The Constitution makes it sound so simple. Every 10 years, the “actual enumeration” of the nation’s population will take place to determine how many representatives each state has in Congress.
But that matter-of-fact directive has produced an impassioned debate about how to go about the task of counting America’s citizens. The government has long struggled to get an accurate head count, and the stakes could hardly be higher: billions of dollars in funding for cities and states, as well as sheer political power, both of which hinge on where citizens are found to reside.
On Monday, the Supreme Court will wade into the fray when it hears arguments on a proposed new way to count citizens in 2000. In an attempt to improve on the 1990 census, which missed an estimated 8.4 million people and was considered by many an expensive failure, the U.S. Bureau of the Census wants to use a method known as statistical sampling to estimate part of the population.
The bureau’s plan to use sampling, supported by various scientific groups, is being challenged by House Republicans. They say the method is subject to political manipulation and is contrary to the Census Act and the Constitution, which, they maintain, require an actual head count.
The dispute might sound mundane, but its impact could be dramatic. Census data come into play on a multitude of matters at the national and local levels, including education, employment, rural development, the environment, transportation and housing.
“It will have an important effect in terms of distribution of population between suburban and urban areas, which will have a profound impact on funding, redistricting and how many members of Congress each state has,” said Michael Carvin, a lawyer who will argue the case before the high court for a group challenging the proposed new method.
Officials use population data to make decisions on implementing programs, as well as how to distribute billions of dollars in services. The figures also are used to monitor and enforce compliance with civil rights statutes, such as whether banks are meeting credit needs of minorities in low- and moderate-income areas.
In the 1990 census, minorities and the rural and urban poor were missed at a higher rate than other groups because of language barriers, mistrust of government, lack of education and other factors, some experts say. Because of the disproportionate impact, some maintain that getting an accurate census is one of the most significant civil rights issues facing the country.
Brian Currey, a lawyer representing several large cities, including Chicago, in support of sampling, said the issue is important because cities and states must make up the shortfall to provide for those who are not counted.
“It isn’t just a problem of the people being undercounted,” Currey said. “The problem affects everyone in those jurisdictions.”
At issue is whether the bureau can use statistical sampling to get a more accurate and less expensive count. To improve on the 1990 census, which cost about $2.6 billion, Congress directed the National Academy of Sciences to study how the government could get the most accurate count possible.
The academy concluded that the use of traditional census methods to physically count each person “has been pushed well beyond the point at which it adds to the overall accuracy of the census.” The academy said the scientific method of statistical estimation, combined with mailings and follow-up interviews, could produce a better, cheaper census.
The bureau then came up with a plan to use sampling. It would use traditional techniques for counting some 90 percent of the households in local areas and use sampling for the remaining non-responding households.
Specifically, the bureau plans to mail questionnaires to all known households in the United States, just as it has done in the past. In 1990, about 65 percent of the households mailed back their questionnaires. The bureau expects a similar response in 2000.
In 1990, it tried to send census takers to all non-responding households. In 2000, however, the bureau won’t try to go to all non-responding households. Instead, it plans to select at random the number of households that need to be counted to get information directly from 90 percent of the households in a census tract. The bureau will assume the remaining 10 percent in the census tract will mirror the racial and ethnic composition of the people identified in the non-response follow-up.
More Top Picks Best Power Recliners For Elderly With Arthritis
Sampling will come in again in a second phase, when the bureau would take random population samples of 750,000 households in every state to check for quality. That would allow the bureau to measure the extent of any undercount and overcount. The bureau would use that information to adjust the initial tally.
Proponents of sampling say it’s not as revolutionary as opponents maintain and say the census has never been exclusively a direct head count.
“If the House were to win this suit and the Supreme Court were to rule the only census permissible was one in which people were counted singly, the Census Bureau would be hobbled in its ability to conduct a census even as accurate as five most recent modern censuses,” said Peter Rubin, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who is representing a group of public employees and civil rights organizations.
But the sampling plan ran into roadblocks in Congress, where Republicans maintain the techniques are untried and novel. They argue that sampling would be too easy to manipulate by the political party in power. Those undercounted come from traditional Democratic constituencies, so sampling could benefit Democrats at redistricting time.
Others note that even without manipulating the numbers for political reasons, different assumptions could produce vastly different results. For example, after the 1990 census, the secretary of commerce decided not to use sampling to readjust the actual count, pointing out that there were five possible ways to adjust it that would have produced widely different results. Eleven different states would have lost or gained a seat depending on the method.
Armed with those arguments, the House and Senate refused to grant money for sampling in the 2000 census, but President Clinton wouldn’t sign the bill. A compromise provided for expedited judicial review of whether sampling would violate the Constitution and required the bureau to prepare for a census that wouldn’t use sampling.
In February, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative non-profit group, and Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) sued to challenge the statistical methods. The same month, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) also sued on behalf of the House to block sampling.
Shortly afterward, some groups joined the suit, including big cities and civil rights organizations, which support sampling because they believe it would produce a more accurate count of their constituents.
“If the Census Bureau is forbidden to use statistical methods to correct errors in its collected data, the predictable result will be unwarranted inequalities among Americans in political power and the distribution of federal resources,” Rubin maintained in his brief.
At issue is whether federal law and the Constitution prohibit sampling for apportioning House seats. There is no dispute that sampling could be used for other matters, such as redistricting and distributing federal funds.
As for whether sampling can be used for reapportionment, the Census Act says two different things. It first authorizes the Commerce Department, which is headed by Secretary William Daley and oversees the Census Bureau, to take a census “in such form and content” as the secretary determines, “including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys.”
A subsequent section, entitled “Use of Sampling,” imposes limits, the courts found. That section provides that “except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment,” sampling is permissible.
To the lower courts, the issue was clear: Congress spoke precisely about the method, and it prohibited sampling for congressional apportionment. The lower courts found it unnecessary to consider the broader constitutional issue.