Republicans just don't like to recount. They don't like to recount election votes. And they don't like to readjust census votes. And it looks like they're getting their way - again.

In a surprise decision, the US Census Bureau recommended against adjustment of the 2000 Census results to make up for potential undercounts by using statistical sampling. According to William J. Barron, the Census Bureau's acting director, it was impossible to determine whether shifting the totals would arrive at more accurate figures within the time allotted.

The Census Bureau doesn't have the final word on the subject. Last month, in one of his first acts as Commerce Secretary, Donald Evans stripped the Census Bureau of the authority to adjust census sampling for perceived undercounts. Then he announced the appointment of six experts to advise him on the issue: three of these advisers have already come out publicly in favor against adjustment. And the Rehnquist Court, having already come out against statistical sampling, could very well have declared any readjustment unconstitutional. So it's a reasonable bet that the figures would have remained as they are. But this recommendation by department professionals will undoubtedly add weight to Mr. Evan's case that when it comes to census figures, we should stick to the first figures.

Memories of the election undercount were remarkably short-lived, so it's unlikely that the Census 2000, and its margin of statistical error, will make the headlines for long. But this may be Bush's opportunity to place his stamp on the American political scene for at least a decade. Not only will the census results determine the new district lines for House seats and thousands of state and local election districts; they will also be the basis for disbursement of about $200 billion in federal funds.

Census undercounts are nothing new, and they have generally favored Republicans. The 1990 Census, conducted under the aegis of the elder Bush, included a net undercount of 4 million out of the total population of 248 million, or 1.6 of the population. When professionals in the Census Bureau argued for adjustment of the final figures, President Bush ignored the report. And those left out of the count were largely minorities, who have voted for Democratic candidates. Hispanics were roughly twice as likely not to be counted; African-Americans three times as likely not to be counted; Native Americans five times as likely not to be counted. In 1990, Democrats in both houses mounted a battle against the Bush Administration, claiming that the Republicans were denying minorities an accurate count for political purposes.

This time, Democrats will be fighting the same battle, but without the support of the professionals at the Census Bureau. The estimated undercount for the 2000 Census — 1.18 percent - is smaller than it was in 1990 — but its consequences could be serious for some. Florida, for instance, may be getting their just deserts for deserting their keeper's brother last November. Ten years ago, 250,000 Floridians were not counted in the census, costing them about $2 billion in federal aid. This year, the undercount is feared to be much larger, given the influx of immigrants, and the practice of "doubling up" homes. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, California lost $2 billion in federal funding over the decade and one seat in Congress because of those figures. This year, Californians had anticipated economic and political gains from the census. No such luck, it seems: unadjusted figures will leave that beleaguered state with millions less in federal funds than projected.

It comes as no surprise that a Republican administration is pushing a set of figures that favors them politically. But why, many Democrats are wondering, did the pros at the Census Bureau leave them in the lurch, when the experts there had been advocating statistical analysis for years? Barron, the acting director of the Census Bureau has said that there was no accurate evidence that a new count would be any closer to the truth. Critics are wondering aloud if they're "running scared." And some are blaming the law, which they say offers no time for recounts.

But there's no ambivalence in the reaction of Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla), who gave voice to Republican glee at what appears to be a fatal blow for statistical adjustment of the census:

"Match. Set. Won."