Difference between revisions of "Utah v. Evans"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with '''Utah v. Evans'', 182 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (2001) is the leading court case about the use of Hot-Deck Imputation in the census. After the use of Hot-Deck techniques in the 2000...')
 
Line 1: Line 1:
''[[Utah v. Evans]]'', 182 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (2001) is the leading court case about the use of Hot-Deck Imputation in the census.  After the use of Hot-Deck techniques in the 2000 census, one of Utah's congressional seats was appointed to North Carolina.  Utah challenged this, on the grounds that Hot-Deck Imputation is a form of sampling, and "violated various statutory provisions and the Constitution."  
+
''[[Utah v. Evans]]'', 182 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (2001) is the leading court case about the use of Hot-Deck Imputation in the United States Census.  After the use of Hot-Deck techniques in the 2000 census, one of Utah's congressional seats was appointed to North Carolina.  Utah challenged this, on the grounds that Hot-Deck Imputation is a form of sampling, and "violated various statutory provisions and the Constitution."  
  
The District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division stated "We begin by noting that section 195 does not preclude the Census Bureau from the use of every type of statistical methodology in arriving at apportionment figures during a decennial census. Instead, it prohibits only "the use of the statistical method known as 'sampling.'"
+
The Court stated "We begin by noting that section 195 does not preclude the Census Bureau from the use of every type of statistical methodology in arriving at apportionment figures during a decennial census. Instead, it prohibits only "the use of the statistical method known as 'sampling.'" Section 195 is part of the [[Census Act]], and states, "Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as "sampling" in carrying out the provisions of this title."<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/census.htm</ref>  This section has been interpreted to prohibit the use of sampling for apportionment.  (See, for example, [[Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives]])
  
 
"[H]ot deck imputation is not sampling. Sampling is the selection of a subset of units from a larger population in such a way that each unit of the population has a known chance of selection. Sampling is used where a scientifically selected set of units can be used to represent the entire population from which they are drawn."
 
"[H]ot deck imputation is not sampling. Sampling is the selection of a subset of units from a larger population in such a way that each unit of the population has a known chance of selection. Sampling is used where a scientifically selected set of units can be used to represent the entire population from which they are drawn."
  
 
The Court concluded "that the Constitution does not prohibit the use of narrowly tailored statistical methodologies, such as hot deck imputation, for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the decennial census and furthering "the constitutional goal of equal representation."
 
The Court concluded "that the Constitution does not prohibit the use of narrowly tailored statistical methodologies, such as hot deck imputation, for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the decennial census and furthering "the constitutional goal of equal representation."
 +
 +
==References==
 +
<references/>
  
 
[[Category:Census]]
 
[[Category:Census]]

Revision as of 14:46, 22 May 2009

Utah v. Evans, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (2001) is the leading court case about the use of Hot-Deck Imputation in the United States Census. After the use of Hot-Deck techniques in the 2000 census, one of Utah's congressional seats was appointed to North Carolina. Utah challenged this, on the grounds that Hot-Deck Imputation is a form of sampling, and "violated various statutory provisions and the Constitution."

The Court stated "We begin by noting that section 195 does not preclude the Census Bureau from the use of every type of statistical methodology in arriving at apportionment figures during a decennial census. Instead, it prohibits only "the use of the statistical method known as 'sampling.'" Section 195 is part of the Census Act, and states, "Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as "sampling" in carrying out the provisions of this title."[1] This section has been interpreted to prohibit the use of sampling for apportionment. (See, for example, Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives)

"[H]ot deck imputation is not sampling. Sampling is the selection of a subset of units from a larger population in such a way that each unit of the population has a known chance of selection. Sampling is used where a scientifically selected set of units can be used to represent the entire population from which they are drawn."

The Court concluded "that the Constitution does not prohibit the use of narrowly tailored statistical methodologies, such as hot deck imputation, for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the decennial census and furthering "the constitutional goal of equal representation."

References

  1. http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/census.htm