The SCOTUS issued what strikes me as a completely weird decision today on the census. As I'm sure you've heard, they declared that the administration's explanation for wanting to ask whether counted people were citizens was "insufficient," and sent the case back down for more consideration once a fuller explanation was provided.
I'm unclear on exactly why any explanation is needed. This is surely what a census is supposed to do. What exactly is the census for if it isn't to count the number of citizens in each state? Is there some reason the United States government shouldn't be allowed to know how many people are inside a given state who aren't citizens? By law, all of those people should have a legal status registered with the government, after all: a visa or a permanent residency, for example. Conducting the census is an actual Constitutional duty of the Federal government. Why should the government need to explain itself at all?
10 comments:
Because CJ Roberts is more concerned with his perception of the Court's legacy (i.e., his legacy) than he is in applying the law and the Constitution as written.
Eric Hines
The Constitution says the House is apportioned by the number of Free Persons including bondsmen, less Indians not taxed, and 3/5 of all other persons. It doesn't say anything about counting citizens. It's probably a part of the Three-Fifths Compromise and not a mistake because the Framer's talked about the power to determine naturalization procedures later. If they had meant citizens they could have said so, instead of Free Persons, or a later Amendment could have changed it but that wasn't done either. As such, asking someone if they are a citizen is on the same level as the long form question about indoor plumbing. It might be useful information (I do think it is) for the government to know but it's not directly related to House apportionment.
I think the court is trying to throw political questions back to the Congress etc, like the gerrymandering decision today.
I think the court is trying to throw political questions back to the Congress....
If the Court were doing that, it would have left the political question of asking after citizenship on a census in the hands of the other political branch rather than blocking the citizenship question's use. There are two political branches in the Federal government; the Legislative doesn't get all the political questions.
Eric Hines
Apportionment is severable from citizenship, as shown by the case of either Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia. Still, we do the census in both places. The Court doesn't even seem to argue that the Census Bureau doesn't have the power to ask the question, it just doesn't like their answer about why they'd ask a question they apparently do have the authority to ask (as they do about many other demographic matters of lesser importance, to include the sex and race of people being counted).
This whole issue is a massive threat to the Democrats. I realized today that the issue of illegal immigration and this question are giving the Democrats more governmental power than they should have if not for the illegal immigrants. In California, almost precisely a third of voters voted for Trump in 2016, and yet, in the State Senate, only a little over one fourth are Republicans. This is because of the extra bodies the illegal immigrants bring into areas where Democrats get elected. They are counted in the census and so make for greater representation, and because of the patterns of distribution, for Democrats. It's a kind of backdoor gerrymandering.
The fact that the court believes it has the power to interfere in what it concedes is a lawful act by a government official simply because they don’t like the official’s suspected intent is alarming. If you needed proof that the court now views itself as the preeminent branch of government, “more equal” than the other two, look no further than this decision. Are we a republic or a judicial oligarchy? I love our constitution and truly revere the Framers but let’s face the truth; when it came to Art III they blew it.
1. The Gerrymandering question - this seems to be an overturn of Baker v. Carr, which IMHO was a good decision (yes, if NC has not redistricted in over 50 years despite major population shifts, it needs to redistrict) that set a terrible precedent (the federal courts can determine redistricting if they don't like what the states do.)
2. The Census - The sense I got from the summary of the decision was that the executive branch couldn't settle onto one solid reason for adding the question, so the SCOTUS remanded it back and told the Executive to get their argument straight and try again.
As for patterns and reasons, well, heck if I can really discern one. But I'm a historian, so nothing is supposed to make sense until at least thirty years after the fact, if them. :P
LittleRed1
The juxtaposition of the gerrymandering and census rulings strongly indicates (IMNSHO) that Roberts is more interested in a "legacy" of a "balanced" court rather than in a court that adheres to the law(s) before it in a particular case and to the Constitution that's before it in every case.
Eric Hines
"The fact that the court believes it has the power to interfere in what it concedes is a lawful act by a government official simply because they don’t like the official’s suspected intent is alarming."
Well said, Mr. Leggett. Alarming indeed. I think if the court has not decided before the forms need to get printed, Trump should print them with the question included, and have a 'let them enforce it' moment.
Post a Comment