Court Ruling on Census Sampling

I am writing to clarify several misleading claims in your March 25 editorial, “Fooling With the Census Again.” The first is that the Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 25 allows sampling for redistricting purposes while prohibiting it for apportionment. In truth, the ruling explains that sampling dilutes the voting rights of Americans in intrastate redistricting, thus requiring that sampling not be used for redistricting either. Additionally, the justices have yet to rule on the constitutionality of sampling, as they found it illegal under statutory law alone. It would be foolhardy to release a sample-adjusted number, knowing it may be ruled unconstitutional. The consequences of a census overturned after completion are enormous, and I am surprised by those who are opposed to preventing such a travesty.

The editorial claimed that HR 472, the Local Quality Control Act that reinstitutes post-census local review, would needlessly complicate the sampling-adjusted count. However, the director of the Census Bureau testified before Congress that PCLR and the sampling plan are mutually exclusive and that there is no basis for these claims. This bill is a direct response to the thousands of local officials who are pleading for the right to verify historically inaccurate numbers and who have requested more than the inadequate 15 days allotted for review in 1990.

HR 472 is one of many steps needed to ensure that the bureau produces both an undeniably legal and accurate count.

REP. DAN MILLER

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Census, R-Fla.