|
The Battle in the States
Redistricting and Census Adjustment
In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Census Act prohibits the use of modern scientific
methods to count the population for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives
among the 50 states. However, the Court also found that 1976 amendments to section 195 of the
census law actually "changed a provision that permitted the use of sampling for purposes other than
apportionment into one that required that sampling be used for such purposes if 'feasible.'" (emphasis in
Justice O'Connor's original majority opinion).
The Commerce Secretary determined that "sampling" is feasible and the Census Bureau has
implemented the new Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) program for Census 2000 to comply
with the Supreme Court ruling. The Census Bureau will use direct head counting methods to
determine state population totals for reapportionment. The Census Bureau will also use the ACE as a
quality check program to correct for undercounts and overcounts. This corrected data will be used for
all non apportionment purposes, including federal funding and "P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data." P.L.
94-171 is the federal law requiring the Census Bureau to provide states with geographic redistricting
data by voting age and race. Consequently, state legislatures and other redistricting authorities will be
able to use more accurate official census data, reflecting the actual population, for intrastate
congressional and state legislative redistricting. "Unadjusted" data will also be made available at the
same time and at the same geographic levels.
Opponents of a census conducted with modern statistical methods are promoting the use of
uncorrected data for redistricting by state legislatures. Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Kansas and Virginia
have already enacted laws during their 1999-2000 legislative sessions requiring the use of such
uncorrected data. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that alternative census databases may be used
with caution, governed by state law. Generally speaking, Court decisions permit use of alternative
databases according to state law as long as the alternative database is not substantially different from
that which would have resulted from the use of official census data.
States attempting to redistrict with "unadjusted" data may encounter Voting Rights Act and
equal protection problems as the proposed laws would seem to violate the one-man/one-vote standard.
The U.S. Department of Justice or Federal District Court for the District of Columbia must "pre-clear"
actions affecting redistricting those states covered by Section five of the Voting Rights Act. The
Alaska legislation is currently under review by the Justice Department and a ruling is expected in the
near future. Virginia is seeking approval from the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.
Arizona's Justice Department submission was withdrawn by the Governor and cannot be implemented
at this time.
1999-2000 STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY ON CENSUS DATA
As of November, 2000 the following bills or resolutions have been considered by state
legislatures regarding Census 2000, databases for redistricting, and census correction.
ALASKA- SB 99 prohibits use of corrected census numbers for redistricting. Governor Knowles (D)
returned bill to legislature without signature, enabling the bill to become law. The Justice Department
decided in July, "without prejudice" not to approve the law, at least until detailed census figures are
available.
ARIZONA- A bill requiring use of Congressional enumeration numbers was signed by Governor Hull
in April,1999 and was submitted to the U.S. Justice Department for preclearance in early June. The
bill was withdrawn by the Governor in February, 2000. In it's reply letter to Arizona dropping the
preclearance review (but not approving the bill), the U.S. Department of Justice noted in strong
language that all redistricting plans submitted for preclearance will be subject to review based on
official corrected census data.
COLORADO- Senate Bill 206 requiring use of uncorrected data was signed by Governor Owens.
GEORGIA- Neither Democratic-controlled chamber considered GOP-sponsored resolutions opposing
sampling.
INDIANA- A resolution opposing sampling passed in the Indiana Senate (GOP). No action expected
by the House (Democratic).
KANSAS- The Governor signed Senate Bill 351 requiring use of actual enumeration data to the
Governor. SCR 1614 asking Congress to require Census Bureau to distribute only actual enumeration
was not acted on before adjournment.
MICHIGAN-The Senate passed several bills (SBs-810 to 814) requiring use of uncorrected census
data on October 29. The House-passed bills permitting use of either corrected or uncorrected data
(HBs 5018 to 5022) and differences need to go to legislative conference in 2000. Justice Department
or court preclearance would be required.
MARYLAND- resolutions introduced in the Assembly and Senate (both Democratic) were not
considered.
MINNESOTA- Senate (Democratic) and House (Republican) Resolution No. 1020 opposing
sampling were referred to committees and not heard. The Senate redistricting system will enable
analysis of corrected and uncorrected census data.
NEVADA- A resolution urging Congress to prohibit sampling (SJR 15) passed in the Senate (GOP).
A companion Assembly (Democratic) resolution was considered by committee but died before the
1999 session ended.
NEW JERSEY- AB1682 was approved by the Assembly (GOP)and is pending before the State
Senate. It would require use of actual enumeration data for Congressional and legislative redistricting.
Democratic legislators also introduced resolutions supporting scientific improvements (ACR 174 and
SCR 121).
NEW YORK- The Assembly (Democratic) passed a resolution supporting appropriations funding for
sampling in early 1999.
OHIO- A Democratic sponsored resolution supporting scientific methods has also been introduced in
the House (Republican).
OKLAHOMA- HCR1023 and SCR 10, resolutions opposing sampling, have not been acted on by the
legislature (Democratic).
UTAH- The House passed HB 201 on January 21, 2000 prohibiting the use of corrected data for all
redistrictings. The bill was sent to the Senate where it died on March 1 on the last day of the 2000
session.
TENNESSEE- HJR 169, proclaiming Census Year in Tennessee, was signed by the Governor on
May 19, 1999. HJR 174, prohibiting the use of scientific methods, was also introduced in the
Democratic House.
TEXAS-In Texas, House Resolution 922 asking Congress to ensure that modern procedures are
employed was referred to a House committee on May 13th and no further action was taken. Senate
Resolution 950 asking the federal government to ensure that modern scientific procedures be employed
and that accurate population figures be provided to the states as the official federal decennial census
was referred to a senate committee on May 14 and no further action was taken. The legislative session
was over on May 31st.
VIRGINIA- In 2000, House Bill 1486 was signed into law by the Governor and would require use of
uncorrected census data for all redistricting. After the law was submitted to the U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C. in a declaratory judgment proceeding (for preclearance and a ruling on the
constitutionality of census correction), the District Court rejected the suit as premature because the
Census Bureau decision to release corrected data will not be made until February, 2001. Until there are
further proceedings, Virginia cannot implement the law.
|
