Wisconsin v. City of New York
From Conservapedia
In Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996), the states of Wisconsin and Oklahoma argued that the first Bush Administration's decision not to readjust the results of the 1990 census was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's decision and affirmed the decision of the District Court, concluding, "Here, the Secretary of Commerce, to whom Congress has delegated its constitutional authority over the census, determined that in light of the constitutional purpose of the census, an "actual Enumeration" would best be achieved without the PES-based statistical adjustment of the results of the initial enumeration. We find that conclusion entirely reasonable."
The Census of 1990
While serving as associate director in the Census Bureau, Robert M. Groves "recommended that the 1990 census be statistically adjusted to make up for an undercount of roughly 5 million people, many of them minorities in dense urban areas who tend to vote for Democrats. " [1] This "political tampering" was overruled by Republican Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher.
Findings
First, the court heavily emphasized the power of Congress to conduct the census. "The Constitution requires an "actual Enumeration" of the population every 10 years and vests Congress with the authority to conduct that census "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."" And: "the Constitution vests Congress with wide discretion over apportionment decisions and the conduct of the census."
The Court also discussed the goals of the census and the Secretary's authority to make decisions reasonably likely to further those goals. The Secretary's decisions should be "consistent with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation" (quoting Franklin). The Court said, "In light of the Constitution's broad grant of authority to Congress, the Secretary's decision not to adjust need bear only a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population, keeping in mind the constitutional purpose of the census."
Affirming the Secretary's decision, the court outlined his reasons for refusing to adjust the census "First, he held that in light of the constitutional purpose of the census, its distributive accuracy was more important than its numerical accuracy. Second, he determined that the unadjusted census data would be considered the most distributively accurate absent a showing to the contrary. And finally, after reviewing the results of the PES in light of extensive research and the recommendations of his advisers, the Secretary found that the PES-based adjustment would not improve distributive accuracy. Each of these three determinations is well within the bounds of the Secretary's constitutional discretion."
In conclusion, the Court did not discuss the merits or problems of readjustment, but upheld the requirement of Actual Enumeration. The Court Affirmed the authority of Congress and the Secretary of Commerce to decide how to conduct the census, provided they follow the goals of "a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population" and keep "in mind the constitutional purpose of the census".
