Source: http://congressionalresearch.com/97-871/document.php?study=SAMPLING+FOR+CENSUS+2000+A+LEGAL+OVERVIEW
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:36:00+00:00

Document:
heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in consolidated oral arguments on Nov. 30, 1998.
non-sampling scenario preparations in the wake of the district court decisions.
enactments fund census activities only through June 15, 1999.
groups, sued for adjustment of the census or for the release of adjusted figures.
Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives and Clinton v. Glavin.
and monitor all aspects of the preparation and implementation of the 2000 census.
concerning the use of sampling in the decennial census.
respectively, that the Census Act prohibits sampling in the apportionment census.
census, such as the use of administrative records.
1990 census without directly addressing the constitutionality or legality of sampling.
further, restrict, or prohibit the use of sampling for the apportionment census.
27 (U.S. Sept. 10, 1998) (No. 98-404).
290. (U.S. Oct. 2, 1998) (No. 98-564).
implementation of the 2000 decennial census.
proportionate share of direct taxes for a state.
the regular taking of a census.
been the basis of the first apportionment.
is drawn from the following sources: H. Alterman, Counting People 177-192 (1969); M.
Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 148-9, 255-299 (1976); P.
(1987) (this includes excerpts of the debates and reprints of Madison, The Federalist, No.
54, 12 Feb. 1788, and No. 58, 20 Feb. 1788 and Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 1: App.
Growth of the United States Census 12-13 (1900).
L. Rev. 117, 118 (1991).
the boroughs because there was no provision for enumeration and reapportionment.
subsequent apportionment could be held.
population and extrapolation of the remaining 10 percent through statistical formulas.
Lerner, supra note 4, at 140.
issued July 1997, revised and reissued August 1997).
1806; 3d American ed. 1810) ("enumerate" means "to reckon up singly," "enumeration"
court], 19 F. Supp. 2d 543, 553 (E.D. Va. 1998).
(1976); H.Rept.90-1719, 90 Cong., 2d Sess. 13 (1976).
itself appear to prohibit any sampling for apportionment purposes.
sampling permissible for adjustment of but not as a substitute for the headcount.
Commerce, 11 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 1998) (Civ. A. No. 98-0456).
by a headcount alone, the adjustment would be permitted and arguably required.
116 S.Ct. 1091 (1996) (No. 94-1614).
sanctioned."” The opinion in this case cited Carey v. Klutznick and Young v.
F. Supp. 601, 608 (D.Neb. 1967).
503 F. Supp. 663, 677 (E.D. Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 1980).
representative and congressional districts must not cross state boundaries.
the census, but not to replace the traditional enumeration.
Although the courts in City of New York v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Carey v.
opinion appears to support the use of statistical methods to adjust the headcount.
statistical methods, including sampling, in order to arrive at a more accurate figure.
apportionment would be based on numbers more reliable than population estimates.
arbitrary and capricious manner in deciding not to adjust the 1990 census figures.
Commerce, 958 F.2d 1411 (7 Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 953, 113 S.Ct. 407 (1992).
easily measurable with the same mathematical precision as in intrastate redistricting.
Government was not required to adjust the census by any constitutional standard.
undercounting caused by the failure of some persons to respond to the census survey.
could then be used to calculate adjusted figures.
plaintiff’s arguments in Young v. Klutznick. However, the court in City of Philadelphia v.
undercount in the results reported to the President for apportionment.
1096; Young v. Klutznick, 652 F.2d 617, 621 (1981).
at 6; M. Anderson, supra note 4, at 230.
v. DOC IV]; NYC v. DOC III, 822 F. Supp. at 913-914.
spate of lawsuits, the most notable of which were discussed above.
undercount rate and the results will be incorporated to obtain a one-number census.
before considered for the decennial census for apportionment.
Plan for Census 2000 23 (originally issued July 1997, revised and reissued August 1997).
by that time if the 2000 decennial census is to be conducted on schedule.
Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives case was issued on August 24, 1998.
to such sampling in the apportionment count.
to mean a one-by-one headcount.
unambiguous basis for the population count for apportionment.
F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 1998) ( Civ. A. No. 98-0456).
U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 11 F. Supp. 76 (D.D.C.
Aug. 24, 1998) (Civ. A. No. 98-0456).
constitutional Article III requirements of an actual case or controversy.
established that it will suffer a legally cognizable injury.
in their arguments against the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S.
Department of Commerce, 11 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 1998) (Civ. A. No. 98-0456).
v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 11 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 1998) (Civ. A. No.
and that an apportionment is conducted in accordance with that enumeration..
statutory creation of the civil action, the court believed it should retain jurisdiction.
sampling techniques considered under earlier censuses.
Court when it noted probable jurisdiction on September 10, 1998.
Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, inter alia, Glavin v. Clinton, 19 F.
Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Va. 1998) (Civil Action File No. 98-207-A).
Glavin v. Clinton, 19 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Va. 1998) (Civil Action File No. 98-207-A).
legislative action to prevent the use of sampling, the case was not ripe for review.
19 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Va. 1998) (Civil Action File No. 98-207-A).
47, Glavin v. Clinton, 19 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Va. 1998) (Civil Action File No. 98-207-A).
in the 2000 decennial census are legally permissible.
A16 (September 11, 1998 Late Edition).
concern of House Republican leaders.
temporary census employees for the decennial census.
apportionment of the House of Representatives.
(Sept. 7, 1998 Final Edition).
census for apportionment of the congressional Representatives among the States.
factor to the presidential veto.
Representatives among the States. This was adopted May 7, 1997.
purpose of apportionment of the House of Representatives among the States.
accurate census. Accordingly, Representative Mollohan submitted Amendment No.
Plan for Census 2000, originally issued July 1997, revised and reissued August 1997.
authorized by the Constitution and federal statutes.
Congress. The decision of the district court panel is directly appealable to the U.S.
legality of the use of a statistical method in the decennial census for apportionment.
census. This Board is currently constituted and carrying out its functions.
Consolidated Emergency and Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999.
105 Cong., 2d Sess. (1998).
even if the Bureau of the Census does not do so.
Congress, by Jennifer D. Williams.
CRS Report 97-137, Census 2000: The Sampling Debate, by Jennifer D. Williams.
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, coordinated by Edward Knight.
demonstrably more accurate basis for redistricting.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.