffrage requirements in loyal States could lead to, for instance, California's being entitled to eight seats in the House and Vermont's being entitled only to three, despite their having similar populations. Ibid.; see also 2 B. Ackerman, We the People: Transformations 164, 455, n. 5 (1998); Van Alstyne 47, 70. This mattered to Blaine because both States were loyal and so neither deserved to suffer a loss of relative political power. Blaine therefore proposed to apportion representatives by the “whole number of persons except those to whom civil or political rights or privileges are denied or abridged by the constitution or laws of any State on account of race or color.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 142. “This is a very simple and very direct way, it seems to me, of reaching the result aimed at without embarrassment to any other question or interest. It leaves population as heretofore the basis of representation, does not disturb in any manner the harmonious relations of the loyal States, and it conclusively deprives the southern States of all representation in Congress on account of the colored population so long as those States may choose to abridge or deny to that population the political rights and privileges accorded to others.” Ibid. As should be obvious from these lengthy passages, Blaine recognized that the “generally approved” “result aimed at” was to deprive southern States of political power; far from quibbling with that aim, he sought to achieve it while limiting the collateral damage to the loyal northern States. See Van Alstyne 47. *1148 Roscoe Conkling, whom the majority also quotes, ante, at 1128, seemed to be as concerned with voter-based apportionment's “narrow[ing] the basis of taxation, and in some States seriously,” as he was with abstract notions of representational equality. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 358; id., at 359 (“representation should go with taxation”); ibid. (apportionment by citizenship “would narrow the basis of taxation and cause considerable inequalities in this respect, because the number of aliens in some States is very large, and growing larger now, when emigrants reach our shores at the rate of more than a State a year”). And Hamilton Ward, also quoted by the majority, ante, at 1128, was primarily disturbed by “[t]he fact that one South Carolinian, whose hands are red with the blood of fallen patriots, and whose skirts are reeking with the odors of Columbia and Andersonville, will have a voice as potential in these Halls as two and a half Vermont soldiers who have come back from the grandest battle-fields in history maimed and scarred in the contest with South Carolina traitors in their efforts to destroy this Government”—and only secondarily worried about the prospect of “taxation without representation.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 434. Even Jacob Howard, he of the “theory of the Constitution” language, ante, at 1128 – 1129, bemoaned the fact that basing representation on total population would allow southern States “to obtain an advantage which they did not possess before the rebellion and emancipation.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766. “I object to this. I think they cannot very consistently call upon us to grant them an additional number of Representatives simply because in consequence of their own misconduct they have lost the property [meaning slaves, whom slaveholders considered to be property] which they once possessed, and which served as a basis in great part of their representation.” Ibid. The list could go on. The bottom line is that in the leadup to the Fourteenth © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000636 20 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 197 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Amendment, claims about representational equality were invoked, if at all, only in service of the real goal: preventing southern States from acquiring too much power in the National Government. After much debate, Congress eventually settled on the compromise that now appears in § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under that provision, House seats are apportioned based on total population, but if a State wrongfully denies the right to vote to a certain percentage of its population, its representation is supposed to be reduced proportionally. 7 Enforcement of this remedy, however, is dependent on action by Congress, and— regrettably—the *1149 remedy was never used during the long period when voting rights were widely abridged. Amar 399. In light of the history of Article I, § 2, of the original Constitution and § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is clear that the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives was based in substantial part on the distribution of political power among the States and not merely on some theory regarding the proper nature of representation. It is impossible to draw any clear constitutional command from this complex history. *** For these reasons, I would hold only that Texas permissibly used total population in drawing the challenged legislative districts. I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court. All Citations 136 S.Ct. 1120, 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3189, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 61 Footnotes * 1 2 3 4 5 The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499. In Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 485–486, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968), the Court applied the oneperson, one-vote rule to legislative apportionment at the local level. Maximum population deviation is the sum of the percentage deviations from perfect population equality of the most- and least-populated districts. See Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 22, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975). For example, if the largest district is 4.5% overpopulated, and the smallest district is 2.3% underpopulated, the map's maximum population deviation is 6.8%. The Constitutions and statutes of ten States—California, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington—authorize the removal of certain groups from the total-population apportionment base. See App. to Brief for Appellees 1a–46a (listing relevant state constitutional and statutory provisions). Hawaii, Kansas, and Washington exclude certain non-permanent residents, including nonresident members of the military. Haw. Const., Art. IV, § 4; Kan. Const., Art. 10, § 1(a); Wash. Const., Art. II, § 43(5). See also N.H. Const., pt. 2, Art. 9–a (authorizing the state legislature to make “suitable adjustments to the general census ... on account of non-residents temporarily residing in this state”). California, Delaware, Maryland, and New York exclude inmates who were domiciled out-of-state prior to incarceration. Cal. Elec.Code Ann. § 21003(5) (2016 West Cum. Supp.); Del.Code Ann., Tit. 29, § 804A (Supp.2014); Md. State Govt.Code Ann. § 2–2A–01 (2014); N.Y. Legis. Law Ann. § 83–m(b) (2015 West Cum. Supp.). The Constitutions of Maine and Nebraska authorize the exclusion of noncitizen immigrants, Me. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, § 2; Neb. Const., Art. III, § 5, but neither provision is “operational as written,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12, n. 3. Various plaintiffs had challenged Texas' State House, State Senate, and congressional maps under, inter alia, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They sought and received an injunction barring Texas' use of the new maps until those maps received § 5 preclearance. See Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 561, 89 S.Ct. 817, 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969) (“[A]n individual may bring a suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, claiming that a state requirement is covered by § 5, but has not been subjected to the required federal scrutiny.”). Apart from objecting to the baseline, appellants do not challenge the Senate map's 8.04% total-population deviation. Nor do they challenge the use of a total-population baseline in congressional districting. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000637 21 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 198 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 As the District Court noted, the Ninth Circuit has likewise rejected appellants' theory, i.e., that voter population must be roughly equalized. See Garza v. County of L. A., 918 F.2d 763, 773–776 (C.A.9 1990). Also declining to mandate votereligible apportionment, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have suggested that the choice of apportionment base may present a nonjusticiable political question. See Chen v. Houston, 206 F.3d 502, 528 (C.A.5 2000) (“[T]his eminently political question has been left to the political process.”); Daly v. Hunt, 93 F.3d 1212, 1227 (C.A.4 1996) (“This is quintessentially a decision that should be made by the state, not the federal courts, in the inherently political and legislative process of apportionment.”). In the District Court, appellants suggested that districting bodies could also comply with the one-person, one-vote rule by equalizing the registered-voter populations of districts, but appellants have not repeated that argument before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 22–23. As the United States observes, the “choice of constitutional language reflects the historical fact that when the Constitution was drafted and later amended, the right to vote was not closely correlated with citizenship.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18. Restrictions on the franchise left large groups of citizens, including women and many males who did not own land, unable to cast ballots, yet the Framers understood that these citizens were nonetheless entitled to representation in government. Justice ALITO observes that Hamilton stated this principle while opposing allocation of an equal number of Senate seats to each State. Post, at 1136 – 1137 (opinion concurring in judgment). That context, however, does not diminish Hamilton's principled argument for allocating seats to protect the representational rights of “every individual of the community at large.” 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 473 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Justice ALITO goes on to quote James Madison for the proposition that Hamilton was concerned, simply and only, with “the outcome of a contest over raw political power.” Post, at 1146. Notably, in the statement Justice ALITO quotes, Madison was not attributing that motive to Hamilton; instead, according to Madison, Hamilton was attributing that motive to the advocates of equal representation for States. Farrand, supra, at 466. One need not gainsay that Hamilton's backdrop was the political controversies of his day. That reality, however, has not deterred this Court's past reliance on his statements of principle. See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 910–924, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997). Justice ALITO adds a third, claiming “the allocation of congressional representation sheds little light” on the meaning of the one-person, one-vote rule “because that allocation plainly violates one person, one vote.” Post, at 1144. For this proposition, Justice ALITO notes the constitutional guarantee of two Senate seats and at least one House seat to each State, regardless of its population. But these guarantees bear no kinship to the separate question that dominated the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification debates: After each State has received its guaranteed House seat, on what basis should additional seats be allocated? Justice ALITO asserts that we have taken the statements of the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers “out of context.” Post, at 1148. See also post, at 1148 (“[C]laims about representational equality were invoked, if at all, only in service of the real goal: preventing southern States from acquiring too much power in the national government.”). Like Alexander Hamilton, see supra, at 1127, n. 9, the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers doubtless made arguments rooted in practical political realities as well as in principle. That politics played a part, however, does not warrant rejecting principled argument. In any event, motivations aside, the Framers' ultimate choice of total population rather than voter population is surely relevant to whether, as appellants now argue, the Equal Protection Clause mandates use of voter population rather than total population. Appellants also observe that standing in one-person, one-vote cases has rested on plaintiffs' status as voters whose votes were diluted. But the Court has not considered the standing of nonvoters to challenge a map malapportioned on a total-population basis. This issue, moreover, is unlikely ever to arise given the ease of finding voters willing to serve as plaintiffs in malapportionment cases. In contrast to the insubstantial evidence marshaled by appellants, the United States cites several studies documenting the uneven distribution of immigrants throughout the country during the 1960's. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16. Appellants point out that constituents have no constitutional right to equal access to their elected representatives. But a State certainly has an interest in taking reasonable, nondiscriminatory steps to facilitate access for all its residents. Insofar as appellants suggest that Texas could have roughly equalized both total population and eligible-voter population, this Court has never required jurisdictions to use multiple population baselines. In any event, appellants have never presented a map that manages to equalize both measures, perhaps because such a map does not exist, or because such a map would necessarily ignore other traditional redistricting principles, including maintaining communities of interest and respecting municipal boundaries. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000638 22 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 199 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 *** The Court's opinions have used “one person, one vote” and “one man, one vote” interchangeably. Compare, e.g., Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) (“one person, one vote”), with Hadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50, 51, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (“one man, one vote” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Gray used “one person, one vote” after noting the expansion of political equality over our history—including adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote. 372 U.S., at 381, 83 S.Ct. 801. See, e.g., H. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation 4 (1967) ( “[D]iscussions of representation are marked by long-standing, persistent controversies which seem to defy solution”); ibid. (“Another vexing and seemingly endless controversy concerns the proper relation between representative and constituents”); Political Representation i (I. Shapiro, S. Stokes, E. Wood, & A. Kirshner eds. 2009) (“[R]elations between the democratic ideal and the everyday practice of political representation have never been well defined and remain the subject of vigorous debate among historians, political theorists, lawyers, and citizens”); id., at 12 (“[W]e need a better understanding of these complex relations in their multifarious parts before aspiring to develop any general theory of representation”); S. Dovi, Political Representation, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (E. Zalta ed. Spring 2014) (“[O]ur common understanding of political representation is one that contains different, and conflicting, conceptions of how political representatives should represent and so holds representatives to standards that are mutually incompatible”), online at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/ political-representation (all Internet materials as last visited Mar. 31, 2016); ibid. (“[W]hat exactly representatives do has been a hotly contested issue”). See, e.g., Andeweg, Roles in Legislatures, in The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies 268 (S. Martin, T. Saalfeld, & K. Strom eds. 2014) (explaining that the social sciences have not “succeeded in distilling [an] unambiguous concept[ion]” of the “role” of a legislator); Introduction, id., at 11 (“Like political science in general, scholars of legislatures approach the topic from different and, at least partially, competing theoretical perspectives”); Diermeier, Formal Models of Legislatures, id., at 50 (“While the formal study of legislative politics has come a long way, much remains to be done”); Best & Vogel, The Sociology of Legislators and Legislatures, id., at 75–76 (“Stable representative democracies are ... institutional frameworks and informal arrangements which achieve an equilibrium between the competing demands [of constituents and political opponents]. How this situation affects the daily interactions of legislators is largely unknown”). As Justice THOMAS notes, ante, at 1137 – 1138 (opinion concurring in judgment), the plan for the House of Representatives was based in large part on the view that there should be “equality of representation,” but that does not answer the question whether it is eligible voters (as appellants urge), all citizens, or all residents who should be equally represented. The Constitution allocates House seats based on total inhabitants, but as I explain, the dominant, if not exclusive, reason for that choice was the allocation of political power among the States. The Court brushes off the original Constitution's allocation of congressional representation by narrowing in on the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification debates. Ante, at 1129, n. 10. But those debates were held in the shadow of that original allocation. And what Congress decided to do after those debates was to retain the original apportionment formula —minus the infamous three-fifths clause—and attach a penalty to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. In short, the Fourteenth Amendment made no structural changes to apportionment that bear on the one-person, one-vote rule. See A. Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography 87–98 (2005) (Amar); id., at 94 (“The best justification for the threefifths clause sounded in neither republican principle nor Revolutionary ideology, but raw politics”); see also id., at 88–89 (explaining that the “protective coloring” camouflaging the slave States' power grab “would have been wasted had the Constitution pegged apportionment to the number of voters, with a glaringly inconsistent add-on for nonvoting slaves”); cf. G. Van Cleve, A Slaveholders' Union 126 (2010) (“[T]he slave states saw slave representation as a direct political protection for wealth consisting of slave property against possible Northern attacks on slavery, and told the Convention unequivocally that they needed such protection in order to obtain ratification of the Constitution”); id., at 133–134 (“The compromise on representation awarded disproportionate shares of representative influence to certain vested politicaleconomy interests, one of which was the slave labor economies”). See Amar 92 (“But masters did not as a rule claim to virtually represent the best interests of their slaves. Masters, after all, claimed the right to maim and sell slaves at will, and to doom their yet unborn posterity to perpetual bondage. If this could count as virtual representation, anything could”). Section 2 provides: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000639 23 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 200 of 440 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.” Needless to say, the reference in this provision to “male inhabitants ... being twenty-one years of age” has been superseded by the Nineteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments. But notably the reduction in representation is pegged to the proportion of (then) eligible voters denied suffrage. Section 2's representation-reduction provision makes no appearance in the Court's structural analysis. End of Document © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000640 24 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 201 of 440 Historical Information: The U.S. Census Currently, the Census Bureau does ask citizenship on its American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey. The ACS is a survey conducted nationwide every year among 3.5 million addresses. The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey that is the primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States. However, while it has asked about citizenship status, the Census Bureau has never asked about the legal status of respondents. The Census Bureau first asked a citizenship question in 1820 when the census separately counted “foreigners not naturalized.” The question was asked this way until 1850 when officials asked place of birth, a question that also appeared on the 1860 census. The 1870 census asked the same questions on nativity, as well as questions on the nativity of each individual’s parents. The 1870 census also had questions on citizenship for males over the age of 21. The 1880 census kept questions on individual and parental nativity, but removed questions on citizenship. The 1890 census also asked individual and parental nativity, but included additional questions on naturalization and tenure in the United States for foreign-born men over the age of 21. The questions for 1900 and 1910, although slightly different, followed the same general outline as those of 1890. In 1920 and 1930, all foreign-born respondents, regardless of age and sex, received questions on naturalization status. In 1940, while the questions about individual nativity and naturalization remained, questions about parental nativity moved to the supplemental questions, which were only asked of 5% of respondents. In 1950, that sampling size grew to 20%. In 1960, although questions about individual and parental nativity remained for all, there were no questions about citizenship or naturalization. Starting with 1970, the census moved to a mailout/mailback format. Questions about nativity appeared on the “long form” census form sent to 20% of households and only foreign-born were asked to answer questions about citizenship status and time period of arrival to the United States. From 1980-2000 the long form asked citizenship status of all sample respondents, not just foreign-born. Foreign born were asked for a time range or year that they arrived in the United States. In 2005, the ACS replaced the long-form decennial census questionnaire. As we move through this formal evaluation process, we will keep the public updated as we look forward to delivering the planned questions for the 2020 Census and the ACS to Congress by March 31, 2018. Our goal is to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. The Census Bureau remains committed to reflecting the information needs of our changing society as we continue to examine the effectiveness of decennial census questions to collect accurate data on America’s people, places, and economy. All historical census questionnaires can be found at: https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1820_1.html 000641 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 202 of 440 Historical Information: The U.S. Census Currently, the Census Bureau does ask citizenship on its American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey. • The ACS is an annual, nationwide survey conducted among 3.5 million addresses. • The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey that is the primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States. • The Census Bureau has never asked about the legal status of respondents. 1820: citizenship question first asked when the census separately counted “foreigners not naturalized.” 1850, 1960: census asked place of birth. 1870: census asked about nativity and the nativity of each individual’s parents. Also had questions on citizenship for males over the age of 21. 1880: census kept questions on individual and parental nativity, but removed citizenship question. 1890: census asked individual and parental nativity, but also included additional questions on naturalization and tenure in the United States for foreign-born men over the age of 21. 1900, 1910: although slightly different, questions followed the same general outline as 1890. 1920, 1930: all foreign-born respondents, regardless of age and sex, received questions on naturalization status. 1940: while the questions about individual nativity and naturalization remained, questions about parental nativity moved to the supplemental questions, which were only asked of 5% of respondents. 1950: sampling size grew to 20%. 1960: although questions about individual and parental nativity remained for all, there were no questions about citizenship or naturalization. 1970: census moved to a mailout/mailback format. Questions about nativity appeared on the “long form” census form sent to 20% of households and only foreign-born were asked to answer questions about citizenship status and time period of arrival to the United States. 1980-2000: the long form asked citizenship status of all sample respondents, not just foreignborn. Foreign born were asked for a time range or year that they arrived in the United States. 2005: the ACS replaced the long-form decennial census questionnaire. 000642 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 203 of 440 As we move through this formal evaluation process, we will keep the public updated as we look forward to delivering the planned questions for the 2020 Census and the ACS to Congress by March 31, 2018. Our goal is to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. The Census Bureau remains committed to reflecting the information needs of our changing society as we continue to examine the effectiveness of decennial census questions to collect accurate data on America’s people, places, and economy. All historical census questionnaires can be found at: https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1820_1.html 000643 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 204 of 440 143 fl?'m? 01" Hill's KIHCAHMH Uni. Hmhi-h-uluua- Emu: Emmet? Gum-mun: Minn-I U5. Hum-Hm i ?rm-hr? n1 Inhah nf Cm: Bum-u. i would like uni-ml the I'knnd When:- on magnum- and [he Cm fur linw'linp, mu Ill Ihh Mk?. l'ndmr'i- Ilulrin? Funk-u ur- liu- qI-nlluu n1 ?hilly-r lh-I aim-mini dim-Id mun-II. in: WM tr! .1ng whim-fl: all l1: Link-Hi Stain-1r mun: mrrm-rly- d-Eilnr 1H Ink mun: arm-m. ?ak Winn ?Ida-nth.- m?ih qulmm?n. blul hull-I i'rmlull II1 1hr partial mash haw-1n wallow-I md?imm-i?rarnu?w ul I'm-mm: Til- [mum and lb in i, u'rIr mu Link-d nth-aha. luunulmunma?y writ-d and c: Land .1: did-hash In Wuhan theL'b. lit-.5: Hr?nncuhn and hudzlmuu drum nuhm [ht-min. hum 2' cliI-I'Irrl that In 'rl'ull fllul'l'lUl'lI'iDl'l- N1 run-Hr L'l-Wj' It? {Hr-1 l'n'Il run-Inn Int. H'Lrl'lc'n-m 1m Hal. 1.11th mil lam war! Ilrt'rluuwrm was rallied. Irina-[Haul Jud. a! mmla a! like mul ?tunnel! Muted Hm: ahul Man-1 they n1 mquh-ud mum-ah numb? nl'll'n inl?tliunun?lln It'll Nip-nah! hr Ila-bunk Minn-I th?umu lh?rmr In: L-rulnl 51m hia- n1 huh-n chilly-u] by my yumml mu hit. il hum-dim ['rr'Iln- dmul tumu- rill: [?mlrl?np: inhml lli'll'l? In Sure: Mm [11: amp: all our npct?m and presc?brs the ?ned fur manq- mrmm. The Emma Btu-mu hudmhped nf-mlml'lsr luslble prumdum uni-It mm run-g.- 9 !er ?'?ldm rum mth?lyiwrl Wanamacium Him-n5. vim-.11. an Ida; ar Ill-?ll llhcugh 1hr- nltz?shlp mi! dill-mad HI.- hmrk?': hum-q- umplr. In (lulu! null du?muuh purpm Isl' Maui! nun: 1'me wqul? {hum-s 1mm mammal cm mun-11mm lbl?f hur mum-.1 [rm-mt and trimming? II "II-mp! 111 rtuln mum ahml rmrilnn' '?lrn-II hurr- 000644 33:18-cv-01865-RS Documentli3-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 205 01 Hun-? ultrali- I nul- hut-m. L's. Cru- "All": Sch-r: It Him-In I'u-h-r-Ihh ill hfr?u Inn IHI-h-l-rr 2k!- F?lp 3 WI "1an ?ied-mllmul numplu. ll mmlk?mm "nth nary all, :iljr. mun. Ind In ard- I-u nrunl art-IT MM .1 Arm-Ira. lulu-II minim whiten?? mmh' federit ?lm win: pl ?ll-nun? all-d: I'll-hm Hull-Milli dwm??d?n; hil'lcll'n in Ind-nil and cusp-um cur-awn I'lm?d'l?ki In Arm-rut. Snu?rg Ihh I?m-m mm My. Wald. and puma-amt? will In hint-Hun militia-rm MPH-JIM manual-lad ?rush; kin-'61 11-511:- mm fur-NIH Jm?l??-lhr rim-I'm [MA-aw i1 .1 4mm I'll? i1lhr mil-Isl In tl'?l, hm?u?l maul mnwrurwu rum-i1- ?lm-L In lam, II unsung?! Fauna-1h}- 1m haul I?ll-t- i'msm l'u-ldll ninth-Hm and 1mm In wt Ilul dad-Cm [lumu cum-i mil} I?I'rh?'md induct. Ilul ?hum Ihr Awful-n p?inhummwy wry Inf PI'nhacllm-nl Flint}. 1m- Ilia-? 53mm lb! 301:: flu-Im- d?lnum ml. rim!? hm mummhm T??mln?l? ?an-1m {'an ?nally Him-use nla shun-hm unn- Napalm: true-11 .ll?'g Luuld IIQHIWIIJ hp?l In ll'I'Id would ?mu: Burl-1 I-u-rtl'lrhIri Irlrunn- my mum?: llmu ?ls-es Manly un map-tum but aim mpuhllr :uppuu numb-nun Ihu high Inf-nil [mm hilt-Iii mum. "ppm! iluiIt-Iui mm WW media alumna. wrdut mum-L In 3:53. unmdm?d {than uni ammunmmp?lr ?pp-m. cummum'rin. hr dimlhutmd?tllc ?mama. Hui-unnum- In" .Ih-nul FulleF?h-?l?d [hops-mule urn-Ii Ml mammal-underlin- mm; all hr addition-r Infum'lallm bun Jhoul E1- mull. [In US. I. inn; (i am lb?ll mun-Hp. ummuld my?i??in??h?iwm pub-I'- mupn-mm. Hun-rm, lhruun-r Human is con?ned :II-mum?m. Im- Emu lieu-rm ?mull! when? rap-mun 1w" nut-In. 'I'Ilu Illa? an almul If?! with? than an In?l?duli my cur-Tm:- nr min-mt. awn an'd Hum and a?m Hum-dull urmalmhm mull! happnr?mcmn?iml mu. mum-e. mum In Ann-l:- u! Il'quIIqum. manna: Int I111: uppmuy. and nil ludp ?Emu im?dln?ilui-m I'm-uh! min-ma. 000645 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 206 of 440 Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses issued Anrit 2cm 2 I: Hcipl'ng You Make Informed Decisions - I902 2002 5' ?mus ?um? 000646 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 207 of 440 000647 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 208 of 440 Population Items on Principal Census Questionnaires: 1790 to 1890 includes identification items. screening quasttons. and other information collected. but not intended for tabulation) Demographic Characteristics 1790 1000 1810 1 820 1 030 1040 1850 Sex Color or Place Origin It American Indian, proportions of Indian or other blood II American lndian, name of Tribe Relationship to head of family or household Married in the past year Marital status HIKE Number of years married Age at or date at ?rst marriage Married more than once Ii remarried. was ?rst marriage terminated by death? Number of years widowed. divorced. or separated Social Characteristics Tree or slave 'er slave owner. number oi fugitives Per slave owner. number of manumitted Physical and mental handicaps and infirmities: Deal or deal mules Blind Insane How supported (insane and idiotic 0m?) Feeble-minded (idiotic) Xi or disabled X'l' Xi Duration of disability X?l? Peepers 2X 2X Convicts 2X 2X Xi Homeless children Xi Education: Literacy 2X 2X School attendance 2X 2X Educational attainment Public or private school Measuring America 0.5. Census Bureau 000648 IIB Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 209 of 440 Population Items on Principal Census Questionnaires: 1790 to 1890~Con. (Excludes identification items. screening questions, and other information collected. but not intended for tabulation) I.-.- Social Characteristics 1 790 1800 1810 1 820 1 030 1 B40 1050 1 350 1 070 1880 ram Vocational trahing Place of birth 2X 2X Place of birth of parents 5X XX Citizenship HRH Year of naturalization Eligibility lo vole 5X ll foreign born. year oi h'nmigration Language HIM: Language oi parents I 'f Spanish origin or descent Number of children living Number of children ever born to mother For Grandparents' households Are grandchildren under 18 living within the household? Are grandparents responsible for Grandchild's basic needs? Length of responsibilily oI grandchild Veteran status - K?l Length of service In service date Whether wife or widow oi veteran - 11 ll child of veteran. is father dead? Farm residence Farm residence in a previous year Place oi residence a previous year Year moved to present residence Economic Characteristics industry Occupation Class of worker Private or public nonemergency work. or public emergency work Employment status Duration of unemployment Year last worked Weeks worked in preceding year Hours worked in preceding week Measuring America 0.5. Census Bureau 000649 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 210 of 440 Population Items on Principal Census Questionnaires: 1790 to 1890?Con. includes identification items. screening questions. and other information collected. but not intended for tabulation) Economic Characteristics 1 790 1800 1310 1 320 1830 1 840 1 B50 1860 1870 1880 ?l 890 Activity 5 years ago - - - - - . - - . . . Industry 5 years ago - - - - - . . - . . . Occupation 5 years ago - - - - - . . . - - - Class of worker 5 years ago - - - - - . . . - - - Value at real estate - - - - - - 2x 2x - - Value of personal property - - - - - . . 2x . . . Income - - - - . . - - . . . Social SecurityRegistered - - - - . . . . - - Deductions from all or part of wages or salary - - . - - - . . - - - Place of work - - - - - - - . . - - Means of transportation to work - - - - - - . . . - - Available on supplemental questionnaires at the National Archives and Records Administration. 5 Sample question. (1) Free White persons only. (2) Question only asked of tree inhabitants. (3) Question was whether insane or idiotic. (4) In 1960. place of birth was asked on a sample basis generally. but on a 100-percent basis .in New York and Puerto Rico. Citizenship was asked only in New York and Puerto Ftico. where it was a loo-percent item. (5) Question was only whether parents were foreign born. (6) For males 21 years of age or over. (7) Whether person could speak English. In 1900. this was the only question: in 1920 and 1930 this question was in addition to request for mother tongue. (8) Asked only outside cities. (9) On housing portion at questionnaire- Measuring America I21 U.S. Census Bureau 000650 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 211 of 440 Population Items on The General Schedules: 1900 to 2000 Demographic Characteristics 1 900 1910 970 1980 1 990 Age Sex Color or Ftace AncestryiEthnic Origin - Ii American Indian. proportions of lndian or other blood It American Indian. name of Tribe Relationship to head of family or household Married in the past year Marital status XE Number of years married XX XX Xs Age at or date 01 first marriage X5 X5 X3 X5 Married more than once X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 It remarried. was ?rst marriage laminated by death? X5 X5 Number of years widowed. divorced. or separated Xs Social Characteristics Free or slave Per slave owner. number oi slaves Per slave owner. number of fugitives Phx' Per slave owner. number of manumitted Physicalr'mental handicaps and intirmities: Deal or deaf mute X?l' its Blind X?r its Insane How supported (insane and idiotic OHM Feeble-minded (idiotic) or disabled Xs XI. Duration oi disability Xs Paupers Convicts Homeless children Education: Literacy School attendance X3 X5 X5 X5 X5 Educational attainment X3 X5 X5 X8 X5 i? I22 Measuring America U5. Census Bureau 000651 0" Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 212 of 440 Population Items on The General Schedules: 1900 to 2000?Con. Social Characteristics 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1900 1990 2000 Public or private school - - - - - - X5 X5 - - Vocational training - - - - - - - Xs - - - Place ol birth Xs(4) X5 X5 X5 X5 Place of birth of parents Citizenship X5 X5 X5 X5 Year of naturalization - - - - - - - Eligibility to vote - - - - . . . - ll loreign born. year of immigration - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 Language Language of parents - - - - - - Spanish origin or descent - - - - - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 Number of children living - - - - - - - Number 01 children ever born to mother - - For Grandparent households: Are grandchildren under 10 living within the householdAre grandparents Responsible for a Grandchild's basic needs'eteran status - - length of service - - - - - . - - X5 X5 Whether wiie or widow of veteran - - - - child of veteran. is lather deadservice date - - - - - - - - X5 X5 X5 Farm residence . - - Farm residence in a previous year - - - - X5 - - - - - Place at residence in a previous year - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Year moved to present residence - - - - - - X5 X5 X59 X59 X59 Industry - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Occupation X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Class ol worker - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Private or public nonemergency work, or public emergency work - - - - - - - - - - Employment status - - - X?r X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Duration of unemployment - Year last worked - - - - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Economic Characteristics Weeks worked in preceding year - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Hours worked in preceding week - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Activity 5 years ago - - - - - - Xs - - - Measuring America 123 0.5. Census Bureau 000652 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 213 of 440 Population Items on The General Schedules: 1900 to 2000?Con. Economic Characteristics 1900 950 1960 1 970 1 980 1 990 2000'- Industry 5 years ago - - - - - - - . . - x3 Occupation 5 years ago - - - - . . - x5 . . .. Class oI worker 5 years ago - - - - - . .. x5 - . .. Value of real estate - - - . . . . - xs(9) x5(g) x5(g) litalue 01 personal property - - - . - . . . - - . . Income - - - - Xs Xs XS Xs X5 X5 Social Security: Registered - - - - Deductions irom a] or part of wages or salary - - - - Place oi work - - - - - - X5 X5 Xe Xs Xs Means oi transportalion to work - - - - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X3 See also supplemental questionnaires. 5 Sample question. (1) Free White persons only. (2) Question only asked of free inhabitants. (3) Question was whether insane or idiotic. (4) in 1960. place of birth was asked on a sample basis generally. but on a 100-percent basis in New York and Puerto Ftico. Citizenship was asked only in New York and Puerto Rico. where It was a 100-percent item. (5) Question was only whether parents were foreign born. (6) For males 21 years at age or over. (7) Whether person could speak English. In 1900. this was the only question: in 1920 and 1930 this question was in addition to request ior mother tongue. (8) Asked oniy outside cities. (9) On housmg portion 01 questionnaire. 12-! Measuring America U.S. Census Bureau 000653 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 214 of 440 2000 QUESTIONNAIRE Census 2000 used two questionnaires?a long-form (sample) and a short-form (100 percent) questionnaire. The short-form questionnaire consisted of 7 questions that could be answered by up to 6 persons within a house- hold (see questions 1-6 and 33 on long-form questionnaire reproduced here). Space was provided to identify 6 addi- tional members of the household. The U5. Census Bureau would collect data on persons 7-12 by telephone inter- view. Measuring America U.S. Census Bureau The long-form questionnaire (pictured here), sent to a sample of households throughout the United States and territories. contained 29 inquiries in addition to the 3 questions asked on the short-form questionnaire. These additional quesitons. as in the past. collected information on the population, housing. economic. and social charac- teristics of the Nation?s households. 