Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution spells out why the decennial Census is critical to how the Founders envisioned this nation’s representative democracy.

Why was this language so important? The U.S. Census Bureau explains: “The genius of the Founders was taking a tool of government and making it a tool of political empowerment for the governed over their government.”

The question now in a Supreme Court case over whether to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census is how much leeway a presidential administration has, constitutionally, in writing questions that potentially could distort the Census count.

In the early 1800s and then from 1890 on, a citizenship question appeared on the Census, but the last time it was asked of all respondents was in 1950. (From 1960 to 2000, it was asked of a small subset.)

Census officials have opposed inclusion of a citizenship question on the grounds it would likely cause residents fearful of reprisals because of their immigrant, nonlegal or ethnic origins not to respond, yielding an inaccurate count.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, however, overruled those objections and ordered its inclusion on the 2020 Census.

Supporters of Ross’ decision say that any questions beyond a basic “Where do you live?” will lower participation, and that the national interest in the answer to a question they suggest could help with voting rights enforcement and other matters outweighs this downside. SCOTUS watchers think the justices are leaning to that view after oral arguments last week.

But critics say nothing less than an accurate count as an underpinning of this nation’s political system is on the line.

So what does our editorial board roundtable think? Read on, and we welcome your views in the comments.

Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:

Call it Ross’ Law: Congressional districts are based on the number of residents, not the number of citizens. Hold down the noncitizen count in a given (hint: Democratic) state, and that state gets shortchanged in the U.S. House.

Ted Diadiun, editorial board member:

Of course we should ask the question. Only those who are trying to help illegals hide in plain sight would have any reason to oppose this effort, and we should not quail from trying to determine the truth. If illegal immigrants refuse to participate, thereby lowering the “official” population of sanctuary states like California, and as a result reducing their number of representatives in Congress – oh, well.

Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:

The Census should be an accurate head count that guides allocation of federal resources, not a way to ferret out noncitizens both legal and illegal. I cannot fathom how this information would even be relevant. Census data is supposed to be anonymous, but the citizenship question, as proposed by this particular administration, feels like a modern-day equivalent of the scarlet letter. We all know how that story goes.

Eric Foster, editorial board member:

The citizenship question causes more harm than good due to the fact that there is zero good that can come out of it. The argument that it will assist with voting-rights enforcement has already been found to be legal hogwash. If the only other rationale Ross can offer is “it’s been done before,” that shouldn’t be sufficient to counterbalance the undisputed harm to the overarching purpose of the Census.

Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:

Ask the citizenship question. This data, like racial demographics, is important. The question poses no threat. Seventy-five percent of our 44 million immigrants are here legally, and census data cannot be used against the 11 million illegal immigrants. Why the worry? Illegal immigrant populations increase congressional seats for a handful of states, which pulls seats away from other states. Let’s address the real need: immigration law reform and enforcement.

Victor Ruiz, editorial board member:

Since our country’s founding there’s been a battle over who is a “Person.” President Donald Trump believes that some have more worth than others, so this onslaught on people is expected. The fallacy is that this only applies to some: The impact of “less of them/us” will be felt across all aspects of our society. Elections have consequences, and if Trump hasn’t done enough to get him out, then shame on us.

Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, cleveland.com:

That there’s any doubt about how the Supreme Court will rule in such an obvious partisan attempt to monkey with Census data in contravention of the U.S. Constitution’s plain intent is damning in itself.

Have something to say about this topic?

* Use the comments to share your thoughts. Then, stay informed when readers reply to your comments by using the "Follow" option at the top of the comments, and look for updates via the small blue bell in the lower right as you look at more stories on cleveland.com.

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments on this editorial board roundtable to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.