Redistricting requires quality data

Article published Saturday, January 28, 2006
Letters to the Editor

The Toledo Blade

Recent proposals by Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted and Michigan Congresswoman Candice Miller to count only citizens for apportionment purposes is misguided.

Regardless of what one thinks about the wisdom of such a move, the proposed changes would be very difficult to implement. Reapportionment and the determination of legislative district boundaries requires high quality data on size and distribution of the population down to the neighborhood level.

These data come from a 100 percent count of the population (the decennial Census) that is conducted every 10 years by the U.S. Census Bureau. Even though states may use sample data to determine the boundaries of legislative districts, the Supreme Court has affirmed that 100 percent count data is required for apportionment purposes (i.e. determining the number of representatives in each state).

Here's the catch. The Census Bureau does not collect 100 percent data on citizenship. What we know about the number and distribution of citizens comes from sample data. Even though the Census Bureau collects basic information about the population (age, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity), the questions about citizenship appear only on what is known as the "long form" of the census, which is distributed randomly to only about 1 in 6 households.

Another problem is that citizenship data tend to be of much lower quality than simple population counts. Demographic research shows that many more immigrants report they are citizens than what is actually possible. So even if the Census Bureau collected 100 percent data on citizenship, it may not be as reliable as is required by the courts.

Jennifer Van Hook

Associate Professor of Sociology
Bowling Green State University