000654 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 215 of 440 000655 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 216 of 440 Memoranda of Understanding(MOU) Updates: State Administrative Records Data 3-19-2018 Summary The Census Bureau has contacted every state and several tribal governments seeking administrative records data for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which are federal programs that are administered by the states, as well as other assistance program data the states may be willing to share. These data could potentially support the 2020 Census program, providing additional information to supplement federal administrative records information. A final determination is expected iate in 2018 as to the quality and coverage of these data to support the 2020 Census program. The Census Bureau has received the data for 34 programs administered by the states, and is waiting to receive the data for several more programs. State Contacted Type of Data Responded] Active Agreement Agreement Signed Data at Declined Acknowledgement Discussions in Draft Submitted Agreement Transferred participation of Contact Review for Signature Alabama - SNAP Alabama TANF at Alabama WIC 11.8.16 Alaska Perm Fund Div. 1.11.16 Alaska - SNAP 8: TANF 3? Alaska - WIC 8 Arizona SNAP TANF 2.9.17 Arizona WIC I I 6.30.15 Arizona, Inter Tribal Council TANF Arizona, inter Tribal Council - WIC Arkansas SNAP Arkansas - WIC California LA HMIS 6.7.16 California - LA County SNAP and (accepted as LEADER) California SNAP TANF 4.12.17 3? California - SNAP 8: TANF - California -SNAP 8! TANF - Southern California Tribal Chairman?s Association - TANF Colorado SNAP (2009-2014) 8.16.13 Colorado - (2009-2016) 3.18.14 (Leap only) Colorado - WIC (10/2011-2016) 3.17.15 Connecticut SNAP TANF Connecticut - WIC 000658 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 217 of 440 State Contact Status 2/22/13 State Contacted Type of Data Responded] Active Agreement Agreement Signed Data at Declined Acknowledgement Discussions in Draft Submitted Agreement Transferred participation of Contact Review for Slinature Delaware - WIC District of Columbia - SNAP District of Columbia - WIC Florida - SNAP 8: TANF Florida WIC Georgia - SNAP TANF Hawaii - SNAP Hawaii TANF Hawaii - idaho - SNAP TANF Idaho WIC Illinois - SNAP (2007-2016) I I 3.23.16 I v? 1 8.5.15 I 12.2.16 1.6.17 12.23.14 Illinois SNAP 0017-2023), and TANF (2004-2023), and WIC {2004-2023) lndiana - SNAP TANF Indiana WIC Iowa - SNAP TANF Iowa WIC Kansas SNAP TANF Kansas WIC Kentucky - SNAP TANF Louisiana - SNAP TANF Louisiana Maine SNAP TANF Maine WIC Maryland SNAP TANF (2004- 2016) Massachusetts - SNAP TANF Massachusetts Michigan SNAP 8: TANF Michigan - WIC Minnesota 81 TANF Minnesota - WIC Mississippi Choctaw - WIC Mississippi SNAP 8: TANF Mississippi WIC Missouri SNAP TANF Missouri WIC Montana - SNAP TANF Montana WIC 6.30.16 v/ I 3.28.16 8 \x 3.4.15 1 8 11.28.16 1.19.17 12.1.16 v? United States Bureau 000654 Case Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 218 of 440 State Contact Status 2/22/18 State Contacted Type of Data Responded] Active Agreement Agreement Signed Data at Declined Acknowiedgement Discussions In Draft Submitted Agreement Transferred participation Of Contact Review for Signature Nesraska - SNAP Nevada - Energy Nevada SNAP (2004.2016) Nevada - TANF (2004-2016) Nevada - WIC (20044016) New Hampshire - SNAP TANF New Hampshire - WIC New Jersey - SNAP TANF New Jersey - WIC New Mexico - SNAP New Mexico - TANF New Mexico - WIC New Mexico, Zuni Pueblo - WIC New York - NYC HMIS New York - SNAP 8: TANF (2007- 2012) New York - SNAP TANF (2013- 2020) New York - WIC North Carolina - SNAP 8: TANF North Carolina WIC North Dakota - SNAP TANF North Dakota - WIC North Dakota/South Dakota, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Enrollment data North Da kota/South Dakota, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe - Ohio 211 Ohio - SNAP TANF Ohio W1C Oklahoma -SNAP TANF Oklahoma WIC Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation - WIC Oklahoma, Citizen Potawatomi Nation - WIC Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation WIC Oregon SNAP (2004-2014) Oregon - SNAP TANF (2015-2021) Oregon - WIC (JSP) - Driver?s License SNAP TANF WIC Puerto Rico SNAP TANF 10.13.16 12.15.14 2.10.15 11.25.14 'x 10.1.15 12.8.11 10.5.16 11.15.16 'x 8 'x I (2.23.16) 5.5.14 10.17.16 1.12.17 'x 'x 2.1.17 CUnited States Bureau 000658 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 219 of 440 State Contact Status 2/22/18 State Contacted Type of Data Responded/ Active Agreement Agreement Signed Data at Declined Acknowledgement Discussions In Draft Submitted Agreement Transferred participation of Contact Review for Slgnature Rhode Island SNAP WIC Rhode Island - TANF South Carolina -SNAP TANF South Carolina - WIC South Dakota - SNAP 8: TANF South Dakota, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe - WIC Tennessee - SNAP TANF Tennessee - WIC Texas - Houston HMIS Texas SNAP TANF Texas - WIC Utah - SNAP 8: TANF Utah - WIC Vermont - SNAP 8: TANF Vermont WIC Virginia - SNAP (2009?2016) Virginia Virginia - WIC Washington Confederated Tribes of the Colvilie Reservation - Enrollment Data Washington SNAP 81 TANF Washington - WIC West Virginia SNAP TANF West Virginia - WIC Wisconsin - SNAP Wisconsin - TANF Wisconsin WIC Wisconsin Care (200&2009) Wyoming - SNAP Wyoming-TANF Wyoming - WIC I 3.2.16 I I I 3.31.16 4.17.17 11.22.16 2.23.15 I 10.24.16 v? 6.5.17 I I 5.19.14 CUnited States Bureau 000656 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 220 of 440 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE - DRAFT Memoranda of UnderstandingUVlOU) Updates: Citizenship Data 3-19-2018 Summary The Census Bureau needs to acquire citizenship data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the State Department to augment the information on the "Numident" file from the Social Security Administration (SSA). These data can potentially be used to supplement information provided by respondents on the 2020 Census or, alternatively, to produce block level data on citizenship. The Census Bureau is currently in discussion with USCIS to obtain data on naturalizations and the State Department to obtain data on visas and passports. USCIS is currently reviewing a draft agreement and has sent over national summary level data for the years 2014- 2017 indicating the number ofapplications (naturalizations) with Security Numbers (SSN). The Census Bureau sent a formal request describing its need for the passport and visa data, with the expectation that further discussions will occur once the State Department has reviewed the request. The Census Bureau?s current agreement with SSA will expire this year, so as part of the renegotiation process the Census Bureau reached out to its partners at SSA to describe the potential use of the Numident, as a primary source of estimates on citizenship for the 2020 Census. SSA is Currently reviewing this Information. _Federal Agency Update Status 7 USCIS U.S. Citizenship Pending USCIS review of and immigration USCIS provided Services Summary data for number of applications. State U.S. State Department Sent request letter to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, explaining need for passport data and completing Dos MOU Update 000660 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 221 of 440 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE - DRAFT questionnaire; awaiting response. SSA Social Security Administratlon Pending SSA reaction and response, expected end of next week. MOU Update 000668 01212345 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 222 of 440 67ÿ9 ÿ 67 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ"#$%&$'ÿ(#' ÿ)%*'ÿ&$ÿ ++ "ÿ#$ÿ,-.&)ÿ4/ÿ2345 ÿ0 ÿ671 23 9 45,6 78ÿ9:;<<7=>7>ÿ,=?ÿ67=,@ A7> >BC45,6 78ÿA:;<ÿ,=?ÿ7D6@;E77> FG Hÿ0 G ÿ I 67Jÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ K%LÿM(# N ./ÿO &$Pÿ%$ÿ#++&" .ÿ#.ÿ Q-)#R ÿ. + .. Sÿ#ÿ&$ÿ'TO"(%- .ÿAAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ4ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ&) /ÿ*&))+T))Rÿ%$SÿU$#*&$P)R '* %.'ÿ#.ÿ%++&.Q'ÿ+%)' )Rÿ%'ÿ#ÿ( ÿ.T(ÿ#+ÿ%$Rÿ'% Q $ÿ. VT&. Sÿ#ÿO ÿQ%S ÿ#.ÿ'TO'".&O SÿORÿ(&QÿT$S .ÿ#%(ÿORÿ#. T$S .ÿ%T(#.&Rÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ&) /ÿ'(%))ÿO ÿPT&)Rÿ#+ÿ- .WT.R/ÿ%$Sÿ'(%))ÿO ÿ+&$ Sÿ$#ÿQ#. ÿ(%$ÿX2/333ÿ#.ÿ&Q-.&'#$ Sÿ$#ÿQ#. (%$ÿ+&N ÿR %.'/ÿ#.ÿO#(Y KOLÿM(# N ./ÿO &$Pÿ%$ÿ#++&" .ÿ#.ÿ Q-)#R ÿ. + .. Sÿ#ÿ&$ÿ'TO"(%- .ÿAAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ4ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ&) : K4Lÿ*&))+T))Rÿ%$SÿU$#*&$P)RÿQ%U 'ÿ%ÿ+%)' ÿ" .&+&"% ÿ#.ÿ+&"&&#T'ÿ. T.$Zÿ#. K2LÿU$#*&$P)Rÿ#.ÿ*&))+T))Rÿ+T.$&'( 'ÿ#.ÿ"%T' 'ÿ#ÿO ÿ+T.$&'( S/ÿ#./ÿ(%N&$PÿO $ÿ'T"(ÿ%$ÿ#++&" .ÿ#.ÿ Q-)#R / U$#*&$P)Rÿ#.ÿ*&))+T))Rÿ+T.$&'( Sÿ#.ÿ"%T' Sÿ#ÿO ÿ+T.$&'( S/ÿS&. ")Rÿ#.ÿ&$S&. ")R/ÿ#ÿ( ÿ> ". %.Rÿ#.ÿ#ÿ%$Rÿ#( .ÿ#++&" . #.ÿ Q-)#R ÿ#+ÿ( ÿ? -%.Q $ÿ#+ÿ4#QQ ." ÿ#.ÿOT. %Tÿ#.ÿ%P $"Rÿ( . #+/ÿ%$Rÿ+%)' ÿ'% Q $ÿ#.ÿ+%)' ÿ&$+#.Q%&#$ *&(ÿ. + . $" ÿ#ÿ%$Rÿ&$VT&.Rÿ+#.ÿ*(&"(ÿ( ÿ*%'ÿ%T(#.&[ Sÿ%$Sÿ. VT&. Sÿ#ÿ"#)) "ÿ&$+#.Q%&#$ÿ-.#N&S Sÿ+#.ÿ&$ÿ(&'ÿ&) : ÿ '(%))ÿO ÿ+&$ Sÿ$#ÿQ#. ÿ(%$ÿX2/333ÿ#.ÿ&Q-.&'#$ Sÿ$#ÿQ#. ÿ(%$ÿ+&N ÿR %.'/ÿ#.ÿO#(Y K,TPYÿ\4/ÿ4]^0/ÿ"(Yÿ44^5/ÿ_5ÿ>%Yÿ4322ÿYL `a 0bca deÿd3fÿc2ga ab3ÿ3b02 C%' Sÿ#$ÿ&) ÿ4\/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿhh422/ÿ235/ÿ2^2/ÿ%$Sÿ' "&#$ÿ4002ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ02/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ ( 6TO)&"ÿ5 %)(ÿ%$SÿM )+%. ÿKiT$ ÿ45/ÿ4]2]/ÿ"(Yÿ25/ÿh5/ÿ0_ÿ>%Yÿ2\ÿZÿiT$ ÿ4]/ÿ4]05/ÿ"(Yÿ^32/ÿh2/ÿ_2ÿ>%Yÿ09] ZÿiT)Rÿ4^/ÿ4]0]/ÿ"(Yÿ\\5/ÿ&) ÿjA/ÿh_39/ÿ_\ÿ>%Yÿ004ÿZÿ> -Yÿ9/ÿ4]^3/ÿ"(Yÿ]43/ÿh2/ÿ_0ÿ>%Yÿ950ÿLY > "&#$ÿ"#$'#)&S% 'ÿ-%.ÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ÿ235ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ4\/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ*&(ÿ(%ÿ-%.ÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ÿ422ÿ#+ÿ'T"( &) ÿ*(&"(ÿQ%S ÿ'T"(ÿ' "&#$ÿ235ÿ%--)&"%O) ÿ#ÿ( ÿVT&$VT $$&%)ÿ" $'T' 'ÿ#+ÿQ%$T+%"T. .'/ÿ( ÿQ&$ .%) &$ST'.& '/ÿ%$Sÿ#( .ÿOT'&$ '' 'ÿK' ÿ'TO"(%- .ÿAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ^ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ&) L/ÿ(%ÿ-%.ÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ 2^2ÿ#+ÿ'T"(ÿ&) ÿ*(&"(ÿQ%S ÿ'T"(ÿ' "&#$ÿ235ÿ%--)&"%O) ÿ#ÿ( ÿVT&$VT $$&%)ÿ" $'T' 'ÿ#+ÿP#N .$Q $' K' ÿ'TO"(%- .ÿAAAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ^ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ&) L/ÿ%$Sÿ(%ÿ-%.ÿ#+ÿ'TO' "&#$ÿKOLÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ÿ4002ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ02/ BY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ*(&"(ÿQ%S ÿ'T"(ÿ' "&#$ÿ235ÿ%--)&"%O) ÿ#ÿ( ÿS " $$&%)ÿ" $'T' 'ÿ#+ÿ(#T'&$PÿK' 'TO"(%- .ÿAAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ^ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ&) LYÿ<#.ÿ. Q%&$S .ÿ#+ÿ' "&#$'ÿ422/ÿ235/ÿ%$Sÿ2^2ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ4\/ÿBY>Y4Y/ 4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ%$Sÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ÿ4002ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ02/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SYÿK*(&"(ÿ' "&#$ÿ(%'ÿO $ÿ.%$'+ .. Sÿ&$ÿ&'ÿ $&. R #ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ&) L/ÿ' ÿ?&'.&OT&#$ÿ %O) Y ,'ÿ' ÿ#Tÿ&$ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ' "&#$/ÿ( ÿ-.#N&'&#$'ÿ. )% ÿ#ÿ%))ÿ&$N '&P%&#$'/ÿ'T.N R'/ÿ"#)) "&#$'ÿ#+ '%&'&"'/ÿ%$Sÿ" $'T' 'ÿ-.#N&S Sÿ+#.ÿ&$ÿ(&'ÿ&) /ÿ%$Sÿ#ÿ#++&" .'ÿ%'ÿ* ))ÿ%'ÿ Q-)#R '/ÿ*(&"(ÿ*%' -.#O%O)Rÿ( ÿ#.&P&$%)ÿ) P&')%&N ÿ&$ $Y 8 + . $" 'ÿ#ÿ( ÿ#++ $' 'ÿS '".&O Sÿ&$ÿ'TO' "&#$ÿKOLÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ' "&#$ÿ%'ÿO &$Pÿ+ )#$& '/ÿ* . #Q& Sÿ%'ÿ"#N . SÿORÿ' "&#$ÿ4ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ45/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ4.&Q 'ÿ%$Sÿ4.&Q&$%)ÿ6.#" ST. /ÿ")%''&+R&$P #++ $' 'Zÿ%$Sÿ*#.S'ÿkT-#$ÿ"#$N&"&#$ÿ( . #+kÿ%$SÿkT-#$ÿ"#$N&"&#$ÿ#+kÿ* . ÿ#Q& Sÿ%'ÿ'T.-)T'%P Y 4(%$P 'ÿ* . ÿQ%S ÿ&$ÿ-(.%' #)#PRÿ%$Sÿ%..%$P Q $Y 000662 414 •. Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 223 of 440 .v..,: ' "" . 'DEC-14-2017 17:51 U.S. Department of Justice ( Justice Management Division Office ofGeneral Counsel Waahtngtorr. D.C. 20$30 DEC 12 t017 VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT 7014 2120 0000 8064 4964 Dr.RonJarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director U.S. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 2023~-0001 Re: Request To Reinstate Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Dr. Jannin: The Department of Justice is committed to robust and evenhanded enforcement of the Nation's civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. In furtherance of that commitment. I write on behalf of the Department to fonnally request that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship, fonnerly included in the so-called "long form'' census. This data is critical to the Department's enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements, the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected. As demonstrated below, the decennial census questionnaire is the most appropriate vehicle for collecting that data, and reinstating a question on citizenship will best enable the Department to protect all American citizens' voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits ''vote dilution" by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote--dilution case, citizen voting~age population is the proper metric for detennining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a singlemember district. See, e.g., Reyes v. City ofFarmers Branch, 586 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. City ofChicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negrn v. City ofMiami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 15 67-69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. City ofPomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1990}; see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 423-442 (2006) (analyzing vote-dilution claim by reference to citizen voting-age population). 000663 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 224 of 440 'DEC-14-2017 p. 03/ 04 ,, .. ;;.r'._ 17:52 . -' The purpose of Section 2's vote-dilution prohibition "is to facilitate participation ... in our political process" by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race. Campos v. City ofHouston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1997). Importantly, "[t]he plain language of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens." ld Indeed, courts have reasoned that ''[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship" and that "[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote." Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single-member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-age population in that district but "continued to be defeated at the polls" because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos, 113 F.3d at 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2's protection against discrimination in votin~ the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting-age population data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so-called "long form" questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennial census. See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3:2000 Census ofPopulation & Housing-Appendix Bat B-7 (July 2007), available at https://www.census.gov/prodlcen2000/doc/sf3.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2017); U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, available at https://www.census.gov/history/ www/through_the~decades!index_of_questions/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance .with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2's protections against racial discrimination in voting. • • In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the "long form" questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty·eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs"surveys/acs/about!ACS Information Guide.pdf Oast visited Nov. 22~ 2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau's only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting-age population. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the first cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau's only citizen voting-age population data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimates for this redistricting cycle. The ACS, howevert does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: • Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total population data from the census to determine compliance with the Constitution's one-person, one-vote requirement, see Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4, 2016). As a result. using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite significantly. 2 000664 • .. _; ,~ • Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 225 of 440 : DEC-14-2017 17:52 P. 04/04 .....~ ( • Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one~year, three-year, and fiveyear estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data from the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting-age population data from the census that jurisdictions already use in redistricting. • The ACS estimates are reported at a ninety percent confidence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size-and, thus, the geographic area-decreases. See U.S. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey). available at https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ConfidenceintervalA.mericanCommunity Survey (last visited November 22, 2017). By contrast; decennial census data is a full count of the population. • Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3, 5, 10. Accordingly, redistricting jurisdictions and the Department are required to perform further estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting~age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistricting process. For all of these reasons, the Department believes that deeermial census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. ( Accordingly. the Department formally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship. We also request that the Census Bureau release this new data regarding citiZenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Department requests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia, to yield information for the periodic determinations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. 52 U.S.C. § 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request. I can be reached at (202) 514-3452; or at Arthur.Gary@usdoj.gov. Sincerely yours. ~f-~ 0 Arthur E. Gary . "-~ General Counsel Justice Management Division ( 3 TOTAL P.04 000665 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 226 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Underfunding, Canceled Tests Raise Fears About First‐Ever Online  3/19/2018 Census Asking about citizenship in the 2020 census is "unconstitutional,"  2/13/2018 according to 19 Democrats Opinion   Census Sabotage 2/9/2018 2020 Census will ask white people about origins but leave out  questions about Hispanic and Middle Eastern identities 2/1/2018 How a citizenship question on the 2020 Census could diminish  1/25/2018 Miami's political clout Potential citizenship question in census could shift power; GOP  1/25/2018 likely would gain; Democrats doubt accuracy 1/21/2018 Census 2020: High stakes for Illinois 1/15/2018 The Census Should Ask About Citizenship Census doesn't need citizenship question 1/9/2018 Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question 1/8/2018 Don't imperil the U.S. census 1/4/2018 This month, the Department of Justice requested to include a  12/30/2017 citizenship question on the 2020 Census 3/20/2018 2/16/2018 2/15/2018 2/5/2018 1/29/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 Trump's reelection campaign calls for adding citizenship question  to 2020 census amid criticism that he is politicizing the count Citizenship Question Would Convert Census Into a GOP Voter  Suppression Tool Census Question May Be Bad for Health Groups raise concerns about move to ask about citizenship on the  Census Census Change to Race, Ethnicity Questions Shelved by Trump  Administration Delay High stakes for Illinois Why Asking About Citizenship Could Make the Census Less  Accurate 1 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census U.S. News & World Report 200 Newsweek Online New York Times Online, The 200 200 Newsweek Online 200 Miami Herald Online, The 200 Houston Chronicle Chicago Tribune Wall Street Journal Online, The USA Today USA Today Online Los Angeles Times 200 200 200 200 200 200 Newsweek Online 200 Washington Post Online, The 160 Daily Beast, The New York Times, The 160 160 USA Today Online 160 Wall Street Journal Online, The Chicago Tribune Online 160 160 New York Times Online, The 160 000666 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 227 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census 3/15/2018 3/11/2018 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants Los Angeles Times Online Groups oppose potential question on citizenship in next census Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com Hostility to this Census question is overblown USA Today Hostility to Census question is overblown USA Today Online The GOP sabotage of the census Washington Post, The Critics Say Questions About Citizenship Could Wreck Chances for an  Accurate Census New York Times Online, The Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census New York Times Online, The The wrong question to ask Washington Post, The Request to Check Citizenship Stirs Fears for Census New York Times, The The question that could sabotage the census CNN Online Eyewitness Newsmakers KABC‐TV Fearing a Trump population undercount, Brown wants more  money for state census effort Sacramento Bee Online, The No citizen question on the census San Antonio Express‐News Online 3/6/2018 3/5/2018 Census respondents may be asked citizenship status in 2020 survey FOX News Channel Online We can't count on the Census Bureau New York Daily News Online 150 150 3/4/2018 2/19/2018 2/18/2018 2/18/2018 2/18/2018 2/17/2018 Rural Deep South at most risk of being overlooked in 2020 census States oppose census citizenship query All Mississippi residents need to be counted in census Census count vital to state Will the 2020 Census find you? Why citizenship could be a question on the 2020 Census Public‐health officials pan Justice Dept. bid to add citizenship  question to census Citizenship question on 2020 Census jeopardizes Florida's political  clout N.J. flags Census citizen question More than a dozen states object  to proposal, fearing immigrants won't respond Richmond Times‐Dispatch San Diego Union‐Tribune, The Clarion‐Ledger Online, The Clarion‐Ledger, The Los Angeles Daily News Orange County Register Online, The 150 150 150 150 150 150 Seattle Times Online, The 150 Orlando Sentinel Online 150 Star‐Ledger, The 150 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/5/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/2/2018 3/18/2018 2/15/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 150 150 150 000667 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 228 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/12/2018 2/8/2018 2/6/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/22/2018 1/21/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 Dem AGs press Trump officials not to include citizenship question  in census Mayors to Census: Don't Blow This Citizenship question drives uncertainty over 2020 census California must stop Trump from sabotaging the census Opinion: California must stop Trump from sabotaging the census Commentary: A flawed Census could hurt Utah's rural areas and  marginalized communities Why 2020 Census should not ask about citizenship Commentary A flawed Census could hurt Utah’s rural areas and  marginalized communities Legislation Tries to Block Census from Adding Citizenship Question  as DOJ Requested Trump administration's census citizenship question could help rig  redistricting for Republicans Trump officials want 2020 census to ask about citizenship Trump officials want 2020 Census to ask about citizenship Trump Administration's Push For Citizenship Question On Census  Alarms Critics Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question GOP Weaponizing the Census for Voter Suppression Congress must guard accuracy of census GOP sabotaging census Census citizenship question sought EDITORIAL: Quick way to undermine the U.S. Census? Ask about  citizenship 3 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Hill Online, The CityLab Hill Online, The Mercury News Online, The Mercury News, The 150 150 150 150 150 Salt Lake Tribune Online Mercury News Online, The 150 150 Salt Lake Tribune, The 150 Pajamas Media 150 Daily Kos Washington Times, The Washington Times Online 150 150 150 KUHF‐FM ‐ Online Commercial Appeal Online News Journal Online, The Arizona Republic Online Journal News Online, The Des Moines Register Online Detroit Free Press Online Cincinnati Enquirer Online, The Daily Kos Star Tribune Asbury Park Press Dayton Daily News 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Chicago Sun‐Times 150 000668 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 229 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Should 2020 census ask Californians about their citizenship? Trump Justice Department Pushes For Citizenship Question On  12/31/2017 Census, Alarming Experts Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  12/30/2017 Census, Alarming Experts 3/22/2018 Immigrants hiding from Trump imperil accuracy of US Census 3/20/2018 President Trump is sabotaging census, CA elections chief says 3/19/2018 U.S. census shouldn't ask about citizenship San Diego Union‐Tribune Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 150 National Memo 150 HuffPost Miami Herald Online, The KABC‐TV Online South Florida Sun Sentinel Online 150 120 120 120 Dems push DOJ for answers on Census citizenship question request Peter Kirsanow, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights member, asks  about citizenship on census forms Civil rights commissioner enters raging debate by requesting  citizenship question on census Letters: Don't add unneeded questions to census Department of Justice seeking to add citizenship status question in  2020 census Census' citizenship question raises concern Why Asking About U.S. Citizenship Imperils the Census Hill Online, The 120 Washington Times, The 120 Washington Times Online Newsday Online 120 120 WTTG‐TV Online Newsday Online CityLab 120 120 120 Rural Deep South at most risk of being overlooked in 2020 Census Extra Doorbells, Satellite Dishes: How Cities Search for People the  Census May Miss Extra Doorbells, Satellite Dishes:  How Cities Search for People the  Census May Miss Yes: U.S. deserves accurate count of citizens, noncitizens US wants to add citizenship query to census, but group of states  and DC protest State fights Trump over citizenship question on census Census ‘citizenship' question sets off new California vs. Trump  immigration argument Upcoming 2020 Census sparks fears of citizenship question Miami Herald Online, The 120 New York Times, The 120 New York Times Online, The Orlando Sentinel 120 120 San Francisco Chronicle Online Los Angeles Daily News 120 120 Orange County Register Online, The Mercury News Online, The 120 120 1/3/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/15/2018 3/13/2018 3/13/2018 3/1/2018 2/27/2018 2/26/2018 2/23/2018 2/22/2018 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/18/2018 2/17/2018 2/16/2018 4 000669 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 230 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/16/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 The Census, Politicized Opinion   The Census, Politicized Latino Groups Push Back on Citizenship Question for Census New York Times, The New York Times Online, The Public News Service Media Impact Score ‐  Census 120 120 120 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 New York Times Online, The Star Tribune 120 120 2/13/2018 A Citizenship Question on the Census May Be Bad for Your Health Frey opposes U.S. Census question on citizenship Minneapolis mayor joins opposition to citizenship question in  Census Star Tribune Online 120 2/13/2018 Trump's pick to run the 2020 Census withdraws from consideration ThinkProgress 120 2/13/2018 California AG pushes back on proposal to ask citizenship in census Maine attorney general joins peers opposing citizenship question  in census State attorneys general: No citizenship question on census AG joins census question opposition States fight plan to ask of citizenship in census L.A. City Council Opposes Citizenship Question on Federal Census  Form Analysis   There's a big problem with how the census measures  race U.S. Census won't include Middle Eastern‐North African ethnic  category in 2020 survey Census citizenship question under review How a citizenship question on the 2020 Census could diminish  Miami's political clout Potential citizenship question for 2020 Census could shift power to  rural America Citizenship, Census and Congressional Seats Trump's illegally trying to put a notorious gerrymanderer in charge  of the 2020 census States are taking action to prevent census undercounting San Diego Union‐Tribune Online 120 Portland Press Herald Online Vancouver Sun Online, The Portland Press Herald San Diego Union‐Tribune, The 120 120 120 120 KEIB‐AM Online 120 Washington Post Online, The 120 WDIV‐TV Online CNN Online 120 120 Naked Politics ‐ The Miami Herald 120 Denver Post, The Wall Street Journal Online, The 120 120 Daily Kos Star Tribune Online 120 120 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/1/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/22/2018 1/20/2018 1/13/2018 Outlet Name 5 000670 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 231 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census HuffPost 120 1/10/2018 Census Uncertainty Spurs State Action To Prevent Undercounting Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WBGO‐FM Online 120 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 The Controversial Question DOJ Wants to Add to the U.S. Census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census GOP is sabotaging the census ‐‐ and ignoring the Constitution Atlantic Online, The Billings Gazette Online St. Louis Post‐Dispatch Online Denver Post, The 120 120 120 120 Los Angeles Times Online 120 Yahoo News WGCL‐TV Online 120 120 Daily Kos Crain's New York Business Online 120 100 Mother Jones Online 100 Mother Jones Online Idaho Business Review Online, The 100 100 Summit Daily News Online Hattiesburg American 100 100 Republican Online/MassLive.com, The 100 Washington Examiner Online Valley Times‐News, The Citizen Tribune Online Monitor Online 100 100 100 100 1/11/2018 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants The DOJ Wants A Citizenship Question On The Census. That Could  Blow Up The Whole Survey 1/3/2018 The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 DoJ is pressing the Census Bureau to put a citizenship question on  12/30/2017 the 2020 short form. 3/20/2018 Why NYC will get screwed by the census‐again Trump Is Fundraising Off a Question That Would Scare Immigrants  3/19/2018 Away From the Census We Now Know Who's Behind the Trump Administration's Push to  Suppress Immigrant Participation in the Census 3/8/2018 Idaho Census 2020 planning underway 3/6/2018 Proposed question about citizenship status in the 2020 Census  2/28/2018 concerns immigrant rights advocates 2/18/2018 Residents must all be counted in census Massachusetts AG Maura Healey opposes Trump administration  2/13/2018 effort to add citizenship question to US census Census citizenship question gets pushback from 19 state attorneys  2/12/2018 general A Census for dummies 2/8/2018 1/24/2018 Asking citizenship question on census not a viable idea 1/21/2018 Can 2020 Census be saved? 1/4/2018 6 000671 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 232 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/21/2018 1/16/2018 Don't mix immigration with 2020 Census Michael Barone: Against new questions for the 2020 Census Monitor Online Washington Examiner Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 100 100 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/14/2018 1/13/2018 1/11/2018 L.A. County Fights Plan to Add Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Michael Barone: Against new questions for the 2020 Census Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need to add citizenship question Undermining Census 2020 Trump Administration's Push For Citizenship Question On Census  Alarms Critics Census doesn't need citizenship question Census doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question City News Service, Inc. Washington Examiner Evening Sun, The Newark Advocate, The Public Opinion 100 100 100 100 100 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 Outlet Name 7 KUT‐FM ‐ Online 100 Evansville Courier & Press, The 100 Visalia Times‐Delta 100 Fort Collins Coloradoan Online 100 100 Statesman Journal Online Public Opinion Online 100 Stevens Point Journal Online 100 Herald Times Reporter Online 100 Kitsap Sun Online 100 Daily Journal Online, The 100 Tallahassee Democrat Online 100 Spectrum Online 100 Las Cruces Sun‐News Online 100 Marion Star Online 100 Ithaca Journal Online 100 Daily News Journal Online, The 100 Lansing State Journal Online 100 News‐Press Online, The 100 El Paso Times Online 100 Post‐Crescent Online 100 Press & Sun‐Bulletin Online 100 WBIR‐TV Online 100 Observer & Eccentric Newspapers ‐ Onlin100 000672 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 233 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name 1/4/2018 Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Battle Creek Enquirer Online Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Iowa City Press‐Citizen Online It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America Bulletin Online Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census Enterprise, The T he American people are dangerously divided, but one event  looming on the horizon has the potential to put us on a path  toward unity: the U.S. census.[CR‐LF][CR‐LF]If President Donald  Trump makes no changes, the U.S. Census B Bulletin, The Why the next census shouldn't try to count unauthorized  immigrants Times, The Wrongheaded question could derail 2020 census   Opinion    Journal Gazette Journal Gazette Online, The The Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census Herald‐News Online, The 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 3/15/2018 3/10/2018 3/9/2018 3/4/2018 3/3/2018 2/25/2018 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/16/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 EDITORIAL Other views ‐ A change that could derail the next census Census may be derailed Census may be derailed It's Common Sense To Everybody Except The Progressive Left Another view ; Count all people, as Constitution requires Count all the people, just as the Constitution says Rural South at risk of being undercounted in 2020 POLITICS Census rushes to respond to request to add citizenship question Why the 2020 census shouldn't ask about your citizenship status No: Question will jeopardize Florida and its political clout Should census ask about citizenship? Citizenship query proposed Should census ask about your citizenship? Don't ask about citizenship on census, California tells Trump State AGs gripe over citizenship question on 2020 census 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/6/2018 1/4/2018 8 Corpus Christi Caller‐Times Morning Sentinel Kennebec Journal WMAL‐AM Online San Antonio Express‐News San Antonio Express‐News Online Mobile Press‐Register Salon Salon Orlando Sentinel Orlando Sentinel San Francisco Chronicle Orlando Sentinel Online Sacramento Bee Online, The New York Daily News Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 000673 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 234 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Iowa joins a coalition of state attorneys general in opposing a  2/12/2018 citizenship question on the 2020 census The California impact if 2020 Census includes question about  citizenship status 2/8/2018 Where are you really from? 2/6/2018 1/31/2018 KQED Forum with Michael Krasny 1/27/2018 Smerconish 1/27/2018 Census citizenship question under legal review Will California lose a seat in Congress after the next census? You  1/25/2018 can bet Trump hopes so Why Democrats should be worried about the Census requesting  1/24/2018 citizenship info Could Trump's crackdown on immigration cost California a  1/17/2018 congressional seat? 1/15/2018 Playing politics with 2020 Census might backfire on Trump 1/14/2018 missing mississippians Mississippi's rural black, Hispanic communities risk  1/13/2018 underrepresentation in 2020 census Catherine Rampbell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/7/2018 It's time to stop dividing America 1/6/2018 Catherine Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/5/2018 Trump Justice Department pushes for citizenship question on  census, alarming experts 1/3/2018 12/30/2017 DOJ pushing for citizenship question on census forms: report 3/22/2018 Omnibus boosts Census funding 3/20/2018 Trump campaign taps census question as a fund‐raising tool 3/19/2018 Do you want the next census to include citizenship question? 