Sides Squabble Over Which Census Numbers to Ratify

The 2000 census missed 3.3 million people but was notably more successful than in 1990 at counting members of minority groups most likely to be overlooked, Census Bureau officials said Wednesday.

Despite the improved results, Democrats in Congress said the census still misses too many people and emphasized their support for possible statistical adjustments now being reviewed by the government.

The census was “a serious success,” William G. Barron, acting Census director, told a hearing of a House subcommittee that oversees the census. “We have addressed one of the most important issues, the . . . undercount,” he noted. There were sharp reductions in the error rate for counting African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans, according to his agency’s report.

The news was welcomed by panel Chairman Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla.), who praised the bureau for conducting what he called “the most accurate and inclusive census in our nation’s history.”

Miller and other Republicans will use Wednesday’s report as ammunition for their argument that the original census count was accurate and should not be adjusted to include the 3.3 million people who were “undercounted.”

President Bush and Republicans favor using the basic numbers from the original count that was determined through millions of mailings and door-to-door interviews. Democrats and minority organizations support using a statistical adjustment of that figure that would include the undercount.

The government must decide in March which set of numbers should be used to draw district lines for seats in Congress, state legislatures and city councils. The disbursement of $200 billion a year in money from Washington also is tied to local population numbers determined by the census.

In 1990, the statistically adjusted count added 837,557 people to California, an increase of 2.7%. Los Angeles County gained 305,772 of that increase. The greatest disparity in the 1990 census in Los Angeles County was African Americans, whose representation was 7.6% below the adjusted count.

Advocates of an adjusted count in Southern California said Wednesday that the state stands to take a disproportionate hit if a statistical adjustment is not made.

“Even though we hope the undercount was less this time, California is still going to be on the top of the list [of losers] because of our numbers overall and numbers of minorities,” said Stewart Kwoh, executive director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, which led the state’s outreach to that community. “We’re still going to lose out the biggest.”

Said Los Angeles City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, who represents a largely minority district: “The significant thing is that we hope we can avoid what took place a decade ago when the City of Los Angeles had to file suit against the federal government because of the undercount. We want to avoid that at all costs.”

Joe R. Hicks, executive director of the Los Angeles Human Relations Commission, said: “These numbers translate directly into resources for communities and certainly for organizations. . . . This is high-stakes stuff.”

Some activists in historically undercounted communities in Southern California said that Wednesday’s numbers point to a persistent problem.

“The fact that the undercount is not as bad as it has been in previous years is good, but it is still not perfect,” said Jason Lacsamana, a program coordinator with the Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance. “We are still not getting our fair share of resources.”

Nonetheless, a lower margin of error is good news for those who count on federal funds for local programs.

“The closer the count is to reality, the more funds flow into our city,” said John Reekstin, executive director of Santa Ana’s Community Development Agency. “We are pleased that we’ll be able to maximize resources in the community.”

The fight over political representation and money, always contentious, will be even more intense this year because of the battle over the disputed presidential election results in Florida. For Democrats, the bitterness remains and they think the census poses a threat of what they view as another unfair count.

“I remind this committee of the recent election process in Florida,” said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), who is a member of the panel.

“Those who felt denied access to the polls or disenfranchised by having their ballots set aside, or stripped of their right to . . . choose their political leadership--they still have recourse,” she said. “Next year they can go to the polls again in local, state and federal elections and make their voices heard. To those left out of the census, however, to those disenfranchised by a partisan intervention to ensure they are not counted, or recognized, or represented, to them there is no recourse. Not for 10 long years.”

Republicans, however, contended that Democrats are trying to make a grab for more political power.

“In recent weeks, the rhetoric of my Democratic colleagues has reached an unfortunate yet familiar tone,” Miller said. “I guess when you can no longer argue the facts, there is nothing left to do except resort to cheap shots, race-baiting and name-calling.

“I agree with President Bush [that] an actual head count is the best and most accurate way to conduct a census.”

The net undercount of all Americans in the census ranged from 0.96% to 1.4% of the population, according to preliminary national estimates issued Wednesday by the Census Bureau. Using a midpoint estimate of 1.18%, and applying that figure to the nation’s population of 281 million produces an undercount figure of 3.3 million who were missed by the census. The comparable 1990 figure was an undercount rate of 1.6%.

The undercount for blacks was 4.57% in the 1990 census. For last year, the result was much better, with an estimated undercount ranging from 1.6% to 2.73%. The undercount for Latinos--4.99% during 1990--improved last year to a range between 2.22% and 3.48%. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders had an undercount rate of 2.36% during 1990. For last year, they might have been over-counted by 0.09%, or undercounted by as much as 2.01%.

*

Times staff writers Erin Texeira in Los Angeles and Daniel Yi in Orange County contributed to this story.