2010 Census Was Up Front and Honest
(2020 Census is Questionable)
It becomes clearer each passing day that Trump’s real motivation to get that damn “citizenship question” on the 2020 form is this, and has been all along:
No matter the legal, just, rational, or logical reason, Trump wants it for political gain and nothing else.
My view: This is getting far out of hand. My key question has always been not only “why,” but who is behind this and driving Trump this hard? Is it anti-immigrant hardliner advisor, Stephen Miller, or the man always bowing to Trump’s whims, AG William Barr? Hell, may be both.
Miller’s historical anti-immigrant record is clear. As far as Barr, it is self-evident with his shakeup in DOJ to get the team Trump wants in place that he surely is Trump’s personal attorney and not the country’s. This DOJ is now squarely in Trump’s corner as his personal law firm in standby mode.
I hope this gets back to the USSC and Justice Roberts and all eight Justices nail Trump with a very stern rebuttal to match any previous ones in court history – Trump loves being the first or best or always on top; well that would work just fine.
Stay tuned.
Main post and updates start below:
==============================================
This deals with latest Trump and the DOJ’s attempt to disobey or go around the USSC on his drive for the 2020 citizenship question.
The deadline was at 2 p.m. today (July 5, 2019) to respond to the Maryland Federal District Court as to why Trump wanted another delay:
The DOJ told a Maryland federal judge that it is still exploring ways to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despite the Supreme Court ruling that declared the government’s stated motivations as “contrived” and kept in place an injunction stopping agency officials from moving forward to amend the questionnaire.
This filing came in response to a court-ordered 2 p.m. deadline that was set by District Judge George Hazel following an extraordinary emergency hearing earlier in the week. Hazel convened the hearing after seeing a tweet from Trump that contradicted assurances from DOJ lawyers that the administration would drop its plan to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census.
Hazel is one of three federal trial judges presiding over lawsuits challenging the proposed addition of a citizenship question, a move that the plaintiffs contend would discourage Hispanics and other non-citizens from responding and reduce the overall count of people living in the country.
A divided Supreme Court last month upheld an injunction from a New York federal judge. In the Maryland case, Hazel the challengers will be allowed to explore new evidence against the Trump administration.
Trump is considering several avenues — including an executive order — in an attempt to circumnavigate Supreme Court’s decision, telling reporters: “We could start the printing now and maybe do an addendum after we get a positive decision. So we’re working on a lot of things, including a presidential Executive Order.”
Any such move would almost assuredly face a new lawsuit, and another possibility of an injunction. The DOJ’s court filing by the deadline said no final decision has been made on the next steps.
DOJ lawyer Joshua Gardner said in the new court filing: “In the event the Commerce Department adopts a new rationale for including the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census consistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court, the government will immediately notify this court so that it can determine whether there is any need for further proceedings or relief.”
On Wednesday (July 3), Jody Hunt, the head of the DOJ’s civil division, told Judge Hazel that DOJ main had been “instructed to consider avenues that would put a citizenship question on the 2020 census.”
Hunt told the judge: “There may be a legally available path under the Supreme Court’s decision, and that we’re examining that.”
MY NOTE: Hunt did not say who directed the DOJ to change its position. I suspect anti-immigration honcho, Stephen Miller – we will find out later I am sure.
After the hearing, Judge Hazel issued a schedule saying: “Timing is an issue, and we’ve lost a week at this point. And this isn’t anything against anybody on this call. I’ve been told different things, and it’s becoming increasingly frustrating.”
Joshua Gardner, the DOJ’s lawyer, told Judge Hazel: “Proceeding to discovery now in connection with a new decision that has not yet been made would be premature. It would also be extremely inefficient.”
FYI: Lawyers from Covington & Burling and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund represent plaintiffs in the Maryland suit.
The plaintiffs in the New York case are represented by teams of lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Arnold & Porter and the New York state attorney general’s office.
The plaintiffs in the Maryland case said: “The DOJ’s proposal to hold discovery in abeyance is particularly inappropriate given Defendants’ repeated representations to this Court and other courts, including the United States Supreme Court that timing is of the essence.”
Hazel rejected that DOJ move to pause the new proceedings in the Maryland litigation, saying in his order: “Time is of the essence and discovery shall commence.”
He then said he would permit up to five depositions from the Commerce Department and/or the Justice Department with the new fact-finding in this new order to run until August 19, 2019.
The Main post follows from here:
Second Update on this Subject: Upcoming 2020 Census re: Citizenship Question - this from the Supreme Court with video clip here via CBS News - the highlights:
In one of the most highly-anticipated cases of the year, the Supreme Court has ruled that the proposed citizenship question for the 2020 U.S. Census will not be added — for now — saying that the administration's explanation for adding it is insufficient.
