 |  |
Rhode Island news
3.7.2001
Census decision considered flawed
Democrats and representatives of minorities criticize the Bush administration's decison to use raw figures as the basis for redistricting.
BY DAVID HERZOG and SCOTT MacKAY
Journal Staff Writers
PROVIDENCE
-- Rhode Island minority groups and Democratic political leaders assailed yesterday's decision by the Bush administration to use raw census counts for drawing new political boundaries all over the nation.
The leaders, who had been hopeful the Census would adjust its data to account for people who were missed in last year's count, said they fear the decision will dilute the emerging political power of minority voters.
"It's disgusting," said Angel Taveras, a Providence lawyer, Democrat and chairman of the Rhode Island Fair Redistricting Coalition, a group of civil-rights, minority organizations and clergy that has organized to try to influence General Assembly redistricting to ensure that minority voters are given fair representation.
"The president doesn't want to count certain people, whether it is votes in Florida or in the rest of the nation," Taveras said. "I think most of the experts say that you need sampling to get an accurate count."
Yesterday's decision by Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans, based on the recommendation of a Census Bureau panel, comes after years of sparring between Democratic and Republican members of Congress.
The numbers are important because they are used to draw new political boundaries for U.S. House seats and local legislative districts. This year they are especially important in Rhode Island because they will serve as the basis for both the General Assembly redistricting and the voter-mandated legislative downsizing that will cut the Assembly from 150 to 113 members.
Nationally, the Census estimates that it missed 3.4 million people, with minorities missed at greater rates.
The 1990 Census missed even more, 4 million people. Rhode Island's undercount was 1,351.
"We have the lowest undercount in history, by far," Evans said during an afternoon news conference at the Commerce Department in Washington.
But others locally worried that any undercount would bring negative consequences.
"There is no question that this decision will make it more difficult to give everyone their full participation in our democracy," said H. Philip West, executive director of Common Cause of Rhode Island.
Democrats have long favored statistically adjusting the raw numbers to account for undercounted minorities, children and renters. Past studies have shown that the Census tends to miss people in those groups more frequently.
Republicans have favored using the raw numbers, saying they more accurately reflect the population.
Yesterday's decision by Evans, however, was based on practical considerations. Evans said he was swayed by a report released by a panel of Census statisticians and demographers last week. That report warned that the bureau could not accurately adjust the raw data in time for the legal April 1 release deadline.
Evans made the right decision because he followed the recommendation of the Census Bureau's professional staff, said Republican Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee.
One question left unanswered yesterday was whether the Bush administration would seek to use the unadjusted numbers from the Census to distribute an annual $185 billion in aid to states.
Evans said that he couldn't answer the question until the Census panel determines whether the raw numbers can accurately be adjusted.
"I just have to consider that when it comes to me," he said.
Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy called the use of the raw, unadjusted numbers "fundamentally unfair."
"These numbers are used to make sure that federal funds are distributed fairly and it has an enormous economic impact if these funds are not properly distributed because of undercounts," said Kennedy, a Democrat.
Providence Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. said that using the raw numbers shortchanges cities, which are more likely to be home to undercounted population groups.
Despite a strong public effort to get a more accurate count for the 2000 Census than in 1990, Cianci said that in Providence, "I'm sure we missed some people."
City officials and census takers, Cianci said, paid more attention to communities that are traditionally undercounted -- minority citizens and college students. "'We would be much better off if they used statistical sampling."
Cianci noted that many of those undercounted in the past were minorities. "The reason they [Republicans] don't want to count the blacks is that 90 percent of them are Democrats."
Evans's decision clears the way for the Census Bureau to begin releasing the data it collected last year. Under federal law, the bureau has until April 1 to release the data to the states.
The Census Bureau plans to release the data on a state-by-state basis, with small states expected to go first. States will use the data to redraw political boundaries.
Today the bureau expects to release the data for Virginia and New Jersey, two states under tight deadlines to redistrict for legislative elections this year. Later this week, the bureau is expected to release the data for more states, but Rhode Island and Massachusetts are not among them.
Redistricting normally sets off political rumbles, as incumbents try to cling to their seats and political parties seek to consolidate power. As far as Rhode Island's two U.S. House seats are concerned, little controversy is expected because both incumbents are Democrats -- Patrick Kennedy and James Langevin -- who have indicated they will work together on new district borders.
This year, the usual political maneuvering is complicated by the drawing of new districts to accommodate the voter-mandated cut in the size of the Assembly, which is supposed to be done in time for the 2002 elections.
Digital extra:
Learn more about how the U.S. Census 2000 may affect the redrawing of state political boundaries at:
http://www.projo.com/cgi-bin/include.pl/news/census/census_extra.htm
Census decision considered flawed
Democrats and representatives of minorities criticize the Bush administration's decison to use raw figures as the basis for redistricting.
|
|
BY DAVID HERZOG and SCOTT MacKAY
Journal Staff Writers
The leaders, who had been hopeful the Census would adjust its data to account for people who were missed in last year's count, said they fear the decision will dilute the emerging political power of minority voters.
