Contradictions on the Census can leave students confused where to register
I think the issue of residency in regards to the 2010 census has complications to it, given the implications go beyond money that a particular area might get, such as apportionment for the state and U.S. House of Representatives.
The main refutation to the position in my column printed Feb. 5 that CMU students could be counted at home for the 2010 Census rather than Mount Pleasant is that the form instructions explicitly state, “Do not count anyone living away either at college or in the Armed Forces.”
My main point of contention with the aforementioned argument is the fact that Question 7 on the form for persons 2-6 asks if that person sometimes lives or stays somewhere else.
If yes, it asks where.
One of those options happens to be “In college housing.”
Another is “At a seasonal or second residence.”
Houston, we have a contradiction.
If we are supposed to be following the initial instructions, then why this Question 7?
Is it that the Census Bureau intends for us to be counted on the census where we are at most of the time, just worded in a horrible manner?
If that’s the case, let’s see what the numbers come out to be for myself.
For Fall 2009, classes ran from Aug. 24 to Dec. 11 — 108 days.
I’m lazy, so I’ll trade breaks and other days I might not have been in town during the week for saying I’m out of town every weekend (which I’m gone for most of them anyways).
That knocks off 30 days, leaving me with 78 days of residency in Mount Pleasant.
For Spring 2010, it’s Jan. 11 to May 7 — 80 days after knocking off weekends.
That’s a total of 158 days. Essentially, I’m only in Mount Pleasant for less than half the year.
I, again, ask why I should be counted here.
Going further, wouldn’t it be wrong to be counted in Mount Pleasant, when the majority of my time spent is, in fact, not here?
Another qualm I have with the “it’s on the instructions” argument is, that’s just it, it’s just on the instructions.
Given the importance of an accurate count when it comes to apportionment and redistricting of state or U.S. Representatives (assumption being made on equal redistricting), why isn’t the issue of residency addressed either in the U.S. Code or the Code of Federal Regulations?
Not doing so leaves ambiguities such as that, which I pointed out in my first argument.
I believe that residency in terms of the census should be based and appropriately codified upon voter registration for those that are registered.
It would clear up the ambiguities and pointed out above.
It also would help ensure that the voter is going to have the appropriate representation where it will count — in their voting district.