3/12/2018 Trump is Reshaping the Census to Reflect His Vision of America The Next Census Will Shape Children's Lives. Let's Make Sure We  Count Right 3/6/2018 2/27/2018 Trump Can Help Overcome Identity Politics 2/22/2018 Why the 2020 census shouldn't ask about your citizenship status 9 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Des Moines Register Online 90 KPCC‐FM Online Arkansas Democrat‐Gazette Online Forum ‐ KQED‐FM Smerconish ‐ CNN WDIV‐TV Online 90 90 90 90 90 San Diego Union‐Tribune Online 90 Fix ‐ The Washington Post, The 90 San Diego Union‐Tribune Online Plain Dealer, The Clarion‐Ledger, The 90 90 90 Clarion‐Ledger Online, The New Hampshire Union Leader Online Post‐Standard, The Salt Lake Tribune Online 90 90 90 90 Salon Hill Online, The Federal Computer Week Online Federal Computer Week Online USA Today Online Mother Jones Online 90 90 80 80 80 80 Education Week Online Wall Street Journal Online, The Rapid City Journal Online 80 80 80 000674 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 235 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/19/2018 2/18/2018 2/18/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/11/2018 2/10/2018 2/10/2018 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 1/30/2018 1/27/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 Outlet Name Can the Trump Administration Rig the Census? New Republic Online State fights on census question Inland Valley Daily Bulletin California battles Trump on census Long Beach Press‐Telegram Group of states protest bid to add citizenship query to census ::  WRAL.com WRAL‐TV Online N.J. opposes census citizenship question  More than a dozen states  object to proposal, fearing immigrants won't respond South Jersey Times A Citizenship Question on the Census May Be Bad for Your Health ::  WRAL.com WRAL‐TV Online Where are you really from? No, really? Miami Herald Online, The Hawaii joins states opposed to census citizenship question Honolulu Star‐Advertiser Online Census deciding whether to ask about citizenship Town Talk, The Galvin fears Trump is 'sabotaging' 2020 census Telegram & Gazette Online Galvin fears Trump is ‘sabotaging' 2020 census Telegram & Gazette Groups raise concerns about move to ask about citizenship on the  Census Town Talk Online Citizen status on the Census? Montgomery Advertiser Massachusetts official warns of possible census undercount Miami Herald Online, The Trump trying to ‘sabotage' 2020 census, Galvin says Republican, The Massachusetts' Galvin worried Trump administration 'sabotaging'  2020 census Telegram & Gazette Online Secretary of State worried Trump administration is 'sabotaging'  2020 census Metro New York Online President Donald Trump wants to 'sabotage' 2020 census Republican Online/MassLive.com, The Ensure the Census Counts Everyone U.S. News & World Report Critical Census test to start on schedule, as long as the government  doesn't shut down ‐‐ FCW Federal Computer Week Online Census Bureau changes course on key 2020 question Federal Computer Week Online DACA outline in line of fire Chicago Tribune If Trump's citizenship question is on census, Illinois could lose a  seat in Congress Chicago Tribune Online Why we need to count citizens in the 2020 census Washington Examiner Online 10 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 000675 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 236 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/25/2018 1/24/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/14/2018 1/13/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Outlet Name CAPITOL JOURNAL America will have no racial majority by 2042 Why Asking About Citizenship Could Make the Census Less  Accurate :: WRAL.com It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America, say Ward  Connerly and Mike Gonzalez VOICE OF THE PEOPLE Hostility to Census question is overblown Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown 11 Los Angeles Times Chicago Tribune Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 80 80 WRAL‐TV Online 80 Press of Atlantic City Online Chicago Tribune Newark Advocate, The 80 80 80 Wisconsin Public Radio ‐ Online 80 WVXU‐FM ‐ Online Santa Maria Times Online Arizona Daily Star Online World Online Casper Star‐Tribune Online Lincoln Journal Star Online Montana Standard Online Times & Democrat Online, The Southern Illinoisan Online Pantagraph Online Fremont Tribune Online Quad‐City Times Online Journal Times Online Post‐Star Online Winona Daily News Online Corvallis Gazette‐Times Online Daily News Online, The Bismarck Tribune Online Fort Collins Coloradoan Online Kitsap Sun Online Daily Journal Online, The 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 000676 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 237 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Marion Star Online 80 Post‐Crescent Online 80 Press & Sun‐Bulletin Online 80 WBIR‐TV Online 80 Observer & Eccentric Newspapers ‐ Onlin80 Battle Creek Enquirer Online 80 Iowa City Press‐Citizen Online 80 Milford Daily News, The 80 Register‐Guard Online, The 80 Tri‐City Herald Online 80 Akron Beacon Journal Online 80 Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown OUR VIEW Political maneuvers sabotaging the census It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America Catherine Rampell: Will the census count everyone? Not because of cavalier threats about nuclear apocalypse and  attempted erosion of First Amendment rights (OK, maybe those  things, too). Because our federal government is failing to execute  one of its most basic constitutional duties: the decennial census. Milford Daily News, The 1/6/2018 It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America 1/5/2018 Spokesman‐Review Online, The House Democrats push back against DOJ adding citizenship  question to 2020 Census 1/5/2018 Washington Examiner Online Census questions only divide us 1/5/2018 Spokesman‐Review, The I've been a census enumerator. Asking about citizenship is a  terrible idea. 1/4/2018 Washington Post Online, The House Democrats push back against DOJ adding citizenship  question to 2020 Census 1/4/2018 Washington Examiner Alarm at proposal to ask about citizenship status in census 1/3/2018 Honolulu Star‐Advertiser Online The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 WSMV‐TV Online The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 KMOV‐TV Online The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 WFSB‐TV Online The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 KPTV‐TV Online The Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census 1/3/2018 Washington Post Online, The 12/30/2017 DOJ Trying to Add Citizenship Question to Census: Report Daily Beast, The 12 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 000677 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 238 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name C‐SPAN Washington Journal ‐ C‐SPAN C‐SPAN3 KCRA 3 Reports at 6 ‐ KCRA‐TV Media Impact Score ‐  Census 72 72 64 64 Stars and Stripes Online National Journal Bakersfield Californian Online Texarkana Gazette Online Spectrum News Buffalo 60 60 60 60 60 Monitor Online 60 2/22/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 2/8/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 Public Affairs Events Washington Journal Politics and Public Policy Today KCRA 3 Reports at 6PM Trump's reelection campaign calls for adding citizenship question  to 2020 census A Sense of the Census Numbers Count ‐ and in Kern County, they count a lot Rural Deep South  at most risk of being overlooked in census Capital Tonight Fearing census undercount, local efforts combat limited resources,  ‘anti‐Latino environment' Extra Doorbells, Satellite Dishes: How Cities Search for People the  Census May Miss :: WRAL.com We're No. 2! (And No. 13) Olympic notebook: Alaska is No. 2! (And No. 13) L.A. City Council Opposes Citizenship Question on Census State attorneys general: No citizenship question on censu State AGs opposed to citizenship question on census KGO Noon News Madeleine Brand Show Spectrum News All Morning at 10:30 Morning Edition KUHF‐FM WRAL‐TV Online 60 Alaska Dispatch News Online 60 Anchorage Daily News 60 City News Service, Inc. 60 WHIO‐TV Online 60 Chico Enterprise‐Record 60 KGO Noon News ‐ KGO‐AM 60 60 Take Two ‐ KPCC‐FM Spectrum News Albany 60 Morning Edition ‐ NPR/National Public Ra60 KUHF‐FM 60 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 LOS ANGELES (CNS) ‐ A Los Angeles City Council committee today  opposed a proposal to include a citizenship question on the 2020  Census over concerns it could lead to inaccurate counts and an  unfair allocation of federal funding by discouraging immigrants STATE BRIEFS White Americans: Where are you really from? White Americans: Tell us where you are really from City News Service, Inc. Enterprise, The South Florida Sun Sentinel Online Corpus Christi Caller‐Times 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 3/22/2018 1/17/2018 3/21/2018 3/20/2018 3/10/2018 3/4/2018 2/26/2018 2/25/2018 13 60 60 60 60 000678 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 239 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline California Secretary of State Concerned Trump Administration is  1/31/2018 Sabotaging the Census Big questions unanswered about the 2020 census. Big money  1/29/2018 depends on the answers 1/29/2018 WAVY News 10 at 4pm The Republican assault on knowledge has a new possible target:  1/28/2018 the Census 1/27/2018 KYW‐AM 1/27/2018 Immigration's vexing issues 1/26/2018 Headlines 1/25/2018 KUHF‐FM 1/23/2018 Numbers game 1/16/2018 Trump's revenge on California: The Census 1/16/2018 Morning Edition 1/14/2018 Census change may be costly Mississippi's rural black, Hispanic communities risk  1/13/2018 underrepresentation in 2020 census The question that could sabotage the census 1/9/2018 Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/8/2018 Editorial: Snapshots from the nation's press 1/8/2018 RAMPELL: A sacred mandate sacrificed 1/8/2018 GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/8/2018 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/7/2018 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/7/2018 On the Media 1/6/2018 KUHF‐FM 1/6/2018 On Being 1/6/2018 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/5/2018 DOJ calling for citizenship question to be put in 2020 Census:  12/30/2017 Report New York risks undercount in upcoming 2020 census, city's chief  3/23/2018 demographer says 14 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census KQED‐FM Online 60 Yakima Herald‐Republic Online WAVY News 10 at 4 PM ‐ WAVY‐TV 60 60 Daily Kos 60 KYW‐AM 60 Newsday Online 60 WBBM‐AM 60 KUHF‐FM 60 Brownsville Herald Online, The 60 POLITICO Online 60 Morning Edition ‐ NPR/National Public Ra60 Monitor Online 60 Hattiesburg American Online La Crosse Tribune Online Casper Star‐Tribune Online Daily Camera Online Rapid City Journal Daytona Beach News‐Journal, The Burlington Free Press New Hampshire Union Leader, The On the Media ‐ WNYC‐AM KUHF‐FM On Being with Krista Tippett News & Observer Online, The 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Washington Examiner Online 60 POLITICO States 50 000679 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 240 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/23/2018 3/22/2018 3/20/2018 3/20/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/7/2018 3/1/2018 2/28/2018 2/27/2018 2/26/2018 2/24/2018 2/22/2018 2/19/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 Adding citizenship question to 2020 Census is untimely,  unnecessary and unwise Sens. Menendez, Booker, Hirono Introduce Bill to Prevent Trump  Administration From Politicizing Census With Citizenship Question Judiciary Democrats demand answers from DOJ on potential 2020  Census citizenship question   Orange County Breeze Rep. Meng Presses Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Census  Citizenship Question During House Hearing Divisive Census Question Could Harm California's Communities Judiciary Democrats Demand Answers from DOJ on Potential  Census Citizenship Question Fearing undercount, Santa Clara County will spend $1M now on a  census 2 years away Census Has No Place Asking About Immigration Status Liberals Voice Opposition to Trump Admin Attempts to Include  Citizenship Questions in Census Why It Is Critical to Make the 2020 Census Count Census rushes to respond to request to add citizenship question Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Sampan ‐ Online 50 Targeted News Service 50 Orange County Breeze Online 50 Targeted News Service U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein 50 50 U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein 50 Silicon Valley Business Journal City on a Hill Press ‐ Online 50 50 Washington Free Beacon Reform Judaism Online TucsonSentinel.com 50 50 50 Census Rushes to Respond to Request to Add Citizenship Question ProPublica Labor, community activists push back against U.S. Census  citizenship question New York Amsterdam News Online AG Frosh on Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Calvert Beacon Debate heats up about citizenship question in next Census Constitution Daily Stats for Stories: Chinese New Year Targeted News Service After Budget Deal, Policymakers Should Boost 2018 Funding for the  2020 Census Targeted News Service Jewish Groups Send Letter to Department of Commerce on  Addition of Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Targeted News Service Jewish Organizations Send Letter to Department of Commerce on  Addition of Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Targeted News Service 15 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 000680 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 241 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 Schneiderman leads coalition of 19 AGs opposing citizenship  question on 2020 census Thomas Knapp: The census for dummies, including Justice  Department Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Madison County Courier ‐ Online 50 Pahrump Valley Times ‐ Online 50 The census for dummies (including the U.S. Department of Justice) Montgomery Herald ‐ Online, The NJ Attorney General: We don't need a citizenship question on the  census » The Lakewood Scoop » The heartbeat of the lakewood  community Lakewood Scoop ‐ Online, The The Census for Dummies (Including the US Department of Justice) Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Would Be Unconstitutional Hawai‘i Joins Coalition Opposing Citizenship Question on 2020  Census Are you a citizen? N.J. says Census should not ask the question A.G. Schneiderman Leads Coalition Of 19 AGs Opposing Citizenship  Question On 2020 Census AG Healey warns adding citizenship question would jeopardize  accuracy of 2020 Census and undercount Massachusetts  population NY AG Leads Coalition of 19 AGs Opposing Citizenship Question on  2020 Census Citizenship question raises fears about census ATTORNEY GENERAL GREWAL JOINS NATIONAL COALITION OF  ATTORNEYS GENERAL OPPOSING CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON 2020  U.S. CENSUS Hawaii Joins Coalition of 19 AGS Opposing Citizenship Question on  2020 Census AG Grewal Joins National Coalition of Attorneys General Opposing  Citizenship Question on 2020 U.S. Census 16 50 50 Vernal Express ‐ Online Sierra Sun ‐ Online 50 50 Big Island Now NJ.com 50 50 LongIsland.com 50 Sampan ‐ Online 50 Independent View, The Daily News Online, The 50 50 US Fed News 50 Targeted News Service 50 Targeted News Service 50 000681 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 242 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census 2/12/2018 ATTORNEY GENERAL BECERRA TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION:  CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON 2020 CENSUS WOULD BE  UNCONSTITUTIONAL US Fed News 50 2/9/2018 Census Map Reveals Low Response Rate among Valley Residents KRGV‐TV ‐ Online 50 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 Trump Admin Sneakily Trying to ‘Sabotage' Census for Blue States Channel 5 News at 6pm Law & Crime 50 Newschannel 5 at 6 Saturday ‐ KRGV‐TV 50 2/8/2018 The census for dummies (including the U.S. Department of Justice) Fayette Tribune ‐ Online The Census for Dummies (Including the US Department of Justice)    Citizens Journal Citizens Journal Letter: The Census for dummies (including the US Department of  Justice) Daily Lobo, University of New Mexico L.A. City Council Committee Opposes Including Citizenship  Question On 2020 Census SFV Media Mayors alarmed by 'unprecedented challenges' ahead of 2020  census StateScoop Galvin worried Trump admin is ‘sabotaging' 2020 Census Herald News, The Galvin worried Trump is 'sabotaging' 2020 census Patriot Ledger, The The census for dummies (including the US Department of Justice) –  Editorial by Thomas L. Knapp Herald‐Chronicle ‐ Online The Census for Dummies Lebanon Reporter Online Why 2020 Census should not ask about citizenship Lake County Record‐Bee Online TEXAS VIEW: Don't dilute the Census Odessa American Online Census Bureau to keep guidelines on race/ethnicity from 2010 New York Amsterdam News Online Trump Administration Census Changes Endanger Accurate View of  US Diversity Nonprofit Quarterly, The ‐ Online Tara Bahrampour ‐ Illegals won't be hired as census‐takers in 2020,  staff is told Jewish World Review Justice Department Asks Census Bureau to Include Question About  Citizenship; Critics Say it Will Undermine Accurate Count India‐West ‐ Online 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/26/2018 17 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 000682 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 243 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/23/2018 1/21/2018 1/21/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 Outlet Name Opinion: Why 2020 Census should not ask about citizenship Arab American Institute Issues Statement on 2020 Census Census Will Discount Minorities   www.qgazette.com Census Will Discount Minorities Other Voices: Don't mix immigration with the 2020 census EDITORIAL: Don't mix immigration with 2020 Census COMMENTARY: Can 2020 Census be saved? Unlike Obama, Trump Actually Wants to Count the Number of Real  US Citizens in the Census Board rejects ‘citizenship' question on 2020 census East Bay Times Targeted News Service Western Queens Gazette ‐ Online Queens Gazette Longview News‐Journal (TX) Monitor, The (McAllen, TX) Monitor, The (McAllen, TX) Media Impact Score ‐  Census 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 USA Radio Network Our Weekly Online 50 50 L.A. County Fights Plan to Add Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Eastern Group Publications Inc. ‐ Online 50 Trump's 2020 Census May Cost California Congressional Seat by  Counting Citizens InformationLiberation 50 2020 vision: California Democrats fire back at DOJ proposal to ask  about citizenship on census CalWatchDog 50 L.A. County fights plan to add citizenship question to 2020 census Reps. Jayapal, Chu, Grijalva, Richmond Call on Secretary Ross to  Reject Citizenship Questions on 2020 Census Rep. Soto Leads Hispanic Caucus Letter Opposing Citizenship  Question in 2020 Census PERRYMAN: Accurate census count essential to government,  businesses Citizenship should not be in Census DOJ Request for Census Citizenship Question is Unnecessary and  Harmful Census Bureau Must Stop Dividing America Rep. Gonzalez Urges Attorney General Sessions to Reconsider  Changes to U.S. Census Questionnaire Civil and Human Rights Coalition Calls on Secretary Ross to Reject  DOJ Request to Undermine 2020 Census 18 AV Times, The 50 Targeted News Service 50 Targeted News Service 50 Odessa American Online Current‐Argus 50 50 People for the American Way News India Times 50 50 Targeted News Service 50 NW Facts Newspaper Online, The 50 000683 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 244 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Citizenship question could cloud census; Former officials, civil  rights advocates fear query will threaten accurate count in 2020 Republicans sabotaging the U.S. census Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Counting undocumented immigrants in the census Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Sen. Carper, Colleagues to Trump Administration: Reject Census  Citizenship Question Sen. Cortez Masto, Senators Urge Commerce Secretary to Reject  DOJ Request to Include Citizenship Question in 2020 Census Trump Justice Department pushes for citizenship question on  Census Dianne Feinstein Joins Senators in Letter to Trump Administration:  Reject Census Citizenship Question Guest editorial ‐ Why census shouldn't count undocumented Census Bureau Must Stop Dividing America ‐ News India Times Senators to Trump Administration: Reject Census Citizenship  Question Quick way to undermine the U.S. Census? Ask about citizenship Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census Another view: The Trump administration pushes for a change that  could derail the census Support the Census A change that could derail the census 19 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census The Houston Chronicle ExpressNews Times Recorder Online Bucyrus Telegraph‐Forum ‐ Online Wisconsin State Farmer ‐ Online Times Record News Online Holland Sentinel, The Port Clinton News Herald Online News Leader Online Alamogordo Daily News Online Marshfield News‐Herald Online 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Targeted News Service 50 Targeted News Service 50 Louisiana Weekly, The 50 Sierra Sun ‐ Online Times Record News News India‐Times ‐ Online 50 50 50 U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Sun Times Online, The 50 50 Central Maine Today Media 50 Northwest Herald Online EconoSpeak Corpus Christi Caller‐Times Online 50 50 50 000684 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 245 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 2/13/2018 2/7/2018 1/10/2018 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 3/22/2018 3/21/2018 Letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: Reject a New  Citizenship Question on the 2020 Census Reps. Serrano, Meng Send Letter to Commerce Secretary Wilber  Ross on Justice Department Proposal to Include Citizenship  Question in 2020 Census Justice Dept. pushes for citizenship question on U.S. Census Democrats Challenge Proposed Citizenship Question on 2020  Census Citizenship question on Census alarming experts Trump Justice Department Request For Citizenship Question Could  Sabotage 2020 Census, Experts Say ‐ California Political Review Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts BREAKING: Trump Makes Alarming New Move Targeting Every  Immigrant In The U.S. Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Fox 45 Morning News Spectrum News All Day at 1:30 ABC 10 News at 6 As a lawyer, he worked for immigrants. As a lawmaker, he works  against them. [BC‐MCT‐INTERNATIONAL‐BJT] Clark County outpaces Multnomah County for new residents The Daily 202: Illinois primary results show angry bases in both  parties demanding more purity 20 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Targeted News Service 50 Targeted News Service Boston Banner, The 50 50 Government Executive NJToday.net ‐ Online 50 50 California Political News & Views 50 Blacklisted News 50 If You Only News 50 Boise Weekly Online 50 ProPublica 50 MSN News US (en) Fox 45 Morning News ‐ WBFF‐TV Spectrum News Albany News 10 at 6 ‐ KXTV‐TV 50 48 48 48 Washington Post Online, The Post‐Bulletin Online Columbian Online, The 40 40 40 Washington Post Online, The 40 000685 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 246 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/20/2018 3/19/2018 3/19/2018 3/18/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/15/2018 3/14/2018 3/13/2018 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 3/11/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 Outlet Name The Daily 202: Trump's increasingly confrontational approach to  Mueller enabled by congressional GOP timidity Washington Post Online, The Trump campaign: Do you want the next Census to include  citizenship question? WBIR‐TV Online Quick Takes on the News: A Sense of the Census National Journal Daily Extra AM GOP rivals for Senate clash at Va. forum Washington Post, The Australia looks into resettling white South African farmers who say  they are persecuted Washington Post Online, The ‘I had no idea' of facts for Trudeau meeting Waterbury Republican‐American Online Puerto Ricans are still dying in Maria's wake CNN Online Trump owns up to making things up Gazette Online, The We're Off the same boat Washington Post, The She saw anti‐immigration politicians as hypocrites. So she launched  ‘resistance genealogy.' Washington Post Online, The The appointee behind the move to add ‘citizenship' to the Census Louisiana Weekly Online Reshaping the Census A Day in the Life of the Universe The Trump appointee behind the move to add a citizenship  question to the census ‐ The CT Mirror Connecticut Mirror, The The Trump Appointee Reshaping the Census Has a Long History of  Voter Suppression AlterNet Online The Trump Appointee Behind the Move to Add a Citizenship  Question to the Census MSN News US (en) John Gore Behind DOJ Letter Urging Census Department to Add  Citizenship Question to Census Survey Election Law From the census to gerrymandering, citizens must demand honesty  if we want America to thrive Pacific Northwest Inlander ‐ Online The Trump Appointee Behind the Move to Add a Citizenship  Question to the Census ProPublica Sylvia Garcia looks to make history in 29th Congressional District Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com Exodus from Puerto Rico grows as island struggles to rebound from  Hurricane Maria Washington Post Online, The 21 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 000686 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 247 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/6/2018 3/6/2018 3/6/2018 3/6/2018 3/4/2018 3/4/2018 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/27/2018 2/27/2018 2/27/2018 2/27/2018 2/26/2018 2/24/2018 Outlet Name Leaving their hearts behind in Puerto Rico Washington Post, The ELECTION 2018; History in the making; Garcia poised to become  first Houston Latina in Congress Houston Chronicle Immigrants Abandon Public Nutrition Services New York Times, The U.S. Census Shouldn't Ask About Citizenship Bloomberg News Online Spooked by Trump Proposals, Immigrants Abandon Public Nutrition  Services New York Times Online, The Joseph Salvo is responsible for making sure the census counts  every New Yorker am New York ‐ Online O'Rourke facing two challengers in Democratic primary for U.S.  Senate KVIA‐TV Online 11 battle to replace Democrat Gene Green in Congress Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com Rural Deep South at most risk of being overlooked in census Tuscaloosa News Online, The The Department of Justice Pushes for Citizenship Question on 2020  Census Pacific Standard Online TODAY IN HISTORY; EDITORIAL; Desperate acts or strategic moves  for county judge candidates down the stretch?; LETTERS TO THE  EDITOR; Good judgment comes from experience, bad judgment CA Could Lose Political Clout: Climate of Fear Could Lead to Huge  California Census Undercount Would‐be citizens get a boost in Arlington Honduran teen makes last bid in Chicago immigration court to stay  in U.S. CA Could Lose Political Clout: Climate of Fear Could Lead to Huge  California Census Undercount Ex‐Census Director: Citizenship Question Is 'a Tremendous Risk' Honduran girl makes last bid to stay in U.S. Censuis efforts aim to achieve full count U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services Omit 'Nation Of  Immigrants' From Mission Statement 22 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Houston Chronicle 40 California Political News & Views Washington Post, The 40 40 Chicago Tribune Online 40 CityWatch Atlantic Cities Chicago Tribune Brownsville Herald Online, The 40 40 40 40 NPR/National Public Radio Online 40 000687 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 248 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/19/2018 2/18/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/9/2018 Outlet Name FDR orders Japanese‐Americans to be interned in camps, Feb. 19,  1942 POLITICO Online Chain migration Washington Post, The California AG Threatens to Sue if Trump Administration Places  Citizenship Question on Census ‐ California Political Review California Political News & Views LA City Council unanimously votes to oppose citizenship question  on U.S. census ‐ MyNewsLA.com MyNewsLA.com Public‐health officials pan Justice Dept. bid to add citizenship  question to census – ADC Voice ADC Voice Letter to Secretary Ross: Census Citizenship Question 'Threatens to  Undermine Your Constitutional Duty' Targeted News Service Democrats.org Democratic Party, The Texas again ranks among the nation's least politically engaged  states Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com California AG concerned about U.S. Census undercount of illegal  aliens Spero News Five myths about chain migration Washington Post Online, The Our view: Census is not a citizenship detector Salem News Online Trump won't stop trying to keep America white Washington Post Online, The EDITORIAL: Census is not a citizenship detector Salem News Senate Indian Affairs Committee Issues Testimony From National  Congress of American Indians Targeted News Service Trump's effort to keep America white Washington Post, The No citizenship question on census Colorado Politics Hawaii News Now: Sunrise at 5:00 Hawaii News Now: Sunrise ‐ KGMB‐TV Budget increase for 2020 census falls short, say advocates Science Online No Citizenship Question on Census New York Times Online, The The Daily 202: Freewheeling immigration debate in Senate will test  power of conservative outside groups Washington Post Online, The G.O.P. Visions of Tectonic Realignment New York Times Online, The How a potential Census question could shift political power in  America Washington Post Online, The 23 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 000688 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 249 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/9/2018 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/4/2018 2/3/2018 2/2/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/30/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 Outlet Name White Americans: Where are you really from? Enterprise, The Dwindling reserves and deficit will challenge new mayor in  Syracuse, N.Y. Bond Buyer Online, The Don't dare ask about your citizenship on 2020 Census: LA Council  panel says it's unfair ‐ MyNewsLA.com MyNewsLA.com Concerns Over Census 2020 Loom for Latinos El Semanario ‐ California LA City Council committee opposes proposal to include citizenship  question in 2020 Census ‐ MyNewsLA.com MyNewsLA.com Los Angeles City Council Opposed Proposal to Include Citizenship  on 2020 Census Beverly Hills Courier Online Trump administration 'sabotaging' 2020 census Daily News Online, The Galvin:  Trump Administration 'Sabotaging' Massachusetts Through  Are‐You‐A‐Citizen Query in Census NewBostonPost Trump immigration plan could keep whites in majority for up to 5  more years Chicago Tribune Online Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up  to five more years Washington Post Online, The There's a big problem with how the census measures race Washington Post Online, The Hundreds from India join forces over visas Washington Post, The High‐skilled Indian workers rally for Trump's merit‐based  immigration plan Washington Post Online, The Mobile Mexican Consulate comes to Longview Daily News Online, The Views on the News: Census Justice ‐ Online, The BBC World Service BBC World Service ‐ WUNC‐FM The Daily 202: State of the Union underscores why Trump is his  own worst enemy Washington Post Online, The Del. Norton Introduces Ensuring Full Participation in Census Act Targeted News Service Immigration backlash is coming from places least touched by  immigration CNN Online FOX8 News at 6:00P Fox8 News at 6:00 PM ‐ WGHP‐TV CNN.com ‐ Transcripts CNN Online Will new forms ask about citizenship? Yakima Herald‐Republic Online 24 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 000689 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 250 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Los Angeles Times Online 40 Daily Collegian, University of Massachuse40 Yakima Herald‐Republic 40 Los Angeles Times 40 Los Angeles Times Online 40 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/28/2018 1/26/2018 A State of the Union preview Keep the 2020 census accurate Calculating the questions A bad deal for 'Dreamers' This isn't an immigration plan, it's a ransom note 1/25/2018 Why `Dreamers' Still Hold the Key in Budget Talks: QuickTake Q&A Washington Post Online, The The Daily 202: Public opinion is protecting Mueller's investigation ‐  for now Washington Post Online, The Potential citizenship question in 2020 Census could shift power to  rural America Washington Post Online, The 40 Why `Dreamers' Still Hold the Key in Budget Talks: QuickTake Q&A Why 'Dreamers' May Hold Key in Budget Talks: QuickTake Q&A Why Asking About Citizenship Could Make the Census Less  Accurate Miami Haitians See Opportunity in an Insult California Democrats fear losing congressional seat over census  proposal to only count Americans In Florida, Haitians See Trump Slight As Battle Cry Washington Post Online, The Washington Post Online, The 40 40 New York Times Online, The New York Times Online, The 40 40 BizPac Review New York Times, The 40 40 New York Times Online, The 40 Washington Post Online, The KSTX‐FM Wall Street Journal, The Kirksville Daily Express Brownsville Herald, The (TX) Ledger Online, The 40 40 40 40 40 40 opb.org 40 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/22/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/15/2018 1/13/2018 1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Miami's Haitians, Used to Being Shunned, Rally After Trump Slight The Daily 202: Unexpected defeat in rural Wisconsin special  election sets off alarm bells for Republicans Title Unavailable THE CENSUS SHOULD ASK ABOUT CITIZENSHIP Census uncertainty spurs state action to prevent undercounting Census change may be costly Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 25 40 40 000690 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 251 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Will Including Citizenship Question be Recipe for "Flawed" 2020  Census? Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 26 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Italian Voice, The 40 WRVO 40 Wxxi news 40 WSHU‐AM Online 40 South Dakota Public Broadcasting Netwo 40 WBAA 40 Jefferson Public Radio Network Online 40 WGVU News 40 Boise State Public Radio 40 WFIT 40 WYPR‐FM Online 40 On Politics (RI NPR) 40 Maine Public Broadcasting 40 KAWC 40 WVIK 40 WVIK 40 000691 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 252 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn   NPR News Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Leave Citizenship Out of the Census 27 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census WMOT‐FM ‐ Online 40 KPBS‐TV Online 40 WKMS‐FM Online 40 WSDL 90.7 ‐ Online 40 Tristates Radio 40 Aspen Public Radio 40 A South Carolina Public Radio Podcast 40 KPCW‐FM Online 40 WDDE‐FM Online 40 kuar.org 40 KSMU‐FM Online 40 wlrh.org 40 KUOW‐FM Online 40 NPR/National Public Radio Online 40 WWNO‐FM ‐ Online National Journal 40 40 000692 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 253 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Madison365 40 Potential question on 2020 census is opposed; Feds pushing to ask  about citizenship San Antonio Express News 40 The question that could sabotage the census Daily Journal Online 40 The question that could sabotage the census Madison.com 40 The question that could sabotage the census Times of Northwest Indiana ‐ Online, The40 The question that could sabotage the census KTBS‐TV Online 40 The question that could sabotage the census Independent Record Online 40 The question that could sabotage the census Chippewa Herald Online 40 California Secretary of State in opposition to U.S. Census citizenship  question Lompoc Record Online, The 40 Hostility to Census question is overblown Wisconsin State Farmer ‐ Online 40 Hostility to Census question is overblown Port Clinton News Herald Online 40 Trump is ending protections for immigrants from El Salvador.  Here's what that means for Houston Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com 40 Press Releases ‐ Tom Carper, U.S. Senator for Delaware U.S. Senator ‐ Carper, Tom ‐ Delaware 40 A sacred mandate sacrificed Rapid City Journal Online 40 The Census Bureau already asks about citizenship ‐ for good  reasons Washington Post Online, The 40 Northwest Almanac: When Winston‐Salem was the state's largest  city 40 Winston‐Salem Journal Online The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Statesman Journal Online 40 Census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants Times Record News Online 40 When Citizenship Is for Sale New York Times, The 40 Title Unavailable KJZZ‐TV 40 Mitch Albom Mitch Albom Show ‐ WJR‐AM, The 40 The question that could sabotage the census KPHO‐TV Online 40 Alarm at proposal to ask about citizenship status in census Santa Fe New Mexican 40 Alarm at Pr?p?sal t? Ask Ab?ut Citizenship Status in Census Latest News 7 40 The question that could sabotage the census KVVU‐TV Online 40 The question that could sabotage the census WSHM‐TV Online 40 28 000693 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 254 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census Sesame Street Title Unavailable Trump's true priorities revealed in these 10 actions taken during  the holidays 1/3/2018 The Question that Could Sabotage the 2020 Census 1/2/2018 The Daily 202: Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news  dumps 1/2/2018 Trump's Pick to Run 2020 Census Has Defended Racial  Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression Laws 1/2/2018 Justice Dep't pushes for citizenship question on census, alarming  12/30/2017 experts 1/26/2018 Another way Illinois could lose two congressional districts 3/22/2018 [BC‐MCT‐NEWS‐BJT] Immigration terminology is based on a myth that needs to be  3/22/2018 challenged 3/22/2018 In Mideast, democracy struggles to strike root 3/21/2018 Immigrants Hiding From Trump Imperil Accuracy of U.S. Census A Million Children Didn't Show Up In The 2010 Census. How Many  3/19/2018 Will Be Missing In 2020? 3/16/2018 Trump admits he makes things up 3/16/2018 Concerns over citizenship question of 2020 U.S. Census Survey 3/13/2018 Newsday letters to the editor for Tuesday, March, 13, 2018 3/13/2018 UNCERTAIN FUTURE Puerto Rico's exodus growing as island struggles to rebound 3/7/2018 KTVU Mornings on 2 at 6am 3/7/2018 Morning Bits: Lawless Trump administration thinks voters don't  care 3/7/2018 US census shouldn't ask about citizenship ‐ AEI ‐ American  Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise 3/6/2018 Citizenship Question Would Convert Census Into a GOP Voter  Suppression Tool 3/5/2018 MSN News US (en) KOPB‐FM KSTX‐FM Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 Washington Post, The Independent View, The 40 40 Washington Post Online, The 40 Mother Jones Online 40 TucsonSentinel.com Capitol Fax.com Omaha World‐Herald Online 40 32 30 Portland Press Herald Online WFED‐AM Online Bloomberg News Online 30 30 30 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 29 FiveThirtyEight 30 CBS News Online 30 KION‐TV Online 30 Newsday 30 Dayton Daily News 30 Seattle Times Online, The 30 KTVU Channel 2 Morning News at 6AM ‐ 30 Right Turn 30 AEI.org 30 Rumor bus 30 000694 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 255 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 2/25/2018 2/25/2018 2/23/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Immigrant advocates fight to keep off citizenship status question  off 2020 census ballot FiOS1 News ‐ Lower Hudson Valley Onlin 30 Meet The 'Experts' Kobach Is Using To Defend His Voter Fraud  Claims In Court Talking Points Memo 30 'It's Their Last Stand': Why Immigration Facts Sent a CPAC Panel Off  the Rails: 'BradCast' 2/28/2018 Daily Kos 30 Why Left Is Going Gonzo Over Asking For Citizenship On The  Census Federalist, The 30 Proposed Citizenship Question on Census Raises Concern Among  Immigrant Advocates Independent View, The 30 The three (obscure) things that could transform American politics The Teen‐Led Fight For Gun Reform Who Counts? The three (obscure) things that could transform U.S. politics Revisiting Rockwell: His "Four Freedoms" helped win World War II.  What do they mean today?(THE PAST IS prologue: AMERICAN  ICON)(Norman Rockwell) Myths about chain migration 'Chain migration' The Progressive Happy Hour: The Census is a Civil Rights Issue Fox 26 News at 9 Democrats' ‘Dirty Little Secret' Is Excluding Citizenship Question on  U.S. Census Kobach: Democrats' ‘Dirty Little Secret' Is Excluding Citizenship  Question on U.S. Census County Files Request To Find Out If 2020 Census Will Ask About  Citizenship THE UPDATE KGO Afternoon News Schatz's ignorance of our Anglo‐Saxon legal heritage illustrates  problem with government 30 San Diego Union‐Tribune Online CityLab New Republic, The San Diego Union‐Tribune, The 30 30 30 30 Smithsonian Arkansas Democrat‐Gazette Online Dayton Daily News People for the American Way FOX 26 News at 9 ‐ KRIV‐TV 30 30 30 30 30 Salisbury News 30 Salisbury News 30 SFGate Daily Post KGO Afternoon News ‐ KGO‐AM 30 30 30 Hill Online, The 30 000695 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 256 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/17/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 Outlet Name Immigration activists slam DOJ for proposed census addition Kobach: Why the 2020 U.S. Census needs citizenship question Voting Rights Roundup: GOP plots to destroy Arizona's  independent redistricting commission yet again Citizenship question essential for accurate U.S. census Body‐in‐van case highlights longstanding issues of Hispanic crime  victims, Memphis police Immigration debate shunned nearly 100 proposals Body in van prompts activist complaints News 12 The Bronx ‐ Online FOX News Channel Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 30 30 Daily Kos Orlando Sentinel Online 30 30 Commercial Appeal Online Washington Times Online Commercial Appeal, The 30 30 30 California rejects Trump proposal to ask citizenship in 2020 census Are Hispanics A Racial Group, Ethnicity Or Both? State Attorneys General Want No Citizenship Question On 2020  Census Vicky Moore/Dick Helton Asian Journal KPBS‐TV Online 30 30 K‐Love ‐ Online Morning News ‐ KNX‐AM 30 30 2/13/2018 What a Question About Citizenship on the U.S. Census Could Mean YES Magazine State attorneys general: No citizenship question on census   New  Country 923 WIL 92.3 Attorneys General Argue Citizenship Question Would Weaken  Census KOVR‐TV Online 30 2/13/2018 State attorneys general: No citizenship question on census ‐ SFGate SFGate 30 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 State attorneys general: No citizenship question on census  :Washington state attorney joins coalition against U.S. Department  of Commerce, saying addition could lower immigrant participation Lewiston Tribune RPT ‐ Twenty US States Want US Citizenship Query Excluded From  2020 Census ‐ Attorney General Sputnik News Service NY, NJ push to stop citizenship question from being added to  census WPIX‐TV Online 31 30 30 30 30 30 000696 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 257 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/4/2018 2/4/2018 2/3/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 Outlet Name CT Lawmaker's Fight Trump Proposal To Include Question On  ‘Citizenship” In U.S. Census The Takeaway Talk of the Nation Schneiderman Opposes Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Twenty US States Want US Citizenship Query Excluded From 2020  Census ‐ Attorney General Though The 7th District Is Minority‐Majority, Most Of Its Voters  Are White FOX NEWS FIRST: Government shutdown showdown over budget  deal; Top Dem offered contact with dossier author Title Unavailable 2020 census needs protection from ‘partisanship and ideology,’ de  Blasio says Trump immigration plan could keep whites in US majority for up to  five more years Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up  to five more years Strong majority support a path to citizenship for undocumented  immigrants Poll finds most Iowans back path to citizenship America of tomorrow will be 'none of the above' Voters with disabilities face barriers to voting California will soon make voting easier. Here's how Voting to be easier for Californians Editorials from around New York Iowa Bill Would Require High School Students To Pass U.S.  