Sampling Error
Monday's court ruling against the use of statistical sampling in
the Census is scarcely a run-of-the-mill judicial decision. Rather, it's another
rejection of the Clinton Administration's bending of the law and, perhaps
more importantly, a rebuff to the latest Clinton tactical political brainstorm.
The Clinton Commerce Department has insisted it already has legal power
to institute statistical sampling as the centerpiece of the year 2000 Census.
The House of Representatives sued, at the behest of Speaker Gingrich,
contending Commerce did not have such power without legislation
Congress had no intention of passing. To speed the decision, the suit was
heard by a special three-judge panel of two district judges and one from the
D.C. Court of Appeals, two appointed by Ronald Reagan and one
appointed by President Clinton. They came down 3-0 against sampling.
Judge Royce Lamberth's decision told Commerce to read the law.
Congress had indeed authorized Census to use sampling, but the same law
prohibits its use for the vital purpose of apportioning House seats. The
whole thrust of the sampling argument, of course, has been that the
traditional head count misses some people who should be statistically
reinserted for the purposes of apportionment. No one cares about using
sampling for scholarly questions, or for that matter about extra efforts to
locate hard-to-reach people. But the statutory exception conforms with the
Constitution, which specifies reapportionment based on an "actual
enumeration" of all Americans, meaning, as the dictionary defines it "to
count off or name one by one."
As we've repeatedly seen in the past 200 years, the Founding Fathers were
not fools. Yes, statistical sampling has been scientifically developed since
their time, and we haven't the least doubt that in scientific hands it's a valid
tool. But what hasn't changed since the Constitution was written is human
nature, particularly that of political humans. The reason for an actual
enumeration is not that sampling is scientifically flawed, but that politicians
cheat.
In designing statistical sampling, the Census Bureau would have to make a
whole series of decisions about what kind of districts to sample, and how
much to adjust different results. Though there may be some defensible
scientific basis for doing this, the decisions would be subject to political
pressure every step of the way. Who would trust Census bureaucrats to
stand up to this Administration if it tried to twist the results?
In the last Presidential election, the Immigration and Naturalization Agency
let itself be used when a record 1.1 million people were made U.S. citizens
in a clear attempt to add to the ranks of Democratic constituencies.
Post-election it was learned that 180,000 of these people had become
citizens without formal FBI approval. Of those 180,000, the FBI had
criminal records for 71,000, including 16,400 who had been arrested on
felony charges.
Congressional probes have documented how Vice President Gore's office
pressured the INS to take "drastic measures" to speed up its "Citizenship
USA" program. A memo indicates that White House deputy chief of staff
Harold Ickes was briefed on "new-citizen voter registration" at a September
1995 meeting held only one month after "Citizenship USA" was created.
"[T]he pace of naturalization will limit the number of new voters," the memo
warned. A later memo lamented that INS lethargy would fail to "produce a
million new citizens before election day."
After this episode, the Administration wants Congress to drop the
Constitutional "enumeration" for something more "modern," and more
flexible. At the same time Attorney General Reno has been flouting the law
by refusing to appoint an Independent Counsel for the President and Vice
President on the subject of campaign contributions. For that matter, the
same Commerce Department that insists it can conduct sampling fairly
brokered seats on foreign trade missions in the first Clinton term as a crude
campaign fund-raising device. At least we still have a judiciary willing to
blow the whistle.
Not only that, but the Administration has made the sampling issue a
centerpiece of its "close the government" tactic. As recently as August 3, the
President vowed to veto any "bare bones" continuing resolution to keep the
government funding at current levels pending resolution of policy disputes in
the budget. In 1996, he pulled off a public relations coup by vetoing a bill
that would have kept the government open and then blaming the
Republicans for having closed it. The Republicans have still not recovered,
one reason why the President hopes he might pull the same trick again.
In particular, President Clinton threatens to veto appropriations for Justice,
State and Commerce if they include limits on the use of sampling. How
convenient to veto Justice, including money for Ken Starr's investigation.
The court ruling leaves this strategy about as phony as the sincerity-dripping
denials that the President had a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. We
await smoke signals from the White House telling us what the next veto
excuse will be. |
