One would think that the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause would be enough for the Republic Party, them being such great defenders of the original Constitution and all.
I have not read the 126 page opinion yet, but Judge Seeborg is one of the brightest people on the ND of CA bench, and one of the most respected judges in the US. His opinion will be as tight as can be.
The Supreme Court will either have to consolidate this with the earlier appeal of the NY decision (which did not address the enumeration issue) or have a partial decision.
They’re drawing straws in the White House on who has to try to explain this ruling to the Cheeto Benito.
There were a lot of bad facts in the record on this case. Glad to see the judges hearing it are finding multiple ways to rule against it.
Just to be clear here, “arbitrary and capricious, abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law” is the standard or review of agency actions under the Administrative Procedures Act. It’s not some ringing epithet, but, rather what the party claiming a rule change or administrative proceeding violates the APA has to establish to prevail.
Granted, given how high this standard sets the bar, being found to have violated the APA is, by definition, a finding of really egregious and lawless conduct.
“The Trump administration has argued that the question would assist the Justice Department with its enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.”
I’m not sure the administration has given this rationale in so many words, but surely the question would be used not to promote voting rights, as premised in the Act, but to restrict them. It’s like saying that putting a coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA is meant to reduce environmental pollution. But I guess this argument is central to the judge’s decision in this case. He is saying the cited rationale is not the actual rationale.
Perhaps if the administration were to offer a truer rationale before the Supreme Court, the “originalists” would find it palatable. “We’d like to err on the side of caution in discouraging people who are not 100% verifiable Americans from exercising their constitutional rights.”
This is really a simple argument.
Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years
According to their respective Numbers (no mention of citizens).
Actual Enumeration.
Number of free Persons (again, not citizens)…
… including those bound to Service for a Term of Years (this specifically would include foreign workers under labor contract)…
… [minus] Indians… (Edit: citizenship granted 1924, Indian Citizenship Act)
… [plus] 3/5 of all other Persons (slaves, not afforded citizenship until 14th amendment of 1868).
So, no mention of citizens for the census, and mentions of counting all or part of non-citizen foreign workers and slaves.
2nd worst case scenario —
the Supremes rule that question can be used. It is. The results of the census are released in december 2020, and immediately lawsuits are filed based on undercounted populations.
And a democratic president is elected, and does not contest any of those lawsuits, and adjusts the data accordingly.
True. But I read this part as the Judge coming about as close to calling them racist assclowns as a Judge can get haha: “an effort to concoct a rationale bearing no plausible relation to the real reason, whatever that may be, underlying the decision…”
I mean, can we coin a term for that…maybe a “judicial wink”?
At this point the republican party is really pushing for the original enumeration clause, the one that counts blacks as only 3/5, and then does not let them vote.
OT but important…
Hell, it is already de-legitimized.
And that needs to be at the foreground of any GOTV movement in 2020. Don’t let your vote not be counted - first, you have to cast it.
He did that for the 2016 election.
It was projection then.
It’s projection now.
Serious question. Has this particularly nasty bit of racism in the Constitution - “excluding Indians” - ever been rectified? Do we assume the 14th Amendment addresses this?
Maybe one way to get DT to give up on this would be to convince his supporters that liberals the deep state are trying to get hispanic people to not answer the survey so that they don’t show up in the regional or local demographics. IE, if we “hide” Latinos, the wingnuts will move to those areas and help fulfill a diversity quota as required by George Soros.
Good point. Should have included that, and will edit.
Although the 14th Amendment of 1868 was supposed to apply to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” as citizens, Native Americans were routinely excluded. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 invoked citizenship for Indians (and may include dual citizenship to their respective First Nations, but I am unclear on that last part).
In 2016 trump was a candidate. Now he has the government apparatus to use. I am convinced he would become a dictator if he thought he could get away with it.