Reply Brief — Dean v. Leake (No. 07-1458)

FILED

(4) AUG - 4 2008

No. 07-1458 OFFICE OF THE CLERK |

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Joseph Dean, et al.,

Appellants,

1)

Larry Leake, et al.,

Appellees,

And

North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the

NAACP,

Appellee-Intervenor

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina

BRIEF OPPOSING APPELLEES’ AND APPELLEE-

INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM

Robert N. Hunter, Jr. Dalton L. Oldham

Hunter, Higgins, Miles, 1320 Washington St

Elam & Benjamin, PLLC 2" Floor

101 W. Friendly Ave., Ste 500 Columbia, SC 29201

Greensboro, NC 27401 (803) 772-7729

(336) 273-1600

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLAS OF} AUT RE Riee WOM ccs scsesescessncsesncamens wise il

REASONS FOR DENYING THE

MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM

I. The Notice of Appeal was timely filed................. |

II. The Court reviews the Interlocutory Orders

De Novo for Errors of Law

III. The Appeal is not moot

IV. Motions to Dismiss Raise Irrelevant

Disputes of Fact

Ce EN kn Scie xcncscacdnwacuuanwueuieens Keele kee 11

APPENDIX

Feb.20, 2003 Letter of Cathy McCully, Chief

Census Bureau Redistricting Office.................. App.1

Chart County Corrections to 2000 Federal

CNOA. onc ok snvacncndbeccccancavensdeauen eee ean App. 2

Census 2000 Informational Memorandum No.

il

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bartlett v. Stricklar.d, 128 S. Ct. 1648 (2008)........3,5

Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966)................. 2

Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro,

mae we BOS (GR Cie. TOG) oo ccccscddkccscnnene eee 2

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 S.Ct.

a kL tS en anne rrp mer mer emir mrernen bre 4

Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983)................. 8

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)...... 4

LULAC us. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).............. 9,11

Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton,

Som © 00 O29 (0). AD.. BBIB) a ince nessicsscesseseee 2

Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC,

219 U.S. 498 (1911)........ ences thle ache eee 4

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1998).................5

Stephenson vs. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377

Ps PIED a oo sne oosindnssdcndssmmeteedsnanennes oe eeeennan 3

Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107

IE Fe occu x cwhoixsee-y'c'e'neu ae ULeameks becapeuee yee aa 2

il]

United States v. Dixie Highway Exp., Inc., 389 U.S.

409 (1967)........... ee si Ries Micah ag eta aa Rites Gaeta Stee ee 2

Wisconsin us. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1,

sas ciis sink boda Catecennateae corer eis nee ca ae 8

Youngstown Sheet & Tub Co. v. Sawyer,

Se sO 1 6 ns aaa ea 2

STATUTES

TEAS, BONG ciscisccs cassstsasrstianviiors 5 Ccrianpetetann

28 U.S.C. § 2101(b)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 52

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 58

REASONS FOR DENYING THE MOTIONS TO

DISMISS OR AFFIRM

I. The Notice of Appeal was timely filed.

Appellants seek to invoke this court's

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1253, which grants a

party a right of direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme

Court from interlocutory injunctions of a properly

convened three judge panel. The time for an appeal!

under this statute is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2101(b)

which requires that an appeal be taken “within

thirty days from the judgment, order or decree,

appealed from, if interlocutory”. The three-judge

panel entered two orders covering the same issue,

the first a simple denial of the Appellants motion for

preliminary injunction was entered on January 28,

2008, which provided the following statement: “The

court will set forth its findings and conclusions in

separate memorandum opinion.”

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”)

Rules 52, 54 and 58 require an_ interlocutory

injunction or a final order so as to initiate the thirty-

day time period for filing the notice of appeal to “find

facts specially and state its conclusions of law”. The

district court’s Jan. 28, 2008 order did not under the

federal rules of civil procedure constitute a final

order so as to initiate the thirty-day time period for

filing the notice of appeal. ” Rule 52(a)(2) states: “For

an Interlocutory Injunction. In granting or refusing

an interlocutory injunction, the court must similarly

state the findings and conclusions that support its

action.”

NM

When a court issues a second judgment, order

or decree involving the same issues as an earlier

decree, this court has consistently held that

Appellant’s appeal is timely filed if entered 30 days

from the entry of the latter order. This is

particularly true in election or redistricting cases.

Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966), U.S. v.