"It's disgusting," said Angel Taveras, a Providence lawyer, Democrat and chairman of the Rhode Island Fair Redistricting Coalition, a group of civil-rights, minority organizations and clergy that has organized to try to influence General Assembly redistricting to ensure that minority voters are given fair representation.
"The president doesn't want to count certain people, whether it is votes in Florida or in the rest of the nation," Taveras said. "I think most of the experts say that you need sampling to get an accurate count."
Yesterday's decision by Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans, based on the recommendation of a Census Bureau panel, comes after years of sparring between Democratic and Republican members of Congress.
The numbers are important because they are used to draw new political boundaries for U.S. House seats and local legislative districts. This year they are especially important in Rhode Island because they will serve as the basis for both the General Assembly redistricting and the voter-mandated legislative downsizing that will cut the Assembly from 150 to 113 members.
Nationally, the Census estimates that it missed 3.4 million people, with minorities missed at greater rates.
The 1990 Census missed even more, 4 million people. Rhode Island's undercount was 1,351.
"We have the lowest undercount in history, by far," Evans said during an afternoon news conference at the Commerce Department in Washington.
But others locally worried that any undercount would bring negative consequences.
"There is no question that this decision will make it more difficult to give everyone their full participation in our democracy," said H. Philip West, executive director of Common Cause of Rhode Island.
Democrats have long favored statistically adjusting the raw numbers to account for undercounted minorities, children and renters. Past studies have shown that the Census tends to miss people in those groups more frequently.
Republicans have favored using the raw numbers, saying they more accurately reflect the population.
Yesterday's decision by Evans, however, was based on practical considerations. Evans said he was swayed by a report released by a panel of Census statisticians and demographers last week. That report warned that the bureau could not accurately adjust the raw data in time for the legal April 1 release deadline.
Evans made the right decision because he followed the recommendation of the Census Bureau's professional staff, said Republican Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee.
One question left unanswered yesterday was whether the Bush administration would seek to use the unadjusted numbers from the Census to distribute an annual $185 billion in aid to states.
Evans said that he couldn't answer the question until the Census panel determines whether the raw numbers can accurately be adjusted.
"I just have to consider that when it comes to me," he said.
Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy called the use of the raw, unadjusted numbers "fundamentally unfair."
"These numbers are used to make sure that federal funds are distributed fairly and it has an enormous economic impact if these funds are not properly distributed because of undercounts," said Kennedy, a Democrat.
Providence Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. said that using the raw numbers shortchanges cities, which are more likely to be home to undercounted population groups.
Despite a strong public effort to get a more accurate count for the 2000 Census than in 1990, Cianci said that in Providence, "I'm sure we missed some people."
City officials and census takers, Cianci said, paid more attention to communities that are traditionally undercounted -- minority citizens and college students. "'We would be much better off if they used statistical sampling."
Cianci noted that many of those undercounted in the past were minorities. "The reason they [Republicans] don't want to count the blacks is that 90 percent of them are Democrats."
Evans's decision clears the way for the Census Bureau to begin releasing the data it collected last year. Under federal law, the bureau has until April 1 to release the data to the states.
The Census Bureau plans to release the data on a state-by-state basis, with small states expected to go first. States will use the data to redraw political boundaries.
Today the bureau expects to release the data for Virginia and New Jersey, two states under tight deadlines to redistrict for legislative elections this year. Later this week, the bureau is expected to release the data for more states, but Rhode Island and Massachusetts are not among them.
Redistricting normally sets off political rumbles, as incumbents try to cling to their seats and political parties seek to consolidate power. As far as Rhode Island's two U.S. House seats are concerned, little controversy is expected because both incumbents are Democrats -- Patrick Kennedy and James Langevin -- who have indicated they will work together on new district borders.
This year, the usual political maneuvering is complicated by the drawing of new districts to accommodate the voter-mandated cut in the size of the Assembly, which is supposed to be done in time for the 2002 elections.
Digital extra:
Learn more about how the U.S. Census 2000 may affect the redrawing of state political boundaries at:
http://www.projo.com/cgi-bin/include.pl/news/census/census_extra.htm
|
||||
Printer-Friendly VersionMore top stories
R.I. Chabad members pray for those slain in Mumbai
Providence pub must pay the piper, musicians say
Federal conservationist gives Rhode Island top marks
Legislator Costantino has second thoughts, takes pass on Atlanta conference
Most active surveys
Updated Mon 12.1.08
Share your reviews of area restaurants
Share your Black Friday shopping experience
What NFL team is the one you love to hate?
Most e-mailed in the last 24 hours
