Census unadjusted numbers more accurate - Oregon decision in question

October 10, 2002

ATLANTA: The Southeastern Legal Foundation, the Atlanta-based constitutional public interest law firm which won a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision banning the use of statistically sampled Census 2000 figures for apportionment (Glavin, et al v. Clinton, et al), today pointed out that a three-judge appellate panel in the Ninth Circuit two weeks ago affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to the U.S. Commerce Secretary's power to release the statistically adjusted Census numbers (City of Los Angeles, et al v. U.S. Department of Commerce). The court in that case held that "Congress intended the Secretary to make such judgment calls."

HOWEVER, yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ordere that the statistically adjusted numbers be released to every state, county, and local government in the U.S., a breathtaking decision that runs counter to the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision and its own circuit two weeks earlier. A panel of senior statisticians released a report to the Commerce Secretary disclosing "some disturbing inconsistencies and possible errors in the methodology" that weighed against release of the statistical numbers.

"Here's another example of the wheels coming off in the Ninth Circuit on a critical issue," said Phil Kent, SLF President. "Once again, the same court that gave us the obnoxious Pledge of Allegiance ruling earlier this year is playing fast and loose with clear constitutional mandates and case law precedent in order to make new law, rather than interpret existing law."

"Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, a tireless advocate for the phony statistical scheme, is arguing 1990 all over again," Kent added. In 1990, the so-called "undercount" resulting from the actual enumeration head count was higher than the statistical count error rate. However, in 2000, the statistical sample undercount was much higher, and earned a higher error rate, than the new and improved actual head count. The U.S. Bureau of the Census spent nearly $1 billion to improve the mailing lists, computer integration, and to assign multi-lingual enumerators to various areas of the nation.

"We have consistently supported the ongoing use of sampled numbers for all non-constitutional purposes," said Kent. "What the law does not allow, however, is the use of sampled Census numbers for determining apportionment."

"If both sets of numbers are sent to the states, any state that chooses to use sampled census numbers to draw their legislative districts will face a constitutional court challenge based on the 'one person, one vote' mandate," said Kent. "For any state that has mandated the use of actual numbers, or any state that chooses the actual numbers, to draw their districts, we stand ready to assist any state Attorney General who will be forced to defend their state's action in court."

For More Information Contact:
Media Relations
media@southeasternlegal.org
(404) 365-8500