The Supreme Court unfortunately has decided to abstain from ruling on whether the federal government has the constitutional right to use of statistical sampling in conducting the census.
The justices failed to make a decision on grounds that the matter is a political dispute between Democrats and Republicans. That is an unwise tactic that probably will only delay an inevitable court decision while leaving the Census Bureau in a state of confusion.Admonishing the Clinton administration and the House of Representatives to work out an equitable plan is one thing. Getting them to do it is quite another. Has the high court been paying any attention to the "cooperative" efforts of the House Judiciary Committee?
Because the census is such a political hot potato is precisely the reason a court ruling is needed.
The Clinton administration is adamant about using statistical sampling for the year 2000 Census. Why? Supposedly it is the only way to correct the anticipated undercount of millions of people -- many who represent minority groups and poor people, traditionally Democratic supporters.
That would allow the White House to do what it really wants -- use the sampling to change the apportionment of congressional districts, a plan sure to increase the number of Democratic districts.
As this page has said before, statistical sampling is scientific and highly reliable under normal conditions. Done correctly, its accuracy can be measured to within a range of a few percentage points. But politics tend to rob fairness, and if the political process enters the census, opportunities for abuse arise.
Knowing that, Republicans have gone to court to prevent the Clinton administration from changing procedures outlined in the Constitution. And they have won twice, with two federal courts ruling that the Constitution means what it says when it calls for an actual enumeration of the population every 10 years.
The Clinton administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court only to have the high court foolishly punt. Even while punting, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor commented that "most people would think an actual enumeration means a count."
While the Supreme Court didn't rule on the constitutional issue of sampling, it is expected to rule soon as to whether the Republicans had merit in going to court in the first place to halt the sampling plans.
The status of the census procedures for 2000 right now is in a mud puddle because the Clinton administration is trying to do an end run around the Constitution. It should not be allowed to do so.