2nd Case Challenging 2020 Census Preparation Dismissed
The Census Bureau hasn't refused to spend money on preparations, but it has spent money in a different way because of the change from a reliance on paper questionnaires to online responses, said a judge, noting that the bureau had wide discretion in planning the census.
May 27, 2020 at 01:55 PM
4 minute read
For the second time this spring, a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing the U.S. Census Bureau of not devoting enough manpower and offices on the ground to have a successful count of every resident in the U.S. during the 2020 census.
The federal judge in Maryland last month dismissed the lawsuit brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Prince George's County, a majority African American county in Maryland.
The NAACP and the county had demanded that the agency send more workers into the field and spend more money on encouraging people to participate in the once-a-decade head count, calling the Census Bureau's preparations deficient compared with the number of hires and field offices it had in the previous census in 2010. The lawsuit faulted the bureau for conducting limited testing for the 2020 census, particularly when, for the first time, it is encouraging most respondents to answer the questionnaire online. The bureau's deficient preparations could result in an undercount, according to the lawsuit.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm said it was "of limited value" to compare preparations for the 2020 census with the 2010 census, which relied on a majority of residents responding by paper questionnaires. The Census Bureau hasn't refused to spend money on preparations, but it has spent money in a different way because of the change from a reliance on paper questionnaires to online responses, said the judge, noting that the bureau had wide discretion in planning the census.
"Comparing the two is like comparing dogs to cats — superficial similarities, but fundamental differences at the core," Grimm wrote in his decision.
In March, a separate federal judge in New York tossed out a lawsuit from an advocacy group and a small New York city that argued the Census Bureau wasn't devoting enough resources to the 2020 count.
The 2020 census will help determine the distribution of $1.5 trillion in federal spending and how many congressional seats each state gets.
An earlier version of the Maryland lawsuit was first filed in 2018, but it was dismissed by the district court. An appellate court later ruled some of the claims could be raised again in an amended complaint. Grimm left the door open for the NAACP and the county to file another amended complaint once the census results are made public.
The Census Bureau has asked Congress to allow it to push back the deadline for releasing the data used for determining how many congressional seats each state gets from the end of December to the end of April because of concerns about the new coronavirus. The bureau is asking Congress to allow it to release data used by state for redistricting from the end of March to the end of July.
On Tuesday, a nonpartisan group that represents state legislatures said in a letter to the Census Bureau that the changed timelines would "present difficulties for states" because at least two states — New Jersey and Virginia — have 2021 elections and two dozen other states have redistricting deadlines that would be hard to meet under the revised schedule.
The National Conference of State Legislatures also said its members were concerned about a new technique meant to protect the privacy of participants in the 2020 census by adding some mathematical "noise" to the data to obscure any given individual's identity. Some users of census data are worried the technique could make the data inaccurate at small geographies.
Variations between 2010 census data and a test data set using 2010 figures that demonstrated how "differential privacy" would be used was "simply too large to be of use for redistricting purposes," NCSL Executive Director Tim Storey wrote in the letter.
He asked that the bureau release a second test data set demonstrating how the technique will be used.
Mike Schneider reports for Associated Press.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250