What the Newspapers Say

Census 2000 Education Kit

What the Newspapers Say

The Washington Post, Editorial, "Games With the Census" - July 15, 1998

"The House Appropriations Committee...ought to provide full funding for the kind of Census the administration has proposed - first a normal count, then the use of sampling and other statistical techniques to determine how many people were missed and adjust the final figures accordingly. That's the only way to combat the increasing undercount of lower income people and minority groups that has skewed the Census in recent years."

The Washington Post, Op-Ed, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Emeritus Charles Schultze - June 17, 1998

"It would be a major mistake for Congress to force the 2000 Census to be carried out without the aid of sampling. According to the Census Bureau, that would add some $675 million to $800 million budgetary costs. At best it would perpetuate the inaccuracies and inequities of the 1990 Census, and more likely make them larger."

The New York Times, Editorial, "Mischievous Senate Lawmaking" - May 6, 1997

"Critics fear that sampling could make Census numbers less accurate, especially in small neighborhoods. But scientific panels for the National Research Council have concluded that sampling would improve the Census, especially for areas the size of Congressional districts-the division most important for reapportionment and Federal distribution formulas. Judicious sampling is expected to reduce the cost of the 2000 Census from about $5 billion to about $4 billion."

The New York Times, Editorial, "No Need to Count Every Last Person" - March 19, 1996

"The idea of using sampling to supplement counting may trouble many Americans. But the bureau's proposal is fiscally necessary and statistically sound. Sampling will cut the costs of conducting the Census and should improve its accuracy-especially for hard-to-locate minority families."

The Christian Science Monitor, Editorial, - April 28, 1998

"For a more sensible, and accurate Census, Washington's politicians should back off and let the experts in the Census Bureau apply their apolitical expertise."

The Christian Science Monitor, Editorial "Countdown to Count" - May 9, 1997

"You just can't ring every doorbell in the country, especially in areas where doorbells don't work or don't exist. Poor, disadvantaged, and uneducated Americans will be helped most by the use of sampling, whether they live in South Central Los Angeles or in the hollows of Appalachia. More accurate counting of poor, often minority populations will mean better targeting of government programs to assist them... But such political reflexes ought to be tempered by the simple fact that sampling will enable the Census Bureau to do a better job. The most accurate count possible is, after all, what the Constitution's framers had in mind when they called for an `actual enumeration' every 10 years. Sound Census data helps provide fuel for a functioning democracy."

Roll Call, Editorial, - July 16, 1998

Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee..."moved to give the Census Bureau only half of its funding for next year and to release the rest next March - if and when Congress has voted on how the Census should be conducted. This was a blatant and dangerous move to keep the bureau from even planning to implement statistical sampling as a counting method."

Roll Call, Editorial, "Give It Up II" -June 9, 1997

"What will influence the next round of redistricting most dramatically is not Census sampling, but political control of governorships and state legislatures in 2001. Right now, in nearly all of the states due to gain or lose seats, Republicans are doing just fine. This is a question that shouldn't be settled on the basis of politics, but the merits. Do we want the most accurate population count possible, or don't we? Republicans should reconsider their resounding no."

Roll Call, Editorial, "Census Luddites" - June 20, 1996

"We can't believe that modern politicians, who live and die by political polls, distrust the idea of gaining accurate information by random sampling. We suspect Members know full well that undercounting poor people and minorities helps politicians who represent wealthier-and whiter-localities. Since when was cheating the politically weak out of their just slice of the political pie enshrined in the Constitution?"

Business Week, Commentary by Howard Gleckman - September 22, 1997

"An inaccurate Census would also punish business. The Census provides a wealth of demographic detail that companies depend on for marketing and planning."

The Wall Street Journal, Op-Ed by Everett Carll Ladd, "Tempest in a Census" - July 30, 1997

"Properly used, sampling is a valuable tool in many types of measurement, and it has a place in the upcoming Census. Calling it "guessing" is as uninformed as seeing it as a "magic wand" that can sweep all measurement problems away."

USA Today, Article by William Shapiro, "Census Bureau Deserves a Chance" - June 4, 1997

"For all the political rancor of the era, the government has always upheld the integrity of its data collection. That's why I believe the Census Bureau deserves a chance to experiment with sampling in 2000. The issue is far too important to be larded onto a supplemental appropriations bill like an old-fashioned piece of congressional pork."

State Newspapers

California, The San Francisco Chronicle, Editorial, "Making the Census Count" - August 11, 1998

"The Republican alternative is a strict interpretation of "actual enumeration" as stated in the Constitution. Relying on mailed-out surveys and household visits isn't practical in a country with an estimated population of 270 million. It will take a different counting method to produce an approximate number. Current plans call for counting 90 percent of the households in a Census tract and then use calculations to nail down the number of people living in the final 10 percent of the dwellings. This method saves time and money. It should also produce an accurate number, one that fulfills the duty of the Census Bureau and stands the test of good reason."

