Opinion ID: 1239200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Statistical Sources for Calculation of 1970 Population Base

Text: Article VI, section 3 of the Alaska Constitution requires that the population base for purposes of reapportionment be the civilian population as reported by the United States Census. (Emphasis added.) The first instruction from the Court is that a population base be established by use of the official Census of 1970 and that the base should include military personnel who were enumerated in the 1970 Census. (Emphasis added.) As a preliminary to fashioning an interim reapportionment plan, therefore, it was necessary to examine and evaluate all of the available 1970 Census reports and to review the procedures by which the 1971 Reapportionment Advisory Board (hereinafter the Board) arrived at its population base for the 1971 reapportionment plan. The comments which follow are not intended to be critical of the Board, which was confronted with an immensely difficult task to perform without the guidance of the specific instructions provided to the Masters by the Court. The plan prepared by the Board significantly improved former variances from the population norm. The results are compared in Table 1. The differences in the two sets of statistics (the Census and the Board's counts) are in the number of members of the Armed Forces. A comparison of the list of members of the Armed Forces by areas as reported by the Census and the list used by the Board indicates that although the state totals differ only slightly, the local differences are substantial in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. The use of the Board's statistics on military personnel, therefore, results in a civilian population which varies significantly from the official Census enumeration of civilian population by districts. Table 2 compares the Census and the Board's listings of members of the Armed Forces by Census divisions and places. Differences were due to definition, data collection procedures and the basic nature and purpose of each series. The Census definition of members of the Armed Forces is persons on active duty with the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps or Coast Guard. [3] These were enumerated at their usual place of residence and the totals were reported for the state, the Census divisions, and a number of more specific locations. The definition and enumeration procedures have not changed since the 1950 Census. The Board did not use the official Census count of the Armed Forces, however, having decided that except in time of national emergency, the Coast Guard operates under the auspices of the Department of Transportation. [4] A breakdown of the military population by branch of service is not available from published Census sources or from the summary computer tapes. Obtaining this data would require an expensive and time consuming resort to the original, individual questionnaire forms. Presumably for this reason, the Board secured from the Alaska Command a list of the number and location of uniformed military personnel within the state as of April 1, 1970, to be used in arriving at its civilian population. Uniformed Coast Guard personnel (included in the Census definition of Armed Forces) and all dependents of military personnel, were included in the civilian population base. Other differences arise because of the data collection procedures in each case. The Alaska Command figures were tabulated from the staffing records for all defense bases, installations and stations within Alaska as of April 1, 1970. The Census figures were from tabulations of data collected by questionnaires through a combined method of self-enumeration and interviews by enumerators. Census data on employment status (including both civilian work force and members of the Armed Forces) refer to the calendar week prior to the date on which respondents completed their questionnaires or were interviewed by enumerators. Since the week of enumeration was not the same for all persons, the reference week for employment data is not entirely uniform. For many persons, the reference week for answering the 1970 Census employment status question was the last week in March. [5] Definitions, collection procedures and reference dates account for most of the differences in numbers, but locational differences reflect more basic and important differences in the nature of the two sources. Since 1790 the primary objective of the decennial census enumerations has been to count every inhabitant of the Nation at the place where he lives and sleeps most of the time. The Census notes that this place is not necessarily the same as his legal residence, voting residence, or domicile, and the inclusion of the criteria regarding where he lives and sleeps indicates that residence is not necessarily related to the place of employment. [6] (Place of work is separately identified and used in the Census analysis of commuters' patterns.) The nature of residence is made quite specific for the Armed Forces. Members of the Armed Forces living on military installations were counted as residents of the area in which the installation was located. Members of the Armed Forces not living on military installations were counted as residents of the area in which they were living. Dependents were counted where they were living on census day (e.g., the military installation, `off base,' or elsewhere, as the case might be). [7] (Emphasis added.) The Alaska Command data, on the other hand, allocates the subject population by location of duty assignment. As the Census definitions made clear, this is not necessarily where the individual was living. The differences in the nature of the two sets of statistics are most clearly illustrated by comparisons within the three major military areas of the state. (Table 2) While total differences are perhaps slight, the allocations between on-base and off-base personnel differ drastically. This is simply because one set of data (Census) reports place of residence of members of the Armed Forces, and the other set (Alaska Command) reports the place of work. If voting is to be relative to place of residence, the use of statistical data based on place of work can significantly distort the computed reapportionment population base. The use of Alaska Command data in connection with Census data in arriving at a civilian population base differs from this Court's instruction that military personnel be those who were enumerated in the 1970 Census. Furthermore, a combined use of Alaska Command data and Census data is not sound statistical practice because of the basic differences in the nature of the data and in the primary purposes served by each set of statistics. Although the differences might be considered minor for state totals or even for Census divisions, the difference within particular divisions could result in significant distortion of the reapportionment population base. This is apparent from a comparison of the data for the larger military districts in Table 2. If the Board believed that it was necessary to adjust the Census definition and count of members of the Armed Forces to retain Coast Guard personnel and in the civilian population, the amount of distortion could have been minimized by requesting the staffing data from the Department of Transportation rather than from the Department of Defense. For present purposes, however, it appears more defensible to retain the Census definition and data. Although the Coast Guard personnel are under the Department of Transportation and not the Department of Defense, they automatically come under a unified defense command in times of national emergency. Furthermore, the organization, operations, personnel rotation policies and general relations of Coast Guard personnel to other persons in Alaska communities are comparable to those of the Department of Defense. Finally, the Census definition of Armed Forces is used in other programs (such as the allocation of federal grants to states on a basis of population, etc.) and is used in the Alaska Department of Labor's annual population estimates. Table 3 summarizes the 1970 total (Armed Forces and civilian) population data by the Census divisions. These divisions have been grouped to approximate the House districts given in the 1971 reapportionment report and are used in this study in analyzing the 1971 plan.