Dixie Highway Exp., Inc., 389 U.S. 409 (1967).

II. The Court reviews the Interlocutory

Orders De Novo for Errors of Law

The operative facts are undisputed. If the

CQR enumerated data is applied to the 2003

redistricting map, districts are not equally populated

within a 10% range of deviation as required by state

law. Since the three judge panel’s decision rests

solely on an erroneous interpretation of law, this

Court, must correct this error because it has the

effect of determining the outcome of the cause of

action. The “abuse of discretion” standard of review

is limited to factual issues appellate courts always

review purely legal questions de novo. Natural Res.

Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827

(C.A.D.C. 1972) citing Youngstown Sheet & Tub Co.

v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 584-585, (1952). See also

Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, 228 F.2d

853 (6th Cir. 1956) the trial court abuses its

discretion when it fails or refuses properly to apply

the law to conceded or undisputed facts. Citing

Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107 (1922).

The court’s legal determination that the

Plaintiffs are unable to succeed on the ments

because the court is not required to use correct

enumerated census data in measuring redistricting

challenges based upon one person, one _ vote

statistical analysis is clearly erroneous. If the CQR

census data is used, the Plaintiffs are able to

establish they will succeed on the merits of their

claim because numerous districts are outside the

10% range of deviation. This fact alone establishes

irreparable harm because a constitutional right has

been violated and shifts the burden of proof to the

defendants to show a compelling governmental

interest to justify overpopulating election districts.

Because the North Carolina Constitution would

prevent such overpopulation, this interest could

never be shown as a matter of law. Stephenson vs.

Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 2002).

III. The appeal is not moot.

The Appellants realize that because of the

time required for this appeal the elections for the

General Assembly are _ proceeding in 2008.

Nonetheless, Appellants if they are successful could

be entitled to remedial elections in 2009 or legal

elections in 2010.

This Court’s decision to grant certiorari in

Bartlett v. Strickland, 128 S. Ct. 1648 (2008)

(“hereinafter “Strickland”) has effected both the facts

and the timing of this case. If Strickland is affirmed

then the North Carolina legislature must redistrict,

such redrawing will affect more districts across

North Carolina than just Pender County. If the

lower court’s opinion in this case is left uncorrected,

then the 2009 Legislature will revert to using

erroneous data.

Complete enumerated census block level data

is now available and fully assessable for compliance

with one person one vote. The leadership of the

North Carolina Legislature, for political reasons

described in Appellants’ jurisdictional statement at

pp.10-20, do not want to use this data in any

revisions when they occur.

If this Court decides this appeal in any

manner which does not correct this error of law,

then the Appellants will continue to suffer the

irreparable deprivation of a constitutional right and

be unable to obtain relief in time to prevent any new

redistricting scheme from being put into operation.

The 2009 special elections will be lost and the same

timing issues present in this case will insure that no

legal election will be held in this decade. Judicial

economy demands that the error of law be corrected

now rather than forcing the courts the litigants and

the voters to spend time, money, and resources while

their right to vote is diluted.

This appeal also fits within the established

exception to mootness for disputes capable of

repetition, yet evading review. See FEC ut.

Wisconsin Right to Life, 727 S.Ct. 2652 (2007) citing

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109,

(1983); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219

U.S. 498, 515,.1911). The exception applies where

“(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too

short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or

expiration, and (2) there fis) a_ reasonable

expectation that the same complaining party will! be

subject to the same action again”. Spencer v. Kemna,

523 U.S. 1, 17, (1998) ... Both circumstances are

present here.”

IV. Motions to Dismiss Raise Irrelevant

Disputes of Fact

Appellee-Intervenors, who do not have actual

knowledge of the facts, invite this court into a maze

of imagined factual disputes regarding the CQR

program. While Appellants disagree with the

Appellee-Interventors contentions, the court below

did not decide those issues, and this court need not

resolve these issues to resolve legal error in this

case.

These factual disputes are too numerous for

this limited space but out of an abundance of caution

some of these issues are addressed herein. The

lower court determined that it did not need to decide

such issues because its decision is decision based

solely on the question of law made any such factual

findings unnecessary. Appellants need this court to

correct the error of law so that resulting issues

which may still exists after a Strickland decision

may be subsequently decided. For example, if this

court corrects the error of law and affirms Strickland

little or no discovery would be required.

