Census Clause, Utah v. Evans

[Emsworth]

Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)

Question Presented: Does the Census Bureau's use of "hot-deck imputation," in the 2000 census, inconsistent with the Constitution's statement that an "actual Enumeration be made?

Conclusion: No. The Court reasoned that Article 1's wording that the "actual Enumeration" shall take place "in such Manner as" Congress itself "shall by Law direct," suggested a breadth of congressional methodological authority.

[A18]

Unsound. An actual counting of persons is required.

[Emsworth]

Unsound. An actual counting of persons is required.

Agreed. The Constitution requires an "actual enumeration," not an estimation.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

There goes that Bush administration trying to help their frie... oh, wait.

[minionofmidas]

I thought Utah wanted even more nonpresent persons to be counted.

[muon2]

Unsound. An actual counting of persons is required.

Agreed. The Constitution requires an "actual enumeration," not an estimation.

Here the plain language is consistent with the method used. An "actual enumeration" means counting that exists in fact (defintions combined from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary). Any and all counting methods used on a large population subject to movement will be an approximation. A non-responding dwelling may be assumed to be occupied or unoccupied, either way it is an approximation.

Estimation means an approximate calculation (same source), but I see no language in the Constitution that bars an estimation in the sense of any approximation. Just as important is the plain language that Congres may establish the manner of counting by law. Recognizing that how to deal with those few dwellings that appear to be occupied but do not respond is a choice as to which way to resolve the inherent approximation of the count. Congress has exercised its authority to choose a specific manner.

[Emsworth]

Rather than relying on modern dictionaries, I suggest that we should look towards dictionaries and materials from the framing era. These would provide a better picture of the original meaning of the clause.

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796) defines "to enumerate" as "to reckon up singly; to count over distinctly." A Dictionary of the English Language (1773) gives "to reckon up singly; to count over distinctly; to number." Finally, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) supplies "to number; to tell or name one by one." (See Clarence Thomas' opinion in the case.)

These definitions suggest that an actual enumeration involves actually counting individuals one by one. Assuming that someone exists when there there is no evidence of his existence is pure conjecture, not an actual enumeration.

[muon2]

Rather than relying on modern dictionaries, I suggest that we should look towards dictionaries and materials from the framing era. These would provide a better picture of the original meaning of the clause.

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796) defines "to enumerate" as "to reckon up singly; to count over distinctly." A Dictionary of the English Language (1773) gives "to reckon up singly; to count over distinctly; to number." Finally, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) supplies "to number; to tell or name one by one." (See Clarence Thomas' opinion in the case.)

These definitions suggest that an actual enumeration involves actually counting individuals one by one. Assuming that someone exists when there there is no evidence of his existence is pure conjecture, not an actual enumeration.

Yes, but the problem for the census is what value to use when there is evidence of the person's existence. When the Census has determined from moving records and conversations with neighbors that a property is vacant it is counted as having zero inhabitants. However, there are a very small number of properties where neighbor interviews and records such as occupancy permits would lead to the reasonable conclusion that people reside at those locations.

Counting zero for each such location is clearly an approximation, and not necessarily a good one. The Census can still count distinctly a number of individuals for these locations. I would agree that imputation from the neighboring parcels may also have systematic flaws, but probably no worse than the definite systematic flaws by counting zero.

Clearly it would be preferable to continue the count until all such unresolved parcels were resolved. Unfortunately this creates two new problems - one is that an definite end to the count may not be esatablished, and the other is that it may fail to represent a snapshot of the population on a specific date.

[jimrtex]

I thought Utah wanted even more nonpresent persons to be counted.

They did.  But that claim didn't make it to the Supreme Court (there had been similar cases after prior censuses).   Currently, the US Census counts employees of the US Government, both civil and military, and their dependents, who are temporarily living overseas.  Utah wanted the census to count persons who are employees of private organizations who are based overseas.  The Census Bureau ran a trial in 2004 to determine whether it was feasible to include such persons in the census.

One of the novel issues in the Texas redistricting case is whether use of the census data for redistricting purposes violates the equal protection clause.

[Downwinder]

I thought Utah wanted even more nonpresent persons to be counted.

Specifically, the State of Utah wanted Mormon (LDS) missionairies from the state who are serving overseas to be counted.  I think there are about 60,000 such missionaries.