|Census Bureau urges against
adjusting 2000 count (03/01/01)
WASHINGTON (AP) - "The Census Bureau urged Commerce Secretary Don Evans on Thursday
to approve the use of raw population numbers from the 2000 count for congressional
redistricting, despite estimates that 3.4 million Americans, primarily
minorities, were overlooked.
"Evans will now weigh the recommendation from William Barron, the bureau's acting
director, and advice from outside experts and will make the final decision by Tuesday
whether to have the numbers statistically adjusted.
"[Commerce Secretary Evan's] choice could have broad political implications: If
approved, adjusted data could be used as the basis for redrawing not only congressional
districts but state and legislative district boundaries as well over the next year."
In a memo to Commerce Secretary Evans, acting Census Bureau director William Barron said
he agreed with a Census Bureau committee's recommendation urging the use of raw numbers
(actual enumeration, or head count, as stipulated by the Constitution).
The Associated Press quoted Mr. Barron as saying "The committee reached this
recommendation because it is unable, based on data and other information currently
available, to conclude that the [statistically sampled] adjusted data are more accurate
for use in redistricting.''
Democrats and pro-minority racial lobby groups, such as the NAACP, argue that including
the statistically sampled minority numbers in the census would more accurately represent
racial minorities who had voluntarily chosen to not answer the census.
Conversely, others who believe the Census should be an actual enumeration, as
provided in the Constitution, argued that inclusion of a "statistical sample" in
the Census would add errors into the count. Critics of sampling also noted that the
2000 Census was much more accurate and inclusive than the 1990 Census, and that
statistical sampling methods were not necessary.
The Census Bureau has reported to Commerce Secretary Evans that "a survey following
the census estimated a net undercount in 2000 of 1.2 percent of Americans, or about 3.4
million people. That was down from 1.6 percent of the 1990 population, or about 4 million
people, in the previous head count." AP also reports: "The survey,
which used sampling methods, also generally found that smaller percentages of minorities
and children were missed [during the 2000 Census] than in 1990."
Republicans claimed victory in the battle for an actual enumeration for the 2000 Census
vs. statistical sampling. AP quoted U.S. Representative Dan Miller (R-Fla) as
saying "This recommendation by the Census Bureau experts should settle the matter
once and for all.''
"In Congress, lawmakers from both parties have said an adjustment could add more
Democratic-leaning minorities to redrawn districts and threaten the GOP's narrow House
"A letter signed by 48 Democratic senators and circulated by Sen. John Kerry,
D-Mass., urged [Commerce Secretary Don Evans] to delay his ruling until he can appear
before the Senate Commerce Committee. Evans maintained Thursday that his
"objective is an open and fair process that will generate a decision that all
Americans can respect.''
(Excerpted from the Associated
Press report by Genaro C. Armas, via FoxNews 03/01/01)
[Last known link http://www.foxnews.com/national/0301/d_ap_0301_568.sml
Opposes Adjusting Census (03/02/01)
Today the Washington Post reported that Census Bureau officials yesterday urged against
adjusting the 2000 Census to compensate for minorities who voluntarily refused to be
counted in the 2000 Census. This pronouncement crushes the hopes of Democrats and
the racial lobby that fictitious undercounted minorities who tend to vote exclusively for
Democrats could be used to artificially inflate minority counts for the purpose of
racially gerrymandering new political boundaries.
The Washington Post seemed to express surprise over this announcement since the former
Clinton administration had made it clear that statistical sampling of minorities would be
used to guarantee "majority minority" voting districts (racially gerrymandered
voting districts). Ex-President Clinton's Census Bureau had promised that
"statistical adjustment" of the Census head count would guarantee that
Democratic-voting racial and ethnic groups would be over-represented in the 2000 Census.
After the actual 2000 Census head count, a biased survey constructed and worded by the
Democratic, pro-quota lobby concluded that the census had missed 3 million people,
including a "disproportionate" number of minorities. But more objective
census officials in the new Bush administration said yesterday they had questions about
the validity of that survey and until those questions are answered, which could be months,
they could not recommend statistical sampling and inclusion of "statistically
sampled" minorities in the Census 2000 count.
According to the Washington Post: "The recommendation from census officials
now goes to Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans, who has signaled his opposition to
[statistical] adjustment. Evans said yesterday that he would announce a decision
early next week. Redistricting numbers are due, by law, to states by the end of
March, which is why the matter must be decided now."
The Washington Post quotes U.S. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) as saying
"The bad news is that millions of Americans had the clock run out on
them." Under the former Clinton administration, Ms. Maloney had been the
ranking Democrat on the House census subcommittee. During the Clinton administration
Ms. Maloney had been an ardent supporter of racial preferences, quotas, targets and goals.
According to the Post, pro-racial-quota Democrats urged the Census Bureau to release the
statistically adjusted numbers anyway, so states could consider using the racially biased
numbers for racially gerrymandering voting districts even if they were not the figures
deemed more accurate by the Bureau.
The Post quoted U.S. Representative Dan Miller (R-Fla) as saying "Congratulations to
the professionals at the Census Bureau for having the courage not to bend to the
tremendous political pressure to wrongly adjust the census."
(Excerpted from the Washington
Post story by D'Vera Cohn, appearing 03/02/01 on page A01 of the Post)
[Last known link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11374-2001Mar1?language=printer
'Adjusting' won't be
done on census (03/02/01)
"Census Bureau officials yesterday advised the secretary of
commerce [Don Evans] not to release [statistically] adjusted census results for use in
redrawing the nation's legislative districts.
"The decision is widely seen as demolishing the
Democrats' attempts to assure that census figures would be adjusted to compensate"
for racial groups who, for their own reasons, have voluntarily have chosen not to be
counted by the census.
According to the Washington Times, the decision by the Census
Bureau to disallow the theoretical "statistical undercount" of racial groups
"pulled the rug from under the Democrats," according to Chip Walker, who is the
spokesman for the House subcommittee that oversees census operations.
The Washington Times also reports that Wade Henderson, head of the pro-racial-quota
Conference on Civil Rights, said: "The civil rights community is deeply
disappointed by [the] announcement." Mr. Henderson proceeded to cite the
dubious and unsupported assertion that the Census Bureau missed some 3.4 million persons,
most of them members of minority groups.
The Washington Times report continues: "Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, the New York
Democrat who has led the fight for [statistical] adjustment, said she too was
"disappointed" by the announcement. She stated that the bureau had needed
more time to correct the census errors. "We should give it to them," she said.
Then she added, "Millions of Americans had the clock run out on them."
The Times reports: "[It is] assumed that adjusting the
final census tallies ultimately would favor the Democratic Party and disadvantage
Republicans. It is widely believed that the adjustment would increase the count of
minority group members, renters, and city dwellers who typically tend to be undercounted
and who also tend to vote Democratic."
Conservatives and Republicans strongly oppose the use of
statistical sampling due to the inherent inaccuracy of such methods.
"The Supreme Court ruled it is illegal to apply
[statistical sampling techniques] when arriving at the population totals used for
allocating seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans contend it is
also illegal to use sampling-based population figures when remapping state and local
(Excerpted from the Washington
Times story by August Gribbin 03/02/01)
[Last known link: http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200132223257.htm
Opposes Use of Fictitious Sampled Minorities in Census