The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, January 10, 1996
Decision: Wednesday, March 20, 1996
Issues: Civil Rights, Reapportionment

Advocates

Drew S. Days, III (Argued the cause on behalf of the federal petitioners)
James E. Doyle (Argued the cause for the state petitioners)
Robert S. Rifkind (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Under the Constitution's Census Clause, Congress is vested with the responsibility of conducting an "actual enumeration" of the American public every ten years, primarily for the purpose of aportioning congressional representation among the states. Congress delegated this responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce who, in the 1990 census, decided not to use a statistical correction, known as the post-enumeration survey (PES), to adjust an undercount in the initial population count. Acting on behalf of several citizens' groups, states, and cities, Wisconsin challenged the Secretary's decision not to use the PES; claiming that it resulted in an undercounting of certain identifiable minority groups.

Question

Did the decision of the Secretary of Commerce not to use the PES in the 1990 census violate the constitutional right of certain minorities to be counted?

Conclusion

No. The Court held that the decision not to use the PES-based statistical correction would not be reviewed under a strict scrutiny standard of "one person - one vote" because there was no showing of intentional discrimination by the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary's decision was consistent with past census practices in which the promotion of distributive accuracy, rather than numerical accuracy, was the primary objective. This is because errors in numerical accuracy are less likely than errors in distributive accuracy to impact on the apportionment of representatives among the states. Moreover, the Court added that significant deference - regarding how best to conduct the census - must be accorded to the Secretary since he directly received such latitude from Congress which, in turn, received such latitude from the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Wisconsin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3: Apportionment of Representatives
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Wisconsin v. New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1614/>
(last visited ).