California, Los Angeles Times, Editorial, "Showdown In Census Feud" - August 13, 1998

"Politics enters the picture because the kind of people whom sampling should catch-those owning no homes-lean toward Democratic candidates, while the folks overrepresented in a traditional head count, those owning multiple homes, tend to favor Republicans. House speaker Newt Gingrich is leading the Republican opposition against sampling, calling the Census `an issue of great importance to our party." But while the use of sampling in the year 2000 could cost the GOP some votes, Gingrich's opposition could cost it more by alienating the two constituencies traditionally slighted when sampling is not used, Latinos and African Americans."

In 1991, Gingrich defended one of those very constituencies in a Census undercount, writing a letter urging the Bush administration to use sampling to correct for a low enumeration of African Americans in Georgia in 1990. "If the undercount is not corrected, it would have a serious negative impact on Georgia," Gingrich wrote, for minority voting strength would be greatly diluted.' Gingrich should reread that letter and support the Census Bureau's current attempt to do what he wished it had done in 1990."

Colorado, (Boulder) Daily Camera, Editorial, "Counting Heads And Votes" - June 19, 1997

"The real issue, of course, is political. There aren't a lot of Republicans in those uncounted millions and GOP leaders clearly are worried that the use of sampling would cause them to lose seats in congress. We doubt that the political effect would be substantial. But no political calculation should prevent the government from using the best available techniques to make the Census as accurate as it can be."

Colorado, The Denver Post, Editorial, "Coming to our Census" - May 13, 1997"

Colorado stands to benefit from any improvement modern techniques can make in the accuracy of the 2000 Census."

Connecticut, Stamford Advocate, Article by Mathematics and Statistics Professor Benjamin Fine entitled, "Attacks On Census Sampling Ignore the Numbers" - July 10, 1998

"There is consensus among statisticians and demographers that the intended uses of sampling in the Census 2000 are sound, and are more likely to produce more accurate counts at lower cost than would intensified use of the traditional Census methods."

Connecticut, The Hartford Courant, Editorial, "Sampling will improve Census accuracy" - July 21, 1997

"The Census Bureau needs authority and funding now for a dress rehearsal of all its information- gathering techniques, including sampling, to ensure the most accurate count three years hence. We wish Mr. Shays success in persuading other rank-and -file Republicans to ignore their parochial-minded leaders and do what's right. Sampling will improve accuracy."

Florida, The Palm Beach Post, Editorial, "Count On Big Problems" - August 10, 1998

"The Census Bureau wants to add sampling to its head count-which still would reach 90 percent of the public -to get more accurate totals. Congress is holding back planning money to force a Census the old way, errors and all... No one pays attention this early, but the foul-up of 2000 is being prepared now."

Florida, The Tampa Tribune, Commentary, "Toward a more accurate Census" - August 9, 1998

"So both parties are going to have to get used to the idea that the counting process has never been perfect, and the 2000 version will be no different. How democratic it would be if they should put aside partisan politics for this occasion and try to make sure the next Census is as accurate as human wit can make it."

Florida, St. Petersburg Times, Editorial, "Politics shouldn't count" - June 18, 1997

"The technique (sampling) is generally regarded as accurate and has been endorsed by the American Statistical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the General Accounting Office. Its constitutionality has been upheld by several lower courts, and the Justice Department under President Clinton, Bush and Carter has affirmed its legality...Sampling is a reasonable remedy to that (undercount) long-standing problem.

Illinois, The Chicago Sun-Times, Editorial, "Update the Census" - July 29, 1997

"For those reasons, House Republicans have offered to write what amounts to a blank check, promising the bureau whatever resources it needs to count each and every person the old-fashioned way. That is a waste of taxpayer money. At $4 billion, a Census that uses sampling already is a rather expensive proposition. Spending $800 million or so more to track down the last remaining American is not a responsible use of taxpayer money."

Illinois, The Chicago Tribune, Editorial, "The science of the Census" - May 15, 1997

"The Republicans want to preserve the status quo because they have benefitted the most from the current system. But where the Census is concerned, accuracy and economy-not political advantage-ought to be the primary concerns."

Maine, Bangor Daily News, "2000 and counting" - July 21, 1997

"With overblown rhetoric that would cause most folks to blush, opponents call the plan, which has the endorsement of the esteemed National Academy of Sciences, a "risky scheme of statistical guessing." This from the same politicians who use sampling and statistical analysis to gauge the public's mood before every election, who use these proven and finely honed techniques to declare victory five minutes after the polls close... The most undercounted segment of the population is Black America and as the recent revisitation of the abominable Tuskegee Syphilis study reminded us, Blacks have just cause to be wary when someone from the government comes knocking on the door to ask a lot of personal questions. Reluctance to count them better raises a specter of racism the GOP doesn't need and the nation can't abide."

