This volume examines the Census Bureau's program of research and development of the 2000 census, focusing particularly on the design of the 1995 census tests. The tests in 1995 should serve as a prime source of information about the effectiveness and cost of alternative census design components. The authors concentrate on those aspects of census methodology that have the greatest impact on two chief objectives of census redesign: reducing differential undercount and controlling costs. Primary attention is given to processes for data collection, the quality of population coverage and public response, and the use of sampling and statistical estimation.

Recounts the history of the census in the United States from the eighteenth century to the present and describes the methods used to take it and how they have changed.

In provocative terms that push the envelope of technical, administrative, and legal capabilities, Swanson and Walashek propose a re-vamped US census based neither on the current system, self-enumeration, nor its predecessor, door-to-door canvassing. Instead, they propose that it be built on a combination of four elements: (1) administrative records; (2) the continuously updated Master Address File; (3) survey data; and (4) modeling and imputation techniques. They use “Census-Enhanced Master Address File (CEMAF) as a descriptive term for their proposal, which is based on four principles and includes a proposal for an independent Census Bureau. They argue that evidence suggests that the methods used to conduct traditional census counts may be at the end of their useful working lives, as evidenced by increasing costs and declining response rates. Some of their ideas will seem farfetched. However, Swanson and Walashek believe this is the time to discuss radical proposals as governments re-examine the utility of traditional census counts and consider reductions, as is the case in Canada and England. This SpringerBriefs should be on the reading list of staff in statistical agencies grappling with rising costs and declining response rates, as well as census stakeholders concerned about costs, accuracy, and census utility.

The usefulness of the U.S. decennial census depends critically on the accuracy with which individual people are counted in specific housing units, at precise geographic locations. The 2000 and other recent censuses have relied on a set of residence rules to craft instructions on the census questionnaire in order to guide respondents to identify their correct "usual residence." Determining the proper place to count such groups as college students, prisoners, and military personnel has always been complicated and controversial; major societal trends such as placement of children in shared custody arrangements and the prevalence of "snowbird" and "sunbird" populations who regularly move to favorable climates further make it difficult to specify ties to one household and one place. Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place reviews the evolution of current residence rules and the way residence concepts are presented to respondents. It proposes major changes to the basic approach of collecting residence information and suggests a program of research to improve the 2010 and future censuses.

A rallying cry for a more just approach to the law that bolsters social justice movements by throwing out originalism—the theory that judges should interpret the Constitution exactly as conservatives say the Founders meant it “The greatest trick conservatives ever pulled was convincing the world that originalism exists. This book is vital for understanding why the world sucks right now.”—Elie Mystal, author of Allow Me to Retort There is no one true way to interpret the Constitution, but that’s not what originalists want you to think. They’d rather we be held hostage to their “objective” theory that our rights and liberties are bound by history—an idea that was once confined to the fringes of academia. Americans saw just how subjective originalism can be when the Supreme Court cherry-picked the past to deny bodily autonomy to millions of Americans in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Though originalism is supposed to be a serious intellectual theory, a closer look reveals its many inherent faults, as it deliberately over-emphasizes a version of history that treats civil rights gains as categorically suspect. According to Madiba K. Dennie, it’s time to let it go. Dennie discards originalism in favor of a new approach that serves everyone: inclusive constitutionalism. She disentangles the Constitution’s ideals from originalist ideology and underscores the ambition of the Reconstruction Amendments, which were adopted in the wake of the Civil War and sought to build a democracy with equal membership for marginalized persons. The Originalism Trap argues that the law must serve to make that promise of democracy real. Seamlessly blending scholarship with sass and written for law people and laypeople alike, The Originalism Trap shows readers that the Constitution belongs to them and how, by understanding its possibilities, they can use it to fight for their rights. As courts—and the Constitution—increasingly become political battlegrounds, The Originalism Trap is a necessary guide to what’s at stake and a vision for a more just future.