Citizenship Test Before Graduating What Trump didn't say in his State of the Union address The truly broken state of our dis‐union COULD THE HQ2 TURN NEXT U.S. ELECTION? Trump's 'cuts in legal immigration are too great,' critic says 32 Media Impact Score ‐  Census ctlatinonews 30 Takeaway ‐ PRI/Public Radio Internationa30 Talk of the Nation ‐ NPR 30 State of Politics 30 Sputnik News Service 30 WBUR‐FM Online 30 FOX News Channel Online KERA‐FM 30 30 am New York ‐ Online 30 San Antonio Express‐News Online 30 Wonkblog ‐ The Washington Post 30 Des Moines Register Online Des Moines Register Billings Gazette Online Christian Science Monitor Daily, The San Diego Union‐Tribune Online San Diego Union‐Tribune, The Washington Times Online 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 WBEZ‐FM Online Hill Online, The Daily Kos Dayton Daily News Buffalo News, The 30 30 30 30 30 000697 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 258 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/30/2018 1/29/2018 1/28/2018 1/28/2018 1/27/2018 1/27/2018 1/27/2018 1/27/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/23/2018 1/22/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Buffalo News, The 30 Good Day Atlanta ‐ WAGA‐TV 30 Central Florida News 13 at 5AM ‐ Central 30 Central Florida News 13 at 12AM ‐ Centra30 News 13 Your Evening News at 11 ‐ News30 Central Florida News 13 at 6PM ‐ Central 30 News 13 Your Evening News at 5 ‐ News  30 Arizona Republic Online 30 Immigration plan could back re in Bu alo Good Day Atlanta 8:00am News 13 Your Morning News at 5 News 13 Your Overnight News News 13 Your Evening News at 11 News 13 Your Evening News at 6 News 13 Your Evening News at 5 How Donald Trump's first year in office has changed Arizona Census citizenship question under legal review Census citizenship  question under legal review Census citizenship question under  legal reviewMost Popular StoriesMost Popular StoriesMore>> By Gregory Wallace[CR‐LF]WASHINGTON (CNN) ‐‐ The Trump  administration on Friday announced that a request to add a  controversial question on citizenship status to the 2020 Census is  under legal review WTOP‐FM Jim Bohannon WFED‐AM Why Democrats should be very worried about the Census  requesting citizenship info Immigration piper will have to get paid Recent editorials from Texas newspapers What should prisoners read? Not Cosmo, Ohio says Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? Miami's Haitians, accustomed to being shunned, rally after Trump  slight Maloney, Serrano, Gutiérrez, 100+ Members Urge Sec. Ross to  Reject DOJ's Misguided Request to Add Citizenship Question to the  2020 Census 33 Crossroads Today 30 WENY‐TV ‐ Online 30 WTOP‐FM 30 Jim Bohannon Show ‐ WestwoodOne, Th 30 WFED‐AM 30 Fix ‐ The Washington Post, The 30 Atlanta Journal‐Constitution 30 Washington Times Online 30 Dayton Daily News Online/daytondailyne30 San Antonio Express‐News Online 30 Atlanta Journal‐Constitution Online 30 U.S. Representative ‐ New York 30 000698 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 259 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/11/2018 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census California Socialist/Democrats/Guv Brown To Try to NULLIFY U.S.  Census in 2020 ‐ California Political Review California Political News & Views 30 Dreamers From Rep. Kevin McCarthy's District Call On the GOP To  Step Up KQED‐FM Online 30 Reps. Maloney, Serrano, Gutierrez, 100+ Members Urge Sec. Ross  to Reject DOJ's Misguided Request to Add Citizenship Question to  2020 Census Targeted News Service 30 Trump Immigration Stance Could Cause Calif. to Lose Money,  House Seat White House Dossier 30 Sean Hannity Sean Hannity Show, The 30 NO CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON CENSUS? New York Real Estate Lawyers' Blog, The 30 Tim Conway Jr. Tim Conway, Jr. ‐ KFI‐AM 30 John and Ken KFI‐AM 30 The census should ask about citizenship ‐ AEI ‐ American Enterprise  Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise AEI.org 30 Census change may be costly Valley Star.com 30 Census change may be costly 30 Brownsville Herald, The (TX) Census change may be costly Monitor, The (McAllen, TX) 30 Perryman: The Count Rio Grande Guardian 30 Census Uncertainty Spurs State Action to Prevent Undercounting Route Fifty 30 Here's How It Works Atlantic Online, The 30 Census should be able to ask citizenship status   Letter Express‐Times ‐‐ New Jersey Edition ‐ On 30 Protect the Census: Oppose DOJ Request to Add a Citizenship  Question to the 2020 Census Targeted News Service 30 Julián Castro says nearly all DACA recipients employed, in school or  serving in military Tampa Bay Times 30 Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities  and states Boston Herald Online 30 Foreign aid, McShan Elementary, DACA, U.S. Census, Ken Tapscott,  John Foster Dulles, Puerto Rico, Ice Bowl Dallas Morning News ‐ Online 30 Trump's Vote Suppression Team Is Doing GOP's Dirty Work National Memo 30 Catherine Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Chippewa Herald Online 30 34 000699 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 260 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/6/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Outlet Name Catherine Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Dreamers Urge California Republicans To Save DACA Trump's odd view of states' rights + Why Trump must tweet +  What do about Petrovich's gas station Lucky Dragon temporarily shuts gaming, restaurant operations Chippewa Herald, The HuffPost Media Impact Score ‐  Census 30 30 Sacramento Bee Online, The Las Vegas Review‐Journal Online 30 30 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Citizenship Questions in the Census? Trump's DOJ Has an  Audacious New Project to Suppress the Vote Rep. Maloney: Justice Department Request for Inclusion of  Citizenship Question in 2020 Census Threatens Accuracy of Count  of Our Nation Morning Edition NPR's Morning Edition Title Unavailable The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census “Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census” Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news dumps CNNMoney 30 AlterNet Online 30 Congressman King seeks citizenship question on U.S. Census form The Daily 202: Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news  dumps 1/2/2018 See percentage of senior citizens in your Michigan county 1/2/2018 Hillary Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, bolsters  Trump argument, study finds 1/1/2018 12/31/2017 High Impact Posts: December 30, 2017 12/30/2017 WCBS‐AM 3/23/2018 Public Affairs Events 1/2/2018 35 Targeted News Service 30 KQED‐FM 30 Morning Edition ‐ NPR/National Public Ra30 KERA‐FM 30 AZ Family 30 KXLF 30 KITV‐TV Online 30 WSEE‐TV Online 30 KAKE‐TV ‐ Online 30 Election Law 30 Hartford Courant Online 30 Radio Iowa ‐ Online 30 San Antonio Express‐News Online MLive 30 30 Washington Times Online Daily Kos WCBS‐AM C‐SPAN 30 30 30 24 000700 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 261 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name 3/16/2018 KCBA Mornings on 2 at 6am The administration has proposed an overhaul of SNAP benefits Politics and Public Policy Today Good anti‐crime news for the new year LETTERS: Good anti‐crime news for the new year Senadores demócratas presentan medida para prohibir pregunta  sobre ciudadanía en Censo EPIC FOIAs Commerce Department about Citizenship Question on  2020 Census The Census Clause and the Constitutional Obligation to Count All  Persons” Senadores demócratas presentan medida para prohibir pregunta  sobre ciudadanía en Censo UPDATE: Judicial Watch Lawsuit Against Los Angeles County and  the State of California   Citizens Journal Financial box scores for Yankees, Mets NBC Bay Area News at 11AM Decatur residents track down, celebrate their green roots ?? Trump admits dodging facts on U.S.‐Canada trade relations Wake up Kion 5/46 News Channel Trump owns up to being economical with the truth 'We are the forgotten people': It's been almost six months since  Hurricane Maria, and Puerto Ricans are still dying Trump admits untruths 'Everyone's Irish today': Decatur residents track down, celebrate  their green roots ?? 3/16/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS DEMAND ANSWERS  FROM DOJ ON POTENTIAL CENSUS CITIZENSHIP QUESTION Trump admits making things up in meeting with Canada Trump owns up to making things up ‐ KTAR.com Trump owns up to making things up :: WRAL.com 3/7/2018 2/15/2018 2/1/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 3/22/2018 3/22/2018 3/21/2018 3/21/2018 3/20/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 36 KCBA‐TV Daily WRAG, The C‐SPAN Sun Times Online, The Chicago Sun‐Times Media Impact Score ‐  Census 24 24 24 24 24 El Diario Nueva York Online 20 Electronic Privacy Information Center 20 Election Law 20 La Opinión 20 Citizens Journal 20 Crain's New York Business Online 20 NBC Bay Area News at 11AM ‐ KNTV (NBC20 Herald & Review Online 20 Pittsburgh Tribune‐Review ‐ Online 20 Wake up Kion 5/46 News Channel ‐ KION 20 Daily Hampshire Gazette Online 20 WZVN‐TV Online Charleston Gazette‐Mail, The 20 20 Herald & Review 20 US Fed News Akron Beacon Journal Online KTAR‐AM Online WRAL‐TV Online 20 20 20 20 000701 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 262 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/13/2018 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/6/2018 3/5/2018 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 3/1/2018 2/25/2018 2/24/2018 2/23/2018 2/22/2018 2/21/2018 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 Trump owns up to making things up     Depend On WOKV ‐  Jacksonville's News, Weather, and Traffic Trump owns up to making things up Trump owns up to making  things upNationalMore>> Trump owns up to making things  upNationalMore>>AP National News VideoMore>> Thomas: Disasters hit the most vulnerable hardest Long Beach City Council to vote on providing undocumented  immigrants with extra protections from federal authorities VOTING ON A HELPING HAND KTVU Mornings on 2 at 5am Can the Parkland Survivors Inspire a New Focus on Civics  Education? FOX8 10:00 News 10 policy issues to watch in omnibus spending bill Can the Parkland Survivors Inspire a New Focus on Civics  Education? With DACA in flux, 'Dreamers' from Trump country navigate a  college minefield The BRAD BLOG : 'It's Their Last Stand': Why Immigration Facts  Sent a CPAC Panel Off the Rails: 'BradCast' 2/28/2018 5 myths about chain migration 5th Annual Taste of the Valley Scholarship Fundraiser US Agency Changes ‘Nation of Immigrants' Mission Statement Attorney General Frosh Joins Coalition of Attorneys General  Opposing Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Attorney General Frosh Joins Coalition of Attorneys General  Opposing Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Non‐citizens can provide an "untapped" pool of military recruits,  experts say Signing of Executive Order 9066 forces thousands of Japanese  Americans into internment camps 37 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census WHJX‐FM ‐ Online 20 KFMB‐AM (760 AM Talk Radio) ‐ Online 20 Tribune Online 20 Long Beach Press‐Telegram Online 20 Long Beach Press‐Telegram 20 KTVU Channel 2 Morning News at 5AM ‐ 20 Education Week Fox8 10:00 News ‐ WGHP‐TV Daily Republic Online 20 20 20 Education Week Online 20 Washington Examiner Online 20 Brad Blog Naples Daily News Beyond Borders Gazette Learning English 20 20 20 20 Salisbury News 20 Salisbury News 20 United Press International Online 20 KIRO‐TV Online 20 000702 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 263 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/16/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 2/11/2018 2/10/2018 Mitt Romney is running for Senate; here are the Mormons  currently serving in Congress To Make America Safe Again, We Must End Sanctuary Cities and  Remove Criminal Aliens Texas Ranks 47th In Voter Participation, Better On Neighborliness,  Study Finds ORRALL is in – HERALD's new owners – Open seats in W. MASS Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Deseret News Online 20 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Texas Standard POLITICO Online 20 20 Here's how immigration, naturalization has changed in San Angelo San Angelo Standard‐Times ‐ Online 20 California fights Trump's efforts to add a citizenship question to the  2020 census ‐ California Political Review California Political News & Views 20 Report: Construction employing quarter of a million people in  NYC.(CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN) Real Estate Weekly 20 The DeMaio Report DeMaio Report ‐ KOGO‐AM, The 20 Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Lisa Brown split on the wall, refugees and  chain migration Spokesman‐Review Online, The 20 Blank Headline Marycontrary's Blog 20 POIZNER defects from GOP, will run as independent ‐‐ TRIPPI,  MASLIN start new super PAC ‐‐ BECERRA takes on TRUMP over  Census POLITICO Online 20 CLOCK STARTS ON SENATE IMMIGRATION DEBATE ‐‐ Trump's  budget written in red ink ‐‐ REPUBLICANS WORRY THEY COULD  LOSE CORKER'S SEAT ‐‐ Census pick withdraws POLITICO Online 20 Tom Haule/Linda Nunez Tom Haule/Linda Nunez ‐ KNX‐AM 20 Hawaii News Now: Sunrise Hawaii News Now: Sunrise at 5:00 ‐ KHNL20 Why do Republicans assume immigrants will vote Democratic? Daily Progress Online, The 20 Candidates split on immigration issues McMorris Rodgers, Brown  see border wall, refugees differently Spokesman‐Review, The 20 Diane Thompson, Jim Thornton, and Chris Sedens Diane Thompson, Jim Thornton, and Chri 20 Sam Ross Jr.   Korea not the only Olympic divide Tribune‐Democrat Online, The 20 Why do Republicans assume immigrants will vote Democratic? Roanoke Times Online, The 20 38 000703 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 264 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/10/2018 2/10/2018 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/4/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 Outlet Name At a glance[CR‐LF][CR‐LF]With immigrants, Galvin said, the greatest  challenge is often making sure that people who have citizenship in  another country know that they should participate in the U.S.  Census.[CR‐LF][CR‐LF]”Given the rhetoric of the Trump admini Telegram & Gazette The Republicans of 2044 Roanoke Times, The Massachusetts official warns of possible census undercount OJornal Channel 5 News This Morning at 6am KRGV‐TV I am young, Black and undocumented in Trump's America TheGrio.com Spectrum News Live at Noon Spectrum News Albany Spectrum News Spectrum News Central New York Spectrum News All Morning at 9:30 Spectrum News Albany Spectrum News All Morning at 9 Spectrum News Albany News10 in the Morning News Center in the Morning ‐ WXXA‐TV Spectrum News All Morning at 6 Spectrum News Albany News10 in the Morning at 4:30am News10 in the Morning at 4:30am Massachusetts official warns of possible census undercount SFGate FOX8 News at 5:00P Fox8 News at 5:00 PM ‐ WGHP‐TV Mucho más que un sueño (Much more than a dream) Standard‐Examiner Online White Americans: Where do you really come from? Holland Sentinel, The Fallacy to block immigration Missoulian Online Don't mix immigration with the 2020 census OJornal Arab Americans undeterred despite failure to get MENA category  on 2020 Census Arab American News ‐ Online, The Make DACA the example Greenville News Online, The Why Democrats Really Don't Want To Reinstate The Citizenship  Question Federalist, The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Guidry News Service ‐ Online Our Puerto Rican citizens Portsmouth Daily Times America Must be “Cleansed” of its “White Male Privilege” Burning Platform, The Michael Scherer ‐ Potential citizenship question in 2020 Census  could shift power to rural America Jewish World Review 39 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 000704 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 265 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/29/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/22/2018 1/22/2018 1/22/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 Los Angeles Times Editorial: This isn't an immigration plan, it's a  ransom note Jeff Sessions Is Just Getting Started: 7 Things You May've Missed  Over the Holidays NPR All Things Considered Citizenship question would hurt results, critics caution Hall may not have choice on bilingual ballots Osterhout Free Library provides resources for immigrant  community Rep. Norton to Introduce Bill to Prohibit Question on Citizenship  Status on 2020 Census Questionnaire Osterhout Free Library provides resources for immigrant  community Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? The BRAD BLOG : LIVE BLOGGING: BRAD BLOG Covers CSPAN  Coverage of Baker/Carter Election Reform Commission Hearing... California Dems fear state losing congressional seat if Census  counts only Americans ‐ Liberty Unyielding Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others 40 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Press Democrat Online, The 20 People for the American Way WUNC‐FM National Catholic Reporter Online Times Online, The 20 20 20 20 Citizens Voice Online, The 20 Targeted News Service 20 Citizens Voice, The 20 Pittsburgh Tribune‐Review ‐ Online 20 Standard‐Examiner Online 20 Brad Blog 20 Liberty Unyielding 20 WOLF‐TV ‐ Online 20 WSBT‐TV ‐ Online 20 KOKH‐TV Online 20 KTUL‐TV Online 20 WKEF‐TV ‐ Online 20 000705 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 266 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Corrections & Clarifications Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Miami's Haitians, Used to Being Shunned, Rally After Trump Slight  :: WRAL.com Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's revenge on California: The Census ‐ California Political  Review RH Line calls printed Jan. 18, 2018 WTVN‐AM The KFBK Afternoon News AHA asks members to "Help Protect the Census" Sean Hannity The Schnitt Show 41 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census WHP‐TV Online 20 WGME‐TV Online WBIR‐TV Online 20 20 WTVC‐TV Online 20 KABB‐TV Online 20 WSET‐TV Online 20 WTTE‐TV Online 20 WLOS‐TV Online 20 WRAL‐TV Online 20 KGAN‐TV ‐ Online 20 KEYE‐TV Online 20 WSYX‐TV Online 20 California Political News & Views 20 Daily Reporter‐Herald Online 20 WTVN‐AM 20 KFBK Afternoon News ‐ KFBK‐AM, The 20 History News Network 20 KOGO‐AM 20 Schnitt Show ‐ Compass Media Networks20 000706 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 267 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/14/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census the Census ‐‐ HILLARY ALUM jumps into state treasurer's race ‐‐  White House SCOTUS push to dismantle DACA ‐‐ Shutdown looms,  DREAMers deal? POLITICO Online 20 Californian Democrats Are Worried About Trump's Revised US  Census AllMediaNY 20 Title Unavailable KJZZ‐TV 20 Title Unavailable KOPB‐FM 20 Step up and do right by us Bakersfield Californian Online 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KVCR‐FM Online ‐ KVCR‐FM 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 91.5 KIOS‐FM 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WUOT 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WESA‐FM Online 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Kmuw 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KNAU‐FM Online 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KTEP‐FM Online 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KERA 20 California Secretary of State Alex Padilla Releases Statement in  Opposition to Adding Citizenship Question to U.S. Census Sierra Sun ‐ Online 20 Mornings With Mark Caesar, Ed Clements & Sgt. Sam Cox Mornings With Mark Caesar, Ed Clement 20 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Alliance Review Online 20 California Secretary of State in opposition to U.S. Census citizenship  question Santa Ynez Valley News Online 20 Trump's Latest Immigration Move Could Affect Thousands of  Salvadoran Students Education Week Online 20 42 000707 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 268 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 Outlet Name AFTER THE STROM: Puerto Rico was home to widespread poverty  and on the verge of bankruptcy. And that was before Hurricane  Maria. America Not because of cavalier threats about nuclear apocalypse and  attempted erosion of First Amendment rights (okay, maybe those  things, too). Because our federal government is failing to execute  one of its most basic constitutional duties: the decennial censu The People's Pharmacy Larger turnout expected in March Trump Kills Incompetent ‘Election Integrity' Commission, But His  Voter Fraud Conspiracy Theory Lives On Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Corrections & Clarifications What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 The question that could sabotage the censusMost Popular  StoriesMost Popular  StoriesMore>>NewsWeatherEntertainmentOnline Public File: [CR‐ LF]KCTV  KSMO 1/3/2018 Talk of the Nation 1/3/2018 BBC World Service 1/3/2018 The Brian Lehrer Show 1/3/2018 By Raul A. Reyes[CR‐LF]Editor's note: Raul A 1/3/2018 The Daily 202: Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news  dumps 1/2/2018 Profile America: New Year's Day in History ‐ The Bronx Chronicle 1/2/2018 Trump DOJ proposes adding citizenship question to Census;  12/31/2017 'experts alarmed' ‐ Liberty Unyielding 12/30/2017 DOJ Trying to Add Citizenship Question to Census: Report Terrible Idea: U.S. Justice Dept. Proposing That Questions About  12/30/2017 Immigration Status Be Included In Census 1/4/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 43 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 20 Wellsville Daily Reporter WUNC‐FM Athens Daily Review Online 20 20 20 Reason Online 20 KMJ‐FM ‐ Online WBIR‐TV Online Lubbock Avalanche‐Journal Online 20 20 20 KCTV‐TV Online Talk of the Nation ‐ NPR BBC World Service ‐ KNOW‐FM Brian Lehrer Show ‐ WNYC‐FM, The WENY‐TV ‐ Online 20 20 20 20 20 Standard‐Examiner Online Bronx Chronicle 20 20 Liberty Unyielding Rumor bus 20 20 Larry Ferlazzo’s Websites of the Day… 20 000708 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 269 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 Good Day Atlanta 5:00am President Shirley M. Collado Co‐Edits Book on Latinx Students and  Professionals in Higher Ed ‐ IC News Spectrum News All Morning at 11:30 Spectrum News All Morning at 11 Spectrum News All Morning at 10 Everything you need to know about DACA in three minutes We are not a ‘nation of immigrants' Senadores demócratas presentan medida para prohibir pregunta  sobre ciudadanÃ‐a en Censo 10 Must Reads for the CRE Industry Today (March 22, 2018) Civics project may be required 'We are the forgotten people': It's been almost six months since  Hurricane Maria, and Puerto Ricans are still dying So many want to vote in Mexico's presidential election that the  Dallas consulate can't handle them all REP. JOHN CULBERSON How Many Illegal Immigrants Are in the US? This Week in Poverty: Chairman Ryan and the Real World (Most) Silver town councilors welcome signs Online News Gazette   Get On. Get What's Important Trump owns up to making things up ‐ ‐ WOW! Trump owns up to making things up ‐ Attorney General Hunter Sends Letter to US Commerce Secretary  Ross, Requesting ... Trump owns up to making things up   New Country 923 Trump owns up to making things up while in office 3/16/2018 Trump Admits to Making Things Up in Speech to Donors   BCNN1 1/29/2018 3/6/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 1/26/2018 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 3/22/2018 3/21/2018 3/21/2018 3/21/2018 3/21/2018 3/20/2018 3/20/2018 3/20/2018 3/17/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 44 Good Day Atlanta ‐ WAGA‐TV Media Impact Score ‐  Census 18 Unity Coalition for Israel Spectrum News Albany Spectrum News Albany Spectrum News Albany NYC Epeak Central Maine Today Media 16 16 16 16 16 10 La Opinión de la Bahía Online National Real Estate Investor Online Salem News Online 10 10 10 News2read 10 Dallas Morning News Online Political/Congressional Transcript Wire FAIR via FAIR George Zornick Silver City Daily Press & Independent Online News Gazette Wow Way! Hawaiian Telecom 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ WIL 92.3 Sauk Valley Newspapers Online 10 10 10 BCNN1 10 000709 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 270 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/14/2018 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 3/9/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/7/2018 Outlet Name Trump owns up to making things up Trump owns up to making  things upTop VideoMore>> Trump owns up to making things  upTop VideoMore>>Most Popular Trump owns up to making  things upTop VideoMore>>Most PopularHeadlinesMore>> Erie News Now Kion 5/46 News Channel Kion 5/46 News Channel ‐ KION‐TV It's been almost six months since Hurricane Maria, and Puerto  Ricans are still dying KXLF Trump owns up to making things up during meeting with Canadian  PM Englewood Sun Online Story by John D. Sutter, CNNVideo by Leyla Santiago and Khushbu  Shah, CNNPhotographs by Erika P WENY‐TV ‐ Online Trump owns up to making things up, Page 0 ‐ TheTrucker.com Trucker Online, The Trump owns up to making things up ‐ Aurora Sentinel Aurora Sentinel ‐ Online Trump owns up to making things up ‐ news Hawaiian Telecom 'We are the forgotten people': It's been almost 6 months since  Hurricane Maria, Puerto Ricans are still dying WPIX‐TV Online Peter Kirsanow, US Commission on Civil Rights member, asks about  citizenship on census forms https://www.google.com/ America's census must drop the citizenship question https://www.google.com/ Gay German diplomat settles into SF bayareareporter.org Federal trial continues on Kansas restrictions on voter registration Non‐citizen voters discovered in Chicago suburb Fox 5 News at 6:30 Yes, manufacturing still provides a pay advantage, but staffing firm  outsourcing is eroding it U.S. to overtake Russia as world's biggest oil producer GEORGE SHEN: State doesn't need a racial registry We Now Know Who's Behind the Trump Administration's Push to  Suppress Immigrant Participation ... Smart Ideas: A Better Way to Draw Districts GEORGE SHEN: State doesn't need an Asian registry 45 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Wyandotte Daily News Spero News Fox 5 News @ 6:30 ‐ WTTG‐TV 10 10 10 EPI:  Economic Policy Institute Lisah C. Nease Wicked Local 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ National Journal Daily Extra AM Wicked Local 10 10 10 000710 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 271 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/6/2018 3/6/2018 3/5/2018 3/5/2018 3/4/2018 3/3/2018 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 3/1/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 Outlet Name California Has Lessons for Integrating Immigrants, but Will the Feds  Undercut Them?   The Takeaway   Zócalo Public Square Zócalo Public Square Exodus from Puerto Rico grows as island struggles to rebound from  Hurricane Maria MSN News US (en) FOX8 News FOX8 News Repeat ‐ WGHP‐TV Exodus from Puerto Rico grows as island struggles to rebound from  Hurricane Maria ‐ SFGate SFGate Lexington Has A Youth Murder Problem? Page One 10 policy issues to watch in omnibus spending bill ‐ Personal  Liberty® Personal Liberty Digest Gun control, Immigration, Planned Parenthood and more Norwalk Reflector Online While Congress debates DACA reform, N.C. recipients go about  their lives Daily News, The (Jacksonville, NC) President's big list of things done gets bigger Lisah C. Nease New crackdown on immigrant workforce Industries Virginia Business Online DIVIDED AMERICA: Will Trump energize the Latino vote? Observer News Enterprise ‐ Online New crackdown on immigrant workforce Virginia Business Why The Left Is Going Gonzo Over Asking Citizenship Status On The  Census https://www.google.com/ Proposed citizenship question on census raises concern among  immigrant advocates Newsday Online Berkshire Immigration Center assists with citizenship and  integration processes Williams Record, The Trump's big list of things done gets bigger Lisah C. Nease Honduran teen makes last bid in Chicago immigration court to stay  in US Register Guard Projects, The MapLab: Snap by Snap, the Teen‐Led Fight For Gun Reform Atlantic Cities LATEST WINTHROP POLL COVERS TRUMP, ECONOMY, CLIMATE  CHANGE AND DRILLING US Fed News LATEST WINTHROP POLL COVERS TRUMP, STATE LEADERS AND  ECONOMY US Fed News 46 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 000711 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 272 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/27/2018 2/26/2018 2/26/2018 2/24/2018 2/22/2018 2/22/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/17/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/15/2018 Why a retired federal worker is helping immigrants pay for the US  citizenship exam CONSERVATIVES AND A LIBERTARIAN ON IMMIGRATION Conservatives and a Libertarian on Immigration at CPAC 6 States Where Voters Could Push Democracy Forward in the  Midterms A 21st‐Century Reimagining of Norman Rockwell's "Four  Freedoms" City Of Los Angeles Department Of Airports Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights issues timeline  of Trump administration's rollbacks on civil and human rights Wednesday Morning News Roundup ‐ SFGate Immigration Uncertainty Can Spell Trouble For Cleaning Industry County files request to find out if 2020 census will ask about  citizenship CHN: Select Departmental FY19 Budget Requests Why the 2020 U.S. Census needs citizenship question Scandal and Tragedy: Look At News Daily  (Feb. 10‐16 /Day 22‐27)  Week 4   Citizens Journal Why won't media cover these Trump successes? Opinion News, Breaking Opinion News and More: Lake County  Record‐Bee Census 'citizenship' question sets off new California vs. Trump  immigration argument Citizenship question essential for accurate US census Undercompensation is likely a factor in Pennsylvania's growing  teacher shortage Debate heats up about citizenship question in next Census High‐skilled Indian Workers Rally For Trump's Merit‐based  Immigration Plan Trump Puts New Twist on Visa Misinformation 47 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census https://www.google.com/ Venitism Cato Journal ‐ Online 10 10 10 YES Magazine 10 Smithsonian Online Boston Commons High Tech Network 10 10 Wisconsin Gazette ‐ Online SFGate CleanLink ‐ Online 10 10 10 Mountain View Voice ‐ Online Coalition on Human Needs KNSS‐AM Online 10 10 10 Citizens Journal Lisah C. Nease 10 10 Lake County Record‐Bee Online 10 https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ 10 10 EPI:  Economic Policy Institute https://www.google.com/ 10 10 News India Times FactCheck.org 10 10 000712 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 273 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 Outlet Name Schumer‐Rounds‐Collins Destroys Ability of DHS to Enforce  Immigration Laws, Creating a Mass Amnesty For Over 10 Million  Illegal Aliens, Including Criminals Report: Texans lag in political participation SENATE INDIAN AFFAIRS, HEARING ON NATIVE AMERICANS AND  THE 2020 CENSUS Reviving a civic group Texas Ranks Near Bottom for Political Participation and Civic  Involvement Business Briefcase Nogelo inducted into National Association of Women Artists A Cemetery of Crows Urgent care clinic set to open Friday David Price wants to start fresh Molly Sliney visits Center School Chloe, a therapy dog at Beverly Hospital, does tricks before visiting  patients Video: Hoffman: 'Exactly the right time' for Baker, DeLeo to raise  concerns State Report: Minnesota Needs Immigrants to Fill Jobs, Maintain  Economic Growth Census is not a citizenship detector 20 States Fight Addition of Citizenship Question to Census Get More Smarter on Tuesday (February 13) State report: Minnesota needs immigrants to fill jobs and maintain  economic growth State Rep. Raoul Backs Citizen Challenges for Environmental  Permits Bronx Political Round Up: Sex Offenders Barred ‐ The Bronx  Chronicle Brian Ping Bill Polish 48 Media Impact Score ‐  Census U.S. Department of Homeland Security 10 San Marcos Daily Record Online 10 Political/Congressional Transcript Wire 10 Nassau Herald (Garden City, NY) 10 PressReleasePoint Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Gloucester Daily Times Online 10 Gloucester Daily Times Online 10 Twin Cities Business Eagle‐Tribune Online, The https://www.google.com/ Colorado Pols 10 10 10 10 MinnPost 10 Chicago Maroon, University of Chicago, T10 Bronx Chronicle Brian Ping ‐ KNX‐AM Bill Polish ‐ KNX‐AM 10 10 10 000713 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 274 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census KGO Evening News ‐ KGO‐AM (News Talk10 2/12/2018 KGO Evening News 2/12/2018 AG Madigan, coalition oppose citizenship question on 2020 census https://www.google.com/ AG Healey warns adding citizenship question would jeopardize  accuracy of 2020 Census and ... https://www.google.com/ Hawai'i Joins Coalition Opposing Citizenship Question on 2020  Census https://www.google.com/ 10 10 2/7/2018 What a Question About Citizenship on the US Census Could Mean https://www.google.com/ AG Becerra to Trump Administration: Citizenship Question On 2020  Census Would Be Unconstitutional YubaNet AG Schneiderman Leads Coalition Of 19 AGs Opposing Citizenship  Question On 2020 Census https://www.google.com/ Elder Ford Of Tampa Boston Commons High Tech Network APAP 2018 Overview. Challenges, Activists, and The Good in the  World's Performing Arts World Music Central City of San Gabriel withdraws from ICE partnership Asian Journal Opinion News, Breaking Opinion News and More: Lake County  Record‐Bee Lake County Record‐Bee Online Citizenship question raises fears about census https://www.google.com/ Threats to Government Data Are Threats to Democracy Government Executive THOMAS KNAPP COMMENTARY: The Census for dummies,  including the Department of Justice https://www.google.com/ IMMIGRATION Bennington Banner (VT) As It Happens As It Happens ‐ KNOW‐FM Trump's Chain‐Immigration Plan Takes Aim at Asia Bloomberg News Online Immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. a majority for 5 more  years Santa Fe New Mexican 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 Friday DACA Rally at SDSU to Feature Congressman Luis Gutiérrez Commonwealth Club 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/11/2018 2/11/2018 2/10/2018 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 49 San Diego Free Press Commonwealth Club 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 000714 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 275 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census MSN News US (en) 10 SFGate 10 Targeted News Service Valley News ‐ Online Daily Kos Diaries ‐ Teacher Ken 10 10 10 International Examiner ‐ Online Strategic Finance Online Long Island Tech News Tom Haule/Linda Nunez ‐ KNX‐AM https://www.google.com/ Betsy's Page ENR California ‐ Online https://www.google.com/ 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 Journal of Southern History 10 Journal of Southern History 10 Journal of Southern History History News Network ENR California ‐ Online 10 10 10 2/1/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up  to five more years Trump immigration plan could keep whites in US majority for up to  five more years ‐ SFGate Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Issues Testimony  From Gov. Torres Column: Preserving, Protecting and Defending White Hegemony Abbreviated Pundit Round‐up: The lapdog memo The International Examiner – Activists discuss healthcare,  environmental, criminal justice legislation affecting APIs Brexit: CFO Perspectives ‐ Strategic Finance Black History Month in the US Pt 3 Tom Haule/Linda Nunez Should the Census be Allowed to Ask About Citizenship? Cruising the Web Texas Is Front Line of Immigration Reform Debate Immigration Restrictionists Seek to Weaponize the Census Kobach Backs Citizenship Question, Targeting 'One Person, One  Vote' Why Democrats Really Don't Want To Reinstate The Citizenship  Question On The US Census Redefining Vagrancy: Policing Freedom and Disorder in  Reconstruction New Orleans, 1862‐1868.(Essay) Troubled Refuge: Struggling for Freedom in the Civil War.(Book  review) Coushatta Homesteading in Southwest Louisiana and the  Development of the Community at Bayou Blue.(Essay) Are Puerto Ricans White? Texas Is Front Line of DACA Immigration Reform Debate 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 Timeline of Trump administration's civil and human rights rollbacks Wisconsin Gazette ‐ Online Country For United States Boston Commons High Tech Network 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/5/2018 2/4/2018 2/4/2018 2/4/2018 2/3/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 50 10 10 000715 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 276 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/28/2018 1/27/2018 1/27/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 Exclusive – Kobach: Bring the Citizenship Question Back to the  Census Big List of 178 Trump accomplishments in 376 days Identity Politics And Our Racialized Government . . . Immigration backlash is coming from places least touched by  immigration Analysis by Ronald Brownstein CNN[CR‐LF](CNN) ‐‐ The escalating  struggle between the parties over immigration rests on a paradox Identity Politics and Our Racialized Government Census Bureau  refuses to midwife yet another identity‐grievance scam.  Bruce  Thornton Ensure Everyone Is Counted Trump Immigration Plan – Making America Into California Economic Impact of Immigration by State BBC World Service Millions of Americans on the 'denial spectrum' when it comes to  President Trump Morning Read: Do more candidates for state superintendent mean  a more likely November runoff? (and 6 more must‐reads)   LA  School Report White House Releases A Dud Of An Immigration Plan WAVY News 10 at 7 on Fox 43 WAVY News 10 Today at 4:30am Letters to the Editor Donald Trump's Cooperation in the Mueller Investigation and the  Possibility of His Using His Fifth Amendment Right; Judge  Rosemarie Los Angeles Times criticizes Trump's immigration plan Sunburn – The morning read of what's hot in Florida politics –  1.26.18 Bay News 9 Your Midday News at 11 51 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census https://www.google.com/ Lisah C. Nease Arra News Service 10 10 10 MSN News US (en) 10 WENY‐TV ‐ Online 10 RUTHFULLY YOURS https://www.google.com/ Tennessee Star, The Wallethub Articles & Studies BBC World Service ‐ WUNC‐FM 10 10 10 10 10 InfoTel 10 LA School Report 10 Arra News Service 10 WAVY News 10 at 7 on Fox 43 ‐ WVBT‐TV10 WAVY News 10 Today at 4:30am ‐ WVBT 10 Queens Gazette 10 Technology Wire CE Noticias Financieras English 10 10 Florida Politics Blog ‐ South Florida Sun Se10 Bay News 9 Your Midday News at 11 ‐ Ba10 000716 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 277 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/22/2018 1/22/2018 1/21/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 Outlet Name A Few Fun Facts About 'Dreamers' Patt Morrison All Things Considered Census concerns: Citizenship question would hurt results, critics  caution Lake County agency accepting DACA renewals TEMPEST‐TOSSED Trump officers need 2020 census to ask about citizenship To Many Movers And Shakers, Where Amazon Puts It's New  Headquarters Is The Most Important Thing In The World Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? One year of Trump: The Fourth 100 Days (Trump Briefs:  Jan. 13‐ Jan. 19/Day 359‐365) Week 52   Citizens Journal The very American myth of 'exceptional immigrants' After 1 Year of[CR‐LF]Trump, America Is Losing Its Soul Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a... Analysis   Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential  vote in a swing state? Miami's Haitians, accustomed to being shunned, rally after Trump  slight Miami's Haitians, accustomed to being shunned, rally after Trump  slight Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others 52 snopes.com Patt Morrison ‐ KPCC‐FM All Things Considered ‐ KNOW‐FM Media Impact Score ‐  Census 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ Chronicle Media Florida Weekly ‐ Fort Myers https://www.google.com/ 10 10 10 10 Down with Tyranny! 10 Keene Sentinel Online 10 Citizens Journal TravelWireNews Root, The 10 10 10 Wired Journal, The 10 Wonkblog 10 My Palm Beach Post 10 My Dayton Daily News 10 KFXL‐TV Online 10 KBAK‐TV Online 10 KMPH‐TV Online 10 KRNV‐TV Online 10 000717 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 278 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Why Asking About Citizenship Could Make the Census Less  Accurate Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Foreign Workers Make Up More Than Half Of Silicon Valley's Tech  Industry, Reports Say Get to know Guam: Mongmong, Toto, Maite Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Lawmakers Shouldn't Praise Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. While  Restricting Voting Rights Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others 53 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census KBOI‐TV Online 10 KMEG‐TV Online 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 WTVR‐TV Online 10 WKRC‐TV Online 10 Yahoo Finance Stripes Guam 10 10 KRXI‐TV Online 10 KOMO‐TV Online 10 WBFF‐TV ‐ Online 10 Weekly Challenger Online, The 10 WSMH Fox66 News 10 My Fox Illinois 10 WJLA‐TV Online 10 WDKT‐TV ‐ Online 10 KFDM‐TV ‐ Online 10 000718 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 279 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/13/2018 1/11/2018 Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others America's Puerto Rican Citizens ICE Raids Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others 2020 Census Changes Could Change Size of House Delegation for  Calif. Dave Ramsey Activists discuss healthcare, environmental, criminal justice  legislation affecting APIs Trump's 2020 Census May Cost California Congressional Seat by  Counting Citizens Bill Polish Patt Morrison Citizenship question threatens US census, says former programme  chief It's a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren't Hard to Find The census should ask about citizenship The Real Bleep‐Hole Moment ‐ LewRockwell LewRockwell.com Democrats once again holding out hope that Latino voters will  make a difference David Stockman On The Real “Shithole” – $40 Trillion & Counting… $40 trillion and counting ‐‐ Sott.net Backlash builds over immigration, but it's unclear how much it'll  help Democrats I On Politics The Real Bleep‐Hole Moment‐–$40 Trillion And Counting Will the Court Kill the Gerrymander? 