For weeks now we have examined the election of 2000 and the Electoral College (EC) system used to elect U.S. Presidents. Last week's article [Dec. 21, 2000] emphasized the importance of retaining the EC and maintaining the College in its present form. However, many readers have objected to Electors having the freedom to "overturn" the wishes of the public by voting for someone other than the intended candidate. The objectors say that the popular vote must be paramount and should prevail. We certainly do not quarrel with readers on this point but we are confused by those who wish to change the EC system to achieve that purpose. Please read the Constitution on this point. . . . There is no need to change the EC system to assure that votes are cast for the public's desired candidate.

ARTICLE II, Sec. 1.
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

Notice the second clause; "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct." ARTICLE II, Sec. 1 has never been modified by amendment and cannot be changed by federal law. There is a federal statute (Title 3, U.S.C.) which places certain requirements on timing and standards (Electors must be named by December 12th and Electoral votes cast six days later; no change in the laws after public votes have been cast, etc., "The Congress may determine the time of chusing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."). But, the METHOD of choosing Electors still rest with state legislatures. The public should direct attention to those state Representatives and state Senators who could easily craft a system to ensure that there will be no "Faithless Electors" in their state. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO ASSURE THAT THE PUBLIC VOTE IS UPHELD. Important to keep in mind: The present election procedures evolved from the Articles of Confederation of 1781 and the Constitution of 1787. The procedures have not been significantly updated over the past 217 years. Isn't it about time that state legislatures took a closer look?

But its now time to turn to the most basic, the most fundamental aspect of the U.S. Constitution -- of our Democracy and of the REPUBLIC of the United States. . . . An aspect more overlooked than the Electoral College. The EC is really a second tier, or second layer, of that part of the Constitution which defines America as a nation of people who have joined into a confederation of states (United States) and delegated ONLY certain powers to a FEDERAL government -- as opposed to a monolith of people governed by a single central power (direct elections).

The FIRST tier of the U.S. system is the Decennial Census: Another Constitutional requirement:

ARTICLE I, Sec. 2.
"Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers. . . . The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."

A decennial census is the meat. . . . the essence of the U.S. Republic. Every ten years the census triggers re-apportionment of the House of Representatives. There is no legal way around this requirement -- this democratic necessity -- but that does not stop some folks in Washington from trying. Tinkering with this most important provision started in the 1980's and is gaining momentum with liberals who espouse the idea that certain minorities should have their votes evaluated greater than "one person -- one vote," (see last week's article on the Electoral College.) Make no mistake about it. . . . We are not opposed to providing assistance to minorities, the poor, the under-privileged, nor for having certain corrections for past discrimination. We are wholly opposed to under-handed or back-door techniques which deprive the public of a full view of what is taking place, especially when those techniques damage the fabric of the Constitution. Many liberals feel that their cause is so righteous that trashing the Constitution is a small price to pay.

Here's how it's done.

All those folks who were down in Florida running around with placards singing "count every vote! count every vote! . . ." now have a new mantra. . . . "Hand counts are wrong! Hand counts are wrong!"

Over the past three weeks we have described in great detail what the "count every vote" was really all about. On December 29 the count-every-vote group found themselves on the opposite side of the fence and now want manual counts for the 2000 census thrown out. The current effort started back in 1998 when President Clinton attempted to change the rules, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution, by putting forth a plan to ignore the Constitutional requirement that the population of the United States be "enumerated." Clinton wanted to change the system to a "statistical sampling" technique but Congress balked, went into Federal Court and promptly got a ruling, sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the population had to be actually counted.

From the nation's inception census figures were used to add members to the House but the Constitution provided for congress to cap the number of members so that the house didn't grow too large. In the early 1900's Congress capped the number at a manageable 435 :·) and since then the 435 members have been re-apportioned (re-distributed) based on the results of the Decennial Census.

Over the years the federal government has implemented a wide range of laws which are dependent on census data. Bureaucrats use the data for distribution of federal money (approx. $200 billion per year) to states and various groups. For example, job training, school buildings, education, housing, school lunches, police departments, and so forth. In fact, even federal highway money is distributed based in large part on census figures.

In the 1980's the Democrats controlled Congress and felt that the census might be "flawed." So they passed a law to have the Census Bureau look into census results. The bureau decided to conduct scientific sampling as part of the 1990 census but they wanted to camouflage the activity. To that end they introduced a plan called "Accuracy, Coverage Evaluation," or ACE. They began to look into CERTAIN areas of the country and just happen to conclude that all that hand counting was in error and that huge numbers of people had been overlooked. Ahem. . . . Want to guess what groups had been under-counted? Well. . . . we'll tell anyway. Blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, American Indians, etc. Guess what? They did not find any Republican areas which had been under-counted. That is a remarkable thing. By implication the results show that, for all those years, census takers had been under-counting Democrats and correctly counting Republicans. Where had all those people been hiding? In places like Miami-Dade and Broward Counties in Florida, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Indian Reservations, etc.

