Back in April, when the covid pandemic erupted across the country, the Census Bureau’s experts put forward a plan to ensure that everyone got counted AND stayed safe and healthy.
Under this COVID-19 Plan, the Bureau was supposed to spend 11.5 weeks door-knocking and then 6 MONTHS processing all the census data that it got.
The Bureau acted under that plan until August 3, when Commerce Secretary Ross and Bureau Director Dillingham announced, abruptly and without reasons, that they were cutting the count short—stopping door-knocking (at least) a month early and cutting processing down to 2.5 months.
We blocked the first part of their plan in large part: The Bureau set a Sept. 30 end date for door-knocking, but made clear that counting could start shutting down as early as Sept. 11.
Our lawsuit kept counting going until OCTOBER 15 through a string of victories in the district and appellate courts.
The only thing that stopped us from going all the way to October 31 was an ill-advised ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court’s shadow docket. (Read more about the shadow docket here: nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/…)
Now, we’re back to ensure that the Bureau gets the full time it has long said it needed to process the data: that is, transform data for 150+ MILLION housing units into reliable, accurate results, by making sure everyone gets counted once, only once, and in the right place.
The census is complex, but our theory of the case is simple: The Constitution owes us all a full, fair, and accurate count. The Bureau laid out a plan to get us just that. And everyone—including President Trump himself—was fine with it FOR MONTHS.
But then Pres. Trump decided he wanted to manipulate the count to exclude undocumented people, and he could lose the opportunity to do so if he didn’t get the numbers by December 31. Suddenly, the census timeline got crunched in ways that will make an accurate count impossible.
That’s putting a political agenda ahead of the Constitution. We all deserve better. And I mean *all*--regardless of your race, ethnicity, or citizenship status, we need a full, fair, and accurate count of EVERYONE.
What we want is also simple: To let the Census Bureau do the work it has always said it needed to do, on the timetable the Bureau has always said it needs to do it. In other words, to the let the Constitution—not anti-immigrant agendas or political chicanery—guide the census.
❗️CENSUS NEWS: A federal court has ordered the Trump administration to produce documents shedding light on the rushed close to the 2020 Census, granting our motion to compel production in our ongoing challenge. @BrennanCenter (short🧵👇)
Today's San Jose ruling that Trump can't exclude undocumented people from the #2020Census is smart. And not just because the panel got the issues right. It makes it MUCH harder for the Supreme Court to do the wrong thing and for Trump to worm out. Let's unpack it 🧵@BrennanCenter
Context: A panel of judges in New York last month ruled that Trump's plan to exclude undocumented people from the #2020Census numbers used for apportionment was illegal under federal statutory law. That case is now on appeal to SCOTUS, scheduled for argument on Nov. 30.
Plus, a baseline to set real quick: It’s going to be exceedingly difficult for SCOTUS--or any court--to rule that what Trump wants to do is legal. And that's regardless of whether SCOTUS has 8 Justices or 9, or who the swing Justice is. Why?
So, if your main argument for the citizenship question is that we asked about citizenship before the 1960 Census, you’re relying on a completely flawed census paradigm.
(4) And if you’re relying on the appearance of citizenship questions on the sample surveys from 1970 onward as some kind of stamp of approval for their appearance on the 2020 head count form, you’re also on bad turf.
Citizenship questions have been confined strictly to the sample forms because the Bureau has long recognized that trying to assess everyone’s citizenship in times of hyper-xenophobic, anti-immigrant politics would destroy the count.
It's another day ending in "-day," so of course folks are spreading bad history to protect the #2020Census citizenship question. Claims that these questions have a deep history, etc. are misleading, where they’re not outright FALSE. Why? Stroll with me for a minute or two 👇
Today's revelations about partisan motives behind the citizenship question just expose another layer of its bogusness. In fact, when it comes to the question and the Trump Admin's defense of it, it's been nothing but misdirection and deception, all the way down. Walk with me 👇
Where to start...
(1) The Trump Administration has claimed--in the courts and Congress--that it wanted to add the citizenship question because it would help enforce the Voting Rights Act. Three federal courts have concluded that this claim is FALSE.
Today's win for voters challenging Michigan's gerrymandered election maps is major, potentially ushering in fairer elections in that state. But there are a couple of other reasons this is a major opinion, with SCOTUS implications. Mini-thread 👇@BrennanCenter#fairMaps
1. This win shows just how much the legal tide has turned vs. partisan gerrymandering. As late as 3 years ago, a win for plaintiffs would be unheard of. No longer. Recently, when/where courts have taken up partisan gerrymandering claims, plaintiffs have an impressive win rate.
2. The federal courts are converging on how to analyze partisan gerrymandering claims from a legal standpoint. As the panel in the Michigan case explained: