Proposed Changes to Decennial Census Counting Methods
On Sept. 10, the U.S. Federal Register published a notice announcing three proposed changes to the decennial census that would selectively reduce the number of people counted in the upcoming 2030 census.
The first proposed change restricts the official count to "citizens or lawful permanent residents." This restriction would exclude foreign citizens, including international students, work visa holders, refugees, and undocumented immigrants, from the total population tally.
The second proposed alteration modifies residence rules by tying census counts to tax records and time spent in a location between Jan. 3 and April 1. According to the proposal, this shift would likely cause college students to be counted at their parents' addresses rather than at their college locations.
The third proposed change prohibits the inclusion of questions regarding race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation on the census forms.
Impact on Public Health Data and Equity
Nancy Krieger, a professor of social epidemiology, wrote in an opinion piece published Oct. 9 that these proposed changes could be catastrophic for public health. Krieger stated, "Erasing data does not erase need or harm." Her warning highlights the potential disconnect between population counts and the actual distribution of health needs across communities.
Krieger argued that the alterations would cause mortality and morbidity rates to appear to jump in 2030 due to a shrinking denominator in rate calculations. She noted that this statistical distortion would particularly affect college-age people, retirement-age people, people of color, and immigrants. The reduction in the denominator used for these calculations creates a scenario where health outcomes may seem to worsen artificially, even if the actual number of cases remains stable.
The article contends that these changes have not been carefully tested or reviewed under usual protocols. It further argues that the modifications are inconsistent with the Constitution.
Political Motivations and Public Response
Krieger’s analysis suggests that the only reason for the proposed changes is to provide a partisan advantage in House of Representatives representation and district drawing. This assertion frames the technical adjustments not merely as administrative updates, but as strategic moves with significant political consequences.
In response to the proposal, public pushback extended the comment period for the proposed rules. The initial window was set to end Oct. 13, but it was subsequently extended to Nov. 2. This extension reflects the intensity of the debate surrounding the potential impact of these reforms on both political representation and public health monitoring.