Order of jurisdictions in census citations

Interesting question. EE’s short answer would be custom and logic. A longer answer would invoke access and efficiency in data-entry.

1. Access

How do we access a census record? First, we think about the country and year, so we pull the census options for that country and year. In the U.S., that portion of a census citation would say, for example, “1930 U.S. census.”  Then we would need to locate the specific area of interest in the U.S. If we need data for a household at Cocked Hat, Delaware, then we can't just look up "Cocked Hat" in a NARA film catalog and find a film number. Nor do we approach it that way in the databases of the online image providers. The censuses are filmed by state, thereunder by county, thereunder by district, then by page, then by household or line number—i.e., from the largest element to the smallest.

Census citations (in EE and common usage) follow this traditional large-to-small arrangement with one wee twist that’s based on custom. Instead of citing State, County we cite County, State (or Big City, State) because that’s our everyday usage--not to mention, the order expected by the likes of Miss Thistlebottom.

2. Data entry

When using databases to organize families whose branches scattered across the country, efficiency also argues for the large-to-small arrangement. If entries in our master source list were arranged by enumeration districts or towns, then our source list would be exceedingly long. Conversely, if the featured elements in our source list are the large units (year, country, state, and perhaps county), then the source list can be kept much leaner and a quick click on a source list entry for a larger area can generate an automatic fill in of much of the citation. All we have to do then is to add the small elements that identify the community, page, and household.