Clinton came to office in 1992 and decided to "fix" the enumeration problem. Instead of following the old practice of using the census results to disburse federal money, he "corrected" census figures through Executive Order and had the departments of HUD, HHS, Labor, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, etc., start using the new numbers adjusted by ACE. Of course Congress had already been re-apportioned using the real census numbers so he couldn't stick his finger into that pie. But in 1998 he tried to by announcing that the 2000 census would use ACE figures and save all that money budgeted for hand counting. He held a news conference on the White House front lawn and announced that he was going to save $4 billion. The press dutifully reported this wonderful new cost savings plan but neglected to mentioned that it violated the U.S. Constitution; that it would end democracy as we know it; that it was a tyrannical takeover of our Constitutional government; that about 80% of the population was being disenfranchised; etc.

The announcement provoked the congressional Republicans who went into court and stopped him.

In late December 2000 the Bureau of the Census announced the results of the 22nd Decennial Census and the numbers show many surprises. Based on the Supreme Court ruling of 1998 the Bureau had to follow the law and report the actual counts. The numbers are quite different from the running estimates (based on ACE) released from 1992 through 1999. For example, the running estimates had the total population at 275,000,000 to 278,000,000. The actual number turned out to be 281,996,236 -- not counting American territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. That number includes the Washington D.C. total of 572,059 which is not considered for re-apportionment purposes, leaving a total of 281,424,177 as the total re-apportionment number for the 50 states.

When the nation was founded each member of the House represented about 30,000 people. For the next ten years each member will represent an average of about 690,000 people.

For the past few years the Bureau has projected that North Carolina would show a growth rate of about 16% and probably lose one Representative, but the state grew at 21.4% and is one of only eight states to actually GAIN representation. Those results notwithstanding, the Census Bureau proposes to use ACE to "correct" the 2000 census. Fortunately, the Bureau cannot adjust the re-apportionment numbers but, if allowed by the President, may adjust the numbers for distribution of federal money. This is the hidden nonsense we object to. If the administration doesn't like whatever is specified in the various laws, why not lay out a plan for distribution of federal money and present it to Congress so they can do their job and be accountable?

Another Example

Soon after Bill Clinton took office for his first term the federal Health and Human Services Department (HHS) announced plans to reach out to the homeless nationwide and to do something to get them off the streets. This was a highly publicized effort and HHS went so far as to publish estimates for all regions of the country.

Using numbers based largely on ACE, the estimate for the Charlotte, North Carolina, region was 3,000+ that HHS wanted the local authorities to locate, identify, and send in plans, for federal money to provide housing and other support. The local Departments of Social Services began a search and after months of intensive canvassing came up with only 300-400 such persons. Seven years later the others still have not been found. Could it be that they simply do not exist? The reality is that the only time the other 2,500+ people ever appear is on ACE adjusted censuses and on election days.

The hidden practice of juggling numbers is just a baby-step away from the day when a lop-sided Congress will agree to accept the fudged numbers for re-apportionment and thereby stand the Constitution on its ear. The Supreme Court didn't say that Congress couldn't use adjusted numbers. . . . Just that a full manual count must be conducted and reported. It is totally predictable that the Supreme Court would not intervene if Congress opted to used fudged figures. The public deserves and should demand better.

And Now the Results . . .

As for the census figures, all states experienced growth over the past decade but Washington D.C. lost 34,841. However, 32 states did not have changes sufficient to effect their representation in congress and therefore their total Electoral College votes remain the same. Eight states gained representatives while ten states lost one or two. Consequently, 18 states will have changes in the number of representatives in congress and a like change in their Electoral College vote.

The overall U.S. residential population growth rate since 1990 was 13.2% (248,709,873 vs. 281,421,906). Most northeastern and Midwest states had a rate lower than 13.2% while most southern, Rocky Mountain, western, and southwestern states had rates higher than the national average. In other words, the U.S. population concentration continues to slide from the Northeast/Midwest toward the South and West. The totals by region are:

The fastest growth state was Nevada with 66.3%, more than 5 times the national average, and the slowest were North Dakota at .5% and West Virginia at .8%. North Carolina grew at a rate of 21.4%, or 1.6 times the national average. Alabama at 10.1%, Louisiana at 5.9%, and Mississippi at 10.5% trailed the national average of 13.2%. All northern states fell below the national average except Delaware at 17.6%.