54 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census WEYI‐TV Online 10 KEPR‐TV Online Pike County News Watchman, The News India Times 10 10 10 WJSU‐TV ‐ Online 10 https://www.google.com/ Dave Ramsey Show, The 10 10 International Examiner ‐ Online 10 https://www.google.com/ Bill Polish ‐ KNX‐AM Patt Morrison ‐ KPCC‐FM 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ ProPublica https://www.google.com/ LRC Blog, The 10 10 10 10 ExpressNews 10 Peoples Trust Toronto Signs of the Times (us) 10 10 ExpressNews Queens Gazette Burning Platform, The New York Review of Books Online, The 10 10 10 10 000719 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 280 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name https://www.google.com/ Media Impact Score ‐  Census 10 https://www.google.com/ MyTownNEO 10 10 Personal Liberty Digest https://www.google.com/ 10 10 Watertown Daily Times Online 10 https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ 10 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 Public I AlterNet Online 10 10 OpEdNews.com 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 1/4/2018 Perryman: The Count Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities  and states ‐ Personal Liberty® Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities  and states The Census Bureau already asks about citizenship — for good  reasons Experts Say Census Citizenship Question Would Stifle Response Potential census question on citizenship stirs fears of dampened  participation California Dreamers say 'We can't wait,' as they plead for  Congressional action Trump's Vote Suppression Team Is Doing GOP's Dirty Work Citizenship Questions in the Census? Trump's DOJ Has an  Audacious New Project to Suppress the Vote Democrats Challenge Proposed Citizenship Question on 2020  Census 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Sunny 103 1 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge CNNMoney 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge AZ Family 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge WABC‐AM Online 10 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 55 000720 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 281 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge  Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge  Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care  challengeMost Popular StoriesMost Popular StoriesMore>> Crossroads Today 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Erie News Now 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge KITV‐TV Online 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge KRTV‐TV ‐ Online 10 1/4/2018 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants I've been a census enumerator. Asking about citizenship is a  terrible idea. Aging, Undocumented and Uninsured Immigrants Challenge Cities  and States The DOJ Wants A Citizenship Question On The Census. That Could  Blow Up The Whole Survey Social Science   Education World Citizenship question is crucial for a fair, updated 2020 Census Aging, Undocumented and Uninsured Immigrants Challenge Cities  and States What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 BBC World Service What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 BBC World Service Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps The question that could sabotage the census https://www.google.com/ 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 Route Fifty 10 https://www.google.com/ Education World https://www.google.com/ 10 10 10 Pew Charitable Trusts, The Texas Tribune, The BBC World Service ‐ WNYC‐FM Aggie Sports BBC World Service ‐ KQED‐FM https://www.google.com/ 10 10 10 10 10 10 Waterloo Region Record Online https://www.google.com/ 10 10 1/4/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 56 000721 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 282 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Leisure Guy 10 Kitchener Post Online 10 Waterloo Chronicle Online 10 Hamilton Spectator Online, The 10 New Hamburg Independent Online 10 1/2/2018 What Trump's wrecking crew is doing to the US government and  environment   Later On “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps 1/2/2018 Furor greets request to add citizenship question to 2020 US census https://www.google.com/ 10 1/2/2018 Furor greets request to add citizenship question to 2020 US census Science Online 10 1/2/2018 Furor greets request to add citizenship question to 2020 US census The Daily 202: Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news  dumps 2017: Last Year's Reading ‐ dooneyscafe.com Saving the Associate of Arts Degree: HOW AN A.A. DEGREE CAN  BECOME A BETTER PATH TO LABOR MARKET SUCCESS.(Essay) Efforts grow to help students evaluate what they see online Spread of fake news prompts literacy efforts in schools DOJ wants 2020 census to ask about citizenship status Census Bureau called to add citizenship question on forms Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Project Recruiting Prospective Voters President Shirley M. Collado Co‐Edits Book on Latinx Students,  Professionals in Higher Ed Channel 5 News This Morning at 5AM Channel 5 News at 4pm https://www.google.com/ 10 https://www.google.com/ Dooneyscafe 10 10 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 12/31/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/29/2017 12/29/2017 3/6/2018 2/9/2018 2/8/2018 57 AEI Paper & Studies 10 KCBQ‐AM Online 10 1300 AM Wall Street Business Network K10 EnvironmentGuru 10 USA Shafaqna 10 https://www.google.com/ Tennssee Tribune 10 10 Targeted News Service 8 Newschannel 5 This Morning ‐ KRGV‐TV 8 8 Channel 5 News at 4 ‐ KRGV‐TV 000722 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 283 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/16/2018 1/27/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 Outlet Name WMBC News News 13 Your Evening News at 9 Immigration crackdown could cost Illinois a congressional seat Potential citizenship question in 2020 Census could shift power to  rural America DOJ suggests adding citizenship question to 2020 census 1 query on census could shift power Concern over Census request North Carolina editorial roundup Why Democrats should be very worried about the Census  requesting citizenship info Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? Miami's Haitians, accustomed to being shunned, rally after Trump  slight Stats for Stories: National Spouses Day At least half of Silicon Valley's tech industry workers are foreign‐ born, many rely on H‐1B visas Brian Ping Michael Barone: Against new questions for the 2020 Census Across the Mideast, Palestinians Brace for Trump Aid Cuts Across the Mideast, Palestinians brace for Trump aid cuts Latino clout in election uncertain; Higher turnout might not  guarantee gains for Dems Trump is playing politics with the 2020 Census. It could backfire. Census change may be costly Latino; voters' course unclear; Dems seek gains after immigration  backlash, but GOP is confident Karen Grigsby Bates As long as inequality exists, the census needs to ask about race Adding Citizenship Question Risks ‘Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn ‐ California Political Review 58 Media Impact Score ‐  Census WMBC Local News ‐ WMBC‐TV 6 News 13 Your Evening News at 9 ‐ News  4 WLS‐AM Online 0 Bangor Daily News Online Bay News 9 Online Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Fresno Bee Online, The 0 0 0 0 0 Fix ‐ The Washington Post, The 0 Washington Post Online, The 0 Austin American‐Statesman Online Targeted News Service 0 0 Newsweek Online Brian Ping ‐ KNX‐AM https://www.google.com/ New York Times Online, The WFED‐AM Online 0 0 0 0 0 San Antonio Express News Napa Valley Register Online Brownsville Herald Online, The 0 0 0 Houston Chronicle High Plains Public Radio Chicago Tribune Online 0 0 0 California Political News & Views 0 000723 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 284 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 Outlet Name DOJ wants citizenship question added to U.S. Census KFSN‐TV ‐ Online DOJ needs citizenship query added to U.S. Census WDN The Indian‐American small business community is rattled as  immigration authorities target a slew of 7‐Eleven franchises around  the country ‐ News India Times News India‐Times ‐ Online Backlash builds over immigration, but it's unclear how much it'll  help Democrats Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com Fla. Republicans fear fallout in crucial elections Washington Post, The Citizenship should not be in Census Las Cruces Sun‐News Citizenship should not be in Census Alamogordo Daily News Immigrants with jobs, education worry that Trump will force them  into the shadows Fresno Bee Online, The Dreamers Urge California Republicans To Save DACA HuffPost Immigrants with jobs, education worry that Trump will force them  into the shadows McClatchy Newspapers Online Unchained migration National Affairs News Immigrants with jobs, education worry that Trump will force them  into the shadows Sacramento Bee Online, The Without 's‐‐ ‐hole countries,' there would be no you, me or  America USA Today Online A question of citizenship could sabotage 2020 census Milwaukee Independent Americans Must Be Able to Count on Census ImmigrationReform Leaked Memo: DACA Amnesty Is ‘Critical Component of  Democratic Party's Future Electoral Success' Steady Drip, The FEEDBACK[CR‐LF][CR‐LF]The Jan. 4 Washington Post editorial  concerning the census ("Change that could derail U.S. Census") was  typical left‐wing propaganda. The Census Bureau wants to add a  question to the form inquiring about your citi Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The Splintering of mass media promotes disunity Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The Why no progress on Bethlehem Theater? Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The Asking About Citizenship New York Times, The Census should ask citizenship status Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The 59 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000724 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 285 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/11/2018 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Outlet Name Opinion   Asking About Citizenship Report: Non‐citizens' crime rate analyzed Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn NBC Bay Area News at 6 Citizenship and the Census Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn I On Politics   www.qgazette.com Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 60 New York Times Online, The Spero News Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 KUNM 0 WITH 0 WRKF‐FM Online 0 WVPE 0 NBC Bay Area News at 6 PM ‐ KNTV‐TV 0 New York Times Online, The 0 WEMU‐FM Online 0 KVNF Public Radio 0 wutc.org 0 WCBE‐FM ‐ Online 0 KUFM‐FM Online 0 KLCC‐FM ‐ Online Western Queens Gazette ‐ Online 0 0 KASU 0 WCQS‐FM (Western North Carolina Publi 0 WMRA 0 000725 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 286 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Hansi Lo Wang Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Trump Administration's Push For Citizenship Question On Census  Alarms Critics By Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KUHF‐FM Title Unavailable Title Unavailable Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 61 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census kwgs.org 0 KDNK‐FM ‐ Online 0 WUWF ‐ Online 0 WESM 0 Capital Public Radio ‐ Online 0 kenw.org 0 KNKX‐FM Online 0 WNIJ‐FM ‐ Online 0 KALW HPPR 0 0 HPPR 0 Texas Standard 0 KNPR‐FM (Nevada Public Radio) ‐ Online 0 KUER‐FM Online KUHF‐FM KSTX‐FM KERA‐FM 0 0 0 0 WUNC‐FM ‐ Online 0 000726 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 287 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 62 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census wkyufm 0 KGOU Online 0 KCUR‐FM Online 0 Alabama Public Radio ‐ Online 0 WUKY‐FM ‐ Online 0 WVPB‐FM ‐ Online 0 KCBX‐FM ‐ KCBX‐FM online Bureau 0 KBIA‐FM ‐ Online 0 Texas Public Radio ‐ Online 0 WFAE‐FM ‐ Online 0 WEKF‐FM ‐ Online 0 Interlochen Public Radio 0 KRWG‐FM ‐ Online 0 Northeast Indiana Public Radio 0 WNPR News 0 WLRN‐FM Online 0 000727 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 288 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 Outlet Name Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KUVO Online Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WCAI Online Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WAMC‐FM Online Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WYSO‐TV ‐ Online Republicans sabotaging the U.S. census Laredo Morning Times Online Republicans sabotaging the U.S. census San Antonio Express‐News Online The question that could sabotage the census Waterloo‐Cedar Falls Courier Online The question that could sabotage the census Sentinel Online The question that could sabotage the census Wiscnews.com The question that could sabotage the census Muscatine Journal Online The question that could sabotage the census Napa Valley Register Online The question that could sabotage the census Lebanon Express Online The question that could sabotage the census Rapid City Journal Online The question that could sabotage the census Herald & Review Online Will The “C” Question Destroy The Democratic Party? https://www.google.com/ Will The “C” Question Destroy The Democratic Party? Fox & Hounds Daily Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Current‐Argus Online Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Coshocton Tribune Online Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Ruidoso News Online Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Newnan Times‐Herald Online California Secretary of State in opposition to U.S. Census citizenship  question Santa Maria Times Online Smart Ideas: Leave Citizenship Out of the Census National Journal Daily Extra AM Sabotaging a sacred mandate Courier, The GOP sabotaging a sacred mandate Daily Record, The OUR VIEW: Census shouldn't try to count undocumented  immigrants Milford Daily News Online, The 63 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000728 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 289 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Tribune‐Herald Online Billings Gazette Online Times‐Tribune Online, The Daytona Beach News‐Journal Online Chicago Tribune Online Richmond.com 0 0 0 0 0 0 Route Fifty Star Tribune Online San Francisco Chronicle 0 0 0 Washington Post, The 0 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census How They See It Sabotage of a sacred mandate GOP sabotaging census to decrease participation It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America When Winston‐Salem was N.C.'s largest city The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Uninsured immigrants a challenge forcities, states Tribune‐Herald 0 Patriot Ledger, The Times Record Richmond Times‐Dispatch Courier‐Post Chicago Tribune Winston‐Salem Journal Star, The (Shelby, NC) Arizona Daily Star 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The GOP is sabotaging the census — and ignoring the Constitution Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities  and states Editorial: Snapshots from the nation's press The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate The Trump administration wants to make a major change to the  2020 US census Denver Post Online, The 0 Register Guard Projects, The Daily Camera New Hampshire Sunday News 0 0 0 Business Insider 0 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants Politics put America's 2020 Census at risk Count Founders as angry GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America Sabotage of a sacred mandate Justice Department's Census Citizenship Question Increases  Undercounting Fears Congress must guard accuracy, use of census Census not about citizenship The Census Bureau already asks about citizenship ‐ for good  reasons 64 000729 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 290 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 California Dreamers say 'We can't wait,' plead for congressional  action The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate The Trump administration's citizenship questions could wreck the  census BBC World Service Title Unavailable Protect the census The GOP is sabotaging census Sessions wants next census to include “citizenship status” 5 Dem senators ask administration not to include citizenship  question on census Experts Say Census Citizenship Question Would Stifle Response What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 Potential census question on citizenship stirs fears of dampened  participation GOP sabotaging sacred census mandate 5 Things You Need to Know About Federal News From the Past  Month ‐ GovLoop The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Lucky Dragon temporarily shuts gaming, restaurant operations The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Catherine Rampell The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Trump administration pushed for a change that could derail the  census It's time the census bureau stops dividing America Trump administration pushed for a change that could derail the  census Senators to Trump Administration: Reject Census Citizenship  Question Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census 65 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Philly.com Day Online 0 0 San Francisco Chronicle Online BBC World Service ‐ KNOW‐FM KSTX‐FM San Diego Union‐Tribune, The Daily Review Atlas ExpressNews 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hill Online, The WFPL‐FM ‐ Online Community Impact 0 0 0 NBC News Online Asbury Park Press Online 0 0 GovLoop 0 Burlington Free Press Online 0 EB‐5 News Blog: Regional Centers in the  0 Plum Line, The 0 Salt Lake Tribune, The 0 New Britain Herald Siskiyou Daily News 0 0 Bristol Press, The 0 Targeted News Service 0 Dayton Daily News Online/daytondailyne0 000730 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 291 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census U.S. Representative ‐ New York 0 Government Executive My Dayton Daily News WHIO‐TV Online Manhattan Mercury Online, The Springfield News‐Sun Online Journal‐News Online 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Maloney: Justice Department Request for Inclusion of Citizenship  Question in 2020 Census Threatens Accuracy of the Count of Our  Nation Democrats Challenge Proposed Citizenship Question on 2020  Census Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census Census change should be rejected Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge 92qnashville.com 0 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge KAKE‐TV ‐ Online 0 1/4/2018 WICC‐AM Online 0 OpEdNews.com https://www.google.com/ 0 0 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge OpEdNews Citizenship Questions in the Census? Trump's DOJ Has  an Audacious New Project to Suppress the Vote Feds plan to add citizenship question to US Census Letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: Reject a new  citizenship question on the 2020 Census https://www.google.com/ 0 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge WBBH‐TV Online 0 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Trump DOJ Could Effectively Be Reviving A Long‐Term Attack On  Voting Rights A question of citizenship Census 2020 part of Trump's plan to wreck America Department of Justice Requests Citizenship Questions Be Added to  Census What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 WSEE‐TV Online 0 https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ Daily Kos 0 0 0 Pacific Standard Online KABB‐TV Online 0 0 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 66 000731 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 292 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 Outlet Name Another view: The Trump administration pushes for a change that  could derail the census Northwest Herald Another view: The Trump administration pushes for a change that  could derail the census McHenry County Business Journal, The Change that could derail U.S. census Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The Trump administration pushes for change that could derail the  census Progress‐Index, The (Petersburg, VA) Trump changes could derail the census Daily Gazette, The Last‐minute question could derail census Daily Record, The Social Security pay increase is a slap in the face for Americans Patriot‐News Online/PennLive.com, The Men need to zip‐up and shut‐up Patriot‐News Online/PennLive.com, The A free and open internet should not be stifled by bureaucratic  whims Patriot‐News Online/PennLive.com, The Marc Scaringi's recent op‐ed should scare all Americans Patriot‐News Online/PennLive.com, The Critics Say Questions About Citizenship Could Wreck Chances for an  Accurate Census New York Times Online, The Trump Appointing Advocate of Racial Gerrymandering to Run Next  Census Independent Journal Review What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 Amarillo Globe‐News Online What To Expect In Texas' Voting Rights Court Fights In 2018 KUHF‐FM ‐ Online What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 KEYE‐TV Online Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census Pacific Northwest Inlander ‐ Online The DOJ Wants A Citizenship Question On The Census. That Could  Blow Up The Whole Survey HuffPost Aging, Undocumented And Uninsured Immigrants Challenge Cities  And States HuffPost Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Madison365 Opinion   Say it again, Mitt Romney: Trump is unfit to serve Washington Post Online, The Congressman Steve King Seeks Citizenship Question On U.S. Census  Form You‐Blog.Club 67 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000732 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 293 of 440 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/3/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/11/2018 Outlet Name Critics Say Questions About Citizenship Could Wreck Chances for an  Accurate 2020 Census News Taco Trump DOJ Pushes For Citizenship Question On Census, Alarming  Experts Talking Points Memo Furor greets request to add citizenship question to 2020 U.S.  census Science Online Trump administration calls for citizenship question on census,  potentially chilling participation Daily Kos Corrections & Clarifications WBIR‐TV Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 0 0 KEY **Media impact score is calculated by multiplying the prominence score of an article by the importance of the publication.  Prominence score analyses the text of a news article based on unique search terms to score each article.  Word Count=400+, Maximum Score=50 Word Count=300‐399, Maximum Score=40 Word Count=200‐299, Maximum Score=30 Word Count=101‐199, Maximum Score=20 Word Count=1‐100, Maximum Score=10 The importance of a media outlet is determined by a tier level assigned by their circulation.   Tier 1, Multiplier=4 Tier 2, Multiplier=3 Tier 3, Multiplier=2 Tier 4, Multiplier=1 The media impact score ranges from a high of 200 to a low of 0. 68 000733 406ch 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 294 of 411000 1 of5. PH Marmara? I US. immigrant Population Hits Record 437 Million An Inerease of 12:6 millionsince 2000 NEWS PROVIDEDBY Center for immigration-Studies. Oct te..201?, 16:40 ET 16,- 201? new analysis by the Center for immigration-Studies of recently released U.S. Census data ?nds that the nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit-a record 43;? million in' 2016. The data also show more than 16.6. million minor children with an immigrant parent. Immigrants and theiryoung children thus now account'for'nearly. one in ?ve US. residents. 000734 :339k'201 8 US. MW?B?g?t?ie?Q?a??ngoo?WWm?g?A Filed 06/08/18 Page 295 Of 440 Page 2'-of5 Growth in the-immigrant pepulation was not the same forall countries. There were significant increases in-the total number of'immigran'ts from the Middle East,- Asia, Sub"- Saharan Africa, and Latin Americancountr?ie's other than Mexico, while the number of those from Mexico, Europe, and Canada grew not at all or declined .- The.sending-countries With the highest persentage growth from 2010 to 2016 were Saudi Arabia '(up 122- percent), Nepal (up '86 percent), Afghanistan (up ?4 percent), Burmatep 73 percent), and Syria (up .62 percent). The states experiencing, the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants 20-10 to 2018 were. North Dakota (up-.48 percent), West Virginia (up 41 percent), South Dakota (up 39 percent), Delaware (up 24 percent), Nebraska-(Up 20 20 percent). Dr. Steven Center?s director of research and cot-author of the report, said, ?The enormous number of immigrants already in the ?country-'coupled with the Settlementof well over a million newcomers each year has aprofound impact on American society, including on workers, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. and the environment. The nation needs a serious debate about whether continuing this level of immigration View the report at: Among the-??ndings? in the new data; 000735 http's IHWLPI'newswire. .. 319/20 113 U-S- Immisreatiaaileiesl?i?twsme 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 296 of 4013623 of 5- . The-nation'szimrnigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 433.? millidn in July 2016. an increaseiof half a million since-.2015, 3.8 million since 52010. and 12.6 million since 2000. - As a share of the US. population, immigrants (legal and illegal) comprised 1-3.5 percent, or-ion'e. outer-eight residents in 2016, the highest percentage. in 106 years. .As. recently as 198'0. iLIst one cutof- 16- residents was'foreign-born; "Between-2010 and'2016, 8.1 million new immigrants settled in the-United States.rN.ew arrivals-are offset roughly 300.000 immigrants who return home each year-and? annual natural. mortality. of about 300,000. among the existing foreignaborn population. As .a result, growth in the immigrant population was 3.8 million 2010102016. In addition to immigrants, there were m'ore'than 116.6 million, U..S..?born miner children with art-immigrant parent 'in? 520126, fora total of 60.4 million'.immigrant's and their. children inthe Country. Immigrants and'theirminor chiidren now account-for" nearly one in five US. residents. -- Mexican immigrants-(legaland illegal) were by- far the largest foreig n-born Population in'the country in12016. 'Mexico'is' the top sending-country-,- with 1.1 million new immigrants arriving from Mexico between 2010 and2016, or'oneout of eight new arrivals. However, because natural mortality. the. overall Mexicanaborn population has-not grown in the last six years. The. sending regions with the; largest numerical increases in the number of?i'mmigr'ants- living in the United Statesf201=5 ?to 2016'were' the Caribbean (up 120,522). the Middle East (up. Central-America (up r0064). Sub-Saharan Africa. South Asia (up 64r902). and South America ([1061 .452); Longerterm, the regions with'the largest numerical increases 2010 to 2016 were East Asia (up. 892.209). south Asia? .(iip sees-rs). the Caribbean the Middle East (up 471,029). Sub-Saharan Africa (up 456,989), Central America (up 402,784), and South America (up 249,660). I The-sending countries withithe largest numeriCal increases. since 2010'were indie (up 654,202), China (Lip 550,022), the Dominican Republic El Salvador (up 11 72.973), Cuba (up Honduras ("up 123,470), I Vietnam (up "11 2,218); Venezuela (up 106,185). Guatemala (up 104,883), Nigeria (up 31565.), Pakistan (up 83,271). Haiti (up Bangladesh (up 80,949). Jamaica (tip 000736 3f9i?2013 us. Filed 06/08/18 Page 297 of 440 Page 4 of5 Ethiopia Brazil (up 69,932), Colombia (up 68,032), 'l'ra'q (up 61,787), Burma (also known as Myanmar, up 60,294), Nepal ("up 59,992), and Saudi Arabia (up The 'sen'ding' countries with the largest percentage increases inithe number of immigrants lilting 'in the United States since 2010 were Saudi Arabia (up 122*percent), Nepal (88' percent), Afghanistan (up 74 7-3 percent), Syria (up 62 percent), Venezuela (up 58 'perCerit), Bangladesh (up153 percent), Kenya (up 46 percent), Ethiopia (up 41 percent), Nigeria (up 40 percent), l'raq (up 39 percent), .Ghana (up-37 percent), India (up 37 percent), Egypt (up '32 percent), ?Pakistan (up 28. percent), and China (up 25 percent). ..- The states with the ?largest; numerical increases 'in the number of' immigrants from 2019 to 2016-w?re Texastcp Florida (up 578,468), 527,234), New York (up 238,503), New Jersey (up 171,504), Massachusetts (up 140.1318), Washington (up 134,132), (up 131,345), Virginia (up 1.20.050), Maryland (up 113,175). Georgia (up 95,353), Nevada-(Up 78,341), Arizona (up 73,220), Michigan (up 114,532),- Minines'o'tatup 73,953), and- North Carolina (up ?703501). - The states with. the largest'perce'ntage increases 'in the number of immigrants 2010 to 20-16 were North Dakota (Lip-48-percent), West Virginia (Up 4'1 perpent), South Dakota (@313 percent), Delaware (up 24: percent), Nebraska.(up 20'pe'rcen't), Minnesota (Up Zia-percent), wyoming (up 19' percent), ?(up 18 (up 1.6 perpent), indiana (up 16-per-cent), F?Iorida(up_ 1.6 percent), Nevada (up 15. percent), Washington (UP 1?5percent), .iowa (up .15 percent), Niary'l'and (Lip 15 percent). 14 percent), Texas (up Utah (up 13 percent), Wl'siconsin (up 13' percent), and Virginia (up 1 3 percent). Contact: Marguerite Teiford 202-46948185, _rnrt@cis.prg SOURCE Center for immigration Studies. . 000737 391912018 n. 1 - a. 43%? ?ee . re?t? ides What does-winning loci: like For year organization in the current? politicoi environment? Funding tro,nsiormotio? through. racial healing I JEAnmE'lsm 'Poy' it toward: A new We}: to' tund- grassroots - organizing in the Soi?h- En- Rev. James: BEACH-FERNA- A?messqge from-the President and CEO 2: Spotlight: 15 Philanthropy and the 2020 census: A once?in~ejeclececle chance- to get i The-13,35; Constitution requires a cen- sus, every 10- years, and getting.- it 'right- is: important to everyone. The census has-an enormcius- impact on the. nation?s- ability to ensure- that all Americans receive- equal treatment under-the law and?have equal access to? economic cpporttinities. Census- data prostide the basis for all demographic and socioeconomic." .info'rm'atiOH used by policymakers at all' levels of government, businesses, philanthropy, community leaders and research organizations. A good'census is. not a? partisan sue. The goal of the Census Bu- reau is {to' "?ce'unt everyone. once, only once, and in the But the census doesn?t count all groups equallyr we! which skews the mesa .in-taver of some communities over ethers'for the next 1-U'yea'rstelreadir, budget shortfalls are placing census operatiens, designed to reach groups that have been 'hiSto'ri~ tally underrepresented in the censusat risk,- threatening-fairness and accuraty, and ultimately, our-democracy. r: 9 hi The US. Census Bu'reau-'spends-bil- lions of'clollars on-the census. Howev- er, none of that money reaches the nonu profit organizations whose outreach .to' people of color, immigrantsand peepie with low income can help make the difference between a disastrous-under- count and an accurate count. By Vanita GUpta NOW NEVER Some oftlse largest foundations in the country have-started to fill alportien of this resource. gap, but more focus: and resourCes- are needed to Support-the ter- gantZations engaged-"in. critical census education and promotion; Here are four reasons why fundets. need to (continued on page 12) 000738 {continued from page prioritize achieving a fair and accurate; I2 02 0- census: I I.-ITHE ceases; To The outcome of'the census influences; -direct_ly or indirectly almostevery iSsue that DEL-focused philanthroples' support,'inclIuding political empowers rnent, social ju stiCe; educational oppor? tunity, employment, veterans.I services, rural development health care and in- frastructur'e in disadvantaged commu- .niIties. Philanthropy also relies on cen- sus data to guide and evaluate the Work of grantees. I Decennial census dataon state-popu-' latIionIs' determine the number of seats in Congress each state receives and how those districtsare drawn: Morethan $600 .billion annually is allocated through?ted- eral programs based, in whole or in part, on census; dataR-IAdditionallg state and local governments 'use census informa- tion-Ito distribute billions-more for essen- tial Services. Census 'data'are-also. used to monitor compliance with, and enforce? ment-of, civil rights-statutes. CoUnting'every' person in the United States is an'extraordinarily completion- deavor ?'it is the nation?s largest peace? time mobilization 'o'f'I personnel and resources. Even With careful planning. a perfect count lsIviIr-tually impossible: Some people are-missed, some are dou- and some do not respond iiIlly. But, because the accuracy. of. the census directly affects our nation .5 .abil- Iity to ensure equalI representation. and equal access to public. and private re- .Is'tthIrCES, 'achievingfa fair and accurate census must be regarded as one of the most significant-civil rights and-Social josticepriorities facing the country. 2020 CENSUS- ALREADY UNDERWAY. IWhile-t-he 2020. census mayseem far off, key decisions- are- being rn'acle new, and poor-Choices could lead'tosignifi- cant harm for-years to come, TheCen- sus- Bureau has spent an-entire decade planning upcoming'cen'sus, and, -by the eIn'd'of 201.3, the. CenSUs Bureau will have. finalized the. questi'OrIn'aire -ior.23020 and launched its program for sharing preliminary address lists with states and municipalities. Significant operations will go into effect. in 201 ijith'the End-to-Enc'l Cen? Test This pivotal ?dress rehearsal? had been scheduled to take- place. in three areas Pierce County, Washing- ton}. Providence County, Rhode Island; and. =Virginia.? but'dueto budget'shortfal Is, it will only be conducted in Etovidence. The dry run is the onlyr opportunity for a scomplete test of the?2020 uestionna ire and new technologies, including a new internet response option that the Gen- sus promoting asI-the primary response mode for the 202-0 censusIIand electronic devices for census takers to. collectinformation during personai as- its to unresponsive.households. in census Bureau v'vill ramp .upits outreach efforts, which include a partnership program. paid advertising. and a census in the schools program. Hundreds of millions question- naires will be. printed, and local of?ces acrossI-thecountry ivill begin recruiting more-:than a- miilioni'temporary census- .employees, -with plans 'to' hire] about 300,000 enumerators during peak erations. Census workers also will can- that have un? change .or that have. unstable houSingf conditidns, to update the master address file thatesItablishes- the universe forthe? 2020 count. I3. ENGAGING LATER MAY BE TOO LATE. HistOriCally, the census" has missed dis- proportionately high numbers of .peo- ple of color, low-income- households: in rural and urban areas. and young chiIldre_n.- The Census. Bureau also des?. 12 Notional Committee for EesponSive Philanthropy 'ignates "Ihardstoeco'unt? areas based on: additional characteristics, including" limited English proficiency. mobile'and single-parent households. This uneven accUracy has sigIn'iIficant'tiivil rights'im- plications. because .it could; deny the most vulnerable members of our sociII-. et'y equal representation and opportu?. nity Efforts to address these challenges must be built into the- census protess: Inovv, before it is too late for them to- have an impact. 'E'ncoUraging' people to Complete: their census?Iquestionnaires, and elimi? nating undercounts' in at-risk nities?, will be in 2020. Encouraging .an online re- sponse might lead to concerns about Internet..privacy and data confidential;- ity, especially - given high-pro?le- news Stories about computer hacking affect- ing businesses. and government. and" some communities that may already feel besieged by the current: political climate may be concerned about new options for identifying Middle Eastern and North African ethnicity. immigrant and mixed? status households may be. especially fearful of providing. informa- tion to. the. federal government in 2-020. given Ithe heightened climate of --fear that anti?immigrant rhetoric and poli? Cies' have created. The. Census Bureau will attempt-to minimiZe undercountin'g With an ex.- tensive,; $400+ million communica? tions plan, but the bureau cannot be suCcessful 'on' its-own. The role. that na- tional and state advocacy groups" and" cemrnunity.?.bjased organizations play is-critical to afair'and'atcurate census. :gAccording-Ito former Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt, ?Of the many. things necessary for a_ successful cen- sus, none rival trusted voices that reas- sure?mericans anxious about the gov? ern ment asking queStions,? The. Census Bureau knows that. trusted community? voices persuade .millions .or-Amer-icans' to join the once every Idecade..oppoIrtu.-. is-truly "of thefpeople, by the I I We Commend the philanthropic. Community for identifying an accorate 2010 census as an important goal and for committing significant'resourc'es to this work ?The' Leadership Conference?s. 2010 census education andptornotion Campaign,- a. collaborative with. Asian Americans Adventing-?Ju?sticerAAJC, the National-Association of Latino Elected- and Appointed Officials Educational Fund; the NAACR land the National Congress of AmeriCan' .lndi'ans, 'w'hich served as a kev'b'ridge between the (Zen- -_"sus Bureau and communities at greatest- -risl< of an 'unde'r'co'unt nut have been possiblewithoutthissupport. Foundations: invested at- least million in "get out the count? "cam- paigns to increase the :accuraovof' the 2010 census;4 But the flow-of funds to nonprofit organizations was uneven and unpredictable, and the levels of funding were not commensurate with the importance of the-census and-the: wiideyranging' and tong-term conse- quences: of under'perform'ance,. Equally important is to consider that meaningful fender involvement did. not begin until 2008; Which Was not early enough in the decade during-the last census-cycle. our work for the 2020 c_'ensus has been under wavifor'years, and some of the nation?s largest'foUndation's have begun to shore up funding- to. sup- port nonprofit com'munities". Bot the resources and reach" to date are inad- equate to meet the-?immense challenge of- ensuring- a fair and acctirate count. In the current ciimate, broadening the coalition. engaged in census work wilt he critical..-Foundations that un- derstand- the importance of the census for their other-substantive areas of f0." cus must?find Ways of ensuring a swift investment in the work of community-groom. Responsive Philonlhropy: 4-. POUCY IMPROVEMENTS COULD: PAY The 2020 census faces a severe threat that .Unde'rfun'ding will compromise its fairness and-accuracy. In order for the Census Bureau to-prep'ate vvell and carry-rout important tests of new tech- nologies and procedures it requires'a continuous ramp up 'in'stnding levels in the years ending in through Unfortunately, as the below graph shows, for this cycle Congress al located far less than the Census Bureau request- ed: in both 2016 and 5201?; the 2017" funding level was-only modestiv higher than-the previous year. To make matters worse, .the?adlministrationfs funding- re- billion for fiscal year2'0'18 is' irre?spohsiible and 'unrealis'tic'allv low, falling at'least $300-million short-ofthe level needed to ensure a cost?etfective- docennial. cehstis in'20'20. This, underi'nvestrnent has already! forced'the Census Bureau to-scale' batik" or eliminate some key 2020 census preparations. For example, 2017 field tests plann'ed'fot Peer-to Rico and on two-America n?Indian reservations were 'canceied. In additionr the-opening of three of six regional 2020 census of- ?fices.? has been delayed, and the com? munications campaign and coverage measurement components of the 201-8 dress rehearsal We're eliminated. Given the. Trump ndministrationis; inadequate'nbudget' request for 2018; the Census Bureau has been forced to entirely eliminate two of the three :dres's r-?ehearsai sites, thus diminishing the opportuniw to fully-test all meth-I .ods and operations in a censUS-Iike environment com- munitijes. The consequences of inadequate proparation and funding could be dev? astating, with vulnerable, communities taking the hardest hits; Educational outreach( to both sides of the the need for sufficient government 'inve_5tme'nt in the. sound preparation and policy development to ensure a fair and ac?c'urate? census, can help address this potential crisis, but in 2018 CensusBureou Funding For Less Then in Previous Decenniol Census-"Cycles Change-in_Census Bureau. Budget relative to year E-of. 'each decade est?? 1990' CensUs K.