From: Census2000 &lt;Census2000(a)ccmc.org&gt; Courts Reject Utah, Los Angeles Census Challenges Plus: Congressional Appropriators Review FY02 Budget Request; Monitoring Board Democrats Release Metropolitan Undercount Estimates; and more. Federal courts in Denver and Los Angeles rejected two legal challenges to the results of Census 2000, while the plaintiff in one of those cases, the State of Utah, filed a second lawsuit over the use of statistical methods in the counting process. On April 17, a three-judge federal district court panel (which included one 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge) ruled unanimously against the State of Utah's claim that the Census Bureau should have counted Mormon missionaries serving overseas during the census. State officials said they would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Utah contended that including military and federal government personnel stationed overseas but not other American citizens abroad, in the state population counts used for congressional apportionment, was an "arbitrary" decision that cost it a fourth seat in Congress. North Carolina instead picked up a 13th district based on the count of overseas military and federal personnel. The court, however, said including Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints missionaries serving in foreign countries would give Utah an unfair advantage because they represented only a small portion of all private American citizens living abroad. Utah filed a second lawsuit on April 25, claiming that the Census Bureau's use of a statistical procedure known as 'imputation' cost it a fourth congressional district in violation of the U.S. Constitution's apportionment clause and federal law. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Census Act (Title 13, U.S.C., §195) prohibits the use of sampling methods to derive the state population totals used for congressional apportionment, but it did not rule on the constitutionality of sampling. The 1999 decision forced the Census Bureau to drop its planned integration of a quality-check sample survey and direct counting methods to produce one set of census numbers. Imputation involves the use of statistical models to assign occupants (or vacancy status) to housing units for which census takers cannot gather any information, based on data from nearby households. In announcing the State's intention to file a new claim in Salt Lake City's federal district court, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt said, "You don't use guessing in the census." The Census Bureau has said it used imputation to add 0.2 percent of the population, or about 1.2 million people, to the national total used for apportionment, including about 5,400 people in Utah. A new three-judge panel will hear the case in mid-August; any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Los Angeles, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the City of Los Angeles and other cities, counties, and local elected officials, challenging the decision by Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans to release unadjusted census data for redistricting purposes in March. Los Angeles originally filed suit in February, seeking to overturn Secretary Evans' rescission of a Clinton Administration rule delegating the adjustment decision to the Census Bureau director. After the Secretary concurred with a Census Bureau recommendation to issue unadjusted data, the City amended its complaint, contending the Secretary violated a provision of the Census Act governing the Census Bureau's use of sampling by not releasing the adjusted numbers. (The Census Bureau is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.) Los Angeles also filed a Freedom of Information Act request in January for the block-level adjusted data. In an April 26 decision dismissing the plaintiff's claim, U.S. District Court Judge Gary A. Feess concluded that §195 of Title 13, United States Code (the Census Act) sets forth "no clear statement of congressional intent" regarding a decision to adjust the census counts based on the results of a sample survey. That provision, the judge found, is "internally inconsistent," directing the Secretary to use sampling but also giving him discretion to decide whether such use is "feasible." Los Angeles argued that the statute creates "a presumption of accuracy in the adjusted data ... and that the Secretary must release the adjusted data unless he conclusively proves it inaccurate," Judge Feess wrote. The Commerce Department, the judge said, contended that the Secretary "has the discretion to reject the use of statistically adjusted data where strong evidence exists that its use will not improve the accuracy of the final census figure." Rejecting both readings of §195, Judge Feess said the appropriate legal standard for judging the decision not to adjust "is whether the Secretary's actions are consistent with a permissible construction of the statute." He answered that question in favor of the Secretary, after concluding that "the paramount objective of the Census Act is accuracy in counting population" and that "substantial evidence supports the Census Bureau's recommendation against adjustment." In his opinion, the judge noted the Bureau's concerns about inconsistencies between the independent "demographic analysis" population estimate, the unadjusted census count, and the results of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey, as well as its concern about "synthetic error" and "balancing error" associated with the A.C.E. An attorney with O'Melveny & Myers, the law firm handling the case for Los Angeles, said the plaintiffs were "disappointed" with the decision and that "refusal to correct the differential undercount [of minorities, children, and the poor]... will cost urban areas millions of dollars in lost federal funds." Los Angeles is likely to appeal the ruling. Appropriations update: Congressional appropriators began the process of funding Census Bureau activities in fiscal year 2002 by holding hearings on the Bush Administration's budget request for the Department of Commerce. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans testified last week before panels of both the Senate (on May 1) and House (on May 3) Appropriations Committees. In his written testimony, Secretary Evans outlined the Department's goals and highlighted priorities in the $4.75 billion budget request, which includes $543.4 million for the Census Bureau. Fiscal year 2002 (FY02) begins October 1, 2001. Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary and Related Agencies did not ask any questions related to Census Bureau activities. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) are the panel's chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, as they were in the 106th Congress. Two members of the counterpart House subcommittee raised questions about key Census Bureau programs. (Eight of the panel's 13 members attended at least part of the hearing, which lasted nearly three and a half hours.) Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL), who also chairs the census oversight subcommittee, asked about plans to replace the traditional census 'long form' with the American Community Survey (ACS) in light of concerns about Census 2000 long form content. The Secretary said full implementation of the ACS is "key to the 2010 census" and that testing on a national scale would continue this year. In response to Rep. Miller's question about the potential cost of the 2010 census, Acting Census Bureau Director William Barron "very preliminary" cost estimates put the price tag at $11 - $12 billion. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who continues as the subcommittee's ranking minority member, expressed support for including Puerto Rico in the ACS, a matter the Secretary said he would discuss further with the congressman. The Bronx congressman called himself a "big supporter" of the Census Bureau, saying accurate population and socio-economic data are important to his district. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) is the subcommittee's new chairman, succeeding Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY). Census Monitoring Board update: The Presidential Members of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board have released estimated undercount rates for metropolitan areas in ten large states. Dr. Eugene P. Ericksen of Temple University, who prepared the estimates, said the information would "provide some insight into within-state variations in undercount rates." Dr. Ericksen said his estimates "are close, but not exactly equal, to the numbers that the Census Bureau would calculate," noting that he did not have access to all of the data the Bureau used to evaluate the results of its Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey. He emphasized that his calculations do not represent official Bureau estimates. The Census Bureau has not released the results of its A.C.E. survey below the national level. Dr. Ericksen's findings are available on the Presidential Members' web site at www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov> or by calling 301-457-9900. Last month, the Presidential Members issued a revised set of undercount rates and numbers, also calculated by Dr. Ericksen, for all 50 states and the District of Columbia as part of their semi-annual report to Congress. Dr. Ericksen updated an earlier set of state undercount rates after consulting with senior Census Bureau officials, who had criticized his initial calculations as being "seriously flawed." Release of his initial estimates also led House census subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller to call for the resignation of the Monitoring Board's Presidential Members. The Bureau did not comment on the revised state undercount rates contained in the Monitoring Board's April 11th report. Dr. Ericksen was co-chairman of the Special Advisory Panel on Adjustment that advised the Commerce Secretary following the 1990 census. The Board's Congressional Members will submit their own report to Congress in the near future. Materials issued by the Congressional Members are available at www.cmbc.gov <http://www.cmbc.gov> or by calling 301-457-5080. Congress established the eight-member Census Monitoring Board in late 1997 to monitor Census 2000 activities. Congressional Republican leaders and President Clinton (in consultation with congressional Democratic leaders) each appointed four members to the panel. The Board will sunset at the end of September 2001. Census 2000 resources: The Annie E. Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT project and the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) have published a chronology of key policy and operational issues surrounding Census 2000. The Road to Census 2000: A Chronology of Key Issues chronicles significant decisions and milestones from February 1996 to March 2001 affecting the design, content, methods, and cost of the 2000 count. The Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT project tracks the status of children in the United States to help inform national, state, and local discussions affecting child well-being. PRB is a non-profit, non-advocacy organization that provides information on U.S. and international population trends and their implications. A 'pdf' version of the Census 2000 chronology is available through the KIDS COUNT web site at www.kidscount.org <http://www.kidscount.org> or PRB's Ameristat web site at www.ameristat.org <http://www.ameristat.org>. Census data products update: This month, the Census Bureau is releasing "local demographic profiles" for states, counties, cities, and minor civil divisions. The profiles include basic information from the Census 2000 'short form,' such as age, housing tenure (owner v. renter), household relationship, gender, and race/ethnicity data. The Bureau will release the data on a state-by-state basis throughout May. The demographic profiles will be available in text and PDF format on the Bureau's web site, at www.census.gov <http://www.census.gov>. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to Terri Ann Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at <mailto:terriann2k@aol.com>. For copies of previous News Alerts and other information, use our web site www.census2000.org <http://www.census2000.org>. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census 2000 Initiative at <mailto:Census2000@ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals. -- Ed Christopher Bureau of Transportation Statistics U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590 202-366-0412