U.S. high court broadens scope of census
citizenship question case
Send a link to a friend
[March 16, 2019]
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme
Court on Friday broadened the scope of what it will consider in
resolving the legal fight over the contentious decision by President
Donald Trump's administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020
census, agreeing also to decide whether the move violated the U.S.
Constitution.
In the aftermath of a March 6 ruling by a federal judge in California,
the high court said it will decide whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur
Ross ran afoul of the Constitution's so-called Enumeration Clause, which
sets out the terms under which people should be counted in the census,
when he added the citizenship question in March 2018.
Various states including New York and California as well as civil rights
groups have challenged the question in court. They have said that asking
people about their citizenship could scare immigrants and Latinos into
abstaining from the census, disproportionately affecting
Democratic-leaning states.

Two judges have blocked the addition of the question. The Supreme Court
previously agreed to resolve whether adding the question violated a
federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act, as a federal judge
in New York ruled on Jan. 15.
The Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority, is set to hear
oral arguments on April 23, with a ruling due by the end of June.
The U.S. Constitution mandates a census every 10 years. The official
population count is used in the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal
funds. There has not been a census question about citizenship status
since 1950.
Opponents have accused the administration of trying to engineer an
undercount of the true population and diminish the electoral
representation of Democratic-leaning communities in Congress, benefiting
Trump's fellow Republicans. Non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 percent
of people living in the United States.
The Supreme court last month granted the administration's request to
hear its appeal of Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman's
January ruling even before a lower appeals court had considered the
matter.
[to top of second column]
|

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross testifies before a House
Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on oversight of the Commerce
Department, in Washington, U.S., March 14, 2019. REUTERS/Mary F.
Calvert/File Photo

San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg this month
found in a suit brought by the state of California not only that the
administration failed to follow the correct process under federal
law in adding the question but also that the move violated the
Enumeration Clause, an issue not decided by Furman.
"The evidence admitted in the trial of these actions demonstrates
that a significant differential undercount, particularly impacting
noncitizen and Latino communities, will result from the inclusion of
a citizenship question on the 2020 Census," Seeborg wrote.
By taking up both questions, the Supreme Court ensures that all
legal issues relating to the census will be resolved quickly. Time
is of the essence, as the official census forms are due to be
printed in the coming months.
Ross defended the administration's decision to add the question in
congressional testimony on Thursday, but faced sharp criticism from
Democratic lawmakers.
When announcing that the citizenship question would be added, Ross
said the Justice Department had requested the data to help enforce
the Voting Rights Act, which protects eligible voters from
discrimination. Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections.
Democrats call the citizenship question part of a broader Republican
effort at the federal and state level, also including
voter-suppression measures and redrawing of electoral districts, to
diminish the voting power of areas and groups that typically back
Democratic candidates, including immigrants, Latinos and
African-Americans. Republicans reject the accusation.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
 |