The Washington Times falsely suggested that a 1999 Supreme Court case decided that the Constitution barred the government from using statistical sampling to apportion congressional seats. In fact, the Supreme Court concluded that “the Census Act” -- a congressional statute -- “prohibits the proposed uses of statistical sampling in calculating the population for purposes of apportionment. Because we so conclude, we find it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question presented.”
Wash. Times falsely suggested 1999 Supreme Court case decided Constitution bars use of sampling in congressional apportionment
Published
In a February 13 article on Sen. Judd Gregg's (R-NH) withdrawal of his nomination to be secretary of commerce, Washington Times senior White House correspondent Joseph Curl and repoter Kara Rowland falsely suggested that a 1999 Supreme Court case decided that the Constitution barred the government from using statistical sampling to apportion congressional seats. The Times stated that "[m]inority groups, quietly encouraged by Democrats, led a charge in 2000 to challenge the census, urging that statistical sampling and computer models -- not the head-count 'actual enumeration' mandated by the Constitution -- should be employed. That despite a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that sampling could not be used to apportion congressional seats." In fact, in the 1999 case Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, the Supreme Court explicitly did not reach -- much less decide -- whether the Constitution barred the use of sampling in congressional apportionment. The Court's majority opinion states: "[W]e conclude that the Census Act" -- a congressional statute -- “prohibits the proposed uses of statistical sampling in calculating the population for purposes of apportionment. Because we so conclude, we find it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question presented.”
From the Washington Times article, headlined, “Gregg pullout presages census debate”:
The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House would oversee the Census Bureau. The White House on Wednesday said Mr. Obama is committed to a “complete and accurate count through a process that is free from politicization.” But Thursday, Mr. LaBolt added: “As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the census director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the president's desk.”
Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said not so.
“We checked with the Congressional Research Service, and there is no precedent for this, despite what the administration might say,” he asserted.
Minority groups, quietly encouraged by Democrats, led a charge in 2000 to challenge the census, urging that statistical sampling and computer models - not the head-count “actual enumeration” mandated by the Constitution - should be employed. That despite a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that sampling could not be used to apportion congressional seats.
“Adjusting is statistical abstraction or extrapolation that gives a select few the ability to go in after the count is done in the census and adjust the numbers and adjust the numbers in ways they see and deem fit,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican and ranking member on the census subcommittee.
The Republicans on Thursday went so far as to threaten to file a lawsuit if the White House steps too far into how the 2010 census is conducted and counted. House Minority Leader Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio also announced that he is creating a census task force composed of Republican lawmakers from the Judiciary, House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform committees to oversee the process.