,
11 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
A major break in the Census litigation: Plaintiffs in the case accuse the Trump administration of concealing evidence of the real reason for a citizenship question.
To wit: A push to create a structural electoral advantage for “Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.”
Wow.
To wit: A push to create a structural electoral advantage for “Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.”
Wow.
All along, the Trump administration has insisted that it needs citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.
The trial court in New York found those reasons “pretextual,” but this new evidence goes further: The data would be used for rank partisan advantage.
The trial court in New York found those reasons “pretextual,” but this new evidence goes further: The data would be used for rank partisan advantage.
That’s a big revelation in this case, and as close to a smoking gun if this were a civil rights dispute.
But it isn’t. This is instead a dry, administrative law case. Because of limitations in law and doctrine, the evidence was largely limited to the “administrative record.”
But it isn’t. This is instead a dry, administrative law case. Because of limitations in law and doctrine, the evidence was largely limited to the “administrative record.”
So when #SCOTUS heard this case last month, the justices limited their review to that evidence. They didn’t probe mental states of the secretary of commerce, etc.
It was a wild hearing—the more conservative justices seemed to truly believe the ruse of voting rights enforcement.
It was a wild hearing—the more conservative justices seemed to truly believe the ruse of voting rights enforcement.
But now that this evidence of wanting to benefit “non-Hispanic Whites” and Republicans is out there, what will #SCOTUS do?
I’m told that the justices will be receiving this latest update TODAY. If there’s any justice in this world, I hope this means a verdict for the plaintiffs.
I’m told that the justices will be receiving this latest update TODAY. If there’s any justice in this world, I hope this means a verdict for the plaintiffs.
And it looks like we have details on how this new evidence came to life. This is the biggest story today, don’t lose sight of it:
There’s now no doubt that the purpose of the citizenship question, which Steve Bannon was a big fan of, is nefariously simple:
To politicize the constitutional, decennial Census to warp our representative democracy—by disempowering Latinos and giving more power to white people.
To politicize the constitutional, decennial Census to warp our representative democracy—by disempowering Latinos and giving more power to white people.
#SCOTUS should do the right thing and unanimously keep the citizenship question off the 2020 Census.
Partisan differences over evidence staring them right between the eyes will make the American public lose even more faith in the institution.
That’s all I got. (For now.)
Partisan differences over evidence staring them right between the eyes will make the American public lose even more faith in the institution.
That’s all I got. (For now.)
The Manhattan judge who struck down the citizenship question after a trial wants answers, with a hearing to come.
In his ruling, he said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross violated a "veritable smorgasbord" of rules of administrative law when pushing the Q.
In his ruling, he said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross violated a "veritable smorgasbord" of rules of administrative law when pushing the Q.
And we have a filing at the Supreme Court: The justices are now on notice about the shenanigans of the Trump administration.
From the looks of things, all of this will play out in the lower court. But all the evidence is now in front of #SCOTUS as well. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/1…
From the looks of things, all of this will play out in the lower court. But all the evidence is now in front of #SCOTUS as well. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/1…
“The Supreme Court should see this new evidence for what it seems to reveal: A blatant attempt to rig a constitutional mandate.” nytimes.com/2019/05/30/opi…
