Appendix
Table 3.  Discriminatory Impact of Population Changes

Blacks	Hispanics	Members of Labor Unions
Unemployed	AFDC Recipients	Persons Below Poverty Line

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

	Rank in pop.	Rank in blacks	State pop.	Black pop.	% of state that 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

	Rank in pop.	Rank in hispanics	State pop.	Hispanic pop.	% of state that 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")

	Rank in pop.	Rank in Unionists	State pop.	Unionist pop.	% of state that 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")

	Rank in pop.	Rank in Unempl.	State pop.	Unempl. pop.	% of state that 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")

	Rank in pop.	Rank in AFDCs	State pop.	AFDC pop.	% of state that 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")

	Rank in pop.	Rank in Poor	State pop.	Poor pop.	% of state that 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.
peters@earlham.edu. Copyright © 1987, Peter Suber.