Politico: Census to add controversial question on citizenship status

[Virginiá]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/26/census-citizenship-questions-487399?lo=ap_b1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's go over this for a second:

1. Republicans have refused to fully fund the census to the point where they've had to stop testing new technologies meant to make future census operations cheaper, but also basic testing of their operation for all but one round. So now they want to add in a new question that very blatantly will cause volatile results, given Trump's ramped up ICE raids and anti-immigration rhetoric?

2. If they wanted to add this question, they should have done it years ago and provided full funding to test it until they could find a way to mitigate reduced response rates. This is incredibly irresponsible to drop this kind of question in at the last minute. It doesn't matter if they didn't have the power to do it before. All that means is that they should prepare it for the 2030 census instead. It's not like it is 2012 and they are preparing for the next census. This is going to happen just something like 2 years from now.

3. Does anyone seriously believe this is for the Voting Rights Act? From Republicans? They have wanted to get rid of the VRA for years, and we're supposed to believe them when they say they want to better enforce it? First off, they already ask the citizenship question in the ACS, which should have been good enough as it is. Second, no one has actually said they need better data for the VRA. This is just Republicans concern trolling with the census, all so they can under-count minorities for both federal funding and gerrymandering-related reasons.


-

This is the first census Republicans have run since 1990 and they are already screwing it up for absurdly bad reasons. First they refuse to provide proper funding, now they air drop in a controversial question just a couple years before it goes live. Is it really any mystery why Republicans are called an irresponsible governing party? The census is important for so many reasons, including for business. To screw with it for partisan gain and to notch a "win" for the base is incredibly petty and exactly the kind of thing a truly irresponsible governing party would do.

If Democrats have any sense, they will try and put a stop to this via any means necessary when/if the day they assume a House and/or Senate majority.

[Gass3268]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/26/census-citizenship-questions-487399?lo=ap_b1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's go over this for a second:

1. Republicans have refused to fully fund the census to the point where they've had to stop testing new technologies meant to make future census operations cheaper, but also basic testing of their operation for all but one round. So now they want to add in a new question that very blatantly will cause volatile results, given Trump's ramped up ICE raids and anti-immigration rhetoric?

2. If they wanted to add this question, they should have done it years ago and provided full funding to test it until they could find a way to mitigate reduced response rates. This is incredibly irresponsible to drop this kind of question in at the last minute. It doesn't matter if they didn't have the power to do it before. All that means is that they should prepare it for the 2030 census instead. It's not like it is 2012 and they are preparing for the next census. This is going to happen just something like 2 years from now.

3. Does anyone seriously believe this is for the Voting Rights Act? From Republicans? They have wanted to get rid of the VRA for years, and we're supposed to believe them when they say they want to better enforce it? First off, they already ask the citizenship question in the ACS, which should have been good enough as it is. Second, no one has actually said they need better data for the VRA. This is just Republicans concern trolling with the census, all so they can under-count minorities for both federal funding and gerrymandering-related reasons.


-

This is the first census Republicans have run since 1990 and they are already screwing it up for absurdly bad reasons. First they refuse to provide proper funding, now they air drop in a controversial question just a couple years before it goes live. Is it really any mystery why Republicans are called an irresponsible governing party? The census is important for so many reasons, including for business. To screw with it for partisan gain and to notch a "win" for the base is incredibly petty and exactly the kind of thing a truly irresponsible governing party would do.

If Democrats have any sense, they will try and put a stop to this via any means necessary when/if the day they assume a House and/or Senate majority.

To be fair, the most recent budget has the Census getting more money then they even asked for. Also California has already said they would sue to prevent this.

[Ban my account ffs!]

obv I just won't answer the question

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Reminder that Democrats were complicit in getting Secretary Ross confirmed. Serves them right:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00073

[Virginiá]

To be fair, the most recent budget has the Census getting more money then they even asked for. Also California has already said they would sue to prevent this.

They have; I was happy to see that too. But it doesn't make up for years of nickle and diming everything, even the programs that were meant to cut costs in the future (but required higher upfront investment). Republicans have constantly been cheap about this, to the point where they just make the problems worse.

But this is a whole new ball game. It's a continuation of actions under Trump showing absolutely no hesitation to weaponize every single inch of the federal government against the opponents of the Republican Party, both political and otherwise. I think that laughably fake Voting Rights Act excuse provided proves that this action was tainted from the minute it was brought up in the slimy halls of Trump's White House.