- 2019 Census 2029:: under Trump! House plan Year 8 Note-Ail veers-ate {east-years. Figures show in each'year of thedec'ade relativeto-thot in medium year; not outdated For in?ation. batsman Office at Management and Eu'deot. enacted and draft legislation trons the- House Appropriations ifomm'ittee title 3:939 thisii??t? 00740 umrner 201? ll} philanthropic support is needed'for this werk to. be successful. Census funding hasbeen traditional-- I95 viewed by philanthropy as a-once-ae decade undertaking; without a funding stream. Butfunding for organi-?- zations with a 'prov'en' track. record on censusissues, "asw'ell as for thos'e- who can reach audiences. that will support and decide, census, polioy, can help- rnalce the-difference inI bolstering efforts to educateand influencepolicvmakers'. FUNDERS: BE A. TO YOUR PEERS. The census is. a classic? ?intersec?tiona?l? Js- sue. it has a directimpact .onsantipoverty efforts. criminal justice reformg racial jos- tice educational access and much more. Thousands of commonly-groups across thelcountry' are hoping to player 'ro Ie, in promoting the census to?ih'Ieir con- stituents, but they lack the resources to, developand staff?rnajor" activities. Foundations that support the core Workof these-organizations should .ogn'ize th'at'an incluSive'ce'nSLis enables grantees to access the resources they. need toIprovide betterservices. Wehope' that funders will be open .to. combining portfolios,- as manydid in 2010, to inCreasethe pot of available "funding. .Please talk to your Colleagues about'_t_his critical "issue. When jit-corhes-to the census?,- there are no Clo-overs We have. only one chance this decade to get vanita Gupta is president and oi? The Leadership ConferEnce on .Cits?iiand Human Rights and former head of the Civil' Rights Division at the-'US. Dispari- .me'rir-ofjustice. ole-s . jenniier S'oindon ond Robeii Chestnut, "The-202C] census: A New Design for the 2i sl CenliJrv," Census Bureou. October 20 s, hilpsi-Z?X W. Follogov/li le-reposilorv/ councildlomeelings/EOi .crmeeli Jig,- proceed ing conie?rence/ 2 . Andrew Recliner. ?Cowling ior. Dollars: The. Role. oi the D'ecenniol Census in the Geogrophic Distribution oi Federol Funds. (3W loslilule cal-Public Polity. June 21 2m 7 hllp: JnFo7 pd 7 censu 57 Counting ForDollors? intro pdi. Abrohom Lincoln The dress Novemberl9 i3?3. -. Kim CreWs "Philonlhropic Support icar 2010 Census Oulreo'ch: A list bl .Gronls Aworded Moi}! 2m blips. 7-7 1W. funderscorrimiltee; org/i iles/ D_-Census_Gronis_Spre-od- .pcli; See olso Kim Crews, ?Philonthropic Sopporl For '20] 0 Census Qulieochg- An Gears view oil-Grunts MW 201 l, org/ files/T noi . poll. A. new-way to fund grassroots Organizing? iCootinueo? from page i I) needed. to be;.used by those Who-are most impactedJThereis a strategic rea- 'son as well: Creating legal and lived Equality in the south requires that-we do long-term organizing {in-every com? munity, not just-in. large metro areas. fonding grassroots work is a core strategy as; we build a nesv'rn'odel of Southern organizing. just like" direct -ser-' vices and litigation. We learn from and build with .ou'r grassroots partners. in the shared workand mutuality or these-inela- ti'onships, there is also great joy. 5% Rev; jasmine Be'achuFerrara- is the ex'ecu- tive director of'the Campaign for South'- ern which promote; LES-IQ equaiitjr? aCr?os?s the-South. She 'is a min- in the United Church of Christ and a County- .Commisision'er in BunCombe County, North Carolina. Notes According to reseorch from Funders. for lssUes ioundolion ionding lo LG- BTG- groups in the South hos i'ncieosecl lion-J less than 5fpetcenl to 2-5 percent in recenl grants primarily go: Eng lo lorge non-proiils in mel?ro oreos. .2. 'Cloudio Horwilz, "Out in-lhe-Soulh For! Two: The Assels," Funders For issues September-2014 hllp517 ,7 gw'mv. lgbItioInders'. org 7 wp-contenr/ opioods72Ql ?/OS/Oulmi nulhe?oulh? . in" the_ U. 3.. ?South 3. Hurrion Rights Compoign "Violence Agbinsl the. Tronsgender Community In. .201 7. org7resourc- Responsive-Philonthropy 5; -Wh ellen'I, . Deep. S'outh?i Center for Heolth' in the. SouJ-h endor- cornm'unliy-in-EO} 7. "-Suson Reii. Donne So?ilev, Coroiyn .McAllIosler, Eleno Wils_on.- Slole-zoi- Hh.f in the US Policy ond lne'qud'iilies Reseorch, Duke Universilyg; 711cm.~ I .online2'. pdi. Movement Advoncernenl Project ?Sole School lows -"July 7 2017*; hip: 7/ wmv. lgbimopoig7equolitymops/ soie?'chooljovvs. Movemenl Advoncern ent .Proiecl, "Non-Discrimination lows,? July 7. 7. uolily- mopsfno? mdiscriminolionjows- Ph?iionihropy De?es-rs Chair Jodiih Ucbmisn Haired Pennerstebinr Women's-Famm. Vice Chairs Jacuueline Pale Natural Congress of Ameican indies; ThomasA. Seen: Mexican American Legal Defense and saunas-1111a Furid__ Hilary 5111111011 Semen-r31 Jo Ann ?Jenkins. Treasure- Le? A. Saunders . Anglican Federation 1115111115,- County a blunders Bored of Diraclure Helena Berger I Ameican semen-111 Pecoie 1111b msabiea?es Kimberly Churches. AAUW Kristen Clots towers consumes For CiiIril Rigbis Urlder L311 L111 LIEskeisen Gama Nations! Educaton-Associa?an Fatima Goes ?ares Herons! chens Lair Center ones Grins . Human Right-1 Ganipaign mesa Womb-11115 Leanne 111W omen Votes of Ine Uriie? Slates Mary Kay Horny Senrioe Erroicjlees insema?lcnai Union 311111111111 11111 NAACP 1.19:1 oases-1e and - Educallonai Fund. 1.11:: 1111111 H. 111111111 Japanese American Citizens League Deoick Jolmson NAACP reread obscene 'Peccb for me-Anenoan Way. 511111111 e. 11151.11 ArneiicaIn?Arab 11.1111- Dionne-1.1111111. 91111111111111 Marc Henri Nsb'cnal Urban League - Jonet Mmgois UhidosUS Debra Hess Nn?cnej FernBIship for I Women smallness Pesos: Eeligious?ct?ort terse: {if Retails Judaism Anthony Remote moose Civil leerbe: Union. Shanna Smith Masons Fair Housing 1111111111111 . Richard L. Twinks AFL CID Toni Van Pelt lilaonn?al 01911111511111 for Werner: Randi Wes'iga'iEo American Federation ofTeaci'iers Dennis '11" Game Intema?onsi Uni on, UAW Jenn $.1an A'sianAmaricans Admitting Justice] AME: Potion and Enforcement Cmueocmir Michael 111nm IBM?Defama'dnn League 'PresidentS'BED "I'eaii'teGuria Cossro?ds?b'di??e?riis Document 23'4 Fi'ed bib/95811151181111? assess as) season 11911 15. erg Suite use Washington, DC 29335 on-{Eisitanil Human Rights Thermos-11511111 Conference STATEMENT or s- (31110 THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE 1111111 HUMAN RIGHTS- our-1113111211 House-commas ON OVERSIGHT 111111 GOVERNMENT 111111011111 October 12, 2917 Chairman-Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Membersof'the Committee: I am Vanita Gupta-,2 president of The Leadership Conference on Civil-and Human Rights, Thank you for the opportunity to testify about planning and preparations .for'th'e 2020.- Census. The Leadership Conference 1s a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 210 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Founded? 111 1950 by A. Philip Randolph, Arnold Aronson- and. Roy Wilkins, The Leadership Conference works .111 support of policies that further the goal of equality under law through legislative advocacy and public education. The Leadership Conference provides a powerful unified-voice'for the many cons?tu'encies of the coalitioni persons-of color, women,_childreu,. individuals with. disabilities, individuals, older Americans,- labor religious groups, civil libertarians, and human rights-I_organi_zations-. Given the breadtl1._.of our coalition, The Leadership Conference is ideallyl'position'ed to address manyiof the most pressing-I issues affecting thesuccessful' simplementation-rof CensusButeauprograms, suWeys,-and initiatives. The. Leadership many-diverseorganization's allows for the-shrir-b1g: {of different. perSp'ectives, as ivell'as. the developmentof broader soat?g-ies thatoccur- within. I tho'purview cfany individual Organization. All. of our Work-draws on the expertiSe of the- of-national organizations, and exarnines-th?oiimpact of on a broad range of constituencies, I .Ourc'oalition views an accurateand fair census, and the collection of' useful, objective data. about our nation?s people, housing, economy, and Communities generally, to be among the most important civil. rights issues of our day; We and the Leadership ConferenCe Census Task Force conchairs', Educational'and and Asian Americans Advancing Justice.? AAJ have a long record of first-hand esperience working 1n support of previous censuses For the 2010. Census, we undertook the most comprehensive and extensive effort by a stakeholder organization to promote partioipation in historically hardatovcount communities and to mobilize local advocates 1n Support. of the census by highlighting the community 000742 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 303 of 440 October '12, 20-17 \Tha t. . . eadarship Page 2 of 7 Conference bene?ts, civil rights implications, and-constitutional imperative of an 'aCcurate c'ount._ We-are new buildinguponlour previous workto help ensure that no one is left out ofthe 202.0 ?Census. Under the congress hears responsibility for overseeing the census extension, for ensu?ring-a fair and ascu'rate' count that supports'the 14th Amendment} guarantee "of equal representation. That- is-Why this oversighthearing is .so important, and we cornmend'the'comlnitte'e 'for' focusingmuch? needed and welcome attention on preparations for-ournation?s largest, most complex peacetime activity, The Leadership Conference-shares-this- committee?f-s interest in a modern. and, costseffective census'Those' are goals and-hnportant considerations in.che design of the 2020 Census. Technology undoubtedly can ?facilitate easy and quick participation in the census for many Americans,- and administratire data maintained by other government. agenciescan help streamlineand improtre some census o'petat'ions. Bat?th'e' p'rimary' and'overarching. goal'of the census isa fair and accurate'enurneration of all people lieingrin the United States. on Census Day. The'goal. of'a-census that. is equally'su'cceSSful in all communities is non-negotiable. Theflmgortauce of the Census Article I, Section?2fof the United :States-CenstitutiOn places.'the'census at the care of Our democratic system of . governance by calling-foracount of the nation's-populationevery ten'years; The census provides information that is. the'co'rners'ton'e 'ot? knowledge about allpeople in the Un'ited'Sta?tes. It is the basis forjvirtually all demographic and soclo-ecenomic infonnation'used' by'bu'sinesses, policy makers, research institutions, and nonpro?t organizations. Thedecennialcensns. has first, decennial census data ton: state populations determine the number of seats .in Congress each state receives and how these; districts are drawn, through the reapportionrnent-and redistricting processes. S'ee'Ond, the census: provides thefigures that detennine the number of- electors: each state receiVesfor-presidential electiensi detemllIIE-Iht: allocation of billions of federal program dollarsfot important conununity services, such'as schools, programs-for veterans.-and-seniors, modern transportation. systems, and rural economic development. are used to. and to determine- where disparitiesfexi'st and remediation is. 'reqtiired. Finally, the-private sector-uses census data to make? important decisions. about their.- businesses, includinginvestment strategies, hiring plans,- and leoationof facilities. All of these ?Jnctions-depend on a fair and accurate-census. for-all of'these reasons, getting the: census right is . important to es eryone. CensusAccurgg and the Problem of the Undercoggt .lj-loiaever?, certain population group_s??referred .toz-as 'i?harti-to-countiismare at a higher?risk of not being ?illy counted in the decennial differential 'underceunt is a- disproportionate u'nderceunting of- these population groups,- .rnostnetably people of color, youngehildtten, and renters (a proXy for-Iow- 000743 Case Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 304 of 440 _October 12, 2017 The Leadership Page 3 of 7 Conference income to non?Hispanic Whites, seniors, and homeowners. These groups have been historically underrepresented in the-decennial census-for decades; and for some-populationsm?t?or example; young children-under age ?V?+uethE undercount has been gettin'gpro'gressively worse. Now, howerers additional populations such as rural residentsand older Americans?may'experience new or increased vulnerability-.due-to major-changes such as relying on the l'nternetias the primary Way for households to respond 'to- the-2020 census. Others may bereluctant-to respond due to concerns about data con?dentiality. Being. hard-teec cunt, can deprive people and- their-j communities of equal political representation and':their- fair share of vital public and private resources. Censustracts are considered hard-'to-count, according to Census-Bureau macarch, if they have certain population and housing characteristics. associated with both. low likelihood of' being-missed. entirely; in the census. There are hard?to-count communities in every state-and hard-to- count population groupsin communities of large urban :areas such as Denver-,1 New York, and: Ontaha, to-sm'aller- cities -s_1_1ch -'as.Virginia Beach and Little Rock; Theseexamples may be of particular interest-to members of the Committee: Nearly 10: percent-of census tracts .in South Carolina are hardatoscount. percent of-IBaltimoreis. population lives in tracts. Nearly 15' percent of Tennessee census'tracts are hard-to-count. One quarter of San Antonioi's residents live in hard-to-count census-tracts; live in such areas; Qne'in three. Oklahomans (34.5 percent) litre in neighborhoods or communities. that are considered more dif?cult to count. 'at greater risklof disproportionate undercounting. I. Reughly- one i'n'?tre Illinois census tracts are-considered hardsto?count. .- One-in?ll Michigancensus tracts face'similar eircumStanc'es,'With a staggering65 percent of Detroit residents living-in neighborhoods'that are harderr'to count accurately. 'Hard-tosc'ou'nt communitiesare not con?ned to urban areas. ltma'y be less Well known, but rural and remote communities, including- American-ludian tribal lands andreservations, are al'so'ruinerableit'o disproportionate. underc'ount'ing in the decennial census with lower income households especially at risk. Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of the hardest?to-count counties .in the 21110 Census were rural counties. According. to the Census Bureau '5 own scienti?c rneasurern'e'nts- the 2010 'Census .underco'unt 1n areas connted using. a modi?ed method knonm .as UpdatefEnumerate, was. nearly eight percent (7 3? percent). UpdatefEnumerate operations .are deployed 1n. areas without city?style addressing or- that do not receive mail. through city-style addressing, such as those _where people receive their mail through a Post Of?ce Box; in communities affected by signi?cant 'fnatnral disasters,- such as areas still recovering from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? in the 20:10 CenSus; -are: especially inaccessible; or have-high seasonal Dr. William Hare, President, 0 Hate Data and Demographic Services, tabulation for upcoming issue brief for the Carsey Institute,- University of New Hampshire. 000744 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 305 of 440 Dot-fiber 12- 20171' . . . . The Leadership Page. 4- 0f 7 Confettencts 1racaneyrates, The" Census Bureau is'p'lanning. new-methods as part1 ofthe Updater'Enumerate operation for-thei2020 Ceths, yet it wasforced to cancel 1111' pro-census testingof UpdnrefEnnmerare methods due. to lock of sn??icient?mding; The '?rst-?sdch tests were scheduled fer-earlier 'this year, on 114110 American Indian reservations and adjacent tribal lands on the North and South Dakota border. and in Washington State, 'as well as in Puerto Rico But the uncertainty of adequate full year-- funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 led the Bureau to cancel all 2017 census site. tests. Similarly, the Census. Bureau has canceled two of three. dress- rehearsal sites in .2018 (the 2013 End-to-End Census Test) due to uncertainty about, timely ._.and suf?cient ?inding. The two eliminated sites Pierce County, Washington and the Bluefi'eld- Beckley-Oak Hill area of West Virginia included the only opportunities to- test, in. a real- time eensus like environment, special counting methods for rural areas With'no testing opportunities onthe horizon, the Census Bureau ehanged its counting. plans for most 1111111 areasoriginally- slated for UpdatetEnumerate operations. Instead, the bureau will use an UpdatefLeave method, Which-it will test in very limitedway in 20 .1 but n'ot'in 'a rural area. The operational 'andcost implications of this recent design modi?cation are, asgyet, unknonn. While the bureau has used, Up'dateflseave methods in previous censuses, they have not-addressed past problems of duplication, and: potential new challenges of an Internet-foamed enumeration, for 'the'2020 Census. Failure to provide adequate resources before the? count will force the Census Bureau'to shortohange2020 Census to improue'amuracy 'in historically-undercounted communities. This would lead to a result that deprivespopulation groups of'equa'l politieal representation and access .to their fair?share' of public and priVate resources.- Equally important, failure to test all methods adequately. due to budgetshortfalls? puts thej2020 Census at risk- of cost twerruns duringpeak census operations. A Fair and Accurate Census is Af'Ri'sk The schedule for ?nal census testing, preparations, and implementation over'the..next three years is unrelenting. At this point in the" decennial cycle, the CensusBur'eau requires a sufficient funding ramp ?up to keep 2020 Census. planning andpreparations on track. Funding-for the decennial census and -traditionallyincreases ._significantly' in the years-ending in 1?6? through .. Unfortunately, .the. delay? in passing FY coupled with underfunding inthe ?nal ?omnibus? measure, ferced the Census Bureau to eliminate, streamline, or delay vital planning activities,- putting-a fair a'ndac'c'urate 2020 Census'mjeopardy. Furtherinore, the Trump administration?s original FY. 2018"-burlget request for the Census Bureau was inadequate-nud- unrealistic. These, current and anticipated budget 'eonstraints are-taking a' toll on rigorous 2020-Census preparations. In addition to the cancellation. of two of three -_p1a.nned sites for the 2018-End-to-End Test mentioned ea111er- (a dry run of all census operations that integrates all operations and-1T systems for the ?rst time), the Census Bureau eliminated the advertising campaign and Partnership Program for the 2013 dress 000745 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 306 of 440 October 12,2111? The Leadership Page 5- of 7 Conference rehearsal. Development oIf?th'e full advertising campaign and. Partnership Program, which helps keep costs down by by targeting messages to historically hardsto-count is Well behind schedule. The original? 2013 budget requeejt'did- not-include any-funding for partnership-Specialists, whohelp state-and localIofficialsI-and trusted community leaders; support cens?s operations-through. focused outreach andproniotion'for theirlconS'tituencies. In addition, uncertainties aboutfundinghave forced the-Ibureauito ?pause? planning for the Census Coverage- Measurement-program; which-produces-undercount and overcount estimates and. tells us how accurate-the census is. The Census. Bureau will not test this operation. in the2018 dress rehearsal as originally planned. the in ?mdi?ng?to support-a critical dress-rehearsal, deployment'ofthelH architecmre-and field. infraStructure', and dEvelo'pInEnt of 'aimas's'ivei'coinmunication's carnpaign-that will encourage-people-to participate and, therefore; help keep-census costs-in check. We support the proposal Carolyn Maloney?snew hill, to allocate roughly billionfor tIhefCensus Bureau in FY2013. The additional funding Will-help-the bureau meet growing costs for the data collection. and-processing system; restore advertising and partnership activities to the 201-8-Bnd?to-End- Census Test'in Providence County, assess and implement modi?ed census plans-forcemmunities in Texas, Florida andI'other'states-hit hard by Hurricanes Harvey Well Ins-for Pnert'o Rico and the Ill-S. Virgin Islands; put development of the: Integrated- Partnership and Communications program back: on'track1.and possibly- test of census operations in rural communities in advance of that-2020 Census. _.Internet. Resp case-and Technology As'thi's committee knows? the Census Bureau will conduct the ?rst ?high?tech? census in 2020.. The Internet response option-could help keep censuslcosts in check by increasing initial response rates, or'at. least holding them steady compared to 2010:; thereby saving resources that can be used. to'finti and. enumerate the hardest to count. Congress must remember however that Internet response is not a silver bullet. The fact? is not everyone has the same connectivity; security; and comfort with the Internet. The Commerce. Department own analyses show that communities of color rural residents adults with low educational attainment, income individuals people with disabilities and older Americans lag behind younger,, affluent highly educated, urban; and 11111111.? adults 111 both device and Internet penetration. An Internet reSponseI option while offering the promise of cost savings could lead to poor or uneven participation technological infrastructure failings or both, thereby increasing- the- differential undercoun't. A iower-than-proj acted-'l'nlernetre'siaonse rate could strain the Bureau?s alread'y limited by increasingresponse by paper questionnaire or telephone or, more worrisomet..th_e number of households- that require donate-door follow-up. Technologyalso threats, real or perceived. The security-of'theZliZtl Census; IT systems-and personal census data is parathountpand the'Census- Bureau and its federal and private sector partners must do everything possible to ensure that security. This means there. must be a comprehensive back-zap plan to address any potential breaches and their consequences for the census process in real time. At the same time, the Census Bureau must have an effective communications plan to assure everyone in the United States that their personal information us secure - in other words,.to.t1uild con?dence in ahigh- 000746 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 307 of 440 October 12, 2017 I'The . . . Page 6 of 7 conference tech census at'atime when many people are wary. Lack of?con?dence. in data security could depress Internet?re'sponSe rates (More so if a large business or another governm_ent-agency-suffers a cyberaa?ttack near-the time: of the-census); thus increasing. costs and enumeration-challenges eonsi'derably. It is still possible that'a streamlined 'state-o?the-art program could. produce a fair. and accurate censes, while simultaneously meeting? Congress? challenging budget'restriet-ions. HOWever, toiuphold-its' constitutional duty and ensure _.an accurate-anti fully. inclusive.- count, Congress, must-allocate the "resources for comprehensive risk management andpreparations methods- and. operations. To address these'and 'o'ther'concern's related to a high-tech census, we are pleased to offer for the record. a new repo'r't- from The Leadership ConferenCe Education Fund and the Georgetoum Center on Poverty and inequality, entitled Counting Evervone 1n the Digital Age; The report addresses how proposed Internet and. automation-technologies will: affect 2020 Census enumeration for groups at risk of ,hemg. undercounted,andsincludes actionable recommendations for .Congress, the community leaders. - Utilizing Administrative Records The Census'Bure'au is-evalnatnig the use of administrative records to obtain-missing information about unresponsive households in lieu of in-person, follow-up visits-by Census enumerators. However, the-implications of such a'methodolo'gy for data quality and cocaisten'cy and census accurate)! are not cleanf'l?here are a number of questions that the Census Bureau must address and resolve hetere stakeholders have confidence that a broad use-of these-datawill not compromisecensus accuracyor undermine- the goals of eliminating the differential undercoun't and collecting more count-ate race and ethnicity-data for all communities. "The Bureau willhe-hindered in resolving.outstanding-concerns about its potential use-of administrative records if it conducts. Census Test that is far less comprehensive than originally planned.- 'We-offer for the record a new in the Census: Civil Rights-Considerations and Opportunities. which is the culmination of-a- project?ofrhe Urban Institute, The Leadership Conference, and the Georgetoivn center.o_n_Pove_rty- and Inequality, to examine, from-the perspective of civil rights stakeholders, the benefits and riisk'S-of utilizing. administrative data forfthe population'in general. and for speci?c vulnerable:subpopulations such as communities of color,- the impoverished, participating in government - assistance programs, and others, in the upcoming'census. Other-202i} Census -'Challen"ge's Counting every'perscn residing in the United States" is: a' d'iffi'Cult endeavor. But. even with careful planning, several other. factors?many out of the Census Bureau-is control??pose signi?cant risks-to 'a fair- and accurate census, .,First proposals. to. add untested and unnecessary questions? including about immigration status to the Census: form at the 1.1th hour could. derail eight years worth of research and.- testing and result in an expensive, yet ultimately failed, census. 000747 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 308 of 440 1?21 2017 The Leadership Page Tof I Conference Second, the reluctance of many-individuals to provide-personal information voluntarily to the . government poses'an additional barrier to a fuli count. The Census'BUreau Will face-this chall'e'nge- in many parts of'the- country and. in many types-of co'mrnunities. a leadership vacuum at the Bureau following the-unexpected resignation of'the Census-Director 'in June, as well as other 'h igh-level vacanciesat the Commerce Department and the: Regrettably, we fear that-the "sn'ict budget constraints Congress has imposed on the 2020 Census add to those formidable barriers. The Census Bureau will._try to minimize nndercounting, butwill be hampered by-a smaller footprint in the ?eld. Budget's'ho'ttfalls have caused the-cancellation of the adveltising_- campai gn and Partnership Program for the Ends-to-Q'End Census Test, and delays _inreSearchi'ng and developing a'full Communications campaign and Partnership Program. These activities keepcosts down by 'and-increa'se-ace'uracy by targeting messages to motivate responSe in historically hard-to- count. communities. A robust Partnership Program is especially critical in light of the realignment of the Bureau 5 ?eld of?ce structure follotving the 2010 Census including plans to employ, at most half the staf?ng Used for the 2010 Census.- Conclusion Mjenibers of Congress. arefullyawarathat theoensus has. political consequences?min fact, the Constitution Says as much,- by'basing congressional apportionment-and equal representation on the population count. But the:i_cond_uct_ of the census must nonpartisan and must' strive to achieve an equally-ascorate count in all communities; The Leadership Conference and its member organizations look forward to working with all members of this committee to ensure a- cost-effective, senate and above all, accurate and inclusive census _in every one of the nation 3 communities When people your sonatituenis are not counted 111' the census they remain invisible for the next ten years. And overcounts _.'that is counting people twice! or including them by mistake do not bene?t anyone either because policymakers have a skewed picture of Whom to direct -l1_ard- earned _iimited taxpayer dollars. There. are no do- -overs with the census..Tlie CensusBu'reau must get it right. the-?rst time, and all of us we members of Congress, county officials iandlmayors, school principals, veterans advocates, businesses large and small, .and;.indeed, everyperson in the United States must. live with the results for the nextten-years. 000748 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 309 of 440 000749 POLITICS transects stadium Updated Jan c4 zeta' The-1105 Usage mu. 44sec 1 of-5 smnou TFf-e DOJ Wants A Citizenship Question On The Census. That Could Blow Up The Whole Survey Experts already concerned about census response rates say-theouery would The-Department of Justice's reoentreguestto. add a question about Citizenship to the 2026 census has sparked concerns thatsucha more would loner response rates w'ithin immigrant communities; An would: have severe consequences. Thesuwey'helps determine the allocation of nearly billitm each'yeer in'f'edz'eral money. the number-50f representatives each'state "has. in the use and. how- other electoral districts are drawn. Even peters F'roPuhItea reported the De?partmentiofdtt'stioe request'to the Census Bureau for the citizenship alreadyr facedsigni?cant challenges-in getting-people to responthmong those is convincing-people. that'the Bureau, which is overseen births Commerce share-detach indiuidua?tstwith other government agencies, said Arturo Vargas-{the executive director ofthe National Association df'Latino- Elected- and Appointeddf?cials- Educational Fund. '"Whathas happened in'th'espast year or so, given the politics! enttironment, is that immigrants have become much more fearful" of contact with the 'fede'raljgovanrnent. Vargas toitt HuffPost. are-notjust undocumentedimmigrants. They?re legai reemorne Trump's Abstinence-Only Pamphlet ls Quite Ed ucational A Mae 5' Sheeting Tore Their Litres Apart. A Bormption. Scandal Crushed Their Hopes For Jus?ce ProaTrun-Ip. Pastel-i Thou Shalt Not Have Sex APorn Star. Doesn?t ruin-slyr Here A. Shelter. Call For Old ,Chairs Goes lIr'iral And The Pets Couldn' Be Happier The Looming Tourer: One Story. Many Perspectives Sponsored by Hutu LLB. Aliies Sign Landmark Trade Pact As'TtLImo 000750 .3f9f2018 The Bernese; maiden-t8? tE?ngieBtt?hot44Q3aget2 of. 5' permanent residents. they're .S..'citizens'..iritho who are immigrants."l vargasi ,who also is a member of'theCen'sus Bureau's National Addisory'co'mmittee on-Racial. Ethnic. and Other part.'of this fear arises fr'omthe policies ,and thaw tone.? ottheTrump administration toward immigrants.- "So adding the citizen'ship'question to [the censusj'is going to eXponentially increase that hurdle to convince everybody that nothing's going .to happen toyou if you answer this suntan-the said. Bureau-ts evaluating the request from the U.S. of Justice and will process it in thesame way we have historicaliy dealt with such requests; The ?nal list of'questions must be submitted toC'ongressiby March 3.1. 20-13. Secretary [Wilbur] Ross. will then makes: decision.- Our top-priority is a. complete-and accurate'?u?u Census.? the bureau said Thursday in a statement. The Justice Department-L in._it_s Dec. [12 letter to the Census Bureau. said it needs data .on non-citizens to-hetter enforce-Section? .ot the Voting Rights Act; That provision prohibits the drawing of electoratmaps in such a way to dilute the in?uence of minority votes. said the data on non-eitizens-would ensure: districts aredrawn in a wayr that fairly represents minority "citizens.- - voting rights tawyers question that rationale. already asks people-if they' are citizens .throdgh the-American Community Sutuey 'wnieh- event year?goes out to abbot-33 million households and extrapolate's information about the population. The Justioe-Department Said in? its letter the data Was insufficient for uoting rights enforcement and 'thatsthe-citizenship question should be on the formal Census, something that has: not been done John president and executive director of Asian "Americans Advancing Justice-i totd Hu?Post that asking about citizenship on the-census onld hinder the governrnent from -'oolleoting';aoourate data. ?Putting tt'in the minds o'f'the immigrant, {they will have a-oertatn paranoia." he said. ?Even itithjey are aoitizen- themselves, they will say, ?Well. does this-mean that-they are ask?ihgme about my-irelatiires that'are here? How'Will'this-information be'used- againstmeJ'Just-by its naturer because this is something thatgoes to the core 'of someone?s presence in the-United-States, they arejgotng' to be fearful.? 'He added that' among immig'ran'ts'who are not English pro?cient, the citizenship- question would "raise in them. a whole host of questions of ?ldon'twant to lie. I don?t want to misstate anything. so it?s easiest just not John Thompson, the former Ce?nsus Bureau directorwho resigned in Maya-said he. wouid not addiseaddinga- questien about citizenship because oensusof?oials hadn't had schemes to measure how ?would affect the?reaponserats, a'oensus point of uiew you don't do things uritil you understand the effect? -hei_totd HuffPost. Causes of?cials 'don'tunderstand the effeot {of' adding the citizenship question-.- Without being-able to" measure it and-trying to'undereta'nd-how. this WOuld affect-the. censhs, and the 'oensusenuironment. for me,.it would-he hard to make that" recommendation.? same lawmakers have:metriouslgr tried to pass legislation requiring a citizenship question on the census. Rep. Clay:r Higgins last year" aneuocesstully sought to' ?withheld funding'forthe Census Bureau unless it--a_dded such 'a question. . .. . . . 000751 3f9f2013 The 41sec 3: ref-'5 Rep. Steve King iR-lowa} said in December he wants the census .to count citizens separately from non-citizens andthenuse countot citizens to determine the apportionment of oongressionat seats. The Gonstitution requires congressional- seats to beapportioned-based'on acountcf all "persons," not just citizen's. Terri Ann Lowentnal, who worked asista? director 'of the- House census oversight said that-adding a- questionabout-citizenship Would produce inaccuracies th at would have consequences. Asking about Citizenship ?wilt'depress- response-rates'andjust'lead toi?a completely inaccurate census in man}; areas.? 'she same data must be used for redistricting, as well as the allocation of hundreds of billionsof dollars a-year for federal funds for liital. service; as well-as state funds for community" purposes." Census researchers conducting tests in preparationfor?umalready have been raising. concerns about the impact, of harsh immigration rhetoric on response rates. In "September'- memo? the researchers-said ?eld regresenta'tives- and supervisors Were seeing an unprecedented amoun't-ofconcem about'the con?dentiality otcensus data particularly among of?cials obserued 'nan'iesI dates of birth, and-other information on- hobsehold rosters." groups conducted in setteral languages to test messages for the census, respondents .-expresse_d concern about opening their door for-a census-taker out of fear they could bedeporteti. "Spanish-?speakers brought up. immigration raids. fear-of government-and fear-of deportation, Respondents talked about having received? advice. not to open-the door it 'theyfear a 1ul'sit from immigration and customs.E'n'iorcemenf'agents. the memo said. The researchers called the -responses ?eye-opening?? because man).I of the. respo nd ents' had '_pa_rtici_pa_ted in previouscensus-?related testing and not expressed? jsin'iilar- nervousness Zor hesitation about sharih g. information?. this article hasfbeen' updated with a statomentfrom the: Census Bureau. RELATED COVERAGE- sAre Re ll Real! Wort-i eutTheSt te' fThe 0 ,?e'hs?us Do you have information you want to sharewma HuffPost? Here?s how. nl-nru-Ar?r? 1rJ-Lgf n? {My} UV- 000752 '3f9f20'18 The .F?enmmam Bpg??l?iniAwpgge of 5 to the. Politics email..- H'c-w wiil yap? addressge?ugr?piml Gallery $am'Levlne Ra'purler. ~?i99?5?E a I HuffRast correction MORE: its-News (Ranismjfemmigra?qn) '(D?rnagraphyj (Department?fdustice) You Sumatran Uni?hy?l?ahnnla' SuitinniMar?anu: This Brilliant Company. is Bruce Quote; Suitland: This Meal Service is Ch?'ap?r Than Your Local Shire. whether My Husband and I-Tri?d Billie-Apron, Here's WhatElnppen?d Illu?pm "We Can Levelwith Dill},r ll} Qucs?uns- Dc?nitinn Check out The CiasSy Senior-Living Facilities Sailor Lh?En-g Spontanrgd [lulu Cop Fallows Panicltb'd Dngi'Call?'Ba'ckup When Hc?ecs Where He's Takingz?im- Llle ?im- MOST SHARE-D Disney?s Tmmp'S'Tari?s'Could Te?ens" Lawsuit Battling Reportedly in Talks Tti people rated 4.8 outof 5 Land Takes Shape in Make Them? Popular Climate Change Wins Make Sham-I5 For Net?ix 'avg' New Video Arid It's Products More Victory Ogegr Justice Cari: Huge Expensive. Depa Ift'm'?nti- 000753 319/2013 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 314 of 440 Census 2020: Research and Messaging January 22, 2018 Presented by Arturo Vargas Executive Director, NALEO Educational Fund 000754 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 315 of 440 Research and Messaging Goal • Key ideas to test and understand: interest/awareness of Census, empowerment/resistance, convenience/compliance, and community benefit • Identify concerns about Census participation across formats (in-person, online, etc) • Identify trusted messengers, especially on traditional media and social media platforms • Assess existing interest and determine which messages move people to action • Test behavioral outcomes, not just attitudes • Understand the Hard-to-Count Latino community • Complement research conducted by the Census and other groups/organizations 000755 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 316 of 440 Target Research Population National Poll • Nationally representative sample of the adult Latino population • Participants will also be assigned to treatment groups, or the control group to test most effective message(s) Focus Groups - Messages from the survey experiment (national poll) will be tested to evaluate what refinements are needed, given local and/or demographic nuances • Hispanic adults who reside in two target areas (Site options: Atlanta, Charlotte or Raleigh NC, Houston or Dallas) • Mix of gender, age, language preference and nativity • English group and one Spanish group • Two groups with women, two groups with men • Ensure Hard to Count populations are included 000756 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 317 of 440 2020 Census: Research and Messaging Timeline 000757 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 318 of 440 Thank you. Arturo Vargas Executive Director avargas@naleo.org Twitter: @ArturoNALEO www.naleo.org 000758 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 319 of 12966-1 BREAKING NEWS Bay ?res forr'scast: Will Pay weekend event'get rained out?" Opinion Commentary Opinion 2020 Census will be a disaster for California without more money By ARTURO. VARGAS and 101-111 ocean's: 1 PUBLISHED: December 201'? 3111:1111 am i UPDATED: December 2131? at 3:35 pm Alarms about poor preparation for. the 2020' Census-are ringing across-theg-nation, but perhaps no where louderthanin California. TheGolden State? with slalost 39-mi1?oo residents,- has-the iargc'st stakein afajr and.?accurate census. The Constimtion requires a new count of ?the population every 10 years It?s a massive undertaiong, 1111101111113 more than a decade. of planning,_ elaborate tests of - 1r, aheach- to a. more diverse and. mobile popuiation, Get 1111 WW half 11 1111111011 to contact those who as to seif-respond. But 11: 1.11.1, 311111511511:- 1m: newton-1 End?tflm11?d preparations for 11116 2020 CEIISUS Already a Subscriber000759_ 319.3201 8 operanrrano Filed 06/08/18 Page 320 of 440 Page oars The census isrnore than head count. Thefranrersintended- it to ensure theifair allocation of political power. Population data from the census aroused for-the of?congress'ional seats raudthe redistricting ofCaiifornia?s state and. locat- goverurnent. political dish-iota. - Get top headlines to your inbox every afternoon. Get. the free no Report newsletter. store as Census data also guide $37 billion annually in'federal' mods to the Goiden State. These'?rnds are for such vital needs as Medicaid and Medicare (Part B). Head Start, school lunch pro grams. highways and transportation- and housing assistance. IAH depend on the census-count. Census dataare. used in citril ?ghts and Trating rights enforcement. The information is used to protest access to the ballot; 'to-rnonito'r disorinunation and to examine- economic equality..- :Today the Census Bureau?s annual budget sits stalled attest-year's level because of a. continuing resoiutionpassed-by- Congress and signed by President-Donald Triunp. The administration and Congresshave yet to act on more funding. California is more than the is thelntost diverse state.in..the nation. For the Census Bureau, ?Erase-job isto count and'pl'aee every resident of our- state,_ the challenge in Caiifornia maybe greater else inthe nation.- Latinos are one .ofthefastest gthg-poptdatiort- groups in California They- rep'reseut about 40 percent of the population'and: increased by 9 percent since the last census. atinos? have one of the highest undereounts of any'population group in the census. So, one of the ,largeSt, grouting- segments of Caiiforniaisrpopulation is going to he one ofthernosti di?icuit to count-inure next census. Historicaiiy. the Census Bureau not serious resources into neighborhoods saith large now threatened by insu?'cient ?mding. GEE Minlu?t?auil??hr 9 ?7 nullron wpeople are in localities the Census Bureau refers to as ?Hard-to Count" tracts. Cumulunitiesof color make up a. large portion of?oad tax-13 In Califomim 38 pert: ent i gates: of Asians live in Hard-To-Count areas. according to the: Burp-nu. ?iready Subscriber? Log in . 