The campaigns of several Democratic presidential contenders told TPM in recent days that their candidates, if elected, would seek to block the federal government from assisting states in an anti-immigrant, pro-GOP redistricting overhaul.
There will be so much damage to reverse once Trump is removed from office, that his successor and their entire cabinet will have to work around the clock to reverse any of it.
POTUS 46 should be offered hazard pay and lots of therapy.
This has to be unconstitutional on its face and should be challenged in the courts well before the election of 2020.
Note that it’s also particularly only citizens of voting age. 17-1/2-year-olds need not apply.
But really, if this is OK, why not just apportion according to citizens who are shoemakers, or registered democrats, or whatever not-completely-racial criterion the state legislature wants?
I wrote the same of Bush II.
it damn near consumed Obama’s presidency.
It isn’t. The constitution only defines the criteria for apportionment of congressional seats, not the drawing of congressional districts within each state. The constitution does say that congress may pass laws impacting redistricting (to be “interpreted” by the supreme court, of course):
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
We need Big wins in 2020, not just the White House. We really need to hold the House and win the Senate as well as Big State/Local wins
As if we needed one more reason to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020, this is actually a pretty big one.
Reversing gerrymandering/voter suppression and getting more Progressive judges are two of the biggest reasons, because everything follows from there.
How many states are red enough and have enough immigrants so that this actually would make a difference? California probably has more immigrants (legal and otherwise) than any other state. Then I’m guessing there’s New York, Florida, Texas. But even with the latter two, backlash against a republican administration that undertook this would be significant.
I think this is more of a play to seed Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, and own the libs. We need to keep our cool, and do what it takes to win in 2020.
The ottnott administration will happily have its political appointees gather Census data and create estimates of undocumented population counts for the states.
Alabama might be surprised to learn that an estimated 60% of its rural population is undocumented. Let the chips fall where they may.
This falls under the law of unintended consequences. It is as likely as not that this will hurt their own as much if not more than hurt the libs, the other or whatever target you’d like to choose. The Right doesn’t look that far ahead. They don’t see the long-game except through a very jaundiced and biased eye. They don’t see the entire universe - only that which directly affects them.
So what if Alabama loses representation - as long as NY and California get hurt, so what?
I think the most important thing to remember is that there will be no actual “citizenship data” as such. What Trump wants to provide the states with is estimates of citizens, based on disparate sources of data culled using different methodologies during differing time periods. Moreover, there are lots and lots of different ways that the estimates can be compiled – making it impossible to come up with an authoritative estimate.
For these reasons, I don’t see this as a serious concern for 2020 redistricting per se – but it does create the conditions under which it would be a problem in subsequent censuses.
this is true.
but its also true that the House determines its own rules, and that includes rules governing eligibility to be seated in the House itself.
IMHO, Pelosi should pre-emptively pass a rule stating that no representative will be seated unless they represent districts apportioned based on total population. While that rule can be changed if/when the GOP controls the House in the future, it does provide an extra roadblock to discourage states from trying to use “citizenship”.
The data would be “processed” to prevent that.
The exclusion of children from counts used for reapportionment is also very wrong. Although children do not vote (for obvious reasons, in most cases), they have as much or more interest as their parents in the decisions Congress makes. A Congressional Representative should represent the interests of all living persons in a district - including those who don’t vote (of any age). Districts (as currently drawn) with larger than average family size will tend to favor things like dealing with climate change, education, child care, family leave, affordable health insurance, etc. Redrawing districts based on CVAP will increase the number of Representatives who represent the interests of families with smaller than average numbers of children over those with larger numbers.
The effect is to produce a Congress that cares more about immediate concerns instead of future-relevant concerns. This makes the country weaker in its ability to prepare for the future.
This problem is at least as large as the one relating to representation for non-citizens.
This is what happens with the governing document, created by 13 colonies to “form a more perfect union,” is made obsolete in many areas because of the nation’s expansion. The charade of “state sovereignty” should have been ditched with the Articles of Confederation because there couldn’t be 14 sovereigns–13 colonies and the federal government.
The world keeps shrinking smaller and smaller and we’re left with a document whose machinations did not have survive 1803. The federal government needs to treat state governments with the same demeanor as the states treat their constituent counties.
We haven’t been “New Yorkers, Missourians, Floridians,” etc. since 1865. We’ve been “Americans” and even refer to ourselves that way. It’s time to get with the times.
This administration will not allow facts to get in the way to force a major, generational shift in political dominance. Data that are supplied the states will give cover to those states intending to accomplish the shift and expand R power. The data do not have to be based on fact.
They lie with their mouths, why won’t they lie with the reporting?
Paulie, your opinion is never humble. But thanks for playing anyway.
Thanks for identifying and sticking to this Administrative part of the ratfucking Republican redistricting story, Tierney Sneed! What you wrote in this earlier piece alerted me and have had this in the back of my mind since then. Devouring each of your pieces on this since, thank you!
Either way, I’d reckon that this is not the end of the larger fight that was motivating Trump’s efforts: the GOP push to exclude non-citizens from the count used to draw legislative districts. Such a change would be a boon for Republicans because it would reduce the number of Democratic-leaning seats in immigrant-rich regions of the country.
Earlier this year, Census Bureau officials confirmed they were moving forward with collecting the citizenship data from the existing records, regardless of what happened in the legal fight over the question. They also suggested that the data could then be used on the redistricting file that is offered to states for drawing their maps.
And that this is a Judicial and State level ratfuck too:
It appears the groundwork is being laid for such a test case to be sent to the Supreme Court, which has shifted to the right — with the additions of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — since the Evenwel decision.
If the Census Bureau does give the states data on citizenship for redistricting, the next step would be for a state or a local jurisdiction to then draw its districts using CVAP rather than total population. Such a move would almost certainly invite a legal challenge.
Some states have also already considered legislation that would let them exclude noncitizens from redistricting come 2021.
Children are already counted in the census, which determines the apportionment of congressional seats. Drawing congressional district lines within the state is another matter, and only vaguely referenced in the constitution.