New Scientist: "Could you tell me the definition of statistical significance."ONS: "What do you mean?"
New Scientist: "You know, if you sample a population, when does that sample become statistically significant? When is it taken into account?"
ONS: "Well, we sample the population every year, we collect the data, print it...and then it becomes significant."
A conversation between New Scientist magazine and Britain's Office of National Statistics (ONS).
IT IS IRONIC, but upon reflection not particularly unexpected that the Supreme Court eschews judgment. Cases are many times decided on the narrowest conceivable grounds. It is prudent to allow the interpretation of the law to unfold deliberately and slowly. If a particular decision has unintended and unanticipated consequences, the court can divert to a different tact without lurching jurisprudence to and fro. The recent ruling on the case of Department of Commerce et al. v. United States House of Representatives et al. is no exception.
The 1976 Census Act reads:
"Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible authorize the use of the statistical method known as 'sampling' in carrying out the provisions of this title."
The Clinton Administration rather brazenly asserted that the language of the act permits statistical sampling to determine the population for apportionment. Every court ruled in favor of the House of Representatives. The curious part is that the decision was only 5-4, with Sandra Day O'Connor writing the opinion for the Court [1]. She avoided making a decision based on Constitutional considerations, but rested her opinion on interpretation of the relevant legislation. At least for now statistical sampling will not substitute for enumeration for purposes of apportionment.
Article I of the Constitution explicitly specifies an "actual enumeration ... in such a Manner as they [Congress] by law direct." The first Congress of the United States required a "just and perfect enumeration" of every person. Realizing that justice and perfection are always elusive and even more so with millions of citizens, Congress in 1957 permitted the Census Bureau to use questionnaires delivered by the US Post Office as opposed to house-to-house visits to accomplish the enumeration. By requiring an actual enumeration, the Framers intended to avoid political controversy that would surely accompany a more lax accounting protocol.
What is not generally appreciated is that apportionment is related to, but not equivalent to redistricting. Apportionment is the distribution of Representatives among the states. Every state is entitled to at least one, but the actual number increases with population. The record of the case presented to the Court suggested that if sampling were used instead of enumeration, perhaps three states would loose representatives to other states.
Go To Page: 1 2
