Thread by @msbellows

It IS good. Also this subsequent note by @marty_lederman on the Census and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which SHOULD (but never has) reduced the number of House (& Electoral College) seats apportioned to states engaged in voter suppression:
balkin.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-ce…
1/

https://twitter.com/srl/status/1148346987487649794

@marty_lederman Interesting that a citizenship Q WAS asked (for the first time?) in 1870 -- the first Census (and apportionment) after passage of the 14th Amendment. BUT it was a two-part Q:
are you a citizen? -and-
Have you been denied the right to vote?
2/

@marty_lederman The Administration is playing a dangerous game here: if they cite Sec. 2 of the 14th A to justify adding a citizenship Q, we should go on offense and follow up on the (unasked) second Q -- and make moves to REDUCE the apportionment of seats to states that suppress votes.
3/

@marty_lederman In Saunders v. Wilkins, 152 F.2d 235 (1945), law.justia.com/cases/federal/…, the 4th Circuit abstained from implementing Section 2 on "political Q" grounds. Note similarity to the recent decision where SCOTUS similarly cited "political Q" to allow politically-motivated redistricting.
4/

@marty_lederman But that reasoning also suggests that Congress has the primary power to determine its own apportionment. There's room here for House hearings on reducing the representation of states that disenfranchise voters, ESP. if WH opens the door. Which: !!!

Ping @AOC.
5/5 (for now)