BREAKING: Judge Wants Another Crack At Census Case After Revelation Of New Evidence

Via:  don-overton  •  7 months ago  •  11 comments

BREAKING: Judge Wants Another Crack At Census Case After Revelation Of New Evidence
the challengers raised a “substantial issue” with the new evidence

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T

A federal judge wants to reconsider his ruling that the Trump administration’s move to add the census citizenship question was not racially discriminatory, now that the challengers in the case have put forward explosive   new evidence   that suggests it was.

U.S. District Judge George Hazel, who presided over the census citizenship case brought in Maryland, issued an order Wednesday that said that the challengers raised a “substantial issue” with the new evidence. It will ultimately be up to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case has been appealed, to decide whether to send the case back to him so that he can consider changing his ruling in light of the new evidence.

Hazel order is the latest dramatic turn in what has been an extraordinary legal fight over Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add the question. It sets the stage for a scenario where the Department of Justice and the question’s legal challengers are still hashing it out over whether the question is discriminatory, even after the Supreme Court rules on other aspects of the question’s legality.

Whether it stays on the census has incredible consequences for how political power, as well as government resources, are doled out across the country. A broad spectrum of experts, including the Census Bureau itself, has warned it will discourage immigrant participation, causing an undercount of those communities. Furthermore, the new evidence, and other evidence already in the case, strongly point to a plan to use the data from the question to exclude noncitizens altogether from the redistricting count.  Such an overhaul would greatly diminish the representation Latinos and other immigrant groups get in government, while further shifting the electoral advantage to Republicans.

It is unclear how the Hazel’s move could affect the Supreme Court’s own consideration of whether the citizenship question can stay on the census. The high court is expected to decide that issue soon in a separate legal challenge brought against the question in New York.

The Justice Department,   in a hearing in front of Hazel Tuesda y, suggested the Supreme Court could address the claim that the question violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause, by being discriminatory towards minorities, when the justices hand down their decision on the broader issue in the days to come. However, Hazel indicated he believed that equal protection claim could be still a live issue after that, given that it was not in New York census case that the court was reviewing and that it was unlikely that the appeals court would resolve it by the end of this month.

The challengers said at Tuesday’s hearing that if the Supreme Court blocked the question from being added to the census, the dispute over whether it was discriminatory would be moot.

The new evidence being put forward by the challengers were in files found on the back-up hard drives of a now-deceased GOP gerrymandering guru. The files suggested he was more involved in the Trump’s administration’s census change than originally thought. Among them was also a secret study the consultant, Thomas Hofeller, did in 2015 that said adding a citizenship question to the census would be necessary for the GOP to overhaul redistricting in a way that would boost Republicans and non-Hispanic whites to the detriment of Democrats.

Hazel’s order Wednesday was brief and did not say what next steps would be taken if the appeals court sent the case back down to him. He indicated he will issue a longer opinion explaining his decision at a later date.

Hazel had previously ruled that the administration’s move to add the question violated administrative law and was also a violation of the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, because it would harm the accuracy of the census. The administration had appealed those two findings, while one of the groups challenging the question in Maryland had appealed his ruling that the question was not a violation of the equal protection clause.

“Judge Hazel’s ruling is a confirmation that the evidence we have submitted raises a substantial question as to the intentionally discriminatory actions of this administration,” said Denise Hulett, an attorney with group MALDEF, which challenged the question. “The evidence shows an undeniable conspiracy between this administration and others outside the government to jeopardize the accuracy of the census for partisan gain at the expense of Latinos and non citizens of color.”

This iframe is not allowed


jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
Bob Nelson
1  Bob Nelson    7 months ago

There is no doubt at all that the question is intended to lessen "those people's" numbers.

There is serious question as to whether this Court has any problem with doing wrong by "those people"...

2  Ronin2    7 months ago
"those people's" numbers.

Meaning illegal immigrants. According to the left a good portion of those illegal immigrants are from Canada, or parts of Europe that are considered "white".  So they would be afraid to answer the question as well. Which would diminish numbers on the Republican side right? 

There is serious question as to whether this Court has any problem with doing wrong by "those people"...