Reminder that Democrats were complicit in getting Secretary Ross confirmed. Serves them right:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00073

Because that would have mattered? This request came from the White House, even if not directly.

[Gass3268]

To be fair, the most recent budget has the Census getting more money then they even asked for. Also California has already said they would sue to prevent this.

They have; I was happy to see that too. But it doesn't make up for years of nickle and diming everything, even the programs that were meant to cut costs in the future (but required higher upfront investment). Republicans have constantly been cheap about this, to the point where they just make the problems worse.

But this is a whole new ball game. It's a continuation of actions under Trump showing absolutely no hesitation to weaponize every single inch of the federal government against the opponents of the Republican Party, both political and otherwise. I think that laughably fake Voting Rights Act excuse provided proves that this action was tainted from the minute it was brought up in the slimy halls of Trump's White House.

Democrats need to fight this from occurring, but if they don't succeed, I agree with this:

https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/978482101661118465

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Reminder that Democrats were complicit in getting Secretary Ross confirmed. Serves them right:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00073

Because that would have mattered? This request came from the White House, even if not directly.

Right, but 21 Senate Democrats - almost half the caucus - voted to confirm him, making them partially complicit in allowing this action to be taken. Seems like an appropriate punishment.

[Virginiá]

Right, but 21 Senate Democrats - almost half the caucus - voted to confirm him, making them partially complicit in allowing this action to be taken. Seems like an appropriate punishment.

No. Again, pretty much any plausible nominee from Trump would have done this. I keep seeing people bring up "some Democrats voted to confirm x y or z!" as if it would have mattered. I think maybe there are some small policy matters that that may be true for, but most, no. Just like net neutrality, this was going to happen no matter what, absent somehow forcing Trump to appoint a liberal Democrat who would rather get fired than bend to Trump's wishes, which would probably get fired and replaced with someone who would do what the other wouldn't, ending up at the same place anyway.

So yes, some Democrats voted for Ross, sure, if you want to say they are complicit, go ahead. No likely nominee would have been different. That doesn't make your "serves them right" logic any less unreasonable.

[henster]

I don’t think this will have as big of an impact as people may think.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Virginia, Cabinet confirmations should not be about whether a hypothetical "second choice nominee" would be better or worse. They should instead be based on the merits of the actually nominated person. I don't care that Republicans had the votes to confirm this guy on their own, or that a second choice nominee wouldn't have been any better - It was clear from the start that Ross was a terrible choice for the job, and because of that, Democrats should have put up all 48 of their votes against him.

This is worse than the Ajit Pai thing. Only a few choice characters broke off for that. With this guy, almost half the Dem Caucus voted for him! I know you're obligated to spin this in the best way possible for your party, but Dems are complicit. It's just the way it is.

[YE]

Virginia, Cabinet confirmations should not be about whether a hypothetical "second choice nominee" would be better or worse. They should instead be based on the merits of the actually nominated person. I don't care that Republicans had the votes to confirm this guy on their own, or that a second choice nominee wouldn't have been any better - It was clear from the start that Ross was a terrible choice for the job, and because of that, Democrats should have put up all 48 of their votes against him.

This is worse than the Ajit Pai thing. Only a few choice characters broke off for that. With this guy, almost half the Dem Caucus voted for him! I know you're obligated to spin this in the best way possible for your party, but Dems are complicit. It's just the way it is.

Just because half of Dems voted to confirm a guy that all 52 GOPers voted to confirm doesn't make the new question good policy. Dems are complicit but why aren't you blaming the 52 Republicans here for doing the same?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Virginia, Cabinet confirmations should not be about whether a hypothetical "second choice nominee" would be better or worse. They should instead be based on the merits of the actually nominated person. I don't care that Republicans had the votes to confirm this guy on their own, or that a second choice nominee wouldn't have been any better - It was clear from the start that Ross was a terrible choice for the job, and because of that, Democrats should have put up all 48 of their votes against him.

This is worse than the Ajit Pai thing. Only a few choice characters broke off for that. With this guy, almost half the Dem Caucus voted for him! I know you're obligated to spin this in the best way possible for your party, but Dems are complicit. It's just the way it is.

Just because half of Dems voted to confirm a guy that all 52 GOPers voted to confirm doesn't make the new question good policy. Dems are complicit but why aren't you blaming the 52 Republicans here for doing the same?

