Nevada delegates concerned by census sampling

Genaro C. Armas

Friday, Feb. 9, 2001 | 10:45 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is committed to using raw census numbers for political redistricting, but may allow adjusted numbers to be used to allocate federal funds among the states, House Republican sources said Thursday.

Democrats contend that the statistical method known as "sampling" protects against an expected undercount of minorities, the poor and children. They said any decision by President Bush to prevent sampling from being used for redistricting would disenfranchise millions of Americans who were missed in the 2000 census.

"The president supports an actual head count because he believes it's the best and the most accurate way to conduct the census," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. The administration has not made a final decision on sampling, he said.

But the GOP sources, including a House member, said the administration was committed to using only raw, nonsampled data from the 2000 count as the basis for states to redraw congressional, state and local political district lines. The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, also said that the use of sampled data for other purposes, including determining federal funds, was "negotiable."

"This is a hugely important issue for Southern Nevada," said Michael O'Donovan, spokesman for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "The combination of growth rates and urban populations in the valley would mean that Southern Nevada would be one of those areas to benefit the most from a truly accurate count.

"There, figures determine whether Southern Nevada has access to the most representation possible in their local and state governments," he said.

Democratic congressional leaders say that if President Bush has already decided to back the actual head count for redistricting, it contradicts a pledge he made when he met with the Democratic caucus last week.

"The congresswoman is willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt for now, but if it is true that the president stood in front of the Democratic Caucus and misled the duly elected representatives of half the American public, that would be a very bad sign of things to come and at least a major misstep," O'Donovan said.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said he doesn't want to use the statistically adjusted numbers.

"In January of 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sampling should not be used to generate population data for reapportionment of the House of Representative," he said in a statement Thursday. "Similarly, it should not be used for redistricting because the Census Bureau conducted one of the most accurate and most inclusive census in our history."

He said that the statistically adjusted methodology is prone to mistakes.

A statistically adjusted count, generally favored by Democrats and advocacy groups for minorities, would likely increase the numbers in often hard-to-count areas, especially urban areas.

It also would try to reduce double-counts, such as the problem of "snowbirds" filling out census forms both in their home states and their winter havens.

The Census Bureau estimated that a total of 4 million people were lost from the total count in the 1990 census.

The Wall Street Journal also reported Thursday that the White House has "privately promised" to block states from using sampling for redistricting.

William Barron, acting director of the Census Bureau, has said he will decide by early March whether the sampled data should be released. The administration could overrule or block his decision.

The numbers to be used for redistricting must be released by April 1.

"This is an issue of great importance that will determine whether millions of people -- most of whom are minorities, children and rural residents -- will be counted for representation at every level of government," said House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. "A compromise that would deny these people representation would mean their disenfranchisement."

Responded John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: "This is the most accurate census in history. There's no need for sampling."

There was a net undercount of about 4 million people in the 1990 census, about 1.6 percent of the population then. More minorities than whites were missed in that count, the Census Bureau said.

While the 2000 census is generally considered an operational success, all sides have long said it was virtually impossible to track down every American.

To remedy that, the Census Bureau under the Clinton administration drew up the sampling plan to supplement the actual "head count" of the population as a way to protect against undercount.