Law US 2020 census will be printed without citizenship question

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Article
The Supreme Court found Thursday that the Trump administration did not give an adequate reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, blocking the question for at least the time being.

The move is a surprise win for advocates who opposed the question's addition, arguing it will lead to an inaccurate population count. The administration had argued the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

The justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department to provide another explanation.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court's liberal wing in delivering the court's opinion.



Roberts wrote "that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of [the Department of Justice's] request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA."

"Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross] made and the rationale he provided."

Roberts pointed to evidence showing that Ross, whose department oversees the census, intended to include a citizenship question on the census "about a week into his tenure, but it contains no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement in connection with that project."



And he noted that the Justice Department didn't indicate any interest in the citizenship data until contacted by Commerce officials, and that the evidence "suggests that DOJ's interest was directed more to helping the Commerce Department than to securing the data."

"Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision," Roberts wrote.

"In the Secretary's telling, Commerce was simply acting on a routine data request from another agency. Yet the materials before us indicate that Commerce went to great lengths to elicit the request from DOJ (or any other willing agency)," he continued. "And unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale-the sole stated reason-seems to have been contrived. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency's priorities and decisionmaking process."



However, the chief justice said that the decision to add the citizenship question was not "substantively invalid."

"But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably," Roberts said. "What was provided here was more of a distraction."

While Trump officials had pointed to the VRA as reason to add the citizenship question, critics argued that asking about citizenship status would lead to an undercount of the total population. Census data is used for items like drawing congressional districts and allocating federal funds to states, and opponents said an inaccurate population count would harm Americans and cause some to not receive needed funds.



Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan, the liberal members of the court, joined on the part of Roberts's opinion opposing the question.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

In a dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote that, "For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."

"This conclusion is extraordinary," he wrote. "The court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion."

Groups that had challenged the citizenship question's addition to the census in court quickly celebrated the ruling.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state had led the lawsuit presented before the Supreme Court, said that because of Thursday's ruling "the census will remain a tool for delivering on our government's promise of fairness and equity, and states, like New York, will not be shortchanged out of critical resources or political representation."

"Our democracy withstood this challenge, but make no mistake, many threats continue to lie ahead from the Trump administration and we will not stop fighting. Now, more than ever, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, and everyday people need us to stand firm in our fight for justice. After all, everyone counts, and therefore, everyone must be counted."

The ruling is handed down as the Commerce Department says it has a deadline of June 30 - Sunday - to start printing census materials.

And it comes as another lawsuit challenging the question plays out in federal court in Maryland.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a district judge in Maryland could review whether there was a discriminatory intent behind the question's addition, in light of new evidence filed in the lawsuit. That opens the door for the judge to potentially block the question on those grounds, as it's a different legal question than the one presented to the Supreme Court.

That new evidence pertains to late Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller, as documents were recently uncovered from Hofeller's hard drives as part of a separate lawsuit in North Carolina that indicate he played a previously undisclosed role in the orchestration of the citizenship question.

The documents indicate that Hofeller conducted an unpublished study in 2015 that found asking about citizenship would help Republicans in redistricting, while hurting Latinx communities and Democrats.

It also suggests that Hofeller may have helped in the drafting of a memo used by the Trump administration to argue for the citizenship question. And emails also show that a Census Bureau staffer was in touch with Hofeller about the citizenship question back in 2015.

Documents relating to Hofeller's role have been filed in a pair of separate lawsuits challenging the citizenship question, in federal court in New York and Maryland. The New York lawsuit was the case under consideration by the Supreme Court

The ACLU has notified the Supreme Court of the evidence. And it requested that the justices send the case back down to a lower court, to allow new evidence to be officially added to the lawsuit - a motion the court is scheduled to discuss during a private conference Thursday.

But the Trump administration asked the justices to rule on whether the addition of the question violates equal protection claims, in an effort to preempt any action out of a lower court.

Groups challenging the citizenship question in federal court in Maryland also requested late Wednesday that District Judge George Hazel issue a preliminary injunction by Friday to block the question from appearing on the census.

Hazel, an Obama appointee, has asked the Trump administration to reply to that request by 8 p.m. Thursday.

Tldr the Court ruled the argument for why should the question be added was bad so it got blocked, it may still pass if a better argument is made up
EDIT: It will be officially printed without the question

EDIT 2: according to Trump that was fake news
 
Last edited:
I'm not backing down, I never wanted a census question! What census question? What kind of monster would dare ask poor immigrants about their citizenship? Oh give us your poor tired masses!
Only the ones that yearn to be free, not the assholes from feudal hellholes that just want cell phones and shoes.
 
Good for him I guess but I wanted this info to be specifically corelatable to house districts and specifically backed up with specific numbers down to the voting precinct, so we could point out that those majority latino districts are full of illegal aliens and maybe, even, discount the population of non-citizens when apportioning districts. A nationwide number is basically useless and there's already decent enough estimates out there.
 
I mean, it's kinda hard to count illegals, isn't it?
It's like trying to count how many rats are infesting your house.
Well if you can get a good estimate you'll know how many traps to set and will be able to budget accordingly. Not as fun as doing this though...
 
The question on the census is not the point of this thing, IMO. The idea is to expose as many people as possible who want to cover up the number of illegal immigrants in the country. Why don't they want the question to be asked? People will wonder.
Hope the problem will go away while swaying them to vote for you against the racist orange man and his white legion.
 
For anyone who doesn't like rifling through jargon, what this means is that the citizenship question isn't going to be on the 2020 Census, because the Supreme Court completely fucked that with their ruling, so fair enough. Everyone could sit around and scream about how unfair it was or how dumb the ruling was, but that doesn't change the outcome either way. With this executive order, that doesn't really matter now.

