Modernizing the U.S. Census (1995) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
C Data Requirements for Reapportionment and Redistricting
C Data Requirements for Reapportionment and Redistricting
Pages 239-258
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 239... ...
The panel sought to determine how open to interpretation the requirements might be, so that, in turn, it could consider the fullest possible range of census designs in the spirit of a "zero-based" assessment of the most cost-effective ways to conduct With the exception of the information on the August 1994 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the 1990 census adjustment issue, this appendix appeared in the panel's 1993 interim report, Planning the Decennial Census: Interim Report.
|
From page 240... ...
Code (which pertains to the Census Bureau) address the topic of sampling in the decennial census.
|
From page 241... ...
. Although a sample census and some rolling census designs appear precluded on constitutional grounds, the use of sampling as part of the census process appears compatible with the spirit of the constitutional, legislative, and judicial history regarding enumeration, so long as the process includes an effort to reach all inhabitants.
|
From page 242... ...
The appellate court, however, disagreed with the basis on which the lower court upheld the secretary's decision against adjustment, namely, the arbitrary and capricious standard of review in the Administrative Procedures Act. The appellate court argued that a higher standard of review should prevail, stating that the decision not to adjust the 1990 census must be shown to be necessary to a legitimate governmental interest, or it cannot be upheld, and remanding the case back to the lower court "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." The court's reasoning was as follows: the states and the federal government are required by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Admendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to strive to ensure that the vote of every citizen counts equally; there was a demonstrated differential undercount in the 1990 census that disadvantaged identifiable minority groups in this regard; and the means by which to improve the count by statistical adjustment were available.
|
From page 243... ...
In other words, this program added individuals to the census based solely on administrative records, as might be done for a census entirely based on administrative records. Both programs had serious problems of implementation that indicate needed areas for further research and development to improve the data quality and costeffectiveness of coverage improvement efforts that make use of administrative records.
|
From page 244... ...
Carr (1962) , which involved Tennessee state legislative districts, the court held that reapportionment and redistricting matters were subject to judicial review under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
|
From page 245... ...
Census Data for Redistricting After the 1970 census, the states could obtain population counts for geographic areas as small as city blocks, which were defined in urbanized areas and in other localities that contracted with the Census Bureau, and for enumeration districts in unblocked areas. However, no special data files or reports were provided specifically to meet redistricting needs.
|
From page 246... ...
of Title 13~. States can specify the geographic areas for which they require tabulations, provided that their requirements satisfy Census Bureau criteria and are transmitted to the Bureau no later than 3 years prior to the census date; if no special areas are identified, the Census Bureau is to provide "basic tabulations of population." In practice, basic tabulations have come to mean tabulations for individual blocks, the smallest area of geography identified in census data products.
|
From page 247... ...
, the court found that there was a public interest in having available data tapes containing adjusted 1990 census counts down to the block level for the entire United States. The court ruled that the plaintiffs, who had acquired these tapes from the Census Bureau as part of the court-ordered process for deciding whether to adjust the census, could make the tapes publicly available.~3 Over time, virtually all states have come to rely on census population counts for legislative redistricting.
|
From page 248... ...
The driving force behind this focus on block data appears to come from the stipulations of the courts that there be virtually no deviation among congressional districts in population size and very little deviation among state legislative districts. In fact, not all states actually use block data in the redistricting process; many use data for election precincts or voting districts for which they have specified the boundaries to the Census Bureau (under the provisions of P.L.
|
From page 249... ...
Census designs that make use of administrative records might also meet the practical requirement for population totals at the block level for redistricting purposes, if a number of problems can be overcome. One problem for the purpose of redistricting-which is likely to be much more severe than the corresponding problem for congressional reapportionment-concerns the accuracy of
|
From page 250... ...
But interpretations of the act by the courts and the Justice Department have virtually mandated the need for census data in redistricting. The original intention of the Voting Rights Act was to make it possible for blacks in the South to obtain the opportunity to participate in elections, an opportunity that was often denied them by unreasonable literacy tests and other barriers to registration and voting.
|
From page 251... ...
was greater than the illiteracy rate in English of the entire nation. The 1982 act amendments asked the Census Bureau to investigate the usefulness of 1980 census long-form questions on mother tongue and English-speaking ability for determining coverage under bilingual assistance provisions.
|
From page 252... ...
These dates were enacted to ensure that there would be time for Justice Department or court review of redistricting plans based on the 1980 census in those jurisdictions (Laney, 1992:18, 241. Role of the Census As noted above, the data files provided to the states by the Census Bureau (under P.L.
|
From page 253... ...
As noted above, not all states are covered by the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, although, potentially, redistricting plans in any state can be challenged under section 2. Overall, it seems clear that, for many states, the data are an important input to the redistricting process.
|
From page 254... ...
10 One commentator (Baker, 1986:275-276) claims that a majority of the Supreme Court no longer truly supports the ideal of strict mathematical equality for congressional districts but has felt constrained by precedent.
|
From page 255... ...
Bandemer (1986) , the Supreme Court held that partisan political gerrymandering was subject to judicial review, but it set a high standard for successfully bringing such a case, stating that plaintiffs must do more than show that a redistricting plan makes winning elections more difficult (Durbin and Whitaker, 1991: 13-14~.
|
From page 256... ...
:69-78. Bureau of the Census 1976 Language Minority, Illiteracy, and Voting Data Used in Making Determinations for the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975 (Public Law 94-73)
|
From page 257... ...
Davidson, C 1992 The Voting Rights Act: A brief history.
|
From page 258... ...
909 The Voting Rights Act of 1965, As Amended: Its History and Current Issues. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 92-578-GOV.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.