Census 2000:  Bush Administration Supports Actual Enumeration of Citizens Adversity.Net, Inc. for Victims of Reverse Discrimination

Site Index / Menu.

Bush Opposes Use of Statistically Created Minorities in the 2000 Census Count

BACK:  Census 2000 Main Page.

Census Bureau urges against adjusting 2000 count (03/01/01)

          WASHINGTON (AP) - "The Census Bureau urged Commerce Secretary Don Evans on Thursday to approve the use of raw population numbers from the 2000 count for congressional redistricting, despite estimates that 3.4 million Americans, primarily minorities, were overlooked.

          "Evans will now weigh the recommendation from William Barron, the bureau's acting director, and advice from outside experts and will make the final decision by Tuesday whether to have the numbers statistically adjusted.

          "[Commerce Secretary Evan's] choice could have broad political implications:  If approved, adjusted data could be used as the basis for redrawing not only congressional districts but state and legislative district boundaries as well over the next year."

          In a memo to Commerce Secretary Evans, acting Census Bureau director William Barron said he agreed with a Census Bureau committee's recommendation urging the use of raw numbers (actual enumeration, or head count, as stipulated by the Constitution).

          The Associated Press quoted Mr. Barron as saying "The committee reached this recommendation because it is unable, based on data and other information currently available, to conclude that the [statistically sampled] adjusted data are more accurate for use in redistricting.''

          Democrats and pro-minority racial lobby groups, such as the NAACP, argue that including the statistically sampled minority numbers in the census would more accurately represent racial minorities who had voluntarily chosen to not answer the census.

          Conversely, others who believe the Census should be an actual enumeration, as provided in the Constitution, argued that inclusion of a "statistical sample" in the Census would add errors into the count.  Critics of sampling also noted that the 2000 Census was much more accurate and inclusive than the 1990 Census, and that statistical sampling methods were not necessary.

          The Census Bureau has reported to Commerce Secretary Evans that "a survey following the census estimated a net undercount in 2000 of 1.2 percent of Americans, or about 3.4 million people. That was down from 1.6 percent of the 1990 population, or about 4 million people, in the previous head count."  AP also reports:  "The survey, which used sampling methods, also generally found that smaller percentages of minorities and children were missed [during the 2000 Census] than in 1990."

          Republicans claimed victory in the battle for an actual enumeration for the 2000 Census vs. statistical sampling.   AP quoted U.S. Representative Dan Miller (R-Fla) as saying "This recommendation by the Census Bureau experts should settle the matter once and for all.''

          "In Congress, lawmakers from both parties have said an adjustment could add more Democratic-leaning minorities to redrawn districts and threaten the GOP's narrow House majority.

          "A letter signed by 48 Democratic senators and circulated by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., urged [Commerce Secretary Don Evans] to delay his ruling until he can appear before the Senate Commerce Committee.   Evans maintained Thursday that his "objective is an open and fair process that will generate a decision that all Americans can respect.''

(Excerpted from the Associated Press report by Genaro C. Armas, via FoxNews 03/01/01)

[Last known link http://www.foxnews.com/national/0301/d_ap_0301_568.sml ]

Bureau Opposes Adjusting Census (03/02/01)

          Today the Washington Post reported that Census Bureau officials yesterday urged against adjusting the 2000 Census to compensate for minorities who voluntarily refused to be counted in the 2000 Census.  This pronouncement crushes the hopes of Democrats and the racial lobby that fictitious undercounted minorities who tend to vote exclusively for Democrats could be used to artificially inflate minority counts for the purpose of racially gerrymandering new political boundaries.

          The Washington Post seemed to express surprise over this announcement since the former Clinton administration had made it clear that statistical sampling of minorities would be used to guarantee "majority minority" voting districts (racially gerrymandered voting districts).  Ex-President Clinton's Census Bureau had promised that "statistical adjustment" of the Census head count would guarantee that Democratic-voting racial and ethnic groups would be over-represented in the 2000 Census.