Every department and agency in the federal government will need to provide the Department of Commerce with all requested records regarding the number of citizens and non-citizens in the country, and then the Census Bureau can use this information--along with information collected through the questionnaire--to create the official census. This basically means that the functionality of the question is going to be a part of the census whether they like it or not, it won't even need to be a part of the actual questionnaire to do it, and it will actually be more accurate for it, since it's very easy to just lie or fail to hand in the census.

The census is fairly bare-bones, all things considered, but just sit back for a minute and think about all of the programs that illegals have available to them in sanctuary states and havens like California, and imagine all of the intricate, detailed paperwork that's covered in their names and exactly what they've been up to, where they've been working, how much money they're receiving in benefits, etc. All of that information is going to be used "against them" now. I'm just sitting here and pondering why it is that no one ever thought to try this before rather than to beat their faces against the Census Question Wall.

We've had the capability to do this the entire time, why didn't we?
 
Last edited:
Funny enough if the illegals had any work ethic we wouldn't have such a problem.
Note you never heard about Nazi infiltration in the 50's and yet it still happened. And 50 years later we're still sucking kraut dick because they helped Buzz, Neil, et al get to the moon.

To be fair, a few of them do have a pretty strong work ethic. I've lived in rural areas my entire life and its generally pretty difficult to find whites or blacks to strip tobacco in Kentucky or tile roofs in Nevada all day and show up reliably. They might not always do the best quality work (Nobody can strip baccer better than a red-faced white guy with a beer belly and wearing an IH-Case ballcap) but they still do work and they're usually more reliable than the locals.

The problem is that they won't pay taxes on anything, they go to the ER for everything since they don't have legitimate insurance, then they never pay the bill. They don't carry insurance or a license, so they get into accidents and disappear afterwards. That's what pisses me off about illegals.

I'm 100% okay with an immigration policy that allows poor Latinos to come over here to work. A lot of the ones who came here legally do really work their asses off doing their own little businesses. Where I live there's a few Latino-owned mechanic shops that cater to the Latinos that drive their old GM and Ford trucks into the ground for lawn businesses, roofing businesses, dry wallers, etc. I even bought a rebuilt transmission from one of them before and the thing was rebuilt right and didn't cost anywhere near as much as the shitty chain transmission shops or NAPA wanted.

But if you come here illegally and act like an asshole, you can fuck right back off across the border. And if you do come here legally and you fuck up, don't cry when you get sent home.
 
For anyone who doesn't like rifling through jargon, what this means is that the citizenship question isn't going to be on the 2020 Census, because the Supreme Court completely fucked that with their ruling, so fair enough. Everyone could sit around and scream about how unfair it was or how dumb the ruling was, but that doesn't change the outcome either way. With this executive order, that doesn't really matter now.

Every department and agency in the federal government will need to provide the Department of Commerce with all requested records regarding the number of citizens and non-citizens in the country, and then the Census Bureau can use this information along, with information collected through the questionnaire, to create the official census. This basically means that the functionality of the question is going to be a part of the census whether they like it or not, it won't even need to be a part of the actual questionnaire to do it, and it will actually be more accurate for it, since it's very easy to just lie or fail to hand in the census.

The census is fairly bare-bones, all things considered, but just sit back for a minute and think about all of the programs that illegals have available to them in sanctuary states and havens like California, and imagine all of the intricate, detailed paperwork that's covered in their names and exactly what they've been up to, where they've been working, how much money they're receiving in benefits, etc. All of that information is going to be used "against them" now. I'm just sitting here and pondering why it is that no one ever thought to try this before rather than to beat their faces against the Census Question Wall.

We've had the capability to do this the entire time, why didn't we?
It's not done yet.
 
So wait... because the Supreme Court said it was legal for the United States to collect Citizenship data for the census, they'll end up doing it not through a question on the census itself but through other means?

Does... does this mean that it can't be challenged by some hawaiian judge or whatever?

is... is california gonna lose congresspeople?
 
Was this... 4d chess?

Like... Trump didn't really want the question, he just wanted the SCOTUS to say that it was legal or something, so they could do this weird information sharing that would be even bigger, badder, and more accurate then a questionaire people could lie on?
 
Was this... 4d chess?

Like... Trump didn't really want the question, he just wanted the SCOTUS to say that it was legal or something, so they could do this weird information sharing that would be even bigger, badder, and more accurate then a questionaire people could lie on?

I personally choose to believe that the 4D chess thing is just a meme and Trump just happens to randomly move his pieces around the board until suddenly his opponent is in check, over and over again, through a bizarre combination of confidence and luck.

I mean, not that it isn't fun to imagine that he's some grand Chessmaster playing a game on a level the dems can't even comprehend. It's just more fun to imagine that he's managing to win despite not knowing for sure how the pieces are supposed to move or what the victory conditions actually look like. He just bullies them with his smug fucking trump face until they're sure he's won, and that keeps them too busy to do anything about him.
 
I personally choose to believe that the 4D chess thing is just a meme and Trump just happens to randomly move his pieces around the board until suddenly his opponent is in check, over and over again, through a bizarre combination of confidence and luck.

I mean, not that it isn't fun to imagine that he's some grand Chessmaster playing a game on a level the dems can't even comprehend. It's just more fun to imagine that he's managing to win despite not knowing for sure how the pieces are supposed to move or what the victory conditions actually look like.
Be that as it may, the fact is the government was told that it can go and gather citizenship data for the census by SCOTUS. They were just told it couldn't be through a question.

So they're doing it a different way.

I can't think of anyway that spins this in a way that can't be used, because the data has to be used in the census.
 
Someone in the Jewdiciary will file a nationwide injunction (which shouldn’t be a thing that can be done) then Trump will issue an empty threat that goes nowhere. Rinse and repeat.
 
Back
Top Bottom