This from the Trump administration (Washington Post) – He asserted executive privilege to shield documents from the House panel that is investigating the decision to add a citizenship question to the census.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “We cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given.”
Background on this case: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, announced he was reinstating the citizenship question in March 2018, he said he was responding to a request from the DOJ for better citizenship data to assist its enforcement of the landmark Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. But questions have been raised about that explanation, and Ross has been accused of trying to depress minority responses for political purposes. The court also expressed dissatisfaction with his explanation.
First Update on this Subject: Trump wants to delay the 2020 count and probably resubmit to the high court (some say that is Roberts' out for Trump). That is seen here from Slate.com via MSN.
June 21 (UPI) – One day after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to rule on its proposal to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, justices did not immediately issue a decision Friday on the divisive case. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the high court to delay its decision until a lower court can review the new evidence. After Friday, the high court will next issue an order list on Monday. Stay tuned.
FYI: Among other things, that the citizenship question is intended to provide accurate information about the U.S. population, however, a citizenship question has not been included in census questions for all U.S. households since 1950 (70 years ago).
Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee-Sanders has claimed: “…the citizenship question had been regularly included in the Census Bureau’s decennial survey to all U.S. households in recent decades.”
She also didn’t provide context in asserting that but simply implied: “…a greater level of citizenship data is needed to comply with the Voting Rights Act (LBJ signed it into law in 1965).”
FYI: After the Civil War, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” Nevertheless, in the ensuing decades, various discriminatory practices were used to prevent African Americans, particularly those in the South, from exercising their right to vote.
During the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, voting rights activists in the South were subjected to various forms of mistreatment and violence. Most-notable one occurred on March 7, 1965, when peaceful participants in a Selma-to-Montgomery (AL) march for voting rights were met by state troopers who attacked them with nightsticks, tear gas, and whips after they refused to turn back. Some were severely beaten and bloodied. Others ran for their lives. That incident was captured on national television.
In the wake of that, President Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. In a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 15, 1965, the president outlined the devious ways in which election officials denied African-American citizens the vote.
This Trump decision to include the question in the 2020 census has stirred worry among opponents that it will intimidate immigrants, leading to an undercount and decreased political representation in Democratic-leaning communities where they tend to live.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who announced his department’s move to change the 2020 census, appeared to skew the science behind his decision when he asserted that the impact of asking about citizenship had been “well-tested.”
Huckabee-Sanders also stated (incorrectly) that: “Between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form.”
THE FACTS: The Census Bureau hasn’t included a citizenship question in its once-a-decade survey sent to all U.S. households since 1950, before the Civil Rights era and passage of a 1965 law designed to help ensure minority groups in the count are fully represented. The nation’s count is based on the total resident population — both citizens and non-citizens — and that is used to determine how many U.S. representatives each state gets in the U.S. House.
Noteworthy:
From 1970 to 2000, the question was included only on a long-form section of the census survey, and sent to only a portion of U.S. households.
After 2000, that same citizenship question has been asked on a separate poll designed to replace the census long form and sent only to a sample of U.S. households.
The Commerce Department’s assertion that the citizenship question was asked on “almost” every decennial census between 1820 and 1950 also pushes the limits of reality.
FYI: Census history: According to the Census Bureau, the question wasn’t asked in four of those censuses —1840, 1850, 1860 or 1880. Between 1820 and 1950, a total of 14 censuses were held. That means more than 1 in 4 surveys during that time period lacked the citizenship question.
My 2 cents: Not only on this critical issue, but others just as critical, Trump and his staff lie with impunity as they expect people to believe and trust them at face value not matter what the facts say otherwise … that is the Trump M.O. – “Believe me no matter what.”
Congress right to challenge them on this blatant disregard of the law and it underscores another GOP attempt at voter suppression and abuse of voting rights and apportionment. The basics, which Trump and his minions either don’t know or refuse to believe, trust, and follow.
Pretty simple definition is here from Census.gov showing purpose for a census every 10 years: The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states. As of the 2010 Census, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated back to a home state. These segments were also included in the apportionment population in the 1970, 1990, and 2000 censuses. Washington DC’s population is not included in the apportionment (DC is not a state).
Finally (from Vox): The citizenship question was on the standard “short-form” census through 1950. After 1950, it was moved to the “long-form” census, so only a minority of census respondents got asked about it.
After the 2000 census, the government decided to get rid of the long form census and replace it with the smaller but more frequent American Community Survey (ACS).
The ACS only goes out to 2.5 percent of Americans — way fewer than the long-form census — but it’s conducted every year. At present, that’s our primary source of official information about how many citizens live in the US.
So the Trump administration is correct that the only decennial census that didn’t include any questions about citizenship was the 2010 census.
But the critics are correct that not since 1950 has the government asked everyone in the United States to declare their citizenship status in order to participate in the constitutionally mandated decennial count.
This is my short version of history on this critically-important issue.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment