FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The CHANCE project is making this
material available as part of our mission to promote critical thinking about statistical issues. We believe that this constitutes a `fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond `fair use', you must
obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
March 21, 1996, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 3; National Desk
LENGTH: 1206 words
HEADLINE: HIGH COURT RULES RESULTS ARE VALID IN CENSUS OF 1990
BYLINE: By LINDA GREENHOUSE
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, March 20
The Supreme Court today upheld the validity of the 1990 census, ruling unanimously
that the Federal Government had no constitutional obligation to adjust the results
to correct an acknowledged undercount in big cities and among minorities.
While the decision, written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, ends a long-running
lawsuit, it almost certainly will not resolve a continuing policy debate over the
best way to count the nation's population. New York City and a coalition of other big cities brought the lawsuit in 1988 to challenge the Bush Administration's
refusal to use statistical sampling methods to adjust the 1990 census figures.
In the Supreme Court, the Clinton Administration supported its predecessor's policy,
telling the Court that the decision whether to make a statistical adjustment
was within the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce. The Court accepted that argument today, with Chief Justice Rehnquist concluding that "the Secretary's decision
not to adjust need bear only a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of
an actual enumeration of the population."
Last month the Census Bureau, a Commerce Department agency, announced that as a
way of saving money on the census for the year 2000 it would directly count only
90 percent of the population and rely on statistical sampling methods to calculate
the remainder. At a hearing earlier this month in the House of Representatives,
some members of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which oversees the
Census Bureau, raised questions about the bureau's plans.
Interest in this issue is hardly abstract. Various methods of counting can influence
the allocation of Congressional seats among the states, legislative power within
states, and the flow of money from Washington for Federal programs that operate
according to population-based formulas. Partisan considerations have never been
far below the surface in this debate, because those who are missed by conventional
census-taking methods are disproportionately poor, urban-dwelling members
of minority groups -- and traditionally Democratic.
Had the Census Bureau used the sampling technique it considered for the 1990 census,
representation in the House would have changed for two states: California
would have gained a seat at the expense of Wisconsin.
New York City would have gained an estimated 230,000 people, not enough for an
additional House seat but enough to have an effect on redistricting for the State
Legislature, which is also based on the census.
James E. Doyle, the Wisconsin Attorney General, hailed today's decision as a "great
victory." But the United States Conference of Mayors said that "mayors across
this nation are very disappointed" by the ruling.
In New York City, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said that if the undercount had been
adjusted, the city would have received as much as $500 million more in Federal
aid. "Certainly we want changes for the next census," he said at a news conference
after the ruling was announced.
At the core of the legal challenge to the 1990 census was the racially disparate
undercount, the existence of which no one disputed. The census missed about 2 percent
of the population as a whole, some four million people. But it missed 4.8 percent of the black population and 5.2 percent of the Hispanic population.
New York and the other plaintiffs, which included Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston,
Philadelphia, Washington and other big cities, as well as the National League of
Cities and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, argued that the refusal to adjust the undercount was an infringement of the fundamental
right to have one's vote counted equally.
Wisconsin and Oklahoma intervened in the lawsuit on the Commerce Department's side,
to defend their own interests against a statistical adjustment.
The plaintiffs lost after a 13-day trial in Federal District Court in Brooklyn
in 1993. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan,
reinstated the lawsuit in 1994. Applying the analysis of the Supreme Court's one-person, one-vote decisions, the appellate court held that because the constitutional
principle of equal protection was at stake, the Government had to defend its policy
by showing that the refusal to adjust was not only reasonable but also essential to some legitimate governmental purpose.
At that point, Wisconsin and Oklahoma appealed to the Supreme Court, followed two
months later, after a heated internal debate, by the Clinton Administration. The
Administration was in an awkward position because Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown
had been a leading critic of the Bush Administration's refusal to adjust the census
when he served in his previous job as the Democratic national chairman
But the Administration decided it needed to defend the Government's prerogatives
in this area. The Federal courts should not "take sides in a statistical dispute
between statisticians and demographers," Solicitor General Drew S. Days 3d told the Court when the case, Wisconsin v. New York, No. 94-1614, was argued
on Jan. 10.
That proved to be a winning argument. The appellate court "failed to recognize
that the Secretary's decision was made pursuant to Congress' direct delegation
of its broad authority over the census," Chief Justice Rehnquist said, noting
that the Constitution gives Congress authority to conduct the census "in such
Manner as they shall by Law direct." Under a Federal law, the Census Act, Congress
has delegated that authority to the Commerce Department.
In declining to adjust the census, Robert A. Mosbacher, who was Secretary of Commerce
under President George Bush, said that the "distributive accuracy" of the census
-- the relative distribution of population among the states -- was more important than strict numerical accuracy to accomplish the constitutional purpose of the
census, apportioning Congressional districts among the states. While a statistical
adjustment could improve the numerical accuracy of the census, he said, there
was no proof that it would improve the distributive accuracy.
This was "a reasonable choice in an area where technical experts disagree," Chief
Justice Rehnquist said.
In his opinion, the Chief Justice noted that no census had achieved perfect accuracy
and that there had been evidence of a racially disparate undercount since at
least 1940. Thomas Jefferson complained that the first census, in 1790, contained
a significant undercount, the Chief Justice said.
The opinion contained one hint that the Federal courts may still have more to say
about the census-taking debate. The Constitution refers to an "actual enumeration,"
and some people who oppose any form of statistical adjustment have argued that this phrase precludes anything except a conventional head count. "We do
not decide whether the Constitution might prohibit Congress from conducting the
type of statistical adjustment considered here," the Chief Justice said in
Mr. Doyle, the Wisconsin Attorney General, told the Justices at the argument that
his state would invoke the "actual enumeration" language to challenge any statistical
adjustment that hurt Wisconsin.