Should Census Be Counted by Sampling?

Despite the threat of a presidential veto, the House of Representatives has blocked an effort to allow the Census Bureau to use statistical estimations, or sampling, as part of its population count in 2000, a move that could cost California up to $1 billion in federal funding.

Sampling, designed to include hard-to-count residents, is backed by most Democrats, who could gain Congressional seats because the majority of people undercounted--about 1 million Californians in the last census--tend to vote Democratic.

Most Republicans back a physical head count because they claim that the Constitution specifies an actual enumeration and that method tends to favor affluent, married suburbanites, the traditional GOP voter base.

Should the Census Bureau include sampling methods for the population count in 2000?

Rodolfo F. Acun~a, Cal State Northridge Chicano studies professor:

“I think the purpose of the census is to get as accurate a count as possible. From all indications, sampling is the most reliable method. . . . The lack of accuracy in the last census count has fueled the anti-immigrant feeling here in California because we didn’t get what we were entitled to. Consequently, we would like to be sure that as taxpayers, we get what we’re entitled to. It behooves us to get the most accurate count possible, so the most intelligent policy can evolve from it.”

Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita):

“I am opposed to the Census Bureau using sampling as a method of conducting the 2000 census count. The Constitution, under Article I, Section 2, requires an actual enumeration and not a sampling of the population. We need an actual count of individuals in this nation, not a ‘guesstimate.’ When we have elections, we don’t go by Gallup [Poll] for the results. People come in and vote, and the census should not be any different.”

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Mission Hills):

“We know that in the 1990 census, 834,000 residents of California were overlooked. If the Census Bureau repeats that performance in the year 2000, we’ll end up with a far greater undercount, since California’s growing and mobile population is notoriously difficult to count. The consequences of this are terrible for California. Many federal programs, including highway planning and construction, the school lunch program . . . Head Start and social services block grants are allocated on the basis of census figures. Without the use of sampling, which will result in a far more accurate count, California will again be denied its fair share of federal assistance. In these times of budget constraints, we can’t really afford to lose those funds.”

Michael J. Schroeder, chairman of the California Republican Party:

“Our Constitution states that the federal government should engage in an actual count of everyone who is in this country, once every 10 years. Many important decisions, such as how many congressional seats each state receives, are made based upon this actual count. As soon as we move away from an actual count and instead put this into the hands of politicians to make ‘estimates,’ the integrity of the census will be fatally undermined because it will rapidly become hopelessly politicized.”