Maryland, The Baltimore Sun, Editorial, "Census reform a necessity" - June 10, 1997

"It is not only Democrats who believe the Census that missed more than 4 million Americans in 1990 can and should be made more precise. This is also the opinion of President George Bush's Census director, Barbara Everitt Bryant, and of some academic specialists who believe Republican gains in the Sunbelt could offset losses in the inner cities.

Massachusetts, The Boston Globe, Editorial - May 13, 1997

"For the first time in history, the 1990 Census was less accurate than its predecessor, failing about 4 million Americans-roughly a million more than were undercounted in 1980... The Census Bureau's plans to rectify this problem have suddenly become a hot issue in Washington, not because of the proposed sampling technique-professionals say it is sensible and conservative-but because of politics."

Missouri, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, GOP Plays Game With The Census" - July 19, 1997

"The battle over the 2000 Census is heating up again in Congress. Republicans insist on an actual count of each and every American - something that has long proved to be impossible. The Census Bureau wants to use statistical sampling to account for the last 10 percent of the population that's hard to find and routinely missed. The bureau is right."

New Jersey, The Record, Opinions, "Missing Americans; Playing Politics With The Census" - August 10, 1998

"What if someone drew a map of the United States and missed Los Angeles? In a way, that's essentially what happened with the 1990 Census, when the federal government did not count 4 million people. Instead of making a more accurate count possible, House Republicans last week blocked a proposal that would have helped the Census Bureau drastically reduce the number of Americans missed by using an additional counting technique.

New Mexico, Albuquerque Journal, Editorial, "Partisan Fears Skew Headcount Accuracy" - August 10, 1998

"By rejecting statistical sampling on undercounted residents, Republicans actually are, in a sense doing what they suspect Democratic administrations would do skewing the results for partisan advantage. But counting Democrats or Republicans is not the point. The job of the Census Bureau is counting everybody as accurately as possible. The job of congress is to make sure the job gets done right, rather than fighting over who gets to cook the Census books."

New York, Syracuse Herald-Journal; SYRC, Editorial, "Accuracy Is The Goal- Census Should Use Best Methods" - July 16, 1997

"Accuracy, of course, is the goal here. If the Republicans fear that Democrats could manipulate the numbers to create more Democratic congressional districts or to consolidate power, they ought to be putting their energy toward ensuring a truly accurate count. It is utterly ridiculous to have lawmakers working to prevent the most accurate Census that could be done- especially when they so strongly believe in polling methods."

New York, Newsday, Editorial, "The Next Census Ought to Count All Americans" - June 16, 1997

"The Clinton administration is backing the numbers crunchers, and it is right. Republicans, panicked they might lose congressional seats with a more accurate inner-city count, intend to fight again. They are acting out of self-interest, not the national interest."

North Carolina, The News and Observer, ED-OP, "Counting on Errors" - August 10, 1998

"By now, the Bureau should be well into planning for its count at the turn of the century, but the GOP money squeeze endangers the work.... Door-to-door enumeration by itself no longer accomplishes that. Statistical sampling won't get a perfect count, either. But experts say it will come much closer... Republicans are doing the country, their country, no favors in holding the task hostage to politics."

Ohio, The Columbus Dispatch, Editorial, "Census & sensibility Testing now to improve 2000 head count" -January 31, 1996

"In fact no one wants to avoid the mistakes, costs and old-fashioned techniques of the 1990 count more than people at the Census Bureau... Thus, Congress should provide sufficient funds to the bureau now so that adequate testing can take place before 2000, in order to improve accuracy and reduce costs."

Oregon, Register-Guard, "A first for the Census"- March 31, 1997

"The Constitution requires only that an "actual enumeration" of U.S. citizens be conducted every 10 years, and it gives Congress authority to decide how that should be accomplished. Years ago, Congress wisely turned the mechanics of the Census over to the secretary of commerce. The current secretary, William Daley, and Census Bureau Director Martha Farnsworth seem determined that the Census ushering in the new millennium will be the most accurate in the country's history. Congress should not stand in their way."

Oregon, Register-Guard, "Census going modern" - March 8, 1996

"The important thing, of course, is that the next Census be as accurate and credible as possible. Statistical sampling is a scientifically accepted way to achieve that. The Census Bureau is to be commended for its belated, but nonetheless welcome, decision to enter the modern age."

Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Editorial, "Census Sense; the Use of `Sampling' Is Scientific And Constitutional" - June 14, 1998

"Sampling is not weird science; many experts in the field favor the method. It also has ample precedent. As it is, the Census Bureau takes 200 sample surveys each year. Some sampling in a major Census was done as long ago as 1940. As a panel from the National Research Council observed, `It is fruitless to continue trying to count every last person with traditional Census methods of physical enumeration.' Census day 2000 is April 1. The nation will be ill-served if partisan politics obstructs the use of the best way to get the most accurate count."

Pennsylvania, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Editorial, "Con-Census Too Many Are Losing Out In Population Counts; A Statistical Projection Could Bring The Numbers Up" - June 9, 1997

"Republicans worry that the Clinton administration, with its less-than-fanatical devotion to ethics, might distort such projections for partisan advantage. They cite evidence that the citizenship applicants of thousands of resident aliens (and likely Democrats) were rushed through last year. But under the Census plan, an outside panel of experts would be set up to make sure the statistical projections were sound. Another part of the GOP critique is that the Constitution requires an "actual enumeration" every 10 years.

But the Census Bureau's methodology - designed as it is to reduce chronic inaccuracy - upholds the spirit of the Constitution better than an error-plagued head count. The main reason Republicans are fighting the Census plan - for example, by tucking an amendment into last week's disaster-relief bill - is their fear that more Democrats now go uncounted than Republicans. That's partisanship as bald as what they suspect from the Democrats. And it's no reason to stand by an antiquated Census that disregards millions of Americans."

Tennessee, The Commercial Appeal, "National Head Count" - July 19, 1997

To insist that the nation's Census in 2000 be done by tapping every American on the head, so to speak, is to ensure a deliberate undercount.

Texas, Houston Chronicle, Editorial "Counting Heads; No Reason to Keep U.S. Census Inaccurate" - June 4, 1998

"An accurate Census serves all Americans and harms no political party. True, state and federal funding formulas would be significantly affected, but wouldn't the nation be better off if government spending were based upon accurate rather than grossly inaccurate population numbers?"

Texas, The Houston Chronicle, Editorial, "Accuracy A Must; Much riding on correct Census count for Houston" - June 23, 1997

"For years, the Census Bureau has infamously undercounted the population, particularly in Texas. In the 1990 count, more than 4 million people in the country-an estimated 500,000 in Texas-were missed... Undercounting the population is not inconsequential. Texas and other states where undercounts were greatest lost out on additional House seats and, more important, billions of federal dollars ranging from Medicaid to highway construction funds. State officials believe missed heads in the 1980 Census cost Texas roughly $600 million in federal money.

That is funding that, in fairness, the state of Texas cannot afford to concede again... An estimated 5 percent of all Hispanics and blacks were not counted in 1990. In Houston, where Hispanics and blacks account for more than half of the population, that's a major problem... But Texas Republicans should know better than most the stakes riding on an accurate count. Houston has a great deal at stake with the accuracy of the next Census, and political party interests shouldn't take a front seat over the greater interests of the community as a whole."

Texas, The Dallas Morning News, Editorial, "Congress needs to fund new approaches" - May 29, 1997

"To be sure, The Dallas Morning News has in the past registered its concern over `Census adjustments.' Still, concerns such as the following have been answered one by one

Accuracy. The 1990 Census was the first to be less accurate than its predecessor. Now, even the Bush administration appointee who oversaw the 1990 Census has endorsed sampling as promoting accuracy.
Constitutionality. The Constitution says that all people shall be counted. But numerous legal experts believe that sampling is a reasonable option that would pass muster with the Supreme Court.
Politicization. Could sampling be susceptible to manipulation by one party or the other? That's a risk anywhere in government. Trust has to be placed in the professionalism and integrity of civil service professionals at the Census Bureau.

The most important issue in this debate over how to conduct the Census should be achieving the most accurate Census possible. That will promote fairness and confidence in our political system. Toward this end - whether on the basis of scientific accuracy or cost - objections to sampling are falling by the wayside, and rightly so."

Texas, Ft. Worth Star Telegram, "Census Politics" - May 14,1997

"It is well to remember that the politicians who decry using a scientific sampling based on 10 percent of the uncounted homes are happy to stake their political futures on polls that are based on much smaller samplings. As we said, this is now mostly about partisan politics rather than `enumerating' the population."

Virginia, Roanoke Times & World News, Editorial - June 28, 1998

"In the final analysis, the constitutional objective of the Census is to arrive at as accurate an enumeration of the population as is humanly possible. Proven, impartial science is far more likely to engender confidence in numbers than partisan political expedience."

Get Informed:

Blog: Unfinished Business

Civil Rights History

Resources: