Appendix
Table 3.  Discriminatory Impact of Population Changes

In general the citizens of the least populous three-fourths of the states have gained in voice and those of the most populous one-fourth have lost voice in the adoption of federal amendments. For the veto of amendments, the citizens of the least populous one-fourth of the states are gainers, and those of the most populous three-fourths are losers. The greater a state's population, the less voice each of its citizens has in the federal amending process.

I remind the reader of the distinction drawn in Part IV of the text between the two types of groups that have lost voice in the federal amending process. One type of group has lost voice at the same rate as Americans in general because its members are spread evenly in the heavily and lightly populated states. Although such groups have actually lost voice in the amending process, they are not victims of a discriminatory impact. A second type of group has lost voice at a higher rate than Americans in general because its members are concentrated in the heavily populated states. In this table, I am concerned to identify some groups of the second kind —the victims of the discriminatory impact of the concentration of the population.

I have employed three mathematical methods to indicate whether a group is a victim of discriminatory impact. They are not tests so much as indicators. Each is designed to reveal whether that group is concentrated in the heavily populated states, that is, whether its members reside in the voice-losing states in higher proportions than Americans in general.

1. The first indicator compares the percentage of Americans in the five most populous states with the percentage of the American blacks (for example) in those states. If the latter is significantly higher than the former, then I have considered this a sign that blacks are concentrated in the more populous states.
2. The second indicator compares the percentage of Americans in the five least populous states with the percentage of American blacks (for example) in those states. If the latter is significantly lower than the former, then that is a sign that blacks are not concentrated in the less populous states. The first indicator is more indicative of discrimination than the second indicator, for blacks may not be concentrated in either the most or least populous states. It is possible for the first indicator to show discrimination while this indicator shows none, and for this indicator to show discrimination while the first shows none. If a group is concentrated in the least populous states, then it has actually gained voice in the amending process; it is possible for a group to lose by the first indicator and gain by the second indicator. Net gains are not determined here because no groups that are candidates for gainers are tested here.
3. The third indicator compares the average percentage of black residents (for example) in the five most populous states with the average percentage with the average percentage for the five least populous states. If the former is significantly higher than the latter, then that is a sign that blacks are concentrated in the more populous states. It is possible for this indicator to show discrimination while the first two indicators show none.

By making these three comparisons I hope to have compensated for the inevitable crudity of letting five states at the top and bottom of the American population scale stand for the most and least populous states in general. For purposes of measuring this crudity, note that the voice-losing states (for adoption, not veto, of amendments) are only the most populous quarter, not the most populous half:  thirteen, not twenty-five. Similarly, the voice-gaining states (for veto, not adoption) are also only thirteen, not twenty-five. To let five represent thirteen is not quite as crude as letting five represent twenty-five.

All three indicators use 1980 census data. This shows the state of the discriminatory impact of the concentration of the population in 1980.

I have investigated discriminatory impact for the following groups: blacks, hispanics, persons with income below the poverty line, members of labor unions, individuals (mostly women and children) receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and unemployed members of the civilian workforce. Unfortunately, either time, data, or both were unavailable for the investigation of other groups that may have lost voice, the potential gaining groups, and the nineteen other census decades. I hope that such studies can be made soon to complete the picture left here.

As in Tables 1 and 2, the "total" of the United States population is a total only of the Americans residing in states eligible to vote on constitutional amendments. This excludes, preeminently, residents of the District of Columbia, 70.3% of whom are black and 100% of whom are urban (1980 data). Excluding the District of Columbia from the federal amending process is itself a significant cause of the discriminatory loss of voice suffered by blacks and city dwellers. However one takes this situation into account, it is a discriminatory impact above and beyond that shown here, which is limited to that revealed by the population distribution throughout the voting states.

All numbers other than percentages are rounded to the nearest thousand.

All data are taken or derived from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, State the Metropolitan Area Data Book, 1982: A Statistical Abstract Supplement, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.

 Blacks

 Rankin pop. Rankin blacks Statepop. Blackpop. % of statethat is black % of U.S.blacks Most populous states CA 1 2 23,669 1,819 7.69 6.87 NY 2 1 17,557 2,402 13.68 9.07 TX 3 3 14,228 1,710 12.02 6.45 PA 4 10 11,867 1,047 8.82 3.95 IL 5 4 11,419 1,675 14.67 6.32 Least populous states ND 46 48 654 3 0.46 0.01 DE 47 35 596 96 16.11 0.36 VT 48 50 512 1 0.20 0.004 WY 49 48 471 3 0.64 0.01 AK 50 44 400 14 3.50 0.05

 Total U.S. Blacks 26,495 Top Five States Black pop. 8,653 % of U.S. pop. 34.86 % of U.S. blacks 32.66 avg. state % of blacks 11.38 Bottom Five States Black pop. 117 % of U.S. pop. 1.17 % of U.S. blacks 0.44 avg. state % of blacks 4.18 Discrimination by first indicator no second indicator yes, possibly insignificant third indicator yes

All population figures are expressed in thousands.

 Hispanics

 Rankin pop. Rankin hispanics Statepop. Hispanicpop. % of statethat is hispanic % of U.S.hispanics Most populous states CA 1 1 23,669 4,544 19.20 31.10 NY 2 3 17,557 1,659 9.45 11.36 TX 3 2 14,228 2,986 20.99 20.44 PA 4 10 11,867 154 1.30 0.01 IL 5 5 11,419 636 5.57 4.35 Least populous states ND 46 49 654 4 0.61 0.03 DE 47 44 596 10 1.68 0.07 VT 48 50 512 3 0.59 0.02 WY 49 38 471 24 5.10 0.16 AK 50 45 400 71 17.75 0.49

 Total U.S. Hispanics 14,609 Top Five States Hispanic pop. 9,979 % of U.S. pop. 34.86 % of U.S. hispanics 68.31 avg. state % of hispanics 13.45 Bottom Five States Hispanic pop. 112 % of U.S. pop. 1.17 % of U.S. hispanics 0.77 avg. state % of hispanics 0.15 Discrimination by first indicator yes second indicator yes, possibly insignificant third indicator yes

All population figures are expressed in thousands.

