|
Republican Quotes on "Completing
the Census"?
In a 1991 letter to Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher, Congressman Newt
Gingrich urged the administration to adjust the figures from the 1990 Census to correct for
Georgia's high undercount. Gingrich wrote:
Needless to say, if the undercount is not corrected, it would have a
serious negative impact on Georgia . . . . In addition, without the
adjustment, minority voting strength would be greatly diluted . . . . As a
result of conversations with black legislators, it is my understanding
that they have not only concurred with this request, but stated that they
believe it is required under the Voting Rights Act.
Three years later, a bipartisan group of 32 members representing the Sunbelt Caucus
wrote to President Clinton requesting that he not challenge a circuit court ruling mandating an
adjustment of the 1990 census figures (the ruling was later overturned by the US Supreme Court.)
The letter stated:
Failure to adjust the census count meant denying the existence of 4
million people. It has also meant that federal funds did not follow the
significant population shifts of the 1980's. . . . Failure to adjust the
census has also meant a continuing hardship for local officials. . . .
This is strictly a fairness issue.
(Signing the letter were current Republican Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Mike Parker, Herbert Batemen, Floyd Spence, Billy Tauzin, and Clay Shaw, along
with Senators John Warner, Strom Thurmond, Lauch Faircloth, Connie Mack, and
Pete Domenici.)
Despite his earlier support for a census adjustment to correct the undercount in Georgia,
Speaker Gingrich came to oppose the use of modern statistical methods to guarantee an accurate
count in 2000. In fact, during the 1997 appropriations fight, Speaker Gingrich told the
Republican Conference that the use of modern statistical methods was "a dagger aimed at the
heart of the Republican majority."
Throughout the 1997 appropriations fight, Republicans insisted that they were concerned
only with the constitutionality and fairness of the Census Bureau's plans. Yet, shortly after the
compromise was reached, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman John Linder
(GA) stated that the Republicans had no intention to permit the use of modern statistical methods,
even if the Supreme Court found the technique to be constitutional. On October 2nd, 1997, the
Washington Times reported:
"We put language in the bills [two passed Tuesday] that said no money
should be spent on sampling unless the Supreme Court rules it's legal,"
said Rep. John Linder, Georgia Republican. But even if the Supreme
Court says it's legal, "we won't fund it," added Mr. Linder . . .
"Mr. Chairman, the statute is crystal clear. While allowing statistical
methods for nonconstitutionally required purposes, the 1957 statute
explicitly maintained an absolute firewall aga the use of statistical
methods for reapportionment. This was a wise, bipartisan precaution
designed to prevent the census from deteriorating into a partisan power
grab.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress reaffirmed this firewall once again in 1976
when it passed into law Title 13, section 141 of the United States Code.
This section allows the Secretary broad discretion in the use of statistical
methods for nonapportionment purposes. Let me repeat: for
nonapportionment purposes." Rep Dennis Hastert, during floor debate
on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (September 30, 1997).
Maureen Mahoney, an attorney representing Speaker Gingrich in his lawsuit against the
Census Bureau, essentially admitted -- contrary to the public statements of many Republicans --
that the use of modern statistical methods would lead to a more accurate count. The Hill
reported on April 1, 1998: "Maureen Mahoney, a partner in the law firm of Latham and Watkins,
which is representing Gingrich and the House, disagreed, noting that the Constitution requires an
'actual enumeration' . . . . Mahoney noted that the Supreme Court has already ruled that 'the
census doesn't have to be done in the most accurate way possible.'"
Tom Hofeller, Republican Staff Director of the Census Subcommittee, revealed the GOP's
true racial motives for opposing an accurate count in an interview with columnist David
Broder. Broder quotes Hofeller as stating: "Someone," he said, "should remind Bill Daley [the
secretary of commerce and overseer of the Census Bureau] that if he counts people the way he
wants to, his brother [Chicago Mayor Richard Daley] could find himself trying to run a
majority-minority city." (Washington Post, June 21, 1998)
"I'd like to send a clear message to the outside groups that support sampling. It is now
time to come and work with Congress, with the Majority. No one here will ask that you
denounce sampling. Just recognize that the court and the Congress have spoken and that we will
have an actual enumeration for the purposes of positive apportionment in the 2000 census. I have
chosen these words carefully, the issue of sampling is an issue of apportionment of
representatives; not, I repeat not, the distribution of Federal aid." Rep. Dan Miller, Hearing on
Oversight of the 2000 Census: Review of Census Bureau Planning and Preparations in Response
to the Federal Court Ruling that Sampling is Illegal, September 9, 1998.
"All we are talking about here is not sampling for purposes of the reapportionment of the
House of Representatives. We are not limiting sampling on all of the other aspects of the census."
Rep. Harold Rogers, The Sacramento Bee (September 20, 1998).
In his recent book Lessons Learned the Hard Way, Speaker Gingrich reveals his true
partisan motives when he refers to the census as "an issue of great importance to our party."
Gingrich goes on the bemoan his own lack of foresight on the issue and his inability to predict the
public outcry that resulted when the Republicans attempted to deny flood relief to thousands of
Americans in an effort to force the Census Bureau to abandon its plan to conduct an accurate
census.
[Reporter]: Governor, ... what's your position on the idea of using a sampling method
which would count minority communities more fully? Your party is against it.
[Bush]: Yeah, so am I. George W. Bush at a 3/5/00 press conference in Oakland, CA.
"Director Prewitt you have called the full enumeration the Good Census....My concerns
are that it may prove to be the Rushed Census." Rep. Dan Miller, Chairman of the Census
Subcommittee (June 22, 2000)
"This decision (to use statistically corrected Census counts) was political from the very
beginning....This proposed regulation is fundamentally flawed....What you're trying to do is usurp
the authority of Congress - to violate the law plain and simple. Of course this isn't the first time
that this Administration has attempted to violate the law regarding the Census and I suspect it
won't be the last....Is there nothing this Administration won't do to get the illegal census it
wants?" Rep. Dan Miller, Chairman of the Census Subcommittee (June 22, 2000)
"This is all about politics. We are not about to get rolled." Rep. Tom Davis, Chair of the
National Republican Congressional Committee (July 4, 2000).
"The head count is the best way to conduct the census rather than risking the uncertainty
and manipulation inherent in statistical sampling methods." Scott McClellan, spokesman for Gov.
George W. Bush (July 6, 2000).
Since 1940 when the undercount was first measured, the Census has systematically missed
minorities and poor people at a far higher rate than the population as a whole. Such a bias in the
Constitutionally-mandated enumeration is an intolerable condition which the Census Bureau has
worked for decades to overcome. A procedure called Dual Systems Estimation (DSE) can
compare a scientifically drawn sample of the population with the direct results from the Census to
produce more accurate and reliable population data. Such a process is now being implemented by
the Bureau with advice from the National Academy of Sciences and other statistical experts.
...We heartily support the Secretary of Commerce in his proposal to set forth a fair and
unbiased procedure for making such a vital decision, and we urge final adoption of the rule
(Letter from 180 signatories, experts in the field of statistics, including former Directors of the
Bureau of the Census, Drs. Barbara Everitt Bryant and Martha Farnsworth Riche, August 3,
2000)
|