Appellees intimate that “block level data for

the corrections unknown by the legislature until

June 10, 2004. The block level data changes for

many, if not all, of the jumsdictions were available to

the North Carolina Legislature pmnor to the

Legislature’s enactment of the Nov. 25, 2003

legislative redistricting scheme. Appendix 1. Feb.

20 2003 letter of Cathy McCully, chief, census

redistricting data office. “[t]he second type of letter

provides the research results of a claim. These

letters will inform you of the Census blocks affected

and whether the change was associated with group

quarters.” Appendix 2 is a chart provided by state

Appellees which indicates when they received the

letters describing the corrections for each county in

the state. Appellants lack adequate knowledge to

determine the veracity of the chart provided by state

Appellees, from the information in possession of

Appellamts the Orange County corrections may be

the only corrections which did not include the block

level data at the time that the corrected certificates

were provided to the local jurisdictions. As stated in

Appellants’ JS block level data was unnecessary in

order to use the Orange County data for redistricting

purposes. (See also JS pp.6 fn. 3 & 16-19). As noted

in Appellants’ JS at p 5 the Census Bureau had to

have the total population and characteristic data

(racial and age) for the block level in their possession

at the time they corrected the certificates. Had the

state of North Carolina sought this data it could

have acquired it.

Whether North Carolina possessed corrected

characteristic data (racial, etanic and age) is

immaterial to the question of one person one vote

and the corrected enumerated census data for total

population which is the component used in North

Carolina to measure one person one vote. The

characteristic data from the original PL 94-171 data

can still be used for all purposes involving

redistricting for which consideration of such

characteristic data would be appropriate. It remains

just as accurate as it did previously and the failure

to acquire «corrected enumerated data for the

characteristic data does not make the corrected

enumerated total population data any less accurate.

The people of North Carolina should not have their

right to vote diluted because North Carolina made

no effort to improve the accuracy of the

characteristic data.

The CQR program issues only enumerated

census data The CQR program is described in

CENSUS 2000 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM NO. 100

and was provided to the North Carolina Legislature.

(See Appendix 3). This memorandum is provided to

all jurisdictions to inform them of the CQR program

and how to document possible errors in processing

the data which was collected. This memorandum

makes clear that under the CQR program “the

Census Bureau will not collect new

information.” (Emphasis in original.) These same

processes occur in the enumerated census and

double-check the original geographic assignments,

record selection and math. The memorandum also

states “the corrected CQR counts that are issued are

' lt is unfortunate that this process was delayed until 2003 for the 2000

Census when the process has taken place much earlier in all prior

censuses. It was delayed two years for the 2000 Census because of the

ill advised attempt by the Census Bureau to statistically adjust the 2000

Census instead of taking an enumerated headcount as required by the

United States Constitution. The post census local review program which

produced corrections in 198! and 1991 for the 1980 in 1990 censuses

respectively is essentially the exact same program as COR except it is

performed two vears later. It is essentially the final part of the decennial

enumerated census

based on the housing unit and population counts as

of April 1, 2000. The new official census counts may

be used by the governmental entities for all

programs requiring official Census 2000 data.” The

process involved in CQR identifies each specific error

and then corrects it. Each correction carries the

original closer to perfection.

This is what happened in Karcher v. Daggett,

462 U.S. 725 (1983). The first set of corrections

made the census enume:rated total population data

more accurate than the original, the second set of

corrections made the total population data even

more accurate than the first set of corrections did.

The CQR corrections should have been

entered into North Carolina’s redistricting database

as they were received. The CQR program ended on

September 30, 2003. At that time all of the data

including block level data should have been

available. If not supplied, its delivery could have

been expedited had the State requested it. The data

produced by the CQR program is_ corrected

enumerated census data and is the most numerically

and distributively accurate enumerated census data

available and will remain so until it is replaced by

the results from the 2010 census.°

Appellee-Intervenors incorrectly assert that

the Census Bureau has precluded the use of this

data by a federal court for the purposes of assessing

compliance with the one-person one-vote principle.

Under this Court's precedent the Census Bureau

> This is consistent with Wisconsin vs City of New York, $17 U.S. 1, 20

(1996)

could not through a disclaimer prevent a federal

court from considering what is obviously relevant

evidence, furthermore the language used by the

Bureau in the disclaimers clearly is not intended to

prohibit the use of the data in redistricting or by the

courts. The Census Bureau states that it will not

reissue the PL 94-171 redistricting data summary

files. The Census Bureau does state that it is

recertifying the official 2000 Census total population

counts and issued new official certificates showing

the new total population counts for each jurisdiction

and provided block level errata with most if not all of

these certificates. See Appendix 3. The corrected

data was also available on the Bureau’s web site.

