To a recovering graphic designer the ominous giant bold type on the census form looks like a cry for help. At the very least it’s a plea for legitimacy. The law in question is a plain, albeit rarely enforced penal statute found in 13 U.S.C.A. § 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers:
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
That section has even created a bit of case law. United States v. Rickenbacker, 197 F.Supp. 924 (S.D.N.Y.1961), aff’d 309 F.2d 462 (C.A. 2, 1962), cert. den. 371 U.S. 962, 83 S.Ct. 542, 9 L.Ed.2d 509 (1963) (upholding conviction for refusing to answer the 1960 census questionnaire and imposing 60 days suspended sentence, $100 fine and one day of probation), U.S. v. Little, 321 F.Supp. 388 (D.C.Del. 1971) (denying motion to dismiss).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the aluminum-foil-hat set has given rise to a census resistance movement. More surprisingly, it has not been entirely without luck in the courts. In U.S. v. Steele a conviction for refusing to answer questions on a census form was reversed by the 9th Circuit on the grounds of discriminatory prosecution. U.S. v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1972).
Only four people in Hawaii were chosen for prosecution. All had participated in a census resistance movement, publicizing a dissident view of the census as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and urging the public to avoid compliance with census requirements.
Steele held a press conference, led a protest march, and distributed pamphlets entitled “Big Brother is Snooping.” David Watamull was the owner of radio station KTRG, which broadcast editorials on the census. Census authorities had complained to the Federal Communications Commission about them because they “were calculated to incite people to subvert the census law.” Donald Dickinson spoke against the census as an announcer on station KTRG. William Danks headed the state chapter of a group called Census Resistance ’70; he distributed pamphlets and publicly criticized the census.
Appellant and six other unrelated young adults resided in a private home in Honolulu. When a census enumerator called for his questionnaire, Steele refused to answer all questions on the form and returned it to the enumerator with two pages removed. Next, a supervisor called and was similarly rebuffed. Finally, after a regional officer had tried and failed to interview Steele, the effort was abandoned. Steele testified at trial that he had refused to answer on constitutional grounds.
Leland Gray, the Regional Technician for the census in Hawaii, described the four as “hard core resisters.” He ordered his staff to compile special background dossiers on them, a discretionary procedure not followed with any other offenders. Gray testified that his organization had been very concerned about the census resistance movement.
The penalties for wrongful disclosure of information by census workers are steeper – “shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” 13 U.S.C.A. § 214. No one appears to ever have been prosecuted under that statute.
Related posts:
The bold typeface on the front amused me greatly when I saw it. Not sure why — I was just excited to get my first census document at my home! (2000 was filled out on campus instead of a residence)
You bring up some interesting repercussions of how they determine domicile under the census law – for instance, counting college students on campus rather than at their former permanent residence. As I read it, a state that’s a net importer of college students might pick up electoral votes that way. Same with undocumented residents. Texas stands to gain 3 by 2012.
Love your avatar by the way.
Thank you sir, it’s much appreciated :)
Don’t know if North Carolina is a net importer or not, but registering college students has definitely been a big focus — we’ve got somewhere around 60 colleges/universities (including 16 in the consolidated University of North Carolina) and another 60 community colleges. And a sizable undocumented population to boot.
There’s an ever-so-slim chance North Carolina might get 1 more electoral vote, but it’s not likely. Folks just want that federal $$$