COM 0042.000 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

mailings of a census questionnaire. In each census tract, the fewer households that responded initially, the larger would be the size of the sample enumerators would contact directly as part of their follow -up. The addresses that would be included in the sample would be scientifically chosen at random to insure they were statistically representative of all nonresponding housing units in that census tract. Congress attempted to stop the use of sampling by enacting Pub. L. No. 105 -119, § 209 (j), 111 Stat. 2480 (1997), which required that all data releases for the 2000 census show "the number of persons enumerated without using statistical methods." It also authorized lawsuits to determine whether the Bureau's plan to use sampling for apportioning seats in Congress was constitutional. In Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that the Census Act prohibits the use of sampling for purposes of apportioning representatives in Congress among the states. It did not rule on the constitutionality of using sampling to determine the distribution of population within each state for purposes of redistricting its apportionment of congressional seats or the seats in its state legislature. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Census Bureau announced its plan to use statistical sampling methods to conduct a postenumeration survey called the "Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation." As of May 1, 2000, the Bureau was planning to publish the census counts derived from sampling along with the head counts mandated by Pub. L. No. 105 -119. In other words, each state would receive two sets of census counts for each area within the state and would have to make its own decision which count to use for each area. 3. Exclusion of Undocumented Aliens Pennsylvania and other states have sought without success to require the Census Bureau to exclude undocumented aliens from the population counts used to apportion the members of Congress among the states. See Ridge v. Verity, 715 F. Supp. 1308 (W.D. Pa. 1989); Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564 (D.D.C. 1980, appeal dismissed, 447 U.S. 916 (1980). 4. Inclusion of Overseas Military Personnel In 1990, the Department of Defense conducted a survey of its overseas military and civilian employees and their dependents to determine their "address of record." These overseas military personnel were allocated to the states according to their address of record for purposes of apportioning the House of Representatives, but were not included in the April 1, 1991, block counts given to the states for use in redistricting. Allocating overseas military personnel to the states caused one congressional seat to be shifted from Massachusetts to Washington State. Massachusetts sued the Secretary of Commerce, but the Supreme Court upheld the allocation. Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992). B. Measuring Population Equality How does a court measure the degree of population equality in a redistricting plan? Let me give you an example. Let's say we have a state with a population of one million, and that it is entitled to elect ten representatives in Congress. (That is not a realistic number, but it is easier to work with.) The "ideal" district population would be 100,000. Let's say the legislature draws a