Not reissuing the entire redistricting data summary

files makes perfect sense. In 2003 over 90 percent of

America’s jurisdictions redistricting would have been

completed. The few jurisdictions which still had to

redistrict could simply make use of the errata to

correct to their existing PL 94-171 file. This appears

consistent with the prior practice under the post

census local review.

Contrary to motions, the legal issue presented

by this appeal was not presented to this court in

LULAC us. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006). Nowhere in

the opinions issued by any court in L.ULAC is the

question of corrected census data discussed. The

briefs filed by Travis County in the LULAC case

indicate why neither court considered the issue. In

Travis County’s Supreme Court’s brief, the only

mention of corrected census data is on page 5 and

reads: “(t]he redistricting plan used the uncorrected

population count from the 2000 Census to meet the

constitutional requirement of equipopulous

10

districts.” This sentence is footnoted and it states:

“the Census Bureau had officially corrected the 2000

Census and added 30 people to Texas’ total

population before plan 1374 C. was enacted.” The

footnote is followed by a citation to a trial exhibit

which was not included in the Joint Appendix.

Travis County’s jurisdictional statement contained

virtually the same language.

Travis County was incorrect, 30 people were

not added by the corrected census count but instead

were subtracted. Travis County did not assert at

either the trial or the appellate level that the

District Court should have assessed the redistricting

plans produced by the Legislature of the state of

Texas for compliance with one person one-vote using

the corrected census data produced by the CQR

program. Nor did Travis County assert that the

Texas legislature was aware of the corrected census

data.

Travis County’s passing mention of the

Census Bureau’s correction was in support its

argument that since the state of Texes had enjoyed

rapid growth in the three years since the 2000

Census, any new redistricting map could not be

drawn unless a new census was taken. This

contention was rejected by this court. Travis

County's logic would have forced the continued use

of the prior Democrat gerrymandered redistricting

scheme drawn using the exact same census data as

the legislatively enacted congressional redistricting

plan.

11

Appellants herein take an even more

attenuated position. They suggest that because the

state of North Carolina has enjoyed considerable

growth since the taking of the 2000 census it is more

appropriate to use the erroneous total population

data to draw any new redistricting plans as opposed

to the corrected data which eliminates’. the

mathematical and clerical errors that existed in that

data. Both sets of data are enumerated data both

measure the population as of April 1, 2000. The only

difference is one is known to be erroneous and the

other has those known errors corrected. If the

corrected data were available to the legislature and

they had knowledge of this, common sense demands

that the courts assess one person one vote using this

data. But to assert as Appellants and the district

court do that the knowledge of the errors is

irrelevant, so that if the state decides that it wants

to use the data which it knows is erroneous the

district court should and would use the erroneous

census data to assess one person one vote defies all]

logic and all of this Court’s prior precedent. This

court rejected this type of circular argument when

Travis County made it in the LULAC case and this

court should reject it again in this case.

Conclusion

Appellants request this court to summarily

reverse the District Court on the question of law,

then remand this case to the District Court for

further proceedings consistent with this Court's

prior rulings and instruct the District Court to use

the most accurate enumerated census data of which

the North Carolina Legislature was or should have

12

os

been aware of at the time that the redistricting

scheme was enacted when it assesses compliance

with the one person, one vote principle.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert N. Hunter, Jr.

Hunter, Higgins, Miles,

Elam & Benjamin, PLLC

101 W. Friendly Ave., Ste 500

Greensboro, NC 27401

(336) 273-1600

Dalton L. Oldham

1320 Washington St., 2 Floor

Columbia, SC 29201

(803) 772-7729

APPENDIX 1

United States Department of Commerce

Economic and Statistics Administration

U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, D.C. 20333-00011

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

Feb. 20 2003

Mr. Terrence Sullivan

Director of Research

NC General Assembly

Legislative Services Office

LOB, Room 4545

300 North Salisbury Street

Raleigh, NC. 27603

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

In an effort to provide complete information on the results of

the Count Question Resolution Program for your state, I am

providing recent correspondence that has been issued to local

governments. This additional correspondence may include

two types of Ietters. The first type is a letter which informs

the local government that the Census Bureau’s research does

not support the claim made, and that no change is

forthcoming from the Census Bureau. The second type of

letter provides the research results of a claim. The letters

will inform you of the census blocks affected and whether

the change was associated with group quarters. The «tall

does not go beyond the affected blocks. For this second

type, a letter providing the certified counts for the affected

jurisdictions should follow soon.

We will continue to provide you with coptes of the”

certification letters” and “research complete letters” as they

arrive in our office. If you have any question regarding this

App. 1, Page 2

mailing do not hesitatc to give me a call on 301-763-4039 or

via cmail at cathcrine.clark.mccully@cenus.guv.

Sincerely,

Cathy McCully, Chief

Census Redistricting Data Office

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Bill Gilkerson, Legislative Services

Mr. Dan Frey, GIS Programmcr/Analyst

Mr. Gerry Cohen, Director of Bill Drafting Legislative

Services Office

APPENDIX 2

PNY 2109 suas Sowspen 20 arms Soutap/) dy

Re jl h Jt | tL jl iN |

& “[s199 it ester jester jo zee's ieoes sie sog'tr je6oze fcosuor | Banwre ut i}

a ae {56857 ji196 857 [0 76161 |f%6161 — |foz 98179 j998'179 |Itoezor | orem 9z |

¢ jpoez jaz S69'Sb jézl'se lo 9991 1999"! 56 U9 ece'ezt Hfeonmtat * wounl st

& lipec’s 1 sts6z jisesez =o est jest =k 6879 110679 = EOI psopauanyll |

gy jeo'y — for- —oce'er Gri iy |0_ foc Yocee ire oecrert lieve ert _froretic uesqow] ez

jee bb civvs ezv'vs jo sve't_svet aids e'oet Iftze'oei feorcia ydiopuang tt |

0 jjeos's__jjeoe’s ict eow'es |isoe'as flo cee's feted loc Ieor'eel Voter }\r0/90/1 ug! iz |

c___fpcve Jvev'e lews't- pazior Yoocur Jo __—ere's eves _|ooot- fuerait Jieccit ones awumio|! 02

fot ——sHeee'tt fleve'ti iit 196. |Ipe9"6z ty jperr _}oz___ficoe‘oor ficzeosr eorciss joraouny many! 61

C oe Cae | iso'ce |i6vo'ze fo ecre \uziz Wise ——foze'us |isee'ces eon Pen et |

0 gery |fecv's fp ist'se |isei'se lo oot jizoo't —|u- —fooc'be toes =‘ eonontt aoowl 61

1_|froe'ot__fsve'et|isz- onz'zez isse'ver J Weir's jewsl | jvs-__livsv'seo Jloce’se9 jleomio1 |! Square! 97

0 _|ore fore oz: _forooi foreor lo fisz —‘iitez ur __iess’st_|iges'sz_ feos: | = eum} st

0 |igtee fete g 9600 |isrc'oz jo slices sles es tis’ez fgoe’sz = |icominr wooe]; #1

0 _ jee’ Ieee’ raree jetaz jo eset jooz't —_iizt- __iavs'ss Jeoes |oxis nowy a |

9 Vere't llove't bz 60661 jlese6! — jo joss |968 tot lobo or = iguror touts ay ot

0 1o9'¢_fjio9e_—ice- —oni’os Hest’os fo tei jtet is S9G'ITL OOS TZ |EO/cott wosuyorl = Ty

0 re veL6 ‘iiveL6 ~— ore ote —_—iiosz OLE lop et_Jieceze__|icocey | puopuang| on

{0 906'> [906'» ——iiez- —izwa’ae § Wcie’ee ilo Ba ot iy sve 06t [ror os! |komin | uowepy 66

I oie |iitoe it voor |fevo'rt io rt jet yo pos'ss [90'ss cowort || aquiosoFpa]¢

o— BOSE LSE ibe OSt'8e |ivot'se ilo Te ae a a Ge a) ae

(0 ‘ear feve 0 | Coe Ce a CE Gr ie lprs'pt fost'et — iltovcur uaa |

loec'y eec’y Iie sle6s |iz66s jo CORES CT | CT wqneey, g§ ||

ri Oi- — joer'ee joze'ee jlo pil jertt —jez- —iistw'ee =fowe'ze —iltaveze (RAPRO| oy |)