000760 . Com/?20 2f07fopi11ion~2020 3'19!le 1'58 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 321 of 4300.6 3 0E3 Get tech news in yam in??x weekday warnings. thefrne Good Morning Silicon 'Vn?qr imal??er. Califamians cannot a??erdm wait nntil 2020 to protect our stake in the-national head count. The ?zzle tee-Send an alannto Washingtom D11, is new. The-T111111}: admn?s'iratinn recently asked Congress to increase ?nding an; the Census Bureau in 20.13 by $13? million ?to. make-up far- past-nnderinvesmzent. We believe theappropriateinereaseis closer to $4130 millionto get eta?ed'in outreach, partnership and testing .ofnew. to ensure- a complete fair and acetnate eennt. - We eneemage madam to contact their US. Senators. and Co?gtessinnal RepresentaIiVes new; before the ?nal 2018 'fimding billiis considered this mnn?L 0111?- state has ten mueh at stake for the next decade to settle for anything less. 'Dr. John Dabard is manager Voice, Advancement Project Cni?farnia. mnf?raefni- civil righs organization. girnn'a Vargas is gramme director 'afrne National Assaciarfon-afLa?no Eiected and. Appointed (363::de WAEEO) Educational Fund, Tags: (tannins, ?emmeneew, Regimen: Arturo-Vargas John D'oba'rd ween manner an nan-ea: Get funiimitee? access fer $.39 ?ret month: SUBSCREBE AEready a Subscriber000761 71 1' 2f07fnpini .. 3/945201'3 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 322 of 440 000762 From:Kris Kobach [mailto Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:43 PM To: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) Cc: Alexander, Brooke (Federal) Hernandez, Israel (Federal) Subject: Re: Follow up on our phone call Yes. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 24, 2017, at 1:39 PM. Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) wrote: Kris can you do a call with the Secretary and Izzy tomorrow at 11 am? Thanks. Wendy From:Kris Kobach [mat?(W Sent: Monday, July 24, 20 To: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) Subject: Re: Follow up on our phone call That works for me. What number should I call? Or would you like to call me? On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9: 12 AM, Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) wrote: We can speak today at 230. Please let me know if that works. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 21, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Kris Kobach wrote: Wendy, Nice meeting you on the phone this afternoon. Below is the email that I sent to Secretary Ross. He and I had spoken brie?y on the phone about this issue. at the direction oi?Steve Bannon, a few months earlier. Let me know what time would work for you on Monday, if you would like to schedule a short call. The issue is pretty straightfonvard. and the text of the question to be added is in the email below. 000763 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 324 of 440 Thanks. Kn's Kobach Fonvarded messa re From: Kris Kobach Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM Subject: Follow up on our phone call To: Secretary Ross, Kansas Secretaiy of State Kris Kobach here. I'm following up on our telephone discussion from a few months ago. As you may recall, we talked about the fact that the US census does not currently ask respondents their citizenship. This lack ofinfonnation impairs the federal govemment's ability to do a number of things accurately. It also leads to the problem that aliens who do not actually "reside" in the United States are still counted for congressional apportionment purposes. It is essential that one simple question be added to the upcoming 2020 census. That question already appears on the American Community Suwcy that is conducted by the cnsus Burear (question A slight variation of that question needs to be added to the census. It should read as follows: Is this person a citizen of the United States? IIlYes, born in the United States born in Puerto Rico. Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas UYes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents DYes, U.S. citizen by naturalization Print year of naturalization not a U.S. citizen this person is a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) ElNo, not a U.S. citizen this person citizen of another country who is not a green card holder (for example holds a temporary visa or falls into another category of non-citizens) Please let me know if there is any assistance that I can provide to accomplish the addition of this question. You may reach me at this email address or on my cell phone at? Yours, 000764 [iris niizi?d: Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 325 of 440 From: Gay E. Lasher Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 12:57 PM To: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED) Subject: Citizenship question on census survey Dear Mr. Jarmin, I am very concerned, after reading an article in today’s NY Times, about a request from the Justice Department to include a question about citizenship in the general census. This question has not been asked in a general census since 1960 and is very likely to result in an inaccurate count, disproportionally affecting people of color. In addition, such a late request (Dec.12, 2017) does not allow proper time to vet the writing of such a question or to really consider the negative effects. Please do NOT allow such a question to be added and thus affect the lives of many people by inaccurately tallying the number of persons in the U.S. for the purpose of equitable representation. Sincerely yours, Gay E. Lasher, Psy.D. 000765 ?sus Bureau Isus Bureau 1: 1 "3.19. We .21; your If 9020 gh 19? 1 0m nd updeteS that 18 000766 ?l?[ixiliui ?Hui?! h! (1/2 8 ?70 4.41%? I 7'1 7?34 My"; 77"? ff? [Cf it? I I '7/7 (7 10/ I?vk?y?h,? ..- - 41f 1/.37 (1/4 7? 72/1270ng 1 avg/W; 4/2647.) 7 71- '4 tum-f: m, led 06/08/18 Page Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 328 of 440 ?momma 15TH New You? APPROPRIAWQNS SUKGMMEWS: 2354 a mnmhommgn uttomo us?ocs. elem waa?l?aiggr?f?:wz? @unmeg?, at the walt?b ?tateg Menage. Siamese mo . Henna. Govt-smear Fax. 1202} 225-6091 ?an?g at ?aprtgentatlheg Mama, Enema mo Watch 123? asst Wash tumour, E0: 20515-3215 Beau. CONGRESSIONAL Bacon, NY were HSSPANIC Caucus Faint? g: sac-$58 Samoa Wm? http?serreoohoutognv The Honorable Secretary Wilbur Ross US. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write in response to the US. Department of Justice?s proposal to add an additional untested subject to the upcoming decennial census. Adopting this question on citizenship and legal status will negatively affect response rates, jeopardize the accuracy of the collected surveys, and deter many people lirom participating. The 2020 Census already faces signi?cant planning and operational challenges, and we urge you to reject this misguided and problematic proposal. As you know, the Census Bureau is already in the ?nal stages of preparing the questions and format of the 2020 Decennial Census. Over the past several years, the Bureau has tested various question options, languages, and other important issues. To the best of our knowledge, at no point has the Census Bureau considered including a question on citizenship. in fact, the list of topics for the decennial census provided to Congress in March 2017 and available for public review does not include a question on citizenship. Given that the Bureau must submit its questions and form to Congress by March of this year, it is very unlikely that the Bureau would even be able to appropriately test the impact of such a question on response rates and other issues. There is also significant reason to question the need for including a question on citizenship on the 2020 Census form. This information is already collected via the American Community Survey, and despite intimations to the contrary, this information has been appropriately used in a variety of Voting Rights Act cases without concern. It is also noteworthy that the request for this potential change came from Justice Management Division, rather than the Civil Rights Division which actually enforces the Voting Rights Act. It is also important to recognize that the communities most affected by the Voting Rights Act have not requested this question for inclusion in the upcoming census. Nor has the Census Bureau?s National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAG) requested this change. This lack of stakeholder support further undermines this request. 000768 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 329 of 440 Lastly, this is a potentially unwise change based on ongoing problems faced by the Bureau. Due to budgetary and time constraints, the Census Bureau is already facing serious challenges to its planned preparations for the 2020 Census. Last year, the Bureau was forced to cancel a ?eld?test of Spanish language surveys as well as the testing of non-traditional addresses located in Puerto Rico and on tribal reservations. Two locations were also removed from the Bureau?s end-to-end test of decennial census systems. Furthermore, the Bureau has delayed plans to open local census of?ces and conduct outreach campaigns in support of the 2020 Census. Given these serious concerns, the Census Bureau should refrain from adding further problems to this process. Since 1790, every census has included citizens and non-citizens alike. In fact, the Constitution of the United States mandates that the number of ?persons? be counted. That mission will be threatened if the Bureau accedes to the Justice Department?s request. Disrupting preparations for the 2020 Census to add an additional untested subject, especially at this pivotal point, would undermine both the funding and years we have already spent on research and testing. Congress heavily relies on the census to allocate funding for vital federal grant programs and for the distribution of much-needed resumes to our communities; this remains especially true for decennial surveys, which also directly impact the redistricting process. It is our obligation to ensure that the Bureau receives accurate information about our population. We must also ensure that all of our communities are properly accounted for, and that each household is correctly counted the ?rst time. On behalf of our constituencies, we urge you to oppose this proposal. We thank you for your attention to this critical matter and look forward to ?trther supporting the Bureau as it prepares for the decennial census. Sincerely, dc 21 brain/leap, Lu 6 Me. rof Congress 000769 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 330 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jose E. Serrano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Serrano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate' 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. . We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, u~CL Wilbur Ross 000770 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 331 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Grace Meng U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Meng: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as.well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~, Wilbur Ross 000771 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 332 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration US. Census Bureau Office of the Director Washington. DC 20233-0001 FEB 20 20W Dear Ms. Carpenter: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. We appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The US. Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair. and accurate 2020 Census. A high- quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact our Of?ce of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at 301-763-6100. Sincerely, 174/ Ron S. Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director CUnited States" Bureau Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 . Page 333 8'4-40 7g 3 The Leadership Conference i620 Street, aw 202466.33? voice on Civil and Human Rights Suite 1100 202.466.3635 fax Washington, DC 20.036 . I . =3 Wm January 4 2018 The Leade?Sh'p 33 Chair Conference JudithLLidthm National . 2.3 Honorable Wilbur L. Ross a Jeannine M: 2 Maternal Secretary of Commerce m??in?mtm - US. Department of Commerce ?30 85.9330 IF . . ?333m: 1401 Constitutlon Ave NW 23 NAACP . pg Swarm Washington, DC 20230 .50 Arm Jenkins MRP a ?0 lreasmzr . 2: Lfmm;mdm? Dear Secretary Ross: 5 - Dainty 8 llam'cbal Emptoyoes 1 mam?? I write as the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. In this ?mif??mm capacity and on behalf of this broad coalition, I urge you to reject the request in the December 12, 2017 letter from the Department of Justice to Acting Census Director Ron ra??fg?kmm Jarmin, to add a new citizenship question on the 2020 Census. As you well know, adding a Na?onal Women?s law Conlu . . . . 0 cm G?l?n new and untested question to the 2020 Census would disrupt preparations at a pIVOtal pomt marten Campaign . . . . . . mwmwum In the decade, undermine years of costly, pamstakmg research and and Increase Lnagdemanotort citho . . . . . um sens census costs Signi?cantly at a time when Congress has directed a less expensrve May Kay Hem . . . mes Ewe/yea: Union enumeration. All of these factors would threaten a fair and accurate decenmal census. NAACP Legal Oefensa and Educator-apprecrate the commitment to a. full, fair, and accurate census that you and your senior Japanew Mental Cin?zens League 0:3;th staff have recently expressed. The Leadership Conference views a fair and accurate census, big-$39? and the collection of useful, objective data about our nation?s people, housing, economy, and 8 "14311803:11., $31 communities generally, to be among the most important rights issues of our Comm day. However, as discussed below, the Justice Department?s ill-advised proposal poses a signi?cant threat to our shared goal. JanotMu?gura UnidnsU3 Dalia . . "swimmer? 1rst, as you noted during the House Committee on OverSIght and Government Reform 3 R333 ?33701: October 12, 2017 hearing on the 2020 Census (where we both testi?ed), requiring a new $ng topic this late in the preparations for the census is irresponsible because robust testing for new questions in a contemporary, censusolike environment is essential. This is especially ?Sim?fm?jm true given the chilling effect of adding a citizenship question to the form: Census preparations are already behind schedule, the ?nal dress rehearsal lek off in a month, and there simply is no time left to redesign the census form and rigorously test the proposed additional question. As we know from extensive research and testing in the survey ?eld, $3333; ?mum even small changes in question order and wording can signi?cantly affect both the rate and accuracy of responses. Yet the Census Bureau has neither the time nor the resources to evaluate the consequences of such a major change in the questionnaire. Policy and Worcemenr Con-Irina? their Mcnael Liebarrnm Anti-DamnatvonLeagw Second, as I know from my prior experience as the chief government enforcer of the Voting CEO Macaw Rights Act, the Justice Department has never needed to add this new question to the decennial census to enforce the Voting Rights Act before, so there is no reason it would need 000773 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS .Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 334 of 440 7? January 4? 2018 The Leadership Page 2 of 3 Conference to do so now. Contrary to the Justice Department?s letter, the Census Bureau has n_ot included a citizenship question on the modern census ?short form,? sent to every household. In fact, no such question has appeared on the census ?short form" since enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Estimates of the citizen voting-age population derived from the ongoing American Community Survey, and the so- called census ?long" or sample form before that, have been and continue to be suitable for purposes of civil rights and Voting Rights Act enforcement. Whether utilizing such data for Section 2 enforcement actions, Section 203 determinations, or other voting rights enforcement efforts, courts and the Justice Department have accepted census data as currently collected since enactment of the Voting Rights Act. Civil rights groups, likewise, have never asserted a need for a ?100 percent? census citizenship question in order to effectively represent and ensure voting rights for minority communities. Given these plain facts, the entirejusti?cation for the request should be viewed skeptically as an attempt to throw a wrench into ?nal planning and preparations for an enumeration that already faces enormous challenges, including inadequate and delayed funding, cyber-security risks, and a climate of fear fanned by anti -immi grant rhetoric. Third, this new proposed question on the 2020 Census is unnecessarily intrusive and will raise concerns in all households native and foreign born, citizens and noncitizens about the con?dentiality of information provided to the government and how government authorities might use that information. Asking every household and every person in the country about their citizenship status in the current political environment when there is no legal basis or need for doingso will no doubt give many people pause about participating in the census altogether. In fact, new Census Bureau research already is raising alarm bells about the growing reluctance of immigrant households to participate fully and honestly in any Census Bureau surveys, due to their fear about how their responses will be used by government agencies. Adding this new question would also result in taxpayers spending signi?cantly more for a government undertaking that we know in advance would not be successful. Your recent oral testimony before Congress acknowledged that the Census Bureau will need billions of dollars more than originally estimated to conduct a modern, inclusive census. The Justice Department?s proposal to add a new citizenship question would increase census costs even further while decreasing accuracy, because self- response rates are certain to plummet, which in turn will require additional, costly door-to-door visits that still may not spur cooperation or result in accurate responses. Finally, this request coming almost a year a?er the Census Bureau has ?nalized topics for the 2020 Census, as required by law risks jeopardizing the accuracy of the 2020 Census in every state and every community by deterring many people from responding, making the data collected in this crucial once-a- decade operation less accurate and useful for all of us. As four former Census Directors, who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, wrote in an amici curiae brief in the Supreme Court case Evenwel v. Abbott, asking about citizenship status in the decennial census ?would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to inaccurate responses from non?citizens worried about a government record of their immigration status. . .The sum effect would be bad Census data.? I know you appreciate that the stakes of a fair and accurate census are high and everyone from Congress to governors, mayors, and school board o?icials, to business owners and nonpro?ts serving the most vulnerable in our communities will have to live with any ?awed results for the next 10 years. The 000774 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 335 of 440 . January 4? 2018 The Leadership Page 3 of 3 . Conference Leadership Conference and its member organizations look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure a cost~effective, secure, and above all, accurate and inclusive census in every one of the nation?s communities. If you have any questions, please contact me or Chris Harley, Census Campaign Director, at (202) 466-33] 1. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Vanita Gupta Cc: Acting Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Karen Dunn Kelley Acting Census Director Ron Jarmin 000775 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 336 of 440 Missouri Johnson, Marcellina (Federal) From: Ross, Wilbur (Federal) Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:14 PM To: DOCExecSec Subject FW: Leadership Conference Letter Regarding DOJ Request on Citizenship Question Attachments: 2018-01-04 Vanita Gupta Letter to Sec. Ross.pdf .. . . . .1, ?vv - . From: Vanita Gupta [mailtoz?rg] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 4:15 PM To: Ross, Wilbur (Federal) ?Jarmin, Ron 5 Kelley, Karen (Federal) Burgess, Michael (Federal) ;Guido, John (Federal)? Cc: Kristine Lucius Chris Harley Subject: Leadership Conference Letter Regarding DOJ Request on Citizenship Question Dear Secretary Ross: 1 write as the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. In this capacity and on behalf of this broad coalition, I urge you to reject the request in the December 12, 2017 letter from the Department of Justice to Acting Census Director Ron Jarmin, to add a new citizenship question on the 2020 Census. As you well know, adding a new and untested question to the 2020 Census would disrupt preparations at a pivotal point in the decade, undermine years of costly, painstaking research and testing, and increase census costs signi?cantly at a time when Congress has directed a less expensive enumeration. All of these factors would threaten a fair and accurate decennial census. Please see the attached letter regarding this important issue. Sincerely, Vanita Gupta Vanita Gupta President and CEO The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights The leadership Conference Education Fund @Vaititaguptacr PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain priviieged or confidential information and is/are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. 000776 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 337 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT The Secretary of Commerce OF COMMERCE Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 Ms. Vanita Gupta President and Chief Executive Officer The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 \ Dear Ms. Gupta: . Thank you for your recent letter regarding!pe Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. r The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by: March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. , Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that coUnts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, arid programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, \ Wilbur Ross 000777 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 338 of 440 From: Ron Jarmin FED) To: Kelleyl Karen {Federal} Cc: WillardI Aaron {Federal l; Lamasl Enrigue Subject: Fwd: DOJ request to the Census Bureau Date: Friday, January 2018 8:08:22 AM Attachments: imagemIBpng imaget)tl4.gng Karen, Please see note from Aittu?o to you and my response below. He got yom? email wrong. Also, I sent a couple emails yesterday I?d like make sure you see relevant to the DOJ request. Thanks from chilly philly. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Ron 5 Jannin Date: Janual 4, 2018 at 6:49:32 PM EST Cc: "Enrlque Lamas Subject: Re: DOJ request to the Census Bureau Aituro, Thanks for your note. We are reviewing the DOJ request as we do all such requests. This includes exploring options that don?t require adding questions to the census. We hope to expedite the process and come to a resolution soon. Regards Ron Sent from my iPhone On Jan 4, 2018, at 6:35 PM, Amu?o Vargas wrote: Dear Madam Secretary, I hope you were able to have a restful break over the holidays and that 2018 is off to a good start despite the particularly cold weather on the east coast. Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me last month to 000738 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 339 of 440 discuss our shared concerns with the 2020 Census. The public reports from last week that the Department of Justice has requested the Census Bureau to add a question on citizenship has raised yet additional concerns on my end. We discussed some of the challenges the Bureau will encounter in securing full public cooperation in the 2020 Census and this issue would complicate the situation. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you about my concerns on this matter, some of which have been reported by the media, but I hope to share with you directly and also hear your perspective on the issue. I look forward to hearing from your office about a time when we may be able to connect by phone at your convenience. Best regards, Arturo Vargas Arturo Vargas Executive Director NALEO Educational Fund 1122 W. Washington Blvd., 3rd. Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 @ArturoNALEO NALEO Educational Fund is the leading nonprofit, non-partisan organization that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to public service. 000779 000734 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 340 of 440 annual 55mm ?rnatr WASHINGTON, DC 20510 January 5,2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write to express our serious concern about the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) request to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census and urge you to not add this question.1 The inclusion of a question on citizenship threatens to undermine the accuracy of the Census as a whole, and given this administration?s rhetoric and actions relating to immigrants and minority groups, the DOJ request is deeply troubling. Article 1, Section 2 ofthe .8. Constitution requires a census of all persons residing in the United States every ten years, as directed by Congress. As you know, the decennial census is the basis for critical aspects of our democracy, such as distributing the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and drawing congressional and state legislative district lines. Census data are used for allocating billions of dollars in federal funding and are important to every level of government, as well as to businesses and nonpro?ts. Despite its importance, the 2020 Census is in trouble. In February 2017, the GAO put the 2020 Census on its list of high-risk projects due to uncertainty about its budget and technology.2 The planning and preparations for the 2020 Census are significant] behind schedule and underfunded. Furthermore, since the previous director of the Census Bureauresigned in June of 2017, the Bureau has been left without a permanent director. New questions in the census must be field?tested and subject to a Office of Management and Budget approval process. Introducing a question on citizenship so late in an already delayed timeline would not allow the Bureau to appropriately test its impact and effectiveness. The ?5 request to include a question on citizenship in the 2020 Census dramatically increases our concerns about the already troubled census.3 Such a question would likely depress participation in the 2020 Census from immigrants who fear the government could use the information to target them. It could also decrease response rates from U.S. citizens who live in mixed?status households, and who might fear putting immigrant family members at risk through The Department of Justice Letter to the U.S. Census Bureau, ?Request to Reinstate Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Questionnaire,? Dec. 12, 2017, available at: l_-_Text-of? Dec-20 I -letter-to-Census. 2 U.S. Government Accountability Of?ce, ?2017 High Risk Report: 2020 Decennial Census,? available at: decennial did study 3 Justin Elliott, ProPublz?ca, ?Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on Census, Alarming Experts,? Dec. 29, 2017, available at: 000780 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 341 of 440 providing information to the government. As you testified before Congress, the Census is already grappling with ?high levels of mistrust of the federal government.?4 The addition of a citizenship question would only further exacerbate an already severe obstacle facing an accurate count in 2020. This chilling effect could lead to broad inaccuracies across the board, from how congressional districts are drawn to how government funds are distributed. Rather than preserve civil rights, as the Justice Department claims, a question on citizenship in the decennial census would very likely hinder a full and accurate accounting of this nation?s population. On October 31, 2017, in testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, you stressed the importance of an ?efficient 2020 Census that provides a full, fair, and accurate count of everyone living in this country.? We agree with you, and urge you to live up to this commitment by rejecting this harmful and misguided request for a question on citizenship in the 2020 Census. We look forward to your response. Sincerely yours, dv?'wlWis. Hu- 9.. .. Dianne Feinstein Thomas R. Carper United States Senator United States Senator I Brian Schatz Catherine Cortez Masto United States Senator United States Senator United States Senator CC: Dr. Ron armin, Acting Director, US Census Bureau CC: The Honorable Karen Dunn Kelley, Acting Deputy Commerce Secretary/Undersecretary for Economic Affairs, US. Department of Commerce 4 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (2017, October 12), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Holds Hearing on 2020 Census. Retrieved January 3, 2018 from 000781 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 342 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Kamala D. Harris United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Harris: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. .I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you I have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of~ your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000782 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 343 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Cortez Masto: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions toCongtess by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April!, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team.to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, ~t mplatt@doc.gov or (202)482-3663. Sincerely, GJ~.~ Wilbur Ross 000783 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 344 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Brian Schatz United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Schatz: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, WJL-w,~ Wilbur Ross 000784 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 345 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Thomas R. Carper United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Carper: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Pla~, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 000785 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 346 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000786 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 347 of 440 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION January 5,2018 Secretary Wilbur Ross Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: I write today on behalf of the 12,000 members of the American Sociological Association, the nation's largest professional association for teachers, scholars, and practitioners of sociology, to express deep concern about a request Ron Jarmin recently received from the Department of Justice to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. We strongly urge you to reject this proposal. Should such a proposal be favorably received, the integrity of the 2020 Census data will be fundamentally compromised. Including a citizenship question is likely to keep some people from responding to the questionnaire and others from responding truthfully, thereby undermining the accuracy of the data. In addition, there is no longer time to properly test a new question. As you know, creation of the questionnaire is a complex process that requires years of evaluation. With little time left before the 2020 launch, a new question could not be subject to standard rigorous testing, which would further undermine the quality of the data. . Secretary Ross, the import of an accurate census cannot be overstated. You sit in a position from which you 'can influence the state of our democracy. An accurate census allows policy-makers in public, private, and non-profit sectors to make evidence-based decisions. We implore you to ensure that every effort is made to undertake this process with integrity. Please do not include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census.:=;. ;! ' ,: , .,- c Thank you for-your thoughtful consider~tion of this matter. " N . t,.- •• I ". ,i : ." .. ,-. ,.' .' .- Sincerely, .-. C.. , " , Eduardo Bonilla-Silva President, American Sociological Association . "«;". ".: J.;';/ .•. Q;;' ,_., :",1 cc: Dr. Ron Jarmin 1430 K Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 383-9005 (202) 638.0882 lax (202) 638-0981 tdd executive.office@asanet.org www.asanet.org 000787 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 348 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 Mr. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva President, American Sociological Association 1430 K Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Bonilla-Silva: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000788 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 349 o/&0 24,7 January 5, 2018 Dr. Ron Jarmin US Census Bureau 4600 Silver Hill Rd. Washington DC 20233 Dear Dr. Jarmin, As plans are being made to conduct the 2020 Census, it has come to my attention that the Department of Justice is asking to include a question about citizenship status Several experts have expressed real concern that including such a question could depress census response rates, adding to the cost and accuracy of the census. Terri Ann Lowenthal, a leading expert on census issues, is quoted as saying can think of no action the administration could take that would be more damaging to the accuracy of the 2020 census than to add a question on citizenship." Representatives of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and the National Advisory Committee of the Census have both indicated that this seems to be a move to prevent the shifting of Congressional representation from non-Latino states to heavily Latino states. I trust you will work with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to ensure that this discriminatory and expensive attempt to sabotage the census will not be considered. you for your consideration, radis c: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross 1401 Constitutional Ave NW, Washington DC 20230 Representative Katherine Clark 701 Concord Ave #101, Cambridge, MA 02138 7. 000789 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 35;! 0%2121'0 8 C2 5265? :3 ?73 January 7, 2018 - . if?; U. "a "alt .v Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary on U. S. Department of Commerce .1 .: 1401 Constitution Ave NW 5; Washington, DC 20230 23 Dear Secretary Ross: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate: decennial census. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves because our federal government is failing to execute one of its most basic constitutional duties: the decennial census. The decennial census is the country?s largest civilian mobilization. It determines where billions of federal dollars flow each year, and how many congressional and electoral college seats each state gets. The results have enormous in?uence over the decisions of businesses and local governments, too. It?s mandated by the U.S. Constitution, right there in Article 1, Section 2. Yet despite all the brandishing of pocket Constitutions on the right, the Trump White House and Republican lawmakers are sabotaging this sacred mandate. First they re?rsed to suf?ciently fund it. Now they?re taking actions that would severely depress participation. This raises the prospect that those ?nal, critically important numbers will be to use one of Trump?s preferred adjectives WRONG. The census is a few years OH the enumeration itself doesn?t happen until 2020, planning begins years in advance. The Census Bureau must try out questions. It must test-drive technologies especially important this time around, because for the ?rst time, the questionnaire will be administered primarily online. The bureau must also ?gure out which community groups can help with public outreach and what kind of messaging will be most effective in getting people to stand up and be counted. This task is especially challenging in an era marked by record distrust of government. Already, funding shortfalls and administration disorganization have left these efforts woefully behind. A scheduled dress rehearsal for the 2020 count was whittled from three sites to one, in Providence County, Rhode Island. One goal of such tests is to ?nd ways to maximize participation of ?hard-to?coun populations, such as immigrants, the homeless and households below the poverty line. Because these are largely Democratic constituencies, Republicans may shrug at the setbacks they?ve created. But Trump Country is also at risk at being overlooked. That?s because funding uncertainty forced the Census Bureau to kill its ?only opportunities to test, in a real-time, census-like environment, special counting methods for rural areas,? as Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, explained in recent congressional testimony. Apparently not content to shortchange funding, the administration is also taking steps that will actively decrease participation. As ProPublica ?rst reported, the Justice Department recently sent a letter to the Census Bureau asking it to add a new question to the 2020 form. Adding a question any question this late in the game is risky; there?s no time to ?eld-test how people will respond to it. 000790 Case-3i18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 351 of 440 This particular question is unusually hazardous: It?s about citizenship. The Justice Department claims it needs ?nely grained citizenship data to enforce the Voting Rights Act, a proposition that every census alumnus and civil rights expert has rejected. Whatever the administration?s motives, the main consequence of adding this question is clear: It would spook immigrants (legal or otherwise) and especially Hispanics anxious about how the government might use their data. In unrelated survey testing last year, respondents fretted about what would happen to information they gave to the Census Bureau. Unprompted, some mentioned the ?Muslim ban,? ?discomfort ?registering? other household members? and fears that immigration authorities would come after them. Some falsi?ed names and dates of birth. Those survey respondents were paid, too, suggesting they?d be more likely to cooperate than would the general population. The politics have changed everything. Recently,? one ?eld representative explained, according to a Census Bureau memo. In a statement, the bureau said it was still ?evaluating? the Justice Department request. Even if the Census Bureau ultimately leaves this question off the form, though, the reputational damage may already be done. Signi?cant undercounts could distort how dollars and congressional seats are divvied up. It is likely (and perhaps not coincidentally) to the advantage of Republicans and their constituencies. The Constitution requires the decennial census to count all people, not just all citizens. Your department oversees the census, seems to truly want to produce a full, accurate, nonpartisan count, not least because the business sector wants one. But in an era of data trutherism, Donald Trump?s lies, and political tribalism, Republican lawmakers and the rest of the administration appear to have other priorities. A full, accurate and non-partisan census is critical to the proper functioning of our republic so regardless of your party af?liation or having been appointed by Donald Trump, millions of Americans are counting on you and your department to put politics aside for this very important census. Sincerely, at. Wm Peyton Collier-Kerr 000791 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 352 of 440 Peyton Collier?Kerr Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary U. S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate: decennial census. 20230- Mail - boc.correspondence.quality.assurance@census.gov Page 1 of 1 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 353 of 440 Fwd: Process for vetting questions Mark G Dorsey (CENSUS/OCIA FED) Mon 1/8/2018 3:56 PM To:BOC Correspondence Quality Assurance (CENSUS) ; Please control Mark Dorsey, Congressional Liaison, Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Census Bureau Cell 202.779.1388 mark.g.dorsey@census.gov census.gov   Connect with us on Social Media Begin forwarded message: From: "Helling, Erin" Date: January 8, 2018 at 2:50:49 PM EST To: "cao@census.gov" Subject: Process for vetting questions Hi, I am trying to track down information on the process for vetting questions for the 2020 Census, particularly the DOJ’s requested question on immigration status. If you wouldn’t mind giving me a call, I would appreciate a quick run down on the process. Best, ­ Erin --Erin Helling Legislative Counsel Rep. Mike Thompson 231 Cannon House Office Building 202-225-3311 www.mikethompson.house.gov   Sign up for our e-newsletter 000793 https://outlook.office365.com/owa/boc.correspondence.quality.assurance@census.gov/?offli... 