The is a serious question if the left has a problem with doing wrong by US Citizens. Again the left seems to think illegal immigrants should have as much clout as US citizens. Illegal immigrants should not count the same as a US Citizen. They should not be used to calculate population for number of representatives in the House, which directly determines the number of delegates for the electoral college. But this isn't about what it right; this is about grabbing money, and power, and holding it. 

Bob Nelson
2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ronin2 @2    7 months ago
"those people's" numbers.
Meaning illegal immigrants.

If Trump wants to say "illegal immigrants", he doesn't use roundabout phrases... When he uses "those people", he means Brown people or Black people or Red people. Maybe Yellow people, now that he has an (economic) war against China.

Basically, "those people", in Trumpworld, are anyone who isn't White.

2.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1    7 months ago

Except this seed is about the census which is about the people living in this country. As part of the census is to align the federal government around it's citizens it would seem to be a good idea to find out how many citizens are living in each part of the country.

This seed is not about race, it is about a simple question on an upcoming census. Can we actually discuss the question rather than trying to blame everything on one person?

Bob Nelson
2.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.1    7 months ago

I have no idea what you are talking about.

2.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.2    7 months ago

Your own words were "those people". The seed is about citizens vs non-citizens and a question in the census. You in 2.1 tied "those people" to Trump rather than actually discuss the underlying question in the seed. 

Is it a good idea for a census, when counting all people, to also count if you are a citizen of the country or not?  IMO this is a good question because there are pieces of the federal government that directly pertain only to citizens of the country while there are other pieces that pertain to all people living in this country. As answers to the census are supposed to be kept confidential it doesn't put people at risk if they state their citizenship, even in this current climate.

That question has no basis in race although race is another question in the census. But what  you are doing is tying this to Trump in order to denigrate him rather than discuss the actual question in the seed. Does that explain what I am talking about?

Bob Nelson
2.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.3    7 months ago
That question has no basis in race...

If you believe that... we have nothing to say.

Mark in Wyoming
2.1.5  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.3    7 months ago
The seed is about citizens vs non-citizens

I can think of a question that would cause even more of an uproar than a simple citizenship question.

One that askes ones legal status to even be IN the country in the first place is one I can think of.

The census as we all know is used for many things , allotting of representatives in the HoR is one very important one , if that is changed from a total amount of simple residents to allotment  by number of verified citizens , there will be some places that will lose representative districts and some that will gain, something that happens even when people move from one place to another, and with that will come a loss or gain of political power, also will follow because the census is used for the formulation of how much money any given area is given for some programs  some places will lose , and some places will gain.  

Way I see it , those both for or against the question are either trying to gain or retain the political power and control of the funds that result from the census itself 

To me the question is , How much power is a non citizen to have over the forces of representation and funding on the federal level? and that is a question only citizens can answer through their votes in elections , Non citizens don't get to vote last I knew , that would be foreign intervention in the election and voting process. which is illegal.

2.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.5    7 months ago

I see your point but I don't think it's a good idea. 

My reasoning for that is part of the purpose of the census is to provide a counting of all bodies within the country so that the federal government can allocate resources by region or area based on the usage of that area. As an example, the federal government will allocate monies to states for civil infrastructure such as roads and water treatment. A person in that area will use that infrastructure the same regardless of if they are a citizen or if they are not legally allowed to be in the country. The citizen count should be included as the census is used to determine how many members of the House of Representatives each state gets,  and if we count people who are not legally allowed to be in the country then our federal government is incorrectly allocating those representatives.

3  Tessylo    7 months ago

'But this isn't about what it right; this is about grabbing money, and power, and holding it.'

Which is exactly what this administration and this thug of a 'president' is doing.    Mostly grabbing  money, as much as he can for as long as he can, like the rest of his corrupt administration.  

3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @3    7 months ago

And those on the left aren't?

Why do you think California, New York, and the leftist coasts want every illegal immigrant to count exactly the same as a US citizen? It is about representation in the House, and delegates in the electoral college. It is about taking power away from states with a lower illegal immigrant population (fly over country) and granting it to sanctuary states (the leftist coasts). 

Leave it to the left to think illegal immigrants should have the same power in our government as US citizens.


Who is online

pat wilson

Sean Treacy

33 visitors