0 N668°Z 0 tev'ce |itrce lo pive foie fe iesr'ee spies fori angi oc |

0 £6602 as I- levts loev'is — io ve. lee Ye Vewvec Mivi'ec JcOM101 punsunug!) ft ||

I" koe jooet —|it-——sdfoso'’s lleva’ 861 Rot gt Heec's liusc’st — eovezanr anag, tl

WBQ) | TUFO||P2010) Fury shag |/pwrasz0 Ho 0 HO |Parauepiaopsaiioy| uno |uequiny

| a I AHL =| warn dnary opamdog | eared || 38005 yO EN")

a, ae =

> iene S8SH9D [84937 0007 24) 0} SUON}92II05 AyuNO>D

ZO | Beg -

ssued) 0007 oY Ol SUONI@LO-, 45 Ayano)

LOOW/LET Jany s1oocw. Aowsp jn su o1m}s Sounp,, dug

9007 ‘C1 Auorune aopd; i607]

(SSET MOH HSU 0OHT OTST")

a5} 4 oF"

wo. VORNSSIZY DopAFNd rGN0> s,nvamg meveD a—m UNDIy

A a

fez Wreotec loseiee |eisi- loroecstjoce cest fo _‘[lesesz|[iewese Jeeet- \etcoroafseroroe || Ol Funes) quON |

0 © loirz lore = fir — ore’ve fszeoe fo Joos! soa t= pts"ec tse feocozr ony sz

SIKX3

7joz shey

SSW OOOZ OM 0) SUONIAIO®, 4 AWUNdD

APPENDIX 3

April 26, 2001

CENSUS 2000 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM

NO. 100

MEMORANDUM FOR Distribution List

From: Carol M. Van Horn

(Signed)

Chief, Decennial

Management Division

Subject: Count Question Resolution

Program

Census 2000 Count Question Resolution

Program Overview

This memorandum provides information concerning

the Census 2000 Count Question Resolution (CQR)

program. This program will be implemented to

respond to challenges to the Census 2000 housing

unit and group quarter counts received from local

and tribal governmental entities in the U.S. and

Puerto Rico. The CQR program will become effective

on June 30, 2001 and will end on September 30,

2003. Please note this program is currently pending

Office of Management and Budget approval.

The CQR start date of June 30, 2001 is coordinated

with the release of the Summary File 1(SF1). SF1

data will be released on a state-by-state basis

between June and September 2001 and will contain

block-level data on the number of housing units and

App. 3, Page 2

group quarters population counts. After the release

of SF1, some governmental entities may want to

challenge these counts. The Census Bureau will

respond to all questions and will notify all affected

governmental entities of any corrections to their

official counts as a result of CQR.

Challenges to the overseas counts of persons in the

military and Federal civilian personnel stationed

overseas and their dependents living with them will

not be accepted. These overseas counts are obtained

using administrative records and will be used solely

for reapportioning seats in the U.s. House of

Representatives and do not provide the sub state

geographic information required for the CQR

program.

Governmental units challenging the completeness or

accuracy of the Census 2000 counts must contact the

Census Bureau directly in writing or by electronic

mail to initiate the CQR process. Ail challenges

should be sent to the Census Bureau's headquarters.

Local and government officials can submit their

challenge in writing to:

The U.S. Census Bureau

Count Questions Resolution Program

Decennial Management Division, Room

2002/SFC-2

4700 Silver Hill Road, Stop 7100

Washington, CD 20233-7100

App. 3, Page 3

CQR submissions also can be submitted to the

following email address:

CountQuestion.Resolution@census.gov

The Census Bureau will respond to all submissions

from local and tribal governments, county clerks,

city planners, local planning board representatives,

and state legislative representatives with

redistricting functions within each state and state

equivalents who are acting onthe’ alf of a local or

tribal jurisdiction. A local or tribal government must

provide documentation of the missing housing

unit(s) or group quarter(s) that they believe existed

on April 1, 2000. For documentation necessary to

initiate the Census 2000 CQR process, refer to the

section below, “Documentation Necessary to Initiate

and Support the Census 2000 CQR Process.”

The Census Bureau will make corrections if the

results of our research indicate they are warranted.

Our experience has shown that some of the

questions received from the local or tribal officials do

not reflect errors in census counts, but result from

an incorrect or incomplete understanding of the

procedures used to take the census. The Census

Bureau’s determination of whether a correction is

necessary will be based on the information provided

by local and tribal governmental unit

representatives and the results of the Census

Bureau’s review of the census records. The Census

Bureau will investigate challenges to determine

whether a housing unit or group quarters that

App. 3, Page 4

existed on April 1, 2000, was allocated to an adjacent

jurisdiction or erroneously excluded during the

processing of the data. The Census Bureau will

not collect new information.

