{
  "id": "97-871",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-871",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105012,
      "date": "1998-12-30",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:47:56.858941",
      "title": "Sampling for Census 2000: A Legal Overview",
      "summary": "Sampling and statistical adjustment of the decennial population census taken for the purpose of\napportioning the Representatives in Congress among the States, have become increasingly\ncontroversial during the past two decades and have culminated in two lawsuits concerning the\nlegality and constitutionality of sampling,  Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of\nRepresentatives  and  Clinton v. Glavin , which were heard by the U.S. Supreme\nCourt in consolidated\noral arguments on Nov. 30, 1998. The Supreme Court took the case on a direct appeal from the\ndecisions by two three-judge district court panels that the Census Act prohibits sampling in the\napportionment census. More controversy resulted from the decision by the Department of\nCommerce and the Census Bureau to continue with both sampling and non-sampling scenario\npreparations in the wake of the district court decisions. Funding for Census 2000 preparations\nremains an issue since current appropriations enactments fund census activities only through June\n15, 1999.\n  For the past two censuses, in 1980 and 1990, the Bureau of the Census has considered\nadjustment but has not adjusted the census. Each time, litigation resulted when interested parties,\nincluding state and local governments and minority advocacy groups, sued for adjustment of the\ncensus or for the release of adjusted figures. Ultimately, in  Wisconsin v. City of New\nYork , the\nUnited States Supreme Court upheld the decision by the Secretary of Commerce against adjustment\nin the 1990 census without directly addressing the constitutionality or legality of sampling. As the\n2000 decennial census draws near, the plans of the Bureau of the Census to use statistical techniques,\nincluding a hitherto untried sampling technique for non-response, and the apparent Administration\nsupport for these plans, has focused renewed attention on the issues of reliability, legality and\nconstitutionality of these techniques. Disagreement between the legislative and executive branches\nabout whether to proceed with plans to use sampling techniques resulted in a compromise, the\ncreation of a civil action through which any aggrieved person could challenge the use of sampling\nin the census for apportionment before a three-judge panel of a federal district court, on an expedited\nbasis, with a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, also on an expedited basis. Two suits have\nresulted, the aforementioned  Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives \nand  Clinton\nv. Glavin . The compromise also established the bipartisan Census Monitoring Board to\nobserve and\nmonitor all aspects of the preparation and implementation of the 2000 census.\n  This report will give an overview of the legal issues surrounding the use of sampling and\nstatistical procedures. It will first review the background of \"actual enumeration\" in the\nconstitutional authority for the census and of 13 U.S.C. Section 195, which some have interpreted\nas prohibiting the use of sampling to adjust the census headcount for apportionment, then discuss\nthe case law interpreting these provisions prior to the plans for the 2000 Census and the current\nlawsuits. Next, the history of adjustment efforts by the Bureau of the Census will be briefly\ndescribed, followed by a summary of the legal arguments and the judicial decisions, as of the date\nof this report, concerning the proposed sampling methods for the 2000 decennial population census. \nFinally, the report will summarize the legislation in the 105th Congress concerning the use of\nsampling in the decennial census.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-871",
          "sha1": "30cb951a42018f2bf9dde4e4badd44ff5f17ce5e",
          "filename": "files/19981230_97-871_30cb951a42018f2bf9dde4e4badd44ff5f17ce5e.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19981230_97-871_30cb951a42018f2bf9dde4e4badd44ff5f17ce5e.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Appropriations",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}