The Census Bureau collected these data under the name "Spanish Origin" and emphasized that members of this group may be of any race.

 Members of Labor Unions ("Unionists")

 Rankin pop. Rankin Unionists Statepop. Unionistpop. % of statethat is Unionist % of U.S.Unionist Most populous states CA 1 2 23,669 2,661 11.24 11.67 NY 2 1 17,557 2,792 15.90 12.24 TX 3 7 14,228 669 4.70 2.93 PA 4 3 11,867 1,644 13.85 7.21 IL 5 4 11,419 1,487 13.02 6.52 Least populous states ND 46 47 654 42 6.42 0.18 DE 47 43 596 65 10.91 0.28 VT 48 49 512 36 7.03 0.16 WY 49 48 471 39 8.28 0.17 AK 50 46 400 57 14.25 0.25

 Total U.S. Unionists 22,811 Top Five States Unionist pop. 9,253 % of U.S. pop. 34.86 % of U.S. Unionists 40.56 avg. state % of Unionists 11.74 Bottom Five States Unionist pop. 239 % of U.S. pop. 1.17 % of U.S. Unionists 1.05 avg. state % of Unionists 9.38 Discrimination by first indicator yes second indicator yes, possibly insignificant third indicator yes

All population figures are expressed in thousands.

 Unemployed Workers In the Civilian Work Force ("Unempl")

 Rankin pop. Rankin Unempl. Statepop. Unempl.pop. % of statethat is Unempl. % of U.S.Unempl. Most populous states CA 1 1 23,669 760 3.21 10.20 NY 2 2 17,557 603 3.43 8.10 TX 3 7 14,228 337 2.37 4.53 PA 4 6 11,867 417 3.51 5.60 IL 5 4 11,419 454 3.98 6.10 Least populous states ND 46 49 654 15 2.29 0.20 DE 47 43 596 22 3.69 0.30 VT 48 48 512 16 3.13 0.21 WY 49 50 471 9 1.91 0.12 AK 50 47 400 18 4.50 0.24

 Total U.S. Unempl. 7,448 Top Five States Unempl. pop. 2,571 % of U.S. pop. 34.86 % of U.S. Unempl. 34.52 avg. state % of Unempl. 3.30 Bottom Five States Unempl. pop. 80 % of U.S. pop. 1.17 % of U.S. Unempl. 1.07 avg. state % of Unempl. 3.10 Discrimination by first indicator no second indicator yes, possibly insignificant third indicator yes, possibly insignificant

All population figures are expressed in thousands.

 Recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDCs")

 Rankin pop. Rankin AFDCs Statepop. AFDCpop. % of statethat is AFDC % of U.S.AFDC Most populous states CA 1 1 23,669 1,388 5.86 13.39 NY 2 2 17,557 1,101 6.27 10.62 TX 3 9 14,228 309 2.17 2.98 PA 4 5 11,867 633 5.33 6.11 IL 5 4 11,419 667 5.84 6.43 Least populous states ND 46 48 654 13 1.99 0.13 DE 47 40 596 32 5.37 0.31 VT 48 46 512 22 4.30 0.21 WY 49 50 471 7 1.49 0.07 AK 50 47 400 16 4.00 0.15

 Total U.S. AFDCs 10,366 Top Five States AFDC pop. 4,098 % of U.S. pop. 34.86 % of U.S. AFDCs 39.53 avg. state % of AFDCs 5.09 Bottom Five States AFDC pop. 90 % of U.S. pop. 1.17 % of U.S. AFDCs 0.87 avg. state % of AFDCs 3.43 Discrimination by first indicator yes second indicator yes third indicator yes

"AFDCs" count individuals, not families, receiving this form of aid.

All population figures are expressed in thousands.

 Persons With Income Below the Poverty Line ("Poor")

 Rankin pop. Rankin Poor Statepop. Poorpop. % of statethat is Poor % of U.S.Poor Most populous states CA 1 1 23,669 2,611 11.03 8.76 NY 2 2 17,557 2,344 13.35 8.52 TX 3 3 14,228 2,055 14.44 7.47 PA 4 5 11,867 1,213 10.22 4.41 IL 5 4 11,419 1,284 11.24 4.67 Least populous states ND 46 44 654 80 12.23 0.29 DE 47 46 596 69 11.58 0.25 VT 48 48 512 56 10.94 0.20 WY 49 50 471 37 7.86 0.13 AK 50 49 400 39 9.75 0.14

 Total U.S. Poor 27,526 Top Five States Poor pop. 9,507 % of U.S. pop. 34.86 % of U.S. Poor 34.54 avg. state % of Poor 12.06 Bottom Five States Poor pop. 281 % of U.S. pop. 1.17 % of U.S. Poor 1.02 avg. state % of Poor 0.20 Discrimination by first indicator no second indicator yes, possibly insignificant third indicator yes

All population figures are expressed in thousands.

Return to the article of which this is an appendix. Or go to Table 1, Table 2, or Table 4 of the appendix.

Peter Suber, Department of Philosophy, Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374, U.S.A.