The CQR program is not intended to create a

mechanism or process to challenge the March 6,

2001 decision of the Secretary of Commerce to

release unadjusted Census 2000 redistricting data.

No changes will be made to the apportionment or

redistricting counts as a result of this program. This

process will allow the Census Bureau to maintain

consistency between data products while

maintaining the schedule for timely release of the

data. However, the Census Bureau will issue a

revised official Census 2000 population and housing

unit counts for the affected governmental entity(es),

maintain a list of CQR corrected areas on the

American Factfinder, and will incorporate any

corrections into its Postcensal Estimates program

beginning in December 2002.

Types of Corrections Acceptable for the Census

2000 CQR Program

The results of the Census 2000 CQR Program will

produce three types of corrections: boundary

corrections; geocoding corrections; and coverage

corrections:

Boundary corrections — Census 2000

respects the proper alignment of the

jurisdictional boundaries of functioning

App. 3, Page 5

governmental units as legally in effect

on January 1, 2000. The Census

Bureau needs to ensure that the

geographic assignment information

provided does not, in fact, reflect

boundary changes made after January

1, 2000. Problems, such as the

inaccurate reporting of jurisdictional

boundaries and the inaccurate

recording of such boundaries by the

Census Bureau, will be addressed by

the CQR program. The boundaries of

other geographic and statistical areas,

such as census designated places,

census tracts, voting districts, school

districts, and the like are not in the

scope of the Census 2000 CQR program.

Geocoding corrections — placement

of living quarters and associated

population within the correct

boundaries, census blocks, and the like.

Even if the CQR process does not result

in a change to the total count for a local

or tribal jurisdiction, we will send a

letter to the local or tribal government

official when the Census Bureau moves

group quarters or housing units to

different blocks within the jurisdiction.

Coverage corrections — add or

remove specific living quarters and

persons residing therein that were

App. 3, Page 6

identified during the Census 2000

process but erroneously included or

excluded due to processing errors.

Addresses for living quarters that were

not found to be erroneously excluded

due to processing will be added to the

Census address list for use in future

statistical programs of the Census

Bureau.

Documentation Necessary to Initiate and

Support the Census 2000 CQR Process

The Census Bureau will require documentation

before committing resources to investigate concerns

raised by local and tribal officials or their

representatives about boundary and geographic

assignment errors or the accuracy of the census

housing unit or group quarters population counts.

In general, when submitting a challenge,

governmental entities must specify whether the

challenge disputes the location of a governmental

unit boundary or the number of housing units and/or

group quarters population counts in one or more

tabulation blocks.

Boundary challenges —- For boundary

disputes, indicate on a map the location

of the governmental unit boundary in

dispute; that is, it must be shown where

the Census Bureau incorrectly depicts

the boundary and show the correct

App. 3, Page 7

boundary legally in effect as of January

1, 2000. The Census Bureau will

compare the maps and appropriate

supporting documentation submitted by

the challenging entity with the

information used by the Census Bureau

to depict the boundaries for Census

2000.

Challenges to boundaries must:

> show the correct location of the

boundary and the portion of the

boundary that the Census

Bureau depicted incorrectly,

including the Census 2000

tabulation block numbers

associated with the boundary.

Provide the Census Bureau with

a list of addresses in affected

tabulation blocks, indicating

their location in relationship to

the boundary requiring

correction.

Housing Unit challenges - the

governmental official must provide

supporting evidence that specifically

reflects the validity of any address list

source and reflect the residential

addresses that existed as viable living

quarters on April 1, 2000.

App. 3, Page 8

Challenges to housing unit counts

must:

Specify the Census 2000

tabulation block(s) for which the

counts are being challenged. SF1

can be used to obtain tabulation

block housing unit counts.

Provide a complete address list

for all units that should be

included in each contested block.

Be certified by local and tribal

officials that the addresses on

their lists existed and could be

lived in or April 1, 2000.

Group Quarters challenges —- the

government official must provide the

name of the group quarters and

evidence, e.g., a listing of patients that

supports the number of persons

residing in the XYZ Nursing Home as of

April 1, 2000.