The 51 Republicans who voted to confirm him (Isakson was absent that day) are complicit. But at least they support this sort of thing, and can therefore justify their vote. Democrats, on the other hand, voted to confirm this guy in significant numbers, and now suddenly act shocked and outraged that he's being the terrible commerce secretary he was always going to be. It's an amazing excercise in hypocracy.

[Anna Komnene]

Virginia, Cabinet confirmations should not be about whether a hypothetical "second choice nominee" would be better or worse. They should instead be based on the merits of the actually nominated person. I don't care that Republicans had the votes to confirm this guy on their own, or that a second choice nominee wouldn't have been any better - It was clear from the start that Ross was a terrible choice for the job, and because of that, Democrats should have put up all 48 of their votes against him.

This is worse than the Ajit Pai thing. Only a few choice characters broke off for that. With this guy, almost half the Dem Caucus voted for him! I know you're obligated to spin this in the best way possible for your party, but Dems are complicit. It's just the way it is.

This is the Atlas forum, not CNN. Nobody is obligated to spin anything, and the regular families in Utah, New Mexico, or wherever that won't get enough funding for education or public safety are most certainly not complicit.

[Adam Griffin]

Obviously Democrats should do everything in their power to temporarily defund and/or otherwise prevent the formal Census survey from being rolled out until after January 2021, at which point a Democratic administration will need to double-time and double-fund efforts to have it completed by the 2022 elections.

[Classic Conservative]

Obviously Democrats should do everything in their power to temporarily defund and/or otherwise prevent the formal Census survey from being rolled out until after January 2021, at which point a Democratic administration will need to double-time and double-fund efforts to have it completed by the 2022 elections.

I don't think that is allowed constitutionally.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Obviously Democrats should do everything in their power to temporarily defund and/or otherwise prevent the formal Census survey from being rolled out until after January 2021, at which point a Democratic administration will need to double-time and double-fund efforts to have it completed by the 2022 elections.

I don't think that is allowed constitutionally.

Dems don't care.

[krazen1211]

Wonderful news! Now we will be able to draw districts with Citizen Voting Age Population.

[DavidB.]

Wonderful news! Now we will be able to draw districts with Citizen Voting Age Population.

Wait, districts are currently not drawn that way? In that case, including this question is obviously good.

[BudgieForce]

Obviously Democrats should do everything in their power to temporarily defund and/or otherwise prevent the formal Census survey from being rolled out until after January 2021, at which point a Democratic administration will need to double-time and double-fund efforts to have it completed by the 2022 elections.

I don't think that is allowed constitutionally.

Dems don't care.

Neither do republicans anymore.

[Gass3268]

Wonderful news! Now we will be able to draw districts with Citizen Voting Age Population.

Wait, districts are currently not drawn that way? In that case, including this question is obviously good.

The Constitution says persons, not citizens.

[BudgieForce]

California has already sued. 95% chance in the next couple of weeks there will be an injunction that will stop this. Honestly, even a conservative judge would rule against this question.

[BudgieForce]

Oh, also, republicans shouldn't want this either. Undercounting immigrants will also effect red states. Immigrants don't respond and Texas won't gain 3 congressional seats.

[Gass3268]

Oh, also, republicans shouldn't want this either. Undercounting immigrants will also effect red states. Immigrants don't respond and Texas won't gain 3 congressional seats.

Yeah, from a pure redistribution of seats aspect, this could end up being a wash. That being said, the census is used to determine who gets emergency resources, medical resources, transportation funding, etc. so anything that does not get close to the real number of people is determination.

[Pandaguineapig]

At this point they need to drop all the demographic questions, all we need the census for is to find out population numbers, the demographics of the people should be of no concern to the government.

[Virginiá]

Oh, also, republicans shouldn't want this either. Undercounting immigrants will also effect red states. Immigrants don't respond and Texas won't gain 3 congressional seats.

A big part of this is probably Republicans wanting citizenship data so they can draw maps based on citizens only, as opposed to adult population. There was a lawsuit in 2016 or 2017 regarding this. They sued to try and force redistricting to be based on citizens (or at least let states choose), and I think part of the rationale against it was that the census doesn't have full citizenship data - only from the ACS.

So it could end up being much worse, even with Texas maybe getting a lower count.