1/9/2018 Case Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 9 3 '5 Missouri Johnson, Marcellina (Federal) From: Leach, Macie (Federal) Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 7:10 PM To: DOCExecSec Subject: FW: Proposed Census Citizenship Question From: Barbara Anderson [mailto? Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 3:37 PM To: Ross, Wilbur (Federal) ?Jarmin, Ron Lamas, Enrique Cc: Andrew A. Samwick Kathy Pettit Ken Simonson Peter w- Roberto Rieonon Sunshine Hmvsus . J3 Anson Plver Hournane. nan Penn lf~< . u> . Subject: Proposed Census Citizenship Question 13' 3:5 is . . In; To: Jeff Sessrons, Attorney General 7) - ES Arthur E. Gary, General Counsel, Justice Management Division 1 I -. il'?r?ljd Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce Ron Jarmin, Performing the Nonexclusive Functions and Duties of the Director Enrique Lamas, Performing the Nonexclusive Functions and Duties of the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Of?cer We are sending this email in response to the letter of December 12, 2017 from Arthur E. Gary of the Department of Justice to the Census Bureau which requested that citizenship be included as an item on the 2020 Census. We are members of the Census Scienti?c Advisory Committee, a Congressionally-mandatcd committee which advises the Census Bureau on all scientific matters. We are sending this letter as an expression of our professional opinion as individuals and do not write as representatives of the Census Bureau or of our individual organizations. We include academics, members of the private sector and members of GOS. We hold the strong opinion that including citizenship in the 2020 Census would be a serious mistake which would result in a substantial lowering of the response rate. Producing a high quality census with a very high response rate is in the interest of all Americans. The United States Census has not encountered the problems with a high level of Census refusal that have been a problem in many other high income countries, including Germany. One reason is that in 2010 there were about 250,000 community partners who encouraged people in their communities to respond to the Census. It is expected that there will be a similar number of community partners for the 2020 Census. Adding a citizenship. 1 000794 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 355 of 440 question to the main Census questionnaire is almost certain to jeopardize the cooperation of at least some community partners and lead to a lower response rate, hurting the reputation of the Census Bureau. We are certain you would not like to see these outcomes occur. Sincerely, Dr. Barbara A. Anderson Ronald Freedman Collegiate Professor of Sociology and Population Studies, University of Michigan, Chair Census Scienti?c Advisory Committee Dr. Barbara Butten?eld Professor of Geography, University of Colorado Dr. Peter W. Thomas Ford Professor of Engineering Stanford University Dr. D. Sunshine Hillygus Professor of Political Science Director, Duke Initiative on Survey Methodology Duke University Dr. Juan Pablo Hourcade Associate Professor of Computer Science University of Iowa Ms. Pettit Senior Research Associate Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center 000795 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 356 of 440 The Urban Institute Ms. Allison Plyer Chief Demographer The Data Center at Nonpro?t Knowledge Works Dr. Roberto Rigobon Society of Sloan Fellows Professor of Applied Economics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Andrew Samwick Professor of Economics Director, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center Dartmouth College Mr. Kenneth D. Simonson Chief Economist The Associated General Contractors of America 000796 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 357 of 440 GONZALEZ wasnwm?ou OFFICE 15TH Distinct, Texas 113 Cannon House Grace Evsl?m? Wasnweron, DC. 2121515 :2921225-2531 COMMITTEE ON SERVICES ?atness of the tantra: enter W33 on Housman: AND lrenunancs gauge at ?epre??ntatibe? 632?5525 (M siND Washington, use: 20515?4315 gonzoiezdrousegov January 9, 2018 The Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General of the United States US. Department of Justice 950 Pennsyivania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Dear Attorney General Sessions: 1 write to express my concerns with a letter the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice mailed to the Census Bureau last month. The letter in question proposed reinstating a citizenship question that has not been a part of the census questionnaire for quite some time. The change was recommended under the guise of voter ?'aud prevention, but couid ultimately have detrimental effects on the 2020 Census. As the representative for an area known for low response rates, a strong immigrant community, and a hismry of being undercovunted, I worry that this question may have unforeseen consequences on participation in and implementation of the Decennial Census in my district. Reintroducing this question could incite fear among immigrants and potentially deter them from participating. Furthermore, this change would represent a step backward from the recent collaboration between my of?ce, Hidalgo County, and the Census Bureau to address past inaccuracies and better prepare for the Decennial Census. i am also concerned this sudden change could increase the costs of the Census audior divert much needed funds from efforts intended to improve accuracy. I am more than willing to support legislation and ruies that advance the voting rights and security of Americans, but I truly believe this change would do more harm than good. The reintroduction of this citizenship question is an indirect attack on our immigrant communities, and on historicaliy undercounted communities like those in Hidalgo County. 1 stand ready to work with the Department of Justice and the Census Bureau to address your concerns, increase participation, and ensure the 2020 Census runs in the best possible way. - Thank you for your attention to this matter. i look forward to hearing from you soon. Please feel free to reach out to me to discuss this matter further at (202) 225-2531. Sincereiy, Vicente Gonzalez Member of Congress CC: Acting Director Ron Jarmin, Census Bureau PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1Y;-DS977~ 358 of 440 The Leadership Conference on Civiland Human Rights 1620 L Street, NW Suite 1100 202.466.3311 voice 202.466.3435 fax Washington, DC www,civilrights.org ; 20036 o ,f> !"'1 -,,~ Chair Jlldllll L,lichtmon Natfonal Partnership for Women & FamWes Vice Chairs Jacqueline Pma Notional Congress af Amerw Thomas A Saenz '~1 T" I. January 10,2018 Officers '" C -' ::"~ The Leadership :"1"\ Conference (p} ;-:~l ~~ rri Indians Protect the Census: Oppose DOJ Request to Add a Citizenship Census MexiCM Amenc.1n Legal DelenSlJ and Edlll:atiooal Fund Hilary Shercan NAACP Secretary Jo Ann Jenkins Question to ~ 0:> tl1~20iiJ ~:;. :::.. 0 Dear Secretary Ross: >ARP Treasurer Lee "', Smmdm "'mericoo Federation of Swte, Calmly & Mmldpal On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the Employees Soard 01 Dlrectol'\! Helena Bergei' American Association 01 People with Disabilities KIItlllerIy CiUlI'ches >AlJW Kristen ClarKe Lawyers' CommiUee for Civil Rights Under Law Lily E~elsen Garcia civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, and the undersigned 167 organizations, we urge you to reject the Department of Justice's untimely and unnecessary request for a new citizenship question on the 2020 Census, which would threaten a fair and accurate decennial census. Adding a new citizenship question to the 2020 Census would destroy any chance for an accurate count, discard years of careful research, and increase costs significantly. NetiollJI Education Association fatima Goes Qr she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as iwell as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembl~d a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the I Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the ~eople, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legiislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, ! UJk~ Wilbur Ross 000813 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 374 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Claire McCaskill United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator McCaskill: i i Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justicd's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he 9r she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as :well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr .., Assistant Secretary for Legi1slative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. : Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000814 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 37%f?149 5 3 Eli Effinger-Weintraub January 12. 2018 Secretary Wilbur Ross US. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal that the 2020 Census include a question on citizenship. I am especially concerned that the fear this question will raise in today's anti-immigrant ciimate wili lead to a signi?cant increase in non-participation, which will, in turn, result in an inaccurate count and an inaccurate apportionment of Congressional Districts. As a government representative, l?m sure you share my concern that we must work to preserve our democracy. Part of that job is assuring that districts are fairly drawn and that all people are counted and represented. SincerelyEli Ef?nger-Weintraub 2000815 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23,:4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 376 of 440 it? .t CONGRESSIONAL CAucus Mic/Idle Grisfmm I Chairwoman HSTH CONGRESS January 16, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary US. Department of Commerce Room 5421 Fourteenth Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write to strongly oppose the Department of Justice?s (DOJ) requesth to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. General Counsel Arthur Gary? 5 December 12th letter claims that the addition of a citizenship question is needed to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in order to protect against racial discrimination in voting. The addition of a citizenship question only serves to instill fear among immigrant communities, decrease participation and negatively impact the outcome and accuracy of the 2020 Census. The U. S. Census is completed every ten years to collect data that accurately re?ects the total United States population, regardless of citizenship. Census questions undergo years of extensive review, including ?eld testing and feedback from focus groups. Adding an untested question could seriously impair the Bureau?s ability to produce an accurate p0pulation count and result in increased costs to the Census. claims that the citizenship question is needed to enforce Section 2 of the VRA and to prevent racial discrimination in voting are unfounded. The Census Bureau already collects information on citizenship through the American Community Survey (ACS). This ongoing yearly survey provides more detailed information than the decennial Census, which enables the Census to focus more on pepulation counts. The reliable citizenship data was -used in 2010 by both and civil rights groups to monitor compliance with the VRA and will once again be utilized for the same purpose in 2020. The Trump administration?s immigration policies have already instilled fear among immigrant communities. Immigrant communities are less likely to report crimes, or even enroll their eligible US. citizen children in healthcare programs. Additionally, early surveys have documented that some immigrants are afraid to provide information to Census employees because they are fearful of how the infonnation may be used. This is a concerning trend and would no doubt be worsened if a citizenship question was included in the 2020 Census. We urge you to oppose the request for a citizenship question in the 2020 Census. As you work to ensure a fair and accurate census that encourages full participation, we believe that including a citizenship question would only serve to suppress participation and result in inaccurate data that does not truly re?ect the makeup of our nation. Not at Taxpayer's Expense 000816 rum-u Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 377 of 440 Thank you in advance for your attention to this critical issue. I 0 I Michelle Lujan Grisham CI-IC Civil Rights and Voting Rights Chair CHC Chair 56 E. Serrano Sincer Luis V. Gutierrez aim 3.5% (Glace F. Napolitanci Saliid O. Carbajal -r Lucille l-Allard 1. . Adriano Espaillat 'denas 3; Mb Ben Ray Lujan Linda T. 8% chez 4" Ruben Gallego Norma Torres Nanette Diaz Barragan 000817 Case Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 378 of 440 bub Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan 000818 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 379 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE' The Secretary of Commerce Washington, nc. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Darren Soto U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Soto: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to' submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000819 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 380 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washihgton, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lujan Grisham: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person,. in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you kno~, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce' sOffice of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000820 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 381 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Luis Gutierrez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gutierrez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department'ofCommerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000821 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 382 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jos~ E. Serrano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Serrano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact MichaelPlatt, Jr.; Assistant Secretary forLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000822 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 383 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Grace Napolitano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Napolitano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U.~j~~ Wilbur Ross 000823 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 384 of 440 '* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Salud Carbajal U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Carbajal: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitmem to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,c-L Wilbur Ross 000824 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 385 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Roybal-Allard: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofthe Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000825 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 386 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Albio Sires U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sires: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address. and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofthe Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000826 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 387 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Adriano Espaillat U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Espaillat: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofthe Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000827 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 388 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable J. Luis Correa U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Correa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review ofthe Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000828 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 389 of 440 UNITED STATES DE.PARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Tony Cardenas u.s. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Cardenas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming. and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000829 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 390 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washingtofl,D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Jimmy Gomez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gomez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, k, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000830 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 391 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, p.e. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lujan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000831 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 392 of 440 UNITED.STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary .of.Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Linda Sanchez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sanchez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000832 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 393 of 440 . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary. of Commerce WClEihington,. D. C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Juan Vargas u.s. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Vargas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported.back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department ofCotnmerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions of would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and IntergovernmentalAffairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000833 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 394 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Ruben Gallego U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gallego: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000834 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 395 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington; D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Norma Torres U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear RepresentativeTorres: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482 ..J663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000835 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 396 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Barragan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000836 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 397 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sablan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000837 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 398 of 440 JOE MANCHIN III COMMlmes WEST VIRGINIA APPROPRIA 110NS Sum""" ctanitcd ~rotC5~cnatc H"ItT BUltoolG WASMNGTON. DC :10510 {lO2} 224-3954 WASHINGTON. DC 2051Q-.4ll04 January 16, 2018 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES INTEWGENCE VETERANS' a < = ::! < CO ~,~ '"n c: 1" V> . ;n ) ;;0 '":> '" ~ "" -c ::s: W 00 I am writing to express my conccrns about the preparations that the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the Census Bureau (the Bureau) arc taking in advance of the 2020 Decennial Census for populations in remote rural and hard-to-count areas based on reports in a December 9,2017 New York Times artiele entitled With 2020 Census Looming. Worries Aboul Fail'lless and Accuraci. Iam wOlTied that based on this artiele and other ne\~s reports that rural and geographically challenged areas, such as West Virginia and the Appalachian region, will not be appropriately and accurately enumerated. According to the New York Times article, due to budget cuts, the Department cancelled testing in Bluefield, West Virginia that would have better infornled how to develop accurate population counts in hard-to-count and remote rural areas. The article also goes on to state that the Bureau plans to usc infornlation from the United Statcs Postal Service, satellite imagery and online surveys to make up for the labor-intensive work of going from door-to-door to gather data and ensure the Bureau is using an accurate list of addresses for the 2020 Census. I was alarnlcd to learn that only 30% of the country would bc visited by enumcrators in order to gather this information and it is unclear which areas are included in this 30% or the threshold that was used to come to this percentage. I also understand that the Census is largely intended to be completed online and only certain areas will receive paper questionnaires during the first round ofthc Census data collection. Given the remoteness of my state's rural population, the lack of broadband access across the state, and the prevailing concern by some of my constituents that the government is asking intrusive questions, I am apprehensive about these alternate more hands-off methodologies and their ability to work for my constituents. Moreover, the Department and the Bureau's emphasis and reliance on the internet for collecting most of their Census data is troubling and seems to ignore the Digital Divide in this country. Nearly 30 percent of West Virginians are without access to broadband which means over 500,000 West Virginias would be at risk for not being counted accurately in the Census. While Irecognize that relying on technology and the internet is a more cost effective way to gather as much infonnation as possible, Ifear that in an attempt to save money, the Bureau may I http5:/Imobile.nytime5.comI20 17/12/09/u5/cenSU5-2020redistricting.htm 17action=cl ick&modulc=Top%20Storic5&pgtype=Horncpage 000838 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 399 of 440 miss out counting segments of the population by not deploying more trusted local enumerators to areas to collect data. I understand how vital of a role the Census plays in the United States and which is why I am requesting that the Bureau reconsider its proposed .approach to collecting the data in order to make the 2020 Deeennial Census a meaningful one for the entire country, including West Virginia. I also request your response to the following questions: • • • Which areas are included in the 30% of the country that will be visited by enumerators to determine accurate addresses and how are these areas chosen? With the Administration's recent request for additional funds, does the Department intend to reinstate rural tcsting in West Virginia before the 2020 Census? What assurances can you provide that the counts in West Virginia will be accurate? I share your desire for a cost-effective Census but I believe it is imperative that we ensure all populations, especially remote rural ones, are accurately counted. I look forward to your response to my questions and stand ready to assist you and. the Department in order to make sure rural America is fully included in the 2020 Decennial Census. Sincerely, 000839 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 400 of 440 Congress at the l?niteh gtatea ME 20515 January 17, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write to express our deep concern about the Justice Department?s request to include questions about citizenship status in the next census.1 The U.S. Census is critical to ensuring that our democracy is truly representative and to gathering data that guides federal ?mding. The inclusion of citizenship questions will deter responses to the census, especially among minority, immigrant, and low-income communities. We strongly urge you to reject efforts to insert questions in the 2020 Census that focus on citizenship status. The inclusion of citizenship questions in the census will suppress responses from minority communities who will fear reprisal against themselves or loved ones from revealing citizenship details. As the Leadership Conference Education Fund recently observed, ?Asking about citizenship status in the 2020 Census. . .will have a chilling effect and keep many residents from responding, jeopardizing the accuracy? of the census? As it is, according to the Census Bureau, 1.5 percent of the Hispanic population and 2.1 percent of the A?ican- American population were not included in the last census in 2010.3 Including questions like this will only further depress the response rate.4 In fact, in an amicus curiae brief in Evenwel v. Abbott, four former directors of the U.S. Census Bureau noted that asking about citizenship status ?would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to more inaccurate re3ponses from non-citizens worried about a government record of their immigration status. . .invariably lead[ing] to a lower response rate to the Census in general. . 5 Moreover, a September 2017 memo by the U.S. Census? Center for Survey Measurement (CSM) ?agged concerns about undercounting in the 2020 Census. In interviews with 366 individuals beginning in 2017, CSM staff reported facing a ?new phenomenon? encountering high numbers of people expressing con?dentiality concerns and reluctance to participate.6 Many individuals cited the Muslim ban, harsh immigration policies, and the current political climate as deterrents from participating. This is particularly concerning given that CSM reSpondents are paid a cash incentive for their participation in surveys and are interviewed by researchers with whom they have an established relationship. It is clear that individuals are lJustin Elliott, Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on Census, Alarming Experts, PROPUBLICA (Dec. 29,2017) available at: nmnublicnomlu?iclctuunm insticedenamnent- nmhes? camellia-11m m. 2 Leadership Conference Education Fund, Factsheet: Citizenship and Legal Status Questions on the 2020 Census: Preventing a Decennial Disaster (Jan. 1, 201B) 3 Michael Wines, Critics Say Questions About Citizenship Could Wreck Chances for an Accurate Census, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 2, 2018) available at: Museum-Ell Id. 5 5 78 U.S., 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016) 5 Memorandum for Associate Directorate for Research and Methodology from Center for Survey Measurement re: Respondent Con?dentiality Concerns (Sep. 20, 2017) available at: us. r: in rn - rdin ?gsgon?ggt?QQ PRINTED on RECYCLED mesa 000840 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 401 of 440 already reluctant to complete a paid survey with someone they know. How can we expect the general public to complete a census that includes questions which will only keep them from responding? The resulting undercount will reverberate across the nation: from ensuring a fair distribution of congressional seats based on the census data to making certain that an accurate allocation of nearly $700 billion taxpayer funds? for critical programs is made. These include programs like Medicaid ($311 billion), SNAP ($71 billion) and Pell Grants ($29.9 billion), highway planning and construction ($38 billion), Federal Transit Formula Grants billion) and Career and Technical Education Grants billion). Industry and businesses also rely on census data to determine where services and investments in communities will be made. In testimony before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in October 2017 you pledged that ef?cient 2020 Census that provides a fair and accurate count has been one of my highest priorities since being con?rmed in February. . .The census is the bedrock upon which we construct our system of democratic representation.?8 We know you understand the important ro!e the census plays in our democracy, and we h0pe that you will push back against any efforts to politicize the census process. The Census Bureau has engaged in efforts for decades to build trust with under-counted communities, including communities of color and the rural poor, and build capacity among community organizations to maximize participation. During the 2010 Census, public and private investment built capacity among community leaders and strengthened the in?'astructure among community organizations.9 All these efforts stand to be reversed should the census become politicized. In April 20': 8, you will be sharing a list of questions for the next census with Congress. We strongly urge you not to include any questions relating to citizenship status such as the ones the Justice Department is requesting. In addition to the problems described above, the inclusion of such a question so late in the process will not allow for necessary testing to correct wording problems. Moreover, such an action will impede a fair, accurate and ef?cient national count. We must do everything we can to ensure maximum participation the 2020 Census. Sincerely, - . . Member of Congress Member of Congress I CEDRIC L. RICHMOND her 0 gress Member of Congress 7 Marisa Hotchkiss Jessica Phelan, Uses of Census Bureau Data in Federal Funds Distribution, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (Sep. 2017) Fidsral-Fumh-?istributiunnd? 3 Testimony of Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Oct. 12, 2017) available at: hLmEuv/wn-cnntent/uplnadgzm El 1 9 Kim Crews, Philanthropic Support for 2010 Census Outreach, Funders Census Initiative (May 2011); p. 1. 000841 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 402 of 440 MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON Member of Congress Member of Congress 92% BOBBY USH Member of Congress M. 3 Member of Congress Member of Congress SHEILA JACKSO EE DANNY DAVS Member of Congr Member of COG gr 5 BARBARA LEE Member of Congress Member of Congress Am JIM COS A A Member of Congress Member Congress 399% mods?; DORIS 0. MATSUI Member of Congress Member of Congress 000842 ase 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 403 of 440 AGUILAR TED LIEU Member of Congress Member of Congress BARRAGAN LISA Member of Congress Member of Congress UIS ANTHONY Member of Congress Member of Congress SALUD CARBAJAL I ADRIANO ESPAILLAT Member Of Congress Member of Congress VIN NTE GONZALEZ Member of Congress A [Paw?Lb M?Zuh'a? A. DONALD MCEACHIN Member of Congress Mobs A ARREN s?ro A NCE Member of Congress Member Of Congress 000843 Case 3:18- cv-01865- RS Document 23- 4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 404 of 440 mm CLARKE KEITH ELLISON Member of Congress Member of Congress MARCIA FUDGE BASS Member of Con ess Member of Congress COLLEEN HANABUSA Member of Congress CE MENG MARK POC - i? ber of Congress Member of Congress MARK TAKANO Member of Congress Mem er of Congress MARC VEASEY I MON VELA Member of Con 55 Member of Congress ?1 KA RINE CLARK Member of Congress Member of Congress 000844 Case 3:1 -cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed er of Congress F. NAPOLI mber of Congress Am TERRI A. SEWELL Member of Congress BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN Member of Congress (2.33m) BEN RAY Member of Congress ROBERT c. SCOTT Member of Congress Pag 5 of 440 WMOORE Member of Congress EDDIE BERNIGE JOHN Member of Congress HAKEEM S. JEFF Member of Congress ?lmy, Membero l'Member Congress ,f ?lo Congress MALONEY Congress My 000845 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 406 of 440 I. FREDERICA S. WILSON Member of Congress 000846 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 407 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Pramila Jayapal U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Jayapal: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofthe Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you .apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000847 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 408 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Raul Grijalva U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Grijalva: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000848 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 409 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Judy Chu U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Chu: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~J,~ Wilbur Ross 000849 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 410 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Richmond: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Managenient and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. . We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please_have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative all'd Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000850 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 411 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham of Representatives Washingt~m, DC 20515 u.s. House Dear Representative Grisham: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000851 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 412 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT The Secretary of Commerce OF COMMERCE Washington; D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Holmes Norton: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this importm;t matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000852 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 413 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Alcee Hastings U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Hastings: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000853 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 414 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Bobby Rush U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Rush: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycIe cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000854 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 415 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Roybal-Allard: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000855 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 416 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Nydia Velazquez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Velazquez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000856 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 417 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Jackson Lee: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as athorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000857 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 418 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Danny Davis U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Davis: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Uvt1-wvJ,~ Wilbur Ross 000858 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 419 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Gregory Meeks U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Meeks: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000859 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 420 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Barbara Lee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lee: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. . The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governanc~ and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000860 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 421 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jim Costa u.s. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Costa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000861 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 422 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Al Green U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Green: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and IntergovelllII).ental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000862 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 423 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Doris Matsui U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Matsui: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U.~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000863 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 424 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Albio Sires U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sires: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000864 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 425 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Pete Aguilar U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Aguilar: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking thetime to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000865 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 426 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Ted Lieu U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lieu: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000866 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 427 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Nanette Barragan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Barragan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000867 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 428 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Lisa Blunt Rochester U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Blunt Rochester: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after! conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000868 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 429 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Luis Correa U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Correa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000869 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 430 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Anthony Brown U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Brown: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j~~ Wilbur Ross 000870 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 431 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Salud Carbajal U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Carbajal: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address ~d remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000871 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 432 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Adriano Espaillat U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Espaillat: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000872 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 433 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Vicente Gonzalez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gonzalez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000873 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 434 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Ro Khanna U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Khanna: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concemsexpressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000874 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 435 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable A. Donald McEachin U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative McEachin: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each perSon, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office 'of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000875 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 436 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jimmy Gomez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gomez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000876 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 437 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Darren Soto U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Soto: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000877 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 438 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Brenda Lawrence U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lawrence: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000878 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 439 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Yvette Clarke U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Clarke: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure .strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000879 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 23-4 Filed 06/08/18 Page 440 of 440 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Keith Ellison U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Ellison: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000880