Does the Constitution specify who must be counted in the census beyond “persons” or “people”?
Executive summary
The Constitution requires a decennial “actual enumeration” but does not list a detailed methodology or a long definitional list of who counts beyond “persons” or “people”; the 14th Amendment’s phrase “whole number of persons in each State” has been interpreted by law and practice to mean all residents—citizens and noncitizens alike—and the Census Bureau counts people at their “usual residence” [1] [2] [3]. Congress and courts have filled procedural gaps: Congress directs methods by statute and the Supreme Court and agencies have upheld broad, residence-based counting methods rather than a citizenship or voter-only approach [4] [1] [5].
1. Constitutional text gives the command, not the checklist
Article I, Section 2 commands an “actual Enumeration” every ten years “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct,” and the 14th Amendment requires apportionment by the “whole number of persons in each State,” but the Constitution itself does not enumerate categories (citizens, noncitizens, taxed/untaxed Indians, etc.) beyond the term “persons” and historical clauses later superseded by amendment [1] [6].
2. Practice and statute supply the operational definition: “usual residence” and everyone residing
Federal law and Census Bureau practice treat the decennial count as a headcount of everyone living in the United States at their usual residence on Census Day. The bureau explains people are counted where they “live and sleep most of the time,” and Title 13 and executive policy affirm the apportionment base should be the total number of persons residing in a state regardless of immigration status [2] [5] [3].
3. Courts and Congress have accepted methods beyond a literal roster of persons
The Supreme Court and legislative bodies have recognized that while the Constitution demands an enumeration, it does not lock the nation into a single data-collection technique; courts have declined to require or foreclose particular statistical methods when Congress prescribes the approach, and the Census Act governs operational details [1] [4].
4. Citizenship-versus-persons is the central political flashpoint, not a textual ambiguity
Multiple sources show the constitutional language counts “persons,” and that has been read historically and by advocates to include citizens and noncitizens. Political actors have pushed alternatives—most notably proposals to exclude undocumented immigrants from apportionment—but statutory and legal commentary affirm the apportionment base is total resident population [7] [5] [2].
5. Historical exceptions are limited and largely removed by amendment and law
The Constitution originally included provisions (e.g., three-fifths clause, “Indians not taxed”) that made explicit exceptions; the 14th Amendment and later legal developments altered those specifics. Contemporary sources note that fractionalization and some categorical exclusions are no longer operative and that the governing phrase today is the “whole number of persons” [6] [8].
6. Who decides specifics? Congress and the Census Bureau, under judicial review
Because the text defers to Congress (“in such manner as they shall by Law direct”), Congress and the Bureau propose questions and methods—subject to statutory timelines and judicial scrutiny. The bureau must notify Congress about general census subjects and final questions in advance, and courts have intervened when methods or additions (like sampling or citizenship questions) produced legal challenges [4] [1].
7. Competing viewpoints: constitutional purists vs. administrative practice
Some commentators and officials argue the Framers intended a plain person-by-person count and that “persons” should always include everyone present; others (often political operatives) argue modern policy choices—like excluding certain noncitizens—are defensible to protect representation. The authoritative administrative position and statutory interpretations, however, treat the census as counting residents without regard to immigration status [7] [5] [2].
8. Limits of available reporting and remaining questions
Available sources do not provide a single constitutional clause that defines “persons” beyond the operative phrases cited; rather, interpretation has come from amendments, statutes, bureau practice, and court decisions [1] [5] [3]. For detailed legal rulings on any specific proposed change (e.g., a new exclusion or method), source documents from courts, Congress, or the Census Bureau would be needed—those specifics are not exhaustively covered in the materials provided here (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: The Constitution sets the obligation and the phrase “persons,” but it leaves the details to Congress and the Census Bureau; modern statutory practice and judicial interpretations treat the apportionment base as the total resident population counted at usual residence, which in operational terms includes citizens and noncitizens [1] [5] [3].