be more clear, expressly exempting from the general authorization of that section any use of sampling for purposes of congressional apportionment. Defendants’ argument that its authority to sample is precisely the same with the “except for” language as it would be if the statute did not contain that language renders the “except for” language devoid of meaning. The Supreme Court has been clear that if possible, a statute must be construed “in such fashion that every word has some operative effect.” See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 36, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992)(rejecting statutory interpretation that “violated the settled rule that a statute’s every word has operative effect”); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 1166, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997)(<HOLDING>); Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management
holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute holding that the dominant rule to be observed in construction of statute is to give effect to intention of legislature holding courts must give effect to every provision and word in a statute and avoid any interpretation that may render statutory terms meaningless or superfluous holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute holding that courts must give effect to every word when interpreting a statute