Challenges to group quarters

population counts must:

w Specify the tabulation block(s) for

which the counts are being

challenged. Group quarters may

have housing units on the

premises for staff and/or guests.

SF 1 can be used to obtain group

App. 3, Page 9

quarters population counts by

tabulation block.

a provide a complete address list

for all group quarters units that

should be included in each

contested block.

> be certified by local and tribal

officials that the addresses on

their lists existed and could be

lived in on April 1, 2000.

Types of Acceptable Paper Maps

Paper Census 2000 Public Law 94-171

County Block Maps — These maps

accompanied the Redistricting Data

Summary Files. Paper Census 2000

Redistricting Block Maps for

Washington, D.C. Paper Census 2000

Redistricting Municipio block Maps for

Puerto Rico — These maps will

accompanied the Puerto Rico

Redistricting Data File.

Paper Census 2000 Block Maps — These

maps will be provided to local and tribal

jurisdictions and will show tabulation

block numbers. They are a companion

map for the Demographic Profiles that

will contain information on population

totals, including group quarters and

selected population and housing

characteristics.

App. 3, Page 10

Paper Maps based on the 2000

TIGER/Line File — These maps may be

generated by local or tribal

governments based on information from

the Census Bureau’s 2000 TIGER/Line |

files using commercial geographic

information systems.

Other Paper Maps Showing Census

Bureau 2000 Tabulation Block

Numbers and Boundaries — These maps

should show geographic boundaries as

of January 1, 2000, that identify census

tabulation blocks, census tracts, legal

and statistical entities and state

boundaries; maps depicting data

collection blocks cannot be used. In

general, maps should be comparable to

Census 2000 maps.

“ Types of Address Lists

City-Style Address Lists — Must contain city-

style addresses organized by Census 2000

tabulation block within census tract. Housing

unit identifiers in multi-unit buildings must

be included, if applicable.

Non-City-Style Address Lists — Non-city-style

addresses must be keyed to the local or tribal

government’s map-spotted maps, that is, maps

that show the exact location of the housing

unit. The list should be focused on the specific

App. 3, Page 11

area and/or addresses where the problem

exists. All housing units in the disputed block

must be map spotted and a description of the

housing unit and location must be supplied.

Group Quarters Information—Provide the

name, address, and telephone number for the

administrative office of the facility as of Apri]

1, 2000. In addition, provide the census tract

and tabulation block number for the location

of the group quarters.

Internal Census Bureau Review

Changes to the boundaries or counts for a

jurisdiction also may result from Census Bureau

initiated research and review of census files. The

Census Bureau reviews Census 2000 data by

checking for data reasonableness, internal and intra-

product consistency, and consistency with historical

and external data sources. This review process

begins with an analysis by Census Bureau staff, the

Federal-State Cooperative Program for Population

Estimates and others. These reviewers identify,

address and/or explain issues or problems related to

coverage, content, processing, and geo-coding.

Unresolved potential problems will be forwarded to

the CQR staff for additional analysis.

Changes made as result of this internal review and/or

research will be incorporated into the CQR processes and

documented in the same way that changes based on

App. 3, Page 12

jurisdictional CQR challenges will be documented. In cases

where changes to housing unit and/or population counts are

made, new official counts will be issued to the affected

jurisdictions.

Changes That Result in Corrections

The corrected CQR counts that are issued are based on the

housing unit and population counts as of April 1, 2000. The

new official census counts may b used by the governmental

entities for all programs requiring official Census 2000 data.

The Census Bureau will not make corrections to the data

concerning the charactcristics for the population and housing

inventory. The corrected counts will be reflected in the

Census Bureau’s decennial filed modified for use in making

postcensal estimates that will be released on a flow basis

beginning in December 23002. An inventory of corrections

also will be available on the American FactFinder Internet

Data Access System (errata) and updated periodically. The

base files for the census will remain unrevised so that none

of the standard Census 2000 data products will reflect the

corrections.

Challenges that Do Not Result in Corrections

When a local or tribal government provides evidence that the

Census Bureau missed housing units or group quarters that

existed on April 1, 2000, but the CQR research and Census

2000 records show that all of the Census Bureau’s boundary

information, geocoding, and processing were correctly

implemented, the Census Bureau will respond by sending a

letter to the official or his/her representative stating that the

Census Bureau will maintain the documentation for

App. 3, Page 13

consideration in the context of address list updating

activities over the decade.