          After the actual 2000 Census head count, a biased survey constructed and worded by the Democratic, pro-quota lobby concluded that the census had missed 3 million people, including a "disproportionate" number of minorities.  But more objective census officials in the new Bush administration said yesterday they had questions about the validity of that survey and until those questions are answered, which could be months, they could not recommend statistical sampling and inclusion of "statistically sampled" minorities in the Census 2000 count.

          According to the Washington Post:   "The recommendation from census officials now goes to Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans, who has signaled his opposition to [statistical] adjustment.   Evans said yesterday that he would announce a decision early next week.   Redistricting numbers are due, by law, to states by the end of March, which is why the matter must be decided now."

          The Washington Post quotes U.S. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) as saying "The bad news is that millions of Americans had the clock run out on them."  Under the former Clinton administration, Ms. Maloney had been the ranking Democrat on the House census subcommittee.  During the Clinton administration Ms. Maloney had been an ardent supporter of racial preferences, quotas, targets and goals.

          According to the Post, pro-racial-quota Democrats urged the Census Bureau to release the statistically adjusted numbers anyway, so states could consider using the racially biased numbers for racially gerrymandering voting districts even if they were not the figures deemed more accurate by the Bureau. 

          The Post quoted U.S. Representative Dan Miller (R-Fla) as saying "Congratulations to the professionals at the Census Bureau for having the courage not to bend to the tremendous political pressure to wrongly adjust the census."

(Excerpted from the Washington Post story by D'Vera Cohn, appearing 03/02/01 on page A01 of the Post)

[Last known link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11374-2001Mar1?language=printer ]

'Adjusting' won't be done on census (03/02/01)

           "Census Bureau officials yesterday advised the secretary of commerce [Don Evans] not to release [statistically] adjusted census results for use in redrawing the nation's legislative districts.

          "The decision is widely seen as demolishing the Democrats' attempts to assure that census figures would be adjusted to compensate" for racial groups who, for their own reasons, have voluntarily have chosen not to be counted by the census.

           According to the Washington Times, the decision by the Census Bureau to disallow the theoretical "statistical undercount" of racial groups "pulled the rug from under the Democrats," according to Chip Walker, who is the spokesman for the House subcommittee that oversees census operations.

          The Washington Times also reports that Wade Henderson, head of the pro-racial-quota Conference on Civil Rights, said:   "The civil rights community is deeply disappointed by [the] announcement."  Mr. Henderson proceeded to cite the dubious and unsupported assertion that the Census Bureau missed some 3.4 million persons, most of them members of minority groups.

          The Washington Times report continues:  "Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, the New York Democrat who has led the fight for [statistical] adjustment, said she too was "disappointed" by the announcement.  She stated that the bureau had needed more time to correct the census errors. "We should give it to them," she said.   Then she added, "Millions of Americans had the clock run out on them."

           The Times reports:  "[It is] assumed that adjusting the final census tallies ultimately would favor the Democratic Party and disadvantage Republicans. It is widely believed that the adjustment would increase the count of minority group members, renters, and city dwellers who typically tend to be undercounted and who also tend to vote Democratic."

          Conservatives and Republicans strongly oppose the use of statistical sampling due to the inherent inaccuracy of such methods.

          "The Supreme Court ruled it is illegal to apply [statistical sampling techniques] when arriving at the population totals used for allocating seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Republicans contend it is also illegal to use sampling-based population figures when remapping state and local voting districts."

(Excerpted from the Washington Times story by August Gribbin 03/02/01)

[Last known link: http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200132223257.htm ]

END: Bush Opposes Use of Fictitious Sampled Minorities in Census

Use your Browser's BACK button to return, or make another selection:

Census 2000 MAIN Page Census 2000 Bias Against Multi-Ethic and White Multi-Ethnic Data Renders Census Colorblind!
Bush Opposes Use of Fictitious Sampled Minorities in Census
Census 2000 Creates a National Racial Profile

Main Site Index:

Go to Top of Page

by category
Contributions are tax-deductible

and case studies
and Definitions
Firms and Resources
GO:  Home Page
Page Index
URL's and page names for site

National opinion

How Quotas are Enforced
What's Hot!

D.O.J. Requires It!

News Analysis

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: August 06, 2006.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.