The Supreme Court heard arguments today on the Trump administration’s decision to alter the 2020 Census to ask people if they are American citizens.
In a former life, I argued cases before the Supreme Court. From what I gathered today, it looks as if the five Republican appointees to the Court have already decided this move by Trump is constitutional.
But it’s not. The U.S. Constitution calls for “actual enumeration” of the total population for an explicit purpose: To count the residents – not just citizens, residents – of every state to properly allocate congressional representatives to the states based on population.
Asking whether someone is a citizen is likely to cause some immigrants — not just non-citizens, but also those with family members or close friends who aren’t citizens — not to respond for fear that they or their loved ones would be deported. In the current climate of fear, this isn’t an irrational response.
The result would be a systemic undercounting of immigrant communities. The Census Bureau has already calculated that it’s likely to result in a 5.1 percent undercount of noncitizen households.
This would have two grossly unfair results.
In the first place, these communities and the states they’re in would get less federal aid. Census data is used in over 132 programs nationwide to allocate over $675 billion each year.
An undercount would deprive many immigrant communities and their states of the health care, education and assistance they need and are entitled to.
Secondly, these communities and the states they’re in would have fewer representatives in Congress. The Census count determines the distribution of congressional seats among states. Under the Constitution, these seats depend on the total number of people residing in the state, not just citizens.
Which is the real reason for this move by the Trump administration.
It’s no secret that immigrants with the right to vote tend to vote for Democrats. So undercounting neighborhoods that are heavily Latino or Asian would mean fewer Democratic members of Congress.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says the citizenship question is necessary in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.
Baloney. The Trump administration has shown zero interest in the Voting Rights Act. It has even defended voter suppression laws in court.
This is nothing but a Republican power grab orchestrated by the White House.
If Chief Justice John Roberts sides with his four Republican colleagues on this, the ruling will be the third in a series of landmark 5-to-4 Roberts Court decisions whose main purpose is to cement Republican control of federal and state governments.
The first and second were “Shelby County in 2013, which gutted the 1965 Civil Rights Act, and last year’s Janus decision, declaring that public employees don’t have to pay union dues.
Mitch McConnell’s long-term strategy of packing the Court in order to entrench the Republican Party is becoming an obscene reality.
To understand the backlash against the women in the running for vice president, watch more TV
President Allison Taylor of ‘24’ ends up being exposed as Machiavellian.20th Century FoxKarrin Vasby Anderson, Colorado State UniversityJoe Biden’s promise to name a woman running mate has prompted familiar debates about gender and power.Are these potential vice presidents supposed to be presidential lackeys or understudies to the leader of the free world? Should they actively seek the position, or be reluctant nominees bound by duty?After Senator Kamala Harris’s name emerged as a short-list favorite, CNBC reported that some Biden allies and donors “initiated a campaign against Harris,” arguin... (more…)
‘Babbling and incoherent’: Internet stunned by Kudlow’s trainwreck appearance on CNN
While no one accused White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow of being drunk on the air this morning (well a few did), he definitely seemed unprepared to speak with "State of the Union" fill-in host Dana Bash, seemingly to unable to get his talking points and numbers straight when asked about Donald Trump's plan to supplement unemployment payments.
Virtual learning means unequal learning
WASHINGTON — Karen Reyes, who teaches deaf and hard-of-hearing children in Austin, Texas, worries about her first-grade pupils who will be learning online this fall. She’s concerned that virtual learning is harder for younger, special needs children, especially those who may not have as much support at home as students in more affluent communities.“It has brought out a lot of the inequities in our district, especially in special education,” Reyes said of the distance learning program.In her school, 93% of the students are considered economically disadvantaged, according to a city estimate.“Eit... (more…)