|
Supreme Court Case Over Census 2000
 |
On January 25, 1999, in U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, the Supreme
Court ruled by a narrow 5 to 4 majority that the use of sampling in the census was prohibited by
law (13 U.S.C. 195) for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives among
the states. Since the Court decided the case on statutory grounds, it found no need to decide
whether the Constitution also barred the use of modern statistical methods for purposes of
Congressional apportionment. The Court went on to affirm that the law requires the Secretary of
Commerce to use modern statistical methods, where feasible, for all other purposes. Writing for
the majority, Justice O'Connor stated that the 1976 amendments to Title 13 U.S. C. (The Census
Act) changed the provision in law from one that "permitted the use of sampling for purposes
other than apportionment into one that required that sampling be used for such purposes if
'feasible.'" Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined Justice O'Connor.
- In dissenting opinions, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg expressed their
belief that sampling should be allowed for both apportionment and non-apportionment
purposes. Thus, all nine Justices support the use of statistical methods for non-apportionment purposes.
- The Census Bureau will use statistical methods for purposes of allocating federal funds
and providing data to states for redistricting. It is only in the narrow area of
apportionment that these accuracy-enhancing and cost-saving scientific methods will not
be available.
- There is no reason to believe that the Court's decision in U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S.
House of Representatives precludes the use of sampling for any purpose other than
apportionment of seats among the States. Apportionment and redistricting are two
entirely different functions. Apportionment, under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the
United States Constitution, is the allocation of seats to the individual States under a
statutory method known as the method of equal proportions, with no State to receive less
than one member. Redistricting, on the other hand, is the political act of drawing the
boundaries of districts within the State. Both the Constitution and the Census Act -- the
relevant legal authorities -- are expressly limited to "apportionment" of representatives
"among" the States.
- As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, the Administration is now required, if
feasible, to release two sets of population figures in 2001: one set of unadjusted numbers
to be used for apportioning congressional seats to the States, and a second set of
corrected numbers that may be used for all other purposes. On June 14, 2000, the
Commerce Secretary accepted the Census Bureau Director's determination that producing
a set of corrected numbers was both operationally and technically feasible.
- The Census Bureau unveiled a revised Census 2000 plan in February 1999, to comply with
the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. The Bureau will make an extraordinary
effort to count all households by mail, telephone, or follow-up visits, without the use of
modern scientific methods. The results will be used as the basis for congressional
apportionment. This will add $1.7 billion to the cost of the census. The greatest expense
will be to hire census takers to handle the 50% increase in the number of households that
must be visited because they did not return the census form by mail. In addition, other
procedures will be added to the census in an attempt to improve coverage for the
apportionment counts.
- It is likely that even with all of these efforts, the 2000 Census numbers for apportionment
will be less accurate than 1990. That is why the Census Bureau plans to conduct a quality
control survey following the enumeration. This is known as the Accuracy and Coverage
Evaluation (ACE) and is an in-depth survey of 300,000 households. The results of this
survey are then compared to the original census results, so the Bureau can account for
people missed and eliminate double-counting. The corrected numbers, which the Bureau
believes will be far more accurate, would be used for non-apportionment purposes, such
as drawing boundaries for congressional districts and allocating $185 billion annually in
Federal aid.
- Rep. Maloney has introduced H.R. 548, a bill to amend the Census Act to ensure that the
Census Bureau can use statistical methods to determine the population for purposes of
apportionment. It makes no sense to use inaccurate numbers for apportionment and more
accurate numbers for everything else.
|
|
|
